Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject: Philosophical Question: Is Romantic Love Egocentric?
Though it is generally said that love is one of the highest and most unselfish of emotions, there are those that say Romantic Love is really an egotistical feeling: the lover seeks a "mirror", and becomes obsessed with Self reflected in the eyes of the loved one. As I look around me, at the world, this notion seems to be confirmed; for instance, it is generally accepted in our society that the loved one must "satisfy our needs" , or "make us happy". There also seems to be the notion in our society that Unrequited Love is not real, "does not exist" because it is not returned. Even words like "object of ones affection" denote control.
Or is there a kind of Love that just exists, in and of Itself, without ego?
What do you think? _________________ "death is the road to awe"
I think you are right. People need to fully love themselves before they can love another. Romantic love is a beginners love and often people get swept away with the reflection of oneself in another. Ideal love is experienced as more of a connection which is above the ego. I think a person can only love as much as one has achieved in personal development.
http://www.practical-philosophy.org.uk/Volume4Articles/PlatoTheoryOfLove.htm _________________ "Blessed are they who suffer many experiences, for they shall be made perfect through suffering: they shall be as the angels of God in heaven and die no more, neither shall they be born anymore, for death and birth have no more dominion over them.&am
Joined: Feb 07, 2005 Age: 29 Posts: 5670 Location: That's for me to know and for you to find out.
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject:
I think what your saying comes down to nature, like with attraction - its not really a choice, you either have it with someone or you don't.
In terms of wanting to settle down, have kids, and forge a strong family unit; that ideal really doesn't fit an ego driven or selfish paradigm, if anything the idea of being a parent (willfully) is to a degree somewhat selfless. Also when you end up in a relationship and you had been looking for a long time to find someone who was of mutual benefit; they could help you grow as a person, you could help them grow, and you want someone who's in it for the long haul, it has a bit higher value as well rather than not wanting to be lonely or gratifying self esteem.
Ironically I've heard a lot of people talking about adult singlehood as selfish, particularly with guys as its in our nature to prefer it as such.
Warsie OG Balla Representin' Da Souf Sydeeee of Chi-City
Joined: Apr 04, 2008 Age: 17 Posts: 1634 Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
if anything the idea of being a parent (willfully) is to a degree somewhat selfless.
arguably it's selfish as in it's perpetruating your genes and the main point of that.
Quote:
Ironically I've heard a lot of people talking about adult singlehood as selfish, particularly with guys as its in our nature to prefer it as such.
have to snicker as I remember seeing that expressed in the Anime Legend of the Galactic Heroes on Yang Wen-Li not getting married wen he's 30-something and his friend having a wife and 2 children mentioning that's anti-social and not contributing to society....have to lol as both people are officers in the Free Planets Alliance Star Fleet and Yang IS contributing to his society!
Morgana wrote:
the lover seeks a "mirror", and becomes obsessed with Self reflected in the eyes of the loved one.
Isn't that looking for someone who is similar to you so you won't argue and get into fights over arguably small things?
also a related thing to this complicated and confusing subject.
_________________ I am a Star Wars Fan, Warsie here.
Yeah, I would agree that's true to a certain extent, but most feelings are selfish in one way or another. Even altruism stems from the need to satisfy a desire to do what you would consider to be right, which in a way is selfish.
I think the examples that Morgana posted aren't by any means universally true though... just mostly true
Joined: Feb 07, 2005 Age: 29 Posts: 5670 Location: That's for me to know and for you to find out.
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject:
Warsie wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
if anything the idea of being a parent (willfully) is to a degree somewhat selfless.
arguably it's selfish as in it's perpetruating your genes and the main point of that.
Yeah, its hard to argue for or against either way because there are so many competing motivations. Still, at least in the short term life is much more fun when you and who your with can travel to Las Vegas, to Europe, party every weekend, hit the clubs, get plastered together; no such luck doing that with kids - unless you've either have really cool parents or have a deadbeat older sister who paved the way with them.
Joined: Oct 21, 2006 Posts: 388 Location: Netherlands
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: Re: Philosophical Question: Is Romantic Love Egocentric?
Morgana wrote:
Though it is generally said that love is one of the highest and most unselfish of emotions, there are those that say Romantic Love is really an egotistical feeling: the lover seeks a "mirror", and becomes obsessed with Self reflected in the eyes of the loved one. As I look around me, at the world, this notion seems to be confirmed; for instance, it is generally accepted in our society that the loved one must "satisfy our needs" , or "make us happy". There also seems to be the notion in our society that
"If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty. In fact, they even believe that it is proof of the intensity of their love when they do not love anybody except the "loved" person"
Erich Fromm
Morgana wrote:
Unrequited Love is not real, "does not exist" because it is not returned. Even words like "object of ones affection" denote control.
Or is there a kind of Love that just exists, in and of Itself, without ego?
What do you think?
"Love is primarily giving, not receiving. Giving is the highest expression of potency. Giving is more joyous than receiving, not because it is deprivation, but because in the act of giving lies the expression of my aliveness.
Whoever is capable of giving himself is rich. He experiences himself as one who can confer of himself to others. He gives of himself, of the most precious thing he has, he gives of his life. He gives what is live in him; he gives his joy, his intrest, his understanding, his knowledge, his humour, his sadness, he gives of all the expressions and manifestations of that which is alive in him.
In thus giving of his life, he enriches the other person, he enchances the others sense of aliveness by enchancing his own sense of aliveness. In giving he cannot help bringing something to life in the other person, and this which is brought to life reflects back to him and they both share in the joy of what they have brought to life."
In giving (love) he cannot help bringing something to life in the other person, and this which is brought to life reflects back to him and they both share in the joy of what they have brought to life."
This reflection doesn't seem narcissistic or selfish. It's more of a sharing and learning experience. You can only give what you already have.
Some people discard romantic love as a bunch of chemicals and emotions or a way to fulfill selfish desires. Love is like an emotional spectrum and the more I learn about it, the more I realize how much I don't know. _________________ "Blessed are they who suffer many experiences, for they shall be made perfect through suffering: they shall be as the angels of God in heaven and die no more, neither shall they be born anymore, for death and birth have no more dominion over them.&am
Thank you, Accelerator, for the link to Erich Fromm´s words....how inspiring! I think I want to read this book. I guess it´s best to keep an ideal, regardless of what one sees and experiences around oneself.
That link also brought up another philosophical question of mine (come to think of it, 2 questions), but maybe that will need to be another subject of a new Post? _________________ "death is the road to awe"
Of these, only Agape and Pragma (formerly called Stoic) seem to lack an ego-motive. _________________ The leaders of the American automobile industry have been amazingly consistent in their management philosophy, in that they have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
That's a super simple way of breaking it down. Thanks Fnord. _________________ "Blessed are they who suffer many experiences, for they shall be made perfect through suffering: they shall be as the angels of God in heaven and die no more, neither shall they be born anymore, for death and birth have no more dominion over them.&am
Joined: Oct 21, 2006 Posts: 388 Location: Netherlands
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous..
Morgana wrote:
Thank you, Accelerator, for the link to Erich Fromm´s words....how inspiring! I think I want to read this book. I guess it´s best to keep an ideal, regardless of what one sees and experiences around oneself.
That link also brought up another philosophical question of mine (come to think of it, 2 questions), but maybe that will need to be another subject of a new Post?
All this talk of questions is making me querious..
Ancient wise sage once said:
"He who asks a question is a fool for a moment..
But he who never asks.. is a fool forever."
Who said that.. ?
I can't remember..
Was it confusious.. ?
Who knows..
Unfortunately.. the link only covers a few high-lights from the book..
Nevertheless.. it is well worth reading..
The Art of Loving is a real classic.. not to be missed.
This is another definition of unselfish love..
Which is also from a "good book"......
And is very logical too.
---
“Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous..
It does not brag, does not get puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury.
It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the
truth.”
So, I enjoyed reading your inspiring answers to this Post.
But now, some questions to all of you; how many of you have actually experienced this unselfish kind of love? Or is it more of a theoretical idea? Is it something that most people experience, or is it only for the select few? Does one ever get to the point where romantic love becomes obsolete- when, for instance, the love of God and all of humanity is so strong that one no longer feels a "personal" love, but rather a "collective" love?
Finally: still, when I look around me and look at the media (which I try to avoid as much as possible, I guess)- I tend to see a narcissistic society with a rather superficial outlook on love (in fact, several people have told me that it IS superficial, and that I am living in a dreamworld if I don´t believe that). I have a theory about this superficiality. I think that, in this society, most of us have been raised with the idea that it is "selfish" for us to love ourselves. So, instead of loving ourselves, we´re told the acceptable way for validation is through the love of another; i.e., if somebody else loves you, you are an "acceptable", lovable person. So, many people go searching for the love that they are not "allowed" to give themselves. I have noticed that, in many relationships, people are much more concerned with being loved by the person they are with, rather than actually loving that person.
What do you think of these ideas? _________________ "death is the road to awe"
Joined: Feb 07, 2005 Age: 29 Posts: 5670 Location: That's for me to know and for you to find out.
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject:
Morgana wrote:
But now, some questions to all of you; how many of you have actually experienced this unselfish kind of love? Or is it more of a theoretical idea? Is it something that most people experience, or is it only for the select few? Does one ever get to the point where romantic love becomes obsolete- when, for instance, the love of God and all of humanity is so strong that one no longer feels a "personal" love, but rather a "collective" love?
Thinking more about this I don't really think you can pin either selfishness or unselfishness on romantic love, its a mix of too many gray variables. I'd imagine regardless of our world's religious status people who have specific intellectual needs in a partner will still be particular and still try to find someone who is like them or at least who is refreshing and will help them grow (hopefully vice a versa as well); I think the more intelligent will always have that need and the average person to an extent as well.
Morgana wrote:
Finally: still, when I look around me and look at the media (which I try to avoid as much as possible, I guess)- I tend to see a narcissistic society with a rather superficial outlook on love (in fact, several people have told me that it IS superficial, and that I am living in a dreamworld if I don´t believe that). I have a theory about this superficiality. I think that, in this society, most of us have been raised with the idea that it is "selfish" for us to love ourselves. So, instead of loving ourselves, we´re told the acceptable way for validation is through the love of another; i.e., if somebody else loves you, you are an "acceptable", lovable person. So, many people go searching for the love that they are not "allowed" to give themselves. I have noticed that, in many relationships, people are much more concerned with being loved by the person they are with, rather than actually loving that person.
We don't endorse introspect, depth, and wisdom enough IMO. We've gotten off a bit too far to the instant-gratification side of things and it puts people in a place were the idea of deeper discipline tends to be something rather weird and foreign.
Joined: Oct 21, 2006 Posts: 388 Location: Netherlands
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: Happiness is a matter of....
Iris Murdoch had some good philosophical insights into relationships..
And she also had a relatively happy marriage..
What she was saying.. is relevant to this topic.
I might join in later.......... God willing.
Right now I'm devoting myself to domesticity..
I love housework...
---
“The priesthood is a marriage. People often start by falling in love, and they go on for years without realizing that love must change into some other love which is so unlike it that it can hardly be recognized as love at all.”
“Happiness is a matter of one's most ordinary and everyday mode of consciousness being busy and lively and unconcerned with self.”
“Love is the difficult realization that something other than oneself is real.”
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
