What Is Love?

[Rade]

But again, why not love that there is toilet paper available instead of just liking it?

Hello. You ask many questions, I'll try to answer some of them. Concerning this question, there is a fundamental difference between the emotional response of 'like' opposed to 'love'. We tend to like in general terms, that is, we like the fact that any roll of toilet paper is present in the stall. Conversely, we tend to love the specific, thus we love Fifi our pet cat but we do not necessarily love cats in general. Why not ? Because it is possible that we dislike some breeds of cats, such as those that are bred to be aggressive and bite. Few if any humans would say they love Brutus the cat unconditionally if Brutus randomly attacked and killed their only child during an act of unprovoked aggression.

 

And furthermore why not love when the toilet paper is not available?

OK' date=' but then you must hate when it is available which does not appear to be a rational emotional response to presence-absence of toilet paper when needed. When would it be logical to value in a positive manner the lack of toilet paper when needed ? One example that comes to mind are those toilets that use jets of warm water to clean, thus no paper needed. But, in this case, would we not say we love the fact that water jets are present, not that we love the fact toilet paper is not available ? Seems to me we make claim to love that which is present and has positive value and not to claim to love something only because it is not available to use when needed.

 

As far as judging things to be negative or positive, it's always in relation to how it affects yourself and other human beings...So why not show love at all possible times?

Because some judgements are negative, some actions negatively effect yourself and others humans that lead to negative judgements, the opposite of love (call it hate). Thus we love Fifi but hate the cat Brutus who killed our only child during an unprovoked act of aggression. Let me ask, when Jesus said "love those that hate you", do you think he was saying we should love Brutus the cat who killed the only child ? I would say no, I would say that since Brutus the cat cannot hate, Jesus would say it is fine to hate those that do not hate you and that take away something of value to you.

 

It would be selfish to say you don't love someone (brotherly/friendly either way) because you have no reason to love them. Right?

I disagree. Only a person with no concept of self would say they love someone because they find no reason to love them. Only a selfish person that would say they do love someone (or thing) because they have a reason to love.

 

You don't hate the restroom stall because there's no toilet paper' date=' so it's not fair to have any view but a positive one in the face of a neutral or upward situation, evenI if there is no toilet paper (which is again, ultimately neutral)[/quote']I disagree. It would be proper to hate a specific restroom stall that has no toilet paper because the emotional situation is not neutral, but negative. I can love a specific favor of ice cream, likewise I can hate a specific bathroom stall lacking toilet paper, for the simple reason that I value both cream and paper.

 

Reverence for life does not only extend to the life you are simply aware of' date=' it applies to [b']all[/b] life, and to all people who you ever communicate with in any form, right?. So why not chose to love everyone, and be positively active in that love by consciously experiencing it?

Should humans have reverence for Bubonic Plague bacteria ? Should we love this bacteria only on the fact that it is a form of life ? I say no to both questions. It is rational to not love Bubonic Plague bacteria, and also to dislike it. So, let us ask about the late A. Hitler in place of Bubonic Plague bacteria. Clearly there are some people today that love Hitler, such as those related to him, those that adopt his philosophy...but does that mean that only because Hitler is a human, a form of life, that all humans in past, present, future should love Hitler unconditionally ? I would like to hear a logical argument that it is morally required that the families of the ~8,000,000 humans killed in concentration camps must unconditionally love Hitler as a categorical imperative derived from reverence for life ?

 

Just because something happened to you which you can subjectively say is negative' date=' that still gives you no right to not love it.[/quote']I disagree. Only a person with a false understanding of right and wrong would say they have no right to not love the specific Bubonic Plague bacteria that will kill them or another human they love.

 

The basis on which we can objectively derive what right you have is in relation to the overall universe' date=' which will always have a neutral stance.[/quote']No, this is absolutely false. The basis on which humans objectively derive what is right and wrong is always (if a claim is made to being objective) in relation to humans, not the universe at large, thus the basis will never have a neutral stance, e.g., the positive right to life of each human is the basis of all other rights.

 

So again' date=' how can you allow yourself to not unconditionally love things? I don't see a way for people to logically come about a conclusion that argues for non-love or a negative stance.[/quote']Well, there are many ways to logically argue in favor of non-love or to take a negative stance, I presented two examples above, Bubonic Plague bacteria and A. Hitler.

 

You argue that we can make value judgements for what we can love' date=' but those values are heavily biased are they not? Again, those judgements are made (subconsciously more often than not as you say) in relation to ourselves alone.[/quote']Yes to first point you make, no to second. Value judgements made subconsciously are not always (or often ?) in relation to ourselves alone, many other factors enter the equation.

 

Yet' date=' we can objectively say this is what happens. How can we know this if there wasn't a logical way of understanding this, either empirically or in an [i']a priori[/i] manner? We know that our subconscious filters input and persuades us to pass judgement almost unreasonably sometimes, so it should be apparent that all you have to do to fix that problem is consciously logically compensate for what we know are altered value judgements.

But here is the problem, such 'knowledge' does not exist, because to say you 'know' is to say you have a mental grasp of facts of why and how the value judgements were altered, which is not possible. That is, we only know that the subconscious DOES filter, not WHAT it filters or how.

 

I mean the fact that we're talking about it right now means there is a way to understand and fix the problem' date=' doesn't it? So since we know that we have subconscious or even built-up conscious filters, all we have to do is recognize those filters inside of ourselves and then relieve them from duty to allow us to unconditionally love again, right?[/quote']Again, you ask for the impossible, it is not possible to recognize those filters...do have have a published report of such a possibility ?

 

Also' date=' as a disclaimer, like almost every post I've ever put up here, I don't necessarily believe even half-heartily anything I say, I'm just trying to logic through this to come to a conclusion. Like I said in another thread, I'm often playing the devil's advocate just to see what reasoning is stimulated from an opposing viewpoint. So when I argue the other side, the argument is usually not totally solid, but I still like seeing what logics are used to address the argument anyways. =P[/quote']Great, but my responses are usually the opposite. I do necessarily agree with what I say, until someone provides logical argument to show where my thinking errors.

[cal]

Hello. You ask many questions, I'll try to answer some of them.

And you did! This is one of the only conclusive responses I've gotten, and grats on you're 1000^th post btw!

The first few quotes into your post pretty much definitively answered my questions to the point where I couldn't find a logical counter-argument that wasn't already refuted here, so thanks again, it's helped me understand this better. However, lol, there were a couple I'm still confused about, namely the following...

 

 

I disagree. Only a person with no concept of self would say they love someone because they find no reason to love them. Only a selfish person that would say they do love someone (or thing) because they have a reason to love.

Wouldn't no concept of self be a virtue, I mean after all we have a word for it already- Selfless. Now you might say that to be selfless, you can still understand the concept of self, but after understanding that concept, choosing to act outside it's means is what leads to selflessness, and that's how you get virtuous people, so I still don't see how being totally selfless is a bad thing. You talked more about values and judgment in your last post, so I can see how you might want to narrow down what types of things you love, like humans are okay to love, but not inanimate objects. I don't see a point to categorize it further than that though, since you can label Humans as acceptable to love, I don't see why you would then go and say, "well it's acceptable to love some of them but not others." You give an example of this, so let's go to that one...

 

 

Should humans have reverence for Bubonic Plague bacteria ? Should we love this bacteria only on the fact that it is a form of life ? I say no to both questions. It is rational to not love Bubonic Plague bacteria, and also to dislike it. So, let us ask about the late A. Hitler in place of Bubonic Plague bacteria. Clearly there are some people today that love Hitler, such as those related to him, those that adopt his philosophy...but does that mean that only because Hitler is a human, a form of life, that all humans in past, present, future should love Hitler unconditionally ? I would like to hear a logical argument that it is morally required that the families of the ~8,000,000 humans killed in concentration camps must unconditionally love Hitler as a categorical imperative derived from reverence for life ?

I say yes to both the first questions, and it seems quite obvious to me that it's only fair to have a reverence towards life in that respect, it seems odd that you would say otherwise. How is it rational to dislike Bubonic Plague bacteria, it's rather similar to a lot of other forms of bacteria, the only difference is that it affects are species in a way we don't want it to, but it doesn't really have a choice does it? It can't make the conscious decision to not end other life, it simply carries out the basic functions that the chemical interactions force it to carry out. What's not to love about that?

 

On the topic of Adolf, it does mean that because Hitler is a human, a form of life, that all humans in past, present, and future should have a reverence for said life. Again, this is a weird thing that seems odd for you to say. Alexander the Great killed more people proportionately to the world's population than Hitler did, yet people love Alexander the Great, I mean his name is a symbol of the people's love for him, or better yet, when the British empire wanted to colonize the New World, they performed the greatest mass killings in all of recorded history, wiping out almost 1/5 of the world's population (and they were mostly native Americans). Does that make the King of England at the time worse than Hitler just because more of what you didn't want to happen, happened? If it's ethically wrong to murder, then it doesn't matter how many people you murder past the first one, the person is still evil after the first one, and the rest just tend to make it apparent to everyone around that person that they're evil. Take for example the movie Schindler's List, the one thing in color the whole movie is what really drives the sadness of situation. The girl in the red dress is what everyone remembers from that film, and for good reason, because she's the only thing colored on purpose, her life is what's noticed. But do you honestly think that if the girl in the red dress didn't die, then the holocaust would have been less horrible?

 

You see it's not the quantity of crimes committed, it's the quality. Once you murder one person, you're already evil, killing more people does not make you more evil, evil is evil is evil. Either you're evil (unethical) or you're not. Categorical Imperatives directly back-up what I'm saying here, so I'm glad you mentioned them. I hope you see the reasoning behind my argument here, because as far as all Objective Ethics goes, it's right to have reverence and love for all human beings, even Hitler. But let's say you still disagree, and say Hitler is an evil that deserves no love, then wouldn't all murders be of the same type of evil and all deserve no love? Wouldn't that make the entirety of Germany, Austria, and the rest of the Axis just as evil as Hitler himself since they supported his actions (most of them anyways, Hitler got elected with 98% of the vote in Austria lul)? I mean Hitler wasn't the one performing the actual murders, the soldiers were, and why would you go to fight a war for your country when you know it was unprovoked if not for the fact that you were also okay with murdering people? I don't think you're fairly distributing where the lack of love should be in these examples, you're discriminating thought crime from direct crime.

 

 

I disagree. It would be proper to hate a specific restroom stall that has no toilet paper because the emotional situation is not neutral, but negative. I can love a specific favor of ice cream, likewise I can hate a specific bathroom stall lacking toilet paper, for the simple reason that I value both cream and paper.

The problem here is that the only thing objective about ice cream is that it's entirely subjective. There is no internal or external conflict or struggles given to those who like chocolate over vanilla. Ice cream is a topic on which the universe's stance is neutral.

 

 

I disagree. Only a person with a false understanding of right and wrong would say they have no right to not love the specific Bubonic Plague bacteria that will kill them or another human they love.

 

No, this is absolutely false. The basis on which humans objectively derive what is right and wrong is always (if a claim is made to being objective) in relation to humans, not the universe at large, thus the basis will never have a neutral stance, e.g., the positive right to life of each human is the basis of all other rights.

If it's possible to know things, then I know I understand Objective Ethics, and not in a false manner. With and understanding of Objective Ethics, I can still say it's logical and ethical to claim love for Bubonic Plague bacteria, and even further claim that I have no reason and therefor no right to not love them. I should make note of something here that I probably horribly phrased previously, that being that just because you have no right to not love something does not mean you should love it. It just means you shouldn't not love it, or really that you shouldn't hate it. I mean really, how childish would it for you to exclaim aloud, "I HATE BACTERIA!" I'm also aware that reducto absurdom doesn't go over well on this forum very often, but I hope you see the point that I'm trying to make, that it's not rational (rational in relation to emotions) to have hatred for something that has no control over it's own purpose and function.

 

To your second statement quoted, the basis on which humans objectively derive what is right and wrong is certainly not only in relation to ourselves (humans). I mean if it was only in relation to ourselves, it wouldn't be very objective now would it, because the "objectivism" behind it would shift as soon as you placed the same system onto other objects, thus defeating the objectivity behind it (because to be truly objective implies universality). Objective Ethics is true of all consciousnesses able to equivocate that positive and negative things are capable of occurring if there is a will for or against a thing occurring in the first place, therefor Objective Ethics can be applied to any entity of equal or higher intellect than us Humans, so to say it only applies or is only in relation to us is silly. Oh, and wrong by definition... which is logical fallacy in it's most fundamental form. Granted if you argue semantics for how ethics, and the other buzz words here, are defined then you can undo the fallacy, but why go through all that again, we've already concluded it in the Objective Vs. Subjective Ethics thread you and me talked in, so I think it's fair to say that we can both agree that ethics is not only in relation to the perceived even if you don't agree what those ethics actually are.

 

 

But here is the problem, such 'knowledge' does not exist, because to say you 'know' is to say you have a mental grasp of facts of why and how the value judgements were altered, which is not possible. That is, we only know that the subconscious DOES filter, not WHAT it filters or how.

 

Again, you ask for the impossible, it is not possible to recognize those filters...do have have a published report of such a possibility ?

You're doing another unconventionally odd thing here which is throwing me. You're claiming that it's impossible to know the reasons behind why and how we judge things, which seems like an odd statement to me. If we didn't know WHAT the subconscious filtered, then how could we know that it DOES it at all in the first place? If we have no piece of evidence saying that something was filtered, thereby fulfilling your WHAT claim, then how can we say anything was filtered to begin with? You're saying no evidence exists for what was filtered, and then saying that there's evidence that something was filtered, SO WHAT WAS IT? lol, what is your evidence for this anti-claim of evidence? Your argument just seems a little circular is all.

 

That aside, let's say we had to start from scratch and we didn't know what the subconscious filtered or even if it filtered anything at all. How can I back up my claim that I am aware of these filters and their placements? I will tell you, but since I don't want to retype the wall of text I posted in response to CraigD's posts, I will paraphrase instead. There are ways to communicate consciously to parts of your mind that were previously not accessible consciously, and those aspects of your mind that are normally inaccessibly consciously we have defined as the "sub-conscious". There are multiple ways of probing into your sub-conscious, one of them is to create a self-actuating logic loop in which you ask what your subconscious mind is to begin with, and if you can derive an answer, then the answer came from your sub-conscious (thus making it self-actuating like described). These logic tests are one way of self-analytic that can open the gate for submerging your conscious mind into your subconscious mind. Once you are fully submerged (which admittedly takes time) you can then ask other loop questions about your emotions and what emotions are targeted and tied to, to which you get emotional responses for. I don't want to write another essay on this, so I hope you can see the chain of reasoning for this doesn't stop here. If you get good enough at it, and you can think about your mind in ways that forces it think about itself in a way in which it wasn't prompted to do, thus creating a new cerebral connection (which is quite literally the science behind it) and thus makes it so you've just actively changed your personality. If you get good enough at manually altering your personality you can go back and do it with the emotions, presto.

 

If you don't agree that this is scientifically possible, do you at least understand that it is logically possible and that my argument in that last paragraph is a logical one? If not, then we need to have a very different conversation, don't we haha?

[Rade]

grats on you're 1000th post btw!...Wouldn't no concept of self be a virtue, I mean after all we have a word for it already- Selfless.

Thanks, did not see the 1000 post number, having too much fun. To answer your question, no, it is not a virtue to have no concept of self...this philosophic view of objective ethics is reviewed by A. Rand in her book "Virtue of Selfishness". You see, I completely disagree with how you define objective ethics. Thus we can never reach full agreement how to answer the OP question..'what is love'. So, most likely you will not agree with much I say below, but it is important for all sides of arguments to be presented.

 

How is it rational to dislike Bubonic Plague bacteria' date=' it's rather similar to a lot of other forms of bacteria, the only difference is that it affects are species in a way we don't want it to, but it doesn't really have a choice does it? It can't make the conscious decision to not end other life, it simply carries out the basic functions that the chemical interactions force it to carry out. What's not to love about that?[/quote']Well, it gets to the title of the thread, 'what is love'? I defined love as an emotional response for that which humans seek to gain and/or keep that has value. If you accept this definition, it is not rational to have an emotional response to keep something alive (e.g. Bubonic Plague bacteria) if the only reason it exists is to end the ability to have an emotional response (e.g. human).

 

..as far as all Objective Ethics goes' date=' it's right to have reverence and love for all human beings, even Hitler. But let's say you still disagree, and say Hitler is an evil that deserves no love, then wouldn't all murders be of the same type of evil and all deserve no love? Wouldn't that make the entirety of Germany, Austria, and the rest of the Axis just as evil as Hitler himself since they supported his actions (most of them anyways, Hitler got elected with 98% of the vote in Austria lul)? I mean Hitler wasn't the one performing the actual murders, the soldiers were, and why would you go to fight a war for your country when you know it was unprovoked if not for the fact that you were also okay with murdering people? I don't think you're fairly distributing where the lack of love should be in these examples, you're discriminating thought crime from direct crime.[/quote']You are correct, any type of murderer deserves no love, you have shown very nicely with your response why unconditional love is not a logical emotional response to the murder act.

 

The problem here is that the only thing objective about ice cream is that it's entirely subjective. There is no internal or external conflict or struggles given to those who like chocolate over vanilla.

But I hate chocolate ice cream' date=' so your claim is defeated.

 

If it's possible to know things, then I know I understand objective ethics, and not in a false manner.

Not a valid if-then statement. One does not make a claim to know a specific (e.g. objective ethics) based on the possibility to know in general. So, using your logic, because it is possible to know things, you would claim you know that you understand quantum field theory, correct ? Then, from your comment above, you did not know that objective ethics as defined by A. Rand holds that selfishness is a virtue, so the only logical conclusion is that you do not know what you claim to know about objective ethics. Yes, definitions are important.

 

I mean really' date=' how childish would it for you to exclaim aloud, "I HATE BACTERIA!" ...I hope you see the point that I'm trying to make, that it's not rational (rational in relation to emotions) to have hatred for something that has no control over it's own purpose and function.[/quote']Yes, and it would be equally childish and irrational to exclaim "I LOVE BUBONIC PLAGUE BECAUSE IT KILLS HUMANS IN UNCONTROLLED MANNER".

 

Objective Ethics is true of all consciousnesses able to equivocate that positive and negative things are capable of occurring if there is a will for or against a thing occurring in the first place' date=' therefor Objective Ethics can be applied to any entity of equal or higher intellect than us Humans, so to say it only applies or is only in relation to us is silly.[/quote']And here again you demonstrate a false understanding of objective ethics as put forth by A. Rand. Here is the quote of Rand of interest to this issue..."The standard of value of Objectivist ethics...is man's life...". So, your claim that ethics applies to all consciousness able to equivocate positive and negative things capable of occurring is a false understanding of objective ethics. Whatever code of values are used by entities of equal or higher intellect than humans is neither objective nor ethics for the simple reason that the standard of value is NOT the human species. If you want to invent a dolphin code of values proper for dolphin, or for non human primates, great, go for it, but you cannot use concept-stealing...you cannot claim such codes to be objective ethics.

 

..so I think it's fair to say that we can both agree that ethics is not only in relation to the perceived even if you don't agree what those ethics actually are.

Ethics is only in relation to humans

 

If we didn't know WHAT the subconscious filtered' date=' then how could we know that it DOES it at all in the first place? If we have no piece of evidence saying that something was filtered, thereby fulfilling your WHAT claim, then how can we say anything was filtered to begin with? You're saying no evidence exists for what was filtered, and then saying that there's evidence that something was filtered, SO WHAT WAS IT? lol, what is your evidence for this anti-claim of evidence? Your argument just seems a little circular is all.[/quote'] See this comment from internet:

 

In a study conducted at Columbia University in New York, volunteers were shown pictures of random people with neutral expressions. The researchers also displayed random images of people with fearful expressions. The images with the fearful faces appeared and disappeared so quickly that the volunteers weren’t consciously aware of them. However, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans -- which measure changes in blood flow -- clearly demonstrated that the brain had registered the fearful faces, even though the subjects denied seeing them. This study shows that our subconscious not only filters and processes information, it is also able to perceive external input much more quickly and in more subtle forms than the conscious mind can.

 

So, this is an example of what I was saying...that it is possible to measure that the subconscious DOES filter perception via tests of physiology (blood flow in this example) even though the person denies that any perception occurred. So, there is no claim of EVIDENCE in the consciousness that anything was filtered, but there is physiological EVIDENCE that something was filtered.

 

If you don't agree that this is scientifically possible' date=' do you at least understand that it is logically possible and that my argument in that last paragraph is a logical one? If not, then we need to have a very different conversation, don't we haha?[/quote']Sure, it may well be possible and logical for the consciousness to probe the unconscious mind...here is one of many links I found:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=sJ8W8b02QoIC&pg=PR16&lpg=PR16&dq=how+to+probe+the+subconscious&source=bl&ots=41uhGq_J51&sig=neY_0TbOxPtNTqfc_c__cO38dTM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fWo5Uc6tEMbL2QWi3YHQAg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=how%20to%20probe%20the%20subconscious&f=false.

 

But, to say we can probe the unconscious is not to say we will ever know how and why it filters perceptions and emotions, and thus, in the end, the limit of knowledge itself is the reason why love cannot be unconditional for all such emotional responses so defined.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Rade

[cal]

To answer your question, no, it is not a virtue to have no concept of self...this philosophic view of objective ethics is reviewed by A. Rand in her book "Virtue of Selfishness". You see, I completely disagree with how you define objective ethics. Thus we can never reach full agreement how to answer the OP question..'what is love'. So, most likely you will not agree with much I say below, but it is important for all sides of arguments to be presented...

 

And here again you demonstrate a false understanding of objective ethics as put forth by A. Rand. Here is the quote of Rand of interest to this issue..."The standard of value of Objectivist ethics...is man's life...". So, your claim that ethics applies to all consciousness able to equivocate positive and negative things capable of occurring is a false understanding of objective ethics. Whatever code of values are used by entities of equal or higher intellect than humans is neither objective nor ethics for the simple reason that the standard of value is NOT the human species. If you want to invent a dolphin code of values proper for dolphin, or for non human primates, great, go for it, but you cannot use concept-stealing...you cannot claim such codes to be objective ethics.

 

Ethics is only in relation to humans

Firstly, I'd like it if members of this forum stopped using unsupported and unaccepted definitions for things from other people. Ayn Rand is not a source of Objective Ethics, and I've found that most people who mistakenly think she is have never read many other books on Objective Ethics (textbooks are actually better for once, on this topic, than other sources).

 

Let's look at virtues before we get back into defining Objective Ethics. What is a virtue? Well pretty much the universal way of defining a virtue is "a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good" according to wikipedia and most textbooks. So how do you define a trait or quality to be positive? Well, you place it on a spectrum with it's opposite trait or quality. And how do you derive the virtue out of that spectrum? Well, you place your limited comparative trait or quality (your own works for this) and see where on the spectrum it ends up. The greeks said that it wasn't actually very virtuous to be totally one thing or another (and this is still entirely accepted in Virtue Ethics), but rather to be a little past the median for any two opposite traits. For example-

Selfishness            Median           Selflessness
   |--------------------|------X-------------|
                             Virtue

 

So besides it being impossible by definition to argue selfishness as a virtue, Ayn Rand committed logical fallacies in other areas too. But let's cover how you're saying she defined "Objective Ethics", being "Ethics is only in relation to humans." I want you to notice, that's not what she's defining in your quote, in fact she's verbatim defining Objectivist's ethics... Objective Ethics and an Objectivist's ethics are two VERY DIFFERENT things that I think you are confusing together. On top of that, she says the point of reference is man's life, which by definition places that ethical system in the sub-category of Relativistic Ethics, which I think sometimes goes by Culturalism (of Ethics), both of which are forms of Subjective Ethics. Any form of ethics that focuses on the life of the individual can not be classified under the category of Objective Ethics, I don't know how to argue this any further besides the fundamental definitions and classifications of these things that are already established by the philosophic ethic's community. Rand's system of ethics cannot fall under Objective Ethics, but that does not mean they're intrinsically wrong, it just means they aren't universally applicable (and just probably wrong).

 

Also I made no claim that any ethics applies to all consciousnesses able to equivocate them, otherwise Rand's ethics would apply to me, and they don't. I said Objective Ethics applies universally, and I should elaborate to say that all consciousnesses capable of actuating Objective Ethics are obligated to enforce that system upon themselves and others, lest they perverse the logic they used to come about the equivocation in the first place.

 

So that being said, even if you feel as though you're not obligated to follow Objective Ethics, your statements, "Whatever code of values are used by entities of equal or higher intellect than humans is neither objective nor ethics for the simple reason that the standard of value is NOT the human species. If you want to invent a dolphin code of values proper for dolphin, or for non human primates, great, go for it, but you cannot use concept-stealing...you cannot claim such codes to be objective ethics" are delusional, and I'll tell you why. If the standard of value is NOT the human species, GOOD. That means we can use a universal standard, which will always be true and applicable, because it's universal, ERGO Objective Ethics. We don't need to invent a new code of ethics for dolphins because it's still objectively unethical via the functions of Objective Ethics for dolphins to murder, steal, etc. We aren't concept-stealing, we're concept applying, which as far as I'm concerned, is what any form of ethics is intended for- understanding the correct rules for which actions are, and are not, allowed (a.k.a. the "applied side" of ethics).

 

And again, if semantics really needs to be argued any further than this (although I don't see how because the very fundamental definitions and their assembled structure have been outlined here for you) then I suggest you hop back onto the other thread that covers this - Objectivism Vs. Subjectivism In Morality which admittedly has a misnomer for a title, it should be Objective Vs. Subjective Ethics, but you get the point (or maybe you don't based on your last post in that thread, whatevs).

 

 

Well, it gets to the title of the thread, 'what is love'? I defined love as an emotional response for that which humans seek to gain and/or keep that has value. If you accept this definition, it is not rational to have an emotional response to keep something alive (e.g. Bubonic Plague bacteria) if the only reason it exists is to end the ability to have an emotional response (e.g. human).

But if she leaves you, then you have to love her even in absence, so defining love as an emotional response in which we only seek to gain what we value is an incomplete definition. I think it's a good one, but I don't think it's complete is all. You make it sound very selfish, as if we only want to gain things of value, as if we're all entirely materialistic, which I don't think was your aim with that definition, but if it wasn't, then the definition needs to be re-worked a little.

 

Also, Bubonic Plague bacteria do not only exist to end the ability to have an emotional response to them. They essentially have the same purpose in life as any other bacteria: to carry out bacteria-like functions and propagate their species. But again, your argument (aside from what it's referencing, the bacteria) is soundly logical here so let's replace the flawed reference point. What concept holds the sole purpose of ending our ability to love? Hate holds that purpose. So your argument will come out true if you said this instead, "It is not rational to have an emotional response to keep perpetuating a concept (e.g. Hatred) if the only reason it exists is to end the ability to have any other emotional response other than itself (e.q. other responses like love).

 

 

You are correct, any type of murderer deserves no love, you have shown very nicely with your response why unconditional love is not a logical emotional response to the murder act.

I agree with you here because this shows that you're following categorical imperatives, which are derived from Objective Ethics. I'm confused as to why you're being selective about which things you chose to be universal about.

 

 

But I hate chocolate ice cream, so your claim is defeated.

False, it's still entirely subjective, like I said, so your opinion on it is indifferent to the rest of the universe. You have no struggle claiming how much you like or dislike a flavor, there is no conflict, so my claim stands.

 

 

Not a valid if-then statement. One does not make a claim to know a specific (e.g. objective ethics) based on the possibility to know in general. So, using your logic, because it is possible to know things, you would claim you know that you understand quantum field theory, correct ? Then, from your comment above, you did not know that objective ethics as defined by A. Rand holds that selfishness is a virtue, so the only logical conclusion is that you do not know what you claim to know about objective ethics. Yes, definitions are important.

Definitions are less important here in comparison to phrasing. I said "If it's possible to know things," not to say that I know things in general, but if it is possible to "know" things at all. The reason I put that defense in there is because semantics are heavily argued on this forum and it seemed necessary to address that there is a possibility that it is impossible to know anything whatsoever. I don't really agree with that topic of philosophy, but I figured since you're arguing most of the points I've made, that you might argue whether or not I could fairly claim that I could know anything to begin with (after saying I knew what Objective Ethics was), it was just there for courtesy. And really, it sounded pretentious for me to just write, "I understand and know what Objective Ethics are, and not in a false manner." Of course you probably still would have initially disagreed with that statement if it weren't for the the outline I made earlier in this post.

 

So, to clarify, I made an if-then statement implying it was possible to have knowledge at all, and if you can have knowledge, one of the things I would classify under my knowledge-base is the understanding of Objective Ethics, nothing more, nothing less. I wasn't making an if-then statement in relation to the if-then logical operator you're describing, I wasn't creating a functional argument out of the quoted, I was stating that one of the things I know is one of the things I know. But if it makes you feel better, I also understand quantum field theory lol.

 

 

Yes, and it would be equally childish and irrational to exclaim "I LOVE BUBONIC PLAGUE BECAUSE IT KILLS HUMANS IN UNCONTROLLED MANNER".

Why would you exclaim that? That's dumb as hell.

 

I should say you have no right to hate single-celled organisms, rather than you have no right to not love them.

 

 

So, this is an example of what I was saying...that it is possible to measure that the subconscious DOES filter perception via tests of physiology (blood flow in this example) even though the person denies that any perception occurred. So, there is no claim of EVIDENCE in the consciousness that anything was filtered, but there is physiological EVIDENCE that something was filtered.

 

Sure, it may well be possible and logical for the consciousness to probe the unconscious mind...here is one of many links I found:

...

But, to say we can probe the unconscious is not to say we will ever know how and why it filters perceptions and emotions, and thus, in the end, the limit of knowledge itself is the reason why love cannot be unconditional for all such emotional responses so defined.

So you just said that things are filtered subconsciously, and that it is possible and logical for the conscious part of the mind to be able to delve into the subconscious (you really said "unconscious", but unconscious is an adjective, not a noun-thing, so I'll assume that was a typo unless you mean something completely different from what we're talking about), so then since we have a specific example of something that is subconsciously filtered (your posted experiment works for this), couldn't you just take someone practicing hyper-introspection and give them the same test, with them being aware of what's being filtered, and have them actively watch their subconscious for the filters so they can then lift the filters? Again, this is one of the things that seems obvious to me (obvious in that it is the working solution), like how you're not supposed to hit people in the face for no reason, but based on the amount of counter-arguments I'm getting, I guess it's not an obvious/apparent thing to most people?

 

You say the limit of knowledge is the limit of love (indirectly), because love is based on what we have knowledge of to love. This makes sense, but what if that reasoning is itself knowledge, why not use that as an anti-inhibitor? Like what would you say if I told you that given this knowledge, I now choose to unconditionally love all that I consciously experience? And for the sake of this thought experiment, let's also say I was able to carry through with it haha. What say you then, good sir?

Edited March 9, 2013 by Snax

[Buffy]

Um, from my perspective, the OP really came across as an extremely verbose and disconnected argument to prove to some poor girl that she ought to sleep with you when she's said "no."

 

I'd always considered obvious what Eclogite and Craig have pointed you to: no, the different kinds of love are not all the same. That's why a) we have so many different words for them, and B) why so much has been written about the subject.

 

Word games can be fun, but they can get tiring quickly when it becomes obvious that they're being used to simply evade the obvious. Quite frankly, I kinda understand why she said "no."

 

Happy International Women's Day, everybody!

 

 

The word love has by no means the same sense for both sexes, and this is one cause of the serious misunderstandings that divide them, :phones:

Buffy

[cal]

Um, from my perspective, the OP really came across as an extremely verbose and disconnected argument to prove to some poor girl that she ought to sleep with you when she's said "no."

...

Word games can be fun, but they can get tiring quickly when it becomes obvious that they're being used to simply evade the obvious. Quite frankly, I kinda understand why she said "no."

Nigris please, the only pussy that says no to me is

.

 

Also, I'm probably abstinent for more reasons than just that of my own rejection, have you thought about that? Also, you say that it gets tiring when people evade the point of conversation, yet you straw-man the living dick out of this by arguing that this whole thread is for some imaginary *****, HYPOCRITICAL MUCH?

 

Also "verbose"? My OP isn't even a full page, it takes all of two minutes to read, and it explores a bunch of different possibilities behind the topic (a.k.a. Critical Thinking). It only comes across as verbose and disconnected if you have no patience or means to connect to it (womanly traits, I understand).

 

But hey, if you wanna keep playing this game where you say my posts are motivated for any other reason besides my boredom, we can go there, we can dance all day, try and stop me, my boredom has no limitations, but your patience does. Just saiyan.

 

 

I'd always considered obvious what Eclogite and Craig have pointed you to: no, the different kinds of love are not all the same. That's why a) we have so many different words for them, and B) why so much has been written about the subject.

...

The word love has by no means the same sense for both sexes, and this is one cause of the serious misunderstandings that divide them

Obviously, which is why you incorrectly think men even need to feel love at all towards a partner. I think a testament to the amount of assumption that you've placed into that post is that you assume that I feel love at all, or that it's targeted to some chick, AND HERE'S THE NUT BUSTER: I don't even believe in relationships to begin with! SNAP BURN OUCH. Which subsequently explains why what you find to be so obvious from Eclogite and Craig aren't so obvious to that of an altruist (and possibly "actuated psychopath" depending on your definition). You should also consider that I've pretty much isolated the forms of love down to a single one, the "agape" love, and asked repeatedly, with very few responses being all that direct (with the exception of Rade's posts) on why I shouldn't unconditionally love all humans.

 

Which again, is something you've failed to answer here besides your straw-man that there are indeed many different forms of love and that you got bored with reading about it (even though you also mention so much more has been written about it as if you've read all the other things you're mentioning but magically didn't grow bored with those things, only when it came to this thread was the boredom seeded), oh and that yes, people can define love differently; all things that have already been covered in this thread. Thanks for the redundancy, I think.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Snax

[Buffy]

Also, I'm probably abstinent for more reasons than just that of my own rejection, have you thought about that?

That's what I thought. Why not talk about them then? Why the pussyfooting around the topic?

 

Also, you say that it gets tiring when people evade the point of conversation, yet you straw-man the living dick out of this by arguing that this whole thread is for some imaginary *****, HYPOCRITICAL MUCH?

My, my. Well, I do apologize for treating you in the same manner as you treat others here. I should have known that you would react negatively to not being given special treatment.

 

"imaginary *****?" It's clear from the crux of your argument that you have severe anger issues toward women, and are using this discussion to try to justify that anger, by trying to say, "all love is the same, so if she likes me even a little bit I have the right to demand that she throw herself at my feet."

 

Now that's just my interpretation, but I'm just a feminist *****, so what do I know? You're man enough to take it with a block of salt are you not?

 

Isn't that what you swagger around this forum demanding other people do in response to your, shall we say, somewhat intentionally inflammatory opinions?

 

And yes, they're intentionally inflammatory, whether you recognize it or not (and I do think you don't, but you're free to attempt to disabuse me of that notion). An example:

 

But hey, if you wanna keep playing this game where you say my posts are motivated for any other reason besides my boredom, we can go there, we can dance all day, try and stop me, my boredom has no limitations, but your patience does. Just saiyan.

We've all learned that your posts are motivated completely and exclusively by your boredom. I'm being quite patient. Quite a few of us find your musings quite entertaining even if much of it is somewhat tawdry and sophomoric at times.

 

The only problem is that you spend a lot of time poking people, in many cases not because you have any actual belief but rather just to "mess with their heads" precisely because, as you say, your only motivated by your boredom.

 

Bottom line in life is always, if you don't like the people respond to you, you might want to look at what you said to them first, and in the words of the immortal George Carlin's Hippy Dippy Weatherman "if you don't like the weather, move."

 

Obviously, which is why you incorrectly think men even need to feel love at all towards a partner. I think a testament to the amount of assumption that you've placed into that post is that you assume that I feel love at all, or that it's targeted to some chick, AND HERE'S THE NUT BUSTER: I don't even believe in relationships to begin with! SNAP BURN OUCH.

Oh I know! And that's what's so sad! This indicates the issue here is not the more pedestrian Mars/Venus thing, but rather your complete inability to understand human compassion and affection in *either* men or women.

 

Sure, both sexes are familiar with Erica Jong's "Zipless ****": it's an interesting fantasy. But to think that that's the only way that "normal" men *or* women operate all the time is a serious misrepresentation of reality.

 

But now we get to the real nitty gritty:

 

Which subsequently explains why what you find to be so obvious from Eclogite and Craig aren't so obvious to that of an altruist (and possibly "actuated psychopath" depending on your definition). You should also consider that I've pretty much isolated the forms of love down to a single one, the "agape" love, and asked repeatedly, with very few responses being all that direct (with the exception of Rade's posts) on why I shouldn't unconditionally love all humans.

The only reason that you can only imagine one kind of love is that you've never experienced any of them. That's not just a blind accusation: in all the posts above you've dismissed without much justification any argument that the four types you've clinically defined, and made a pretty clear that from a personal standpoint you "don't even believe in relationships to begin with."

 

That actually is a pretty decent clinical definition of a sociopath, but I'm not calling you that, just indicating that that's one of the key symptoms: any lack of empathy or desire to have a connection with another human being.

 

While I understand that you're trying to be clinical and objective, not recognizing what your words tell everyone who's watching is something you need to be aware of. You can't really demand that people not notice what's so obvious, especially when you're so antagonistic toward everyone and then expect them to not react in kind.

 

 

I'm tough, ambitious, and I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a *****, okay, :phones:

Buffy

[cal]

That's what I thought. Why not talk about them then? Why the pussyfooting around the topic?

Yea, we should really cut out all the pussyfooting in this thread. No need to evade the subject, no need to hide behind a bush about this, or run around the block, we should just get straight to the pussyfooting, hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more, johnny's your uncle. No need for none of that, straight to it, curt and precise aye? Well on to it. We're sailing straight ahead, the ship Pussyfoot is sunk and here we've gone, to Direct Answer Island, because who needs pussyfoot when you've got booty?

 

 

My, my. Well, I do apologize for treating you in the same manner as you treat others here. I should have known that you would react negatively to not being given special treatment.

You give me special treatment... you're treating me in the same manner as I treat others... I give others special treatment? I've done no such thing, stop spreading lies.

 

 

"imaginary *****?" It's clear from the crux of your argument that you have severe anger issues toward women, and are using this discussion to try to justify that anger, by trying to say, "all love is the same, so if she likes me even a little bit I have the right to demand that she throw herself at my feet."

Because I used the single word instead of typing out the phrase "that woman you implied I was only after for sex" all of a sudden means I have issues, me, the one being direct and honest, not you for confusing generational terms and ad hominening this to the point that it's not even related to the original topic at all. Okay, yea, okay.

 

 

Now that's just my interpretation, but I'm just a feminist *****, so what do I know? You're man enough to take it with a block of salt are you not?

The only thing being blocked here is my cock (props for word association?) and if you can't handle the heat, I suggest you ask Miami to get rid of #6, he ruins the sport.

 

 

Isn't that what you swagger around this forum demanding other people do in response to your, shall we say, somewhat intentionally inflammatory opinions?

 

And yes, they're intentionally inflammatory, whether you recognize it or not (and I do think you don't, but you're free to attempt to disabuse me of that notion). An example:

You didn't have to choose to

, we could've been civil about this, but no, you chose all-out war.

 

Also, it's not possible for something to be intentional and not recognize it at the same time, that's like saying it was intentional but not intentional. That's a logical fallacy, but you're free to attempt to disabuse me of that notion.

 

 

We've all learned that your posts are motivated completely and exclusively by your boredom. I'm being quite patient. Quite a few of us find your musings quite entertaining even if much of it is somewhat tawdry and sophomoric at times.

As long as it isn't those

.

 

 

The only problem is that you spend a lot of time poking people, in many cases not because you have any actual belief but rather just to "mess with their heads" precisely because, as you say, your only motivated by your boredom.

I wanna clarify here, pokes are a facebook thing, not a hypography thing, I think you may be getting the sites confused. Also, I don't hold myself to any beliefs whatsoever (not even being sarcastic about this bit) so I don't think it's fair to say anything I've posted here was out of "any actual belief", even the serious stuff. Also, you spelled "you're" incorrectly.

 

 

Bottom line in life is always, if you don't like the people respond to you...

Who said I don't like the people or their responses to me?

 

 

Oh I know! And that's what's so sad! This indicates the issue here is not the more pedestrian Mars/Venus thing, but rather your complete inability to understand human compassion and affection in *either* men or women.

Whoa, just because I don't love anyone sexually doesn't mean I entirely lack compassion, but I like that you're holding to your trend of assumptions, shows persistence.

 

 

Sure, both sexes are familiar with Erica Jong's "Zipless ****": it's an interesting fantasy. But to think that that's the only way that "normal" men *or* women operate all the time is a serious misrepresentation of reality.

, 99% of people have no idea what Erica Jong's "Zipless ****" is.

 

 

The only reason that you can only imagine one kind of love is that you've never experienced any of them. That's not just a blind accusation: in all the posts above you've dismissed without much justification any argument that the four types you've clinically defined, and made a pretty clear that from a personal standpoint you "don't even believe in relationships to begin with."

> The only reason that you can only imagine one kind of love is that you've never experienced any of them.

More assumptions. I think it's safe to say I've experienced three of the four kinds of love for most of my life, the only love I've never experienced in a waking state is love for a partner, but that doesn't mean I haven't loved someone in a lucid dream, or that I'm incapable of recognizing that love if it were to happen in real life.

 

I don't believe in long-term sexual relationships with a single person (I didn't imply any other kind of relationship), many call this the "player complex" and yes, I know it'd be hard to imagine me as otherwise, but I am not a player. I'm coming from a very different angle. It doesn't make sense to me to get married or have kids, I don't want either of those things, I have no "lineage" to carry on, as I've given my life no real purpose, so it seems selfish to force someone into existence and then make the kid listen to my stories of how not-awesome I am. It doesn't make sense to me to marry one person, how egotistical for me to say that only one person deserves that kind of deep love from me, that only one person deserves to have my life risked for their sake. I'd be extremely selfish to not put my life on the line for anyone else, and extremely selfish all over again to expect it back from anyone, let alone some chick.

 

When a 190 pound crack head bounces through your window at 3:00 in the morning, who do you love more, some 120 pound

or your 80 pound pit-bull? THAT PIT-BULL WINS EVERY TIME, I'M SORRY.

 

 

That actually is a pretty decent clinical definition of a sociopath, but I'm not calling you that, just indicating that that's one of the key symptoms: any lack of empathy or desire to have a connection with another human being.

 

While I understand that you're trying to be clinical and objective, not recognizing what your words tell everyone who's watching is something you need to be aware of. You can't really demand that people not notice what's so obvious, especially when you're so antagonistic toward everyone and then expect them to not react in kind.

I never said I lacked connections with other human beings or that I lacked desire or empathy, nor have I even adequately shown it here, since most of my argument has been about

: the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others... altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness.

 

I mean look at this right hur, it's 1:20 in the morning, I have a huge project I should have been doing, and 6 hours of programming work I was supposed to complete for my job, but NO, I put my life on hold to help you understand that true love is possible, that unconditional compassion runs deep in all of us, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, to which the collective experience of the universe positively unfolds itself. All for you. You can't say I'm a sociopath now lol, maybe a procrastinator, but not a sociopath.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Snax

[Buffy]

...And yes, they're intentionally inflammatory, whether you recognize it or not (and I do think you don't, but you're free to attempt to disabuse me of that notion)...

Also, it's not possible for something to be intentional and not recognize it at the same time, that's like saying it was intentional but not intentional. That's a logical fallacy, but you're free to attempt to disabuse me of that notion.

 

So you're arguing that there is no subconscious mind? One does not actually have to be aware of one's intent when one acts intentionally.

 

Lack of self-awareness is a problem for most people, but is particularly acute among those who engage in extreme forms of anti-social behavior.

 

"Just sayin'."

 

The only problem is that you spend a lot of time poking people, in many cases not because you have any actual belief but rather just to "mess with their heads" precisely because, as you say, you're only motivated by your boredom.

...Also, I don't hold myself to any beliefs whatsoever (not even being sarcastic about this bit) so I don't think it's fair to say anything I've posted here was out of "any actual belief", even the serious stuff. Also, you spelled "you're" incorrectly.

Thank you very much for catching that typo! It's now been corrected! :cheer:

 

But to the point, the problem here is precisely what I said in this quote and your response: Whether you realize or accept it as true, you regularly propose things that are unpopular and/or simply false, and then come back later by saying it was "not out of any actual belief."

 

Now while it's possible to say that you're just playing devil's advocate and it's a "logical fallacy" to conclude that you're engaging in intentionally provocative interactions, quite frankly, it doesn't matter how you think people should react, they react the way they do.

 

You can't tell people how they *should* react to the way you present yourself, that's not the way the world works, nor is it a successful life strategy.

 

Obviously, which is why you incorrectly think men even need to feel love at all towards a partner. I think a testament to the amount of assumption that you've placed into that post is that you assume that I feel love at all, or that it's targeted to some chick, AND HERE'S THE NUT BUSTER: I don't even believe in relationships to begin with! SNAP BURN OUCH.

Oh I know! And that's what's so sad! This indicates the issue here is not the more pedestrian Mars/Venus thing, but rather your complete inability to understand human compassion and affection in *either* men or women.

 

Whoa, just because I don't love anyone sexually doesn't mean I entirely lack compassion, but I like that you're holding to your trend of assumptions, shows persistence.

 

"not love anyone sexually" is not at all what I said, so on the straw man thing, Mr. Pot just called Ms. Kettle black. Whatever.

 

The problem with your response here is that you pulled out what I was referring to (which I put back in the excerpt immediately above), in which you said explicitly that you "don't even believe in relationships to begin with!" This of course is one of those hard-to-believe broadsides that leaves one no choice but to assume that you're doing it just to provoke people or that you sadly really don't have any relationships with anyone (with plenty of evidence in your posts as to the reason why that might be), and people can fairly jump to the conclusion from either of these assumptions that no, you don't have much in the way of compassion.

 

But let's go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt for now. :cheer:

 

Sure, both sexes are familiar with Erica Jong's "Zipless ****": it's an interesting fantasy. But to think that that's the only way that "normal" men *or* women operate all the time is a serious misrepresentation of reality.

 

That's delusional and I'll tell you why, 99% of people have no idea what Erica Jong's "Zipless ****" is.

 

Ha, ha, ha, ha! :D

 

So you're saying because an audience is unfamiliar with a reference that that by definition makes the statement "delusional?" Let's talk about "logical fallacy" Mr. Pot!

 

Or of course, you could edumacate yourself by looking it up.

 

 

The only reason that you can only imagine one kind of love is that you've never experienced any of them. That's not just a blind accusation: in all the posts above you've dismissed without much justification any argument that the four types you've clinically defined, and made a pretty clear that from a personal standpoint you "don't even believe in relationships to begin with."

 

More assumptions. I think it's safe to say I've experienced three of the four kinds of love for most of my life, the only love I've never experienced in a waking state is love for a partner, but that doesn't mean I haven't loved someone in a lucid dream, or that I'm incapable of recognizing that love if it were to happen in real life.

NOW we're getting somewhere!

 

I will definitely grant that the first sentence here is overstatement. However, the problem that I was attempting to point out here was that your arguments on whether the distinction between the different kinds of love has gone off into the weeds of rhetoric and philosophy, which as several folks have pointed out here is avoiding the psychological and sociological foundation of the definitions of love.

 

You're busy talking about love as some sort of abstract, mathematical construct while saying more than enough for the typical engaged reader to conclude that you may have had vague awareness of your feelings, but you've clearly not thought them through very well, especially on a topic that is of such massive amounts of both research and literature. I know you don't think that people should have a right to this conclusion, but people will interpret both the literal words as well as the mood conveyed by the Gestalt of what you say. But people are in their responses trying to tell you something.

 

You're not listening to your heart, dude. :love:

 

...It doesn't make sense to me to get married or have kids, I don't want either of those things, I have no "lineage" to carry on, as I've given my life no real purpose, so it seems selfish to force someone into existence and then make the kid listen to my stories of how not-awesome I am. It doesn't make sense to me to marry one person, how egotistical for me to say that only one person deserves that kind of deep love from me, that only one person deserves to have my life risked for their sake. I'd be extremely selfish to not put my life on the line for anyone else, and extremely selfish all over again to expect it back from anyone, let alone some chick.

That's just really hard to read. I'm glad that you've written it because I think it does a great job of explaining why you believe (or said, if you don't believe it and you're "just sayin'") what you've said in this thread. Obviously this is one very heartfelt statement, and I'll thank you for being honest and providing it. I don't think it would be useful to you for me to try to explain why it's hard to read, and I think for the audience, it just pretty well speaks for itself.

 

I mean look at this right hur, it's 1:20 in the morning, I have a huge project I should have been doing, and 6 hours of programming work I was supposed to complete for my job, but NO, I put my life on hold to help you understand that true love is possible, that unconditional compassion runs deep in all of us, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, to which the collective experience of the universe positively unfolds itself. All for you.

Thank you for taking the time!

 

But in the last couple of excerpts above you've whipsawed between talking about all the cases where you believe that unconditional love (the only type you say exists) should be withheld--to the point of ruling out any long-term relationships--and yet saying you're trying to help me "understand that true love is possible."

 

That whipsawing causes a wee bit of cognitive dissonance for a lot of us, and leads many to be, shall we say, unconvinced of your arguments because of the apparent contradictions.

 

And moreover, you kinda lose the audience on the logic: there's no need to help me understand that or that "unconditional compassion runs deep in all of us," because I'd say that everyone who has responded here agrees with that, and also agrees that while the "unconditional" is possible, it's not required, the basis of, or even a necessary condition of the other identified types of love. So your premise here is a bit of a straw man, Mr. Pot, and as a result, it doesn't really help anyone get the feeling that you're comprehending any of what's being said to you.

 

At some point, people will just stop trying, no matter how nicely they try to approach you.

 

You can't say I'm a sociopath now lol, maybe a procrastinator, but not a sociopath.

 

lol, sure I can! Nice that you realize that I'm just following your lead and being sarcastic when I call you a sociopath. :evil:

 

 

Any system was a straightjacket if you insisted on adhering to it so totally and humorlessly, :phones:

Buffy

[Rade]

Firstly, I'd like it if members of this forum stopped using unsupported and unaccepted definitions for things from other people. Ayn Rand is not a source of Objective Ethics,

Sorry, you have a false understanding of Rand, how she differentiates the terms objective, objectivist, objectivism as related to ethics. Of course Rand is a source of Objective Ethics, she uses the term objective over and over when talking about ethics. A few examples. She states that capitalism is the only system based on an objective theory of values (= objective ethics). She differentiates between the philosophically objective and socially objective as relates to values. She said "Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)."...The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.”

 

And how do you derive the virtue out of that spectrum? Well' date=' you place your limited comparative trait or quality (your own works for this) and see where on the spectrum it ends up.[/quote']Well, no, nobody decides what is right or wrong.

 

So besides it being impossible by definition to argue selfishness as a virtue' date=' Ayn Rand committed logical fallacies in other areas too.[/quote']Whatever fallacies Rand has, her argument that selfishness is a virtue is sound, if you accept her definitions.

 

But let's cover how you're saying she defined "Objective Ethics"' date=' being "Ethics is only in relation to humans." I want you to notice, that's not what she's defining in your quote, in fact she's verbatim defining [i']Objectivist's[/i] ethics... Objective Ethics and an Objectivist's ethics are two VERY DIFFERENT things that I think you are confusing together.

No, you are confusing how Rand uses the two terms. She calls her philosophy Objectivism, it is based on an Objective Theory of values, e.g., an Objective Ethics.

 

On top of that' date=' she says the point of reference is man's life, which by definition places that ethical system in the sub-category of Relativistic Ethics, which I think sometimes goes by Culturalism (of Ethics), both of which are forms of Subjective Ethics. Any form of ethics that focuses on the life of the individual can not be classified under the category of Objective Ethics,[/quote']Again, you completely miss her point, the species Homo sapiens is the point of reference, an objective metaphysical entity...the focus of ethics is NOT on the life of the individual human, but on all humans (=man's life).

 

I said Objective Ethics applies universally' date=' and I should elaborate to say that all consciousnesses capable of actuating Objective Ethics are obligated to enforce that system upon themselves and others[/quote']Here Rand, and I, would agree with you.

 

We don't need to invent a new code of ethics for dolphins because it's still objectively unethical via the functions of Objective Ethics for dolphins to murder' date=' steal, etc.[/quote']Not true. Some species of birds have evolved to survive and reproduce by stealing the nests of other species, for all we know dolphins do the same. Females spiders murder their male mate after they reproduce, ITS ALL MORAL, nothing unethical for birds to steal and spiders to murder.

 

But if she leaves you' date=' then you have to love her even in absence, so defining love as an emotional response in which we [i']only[/i] seek to gain what we value is an incomplete definition. I think it's a good one, but I don't think it's complete is all.

No, you do not have to love her after she leaves you if you do not value the fact she cheated on you, for example.

 

You make it sound very selfish' date=' as if we only want to gain things of value, as if we're all entirely materialistic, which I don't think was your aim with that definition, but if it wasn't, then the definition needs to be re-worked a little.[/quote']You are correct, the definition does not demand that we be entirely materialistic...the reason is that love is an emotional response that result in a response to immaterial aspects of that which we seek to gain and/or keep.

 

So your argument will come out true if you said this instead' date=' "It is not rational to have an emotional response to keep perpetuating a concept (e.g. Hatred) if the only reason it exists is to end the ability to have any other emotional response other than itself (e.q. other responses like love).[/quote']Thanks. How about we remove the ( ) and shorten to: It is not rational to have an emotional response of hate if the only reason it exists is to end other such responses, such as love. This would match what Rand was saying, that we never decide what is right or wrong, we hate or love for reasons related to facts of reality (thus, I hate Brutus the aggressive cat because he killed my only child for no reason).

 

I'm confused as to why you're being selective about which things you chose to be universal about.

I try not to' date=' so keep after me when I do

 

You have no struggle claiming how much you like or dislike a flavor, there is no conflict, so my claim stands.

Of course I have a conflict, some tastes cause an emotional conflict in my brain, and because you can only know anything two ways, from inside the thing or from outside, you have no knowledge what conflicts occur within my brain, so your claim fails for a second time.

 

So' date=' to clarify, I made an if-then statement implying it was possible to have knowledge at all, and if you can have knowledge, one of the things I would classify under my knowledge-base is the understanding of Objective Ethics, nothing more, nothing less.[/quote']Fine, one can have incomplete knowledge of anything, and as stated above you demonstrate incomplete knowledge of the objective ethics of Rand.

 

But if it makes you feel better' date=' I also understand quantum field theory lol.[/quote']Great, but your claim was that your understanding of objective ethics was not in a false manner, which it is not.

 

I should say you have no right to hate single-celled organisms

If so' date=' then i should say you have false understanding of the concept 'rights' as relates to humans.

 

couldn't you just take someone practicing hyper-introspection and give them the same test, with them being aware of what's being filtered, and have them actively watch their subconscious for the filters so they can then lift the filters?

Sounds like a valid experiment to try.

 

You say the limit of knowledge is the limit of love (indirectly)' date=' because love is based on what we have knowledge of to love. This makes sense, but what if that reasoning is itself knowledge, why not use that as an anti-inhibitor? Like what would you say if I told you that given this knowledge, I now choose to unconditionally love all that I consciously experience? And for the sake of this thought experiment, let's also say I was able to carry through with it haha. What say you then, good sir?[/quote']I would say I sure hope you never run into Brutus the cat (bred for the sole reason to kill human children) after you get married and have children. But seriously, did you happen to read my definition of philosophy on the thread "what is philosophy?" recently started ? For me, philosophy itself is a LOVE FEST, an emotional thinking response that humans have with something they value, namely our relationship with existence. So, yes, I agree when you say you seek to love all that you consciously experience via the use of rational thought, but the problem is that you don't always get out of life what you want (unconditional love) sometime Brutus the Cat enters the picture and you get what you need to bring you back to reality (a shattered illusion of love).

Edited March 10, 2013 by Rade

[Rade]

sorry, duplicate post of above

Edited March 10, 2013 by Rade

[cal]

So you're arguing that there is no subconscious mind? One does not actually have to be aware of one's intent when one acts intentionally.

That argument for "no subconscious mind" was never made, and if you've read the back-and-forth me and Rade had in this thread, I don't even see how you could suggest that's what my arguments have implied.

 

Let's tackle that second statement you made there. To act with intent, to have intent, implies there was a conscious decision involved in the course of action to be made, intent is defined with conscious decision making in mind. THEREFORE, It is not possible, by definition of the very word, for something to be done intentionally, and to not simultaneously be consciously aware of it. You're just wrong on this point (and I say point, because yes, I am keeping score).

 

 

"Just sayin'."

Don't quote me incorrectly, it does you a disservice. I said saiyan on purpose, besides,

.

 

 

Whether you realize or accept it as true, you regularly propose things that are unpopular and/or simply false, and then come back later by saying it was "not out of any actual belief."

Because these clauses are a part of the same sentence, I'm reading it as if you're saying that I regularly propose things, and also regularly say the things I proposed were "not an actual belief." That's not true, because I've only said that in one thread on this entire forum (this thread). But I don't think it was meant to be read contiguously like that so I'll address the second clause first. I don't think I regularly do anything on this forum, that statement is validated by the fact that most would not call me a "regular". On top of that, (more like on bottom in your case, get it lol, because I'm

this dialogue) I don't think I've proposed anything at all, ever, that was simply false on this forum. Name one thread I've started to which every one of my arguments (or any at all) were intrinsically false, and proved so by a counter-argument that wasn't bested by another counter-argument (Rade's post about value is the only exception I can see, but it doesn't null my core argument).

 

Also, does it really matter if the things proposed are unpopular? Most major or important breakthroughs in every field of academia were unpopular when first presented. And if you're saying that my propositions are unpopular because of the fourmat I propose them in, then I suppose a major breakthrough in fourmat is needed, huh? =P

 

Also, yea, none of it is out of actual belief, I can still stand by that. 'Cause, again, I don't hold myself to any beliefs. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

 

 

Now while it's possible to say that you're just playing devil's advocate and it's a "logical fallacy" to conclude that you're engaging in intentionally provocative interactions, quite frankly, it doesn't matter how you think people should react, they react the way they do.

 

You can't tell people how they *should* react to the way you present yourself, that's not the way the world works, nor is it a successful life strategy.

I'm not telling people how they should react, why are you pushing that falsification?

 

If I wanted you to react a specific way, it would be forced via the videos I linked in the last post and this one (you likin' those btw?).

 

 

"not love anyone sexually" is not at all what I said, so on the straw man thing, Mr. Pot just called Ms. Kettle black. Whatever.

 

The problem with your response here is that you pulled out what I was referring to (which I put back in the excerpt immediately above), in which you said explicitly that you "don't even believe in relationships to begin with!" This of course is one of those hard-to-believe broadsides that leaves one no choice but to assume that you're doing it just to provoke people or that you sadly really don't have any relationships with anyone (with plenty of evidence in your posts as to the reason why that might be), and people can fairly jump to the conclusion from either of these assumptions that no, you don't have much in the way of compassion.

> Me: feel love at all towards a partner... I don't even believe in relationships to begin with.

> You: This indicates the issue here is not the more pedestrian Mars/Venus thing, but rather your complete inability to understand human compassion and affection in *either* men or women.

> Me: just because I don't love anyone sexually doesn't mean I entirely lack compassion

> You: "not love anyone sexually" is not at all what I said, so on the straw man thing, Mr. Pot just called Ms. Kettle black.

 

Can you not follow a conversation? I know you didn't say it, I said it. And because this was prompted from what I SAID, not what YOU SAID, anything that deviates from it and misleads the argument is where the straw-man is placed.

 

Also, on the topic of, "Mr. Pot just called Ms. Kettle black," stop implying I take part in illegal activities, that never ends well; and besides, I live in California, it's practically legal anyways (you can call me the word-association master). Also, I noticed you said Ms. instead of Mrs., it's almost as if you were implying that you were already saying yes to me asking you out on a date (does next Friday work? Who are we kidding, I already know your answer, Friday it is).

 

Side Note: that has like five layers of referencing going on, goddamn I am good at this. I bet none of you even realized this ties back into me being prescient. Mind blown amiright?

 

 

So you're saying because an audience is unfamiliar with a reference that that by definition makes the statement "delusional?" Let's talk about "logical fallacy" Mr. Pot!

No, I said that because 99% of people have no idea what you were referencing that it was delusional to say "both sexes are familiar with" it. Both sexes are not familiar with it because 99% of people in general are not familiar with it. "Learn to follow a conversation," he said, after realizing it would be hard to follow once he referenced a magical creature that's summoned for protection. I'm really too good at this, maybe that's why people have a hard time with my writing fourmat, it's just too cultured for them (and no it's not pretentious to recognize when you're good at something, otherwise it would be pretentious to recognize it in other people).

 

 

which as several folks have pointed out here is avoiding the psychological and sociological foundation of the definitions of love.

In how many ways do I have to say that I don't care about the other kinds of love? This thread is not dealing with them, I don't know how to make that more apparent after blatantly saying it so many times. I don't care, I don't care, I don't care about the other kinds of love, we aren't talking about those, they don't apply, you can't have them be unconditional otherwise they're just Agape all over. This is less of me not getting it and more of the rest of you not getting it. I'm pretty sure this was clarified in my second or third post in this thread, I only kept mentioning the other kinds (friendly/brotherly) to show that they are derived from the unconditional fourmat (four fourmat usages, not including this parenthetical one, count 'em).

 

 

You're busy talking about love as some sort of abstract, mathematical construct while saying more than enough for the typical engaged reader to conclude that you may have had vague awareness of your feelings, but you've clearly not thought them through very well, especially on a topic that is of such massive amounts of both research and literature. I know you don't think that people should have a right to this conclusion, but people will interpret both the literal words as well as the mood conveyed by the Gestalt of what you say. But people are in their responses trying to tell you something.

All emotions are technically abstracts, but okay. I haven't used a single math argument in this thread, I'm in no way presenting love as a mathematical construct. Again, you've missed most of what I've written here, because almost all of my arguments (especially the ones dealing with the subconscious) have been almost entirely introspectively-emotionally related. And no, I don't think anything about others' rights to conclusions as long as they are conclusively logical, and yours was not because of the misinformation I have asserted you're using here. You are also implying you're trying to tell me something in a non-direct manner, which for lack of better phrasing, is stupid, because it's not conventional of intelligent American-social standards to not say what you mean and mean what you say. If there's something you're getting at, say it outright, or don't say it at all. Science isn't about reading between the lines, you should know this. And you should also know this is a thread under the philosophy forums, so science has less to do with it as reading between the lines does, so

for what I'm really getting at.

 

 

You're not listening to your heart, dude.

But

?

 

 

That's just really hard to read... Obviously this is one very heartfelt statement, and I'll thank you for being honest and providing it. I don't think it would be useful to you for me to try to explain why it's hard to read, and I think for the audience, it just pretty well speaks for itself.

Lul, I had to sit down for this one. Here we go with this manure...

.

 

1). Hard to read as in my grammar or phrasing is awkward or "verbose," or hard to read as in you took pity on me? I wasn't lying when I said I was counting, and your ad hominems score thrice that of mine. I think it's more sad that you've found motivation to insult a skinny white kid you disagree with, but disagree with in a manner that you can't logically disprove most of his arguments, so you attack areas you assume all kids my age are insecure about. Good on you.

2). It wasn't "heartfelt," it was matter-of-fact. I was giving the reason that sexual relationships hold a null value to me, because you were using it in a false counter-argument.

3). If it's not useful for you to explain why it's hard to read, why bother bringing it up in the first place?

4). > and I think for the audience

Don't think for the audience, they can think for themselves, and if you think they thought it just pretty well spoke for itself, other people besides yourself will give their input on it instead of letting you think for them (I hope) because they aren't sheeple.

 

 

But in the last couple of excerpts above you've whipsawed between talking about all the cases where you believe that unconditional love (the only type you say exists) should be withheld--to the point of ruling out any long-term relationships--and yet saying you're trying to help me "understand that true love is possible."

I've never said that only agape love exists, I said you can derive other loves from it. Also, I ruled out long-term relationships with a single person, I never said I was against long-term relationships with multiple people. You're arguing against unconditional love for all possible things, and I have defined true love in the first two posts of the thread, so by transitive property you are arguing against true love, so YES, I'm trying to help you understand that true love is possible, because you say it isn't.

 

 

That whipsawing causes a wee bit of cognitive dissonance for a lot of us, and leads many to be, shall we say, unconvinced of your arguments because of the apparent contradictions.

These apparencies are fallacies, apparently. Also, I think I'm officially the grand master.

 

 

And moreover, you kinda lose the audience on the logic: there's no need to help me understand that or that "unconditional compassion runs deep in all of us," because I'd say that everyone who has responded here agrees with that, and also agrees that while the "unconditional" is possible, it's not required, the basis of, or even a necessary condition of the other identified types of love. So your premise here is a bit of a straw man, Mr. Pot, and as a result, it doesn't really help anyone get the feeling that you're comprehending any of what's being said to you.

Unconditional compassion runs deep in all of us, you agree, and that unconditional is possible (that which has no conditions), but that it's based on other types of love as a condition? Yea, keep telling me how illogical I am, and keep saying that I'm presenting a Staw-man argument, when everything I say directly relates back the previous argument presented (and yours does not, in case that even needed to be said). Also, I'm not trying to help anyone get feelings, let's make that very clear right now. I'm working towards the concept of a specific emotion, nowhere have I said anything at all about feelings, and I realize women have a hard time differentiating these things, but don't confuse the two lest you aim at making another scarecrow.

 

 

At some point, people will just stop trying, no matter how nicely they try to approach you.

This could have also been said as, "At some point, people will reach the limit of their patience, and Snax's boredom will prevail." Prescience in action, did I not call this? THANK YOU, THANK YOU, REALLY, NO NEED TO STAND.

 

Here's the chronological list of words I've oddly truncated in this post - 'Cause, 'nother, likin', amiright, & 'em.

[blamski]

when i was 19 years old i was totally convinced i was much smarter than i actually was as well. at least i had a healthy and respectful attitude towards the opposite sex though.

[Rade]

...it's not conventional of intelligent American-social standards to not say what you mean and mean what you say.

Indeed, perhaps one of the reasons current social standards concerning LOVE leave much to be desired, Alice learned this during her visit to the rabbit hole:

ALICE IN WONDERLAND:

 

March Hare (to Alice): …Then you should say what you mean.

 

Alice: I do; at least - at least I mean what I say -- that's the same thing, you know.

Hatter: Not the same thing a bit! Why, you might just as well say that, 'I see what I eat' is the same as 'I eat what I see'!

March Hare: You might just as well say, that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"!

The Dormouse: You might just as well say, that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!

 

Rade: You might as well say, "I love that I love unconditionally" is the same thing as "I love unconditionally that I love".

[Rade]

So, Snax, you must be more than a little upset with the person who said this, correct ?

 

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, even his own life, such a person cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26)

[Buffy]

...And yes, they're intentionally inflammatory, whether you recognize it or not (and I do think you don't, but you're free to attempt to disabuse me of that notion)...

Also, it's not possible for something to be intentional and not recognize it at the same time, that's like saying it was intentional but not intentional. That's a logical fallacy, but you're free to attempt to disabuse me of that notion.

 

So you're arguing that there is no subconscious mind? One does not actually have to be aware of one's intent when one acts intentionally.

That argument for "no subconscious mind" was never made, and if you've read the back-and-forth me and Rade had in this thread, I don't even see how you could suggest that's what my arguments have implied.

Uh, it's um, actually quite obvious, although quite inconvenient for your argument. So while it may have been "never made", I made it in this statement because it's a logical consequence, no matter how much you wish to avoid it.

 

Let's tackle that second statement you made there. To act with intent, to have intent, implies there was a conscious decision involved in the course of action to be made, intent is defined with conscious decision making in mind. THEREFORE, It is not possible, by definition of the very word, for something to be done intentionally, and to not simultaneously be consciously aware of it. You're just wrong on this point (and I say point, because yes, I am keeping score).

 

Well, you've obviously never read Freud or Jung, so I guess we can't expect you to understand much of the argument.

 

It's quite amusing to watch you resort to a simplistic dictionary definition to try to refute more than a century of psychology.

 

"Just sayin'."

Don't quote me incorrectly, it does you a disservice. I said saiyan on purpose, besides, you am no real super sand.

 

I know, and I misquoted you on purpose. Too bad you couldn't understand why! :o

 

Honestly, I do get bored dealing with a Kraft American Single on Wonder bread, and I don't think that anything I do will make you tastier.

 

...Also, I don't hold myself to any beliefs whatsoever (not even being sarcastic about this bit) so I don't think it's fair to say anything I've posted here was out of "any actual belief", even the serious stuff. Also, you spelled "you're" incorrectly.

But to the point, the problem here is precisely what I said in this quote and your response: Whether you realize or accept it as true, you regularly propose things that are unpopular and/or simply false, and then come back later by saying it was "not out of any actual belief."

 

Because these clauses are a part of the same sentence, I'm reading it as if you're saying that I regularly propose things, and also regularly say the things I proposed were "not an actual belief." That's not true, because I've only said that in one thread on this entire forum (this thread).

 

Quite correct, you only said the exact words "not an actual belief" in this one thread.

 

Of course you will find statements by you with similar meanings in many of your other threads.

 

I'll leave it to you as an exercise to go back and read your posts to see why not only I, but many other denizens of this forum have come to this conclusion.

 

I don't think I've proposed anything at all, ever, that was simply false on this forum. Name one thread I've started to which every one of my arguments (or any at all) were intrinsically false, and proved so by a counter-argument that wasn't bested by another counter-argument (Rade's post about value is the only exception I can see, but it doesn't null my core argument).

 

Well, we know how you score things, and at this point pretty much all of us are scoring you the opposite of your tally.

 

Again, left as an exercise for you dear as to why others might score it differently. Honest, you might learn something.

 

Also, does it really matter if the things proposed are unpopular? Most major or important breakthroughs in every field of academia were unpopular when first presented. And if you're saying that my propositions are unpopular because of the fourmat I propose them in, then I suppose a major breakthrough in fourmat is needed, huh? =P

 

Well, I know you don't worry about what people think of you now. How's that workin' for ya?

 

Oh and that's spelled "Fermat" and pronounced "fehr-MAH". And BMX is so last millennium.

 

Also, yea, none of it is out of actual belief, I can still stand by that. 'Cause, again, I don't hold myself to any beliefs. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

 

There you go agreeing with me again. Why do you make this so easy?

 

I'm not telling people how they should react, why are you pushing that falsification?

 

I know this is very hard to comprehend, and the fact that you won't address the core of my entreaties to you in the previous posts regarding how you are perceived. Saying the literal words "I think you should not react to me that way" (or variations on that theme) is not necessary for others to perceive you as being antagonistic, obstinate, dismissive, sarcastic, or hostile in your reaction to their posts as *conveying* your belief that they are responding inappropriately.

 

The fact that you won't even respond to this topic indicates that I'm hitting pretty close to home.

 

"Missile room, prepare torpedoes tubes 1, 2, 3, and 4 for firing. Implosion warheads, set fuses for 0600."

 

If I wanted you to react a specific way, it would be forced via the videos I linked in the last post and this one (you likin' those btw?).

 

Oh I find them somewhat pedestrian, but I'll stay off topic if you wish.

 

Obviously, which is why you incorrectly think men even need to feel love at all towards a partner. I think a testament to the amount of assumption that you've placed into that post is that you assume that I feel love at all, or that it's targeted to some chick, AND HERE'S THE NUT BUSTER: I don't even believe in relationships to begin with! SNAP BURN OUCH.

Oh I know! And that's what's so sad! This indicates the issue here is not the more pedestrian Mars/Venus thing, but rather your complete inability to understand human compassion and affection in *either* men or women.

 

Whoa, just because I don't love anyone sexually doesn't mean I entirely lack compassion, but I like that you're holding to your trend of assumptions, shows persistence.

 

"not love anyone sexually" is not at all what I said, so on the straw man thing, Mr. Pot just called Ms. Kettle black. Whatever.

 

Can you not follow a conversation? I know you didn't say it, I said it. And because this was prompted from what I SAID, not what YOU SAID, anything that deviates from it and misleads the argument is where the straw-man is placed.

 

Oh I know this is too complicated for you to follow. At this point I'm pretty sure this misrepresentation of the flow of the conversation has nothing to do with you trying to deny that you throw out strawmen faster than I do (you couldn't do that because then I'd be winning, right?). I know you're just confused. I'll try to be clearer next time.

 

Also, on the topic of, "Mr. Pot just called Ms. Kettle black," stop implying I take part in illegal activities, that never ends well; and besides, I live in California, it's practically legal anyways (you can call me the word-association master).

 

My, I kind of expected that you would have to look up a reference to a 70's novel, but I didn't really expect you to not get a reference to "pot calling the kettle black." Color me nonplussed.

 

Also, I noticed you said Ms. instead of Mrs., it's almost as if you were implying that you were already saying yes to me asking you out on a date (does next Friday work? Who are we kidding, I already know your answer, Friday it is).

 

I pointed my daughter--who's exactly your age--at your posts and she came back a half hour later and said, "at first I thought he was just full of himself, but by the time I gave up, I realized he's just full of it."

 

So, to answer your question, I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means "no".

 

Sure, both sexes are familiar with Erica Jong's "Zipless ****": it's an interesting fantasy. But to think that that's the only way that "normal" men *or* women operate all the time is a serious misrepresentation of reality.

 

That's delusional and I'll tell you why, 99% of people have no idea what Erica Jong's "Zipless ****" is.

 

Ha, ha, ha, ha! :D

 

So you're saying because an audience is unfamiliar with a reference that that by definition makes the statement "delusional?" Let's talk about "logical fallacy" Mr. Pot!

No, I said that because 99% of people have no idea what you were referencing that it was delusional to say "both sexes are familiar with" it. Both sexes are not familiar with it because 99% of people in general are not familiar with it.

 

My my my. Talk about "not being able to follow a conversation"... It would help if you tried to be a little more intelligent in reading. The reference is self-admittedly obscure, however the *concept* implied by it goes back to at least Freud in the clinical sense and back to at least Shakespeare in English literature!

 

What makes your cluelessness in this particular point so amazing is that it actually appears to be a pretty good description of the only thing that you ascribe to sex.

 

Just wow.

 

The only reason that you can only imagine one kind of love is that you've never experienced any of them. That's not just a blind accusation: in all the posts above you've dismissed without much justification any argument that the four types you've clinically defined, and made a pretty clear that from a personal standpoint you "don't even believe in relationships to begin with."

 

More assumptions. I think it's safe to say I've experienced three of the four kinds of love for most of my life, the only love I've never experienced in a waking state is love for a partner, but that doesn't mean I haven't loved someone in a lucid dream, or that I'm incapable of recognizing that love if it were to happen in real life.

NOW we're getting somewhere!

 

I will definitely grant that the first sentence here is overstatement. However, the problem that I was attempting to point out here was that your arguments on whether the distinction between the different kinds of love has gone off into the weeds of rhetoric and philosophy, which as several folks have pointed out here is avoiding the psychological and sociological foundation of the definitions of love.

 

In how many ways do I have to say that I don't care about the other kinds of love? This thread is not dealing with them, I don't know how to make that more apparent after blatantly saying it so many times. I don't care, I don't care, I don't care about the other kinds of love, we aren't talking about those, they don't apply, you can't have them be unconditional otherwise they're just Agape all over. This is less of me not getting it and more of the rest of you not getting it.

 

Well actually it's all about you not getting that others have quite well supported arguments here that your proposition that "they don't apply, you can't have them be unconditional otherwise they're just Agape all over" is just plain wrong.

 

This is exactly how you're being dismissive and obstinate and obnoxious in this thread and why people keep responding to you negatively.

 

You're not even willing to debate what's been proposed as a counter argument, you just dismiss it as irrelevant by definition.

 

It's not irrelevant and if you want to be treated with even a modicum of respect, you might want to grow a pair of ears and listen. :o

 

You're busy talking about love as some sort of abstract, mathematical construct while saying more than enough for the typical engaged reader to conclude that you may have had vague awareness of your feelings, but you've clearly not thought them through very well, especially on a topic that is of such massive amounts of both research and literature. I know you don't think that people should have a right to this conclusion, but people will interpret both the literal words as well as the mood conveyed by the Gestalt of what you say. But people are in their responses trying to tell you something.

All emotions are technically abstracts, but okay. I haven't used a single math argument in this thread, I'm in no way presenting love as a mathematical construct.

 

Obsessing on the literal terms is a fairly transparent way to miss the point that what you've written evinces little familiarity with the forms of love that you dismiss. It's "abstract" in the sense that your responses to the objections that have been provided simply ignore the objections with generalities like the following pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook:

 

Reverence for life does not only extend to the life you are simply aware of, it applies to all life, and to all people who you ever communicate with in any form, right?. So why not chose to love everyone, and be positively active in that love by consciously experiencing it? You might say that you can't always be happy/positive/loving about everything all day, to which I ask why not? So far nothing has stopped me, so I don't see why it should stop you. Just because something happened to you which you can subjectively say is negative, that still gives you no right to not love it. The basis on which we can objectively derive what right you have is in relation to the overall universe, which will always have a neutral stance. So again, how can you allow yourself to not unconditionally love things? I don't see a way for people to logically come about a conclusion that argues for non-love or a negative stance.

 

That's not a "mathematical construct" but it's blind logic with no point. GIGO, dude.

 

 

1). Hard to read as in my grammar or phrasing is awkward or "verbose," or hard to read as in you took pity on me? I wasn't lying when I said I was counting, and your ad hominems score thrice that of mine. I think it's more sad that you've found motivation to insult a skinny white kid you disagree with, but disagree with in a manner that you can't logically disprove most of his arguments, so you attack areas you assume all kids my age are insecure about. Good on you.

2). It wasn't "heartfelt," it was matter-of-fact. I was giving the reason that sexual relationships hold a null value to me, because you were using it in a false counter-argument.

3). If it's not useful for you to explain why it's hard to read, why bother bringing it up in the first place?

4). > and I think for the audience

 

Nah, just the obvious number 5): It invokes one of my favorite sayings: "Never try to teach a pig to sing"...

 

I don't buy the picture of the poor skinny white kid yelling "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" Doubt that's an image you actually want to cultivate.

 

But in the last couple of excerpts above you've whipsawed between talking about all the cases where you believe that unconditional love (the only type you say exists) should be withheld--to the point of ruling out any long-term relationships--and yet saying you're trying to help me "understand that true love is possible."

 

That whipsawing causes a wee bit of cognitive dissonance for a lot of us, and leads many to be, shall we say, unconvinced of your arguments because of the apparent contradictions.

 

And moreover, you kinda lose the audience on the logic: there's no need to help me understand that or that "unconditional compassion runs deep in all of us," because I'd say that everyone who has responded here agrees with that, and also agrees that while the "unconditional" is possible, it's not required, the basis of, or even a necessary condition of the other identified types of love. So your premise here is a bit of a straw man, Mr. Pot, and as a result, it doesn't really help anyone get the feeling that you're comprehending any of what's being said to you.

I've never said that only agape love exists, I said you can derive other loves from it. Also, I ruled out long-term relationships with a single person, I never said I was against long-term relationships with multiple people. You're arguing against unconditional love for all possible things, and I have defined true love in the first two posts of the thread, so by transitive property you are arguing against true love, so YES, I'm trying to help you understand that true love is possible, because you say it isn't.

 

That's four times you've jumped to literalism to avoid the point being conveyed (I'm keeping score).

 

I'll try to repeat here in a more "logical" way: It's the fact that you use "you can derive other loves from it" as an axiom that people here are objecting to. Obviously you want to avoid talking about this because it's blows away your theory here, but simply defining that problem away by insisting that this is a given is a lazy man's way of winning without really trying.

 

That whipsawing causes a wee bit of cognitive dissonance for a lot of us, and leads many to be, shall we say, unconvinced of your arguments because of the apparent contradictions.

 

And moreover, you kinda lose the audience on the logic: there's no need to help me understand that or that "unconditional compassion runs deep in all of us," because I'd say that everyone who has responded here agrees with that, and also agrees that while the "unconditional" is possible, it's not required, the basis of, or even a necessary condition of the other identified types of love. So your premise here is a bit of a straw man, Mr. Pot, and as a result, it doesn't really help anyone get the feeling that you're comprehending any of what's being said to you.

 

At some point, people will just stop trying, no matter how nicely they try to approach you.

Unconditional compassion runs deep in all of us, you agree, and that unconditional is possible (that which has no conditions), but that it's based on other types of love as a condition?

 

...and a fifth time. The cool thing about love is that it is absolutely contradictory! That's what you really seem to be differently-clued about! You really don't get that the "unconditional" is not foundational, it's qualitatively different than conditional and limited forms precisely because the motivations behind them are different! That's what just about every post in this thread by others has been about in one way or another.

 

And yet somehow all of these counter arguments are strawmen misrepresentations. When there's consistency like this, it's always good to look at other possible conclusions.

 

Like, maybe you're wrong?

 

Pshaw. PERISH the thought!

 

...Yea, keep telling me how illogical I am, and keep saying that I'm presenting a Staw-man argument, when everything I say directly relates back the previous argument presented (and yours does not, in case that even needed to be said). Also, I'm not trying to help anyone get feelings, let's make that very clear right now. I'm working towards the concept of a specific emotion, nowhere have I said anything at all about feelings, and I realize women have a hard time differentiating these things, but don't confuse the two lest you aim at making another scarecrow.

 

This could have also been said as, "At some point, people will reach the limit of their patience, and Snax's boredom will prevail." Prescience in action, did I not call this? THANK YOU, THANK YOU, REALLY, NO NEED TO STAND.

 

 

Nah, most people will indeed stop listening, but continue to act out of "boredom" and you'll always have a "friend" in me! :cheer:

 

Cupid is a knavish lad, thus to make poor females mad, :phones:

Buffy

[RainMan]

[EDIT] Currently the main _M^O_D^I_F^I_E^D question to be answered in this thread is: Why limit your love, why not instead love everyone, as abundantly and indiscriminately as possible?

You forgot to add unconditionally. This is something people need to learn to do by themselves. Not only is that concept not thought about too much, if at all, but it certainly is not taught to a great degree. The type of love you're talking about would be ideal if the vast majority of people did it. Sadly, in this society, if you try to do that and then try to explain in whatever way suits you that this kind of love is both different and better than the perceptions of love that most people have........you'll be viewed as a strange person with strange thoughts.

 

We live in a society that has a very thin view of love, and it's sad.  

Edited April 2, 2014 by RainMan