Part one--got a bit ramblyguntarAugust 9 2006, 01:38:34 UTC
I think the part where I disagree with you is your conception of rationality/logic. Rationality is a tool. Given certain presuppositions, it can form the logical consequence. Given certain desires, it can discover the best way of meeting those desires
( ... )
So, then, what are your assumptions for the basis of your stance on love? Mainly that love is entirely to do with personality, and that love is more desirable than lust. Well, the second assumption I agree with. But you call the second logical with no basis--only assumptions that are, themselves, alogical (not illogical. They are not against logic--they are outside of it
( ... )
It's just not a matter of prejudice. It's a matter of desires. I can love people of the opposite sex just fine. But why would I want a relationship with them
( ... )
You ask why we would reject someone who's perfect in every other way except this one critical point. I say that that's like asking why I shouldn't use brussel sprouts as a staple, which are healthy but taste horrible. I respond that there are things that are almost as healthy, but also taste great--and I'll have a happier life than someone who is completely into self-denial (and also live longer, since happiness is related to life expectancy). You can't just dismiss one category and then say the person's a better choice--that category is just as fundamental as the others. Romance depends upon that category.
The body just doesn't release these chemicals with the sex you're not attracted to. Lust is intimately attached to romance; lust is intimately attached to relationships. Love is separate from these. I can love a person fully without having any physical connection whatever. But romance?
(Part 3!) For the monogamous relationship, I'm actually thinking about the situation without lust. I suppose it's another poorly worded portion of my origonal argument. Again, from personal experience, it's my take that *most* people only ever fully open up to one or very few people at any one time in their lives, and that for /love/ in its strongest, this is a condition. (An unsaid arguement, I admit
( ... )
I know you were thinking about the relationship without lust. But as soon as you say "monogamous" you're defining the relationship in terms of sex. The relationship becomes one about sex. Why can't you have a relatioship with this person while pursuing sex elsewhere? Why cannot best friends love each other
( ... )
Logic being a tool does not mean that it is not essential. Logic is more essential than almost anything else. There's a reason I took so many logic classes in university (and am reading a book on logic right now). Trying to live without logic is like trying to build an atomic bomb with a screwdriver
( ... )
In the foremost, I do agree that logic doesn't function on its own... I didn't really try to counter that, as far as I am aware...
And yes, I did write my statement in such a mannor that does elevate love. But it's an exaggeration. When people talk to me normally when they say love, they mean lust. And they say lust, they mean lust. So to give love a meaning seperate from lust I need to forcibly divorce them.
And I can understand that position you finish with; but my origonal counter point still stands in that it is vital to stay open to possibility. But like I said, you're not the people I'm trying to convince. Ultimately, I'd say we already agree as much as I was looking for.
You have tried to counter that, because you have called certain things "logical," when they are not. A thing/action cannot be logical in and of itself, which is what you have argued. Acting morally is not logical unless you add certain premises. The thing is that anything (except a contradiction) can be logical--given certain premises. Saying "caring about long term happiness is logical" is meaningless. Not caring about long-term happiness is equally logical
( ... )
Also, perhaps I am being a bit antagonistic. For this I owe you an apology. I enjoy debating a little too much, and so will often go gung-ho, debating because I enjoy it so much, doing it for the sake of doing it
( ... )
Oh, and I'm incredibly hard on gender. Because most of the gender lines I see painted are extremely poor and very arbitrary. I really hate hearing gender related generalizations, because I find them almost always disagreeable.
Reply
Reply
Reply
You ask why we would reject someone who's perfect in every other way except this one critical point. I say that that's like asking why I shouldn't use brussel sprouts as a staple, which are healthy but taste horrible. I respond that there are things that are almost as healthy, but also taste great--and I'll have a happier life than someone who is completely into self-denial (and also live longer, since happiness is related to life expectancy). You can't just dismiss one category and then say the person's a better choice--that category is just as fundamental as the others. Romance depends upon that category.
The body just doesn't release these chemicals with the sex you're not attracted to. Lust is intimately attached to romance; lust is intimately attached to relationships. Love is separate from these. I can love a person fully without having any physical connection whatever. But romance?
It just doesn't work that way.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
And yes, I did write my statement in such a mannor that does elevate love. But it's an exaggeration. When people talk to me normally when they say love, they mean lust. And they say lust, they mean lust. So to give love a meaning seperate from lust I need to forcibly divorce them.
And I can understand that position you finish with; but my origonal counter point still stands in that it is vital to stay open to possibility. But like I said, you're not the people I'm trying to convince. Ultimately, I'd say we already agree as much as I was looking for.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment