»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
True Love....Does It exist?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
True Love....Does It exist? |
|
Jeffrey Carter
since 2000-04-08
Posts 2367State of constant confusion! 
|
Ok, Here's the question. Does true love really exist and if it does, should a person whom finds it rush full speed ahead no matter the circumstances to be with that true love? |
||
| © Copyright 2000 Jeffrey D. Carter - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
How do you know it's true love and not just true lust? What is love? |
||
|
ashley cain Junior Member
since 2000-05-12
Posts 30Texas |
I agree. Does true love exist at all? Or is it just some fairy tale made up along time ago? Just look at teenage girls today, they sit around and act out soap operas in their schools. It probably comes back from toddlers years when the little girl played the role of Cinderella, Snow White, or Sleeping Beauty. Dreaming of finding a "handsome prince" who would carry them away on a big white horse. Just look at it, the male character has to be of high stature, AND handsome. There is no love in any of that. Maybe, love is just a figment of our imagination. It's there for a little while, then dissapears. It comes and goes like the wind. There are sometimes when I believe in love, but something happens and I become a Doubting Thomas. |
||
|
Martini Member
since 2000-07-11
Posts 308Toronto, Ontario, Canada |
everyday I ask my self that very question.... If true love does exist, why doesn't everyone experience it? And when do you know iit's true love? How do you know it's true love? I would love to believe that it does exisit, that everyone has a soul mate, and they are destined to find that person, but where's the proof? |
||
|
Jeffrey Carter
since 2000-04-08
Posts 2367State of constant confusion! |
Ok, I have to agree with Sharon on this one, but I also Want to say That I do believe true love really exist. Sometimes we just find it too late in life. When you do find true love you know it. I can't say how, but you know it. |
||
|
DMP Junior Member
since 2000-07-17
Posts 13Oly, WA, the states |
blank. [This message has been edited by DMP (edited 07-20-2000).] |
||
|
Jeffrey Carter
since 2000-04-08
Posts 2367State of constant confusion! |
DMP, That was my point exactly  Noe, the question of love at first sight is a question of debate. Sorry, but this is just my opinion. I suppose in order to be believe in love at first sightyou would also have to believe in clairvoyance to a certain extent. And not all people do. Anyone who has ever met someone and felt in their heart that they have known this person all their life would agree I think. But also, one could argue the point of re-incarnation, for example, the reason you fell that you have known this person all your life is because you knew this person in another life. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that this is my belief, but who's to say that it's wrong? Where's the proof that it's wrong? Anyway, thank you all for participating in this. I appreciate it |
||
|
DMP Junior Member
since 2000-07-17
Posts 13Oly, WA, the states |
blah [This message has been edited by DMP (edited 07-20-2000).] |
||
|
brownfox New Member
since 2000-07-18
Posts 3CA |
yes, true love exists - on the definition that true love is tried / tested, and proved. True love is not at first sight, that is lust. Although you can end up loving someone you initially lusted. Love grows, it doesn't just drop in one day. Yes, if you find your true love, chase him / her down. We are only given one life on this earth, and we never know when it will end. Don't be left with regrets, like i was when my true love died this summer. |
||
|
Jeffrey Carter
since 2000-04-08
Posts 2367State of constant confusion! |
Ok, I can see your point, but I still believe that when one finds true love one knows it. I'm not saying love at first sight. Never did What my original question had to deal with was this.Say two people meet on the net, just an example here, and they chat for three or four months. During which time they fall in love. The question is could this be true love? Even though they have only seen pictures of each other? I, for one, am inclined to believe that it could be. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Asking if true love exists is tantamount to asking if true life lives or true faith believes. Love exists, however you wish to define it, and all love is true. What you are really asking, of course, is whether lasting love exists or, more poetically, eternal love. Rephrasing the question obviously makes any test of time a circular definition and an invalid answer. Does love - whether discovered at first sight, built upon years of friendship, or found over the Internet - really last forever? In my opinion (and experience), the answer is a resounding no! The person you are today is not the person you were yesterday, and the person you will be next year is only a pale imitation of who you are right now. People change. If the love two people feel doesn't change to match pace with the individuals, a relationship dies. One of the reasons, I think, that young marriages are more likely to end in divorce is because young people inevitably go through more changes than do the more mature. The young grow more quickly, more dramatically, often in very different directions. Love can't keep up. Lasting love connotes unchanging love, and therein lies the death knell to any relationship. The only lasting love is the changing love, the love that renews itself daily. How you met or what the relationship was based upon matters only in the sense that perceived change is as important as real change (and the better you know someone, the few surprises will later surface). The only important questions is whether the you of tomorrow will fall in love again. And that, I think, is a gamble everyone faces equally. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
Yes a subject to spend some energy deciphering... Firstly this is PdV asks what is love: To me, Love, felt between two souls/hearts/individuals, is a result of a relationship that evolves around sharing of common ground. By common ground, I might mean any significant facet of human nature like trust, money, affection, lust, in short physical, realistic, natural, surreal, mythical or mystical needs... Now given to understand this their is nothing called true and false love, because truth and falsehood are relative to perceptions of an individual. Love is but a commong feeling. But like Ron says here if the question is pointing at the lasting factor of love, it is a different issue. A relation cannot be made to last longer... it simply has to sustain itself, and live its own life. People who marry in traditionally arranged marriages find out that once married for a couple of years (and not finding anything oppressive to stop being that way) start falling in love with one another... in fact sharing the common ground of family sustains the relation forced maybe by society and its norms at the start, but developing into a bonding later on. Anyway the point I am making is truth and false cannot be attributed to love, because only one form can exist (read true love), their is no love in falsehood, is there? This is not playing with words here. As far as love in first sight goes, thats even a father distant point. An important direction to think might be how does love come to stay... in other words, how are people attracted, and how is the common ground achieved? One way is the result of sharing a family out of a traditional arranged marriage... others.. dates, proms, who know how many... maybe millions of ways... I bet we all can find one thing common in all the ways. Impressionalism. One party tries to impress the other by gifts, looks, kindness, behaviour... etc to convince or atleast form a cloud that he or she is a good choice. A bad instance would be romeos fighting on the street to woo the Juliet of either heart... (often interpreted as lustful love because of "let's see who gets her attitude") Anyway I have rambled enough and I better stop... more maybe later in another breath... Thanks for letting me "speak" and rant... regards, sudhir |
||
|
Jeffrey Carter
since 2000-04-08
Posts 2367State of constant confusion! |
Ron, I wish to say thank you You asked the question I wanted to ask in the begining, I just couldn't find the correct phraze  I do agree with what you are saying, that love has to change along with the couple in order to last. You never cease to amaze me with your wisdom |
||
|
Honeybee Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-26
Posts 5372Ontario, CANADA |
I must say that Ron said it best! However, I would like to make a point, yes, people who get married very young may not last, but, if they are truly soul mates and God meant them to be together, then yes their marriage and love will last forever through the good and bad, changes and maturing process. Jeffery, follow your heart, if it tells you that this woman is "the one," then that is a sign, however, don't blindly ask your heart because sometimes intense emotions can hide the real truth. Dig deep inside yourself, and the answer will come. I am a hopeless romantic, I believe in soul mates and true love and lasting love. I believe that God does create soulmates for most people. Take care, Melissa Honeybee The beauty of poetry gives me wings to fly |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello, Poet Devine: "What is love?" What is the worst moment in someone's life, what is the best? Ask a million people and you will get a million different answers. IMO, Love is a word to describe a different feeling for each individual, if we are truly all little snowflakes then love itself is different for all. ASHLEY: "Dreaming of finding a "handsome prince" who would carry them away on a big white horse. Just look at it, the male character has to be of high stature, AND handsome. There is no love in any of that." Would you rather have the youth of today look for mates with poor character and that they aren't attracted to? If love is defined in uncountable ways how can one say where there is or is not love. MARTINI: "If true love does exist, why doesn't everyone experience it?" If seizures exist, why doesn't everyone experience it? If there is true love or as Ron aptly put it, eternal love, then there must be true hate or something like along those lines in order for balance. Now if the law of probability is a certainty then one can say that in all certainty there was at one time, currently or in time yet to come, at least one couple who love/s/ed each other throughout their lifetime/s regardless of all outside factors....which brings me to RON: "In my opinion (and experience), the answer is a resounding no!" Are we limiting ourselves to just the human experience or are we speaking of universal love? Who knows what lurks out in the great beyond? Is there a God? If so isn't He supposed to love humans through all seasons? Does not many a child love their mother throughout their lifetime? Is that not true love or is true love strictly defined by those we'd love to have sex with? I'm sure there are people out there with life-long friends whom they love forever and with whom they've had an instant connection with and maintained a coincidal level of growth thereby allowing a feeling of love to last. But I think this conversation is directed more towards the Romeo and Juliet "what light through yonder window breaks" kinda love."The only important questions is whether the you of tomorrow will fall in love again." Personally I think you came close to bagging the lion and having a new trophy kitty head over the fireplace with your words on love and change but I have to disagree with the above quotation. To say "fall in love again" would mean that a feeling of falling out of love would have to occur first, perhaps "stay in love" might be more appropriate. Now if we were to say "stay in love" instead of "fall in love again" then maybe it is possible that an eternal or lifelong love does exist or is possible. Maybe in such cases a daily renewal of faith would not be needed for the harmonized change between such two people would be accurate enough that the bonds of "eternal love" would never be broken and they would always be in love. But for me to answer the question of "is there true love?" with an accurate degree of truth, I would have to state, "I don't really know, I can only guess.". Maybe the important thing about love is not always how long it lasts but that you were able to feel it at least once. Trevor |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Trevor asked quote: Actually, Trevor, my limitations were more strict than even that, pertaining strictly to relationships or, if you prefer another term, to romantic love. Were that restriction not applied, my answer would likely be different and probably require another rephrasing of the question. What we would then be talking about is conditional versus unconditional love. The only instance of unconditional love I have ever seen was the love of a mother for their child, and that might well be simply because the "right conditions" never happened. God's love is necessarily unconditional - else it would not exist at all. But I do not believe unconditional love exists in the romantic sense. Trevor said quote: I disagree. The phrase "stay in love" again connotes a lack of change. I don't think you have to fall out of love with the "old" person in order to fall in love with the "new" person, nor do I even think that is usual. Case in point: I am still very much in love with my last wife, even though I haven't seen her in twenty years. I never fell out of love. Of course, the woman I love no longer exists (and, in truth, didn't exist the last time I saw here, either - which is why we're no longer married). If I met and fell in love with Annette today, I would most certainly be falling in love again. And it would in no way negate the memories or feelings I harbor for a very different Annette. Even though Annette and I haven't seen each other in two decades, the same exact logic applies even if the time span was much shorter. Say a single day. She still would have changed, as would I, and we would still have to fall in love all over again. And that would still, in no way, change the love we felt for each other yesterday. What I will grant you, Trevor, is that love is cumulative. The commonalties two people shared yesterday, and through a series of yesterdays, make falling in love again much more likely. But when the change is too great, and the differences begin to outweigh the commonalties, the relationship is in serious danger. Which is precisely the problem. We wake up one morning and realize the person next to us isn't the same one we married, lo, those many years ago. Did they change overnight? Of course not! But we've failed to recognize the changes - until those changes outweigh the commonalties. We want back the person we fell in love with, but that person no longer exists - and if they did, they probably wouldn't love the person we've become. My point, Trevor, was simple. If we recognize that people change and make an effort to fall in love again on a daily basis, the commonalties will almost invariably outweigh the differences. If we fail to see the changes (or, more rarely, cannot appreciate the changes) and allow them to accumulate, falling in love again becomes far more difficult. The result, sadly, is often another failed relationship. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Melissa said: quote: So do I, Melissa. But I also believe that God has granted us free will, which by definition, means the ability to go against His will. He lets us make our own mistakes. Finding your soulmate comes through the grace of God. Keeping them comes through constant work. |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hey Ron, "The phrase "stay in love" again connotes a lack of change." Yes a lack of change of feelings but maybe not circumstances or reasons why. "Even though Annette and I haven't seen each other in two decades, the same exact logic applies even if the time span was much shorter. Say a single day." I like your example Ron though I'm having trouble accepting "falling in love again"....maybe that's why I'm single But seriously, part of who we are is change and if one can love that continual evolvement then that love is also a continuem(sp?) instead of a start stop process. Perhaps its just the wording....falling in love again is a phrase that I currently can't take literally though I agree with the underlying message you have presented us with.Gotta run off to work, thanks and take care, Trevor |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
This discussion has been haunting me. I agree with what has been said about a person having to constantly adapt and change with another as both a relationship and each other grows I also think that it is possible to have a lasting loving relationship even if individual growth is different if both parties remain open to differences and fully appreciate these differences. Now here's where I get snagged, Ron said that one must re-fall in love constantly for a loving relationship to last. That is problematic for me because I keep seeing it in terms of seperate entities, ie. yesterday's love is 1, today's love is 2, tomorrow's love is 3. Now most of this will be just me talking out loud so excuse this post if it is all over the place, I don't always make my thoughts fully coherant nor do I always give a visible bridge to my corelations. I've always believed that thoughts do not end but rather just continually evolve. Perhaps all thoughts are but the evolution of one single thought much like we are the evolution of a single product. Now are we actually re-thinking something or is it just another step in the evolution of this single thought. Is any thought, idea or even question asked ever exactly the same when we try to return to it? This is because at any given moment we are not the same, we have been influenced, changed and have evolved again. Environment contributes to evolution and evolution is a continual as long as stimuli is. Love is based upon a feeling, feelings are based upon stimuli, a person in this scenario is the stimuli for the feeling of love, a person is the environment for love. Persons A and B are in love on planet earth. Both A and B are constantly evolving because of the environment on planet earth. Since feelings or emotions are a faction of both A and B they are subject to evolution caused by the evolution of the host of these feelings. What am I driving at??? Perhaps a bridge pillar at a hundred clicks without a seat belt if I don't stop thinking this way My point is I don't think love really ends or begins or can be segmented but rather is a constant that is subject to evolution. Perhaps there is only one feeling that has constantly evolved or we have only one thought and one feeling that does not end...except perhaps in death,....but constantly changes (perhaps drastically at times) thereby giving the perception that it is new rather than evolved.For example if there is a line that runs forever and at one point in that line there is a curve, can it be, at that point, considered a new line or the same line with a curve in it? I wish I was a little more articulate because there are underscores of other thoughts that mesh with this that I can't seem to capture but only glimpse at. That's all the time I have right now, I'm off to the sweatshop but I'm really thankful to Jeff for starting this thread and for everyone else for joining in. Thanks, Trevor |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm sure, Trevor, we don't want to let semantics come between what sounds like general agreement. Though I suspect this is as much a problem of perception as terminology. Yes, life and love is a continuum, but along that line exist discrete events. We have much the same dichotomy with the dual particle/wave nature of light. Which is it? Both. Often at the same time. When A and B get out of bed to celebrate their 10th anniversary on day #3652, how they feel about each other is, as you say, an accumulation of their life and feelings throughout all previous days. I agree. Whether you want to say "their love deepens" on day #3652 or you want to say "they fall in love again" on day #3652 is a matter of choice. I prefer the latter because I think it better demonstrate conscious volition. A new beginning. You apparently prefer the former, which is fine - except I question whether you are making a choice or having it thrust on you by your perceptions. Put another way, I choose to see day #3652 as a discrete event and you see it as an evolution of the continuum. Which is it? Both, of course. Often at the same time. When A and B got out of bed on day #1, little knowing they were about to meet their respective life-mate, how they would feel about each other was still very much an accumulation of their life and feelings throughout all previous days. Discrete event? Or part of their continuum? I believe you are justified in choosing either viewpoint. And with just a little mental flexibility, you can choose both. Often at the same time. |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hey Ron, I think we agree more so then we realize or better still we have become more aware of what each other was saying. "Yes, life and love is a continuum, but along that line exist discrete events. We have much the same dichotomy with the dual particle/wave nature of light. Which is it? Both. Often at the same time." I agree, that's why I used the infinite line and curve example, life being the infinite line and the curve being a moment of that. A thing within a thing type of thing These larger and smaller scales, is what, in my opinion allows duality to happen. Like in humans for example, we are billions of atoms yet we are one human both at the same time. However I often think its important to narrow things down to its original source, which I think, is the evolution of creation, the first domino and perhaps the only true version of "whole". "You apparently prefer the former, which is fine - except I question whether you are making a choice or having it thrust on you by your perceptions." I did at first but to be honest I don't really prefer either right now but rather kind of got caught up in presenting the other side of a fence. I do understand that each curve in an infinite line is a curve unto itself, as for having it thrust on me by my perceptions....do I have a choice in this? If you can tell me how to escape perception I'll tell you how they get the Caramilk inside the chocolate? We can not escape what we percieve, we can only change our opinions of what we percieve and even that change is based upon former things percieved. Could I not say the same for your stance on this subject? Is not your opinion of this directly related to your perception of existence? Perhaps there are a lot more "answers" allowable then just the two we have presented because we have yet to percieve certain things. Well I guess we are pretty much in agreement here but we both rely on different, yet possibly accurate descriptions of the same thing. If you have anything to add to this subject I'd love to hear it. I've always admired your ability to seek out balancing layers within a subject. To feel for not only degrees of rights and lefts on a scale but for the center point as well. It is something I've been trying to do for some time now and often reading your posts helps this learning become easier. Thanks and take care, Trevor |
||
|
Tim Gouldthorp Member
since 2000-01-03
Posts 170 |
I am horrified by the idea of solipsical love -you don't love someone for themselves, but have some image of them in your mind that you love. Desolation. Sure, we are woven and unwoven through time. Me is not the me of yesterday. That me is a shadow of a ghost. I don't see this excludes 'true love.' Either way, we have no choice. We must love or die. Love is alchemy. I think of the line from Rimbaud "it is reclaimed. What? eternity." As for the love versus lust dichotomy let me say this. The body is the best image we have of the soul (Wittgenstein). If I fall in love with a girl it is not only with her looks, nor in some disembodied set of virtues that I could admire but could not love. There is some transcendent quiddity that is not all body, not all soul. -Tim -Tim [This message has been edited by Tim Gouldthorp (edited 07-29-2000).] |
||
|
Vaporous One Junior Member
since 2000-07-27
Posts 35 |
All I know is that if you feel it might be true love, go for it! Why sit around wondering "what could have been", or any of that crap? You might get hurt along the way, sure...but you never know. They could just be "the one"...oh, but there goes the dreamer in me again, lol. |
||
|
doreen peri Member Elite
since 1999-05-25
Posts 3812Virginia |
the answer to both of your questions is "yes" |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
