Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#11 Ploper

Ploper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 23 September 2008 - 11:15 PM

Never cried because of love huh? Well, my dear, give it time! My guess is that you will shed a few tears spawned from your over-abundance of love on your wedding day, when you first look upon the face of your new baby, when that little baby says for the first time "I love you, Dad" without you having solicited the comment. If you are at all open to your emotions, you will without a doubt, some day weep for no other reason than for the sheer sake of LOVE.

Well you're young but judging by your posts you're very mature. However you probably are too young to have experienced love in its most intense forms.


to both of you:
Well, wouldn't the threshold of how much love it takes to make me cry change with age and maturity?
For example, a baby might weep under the slightest distress, whereas it takes much more to make an adult cry.

EDIT: I used the wrong kind of "to" (I used "too") :D

Edited by Ploper, 23 September 2008 - 11:15 PM.

  • 0

#12 akaslickster

akaslickster

    SLICK

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In the valley/AZ

Posted 24 September 2008 - 08:55 AM

Edit: Sorry PG I suppose this means we cannot be. Slick she's all yours. Quoting IMP.

She's been mine since I can remember. I did find that we were very compatible long before you arrived. I still have to respect the hubby and kids. What they don't know will not hurt them. B)) :D

Edited by akaslickster, 24 September 2008 - 08:56 AM.

  • 0
Posted ImageThe place where peace begins is within oneself. by Slick

#13 octopuppy

octopuppy

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1303 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2008 - 09:15 AM

to both of you:
Well, wouldn't the threshold of how much love it takes to make me cry change with age and maturity?
For example, a baby might weep under the slightest distress, whereas it takes much more to make an adult cry.

EDIT: I used the wrong kind of "to" (I used "too") :D

Nyuuurghh... you don't half pose some tough questions (unlike puzzlegirl; curse you unreality, I left the bait, she was MINE!!! :lol: And puzzlegirl, did you know that the easter bunny IS happiness?) Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the crying threshold.
The obvious answer would be that adults have more powerful reasons to cry. Particularly having a child is a kind of love that really exceeds anything you have ever known before, and can be utterly overwhelming. It can feel like your whole life upto that point was just spent killing time (not that you should rush into it or anything, I don't want to be responsible for you being a 14 yr old dad :lol: ). But also the relationship with your partner(s) get more serious, there's more at stake and you are thinking in permanent terms, so that side of things can be much more emotionally loaded too. It all means so much more.
But to be honest with you I'm not sure that's the whole story. Adults aren't really all that tough, we just live in a different world. When you're all grown up with kids, life is driven so much more by necessity and caring for those you love. It's a huge tradeoff, you lose the freedom to go about life driven by your own personal experiences, but gain enormous gratification from what you have at home. But because it is necessity-driven, you do what you have to do, and you are tough when you have to be. Even children have that capability, but mostly it is only adults who have the necessity. And so there is the illusion that adults are emotionally tough. But actually most of us are really just soft buggers under the surface. Just don't tell anyone.
  • 0

#14 octopuppy

octopuppy

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1303 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2008 - 10:06 AM

Call me a cynic...which I know I am, but I think it is just an illusion. To me it is merely a word that is tossed around and has no meaning whatsoever.

The word love has a great many meanings and they all blur into each other causing a lot of confusion, though in a sense that does also make it meaningless. Particularly problematic is the distinction between caring about someone and being head over heels crazy obsessed in love with them. It's an over-used word and a bit more clarity wouldn't hurt.
Love certainly has illusory qualities, as I mentioned earlier, but it's not just an illusion. You cynic you.

Sure there is an emotion in which you care very strongly for another and only wish to be with that one person. But it is a rare thing. If love is just that, then once one falls in love be it unrequited or not, then no other, in terms of a life partner, should fit into that category, especially in the matter of unrequited "love". If another falls into such category then one has never truly been "in love."

Why? Why must it be permanent? I'm very much of the opinion that human beings are naturally semi-monogamous. That is, we have a tendency to form monogamous relationships which we consider at the time to be permanent, but then later on we screw around, and perhaps split up and start all over again. Particularly in the case of men, it's a natural balance between providing for, and protecting, our children, and spreading our seed as widely as possible. If that's the case, you would hardly expect "true love" to be necessarily a one-off thing, though we wholeheartedly believe it to be so at the time. And why not? It's one of the few occasions where I would recommend believing something which may not be true.
Incidentally, as a side note, I'm also of the opinion that if we follow our natural urges to be unfaithful we create all kinds of pain and conflict for ourselves and those we love. Much better to recognise your own nature and say "to hell with that, I'm staying faithful to one partner". We don't have to do what nature tells us, when our happiness is not part of nature's plan.

This concept of "love" has been thought to be and is typically portrayed and romantic, and "lovey-dovey." But what about all the negative action caused by such feeling as well? What about those who go crazy, kill others, commit suicide out of "love?"

That's life. I agree that romance is essentially deception, to a large extent (which includes self-deception). What can I say? Being too brutally honest is not a good recipe for a successful love life, but neither is dishonesty. There's a fine line you have to walk.

In the matters of family, again it is just a word to describe the bond between family members. but that is what it is, just a very strong bond. Call it love if you want, but it is just a word used to describe what typically cannot be described, thus making it a facade, or an illusion if you will, for something much more different.

We lack the language to describe love properly. That's a fault of our language, perhaps borne out of traditional family values, which place emphasis on creating a stable unit, and do not concern themselves with distinguishing between a passionate union of two lovers, a marriage of convenience, or a couple that stay together because of duty, social pressure, or children.
For all that, there is a core point that you seem to be making, which is that the idea that we all have a single soul mate out there, with whom we will fall head over heels in love, and blissfully remain that way happily ever after, is a big fairy tale. Of course it is. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as love. There is, and furthermore it is the single most important thing in life. It's just, well... complicated ;)
  • 0

#15 Impervious

Impervious

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2413 posts

Posted 24 September 2008 - 05:55 PM

The word love has a great many meanings and they all blur into each other causing a lot of confusion, though in a sense that does also make it meaningless. Particularly problematic is the distinction between caring about someone and being head over heels crazy obsessed in love with them. It's an over-used word and a bit more clarity wouldn't hurt.
Love certainly has illusory qualities, as I mentioned earlier, but it's not just an illusion. You cynic you.

First off, I'm actually glad you responded to this. I was hoping you would as you tend to have interesting opinions about different subjects.
Next, see...told you I'm a cynic. :D

Why? Why must it be permanent? I'm very much of the opinion that human beings are naturally semi-monogamous. That is, we have a tendency to form monogamous relationships which we consider at the time to be permanent, but then later on we screw around, and perhaps split up and start all over again. Particularly in the case of men, it's a natural balance between providing for, and protecting, our children, and spreading our seed as widely as possible. If that's the case, you would hardly expect "true love" to be necessarily a one-off thing, though we wholeheartedly believe it to be so at the time. And why not? It's one of the few occasions where I would recommend believing something which may not be true.

Without permanence there can be no stability. A family should have stability. The concept of broken families have seem to become such an epidemic in this day and age that it's almost sickening. I have sever friends, and several ex-girlfriends who have divorced parents, step-parents, and parents who go through boyfriend/girlfriend almost as often as they fill up on gas in their SUV. I see no balance here. I'm more or less the psychologist of my peers. So I've heard time after time that they wish their parents would have either just stuck it out and made due with their "accident" or that they wish they had just been given up for adoption instead of having to be torn between the parents. Also, I have a hard time believing in things that may not be true. Doesn't mean I don't take risks, I do everyday I commute to work, etc. Just the silliness fo wishing upon stars, at 11:11 or when you eyelash falls out seems ridiculous to me.


Incidentally, as a side note, I'm also of the opinion that if we follow our natural urges to be unfaithful we create all kinds of pain and conflict for ourselves and those we love. Much better to recognise your own nature and say "to hell with that, I'm staying faithful to one partner". We don't have to do what nature tells us, when our happiness is not part of nature's plan.

I don't think it is natural to have urges to be unfaithful. Personally I've never cheated, never wanted to cheat, and never plan to cheat. But that's just me. Cheating is a mental game. Most cheat because of the adrenaline rush and the thrill that they might get caught rather than just a natural urge. It can also be due to an unhealthy relationship. Either way there is a 'rush' or other sensation being fulfilled by cheating. It becomes a self-inflicted addiction which , as with all addiction, can be suppressed but still has a higher risk of occuring again even after one has "changed.'

That's life. I agree that romance is essentially deception, to a large extent (which includes self-deception). What can I say? Being too brutally honest is not a good recipe for a successful love life, but neither is dishonesty. There's a fine line you have to walk.
We lack the language to describe love properly. That's a fault of our language, perhaps borne out of traditional family values, which place emphasis on creating a stable unit, and do not concern themselves with distinguishing between a passionate union of two lovers, a marriage of convenience, or a couple that stay together because of duty, social pressure, or children.

Ah yes, the ever so delicate line of honesty. I've been on both sides of it, I think i even broke it a couple of times. (That was mass chaos) I don't think any language can fully describe this feeling of "love" especially the English language. My cynicism primarily stems form this multiple meaning aspect of "love." How can one word range form a bond between family members to a bond between life-partners? It just doesn't make any sense.

For all that, there is a core point that you seem to be making, which is that the idea that we all have a single soul mate out there, with whom we will fall head over heels in love, and blissfully remain that way happily ever after, is a big fairy tale. Of course it is. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as love. There is, and furthermore it is the single most important thing in life. It's just, well... complicated ;)

Ah yes, the fairy tale ending. I'm with you on that being highly fallacious. I don't know about "love" being the single most important thing in life. I've never been "in love" and I'm still moving along. :)
  • 0

#16 octopuppy

octopuppy

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1303 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2008 - 06:35 PM

I guess what I'm trying to put across is that people can and should mate for life, but shouldn't expect it to be hearts and flowers all the way. Why do so many relationships not last these days? I wouldn't put it down to a degradation of "family values", whatever they are. Instead I think the culprit is, largely, consumerism. We are conditioned to expect more from life. That's what keeps us buying things (because the things we have are never good enough). So if you started off a relationship with someone wanting to tear each others clothes off and romp naked in the long grass every 5 minutes, there will inevitably come a point, somewhere down the line, when you don't really feel that way anymore. What to do? You either settle for what you have, or get a shiny new love life. Consumerism teaches us that the former is not an option. It's a compromise, it's settling for second best, it's keeping something after the shine has worn off. We just don't do that any more.
Maybe too many people go into marriage, or other commitments, thinking "we'll stick together because we have such a passionate love for each other". Bad move. In my opinion it's far better to go into marriage thinking "we'll stick together because we have made a choice and a commitment to stick together, in full knowledge of the fact that some of our feelings may change". Keeping a marriage good and loving is a challenge, it's not automatic regardless of how you felt at the start. You have to give it some thought and some effort. That aspect of love which excites us the least, the caring and valuing and respecting part, is what holds it all together.

Maybe that sounds like a disappointing compromise, it's not love as it's supposed to be, or as it is sold to us. But it's actually pretty good. You just have to not believe the hype.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users