Jump to content

To Love, or Not to Love, that is the Question.


Excalibre

Recommended Posts

Greetings fellow survivors! (As well as those that are currently trying to survive.)

 

I have below a quote from the renowned poet and novelist, C.S. Lewis, on his take on the subject of Love.

 

There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket — safe, dark, motionless, airless – it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.

 

I, personally, find it a little dark, since it points to a negative outcome regardless of what path you choose (i.e. to love or not to love). However, he views the act of not loving at all leading to "damnation." Do you agree? If so, please state your reasons (they don't necessarily have to be based on pure logic alone).

 

Speaking from my experiences so far (age 18), I don't understand why love is made out to be such an important factor of life. I mean I understand the role of affection when it comes to family (e.g. parents and siblings), but what I do fail to see is how infatuation with a stranger of the opposite sex (or same sex, no discrimination) is such an important part of life. What about all those individuals that simply don't have any interest in these things. Asexual, the term coined for people that have no sexual feelings or desires. Are they considered 'broken' by the rest of society? Or are they thought of as simply being different?

And what if you simply choose NOT to pursue the abstract concept of love? I mean, it's all cool to have feelings and desires, but do you necessarily have to fulfill these desires to live a normal life?

 

I'd like to hear your opinions/views on the subject, so feel free to express yourself.

 

Also, I apologize in advance for any misinterpretation from my side and also if I have unknowingly said something offensive to somebody. Just let me know if that is the case and I'll edit/remove it ASAP. 

 

EDIT: The concept of 'Love' which I am trying to refer to is best defined as, "a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone)."

Edited by Excalibre
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are all inculcated that we have to get married and have a family to make our lives intact. It has no bearing on the truth.

 

 For me, I think marriages and relationships, intrinsically, merely confine us. It is beautiful that we fall in love, loving and be loved. But It is perfectly fine that one has no intention to love someone. It does not mean they have a sad life or anything of that sort.

 

In contrast, I think it is quite sensible not to embark yourself on that foolish enterprise (I mean getting married). It frees you from responsibilities and commitments. So I do understand why people dont wanna get married.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's something special about love that kind of makes the fallout a distant thought. Of course, there's always a fear of being completely screwed over and having your confidence knocked down completely but I don't think the fear alone (or even the experience) warrants closing yourself off completely from other people. 

 

It's pretty cool being able to look at someone and just be speechless. It's like the voice in your head quietens and you're carried away with a sea of emotion. 

 

You don't have to open yourself up enough to fall in love with someone nor do you have to have sex in order to be a good person. I don't want to use the word normal because it's a bit useless to me. It is important because it happens all the time and often forms our relationships and how we interact with other people. Since relationships with other people is really important, love also becomes important. 

 

I used to think that love is 'all chemicals and therefore pointless' but that's just a bit silly. A lot of things can be reduced to just the physical but it doesn't make them any less important. It's like saying physics is pointless because things just fall down. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's something special about love that kind of makes the fallout a distant thought. Of course, there's always a fear of being completely screwed over and having your confidence knocked down completely but I don't think the fear alone (or even the experience) warrants closing yourself off completely from other people. 

 

It's pretty cool being able to look at someone and just be speechless. It's like the voice in your head quietens and you're carried away with a sea of emotion. 

 

You don't have to open yourself up enough to fall in love with someone nor do you have to have sex in order to be a good person. I don't want to use the word normal because it's a bit useless to me. It is important because it happens all the time and often forms our relationships and how we interact with other people. Since relationships with other people is really important, love also becomes important. 

 

I used to think that love is 'all chemicals and therefore pointless' but that's just a bit silly. A lot of things can be reduced to just the physical but it doesn't make them any less important. It's like saying physics is pointless because things just fall down. 

 

I understand what you're saying, however, what you're talking about is based on the pretext that many people choose not to love out of fear (of fallout). Which is indeed true most of the time. However, that's not exactly what my post is about.

What I have tried to ask is based on someone choosing not to love simply because they don't want to. No feelings or emotions attached, just some sort of understanding that love isn't essential to live a fulfilling life. Like there isn't any reliance on love to deliver a memorable experience, because you can experience things equally satisfying without it. (I hope that makes sense, because it's really difficult to explain a sort of mentality/way of thought.)

 

In your penultimate paragraph, your first sentence is kind of a summation of what this post is really about, that is to say "you don't have to open yourself up enough to fall in love with someone." Yet, you end with the statement "love also becomes important," which is pretty much the opposite of that. You, yourself, say that you don't need love to form all relationships (or you hint towards it) and that's exactly how I see it too. So why is it so important? I feel like as if you find those that avoid love, to be living incomplete lives. Because you find it to be pretty important, meaning those that don't find it important are not as well off as those that do. Why is that so? 

I'm certain not all the asexual beings on this planet die slow, painful deaths because of a lack of GFs or wives. They probably live equally happy lives as those that do love.

But the main point is, what if you're not asexual and still don't find love to be all that beautiful of a thing? Does that mean you're abnormal? (I know you're not saying any of this, I'm just trying to highlight what this is really about.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the quote you started off with,

Like Award Winning Boss said, there is something beautiful about love, and sure it might make you irrational at times, but it's something that makes numerous people feel good, and we do a lot of irrational things just for the sake of enjoyment.

 

I can familiarize well with C.S.Lewis' quote, you could say love is like a roller coaster, however unlike on a roller coaster it's the going up bit that you enjoy. However you don't know how long the climb will take nor how long the peak will last, it might never end and when it comes down it will always come down.

 

When it comes to whether you should go with love or not depends on do you want to constantly be at the bottom, standing on the ground, or do you want to have some fun and get on the roller coaster. 

 

P.s.

Most roller coasters are always above ground level so you will never be as low as standing on the ground....

 

P.s.s.

well some do go underground but lets not start nitpicking.... 

 

I'm glad you can relate so closely to the quote, it makes for an interesting partner to talk this through with.

 

So, to start, the main assumption I'd like to highlight here is that you think not loving is equivalent to "constantly being at the bottom." Which you've made very very clear in your counterexample as well (to love is to ride the roller coaster above the ground).

Simple question: why?

Why do you feel as if the act of not experiencing love leaves you less satisfied than those that do experience it?

Is it due to the experiences during the time of love? Because if that's the case then all IB students should be happier than A-level students due to the differences in experiences between the two programs. Surely IB students face a much longer 'roller-coaster ride' in comparison. Yet, that isn't the case because both batches of students go on to lead regular, happy lives.

 

P.S. I like your little post-script additions.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This question is no-brainer, to not love of course. Love makes me less rational so it's something to avoid.

 

If only it was as simple as that.

 

I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc.

And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.)

Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.)

 

I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm coming from a slightly different perspective than most who will be commenting as I'm in a relationship with someone who is likely to become my husband in the future.

I've experienced things from being in love that you just cannot experience in any other sort of relationship, and I believe these experiences have shaped me in such a way that allows me to be a more mature person and more knowledgeable about emotions, how to empathize, new perspectives, decision-making, and relationships between people in general. A romantic relationship is different from a parent-sibling or platonic relationship, and while you can learn all of those things that I listed earlier in those kinds of relationships as well, it's very different when it's giving part of yourself to another person you're romantically attracted to.

While there's nothing wrong with abstaining from romantic relationships, I believe people who never experience one just miss out on certain things that are part of the human experience.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How does love make us rational? Reason and emotion are kinda opposites?

 

 

They aren't. That's a very simple way to look at emotions. 

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying, however, what you're talking about is based on the pretext that many people choose not to love out of fear (of fallout). Which is indeed true most of the time. However, that's not exactly what my post is about.

What I have tried to ask is based on someone choosing not to love simply because they don't want to. No feelings or emotions attached, just some sort of understanding that love isn't essential to live a fulfilling life. Like there isn't any reliance on love to deliver a memorable experience, because you can experience things equally satisfying without it. (I hope that makes sense, because it's really difficult to explain a sort of mentality/way of thought.)

 

In your penultimate paragraph, your first sentence is kind of a summation of what this post is really about, that is to say "you don't have to open yourself up enough to fall in love with someone." Yet, you end with the statement "love also becomes important," which is pretty much the opposite of that. You, yourself, say that you don't need love to form all relationships (or you hint towards it) and that's exactly how I see it too. So why is it so important? I feel like as if you find those that avoid love, to be living incomplete lives. Because you find it to be pretty important, meaning those that don't find it important are not as well off as those that do. Why is that so? 

I'm certain not all the asexual beings on this planet die slow, painful deaths because of a lack of GFs or wives. They probably live equally happy lives as those that do love.

But the main point is, what if you're not asexual and still don't find love to be all that beautiful of a thing? Does that mean you're abnormal? (I know you're not saying any of this, I'm just trying to highlight what this is really about.)

 

 

If you understand what I'm saying, why are you drawing conclusions that I'm not making? I'm not saying that people who haven't experienced love are inferior or lead a lesser life. Love is an important thing for many people since it's the basis for a lot of relationships. A good marriage isn't just based on the fact that some one has nice hair or they're simply a cool person to be around. There are many conceptions of what is the good life and love can be part of some and removed from others. 

 

I don't see how those two statements are opposites either. You don't need love for all close relationships but it's still very important to them. 

 

Lastly, why are you using asexual to mean a person who doesn't want to experience love? Asexual just means you don't have sexual feelings. You can love without sex. Sex can be an expression of love but it isn't a necessary one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This question is no-brainer, to not love of course. Love makes me less rational so it's something to avoid.

 

If only it was as simple as that.

 

I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc.

And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.)

Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.)

 

I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer.

You nailed it, I'm an absolutist indeed. I have no reason to poison my liver and blurr my neural systems with widely used toxin known as ethanol. From there you can propably conclude I don't use hallusinogenes.

I indeed avoid social situations with people of my age. That's where I get flustered indeed.

However I do not avoid classes. I'm usually the one to raise my hand to answer question actually. If teacher asks and I don't know I say I don't know. Its no shame. Interviews can be overcame by choosing always rational answer and preparing carefully. Why should I use a roller-coaster since I don't enjoy those? And I bear no interest to law, since its human-made thing and human-made things tend to be irrational. Irrational tends to be boring to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This question is no-brainer, to not love of course. Love makes me less rational so it's something to avoid.

 

If only it was as simple as that.

 

I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc.

And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.)

Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.)

 

I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer.

You nailed it, I'm an absolutist indeed. I have no reason to poison my liver and blurr my neural systems with widely used toxin known as ethanol. From there you can propably conclude I don't use hallusinogenes.

I indeed avoid social situations with people of my age. That's where I get flustered indeed.

However I do not avoid classes. I'm usually the one to raise my hand to answer question actually. If teacher asks and I don't know I say I don't know. Its no shame. Interviews can be overcame by choosing always rational answer and preparing carefully. Why should I use a roller-coaster since I don't enjoy those? And I bear no interest to law, since its human-made thing and human-made things tend to be irrational. Irrational tends to be boring to me.

 

 

Are these sentences you've just written irrational and boring because they're human made? Moreover, what is rationality if not a human thing? You can't yet point to AI since it has yet to surpass human intelligence.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This question is no-brainer, to not love of course. Love makes me less rational so it's something to avoid.

 

If only it was as simple as that.

 

I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc.

And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.)

Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.)

 

I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer.

You nailed it, I'm an absolutist indeed. I have no reason to poison my liver and blurr my neural systems with widely used toxin known as ethanol. From there you can propably conclude I don't use hallusinogenes.

I indeed avoid social situations with people of my age. That's where I get flustered indeed.

However I do not avoid classes. I'm usually the one to raise my hand to answer question actually. If teacher asks and I don't know I say I don't know. Its no shame. Interviews can be overcame by choosing always rational answer and preparing carefully. Why should I use a roller-coaster since I don't enjoy those? And I bear no interest to law, since its human-made thing and human-made things tend to be irrational. Irrational tends to be boring to me.

 

 

Hey, you seem to have taken offence at my little comment. It was only meant as a light-hearted jest, nothing serious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does love make us rational? Reason and emotion are kinda opposites?

 

They aren't. That's a very simple way to look at emotions. 

 

 

I understand what you're saying, however, what you're talking about is based on the pretext that many people choose not to love out of fear (of fallout). Which is indeed true most of the time. However, that's not exactly what my post is about.

What I have tried to ask is based on someone choosing not to love simply because they don't want to. No feelings or emotions attached, just some sort of understanding that love isn't essential to live a fulfilling life. Like there isn't any reliance on love to deliver a memorable experience, because you can experience things equally satisfying without it. (I hope that makes sense, because it's really difficult to explain a sort of mentality/way of thought.)

 

In your penultimate paragraph, your first sentence is kind of a summation of what this post is really about, that is to say "you don't have to open yourself up enough to fall in love with someone." Yet, you end with the statement "love also becomes important," which is pretty much the opposite of that. You, yourself, say that you don't need love to form all relationships (or you hint towards it) and that's exactly how I see it too. So why is it so important? I feel like as if you find those that avoid love, to be living incomplete lives. Because you find it to be pretty important, meaning those that don't find it important are not as well off as those that do. Why is that so? 

I'm certain not all the asexual beings on this planet die slow, painful deaths because of a lack of GFs or wives. They probably live equally happy lives as those that do love.

But the main point is, what if you're not asexual and still don't find love to be all that beautiful of a thing? Does that mean you're abnormal? (I know you're not saying any of this, I'm just trying to highlight what this is really about.)

 

If you understand what I'm saying, why are you drawing conclusions that I'm not making? I'm not saying that people who haven't experienced love are inferior or lead a lesser life. Love is an important thing for many people since it's the basis for a lot of relationships. A good marriage isn't just based on the fact that some one has nice hair or they're simply a cool person to be around. There are many conceptions of what is the good life and love can be part of some and removed from others. 

 

I don't see how those two statements are opposites either. You don't need love for all close relationships but it's still very important to them. 

 

Lastly, why are you using asexual to mean a person who doesn't want to experience love? Asexual just means you don't have sexual feelings. You can love without sex. Sex can be an expression of love but it isn't a necessary one.

True, they aren't direct opposites, that's why I used "kinda".

However, I don't see how love or any emotion would make one more rational. Fear maybe is heatlhy emotion because its purpose is to protect which is rational thing. However too often I find myself calming myself down because I fear girls of my class - people that can only speak bad things about me, if they do I should ignore. Too often I find myself be sad for the fact they speak **** about me, reason to not be sad about because I know what they say isnt true. Still fear and sadness try to push trough, and logic is what I use to overcome it. There is no reason to be sad or afraid, yet feelings are so primitive they keep coming back.

Also when I fall in love I become different person, and that person is not what I want to be. I started to waste my time on dreaming on that guy who was way out of my league. I started to dream about life with that person I fell love on, but when I think clearly and I'm not in love I would never want that. I want to protect myself from falling in love. It makes me so primitive and stupid. I'm not saying all people in love are primitive and stupid, I just know that I become that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This question is no-brainer, to not love of course. Love makes me less rational so it's something to avoid.

 

If only it was as simple as that.

 

I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc.

And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.)

Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.)

 

I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer.

You nailed it, I'm an absolutist indeed. I have no reason to poison my liver and blurr my neural systems with widely used toxin known as ethanol. From there you can propably conclude I don't use hallusinogenes.

I indeed avoid social situations with people of my age. That's where I get flustered indeed.

However I do not avoid classes. I'm usually the one to raise my hand to answer question actually. If teacher asks and I don't know I say I don't know. Its no shame. Interviews can be overcame by choosing always rational answer and preparing carefully. Why should I use a roller-coaster since I don't enjoy those? And I bear no interest to law, since its human-made thing and human-made things tend to be irrational. Irrational tends to be boring to me.

 

Are these sentences you've just written irrational and boring because they're human made? Moreover, what is rationality if not a human thing? You can't yet point to AI since it has yet to surpass human intelligence.

Well, yes they sort of are. To me. Again, it's just about who is interested in what! Then again, what is intersting is physics and math. It's true notations are made by humans, but the universe has existed long before humans. That's what I meant by interesting. Anything human-made is just less fascinating. Sure languange is necessary for communication, but I have no further interest in languange. Sure society is needed for things to work. However I have zero interest in society.

And it's true I cannot always be rational. A flaw of mine. But I try. Nice debate btw. Good points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This question is no-brainer, to not love of course. Love makes me less rational so it's something to avoid.

 

If only it was as simple as that.

 

I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc.

And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.)

Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.)

 

I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer.

You nailed it, I'm an absolutist indeed. I have no reason to poison my liver and blurr my neural systems with widely used toxin known as ethanol. From there you can propably conclude I don't use hallusinogenes.

I indeed avoid social situations with people of my age. That's where I get flustered indeed.

However I do not avoid classes. I'm usually the one to raise my hand to answer question actually. If teacher asks and I don't know I say I don't know. Its no shame. Interviews can be overcame by choosing always rational answer and preparing carefully. Why should I use a roller-coaster since I don't enjoy those? And I bear no interest to law, since its human-made thing and human-made things tend to be irrational. Irrational tends to be boring to me.

 

Hey, you seem to have taken offence at my little comment. It was only meant as a light-hearted jest, nothing serious.

I didn't. I just wrote a counter-argument. And I don't want to be associated with intoxiant usage under any conditions.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How does love make us rational? Reason and emotion are kinda opposites?

 

 

They aren't. That's a very simple way to look at emotions. 

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying, however, what you're talking about is based on the pretext that many people choose not to love out of fear (of fallout). Which is indeed true most of the time. However, that's not exactly what my post is about.

What I have tried to ask is based on someone choosing not to love simply because they don't want to. No feelings or emotions attached, just some sort of understanding that love isn't essential to live a fulfilling life. Like there isn't any reliance on love to deliver a memorable experience, because you can experience things equally satisfying without it. (I hope that makes sense, because it's really difficult to explain a sort of mentality/way of thought.)

 

In your penultimate paragraph, your first sentence is kind of a summation of what this post is really about, that is to say "you don't have to open yourself up enough to fall in love with someone." Yet, you end with the statement "love also becomes important," which is pretty much the opposite of that. You, yourself, say that you don't need love to form all relationships (or you hint towards it) and that's exactly how I see it too. So why is it so important? I feel like as if you find those that avoid love, to be living incomplete lives. Because you find it to be pretty important, meaning those that don't find it important are not as well off as those that do. Why is that so? 

I'm certain not all the asexual beings on this planet die slow, painful deaths because of a lack of GFs or wives. They probably live equally happy lives as those that do love.

But the main point is, what if you're not asexual and still don't find love to be all that beautiful of a thing? Does that mean you're abnormal? (I know you're not saying any of this, I'm just trying to highlight what this is really about.)

 

 

If you understand what I'm saying, why are you drawing conclusions that I'm not making? I'm not saying that people who haven't experienced love are inferior or lead a lesser life. Love is an important thing for many people since it's the basis for a lot of relationships. A good marriage isn't just based on the fact that some one has nice hair or they're simply a cool person to be around. There are many conceptions of what is the good life and love can be part of some and removed from others. 

 

I don't see how those two statements are opposites either. You don't need love for all close relationships but it's still very important to them. 

 

Lastly, why are you using asexual to mean a person who doesn't want to experience love? Asexual just means you don't have sexual feelings. You can love without sex. Sex can be an expression of love but it isn't a necessary one. 

 

 

I only made conclusions based on what you had said, and I tried to indicate where it is I was drawing conclusions from. As for the rest of the things mentioned, I agree with them 100%. 

 

Well, I got it wrong again. Not definite opposites, but far apart to say the least. You say you don't need love for all close relationships, yet you say it's still very important for them. I'm not too sure of what that means because of the ambiguity of the reference to "them."

Is it the close relationships that hold importance for love? (This is not an argument, I'm just asking for clarification.)

 

You definitely have won the last argument.  :truce: No further comment(s). 

 

 

 

 

 

This question is no-brainer, to not love of course. Love makes me less rational so it's something to avoid.

 

If only it was as simple as that.

 

I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc.

And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.)

Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.)

 

I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer.

You nailed it, I'm an absolutist indeed. I have no reason to poison my liver and blurr my neural systems with widely used toxin known as ethanol. From there you can propably conclude I don't use hallusinogenes.

I indeed avoid social situations with people of my age. That's where I get flustered indeed.

However I do not avoid classes. I'm usually the one to raise my hand to answer question actually. If teacher asks and I don't know I say I don't know. Its no shame. Interviews can be overcame by choosing always rational answer and preparing carefully. Why should I use a roller-coaster since I don't enjoy those? And I bear no interest to law, since its human-made thing and human-made things tend to be irrational. Irrational tends to be boring to me.

 

Hey, you seem to have taken offence at my little comment. It was only meant as a light-hearted jest, nothing serious.

I didn't. I just wrote a counter-argument. And I don't want to be associated with intoxiant usage under any conditions.

 

 

Okay, it's just that your counter-argument was full of flair and seemed almost vindictive in nature.  :lol:

Oh, and I'm certain I did NOT associate you with the usage of any substance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does love make us rational? Reason and emotion are kinda opposites?

 

They aren't. That's a very simple way to look at emotions. 

 

 

I understand what you're saying, however, what you're talking about is based on the pretext that many people choose not to love out of fear (of fallout). Which is indeed true most of the time. However, that's not exactly what my post is about.

What I have tried to ask is based on someone choosing not to love simply because they don't want to. No feelings or emotions attached, just some sort of understanding that love isn't essential to live a fulfilling life. Like there isn't any reliance on love to deliver a memorable experience, because you can experience things equally satisfying without it. (I hope that makes sense, because it's really difficult to explain a sort of mentality/way of thought.)

 

In your penultimate paragraph, your first sentence is kind of a summation of what this post is really about, that is to say "you don't have to open yourself up enough to fall in love with someone." Yet, you end with the statement "love also becomes important," which is pretty much the opposite of that. You, yourself, say that you don't need love to form all relationships (or you hint towards it) and that's exactly how I see it too. So why is it so important? I feel like as if you find those that avoid love, to be living incomplete lives. Because you find it to be pretty important, meaning those that don't find it important are not as well off as those that do. Why is that so? 

I'm certain not all the asexual beings on this planet die slow, painful deaths because of a lack of GFs or wives. They probably live equally happy lives as those that do love.

But the main point is, what if you're not asexual and still don't find love to be all that beautiful of a thing? Does that mean you're abnormal? (I know you're not saying any of this, I'm just trying to highlight what this is really about.)

 

If you understand what I'm saying, why are you drawing conclusions that I'm not making? I'm not saying that people who haven't experienced love are inferior or lead a lesser life. Love is an important thing for many people since it's the basis for a lot of relationships. A good marriage isn't just based on the fact that some one has nice hair or they're simply a cool person to be around. There are many conceptions of what is the good life and love can be part of some and removed from others. 

 

I don't see how those two statements are opposites either. You don't need love for all close relationships but it's still very important to them. 

 

Lastly, why are you using asexual to mean a person who doesn't want to experience love? Asexual just means you don't have sexual feelings. You can love without sex. Sex can be an expression of love but it isn't a necessary one.

 

I only made conclusions based on what you had said, and I tried to indicate where it is I was drawing conclusions from. As for the rest of the things mentioned, I agree with them 100%. 

 

Well, I got it wrong again. Not definite opposites, but far apart to say the least. You say you don't need love for all close relationships, yet you say it's still very important for them. I'm not too sure of what that means because of the ambiguity of the reference to "them."

Is it the close relationships that hold importance for love? (This is not an argument, I'm just asking for clarification.)

 

You definitely have won the last argument.  :truce: No further comment(s). 

 

This question is no-brainer, to not love of course. Love makes me less rational so it's something to avoid.

 

If only it was as simple as that.

 

I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc.

And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.)

Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.)

 

I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer.

You nailed it, I'm an absolutist indeed. I have no reason to poison my liver and blurr my neural systems with widely used toxin known as ethanol. From there you can propably conclude I don't use hallusinogenes.

I indeed avoid social situations with people of my age. That's where I get flustered indeed.

However I do not avoid classes. I'm usually the one to raise my hand to answer question actually. If teacher asks and I don't know I say I don't know. Its no shame. Interviews can be overcame by choosing always rational answer and preparing carefully. Why should I use a roller-coaster since I don't enjoy those? And I bear no interest to law, since its human-made thing and human-made things tend to be irrational. Irrational tends to be boring to me.

 

Hey, you seem to have taken offence at my little comment. It was only meant as a light-hearted jest, nothing serious.

I didn't. I just wrote a counter-argument. And I don't want to be associated with intoxiant usage under any conditions.

 

Okay, it's just that your counter-argument was full of flair and seemed almost vindictive in nature.  :lol:

Oh, and I'm certain I did NOT associate you with the usage of any substance.

Sorry. My arguments aren't known for softness, but I didnt mean to insult you. And I just wanted to clarify out that I indeed do refuse to use any of those substances like ethanol, since you brought it to table.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excalibre, on 02 Aug 2015 - 02:31, said:

snapback.png

Award Winning Boss, on 02 Aug 2015 - 01:49, said:snapback.png

Emilia1320, on 01 Aug 2015 - 20:55, said:snapback.png

How does love make us rational? Reason and emotion are kinda opposites?

They aren't. That's a very simple way to look at emotions.

Excalibre, on 01 Aug 2015 - 23:40, said:snapback.png

I understand what you're saying, however, what you're talking about is based on the pretext that many people choose not to love out of fear (of fallout). Which is indeed true most of the time. However, that's not exactly what my post is about.

What I have tried to ask is based on someone choosing not to love simply because they don't want to. No feelings or emotions attached, just some sort of understanding that love isn't essential to live a fulfilling life. Like there isn't any reliance on love to deliver a memorable experience, because you can experience things equally satisfying without it. (I hope that makes sense, because it's really difficult to explain a sort of mentality/way of thought.)

In your penultimate paragraph, your first sentence is kind of a summation of what this post is really about, that is to say "you don't have to open yourself up enough to fall in love with someone." Yet, you end with the statement "love also becomes important," which is pretty much the opposite of that. You, yourself, say that you don't need love to form all relationships (or you hint towards it) and that's exactly how I see it too. So why is it so important? I feel like as if you find those that avoid love, to be living incomplete lives. Because you find it to be pretty important, meaning those that don't find it important are not as well off as those that do. Why is that so?

I'm certain not all the asexual beings on this planet die slow, painful deaths because of a lack of GFs or wives. They probably live equally happy lives as those that do love.

But the main point is, what if you're not asexual and still don't find love to be all that beautiful of a thing? Does that mean you're abnormal? (I know you're not saying any of this, I'm just trying to highlight what this is really about.)

If you understand what I'm saying, why are you drawing conclusions that I'm not making? I'm not saying that people who haven't experienced love are inferior or lead a lesser life. Love is an important thing for many people since it's the basis for a lot of relationships. A good marriage isn't just based on the fact that some one has nice hair or they're simply a cool person to be around. There are many conceptions of what is the good life and love can be part of some and removed from others.

I don't see how those two statements are opposites either. You don't need love for all close relationships but it's still very important to them.

Lastly, why are you using asexual to mean a person who doesn't want to experience love? Asexual just means you don't have sexual feelings. You can love without sex. Sex can be an expression of love but it isn't a necessary one.

I only made conclusions based on what you had said, and I tried to indicate where it is I was drawing conclusions from. As for the rest of the things mentioned, I agree with them 100%.

Well, I got it wrong again. Not definite opposites, but far apart to say the least. You say you don't need love for all close relationships, yet you say it's still very important for them. I'm not too sure of what that means because of the ambiguity of the reference to "them."

Is it the close relationships that hold importance for love? (This is not an argument, I'm just asking for clarification.)

You definitely have won the last argument. :truce: No further comment(s).

Emilia1320, on 02 Aug 2015 - 02:20, said:snapback.png

Excalibre, on 02 Aug 2015 - 02:09, said:snapback.png

Emilia1320, on 02 Aug 2015 - 01:59, said:snapback.png

Excalibre, on 02 Aug 2015 - 00:17, said:snapback.png

Emilia1320, on 01 Aug 2015 - 20:33, said:snapback.png

This question is no-brainer, to not love of course. Love makes me less rational so it's something to avoid.

If only it was as simple as that.

I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc.

And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.)

Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.)

I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer.

You nailed it, I'm an absolutist indeed. I have no reason to poison my liver and blurr my neural systems with widely used toxin known as ethanol. From there you can propably conclude I don't use hallusinogenes.

I indeed avoid social situations with people of my age. That's where I get flustered indeed.

However I do not avoid classes. I'm usually the one to raise my hand to answer question actually. If teacher asks and I don't know I say I don't know. Its no shame. Interviews can be overcame by choosing always rational answer and preparing carefully. Why should I use a roller-coaster since I don't enjoy those? And I bear no interest to law, since its human-made thing and human-made things tend to be irrational. Irrational tends to be boring to me.

Hey, you seem to have taken offence at my little comment. It was only meant as a light-hearted jest, nothing serious.

I didn't. I just wrote a counter-argument. And I don't want to be associated with intoxiant usage under any conditions.

Okay, it's just that your counter-argument was full of flair and seemed almost vindictive in nature. :lol:

Oh, and I'm certain I did NOT associate you with the usage of any substance.

Sorry. My arguments aren't known for softness, but I didnt mean to insult you. And I just wanted to clarify out that I indeed do refuse to use any of those substances like ethanol, since you brought it to table.

The word "rational" has been thrown about quite a bit, and I'm interested to hear what in your opinion it means.

If it is from a purely biological basis the argument could be made that we have evolved to love others. If we have evolved that way does it make it rational?

To me it would would depend on what one personally wants from life, what is the meaning of life. Personally what interests me the most in life is enjoying it. Life is short so you might as well enjoy your time on the planet. And also like you I'm interested in science, though for me it is biology. I know it's wondrous to learn about how things work and creating new applications, but love is a different kind of fun and you shouldn't lock yourself out from it.

As for usage of of hallucinogenics I don't see a problem as long as you are the only one they affect, if they start having negative affects on others, then I would condemn it. I can grantee you also do things that are harmful to your body that you enjoy such as, sweets, fast food, hot showers etc. It just depends on where one wants to draw their own line.

Falling in love is one thing and sure it is nice, but being loved is another wonderful feeling and you have to experience both to even catch a glimpse of what love is.

Actually I don't eat sweets and fast food only if I absolutely need to (like when traveling and everything else but McDonalds is closed) and even then I order a salad. Hot showers are my secret sin thou.

You are right thou that its sort of hard to define rational. Maybe it would be more correct to say that love makes me do stupid things. Even dating successfully counts as stupid thing as time invested in relationship is less time for studies. Like the one, only and last time I dared to confess I loved someone and he turned me down I sorta cried many days. Logical thing would have been to stop loving the guy. I coudlnt because of this annoying emotion known as love. I gave too much in to it, I should have denied the feelings altogether immediately they appeared. This is what I always do now because I'm a little bit wiser than before.

If I dated someone I would also have less time for studying and just relaxing on my own, and it's not like I have too much time for them even without boyfriend. It won't change in the future since I will (hopefully) have a job to concentrate on. I don't want any distractions like dating.

Hopefully this even a bit clarifies what I mean by "love making me stupid"

EDIT: Biologically speaking, we are evolved to love others because cooperating was necessary to survive. However I think platonic affection is more than enough for me. What comes to reproducing, evolution just isn't quite fast enough to catch the fact human species is overpopulated.

Edited by Emilia1320
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to throw some things out there.

 

Firstly, a big thanks to all those that took their time to reply and add something meaningful to the post. It was originally meant to be a sort of discussion, but that might have changed a little.  :lol: It's still cool because some interesting viewpoints are being brought to light in the newly-turned debate. 

 

Second, the views I was supporting in my posts aren't actually mine to start with. I wanted to hear both sides of the argument on the topic of voluntarily not choosing to love because I have a friend who fits well with the mindset I was representing. And I really just wanted to prepare myself for a long, intense discussion with him on the topic, so I'd thought it'd help if I could hear other's opinions and experiences to improve my own arsenal of arguments and counter-arguments.

 

So, I hope you don't mind if I incorporate elements of your arguments in a very local setting. I'll try to minimize the plagiarism as much as possible.  :P

 

That is all.

 

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...