skip to main |
skip to sidebar
~~~Thoughts on Love~~~ {4}
So far, I have established that there are at least three components of love: it is a feeling, it is extremely positive and makes people happy, and it arises when someone either sees Or thinks of "that significant other" (who that person is quite obviously sexually attracted to). Would it disappoint you to know that I need not go any further? "That's it?" you may be asking. "Love's just......... a good feeling?" No, actually. Love isn't just any good feeling. Love is an extremely good feeling that arises when your significant other is present in your thoughts Or physical vicinity. I don't see anything wrong with defining love in this way, and I see no need to describe love any further in my definintion. I understand that the word "good" is very simple, and it may come across as insignificant--after all, we probably learn the word around the age of two. But does that somehow make it unattractive? Is the word "good" limited in scope for some reason? If we reach a certain level of good, need I replace "good" with a bigger, badder, stronger word, like "extraordinary?" How about "stupendous?" Would that word make us all comfortable with my definition? I can already sense that plenty of my readers feel uneasy at this point because they are unwilling to accept that something so valued can have such a simple definition. To be completely honest, I feel uncomfortable with what I have written so far as well. All I can do at this point is ask you to follow my footsteps. You must force yourself to step out of your judgmental shell. If done effectively, you will soon realize that this definition of love is as good--Or should I say, stupendous--as they come. If you have an issue with my definition of love (e.g. you believe it to be an oversimplification), then please make a point of it. While I realize that I am a debater who "will defend anything even knowing I am in the wrong", if there is something so glaringly false about this definition, then my debate skills shouldn't be much of an issue because it will be so easy to pinpoint exactly how my definition is flawed. My definition of love, of course, begs the question: if love is merely defined as "feeling good" around a significant other, can we then say that casual fornication with a stranger falls into the category of love? After all, someone you don't know can still provide you with tremendous pleasure, Which is all it takes to be in love according to my definition. Right? .............to be continued
So far, I have established that there are at least three components of love: it is a feeling, it is extremely positive and makes people happy, and it arises when someone either sees Or thinks of "that significant other" (who that person is quite obviously sexually attracted to). Would it disappoint you to know that I need not go any further? "That's it?" you may be asking. "Love's just......... a good feeling?" No, actually. Love isn't just any good feeling. Love is an extremely good feeling that arises when your significant other is present in your thoughts Or physical vicinity. I don't see anything wrong with defining love in this way, and I see no need to describe love any further in my definintion. I understand that the word "good" is very simple, and it may come across as insignificant--after all, we probably learn the word around the age of two. But does that somehow make it unattractive? Is the word "good" limited in scope for some reason? If we reach a certain level of good, need I replace "good" with a bigger, badder, stronger word, like "extraordinary?" How about "stupendous?" Would that word make us all comfortable with my definition? I can already sense that plenty of my readers feel uneasy at this point because they are unwilling to accept that something so valued can have such a simple definition. To be completely honest, I feel uncomfortable with what I have written so far as well. All I can do at this point is ask you to follow my footsteps. You must force yourself to step out of your judgmental shell. If done effectively, you will soon realize that this definition of love is as good--Or should I say, stupendous--as they come. If you have an issue with my definition of love (e.g. you believe it to be an oversimplification), then please make a point of it. While I realize that I am a debater who "will defend anything even knowing I am in the wrong", if there is something so glaringly false about this definition, then my debate skills shouldn't be much of an issue because it will be so easy to pinpoint exactly how my definition is flawed. My definition of love, of course, begs the question: if love is merely defined as "feeling good" around a significant other, can we then say that casual fornication with a stranger falls into the category of love? After all, someone you don't know can still provide you with tremendous pleasure, Which is all it takes to be in love according to my definition. Right? .............to be continued
1 comment:
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the TV de LCD, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://tv-lcd.blogspot.com. A hug.
Post a Comment