The argument collapses because none of its key terms are defined. “Mind-independent” is meaningless without a clear account of what counts as a mind. Most fatally, “love” is left completely unspecified, even though it is doing all the work in the conclusion. Without defining love as an emotion, disposition, value, relation, or metaphysical property, the claim that Love is the Form of the Good is not an argument but a restatement of theology in Platonic language.
“Patterns,” “Forms,” “hierarchy,” “the Good,” and especially “Love” are all left radically under-specified. The move from “there is a highest Form” to “that Form is Love” is not an inference but a re-labeling. Nothing in propositions 1–3 even gestures toward why the Good must be identical with Love rather than, say, rationality, being, unity, flourishing, or any number of historically defended candidates. Premise (4) simply asserts the conclusion in theological language and then treats it as an empirical discovery.
I share Aaron Olson's thinking here about requiring, at least some attempt at, a definition of the term "Love". Your argument is coherent, just not understandable without it.
The argument collapses because none of its key terms are defined. “Mind-independent” is meaningless without a clear account of what counts as a mind. Most fatally, “love” is left completely unspecified, even though it is doing all the work in the conclusion. Without defining love as an emotion, disposition, value, relation, or metaphysical property, the claim that Love is the Form of the Good is not an argument but a restatement of theology in Platonic language.
“Patterns,” “Forms,” “hierarchy,” “the Good,” and especially “Love” are all left radically under-specified. The move from “there is a highest Form” to “that Form is Love” is not an inference but a re-labeling. Nothing in propositions 1–3 even gestures toward why the Good must be identical with Love rather than, say, rationality, being, unity, flourishing, or any number of historically defended candidates. Premise (4) simply asserts the conclusion in theological language and then treats it as an empirical discovery.
I share Aaron Olson's thinking here about requiring, at least some attempt at, a definition of the term "Love". Your argument is coherent, just not understandable without it.
Very interesting! The Platonic description of Justice in the Republic (Chapter 10) comes to mind.
http://fearnomore.vision/the-vision-of-fear-no-more/love
http://fearnomore.vision/human
http://fearnomore.vision/world-2/the-divine-has-no-purpose
The top two "commandments" from Jesus; Love God with all your Heart and Love your Neighbor as God loves you.