Love

[Psilon]

...........................

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
Typical romanticism-from about.com:
(1) Sexual love between men and women is in itself an ideal worth striving for; (2) Love ennobles the lovers; (3) Sexual love is an ethical and aesthetic attainment, not just libidinal impulse; (4) Love is an intense, passionate relationship that establishes a holy oneness between man and woman.

(1) What happens when love is attained? The thrill and the ideal is gone.

(2) Love ennobles the lovers. I don't think Love ennobles the lovers, I think it is the ideal of Love. The object of our desire becomes a muse. However when the ideal is attained there is no value to it. We will find that our muse is flawed, no longer the perfect angelic being.

It is like the dog who chases the car, what happens when the car stops? It is no longer interested. Romanticism seems to me to be like one giant delusion.

(3) What is the ethical attainment? Mostly, I find that once romanticism is attained it brings about a break down of ethics. Once love is 'attained' our ego goes out of way to protect it with any means possible.

(4) Does man and women truly become one. If they do, they must let go all of their thoughts and assimilate each other. What is left is mediocrity.

I think in the end romanticism ends in companionship.
So is romantic love hogwash?

If by "hogwash" you mean "non-existant," then yes, of course.

[ZorBrak]

True love is not something that can be described by words or classified, only that it is a form of companionship, but there is MUCH more to it than that.

[RogueMartian]

I don't think its entirely hogwash, I do believe its much more rare than people think. For the most part if I hear someone claim that they are in love I just smile and nod. I know that in some period of time that same person is going to come to me and ask how they could ever have even liked their so called "love".

[zero zero nine]

However when the ideal is attained there is no value to it. We will find that our muse is flawed, no longer the perfect angelic being.

This is where I disagree. When the ideal is attained, all the more value is added to it. For instance, there's an extremely corny quote I am trying to remember... "I love you not because you are perfect, but because you are perfect for me."

Of course, your idea of love differs from mine, and so on and so forth.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by zero zero nine
This is where I disagree. When the ideal is attained, all the more value is added to it. For instance, there's an extremely corny quote I am trying to remember... "I love you not because you are perfect, but because you are perfect for me."

Of course, your idea of love differs from mine, and so on and so forth.

I think what you are talking about is companionship. Not romantic love.

This leads to my second point. Companionship could come from any person. If I have a best friend why would I want the companionship of a 'lover'. The only other reason I could think of would be sex. So is that it?

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Yes, sex and love are two different things.

Yes, companionship can come from anyone. Some people live with animals for their whole lives. Some men find companionship with men, some women in women. Whatever floats your boat for a relationship, you know. So technically, Psilon, you could find companionship with your dog or cat if you really want eschew human companionship.

I don't think people NEED companionship--some monks and priests do very well like this. For myself, I prefer sexual companionship with the opposite sex, but there is no rule saying that everyone does. So if you want to be gay, celibate, monk, single with pet, or whatever, I think it's all fine if it makes you happy.

As for romanticism ending after the chase is over, perhaps some of the married people on this board should speak up.

You wacky teens with your "philosophical angst" and "sexual" explorations... :p

[Zechs]

To me romantic love is when you love someone so much all you want is their happniess and you are willing to do anything for them and they for you. As for a realtionship like marrige it takes work much like anything else you both have to work at otherwise you will run into trouble. So yes I do belive in romantic love but I feel you have to work at keeping it on in order for it not to fade into a boring relaitnship that you soon tire of and wish to get out of. Which I think has happened to alot of people they get into these relationships feeling all this love and then it starts to fade because either it wasn't ment to be or they didn't know how to keep it up after so long. So this in turn may sour some on the thought of love IMO at least.

[Digu Volz]

First I would ask if you have been through a relationship and perhaps there you would find a more valid answer. Definitions do very little to quantify man.

I'd disagree about the lose of thrill and ideals, the thrill merely changes. It's thrilling for me to share my life with the people I care about above all others. Even something as mundane as shopping is something infinitely more enjoyable with someone else. And I believe romance to be an idealized companionship and, while it may sound like a cop-out, there will forever be intangibles to the concept of love that we can never comprehend, merely 'know'.

Some of these definitions depend on the couple, some may experience a breakdown, as others may experience a strengthening.
And I think 'becoming one' is figurative for sharing a life together, which brings a certain unity.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Digu Volz
First I would ask if you have been through a relationship and perhaps there you would find a more valid answer. Definitions do very little to quantify man.

I'd disagree about the lose of thrill and ideals, the thrill merely changes. It's thrilling for me to share my life with the people I care about above all others. Even something as mundane as shopping is something infinitely more enjoyable with someone else. And I believe romance to be an idealized companionship and, while it may sound like a cop-out, there will forever be intangibles to the concept of love that we can never comprehend, merely 'know'.

Some of these definitions depend on the couple, some may experience a breakdown, as others may experience a strengthening.
And I think 'becoming one' is figurative for sharing a life together, which brings a certain unity.

I have been in 'love' in my life. Though only once. I had a relationship with her. I hate to go back in time and dig up my foolishness and hold it on display. In the end I found the relationship to be banal. She was not the person who I figured her to be. I envisioned a goddess she was mortal.

On companionship. I have had good friends. Equals, friends who would stick with me even in the most dire of situations. I think what you said does sound like a cop-out. No offense to you, could you just be romanticizing the object of your desire.

[Frozen]

Psilon2011, with respect, it appears that your past experiences (negative experiences, it would appear), have tainted your outlook, giving you a cynical outlook on this issue - my advice to you is wait until you have the experiences to counter-balance your negativity before making up your mind (ie - a good relationship...)

I've had my fair share of relationships, good and bad, so my outlook is a bit more balanced, I think. I'm not an academic, and, as such, I'm not as elequant as others on this board, but here goes...


What happens when love is attained? The thrill and the ideal is gone.

This phrase is misleading, at least to me - does it mean love expressed through sex, or a love with a sexual element, in that it using this sexual act to differentiate between the love you share with your partner and the love you have for your family and friends..?

Sure, friends or equals may be a great help at dark times, or even great to share the good times with, but they will never match the intensity or depth of emotion that can come from being with the right man or woman. After a hard/bad day, nobody in the world can sooth those troubles like the one you love, and nothing can amplify the joys or a good day more than the smile it can bring to the face of your partner. No friend.

As for the striving for the ideal part of this quote, I think that can mean two things. It can mean finding the right person is worth striving for, and once you've found them, it's worth working at the relationship, striving to make it all it can be. Sure, it won't be all perfume and roses everyday, and sometimes they'll be harsh words, but a little hard work makes a healthy, respectful, fulfilling commitment to your partner worth more than anything I can think of, except maybe the well-being of your kids, but you could argue that is part and parcel of it all anyway...

And the thrill never goes - the thrill transforms. It changes into the thrill of seeing your partners smile first thing in a morning, the thrill of providing, of protecting, of knowing that you mean as much to them as they mean to you - that's the thrill, that's the ideal. Sure, if you get to start dating somebody and you don't 'click', then it's never gonna match the ideal, but, like I say, wait until you've tasted the sweet before favouring the sour...


Love ennobles the lovers. I don't think Love ennobles the lovers, I think it is the ideal of Love. The object of our desire becomes a muse. However when the ideal is attained there is no value to it. We will find that our muse is flawed, no longer the perfect angelic being.

To think anybody can be perfect is naive -everybody can make mistakes, and have flaws, but, like zero zero nine says, I'm not perfect, but I'm perfect for my wife. We're still each others muses, we're still the ideal, because we have more realistic ideals - the ideal doesn't have to be this shining angel of virtue, that's just unrealistic, and beating yourself up because you can't find it is just going to make you miserable.

Being the muse, the ideal, in the real world, means inspiring your partner to push for all they can, in every aspect of the relationship, because you think the relationship is worth the struggle. My wife inspires me to push beyond physical disabilities, beyond psychological barriers, beyond expectations, because she's worth it to me, and I'm worth it to her. I have ginger hair, she has a stroppy daughter, so we're neither perfect - but we're perfect together.


Does man and women truly become one. If they do, they must let go all of their thoughts and assimilate each other. What is left is mediocrity.

No, no, no, no, no. If your relationship purely produces mediocrity, then you're in the wrong relationship. Just being with your partner is enough to make a moment exciting. The original quote states you should look for a 'oneness' together, not become one. Neither of you should loose your identity, your individuality - that'd be pointless - I love my wife because she's my wife, not an amalgam of me and her, and likewise. No, the oneness comes from the striving together for a perfect home, for the education of our child, for the comfort of a loving bed, for providing for the future... Oneness is having the right partner to make your life complete, not loosing your identity.

Look, I'm nearly thirty, I'm a married man with a home and a daughter, my idea of a perfect partner changed a long time ago when I realised that the ideal I had was flawed. When you get older, your priorities change, they become more realistic, but, ironically, in that realsim, you find the true ideal, and you realise a lot of the stuff you wanted when you were a kid is just set dressing, with no real foundation...

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Frozen
Psilon2011, with respect, it appears that your past experiences (negative experiences, it would appear), have tainted your outlook, giving you a cynical outlook on this issue - my advice to you is wait until you have the experiences to counter-balance your negativity before making up your mind (ie - a good relationship...)

I've had my fair share of relationships, good and bad, so my outlook is a bit more balanced, I think. I'm not an academic, and, as such, I'm not as elequant as others on this board, but here goes...

This phrase is misleading, at least to me - does it mean love expressed through sex, or a love with a sexual element, in that it using this sexual act to differentiate between the love you share with your partner and the love you have for your family and friends..?

Sure, friends or equals may be a great help at dark times, or even great to share the good times with, but they will never match the intensity or depth of emotion that can come from being with the right man or woman. After a hard/bad day, nobody in the world can sooth those troubles like the one you love, and nothing can amplify the joys or a good day more than the smile it can bring to the face of your partner. No friend.

As for the striving for the ideal part of this quote, I think that can mean two things. It can mean finding the right person is worth striving for, and once you've found them, it's worth working at the relationship, striving to make it all it can be. Sure, it won't be all perfume and roses everyday, and sometimes they'll be harsh words, but a little hard work makes a healthy, respectful, fulfilling commitment to your partner worth more than anything I can think of, except maybe the well-being of your kids, but you could argue that is part and parcel of it all anyway...

And the thrill never goes - the thrill transforms. It changes into the thrill of seeing your partners smile first thing in a morning, the thrill of providing, of protecting, of knowing that you mean as much to them as they mean to you - that's the thrill, that's the ideal. Sure, if you get to start dating somebody and you don't 'click', then it's never gonna match the ideal, but, like I say, wait until you've tasted the sweet before favouring the sour...

To think anybody can be perfect is naive -everybody can make mistakes, and have flaws, but, like zero zero nine says, I'm not perfect, but I'm perfect for my wife. We're still each others muses, we're still the ideal, because we have more realistic ideals - the ideal doesn't have to be this shining angel of virtue, that's just unrealistic, and beating yourself up because you can't find it is just going to make you miserable.

Being the muse, the ideal, in the real world, means inspiring your partner to push for all they can, in every aspect of the relationship, because you think the relationship is worth the struggle. My wife inspires me to push beyond physical disabilities, beyond psychological barriers, beyond expectations, because she's worth it to me, and I'm worth it to her. I have ginger hair, she has a stroppy daughter, so we're neither perfect - but we're perfect together.

No, no, no, no, no. If your relationship purely produces mediocrity, then you're in the wrong relationship. Just being with your partner is enough to make a moment exciting. The original quote states you should look for a 'oneness' together, not become one. Neither of you should loose your identity, your individuality - that'd be pointless - I love my wife because she's my wife, not an amalgam of me and her, and likewise. No, the oneness comes from the striving together for a perfect home, for the education of our child, for the comfort of a loving bed, for providing for the future... Oneness is having the right partner to make your life complete, not loosing your identity.

Look, I'm nearly thirty, I'm a married man with a home and a daughter, my idea of a perfect partner changed a long time ago when I realised that the ideal I had was flawed. When you get older, your priorities change, they become more realistic, but, ironically, in that realsim, you find the true ideal, and you realise a lot of the stuff you wanted when you were a kid is just set dressing, with no real foundation...

Thank you. Now I don't want offend you in any way, but I'd like to go over your reply.

I think did I have a 'good' relationship. We didn't fight a lot, she was interesting. I just find the whole relationship thing such a boring thing. My mind had dulled, emotion attachment had rusted my blade. Relationships are based on comprimise, I don't like comprimising.

I think friends can do all of what you have described.

It is said that man does everything for women. I think intially the object of your desire become your muse. The reason why I began to read so much was because I tried to impress this girl :rolleyes: . Quite pathetic but true. My mind became sharper, but once I had a relationship with her. My muse was gone. The thrill is gone, there was no substance. Afterward I was never interested.

I think the thrill transforms because it becomes companionship.

This thrill is their even in arranged marriages, according to a friend of mine. Its companionship. Love starts with romance and ends in companionship.

[Failure]

A relationship isn't about dulling each other's minds. Think about the saying "your better half." Your significant other should challenge you, push you in new directions. A good relationship is one where both parties grow and improve each other. It's not about the "guy doing everything for the woman" or vice versa. It's give and take. And it continually evolves. Keep in mind there's a difference between like and love as well.

Friendship and love are similar, but at the same time completely different. Love is like a friendship taken to the 5th degree. A friendship is pure companionship. Love is partly about companionship, but it's not the full story. Both can help you grow, but both contribute in wildly different ways.

Here's something else to keep in mind. You're never as unique as you think. If you were, you'd never make a difference.

[FredNash]

Not quite on topic, but I think it's appropriate since we seem to be getting some terms confused, the difference between like and love, romance and companionship...

I. AFFECTION:

"It teaches us first to notice, then to endure, then to smile at, then to enjoy and finally to appreciate the people who just 'happen to be there'. This range of people is odder than you would have believed and worth more than you would have guessed."
Of all the loves Affection is the easiest to give as it requires only the continued presence of the person or object over time. We can have Affection for those with whom, over the years, we still do not agree and is broadest in scope as it attaches itself as a bond between the young, old, fair, homely, rich, poor, intelligent and simple. When Affection is in balance it seeks the independence of the person for whom the affection is. It does not seek reliance, but rather "space", or room, for differences to reside and cooperate in a cohesive, peaceful, cooperative manner. When Affection is out of balance it seeks to promote and enslave the recipients need for being given that which they may not need. (favors, attention, supervision, nosiness, smothering, etc.) This may be defined as "selfish giving" since the unbalanced giver of affection is not really concerned with providing a person's need towards independence, but rather to maintain themselves in a position of "giver" over the "recipient". Seeks to subordinate others by guilt or intimidation so as to maintain a provider position. The need to be needed has thus gone out of balance.

Affection is kept in balance when there is Reasoning, Justice & Decency. Reasoning... to know when you are effecting good or bad towards others. Justice... to give and receive somewhat equally. Decency... to practice affection with patience, self-denial, humility, and dependence on another, higher lover. (Agape love.) Affection (and/or Friendship, Eros love) will go bad on us if we apply them alone without the application of that Godly love which provides the base and fills the holes that the more natural loves fall short in.

II. FRIENDSHIP:

Differences between Friends and Lovers;
-Lovers... often speak of their love for each other to one another. Friends... rarely speak of the friendship to one another, instead tend to accept it as a "given" and operate in it when together.
-Lovers... often speak both physically and in mental perception face-to-face, absorbed in each other. Friends... side-by-side, absorbed in some common interest, goal or philosophy.
-Eros love is (healthily) between two, and only two. Friendship can increase in its enjoyment by the addition of two, three or more so long as the interest, goal or philosophy is somewhat the same as a common bond.

Friendship is born from "companionship", the discovery of common interest between acquaintances. Companionship/acquaintances are not necessarily Friendships. Lovers seek for privacy. Friends pull from the herd in becoming friends but would appreciate a 3rd, 4th or 5th party on the same terms. Unity among friends is inward, unity among companions/acquaintances is outward.

Two friends unite in a goal forward. One who wants a friend and only a friend, without a common goal for growth, will be frustrated. Friendship is about something specific. Friendship between two of the opposite sex will often lead to Eros love, unless there is no attraction or Eros love is already promised by one or both elsewhere. (marriage, engagement or courtship already in progress) Friendship does not demand services, but will accept or perform them on an accidental or as-needed basis with a desire to return to the subject of unity that drew them together. "Don't mention it.", is heard among friends because we'd just as soon not have needing or giving a part of the friendship.

Friendship makes use of information only as it is needed, casually. Friendship does not have prerequisites of attraction, class, marital status, age, etc. Like sovereign princes gathered together, it is mutually respectful and courteous. Where Eros love has bodily nakedness/openness, Friendship bares open naked personalities. You know your lover by looking into their eyes and heart. You know your friends by reading, arguing, praying, playing, speaking, etc. with them. Friendship humbles us in that we are so fortunate to have it. It tends to make good men better and bad men worse. (mutual focus and growth on the common element.) Pride and exclusiveness of others to the extreme are the greatest danger to any healthy friendship.

III. Eros Love:

Eros love includes sexuality, but sexuality is NOT, in itself, Eros love.

Sexual desire, without Eros love, wants only sex. Eros wants, during sex, the intimacy of the beloved. A lustful man does not "want a woman"; a woman is merely to him a necessary apparatus to fulfill his desires. It is his own fulfillment, selfishness, that he seeks... not a woman. Eros makes a man want, not a woman, but one particular woman. Sex that is too flippant and comical can set up a couple for resentments and self-pities. Sex that is too serious is deprived of the romp and fun that is essential to a healthy enjoyment of sex. Eros love moves between serious episodes of romance and lighthearted escapades of play. It is not all one or the other, but both. As Christ loves the Church... men are to love their wives. To give their lives. The bride has all the beauty which the bridegroom sees in her. He does not find, but makes her lovely.
Eros love is a shadow of, or even a hands-on preparatory exercise in, Agape love. But it is not and cannot deliver of itself the selfless type of love found in Agape, Godly love. It is God's Spirit living and working within us which makes Agape love possible in our lives. Those who expect Eros love to do the work of Agape love will, upon unfulfilled expectation, throw the blame to their partners when consequences become evident. By humility, charity and grace we turn our hearts to God as our source and support to be able to give our partner Agape love along with Eros love.

IV. CHARITY; AGAPE/GODLY LOVE:

Affection, Friendship and Eros find their fullness of glory only when submitted to Charity. "This does not make them bad, for being less. A garden is a good thing but will only be different from a wilderness if it is pruned, mowed and weeded. Even so, these loves need the care of Charity love in order to be kept in their proper perspective, produce good fruit and remain sweet.

"As a man and a garden will not survive without rain and sunshine, even these loves can only grow well, if at all, in a man's heart when God's Charitable, selfless love is allowed to enter, bless, and work the garden's promise and the gardener's toil into a fruitful enterprise.
"Love's proper place is to God himself. To love at all involves risk of heartache, but far better this than to lock up our hearts in a coffin where they grow cold and hard, irredeemable. We trust it is God's wisdom to prune, and not to destroy, that which He planted in our hearts and therefore we embrace the learning of His love."
"If any man come after me and hate not his father and mother and wife and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." To hate, in this sense, is to set ourselves against anything, any other love even, that would try to position itself higher than God's type of love or love for God. To obey God, rather than our nearest and dearest friends, family or lover may indeed be perceived by them as hateful. When two agree, as in man and wife, to place Charity above the other loves then they need not oppose each other's obedience to God's love. Divine love, Charity, desires what is best for the beloved. God loves us who are unlovable, not attractive to God in the least, it was He who first loved us.

In Eros, to love man or woman more, or disproportionately, than God will require surrender before the true fullness of Eros can be realized. We need not throw away silver to make room for gold... we need merely to acknowledge the gold as far superior to the silver and hold it over anything else. In even the smallest daily acts (a game, a joke, a chat, a dinner..) we can exercise either the love that is in need or the love that gives. Same for Eros love. Give and it will be given to you. "To him that has more shall be given, to him that has not, even what little he has shall be taken from him."

The first 3 loves are capable among men to some degree. Charity is purely of God. "The natural loves are called to become perfect Charity and also perfect natural loves. As God becomes man, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God, so here; Charity does not dwindle into merely natural love; but natural love is taken up into, made the tuned and obedient instrument of, Love Himself."

SUMMATION:

It is in the weaknesses and frictions with our acquaintances, friends and spouse that we are able to apply the longsuffering, patient, merciful, giving, comforting embraces of Godly love. Our desire to walk in Godly Charity should not rest in relationships. Even as we should not believe in God only to "get to heaven" we should not attempt to "use" God's Charity to this earthly end in itself. It must be the desire for learning His ways, His Love, His Charity... His very Person that drives us to be like Him with all that comes as a result of such prioritizing as merely "pleasant aftermath".

The Four Loves (thanks C.S. Lewis!)

[Nightflower]

I'd say what I think of love, but my boyfriend apparently lurks here, and anything I say can and will be used against me. ;)

[Jade_GL]

Love is hard.

I know this goes against what people believe, espcially movie makers and idealists, but I have found that I have to work at love. My boyfriend and I love each other very much, but we have to work at it. It's not roses, diamonds, and pretty butterflies all the time. It's been more than 3 years, and even though that first month feeling (a new lovefeeling with lots of cooing and cuddling and other stuff) is gone, it's now something different. We have tolerance for each other and companionship.

That's why when people talk about "living as one" or being "soul mates" I kind of recoil a bit. It's a very sugar coated view of life, and it makes it hard to find companionship for life. If you can't always have that feeling, you'll go to some new person, some new thrill that creates that feeling again. Life is work, and love is work. If you truly love someone, you can actually not like them at some points too. It's a weird dichotomy, but it's accepting faults and growing to realize that it's not always going to be perfect.

Of course, I mean in a healthy way. People are going to argue and clash heads once in a while, and an argument can be very good, as long as it's just an argument and not anything worse. My boyfriend and I have very specific goals, and desires, ways of doing things, and pastimes. If we tried to wrench each other into our ideas and pastimes, because we think it's better to be this or that, we'd be miserable. So, there is always comprimise and work.

But, there is always a challange, much like another poster said. You need someone to push you to be a better person, to learn, and you have to do the same. If you just lounge around and do nothing, then it's not interesting. If you don't learn anything from your boyfriend, girlfriend, wife or husband, then you'll probably get bored.

Please, forgive me if you think I'm being cynical, but I am really not. I'm very happy with where I am, who I am, and who I am with. I just realize that if I was always looking for the perfect love, I'd probably be out of luck. I have my soul mate, it's just not defined the way most people would define it or the way movies would define it. I wonder if that makes any sense? :D

And, my boyfriend is also my best friend, and he and I were originally just friends with each other before we got together.

[Failure]

Right on Jade-GL! :)

Love, just like anything worth a pile of beans, you have to work on to maintain. As great as it is, and as romanticized as it is, it's also one of the most difficult things to maintain over time.

Nothing just plops down on your lap perfectly and remains that way forever. If it did, you'd never fully appreciate it. You need the lows to appreciate the highs.

[Digu Volz]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
I envisioned a goddess she was mortal.

And so are you... Perhaps there lies the problem. What you envision someone as being is rarely who they are and to hold them to such an inflated standard as 'goddess' essentially set you up for disappointment. Don't bother looking for perfection, everything is flawed and there aren't answers to everything (or at least you won't find them here if you're really curious).


On companionship. I have had good friends. Equals, friends who would stick with me even in the most dire of situations. I think what you said does sound like a cop-out. No offense to you, could you just be romanticizing the object of your desire.

Like you did ? No offense. :p

Love is an abstract concept, wherein logic cannot be fully applied. This ideal relationship, as I said before, is perhaps an accumulation of the individual facets of all types of relationships, where the most important thing worth remembering (which can, naturally, be applied to all relationships) is that you should enjoy it for what it is, not what you want it to be.

[ZorBrak]

There is such a thing as true love. Wanting your partner to be happy, putting them before you, has nothing to do with pleasing yourself.
So for example: if I were to jump in front of a car to save my hypothetical true love (If only I really found her :p )....would I really be jumping in front of a car to please myself, make myself feel better or benefit myself? I think not. Love cannot be described by simple words.

[Psilon]

..................

[Failure]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
How is your relationship different from a really good friend. Your boyfriend as you said is your best friend. Companionship, this what a relationship is about.

This is something that words cannot explain. The world does not revolve around logic as much as you think. In fact, the most logical thing about humans is that they are wildly illogical and irrational.

People can try to explain the difference between love and friendship for eons and you still wouldn't understand. However, you'll realize the difference once you experience it. It's definitely one of those thigns you have to experience firsthand.

[Digu Volz]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
Logic can be applied to everything. I think these abstract concepts aren't really that abstract. I think they are basic, its just that we tend to over-complicate them by romanticizing them.

For all we know, you could be right (at one time people thought the world was flat...), but this is something you'd have to prove, as the majority don't view it this way, although you, personally, don't have to, this school of thought is something that would have to be...

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Digu Volz
For all we know, you could be right (at one time people thought the world was flat...), but this is something you'd have to prove, as the majority don't view it this way, although you, personally, don't have to, this school of thought is something that would have to be...

Can I ask you a question, this is going off-topic but oh well.


Do you exist?

[Beat]

LOVE STINKS!!!! Yeah, yeah...

It's true though. I'm an average person, but girls treat me like dirt. Over the years I've become really annoyed at people who act like they're in love. In one of my odder moments, in school, I saw two people kissing, like the world was perfect. Annoyed as hell, I took the guy and punched him in the face! Then he ran off.

[Failure]

Originally posted by Beatdigga
LOVE STINKS!!!! Yeah, yeah...

It's true though. I'm an average person, but girls treat me like dirt. Over the years I've become really annoyed at people who act like they're in love. In one of my odder moments, in school, I saw two people kissing, like the world was perfect. Annoyed as hell, I took the guy and punched him in the face! Then he ran off.

You should look into anger management, cuz that's just not cool.

[Krayenhoff]

Love:
I think I am an objective viewer.

Everything that came after this I disregarded. Explain to me how you are able to see everything from a completely detached point of view.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
Everything that came after this I disregarded. Explain to me how you are able to see everything from a completely detached point of view.

As objective as can be. I do not have emotional attachment.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Beatdigga
LOVE STINKS!!!! Yeah, yeah...

It's true though. I'm an average person, but girls treat me like dirt. Over the years I've become really annoyed at people who act like they're in love. In one of my odder moments, in school, I saw two people kissing, like the world was perfect. Annoyed as hell, I took the guy and punched him in the face! Then he ran off.

hmm, I think your emotions are dangerous. I think the problem lies in the fact that you keep girls at the center of your existence.

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
As objective as can be. I do not have emotional attachment.

You have no emotional attachment? Does that make you a robot? If so, then how do I know you're not just pulling my leg? I find it very hard to believe I'm talking to a robot, and if I am, why should I listen?

Unless you want to clarify that statement.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
You have no emotional attachment? Does that make you a robot? If so, then how do I know you're not just pulling my leg? I find it very hard to believe I'm talking to a robot, and if I am, why should I listen?

Unless you want to clarify that statement.

Actually I should repharse. My mistake. I have a small amount of emotional attachment.

I do not get jealous, I cannot hate, I do not love. Material luxury means nothing to me. I am curious though, I do not know if that is a feeling.

[Beat]

Originally posted by Failure
You should look into anger management, cuz that's just not cool.

That was a long time ago man.

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
Actually I should repharse. My mistake. I have a small amount of emotional attachment.

I do not get jealous, I cannot hate, I do not love. Material luxury means nothing to me. I am curious though, I do not know if that is a feeling.

Well, I still don't know if I can believe you. At the very least I can't relate. If you're not willing to love or hate, then how can you understand the nature of either?

[Psilon]

I am not clouded by them. Maybe because I understand their nature.

I guess I have agape.

[murmur]

Originally posted by Zechs
To me romantic love is when you love someone so much all you want is their happniess and you are willing to do anything for them and they for you.I get really annoyed by this ideal. Would you help your love murder someone? Perhaps what you really meant is that you would be willing to make any personal sacrifice for this person. But I would still disagree. I want to be with someone who I would want to do everything for, but it's not going to be that way all the time. There are times where you would be happy to drive four hours in the rain to deliver them chicken soup and there are times when you don't feel like getting up to shut the window. It goes back to what Jade GL said (and kudos for that). You work at it. You do things for a relationship that you don't always feel compelled to because of that grand feeling. In a good relationship, the rewards are still worth it. Really though, I agree that this is possible, to a large degree, in a platonic relationship. Then again, sex can intensify the feeling and blend with it to give you that romantic sensation, which can be more compelling. But also more confusing...


Another thing that bothers me about all this is the assumed idea of oneness. Why does it have to be just one person to fulfill all your needs? I don't necessarily mean polyamory but I don't like how people think their lovers or spouces have to be more important to them than anyone else.

Anyway, a lot of this argument is somantic. George Carlin put it really well....I think the quote is something like this: "Flapjacks, hotcakes, batter beaters...Why are there four words for pancakes and only one word for love?" It is one of the most poorly defined words there is because it has way too many meanings.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Failure
You should look into anger management, cuz that's just not cool.

A satirical post, perhaps? ;)

I think I figured out why Psilon is so numb and emotionless. He lives in Toronto, where I go to work and school. You know how I've been saying we're all robots up here... :p

[Nightflower]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
A satirical post, perhaps? ;)

I think I figured out why Psilon is so numb and emotionless. He lives in Toronto, where I go to work and school. You know how I've been saying we're all robots up here... :p
Or jerks! This lady was so mean to me on the streetcar today! :(

[Digu Volz]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
Do you exist?

Yep and nobody has proven me wrong yet. Now if you are asking if I can prove whether or not I exist, I'd say that, by the standards set for exisiting in this world, I do, have been, and will continue to. Perhaps it's not much, but I'm content with it.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Digu Volz
Yep and nobody has proven me wrong yet. Now if you are asking if I can prove whether or not I exist, I'd say that, by the standards set for exisiting in this world, I do, have been, and will continue to. Perhaps it's not much, but I'm content with it.

you have accepted that you exist.

I think therefore i am

I exist then. Then I have accepted the basic premise of logic. A=A.
All of your thoughts and ideas have this basis. Everything you percieve are concepts. Though most people have contradictory or flawed logic. They are not methodical. I make a conscious decision to be methodical.

[Digu Volz]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
you have accepted that you exist.

I think therefore i am

I exist then. Then I have accepted the basic premise of logic. A=A.
All of your thoughts and ideas have this basis. Everything you percieve are concepts. Though most people have contradictory or flawed logic. They are not methodical. I make a conscious decision to be methodical.

Yet your logic is flawed, total methodology cannot be attained by sheer virtue of human nature, although, notably, this is not something you claimed. The effort is noble, but, ultimately a wasted endeavor. I really think you would enjoy life more if you didn't try to live by one extreme, and stressed over these things less, but that's just me.

[jeffrey 228]

Or jerks! This lady was so mean to me on the streetcar today!

And I just think there are too many people now and days who like to be mean and all.

[Frozen]

How old are you Psilon? 18 or so? Well, I knew a guy who seemed to be exactly like you when I was younger. He liked answers. He liked to know how things worked. And he liked to pretend to himself that he didn't need girls or love or romance because he could never find anybody who could match his lofty ideals of what love and the perfect partner should be - all the time pretending he wasn't a romantic when, in reality, he was the romantic, but nobody could give him what he needed, so he tried to theorise the need (and pain) away...

Now I'm not saying this is the case with you, but maybe in ten years time you'll be just like him too - a changed man. You have found your true self, instead of creating one, and you'll find your true love, and then, and only then you'll have the answers to your questions.

Now I know you'll scoff at this idea, but that's OK, 'cos that's what he would have done. But I was right then, and I think I'm right now...

Only time will tell.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Frozen
How old are you Psilon? 18 or so? Well, I knew a guy who seemed to be exactly like you when I was younger. He liked answers. He liked to know how things worked. And he liked to pretend to himself that he didn't need girls or love or romance because he could never find anybody who could match his lofty ideals of what love and the perfect partner should be - all the time pretending he wasn't a romantic when, in reality, he was the romantic, but nobody could give him what he needed, so he tried to theorise the need (and pain) away...

Now I'm not saying this is the case with you, but maybe in ten years time you'll be just like him too - a changed man. You have found your true self, instead of creating one, and you'll find your true love, and then, and only then you'll have the answers to your questions.

Now I know you'll scoff at this idea, but that's OK, 'cos that's what he would have done. But I was right then, and I think I'm right now...

Only time will tell.

Tis sad.
He gave in.
Tis sad.

In his old age he may realize the error of his ways. I know many old men who do. Men who curse the day they gave into emotion and animal instinct.

The only way that is going to happen is if my mind is destroyed. If I ever become that man, I am no longer myself, I would be a shell. I would no longer be man.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Digu Volz
Yet your logic is flawed, total methodology cannot be attained by sheer virtue of human nature, although, notably, this is not something you claimed. The effort is noble, but, ultimately a wasted endeavor. I really think you would enjoy life more if you didn't try to live by one extreme, and stressed over these things less, but that's just me.

How would you know anything about human nature?
Do you know absolutely that humans are inherently flawed?

I think you've given up too easily.

The windmills that I challenge do not exist.
There are no windmills. The windmills only exist in your mind.

[James]

While remaining uncommitted to my perspective here, I think experience is a great teacher of all. I think that your attitude will change Psion - for better or for worse, depending on how you see that earthly emotion called love - for the thrills and ache it brings. No offence, but while you argument holds merit, a few more years experience in what you preach will probably offer more credibility to your standpoint.

At the moment, you are sounding, again with the greatest respect, as it's a place we've all been, like a bright, disillusioned teenager. Questioning what we have all questioned.

I enjoy reading what you say, don't get me wrong, but emotionless is deep rooted in emotion, either as façade you wish to project, or fear in what you may reveal - but I don't believe your mantra about feeling nothing for a second. Sorry!

[Psilon]

Originally posted by SJJ
While remaining uncommitted to my perspective here, I think experience is a great teacher of all. I think that your attitude will change Psion - for better or for worse, depending on how you see that earthly emotion called love - for the thrills and ache it brings. No offence, but while you argument holds merit, a few more years experience in what you preach will probably offer more credibility to your standpoint.

At the moment, you are sounding, again with the greatest respect, as it's a place we've all been, like a bright, disillusioned teenager. Questioning what we have all questioned.

I enjoy reading what you say, don't get me wrong, but emotionless is deep rooted in emotion, either as façade you wish to project, or fear in what you may reveal - but I don't believe your mantra about feeling nothing for a second. Sorry!

I am not totally emotionless. It is true that I am sometimes happy and sometimes sad.

However, I have never fell in love except for that one moment. I have not pursposefully went out of my to disregard love. Its just that I am not interested. Honestly, how could one person compare to the mysteries of my mind.

I think I have made a mistake. Romantic, material interest is not important for me anymore. Knowledge that is all I care for. And so in a way I hate ignorance.

But the love and hate I have and is so different from the love and hate most people have. So I say I am pretty much emotionless, in the traditional sense.

Why should one person get my love?
Seems greedy and egotisitical.

[Digu Volz]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
How would you know anything about human nature?
Do you know absolutely that humans are inherently flawed?

Yes, they are. This is proven everyday. Perfection, an absolute, is not meant for this world. N oabsolutes are, hence, flaws.


I think you've given up too easily

The windmills that I challenge do not exist.
There are no windmills. The windmills only exist in your mind.

Watching too much Matrix, eh ? :p

How can you challenge something that does not exist ? If you can acknowledge it, then it does exist.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Digu Volz
Yes, they are. This is proven everyday. Perfection, an absolute, is not meant for this world. N oabsolutes are, hence, flaws.

Watching too much Matrix, eh ? :p

How can you challenge something that does not exist ? If you can acknowledge it, then it does exist.


No absloutes...trying to prove something with an absolute.

I do not acknowledge they exist thats the point.

[Digu Volz]

I reiterate: How can you challenge them if they don't exist ? If they don't exist, you can't challenge them.

And the absolute I mentioned is an absolute, which denies absolution and it is inherently correct as there are no absolutes. It's like what number is infinity.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Digu Volz
I reiterate: How can you challenge them if they don't exist ? If they don't exist, you can't challenge them.

And the absolute I mentioned is an absolute, which denies absolution and it is inherently correct as there are no absolutes. It's like what number is infinity.

You're playing semantics. I never challenged them, slip of 'type'.
My fault, I realized they never existed.

Inifinty is an idea, not neccessarily a number.

You create an absolute to say there is no absolutes. Its quite a paradox.

Can't quite understand what ure saying

[BLACKHEART]

Love -- I think this line sums it up best, "I don't know your (word) name, so what! Let's..."

[Digu Volz]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
[You're playing semantics. I never challenged them, slip of 'type'.
My fault, I realized they never existed.

I misunderstood what you meant then.


Inifinty is an idea, not neccessarily a number.

True, but I think it can be considered both, as when people ask what the highest number is they essentially say infinity since it pretty much is.


You create an absolute to say there is no absolutes. Its quite a paradox.

It certainly is.


Can't quite understand what ure saying.

I'm not sure if I can make it any clearer.

[Frozen]

Originally posted by SLIPKNOT
Love -- I think this line sums it up best, "I don't know your (word) name, so what! Let's..."

Hey Slipknot, thanks for that - you've really added a fresh, dynamic dimension to this debate... :rolleyes:

[Chris Sanders MSX]

Originally posted by Frozen
Hey Slipknot, thanks for that - you've really added a fresh, dynamic dimension to this debate... :rolleyes:

Sigh*...He's quoting a Korn song. It's a joke.

[Frozen]

Originally posted by Chris Sanders MSX
Sigh*...He's quoting a Korn song. It's a joke.

Hardly appropriate though, is it?

[James]

Originally posted by Frozen
Hardly appropriate though, is it?

What, quoting Korn..? Never appropriate ;) Actually it would be a depressing world if they were right. There are far richer things in life than a one night stand.

[Patrick Bateman]

Wow. I can't beleive you said that romance doesn't exist. It most certainly does. I never had much use for it, until recently. But I talk to this girl, and am often left speachless, just sitting there with a smile on my face. I've never been that way before. But I'd say that when the sheer thought of just talking with a certain person puts you on cloud nine, that it's got you. Just keep giving it a chance, don't give up. I did, and consider myself lucky to have found someone who makes me feel like that. Someone will come around, if you just stay positive.