»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Again on love
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Again on love |
|
|
Prudy Junior Member
since 2007-10-22
Posts 13the prison inside me |
I know that there are a lot of topics on love out there. However I believe that I might be able to give a new theory on this subject. Just bear with me. First of all love is not something that I feel is beautiful. It may seem like a beautiful idea but it is very contradicting. Beforr I say this though I must say first that love is a passion. I don't think that many people would disagree. Love - Passion. They are linked in a very intimate way. What is a passion? Passion comes from the greek root padecere (pronounced padekere, strong k) which means to suffer. To love is to suffer. To be so affected by someone or something else that you can't bear being away from that person or object. How do you find said love? I answer that question by saying that love is found whenever you see another person's soul. What I mean by soul is not something that makes us human or whatever. I mean soul in the sense of the unconscious projection on others of our true selves. Or basically we see a part of ourselves that we usually hide. To explain more it means that we have two parts of our bodies. The conscious and unconscious self. Both are conflicting in that they both want to rule the body. What is important though is that the conscious self basically takes over or seems to take over the body. This cosncious self then projects a socially acceptable image. Or basically another image different than that of the true being of someone. What I say finding love is basically seeing something that is hidden of yourself in someone else. There is one problem with that though. That is that usually you don't ever find true love between two people. One may love the other but the other may not love him back ith the same intensity. Hoewever it is a really nice idea if two people fall in love together. Then they go beyond the realm of passion to compassion. Compassion means to suffer together. Wouldn't two people that love each other be complete? No of course not. They only really suffer together but you don't complete someone else. This is because according to what I have said on love then basically you are loving yourself. Not someone else. |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Rodolfo Cavalcanti - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Prudy, If " First of all love is not something that I feel is beautiful. " And "Love - Passion." so " To love is to suffer." Then why " There is one problem with that though. That is that usually you don't ever find true love between two people." Do you mean that true love is double suffering? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Where did you get "padecere" from? The closest thing I may find is the Latin pedicare/paedicare "to sodomize".  The Greek verb meaning "to suffer" is paschein related to pathos "suffering". |
||
|
Prudy Junior Member
since 2007-10-22
Posts 13the prison inside me |
Essorant Apparently my etimologies teacher taught me wrong but I think you get the drift of what I am saying. Tom I am trying to say that true love just leads to suffering. Although we as humans would like for our love to endure we cannot make it so. Eventually when one person loses the other the world falls apart for them. I don't mean a death but when one side loses intensity then the love is gone and whoever is still in love will lose their world. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Sir Essorant, your knowledge made Prudy's topic more complicated. Too much Knowledge beyond poetry, indeed, sometimes, is bad thing, very bad thing, i shall say.  |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Prudy, what you mean true love actually is "emotional dependence". True love, a good example, is God's love. "If one side is dead, otherside will lost the world." Are you glad to see your children growing up and leave or you lost your world to see them leaving home? Tomtoo |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's a very narrow view of love, I think, presuming that love is only rewarding when returned in kind. That's not love. That's just being selfish. I will continue to love my kids no matter how angry or rebellious they might be towards me. I will love my parents long past their deaths. My love for these people, and others, is based on who they are, not on what they do for me. Yes, love leads to suffering. So does breathing. You don't get to buy something at your local store without incurring a cost. Suffering is the cost of living. The trick isn't to try to avoid the cost (you can't), but rather to make sure the rewards are worth the cost. Learn to shop wisely. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Wow. I LOVE love. There's much to love about your post and there's some things I disagree with. I want to read your theory some more before I jump in with both feet. I'm careful that way...about love...sometimes...and sometimes I'm not!!! Nice to have you here, Prudy. be back soon. Reg |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
"Learn to shop wisely" Dear Sir Ron, where one can find best deal for love? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Heaven |
||
|
Prudy Junior Member
since 2007-10-22
Posts 13the prison inside me |
Dear Sirs: Pardon for not responding in a long time but I have been thinking. I have done some things wring. I did not state the type of love there is. To me there are two types of love. Conditional and unconditional. During childhood we have unconditional love. When we grow up we lose that love and it seems a part of ourselves has died. As adults we try to reach unconditional love. The only way t recieve unconditional love as adults is to make that love a coinditioned one. I will love you like you are if you do something in exchange for it. We try to return to childhood. After the long detour I can say that the love I am talking about is not about love within a family. I am talking about seeking love outside a family. Seeking love and unconditional acceptance from someone else. As for finding love in heaven I don't really believe in good so I don't really believe there is a heaven. I do though believe in a soul. However my soul is not the religious view of the soul. My soul is tied forever to the body. When that body dies the soul dies with it. there is no eternity. Again sorry for not responding and making myself look really bad. By the way very good points people are giving on this topic. I hope other topics that are more philosophical arise in which I may take part in. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ron! Re: "Suffering is the cost of living." Don't tell me you're a closet Buddhist! Also, what is this "Sir Ron" and Sir whomever stuff about? Seems snarky to me, and while we disagree on many things, I've never found your responses less than reasoned and courteous. I see you STATING your viewpoint, but not trying to IMPOSE it on anyone, or disparaging, outside the context of reasoned discussion, anyone else's views. Lord knows I get snarky from time to time, but it's never personal. There's a mean streak out there, or an unreasoned streak, and it isn't necessary. But, what'cha gonna do? Prudy: One's experience and understanding of unconditional love grows and changes with time. Relax. Sometimes love is the pits. Then, with any luck, it gets more interesting. Consider the possibility that love can be blissful. Best, Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I sure hope you're using an editorial we, Prudy, and not trying to speak for me and the rest of humanity? Again, in my opinion, what you're describing is a very selfish kind of love (and I don't use the word selfish disparagingly, either). I also think you're using the word family in an overly-restrictive way, and the word unconditional in a very non-restrictive way (there are always conditions, they're just not always tied to actions). quote: Your participation and opinions are certainly welcome, Prudy, but so far I think that's all you've really offered. Philosophy is usually a bit more reasoned than just "I believe," and typically involves some logical support for your beliefs. You've told us what you think, and that's cool, but you haven't told us why we should think as you do. quote: At the risk of waxing poetic, Tom, your own heart is usually the best place to start. And NOT looking for the best deal helps, too. Look, instead, for an equitable deal. The rewards don't always have to be big, they just have to always be bigger than the cost. quote: I'm not in the close about much of anything, Jim. I'm more of a pragmatist, I suspect. Anyone in perpetual bliss, who never suffers at all, is getting a chemical assist (and, in return, suffering more than most). My point, however, wasn't that suffering is inevitable (even if it is). My point, rather, was that the cost usually doesn't have to be as high as many people make it and the rewards don't have to be as minimal as many people accept. quote:You still talking to me, Jim? Or to Tom? In my experience, flippant nicknames are rarely welcome. I think you might have done that to others once or twice, too, Jim? Then again, that feeling of unwarranted familiarity might just be me. Every time a waitress calls me sweetheart or darling, her tips drops another twenty-five percent. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ron -- I was asking you a question about the "Sir Ron" stuff, but probably addressing Tom and many others. It doesn't seem useful. Yes, I've admitted I can be snarky and sometimes use nicknames that I make up, like "Serenemous" and "Edster" (where did he go?) But I suggest that these are terms of endearment for Pipsters with whom I have a relationship on and off the Forums. Different stuff. On bliss: I think my statement was that love can be blissful. Doesn't negate the ups and downs, but is more optomistic than a "love inevitably sucks" view. I find you quite personable, myself, even if I once had to ask if you were the guy who wears the beanie. In amiable disagreement, Jimbeaux. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Hi, Jim, I show my great respect with the word "sir". Sir Ron Thank you for your answer. And Have a wonderful weekend!!! and "Every time a waitress calls me sweetheart or darling, her tips drops another twenty-five percent. " I can't believe that a kind person like you cut tips for single mother and hard working ladies with such a dignified justice. [This message has been edited by TomMark (11-10-2007 05:46 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If the customer is such a "sweetheart" or "darling" then the customer deserves (some of) the tip |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
oh, sir Essorant, you are smart!!! |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
