|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
posted March 02, 2010 05:19 PM |
|
|
No it's like sunshine on a rainy day. Can't you read man?
Oh and I reviewed a few pages and the argument must be arround page 102. I read a few lines and dear god... it doesn't cease to infuriate you. My favourite line was
Quote:
The point is that I do know what I'm talking about.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted March 02, 2010 05:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not to mention that high school "friendships" usually aren't worth much. Ask your parents, your older friends, whatever, how many friends do they still have from that period.
Au contraire, my friend, I met my wife 10 years ago while being colleagues at the same highschool and most of my friends in highschool and college still are my friends today.( although we see less of each other due to our jobs and family stuff)
P.S. Love is such sweet sorrow (so true)
____________
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted March 02, 2010 06:34 PM |
|
|
Azagal
____________
~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 March 02, 2010 06:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh please we've had that exact same argument with a guy building a wall some pages ago oO.
Funny I don't remember it's me/mvass who starts it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 02, 2010 07:33 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 00:04, 03 Mar 2010.
|
I'm wondering why people have to make love relationships so complicated?
actually, I suppose it should be very simple, even obvious, but environmental and cultural conditioning makes it look like something incredibly complex and dangerous.
I think I could even say we all know perfectly what is love, but forgot it. or at least, I have that feeling.
reading this "ladder theory" again, I notice the word "love" is used only once Quote:
write her a love note
while the words attraction, sex and the f-word are used a lot. which probably isn't a mistake, since that theory doesn't answer what is love at all, instead it's rather "what is egoism?"
btw, love is giving, accepting, caring, opening your mind. it is pure joy and happiness.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 12:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
btw, love is giving, accepting, caring, opening your mind. it is pure joy and happiness.
I happily disagree. Love is accepting, but it is never unconditional. Love is the opposite of freedom.
Now, tell me: better to reign in hell or serve in heav'n?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 01:25 AM |
|
|
no. it is the opposite of egoism.
and it's better to serve in heaven, without any hesitation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 01:53 AM |
|
|
Love is both freedom and egoism.
On second thought, love requires egoism and has nothing to do with freedom.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 02:17 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 02:18, 03 Mar 2010.
|
love and egoism have nothing in common.
you're confusing it with love + something else (the something else most likely coming from egoism)
love can't require egoism since loving is being not egoist
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 03:17 AM |
|
|
Love is extremely selfish, since you benefit yourself without sacrifice - you love a person because they bring a great deal of happiness to you. If that's not selfish, nothing is.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 02:04 PM |
|
|
|
yes and no, since you will think about the interests of the person you love before yours. if ever you think about yours.
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
posted March 03, 2010 02:41 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 14:50, 03 Mar 2010.
|
@Mvass: Your thesis is wrong for one simple reason. Very simple.
If we are talking for intimate love between persons and not for love to an object you are wrong.
There are two people in the intimate love between persons, they both benefit from it (we don't count case where someone is forced to love someone else, that's not love, since the love here really benefit one person, and its egoism). Still thats not enough, but both partners know that the other one have benefits and they not only grand the opportunity to him/her they want or even feel the need to do it. We can call it sort of symbiosis, but never egoism. You need the other one, he/she needs you too. You both know it. You both are volunteers in it. If one of you is not a volunteer we don't talk about love anymore. If there is untrue love in one of the partners - it's not love anymore. If one of them have no benefit but only the other one, it means that only the one who have benefit is in love (not material benefits, since love is not material object) and we have no love.
What about the brother love, love between friends, even the business love, they are not egoism. Why? The first two are pretty much like the intimate love between persons, just not intimate, or not between two but more persons. The last one is the love to work with someone, but not because you have good material benefits (that can exist along it as well), but because there is something in the oter person that make you like working with him. This can be used by the other one against you but again, the one who is in business love is not the egoist, it's the one who isn't. And it's not love for him.
Saying that you need to say "I" before "love" in "I love", well really, don't use that. In my language for example, you have to say "you" and no "I" in the sentence.
True love is very, very rare.
____________
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 02:43 PM |
|
|
I really couldn't agree more.
____________
~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 March 03, 2010 02:49 PM |
|
|
Seconded.
Mvass, if you are so inclined, give me ONE example where an action is NOT selfish according to YOUR criteria... even an action that goes in disgust for someone saying "it must be done", it's also usually BECAUSE it benefits the respective person -- later on in life, for example.
According to your flawed criteria, there is no such thing as a selfless act -- which makes the attribute 'selfish' completely worthless as a whole. It's like saying "The Universe is the universe". Great insight you have there.
Tell you what: 100% selfishness is when you don't care about anyone else but yourself. It has nothing to do with "you feel happy in the end helping others" or such bull****.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 02:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
True love is very, very rare.
and probably the reason why almost no one knows what it is. most people talk about things that are only egoist while they think they talk about love.
for example, each week, we receive at home a magazine about criminal investigation. and I think, most of the story are about "love",
that is to say, someone who ends up doing terrible things (including murder or worse) against the person he / she "loves" (or his / her children)
I mean, it's very sad that people can do that and everyone think it was motivated by love, because clearly, there was no love involved at all, only egoism.
really, it's one of the most terrible thing in our world, people confuse love and egoism.
it's as if a doctor would take a gun, shoot his patient, and then say "I thought it would heal him"
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 03:03 PM |
|
|
When mvass describes altruism he talks about the act of sacrificing your own happiness for others, letting your own flesh be conumed in a way.
Selfishness is the opposite of that. the self is most important and you act from the self and feel and think from the self. If you act to benefit this self-ish person you are selfish. All people that know what's good for them will act for the self-ish person, so they'll be selfish. the negative connotation it has been given over the years will be ignored hen we consider this, we stick to the meaning of the word without any connotation.
Now, fauch, I would gladly serve in heaven and I think everyone would, but I think it's better to reign in hell.
Vokial, mvass doesn't consider the higher ideal of love, he doesn't have a higher concept, he approaches it from the individual. So in his world vision it's hard to encapsulate this symbiosis and saying that if Quote:
If one of you is not a volunteer we don't talk about love anymore. If there is untrue love in one of the partners - it's not love anymore.
(no true scotsman argument fallacy by the way)
he doesn't think about the higher concept of 'love' the way you describe here. Well, I think he says that. If he doesn't say it, well, then I'm saying it, so respond to me for the time being if you feel so inclined to continue the debate.
Try to understand eachother here, people!
@ mvass: Love restricts you always. Whether it be in a good or bad way, I don't know, but love restricts you. I'm speaking in very general terms of course.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 03:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I fear thou doest not comprehend.
Care to elaborate? 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 03:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, fauch, I would gladly serve in heaven and I think everyone would, but I think it's better to reign in hell.
Care to elaborate? You would rather prefer power of tyranny over being a humble servant?
They say power corrupts, but I always thought at least some people don't abuse it for themselves (because that's what Hell is). I guess those kind of people are far fewer than I expected.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 03:10 PM |
|
|
It's not about the fear of her being angry, it's about failing in what you were first set out to do. You failed you and her at a certain point: either now, when you can't hold true to what you first claimed or in the past when you set up the lie and couldn't face the truth. When and what is not a great interest to me. I do know that I'm failing and that it's stupid and detrimental of me to have the desire to see and talk to her more.
Quote:
They say power corrupts, but I always thought at least some people don't abuse it for themselves (because that's what Hell is). I guess those kind of people are far fewer than I expected.
CONTEXT, DEATH, CONTEXT!
Let me reiterate:
I say (read the entire quote):
Quote:
Love is accepting, but it is never unconditional. Love is the opposite of freedom.
Now, tell me: better to reign in hell or serve in heav'n?
He says:
Quote:
and it's better to serve in heaven, without any hesitation
Then I say it's better to reign in hell.
Lemme rephrase it poorly: better to be the master of an isolated, hard life or to be not in control of a blissful one?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2010 03:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
when you can't hold true to what you first claimed
You mean, friendship?
But how to declare love then.
If claiming you love her = betraying the friendship, the only situation when you can declare it is before you get to know each other well, before you realize you're having fun together.
Which is pointless.
Unless you mean something else. I have a flu atm and my mind isn't working well 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
