|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 27, 2013 03:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
which it must be; in my opinion, if the feeling is one-sided it can't be real - call it Joker's first law of how to discern whether it's just a sudden crush or love at first sight
of course that's love that can't be real, not the feeling (whatever it is) and that suggests love isn't a feeling. what would it be?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 04:49 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Exactly and it is similar to what I've been telling you all along. You feel nothing when you ain't got nothing to lose. Similarly, you don't feel anything when losing a person at first-sight phase because you haven't been through any love that you can lose. Being drawn to a person immediately isn't love yet, it can all go away with a snap (imagine she turns out to be a racist for example) and bam, the numbers turn out to be wrong. Also, I think you totally underestimate (or ignore) the effort and sharing aspects of love. Love grows on as you keep putting yourself into the relationship, you sacrifice things to make the other person happy (which eventually makes you happy) and things gradually progress. The speed of that process may change from person to person or relationship to relationship but there is always a progress.
No, it's ccompletely different from what you are telling. Of course you feel something, just not LOSS. Similarly just because you feel loss when you lose (for whatever reason) a person you had a relationship with, it doesn't mean you LOVED said person. There are lots of reasons to feel loss, and most of them are egoistic in nature (you are deprived of something).
Love is more than just "getting used to someone" - or at least it should be more, otherwise it's not worth debating over anyway.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 04:53 PM |
|
|
Fauch said:
Quote:
which it must be; in my opinion, if the feeling is one-sided it can't be real - call it Joker's first law of how to discern whether it's just a sudden crush or love at first sight
of course that's love that can't be real, not the feeling (whatever it is) and that suggests love isn't a feeling. what would it be?
I mean, if you BELIEVE it's love at first sight, but for the other person it's not, than you are probably wrong, and it's not love, but a crush or something. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 05:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
LOSS is something you can feel only over what you HAVE (or OWN).
Exactly - you can only feel loss when you have something, in this case, the feeling of love, which can only be established once you know the other person. It's not a loss (emotionally) if you don't value something, and you can't value someone you don't know to the degree required to love them - you can't value them that much because you don't know them.Quote:
The concept of a 'flaw' is already based on prejudice. Obviously, if you're hit by a freight train, meeting a person for the first time, there CANNOT be any flaw (perceived at that point), otherwise, you wouldn't have been hit so hard.
Sure, there can be flaws, you just overlook them because there are positive aspects that you care about more, in net. If these positive aspects are salient enough, they may (temporarily) eclipse the negative aspects altogether, so they won't come to mind until the newness of the relationship fades. Or they may rightly outweigh the negative aspects, even after the newness fades, and then the relationship can continue long-term. But they're still flaws in either case, because if considered in the abstract, they're seen as negative - i.e. if you took the lovestruck person aside and listed traits and asked them if those traits were positive or negative, they would answer that some of them are negative, so if the object of their affections has the traits that are considered negative, they have flaws.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 06:03 PM |
|
|
|
love isn't something subjective? is it something exterior to the 2 lovers?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 06:25 PM |
|
|
"Subjective" is an overused term with too many different meanings. Love is something experienced by a person, but it can be examined from the outside, based either on the person's actions, or on the commonality between people.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 06:49 PM |
|
|
Mvass, you are not talking about love (and artu doesn't either). What you talk about is "DEALS". It's like buying a car. You want a Porsche - alas there is none in your vicinity, or in reach of your wallet, so you look what comes around. And maybe you hit a nice, comfy Chevy, affordable, not too many flaws, you try it - and lo and behold, the more you drive it, the better it feels, especially since it moves you from a to b.
NOT love, sorry.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 07:57 PM |
|
|
It has absolutely nothing to do with deals, it has everything to do with actually knowing the person you claim to love. (That's also why the feeling of loss is relevant but Mvass's reply above is enough on that.) On the other hand, what seems completely beside the point seems like this to me, mutuality:
Quote:
I mean, if you BELIEVE it's love at first sight, but for the other person it's not, than you are probably wrong, and it's not love, but a crush or something.
Why should love always be two-sided? If anything is pragmatic (and about benefit and deals), it's demanding mutuality. I didn't object to the concept of love at first sight because it wasnt practical, I object to it because it's shallow. It simply and very clearly means the personality of the person you claim to love plays no part in your love whatsoever because you can already love them without knowing them. The idea may seem exciting and romantic to many, but if you really come to think of it, it's the opposite of romantic, it is the shallow part of the package, not the unique part. Think of Annie Hall for example, a very good film of Woody Allen's about love. Love is not when they meet, love is, in the end, all the things they've done together through time, sliding through his mind one by one. Anyway, I feel like we are both starting to repeat ourselves.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 08:31 PM |
|
|
It's not about YOU or ME being RIGHT. It's about YOU having a set definition for love that hasn't any empirical, scientifical or objective value. it's not conclusive. Things might be completely different, and for just as good reason.
Whether you find that shallow or not, statistics are different, and what started out as "love till death will part us" often ends way sooner. isn't THAT just as shallow?
The concept of love at first sight would imply an INTUITIVE - or a priori - knowledge of the person you just fell in love with, and nothing you said would actually contradict that.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 08:43 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
The concept of love at first sight would imply an INTUITIVE - or a priori - knowledge of the person you just fell in love with
Exactly, and you can't have a priori knowledge of a person at first sight. When you meet somebody, you don't know anything beyond their name and what they look like (and that they probably go to bars, if you meet them at a bar, etc). What a person is like is a fact about the external world, it's not a priori like logic or math. You can sit in a room and imagine people, but you need empirical knowledge to know whether it matches to anything in the external world.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 10:09 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
JollyJoker said:
The concept of love at first sight would imply an INTUITIVE - or a priori - knowledge of the person you just fell in love with
Exactly, and you can't have a priori knowledge of a person at first sight. When you meet somebody, you don't know anything beyond their name and what they look like (and that they probably go to bars, if you meet them at a bar, etc). What a person is like is a fact about the external world, it's not a priori like logic or math. You can sit in a room and imagine people, but you need empirical knowledge to know whether it matches to anything in the external world.
Is that a law of nature? Why would you have a priori knowledge about logic or math, but not about other humans?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 10:25 PM |
|
|
Because logic and math are a priori - i.e. someone sitting alone in a white room could theoretically derive everything that is currently known about logic and math. But the same guy wouldn't have any knowledge of empirical facts, facts about the world, such as about the people in it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2013 09:13 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Because logic and math are a priori - i.e. someone sitting alone in a white room could theoretically derive everything that is currently known about logic and math. But the same guy wouldn't have any knowledge of empirical facts, facts about the world, such as about the people in it.
No, that's wrong. Someone sitting alone in a white room has already have a lot of contact with the empirical world, in order to bring the brain to the capacity that is necessary to understand math and logic and to develop the necessary terms and language to do that. So the a priori character of math and logic is just a construct that, at the bottom of it, wonders where the ability of the mind to abstract (reason AS SUCH) is coming from (and has no good explanation for it).
Secondly, the human - the person thinking - IS already an empirical fact: "I think, therefore I am", is a conclusion based on empirical fact.
Quote:
Intuition is a priori knowledge or experiential belief characterized by its immediacy.
.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2013 09:53 AM |
|
|
I think you're taking the notion of "alone in a white room" too literally. A priori means experience isn't necessary.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2013 02:44 PM |
|
|
And you take the a-priori notion too literally, because we are not talking about analytical philosophy here.
We are talking about INTUITION, with a view on the possible existence of a phenomenon tentatively called "love at first sight", and for that the OR-part of the defintion - experiential belief characterized by its immediacy - is fully sufficient.
I shouldn't have used the a-priori-knowledge part in the first place and kept to the above, which I hereby do, especially since the a-priori-knowledge position is too compromised anyway, philosophically spoken.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 28, 2013 03:37 PM |
|
|
Well, we've been through that. If you are not talking about the philosophical intuition based on analytical thinking and knowledge that's considered a priori, what you mean by intuition can ONLY mean two things:
1- A good ol' hunch as we know it.
2- Some unexplainable BS in the same category as ghosts, psychics and alien abduction...
In both cases, your point is moot. Besides, all this intuition argument seems too far fetched and "invented along the way." It's like Christians opposing abortion because they are Christians, yet not doing that directly but with a political maneuver and talking about unique DNA and cells and all that walk around... People don't say they believe in love at first sight because they rely on some mystical argument about intuition not being scientifically refutable, they just think it's romantic and sweet. There's really nothing that sophisticated or philosophical here. It's just old-fashioned storytelling and hyperbolism developed in times when things were simpler, not much different than the actual myth of Eros (or Cupid in English I guess) shooting you with a magical arrow.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2013 04:52 PM |
|
|
Considering that you don't even have a definition for love, but still argue about it like you would know what it is, what is possible and what not, you are sitting on a way too high horse.
That mix of habit, compromise and convenience you want to sell as love here isn't even worth discussing.
I think that the condescending way you continously dismiss everything not fitting into your ultilitarian, pseudo-scientific view of a very unscientific issue in a thread that is not supposed to split scientific hairs, is not in the spirit of this thread.
You should be consequent and deny the existence of "romantic love" out of hand - there is no scientific prove something like that even exists, and instead trying to define this mix of totally egoistical motives as something that is supposed to be the pinnacle of selflessness, has something pitiful and petty at the same time.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2013 05:35 PM |
|
|
Love is the feeling felt by a happy couple in a stable relationship. Note that this isn't the only situation in which one may feel love, just an example of one. And there is evidence that it exists - if love didn't exist, why would people talk about it and act like they feel it? Because love causes them to do so.
Of course, being an egoist, I reject the notion that love is necessarily selfless.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 28, 2013 05:36 PM |
|
|
Since nobody claims anything discussed in here is science, it's a desperate attempt to call it pseudo-science. Something has to claim being scientific to be accused of being pseudo-scientific. Yet, all knowledge does not have to be scientific or in the field of positive sciences. Your position about love is not different than mine, you claim a lot of things, too. Yet, whenever a loop in your logic is shown and it is about something other than strictly physical phenomenon, you bring in a type of mysticism which is simply saying if something is not science, it's completely arbitrary and subjective. This is, of course, an endless path, since scientific knowledge is quite limited by its nature and method when it comes to things abstract. So, you can break that emergency glass of subjectivity anytime but somehow you always conveniently break it when your ideas are confronted. It's a lame defense to say the least and the offensive tone does not mask that:
YOU bring in a concept of intuition/epiphany that can either be an educated guess or a MYSTICAL phenomenon, not me. And not believing in mystical phenomenon isn't necessarily science, common sense is good enough for that. YOU are the one calling love both a feeling like enlightenment and lucid intuition and at the same time like being hit by a freight train, some rush that is totally out of your control, something even NOT ABOUT YOU AT ALL. I don't have to be an utilitarian to see the problem in that. YOU are the one who constantly ignores, not being able to frame an exact definition on something does not necessarily mean it can be everything you wish it to be, which has been pointed out three times already. And YOU are the one who, above all , brought in biology to this eclectic mix, saying love at first sight evolved because we didn't have much time back then! Yet, somehow it's me who is the pseudo-scientific utilitarian because I said we need to actually know the person at least a little bit to be able to talk about real love 
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2013 11:01 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Since nobody claims anything discussed in here is science
um.... *ahem*
fred79 said:
oh yeah, love is real and stuff. although it is purely chemical in nature(scent, sight+reaction, taste, etc).
you remember me in this conversation, don't you, artu? you remember avoiding specifying just how you are qualified to discuss the "love at first sight" thing? surely you haven't forgotten already, and are continually on your pious little bull**** logic horse. love cannot be defined by logic alone; many times, it goes against logic itself. but that does not mean that it's base isn't scientific. it's chemicals, all right, and how your body reacts with those chemicals, based on your genetic makeup, and the things you learned upon growing up. the only people who could say it's not scientific, are romantics who probably believe in a god, to say the least. there's nothing really mystical about it.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
