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

Tomsartre
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 29, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/29/08 - 01:01 PM: Subject: You don't sound selfish..	#76
Hello, a good post and I was interested in the content; so I've chosen to reply with a lot thought for what's been written: You really have thought this 'love' thing through haven’t you! - I feel much the same and would dearly like to unravel it all. I came to the basic conclusion that 'love' is like a wonderful balloon full of a strange and mysterious liquid, it is nice to look at and fun to try and catch - but if you clap your hands over it and try to analyse and take a real close look it, love will simply fly out of your hands and wait for someone else to try again. Love, like life, isn’t a fair thing when it doesn’t go our way - when it does its flawless... so it's defiantly not a 'truth'. love is far more than a notion and it's there to be a complete mash up of styles and genres; a broad term is 'love' - I’m not sure how far it goes but it goes beyond a human that’s for sure... perhaps our human love is a glimpse of what is possible? T

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 04/29/08 - 05:02 PM:	#77
Lex wrote: Proof for me would be a) personal experience or b) a societal structure consistent with the dogmatic interpretation of love. I have neither. There is no grounds for disagreement between us. If you re-read (or perhaps actually read for the first time) my first post in this thread you might find something interesting. I actually recognise your position. You are someone who has not experienced love, and consequently you are of such a temperament (i.e. "sceptical") that you deny its existence due to lack of evidence to the contrary. There is nothing wrong with this as far as I can see. What I think is wrong or simply bad manners or anti-intellectual, is the attempt to denigrate people's claims about love with very little basis. You have examples, whoopee, congratulations, etc., but you haven't come close to showing that these people's accounts are rubbish or otherwise false--and you have made no effort to understand why you haven't shown this.
_____________________ 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

Abiathar
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 04/29/08 - 05:08 PM:	#78
I will simply respond as this. Stoicism was proven folly two thousand years ago. It ascribed the same concepts.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 04/29/08 - 05:11 PM:	#79
Abiathar wrote: I will simply respond as this. Stoicism was proven folly two thousand years ago. It ascribed the same concepts. Folly? There is plenty of wisdom in the words of Seneca that still holds firm today; even if the metaphysics of Stoicism is complete rubbish!
_____________________ 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

Abiathar
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 04/29/08 - 05:19 PM:	#80
Well, granted, the objective state of ones mind does indeed aomplify ones own ability to decerne truth from an enigma. However the human condition is developed and designed around Hormones produced via glands that we cannot remove. This, no matter the focus of ones mind, even in old buddhist monks, still makes them flirt or say teasing things to 'the girls'. If a man spends 80+ years of his life, a virgin and remaining faithful to the ways of Buddha, and yet still has a daily competition with his emotional state, then the understanding is that stoicism in and of itself will always, eventually, fail to human hormones, atleast on some level. Therefore denying yourself love based on the concepts of stoicism will simply ensure that you're lonely for the rest of your life. This is a personal choice.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/29/08 - 06:40 PM:	#81
sensabile wrote: What I think is wrong or simply bad manners or anti-intellectual, is the attempt to denigrate people's claims about love with very little basis. You have examples, whoopee, congratulations, etc., but you haven't come close to showing that these people's accounts are rubbish or otherwise false--and you have made no effort to understand why you haven't shown this. But there is. I don't simply say that I can't KNOW it, I do indeed say that people who claim to have experienced it all lie/exaggerate with a good probability. This I base on analysis of the described emotion from an aggregate societal, scientific (chemical, biological), philosophical and psychological perspective. We already have agreed that besides actual experience, humans cannot justify the existence of love. I say that what they described so far has failed to prove my analysis wrong. Obviously Bayesian analysis should apply to this system with inherent uncertainty, but the uncertainty is rather small. I leave my mind open to allow some sage who has intelligence beyond mine to prove to me that my analysis is wrong, but nobody even attempts to prove anything, arguing that their experience suffices as their proof.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/29/08 - 06:43 PM:	#82
Abiathar wrote: I will simply respond as this. Stoicism was proven folly two thousand years ago. It ascribed the same concepts. Why exactly? And it better be good. Besides, stoicism has nothing to do with the current argument.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/29/08 - 06:45 PM:	#83
Abiathar wrote: Therefore denying yourself love based on the concepts of stoicism will simply ensure that you're lonely for the rest of your life. This is a personal choice. Replace "love" with "sex" and you've got a reasonable argument ^^ It still proves nothing about love.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/29/08 - 06:51 PM:	#84
Tomsartre wrote: Hello, a good post and I was interested in the content; so I've chosen to reply with a lot thought for what's been written: You really have thought this 'love' thing through haven’t you! - I feel much the same and would dearly like to unravel it all. I came to the basic conclusion that 'love' is like a wonderful balloon full of a strange and mysterious liquid, it is nice to look at and fun to try and catch - but if you clap your hands over it and try to analyse and take a real close look it, love will simply fly out of your hands and wait for someone else to try again. Love, like life, isn’t a fair thing when it doesn’t go our way - when it does its flawless... so it's defiantly not a 'truth'. love is far more than a notion and it's there to be a complete mash up of styles and genres; a broad term is 'love' - I’m not sure how far it goes but it goes beyond a human that’s for sure... perhaps our human love is a glimpse of what is possible? T Why not? The problem being that I don't like to drool at balloons full of strange liquid. I like to expose them for what they are. Certainly I like to think that something beyond my understanding is out there. Unfortunately there is no evidence of some paradise after death, and I will most certainly die before humans learn to get there on their own ^^ But maintaining a clear mind is the basis for working for a better world, so for now I will remain my distrustful stoic self. As far as I know, reality is that which I see, I will only alter it with action, not my fantasies, and wish the same to everyone else.

Abiathar
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 04/29/08 - 07:08 PM:	#85
I was not posting about Love, I only respond to the Thread's topic and not the topics that arise amongst posters. Therefore, the purpose of my post is only an answer to the thread's beginner, the second post to clarify for Sensabile. I will not go into a dissertation on my concepts on the specific topic of Stoicism, though one can open a thread if they wish me to explain the rammifications and the lack of thought and foresight that Stoicism shows.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 04/30/08 - 03:46 AM:	#86
Lex wrote: I do indeed say that people who claim to have experienced it all lie/exaggerate with a good probability. This I base on analysis of the described emotion from an aggregate societal, scientific (chemical, biological), philosophical and psychological perspective. I haven't seen any evidence of this perspective, nor have you shown why such a perspective would show that people who talk about "love" are lying. There is no good reason to simply believe an account of someone else's own experience(s) but there is an interesting point here: what if I were an unfortunate hermit who had never experienced "sexual attraction" and I asked you to prove to me its existence? You would undoubtedly point to scientific evidence, relating to chemicals and biology and all such things. But would I be able to understand this evidence if I had no knowledge of the sciences? Do you think I would be right to dismiss your notion of "sexual attraction" as some sort of basic satisfaction such as a hermit might derive from eating? I am not a hermit, and I presume that neither are you. The point here is that it is often difficult to falsify someone's account of their own experiences--and it is indeed impossible if you do not have the same (read "necessary) body of knowledge that shapes this experience. There are one of two things that can be done in this situation: either we can strive for the same body of knowledge; or we can do as Nietzsche once suggested and "turn away". Having said that, having the same body of knowledge is no guarantee: perhaps you may find that you better understand each other but there is still practically nothing that will tell you what it means to eat something sweet short of eating something sweet. Graphical mappings of the brain and biological accounts only tell you what happens when you eat something sweet, but it doesn't tell you how it feels. The same is true of peoples' notions of "love". The crucial difference between our notion of "love" and "sweet" is that the latter is far more common place and obvious. We already have agreed that besides actual experience, humans cannot justify the existence of love. I say that what they described so far has failed to prove my analysis wrong...but nobody even attempts to prove anything, arguing that their experience suffices as their proof. If a lot of people say that they have experienced something (and "a lot" here is deliberately vague) then isn't this evidence that they might be telling the truth? Excusing the possibility of an unbelievably well-managed conspiracy I don't see why else a lot of people might say that they experience something unless they do actually have that experience. I don't particularly like this line of reasoning but it does show how we could justify the existence to someone of an experience that they haven't had. It's possible that one person might be the only one in the world to have never experienced love, he might well say that he doesn't believe the billions of people who say it exists, but I bet he would be hard-pressed not to feel sorry for himself!
_____________________ 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 04/30/08 - 03:51 AM:	#87
Abiathar wrote: Well, granted, the objective state of ones mind does indeed aomplify ones own ability to decerne truth from an enigma. However the human condition is developed and designed around Hormones produced via glands that we cannot remove. This, no matter the focus of ones mind, even in old buddhist monks, still makes them flirt or say teasing things to 'the girls'. If a man spends 80+ years of his life, a virgin and remaining faithful to the ways of Buddha, and yet still has a daily competition with his emotional state, then the understanding is that stoicism in and of itself will always, eventually, fail to human hormones, atleast on some level. Therefore denying yourself love based on the concepts of stoicism will simply ensure that you're lonely for the rest of your life. This is a personal choice. I wasn't aware that Stoicism strictly denied love. But then I have only ever really read Seneca in detail, who was more a fan of moderation than extremism.
_____________________ 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 04/30/08 - 09:03 PM:	#88
I have to note: 1) It will take A LOT of time to divulge what I have accumulated over my lifetime into text, and obviously a lot of text. 2) You are arguing FOR the existence of something and seem to have gotten the idea that I am the one who should do the proving of its absence. The reason I bothered to prove it to myself is because I was interested, but it took a long time and a lot of observation. Still, as the proponent of an idea that is not self-evident, I think you should be the one to give me at least some proof first. Although I admit I have not given rigorous scientific proof (though I gave some good illustrations I think), you gave me none EXCEPT 1. So I will ask you (or someone else here) to do something that should be very easy. Since the one piece of evidence you continuously use is the fact that apparently everyone here experienced love, it shouldn't be too difficult for me to get one little account of it. Explain to me how it occurred, and why you decided it was love (again, since everyone claims to have been in love, it shouldn't be a problem). If this is indeed a valid sample, there will be grounds for believing that experiences of people could indeed be acceptable evidence. If nobody gives me anything or a "I had sex it felt nice" type of example, I hope you will see why I am reluctant to accept such claims. I am looking forward to a response. Oh and btw it's not possible for a monk not to feel the effects of his hormones (puberty) unless he has a physical/mental(same thing actually) disorder, because he will still have hormones firing and will experience sexual desire. He might be able to control it extremely well, but still.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 05/01/08 - 06:56 AM:	#89
Lex wrote: You are arguing FOR the existence of something and seem to have gotten the idea that I am the one who should do the proving of its absence. The reason I bothered to prove it to myself is because I was interested, but it took a long time and a lot of observation. Still, as the proponent of an idea that is not self-evident, I think you should be the one to give me at least some proof first. Although I admit I have not given rigorous scientific proof (though I gave some good illustrations I think), you gave me none EXCEPT 1. I am not arguing with you about the existence of love, per se. What I am arguing is that you haven't shown/established/proved that any of the accounts given on this forum are inaccurate or otherwise false. The point I have tried to make quite forcibly is that I don't think it is possible to prove that someone has not had an experience and that they cannot prove that they have had the experience. The point (or a point, I suppose) of talking about these experiences is to relate similar kinds of experience to see what sense someone else might have made of a comparable situation. So I will ask you (or someone else here) to do something that should be very easy. Since the one piece of evidence you continuously use is the fact that apparently everyone here experienced love, it shouldn't be too difficult for me to get one little account of it. Explain to me how it occurred, and why you decided it was love (again, since everyone claims to have been in love, it shouldn't be a problem). If this is indeed a valid sample, there will be grounds for believing that experiences of people could indeed be acceptable evidence. If nobody gives me anything or a "I had sex it felt nice" type of example, I hope you will see why I am reluctant to accept such claims. I am looking forward to a response. I've no interest in trying to prove the existence of love to you. If you haven't experienced any form of love, and you are of a certain temperament (as either being young/hasty or sceptical), then you will be unlikely to accept any account of love as evidence or proof. A sceptic, as far as I understand, would not deny the existence of love outright but would instead withhold assent either way.
_____________________ 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 05/01/08 - 10:26 PM:	#90
sensabile wrote: I am not arguing with you about the existence of love, per se. What I am arguing is that you haven't shown/established/proved that any of the accounts given on this forum are inaccurate or otherwise false. The point I have tried to make quite forcibly is that I don't think it is possible to prove that someone has not had an experience and that they cannot prove that they have had the experience. The point (or a point, I suppose) of talking about these experiences is to relate similar kinds of experience to see what sense someone else might have made of a comparable situation. That's why I asked: someone give me ONE account. sensabile wrote: I've no interest in trying to prove the existence of love to you. If you haven't experienced any form of love, and you are of a certain temperament (as either being young/hasty or sceptical), then you will be unlikely to accept any account of love as evidence or proof. Then I don't see why you are even talking to me. Indeed I will not accept purely sentimental arguments. sensabile wrote: A sceptic, as far as I understand, would not deny the existence of love outright but would instead withhold assent either way. Until enough observation has been made. Still waiting for that one tiny example, from among the countless you have all experienced.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 05/02/08 - 03:55 AM:	#91
Lex wrote: That's why I asked: someone give me ONE account. What's the point? You wouldn't be able to relate to the same experience and you would try to explain it with an alternative account. Then I don't see why you are even talking to me. Indeed I will not accept purely sentimental arguments. I don't know what's the matter with you. I have said over and over again that my purpose is only to show that your "arguments" don't establish anything and not to prove the existence of love to you--which, I have said on more than one occasion (in my first post in fact), cannot be proven. Don't you listen? Until enough observation has been made. I'm sure that to you this little sound-bite holds a great deal of meaning and significance. I however, can only derive a vague sense of what you might be talking about.
_____________________ 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 05/02/08 - 12:43 PM:	#92
I listen, and you specifically say there that you have no solid proof, but that there is no reason to distrust the experiences of everyone here, since everyone says they experienced love. For that reason, I asked for at least one example out of the existing massive amount of personal experiences involving love that people here have. It wasn't a sound-bite: you said that a skeptic withholds his opinion, and I agreed but added that with enough evidence he can also make a statement. It had nothing to do with the argument, just as your skeptic comment. If your only purpose is to establish that MY arguments do not show something, then we have no purpose in talking. I don't play one-sided games. I already made a few attempts to illustrate my point (however unconvincing you may find it), and now I asked for a very small amount of information that should not be too bothersome for anyone to put down: one of those accounts of love that everyone says they have here. It's only fair that I hear this before I am forced to spend days recounting all of my evidence.

Techeth
Graduate

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

Posted 05/03/08 - 04:20 PM:	#93
So what would you like to know? Why someone thinks they have felt love, what proves it? People only have reasonable justification, the actions and feelings we have for and receive from others. The reason knowing why you don't believe love to be possible is significant is because if the premise of your argument is false then there is no point arguing beyond that. So far your reasons for love not existing seem flawed, so instead of arguing why I believe in love, I am arguing that you have shown no good reason not to, and this must be addressed first.
_____________________ 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 05/03/08 - 08:40 PM:	#94
But Lex has already shown quite explicitly why it is impossible for him to be in relationship. The actions and feelings that seem bona fide to you are only so because you take them at face value. Philosophy takes them apart and put them in the brain in a jar. Then, poof! love vanishes as the lover awakens from his dream.

Techeth
Graduate

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

Posted 05/04/08 - 02:06 AM:	#95
No love does not vanish. Although you would not love the brain in the jar, you would still feel the effects of the love you had, you would still love, its just, that which you loved has gone. A brain in a jar is not a reasonable comparison with a human being. It can only be representative, like an urn or a photo or medal, it represents that which you loved/love. Lex has shown why he feels it is impossible for him to be in a relationship as he understands them. If I take them at face value, I'd imagine you'd be able to show me why I should not.
_____________________ 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 05/04/08 - 11:34 AM:	#96
Hmm..."love" is just a word; use it and abuse it however you like.
_____________________ 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 05/04/08 - 08:11 PM:	#97
Look Techeth and Sensabile, love is an idea just as God is an idea. The two of you are believers in the one true faith - love. Like God, love validates you and make you feel whole. An atheist like Lex doesn't buy that crap. It is hard to convince you that love, like God, is nothing more than a security blanket.

Techeth
Graduate

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

Posted 05/05/08 - 03:13 AM:	#98
Oh! He's an atheist!? Why didn't he say, of course he wouldn't believe in love.
_____________________ 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 05/05/08 - 04:42 AM:	#99
Lex wrote: I listen, and you specifically say there that you have no solid proof, but that there is no reason to distrust the experiences of everyone here, since everyone says they experienced love. For that reason, I asked for at least one example out of the existing massive amount of personal experiences involving love that people here have. It wasn't a sound-bite: you said that a skeptic withholds his opinion, and I agreed but added that with enough evidence he can also make a statement. It had nothing to do with the argument, just as your skeptic comment. If your only purpose is to establish that MY arguments do not show something, then we have no purpose in talking. I don't play one-sided games. I already made a few attempts to illustrate my point (however unconvincing you may find it), and now I asked for a very small amount of information that should not be too bothersome for anyone to put down: one of those accounts of love that everyone says they have here. It's only fair that I hear this before I am forced to spend days recounting all of my evidence. Lex, when is the last time you had a dream that you still remember? Prove to me that you had that dream and what it was about. There is no proof of this dream and the experience of it beyond your personal recollection. Certainly, scientists have proven that a certain area of the brain becomes active during sleep but it is no proof of the actual experience and what it was about. Just that something is "happening". The same proof of brain activity is available for sexual arousel, romantic love and "true" love. Each of these three things have brain activity in common but different activity as well. The differences correlate with how people describe these feelings/experiences differently but again it cannot be considered objective proof of anything (although my subjective experience is all I need). Reciprocally, it is entirely impossible to disprove personal experiences even if such experiences are chemically induced, imagined or a product of social construction, it changes nothing about the fact that people have these experiences and that their personal recollection of it is true. Strap them to a lie-detector or scan them with an MRI, they are telling the truth. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that not one of us has an account of true love then you still haven't proven that it does not exist, so you will have to cough such evidence up anyways. Edited by Benkei on 05/05/08 - 04:50 AM
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

yiming
Student

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

Posted 05/05/08 - 09:06 PM:	#100
Hey Benkei, true love was invented by Walt Disney. Prince Charming doesn't live happily after with Snow White in real life. You know why? Because Snow White grows fat and in comes lovely young Cinderella and Pochahontas.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.