First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
What love is
6223 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/23/14
"Love is when the other person's happiness is more important than your own" - H Jackson Brown Jr.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/23/14 , edited 2/23/14

Sornette wrote:




pardon my OT but how did you find the exact... I mean... the fingers are in the exact SAME positions. That's amazing. My google kungfu isn't strong enough to duplicate the feat.


spinningtoehold0 wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


pirththee wrote:




Why does anything change, at all?



No problem. Again, Ying / Yang is again a set of observations with no real explanation. For instance, I could start asking again "why are there two parts" or "why there has to be two parts"


pirththee wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

Why does anything change, at all?


Perception.


A presentist / eternalist view does not explain the universe itself. I can simply continue with "why the presentist / eternalist universe?"

Posted 2/23/14
Do not come to me and tell me that you know what it means to love unconditionally, as if you have somehow relinquished yourself of your self-preservation and become a god; an entity that has no reason to fear isolation and death. If you do, all I will hear is the unintelligent gibber-jabber of a protozoa who thinks to highly of itself.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/23/14 , edited 2/23/14

TheFallenGod wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

Because it's not natural for us, we would have to learn to love, and learn to do it repeatedly so that loving becomes a habit.


Sounds like something Rupert Sheldrake would say.



I was responding to someone who made the reference to love as unconditional.


dankuuwut wrote:

Do not come to me and tell me that you know what it means to love unconditionally, as if you have somehow relinquished yourself of your self-preservation and become a god; an entity that has no reason to fear isolation and death. If you do, all I will hear is the unintelligent gibber-jabber of a protozoa who thinks to highly of itself.


Look at it as loving your wife even when she has changed.

The impermanence of behavior and fluidity of surroundings doesn't have to spell the impermanence of a whole marriage. A marriage means working through the changes inherent to it.

That's all.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/23/14 , edited 2/23/14

theYchromosome wrote:

No. Well, maybe on the second one, but I'll ask this: If no conditions are required for love or marriage (that's what unconditional means, right?), do you propose marriage to everyone you meet? After all, they've met all of the conditions that are necessary for your love, and apparently your hand in marriage. I'll admit that I really enjoy a good harem, but I suspect that it's not what you're going for here. I suspect that there absolutely are conditions on love. At the very least, the object of love must exist -- and believe it or not, that is a non-trivial condition. Although I can't prove it, I have good reason to suspect that there are an infinite number of things that don't exist (although to be honest, I'm not sure what that last sentence even means, but it gets the intuition rolling). And I can certainly say that at least up to this point I have never loved, let's say, the non-existent child I had with Beyonce when I was 14. I mean, could you imagine what love would be if it were truly unconditional? We would be in love with: murder, rape, greed, envy, anger, stupidity, ignorance, racism, and evil itself. Surely, you're not okay with that, are you?

If you really are advocating unconditional love, I should then ask, why is it valuable? If you love someone regardless of who they are, were, or will be, what then are you actually loving? It's certainly not them, because who they are is independent of your love. As Scroobius Pip puts it, you're "in love with the mere idea of loving something." Why? It genuinely astounds me that someone could claim to respect, admire, or think highly of someone without knowing anything about them. Or otherwise, that having those qualities is at all remarkable. Why?
________________________________________

I'll say this straight out -- I don't have a fucking clue what love is, because I've heard it used in so many different ways that I genuinely get confused when the word is used. I do however, have a theory of relationships in general, which I suspect covers what people are referring to when they use the word love in most circumstances.

I'll start with what I think is a fairly semi-obvious assumption: Everyone has things they are good at and bad at with varying degrees of competence. Relationships occur when one or more of the involved parties believes that someone else can fill their desires better than they can. In many cases, this simply means that there is somebody there to listen to your thoughts or ideas, possibly provide feedback, but in any case, the fact that they are there may have helped you work through your thoughts better than would have been possible alone. Thus, their presence is meaningful to you -- a precursor for what I would guess is love.

Whether the friend (or significant other or whatever) becomes important to you depends upon the importance of whatever it is he provides for you. For instance, I am an appallingly terrible skateboarder, and yet I'm not friends with anyone that would be able to help me skateboard better -- I really don't give a shit about skateboarding. The same is loosely true regarding sex. I can't have sex with myself, but then again, there are things that are much more important to me. If sex were very important to me, however, then I would definitely screw around a bit more.

Here's the rub -- I think it's perfectly reasonable that I should hate bad things, and love good things. And since everyone has good and bad qualities, I love and hate everyone to varying degrees. Whether I can say that I love a given person as a whole depends upon which things are known to me about them. If the things that I love about them are more prominent than the things that I hate about them, then I can say that I love them (likewise for hate). Thus, my thoughts about a given person range from profound dissatisfaction, apathy, mild tolerance, good for some things, profound satisfaction, and everything in between. Since the things that I know about a person and, really, what I like in them, may change with time, I don't see any reason why my relationship with them shouldn't change. If my ideal circumstances involve not carrying on a particular relationship, then why would I? You say "vending machine love" like it's a bad thing, but vending machines are pretty damn convenient. If I don't have the time to pack a lunch, why not grab a soda and some chips at work? It's not the healthiest or cheapest way to go, but it lets me clear up my schedule for the things that are really important to me.
________________________________________

Side note: That theory is also why I think a lot of highly competent and highly incompetent people don't have many friends or lovers. Highly competent people are very likely to be able to provide the things that are important to them without any help. Highly incompetent people on the other hand, aren't very likely to be able provide things that are important to others. BUT THAT'S A GOOD THING. Love, anger, dissatisfaction, etc. are the means by which we improve ourselves, and any relationship that does not result in the best version of "you" is one that should be dropped.


I think you've misread the post. Unconditional love isn't required for a marriage to start (please don't treat it as an anti-romance post... Just because agape isn't eros doesn't mean eros is "bad" or something) but it is certainly required for a marriage to last.

When you enter a marriage, it's a commitment. Do not say any marriage vows unless you mean to keep it.

It's erroneous to think that you've actually "know" a person, because knowing is a continuous process and in the case of marriages, a life-long process. What happens years later when someone you "thought you knew" turns out not to conform to that image you've formed in your mind? Call it quits because "I don't know her anymore"? Of course not.

The "what's in it for me" kind of conception to relationships is what ruins marriages. You don't get an Out Card as soon as the other person "don't provide as much" or "don't provide exactly the way you want to". You need to work through your differences and effectively communicate instead of just walking out. That may not be much if we're just talking about boyfriends or girlfriends but in a marriage you have responsibilities of having a family of your own. A marriage is not just another relationship. My wife is my family, and I would provide for her even if she couldn't anymore because guess what- She's my wife!

Sorry for this bit of harshness, but it's this "vending machine" kind of self-centered irresponsible attitude that leads to many broken families. A marriage based on "convenience" is a surefire recipe for utter disaster.

42190 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/23/14
"What Love Is" - Mary J. Blige http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_h5PghS1KU

Hmm.
Beautiful, horrible, magical, terrible.
Reason to laugh and smile.
Reason to cry yourself to sleep at night.
Start a fight. Make up, break up, wrong or right.
Heaven for all this work can
equally be hell on earth.
(And no one really knows anything about it)
But everybody needs it.
We can't life without it.
And that's the way it goes.)
Darkest day, brightest night.
Just some other things you might hear if you ask what love feels like.

And it feels like joy, and it feels like pain.
And it feels like sunshine, feels like rain.
An excuse for dying, reason to live.
And if you don't know, that's what love is.
Love is.

Gentle kiss, sweet caress.
Kiss the base of your neck.
Argue until my head hurts, I can't remember what you said.
Out, screaming loud, don't know what were screaming bout.
So confused and yes its true, but if it wasn't there what would we do?

(And no one really knows anything about it)
But everybody needs it.
We can't life without it.
(And that's the way it goes.)
Darkest day, brightest night.
Just some other things you might hear if you ask what love feels like.

And it feels like joy, and it feels like pain.
And it feels like sunshine, feels like rain.
An excuse for dying, reason to live.
And if you don't know, that's what love is.
Love is.

That's love.
Anything that can bring you up or bring you down.
That's love.
Leave the sun up in your sky of the darkest clouds.
That's love. And we need it.
That's love. And we need it.
That's love.
Oh ask anybody how it feels

And it feels like joy, and it feels like pain.
And it feels like sunshine, feels like rain.
An excuse for dying, reason to live.
And if you don't know, that's what love is.
Love is.

And it feels like joy (joy), and it feels like pain (pain).
And it feels like sunshine, feels like rain.
An excuse for dying (oh), reason to live (oh).
And if you don't know, that's what love is.
Love is.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/23/14

Katalinax wrote:

"What Love Is" - Mary J. Blige http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_h5PghS1KU



That's perfectly fine in romance. Keep in mind that in a marriage, loving does not depend on your feelings because feelings come and go; You do it because that other person is now your family. Of course, it's a part of marriage to work to keep the fire alive, but the fire itself is no longer the prerequisite for love.
131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 2/23/14
The problem with this post is Love is way too general of a topic. I am going to try and explain what I think it is the best way I can, by tring to get more specific. I see a couple different types of love, they are:
Family
Friends
Spouse
Animal
Object
Action
Family:
This is the type of love that is felt between family members, and often arise from growing and learning with your other family members. This seems to mostly come the trial and tribulation of life as it comes.
Friends:
This type of love is developed about the same as family love, but often in a different environment, and can fluctuate much more than family love. It comes and goes, and some time will mature into more than friend love.
Spouse:
This love is often much more personal in terms of how you act and work, and is often infatuation or puppy love are mistaken for it's early stages. This often grows into much more and stronger feeling that, if worked though, can be he most rewarding.
Animal:
This is your love for an animal, such as a pet of specie in general.
Object:
Someone love for an object of concept, such as math, art, pizza, or in the case of most people who reading this, forum or anime
Action:
A love for something done, either you doing it or someone else doing it. This could be read or writing, or having someone buy you candy.

As you can see many of these are very different, and change a lot based on how your life goes. From their, I think people have to make their own decision on what different types of love means to them. It's just the topic of love is very general, and some parts are similar, and others aren't.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/23/14

superpie539 wrote:

The problem with this post is Love is way too general of a topic. I am going to try and explain what I think it is the best way I can, by tring to get more specific. I see a couple different types of love, they are:
Family
Friends
Spouse
Animal
Object
Action
Family:
This is the type of love that is felt between family members, and often arise from growing and learning with your other family members. This seems to mostly come the trial and tribulation of life as it comes.
Friends:
This type of love is developed about the same as family love, but often in a different environment, and can fluctuate much more than family love. It comes and goes, and some time will mature into more than friend love.
Spouse:
This love is often much more personal in terms of how you act and work, and is often infatuation or puppy love are mistaken for it's early stages. This often grows into much more and stronger feeling that, if worked though, can be he most rewarding.
Animal:
This is your love for an animal, such as a pet of specie in general.
Object:
Someone love for an object of concept, such as math, art, pizza, or in the case of most people who reading this, forum or anime
Action:
A love for something done, either you doing it or someone else doing it. This could be read or writing, or having someone buy you candy.

As you can see many of these are very different, and change a lot based on how your life goes. From their, I think people have to make their own decision on what different types of love means to them. It's just the topic of love is very general, and some parts are similar, and others aren't.


It's true that the topic is broad. I was focusing more on dating as well as marriage. Some need to know more about what to expect out of those relationships as well as what kind of responsibilities a marriage brings. A relationship, especially a marriage, needs to be handled in a responsible and mature manner lest there be broken relationships and worse, broken families.
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 2/23/14 , edited 2/23/14

nanikore2 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:



I think you've misread the post. Unconditional love isn't required for a marriage to start (please don't treat it as an anti-romance post... Just because agape isn't eros doesn't mean eros is "bad" or something) but it is certainly required for a marriage to last.

When you enter a marriage, it's a commitment. Do not say any marriage vows unless you mean to keep it.

It's erroneous to think that you've actually "know" a person, because knowing is a continuous process and in the case of marriages, a life-long process. What happens years later when someone you "thought you knew" turns out not to conform to that image you've formed in your mind? Call it quits because "I don't know her anymore"? Of course not.

The "what's in it for me" kind of conception to relationships is what ruins marriages. You don't get an Out Card as soon as the other person "don't provide as much" or "don't provide exactly the way you want to". You need to work through your differences and effectively communicate instead of just walking out. That may not be much if we're just talking about boyfriends or girlfriends but in a marriage you have responsibilities of having a family of your own. A marriage is not just another relationship. My wife is my family, and I would provide for her even if she couldn't anymore because guess what- She's my wife!

Sorry for this bit of harshness, but it's this "vending machine" kind of self-centered irresponsible attitude that leads to many broken families. A marriage based on "convenience" is a surefire recipe for utter disaster.



When you someone you thought you know turns out not to conform to that image, then you reevaluate the image. If it what remains isn't for the best, do you walk out? OF COURSE YOU DO. Why on earth wouldn't you want the best possible situation?

You've said a lot of things as though they are obviously true, without providing any basis for your reasoning:

You don't get an Out Card as soon as the other person doesn't provide as much. Why not?
You need to work through your differences and effectively communicate. And if your differences turn out to conflict with your principles?
A marriage is not just another relationship. Why?

Marriage is one of the least important contributions you could possibly make towards society. Love, on the other hand, is not. Sorry for this bit of harshness, but if marriage is the only thing maintaining your love and family structure, then your family has some major issues. Have you ever considered the possibility that people can have fulfilling families without marriage? You don't think with single parents, divorced parents, or any other combination families that don't have married couples at the head can be functional and fulfilled? On the contrary, I'd say most families of that nature turn out just as well as any other family. Of course, that's just my experience. Perhaps you've never had the pleasure of meeting a family that loves each other rather than an organizational structure.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/23/14 , edited 2/23/14

theYchromosome wrote:

When you someone you thought you know turns out not to conform to that image, then you reevaluate the image. If it what remains isn't for the best, do you walk out? OF COURSE YOU DO. Why on earth wouldn't you want the best possible situation?

You've said a lot of things as though they are obviously true, without providing any basis for your reasoning:

You don't get an Out Card as soon as the other person doesn't provide as much. Why not?
You need to work through your differences and effectively communicate. And if your differences turn out to conflict with your principles?
A marriage is not just another relationship. Why?

Marriage is one of the least important contributions you could possibly make towards society. Love, on the other hand, is not. Sorry for this bit of harshness, but if marriage is the only thing maintaining your love and family structure, then your family has some major issues. Have you ever considered the possibility that people can have fulfilling families without marriage? You don't think with single parents, divorced parents, or any other combination families that don't have married couples at the head can be functional and fulfilled? On the contrary, I'd say most families of that nature turn out just as well as any other family. Of course, that's just my experience. Perhaps you've never had the pleasure of meeting a family that loves each other rather than an organizational structure.


Did you miss the part of my post that said "People (especially younger people- This is for them) can take it or leave it"? This is not a debate here. You can leave it if you disagree.

Now, off to the 3 question marks you're having me answered:

- When does this "walking out" stop, exactly? How often do you plan on doing it, as in before something gets serious, before or after children, or what?

- Because there's something called responsibility.

- Which principle, exactly? I suddenly have the feeling you're talking about a specific situation you've been in.

- Because it involves wedding vows, unless you don't treat those as actual promises or hold any of it as sacred.

As for the rest of question marks, why go to me? Go ahead, and ask all those other families whether they just walk out as soon as things get "inconvenient". Really. Do it. See what they say.

By the way, if people take responsibility and put real work in relationships, it wouldn't come to the stage where "marriage is the only thing maintaining your love and family structure". Wife and I doing swimmingly, thanks.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/24/14


I'll answer!

wall o' text
852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 2/24/14 , edited 2/24/14


No problem. Again, Ying / Yang is again a set of observations with no real explanation. For instance, I could start asking again "why are there two parts" or "why there has to be two parts"


Yin and Yang are mutually dependent on each other, meaning one cannot exist without the other. Like how the words "long" and "short" are opposites, but when combined, they make the word "length". You cannot tell what is long, if you do not know what is short, and vice versa.
Yin and Yang are two complimentary opposites, and one cannot exist without the other. Essentially, they are the same thing.
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 2/24/14 , edited 2/24/14

nanikore2 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:



Did you miss the part of my post that said "People (especially younger people- This is for them) can take it or leave it"? This is not a debate here. You can leave it if you disagree.

Now, off to the 3 question marks you're having me answered:

- When does this "walking out" stop, exactly? How often do you plan on doing it, as in before something gets serious, before or after children, or what?

- Because there's something called responsibility.

- Which principle, exactly? I suddenly have the feeling you're talking about a specific situation you've been in.

- Because it involves wedding vows, unless you don't treat those as actual promises or hold any of it as sacred.

As for the rest of question marks, why go to me? Go ahead, and ask all those other families whether they just walk out as soon as things get "inconvenient". Really. Do it. See what they say.

By the way, if people take responsibility and put real work in relationships, it wouldn't come to the stage where "marriage is the only thing maintaining your love and family structure". Wife and I doing swimmingly, thanks.


This isn't a debate? I understand. You didn't actually make the thread to discuss people's view points, you just wanted to make sure somebody else knew yours. Fine, if you don't plan on supporting your position, then I will take your advice and ignore it. You are perfectly welcome to make as many unfounded claims as you'd like, and I will just ignore them. If, however, you'd like to tell me why you think these things, I'd be happy to discuss them. Since your responses seem to suggest that you are debating me, and since there is a possibility that you actually will support your position, I'll just continue as though this is a debate.

- I claim that people should make the best decisions possible. Thus, walking out stops whenever walking out is not the best decision possible. You have yet to show that walking out is never, or even almost never, the best case.

-I've heard of it. I've not heard why it enters into your reasoning. I would think that loving a person because of who they are would encourage them to be responsible about it. If I'm loved no matter what I do, then responsibility has no bearing on my love. Unconditional love love removes responsibility. No?

-Does it matter? Are you really convinced that there exists no principle that could possibly make divorce better than marriage? Do I really need to think of examples? Fine, I'll think of some -- Your wife kills your entire family, lies continuously, spends all of the money you were going to use for food, hates you, cooks your eggs wrong, likes the Titanic movie. Who cares? At the very basic level, the most basic principle there is, is to be the best person you can. If a marriage gets in the way of that, then why would you stay in it? Yeah, in a way, I'm talking through experience -- experience as a human being that interacts with other people. None of the above are actual situations I've been in. It doesn't mean I can't evaluate their validity.

-I do my best to not make promises that I can't keep or are useless. Marriage, in the sense that I imagine you're using it, has both of those qualities. If, rather than calling yourself "married," you decided to do exactly the same things you've been doing with your wife but drop the classification, how would your life be different?

Why go to you? Because you're the only person that knows why you think the way you do. Are you claiming that any family's responses will be indicative of yours? Can I ask myself? Because believe it or not, I have a family, and even given my thoughts on the matter, we're doing swimmingly.
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 2/24/14 , edited 2/24/14

Nobodyofimportance wrote:



I'll answer!

wall o' text


Alright, I can work with this. You've said "how do you know what's best?" Precisely. People make mistakes all the time -- particularly in their judgements about people. I think that the obvious conclusion, then, is that people shouldn't get married. This may seem strange, but I don't see the value in a promise to always love and take care of someone that you don't know. Why not form your relationship around love instead? Why not allow your judgments about a person to change as they do? All other things equal, I don't see any advantage to marriage over a relationship where two people have kids, love each other because of who they are (that is, conditionally), which in turn encourages them to be better people with the goal of encouraging love.

As for your "No Out Card" response -- I understand that and agree with you, except that I would come to the conclusion that marriage, like I've said, is not a good idea. Relationships built on love is much better -- probably.

Communication -- you've said something very important here: "you shouldn't have married in the first place." Which means that, basically, if you shouldn't be married, and you are married, then the best choice is not to be married. The most efficient means of achieving this state, then, is divorce. While I'd agree with your statement that "prevention is the best cure," I'd still say that divorce is also a perfectly reasonable cure, albeit with some usually very minor side effects.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.