• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  TeChNoWC
  November 8, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  Is this with all types of love? Are you to say that you are too enveloped in the self to even step out and love someone first? Its like saying, 'I'll only love you if you love me'. Love shouldn't be conditional, relationships maybe yes. More as if 'I can't be with you because it will only do us more harm than good'. If you are only looking to see if they will return the favour, then this is just love of the self. Go watch some romantic movie or repeat to yourself over and over 'everyone loves me, everyone loves me'. If you need that kind of attention from people, it's easy enough to just drop the semantics and get on with the loving of self part.
• 
  Weydon
  November 8, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  There are people in this world I love enourmously. People I actually love more than I love myself. They'd have to do something awfully horrid for this to go away. Constatly giving them what rhy want and having them use me even though they've stopped treating me good is a different story. A major part of the reason I love these people is because of how impossibly good they are at heart. If they didn't show any love or respect back, that would be missing. Granted, this alone would not be able to break my overall devotion and I'd always help them out of a pickle and be willing to give them some more chances at redeeming their trust, but it's not the same.
• 
  TeChNoWC
  November 8, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  *"There are people in this world I love enourmously. People I actually love more than I love myself. They’d have to do something awfully horrid for this to go away."* Then such is my point, and a point 'proven' (seemingly). You talk of not giving them everything they want? Yeah, because this not for ultimate well-being, necessarily. But this doesn't necessarily mean that an absence of attention induces and perpetuates to a decay in love. Maybe you should have said that it is not wise to seek close relations with such a person, but love in its purity (and hoping that others understand what you imply by this) should be allowed. You said something earlier about unrequited love being egoic, as if all of a sudden, should the person love you back, it automatically converts to altruism. Odd. Definitions despite functionality. It's the same bloody thing. It might make you feel more giddy hearing that they love you back, but it doesn't necessarily have to change the very nature of this love. Would God be egoic in loving an atheist, if the atheist didn't love Him back?
• 
  Weydon
  November 9, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  The problem is the varying types of love all encompassed by one word. You can love Gandhi for being such a wonderful man and peace advocate. If he came back to life and swung by your house and asked to be held up for the night, you can graciously offer. If ended up living there for free, eating all your food, and being pretty rude to you, he would prove to be very unfriendly to you. Perhaps he is still worthy of degrees of respect and love for being who he is, but he is not worthy of the kind of love that friendship and relationships make. How do you make friends and get into deep relationships if not based upon some sort of mutual interests on top of a respectful and generally kind treatment of each other. If that's missing they're just interesting jerks. *Would God be egoic in loving an atheist, if the atheist didn’t love Him back?* Would I be egoic in loving Tom Selleck if Tom Selleck didn't love me back? Or would it not matter since Tom Selleck doesn't know me anymore than an atheist knows God?
• 
  Stella Cadente
  November 9, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  TechnoWc, easy. Sometimes, love is not enough.Love is a miserably weak feeling to stand on its own. It blossoms and becomes an everlasting explosive force only if it builds on strong roots, provided by respect, trust, and reason. Love is only a sparkle! You must breathe other ingredients into it to turn it into a fire. Otherwise, the sparkle quickly dies away and you`ll be left in the cold darkness!
• 
  TeChNoWC
  November 10, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  *"Would I be egoic in loving Tom Selleck if Tom Selleck didn’t love me back? Or would it not matter since Tom Selleck doesn’t know me anymore than an atheist knows God?"* If Tom Selleck is some superstar or something (sorry, never heard of him) then I would wager that the feelings directed towards him are more of an infatuative nature and idolism. You do not know the personal Tom Selleck, you only aspire to his 'aura' per se, his charactuer or egoic creation and manifesto. If Tom Selleck is someone you know personally and deeply care about, then spot on, it ain't egoic, and it ain't necessarily selfish. Tom Selleck may not return the favour, but that's not a requirement; if you wanted to have deeper relationship with him maybe it is, but the essence of love in and of itself can be sustained despite this. It is not just a willingness (and sometimes willingness is not present at all) to forgive but a desire to forgive (yet this will be), and not just for the sake of doing so, but allowing for the well-being of the beloved individual, that is the cornerstone of such feelings as love. As for the sparkle? We can assume that there may be levels or degrees to one's love, however, in ideation, one's love has had spark enough, and will endure nonetheless. I agree that in practicality this is not always the case for failing humans, and thus this can become a requirement; however, if the intention of the love (your intention for it) is to remain unrequited, due to the fact that you wish it for the betterment of the beloved, then if the spark dies then this is no loss but only a shame. There is no harm in allowing to let what may come, come, if you are willing to remain unrequited. You will simply care for the individual, or you won't. It is probably of benefit that if you feel the risk of losing this spark that you do in fact distance yourself from the individual in question enough to allow it remain unrequited, so as to not hurt the beloved come the chance that they do in fact love you back. However, this distance has nothing to do with your ability to love, and if the individual were to love you back, it would be of benefit to all if they simply just voiced this (given an appropriate but preferrably most immediate occasion).
• 
  Weydon
  November 10, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  You never watched Magnum P.I.??!! OR Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure? What world are you from?
• 
  Stella Cadente
  November 10, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  Caring, is much more different than loving. I care about a lot, but I love a few. And the kind of love I am talking about is the one for which I would die for...you cannot die for somebody who rejects you. I didn't say, "If you love me first, I will love you then"...I said it is reciprocal,it takes two to tango...ohh, and personally, I don't believe in second chances;it takes only one time to screw up.
• 
  TeChNoWC
  November 10, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  *"you cannot die for somebody who rejects you."* Tell that to Jesus. They even spat in his face while he was dying for them. I reckon you can. *"I don’t believe in second chances;it takes only one time to screw up."* That is weak. You obviously wouldn't be prepared to die for those people. It is as though you give yourself the obligation to totally reject someone no matter who just because they might do something 'horrible'. Everyone does something horrible at some stage. No one is perfect (except Jesus).
• 
  TeChNoWC
  November 10, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  *"You never watched Magnum P.I.??!! OR Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure? What world are you from?"* It's called Australia lol.
• 
  Stella Cadente
  November 10, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  I believe that if you set high expectancies, peopele will live up to them. ;) I am not weak, because I am not weak I do not let people benefit from my feelings. Ohh, and just for the record I am not Jesus, that's why I wouldn't die for somebody who rejects me. In this world, there only a few people who I would die for, and that includes my parents, siblings...for now. It is very easy for people to say "love", but more than half of the time they don't mean it. I don't want to be a hypocrite, I'll say it when I'll mean it. Nonetheless, everyone perceives this differently.
• 
  TeChNoWC
  November 10, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  *"Ohh, and just for the record I am not Jesus, that’s why I wouldn’t die for somebody who rejects me."* But that's not what you said. You accused people of being unable to perform this and thus delibitating the efficiency of love. You may not want to do this, but others do. I would regard their love as stronger b) *"It is very easy for people to say “love”, but more than half of the time they don’t mean it. I don’t want to be a hypocrite, I’ll say it when I’ll mean it. Nonetheless, everyone perceives this differently."* Sure, but what we are talking about is real love.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free