Comments | zorander22: On Love and Understanding

zorander22

On Love and Understanding

May 21, 2006 22:44

Greetings once again! I trust all of you who celebrate Victoria Day are having a good time! Today's post will be a bit on the nature of love. But first, an update of my life, and a current... frustration ( Read more... )

Comments 89

serpentesse May 22 2006, 03:56:01 UTC

Thanks for posting this. I don't think I agree with what you define as hate - does a lack of understanding really equate hate? Maybe the actions can be expressed as hateful, but that's a completely different thing.

zorander22 May 22 2006, 04:00:32 UTC

I'm glad you liked it. I don't think a lack of understanding necessarily equals hate, but that a lack of understanding is necessary for hate to exist.

serpentesse May 22 2006, 04:04:58 UTC

That, I agree with.

sublunamsusurri May 22 2006, 06:25:10 UTC

Perhaps hate is also a lack of willingness to understand as well. Its sometimes far easier to villify then to try to comprehend.

There was something about marriage from a movie that stuck with me, which kinda ties in to the whole creating something together idea. It was something along the lines that we get married so that there is someone to witness our lives. Someone, I guess, who will know and share the mundane and extraordinary, and with whom you can create a shared meaning of existance. If that makes any sense, and if it doesn't, I blame the late hour and too much work ;).

Thread 50

i_am_the_owl May 22 2006, 13:01:10 UTC

You do say some counter-intuitive things, and contradict yourself from time to time, but the main thing is that you constantly undermine your own argument and throw in all sorts of words that accomplish one sole thing: weakening it.

"It is possible to love a human being if you don't know them too well."
-Charles Bukowski

zorander22 May 22 2006, 16:16:32 UTC

I've been told I contradict myself... but to me, I'm almost entirely consistent, except when I figure out something new, which shifts what I already know.

I know my arguments are stronger than I often make them on LJ. The reason is this: I reduce my arguments to the bare bones, without adding the muscle I can support in the position, and still try to show how this skeletal argument is stronger than the other position, to, in theory, leave no doubt in the other's mind that this position works.

Yes, I've heard that quote before. But in that case, you are only loving a warped image created by your own mind. You think you understand, but you do not... for some, that may be the success of their marriage or relationship, but it is not true love. Either way, they'd still have the creating aspect, which is part of what it's all about ;)

i_am_the_owl May 22 2006, 18:20:52 UTC

If multiple people are noticing it, though, don't you think there might be some truth to it?

So you're willingly reducing your arguments? I fail to see how you think this strengthens your position.

Now you're playing with subjective abstractions.

zorander22 May 22 2006, 21:00:09 UTC

Multiple people aren't noticing it though, at least not the people I was refering to in this post. With these people I have never had a debate; they are under the impression that me stating a position with which they disagree constitutes a debate... I have quite a different definition of what it means to debate.

Thread 28

galena417 May 22 2006, 13:22:39 UTC

You raise some interesting points, particularly how science and religion both spring from a need for understanding (unless I don't understand you, which is possible, considering my brain has been completely focussed on marking exams the past few days!)

zorander22 May 22 2006, 16:17:47 UTC

That's exactly what I was saying, thanks for commenting!

Maybe it's time for a break from marking exams! :)

galena417 May 23 2006, 20:22:08 UTC

Exams have to be in Cardiff, Wales by June 1st, which means they have to be done by the end of this week - then I get a (brief) break, before starting all over again with June exams from TF.

guntar May 22 2006, 16:54:36 UTC

I find that people often hate in others the same flaws they have in themselves. It's a Freudian Reaction Formation, perhaps.

Jesus! ace_of_kings May 22 2006, 20:38:51 UTC

as far as your bible bit goes there, one always has to bare in mind that even the most devote beleivers can doubt or falter.
Also, that even the most devote can still judge what they see fit for their religion and use this agasint people (hence what some beleive to be the reason that homosexuality is 'banned' perse in the bible; the bible may have been the word of God, but it was written down by a very patriarchal society that had its own prejudices and may have tweeked/added in their own laws and rules.)

And as he sat at dinner in Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples- for there were many who followed him. When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" When Jesus heard this, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners." Mark 2:15-17

Re: Jesus! zorander22 May 22 2006, 21:10:30 UTC

Yes, I agree... even the most devout can doubt :) John Morris is a great and thoughtful man, that just struck me as an artificial segregation... like so much else of our divisions of the world. "God may have separated the Heavens from the Earth, but He did not separate astrology from marine biology"... Good point about the Bible, I view it as divinely inspired, but humanly written... and clearly tampered, mistranslated and warped... but still divinely inspired ;)

It's funny though... the Pharisees were sick too... the difference is that the tax collectors and sinners were willing to listen.