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

icarus25
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 2

Posted 03/27/08 - 05:05 PM: Subject: Why I cannot be in a relationship	#1
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 Edited by icarus25 on 03/28/08 - 05:57 AM

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 03/27/08 - 07:55 PM:	#2
I believe that line of thinking is flawed because it expects too much consistency in human emotions. A person can have conflicting emotions and desires. One can want what is best for somebody and still be jealous if what is best means letting the person date other people. In analogy, how many parents are sad to send their children off to college? Would you recommend they keep the children home or recommend they never have children at all? Also, I believe romantic love is mutual and only truly grows in a mutual way. When someone claims to romantically love someone that does not share those alleged feelings, I doubt it is true. It's probably an infatuation or obsession of some sort. So, generally speaking, I doubt one would ever have to let one's lover go date other people. True lovers want to be with each other!
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 04/22/08 - 09:03 AM:	#3
icarus25 wrote: 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. Well noted, but I would not call it selfishness. Selfishness is more than mere self interest. Selfishness is prioritizing the principle of self interest.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 04/22/08 - 10:55 AM:	#4
I could also argue that two people in love often say that they feel that they have become one. Maybe it's mostly metaphorical, but I do think there is some type of oneness between lovers. In that sense, love isn't about selfishness or unselfishness; it's about redefining the self.
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/22/08 - 12:23 PM:	#5
Well I think one is perfectly capable of wanting what is best for you, and also what is best for your partner. One is also perfectly capable letting someone go, while still being upset about it. I would argue that if your partner wants to see other people (supposing you are in a relationships that excludes this, as not all do) then it is in both your best interests to let it occure. It is not in your partners best interest to be with someone they do not love, or want to see anymore, nor is it in your own best interest to be with someone who doesn't love you and wants to see other people. Also, emotions are non-rational. Someone can't give you an argument that would make you no longer feel sadness, or feel happiness. That isn't how we work. Nor can a rational argument save you from the pain of rejection. Clearly you are staying out of a relationship for emotional reasons, not rational ones. I think those reasons are fear based, and not hard to understand. It is physically painful to be rejected, and it is even more painful when someone stops loving you, and leaves you for someone else. These however are just the facts of life, there isn't much that can be done other than get over it and move on. I would say that the secret to keeping a steady, and productive relationship is compromise and attention. If you aren't willing to offer a hefty amount of both, then it won't work, and if your partner isn't willing to, then it won't work. The trick is to find someone that meets a good amount of your preferences, and learn to accept the aspects of them that don't. While being willing to conform to a reasonable degree to your partners preferences, with the understanding that surely you yourself don't meet the standards of their dream partner. I also would suggest considering the hedgehog paradox. Hedgehogs huddle together for warmth from each other, if they don't get close enough, then they will be cold, but if they get too close, then they will hurt each other. I think this is a vary important relationship principle. If you don't get close enough then you will get cold, and drift apart, but if you get too close, and are not allow to have private lives, or time to yourself, then this will also hurt your relationship. I personally think that this is why so many relationships don't work, people are denied private lives, and their partners always must know where they are at every second, and what they have been doing. They have zero freedom. Relationship are damn hard, perhaps the hardest apsect of life. Lets be serious, we are all pricks on the inside, we just feign consideration, and empathy to a far greater degree than what we really feel. So it is extremely hard to keep someone loving you that has seen your true self, and vica versa. Those are my thoughts on the issue. I don't think reason has a lot to do with it, it's emotional, and biological. It's a need, not a desire.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/22/08 - 12:30 PM:	#6
Also, if they're super hot, that is often enough to overlook and put up with a lot. Supposing they put out a lot and the sex isn't boring. Sex is at the bottom of a relationship, and the most important part. Everything else is built on top of this. If the sex isn't any good, then the relationship can't work.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Tritium
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/22/08 - 05:26 PM:	#7
I think its possible to have both kinds of feelings when a lover seeks to date someone else. Its possible to feel happy for your lover to see other people for certain reasons and jealous and upset at the same time, perhaps an insight to the irrational aspect of human emotion. I'm currently in a relationship, and have been for almost five years now, where I can say that I love the other as best as I have come to understand the concept of love. However, the two of us are relatively young and have discussed seeing other people for an amount of time as we are both fairly inexperienced with relationships (I am her first serious relationship and she is my second). Though the thought of my lover with another is painful and brings up many feelings of jealousy and being upset, I can see the benefits of the separation and be happy to let the other go. The fears of the future without this event are that our lives could possible be plagued by "what if" questions with appeals to our lack of experience. Neither of us want to bring this upon the other, so it seems that this separation would be beneficial to the relationship (think of the saying, if you love something, let it go. If it comes back, it is yours forever). It is very painful at times to think of this separation, but the selfless part in me sees the overall benefit to the relationship, and how it will it turn make the relationship stronger.

dissonance
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 22, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 04/22/08 - 08:58 PM:	#8
icarus25 wrote: Premises: I choose not to be selfish. I choose to reason logically. those premises contradict each other. also, you can't choose not to be selfish. say you choose to lend your friend a dollar. you might say you didn't do something selfish -- you helped the other person. but you actually were selfish because you had two options: lend the dollar or don't lend the dollar. there are pros and cons associated with each option. you chose to lend the dollar because the pros-cons of that option was larger than the pros-cons of not lending the dollar. if you didn't lend the dollar, you'd be thought of as an asshole, you'd feel bad about yourself, etc. and if you DIDN'T think it was bad not to lend the dollar, you wouldn't do it. you might as well admit to yourself that you're always selfish. then you can begin to view options and "reason logically", which is your goal anyway.

professorchaos
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 22, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/22/08 - 09:44 PM:	#9
icarius25, i would like you to know that you are not reasoning logically, at all. first of all you have presented an either/or argument which is fallacious. icarus25 wrote: What does it mean to love? Does it mean satisfying your wants more than those of your lover, or the other way round? (either/or reasoning assumes there are only two options available when there are others) ANY conclusion you draw from such a fallacy is not sound. second: you seem to be confused about many things. keda is right, your definition of selfishness is skewed. Wosret also points out that emotions are irrational and nonexclusive (AKA you can be satisfying the wants of your lover more than your own AND be jealous). Because (as shown above) you obviously aren't viewing relationships rationally it seems you are taking part in the emotions you claim to reject. third: you are clearly too emotionally damaged and should get help working through what makes you dysfunctional (not being able to be in a relationship is dysfunctional). if you are in denial of your emotions i apologize in advance for your ignorance and maybe it's best you do not put anyone through being with you.

reality
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 04/23/08 - 07:15 PM:	#10
Love is not selfish. Love is expecting both partners to be selfish for each other. This is where your confusion is. You want the best for your partner and your partner wants the best for you, that is why people stay together.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/23/08 - 08:21 PM:	#11
His method of reasoning is not flawed. There is no definition for love. The only way it can be defined (as in a dictionary) is a strong emotion based on SEXUAL attraction. Of course, humans choose to view love as something larger than the work of hormones, but there is no definition for such a love. It is depicted in movies, anime, books, etc., but it is intangible. The author is very much correct, because he points out the inconsistencies of expecting something supernatural out of a relationship based on sexual attraction. That is all it is. For anyone who wishes to argue the existence of love: so you say that there is some higher feeling. Obviously it is not based on looks, since that is the basis for sexual attraction (which already undermines the argument, since we usually fall in "love" with beautiful people). That means anyone can find love, provided they have the necessary traits. But in China, there is a man right now who just had a 10 kilo tumor removed from his face. He's "better" now, but he still makes Frankenstein look like a desirable bachelor. Obviously he will never find love, solely because he looks like crap. How can you argue the existence of something other than the sexual attraction experienced by humans on a daily basis?

Tritium
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/23/08 - 08:36 PM:	#12
Lex wrote: For anyone who wishes to argue the existence of love: so you say that there is some higher feeling. Obviously it is not based on looks, since that is the basis for sexual attraction (which already undermines the argument, since we usually fall in "love" with beautiful people). That means anyone can find love, provided they have the necessary traits. But in China, there is a man right now who just had a 10 kilo tumor removed from his face. He's "better" now, but he still makes Frankenstein look like a desirable bachelor. Obviously he will never find love, solely because he looks like crap. How can you argue the existence of something other than the sexual attraction experienced by humans on a daily basis? I think an argument for love as a higher feeling holds some value. Granted that there is some sexual desire and physical attraction needed for a relationship to work. But it is wrong to say that a loving relationship is solely based on that. Love is a combination of everything that has been argued for. Its sexual attraction, selfishness to desire what is best for yourself and selflessness to desire what is best for your partner. Any strong relationship will have all of these things. Anyone can admit that a relationship with only one part, like one of sexual attraction, will not be as strong of a relationship and perhaps not last as long as one with multiple qualities. I'm sure as well that a true description of a loving relationship will include more characteristics than the three i've mentioned.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/23/08 - 10:11 PM:	#13
I think a working relationship is very much based o sexual attraction. Based on, and soley involves, are two completely different things. Clearly this isn't true for everyone. A lot of people are in relationships with people that they aren't sexually attracted to. They clearly must prioitize differently than other people do. Personally though, I simply have no interest in being in a relationship with someone I am not attracted to, I might as well be in a relationship with a dude. If sexual attraction isn't important to you, then I don't see why not.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/24/08 - 07:25 AM:	#14
Tritium wrote: I think an argument for love as a higher feeling holds some value. Granted that there is some sexual desire and physical attraction needed for a relationship to work. But it is wrong to say that a loving relationship is solely based on that. Anyone can admit that a relationship with only one part, like one of sexual attraction, will not be as strong of a relationship and perhaps not last as long as one with multiple qualities. I'm sure as well that a true description of a loving relationship will include more characteristics than the three i've mentioned. And you base that on what evidence? I know it makes you feel good to think that, but has nothing to do with reality. You even say that a true description of a loving relationship will include more characteristics: well if you don't even know what they are, how can you be sure? Wishful thinking is not enough to prove your point. A relationship IS solely based on looks or in some rare cases on psychological disorders (for example psycho killers getting together).

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 04/24/08 - 09:19 AM:	#15
And you base that on what evidence? I know it makes you feel good to think that, but has nothing to do with reality. You even say that a true description of a loving relationship will include more characteristics: well if you don't even know what they are, how can you be sure? Wishful thinking is not enough to prove your point. A relationship IS solely based on looks or in some rare cases on psychological disorders (for example psycho killers getting together). And the above probably also explains why you have not experienced love. It's a rather impoverished view and inconsistent with the body of literary, religious and philosophical work that we as a race have produced. You're confusing sexual attraction with love but there's love for a child, a parent, a sister and a friend. They are all forms of love. There's young and old love too. Where young love tends to love those people that provide happiness and fun to them and there is old love, which transcends personal desires and loves the other regardless.
_____________________ 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 04/24/08 - 10:11 AM:	#16
zram wrote: Ok Lex, Than please enlighten us on what your definition of reality is? Hmmm. Is reality only what you know currently? Or could there be far more than what you ever imagined if you were open to more than black and white? No problem. Reality IS what I know. Why would I assume random things based on no evidence. My business teacher long ago gave me a good definition of "assume": it makes an "ass" out of "you" and "me". As corny as it is, it's true. You need to revise your own definition of reality: reality is not something you wish for or something that "would be nice". Reality is ACTUAL FACT, and hence only what we know.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/24/08 - 10:17 AM:	#17
Benkei wrote: And the above probably also explains why you have not experienced love. It's a rather impoverished view and inconsistent with the body of literary, religious and philosophical work that we as a race have produced. You're confusing sexual attraction with love but there's love for a child, a parent, a sister and a friend. They are all forms of love. There's young and old love too. Where young love tends to love those people that provide happiness and fun to them and there is old love, which transcends personal desires and loves the other regardless. 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). 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.

Tritium
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/24/08 - 10:22 AM:	#18
Lex wrote: And you base that on what evidence? I know it makes you feel good to think that, but has nothing to do with reality. You even say that a true description of a loving relationship will include more characteristics: well if you don't even know what they are, how can you be sure? Wishful thinking is not enough to prove your point. A relationship IS solely based on looks or in some rare cases on psychological disorders (for example psycho killers getting together). I base it off my own personal experiences, with the understanding that there might be more to a relationship or love that I haven't experienced yet. Its not a matter of wishful thinking, its just being open to revision of the idea because I've seen descriptions of love, fictional or non fictional, and wittness other relationships that seem to hold a higher bond than I do with my relationships. I've found that in the loving relationship that I'm in, the three things that i've listed are an important part to keep the relationship going and to strength it. Sex and attraction are very important, but without selflessness are my part and by my partner, the love in the relationship could not sustain itself.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/24/08 - 11:12 AM:	#19
Tritium wrote: I base it off my own personal experiences, with the understanding that there might be more to a relationship or love that I haven't experienced yet. Its not a matter of wishful thinking, its just being open to revision of the idea because I've seen descriptions of love, fictional or non fictional, and wittness other relationships that seem to hold a higher bond than I do with my relationships. I've found that in the loving relationship that I'm in, the three things that i've listed are an important part to keep the relationship going and to strength it. Sex and attraction are very important, but without selflessness are my part and by my partner, the love in the relationship could not sustain itself. Then let me ask you this: if your partner somehow lost the qualities that make you sexually attracted to him/her: would you still be in "love"? I don't think so. Not even one bit.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/24/08 - 01:24 PM:	#20
Not that I recall. I am looking for THE meaning, not the evasive amalgam of various definitions that everyone offers and that amount to nothing. Obviously I want solid proof. 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. So it is indeed a myth to me. If you argue that I should accept it as fact, give me evidence that PROVES it to be a fact. I gave evidence to the contrary, after all: according to common sense, you cannot fall in love with an ugly person. Nobody can really disagree. So if you take looks out of the equation in a relationship, it becomes meaningless. Love does not exist.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/24/08 - 02:29 PM:	#21
Afraid? Moi? You have to be joking. What is there to be afraid of? It may be annoying, but fear has nothing to do with it. Well if there is no proof that it exists and no proof that it does not exist, you assume its existence? That is called wishful thinking. Besides, you are wrong. You cannot love an ugly person. 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. 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".

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

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

Posted 04/24/08 - 03:08 PM:	#22
Love is one of those things that inhabits a strange place in human nature. When we are young we hear of it through all manner of sources, whether it be from literature, the media or directly from people that surround us. Whenever someone says something distinct about love it instantly seems over-idealised, weird or simply wrong to the young mind and the skeptic. This vague state of things might lead a person who hasn't experienced "love" to one of two quite general positions. At first they could conclude that there's no such thing as "love" and that it's nothing more than say, a physiological trick. The second position is one of faith; one that finds a person earnestly asking at every change of lanes the question "is this love?" and all too often (perhaps through hope rather than expectation) answering "yes" until reality corrects or confirms this belief. I would say that until you experience it for yourself you cannot attempt to speak about it authoritatively. If your temperament makes you want to deny its existence then so be it, but don't be surprised if a lot of people disagree with you. Lex, something you ought to realise is that nobody here particularly wants to "counter" you because you are clearly too closed minded. Unless you really enjoy telling people in as many different ways as possible over and over again that they have no idea what they are talking about then you should just make more of an effort to listen.
_____________________ 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 04/24/08 - 04:33 PM:	#23
sensabile wrote: Love is one of those things that inhabits a strange place in human nature. When we are young we hear of it through all manner of sources, whether it be from literature, the media or directly from people that surround us. Whenever someone says something distinct about love it instantly seems over-idealised, weird or simply wrong to the young mind and the skeptic. This vague state of things might lead a person who hasn't experienced "love" to one of two quite general positions. At first they could conclude that there's no such thing as "love" and that it's nothing more than say, a physiological trick. The second position is one of faith; one that finds a person earnestly asking at every change of lanes the question "is this love?" and all too often (perhaps through hope rather than expectation) answering "yes" until reality corrects or confirms this belief. I would say that until you experience it for yourself you cannot attempt to speak about it authoritatively. If your temperament makes you want to deny its existence then so be it, but don't be surprised if a lot of people disagree with you. Lex, something you ought to realise is that nobody here particularly wants to "counter" you because you are clearly too closed minded. Unless you really enjoy telling people in as many different ways as possible over and over again that they have no idea what they are talking about then you should just make more of an effort to listen. 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.

Tritium
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/24/08 - 06:12 PM:	#24
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. I still don't understand the counter-example that you claim by. You simply make the claim that love is based on physical attraction and sex and that without these a relationship will fail. Have you experienced this personally? All I can see is that you claim that such a relationship won't survive because... well I guess that's where I don't understand. It seems that you're saying it won't work just because. I also don't understand how you can extend this argument to all relationships. The debate on this post, to me, is a clear demonstration that there are many ideas about love and the characteristics of a loving relationship. You're making assumptions about how anyone would respond or feel in a relationship without physical attraction or the loss of physical attraction.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 04/24/08 - 07:20 PM:	#25
Tritium wrote: I still don't understand the counter-example that you claim by. You simply make the claim that love is based on physical attraction and sex and that without these a relationship will fail. Have you experienced this personally? All I can see is that you claim that such a relationship won't survive because... well I guess that's where I don't understand. It seems that you're saying it won't work just because. I also don't understand how you can extend this argument to all relationships. The debate on this post, to me, is a clear demonstration that there are many ideas about love and the characteristics of a loving relationship. You're making assumptions about how anyone would respond or feel in a relationship without physical attraction or the loss of physical attraction. The example is simple enough. Imagine you have a person you "love". Now take away his/her brain and put it in a jar. Are you telling me that the brain-in-a-jar will now become the object of your love? It is perfectly natural that once the physiological component has been taken away, attraction is impossible. For example, I might enjoy playing chess with my computer (effectively an electronic brain without awareness), but a human would never fall in love with it. I don't see where your concept of love comes from. You claim it is more than sex, but I don't see how that makes sense.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.