New Golden Age Ahead

[lizzie]

Plasmatic said: Unconditional love is impossible.

Well, that’s a good point. How would one define “unconditional love"? All of our relationships are based on conditions. Therefore we learn to negotiate with others to promote our own self interests. There are always ground rules; otherwise nothing would ever get resolved to anyone’s satisfaction.

Perhaps the key rests in how we formulate our conditions. If we are negative and critical of ourselves and others, then we will have negative expectations. If we have a positive attitude, then we have positive expectations of ourselves and others.

Most of us are raised to be critical and judgmental of ourselves and others. We usually dislike in others the qualities we most dislike in ourselves. If we forgive ourselves, we have no choice but to forgive others because we see ourselves in others. Maybe self-forgiveness is the starting point.

Maybe the most reasonable expectations we humans can have is to gain self-awareness so that we become less judgmental and critical of ourselves and others.

Most people talk about “unconditional love”, but few of us ever really understand what that means.

http://www.ofspirit.com/janicelynnelundy1.htm

Unconditional love seeks to understand rather than categorize or label. It embraces our differences and appreciates the unique way we each step to the plate of love. Not every person feels or demonstrates love in the same way. For example, some of us are huggers and kissers, showing our affection in outright ways. Others are more stoic in nature, but that doesn't mean their love is any less potent. As we attune ourselves to unconditional love, we find ourselves accepting, and even appreciating the unique way that love lives within each individual.

http://www.5starpsychicadvice.com/TRUELOVEtrueLove.html

True love to me is unconditional love. This means giving of true love without the expectation of receiving anything in return.

Many these days love with conditions. They will love you IF this or IF that. If you don’t fit into these conditions then they no longer love you.
This is not true love.

http://www.ambafrance-do.org/spirituality/9350.php

Unconditional love means unconditional freedom. Love and freedom are two of those words that are interchangeable. Freedom of choice is unconditional love, unconditional freedom. Choice is another of those words that are interchangeable with Love and freedom.

For the most part humanity understands little of what the word 'unconditional,' means. Unconditional means? "NO CONDITIONS." This lack of understanding is what has divided man from man and religion from religion throughout his sojourn in the physical reality. It is again man's ego trying to grasp the idea, and not being able to surrender to its meaning.

http://www.sapphyr.net/smallgems/quotes-divine-love.htm

Love is patient and kind,
Love is not jealous, conceited, proud or boastful,
it is not arrogant, selfish, irritable or rude.
Love does not keep a record of wrongs.
Love is not happy with evil, but is happy with the truth,
Love never gives up, and its faith, hope and patience never fail.
Love is eternal.

~ 1-Corinthians 13:4 ~

He who is devoid of the power to forgive
is devoid of the power to love.

~ Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) ~

To hate another is to hate yourself.
We all live within the one Universal Mind.
What we think about another, we think about ourselves.
If you have an enemy, forgive him now.
Let all bitterness and resentment dissolve.
You owe your fellow man love; show him love, not hate.
Show charity and goodwill toward others
and it will return to enhance your own life
in many wonderful ways.

~ Brian Adams (from 'How To Succeed') ~

If you judge people,
you have no time to love them.

~ Mother Teresa ~

[Lloyd]

Plasmatic said: Unconditional love is impossible.

Plasmatics are impossible.

[Plasmatic]

Plasmatics are impossible.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Plasmatic,
Rubenstein's 'dazzling narrative' certaimnly dazzled you.
The piece you quoted deploys the usual literary tricks of modern wtiters with product to move: factual inaccuracies and taking events out of their natural chronology and re-ordering them to suit the author's arguement.

Chronologically, the passage moves from C12th CE, to C4th BCE, to C2nd & C3rd CE, C7th CE, C11th & C12th CE, C6th CE, C13th CE.

The quote mentions Aristotle's De Anima (On the Soul) then two sentences later it states: 'Aristotle fashioned a new system of philosophy, focusing on the material world, focusing on the material world, whose operations he explained by a series of causes'.

Aristotle's philosophy is not a radical departure from the Greek philosophy which preceded it. Aristotle's First Cause is the 'Unmoved Mover'is this a material entity. This same concept can be found in Plato's Timeus which is itself Pythagorean.

"...in the second and third centuries A.D., Western Christian scholars suppressed Aristotle's teachings, believing that his emphasis on reason and the physical world challenged their doctrines of faith and God's supernatural power".

In the C2nd & C3rd, the Christian church suppressed ALL pagan and non-Christian teachings - they didn't single out Aristotle. For example Plato's Academy and the Mystery Schools were also victims.

"By the seventh century, Muslims had begun to discover Aristotle's writings".

Arab scholar's had had Aristotle (and other Greeks) since before Islam. When the Christians carried out their pogrom as in the paragraph above, many Greek and other intellectuals went to Syria. Also, in his book,does your man mention the role of the Byzantine Empire in the retention and transmission of knowledge. Islam only came into being in the C7th so it is hardly surprising that they hadn't 'discovered Aristotle's writings before that. Does your man mention the Persians in his book?

For anyone interesting in something resembling facts about Avicenna and Averroes may I suggest:
Ibn Sina (Avicenna)
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/phil ... /sina.html

Ibn Rushd (Averroes)
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/phil ... rushd.html

Even wiki gives a fairer representation than your man:

Just as there is an important Arabic paraphrase of Plotinus' Six Enneads -- The Theology of Aristotle, blending it with Aristotle's thought -- so there is an Arabic paraphrase of the De Anima, blending it with Plotinus' thought. Thus later Islamic philosophy and European philosophy which built on the Islamic texts were based on this Neoplatonic synthesis.
On the Soul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Soul

Plotinus was a Neoplatonist philospher.

"Christian theologians rediscovered Aristotle through the commentaries of the monk Boethius, who argued in the sixth century that reason and understanding were essential elements of faith".

Boethius was not a monk. Scholar's are stil debating as to whether he was even a Christian.

Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Bio ... thius.html
I recently read his Consolations of Philosophy and it is Platonic through and through - it's even written in the form of a Socratic dialogue. It is a very nice book.

*There resulted a tremendous ferment in the study of Aristotle in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, culminating in the work of Thomas Aquinas,...".

Yes but, and there is always a 'but' with these type of authors, much of what was thought to be Aristotle's writings were not in fact written by Aristotle. Such works are now under the rubric of 'pseudo-Aristotle'. And the study of Aristotle didn't culminate with Aquinas, it culminated in the Renaissance when people like Lorenzo Valla provided more accurate translations and sorted the pseudos from the genuine.

"Although the book purports to trace Aristotle's influence on Christianity, Islam and Judaism, it devotes more attention to Christianity".

Of course it focuses on Christianity. Firstly, Jewish scholars would shred such inaccurate and shallow writing; secondly, writing about Islam scholarship and intellectual sophistication would not go down
well with the view of Islam current in the USA; thirdly, Christian-bashing is where the money is.

I realise that this is just the blurb off the back of the book or whatever, but you have posted it up as having some sort of value.

[Plasmatic]

GC you have a gift for sophistry!

1. I said:

I dont agree with everything but it is good.

2. Not a single thing in your post contradicts my point for bringing the book up..Strawmen one and all!

The quote mentions Aristotle's De Anima (On the Soul) then two sentences later it states: 'Aristotle fashioned a new system of philosophy, focusing on the material world, focusing on the material world, whose operations he explained by a series of causes'.

Aristotle's philosophy is not a radical departure from the Greek philosophy which preceded it. Aristotle's First Cause is the 'Unmoved Mover'is this a material entity. This same concept can be found in Plato's Timeus which is itself Pythagorean

Because something comes "2 sentences later" does not mean it pertains directly to it. If you maintain that Aristotle was not the first to repudiate platonism in many areas particularly in relation to other realities you are sorely mistaken.The entire point is not what he kept of platonism ,but what he rejected and what he said that no one said before! Absolute sophistry!

"...in the second and third centuries A.D., Western Christian scholars suppressed Aristotle's teachings, believing that his emphasis on reason and the physical world challenged their doctrines of faith and God's supernatural power".In the C2nd & C3rd, the Christian church suppressed ALL pagan and non-Christian teachings - they didn't single out Aristotle. For example Plato's Academy and the Mystery Schools were also victims.

The entire point is this was a new threat in the given context! Platonism wasnt causing a revolution in the clergy that ended up in the renassiance! Unless you are here claiming that the impact of platonism was the same as Aristotle your comment is irrelevent to the books point and the reason I brought it up.

Even wiki gives a fairer representation than your man:
Just as there is an important Arabic paraphrase of Plotinus' Six Enneads -- The Theology of Aristotle, blending it with Aristotle's thought -- so there is an Arabic paraphrase of the De Anima, blending it with Plotinus' thought. Thus later Islamic philosophy and European philosophy which built on the Islamic texts were based on this Neoplatonic synthesis.
On the Soul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_SoulPlotinus was a Neoplatonist philospher.

Once again pointing out everything but the relevent point which is Aristotles differences from platonism.

"Christian theologians rediscovered Aristotle through the commentaries of the monk Boethius, who argued in the sixth century that reason and understanding were essential elements of faith". Boethius was not a monk. Scholar's are stil debating as to whether he was even a Christian........I recently read his Consolations of Philosophy and it is Platonic through and through - it's even written in the form of a Socratic dialogue. It is a very nice book.

.....

Again missing the point.If Boethuis wasnt a monk or a christian it doesnt change the relevent fact that he:"argued in the sixth century that reason and understanding were essential elements of faith"

Becuase the book you read might be " Platonic through and through " is not even relevent to wether or not he introduced Aristotle! Again the entire reason for bringing up Boethius is in relation to Aristotles DIFFERENCES from platonism!

*There resulted a tremendous ferment in the study of Aristotle in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, culminating in the work of Thomas Aquinas,...". Yes but, and there is always a 'but' with these type of authors, much of what was thought to be Aristotle's writings were not in fact written by Aristotle. Such works are now under the rubric of 'pseudo-Aristotle'. And the study of Aristotle didn't culminate with Aquinas, it culminated in the Renaissance when people like Lorenzo Valla provided more accurate translations and sorted the pseudos from the genuine

"psuedo" debates still rage. Again missing the entire point that Aristotle was the impetus of the "ferment"! [the part that pertains to your "yes but" ]The culmination in the book is in the context of the religions that are its topic. The topic of the book is not the Renassiance .Your comments dont pertain to the context at issue.

"Although the book purports to trace Aristotle's influence on Christianity, Islam and Judaism, it devotes more attention to Christianity".Of course it focuses on Christianity. Firstly, Jewish scholars would shred such inaccurate and shallow writing; secondly, writing about Islam scholarship and intellectual sophistication would not go down
well with the view of Islam current in the USA; thirdly, Christian-bashing is where the money is.

The current state of Islam is because of a revial of the things the Arabs began to repudiate under the influence of Aristotle. You know ,the entire point of bring this up and all! The "value" you have completely ignored.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Plasmatic,
How is challenging the author's 'facts' sophistry?

You originally wrote:

I dont agree with everything but it is good.

My post was intendeded to show that the quote was not 'good', that is, to contradict your assertion.

You wrote:

Because something comes "2 sentences later" does not mean it pertains directly to it.

Well, according to my understanding of written English if it is in the same paragraph then it should pertain directly to it. In any case, my point was that the author had presented two 'facts' which were at odds with each other - a work entitled 'On Soul' hardly supports the
assertion that Aristotle focused 'on materialism'.

You wrote:

If you maintain that Aristotle was not the first to repudiate platonism in many areas particularly in relation to other realities you are sorely mistaken.The entire point is not what he kept of platonism ,but what he rejected and what he said that no one said before! Absolute sophistry!

I did not make any reference to Aristotle being the first or last to
repudiate Plato. What exactly did Aristotle reject from Plato and what did he say that no one had said before?
We have had this discussion before. Aristotle's Metaphysics, where he criticises Plato's Forms, is not a book as such. It is considered to be a collection of lecture notes which were later assembled into book format by, possibly, a student. The reason why Aristotle critiques the Forms is that the lectures are on Platonic philosophy and he would be a poor teacher if he did not. Greek eduacation was about challenging the thoughts of the student and making them think for themselves, it was not about presenting them with 'facts' or massaging the ego of the teacher.

You wrote:

The entire point is this was a new threat in the given context! Platonism wasnt causing a revolution in the clergy that ended up in the renassiance! Unless you are here claiming that the impact of platonism was the same as Aristotle your comment is irrelevent to the books point and the reason I brought it up.

In the C2nd & C3rd CE, i.e. before Boethius or Islam, it was the Neoplatonists who were causing the Christians the problems. Aristotelians or Neoaristotlelians were nowhere to be seen as far as I know. The Library at Alexandria was stil around at this period and would have had Aristotle's works on its shelves.
As to the impact of Platonic philosophy on Christianity, see:

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseud ... reopagite/
Dionysius, or Pseudo-Dionysius, as he has come to be known in the contemporary world, was a Christian Neoplatonist who wrote in the late fifth or early sixth century CE and who transposed in a thoroughly original way the whole of Pagan Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Proclus, but especially that of Proclus and the Platonic Academy in Athens, into a distinctively new Christian context.

You wrote:

Once again pointing out everything but the relevent point which is Aristotles differences from platonism.

Perhaps if you were to set out these differences between Plato and Aristotle...

You wrote:

Again missing the point.If Boethuis wasnt a monk or a christian it doesnt change the relevent fact that he:"argued in the sixth century that reason and understanding were essential elements of faith".

Once again it is you who miss the point. Your author stated that Boethius was a monk and I was pointing out the factual inaccuracy of that assertion. Plato discussed faith approximately 7 centuries before Boethius. Plato said faith lay between ignorance and knowledge. He was not talking about religious faith. The Neoplatonists of a century or two before Boethius criticised the Christians for their reliance on faith over knowledge. To the Neoplatonists and other pagans philosophers, (religious) faith came from knowledge. Boethius is not regarded as an original thinker. Also, in the article on Boethius at: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Bio ... thius.html
it states:

He embarked on an ambitious project to translate and write commentaries on all the works of both Plato and Aristotle. His aim was to show the ways in which these two most important Greek philosophers agreed with each other. It was a project that Boethius was never to finish, in particular he died before he could translate Plato's work and fulfil his aim of harmonising the two philosophies.

So we can see from this that1) Boethius was not the arch-Aristotlelian that your author makes out and 2) Boetius didn't get around to
translating Plato (though he did manage two works by Aristotle). In the Renaissance, Pico also wrote a work attempting to reconcile the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. My point here is that these two polymaths, Boethius and Pico, did not see any irreconcilable differnces
between the two philosophies, whereas the lesser intellects of the modern age do.
On a related note, I have read several 'refutations' by the various church fathers and in none of those I have read does Aristotle get singled out for any special treatment, either becasue he is close to Christian thinking or because he is a threat to it.

You wrote:

Becuase the book you read might be " Platonic through and through " is not even relevent to wether or not he introduced Aristotle! Again the entire reason for bringing up Boethius is in relation to Aristotles DIFFERENCES from platonism!

The fact that Boethius' Consolations is Platonic through and through is relevant. Your author is trying to set up Boethius as a champion of Aristolelian philosophy. It is not just my opinion of Boethius:

The powerful, yet simple, Platonic theism and morality which shines out of the De consolatione philosophiae made it extremely popular during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Perhaps aware that his aim in translating Plato was not to be fulfilled, Boethius put into his work a Platonic view of knowledge and reality. The work was originally written
in Latin but it was later translated into many different languages.

From the Boethius link above, which incidentally comes from St Andrews University in Scotland which is one of the UKs leading academic institutes.

The passage you posted does not, as far as I can see, even mention Plato. The difference between Plato and Aristotle is just one of the mantras which you recite continuously, along with 'strawmen', 'sophistry', reification', 'existents' etc. And again, I would ask what are these differences?

You wrote:

"psuedo" debates still rage. Again missing the entire point that Aristotle was the impetus of the "ferment"! [the part that pertains to your "yes but" ]The culmination in the book is in the context of the religions that are its topic. The topic of the book is not the Renassiance .Your comments dont pertain to the context at issue.

I am not missing the point at all. See my comments about the Neoplatonists and the various refutations above. Aristotle was not the first philosopher to to cause problems for the Christians. The topic or
culmination of the book is irrelvant, I was addressing the passage you quoted and said was 'good'. In that passage, the author mentions the Renaissance along with several other historical periods.

You wrote:

The current state of Islam is because of a revial of the things the Arabs began to repudiate under the influence of Aristotle. You know ,the entire point of bring this up and all! The "value" you have completely ignored.

Can you explain what you mean by the first sentence? This side-debate began when you challenged Lloyd's, correct, example of Nicolas de Cusa (who was German not Italian BTW). You repied by paraphrasing the lecture series by Andrew Lewis in which you mentioned the Renaissance.
The influence, or not, of Aristotle was not part of the original point between you and Lloyd. It is something which you introduced. What is this 'value' which I have ignored?

So to sum up. Your author presented a series of 'facts'; I then criticised several of those facts and the conclusions drawn from them, providing my reasons and links to further information. You have responded without being able to repudiate the (historical) veracity of any of my statements and have instead relied on the very sophistry and strawmen which you accuse me of. Anyways, this thread was opened by Lloyd to discuss the Golden Age not as an outlet for Randian dogma.

[Plasmatic]

Hi Plasmatic,
How is challenging the author's 'facts' sophistry?

The sophistry comes in when the "facts" you challenge are irrelevant completely to the points/context under discussion.

"I dont agree with everything but it is good."My post was intendeded to show that the quote was not 'good', that is, to contradict your assertion.

No I originally said the book was "good". The "quote is a review from someone else intended to summarize the book in one "paragraph".

Because something comes "2 sentences later" does not mean it pertains directly to it.Well, according to my understanding of written English if it is in the same paragraph then it should pertain directly to it. In any case, my point was that the author had presented two 'facts' which were at odds with each other - a work entitled 'On Soul' hardly supports the
assertion that Aristotle focused 'on materialism'

Again its a review which condenses parts from the whole book for an overview.

By the way we have been here before. Aristotle was not a "materialist" and the word "materialism" is nowhere in the quote anyway!

I did not make any reference to Aristotle being the first or last to
repudiate Plato. What exactly did Aristotle reject from Plato and what did he say that no one had said before?
We have had this discussion before.

Read the book and you will see the relevant differences. The last time you didn't "have the time" and:

Aristotle's Metaphysics, where he criticises Plato's Forms, is not a book as such. It is considered to be a collection of lecture notes which were later assembled into book format by, possibly, a student. The reason why Aristotle critiques the Forms is that the lectures are on Platonic philosophy and he would be a poor teacher if he did not. Greek eduacation was about challenging the thoughts of the student and making them think for themselves, it was not about presenting them with 'facts' or massaging the ego of the teacher.

1. I don't know why you insist on repeating this to me. I'M well aware of who Androinicus of Rhodes is:

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... des#p11166


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronicus_of_Rhodes

Besides as I have already told you Aristotle called the forms "nonsense" the greek word is supposed to be derived from the sound of crickets[onomatopoetic]. In other words nothing but noise.

In the C2nd & C3rd CE, i.e. before Boethius or Islam, it was the Neoplatonists who were causing the Christians the problems. Aristotelians or Neoaristotlelians were nowhere to be seen as far as I know. The Library at Alexandria was stil around at this period and would have had Aristotle's works on its shelves.
As to the impact of Platonic philosophy on Christianity, see:

Still missing the point. Platonism didn't cause the Renaissance. This only strengthens the whole reason for bringing the book up. The arrival of Aristotle's ideas and the changes they caused is the whole point.

Perhaps if you were to set out these differences between Plato and Aristotle...

Not the place for an exegesis on the subject. But you can try this quick outline:

.http://www.amazon.com/Aristotle-Adventu ... 8-1#reader

Go to page 10.
But I'm not going to debate this here in this thread.

Once again it is you who miss the point. Your author stated that Boethius was a monk and I was pointing out the factual inaccuracy of that assertion. Plato discussed faith approximately 7 centuries before Boethius. Plato said faith lay between ignorance and knowledge. He was not talking about religious faith. The Neoplatonists of a century or two before Boethius criticised the Christians for their reliance on faith over knowledge. To the Neoplatonists and other pagans philosophers, (religious) faith came from knowledge. Boethius is not regarded as an original thinker. Also, in the article on Boethius at: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Bio ... thius.html
it states:

Whether he was or wasn't a monk or was or wasn't a Platonist had no relevance to the issue of him introducing Aristotle to the clergy.

So we can see from this that1) Boethius was not the arch-Aristotlelian that your author makes out and 2) Boetius didn't get around to
translating Plato (though he did manage two works by Aristotle). In the Renaissance, Pico also wrote a work attempting to reconcile the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. My point here is that these two polymaths, Boethius and Pico, did not see any irreconcilable differnces
between the two philosophies, whereas the lesser intellects of the modern age do.
On a related note, I have read several 'refutations' by the various church fathers and in none of those I have read does Aristotle get singled out for any special treatment, either becasue he is close to Christian thinking or because he is a threat to it.

That Boethius introduced Aristotle in no way = claiming he was an "arch-Aristotlelian" The rest of your assertions and veiled insults are irrelevant.The interpretation of the clergy does not follow from Picos and Boethius's interpretation of Aristotle.

The fact that Boethius' Consolations is Platonic through and through is relevant. Your author is trying to set up Boethius as a champion of Aristotelian philosophy. It is not just my opinion of Boethius:

Again Boethius introduced Aristotle does not = "arch" "champion of aristotelian philosophy" You are adding what you want like the "materialism" claim.

The passage you posted does not, as far as I can see, even mention Plato. The difference between Plato and Aristotle is just one of the mantras which you recite continuously, along with 'strawmen', 'sophistry', reification', 'existents' etc. And again, I would ask what are these differences?

The passage is a review and your assertion is arbitrary as your claim of me would require you to know if the book does indeed support my claim. Of course we know you haven't read it .

I am not missing the point at all. See my comments about the Neoplatonists and the various refutations above. Aristotle was not the first philosopher to to cause problems for the Christians. The topic or
culmination of the book is irrelvant, I was addressing the passage you quoted and said was 'good'. In that passage, the author mentions the Renaissance along with several other historical periods.

Simply astounding! No one said Aristotle was "the first philosopher to to cause problems for the Christians", which is not the "topic of the book" or my reason for bringing it up.Again I didn't say the review was "good" I said the book was!

Can you explain what you mean by the first sentence? This side-debate began when you challenged Lloyd's, correct, example of Nicolas de Cusa (who was German not Italian BTW). You repied by paraphrasing the lecture series by Andrew Lewis in which you mentioned the Renaissance.
The influence, or not, of Aristotle was not part of the original point between you and Lloyd. It is something which you introduced. What is this 'value' which I have ignored?

So to sum up. Your author presented a series of 'facts'; I then criticised several of those facts and the conclusions drawn from them, providing my reasons and links to further information. You have responded without being able to repudiate the (historical) veracity of any of my statements and have instead relied on the very sophistry and strawmen which you accuse me of. Anyways, this thread was opened by Lloyd to discuss the Golden Age not as an outlet for Randian dogma.

What I "mean" is covered in the book.The "original point" was Challenging Lloyds idea that "This movement was inspired by Jesus' and Paul's admonitions in the Bible to love everyone." Which is patently false. The church had been preaching this for long before this. To this I responded "Sorry to disappoint you but the Renaissance was a result of the rediscovery of Aristotle's works by the clergy. " This is the "value" you are ignoring.Are we reading the same thread?

I haven't repudiated whether or not pantyhose where invented by monks either because its not relevant to anything pertaining to the "challenge" that originated the discussion between Loyd and I!

To sum up you cast irrelevant straw men at a review of the book providing reasons and links to irrelevant info as outlets for your Platonist,anti-modern "dogma". Which had nothing to do with the "challenge" between me and Loyd.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Plasmatic,
Not wanting to derail this thread any further, I will let the other readers make up their own minds as to the relative merits of our positions.

[Plasmatic]

Absolutely agree on that !

[altonhare]

In reference to Marxism, Capitalism, etc.

There is nothing wrong with giving that which you value to someone willingly. It happens all the time. Oftentimes another's happiness makes you happy, so you give that which you value to them because it makes you happy. As long as both people involved always gain that which they value everyone wins; this leads to life, happiness, and prosperity.

What leads to death is forcing someone to give that which they value. This involves someone giving that which they value but receiving nothing that they value. In this situation there is a winner and a loser. If this continues there will be no more "winners" because there will be nothing of value left. Those who would produce things of value (whether material like a car or emotional like love or inspiration) no longer do so. They stop because they know that, if they produce value, they will be forced to relinquish it. Society crumbles.

We can only trade value for value, be it an object or a feeling. Only a society that adheres to this can endure. The State exists to prevent individuals from stealing value, i.e. from forcing others.