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

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 07:49 AM:	#51
Benkei wrote: 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. I did. Jacques Lacan focuses on psychoanalysis, not romantic glorification of love. Randomly quoting a random passage from a random psychology website out of context is the sign of having a weak opinion yourself: that is what I would do if I had no idea what I was talking about, I would just go and look for "smart" quotes. As for the rumination bit: at the moment, psychoanalysis is rather subjective. Lacan has opponents as well as fans, and they claim he is completely wrong. You can't use a few of his words about love as proof of anything, not if you are an intelligent person. Benkei wrote: To begin with it is not logical, only within the framework of your assumptions. Really? I think it is quite logical, at least I heard no proof of the contrary. me: here is my opinion. the perturbed: no! you are wrong and I can prove you wrong. how can you go against common dogma? me: well, because example and lack of actual proof for the dogma. the perturbed: well flame flame flame flame satisfied yet? Benkei wrote: 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 don't care about what people claim. I want to see proof. Benkei wrote: 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. Did I even hear this right? Did you just ADMIT that love is based on chemical imbalances? Do you even understand what you are saying? Benkei wrote: 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. Stop referring to Lacan already, unless you are ready to prove that mystical love right now, because otherwise I will rain you with AUTHORITATIVE nihilist quotes and OTHER people's opinions that love is inexistent. Use your own opinion.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 08:01 AM:	#52
Techeth wrote: 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. Do you claim that you could love a complete cripple? Sure, you would take care of her, but that's it. There are many married people, do you claim they are all in love? Recently a Turkish couple of newlyweds STABBED each other to death over a misunderstood phone message. Are you telling me something like that is possible if there is real love and understanding? Being married means nothing, at least not based on evidence, and once again, no proof to the contrary. Techeth wrote: 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. If you want to play word games, do it elsewhere or with someone else. Techeth wrote: 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. No, you just seemed to have ignored reading any of my explanatory posts and gone straight to your favorite part of the argument: the random flaming. Techeth wrote: It's okay those who need to know, know. Not really, I think you should get a firmer grasp on you command of semantics. I don't see how I am being dogmatic, so there is no sense in saying that I am a "pot calling a kettle black". Techeth wrote: 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. I am not asking for a revelation, and I have not once accused anyone of stupidity, and you seem to completely ignore the fact that I hold back despite hearing politesse such as "your examples are retarded" from well-brought-up gentlemen here. Anyway if you have an argument to make, please do, the "digest each quotation response" game can indeed take a while but all-in-all is rather pointless. Edited by Lex on 04/28/08 - 10:43 AM

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 09:24 AM:	#53
yiming wrote: 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. The simple point I have tried to make over and over again, and which Lex, despite his obvious intelligence, is incapable of grasping, is that these examples are ridiculous. I would call them fallacious but examples don't constitute arguments. Let's re-phrase Lex's examples into the following analogy (and into an actual argumentative form): I like my laptop computer. If I removed the battery I would not like my laptop computer anymore: therefore, the pleasure I derive from using my laptop is due entirely to the battery... It's obvious that although the use of the laptop is substantially (thought not entirely) dependent upon it having a battery, it does not follow that my enjoyment is due to its having a battery. A parallel is apparent between the examples Lex has offered: although love may be substantially dependent upon a particular lover being human, non-deformed and attractive, it does not follow that love is due (entirely?) to the lover being human, non-deformed or attractive--necessary contra. sufficient. Lex, the thing you have not realised throughout this entire thread is that I have never once attempted to "prove" to you my opinions on love; all of my efforts have been strained in showing you that your examples establish nothing. I will not make any attempts to "prove" to you that my opinions on love are correct because I do not believe we will ever reach an agreeable criteria of proof. What I am interested in (on the subject of love, for instance) is seeing what other people make of experiences that are similar to my own. I would not disagree that some people are capable of producing ridiculous and outlandish accounts of their experiences, but I believe that if you spend your life hankering after proofs for accounts of human nature you will become more and more riddled with dogma and opinions of a trite nature--and that is not to say that you are dogmatic or that you have trite opinions, after all I only know of your opinions on this one subject.
_____________________ 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

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 09:32 AM:	#54
Lex wrote: Do you claim that you could love a complete cripple? Sure, you would take care of her, but that's it. There are many married people, do you claim they are all in love? Recently a Turkish couple of newlyweds STABBED each other to death over a misunderstood phone message. Are you telling me something like that is possible if there is real love and understanding? Being married means nothing, at least not based on evidence, and once again, no proof to the contrary. Informal fallacy: hasty generalisation. I am not asking for a revelation, and I have not once accused anyone of stupidity, and you seem to completely ignore the fact that I hold back despite hearing politesse such as "your examples are retarded" from well-brought-up gentlemen here. I apologise for referring to your examples as retarded. They did nothing wrong.
_____________________ 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

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 09:42 AM:	#55
In general: no one is trying to prove anything to you. You have assumed that because we cannot (i.e. simply do not try) to prove to you that people experience "genuine love" (as distinct from physical attraction) that it therefore does not occur, and that furthermore your examples establish this point conclusively. I think I have shown why your examples do not firmly establish anything, whether they are speculative (e.g. human brain in a dog) or particular occurrences (e.g. the Turkish couple). The only question I have left for you (assuming you cannot show me that your examples do in fact constitute valid arguments) is do you understand why people do not care to "prove" to you their accounts of experiencing love?
_____________________ 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 04/28/08 - 10:29 AM:	#56
sensabile wrote: It's obvious that although the use of the laptop is substantially (thought not entirely) dependent upon it having a battery, it does not follow that my enjoyment is due to its having a battery. A parallel is apparent between the examples Lex has offered: although love may be substantially dependent upon a particular lover being human, non-deformed and attractive, it does not follow that love is due (entirely?) to the lover being human, non-deformed or attractive--necessary contra. sufficient. The example is not a proof but an illustration, however I see you still cannot even grasp it, judging by the fact that you use a completely unrelated example to attempt to prove my example wrong. We are not talking about computer batteries. A human is: a body + a brain. The brain holds everything that is you: it is your humanity, your "soul" so to say (note quotations and don't bother me with anything religious). I do not know how much of the brain you have to shave off to get to the "core" of the individuality (aka when the human stops being human), but the brain is the thing that determines who you are. Obviously, humans have 2 arms, 2 legs, a head, etc. However, all my example tried to illustrate is that this particular image is a necessary component of the "love" you proclaim is actually based on the "soul". If it is indeed spiritual, there should be nothing stopping you from loving a dog (in any sense) with a human brain, or a human without arms, legs, and face. Seriously, I can clearly see where you misunderstand my examples, but I fail to comprehend how you can fail to understand something as simple as that. sensabile wrote: Lex, the thing you have not realised throughout this entire thread is that I have never once attempted to "prove" to you my opinions on love; all of my efforts have been strained in showing you that your examples establish nothing. I will not make any attempts to "prove" to you that my opinions on love are correct because I do not believe we will ever reach an agreeable criteria of proof. What I am interested in (on the subject of love, for instance) is seeing what other people make of experiences that are similar to my own. I would not disagree that some people are capable of producing ridiculous and outlandish accounts of their experiences, but I believe that if you spend your life hankering after proofs for accounts of human nature you will become more and more riddled with dogma and opinions of a trite nature--and that is not to say that you are dogmatic or that you have trite opinions, after all I only know of your opinions on this one subject. Well I am a skeptic. If you don't even want to try to prove it, I maintain my right to not believe it. In fact, by definition, if you don't even try to prove it but blindly believe it, it becomes dogma. So please stop accusing me of dogmatism. I am not biased, angry, or disturbed. I merely seek truth. I would be exalted if something wonderful like love was possible, but I don't think it is, based on historical evidence, my contact with humans, and logic.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 10:33 AM:	#57
sensabile wrote: Informal fallacy: hasty generalisation. Don't make me laugh. You said something about loving your wife despite her being crippled, I showed you that marriage does not imply love. In any case, no matter how many examples I give you, you will bs me with this, and obviously I cannot give you 6 billion examples. You are demanding unreasonable proof: you are telling me that the only way I can prove something is by getting to know all the people in the world, while you do not require that knowledge in order to adopt your dogma of love. sensabile wrote: I apologise for referring to your examples as retarded. They did nothing wrong. Already told another person, if you want to play word games, find someone else.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 10:37 AM:	#58
sensabile wrote: In general: no one is trying to prove anything to you. You have assumed that because we cannot (i.e. simply do not try) to prove to you that people experience "genuine love" (as distinct from physical attraction) that it therefore does not occur, and that furthermore your examples establish this point conclusively. I think I have shown why your examples do not firmly establish anything, whether they are speculative (e.g. human brain in a dog) or particular occurrences (e.g. the Turkish couple). The only question I have left for you (assuming you cannot show me that your examples do in fact constitute valid arguments) is do you understand why people do not care to "prove" to you their accounts of experiencing love? If there is no proof, it is usually called DOGMA. Yes, I know why no one is trying to prove it. Because DOGMA fears proof and relies on mass support to quell any attempt at it.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 11:37 AM:	#59
But Lex, what proof do any of us need beyond the experience of love? Love has already revealed itself to us and we are not obsessed with what it is that causes it, because it will not change the experience, the emotion itself. It is interesting to see that you even missed the counter-argument, based on scientific fact, against love being based on attraction but did read an admittance in it on my part that love would be based on attraction. Carefully read it again, deconstruct it into its various syllogisms and you should see what I mean. There is no objective verifiable proof available for this subjective experience. Perhaps trusting other people that they speak the truth on the matter would resolve this but you have your mind set on a certain thing and simply assume everybody else is a liar. I really recommend you to read William James' "On the variety of religious experiences" to understand the subjective reality of experiencing things that are not objectively quantifiable.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 11:41 AM:	#60
Lex wrote: The example is not a proof but an illustration, I know it's not a proof, I never said it was... however I see you still cannot even grasp it, judging by the fact that you use a completely unrelated example to attempt to prove my example wrong. I was attempting to show that the form of the implicit argument of the example (or the only argument that can be inferred from what you say) is fallacious in that it does not establish its purported conclusion. but the brain is the thing that determines who you are. Prove it... However, all my example tried to illustrate is that this particular image is a necessary component of the "love" you proclaim is actually based on the "soul". I haven't once mentioned anything to do with "souls". Also, if something is a necessary component it doesn't make it a sufficient component. See my first post of three above. If it is indeed spiritual, there should be nothing stopping you from loving a dog (in any sense) with a human brain, or a human without arms, legs, and face. Good point. But no one has said that appearance is not a necessary component of love. Also consider the following (and realistic, I might add) possibilities. If our lover suddenly changes into a dog, we lose other things besides their appearance, which we would have grown accustomed to in all it's magnificent detail: among these is speech, pleasant odour, the ability to do many things that you would have done as a couple before (e.g. hold hands, play tennis, read together, visit friends and family and be jointly involved in conversation etc.), laugh together, etc...So you see, your simple example, far from highlighting physical attraction as the sole factor actually shows (quite wonderfully) how many confounding variables are inherent in any attempt to over-simplify human nature. Seriously, I can clearly see where you misunderstand my examples, but I fail to comprehend how you can fail to understand something as simple as that. I know we are not talking about computer batteries but the irrelevance of the content serves these useful function of highlighting the relevant mistakes in your thinking. Well I am a skeptic. If you don't even want to try to prove it, I maintain my right to not believe it. In fact, by definition, if you don't even try to prove it but blindly believe it, it becomes dogma. So please stop accusing me of dogmatism. I am not biased, angry, or disturbed. I merely seek truth. I would be exalted if something wonderful like love was possible, but I don't think it is, based on historical evidence, my contact with humans, and logic. I am not attempting to infringe upon your right to not believe anything. I don't ask you to believe anything and I would be disappointed if you simply took my word for "it". I disagree slightly with your ideas about dogma but that is a largely irrelevant side-topic that requires a lot more detail than can be mustered in footnotes to the subject of this thread. I apologise if I have reacted rudely in the course of this thread but whether or not it was intended you have come across as quite aggressive; perhaps you think aggression is a good trait in an iconoclast challenging people's perspectives, I don't know, and frankly I don't care--but just so you know, I suspect that this is why most people in the thread have reacted with amusement and/or frustration.
_____________________ 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

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 11:58 AM:	#61
Lex wrote: Don't make me laugh. You said something about loving your wife despite her being crippled, I showed you that marriage does not imply love. In any case, no matter how many examples I give you, you will bs me with this, and obviously I cannot give you 6 billion examples. You are demanding unreasonable proof: you are telling me that the only way I can prove something is by getting to know all the people in the world, while you do not require that knowledge in order to adopt your dogma of love. I'm sorry you have such an aversion to laughter but I assure you that it exists. I'm afraid I can't prove it to you though... In any case, I don't see why you think my reply was "bs". If you had said something like "79% of newly-weds hack each other to death over small misunderstandings" then that would be pretty amazing evidence. As it is, you have cited a bizarre, and obviously tragic, yet unrepresentative case. There's no reason why people can't fall out of love and it have nothing to do with a change in appearance--in fact this is the best counter to everything you have said. If you accept this last point then you should at the very least agree that we should all be sceptical as to whether there is "genuine love" (i.e. that people have a marked experience in relation to another person that isn't purely physical) or that love is merely physical attraction. If we can find that as a starting point then I believe we could find grounds for agreement.
_____________________ 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

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 12:06 PM:	#62
Lex wrote: If there is no proof, it is usually called DOGMA. We do not require formal proofs that the sun will rise tomorrow in order to know that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is of course evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow in that it has done-so for as long as we can remember and we have great knowledge as to why it rises due to the movements of our own planet, and so on; yet you cannot prove beyond all doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow or that you will not mysteriously turn into a dog at 12.15 tomorrow lunch time. The obvious question if you disagree here then, is what is it that you mean by "proof"?
_____________________ 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 04/28/08 - 02:23 PM:	#63
Benkei wrote: But Lex, what proof do any of us need beyond the experience of love? Love has already revealed itself to us and we are not obsessed with what it is that causes it, because it will not change the experience, the emotion itself. It is interesting to see that you even missed the counter-argument, based on scientific fact, against love being based on attraction but did read an admittance in it on my part that love would be based on attraction. Carefully read it again, deconstruct it into its various syllogisms and you should see what I mean. There is no counter-argument except your claim to have experienced love, which is not really a counter-argument unless proven. If I personally know that it is impossible for me to feel anything resembling the feeling you call "love", I can come to two conclusions: nobody else can, or love is a function of lower intelligence. Since I think purely in terms of logic (or, at least, not emotions), I cannot conclude anything else. However, I am open-minded about having someone else make a viable argument as to the opposite, and would be glad to know that love is possible. I just won't believe it unless I see proof. Benkei wrote: There is no objective verifiable proof available for this subjective experience. Perhaps trusting other people that they speak the truth on the matter would resolve this but you have your mind set on a certain thing and simply assume everybody else is a liar. I really recommend you to read William James' "On the variety of religious experiences" to understand the subjective reality of experiencing things that are not objectively quantifiable. I don't trust people. Trusting is not the valid basis for research. Humans trusted Hitler, Napoleon, the Inquisition. Trusting is nothing but an escape from thinking and acting on your own.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 02:32 PM:	#64
sensabile wrote: We do not require formal proofs that the sun will rise tomorrow in order to know that the sun will rise tomorrow. I am close to assuming that you are attempting to have a laugh pretending to be in kindergarten. YES, YOU DO require formal proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. For all you know without proof, the sun might be a holographic image set to not appear tomorrow. Without proof, people were quite certain the sun was a planet that rotated around the Earth. The reason you KNOW 100% that the sun will rise tomorrow (unless a disaster destroys the Earth and/or Sun) is because scientists have discovered the principle of the Earth's rotation around the Sun.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 02:42 PM:	#65
sensabile wrote: If you had said something like "79% of newly-weds hack each other to death over small misunderstandings" then that would be pretty amazing evidence. As it is, you have cited a bizarre, and obviously tragic, yet unrepresentative case. There's no reason why people can't fall out of love and it have nothing to do with a change in appearance--in fact this is the best counter to everything you have said. Obviously that would just mean that the entire population is psychotic. The current divorce rate is around 4% in the US, only a little lower than the marriage rate. This means that pretty much everyone who marries eventually gets divorced. Of course there are those who stick it to the end, but then again the divorce rate in Russia in the 19th century was damn low but anyone who says these people were in love needs to reread their history. Marriage does not illustrate the point that people fall in love, unless love is some transient feeling that disappears quite quickly. And if you ask me, that is called deluding yourself into thinking you are in love only to be disappointed later.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 02:46 PM:	#66
sensabile wrote: Prove it... Get over here and I'll prove it to you brandishes scalpel This requires no proof whatsoever beyond what we already know. All thought processes occur solely in the brain, if you don't believe me take a biology course.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 03:14 PM:	#67
There is no counter-argument except your claim to have experienced love, which is not really a counter-argument unless proven. If I personally know that it is impossible for me to feel anything resembling the feeling you call "love", I can come to two conclusions: nobody else can, or love is a function of lower intelligence. Since I think purely in terms of logic (or, at least, not emotions), I cannot conclude anything else. However, I am open-minded about having someone else make a viable argument as to the opposite, and would be glad to know that love is possible. I just won't believe it unless I see proof. Lex, I hate to break it to you, but you are most certainly not purely thinking in terms of logic and even failed to apply it on a number of occasions. Your outbursts in several threads have already shown that you're a far more emotional creature than most of us here. But that's ok, you're human and young. Now, let's take a closer look at this If I personally know that it is impossible for me to feel anything resembling the feeling you call "love" Let's assume for a minute you could predict how you can feel in every given circumstance, then that knowledge is still entirely personal and subjective and by your own account (since you dismiss my experiences so readily) this is no proof at all. The fact that you then know this about yourself does not allow you to make the leap that "nobody else can [love], or love is a function of lower intelligence." because it is no basis for knowledge since it cannot be objectively proven. If you do insist that your personal and subjective knowledge of you being incapable of certain emotions is a valid basis for knowledge, you will have to accept that since I personally know that it is possible for me to experience true love (since I did) I can conclude that all people can but not everyone has yet and your denial is purely a result of ignorance. The basis for "knowledge" in both cases is entirely the same. Subjective experience. This is exactly the value of the reality of experience I'm trying to convey to you. If you truly feel that you are incapable of these emotions, it is obvious truth for you and therefore real. I have to respect that as a real experience for you even if I do not relate or agree - but I cannot deny that you have (had) this experience. It would require me to call you a liar and unlike you I do put trust in people because without it there is no basis for human interaction or knowledge. For instance, you trust the scientists who postulated the theory of a heliocentric universe and subsequently failed to falsify it. As a species we continually build on old knowledge as we commit what we have learned to memory and apply it at some later stage. Finally, I would not exagerrate your ability to rationalise your own feelings. You should realise that feeling that you cannot feel love is not knowing - it's an experience, which you subsequently rationally categorise.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 03:18 PM:	#68
This requires no proof whatsoever beyond what we already know. All thought processes occur solely in the brain, if you don't believe me take a biology course. Rationality is just chemicals firing away in the brain and so is logic, therefore neither exists. Come on Lex, this is absurd reductionism.
_____________________ 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 - 03:38 PM:	#69
Benkei wrote: Rationality is just chemicals firing away in the brain and so is logic, therefore neither exists. Come on Lex, this is absurd reductionism. Ever hear of compatibilism? Apparently not. In any case I am not going to have a debate about the neural science with you, unless you are a professional in the area, you most likely know less than me about the topic, and an argument is impossible unless both people are on the same page.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/28/08 - 03:48 PM:	#70
Benkei wrote: Lex, I hate to break it to you, but you are most certainly not purely thinking in terms of logic and even failed to apply it on a number of occasions. Your outbursts in several threads have already shown that you're a far more emotional creature than most of us here. But that's ok, you're human and young. Not really. I don't get angry. I simply get bored. What you call outbursts were responses to pervasive flaming where I did the best I could to attempt to direct the discussion back to the topic and failed. Nice job attempting to strengthen your argument by commenting on my personality "that's ok, you're human and young." I expected something a bit more mature, I guess expecting means being disappointed. Benkei wrote: Let's assume for a minute you could predict how you can feel in every given circumstance, then that knowledge is still entirely personal and subjective and by your own account (since you dismiss my experiences so readily) this is no proof at all. The fact that you then know this about yourself does not allow you to make the leap that "nobody else can [love], or love is a function of lower intelligence." because it is no basis for knowledge since it cannot be objectively proven. I was not using that as proof. I had a lot of "my experience says you can love why don't you trust me?" types of comments and merely stated that I cannot even identify with that argument on a personal basis. ALSO I said that I do not accept it as proof because there are numerous examples of people who claim to be in love "falling out" of it ridiculously quick. I have many such examples. If I believed everything people spewed on whim, I would be made a fool of on a daily basis. Hence I want proof. Benkei wrote: As a species we continually build on old knowledge as we commit what we have learned to memory and apply it at some later stage. Finally, I would not exagerrate your ability to rationalise your own feelings. You should realise that feeling that you cannot feel love is not knowing - it's an experience, which you subsequently rationally categorise. Humans do not discard all fallacious opinions. The existence of many contradicting religions is proof: even if one of them was right, it proves that all other people are delusional.

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

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

Posted 04/29/08 - 01:00 AM:	#71
In any case I am not going to have a debate about the neural science with you, unless you are a professional in the area, you most likely know less than me about the topic, and an argument is impossible unless both people are on the same page. Humor me and let's have a debate regarding the chemical aspects of "love" and "attraction". I think you might be surprised at what I know and don't know. In fact, your misinterpretation of what Oxytocin actually does already suggests I should be calling you on this bluff. Such research and MRI scans have already shown conclusively that the long term attachment and the "true love" that comes with it, has nothing to do with the "intoxicating" effects of pure attraction (what people usually confuse with love). Even so, it is irrelevant. You seem to fail to address the point I continually raise that regardless of causes it changes nothing qualitatively of the experience. I agree it is no proof for you but it is proof for me and whoever else has experienced love. The experience whether really real or just an illusion is our only source of knowledge (well, after categorisation of course). Read Putnam's Brains in a VAT thought experiment if you haven't done so already to understand that our knowledge of everything is contingent to our experiences. Not really. I don't get angry. Lol, then explain to me why there is a clear correlation between a significantly higher number of spelling and grammar mistakes in your posts whenever people perceive your posts as agitated or angry (see the thread on God's existence in particular). You seem to think your emotions are a bad thing. To me they signal you find something important enough to be emotionally attached to it. Of course, it helps to make a point if you argue with more detachment but that's because we have this silly idea that surpressing emotion is healthy and rational. I find highly emotional people usually to be much more truthful so if someone yells at me in an angry voice that he doesn't believe me, I tend to believe him more readily than when he says it calmly. Nice job attempting to strengthen your argument by commenting on my personality "that's ok, you're human and young." I expected something a bit more mature, I guess expecting means being disappointed. I never claimed I was mature now did I? But it was in fact to signal to you that I can accept you despite your shortcomings. I don't feel particularly disappointed that you make no effort whatsoever to understand my position. This is for me an exercise in trying to find a way to open up someone to think "out of the box" and let go of his way of viewing at things and allowing himself to glimpse at reality through different eyes. So far, I'm not doing such a good job, although you seem to have relaxed a bit. It would be truly interesting, just as an exercise, for you to argue my position in your own words. I wonder what you would say... ALSO I said that I do not accept it as proof because there are numerous examples of people who claim to be in love "falling out" of it ridiculously quick. So you blame people for confusing attraction and love? I see that happening all the time and I smile. It's fun and funny to be in love (in the meaning of attraction) and after a while we wake up to the reality that we are not fulfilled in a deeper sense; fulfilment I recognise as necessary for true love. Eventually, (hopefully) they will understand the difference between attraction and love, a distinction that is hard to make because the sexual relationship is usually a part of the love relationship. Pyschologically it is entirely possible to feel deep attachment for a long-term spouse, while you feel romantic love for someone else and at the same time feel the sex drive in situations unrelated to either person. Oh yes, with regard to compatibilism, I've only heard of it with regard to free will and determinism, so you might need to clarify what you mean as I do not understand it's relevance to this thread.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 04/29/08 - 08:16 AM:	#72
Lex wrote: I am close to assuming that you are attempting to have a laugh pretending to be in kindergarten. YES, YOU DO require formal proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. For all you know without proof, the sun might be a holographic image set to not appear tomorrow. Without proof, people were quite certain the sun was a planet that rotated around the Earth. The reason you KNOW 100% that the sun will rise tomorrow (unless a disaster destroys the Earth and/or Sun) is because scientists have discovered the principle of the Earth's rotation around the Sun. You didn't get to my question asking you what are your ideas regarding "proof". It would be helpful for everyone if you answered this question. Another related question is what is this "requirement" of proof for, exactly? Is it needed for us to say that we have "knowledge" or is it simply necessary. Obviously that would just mean that the entire population is psychotic. So why doesn't your example simply show that the Turkish couple are psychotic? I think that's the case and it has no relevance to the validity of the given accounts of love on these forums--or else where for that matter. The current divorce rate is around 4% in the US, only a little lower than the marriage rate. This means that pretty much everyone who marries eventually gets divorced. Of course there are those who stick it to the end, but then again the divorce rate in Russia in the 19th century was damn low but anyone who says these people were in love needs to reread their history. Marriage does not illustrate the point that people fall in love, unless love is some transient feeling that disappears quite quickly. And if you ask me, that is called deluding yourself into thinking you are in love only to be disappointed later. Straw man. As far as I'm aware, no one has used marriage as justification for their accounts of love here. Get over here and I'll prove it to you brandishes scalpel This requires no proof whatsoever beyond what we already know. All thought processes occur solely in the brain, if you don't believe me take a biology course. For someone who says they are a sceptic you seem to "know" (i.e. assume) a lot. The obvious vagueness of the statement "the brain determines you" doesn't even occur to you. How do environmental factors affect us according to your account? Edited by sensabile on 04/29/08 - 08:30 AM
_____________________ 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 04/29/08 - 11:25 AM:	#73
sensabile wrote: You didn't get to my question asking you what are your ideas regarding "proof". It would be helpful for everyone if you answered this question. Another related question is what is this "requirement" of proof for, exactly? Is it needed for us to say that we have "knowledge" or is it simply necessary. Proof for me would be a) personal experience or b) a societal structure consistent with the dogmatic interpretation of love. I have neither. sensabile wrote: So why doesn't your example simply show that the Turkish couple are psychotic? I think that's the case and it has no relevance to the validity of the given accounts of love on these forums--or else where for that matter. Irrelevant. That was an isolated incident, I agree, simply an illustration. When I said "Obviously that would just mean that the entire population is psychotic." I meant that I was not out to prove that. If the statement confused you, sorry. Ignore and read below, rather than taking my words out of context. sensabile wrote: Straw man. As far as I'm aware, no one has used marriage as justification for their accounts of love here. There was a comment by someone (can't remember who) that sounded like "so you say I will stop loving my wife if she gets into an accident?" Therefore I assumed that the person meant for marriage to be an example of a loving relationship. I did nothing but use the arguments supplied to me. sensabile wrote: For someone who says they are a sceptic you seem to "know" (i.e. assume) a lot. The obvious vagueness of the statement "the brain determines you" doesn't even occur to you. How do environmental factors affect us according to your account? A skeptic is not someone who says "I know nothing", or he would simply have to shut up as he has nothing to contribute. A skeptic merely requires more rigorous evidence in search for the truth. I understand how it undermines your "romantic" and "hope-based" interpretation of the world and makes you uncomfortable, but it is not intended to offend you. If I were simply mad at all people who disagree and did not care at all, I would not bother trying to even talk to them.

Techeth
Graduate

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

Posted 04/29/08 - 11:38 AM:	#74
Lex wrote: Do you claim that you could love a complete cripple? Sure, you would take care of her, but that's it. There are many married people, do you claim they are all in love? Recently a Turkish couple of newlyweds STABBED each other to death over a misunderstood phone message. Are you telling me something like that is possible if there is real love and understanding? Being married means nothing, at least not based on evidence, and once again, no proof to the contrary. Yes I could love a complete cripple! Do you not understand how retarded it is to say I can't, you’re not asking (go on say that's exactly what you’re doing) your telling me I can't. I'm sure in your head you have a scenario for this situation I don't suppose you care to share. Lex wrote: If you want to play word games, do it elsewhere or with someone else. For a man who likes to rephrase other people's comments that's a bit rich, or is it childish, or lazy, I'm not sure. Lex wrote: No, you just seemed to have ignored reading any of my explanatory posts and gone straight to your favorite part of the argument: the random flaming. I dare you to show me the quote with your "reasonable" argument, I will concede immediately if you can. Lex wrote: Not really, I think you should get a firmer grasp on you command of semantics. I don't see how I am being dogmatic, so there is no sense in saying that I am a "pot calling a kettle black". So you were just making a senseless point, when you said you didn't understand my grammar? Or just telling lies? Or did you think we cared what you think of my grammar? You really should learn to play by your own rules, is that not something you are accustomed to? I realise you don't see it Lex that is why we are all here trying to show it to you. Lex wrote: I am not asking for a revelation, and I have not once accused anyone of stupidity, and you seem to completely ignore the fact that I hold back despite hearing politesse such as "your examples are retarded" from well-brought-up gentlemen here. "Hold back" is that what you call it, lol. You’re a funny guy! You must really think we're all idiots or stupid (get it ). I know you’re not looking for revelation, you already know your right, revelation is all that could change your mind. Lex wrote: Anyway if you have an argument to make, please do Indeed, but wasn't that what I just said, are you copying me Lex? I will try and be as clear as I can. As Sensabile said I have no intention of convincing you love exists or what I understand love to be. Why would I when you have not given me a reason to. Your whole 'I think therefore it is' philosophy is where the problem lies. Your telling me love doesn't exist when all you have based that on is your own experience and understanding, then tell me I am wrong because my opinion is based on the same thing. If you have never seen or experienced love, then fine. I have never experienced murderous intent but call me crazy (and I'm sure you do) I think it exists. I know you are intelligent, but you’re giving intelligence a bad name. Come up with a good reason why love can't exist, don't just demand people give you one why it should, it's childish. Edited by Techeth on 04/29/08 - 02:41 PM
_____________________ 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

yiming
Student

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

Posted 04/29/08 - 11:51 AM:	#75
Hey Lex, regarding your brain-in-the-jar illustration, I don't think Sensabile's mother would be in the jar if he could put her brain in that container. Sensabile's delusion by the idea of love for his mother would be based on his perception of his mother. Now, that perception resides in Sensabile's brain and not a factual person living in brain in that jar. So, if we apply this argument to Benkei, his lover would not be in the dog's head either. In reality, he would be relating with the lover in his own head while he is getting laid with a factual dog. Sorry, for rewinding and going back on this thread. Your line of reasoning got me thinking and looking with more care at what you are trying to get across to Sensabile and Benkei. with

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.