Thursday, May 3, 2012

**Is it possible to be in love with more then one person**: a friendly debate Pt. 3 by J. Camps, NYC Rob, and KV Sart

Check out Pt 1 and Pt 2

And we're back. NYC Rob has finally brought out the shotty! At this point, nobody knows what anyone else is talking about and the discussion has turned into a shouting match that will end in nuclear destruction, or maybe just NYC Rob getting knocked off his high horse of love. It is finally clear that no conclusion will be reached. We still must chastise one another for no reason.

After looking through this debate more thoroughly I did interpret KV’s sex comment incorrectly. My fault I skimmed through it. But J. Camps you clearly stated love is selfless that can turn selfish so I won't apologize for my comment.

Sart, I'm not talking just to talk, nor am I drowning in my words. Everything I've said can be referenced and backed up. It is the social norm. If you don't believe step outside and ask people and you'll clearly see what I'm saying is true. Have I been in love - yes, which makes it easy to discuss this, but it is not impairing my judgment. I've truly only made one exact point about my point. All my other comments have been at what you and J. Camps have said. Therefore, I really haven't said much. If you are upset that I don't like your words cause I don't agree with all of what you have said that's not my fault. It is a debate.

J. Camps as I said you clearly said that shit, and if you don't believe reread.

So it is now time to fill the shotty!

It is obvious that love isn't a visible thing. You can't see it or really explain it. Therefore, how the fuck do any us really know what we are talking about? We must have had some type of experience, or have seen things that we think explain love. But is that all love really means? We use showing affection, caring for someone, and putting the other person before yourself to define love. I'd like to stick with putting the other before yourself. Many people don't even love themselves enough to attempt to love someone else. They are probably still stuck in the intimacy stage of development (in reference to intimacy vs isolation). However, these people still attempt to love. So, here, we have all these people who barely know themselves, and yet they try to love another. What's the result? The result is confusion. They aren't fully committed and they still want to be a bit adventurous. However, they do say, to their significant other, "I love you". And who ever else they choose to be with they say the same. So wait... does this seem as if this person is in love? Not to me, but J. Camps is defending that.

That stage of development starts at nineteen however many people never grow out of it. They move from relationship to relationship. Rather than try to get to know themselves they keep seeking a partner whom they don't love, but lust. Lust because they still don't know themself, because if they did they would not be so confused and would be able to make more certain intimacy decisions. Therefore, J. Camps if you so choose to say one can be in love with more than one person at a time, it is not possible. Because if they truly were in love they would have to be certain about themselves, love themselves, and be able to love another. How could anyone do all that? Live a life and be in love with another when we can put a staple on what love is? Remember we can't see it.

In saying that, I hope you can clearly see the point that I have made. The amount of energy it takes to love yourself, through all your good and bad, and then try to love those same characteristics from another is not easy. If love were so damn easy we'd all be in love. 

J. Camps
I swear to Allah if you use "social norm" as support for your argument I'm gonna drop-kick you in the fucking cheekbone, excuse my language. It's a social norm for baby boys to wear blue and baby girls to wear pink, does it make any sense? Not really, but we've been doing it for as long as we can remember so it's "right”. Please, for the sake of my dwindling sanity, stay away from this form of argument.

Intimacy vs. Involvement: you're gonna have to explain that to me, and I'm gonna assume K.V. also has no goddamn clue of what you speak of. You're using terms and ideas that I can't readily identify, and you will have to go into greater detail for us to understand them. Get to it. I can't respond to what you're saying if I don't understand it.

Frankly, I have no idea where this debate is going or what you're talking about, and I'm on the verge of bowing out. But before I do, I want to make a few (maybe final) points that may address some of what you just said:

1) You can love parts of another without loving the whole. I'm sure we have all had a partner who we loved for many things, but certain other aspects of his/her personality turned us off, or dissatisfied us. Maybe you can love one partner's enthusiasm for adventure and boldness, and love another partner for his/her compassion and kindness. These situations are commonplace. Loving someone doesn't always entail loving every single aspect of that person's being.
2) Love should be built from friendship. Once that foundation is established you can build upon it with love and other like feelings. Love becomes fleeting when it is based solely on one thing, such as sex. But if you truly wish to love your partner as a brother or sister, that pillar of friendship is necessary. This is the reason we tend to love our family unconditionally, and that love is a long-lasting love. Marriages that last decades often start with friendship.
3) When love is built from friendship, it is possible to build this foundation with a multitude of people. Just as we have many friends who (whom? who gives a shit?) we share experiences with, we can have many friends who we share our love with. If we are comfortable with ourselves, this is feasible. If being in love means reaching a point where the experiences you share together are timeless, then there is no reason to deny the possibility of having this feeling with more then one person (its unfortunate that we couldn't come to an agreement on what being in love means).

We can learn more about ourselves through the experiences we have, and being in a relationship is a very valuable experience. You're statement regarding the prerequisites for love seem partially true, but are we saying that a majority of people who believe they are in love are mistaken, or that the love isn't real? Please address this.

Maybe we all just need to admit we don't know what love is. Love is different for everyone. It is a subjective feeling that is indefinable because of its inherent subjectivity. When I say I love someone it is a different feeling from when KV says he loves someone. We all love for different reasons, and we are all attracted to different things. These differences are what define love. And I think we are missing the point when we sit here trying to identify qualities that can sum up this rather recent concept.

KV Sart
I have a problem with your line of reasoning NYC Rob.  Your argument seems to be based solely on some claim as to a set weight property of the metaphysical love energy.  Your claim seems to be that a human being is simply incapable of expending the amount of energy it would take to love themselves (which you state as a premise for being capable of loving another) and more than one other person.  It seems preposterous to me to take an abstracted principle like love assume that it has a finite level of energy that must necessarily be devoted to it for it to be actual love.

You might be tempted to say that there is some degree of physical energy that is expended in a person while feeling love for another. Perhaps if we took measurements of heart rate or sweat levels on a person who claims to be in love, we would find that a human being undergoes certain physiological changes when feeling the emotion of love.  Though this is probably true, the same changes might occur from more base emotions like fight or flight, or sex drive, or any other confounding emotions.  I see no reason to believe that an individual is not capable of being in love with more than one person from your energy argument.  What would happen if a person did fall in love with more than one other person, would they blow up or spontaneously combust?

I think Jersey is right to say that we all love differently, and for different reasons, and I also think that this discussion turned into exactly the opposite of what a productive philosophical debate should be.  We started too far down the line, and all we ended up doing was trying to give our own, very specific, very subjective, very personal experience based definitions of what we think love is.

But wait, there is still hope for this topic if we all slow our rolls a little bit and go back to the beginning.  For sure, how we define being in love, or how we act when we are in love may be different for each individual, but yet we still all come back to this singular concept to define a relatively similar (albeit not completely similar) emotion.  What is that? How is that?  There must be some reason why we all come to this experience of love. Are we hardwired for love?  Are we so bombarded with images of romantic love throughout childhood that we only learn to speak of it as an object?  Is it something that is spiritual, or is it only a combination of physiological changes produced by stress?  I think there are some things we can still do with this topic, if we stay away from the specifics of how each of us deal with love.  We just need to find a way to start at a less contentious place.

Actually I wasn't referring to energy, but if that's how you interpret it, fine. The brain actually works in such away that each factor you mentioned don't all come from the same place. Metaphorically though people blow up all the time. They go nuts over love, in both good and bad ways. Just think of some things people have done for love or because of love. So the idea of my statement is still very correct. There is a finite infinitive level, but that's still different for everyone. Just because you love some doesn't mean you'll always love them. Love is always a progressive thing, which is why partners must grow together. If they don't then they fall out of love. I wouldn't define the energy as measurable though. As I said love can't be seen. I think I've said this already, but if I didn't we all love differently. But it there is a big common ground to it.

Love can only be defined through experience. No one will ever have a definitive answer, but they can answer to fit the social norm. And the last time I checked love has been, and is still being defined just as how I am explaining it. And if that's not understandable I don't know what is.  

That's it for Pt. 3. Check back later for the not so thrilling conclusion to this friendly discourse. 

UPDATE: Find out how it ends in Pt. 4

No comments:

Post a Comment