by special request ;)
Love, what is it?
Agape, storge, philia, eros are the four kinds of love identified by the Greeks. Perhaps you add epithumia to the list as well, but personally, physical attraction is not, to me, a form of love but an animal response.
Is love a natural (as in physiological) response to a particular stimulus or a learned behaviour? Are we by nature selfish, base creatures or not?
Can we choose to love when love does not come naturally to us? Can we learn to love through example? Can we learn to love through patterned behaviour?
Does our ability to love evolve over time as we experience life?
By special request! - Why didn't I think of that. I'm getting slow...
There's a silly little song called Lump, which when I first heard it thought was called Love. I thought it was possibly the best allegory I'd ever heard. (Incidentally, when I realized it was Lump and not Love, I stopped liking the song)
Love sat alone in a boggy marsh,
Totally motionless except for her heart.
Mud flowed up into Love's pajamas.
She totally confused all the passing piranhas.
She's love; she's love;
She's in my head.
She's love; she's love; she's love;
She might be dead.
Love lingered last in line for brains,
And the ones she got were sort of rotten and insane.
Small things's so sad that birds can't land.
Is Love fast asleep or rocking out with the band.
A more timeless and accurate poem for you:
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
No real point is contained in this post /shrug.
HAHAHA yes, indeed! The song is ridiculously stupid as Lump. pfft.
Unknown, thank you for sharing your insight here.
Ecce or Unknown, I know this is completely off topic but when you quote someone, how do you get it to say "Originally posted by Toby"?
A better definition for Toby (in particular):
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
In short, love is self-less. It is, to quote Hexi, "giving everything, consciously, without expecting or wanting anything in return." ;)
1 Corinthians 13:4
Now you're talking! :)
I tried quoting the good book on here, only to be met by insults and name calling... I think Ecce was the only one who didn't seem to be "angered" by them. Lol
hehe I would quote them to you but not likely to anyone else I've met here yet. I prefer to play each game I play by the other party's rules.
For the record, the Bible is a good book (no pun intended). I've read it several times over and I find that once you strip out the history lessons and the culturally significant mores (more-rays), you are left with the same basic principles that make Buddhism, or Islam, or, for that matter, the Celestine Prophecy work. There is a way, in theory at least, for humanity to get along with itself if we all consistently and constantly strive to reach that ideal level of consciousness and awareness.
That's over-simplified, clearly, as no two people ever appear to be on the same rung of spiritual evolution at the same time, much less all of humanity - God's got a rather sick sense of humor, if you ask me ;)
I agree Ecce. There are many biblical verses that can be used for people to try and live up to.
If people did, the world would be a much better, happier place to live in.
I have no problem with you quoting the Bible as long as you refrain from imagining, as so many seeming-idiots do, that the Bible is a book of facts or was written by "God."
There is a lot of good stuff in the Bible, but it is certainly not a book of rules on how to live a good life. Actually it is filled with violence, bigotry, murder, racism, etc. I will never understand how people can imagine that a "god" would ever "write" such stuff.
There is not one Christian on the earth that does, or has ever though the Bible was written by God. God doesn't have hands, or a pencil as far as I know... :)
But I understand what you meant.
The Bible was also not written by Jesus, contrary to popular belief. It was writen by John, Matthew, Luke and Mark. In the Gospels, litteraly meaning 'Good News'.
What i said is how i see "pure. unconditional love". I understand it, intellectually, but i have never felt it or anything close to it. I see it as an idle fantasy, an ideal.
So ecco's posts reaffirm your own beliefs? I actually agree with him on many occasions, i meant that i find his way of elaborating everything to the max boring. Maybe it's because i've studied journalism, purely on amateur basis, and gotten "used" to keeping it "short and to the point" and thus find it somewhat annoying spending 10 minutes to read what could be a single paragraph. Oh well, i didn't mean it offensively to anyone, i was just curious.
Toby, you forgot to add that the bible was edited by the romans to fit their agenda as the idea of many gods was going out of fashion. ;)
There's an image, It portrays more than words ever could, but It's sill not the real thing.
We should all go around carrying thousands of cards, and show them to people when our vocab is limited on that particular subject.... :) It's actually a quite good idea, besides the fact it's impossible...
Actually. i begin to see where we are different. My parents never even tried to taught me anything relating to spiritualism. Infact, my parents didn't really teach me much anything, other than practical things. Perhaps this is why metaphysical philosophies don't touch me, nothing was ever "imprinted" to me in my childhood regarding such matters so i have never felt the need to search answers to such a degree as to get into religion. Maybe it's a cultural thing as religion is meaningless in Finnish society, no one cares what others think about god or other such matters.
Hmm, i'm actually curious now as to where the need to understand the metaphysical comes from, considering how subjective the subject is.
Perhaps it is because i've never witnessed or felt love that i don't believe in it.
I don't see metaphysical as a nescessesity in our universe. More and more phenomenon that were considered metaphysical in the past, have become quantifiable. I don't see this trend being reversed. I know there are things that science can't explain, not yet atleast, but that does not automatically suggest a metaphysical reason. Likewise, divine entities are not required for us to exist. Also, i know religion is more about the fundamental look on life and our universe but i just don't accept the metaphysical of it.
Opposite of love? I would say ambition.
"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference"
Ambition is not selfish or greedy? I thought about indifference, which is fine too but love is so much more, simple indifference would just be a part of the opposite. Love and hate are closer to eachother than people realize :P
No, i don't feel anything towards my brothers or my mother, my father i don't even know as my mom left him when i was 4. To me they are just people, people that are hard to ignore at times but not much more.
So by nothing, do you mean completely nothing?
I mean, if someone threatened to kill them, would you care? Would you protect them? :)
What's wrong with that question?
As a psychopath, do you think you'll ever experience Love?
Do I think i'll get cancer? Probably, I mean, with diabetes I have an increased risk of pancreatic cancer...
If someone had a gun to your brothers head and only you could save the day with your own gun, would you?
Ok, that was a poor example i admit. Still, the answer would be "no, i don't know if i'll ever experience love, nor do i care if i do or not".
Yes, i would shoot the person, in the face actually, but like said, not for the reasons you would. Actually, fear of prison has never stopped me before so that's not really in the equation. (i have a... colourful past)
Dr robert is right, why did the discussion go to me and my views again. I'm gonna stop answering your questions Toby. You already know the answers anyway.
Where did the concept of love come from? Is it imprinted within us? Foolish notion, inspired by romance novels? What is the purpose of love? Surely it's not biological, as it goes against survival of the self. (i'm shamelessly trying to get back on topic)
Yes, that is the point, and I think Whitewolf intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood it.
I am not trying to ban psychopathic points of view from discussion here. Far from it. I just hope that this forum will evolve into a place for serious discussion about MANY topics in the realm of human psychology, not just psychopaths and what they believe about themselves or about life. After all, only two or three people in a hundred are psychopathic, so why should this forum be so focused on that one kind of mind.
Psychopaths, and even their groupies (Toby) are welcome here, and it is never a question of themes which I personally want to see pursued as Whitewolf erroneously believes. But there is a lot going on in the human mind--certainly psychopathy is only a very small fraction of it. Let's give psychopathy as a topic a rest for a while and see where this forum might go. There are intelligent people checking in here daily. I want to see what that collection of talent might produce.
This does not exclude psychopaths at all. It just means that psychopathy as a central focus has had lots of space here, and now it seems time for other interests to get a turn. Just to be clear, this does not mean to exclude the expression of the psychopathic p.o.v. which is a part of life and an important factor philosophically and ethically. It simply means that psychopathy as a central theme has already been well explored here (practically with pornographic interest by some curious contributors who seem to want to get off on the very idea of freedom from guilt), and now I would like to see discussion move in other directions. Not ones that I choose, by the way (Whitewolf), but simply others.
Sorry, I was just curious. :)
Ambition is an intriguing response. I would define ambition as a strong desire for material success.
I would never have said that ambition is the opposite of love, but I just realize that I would never have said it because I wouldn't have thought to verbalize it that way even though I've lived that way! and I realize it only just now.
If you were to say to me that I turned my back on my ambitions when I chose to (try to learn to) love, I would be hard pressed to argue the point, now that I think about it through this filter. Somehow, I felt that ambition stood in the way of love, that the two were mutually exclusive.
Very interesting response - thank you very much.
Unknown and Toby:
I am American, born and raised. I pulled the Yoruba example out of my yahoo for didactic purposes only. The only reason I know anything about anything Yoruban is due to my initiation into Santeria some years ago during my seeker period.
Oh right, I can't believe I went for that... :)