i guess i'm confused. i didn't read the 59 (now 60) comments but aren't the things that you quoted just instances where love is concretely shown? i saw these as examples of the love, not the love itself.
and i think that this is wrong: "summed up, the writer's in love with the guy who could give her security, happiness, overall positive emotion. in other words, isn't what the writer wants simply security, happiness and overall positive emotion and the person was simply a means to that end? so she didn't really love him, did she?"
the people we love generally "give us positive emotion", give us "happiness" and "security" and etc. that is part of why we love them, but also partly a result of our love for them and their love for us. we can only feel those emotions in the first place because we love them and they love us; love comes before all those emotions do and is clearly more than those emotions. i think it doesn't help to look at the "end" - of course being in love generates blah etc but i generally don't think that's the aim people have in mind when they love.
yes i agree. emotion definitely is "part" of why we love them and "partly" the result of love. but only "a part".
the problem is that all too often, in fact almost inevitably, people fall into the trap of thinking that these instances or manifestations of love are the be all and end all of love itself. so many times ppl break off/divorce wadever simply cos of a rough patch or somethg similar dat prevents love to be shown that way. so wad happened to the "more than that" part?
i guess wad i'm saying is dat i do believe emotions are an important part of love. but not the foundation. and dat's wad i'm finding fault w in how it is practised today.
and i think that this is wrong: "summed up, the writer's in love with the guy who could give her security, happiness, overall positive emotion. in other words, isn't what the writer wants simply security, happiness and overall positive emotion and the person was simply a means to that end? so she didn't really love him, did she?"
the people we love generally "give us positive emotion", give us "happiness" and "security" and etc. that is part of why we love them, but also partly a result of our love for them and their love for us. we can only feel those emotions in the first place because we love them and they love us; love comes before all those emotions do and is clearly more than those emotions. i think it doesn't help to look at the "end" - of course being in love generates blah etc but i generally don't think that's the aim people have in mind when they love.
Reply
the problem is that all too often, in fact almost inevitably, people fall into the trap of thinking that these instances or manifestations of love are the be all and end all of love itself. so many times ppl break off/divorce wadever simply cos of a rough patch or somethg similar dat prevents love to be shown that way. so wad happened to the "more than that" part?
i guess wad i'm saying is dat i do believe emotions are an important part of love. but not the foundation. and dat's wad i'm finding fault w in how it is practised today.
Reply
Leave a comment