• TimeLine
    2.7k
    That right there is part of the tragedy.schopenhauer1

    :ok:

    That is it uncommon for two people who are authentic to actually meet.

    I agree with you about being authentic, but I think we must really emphasize the time and effort it takes to find a person and maintain a relationship with them. The fact that this is unequally distributed and rare, is a signal that something off about the phenomena of dating and relationships itself.schopenhauer1

    Perhaps I am being ungenerous; it took several solid months before I realised that I was attracted to that guy I mentioned earlier and I must make it clear that I am not talking about the love at first sight scenario, which is just Disney at best. No two people are perfect for each other, which returns to my earlier statement about that inability to genuinely connect, but two people who know themselves and their self-esteem is solid, who have the courage to transcend the opinion of others, they are able to share and enjoy one another authentically.

    Okay, but again this is still not addressing the main point (which doesn't really have to do acting or being inauthentic) the point is:
    You can be yourself all you want, and fail at finding a companion, love, and all the rest. People can be alone their whole life and be comfortable with who they are and miss out on any meaningful romantic relationship. You seem to be overlooking that main point. And there is yet another part of the tragedy. That is really the crux of my argument. We agree- authenticity in relationships is essential.
    schopenhauer1

    Hmm, I cannot help but think that is the tragedy of consciousness that may substantiate the reasons for why people to delude themselves in the first place (are we compelled to act because evolution dictates this, since without it we find it way too difficult to form bonds with others?

    Being brutally honest, I am not unattractive and I was recently approached by a man who was attractive, had a stable job and was generally a nice person, but I didn't feel anything for him at all and for a brief moment in my mind I heard this he'll do. It was brief and I was shocked at myself, but it was there, the idea that we could build a life together, white picket fence, dog, children, but no love. I wonder how many people see there partners in that way, rather than actually feel something for them?

    When women found independence, they also began to have less children. The more conscious and honest we are, the more incapable we are of bullshitting to ourselves that being alone is inevitably a choice.
  • schopenhauer1
    2k
    Hmm, I cannot help but think that is the tragedy of consciousness that may substantiate the reasons for why people to delude themselves in the first place (are we compelled to act because evolution dictates this, since without it we find it way too difficult to form bonds with others?TimeLine

    You'd have to explain the term "tragedy of consciousness" for me to comment on that. Are we compelled to act to find mates? I think it is not a matter of compelled but a matter of necessity. You cannot find a partner sitting by yourself, or not socializing in some way, so I see no other choice. But I could be misinterpreting what you mean by compelled to act.

    When women found independence, they also began to have less children. The more conscious and honest we, the more incapable we are of bullshitting to ourselves that being alone is inevitable a choice.TimeLine

    Being an antinatalist, I am good with that outcome of less children :). I don't get your last sentence there. You'd have to explain. I don't correlate not having children with wanting to be alone. One can have a relationship and not have children. But I'd have to hear first what you are trying to convey about being alone to better comment.
  • TimeLine
    2.7k
    You'd have to explain the term "tragedy of consciousness" for me to comment on that. Are we compelled to act to find mates? I think it is not a matter of compelled but a matter of necessity. You cannot find a partner sitting by yourself, or not socializing in some way, so I see no other choice. But I could be misinterpreting what you mean by compelled to act.schopenhauer1

    I think that consciousness is that additional layer that functions almost in contrast to this biological landscape and our brains have the tools that contradict our own nature. We recognise ourselves or have capacity for self-awareness and thus the activities of our bodies and our thoughts and opinions. This shapes how we treat the system by forming favourable cultural behaviours - monogamy, polygamy, asexuality = maximum diversity - and while our underlying motivations are always compelled by the primitive need for sexual contact, the epistemic features challenges how we approach that system.

    This is why some cultures - particularly paternalistic ones - contain systemic women's rights abuses that eliminate any capacity for these women to voice consciousness or self-awareness and thus removes that reproductive barrier. Women who possess such empowerment and control over their own bodies make choices because there is that subjective authenticity and as a consequence - since authenticity is a state of mind - are capable of wanting that love that I mentioned earlier to a point that they would prefer to be single and if they want children, are empowered enough to voice what they want. While women have that maternal instinct, there is a clear difference between contemporary western women and those paternalistic cultures where women end up have +5 children.
  • schopenhauer1
    2k
    Women who possess such empowerment and control over their own bodies make choices because there is that subjective authenticity and as a consequence - since authenticity is a state of mind - are capable of wanting that love that I mentioned earlier to a point that they would prefer to be single and if they want children, are empowered enough to voice what they want.TimeLine

    I am not sure why this is going down the gender politics route. I see what you are saying in terms of the fact that much of this authentic choice for relationships can only take place in a culture that allows for all genders to experience authenticity (in other words the ability to have choice). My main point still stands- people can be alone their whole life and be comfortable with who they are and miss out on any meaningful romantic relationship. Further, truly authentic love can be unequally distributed, rare, and can possibly lead to more frustration down the line. The avenues to obtain authentic love are also frustrating, clunky, non-harmonious, and often drama-filled.

    As I said earlier to someone else: However, the main point of my response here is how poorly this supposed "good" is attained and maintained. We haven't figured out the key to our own happiness in this seemingly important matter and so we fall into overanalysis, tropes, and other vague guidelines that simply make things worse. This story illustrated some of this. Overall, it is a tragedy and more proof of the negative character of human life (the basis for philosophy of pessimism).

    I think the main differences for why we are talking past each other is that where you are seeing themes of authenticity, I'm seeing themes of the (very often) futile nature of love/relationships/dating. I have agreed with your point that authenticity is part of truly loving someone for who they are and having them love you for who you are, but you have not addressed my main point which is the tragedy at the heart of this phenomenon.
  • Ciceronianus the White
    677
    Do you think, Bitette, that you probably lack an understanding of what the story means given you've enjoyed penis for supper for these long years?TimeLine
    God's teeth! How did I miss this savagery?

    The old Elizabethan (I think) exclamation appears pretentious, I know, but strikes me as appropriate since you apparently associate the penis with "what's for dinner." Not that God would, of course, though that may be debatable if you accept the doctrine of transubstantiation.

    It seems rather severe given the quality of the story in question, but I'm sure your comment, though stern, was well-intentioned and, like the story itself, meant to enlighten. "The Eternal Woman (or Feminine) draws us upward" (sorry, since we have Google we may as well use the original German--Das ewig Weibliche zieht uns hinan).
  • TimeLine
    2.7k
    It seems rather severe given the quality of the story in question, but I'm sure your comment, though stern, was well-intentioned and, like the story itself, meant to enlighten. "The Eternal Woman (or Feminine) draws us upward" (sorry, since we have Google we may as well use the original German--Das ewig Weibliche zieht uns hinan).Ciceronianus the White

    Indeed, the eternal feminine of a pure and submissive woman who functions as a gateway to sexual ecstasy must align herself according to the socially constructed ideals that her own identity and responses are shaped by what men expect her to be. Nevertheless, by keeping it real, it was not the best way to joke about women being socially conditioned to behave sexually in ways that men do not understand and those members who don't know me or are not my friend may intentionally misinterpret the meaning, so either way I apologised and apologise again. As for aligning the phallic with some gastronomic Eucharism, well, that's your soul and problem. :halo:
  • TimeLine
    2.7k
    My main point still stands- people can be alone their whole life and be comfortable with who they are and miss out on any meaningful romantic relationship. Further, truly authentic love can be unequally distributed, rare, and can possibly lead to more frustration down the line. The avenues to obtain authentic love are also frustrating, clunky, non-harmonious, and often drama-filled.schopenhauer1

    I am not disagreeing with your point, it is more a discussion not intended to undermine yours but to explain mine ("putting yourself out there") and I am particularly interested in the idea you say here regarding the avenues to obtain authentic love as I see authenticity as a state of mind just as much as I view love to be moral consciousness and thus a practice. If we play with the words a bit, it is the capacity to reason and therefore live with honesty and thus the non-harmonious frustrations is really some failure of communication either subjectively within yourself due to social constructs that delude your perceptions of reality, or the oft drama-filled miscommunication between one another.

    With the latter, if you are having trouble communicating, I would call that a sure sign that you are not right for one another and why I was suggesting happiness to be that natural 'click' or compatibility where you both seem to understand and admire one another comfortably and contentedly.That quiet desperation is really a failure to make this connection and yet still attempting - despite the lack of harmony - to make things work.

    We haven't figured out the key to our own happiness in this seemingly important matter and so we fall into overanalysis, tropes, and other vague guidelines that simply make things worse. This story illustrated some of this. Overall, it is a tragedy and more proof of the negative character of human life (the basis for philosophy of pessimism).schopenhauer1

    To see the story as a tragedy has shifted my understanding of it and of your points as I personally felt more disturbed by the experience rather than sympathetic to the underlying motivations, except for when she continued to have sex with him despite realising that she no longer wanted to that perhaps - afterwards - made me feel sorry for her. I don't see what happened as a negative though as though no hope exists, on the contrary her oscillation between the authentic and inauthentic illustrates cognitive possibilities, a type of coming of age or bildungsroman that will enable her to understand what honesty actually is. As I mentioned earlier, it is a terrible experience having a person that you like or are attracted to intentionally hurting you, but despite the hurt, you contrast and learn and in the process this social dynamism helps you to improve and develop that consciousness.

    I'm seeing themes of the (very often) futile nature of love/relationships/dating. I have agreed with your point that authenticity is part of truly loving someone for who they are and having them love you for who you are, but you have not addressed my main point which is the tragedy at the heart of this phenomenon.schopenhauer1

    This, I see, as an error and not a tragedy, that error where you select the wrong person and try and make it work, and all other aspects that lead you to make that decision - whether it be social constructs or some underlying loneliness and desperation - and the tragedy is when your entire life passes practising in-authenticity. It is really sad when people cannot see you for who you are, but it is a tragedy when you cannot see you for who you are. I don't see being alone as tragic unless there is an absence of authenticity (like the end of Brave New World)
  • Ciceronianus the White
    677

    It seems to me that throughout our sad history, we males when taken together have for various reasons characterized women as either impossibly bad or impossibly good, as it suits us and our circumstances. We're either gross or (grossly) sentimental about them, generally. I'm not sure what Goethe was thinking when he wrote that line, but it sure seems he had the impossibly good woman in mind.

    I wonder now and then whether we can be any more sensible. I think we can be in certain cases, but not as a rule, because I suspect when it comes to women we desire we stop thinking in any significant sense. I want to be clear about this, and don't want even to imply that we lose responsibility for what we do or are deserving of sympathy because we driven by impulses beyond our control. But I think that we can become exceedingly stupid and sentimental, though calculating. At worst, we become...well, repulsive. And that may inform the socially constructed ideals you refer to.

    I may be wrong, of course. I prefer Pelagius to Augustine, and so think if I have a soul it was pure as pure can be, untouched by sin, at my birth and since then am responsible for my woeful life and will be no matter how many times I ate his body and drank his blood. I stopped doing so long ago, though. My soul and my problem, as you say.
  • schopenhauer1
    2k
    It is really sad when people cannot see you for who you are, but it is a tragedy when you cannot see you for who you are. I don't see being alone as tragic unless there is an absence of authenticity (like the end of Brave New World)TimeLine

    Ah, then this is the crux of our current disagreement. Your quote there, seems at odds with what you said earlier: [Love is] "the only thing worth living for". Well, if real love, and relationships are so paramount, indeed so much so that it is "the only thing worth living for", then for MANY people not to experience this (I am talking specifically romantic love), would seem to be a tragedy. I don't see how you can vacillate between acknowledging it being such an important "good" of life, yet see the non-attainment of this paramount good as "not tragic", or "no big deal". Do you really think that the non-attainment of love/relationships/romantic love for many individuals (this very important good) is not bad? I don't see how this conclusion computes from your view. People are literally not experiencing of the greatest goods one can experience and can go a whole lifetime without it. Indeed, they may have other goods, but it cannot be denied that there is a major one that could have made that life better.
  • TimeLine
    2.7k
    It seems to me that throughout our sad history, we males when taken together have for various reasons characterized women as either impossibly bad or impossibly good, as it suits us and our circumstances. We're either gross or (grossly) sentimental about them, generally. I'm not sure what Goethe was thinking when he wrote that line, but it sure seems he had the impossibly good woman in mind.Ciceronianus the White

    Goethe was almost biblical and this dichotomy between the harlot and the holy illustrates the subjective conflict between instinctual desires or the "bad" and moral responsibility or the "good" that seems to be projected and translated in women. We tempt and inspire the same struggle and thus men create these artificial constructs that they project into an ideal woman and women play the part in order to make themselves attractive. It is superficial communication that enables two people who don't really like each other to stay together, a type of possessiveness rather than harmony. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?

    I wonder now and then whether we can be any more sensible. I think we can be in certain cases, but not as a rule, because I suspect when it comes to women we desire we stop thinking in any significant sense. I want to be clear about this, and don't want even to imply that we lose responsibility for what we do or are deserving of sympathy because we driven by impulses beyond our control. But I think that we can become exceedingly stupid and sentimental, though calculating. At worst, we become...well, repulsive. And that may inform the socially constructed ideals you refer to.Ciceronianus the White

    Love is a practice or an ordination of character, about how we use our own mind and if a person cannot take care of themselves, how is it they can take care of others? If we cannot love ourselves, how can we love others? This subjective vulnerability and lack of self-esteem compels one to conformity or an almost delusional pathology, but as Erich Fromm stated: "Only the person who has faith in himself is able to be faithful to others.” I believe men do deserve sympathy because a deeper vulnerability pressures them to silence articulating their own identity. The pressure of masculinity. If they ever reach that unity within themselves, that honesty where they separate themselves from these socially expected ideals, such men can be inspiring.
  • TimeLine
    2.7k
    Your quote there, seems at odds with what you said earlier: [Love is] "the only thing worth living for". Well, if real love, and relationships are so paramount, indeed so much so that it is "the only thing worth living for", then for MANY people not to experience this (I am talking specifically romantic love), would seem to be a tragedy.schopenhauer1

    The problem is you see love to be romantic love as though when I said love is the only thing worth living for that it is somehow meant for one person and so if you never find that one person than it is tragic. Love - like authenticity - is a state of mind, something that we give and if we only love one person and yet remain indifferent to all others, that is nothing but an enlarged ego or narcissism. You love only because you are loved.

    These delusions that people conform to are rooted in this vulnerability, this lack of self-esteem and so when I said that love is the only thing worth living for, I meant reaching a genuine understanding of the world around them because "love" is moral consciousness. It is why some people can be physically alone but never feel lonely, whereas others are in relationships and have many people around them and yet feel anxious and lonely. It is that subjective, inner life that I speak of and working towards attaining this harmony with ourselves - love - is the only thing worth living for, because without it our understanding of the world around us is artificial at best.

    It is not to say that authenticity in romance is impossible, the love between two people who have reached that subjective harmony and have overcome that narcissism and lack of self-esteem to see with their own eyes and not with socially constructed ideals. If they can "see" then they can see each other. The tragedy only exists in those that never attain that self-awareness.
  • Ciceronianus the White
    677
    Goethe was almost biblical and this dichotomy between the harlot and the holy illustrates the subjective conflict between instinctual desires or the "bad" and moral responsibility or the "good" that seems to be projected and translated in women. We tempt and inspire the same struggle and thus men create these artificial constructs that they project into an ideal woman and women play the part in order to make themselves attractive.TimeLine

    There's a certain danger in being desired or thought desirable by men, it seems.

    The "bad" women to such as Goethe would probably be those who arouse the brute needs of the male (I've always wanted to use this silly phrase and couldn't resist using it when the opportunity arose) and the "good" women would be those who inspire our loftier ideals and so lead us onward and upward. It's likely a part of the old distinction we've liked to make between the merely physical and the mental or spiritual, the latter always being superior to the former, but the former always being paramount regardless of what we say, especially when it comes to sex where we (men I mean) are so motivated by what is visual.

    I believe men do deserve sympathy because a deeper vulnerability pressures them to silence articulating their own identity. The pressure of masculinity.TimeLine

    The incendiary and divisive Camille Paglia claims that we men must define our identifies against our mothers or we'll be swallowed up by them. An image at once disturbing and suggestive. She can be such fun, sometimes.

    But don't be too kind to us. Pity may be more appropriate than sympathy when it comes to these things. And caution. The pressure you speak of is largely self-imposed.

    I appreciate your responses. I think better of the story and the author because of them, and may even understand them somewhat.
  • schopenhauer1
    2k
    The problem is you see love to be romantic love as though when I said love is the only thing worth living for that it is somehow meant for one person and so if you never find that one person than it is tragic. Love - like authenticity - is a state of mind, something that we give and if we only love one person and yet remain indifferent to all others, that is nothing but an enlarged ego or narcissism. You love only because you are loved.TimeLine

    This is very much perennial thinking there that most people can get on board with.

    These delusions that people conform to are rooted in this vulnerability, this lack of self-esteem and so when I said that love is the only thing worth living for, I meant reaching a genuine understanding of the world around them because "love" is moral consciousness.TimeLine

    Okay, but here you are really stretching the word "love" to such a wide scope, you should probably use another word (even agape vs. eros would be fine). However, you knew, based on the confines of this thread which was started from a short story on dating/relationships/romantic love, that the definition I am using is about romantic love- that is to say that involving having an emotional and physical bond with one (or more?) particular person(s).

    It is why some people can be physically alone but never feel lonely, whereas others are in relationships and have many people around them and yet feel anxious and lonely. It is that subjective, inner life that I speak of and working towards attaining this harmony with ourselves - love - is the only thing worth living for, because without it our understanding of the world around us is artificial at best.TimeLine

    Again, I think you are broadening the world "love" to such a degree that it no longer fits into the topic. It's like making a category error. You are applying a concept of "being at harmony with oneself and the universe" as equivalent to romantic love, and I think this creates a false sense that what you are saying is really addressing the scope of this argument.

    It is not to say that authenticity in romance is impossible, the love between two people who have reached that subjective harmony and have overcome that narcissism and lack of self-esteem to see with their own eyes and not with socially constructed ideals. If they can "see" then they can see each other. The tragedy only exists in those that never attain that self-awareness.TimeLine

    I really think you are putting so much emphasis on people's self-actualized sense of themselves, it overshoots the issue at hand. Humans are social creatures. We have thrived on committing to intimate/romantic relationships since the beginning of the species, in all societies (whether polygamist or monogamist, tribal or post-industrial, etc.). This social reality is simply not experienced by many people, and the phenomena itself leads to frustration.

    So, even if someone is fully self-actualized (a modern concept I find lacking but that's another thread), a big part of being human (intimate relationships) either a) leads to more frustration or b) is not even experienced, thus making a life worse off or not as good as it could have been compared to the rare others who may have this experience of a meaningful relationship.
  • TimeLine
    2.7k
    I appreciate your responses. I think better of the story and the author because of them, and may even understand them somewhat.Ciceronianus the White

    Thanks, and likewise.

    But don't be too kind to us. Pity may be more appropriate than sympathy when it comes to these things. And caution. The pressure you speak of is largely self-imposed.Ciceronianus the White

    I do not see it as self-imposed. It is a given identity that narrates predictable male traits and guarantees this disembodiment or unsettling disconnection from the self in an attempt to find some solidarity with his environment, and society configures and regulates these archetypes through socially coercive Othering making men feel impotent should they fail to adhere to these patterns of masculinity.

    This dyad exposes the vulnerability or lack of esteem in men and to call it a "weakness" or to say it is "self-imposed" is another mechanism that reinforces something "masculine" and does not productively explore the phenomenon leading men to conform.

    I would not call it self-imposed, but rather a limitation of power. "Masculinity" as a socially constructed concept is a product of this relational ontology, where the solution for this lack of power is deviously the very thing that causes it in the first place, thus conforming enables an acceptance that leads to feelings of (inauthentic) empowerment when society is the reason why they felt dis-empowered in the first place.

    Covering a bullet wound with a band-aid. The solution to this is escaping; if one is addicted to drugs, they need to go through the withdrawal. We need to get away from the toxic environment to improve, even if it means leaving loved ones. Education is another; self-education would suffice but learning and reading improves the psychological barriers in our search for authentic empowerment, but with so many barriers to this - while we have the cognitive tools to achieve this - makes me further sympathise why many men fail.
  • TimeLine
    2.7k
    Okay, but here you are really stretching the word "love" to such a wide scope, you should probably use another word (even agape vs. eros would be fine). However, you knew, based on the confines of this thread which was started from a short story on dating/relationships/romantic love, that the definition I am using is about romantic love- that is to say that involving having an emotional and physical bond with one (or more?) particular person(s).schopenhauer1

    It is delusional to believe that some symbiosis is possible between two people and despite that sexual/physical bond, the ultimate reality is that it is just sex, we are just sharing our time together and why I say that philia is the best form of love. The futility is real and we play "games" with ourselves and others by portraying socially engineered notions of "love" to pretend some validity to this symbiosis - that you are a part of me - but this type of union is nothing but an exposure of your own subjective vulnerability and loneliness. In the end, it is a stale relationship between two actors mimicking socially constructed traits because they are too afraid to admit that separation is real.

    If it is impossible to form that unity with another person, what is this feeling then? It is in you, love is something you feel, something you give. Not share. Give. If that is reciprocated, it is because your partner is giving it to you. The relationship is nothing more than two separate people that form a bond by equally expressing this love. So, when this love is authentic - that inner life contrasted by a moral consciousness - the communication between the two is genuine, because there is no underlying narcissism, no archetype or lies or socially constructed delusions. This is something within you and so when you say that I am stretching the word, you are actually trying to reduce it to definitions based on the ways in which we can express it, yet this doesn't change that it is us expressing it.
  • Ciceronianus the White
    677
    This dyad exposes the vulnerability or lack of esteem in men and to call it a "weakness" or to say it is "self-imposed" is another mechanism that reinforces something "masculine" and does not productively explore the phenomenon leading men to conformTimeLine

    I'm a cynic (in the common sense) trying to be a Stoic (in the uncommon sense). So, I have what may be a peculiar view on this issue. I think this lack of esteem is merited, as I think we're all too readily pathetic (although I think we try to use even this to our advantage; we're calculating, as I said). But, I also think that it results from a needless and harmful concern with things not in our control.

    This isn't necessarily to say we're weak. We're thoughtless, however, and in a very literal sense. We just don't think, being intent on satisfaction of a compelling need. We're selfish in so complete a manner that even Ayn Rand would find it hard to believe it virtuous.
  • schopenhauer1
    2k
    I'll just point out places I agree and disagree.
    It is delusional to believe that some symbiosis is possible between two people and despite that sexual/physical bond, the ultimate reality is that it is just sex, we are just sharing our time together and why I say that philia is the best form of love.TimeLine

    Actually, I agree with this "deflationary" approach. Indeed, the the major difference between romantic love vs. philia friendship or other types is its basis in either sexual attraction or sexual bonding. It is funny, this point is missed for the sake of "decency". The sexual nature is assumed in our titles for romantic partners, but rarely explicit- titles like "girlfriend", "boyfriend", "partner", "wife/husband", "fiance", etc. This isn't just a fond friend.

    The futility is real and we play "games" with ourselves and others by portraying socially engineered notions of "love" to pretend some validity to this symbiosis - that you are a part of me - but this type of union is nothing but an exposure of your own subjective vulnerability and loneliness.TimeLine

    The key word here is loneliness. At bottom, we form pair bonds with another because we are lonely creatures. What you speak of is one of the tragedies of the human animal. We are at bottom restless willing creatures (striving-but-for-nothing-in-particular..pace Schopenhauer). Loneliness is just a manifestation of this "well of restlessness".

    Humans are social animals and manifestations of restless will. If done right, there is a "tamping down effect" of some of that restlessness (it will never go away though, and just moves on to different restless needs, as it is in our natures). This is the main benefit of a romantic partner though. You are emotionally invested in someone because you care for another and they care for you. You are also sharing physical affection with someone. At best, you can focus your restless will on other things. And I agree, much of this desire for (at least one) person to care about you (physically and emotionally) is simply out of our selfish, lonely wills. It really does not have any greater motivation behind it.

    However, the difference between your view and mine, is mine doesn't discount it as unnecessary or to be abolished, but see it as a necessary phenomenon to desire this "tamping down" of the lonely/vulnerable will. Meditation, focus on a cause, work, hobbies, charity, and other (supposedly) higher end activities don't get rid of this very social animal/human/restless/lonely-motivated need for close physical and emotional affection with a close partner. The "tamping down" effect is desired from this relationship. I don't agree with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as being a good model for human motivation, however, I do agree with Maslow that finding a significant other is an important desire in the inventory of the restless/bored/lonely humans desires (for its "tamping down" effect), and makes a person "better off" if achieved with minimal frustration (which is rare).

    In the end, it is a stale relationship between two actors mimicking socially constructed traits because they are too afraid to admit that separation is real.TimeLine

    Here you hit on an interesting point. Though a life would be better off with a (non-frustrating) romantic relationship, often people's relationships are actually just ways to provide some sort of status (look I am with someone and not alone). Really that relationship is nothing more than two people that get together sometimes and pretend to do the relationship-routine. The "tamping down" effect does not really take place, because the actual care and affection are not really had. You also bring up a point about separation. No matter how authentic the relationship, the "Other" (capital O) is always there. The significant other can never really know you completely. A person's full personality/character/motivations/thoughts/ticks are always hidden, even from the closest of people. No one can be fully understood and this can cause frustration and leftover loneliness (afterall, our wills are endless, and never satiated anyways).

    If it is impossible to form that unity with another person, what is this feeling then? It is in you, love is something you feel, something you give. Not share. Give. If that is reciprocated, it is because your partner is giving it to you. The relationship is nothing more than two separate people that form a bond by equally expressing this love.TimeLine

    I agree mainly. Emotions are not in some ethereal realm of shared experience. Rather, you are having emotions, with another who might be roughly correlating the same experience in their umwelt. However, again, it is the effect of the emotion when properly achieved (and with little frustration) that is desired. That is to say, the tamping down effect, to care for and be cared for.

    Again though, the problem I addressed is the tragedy that this isn't experienced more than a small number of people for various reasons I've mentioned. Our process for attaining this desired good is not great it seems and even if there were actually demonstrated improvements on it, the prisoner's dilemma would probably make any attempt towards this solution a non-starter.
  • TimeLine
    2.7k
    Again though, the problem I addressed is the tragedy that this isn't experienced more than a small number of people for various reasons I've mentioned. Our process for attaining this desired good is not great it seems and even if there were actually demonstrated improvements on it, the prisoner's dilemma would probably make any attempt towards this solution a non-starter.schopenhauer1

    I began developing feelings for a man who was completely absorbed by these socially engineered constructions of reality that it was impossible to connect or communicate with him. That was the tragedy.

    Love is possible only if two persons communicate with each other from the centre of their existence, hence if each one of them experiences himself from the centre of his existence. Only in this 'central experience" is human reality, only here is aliveness, only here is the basis for love. Love, experienced thus is a constant challenge; it is not a resting place, but a moving, growing, working together...they are one with each other by being one with themselves.

    It was not that I wanted him to love me, in fact my affection for him was very gentle and distant, but he was completely divided within himself, between the real "him" and the false identity formed by his environment as though disembodied from that "central experience" and it was very obvious to me. He had feelings for me, but he didn't understand that it was because I was "real" and a feeling that came deep from that "central experience" and this fucked him up, he could not stop hurting me as though at war in himself because his understanding of reality, that false life that he believed was real, was static. Love is moving, growing but his life was and will remain dormant. He is not alive.

    I think I fell in love with him because of that subjective battle he was experiencing, as though I was egging him on in the hope that he would 'wake up' but it was just too hard for him and that is why I crumbled to bits. As mentioned earlier, a friend of mine broke out of that false reality by completely abandoning it. He just walked away from a life he was deluded to build despite the controversy of his departure, choosing only to remain in contact with some of his friends who are good people. That is a huge thing to do, completely start over, but he is happier because of it. His honesty is what makes him feel alive.
145678Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment