Loving others
22 Mar 2013, 3:31 pm
Adamantium wrote:
That's what life does.
What it IS is rather more complicated. It is microbes and fungi and dolphins etc. and their behavior.
And human behavior, including things like art, design, music and poetry.
These may have no meaning in a cosmic sense, but they have meaning among human beings.
What it IS is rather more complicated. It is microbes and fungi and dolphins etc. and their behavior.
And human behavior, including things like art, design, music and poetry.
These may have no meaning in a cosmic sense, but they have meaning among human beings.
We agree about this.
What I've been referring to is what you call in a "cosmic sense".
The difference is whether the view is objective ("cosmic sense") or subjective ("among human beings").
Objectively, life has no purpose.
Subjectively, life has all kinds of purpose.
That also answers the original question:
Objectively, there is no such thing as love. Just exchange of needs.
Subjectively, true love definitely exists.
The problem was that I didn't realise it is absurd to even discuss love in an objective setting (in a cosmic sense) because it doesn't exist.
One should just view everything subjectively, then there's love everywhere (-:
Great input from you guys.
22 Mar 2013, 8:17 pm
qawer wrote:
I've seen it over and over: people who are extraordinarily loving towards others they don't really know often have serious personal problems. It's only if you care too little about yourself that you will love strangers that unconditionally. And it's basically wrong to nok care mostly about yourself. I'd prefer it wasn't that way.
You have described that you cannot feel love. Do not push that on other people as some universal truth, you know nothing of their capacity for feeling love. I have no problem with people like you as long as they do no harm, as anyone's internal reality is their own and I accept that. I do find it sad. Maybe more sad than how sad you say you think it is that other people can feel love.
I like what Kurt Vonnegut has to say about love in the intro to Slapstick.
Quote:
I have had some experiences with love, or I think I have, anyway, although the ones I have liked best could easily be described as 'common decency'. I treated somebody well for a little while, or maybe even for a tremendously long time, and that person treated me well in return. Love need not have had anything to do with it.
ETA: And the people that can feel love are in the majority, even though it might feel different to you. Love is not a disorder. I'm sorry you have seen kind people treated badly, but they were not the ones doing wrong.
22 Mar 2013, 8:56 pm
The calling that I found in my life is the pursuit and the release of beauty.
I had to work very hard over the last decade to get to the point I am at now, where my perception of beauty allows me to realize the meaning of love i.e. patience and focus, a balance between self sacrifice and sharing.
The most important lesson I learned about love is that it is not a gamble, game or a test.
22 Mar 2013, 10:38 pm
Quote:
Hi Siblac. Here's how I see it:
Life has no deeper purpose in itself. Life is just existing and trying to keep existing by surviving.
It's difficult to think of this as a real "purpose", because it doesn't lead anywhere. There is no goal with this continual existence. Where is the finish line? When is the process "done"?
There are only two possible outcomes from this process: (1) Either the human species keeps existing or (2) it doesn't (it becomes extinct). If it keeps existing, we are just at status quo, still looking for a goal with the existence. If it becomes extinct we are no longer here. In that case, all discussion about purpose becomes absurd.
Hence, the only goal there can possibly be with this process of continual human existence is to ensure continual human existence. In other words: we reach the goal/purpose of our life every second we are alive. Because that proves continual existence for now.
I just would not consider this purpose deep. For instance, the deeper purpose with handing in an exam assignment could be to pass a course. But if all you got out of handing in an exam assignment was the opportunity to make it again and hand it in again, then make it again and hand it in again...etc. Then I would not say there was any deeper purpose with handing in the assignment in the first place. Similarly with life. Life exists and ensures continual existence only to have the opportunity to keep trying to ensure continual existence only to have the opportunity to keep trying to ensure continual existence etc. etc.
But because this process without deeper purpose "should" continue, humans have to be convinced their life has a deeper purpose. So they get very convinced about this and think of their life as really deep and meaningful. So the "art" of life is to forget that it doesn't have a deeper purpose.
If there was such a thing as a deeper purpose it would be to forget that there are no such deeper purpose.
Life has no deeper purpose in itself. Life is just existing and trying to keep existing by surviving.
It's difficult to think of this as a real "purpose", because it doesn't lead anywhere. There is no goal with this continual existence. Where is the finish line? When is the process "done"?
There are only two possible outcomes from this process: (1) Either the human species keeps existing or (2) it doesn't (it becomes extinct). If it keeps existing, we are just at status quo, still looking for a goal with the existence. If it becomes extinct we are no longer here. In that case, all discussion about purpose becomes absurd.
Hence, the only goal there can possibly be with this process of continual human existence is to ensure continual human existence. In other words: we reach the goal/purpose of our life every second we are alive. Because that proves continual existence for now.
I just would not consider this purpose deep. For instance, the deeper purpose with handing in an exam assignment could be to pass a course. But if all you got out of handing in an exam assignment was the opportunity to make it again and hand it in again, then make it again and hand it in again...etc. Then I would not say there was any deeper purpose with handing in the assignment in the first place. Similarly with life. Life exists and ensures continual existence only to have the opportunity to keep trying to ensure continual existence only to have the opportunity to keep trying to ensure continual existence etc. etc.
But because this process without deeper purpose "should" continue, humans have to be convinced their life has a deeper purpose. So they get very convinced about this and think of their life as really deep and meaningful. So the "art" of life is to forget that it doesn't have a deeper purpose.
If there was such a thing as a deeper purpose it would be to forget that there are no such deeper purpose.
I believe God. Life has wonderful, happy purposes. This separates our points of view. Life hasn't taught me the same things it's taught you, or, more likely, we simply haven't learned the same things. I find no hope or happiness in what you're saying. There are numerous things that escape logic. I think you should give heaven a better chance.
23 Mar 2013, 4:55 am
Anomiel wrote:
qawer wrote:
I've seen it over and over: people who are extraordinarily loving towards others they don't really know often have serious personal problems. It's only if you care too little about yourself that you will love strangers that unconditionally. And it's basically wrong to nok care mostly about yourself. I'd prefer it wasn't that way.
You have described that you cannot feel love. Do not push that on other people as some universal truth, you know nothing of their capacity for feeling love. I have no problem with people like you as long as they do no harm, as anyone's internal reality is their own and I accept that. I do find it sad. Maybe more sad than how sad you say you think it is that other people can feel love.
I see I viewed these things too objectively. Thanks to this discussion actually. When viewing things objectively love doesn't exist. So I see I should view things much more subjectively. I agree with you on that. That is to think less in autistic terms.
I'm still right that people ultimately love others because they love themselves. People like and love others because they have a positive influence on their own life. If they don't, they don't love them. That's why you don't love all people. Otherwise, why wouldn't you love all people? But this conditional love is still true love as long as you view things subjectively. If people have a positive influence on your own life, you truly love them. It feels like unconditional love if you view things subjectively enough. That happens when we turn an objective reality into a subjective, as we should.
23 Mar 2013, 5:45 am
How are we supposed to tell other different various peoples' compacities for love?
My shrink said everyone has a different compacity for it.
In some cases i could see it being easier not to love as then you avoid being hurt, such as romantic cases.
Other times as in children or animals, love should just be freely as they are innocent.
I refuse to love all people. I do not like most humans they are repulsive and treat eachother and other species and the earth like sh*t and it is horrible we will suffer the consequences or our genetic offspring off the future will.
I can understand wanting people you care about to know that you love them so that they know that you appreciate them and care.
As for romantic love, if both parties needs are consistently being met, i can understand the love staying. Yet if that becomes unbalanced problems will arise. If the problems aren't fixed, things will break.
23 Mar 2013, 7:42 am
I basically agree with the OP. It reminds me of what someone said long time ago: It's "I love you because I need you.", not "I need you because I love you."
People seem to love/care about others when that will ultimately benefit them. If not, then there shouldn't be any bias in the amount of love/care that they show to others. People only "love"/"care about" those that somehow benefit them. I guess that's what "love" is meant to be. The way love etc is sometimes portrayed makes people look very hypocritical in my view.
23 Mar 2013, 8:27 am
jk1 wrote:
I basically agree with the OP. It reminds me of what someone said long time ago: It's "I love you because I need you.", not "I need you because I love you."
People seem to love/care about others when that will ultimately benefit them. If not, then there shouldn't be any bias in the amount of love/care that they show to others. People only "love"/"care about" those that somehow benefit them. I guess that's what "love" is meant to be. The way love etc is sometimes portrayed makes people look very hypocritical in my view.
People seem to love/care about others when that will ultimately benefit them. If not, then there shouldn't be any bias in the amount of love/care that they show to others. People only "love"/"care about" those that somehow benefit them. I guess that's what "love" is meant to be. The way love etc is sometimes portrayed makes people look very hypocritical in my view.
It's because "healthy" individuals view life subjectively ("life among humans"). In that scenario true love is "I love you because I need you.".
Mentally "ill" individuals view life more objectively ("life in a cosmic/scientific sense"). In that scenario true love is "I need you because I love you."
So the love that is sometimes portrayed ("true" romantic unconditional love where love comes before needs) can only be found between mentally "ill" individuals.
Last edited by qawer on 23 Mar 2013, 8:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
23 Mar 2013, 8:44 am
qawer wrote:
jk1 wrote:
I basically agree with the OP. It reminds me of what someone said long time ago: It's "I love you because I need you.", not "I need you because I love you."
People seem to love/care about others when that will ultimately benefit them. If not, then there shouldn't be any bias in the amount of love/care that they show to others. People only "love"/"care about" those that somehow benefit them. I guess that's what "love" is meant to be. The way love etc is sometimes portrayed makes people look very hypocritical in my view.
People seem to love/care about others when that will ultimately benefit them. If not, then there shouldn't be any bias in the amount of love/care that they show to others. People only "love"/"care about" those that somehow benefit them. I guess that's what "love" is meant to be. The way love etc is sometimes portrayed makes people look very hypocritical in my view.
It's because "healthy" individuals view life subjectively ("life among humans"). In that scenario true love is "I love you because I need you.".
Mentally "ill" individuals view life more objectively ("life in a cosmic/scientific sense"). In that scenario true love is "I need you because I love you."
So the love that is sometimes portrayed ("true" romantic unconditional love where love comes before needs) can only be found between mentally "ill" individuals.
Fully agreed.
23 Mar 2013, 8:50 am
jk1 wrote:
qawer wrote:
jk1 wrote:
I basically agree with the OP. It reminds me of what someone said long time ago: It's "I love you because I need you.", not "I need you because I love you."
People seem to love/care about others when that will ultimately benefit them. If not, then there shouldn't be any bias in the amount of love/care that they show to others. People only "love"/"care about" those that somehow benefit them. I guess that's what "love" is meant to be. The way love etc is sometimes portrayed makes people look very hypocritical in my view.
People seem to love/care about others when that will ultimately benefit them. If not, then there shouldn't be any bias in the amount of love/care that they show to others. People only "love"/"care about" those that somehow benefit them. I guess that's what "love" is meant to be. The way love etc is sometimes portrayed makes people look very hypocritical in my view.
It's because "healthy" individuals view life subjectively ("life among humans"). In that scenario true love is "I love you because I need you.".
Mentally "ill" individuals view life more objectively ("life in a cosmic/scientific sense"). In that scenario true love is "I need you because I love you."
So the love that is sometimes portrayed ("true" romantic unconditional love where love comes before needs) can only be found between mentally "ill" individuals.
Fully agreed.
I guess aspergers makes it more difficult to actually feel "I love you because I need you" as being true love. It appears very superficial. Seems like you are missing out on true love. But well, you are in the "I need you because I love you"-sense.
Survival and "true love" really do contradict each other. But that was really also the motivation for starting this thread.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Loving with a pure heart |
24 Mar 2024, 3:24 pm |
| Loving the child hating their autism? |
16 Apr 2024, 7:08 am |
