Theories of Love

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname All right, I'm confused now. Where did you disagree with me?

I was disagreeing with you before I asked you to make the clarification. After you did, I was merely pointing out that you inquiry did not make sense.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by spiral You mention that love is about fostering human altruism, and then you say that it’s about having will power to keep the symbiosis alive. Symbiosis is a relationship where to beings benefit off of one another- which would mean that it is a selfish relationship.

Wrong. One being gaining at the expense of the other is selfish. Two beings working together for their mutual gain is not. I suggest you take this to Arvy's selflessness thread, for it is off topic.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1691

[ckBejug]

Taking responsibility for your feelings... My mom used to try to drill into me this idea that "love is a choice." I tend to be more of the mystic school of things. I think that love and all the other many splendored things come from a combination of free will and an aligning of the elements, so to speak. Some people just call to you more than others, and it isn't a rational falling into- to love them. But recently, I've been thinking more about taking responsibility for those falls. Maybe you can't choose who you like and ultimately who you love, but you can choose what you do about it. You can't just throw up your hands and say "I couldn't help it", and expect for consequences to melt away in the face of your accidental feelings. Sometimes you may fall into your feelings but to make them known is not just to fall, but to take the step off the safety of the precipice right before the fall. The good news is, I think loving someone that requires taking that scary step is all the more worth it than when you mindlessly shuffle off the edge...(or than when you are pushed off).

[spiral]

Originally posted by loseyourname Wrong. One being gaining at the expense of the other is selfish. Two beings working together for their mutual gain is not. I suggest you take this to Arvy's selflessness thread, for it is off topic.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showth...&threadid=1691

No, you're wrong.

what you are talking about is a case of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours'.
This is how you defined love.

I think Dusken mentioned something like this too.

and I am not off topic, I highlighted two "points" you made, to show you that they contradict.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Theories of Love

Originally posted by loseyourname The classic idea is that love is spontaneous and nearly effortless with the right person. Furthermore, you have no control over who you love and who you don't love.

A newer idea, expounded most fervently in The Art of Loving and more recently in The Road Less Travelled is that love is nothing of the sort. Love is a conscious act of will to do that which is loving toward a particular person, even in the absence of strong feelings, which are thought to come and go. Oftentimes, this may be counterintuitive, as is the case with tough love. Oftentimes, it might require a good deal of self-sacrifice and patience which are not characteristic of the typical passion one thinks of when one thinks of love.

So which theory do you subscribe to? I think most people would probably believe the second, at least partially, on principle. They know that making a relationship work takes a lot of effort and compromise and patience. But in the same vein, they do not practice what they preach, growing tired of people when they are comfortable with them and becoming resentful when the passion is gone.

I can see where this is veering off to. Personally, and this is from my own experience, I can't speak of others, I have found out that no matter where or with whom, I can always have control of letting myself fall in love or not.

[spiral]

Agreed

[Anonymouse]

Mind over body.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by spiral No, you're wrong.

what you are talking about is a case of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours'.
This is how you defined love.

I think Dusken mentioned something like this too.

and I am not off topic, I highlighted two "points" you made, to show you that they contradict.

Chill out logic Nazi. There is no contradiction unless a symbiotic relationship necessarily implies selfishness. It does not. A being can act simultaneously in self-interest and in the interest of another. It is an action in the interest of the couple. It benefits both, and both benefit from it. Not that that makes any sense, but I think you know what I'm getting at. You can't reduce every act to being out of self-interest and then say that it is under your conscious control. That is a contradiction.

[spiral]

Originally posted by loseyourname Chill out logic Nazi. There is no contradiction unless a symbiotic relationship necessarily implies selfishness. It does not. A being can act simultaneously in self-interest and in the interest of another. It is an action in the interest of the couple. It benefits both, and both benefit from it. Not that that makes any sense, but I think you know what I'm getting at. You can't reduce every act to being out of self-interest and then say that it is under your conscious control. That is a contradiction.

Yes, a being can act simultaneously in self-interest and in the interest of another. However, simply because the person also acts in self interest of another as well as himself, doesn’t mean that the second act cancells out the ‘selfishness’ of the first. Nor does it make the person’s act of self-interest any less selfish. If in the same relationship- we take out the first act-the act of self-interest, the person would not willingly stay in the relationship if the relationship composed solely on acting for the other’s interest, and gaining nothing in return.

Thus, it’s not about love, its about benefiting from a relationship. The symbiosis simply ensures the relationship because each benefits from it, and thus have a reason to stay.

And you mentioned this earlier stating that “it is outside of human nature to do things for a person without expecting anything in return.”

So exactly what are you arguing, and what am I wrong about?

You can't reduce every act to being out of self-interest and then say that it is under your conscious control. That is a contradiction.

Please tell me, exactly how is this a contradiction?

Because I don’t see it.


and The logic Nazi is completely chilled out

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by spiral Agreed

So since we agree that there is mind over body, I will never allow myself to fall in love with a non-Armenian.