Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > General Blabber
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Olly Olly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Olly is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 02:37 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
James James is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
James sucks
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 02:38 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 02:43 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Olly Olly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Olly is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 02:47 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 02:48 PM       
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Olly Olly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Olly is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 02:49 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 03:13 PM       
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
glowbelly glowbelly is offline
my baby's mama
glowbelly's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: cleveland
glowbelly is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 03:33 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
wreckreation wreckreation is offline
Member
wreckreation's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
wreckreation is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 03:35 PM       
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.
__________________
EVERYBODY WATCH SATURDAYNIGHT LIVE SATURDAY
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 03:37 PM       
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
James James is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
James sucks
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 03:43 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Royal Tenenbaum Royal Tenenbaum is offline
Senior Member
Royal Tenenbaum's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Winterpeg
Royal Tenenbaum is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 05:33 PM       
"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.
__________________
"Well, I hear that Laurel Canyon is full of famous stars, But I hate them worse than lepers and I'll kill them in their cars."
Reply With Quote
  #88  
wreckreation wreckreation is offline
Member
wreckreation's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
wreckreation is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 07:27 PM       
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.
__________________
EVERYBODY WATCH SATURDAYNIGHT LIVE SATURDAY
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 10:11 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Feb 22nd, 2003, 11:14 AM       
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.
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #91  
george george is offline
i will let you down
george's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: MARYLAND
george is probably pretty okgeorge is probably pretty okgeorge is probably pretty ok
Old Feb 24th, 2003, 03:15 PM       
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.
__________________
tax collectors, fishermen and whores, baby.
i am super humble, and better than bacon
doctorboogie fanclub member #1
@jorgedomingo on twitter.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:44 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.