Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!cca!mirror!.misc!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Heinlein on Love
Message-ID: <117400076@inmet>
Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 15:35:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117400076
Posted: Wed Oct  1 15:35:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:13:30 EDT
References: <987@sunybcs.UUCP>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:sunybcs.UUCP:-98700:inmet:117400076:000:544
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Oct  1 15:35:00 1986


[colonel@sunybcs.UUCP ]
>I don't think you understood my point about "a robot had thought it up."
>Heinlein's definition (like Jan's quote from Spinoza) is an _external_
>description.  It's based on observing how other people appear to be
>affected by their loving, instead of on direct experience of one's own
>loving.  

No, no, Spinoza's definition isn't. It deals exclusively with the
feelings of the *loving*, not the loved, and in fact covers naturally
one's love for a picture or for one's home.

Heinlein's does not.


		Jan Wasilewsky