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.
Linear Mode
