Welcome to Gaia! ::

Plus, I felt bad for, like, weeks after I did it to the one girl...

An interesting study, and a wise one to undertake.

Let me start off by saying that I agree with much of what you say, though not wholly to the degree you say it.

Love is a part of life--one of the better parts, but only one lens through which to look at life. If you only love, and only seek love, how will you know what it is to hate? To loathe? To be alone? These are not the most "desirable" parts of human experience, but they are a part no less. If you push away everything but the rosiness of love, you will live a happy life, to be sure. But won't you also miss a great part of what makes up life?

Each experience we have is an adventure, a singular moment which no one is granted but ourselves. Our emotions--how we look at those moments--is also something we cannot change. Emotions are like the spice sprinkled on the banquet of life--if you use the same seasoning every time, even if its the best seasoning, flavors are bound to clash sooner or later.

I believe I made a similar study to you once, but the answer I found was to relish each moment for what it is--love, hate, happiness or sadness. That said, I think of myself as a loving person--I view the majority of experiences through love as well. I just don't think that other outlooks are worthless, or things to be eschewed.

I haven't read all of your replies, unfortunately--just the first few pages.

Naturally I don't seek hate or pain either. But I think the definition of love in this thread is growing and growing, while the definition of hate is getting smaller. If love is the desire to be close, to be in harmony, or as far as you mentioned--the desire to become one with another--then what is hate?

To contrast your definition of love, I would define hate not as the burning fire that rages against another to destroy them, but as a desire to become separate and self-sufficient--to define yourself by your own will and not by others' feelings or perceptions. A burning hatred is as dangerous as an obsessive love, and both are self-destructive.

So in this sense, I love everyone, but I hate everyone as well--I feel a kindred spirit for them as humans, but I also recognize that we are different, as men and women, by our nationalities, races, and beliefs. These differences are also something to be relished, and they do add spice to the flavor of life. That acceptance, appreciation, and strengthening of differences between peoples and cultures is the opposite of love--in my mind. Naturally it is not good in and of itself, but neither is a homogeneous world.

Love is also opposed by other things. These things are not inherently bad either. If you say that charity is a kind of love, I would say ambition is a kind of hate. If you say that empathy is a kind of love, I would say that callousness is a kind of hate. Charity and Ambition can both ruin a man in excess. To understand others is wonderful, but no one can truly bear all the burdens of another. Hardening the heart allows the world to move in spite of grief, but too much callousness can also make a man distant and solitary.

In this sense, I would say that neither "love" nor "hate" is the ultimate good. We must find balance in our lives. That's what I mean when I say that hate is a necessary part of human experience.

It's funny that we have this conversation, because this is what "Five and Lights" is all about--the balance between love and hate (by the definitions I mention here) in our world. I suppose I should post chapter 3 now, and show what forces fight against Anathe...

I don't find it harsh, but I didn't know I was expected to read over everyone else's conversations first. I was just tossing my two cents in the jar (^_^), I didn't think I'd be caught counting up everyone else's contributions as well. It's a bit of a tall expectation to ask newcomers to read everyone's comments--you'll alienate people who want to join in the conversation midway. But I digress...



I'd say that we're really on the same page. What you call "self-love" and what I call "hate" are the same thing. Perhaps I should switch up my vocabulary a bit. Like you, I think too much of anything is a bad thing. That balance though, doesn't seem like "love". It just seems like, well, balance.



When you talk of love, I felt more like you speak of Unity. World peace and harmony and friendship could more correctly be called "Unity" than "Love". Unity--opposing Individuality, the self--is not inherently good or evil, since we can unify through hate and fear as well as love. It's this distinction between Love and Unity that I wanted to clarify, but I think I may have chosen a bad vocabulary for doing it.

I suppose my response would be that we should live in balance between Unity and Individuality, in appreciation for all things. Wanting to become one with others is a self-destructive act--a destruction of your own identity, to a certain extent. That's not a bad thing in and of itself--it's a necessary thing for humans. But even then, too much Unity and you can lose yourself. That's what I wanted to warn against.



I agree, but I still think "love" is not the right word somehow. I can appreciate everything for what it is, but I don't want to become like everything or close to everything, like I do with the things I love. When I love something or someone, that person or thing becomes something by which I define myself, a part of my identity. While beautiful scenery or a cute kitten are easy things to appreciate, they aren't something that I "love" or identify myself with. They are what they are, and I respect them for it.

But yeah, Love is a tough topic, and hard to define. I hope maybe I've cleared things up a bit as to my stand on the issue?

On the side, have you ever read any works by Ayn Rand? She writes alot about this kind of thing.

Missed me? I haven't gone anywhere yet biggrin (plane leaves tomorrow at 7pm). You'll know I'm gone because I won't post for 3 days straight (the flight is 27 hours long, and I have homecoming parties for days after I get back)



For the vast majority of social situations, yes. Still, there are things in life that can't be "fixed", don't you think? Painful memories live on, the dead don't come back, the maimed and disabled continue to suffer... love can't fix these things, though it can make enduring them easier.

On the inside, if one finds the love that you've found, perhaps he can overcome these ordeals, and move on, and enjoy life to the fullest, but it certainly won't fix the things that have happened. So I could concede that love is a panacea for inner torments. It hasn't helped me pay my rent yet though. biggrin

Beyond that, my love doesn't fix someone else's hatred for me. Perhaps, if I could force others to see the world with love, I could help them. However, if someone hurts or hates, my love for them can do little to make them stop (like in Vae Victus's suicide story, the girl's love for her sister was useless to ease her sister's pain/anguish). You might argue that seeing my love can change their heart--but this is not something guaranteed, and thus you can't argue love as a reliable cure for abuse--not the love of the abused, in any case.



Do you believe that I'm not satisfied with my life? Do you really presume to tell me how to live? (I know this isn't the case, but I say it to show you how others might perceive your words)

I don't mean to say this in any confrontational way, but much of the previous thread looked like a flamewar (which is why I skipped reading it). Telling people that their outlook to life is fundamentally flawed, or even presuming that you know the way to fix all/most of someone's problems--problems you yourself may or may not have experienced--is a very serious and offensive remark. Allowing people to agree with you if they wish, and not coming out with statements like "You could not be more wrong" and "I'm really, truly sorry for you" is a courtesy of polite debate.

Each of has our own way of living. I understand you want to help everyone find the joy you have in life... but handing out prescriptions is rather presumptuous. Love--to me, and to each other individual in this world--is a different thing than it is to you. It may not be the final answer for everyone.

Besides, understanding how others view love is an important part of your study, isn't it? A good researcher considers seriously every opinion--no matter how far removed from his own, and makes an informed, objective decision. An evangelist just prescribes his divine revelation to others. My question is this--are you a researcher, or a evangelist?