Posted by IMO on October 03, 2004 at 04:32 [12.159.67.115]
In Reply to: Re: Wot Is Luv? posted by WingZ on October 02, 2004 at 07:41
“You're wrong there about me not dealing with women and you're wrong in thinking there's no distinction between rationality and emotion. For more on the distinction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality”
Here are two excerpts from the source you provided;
“Rationality of various kinds has often been taken to be one of the key features of the mind and/or soul that separates humans from animals.”
Please note the word ‘soul’ (the moral and *emotional* part of man's nature) used in this sentence.
“A logical argument is sometimes described as rational if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them.”
Do not confuse ‘logical thought’, with the much broader term of ‘rational thought’. The two are vastly different.
Although emotion could be a part of the point I was making, I was, however, leaning more towards ‘probability, expectation, personal experience’ (not my personal experience BTW).
If you are going to sight sources to support your claims (beliefs), at least try to sight sources that supports your side of the debate and not mine. There is little challenge otherwise.
“LOL! You just contadicted yourself. By your own admission, there are needs that don't require love to fulfill them.”
LOL.........Apparently, you have no idea what a contradiction is! As it is clear that I did not contradict myself with that statement. I was only acknowledging the fact that not all needs require love to fulfill them.
“In fact, the only need I can possibly think of that would require love to fulfill it is the need for love itself.
Furthermore, inasmuch as I am getting along fine without it, I would contend that it is not really a true need after all.”
Now if you need an example of a ‘contradiction’, you need only read your above statement.
“Satisfied?”
Yes!
Satisfied that you are self-centered.
Satisfied that you are emotionally clueless.
Satisfied that your attitudes toward the opposite sex are of a demeaning nature.
Satisfied that you wouldn’t recognize a genuine, heart felt emotion, if it bit you in the ass.
“Since when is public opinion tantamount to truth? Since when is a random inquiry the same as hard evidence?”
I was going to answer your questions, but decided against doing so. You lack the intellect that would be necessary to understand my response. Further, that same lack of intellect is what compelled you to ask the questions in the first place.
“Do not attempt to lecture me on the ethics of journalism! Inasmuch as I am not covering a news story, I am free to take a position (just as you have).”
Oh, but I am not lecturing you. I would not attempt to lecture you on that which you already know.
That was a rhetorical question.
“Obviously, I cannot experience what doesn't exist.”
When you were born, were you left in a cardboard box, at the doorstep of some orphanage? Because this is the only explanation that I can come up with for you believing as you do.
“THAT'S a reason?! Since when does consensus (especially when it is not unanimous consensus) equate to truth? Why should I be swayed by the beliefs of others when they have no evidence for their cause? All people can do is point to things which they believe to be the product of love (marriage, love songs, etc.) but which may very well be (and often are) the products of things other than love. That alone is hardly proof of its existence.”
Again, you lack the intellect that would be necessary to understand any response to this. Further, that same lack of intellect is what compelled you to ask the questions and to comment as you did.
“Likewise, the "I have experienced it" argument carries no weight. If you can experience "true love", then why can't I simply experience the nonexistence of love?”
I was wondering when your self-centered attitudes, would try and turn the focus of this debate toward you.
No one has said that ‘you’ can not experience ‘the nonexistence of love’. It’s obvious that you are/have!
Please try and stay on topic here. I know that it is difficult, if not impossible, for one such as yourself, to not turn this debate into a, ‘it’s all about me’ debate, since you are more knowledgeable about yourself as opposed to the broader issues.
Just as a reminder, the topic of this debate is the ‘existence of love’ or the state of ‘being in love ’, in a much broader sense than just focusing on your self-centered attitudes. Your original statement that started this was, “My theory is that love exists only as an emotional impulse and not a state of being. Love, like anger, sadness, happyness, etc. can indeed be felt, but only for the duration of the impulse. Thus, nobody is “in love”.”
Now, if you are going to change the core issue of this debate, to ‘focusing on you’, then to continue this would be pointless, since there would be no issue to debate.
“Your attempts to equate love with an accomplishible physical task are absurd. The problem, and you undoubtedly realize it by now, is that you cannot (or at least have not been able to) prove love on its own terms.”
LOL......You’re the one making an absurd statement here, as I was not trying to equate love to a physical task. Rather, to equate love to the ‘feelings’ one gets from the accomplishment of such a physical task.
Further, my point was to demonstrate that love is just as tangible, as the ‘feelings’ associated with the accomplishment of such a physical task. DUH!!!! But then you knew that, didn’t you? Come on, admit it. You knew that this was the point I was making?........ I thought so.
I have noticed, time and time again, and not just in this thread, that when you are at a loss for a response, you resort to the tactic of twisting the meaning of what someone has said.
So be it. If you want to denigrate yourself, by using this kind of tactic, as opposed to addressing the issue head on, that’s fine with me, as I will point out your intellectual flaws in doing so.
“I'm not going to accept any non-sequitars, poorly drawn analogies, or baseless personal testimonies in absence of proof.”
And well you shouldn’t! But don’t blame me if you are not intellectually endowed to recognize the difference.
“And, inasmuch as I am not trying to convert anyone to my belief as they are trying to convert me to theirs, I don't have to prove a damn thing to anyone else:)”
LOL.....What a cop out!
Again, need I remind you that you started this?! Further, if your intent was not to try and convert others to your way of thinking, why then did you respond so vehemently to TVOR, or me, for that matter? *rolls eyes*
“That would explain why you cling so stubbornly to your notion for love despite the fact that you've done nothing to prove its existence.”
All the proof I really need, is the general conscious of opinion. But this is something your lack of intellect, causes you to irrationally reject as proof.
“I've waited 20+ years for love to prove its existence to me. It has not done so. Ergo, I stand by my beliefs.”
OH BOY! Here we go again!
I know, this whole debate has only been about you, RIGHT?
“Whereas I've at least entertained the notion that it COULD exist (and quickly dismissed the notion after finding it lacking), have you ever entertained the notion that it couldn't? Mind you, I'm not talking about feeling bad after a break-up, but declaring, in a clear and rational state of mind, that love does not exist?”
I will answer your questions, although this debate is not about me either.
Of course! I have not only entertained the notion that love, ‘at times’, does not exit, but I have also experienced the ‘non existence of love’....DUH!!! It’s normally referred to as ‘falling out of love’.
There are many things in life that one will never experience. But that doesn’t mean that, because one has never experienced them, they don’t exist. Example; I have never experienced a ‘nervous break down’, but that doesn’t mean that I am in a position to say that such a thing does not exist!
Now please, don’t try and turn the focus of this debate toward me! Again, this debate is about a much broader core issue, as indicated by your original statement, which implies that love is non exist for all.
If you would like to withdraw from this debate, then I would suggest that you recant, or, rephrase your original statement in a manner that is not all inclusive of everyone else.
One thing that I noticed, and which I find interesting, is your lack of response to my statement, “Further, the denial of the existence of ‘profound love’ (being in love), is to deny the existence of ‘profound hatred’.”
Then again, I had a feeling that you would not respond to this.
My feelings-opinions (not intended to be part of the general debate):
I am really starting to feel sorry for you. I can understand why you feel and believe as you do, since existence without love, is certainly a sallow and lonely existence.
I will concede to you, that existence (life itself) is possible without the joy and enhancement of love.
But I will not concede to you that love does not exist, that it in no way impacts ones life, and that love is not as tangible as any other emotion. Nor will I concede to you that love is nothing more than an impulse.
I also feel, that you should seek some form of help. Be it professional or not. As I feel that you dismiss the existence of love, because you have been more than likely looking for love in all the wrong places, as the song goes.
Stop acting and thinking like machine, and more like a human, and you may just discover a whole new plain of existence.
I really can’t help but wonder what response your Mother would give, upon hearing that her love for you was non existent, or that her love for you was nothing more than an impulse, which didn’t last.
Email: