nihilism

[Walker]

Now that’s a juicy rationalization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9FJiDFVoOo

[Alexiev]

Romantic love is a myth in the sense of a big and complex idea that fits in with society's needs at a given time in history and a given place in geography.

There are myths about romantic love, but romantic love itself is not a myth. Yes, the phrase batches a complex set of feelings and thoughts, but there is a real pattern, just as the complicate batch of feelings and thoughts in parental love also fit into a set of patterns and are real. Yes, one can believe in some of the myths about romantic love, but that can be true about other abstract catergories like education or friendship. Nevertheless there are romantic feelings that are a kind of love and can often lead to include other kinds of love. A modern woman who attempts to fit a passionate love affair to the idea of Romantic Love should be more realistic as to her expectations. Culture certainly plays a role in how people interpret those feelings, but the feelings and thoughts are real and have real effects. They are also part of out evolutionary make up. Like most things there can be problems with added assumptions and interpretations and the myths about the pattern.

Note the first thing you said was a a rule.

To glorify romantic love for another person is silly and enslaving.

Depending on what 'glorify' means, this certainly could be the case, but I see no rule there. There are many lovely relationships that started with people feeling romantic love and even where the romantic love is still a facet of the relationship even as other kinds of love develop over time. In fact, I think it's a natural process but one that can be messed up due to childhood experiences and, yes, myths that get overlaid on those feelings.

The notion of romantic love is culturally constituted. It differs from culture to culture and era to era. Medieval notions, for example, often involved adulterous liason, like Lancelot's, Tristan's or Sigurd's. That makes sense in an era in which aristocratic marriages were arranged for political and financial reasons. When romance and marriage are divorced, people seek elsewhere (if romance is a cultural ideal).

Visiting India, we hired a car and driver (don't try driving yourself). His name was Mahendra, and he pontificated, "In India, arranged marriages. No divorce. In America, love marriages, much divorce."

I assume he was right, both statistically, and in his elucidation of the cause. Expectations differ in the two cultures. Divorcing people say, "I want a chance at happlness." It's as if they think romance is the only road to joy.

Romance movies and novels end with a wedding or engagement. An older meaning of romance is "adventure". The essence of adventure and romance is uncertainty. Of course "much divorce" can extend such uncertainty beyond the vows of fealty.

[Iwannaplato]

Romantic love is a myth in the sense of a big and complex idea that fits in with society's needs at a given time in history and a given place in geography.

There are myths about romantic love, but romantic love itself is not a myth. Yes, the phrase batches a complex set of feelings and thoughts, but there is a real pattern, just as the complicate batch of feelings and thoughts in parental love also fit into a set of patterns and are real. Yes, one can believe in some of the myths about romantic love, but that can be true about other abstract catergories like education or friendship. Nevertheless there are romantic feelings that are a kind of love and can often lead to include other kinds of love. A modern woman who attempts to fit a passionate love affair to the idea of Romantic Love should be more realistic as to her expectations. Culture certainly plays a role in how people interpret those feelings, but the feelings and thoughts are real and have real effects. They are also part of out evolutionary make up. Like most things there can be problems with added assumptions and interpretations and the myths about the pattern.

Note the first thing you said was a a rule.

To glorify romantic love for another person is silly and enslaving.

Depending on what 'glorify' means, this certainly could be the case, but I see no rule there. There are many lovely relationships that started with people feeling romantic love and even where the romantic love is still a facet of the relationship even as other kinds of love develop over time. In fact, I think it's a natural process but one that can be messed up due to childhood experiences and, yes, myths that get overlaid on those feelings.

The notion of romantic love is culturally constituted.

The various notions may be, but they are also based on feelings.

It differs from culture to culture and era to era. Medieval notions, for example, often involved adulterous liason, like Lancelot's, Tristan's or Sigurd's. That makes sense in an era in which aristocratic marriages were arranged for political and financial reasons. When romance and marriage are divorced, people seek elsewhere (if romance is a cultural ideal).

Again, there can be all sorts of problems relation to people's notions of romantic love, just like many other categories that cover a huge range of individual phenomena of different kinds. I'm still trying to figure out why glorifying romatic love is necessarily a bad thing.

Visiting India, we hired a car and driver (don't try driving yourself). His name was Mahendra, and he pontificated, "In India, arranged marriages. No divorce. In America, love marriages, much divorce."

And how much of that is the stigma of divorce in traditional culture that have arranged marriages and the lack of freedom of the married, given that money and more or less contracts have been signed. The state may have little power over individuals who have the right to divorce but families can exert tremendous pressure and the pressure on the women in those cultures not to leave a marriage also tend to be very high, even life threatening. That moves into enslavement on a literal level, which was part of Belinda's critique of romantic love. Of romance love itself. Not the myths around it.

I assume he was right, both statistically, and in his elucidation of the cause. Expectations differ in the two cultures. Divorcing people say, "I want a chance at happlness." It's as if they think romance is the only road to joy.

Yeah, I don't think that sums up the reasons people leave marriages. Some probably say something similar, but I think most have reached a point where they do not like what is happening, have tried solving it and want out of suffering.

And all this is also assuming divorce is the measure of success/failure.

[Alexiev]

Romantic love is a myth in the sense of a big and complex idea that fits in with society's needs at a given time in history and a given place in geography.

There are myths about romantic love, but romantic love itself is not a myth. Yes, the phrase batches a complex set of feelings and thoughts, but there is a real pattern, just as the complicate batch of feelings and thoughts in parental love also fit into a set of patterns and are real. Yes, one can believe in some of the myths about romantic love, but that can be true about other abstract catergories like education or friendship. Nevertheless there are romantic feelings that are a kind of love and can often lead to include other kinds of love. A modern woman who attempts to fit a passionate love affair to the idea of Romantic Love should be more realistic as to her expectations. Culture certainly plays a role in how people interpret those feelings, but the feelings and thoughts are real and have real effects. They are also part of out evolutionary make up. Like most things there can be problems with added assumptions and interpretations and the myths about the pattern.

Note the first thing you said was a a rule.

To glorify romantic love for another person is silly and enslaving.

Depending on what 'glorify' means, this certainly could be the case, but I see no rule there. There are many lovely relationships that started with people feeling romantic love and even where the romantic love is still a facet of the relationship even as other kinds of love develop over time. In fact, I think it's a natural process but one that can be messed up due to childhood experiences and, yes, myths that get overlaid on those feelings.

The notion of romantic love is culturally constituted.

The various notions may be, but they are also based on feelings.

It differs from culture to culture and era to era. Medieval notions, for example, often involved adulterous liason, like Lancelot's, Tristan's or Sigurd's. That makes sense in an era in which aristocratic marriages were arranged for political and financial reasons. When romance and marriage are divorced, people seek elsewhere (if romance is a cultural ideal).

Again, there can be all sorts of problems relation to people's notions of romantic love, just like many other categories that cover a huge range of individual phenomena of different kinds. I'm still trying to figure out why glorifying romatic love is necessarily a bad thing.

Visiting India, we hired a car and driver (don't try driving yourself). His name was Mahendra, and he pontificated, "In India, arranged marriages. No divorce. In America, love marriages, much divorce."

And how much of that is the stigma of divorce in traditional culture that have arranged marriages and the lack of freedom of the married, given that money and more or less contracts have been signed. The state may have little power over individuals who have the right to divorce but families can exert tremendous pressure and the pressure on the women in those cultures not to leave a marriage also tend to be very high, even life threatening. That moves into enslavement on a literal level, which was part of Belinda's critique of romantic love. Of romance love itself. Not the myths around it.

I assume he was right, both statistically, and in his elucidation of the cause. Expectations differ in the two cultures. Divorcing people say, "I want a chance at happlness." It's as if they think romance is the only road to joy.

Yeah, I don't think that sums up the reasons people leave marriages. Some probably say something similar, but I think most have reached a point where they do not like what is happening, have tried solving it and want out of suffering.

And all this is also assuming divorce is the measure of success/failure.

If course there are many reasons for divorce, and many variations of romantic love. The European love poetry of the Medieval troubadors owed much to the romantic Islamic poetry written in Arabic. It migrated north from Spain.

Far from thinking glorifying romantic love is a bad thing, I think it inspires wobderful loves, great poetry and novels, and miraculous dreams. The heartbreak and misery that sometimes accompany it are the price we willingly pay for the joy.

[Fairy]

Now that’s a juicy rationalization.

That which appears as rationalisation never rationalises.

[Fairy]

“ Far from thinking glorifying romantic love is a bad thing, I think it inspires wobderful loves, great poetry and novels, and miraculous dreams. The heartbreak and misery that sometimes accompany it are the price we willingly pay for the joy. “

————

Yep, choices are made, prices are payed.

We makes our choices and pays our prices.

[Iwannaplato]

If course there are many reasons for divorce, and many variations of romantic love. The European love poetry of the Medieval troubadors owed much to the romantic Islamic poetry written in Arabic. It migrated north from Spain.

Far from thinking glorifying romantic love is a bad thing, I think it inspires wobderful loves, great poetry and novels, and miraculous dreams. The heartbreak and misery that sometimes accompany it are the price we willingly pay for the joy.

OK, great.

[Fairy]

Welcome to the nihilistic universe. Admission Free. Admits ONE

Now showing on a screen near you. Closer than you're very own skin.

The one looking at the screen is the looked-upon. Yeah baby, that's really you in there.

Mistaking the images on the screen for reality is delusion.

gettyimages-1131943838-612x612.jpg

[Fairy]

Yep, I'm done.

I can't make it simpler, unless I confine myself to one-syllable words. So they're going to have to accept it or miss the point.

Either way, I'm past caring.

Great. Nice self-serving binary thinking, by the way. It's just not possible you're wrong in your mindreading.
Everyone understood your mindreading attempt, some disgreed with your case.
What was hard to understand about your argument? Nothing. It's just that it only could lead to the conclusion that it might be true, not that it has to be. From there it's a psychic claim.

IC is never wrong. IC knows the future before it's already happened. IC is deluded. He just refuses to own it.

[Fairy]

Why don’t you point to evil?

THIS is the person who thinks she's so smart?

I AM pointing to it. I'm pointing to what you said Harbal did. And you're now not even sure that was bad.

Righhhhhhht!

So lets get this crooked crap straightened out, lets recap, when I asked you to point to evil. You replied to my request by saying you had pointed to it. And that the evil you had pointed to according to you..was something I said Harbal did?

So according to you - something I said Harbal did..was evil. And that is how you were able to point to evil.

But aside from your made up silly nonsense, here's the actual truth of the matter I never once mentioned to any one reading on that night that what Harbal did was EVIL. So you were actually pointing to a (non-existent evil )

So the only evil that existed that night, was some idea within your own mind projected as though it was actually my thought. What a very sly, calculated manipulator you are.

Just wanted to clean up some more of your mess. That's my job, to clean up other peoples mess. That's why they call me Fairy liquid.

[Fairy]

Wait,...

Your message is too long for anything worthwhile said in it. It's peppered liberally with both obvious misrepresentations and obvious ad hominems. And it's boring.

I can't be bothered with it.

And that is why you are a master con artist who constantly projects the content of your own mind onto other people, leaving any sensible two way discussion full of huge holes and missing pieces. You are never interested in what other people have to say. There are more holes in your discussion tactics than a salad colander.

You are a lazy philosopher. And is why no one believes a word that comes out of your mouth. You are far too busy to deal with other peoples ideas, because you are only interested in your own ideas, thoughts and words, which you then like to place into other people's heads, as though they'd said what only you have said, because they haven't been given a chance to say a word, as your refusal to listen is zero tolerance. And that is why you only hear what you want to hear. Most of your discussion tactic is to project only what you want to hear onto others. Ideas that are only relevant to you.

It's just too much effort for you to discuss with other people when all they have to say is wrong in your opinion. So, you have no one to discuss with really, and that is what suits you down to the ground. Other peoples ideas are a threat to you. As we all know by now that you are terrified of ever being proven wrong.

Even when I have proven you wrong about something, you then seem to deliberately ignore the post I've proven you wrong about. What sort of a philosopher are you by the way? discussion is a two way mirror, not a one sided mirror.

If you ever look behind a mirror, you will not find any image of you IC... so if you are here to discuss with others, then you are just going to have to pretend there are two side to the mirror, so then at least you'll know you are actually talking to someone else, and not just yourself...got that?


More cleaning up of IC's mess to be continued...I haven't finished quite yet.

BeBackSoon

[Belinda]

There are myths about romantic love, but romantic love itself is not a myth. Yes, the phrase batches a complex set of feelings and thoughts, but there is a real pattern, just as the complicate batch of feelings and thoughts in parental love also fit into a set of patterns and are real. Yes, one can believe in some of the myths about romantic love, but that can be true about other abstract catergories like education or friendship. Nevertheless there are romantic feelings that are a kind of love and can often lead to include other kinds of love. A modern woman who attempts to fit a passionate love affair to the idea of Romantic Love should be more realistic as to her expectations. Culture certainly plays a role in how people interpret those feelings, but the feelings and thoughts are real and have real effects. They are also part of out evolutionary make up. Like most things there can be problems with added assumptions and interpretations and the myths about the pattern.

Note the first thing you said was a a rule.
Depending on what 'glorify' means, this certainly could be the case, but I see no rule there. There are many lovely relationships that started with people feeling romantic love and even where the romantic love is still a facet of the relationship even as other kinds of love develop over time. In fact, I think it's a natural process but one that can be messed up due to childhood experiences and, yes, myths that get overlaid on those feelings.

The notion of romantic love is culturally constituted.

The various notions may be, but they are also based on feelings.

It differs from culture to culture and era to era. Medieval notions, for example, often involved adulterous liason, like Lancelot's, Tristan's or Sigurd's. That makes sense in an era in which aristocratic marriages were arranged for political and financial reasons. When romance and marriage are divorced, people seek elsewhere (if romance is a cultural ideal).

Again, there can be all sorts of problems relation to people's notions of romantic love, just like many other categories that cover a huge range of individual phenomena of different kinds. I'm still trying to figure out why glorifying romatic love is necessarily a bad thing.

Visiting India, we hired a car and driver (don't try driving yourself). His name was Mahendra, and he pontificated, "In India, arranged marriages. No divorce. In America, love marriages, much divorce."

And how much of that is the stigma of divorce in traditional culture that have arranged marriages and the lack of freedom of the married, given that money and more or less contracts have been signed. The state may have little power over individuals who have the right to divorce but families can exert tremendous pressure and the pressure on the women in those cultures not to leave a marriage also tend to be very high, even life threatening. That moves into enslavement on a literal level, which was part of Belinda's critique of romantic love. Of romance love itself. Not the myths around it.

I assume he was right, both statistically, and in his elucidation of the cause. Expectations differ in the two cultures. Divorcing people say, "I want a chance at happlness." It's as if they think romance is the only road to joy.

Yeah, I don't think that sums up the reasons people leave marriages. Some probably say something similar, but I think most have reached a point where they do not like what is happening, have tried solving it and want out of suffering.

And all this is also assuming divorce is the measure of success/failure.

If course there are many reasons for divorce, and many variations of romantic love. The European love poetry of the Medieval troubadors owed much to the romantic Islamic poetry written in Arabic. It migrated north from Spain.

Far from thinking glorifying romantic love is a bad thing, I think it inspires wobderful loves, great poetry and novels, and miraculous dreams. The heartbreak and misery that sometimes accompany it are the price we willingly pay for the joy.

By glorifying romantic love one persuades oneself that the high passion lasts as long as one lives. Otherwise happy- enough marriages founder because one or both partners believe there is something wrong when the stage of high passion is over.

Romantic novels and films created for entertainment and profit can cause a lot of unhappiness as lies often do. In real life love continues, if it continues at all, after passions are no longer inflamed. True , the stage of being in love is a very happy prelude to a lasting loving partnership, but must give way to more settle emotions and feelings.

Sexual desire is true and proper, but one individual can't be the sole and heaven-sent object of sexual passion throughout life, as romantic myth would have it. To believe so causes discontent and even mental illness.

[Fairy]

By glorifying romantic love one persuades oneself that the high passion lasts as long as one lives.

BS

Glorifying romantic love happens in the moment it is happening. The sensation and feeling is pure spontaneity in the moment.
Whether or not that moment felt, is forever repeated as long as one lives is irrelevant, because only the present time is relevant. There is no other time outside of the immediate present.

Sexual desire is true and proper, but one individual can't be the sole and heaven-sent object of sexual passion throughout life, as romantic myth would have it. To believe so causes discontent and even mental illness.

Nature takes what it wants in the moment, there is no such thing as a forever glorifying of romantic love, or sexual passion. Unions often disconnect from each other without ever feeling bothered by the separation, or the union is separated by one of the two dying, which can feel like grief but also joy at having ever experienced the love that was once shared.

This knowledge, does not cause discontent or mental illness, it causes the clarity that is already this unconditional love we all are, appearing as glorified romantic and sexual passionate love in the moment when it is happening.

[Iwannaplato]

By glorifying romantic love one persuades oneself that the high passion lasts as long as one lives.

Someone might do that. Others might not assume that. Some might glorify it and end up being right about that.

Otherwise happy- enough marriages founder because one or both partners believe there is something wrong when the stage of high passion is over.

Certainly some people might do that. But if the other kinds of love are added to the mix and they want and value what they have, then they will stay. And if they were drawn together via romantic love, then they can thank the beautiful intuition in that specific romantic love they had and perhaps also have.

Romantic novels and films created for entertainment and profit can cause a lot of unhappiness as lies often do.

The key word being 'can' and also those films are not romantic love, they are about romantic love. We wouldn't say police work is bad or enslaving because films present a false view of police work.

In real life love continues, if it continues at all, after passions are no longer inflamed. True , the stage of being in love is a very happy prelude to a lasting loving partnership, but must give way to more settle emotions and feelings.

I know people who still feel romantic love for their partners. And even if a couple does not, the romantic love got them to where they are.

Sexual desire is true and proper, but one individual can't be the sole and heaven-sent object of sexual passion throughout life, as romantic myth would have it. To believe so causes discontent and even mental illness.

Again, that's the myth not the romantic love.

[Fairy]

Is any of the following things things "bad"?

1. What H. did to you (allegedly).

Harbal left the relationship we had shared for two years. That's all he did. H leaving me was not an allegation made by me, it was an actual fact. Don't assume things you can never know until I confirm the fact to you.

Was leaving me a bad thing for Harbal to do? ...the answer is NO.

Is any of the following things things "bad"?

2. Your threat to kill yourself and your daughter.

Firstly, I did not say I threatened to kill my own daughter. So stop twisting things I actually said for things you only thought I had said, but did not say. That's 3 times you've done this now.

Secondly, yes I said I was feeling suicidal that night. Was that a bad thing for me to feel that night. Absolutely NOT

Is any of the following things things "bad"?

3. Your exhibitionism in putting on the elaborate show of suicidal intent.

For me on the night, I wasn't thinking about whether it was bad or good, I was just in the moment of an uncontrollable emotional outpouring. I didn't stop to think about whether it was a good thing to do or a bad thing to do... It was just happening in the immediate flow of the moment without any feelings of whether I was going to feel remorseful or regretful after it was all over. So NO what happened that night, for me, was NOT BAD behaviour.

Is any of the following things things "bad"?

4. My mentioning of your behaviour.

Your opinion on my behaviour that night did not register for me as being Bad, so I'm not quite sure what you mean there.

Is any of the following things things "bad"?

NO

If none of those are bad, then you have absolutely no basis for complaining about 1 or 4,

I was only expressing emotional pain about Harbal leaving me...if you want to call that complaining, then that's not my problem. Did I think it was bad to express emotional pain that night? Absolutely NO

or apologizing for the middle one, 2 and 3 (which I have to note, by the way, you have already done, and in elaborate, theatrical terms).

I apologise about things all the time. Did I have every right to apologise for expressing my emotional pain that I was feeling on that night. Absolutely YES

If any of them is "bad," then you are a moral objectivist.

None of them were bad.

If they're all not "bad," then stop whining: nothing bad's been done to you, either by H. or me, and you've done nothing bad. And you get to be a subjectivist.

I never once claimed that what happened that night was in any shape or form BAD

Your presumptions that I were either a moral objectivist or a subjectivist minus the (moral prefix) were both FALSE

Take your pick.

WHY ?

Would that make you feel justified in being right, when you were clearly WRONG on all accounts.

What a calculating manipulator you are. I guess I'm just smarter than you, and that's why you mostly ignore the posts where I call you out on your incessant BS ...you may ignore this post, and you will ignore it only because you will know that I have been right, which makes you look like a fool, but it matters not whether you ignore the truth, because it's here for other people to see clearly how you are so easy to be called out for your BS

You may ignore this post, but everyone else will see the actual truth, and not your fabricated twisted gaslighting comments you are so accustomed to applying to most if not all the people you ever interact with.