Philosophy Now Forum

Love begins when you move from liking someone because of to liking someone inspite of.

That's only interesting for the half minute you need to to contemplate the apparent contradiction.
Give it a full minute and follow the logic.
If the the positive attractions came to a plateau (you don' discover any new ones and the old ones don't grow) , while the negatives to put up with increased, you would soon progress from love to.... which? forbearance>sainthood>martyrdom or tolerance>aggravation>homicide ?

duszek wrote:Love begins when you move from liking someone because of to liking someone inspite of.

I find this very encouraging as I am someone with a lot of "in-spite ofs".

Harbal wrote:

duszek wrote:Love begins when you move from liking someone because of to liking someone inspite of.

I find this very encouraging as I am someone with a lot of "in-spite ofs".

Most women find a funny man irresistible.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote:

duszek wrote:Love begins when you move from liking someone because of to liking someone inspite of.

I find this very encouraging as I am someone with a lot of "in-spite ofs".

Most women find a funny man irresistible.

Was Woody Allen ever funny enough to be fancy-able?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote: I find this very encouraging as I am someone with a lot of "in-spite ofs".

Most women find a funny man irresistible.

Was Woody Allen ever funny enough to be fancy-able?

Definitely.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Was Woody Allen ever funny enough to be fancy-able?

Definitely.

I've got a feeling that, as far as Hobbes is concerned, that is not the correct answer, VT.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Most women find a funny man irresistible.

Was Woody Allen ever funny enough to be fancy-able?

Definitely.

Seriously though when it came to the bedroom with that tiny skinny pale body and the big head with the curly hair you'd not go through with it eh?

I suppose there is always platonic love, but with Woody Allen's lopsided attribute-profile, I can more easily imagine the second progression.
Especially if he spoke.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Was Woody Allen ever funny enough to be fancy-able?

Definitely.

Seriously though when it came to the bedroom with that tiny skinny pale body and the big head with the curly hair you'd not go through with it eh?

At his peak of funniness he was irresistible. Just look at the women he had.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Definitely.

Seriously though when it came to the bedroom with that tiny skinny pale body and the big head with the curly hair you'd not go through with it eh?

At his peak of funniness he was irresistible. Just look at the women he had.

Women he had, or had by women.

Honestly - use your imagination.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Seriously though when it came to the bedroom with that tiny skinny pale body and the big head with the curly hair you'd not go through with it eh?

At his peak of funniness he was irresistible. Just look at the women he had.

Women he had, or had by women.

Honestly - use your imagination.

'He's' had. Mind you, I didn't know he was a sleaze back then.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Was Woody Allen ever funny enough to be fancy-able?

On radio, maybe.

I did, however, know a married stand-up comic with a face like a plate of scrambled eggs...that were going off. He was up and down the country with gigs and said that one of the perks of the job was the women, he didn't even have to pull, who would present themselves to him and an overnight motel stay. As the conversation progressed, he admitted that in comparison to other, better looking, comics, his number of extra marital, one night stands was poor.

duszek wrote:Love begins when you move from liking someone because of to liking someone inspite of.

This is rather sweet, if a little Hallmark card-ish.

Does anyone remember the 'Love means... never having to say you're sorry' statement. Now that is bulls**t! Love means having to say you're sorry quite a lot, for some folk.

I might have unconsciously stolen it from William Falkner.
I discovered it today when I re-read some secondary literature in which his letter was quoted and said the same.
It was about the South.

I appreciate the thought offered by Skip in the beginning.
Many people are difficult to love so it is a challenge to find a way to love them nonetheless.

Reducing the encounters to a bearable number (picking the raisins) is one approach that might work.