A deep faithful one.
Hot but light.
I don't understand this question...
I know Brice means well. I don't know, my mind was kind of racing in the middle of the night and for some reason I was interested in continuing our on going debate. Me and Brice have been arguing about these things for awhile and lately some of it has been on my mind due to life's circumstances.
Edit: Great quote Woofer. You understand what I was saying, as always.
Mike, I'm still thinking about Silent Bob.
Originally Posted by obscurejude
I know Brice means well. I don't know, my mind was kind of racing in the middle of the night and for some reason I was interested in continuing our on going debate. Me and Brice have been arguing about these things for awhile and lately some of it has been on my mind due to life's circumstances.
Edit: Great quote Woofer. You understand what I was saying, as always.
Mike, I'm still thinking about Silent Bob.
And as horrible as it seems that we can't ever really connect, really know another mind, I'm not sure that we would be better off if we could. Do we really want to know what goes on in the dark niches of our lovers' minds? Friends? Enemies? Acquaintances?
Somehow I think we would be even less happy. Removing the uncertainty may seem for the best, but it would also unveil disagreement, disgust, perversion, doubt, whatever that are best left to be revealed (or not) at the discretion of the other.
It'll take a lot more than words and guns,
A whole lot more than riches and muscle.
The hands of the many must join as one.
And together we'll cross the river.
Puscifer, "The Humbling River"
I know I'm gearing this thread off topic, but this discussion on the inadequacy of language reminded me of this clip from Waking Life. If you haven't seen it, I think you should......
Also, you're right, in a sense, about people not being able to express how others feel. But you can't do that for yourself either, at least in the completed sense that you seem to be pitching. Recalling Descartes, Immanuel Kant calls it the "problem of other minds." Descartes doubted his own existence and thus ultimately that process convinced him that he was in fact real, but that is where the guarantee ended. Language fails at every level in regards to accurately conveying perception.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKFW5OkJb4U"]YouTube - Waking Life - Language[/ame]
Agreed; terrific contribution.Of course, I don't want to pry into your personal life; it's only that you and Brice both sounded pretty defensive here. I agree with all you posted, Ryan, but you know the old saying: "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." I thought that the gentle moral from that open-minded comedy might be a better way of expressing my suggestions.What do you mean?Kevin Smith is a Jersey Catholic. *shrug*
Sure, that response is a bit of a cop out, but the point is that, yes, the conversation is necessary, in some form, for if we cannot at all tell what love is, then what is to prevent it from passing us by?"I'm not a smart man, Jenny, but I know what love is."
--Forrest GumpNo, I still think that...
Or, if you meant that one has to have imposed artificial limits in one's own mind before one would try to define it, then I don't think that that is necessarily true, either. Consider the word "hand." In true point of fact, what it refers to cannot be divided from the "arm" and the "body" without killing it. The word is just a convention... yet it is a useful convention. If you insist that no "part of the body" be called by any name other than "body," (and include the food eaten, air breathed, and books read) even the most enlightened, holistic health care would be impossible. I see no reason to not look at true love and how it works.
Everything? Surely you don't mean that literally. You don't believe that there is such a thing as falsehood?I have felt the things you described in that earlier post, but it's a far leap to conclude from that that everyone always feels that way.
I am pretty sure that there are sometimes people who just don't give a damn.
Topic? There's a... huh? What's that? Wizard & GlassGood grief!
No, believe it or not, I'm getting to that. (Er... I hope.)
That's why I explicitly said in the post that some of it was related to personal interaction with Brice. He's seen me tear up over Aristotle in person, and if my conviction/passion doesn't show through writing...well, I'm not sure what to do about that. I would think it obvious that I care a great deal about the subject, but I don't care enough about people's perception at the moment to edit my post(s). I deliberately tried not to sound condescending, but with Brice its an uphill battle trying to convey conviction about anything. I know him pretty well and if I thought he'd take offense to anything I'd written, then I wouldn't have written it. While the post was spontaneous in content, I spent quite awhile making sure it flowed well and made sense because the subject matter was so broad and encompassing. My point is that it was a careful post and not just philosophical masturbation or dribble at the expense of Brice or anyone.Agreed; terrific contribution.Of course, I don't want to pry into your personal life; it's only that you and Brice both sounded pretty defensive here. I agree with all you posted, Ryan, but you know the old saying: "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." I thought that the gentle moral from that open-minded comedy might be a better way of expressing my suggestions.What do you mean?
Sure, that response is a bit of a cop out, but the point is that, yes, the conversation is necessary, in some form, for if we cannot at all tell what love is, then what is to prevent it from passing us by?
And I was being defensive, at least to a degree. That's the way I am, though I try very hard not to be mean spirited. I think the old philosopher's view of the pursuit of virtue demands conviction and the tools to argue it convincingly. Sometimes that's a fine line and I'm open to your criticism, I just fail to see where I came across in any way that wasn't proper. If the post seemed pretentious or heavy on name dropping, it wasn't meant to. I often quote others in order to give my own posts objectivity and hopefully more weight. I have a very communal understanding of knowledge thanks to Ludwig Wittgenstein. I almost resist trying to have original thoughts.
I don't know what you mean by cop out. I don't think Eliot or any other early modernist was copping out of anything. God was dead, and their pursuit of something morally cogent in the wake of that remains one of the most inspiring things for me personally that I've ever come across. My reading of Eliot, D.H. Lawrence, Frost etc... is religious and spiritual. Feel free to expand if you'd like.
And to date, I hate Kevin Smith movies, so I really had no clue what you were trying to say. Went completely over my head... sorry.
This is something that I think about often Woofer, and I'm still thinking of a way to articulate it my lady. I think its a premise that lends itself to extremes, and those are always fun to think about. As always, you make excellent observations.
Edit: Great quote Woofer. You understand what I was saying, as always.
And as horrible as it seems that we can't ever really connect, really know another mind, I'm not sure that we would be better off if we could. Do we really want to know what goes on in the dark niches of our lovers' minds? Friends? Enemies? Acquaintances?
Somehow I think we would be even less happy. Removing the uncertainty may seem for the best, but it would also unveil disagreement, disgust, perversion, doubt, whatever that are best left to be revealed (or not) at the discretion of the other.
Well, now, we're about to get neurotic. No criticism intended. No need for us to continue to apologize for having apologized. I think it's fine.
I respect that, very much.
I also like the fact that there are many, very diverse people participating in this discussion. Do ya?
Pointing out only that the promiscuous lifestyle is unpleasant, using discomfort as the basis of your argument, rather than meaningful reasoning, that is kind of a cop out. Maybe that's why you don't like Silent Bob. But, to repeat my point, it still does state that there are better options than mere surrender to chaos.
gonna go with nietsche on this one and say that "from chaos comes order", so the first step to enlightenment is surrendering to the fact that if the universe/existence makes any sense then it makes sense on a level of reality not graspable to the finite human mind, the only reason I dont say that the universe/existence makes no sense at all is because that would be stating an absolute truth and realizing that nothing is absolute and that all truths are arbitrary is part of surrendering to the chaos necessary prior to mentally existing on a higher levelWell, now, we're about to get neurotic. No criticism intended. No need for us to continue to apologize for having apologized. I think it's fine.
I respect that, very much.
I also like the fact that there are many, very diverse people participating in this discussion. Do ya?
Pointing out only that the promiscuous lifestyle is unpleasant, using discomfort as the basis of your argument, rather than meaningful reasoning, that is kind of a cop out. Maybe that's why you don't like Silent Bob. But, to repeat my point, it still does state that there are better options than mere surrender to chaos.
if the worlds gonna end then let's get it over with, i got shit to do
I still don't understand what you are specifically referring to in regards to what I had written. Eliot, as well as many early modernist, returned to the classics to find a more stable morality in light of the fragmentation that had beset Christianity post Reformation/Enlightenment. The impetus behind the chronological contrast was not surrendering to chaos but attempting to rise above their budding existential/epistemological despair.
I can email you a paper that I wrote about Mathew Arnold's recovery of Aristotle in light of a late Victorian aesthetic that comes to fruition in Oscar Wilde's notion of "art for art's sake." The argument is drawn out, mirrors Eliot, and is directly opposed to to what you seem to be implying that I said. Again, I'm a bit confused.
And Flagg, its hard to take you seriously when you can't even spell concepts and authors correctly. Why don't you slow down, use spell check, and let your grammar catch up to what you are trying to say. If you can't spell Nietzsche, then don't quote him.
If you want to participate in serious discussion, then take writing seriously.
I am in college and yes sometimes my spelling is off, that however should not create 2 many problems as when I'm on the internet i am not in school, when typing about something I care about much (as with that philosophy) my brain races ahead of my fingersAnd Flagg, its hard to take you seriously when you can't even spell concepts and authors correctly. Why don't you slow down, use spell check, and let your grammar catch up to what you are trying to say. If you can't spell Nietzsche, then don't quote him.
If you want to participate in serious discussion, then take writing seriously.
in the meantime, i'll quote whoever I want to, correct name spelling be damnedits all part of surrendering one's self to chaos
if the worlds gonna end then let's get it over with, i got shit to do
This is one of the reasons I hate talking about things serious on this website more often than not. If you can't even take it serious enough to correct your own spelling mistakes, then what's the point? Just stick to lighter discussion. You're not surrendering to chaos, but to laziness. I'll go back to ignoring your misspelled philosophically masturbatory remarks like normal.I am in college and yes sometimes my spelling is off, that however should not create 2 many problems as when I'm on the internet i am not in school, when typing about something I care about much (as with that philosophy) my brain races ahead of my fingersAnd Flagg, its hard to take you seriously when you can't even spell concepts and authors correctly. Why don't you slow down, use spell check, and let your grammar catch up to what you are trying to say. If you can't spell Nietzsche, then don't quote him.
If you want to participate in serious discussion, then take writing seriously.
in the meantime, i'll quote whoever I want to, correct name spelling be damned
its a typo and i didnt freakin notice it, honestly man get over itThis is one of the reasons I hate talking about things serious on this website more often than not. If you can't even take it serious enough to correct your own spelling mistakes, then what's the point? Just stick to lighter discussion. You're not surrendering to chaos, but to laziness. I'll go back to ignoring your misspelled philosophically masturbatory remarks like normal.I am in college and yes sometimes my spelling is off, that however should not create 2 many problems as when I'm on the internet i am not in school, when typing about something I care about much (as with that philosophy) my brain races ahead of my fingersAnd Flagg, its hard to take you seriously when you can't even spell concepts and authors correctly. Why don't you slow down, use spell check, and let your grammar catch up to what you are trying to say. If you can't spell Nietzsche, then don't quote him.
If you want to participate in serious discussion, then take writing seriously.
in the meantime, i'll quote whoever I want to, correct name spelling be damned
as u can tell I dont really respect anything... but if Id did I've have a list of what i dont respect and you'd now be on it!
good day to you sir!
*throws bowler hat on the ground and stomps on it*
if the worlds gonna end then let's get it over with, i got shit to do
And that's exactly my point and the reason why you should just stick to casual discussions. I have noticed and obviously its gotten under my skin. I usually ignore you, but since you had to interject in the middle of a discussion I was actually enjoying, I felt compelled to respond. I can't believe that you claim to have an invested interest in philosophy, particularly Nietzsche. I sincerely don't believe he'd be flattered by your response to him or your gross misappropriation of whatever you think existentialism is.
Oh, and I don't mind being on your list- not at all. And it seems kind of inconsistent to be stomping on your hat like some pissed off kid at a birthday party when you don't care about anything or anyone in the universe.
Good day to you too.
Dear friends,
I have to remind you that all discussions here are open for everybody, so there can be no such thing as "interjecting in the middle". Also, nobody, whatever his level of education, can be considered the ultimate expert on anything, or should try to deprive others of the right to voice their opinion.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why don't you just say my name Jean? Don't be a chickenshit about it. And thank you for misinterpreting everything I just wrote.
True. Though to my mind, that's to do with the mentality of a person and a not a definition of love. It's one of those words that is overused and under appreciated. A bit like someone saying, "I have flu." every time they have a cold - if you have flu, you know about it and a common cold is no comparison. Just like real, knock your socks off love is no comparison to passing affection.
I see what you're saying, but you can't deny that there is a spectrum of love, rather than any fond emotion simply being love. To me, rather than a spectrum - which I visualise as a line, I think love is more like a sphere - with the core being the really powerful love that we are sometimes lucky enough to experience, and the other forms of love radiating out in layers - with the most external layers being things like "fondness" and "liking".
I also think that sexual attraction is something completely different from love. You could have sex with someone you found attractive purely for the asthetics and satisfaction of it, which needn't detract from the act itself. But having sex with someone you love brings a different quality to the act, that is satisfying on different levels leading to a greater sense of fulfillment - whether that is real or simply perceived. (Although, what is the reality of love vs. perception of it?) Whichever it is, my point is that, love can add to sex - but is is not a form of love in itself.
I also think it's important to separate obsession from love. Though generally, this can only be recognised in hindsight.
Yes I agree, that anyone making a statement should be able to back it up - although in the case of love, I don't think there is any greater proof one way or another, than personal experience.
I know that, in the context of the original question this thread poses, that love in this instance means the love of two people in a sexual relationship, but I think that the base concept of love itself encompasses true love in all types of relationship - sexual, platonic, between friends, between family etc. I think the distinctions arise in the degrees of love. As, as I said above, I believe sexual attraction is it's own separate entity from love.Love is about action, and the actions between lovers are unique, just as the actions between friends are. They serve different teleological purposes and appeal to different parts of our nature. For example, since sexual tension isn't a factor of platonic friendships, more emphasis is placed on the metaphysical/spiritual side of common ideology. Such an understanding will yield different actions, and actions (praxis) are the measure of any relationship.
I agree here too, but I would say that even in the case of unrequited love - we still experience the feeling or state, of love very genuinely for ourselves, until the point where we begin to draw comparisons between our own actions and feelings and that of the other person involved. Then our perception shifts and we may deny to ourselves that we were ever "in love" - and while requited love is undoubtly richer, we still felt love in that initial instance.Also, you're right, in a sense, about people not being able to express how others feel. But you can't do that for yourself either, at least in the completed sense that you seem to be pitching. Recalling Descartes, Immanuel Kant calls it the "problem of other minds."
I may have gone a bit off track there
You were talking about the conversation between classical philosophy and the later existentialists, and the insight which this offers on modern life. In the present, we have our own pressing moral fragmentation with the post-modernist trend. Please don't assume that putting forth my own arguments on the greater discussion of this thread implies that I am misinterpreting your intention in specific assertions.I still don't understand what you are specifically referring to in regards to what I had written. Eliot, as well as many early modernist, returned to the classics to find a more stable morality in light of the fragmentation that had beset Christianity post Reformation/Enlightenment. The impetus behind the chronological contrast was not surrendering to chaos but attempting to rise above their budding existential/epistemological despair.
I can email you a paper that I wrote about Mathew Arnold's recovery of Aristotle in light of a late Victorian aesthetic that comes to fruition in Oscar Wilde's notion of "art for art's sake." The argument is drawn out, mirrors Eliot, and is directly opposed to to what you seem to be implying that I said. Again, I'm a bit confused.
BTW, I'd love to read your paper.
I don't often agree with Nietzsche, but I do agree with Socrates: "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."gonna go with nietsche on this one and say that "from chaos comes order", so the first step to enlightenment is surrendering to the fact that if the universe/existence makes any sense then it makes sense on a level of reality not graspable to the finite human mind, the only reason I dont say that the universe/existence makes no sense at all is because that would be stating an absolute truth and realizing that nothing is absolute and that all truths are arbitrary is part of surrendering to the chaos necessary prior to mentally existing on a higher level
Just don't forget that the first step is not also the last.
Ryan, Jean is no coward. He was just trying to be impartial.
Really -- peace.
Lisa: A bit off track, maybe, yes. I think that Ryan was totally right in what you quoted from him, and that your "distinctions in degree" is a mistake.
Still, that's a very interesting post, and I'd really like to hear what the others think about it.
Last edited by pathoftheturtle; 07-02-2009 at 08:20 AM. Reason: Clarity. -- peace
I'm not intentionally neglecting the conversation btw. I just find that a toothache/pain pills/ and lack of sleep aren't very condusive (sp?) to deep thoughts.
Well, get well soon. Very glad to hear that you're keeping this in mind.
>>Sending goodmind<<
Reading it through again, I think I may have been more on track than I thought - in regards to letti's original discussion of whether their love was "true" or if one loved more than the other
In what way do you disagree? I personally thought that when you saidand I said "degrees of love", we were saying the same thing.It's true that there are many forms of love and many ways to love
You're right, it is not to do with the definition of "love." It is to do with the definition of "true." Other motives mislabelled as love are, I believe, the only reason for the existence of the phrase "true love." It's not a matter of distinguishing true love from "lesser" love, but of distinguishing real love from false love. Trueness in love is not about loving more intensely, it is about loving more consistently.True. Though to my mind, that's to do with the mentality of a person and a not a definition of love.Absolutely, and I do not see any distinction whatsoever between love for a family member and love for a spouse.
Furthermore, I don't love my real friends any less than I love my brothers.
In short: When someone sleeps with his wife, that is love. When he does not sleep with his friend's wife, that is also love. Actions are the measure of any relationship, but distinctions in action are based on conscious choice, not on emotional quantity.
Once more, it was an interesting post, Darkthoughts. I know that there was more to it than what I've just quoted, and you have, in fact, made a number of good points on this thread. I just think that too much of the discussion has continually revolved around the question of whether it is even possible to speak intelligibly about love. For those who may wonder, though, I do indeed see the elephant in this room.These are, and always should be, personal decisions."Poets, priests, and politicians
Have words to thank for their positions;
Words that scream for your submission,
And no one's jamming their transmission...
And when their eloquence escapes you,
Their logic ties you up and rapes you!"
--The Police,
"De Do Do Do"Still, it seems a shame that we don't communicate more. What a tragedy it is that love is the area of life most shrouded in superstition and ignorance.BRUCE: How do you make somebody love you without affecting free will?
GOD:Welcome to My world, son. If you figure that one out, let Me know.
--Bruce Almighty
If we hope to understand Roland and Susan, here's another good question that might help -- Hart Thorin and his wife, Olive; did they love one another?
At heart, though, I think that this thread is really based on one short passage: Chapter 10, Section 10. Here are some key lines:"...The Tower is our ka; mine especially. But it isn't hers, nor she mine. ...
When we finish with yonder men and she finishes with Mejis, her part in our ka-tet ends. ... I would choose Susan in an instant, if not for one thing: the Tower is crumbling, and if it falls, everything we know will be swept away. ...Let her live a good life and long with someone else -- she will, in time. As for me, I choose the Tower."
-- Roland
I don't know if that's altogether fair. I don't think that Roland ever meant to just abandon her there.The words "misguided lust that almost became love but couldn't be because he betrayed her" comes to mind for Roland. The time in the series when I hated Roland the most was when he decided to leave susan behind. Did he not understand that susan had killed deputy dave and that the witch hated her? That her Aunt was out to get her? I think that this is Roland's most cold blooded moment in the series, because he had to have known that susan would come to a bad end and once again made a terrible, selfish decision and this is yet another reason i believe the tower will reject his prideful ass every time he approaches it.
And yet i love roland all the same
Interesting conversation
Anyway back to the book.
It was true love and here's the reasons:
1. Roland thought it was, over the years. Do we all remember our teenage first love as something special? Some do. Some (including me) don't. When I had to leave that boy I thought I'd never forget him. My mother made me leave him, so it was sudden, forced and sooooo dramatic. I also felt extremely guilty and had him in my mind as a hero at that time. Now many years passed (not thousand but many) and I can't even remember his face. Real love happened to me much later. Roland, on the other hand, considers Susan as his one and real love. If he does so, he is right. Who are we to tell him that he's wrong?
2. I agree that true love is an everyday thing. But this is literature, and not real life. It's an example of pure young love with a dramatic ending. Common in literature. It was meant to be true love. Stephen King tried to write about young deep love. He didn't need a whole 800 pages book to write about a hot light relationship. If we don't buy the concept because we are realists that is our problem, not King's, not Roland's, not Susan's.
3. It was true love because I wanted it to be true love. It gave to me a much better reading experience. As a reader I decide how to "see" a subject which isn't already clear. In this case I think it was.
What an excellent post.Interesting conversation
Anyway back to the book.
It was true love and here's the reasons:
1. Roland thought it was, over the years. Do we all remember our teenage first love as something special? Some do. Some (including me) don't. When I had to leave that boy I thought I'd never forget him. My mother made me leave him, so it was sudden, forced and sooooo dramatic. I also felt extremely guilty and had him in my mind as a hero at that time. Now many years passed (not thousand but many) and I can't even remember his face. Real love happened to me much later. Roland, on the other hand, considers Susan as his one and real love. If he does so, he is right. Who are we to tell him that he's wrong?
2. I agree that true love is an everyday thing. But this is literature, and not real life. It's an example of pure young love with a dramatic ending. Common in literature. It was meant to be true love. Stephen King tried to write about young deep love. He didn't need a whole 800 pages book to write about a hot light relationship. If we don't buy the concept because we are realists that is our problem, not King's, not Roland's, not Susan's.
3. It was true love because I wanted it to be true love. It gave to me a much better reading experience. As a reader I decide how to "see" a subject which isn't already clear. In this case I think it was.
I love the way you think and write about things. It's a real pleasure to read your words. Not because I agree with most of them but because you have a really nice way to feel about things.
Roland would have understood.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
