Skip to content | Skip to navigation
*Starts dramatic speech*
Come one come all, I would like as many of you to take part in this discussion. For, looking back at the philosophical conversations we have had so far, we talk about religion, faith, current issues such as robotics, ethics, questioning the existence of our own. But have we questioned love? Of course many would say that I have posted in the wrong forum, but my dear friends... I shall prove to you, that is the right one.
*Ends dramatic speech*
(Hope your all still with me)
[iLove[/i], as defined by my little 7-year-old niece, is a warm cuddly teddy bear
Just by looking up the word love in the dictionary, we can see how many meaning it truly has. A deep romantic or sexual attachment, a great interest and pleasure in something, a personified version of love comes as Cupid and then there is even affectionate greetings on ones behalf for example, Love Jael.
So, what is love? What is its nature? Where can we find it?
It is really a warm fuzzy feeling we get when the object of our affection comes dangerously close.
Truth is, love is mystery itself. (I know, I know, it looks like Iím about to go into clichťs) but truth be told, not a lot of people understand the true meaning of love and it has been misused and misinterpreted again and again.
A philosopher, Bauman has a few theories, which I have been looking at with great interest, and it certainly has changed my view on love.
He believes that there are three aporias i.e. an irresolvable internal contradiction in it.
*Sips some tea*
Now for the first aporia
"...the pathos of love feeds on mystery. But the mystery it feeds on is one it hopes to crack... A mystery too hermetic..looses its seductive power. But so does a mystery to through itself open, to stop being a mystery, to exhaust itself in no-surprise routine. Love maybe poisoned by curiosity tired of the forever postponed satisfaction, of by the boredom of curiosity slaked....in both cases, the cure for love's aporia is non-love"
I agree, that was a bit much, wasn't it? I'll break it down to ya.
The reversal of love, when too much of it is had. We are but human creatures and have insatiable appetites to what we desire and being such fickle creatures, getting too much of it has an ironic reversal of situations. Take a relationship when it starts, its exciting and new. There are things to explore and experiences waiting to be had with this new person. Soon after when falling into a routine nothing seems new anymore. A Good saying for this is ďthe chase is always better than the catchĒ Then we get bored of the mundane and receptiveness and thatís one way of how our so-called love falls apart. Makes me wonder that the reasons all these love stories in a past are legends is because the people who were in love all died early and therefore, did not reach the stage of it being mundane.
The Second aporia
"...The intention of love, of all care is the happiness of its object. But it is, must be, the lover's vision of happiness that is posited..."
When the person in question does care about their partner so much and his/her idea of good is been put upon them. To use a simple example, there is a couple where one likes to casually take a drink every now and then with his friend and the other that doesnít drink alcohol at all. The non-alcoholic drinker doesnít like seeing his partner drunk from time to time and believes that drinking leads you to make a fool of yourself. The other believes that after a hard week, there is joy in letting your self go within friends for sometime. There would be arguments that it isnít wise to go drink, and there are other things to do besides drinking. Where-as the drinker thinks otherwise. This puts a serious strain in the relationship.
Then we look on the other side of thinks, what if your partner allows you do and behave just how you wish to behave. Doesnít question any decision youíve made for yourself. And he still has his best interests in you, and wants you to go through life making your own mistakes and learning from them. Then again the other partner might think that he doesnít care enough for her. Maybe heís not voicing any of his opinions because he doesnít care and he really canít be bothered. That, again, would pose a threat in the relationship.
And now for the final Third Aporia
Love is insecurity incarnate, assuming that insecurity is for most people and uncomfortable situation and in the long run unendurable, two strategies can be reasonable pursued - of fixation and floatation"
The third aporia would be love itself. There is never a clear meaning to it. How do you know that it is actually love your feeling? People fall in love for many different reasons; itís not a complete or holistic love.
When I say holistic love, I mean a love that is not bread from insecurities. One that you find and love your partner for who they are. Does not breed jealousy or possessiveness. That is holistic love, which for most of us, does not really exist for obvious reason. We are insecure.
So when people fall in love they could do for one that helps them through their own fears and insecurities. Not wanting to be alone always plays a big part. Or having a partner to give yourself a self-confidence boost. Or rather you play it safe.
When I say fixation it is committing ourselves to our loved ones through vows and promises, to try and make love more secure for ourselves. This causes expectation and obligation towards each other. But duty to one another is not love. Love is not meant to be a duty or a tacit moral contract. These burdens placed often early on erode the integrity and innocence of romantic love in its pure form.
Flotation: If we agree that love can make us feel vulnerable/insecure, but dislike the notion of fixation, we may rely on the flotation method, where one deals with emotional anxiety generated by the insecure nature of love by retreating or becoming introverted; repressing ones true emotions. We anticipate the imminent pain and close ourselves off in order to defend ourselves. This leads to many one-night stands and the surface scraping relationships.
I know it sounds like a whole bunch of theory at the moment, but take a minute to think about it. Have you felt like this before and used one night stands to fill your void at some point of time in your lives?
At this point, I'm hoping I still kept you interested and I have a few readers. =)
My question then to you is would floatation be a good way of living. High levels of divorce rates suggest that it is happening. People no longer believe in "till death do us part"
Would this "floatation" method help us to maintain personal identity that is somehow said to be lost when having a nuclear family or rather the "fixation" approach?
Remember then when youíre together with someone, REGARDLESS of what you tell me or what you feel. It is true that some or more of what you do and believe in will be determined by your partner and vise versa. You are no longer much of the individual that you once were, rather the item.
Looking forward to what you have to say =)
*insert something profound/witty/humorous here*
Jun 12, 2007 12:19 # 44712
I don't know if that's got a lot to to with your question, but concerning "true love" and friends, I've come to the conclusion that time spent looking for The One or the perfect relationship is mostly wasted; time that could have put to better use in enjoying a non-perfect thing, learning from it and working on it to bring it a little bit closer to perfection. True love needn't be perfect in order to be true love; I believe that many people let chances to love/happiness pass just because the initial situation doesn't live up to their high expectations, i.e. it's not an out-of-the-box perfect piece of happiness ready for consumption. It's so easy to dismiss a rough diamond when you're looking for gold nuggets.
When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.
Ahh no, I agree with what you said, and it kind of is what I'm trying to say too.
That becasue we are human and we are not perfect, neither can our love be, therefore as fickle minded creatures, insecure and so on and so forth. In my mind there will never be a text book true love. You definitly gotta work for it, its never easy and realising that its not meant to be is probably the first step.
Regarding my post above I personally think I want a nuclear family. I still believe in only getting married once and that should and has to be forever. Otherwise no point getting married at all ... well I hope so.
Then again I also beleive that insecurities gets in the way of loving. Before loving anyone, you really do have to love yourself.
*insert something profound/witty/humorous here*
I would like to attempt an addition to the whole calculus of how love works, one that probably will leave us a bunch more questions than we started with, but what I feel from experience is a necessary aspect of any healthy love relationship.
That is, active love. We mulled around with love as it rests strictly in the realm of emotion, but that makes me want to ask: can love exist nevertheless where it is not felt (for the moment), but carried out?
But duty to one another is not love. Love is not meant to be a duty or a tacit moral contract.
No, it certainly isnít, and anyone who sees it as purely some kind of mundane legalistic code of expectations will be sorely disappointed. Thatís why a marriage is never inherently air-tight just because of the agreement in and of itself. Love canít be consolidated and insured in words because it is a wordless thing. It is a feeling, we would argue. But I want to try and place active love right alongside emotional love as an equally important component of relationships; particularly marriages.
Active love, of course, is merely the active--or action-based--element to the love two people might share. On the one hand, I feel love for a girlfriend when I am with her and her presence elicits feelings of joy and happiness within me. On the other, I love a girlfriend in an active sense when I offer to drive her places, when I kiss her, when I hold the door for her, and so on. The two, I believe, are closely-connected components of the same thing. We both feel love and we commit love as an act.
How many here still do believe in a nuclear family and do you still believe in a true love or even soul mates? --jael
The implication of active love is that it is then possible to always love someone, so long as you are at least acting for their good (ultimately, serving them). We can debate how well people do this later, whether we act in our loverís interests or in our interests for them.
Now, of course, this picture of love differs from the commonly-held conception; that is, that love is a powerful emotion out of which loving actions are the result. Cause and effect--as branches stem ultimately from the roots, so actions must stem ultimately from convictions. The actions are symptoms of love and nothing more.
I want to turn this assumption on its head and say that it is not entirely true. I would agree that it is habit, and nature, for our love to work this way. But from experience I would argue that actions, when taken in spite of underlying emotions, not only pacify those negative feelings but replace them--replace them with nothing other than the feeling, love.
This has happened for me more in friendship than in romance, mainly because Iíve never been married. My friend does something that angers me, that perhaps even makes me hate him, but my response is loving rather than hateful actions. As much as he drives me insane, I do as he asks, or I help him in need as much as I donít want to. And then I find that the belligerent impulses within me are not only stifled, but replaced with a much stronger love and friendship than I ever had before. And as far as romance goes, with this model Iíve remained a close (and perhaps even better) friend with every girlfriend Iíve ever had, in spite of changes of heart and breakups.
I've come to the conclusion that time spent looking for The One or the perfect relationship is mostly wasted; time that could have put to better use in enjoying a non-perfect thing, learning from it and working on it to bring it a little bit closer to perfection. --null
I agree absolutely, and think active love plays a key role here. Who among us hasnít witnessed a fight between our parents, or at least a squabble between two people we know who ďloveĒ one another? Active love comes into play every time my father, despite how angry he is, goes up to the room in which my mother sits crying, and apologizes to her despite how absolutely sure he is that he is right, despite how very angry at her he is for not seeing his point of view. As unbearable as it might be for him to embrace her, to kiss her at that moment, he does it anyway and ignores the discomfort it creates in his own soul, which still persistently cries Ďbut Iím RIGHT!í
Now, I canít claim that these two facets can exist independently of each other for sustained periods of time. If loving actions are not doing anything to heal the chasm of lovelessness one feels toward another, there is little point. No more than there would be a point to a relationship in which feelings produced no actions. They are inextricably bound together--conviction and action--and I feel that while it is our impulse to place one before the other (conviction before action usually), I merely wish to offer up the possibility that it is a two-way street, with each of the two feeding into the other.
What an interesting question you have posed.
What is love? The real deal? The one?
I just finished reading an article in a national geographic about love.
They were saying that it was chemical mostly.
I think that's only part of the puzzle. The other part has to do with our choice in what we do or don't do when there is someone else in the picture.
Poets and wise people have tried to discribe it so that you could if you you tried, fit it into some nice neat over flowing out of control place of emotional euphorical box.
But, after looking at it for a while and thinking about it, I have come to the conclusion that true love is more about our choices than any emotion that can be attached to it.