Why I cannot be in a relationship: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Why I cannot be in a relationship » Why I cannot be in a relationship

Why I cannot be in a relationship

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Why I cannot be in a relationship

verta-vitae
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2008
Location: A place so far away no one knows it exists
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 04/24/08 - 11:13 PM:	#26
icarus25 wrote: Premises: I choose not to be selfish. I choose to reason logically. What does it mean to love? Does it mean satisfying your wants more than those of your lover, or the other way round? IF it means satisfying the wants of your lover more than your own, then you would react in the following way: If your lover deserts you willingly and decides to be with somebody else, you would be happy for your lover and not be jealous (since by being happy for your lover, you are satisfying his/her wants and not opposing them). On the other hand, IF to love means satisfying your own wants more than those of your lover, then you would react in the following way: If your lover deserts you willingly and decides to be with somebody else, you would be upset and jealous. Which way would you react? Assuming you are upset and jealous, then you are selfish. However, such selfishness is needed for a human relationship to survive. That is what nature intended. That explains why you may feel good if your partner is jealous when another person flirts with you. It feels good not only because you feel special and needed, but also because it helps to cement your existing relationship. You feel good at the prospect of reassuring your partner that you love him/her. This arrangement is beneficial for the human genes. Therefore, any relationship between two human beings is doomed unless the two are both selfish. Since I choose not to be selfish, I cannot be in a relationship To truely be in love is a feeling of satisfaction in being with another soul. For just being in that persons presence makes you a better person. Love can be like finding faith and hope, you dont physically express it, physical expression helps satisfy the lust for it.
_____________________ Life sucks eat a cookie

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/25/08 - 01:39 AM:	#27
Lex wrote: I don't think you quite realize the point of "debate". Just because a crowd of people tells me to listen, I have to concede my point? Mind you, I am not disrespectful and have never stooped to insulting the other party. Closed mind: no, you're stupid go away, I'm gonna plug my ears now, lalala Analytical mind: I disagree, because (counter-example). If you are unable to address my counter-example, you should consider alternative strategies to telling me I am narrow-minded. Your entire argument amounts to claiming that someone who is describing their experience of what they call "love" is a liar. You're counter examples are retarded. For example: If your lover's brain was transplanted into a dog, for example, would that person still be your lover? Not really. It's solely based on physiological attraction, as I have stated before. You seem to neglect the obvious, that a dog is not a human being and for a start we cannot talk to dogs. Besides these "trifling" realities it still doesn't follow from your "counter example" that any of the accounts given by people on these thread are false or otherwise inaccurate.
_____________________ For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1664

Posted 04/25/08 - 02:53 AM:	#28
Once again, completely unsupported by evidence. I agree that normally, people who live together experience what is referred to as kinship or friendship ties. However, there is no evidence of this being anything else than an attraction based on the comfort of believing that you are experiencing love. In the end, it is all about making each individual comfortable. It's not love, it's contentment. And this was never the point of this debate in the first place, the author inquired about relationships (and I am guessing you wouldn't want one with your mother). I have a relationship with my mom and it is based on mutual love and respect. It's not a sexual relationship. All I am doing is using pure analysis on everything, including common axioms such as love. You can always try to counter me by saying: "that is ridiculous, look at all the evidence of love in society", but that is a ridiculously weak argument. You're not analysing anything, you're postulating something that you claim is based on evidence. Sexual attraction, as a biological function, has nothing to do with love. The latter has more to do with psychology. And you consider the fact that love has been a recognised emotion, a thing people can readily speak of since before we could write, a weak argument because of what? Because it is not measurable? Not expressable or definable? Should anything that leaves us speechless then be considered to not-exist? The mysterious but thrilling movement in Rachmaninov's 3rd piano concert giving us collective goosebumps? The line of TS Elliot that "hits" us? We are bound up everyday with irrational experiences and feelings that defy "pure analysis" it does not make the experience any less real or any less valuable. Quite simply put you're entirely insulting for denying the worth of other people's experiences of which only they can be the sole judge. Love for millions of people is a real experience and it is experienced in a sense that it transcends simple attraction as exemplified by the many examples of love that are not sexual. As far as I know, love beyond sexual attraction is a myth, and this is supported by empirical evidence (not a single account of this ultimate love as far as I know, outside of fairy tales) as well as common sense. Exactly, "as far as you know", which is saying rather little. My experience is entirely different. Here's some empirical evidence for the opposite conclusion. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/18/america/lo... If your lover's brain was transplanted into a dog, for example, would that person still be your lover? Not really. Not in the sense that you would be fucking the dog I hope but it does not exclude the possibility of loving the dog (or at least, it's witty brain). Same thing for the ugly person. I can love ugly people for plenty of reasons, doesn't mean I want sex with them. Love is more than sex? What happens when you are 70/80 then? You become old, potentially senile, completely useless. Obviously love is an empty sound at that point. So what do you call something that only occurs between young, attractive people? You call it sexual attraction, or "love". Talk to your grandparents and please tell them you think they are old and completely useless. Maybe they'll clobber some respect into you with their canes. And trust me, they will consider it tough love on you. They will also be able to explain you quite a bit about love and I think you will also be surprised at what age people still have sex. It takes several years before you truly come to love someone separated from sexual desire but why separate two good things? The sexual relationship is obviously part of the love relationship but the latter cannot be reduced to the former. This is obvious for anyone who has been in a long relationship. A relationship based solely on sex simply doesn't last... and that I also know from personal experience. I say you should simply go out there and try that and see for yourself.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 159

Posted 04/25/08 - 05:50 AM:	#29
Lex - As far as I know, love beyond sexual attraction is a myth, and this is supported by empirical evidence (not a single account of this ultimate love as far as I know, outside of fairy tales) as well as common sense. LMAO!! I don't know where you live, either in a bubble or a hollywood movie, but ugly people fall in love all the time. Try going outside Lex. Show me the evidence that ONLY pretty people fall in love, and I'll show you a liar! It's okay I don't expect you to actually answer.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/25/08 - 06:19 AM:	#30
You can give a biological account of human nature but don't be surprised if it isn't satisfactory.
_____________________ For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 04/25/08 - 08:45 PM:	#31
Love is relationship between a man and a woman who are physically turned on by each other. This is Lex's idea of love. Such an idea is not open to discussion. But one can question the practical value of such a relationship for sharing a home and raising a family. I think Lex's love is good only for a great time with a stunning looker. And Lex has better look swell himself not to mention his SLR Maclaren Mercedes, his impressive address, and a fast track at Goldman Sachs.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/26/08 - 02:17 PM:	#32
sensabile: "Your entire argument amounts to claiming that someone who is describing their experience of what they call "love" is a liar." not really. I just look at it critically. I said human brain transplanted into a dog's body, basically a deformed human. If it's too hard for you to understand, look at another one: imagine your lover has their arms and legs cut off, and his/her face burned beyond recognition, then tell me if love is still possible. My example was not "retarded", as you put it, and I'm sorry if I made you think too much. sensabile: "You can give a biological account of human nature but don't be surprised if it isn't satisfactory." I don't care about your satisfaction. The world does not exist to satisfy you. I care about what is REAL. Techeth: "LMAO!! I don't know where you live, either in a bubble or a hollywood movie, but ugly people fall in love all the time. Try going outside Lex. Show me the evidence that ONLY pretty people fall in love, and I'll show you a liar!" I don't really think you can. If you rephrase: "people go out and have sex all the time, then get married", I will not argue. And how exactly does that prove the existence of love? All (fairly large) animals have the concept of mating, and many have PAIRING as well. If you want to PROVE me wrong, you would have to do some actual proving. yiming: "I think Lex's love is good only for a great time with a stunning looker. And Lex has better look swell himself not to mention his SLR Maclaren Mercedes, his impressive address, and a fast track at Goldman Sachs." Not at all. I don't like it in any way, so I, as the author, do not think I can be in a relationship. Benkei: "And you consider the fact that love has been a recognised emotion, a thing people can readily speak of since before we could write, a weak argument because of what? Because it is not measurable?" Pretty much. I should believe something because I am told to? That is not an argument. Same thing as the pathetic: "how can you not believe in the bible everyone does?" statement. Just because I am saying something out of your comfort zone, you become hysterical. You say that human existence since ancient times has known the concept of love? Ridiculous. May 18, 1986, Moscow. Coronation of the new Czar: gigantic stampede for the presents that kills > 4000 people. The crowd passed the dead bodies and dumped them, then continued to press on. What do you even call that? Murder? Some good-spirited celebration? You are saying I should trust human experience? Then humans are nothing but pathetic, psychotic trash that should be killed. The fact that I do not think so proves the degree to which I have faith in humanity. Yet even I do not believe in the existence of this "love" that you laud but cannot define. "Not in the sense that you would be fucking the dog I hope but it does not exclude the possibility of loving the dog (or at least, it's witty brain). Same thing for the ugly person. I can love ugly people for plenty of reasons, doesn't mean I want sex with them." Yeah right. That's not called love. People claim to love pets, but when your dog dies, you might be sad for a day or two and that's it. You love ugly people? How? By claiming to love them? Don't bs me. "Talk to your grandparents and please tell them you think they are old and completely useless. Maybe they'll clobber some respect into you with their canes. And trust me, they will consider it tough love on you. They will also be able to explain you quite a bit about love and I think you will also be surprised at what age people still have sex." Pathetic. You have no idea about my history, or my grandparents' history, and think you know what they will explain to me? Your example does not work, they would not be able anything, I know that. In any case I suggest you go to Africa and visit one of the primitive tribes there (still a bunch around) and try to preach them your version of "love". Then tell me that love is possible for all humans. It's simply the fact that civilization allows this luxury and "refinement" that people start believing themselves to be divine. Humans are monkeys with big brains and tools. Nothing more, nothing less. By the way, if you manage to PROVE that this is not true, I will be the first to rejoice, and if you wish I will apologize to you in any way I can.

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 04/26/08 - 08:43 PM:	#33
Hey, Lex. I have to agree with your take on love only because the arguments against you are sentimental. But why do you think you cannot be in relationship?

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/26/08 - 09:16 PM:	#34
It's precisely because of my take on love. It seems completely pointless and empty to be in a relationship based only on physical attraction. That is why I cannot even comprehend why I should want one. Obviously it feels lonely but on the other hand the alternative is not much better.

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 04/26/08 - 09:41 PM:	#35
Loneliness, like the fear of death, is a psychological problem. Animals don't seem to have this problem but they have relationship of the practical kind to survive in a group or to mate and raise offsprings. I agree that relationship based on physical attraction alone is pointless if one wants more than recreation. But why reject relationship altogether? Are you saying that there is nothing more to relationship than just physical attraction? What about friendship? Have you ever shared a bed with a woman just so you could get up in the night and rouse her up to talk?

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1664

Posted 04/27/08 - 12:50 AM:	#36
Pretty much. I should believe something because I am told to? That is not an argument. Same thing as the pathetic: "how can you not believe in the bible everyone does?" statement. Just because I am saying something out of your comfort zone, you become hysterical. You say that human existence since ancient times has known the concept of love? Ridiculous. May 18, 1986, Moscow. Coronation of the new Czar: gigantic stampede for the presents that kills > 4000 people. The crowd passed the dead bodies and dumped them, then continued to press on. What do you even call that? Murder? Some good-spirited celebration? You are saying I should trust human experience? Then humans are nothing but pathetic, psychotic trash that should be killed. The fact that I do not think so proves the degree to which I have faith in humanity. Yet even I do not believe in the existence of this "love" that you laud but cannot define. Not the same thing. The comparison would work if you would be denying people had religious experiences. The facts contained in the bible need not. The fact that people have religious experiences and experience love cannot be denied. That's what our concept of love expresses and why it is to be considered proof of its existence. If it did not exist, why have a word for it? Yeah right. That's not called love. People claim to love pets, but when your dog dies, you might be sad for a day or two and that's it. You love ugly people? How? By claiming to love them? Don't bs me. So you claim to have a certain definition of love. I claim another. Simply based on the statistics in this thread it seems people like mine better. jee, I'm more popular than you. And why is being sad for a day or two not enough? And don't tell me what I am supposed to feel for ugly people. Jacques Lacan points out that although “love”—that is, in its common, popular sense—is, in essence, a futile chasing after something that doesn’t exist, there is nevertheless a love beyond this “making love,” a love that exists beyond lack and limitation and that involves a sort of ecstasy of being, as a matter of soul, not of the body. The irony is that in the common act of “making love” we think we know what we want, but it turns out to be an illusion, while this other love touches on a real experience of which we now nothing. It’s a mystical sort of thing, as Lacan acknowledges. One of various phychological takes on love. In any case, the point is that whatever you're yelling about, it is impossible to tell people that their experiences are not real. As Lacan points out many people confuse love (in the sense that something or somebody provides you with a nice experience, like watching J-Lo's ass) and true love. You clearly haven't experienced the latter otherwise you would recognise it. Pathetic. You have no idea about my history, or my grandparents' history, and think you know what they will explain to me? Your example does not work, they would not be able anything, I know that. You can read your grandparents minds? I can infer enough of your history from your words and it appears to be a rather impoverished life so far which makes you angry and close-minded. Thank you for considering me pathetic. I'll be over in the Netherlands loving things and people and not really caring. In any case I suggest you go to Africa and visit one of the primitive tribes there (still a bunch around) and try to preach them your version of "love". Then tell me that love is possible for all humans. It's simply the fact that civilization allows this luxury and "refinement" that people start believing themselves to be divine. Humans are monkeys with big brains and tools. Nothing more, nothing less. By the way, if you manage to PROVE that this is not true, I will be the first to rejoice, and if you wish I will apologize to you in any way I can. It is not my intention to preach to anyone. I'm trying to put into words what many people seem to experience but which you continually claim we are not experiencing. You exhibit a profound lack of respect for others in that sense. Let me try another approach though to illustrate this. Let's assume God most certainly does not exist but there are people who have religious experiences in which they "meet" a thing that can only be described by the concept of "God". The experience might be caused by a disfunctioning brain or under influence of drugs, however the emotion, because it is entirely subjective cannot be denied to exist. So, even if it were true that romantic love (which is your main beef, we will call love for parents and friends affection then) is simple lust, the experience of the emotion of "true love" is still real and therefore transforms it into something higher. Then humans are collectively suffering from an illusion causing real emotions of this mystical, unknowable love.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 159

Posted 04/27/08 - 08:28 AM:	#37
Lex wrote: sensabile: "Your entire argument amounts to claiming that someone who is describing their experience of what they call "love" is a liar." not really. I just look at it critically. I said human brain transplanted into a dog's body, basically a deformed human. If it's too hard for you to understand, look at another one: imagine your lover has their arms and legs cut off, and his/her face burned beyond recognition, then tell me if love is still possible. Yes! If you don't you never did. The question is what do you now imagine that love implies you do? Lex wrote: Techeth: "LMAO!! I don't know where you live, either in a bubble or a hollywood movie, but ugly people fall in love all the time. Try going outside Lex. Show me the evidence that ONLY pretty people fall in love, and I'll show you a liar!" I don't really think you can. If you rephrase: "people go out and have sex all the time, then get married", I will not argue. And how exactly does that prove the existence of love? It doesn't what's your point? Were you rephasing what I wrote? That's interesting... Lex wrote: "I don't care about your satisfaction. The world does not exist to satisfy you. I care about what is REAL." "All (fairly large) animals have the concept of mating, and many have PAIRING as well. If you want to PROVE me wrong, you would have to do some actual proving." "Pretty much. I should believe something because I am told to? That is not an argument. Same thing as the pathetic: "how can you not believe in the bible everyone does?" statement. Just because I am saying something out of your comfort zone, you become hysterical. You say that human existence since ancient times has known the concept of love? Ridiculous. May 18, 1986, Moscow. Coronation of the new Czar: gigantic stampede for the presents that kills > 4000 people. The crowd passed the dead bodies and dumped them, then continued to press on. What do you even call that? Murder? Some good-spirited celebration? You are saying I should trust human experience? Then humans are nothing but pathetic, psychotic trash that should be killed. The fact that I do not think so proves the degree to which I have faith in humanity. Yet even I do not believe in the existence of this "love" that you laud but cannot define. For someone that is interested in the "real" and not in "satisfaction", you seem quite satisfied with the idea that there is no 'love' only sexual attraction. Do you have any proof beyond your limited bias personal opinion. You can believe in love or not, I doubt anyone cares but if your gonna claim everyone else that does are just following the crowd, you need a better argument than, 'I can see it and you can't!'. Is this the part where you say "I don't have to prove it you do!" You just need to be satisfied right? Lex wrote: In any case I suggest you go to Africa and visit one of the primitive tribes there (still a bunch around) and try to preach them your version of "love". Then tell me that love is possible for all humans. It's simply the fact that civilization allows this luxury and "refinement" that people start believing themselves to be divine. Humans are monkeys with big brains and tools. Nothing more, nothing less. By the way, if you manage to PROVE that this is not true, I will be the first to rejoice, and if you wish I will apologize to you in any way I can. My version of love? If I wanted to argue with someone over the definition of love then I could probably go next door, or just to another topic. I am interested though what version of love do you think they have? I assume you think they don't have one? Why? Maybe we should find out what this love people have told you you should believe is?
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/27/08 - 09:40 AM:	#38
Techeth wrote: 1. Yes! If you don't you never did. The question is what do you now imagine that love implies you do? 2. It doesn't what's your point? Were you rephasing what I wrote? That's interesting... 3. For someone that is interested in the "real" and not in "satisfaction", you seem quite satisfied with the idea that there is no 'love' only sexual attraction. Do you have any proof beyond your limited bias personal opinion. You can believe in love or not, I doubt anyone cares but if your gonna claim everyone else that does are just following the crowd, you need a better argument than, 'I can see it and you can't!'. Is this the part where you say "I don't have to prove it you do!" You just need to be satisfied right? 1. I don't understand the grammar here. 2. Well you kind of said you will show me a liar (I guess you meant show ME to be a liar), so I supposed you meant that you could prove to me that people fall in love. I guess I misunderstood, and you were just making a senseless comment. Btw, using "LMAO" in a debate is already childish and unnecessary. 3. No I guess I have no proof. Only logical observation makes me inclined to say there is not. To me, the fact that love makes no sense is already proof enough. But I guess this is the part where you say: "you have no HARD proof, but I also have no proof whatsoever except how I WANT TO FEEL, so you should accept my position or I will LMAO at you. Edited by Lex on 04/27/08 - 09:51 AM

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/27/08 - 09:53 AM:	#39
yiming wrote: agree that relationship based on physical attraction alone is pointless if one wants more than recreation. But why reject relationship altogether? Are you saying that there is nothing more to relationship than just physical attraction? What about friendship? Have you ever shared a bed with a woman just so you could get up in the night and rouse her up to talk? No. As I said, I have never been in any kind of relationship, so I could not do that even if I did want to. The only reason to reject it is because I don't believe there is anything else besides physical attraction to a relationship.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/27/08 - 10:14 AM:	#40
Benkei wrote: Not the same thing. The comparison would work if you would be denying people had religious experiences. The facts contained in the bible need not. The fact that people have religious experiences and experience love cannot be denied. That's what our concept of love expresses and why it is to be considered proof of its existence. If it did not exist, why have a word for it? Makes no sense. So since there is a word for "god", it proves by default the existence of god? You'll have to do a lot better than that. Just because all people believed something for a long time, it is true? Well then, the Inquisition was right to arrest Galileo. Benkei wrote: So you claim to have a certain definition of love. I claim another. Simply based on the statistics in this thread it seems people like mine better. jee, I'm more popular than you. Oh no, I'll shoot myself in desperation now. If I was out for popularity, I would be a presidential nominee trying to kiss 300 million ignorant asses at the same time. If you don't get it yet, I'm not out to be popular. It makes sense that people want to believe in love and my statements make them uncomfortable, hence the flaming. However, it's all purely sentimental. Benkei wrote: And why is being sad for a day or two not enough? Because it's supposed to be a "higher" emotion. If my computer breaks, I will be sad for more than two days. If my love for a living being = my love for a computer, it's pretty shallow, is it not? Benkei wrote: And don't tell me what I am supposed to feel for ugly people. Never told you what to feel. You said you can still love them, and I said this is bs. Benkei wrote: Jacques Lacan points out that although “love”—that is, in its common, popular sense—is, in essence, a futile chasing after something that doesn’t exist, there is nevertheless a love beyond this “making love,” a love that exists beyond lack and limitation and that involves a sort of ecstasy of being, as a matter of soul, not of the body. The irony is that in the common act of “making love” we think we know what we want, but it turns out to be an illusion, while this other love touches on a real experience of which we now nothing. It’s a mystical sort of thing, as Lacan acknowledges. It's a little sad to rip off an entire paragraph off of a psychology website for your argument, but ok. This is still a rumination and needs to be proven before it is accepted. Benkei wrote: In any case, the point is that whatever you're yelling about, it is impossible to tell people that their experiences are not real. I am not yelling, that implies being emotional. I stated my opinion and was immediately bombarded by sentimental comments. Benkei wrote: You can read your grandparents minds? I can infer enough of your history from your words and it appears to be a rather impoverished life so far which makes you angry and close-minded. Thank you for considering me pathetic. I'll be over in the Netherlands loving things and people and not really caring. I am not angry (again, implies emotionality). You cannot infer anything, and you are embarrassing yourself right now. I already told you you can infer nothing about my history, and when I say that my grandparents cannot tell me anything about love, I know what I mean. Obviously I am not going to relate my personal history here, it has nothing to do with the discussion, so I suggest you drop this senseless argument. Benkei wrote: It is not my intention to preach to anyone. I'm trying to put into words what many people seem to experience but which you continually claim we are not experiencing. You exhibit a profound lack of respect for others in that sense. You can't call a purely logical analysis of an issue disrespect, even if it makes people uncomfortable. This is a "gadfly effect", if you ask me. Benkei wrote: Let me try another approach though to illustrate this. Let's assume God most certainly does not exist but there are people who have religious experiences in which they "meet" a thing that can only be described by the concept of "God". The experience might be caused by a disfunctioning brain or under influence of drugs, however the emotion, because it is entirely subjective cannot be denied to exist. What emotion? You mean the exaltation of such a delusion. I guess. Anyone can feel exalted, proves nothing at all. Benkei wrote: So, even if it were true that romantic love (which is your main beef, we will call love for parents and friends affection then) is simple lust, the experience of the emotion of "true love" is still real and therefore transforms it into something higher. Then humans are collectively suffering from an illusion causing real emotions of this mystical, unknowable love. Not really. Again, you have not proved anything by trying to play on words. Your statement: the experience of the emotion of "true love" is still real, has no proof.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/27/08 - 10:49 AM:	#41
Lex wrote: sensabile: "Your entire argument amounts to claiming that someone who is describing their experience of what they call "love" is a liar." not really. I just look at it critically. I said human brain transplanted into a dog's body, basically a deformed human. If it's too hard for you to understand, look at another one: imagine your lover has their arms and legs cut off, and his/her face burned beyond recognition, then tell me if love is still possible. My example was not "retarded", as you put it, and I'm sorry if I made you think too much. Hmm, if you think a dog amounts to a "deformed human" then your examples truly are retarded. Besides, you haven't shown "critically" (whatever that means in your mouth) why "love isn't possible" given a tragic transformation into a dog. Your argument runs along these lines: (1) Love is based on nothing more than attraction. (2) Dogs are not attractive. (3) Therefore, if your lover was transformed into a dog you wouldn't love them any more. What you fail to notice is that you haven't established (1). Contriving fictional, and absurd, examples does not establish anything. sensabile: "You can give a biological account of human nature but don't be surprised if it isn't satisfactory." I don't care about your satisfaction. The world does not exist to satisfy you. I care about what is REAL. You seem to think that saying that you are "critically minded" and that you only care about the "real" that everything you say is therefore "critical" and "real". You exhibit the complete opposite of a critical mind (obsessive dogmatism), and the fact people cannot "show" you this is because there is nothing to deal with exactly, just your insistence. I don't see why we should consider your opinion as more valid than other people's when it comes to love. It's fine if you think that love is entirely based on attraction but please don't pretend that you have some kind of superior knowledge based on your delusion of being "critically minded".
_____________________ For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/27/08 - 11:34 AM:	#42
sensabile wrote: Hmm, if you think a dog amounts to a "deformed human" then your examples truly are retarded. Hmmm I think you should learn to read, the example with the dog was completely different from the example for a human. I said a "human brain in a dog's body", or in a sense a being that is human in all aspects except for the body if you cannot understand my simple example. You don't even understand what I am saying, and you are wasting my time. Next time make a proper argument, I won't bother responding to any more of your ridiculous flaming. sensabile wrote: You seem to think that saying that you are "critically minded" and that you only care about the "real" that everything you say is therefore "critical" and "real". You exhibit the complete opposite of a critical mind (obsessive dogmatism), and the fact people cannot "show" you this is because there is nothing to deal with exactly, just your insistence. Not really. Say what you mean: "omg I tell you I am right but you still say you are right you are narrow-minded because you should just accept what I say cries" And dogmatism? What a joke. dogma: "a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises". Belief in love is common dogma. You are the one with obsessive dogmatism, I am simply saying that the dogma is likely to be incorrect. sensabile wrote: I don't see why we should consider your opinion as more valid than other people's when it comes to love. It's fine if you think that love is entirely based on attraction but please don't pretend that you have some kind of superior knowledge based on your delusion of being "critically minded". I don't pretend: you do. You tell me you have some superior knowledge about this higher feeling: "love". However, when I ask for examples/proof all I get is sentimental gibberish. When I try to give examples to illustrate my point, the result is more childish flaming. Once again, if you do not wish to make CONTROLLED (no more "retarded", that is flaming and your post will be deleted if seen by mods) and LOGICAL arguments, don't bother me. Thank you.

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 04/27/08 - 03:44 PM:	#43
Lex, your "brain-in-a-jar" and "dog body" examples seem to point to the argument that love between two people is an impossibility. I didn't see where you were going with your debate. If a person is reduced to a brain in a body, then you are quite right. No relationship is possible. The fact that everyone believes in love and swears by his or her relationship doesn't mean a thing except that the whole world is deluded. If Sensabile can put his mother's brain in a jar, even he can see the light in your viewpoint. And I will be damned if Benkei would lie with the dog just to be with his lover.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/27/08 - 04:36 PM:	#44
yiming: pretty much. Unfortunately I would need to hear you or at least know you a bit better to understand whether you are being sarcastic (sounds a lot like it), but even the responses to my opinion seem like the bites of creatures who enjoy being undisturbed in their delusions. This already gives my statement at least partial validity.

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 159

Posted 04/27/08 - 06:03 PM:	#45
Lex wrote: 1. I don't understand the grammar here. If you love someone and they have a horrible accident and are disfigured, then... Yes you would still love them, if you don't you never did, the question I am sure is etc. Lex wrote: 2. Well you kind of said you will show me a liar (I guess you meant show ME to be a liar), so I supposed you meant that you could prove to me that people fall in love. I guess I misunderstood, and you were just making a senseless comment. Btw, using "LMAO" in a debate is already childish and unnecessary. No I meant you could not prove to me they don't. I said if you show me the evidence I would show you a liar, clearly you have no evidence (its a play on an old saying). You did misunderstand, but it is understandable, I was pointing out that you had made a senseless comment. I know LMAO is somewhat childish, but it's shorter than saying 'I experienced a paroxysm of laughter when I read your statement'. Lex wrote: 3. No I guess I have no proof. Only logical observation makes me inclined to say there is not. To me, the fact that love makes no sense is already proof enough. But I guess this is the part where you say: "you have no HARD proof, but I also have no proof whatsoever except how I WANT TO FEEL, so you should accept my position or I will LMAO at you. No I have already LMAO at you but I do look forward to doing it again. This is the part where I say... ...So your argument is that you have viewed the same evidence as me and come to the opposite conclusion, therefore you are right! I think this may call for an lol but I'm not even sure if your serious, or you just like being controversial. I would have no problem as I imagine most people would not if you had a reasonable theory or idea as to why there is no love, other than human brains in dogs, rubbish about some two day mourning period for pets and the infallibility of your logical observations. Instead you have posted derisory comments about people, and claimed to be the one eyed king in the land of the blind. Lex wrote: I don't pretend: you do. You tell me you have some superior knowledge about this higher feeling: "love". However, when I ask for examples/proof all I get is sentimental gibberish. When I try to give examples to illustrate my point, the result is more childish flaming. Lex wrote: dogma: "a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises". What was it the pot called the kettle? I stongly recommend that if you choose to continue you explain exactly what idea of 'love' you are arguing against.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/27/08 - 07:20 PM:	#46
Techeth wrote: If you love someone and they have a horrible accident and are disfigured, then... Yes you would still love them, if you don't you never did, the question I am sure is etc. I say that's a lie. You wouldn't love them. You will pity YOURSELF, and cry about it. That's it. Techeth wrote: No I meant you could not prove to me they don't. I said if you show me the evidence I would show you a liar, clearly you have no evidence (its a play on an old saying). You did misunderstand, but it is understandable, I was pointing out that you had made a senseless comment. I know LMAO is somewhat childish, but it's shorter than saying 'I experienced a paroxysm of laughter when I read your statement'. My comment is: there is no evidence for this love you speak of. It makes no sense for me to prove ABSENCE of evidence, it's your job to provide said evidence. Btw, nobody cares about how funny you find it. Stick to topic. Techeth wrote: ...So your argument is that you have viewed the same evidence as me and come to the opposite conclusion, therefore you are right! I think this may call for an lol but I'm not even sure if your serious, or you just like being controversial. I would have no problem as I imagine most people would not if you had a reasonable theory or idea as to why there is no love, other than human brains in dogs, rubbish about some two day mourning period for pets and the infallibility of your logical observations. Instead you have posted derisory comments about people, and claimed to be the one eyed king in the land of the blind. I don't even know what evidence you used, I can't come to the opposite conclusion by reviewing the SAME evidence. My idea is reasonable, the fact that you have sentimental attachment to the opposite fails to invalidate my statement. Techeth wrote: What was it the pot called the kettle? Don't get the grammar again. Techeth wrote: I stongly recommend that if you choose to continue you explain exactly what idea of 'love' you are arguing against. I don't think it exists. That's it. The thing that most people call "love" is, in my opinion, purely physiological (hormonal) attraction.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1664

Posted 04/28/08 - 01:13 AM:	#47
It's a little sad to rip off an entire paragraph off of a psychology website for your argument, but ok. This is still a rumination and needs to be proven before it is accepted. I read Jacques Lacan, it's easier to rip off a summary from a website than rummaging through his book and if you think his work is a rumination, you really should read him. You can't call a purely logical analysis of an issue disrespect, even if it makes people uncomfortable. This is a "gadfly effect", if you ask me. To begin with it is not logical, only within the framework of your assumptions. The assumption is also that people's experiences do not matter; the disprespect lies in that. You are telling people that they do not experience love. I'm trying to show you that even when the emotion of love is caused by purely physiological aspects (or drugs, or a faulty brain or whatever), it doesn't change the experience of it as something other, e.g. true love. It is that experience that is defining, not its causes. Nevertheless, I would even reject your causes based on the psychological and neuro-biological research. Oxytocin is released both between mother-child right after birth and the same happens between sexual partners during sex (and after a while just by seeing the other), the two types of love are essentially different. One is erotic and based on attraction the other is not. That shows that the main chemical released with the emotion generally considered love is not based on attraction. And that's not even going into the psychological differences between love as attraction between sexual partners and the true love, the mystical love Lacan describes.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 159

Posted 04/28/08 - 04:38 AM:	#48
Lex wrote: I say that's a lie. You wouldn't love them. You will pity YOURSELF, and cry about it. That's it. Oh I'm sorry, 'you say so' that's different then, I feel silly now. So if my wife suffered in this way I would feel sorry for myself, and so dedicate my life to looking after her, or do people never do this, just another delusion? Persuasive argument I see the logic here. Lex wrote: My comment is: there is no evidence for this love you speak of. It makes no sense for me to prove ABSENCE of evidence, it's your job to provide said evidence. Btw, nobody cares about how funny you find it. Stick to topic. My comment is: there is evidence for this love you don't speak of. So your argument is that it would be silly for you to try to prove there is no evidence, I'm glad we agree. I cared. Lex wrote: I don't even know what evidence you used, I can't come to the opposite conclusion by reviewing the SAME evidence. My idea is reasonable, the fact that you have sentimental attachment to the opposite fails to invalidate my statement. I think this is the part where I say "I am not sentimental, (implies emotionality). You cannot infer anything, and you are embarrassing yourself right now". So are you saying you have not observed and involved yourself in mankind and their interactions with each other and come to your conclusion? That's what I did so you must have done something else. Nope, I am sure there is a reasonable argument for not believing in love, you just seem to have skipped that part and gone straight to the conclusion. Lex wrote: Don't get the grammar again. It's okay those who need to know, know. Lex wrote: I don't think it exists. That's it. The thing that most people call "love" is, in my opinion, purely physiological (hormonal) attraction. Yes that is it, literally. If you have something to add, then you have something to discuss, but this 'I know and your all just stupid' argument is just pointless. It's possible someone will he help you have a revelation, but it is a lot to ask.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1664

Posted 04/28/08 - 05:33 AM:	#49
Not really. Again, you have not proved anything by trying to play on words. Your statement: the experience of the emotion of "true love" is still real, has no proof. If I administer a drug to you that makes you experience acute pain in your left foot would you deny feeling pain in your left foot? The pain is real regardless of whether it is a physical nail being driven through your left foot or caused by a drug. It does not change the fact that the experience is exactly the same. Experiencing true love is then qualitatively exactly the same regardless of whether it is caused by "simple attraction" or really, really true love. Suffice is to say that in my experience there is a clear qualitative difference in the emotion I have for one particular woman in my life and those based on attraction (which form of "love" I have experienced several times and no longer call love as such). It is this qualitative ranking of my subjective experiences that allows me to differentiate between the two, e.g. love and attraction.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/28/08 - 07:28 AM:	#50
Benkei wrote: If I administer a drug to you that makes you experience acute pain in your left foot would you deny feeling pain in your left foot? The pain is real regardless of whether it is a physical nail being driven through your left foot or caused by a drug. It does not change the fact that the experience is exactly the same. Experiencing true love is then qualitatively exactly the same regardless of whether it is caused by "simple attraction" or really, really true love. This is not a logical connection. "I feel extreme pain if I am subjected to extreme stimulus" does not prove "I will feel love if I fall in love". That is ridiculous. You have to prove that the stimulus for the second statement exists. You do not prove to me that your feeling is greater than the feeling of physical attraction. Obviously I cannot "feel" what you feel, but it makes no sense logically. If you think love is spiritual and not physical, then again, tell me what happens if the person you love is completely disfigured? Would you still love that person? I think not. Besides, in today's world I have never once seen even one person (besides you people, you obviously have all experienced love, while chatting with god in a bar one Sunday no doubt) face to face who actually fell in love and could relate the experience. Some people do indeed say that they married based on "love", but ALL of them are now divorced.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.