| Feb 24th, 2003 03:15 PM |
| george |
hmm.
i have known my wife for a very long time. she was actually the first girl i kissed. we were seperated for a few years. the first time i saw her again after our seperation, i did not recognize her, but in those first few seconds i fell in love with her. i could almost hear the universe click.
when each of my children were born, the first moment that i saw each of them i loved them more than i can ever describe.
in each case i KNEW that my life would not be complete without them in it. in each case i felt a level of emotion that went far beyond anything that i ever imagined existed, and could not/can not imagine living without them.
i have had ups and downs with Nancy, but i have never not loved her. there are parts of relationships that get tricky and hard, and it is not always easy to stay together. but even if life had driven us apart (and i speak from experience on this) there is nothing that would make me not love her. she is a part of me as a person, and has been since a sunny july day in 1988.
i believe in love at first site. i believe that love is a very powerful emotion. maybe it does not happen for everyone. i can see where wreck is coming from, and i think you can live just fine without it and be happy. maybe even happier than someone who does have it.
but no argument you make can prove that is anything less real than concrete. i have seen it for myself. maybe i am the exception. but i doubt it.
|
| Feb 22nd, 2003 11:14 AM |
| Protoclown |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
Proto, excuse me from taking this a bit too far. I won't tell you how to live your life, but consider this hypothetically. Besides the wanting to be happy, wouldn't you say man has an inner drive towards understanding and progress? Maybe that drive could be more than instinctual?
|
Yes, I would, Helm, and I do appreciate that quality about humanity a great deal. I just think personally that sometimes people try to take their understanding a bit too far, for my taste anyway. But that's because I like mysteries. The REASON ghosts fascinate me so much is BECAUSE we don't know much about them. I love the speculation, the theories, the imagination, and wonder that well up within me when I think of them. I'm a real sucker for anything paranormal or unexplained, it's that kind of thing that exercises MY mind more than any scientific evidence explaining how something works in minute detail. But that's just MY personal preference, I'm not saying that humanity should ignore the quest for truth. Scientists should certainly continue to try to explain things such as the "ghost phenomenon", it's just that their eventual revelation of truth won't interest me (and in fact will disappoint me) when they do.
Possibilities excite me a great deal more than nailed down, definite terms. But to each their own. I did not mean to criticize, I just wanted to point out how different we are in how we view the world. I think that's interesting, and your point of view often gets me thinking of things I never would have bothered to explore on my own.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
Have you ever considered the possibility that being -or wanting to be- happy could just be a failsafe, a custom built faux-purpose we're all given so we don't feel completely defenseless against the awesome dread that is to think that there is no reason to exist, and we must invent one? Wouldn't you like to know? Once you realise that this question MUST be answered before you can stand on your two feet and be more than a dog or a turtle that lives on instinctual desire, to be Man, there is no way to ignore it any more. One must invent his pupose, and no failsafe happiness will keep him content for much until he faces that truth. This isn't classifying, and cataloguing. This is killing the gods that you are given in fright, in favour of erecting a symbol of belief in your own self.
|
I actually agree with this, Helm, and I have explored this quite a bit over the years, in philosophy classes and in my own personal ventures, to the point that I'm satisfied. I have reached conclusions that make sense to me, and that's really all I was looking for.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
Ghosts, Love, Gods or the tooth fairy and whatever else momentarily distracts you from this purpose will not last long when you've come to terms with your inner ambition. There's more than being happy in life, I think.
|
I certainly won't dispute that. But I think being happy certainly makes the trip easier. That doesn't mean that I AM happy, but I'm not entirely disatisfied with my existence either. Happiness is but one of many pursuits that often embroils mankind.
Chojin, I like your take on this whole "love" thing.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 10:11 PM |
| Anonymous |
My definition of love isn't cosmic osmo or a fantastical state of mind and being that teleports your consciousness into a field of roses and rainbows, it's simply knowing that regardless of what's said and done, you'll still deeply care for the person and put their welfare at least slightly before yours.
I don't split up love into categories, I simply have one definition.
And by that definition, I love four people right now.
Same principle applies to sex - as long as you don't expect it to be an earth-shattering experience and the very definition of your gender, it's great.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 07:27 PM |
| wreckreation |
You say that now because you have to believe that. If you didn't your relationship would be pointless. I can speak from a much more objective stanse. Love is just this state of mind you convince yourself you are in, it's like a hypocondriac thinking he/she is sick. When( and if  ) you break up you will look back and see how altered your perceptions get. Breaking up isn't "having something and then losing it", it's waking up and changing your mind. It's all just a decision. I don't attach any significant existence to someone simply thinking differently. Call it brainwashing, or opinion or whatever, but it's not fucking magical romantic goal in life love.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 05:33 PM |
| Royal Tenenbaum |
"lol. been there, done that. It'll be amusing when you break up with your g/f. Or do you really think you're gonna spend the rest of your life with her?"
I just might. The point isn't whether or not love hurts when you break up with someone; you can have something and lose it. It's that you claim loves doesn't exist... ever. It does.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 03:43 PM |
| James |
I'm gonna contradict myself here. I apologize for my statements on death. I am a big fan of mythology and the unexplained, and that includes ghosts. So I do believe that there is something to our deaths besides worm food. I was caught up in my distaste of all these hippies talking about love being so great and cool, and real.
But I do not retract any statement made about love.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 03:37 PM |
| Helm |
Quote:
I can't stand the way you try to dissect and classify everything, Helm. It drives me nuts. Don't get me wrong, I've always liked you, I just don't see how you can live like that.
I like believing in things that cannot be seen or proven. I like mysteries, and the unexplained. For example, I believe in ghosts, I am fascinated by them. I would never want them scientifically explained or debunked. What fun would life be then?
For me, these "fairy tales" are what make life interesting.
|
Proto, excuse me from taking this a bit too far. I won't tell you how to live your life, but consider this hypothetically. Besides the wanting to be happy, wouldn't you say man has an inner drive towards understanding and progress? Maybe that drive could be more than instinctual? Have you ever considered the possibility that being -or wanting to be- happy could just be a failsafe, a custom built faux-purpose we're all given so we don't feel completely defenseless against the awesome dread that is to think that there is no reason to exist, and we must invent one? Wouldn't you like to know? Once you realise that this question MUST be answered before you can stand on your two feet and be more than a dog or a turtle that lives on instinctual desire, to be Man, there is no way to ignore it any more. One must invent his pupose, and no failsafe happiness will keep him content for much until he faces that truth. This isn't classifying, and cataloguing. This is killing the gods that you are given in fright, in favour of erecting a symbol of belief in your own self.
Ghosts, Love, Gods or the tooth fairy and whatever else momentarily distracts you from this purpose will not last long when you've come to terms with your inner ambition. There's more than being happy in life, I think.
Sorry for being all art faggoty.
Quote:
|
I HAVE BEEN IN LOVE. IT EXISTS FOR ME. IT IS NOT A FIGMENT OF MY IMAGINATION, OR A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. IT IS PURE AND IT IS THE BEST FEELING IN THE WHOLE WORLD. IT IS MINE AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FROM ME NO MATTER WHAT YOU TRY TO SAY OR DO.
|
Are you saying that to me, or to yourself? Why do you feel the urge to shout that out?
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 03:35 PM |
| wreckreation |
sorry to drag this back up:
"Jamesman & Wreck, you'll never find love, kill yourselves."
lol. been there, done that. It'll be amusing when you break up with your g/f. Or do you really think you're gonna spend the rest of your life with her?
Statements like:
"you'll never find love, kill yourselves"
crack me the fuck up. Totally implying that love is the goal of life, and if you can't attain it, life is pointless. That sounds so goddamn pathetic and co-dependent. I don't want love, not anymore. I'm happier without it. It's not my goal in life. If you think this sounds jaded and pathetic, you should figure out why you think love is the goal in life.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 03:33 PM |
| glowbelly |
i love my ex. just because he broke up with me doesn't mean i hate him. i'll never hate him. i've loved him forever and i will continue to do so. he knows that too...and i'm pretty positive that he feels the same way about me (and even if he didn't, it wouldn't change my feelings for him).
you can all dissect this conversation all you want. you can point your big words at my small ideas and tell me how wrong i am, but nothing is going to change this fact:
I HAVE BEEN IN LOVE. IT EXISTS FOR ME. IT IS NOT A FIGMENT OF MY IMAGINATION, OR A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. IT IS PURE AND IT IS THE BEST FEELING IN THE WHOLE WORLD. IT IS MINE AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FROM ME NO MATTER WHAT YOU TRY TO SAY OR DO.
so, nyah.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 03:13 PM |
| Helm |
Quote:
|
You're suggesting that a human being, at any given moment in time, could be in one of 3 states, emotional, reactionary, or logical?
|
Excuse my bad english. Not my first language, and that doesn't help the situation. To answer, I believe that man is at all three at all times. A man feels foremost, then a man relates that feeling with the outside world, and lastly a man applies reason on both the feeling and the application of it on the world. A definition of love cannot be complete without an assessment of how said love operates withing a social enviroment. It is there where I have my objections. I do not argue wether a man feels the feeling, that's silly. I disagree on how man relates and rationalises the feeling. I think love to be a manifestation of mating instinct foremost, lust, so to speak, but amplified by the social urge man has. As Aristotle said, man is a communal animal, a political animal a logical animal, and finally, an ethical animal (Plato on Protagoras makes such a case as well). It is there where I base my belief that whereas with just lust man satisfies one instinct, with 'love' he/she stands to satisfy the communal instinct as well, and that automatically make the sensory feedback more poweful(as with any satisfaction of an atavistic tendency) , hence the bigger reactionary value we place on love over lust. It's in the [ethical] rationalisation of this sensory feedback where I strongly dissagree with the common way of thinking. People like to attribute those strong feeling to some mystical value 'true love' holds, which as I've stated twice over, I find socially retarded.
Quote:
|
Also, for the state of logic, how can you define that? What are your requirements to confirm the logical state of love given a proper rationalization of the emotion?
|
Man inherently rationalises, because reason remains his stronger asset for survival. A logical interpretation of emotion is only natural, especially in a logical enviorment such as a community. I have a feeling this doesn't answer your question, though. It is, maybe because I do not fully understand the question.
Quote:
|
I *think* you're suggesting that Love should be considered as more than an emotive quality, that is somehow transcends feeling and can be quantified in someway.
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
If that's the case, I'd have to disagree. Because of the nature of thought, we have no way to really quanitfy how someone feels EXCEPT relative to the person in question. We can make relativistic claims, but there is no absolute measurement standard.
|
I didn't call for any absolute measurement.
Quote:
|
However, I did not major in Psychology. If that's your field, please let me know if there is in fact a unit of measurement. I would be very interested in knowing how this kind of procedure could be done.
|
That is not my field.
Quote:
|
I see we may be working with 2 different definitions of "Love". I don't think that Love requires a higher ethical understanding or belief, but I see that your definition of love requires something that transcends human nature.
|
No such thing. I am saying that 'love' requires besides the instinctual urge to mate, some intellectual stimuli that are found in people with which we can communicate on a satisfactory level. The quenching of two insticts thus, that of the mating and that of communication, produces an amplified result of mixed respect, admiration, adoration, protective tendencies and hormonal outletting, which we have dubbed love. Now, people, in their rationalising, want to believe that this amplified feeling produced surely must have some mystical founding. THAT is what I'm criticising.
Quote:
|
I don't know that humans *can* do something that transcends their nature, because then it would become part of their nature by the fact that they *could* do it.
|
Astute. That is how Gods are also disproved. Not relevant to the discussion, however.
Quote:
|
I would like to say, however, that I really like the way you think Helm, and the way you debate. It's very well thought out and thought provoking.
|
Thanks.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 02:49 PM |
| Olly |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
Again, I make my position clear: I do not say Love does not exist. I said we attribute to the sum of the feelings we claim to be Love, too many things, without as much founding, and because of questionable reasons.
|
OK, see, I didn't see that you were saying that love *does* exist. I missed that in your post. I thought you were arguing against the existence of love.
Actually, given your above definition, I'm inclined to agree that people use the word "Love" too loosely, to tie together too many different emotions.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 02:48 PM |
| Helm |
Quote:
|
Helm, I'll check my books on Ancient Greek, which I understood to be different from modern day Greek, but if you're right, then I apologize.
|
Yeah, they are different in how olde english is different from American. Beowulf to say, from Seinfield or what you call it. But I said I know my ancient greek very well, because I've always been fascinated with the subject of language and how nececity is expressed through it, and I persued this in school.
Quote:
|
emotion, that proves that the CONCEPT of this emotion exists.
|
Nobody tried to say the concept of love doesn't exist (or if they did, they're silly and I'm not defending them). What I am saying, is that said concept is flawed, unfounded, and prepertuates social issues that need to be resolved. Sure, people mean about the same when they say love, but that doesn't nec. mean that what they mean actually translates into reality. Not by a longshot.
Quote:
|
The fact that we are having this discussion at all proves that the Concept of love exists.
|
As in the concept of god? Sigh. It's a good analogy. Sure, the concept of *anything* exists, to try a CLAspinster defence, but what does that tell us? Nothing terribly important, besides the fact that said concept is needed, and that it serves a social purpose!
Quote:
|
The fact that words were needed to express the feeling is validation that a feeling existed that necessitated the creation of a word.
|
Ridiculous? Read my statement again. Last line. I never said "blah blah blah makes any of them more or less existant", I said 'makes any of them more or less right". I was making an ethical argument, not an existential one. And as such you should approach it. Anything exists as a notion. It's whether it's a socially positive notion that's on question now. Again, I make my position clear: I do not say Love does not exist. I said we attribute to the sum of the feelings we claim to be Love, too many things, without as much founding, and because of questionable reasons. I do not deny the existence of the chemicals in your brain that make you want to stick your penis in orfices, or your social need for communication and mutual respect, or what you deem as Love. I question what you, or any other uses the social construction that is the notion of Love for though.
Quote:
|
Language did not happen by accident. Words aren't just "found". Meaning isn't assigned randomly. People expressly assign meaning to particular words and phrases, allowing communication.
|
Yeah. Language operates on necessity. Where did I give you the impression that I supported the theory that words just pop up?
Quote:
Like I said, I'll check on that translation, and if you're right, there are a lot of professors here at VA Tech that will be surprised.
And if you're offended that I chose Greek for my analogy, will, I could just as easily choose Hebrew or Latin if you like.
|
That claim of 172342435 words for love is just more pop guess what? unfounded trivia that people like to throw at each other at parties. Ask around. And I wasn't offended at all, especially after your astute debunking of the 'greeks are homosexuals so whatever they did must have been about homo lovin' sillyness. You seem to have a grasp of the historic truth, it's just what you said was more than what you could back up on that case. I'm not out to play greek vigilante or anything.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 02:47 PM |
| Olly |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
...
I cannot accept those feelings to be called Love though, even if they are said to be elements that make said emotion what it is, because Love is also something else besides an osmosis of those positive emotions; It is also a demand to some higher ethical reasoning that wants us to achieve some sort of 'completation' in finding a 'rightful soulmate'. That's, for me, completely unfounded and naive. It requires faith in some omnipresent objective definition of what's 'good' and what's 'bad', that also dictates which person is 'ment for you' that is simply unreasonable.
|
I see we may be working with 2 different definitions of "Love". I don't think that Love requires a higher ethical understanding or belief, but I see that your definition of love requires something that transcends human nature.
I don't know that humans *can* do something that transcends their nature, because then it would become part of their nature by the fact that they *could* do it.
I would like to say, however, that I really like the way you think Helm, and the way you debate. It's very well thought out and thought provoking. 
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 02:43 PM |
| CaptainBubba |
Proto: The fact that you refer to them as fairy tales seems to suggest that you acknowledge their lack of scientific founding.
Theres nothing wrong with it, but are you positive that you actually believe in things like love? Or is it just that you want to so badly that you perpetually tell youself that they must exist.
I for one don't know what the hell "love" is. I do know that there are some people I would not enjoy life without however. If that is love then it at least exists to me, be it an allaborate illusion I've fabricated for myself, or a natural emotion.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 02:38 PM |
| James |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Protoclown
And I seem to remember, Jamesman, that just recently you posted a sad little sob story about how you cared about this one girl and got her all these gifts for Valentine's Day one year, but then she turned you down. Why would you have done all that, or told us about it, if you didn't believe in love? You were looking for pity and understanding in that thread, you weren't trying to say "HA HA, LOOK WHAT A YOUNG AND BRASH FOOL I WAS A YEAR AGO!"
|
Funny, I seem to recall that being the "FUCK VALENTINE'S DAY" thread I started, where we ALL were supposed to share are VD misadventures. I was merely getting the ball rolling. Believe me, I don't want pity over wasting 50 bucks on a girl who I was stupid enough to think she was worth spending it on.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 02:37 PM |
| Olly |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
That'd be all nice and jolly if love was just that, an emotional state. It's not. It's also a reactionary state, and a logical state. Reactionary in how a person in love chooses, given his attributed love, to react to social stimuli, and logical in how a person chooses to rationalise this emotion. The latter two attributes are in question, not the feeling of lust or that of adoration.
|
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.
You're suggesting that a human being, at any given moment in time, could be in one of 3 states, emotional, reactionary, or logical?
A Reactionary state, from what I've read of your post, seems largely dependent on the emotional and logical state of the human in question. Because of the emotional and logical coniditon of the person, they may be expected to react in a specific number of ways in a given set of social stimuli. Is that what you're saying?
Also, for the state of logic, how can you define that? What are your requirements to confirm the logical state of love given a proper rationalization of the emotion?
I *think* you're suggesting that Love should be considered as more than an emotive quality, that is somehow transcends feeling and can be quantified in someway.
If that's the case, I'd have to disagree. Because of the nature of thought, we have no way to really quanitfy how someone feels EXCEPT relative to the person in question. We can make relativistic claims, but there is no absolute measurement standard.
However, I did not major in Psychology. If that's your field, please let me know if there is in fact a unit of measurement. I would be very interested in knowing how this kind of procedure could be done.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 02:27 PM |
| Protoclown |
I can't stand the way you try to dissect and classify everything, Helm. It drives me nuts. Don't get me wrong, I've always liked you, I just don't see how you can live like that.
I like believing in things that cannot be seen or proven. I like mysteries, and the unexplained. For example, I believe in ghosts, I am fascinated by them. I would never want them scientifically explained or debunked. What fun would life be then?
For me, these "fairy tales" are what make life interesting.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 02:24 PM |
| Olly |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helm
I'm greek, and I know my ancient greek very well, and there are no 17 words for Love. There are words for feelings, and for shades of them, like lust, awe, respect, liking but to say that 3 words expressing 3 degrees of lust are just another 3 words for love is silly. Check your info before making such strong claims.
|
Helm, I'll check my books on Ancient Greek, which I understood to be different from modern day Greek, but if you're right, then I apologize.
However, my argument still stands. Even if there is only one word for love, I can supply you the word for love in a dozen languages. Easily more than that if I really dig deep.
The point is that if so many people felt strongly enough that this EMOTION existed that they created a word to express that emotion, that proves that the CONCEPT of this emotion exists.
The fact that we are having this discussion at all proves that the Concept of love exists.
Quote:
And to answer your initial question, yes, just because my ancestors had many different words for a thing, that doesn't absolutely mean that thing was as valid as you'd like to think. Linguistics are governed by the rule of necessity, not by that of validity. The greeks were in a position to socialise a lot on the agora while the slaves laboured for them, so it's only natural that language would have evolved so as to include slight deviations from strong social terms such as love, so as people would communicate their thoughts better. They also had so many words for different ideals, and shades of them, that doesn't make any of them inherently more or less right.
Your argument is unfounded.
|
That's kind of a ridiculous statment you just made, Helm. No offense, but from what you've said, my argument is validated.
This whole argument is to ask whether love exists. Love can only exist as an emotion and concept. It is not a physical presence. It's conceptual in nature. It's expressive of a feeling.
The fact that words were needed to express the feeling is validation that a feeling existed that necessitated the creation of a word.
Language did not happen by accident. Words aren't just "found". Meaning isn't assigned randomly. People expressly assign meaning to particular words and phrases, allowing communication.
Like I said, I'll check on that translation, and if you're right, there are a lot of professors here at VA Tech that will be surprised.
And if you're offended that I chose Greek for my analogy, well, I could just as easily choose Hebrew or Latin if you like.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 02:18 PM |
| Helm |
Quote:
|
You can't disprove an emotion. You'd have to have the ability to experience everything every sentient being has ever felt since the beginning of time to confirm or deny the existence of love.
|
That'd be all nice and jolly if love was just that, an emotional state. It's not. It's also a reactionary state, and a logical state. Reactionary in how a person in love chooses, given his attributed love, to react to social stimuli, and logical in how a person chooses to rationalise this emotion. The latter two attributes are in question, not the feeling of lust or that of adoration.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 02:13 PM |
| Helm |
Couldn't fucking help it. It's hard to not comment on stuff like this.
Quote:
you people are always focusing on the bad side of stuff.
no wonder your lives suck.
|
I was thinking of replying to this in some sarcastic all-caps way like "WOW! GLOWBELLY'S GOT IT ALL FIGURED OUT! IT'S SO SIMPLE!!11!1!" but for the sake of the discussion, I'll refrain from that.
You make the mistake of assuming too much, and generalising much too much. But even if you're right, and seeing too much into things does stand to make your life bleak, or bleaker, there's a very important goal to be had, and that's awareness. Happiness, when based on uncertainty and occasional wellbeing doesn't last long anyway. It's momentarily euphoria. Not the most solid of foundations. If by being 'optimistic', by disregarding that terrible uncertainty that tells you that everything you believe in might be a social construction made so you can feel at ease, you're achieving that euphoria, I say the tradeoff isn't a good one, but hey, if you differ, more power to you.
But there are others that are willing to be a little more uncertain, risk a little more unease and maybe arrive at conclusions - no matter how stark- that are conclusions nevertheless. Those people shouldn't be treated with that generalising triviality that you have shown. Not everyone that claims that love is a social construction is a teenage goth (Also to you, Protoclown), and not everyone that desires knowledge over happiness is a depraved misery-craving pessimist.
I've thought I was in love in the past, and whereas I'm reluctant to degrade the feeling of that memory for selfish reasons, I must say I can see where those feelings stemmed from. There's no mystical unfathomable magic dust there, as I see it now. There's mainly lust, followed by respect, caring and a need for communication of a deeper level(hopefully). I cannot accept those feelings to be called Love though, even if they are said to be elements that make said emotion what it is, because Love is also something else besides an osmosis of those positive emotions; It is also a demand to some higher ethical reasoning that wants us to achieve some sort of 'completation' in finding a 'rightful soulmate'. That's, for me, completely unfounded and naive. It requires faith in some omnipresent objective definition of what's 'good' and what's 'bad', that also dictates which person is 'ment for you' that is simply unreasonable.
What I see, are people struggling to believe that they're special, and in doing that, shifting the burden of proof of that claim to the incomprehensible magic dust that is Love. That's bullshit. There's nothing so special in wanting to mate, and there's nothing special in wanting an understanding partner in that. There needs to be a demystification of that awesomenes that's supposedly Love, down to the bare level of atavistic tendencies. Why? Because this perpetuated lie about Love is hurting us more than helping us. It confuses people in it's absurdity, it dissapoints them, in it's unnatainable-ness (good god, there's no such word). It's much simpler, not to mention more logical to call for natural urges to mate when explaining the behaviour of the sexes, and also the communal urge to communicate and understand, when explaining the dialectic aspect of attraction, rather than to speak of hazy absurd terms like 'true love of one's life' and other fairytales.
So, I've arrived to the conclusion that Love is not only a notion, it's also an excuse. And there's no need for excuses. We already have enough problems with social interaction as it is. The process of mating should be made -not simpler- more honest.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 02:12 PM |
| Olly |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wreckreation
If [love] existed for real it shouldn't fucking matter who believes in it or not. ... Too many people equate love with happiness and can't possibly imagine people being truly happy without love.
|
Actually, I agree with you.
I know love exists, as far as I'm concerned, and I feel I can verify that through the feelings/emotions I have for my wife.
But here's the thing. You guys are trying to prove/disprove whether or not an EMOTION exists.
Seriously. Think about that for a second. How can you prove or disprove the existence of an emotion?
I can say that pain doesn't exist. I can say that and back it up with proof. There are people born every day with a condition that leaves their nerve receptors unable to transmit tactile sensory experiences.
These people usually die early in life because they'll accidentally cut themselves and not realize it. This isn't science fiction, but documented Medical fact. For these people, there is no such thing as pain.
But, if you've experienced pain, then of course you'd be like "Bullshit, there is such a thing as pain" blah blah blah.
Truth is, you can't say love doesn't exist. You can say you don't KNOW love, haven't experienced it, haven't really seen it as far as you're concerned, but that's as far as you can run with it.
You can't disprove an emotion. You'd have to have the ability to experience everything every sentient being has ever felt since the beginning of time to confirm or deny the existence of love.
Now, if you can do that, not only will I believe you, but I'll be impressed.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 01:39 PM |
| Helm |
I'll avoid all the bullshit that's been posted on this topic, just to say that
Quote:
The ancient Greeks had 17 different words for "Love". Each has a slightly different literal translation for the "type" of love they express.
I don't think they'd make up 17 words for something that doesn't exist.
|
I'm greek, and I know my ancient greek very well, and there are no 17 words for Love. There are words for feelings, and for shades of them, like lust, awe, respect, liking but to say that 3 words expressing 3 degrees of lust are just another 3 words for love is silly. Check your info before making such strong claims.
And to answer your initial question, yes, just because my ancestors had many different words for a thing, that doesn't absolutely mean that thing was as valid as you'd like to think. Linguistics are governed by the rule of necessity, not by that of validity. The greeks were in a position to socialise a lot on the agora while the slaves laboured for them, so it's only natural that language would have evolved so as to include slight deviations from strong social terms such as love, so as people would communicate their thoughts better. They also had so many words for different ideals, and shades of them, that doesn't make any of them inherently more or less right.
Your argument is unfounded.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 01:25 PM |
| CaptainBubba |
The problem is that once it occurs to you how unfounded and unsupported the idea of an afterlife is, it becomes practically impossible to force yourself into accepting religion. I would LOVE to believe that after life there is more. I would do anything to think that.
For example: If I was more happy believing that there was a unicorn in my refrigerator, could that desire alone truly make me BELIEVE it? No. I could claim to, but in my mind I'd know there is practically no chance of there being a unicorn in my fridge.
I'm seriously considering voluntary brainwashing. I'd rather live misguided and content that in fear of the gruesome truth.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 12:55 PM |
| Protoclown |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jamesman
Proto, you don't know shit.
|
I acknowledge that I have room to grow and that there is much I have to learn. Do you?
And I seem to remember, Jamesman, that just recently you posted a sad little sob story about how you cared about this one girl and got her all these gifts for Valentine's Day one year, but then she turned you down. Why would you have done all that, or told us about it, if you didn't believe in love? You were looking for pity and understanding in that thread, you weren't trying to say "HA HA, LOOK WHAT A YOUNG AND BRASH FOOL I WAS A YEAR AGO!"
No, you're not bitter at ALL. 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jamesman
Bubba, when it comes to accepting the fact that my existence will simply "blank out" when I die, I don't. I try not to think about it, because death terrifies me. I've gone many a time sleepless and starving, because I can't stop thinking about it. So I just try to jerk off or punch myself in the face to make me think of something else.
|
I'm not exactly wild about the idea of dying, but I don't fear death like this. Gee, maybe that's because I actually believe in an afterlife. Even if I'm wrong, I'll gladly go through life clinging to hopes that may be false rather than live in perpetual crippling fear.
I'd rather be an idiot who believes in something than a skeptic who believes in nothing.
|
| Feb 21st, 2003 12:43 PM |
| Royal Tenenbaum |
Jamesman & Wreck, you'll never find love, kill yourselves.
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
