|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
posted December 04, 2013 12:39 AM |
|
|
i for one fell in love with the starcraft 2 spacemarine!
and that on first sight until now (and probably till my dead)
Also my previous relationships where from my part decided by the first day, yet i never heard of firstsightlove from both ends, but i wouldn't call it impossible!
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 12:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course feelings can be wrong. Here's one example: suppose someone is an abusive relationship. Some guy beats a girl, verbally abuses her, etc. She still loves him. Is her feeling wrong? Of course. Here's another example: suppose you can't find your mp3 player on the subway and you think the person sitting next to you stole it. You get mad at them. Then you go home and find out that you left it in your desk. Your feelings of anger were wrong. Here's a third example: suppose you're trying to teach someone math, but they're being slow and it's frustrating you in a way that interferes with your effectiveness of teaching them. Is your feeling of frustration wrong? I would say that it is - it's natural, but that doesn't make it right. Finally, a fourth example: suppose a religious fundamentalist sees a gay couple holding hands, and he gets disgusted by it. Are his feelings wrong? Definitely.
I disagree with what you're saying here, I think that feelings themselves are never wrong; actions taken because of those feelings or information which led to those feelings can be wrong, but the feelings themselves aren't right or wrong. For example, in the situation with the mp3 player; because the information (i.e. where the mp3 player was) was wrong, anger resulted. Anger was a logical response for the given information, so it wasn't the wrong response. Or in your third example, it's fine to be frustrated when a person is not learning efficiently, it's not fine to take an action based on the feeling and most likely slow down the process even more.
Those were the two examples which I thought that based on your definition, the feelings could be classified as wrong; for the other two, I disagree. A girl still loving someone despite them treating her in a way that causes her harm isn't wrong; it's not natural, and I don't know anyone who would feel that way, but if you still feel love toward someone after that, then those are your feelings. Now, if you just say you love him but don't actually, that is you taking an incorrect action on the feelings you have, again, not the feelings themselves being wrong.
As for the last example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking something is disgusting when it isn't to other people. I personally don't really like the color orange; why, I don't know, but I don't. Is it "wrong" for me to dislike that color? I don't think so. It would be wrong for the priest to not offer equal opportunities to gay people because he felt disgusted by them, it would be wrong for him to tell his children not to be gay, but feeling disgust in and in of itself is perfectly acceptable.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 12:45 AM |
|
|
The_Gootch said:
Bringing an objectivist approach to a subjective conversaion is in my opinion unworkable.
Gootch, Mvass wouldn't recognize a subjective conversation if it came up and objectively kicked him in the gonads.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 12:58 AM |
|
|
Vindicator:
I would say that the correct reaction to incorrect information still qualifies as a wrong feeling, but that's really a difference in definitions, so there's nothing to dispute there. But as for the two other examples, I can't agree with you, but I can't present any evidence other than of the kind of "You really think that it's not incorrect for a woman to love someone who's abusing her?" But I think it's really bizarre to claim that it's fine.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 01:15 AM |
|
|
So I am by definition WRONG, by feeling disgustness if some dude next to me drills in his nose and takes that crap to the next wall?
Because objectively he just put some matter to another place, nothing to be disgusted about.
o rly?
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 01:21 AM |
|
|
I would also think it was bizarre and weird if a woman said she loved someone even after they beat her, but there's a lot of other opinions that people have that I find bizarre, I just find this one to be harder to accept because it seems way more alien to us than most things and because almost 100% of the time, the woman says that because she's crazy (i.e. bad information) or she's lying. But if there was someone who was sane and truly felt that way, then it's their call...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 01:31 AM |
|
|
I'd say that no one who feels that way can be entirely sane (or at least that they haven't examined their feelings), because love is not the appropriate feeling to feeling towards someone who is abusive. Being abused is highly unpleasant, so to cherish, think well of, and prioritize the well-being of someone who causes you pain is incongruous.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 01:46 AM |
|
|
|
They can have some sort of sadistic/masochistic bound that is deeper than simple abuse, she can be overenthusiastic with other qualities of him that makes up for it in her eye, they can be part of an agricultural society in which beating your wife is considered legitimate to a point (just like hitting children was, or else they wouldn't learn). Besides, love is not normative, it doesn't have to be right. And passion makes people do especially irrational things (hence there is a category called passion crime.) Love does not have to be politically correct or morally righteous. That is entirely something else.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 01:58 AM |
|
|
artu said:
they can be part of an agricultural society in which beating your wife is considered legitimate to a point (just like hitting children was, or else they wouldn't learn)
That's a reason why those kinds of agricultural societies are evil.
And even if an abuser has some positive qualities, just because they are an abuser, they should not be loved. Love has to be right, because if it isn't, it's not "real", in the sense that it's destroyed by the truth. It is incongruous to love a source of unwanted pain, so the feeling goes away once everything is examined.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 02:01 AM |
|
|
Never try to argue with idiots, they pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.
srsly, wtf?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 02:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's a reason why those kinds of agricultural societies are evil.
So five hundred years ago, all world was evil?
Quote:
Love has to be right, because if it isn't, it's not "real", in the sense that it's destroyed by the truth.
That doesn't make sense. You use the words right/wrong as if they are true/false.
Quote:
It is incongruous to love a source of unwanted pain, so the feeling goes away once everything is examined.
Nope, world is full of "weirdo" couples who say they'd do it all over again.
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 02:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And even if an abuser has some positive qualities, just because they are an abuser, they should not be loved. Love has to be right, because if it isn't, it's not "real", in the sense that it's destroyed by the truth. It is incongruous to love a source of unwanted pain, so the feeling goes away once everything is examined.
For that woman, the benefits of being in a relationship outweigh the costs of being beaten to the point where they're almost negligible. Again, I highly doubt that there are that many people like that out there, but for them those feelings aren't wrong.
Also, Idontcare, what are you talking about?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 02:40 AM |
|
|
artu:Quote:
So five hundred years ago, all world was evil?
Yes. Many people were unintentionally evil by promoting bad social norms, and there's been a lot of moral progress.Quote:
That doesn't make sense. You use the words right/wrong as if they are true/false.
That's because "right/wrong" reduce to "true/false" for moral propositions.Quote:
Nope, world is full of "weirdo" couples who say they'd do it all over again.
Abuse leaves lasting emotional scars that prevent people from thinking properly all the time. The world is full of drug addicts too - doesn't mean drug addiction is good.
Vindicator:Quote:
For that woman, the benefits of being in a relationship outweigh the costs of being beaten to the point where they're almost negligible.
That is possible, but there's a difference between that and love. "It's bad that I'm beaten and emotionally abused, but it's better than starving on the street", while a perfectly valid feeling, is not love.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 03:03 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 03:05, 04 Dec 2013.
|
1- You can not be unintentionally evil, being evil is about your intentions and it is quite a strong word to define most of human history.
2- Love is not a moral proposition.
3- Drug addiction and a consensual long-term relationships are not analogous. These people don't seriously risk their health and their judgement is not clouded by chemicals. Btw, an interesting movie specifically about this kind of relationship would be the black humorous Secretary, an interesting watch at least.
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 03:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That is possible, but there's a difference between that and love. "It's bad that I'm beaten and emotionally abused, but it's better than starving on the street", while a perfectly valid feeling, is not love.
Well all love technically is is that the benefits of being with another person are high enough for you to do whatever you do with people you love; the benefits that arise from them are enough to balance out whatever costs they also bring (since they're not perfect human beings). Costs like having a nasally voice, not liking the same food, taking way too long to get dressed, and, in this particular case, beating you up. That's obviously way too big of a cost for most people to deal with, but I'm sure there are some that do.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 04:33 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 04:38, 04 Dec 2013.
|
So I was reading the last 20 or so posts and couldn't quite figure out what you guys are discussing right now.
At first it seemed it was about whether it's possible to love someone on certain terms, but then it shifted to whether it's really love if it would disappear after learning new facts, then to whether it's legitimate and ethical after persisting while knowing all the facts that are perceived as malevolent, then to whether it's healthy, whether it's rational, whether it's normative.
Basically, MVass, what it looks like you're saying (in the eye of the innocent bystander haplessly trying to figure out what's going on) is that
if it's a bad idea to love someone, then it is impossible to truly love them.
But after applying the English-MVass dictionary, one can figure out that:
impossible -> incorrect -> illogical -> irrational -> suboptimal -> (when applying rationalism) not advancing of the current situation -> (when applying individualism) not advancing of your own situation -> (when applying materialism) not advancing of your own observable well-being -> (when applying subjectivism) not advancing of what MVass perceives as your own observable well-being.
It's like Cockney rhyming slang. It starts off as fun and games (bees and honey -> money; trouble and strife -> wife), and then it turns to Tid being short for tiddlywink, which rhymes with Chink, which denotes a Chinese person, so that the only clue to whether the obese, drunken Man United fan insulted you on a racial basis or offered to buy you a drink is the distance between your head and the pint he's waving at you.
At any rate, the above was an example of the evolution of just a single word. One of the many bombastic, jimmy-rustling words such as Evil that are being tossed about. I mean, look at it. It's definite. It's monolithic. When you use something as final as Evil or Impossible or Fascist in a discussion about ANYTHING, let alone a topic on something as arbitrary as this, you better be ****ing sure of what you're doing, because you're about to be wrong on the internet, and it will cause a reaction.
Which is, of course, what you we all enjoy.
Anyhow, after all this rabbit (rabbit an' pork -> talk; I'm not even making this **** up, these people actually communicate this way), it seems to me that what you're really thinking, MVass, behind the intricate web of definitions that you've spun about things that don't possess precise definitions (or, better yet, are commonly accepted to possess definitions different than your own), is that
people who love people whom you don't think they should love, are strange.
I know things may seem much more complex and metaphysical, I understand that you feel, deep inside, that all these elaborate thoughts you have are Truth at First Sight, but that is, in fact, the gist of everything you're saying right now. You may deny it, but that would be incongruous, as the only cold, hard, rational way out of this is to admit there is nothing more to this than our own, subjective, opinions. This is where society made its baby-steps toward any kind of progress, compared to the age of the crusades and Papal infallibility. The ability to distinguish what we can present to people as fact, from what we cannot.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 04:43 AM |
|
|
artu:
1 - You can't be unintentionally evil in the sense that if you do something bad by accident, you're not evil. But if you do something bad intentionally, but don't think it's bad, you're still evil (if it's bad enough). Those social norms weren't taught and enforced unintentionally - it wasn't an "Oops, I tripped and now there are bad social norms" sort of thing. No one thinks of themselves as evil except people who are trying to be edgy, people whose definition of evil is "what other people label as 'evil'", and people who think "I'm evil but so is everyone else" (like Christians who believe in Original Sin and Total Depravity) - most bad things are done by people who think they're trying to do good. People in the past weren't cackling about oppressing women, they thought it was the natural order and the right thing to do - and thus to the extent that they enforced those norms, they were evil.
2 - It's not necessarily a moral proposition (although it can be one), but it is still a proposition that can be true or false, consistent or inconsistent.
3 - Drug addiction and abuse are similar in that they can harm a person's thinking patterns, drug addiction just does it more directly.
Vindicator:
Those are the external effects of love, but love itself is an emotion that is felt by a person. A person who feels love for someone will act as you describe, but so will a person who thinks "It's bad that I'm beaten and emotionally abused, but it's better than starving on the street" - and they're different feelings. One is a feeling of affection and closeness, the other is a feeling of "This sucks but it could be worse". It is possible to distinguish between the two in practice - for example, if you ask the person "If your significant other disappeared but you'd still get all the resources (money, etc) from having them around, would you take that over your current situation?" If the person honestly answers "Yes", it's "This sucks but it could be worse", if they say "No", it's love.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 05:08 AM |
|
|
|
I mean... yes? I guess I agree that people who aren't really in love will also say that, but they're not the ones I'm talking about.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 05:12 AM |
|
|
Bak:
That's a rather uncharitable (and inaccurate) interpretation of me.Quote:
Basically, MVass, what it looks like you're saying (in the eye of the innocent bystander haplessly trying to figure out what's going on) is that
if it's a bad idea to love someone, then it is impossible to truly love them.
To clarify, people can certainly feel the emotion of love even when it's a bad idea. It's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination - just look at all the people in bad relationships (not all of them love each other, but you get the point, I hope). But if it goes away when you internalize the reality of the situation, it was an inappropriate feeling. Given the properties of this particular feeling when in a relationship (desire for closeness and intimacy with them, giving a high priority to their well-being, trusting them to give a high priority to your well-being, enjoying being around them, etc) it is incongruous to feel that way towards an abuser. Not impossible - incongruous. Specifically, it goes against the "enjoying being around them" and "trusting them to give a high priority to your well-being" parts of the feeling. Once examined, it goes from "I love them" to "Hmm... Too often I don't enjoy being around them, and they certainly don't care about my well-being, that means I don't love them." Of course, this has to be internalized to work - someone can say the syllables of that sentence without having internalized their meaning.
So it's quite possible to love someone when it's a bad idea, but only while being internally inconsistent.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 04, 2013 06:43 AM |
|
|
Seeing all this appear during the night, just makes me go wha-?
Reading all this just makes me facepalm. I stand with mvass in a lot of the cases btw. He just needs to explain his position better. Feelings are wrong means misguided etc. Which he does, but usually by a delay of one page, which does not help the conversation 
mvassilev said:
Bak:
That's a rather uncharitable (and inaccurate) interpretation of me.
But it's a very, very entertaining one. Someone Peanut the man! Screw the rules in this case, just do it.
BTW. I can get Gootchie being all lovestruck and everything given the circumstances but what is it that drives so many people to spam the topic so quickly? I can't help but read people's posts and think that they are intentionally making themselves feel bad for not being in love. Why do you do this?
Do you feel that it is necessary for yourself to be in a loving relationship to be whole person? If so, where does this belief stem from? Social pressure? Personal beliefs? Can you try to explain it to someone like me who does not understand it?
If no one else wants to take this, I'm going to project this to DF since he is openly whining about it in practically every post in this thread.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
