|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 26, 2009 08:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And what's wrong with loving more people at the same time? (by the true definition of love of course, you know what I mean).
True defintion of love? No, I don't know what you mean. I didn't know there is a "true" definition of love, I have a slight suspicion that what you call "true" definition of love will be a "false" one for me.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2009 08:19 PM |
|
|
DeadMan:
Hey, let MM do what he wants.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Do you see me posting **** like "hey dude, stop posting" to others or telling them about their lame style?
Wait. But you just did that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 26, 2009 09:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
True defintion of love? No, I don't know what you mean. I didn't know there is a "true" definition of love, I have a slight suspicion that what you call "true" definition of love will be a "false" one for me.
True definition of love must apply everywhere. If someone applies, and in other cases it doesn't, it means it's either not love, or it IS love COMBINED with something else.
Quote:
Wait. But you just did that.
Did what? Call someone's post lame? (well, apart from jokes/VW, you know  ).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 26, 2009 10:08 PM |
|
|
@ TheDeath
You basically told him to stop posting and also called his stuff lame, or the other word you used.
And MM, great to hear this update. Even though the night didn't go exactly as you planned, you still made the best of it and ended it on a high note. Good on you. 
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 26, 2009 10:12 PM |
|
|
No I didn't tell him to stop posting as long as he doesn't tell me to stop posting (or whatever similar)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2009 10:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
True defintion of love? No, I don't know what you mean. I didn't know there is a "true" definition of love, I have a slight suspicion that what you call "true" definition of love will be a "false" one for me.
True definition of love must apply everywhere. If someone applies, and in other cases it doesn't, it means it's either not love, or it IS love COMBINED with something else.
Huh? Nah.You cannot just ASSUME that everything you call love is equal and then define love according to that assumption that the definition must fit that assumption.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 26, 2009 10:20 PM |
|
|
I don't care about assumptions. All I care about is to have ONE definition of it. It's more logical than "Hey I want to call that love too! So let's make it a new definition!".
Obviously no one argues that a parent can love his child, like a guy can love his brother or sister. Therefore, love MUST include that. And it must have one definition. More logical than having 100 made-up definitions with which no one can "explain" (well I can't either, but at least it's more coherent).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2009 10:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't care about assumptions. All I care about is to have ONE definition of it. It's more logical than "Hey I want to call that love too! So let's make it a new definition!".
Obviously no one argues that a parent can love his child, like a guy can love his brother or sister. Therefore, love MUST include that. And it must have one definition. More logical than having 100 made-up definitions with which no one can "explain" (well I can't either, but at least it's more coherent).
I doubt that truth is caring whether ou want to have one definition or not. Assumption is assumption. And if you think that fatherly love is the same than motherly love then you are assuming about a couple of months of true difference.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 26, 2009 10:48 PM |
|
|
"fatherly love", "motherly love", why complicate yourself? I think we're just using some kind of language to communicate and it's best if we don't make it redundant.
Sure like I said, a person may LOVE another with a different DEGREE -- however, that depends on the person involved. What I'm talking about is the actual definition of love -- you can add degrees later. In fact, if we get mathematical, you can even say a "negative degree of love" can mean hate. But to do all these, we need a solid centralized definition of love that can apply everywhere given JUST a simple 'degree' that varies a specific parameter (like a mathematical function). No "magic parameters" involved
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted January 26, 2009 10:53 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 22:56, 26 Jan 2009.
|
Quote:
"fatherly love", "motherly love", why complicate yourself? I think we're just using some kind of language to communicate and it's best if we don't make it redundant.
Sure like I said, a person may LOVE another with a different DEGREE -- however, that depends on the person involved. What I'm talking about is the actual definition of love -- you can add degrees later. In fact, if we get mathematical, you can even say a "negative degree of love" can mean hate. But to do all these, we need a solid centralized definition of love that can apply everywhere given JUST a simple 'degree' that varies a specific parameter (like a mathematical function). No "magic parameters" involved
But is its philosophical and so you can not define it.I can say that it is an instinct cuz animals have it but it would be not right.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
emilsn
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2009 11:22 PM |
|
|
Grats MM..
I'll post a little update tomorrow 
____________
Don't walk behind me; I may not
lead. Don't walk in front of me;
I may not follow. Just walk
beside me and be my friend.
|
|
winterfate
Supreme Hero
Water-marked Champion!
|
|
posted January 26, 2009 11:53 PM |
|
|
@MM: Sweet! 
Way to go! 
So, it looks like all's well with you, eh?
@emilsn: Can't wait. 
____________
If you supposedly care about someone, then don't push them out of your life. Acting like you're not doing it doesn't exempt you from what I just said. - Winterfate
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 27, 2009 12:00 AM |
|
|
@Seraph: I know, I'm not trying to DEFINE it. I'm saying that we should have only one that varies with a parameter (like above) and everything "outside" is not love, it's a bonus or something that is used in combination (one example: attraction --> not love, just used in combination with it in most couples).
Hence whatever X may be, I don't define it completely -- just a few conditions such as to be applied everywhere with a single parameter (degree).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted January 27, 2009 12:09 AM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 00:21, 27 Jan 2009.
|
Quote:
@Seraph: I know, I'm not trying to DEFINE it. I'm saying that we should have only one that varies with a parameter (like above) and everything "outside" is not love, it's a bonus or something that is used in combination (one example: attraction --> not love, just used in combination with it in most couples).
Hence whatever X may be, I don't define it completely -- just a few conditions such as to be applied everywhere with a single parameter (degree).
True,love could be said to be as a x that brings z and y together by means of they wanting each other.But attraction could bring love (aka: premature love).
But anyway,you are right.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
posted January 27, 2009 06:05 AM |
|
|
|
I remember the feel of her hips beneath my hands. I remember her ever changing hair color. Curling up on the couch to watch a movie together. The flush of her cheeks when she got angry. I remember being 100% behind her decisions even when I didn't agree. How she made me laugh from my belly. Good times.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2009 07:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Seraph: I know, I'm not trying to DEFINE it. I'm saying that we should have only one that varies with a parameter (like above) and everything "outside" is not love, it's a bonus or something that is used in combination (one example: attraction --> not love, just used in combination with it in most couples).
Hence whatever X may be, I don't define it completely -- just a few conditions such as to be applied everywhere with a single parameter (degree).
And that condition is a mere assumption. Everywhere applicable with ONE parameter. There is no reason at all to assume only ONE parameter.
In fact, one parameter doesn't make sense. In that case you'd define Death's Love Quantum, in short DLQ, which would be the smallest undivisible unit of love, with everything else being a multiple of it. The trouble here is that you have no idea what love actually is, and what your DLQ was and what an "addition" is. Love-like feelings for you would look like n*DLQ + C where "C" is something else defined as a constant like lust, the mother factor or equally random definitions.
I'd rather see love like a wave, part of the emotional wave spectrum, where love would cover, say, the complete red spectrum (with the examples of previous posts being different shades of red). The difference to electromagnetic waves would be that the effect of the medium through which the waves spread (which would be the specific human in question) would have a stronger effect on spreading speed and therefore on wave length (but not on frequency).
I like my idea of it more since there is no "true" love, with everything being a multiple of that true love combined with something else. Instead there is simply a range of all possible emotions defined, with everything concerning "love" covering a certain area of the spectrum, which in turn would in parts depend on the specific medium, the human.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2009 04:44 PM |
|
|
What is love?
no clue. But I feel attraction rushing through my veins again.
I missed the feeling lol
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 27, 2009 04:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And that condition is a mere assumption. Everywhere applicable with ONE parameter. There is no reason at all to assume only ONE parameter.
Then we can scrap the idea of "love" altogether and use infinitely many parameters, each having his own definition.
Why do we have words? To use stuff that people agree on so they can communicate. If "love" means X in case A, and Y in case B, but for person xxxx it means Z in case B, then what is the POINT of this communication?
"Hey, I want 'love' to mean what you mean by hate!"
"Fine!"
Some tourists comes and says "How do you people say, that when you care for someone? What's the word?"
The response? "There's no one word noob! You basically have different cases -- nevermind that those different cases are subjective for everyone!"
You say I have assumptions and that I am subjective? but you have even more.
I try to reduce them at least (to 1 variable, whatever).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2009 05:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
And that condition is a mere assumption. Everywhere applicable with ONE parameter. There is no reason at all to assume only ONE parameter.
Then we can scrap the idea of "love" altogether and use infinitely many parameters, each having his own definition.
Why do we have words? To use stuff that people agree on so they can communicate. If "love" means X in case A, and Y in case B, but for person xxxx it means Z in case B, then what is the POINT of this communication?
"Hey, I want 'love' to mean what you mean by hate!"
"Fine!"
Some tourists comes and says "How do you people say, that when you care for someone? What's the word?"
The response? "There's no one word noob! You basically have different cases -- nevermind that those different cases are subjective for everyone!"
You say I have assumptions and that I am subjective? but you have even more.
I try to reduce them at least (to 1 variable, whatever).
As seems to be your habit you are just trying to confuse a simple issue, absurdly exaggerating by suddenly equalling love and hate.
But what is worse - you don't seem to have an idea about language at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow
This is a commonly known example for the fact that the more knowledge a people has about a certain thing the more words will be there for it.
This is so obvious, it's not worth mentioning.
Speech knows "Platonic love", for example, usually a special case of an adult love without any sexual undercurrent. Speech seems to think that this is a special case of "love" and not simply "love".
All of this shows only, that we simply don't know much about it. Which means, that it doesn't make sense to assume a lot, ESPECIALLY not something that limits everything to one variable.
Oh, and about acrapping the idea of love, I don't know about generally scrapping it, but YOURS, yes, you can scrap that.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 27, 2009 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As seems to be your habit you are just trying to confuse a simple issue, absurdly exaggerating by suddenly equalling love and hate.
Ah ok I should probably have used something lighter although that wasn't even the point.
Quote:
But what is worse - you don't seem to have an idea about language at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow
Isn't this some of the stuff I'm advocating? I mean to split up what we call "love" in a given situation to many characteristics -- of which "love" would be only THAT which is EVERYWHERE (albeit in different amounts).
For example, split up the "love of a couple" (what's it called in english?) into (example): love + attraction. Why? Because a single word, "love" should be coherent in all cases. Surely, if we didn't split it, you wouldn't use it in a (normal) parental relationship?
But to put it simpler: say some alien comes and asks you "what does love mean?" (no, we don't have to explain what love IS, just what the word means).
What do you answer? "Well it depends on the situation..."? (i.e parental, couple, etc)
Doesn't that ring a bell that the definition is flawed?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
