Member Rara Avis
I used them to imply absolute being which exists beyond time and all intellectual apprehensions.
Mmm, I was afraid it was something like that. Please, I don't mean to be impertinent, but how can any human being hope to discuss something that is, by definition, beyond time and all intellectual apprehension? I really do think I know what you mean, Paul. I just don't agree the concepts are necessarily beyond comprehension.
… an almost Idealism versus Materialism thing going.
Was I arguing materialism? Certainly, I was using a materialistic analogy, but I'm not sure "basic human need" falls under the materialism umbrella. Then again, perhaps so. I'll definitely have to give this one more thought. But I suspect I would still have to stand by my contention that acceptance is a basic human need, just as is physical sustenance.
One of the things that interests me is how philosophy and philosophers may or may not have any value to the everyday lives of most people.
One point for philosophy, zero for philosophers. I think people roll their eyes for the same reason many don't read poetry (I haven't gotten to that thread yet ) - 'cause there are far too many really poor teachers in our education system. Brad, you suggested in that other thread that perhaps educators make poetry seem too hard? How about boring! I know, in my case, it wasn't until 9th grade I found a teacher that allowed me to appreciate Shakespeare (I have since realized that you read Shakespeare to study it, but you listen to Shakespeare to enjoy it). Philosophers, I think, have suffered much the same fate at the hands of our education system. Boring!
But I gave the one point to philosophy because, yea, I do think it has value to the everyday lives of most people. The difference is, I suspect they're primarily interested in their philosophy. And I think that's okay, because a personal philosophy (like a personal goal) is without meaning until it can be articulated.
Would the world be any different if Absolute Love were a non-existent (Idea) -- have I bothered Ron yet - but there was still this thing we call love between human beings?? If we can't explain it, do we need it?
Not bothered yet.
I do think, though, that we need to at least try to explain love, and try to understand it. Have you read my poem "How Long?" Brad, questioning how long it takes to fall in love? Intrinsic to that question, and the impetus for writing it, is the question of whether "love at first sight" can exist or, perhaps closer to home, "love at first site" (Internet love). I don't pretend to know the answers, but I do know that many, many other things masquerade as love, from lust to loneliness to mutual need, and until we can with some surety say what love is we'll never be able to say what it isn't. And I think anyone who has ever experienced a broken heart would sure like the answer to the latter!
Okay, enough with the quotes. Now it's my turn with a question. I also have a poem called "True Love Is Not A Common Thing," which pretty much gives away the theme. But I do believe True Love exists, albeit rarely. So here's the question: if there is an Absolute Love, and if there is such a thing as True Love, what if any difference exists between the two?