Friday, May 4, 2012

**Is it possible to be in love with more then one person**: a friendly debate Pt.4 (the conclusion) by J. Camps, NYC Rob and KV Sart

Pt. 1
Pt. 2
Pt. 3

Finally, we have (not) reached a conclusion to the question: is it possible to be in love with more then one person? 

KV Sart

But the idea of someone metaphorically blowing up often happens when people can't handle being in love with one other person.  Some people prosper while in love, some people fold.  It's not a matter of the amount of people an individual loves, but a matter of the psyche of the person who is doing the loving.  I think it stands to reason that some people can handle loving more than one person at once.  I know that I can't, but some people probably can.  That is why I think the question is not a great one.  It’s analogous to asking, "Which is better, mint ice cream or rocky road?"  You can argue for hours about it, but in the end all your going to get is a subjective answer that fits only one person.

But, since we all agree that something that we call love is out there, and all we seem to be able to say about it is that it is a complicated feeling, shouldn't we examine it a little closer?  It seems that the general sense of love might be a little less subjective and contentious, because it is less of a question about expectation, and more of an ingrained part of our nature.

How would you define love in the general sense, setting aside "in love"?

And a side note, social norms should be of little consequence in this debate.  Social norms turn free men into slaves; they force the just to turn a blind eye to injustice.  An argument that appeals primarily to social norms stagnates a community and prevents progression. 

If you really want to go in depth about every word I say, we'll be here forever. The social norm today is not of that ten years ago. To name a few things, we all walk around with phones, have bigger cars, and the Internet is the biggest thing. That's what is normal to us. In another ten years there will be something else. Maybe social norm isn't the right word for you. But these ridiculous tangents you keep going on are annoying. And you keep asking the same damn question about how I define love. I've defined love at least three times. Just accept it already!

Why can’t you believe? Every show defines it the way I have. Every 7 out of 10 people defines it the way I have. It's just the way it is. 

Oh and the last time checked there are still slaves in the world. Quam*: their social norm. 

*Editors note*If somebody can tell us what the word “quam” means, we’ll give you a free hard copy of this discussion, signed by all participants. Thank you.

J. Camps
(After being excluded from the email chain for a couple days)

Why have I been left out of the loop? I'm bout to smack the shit outta both of y'all.

I don't know how many times we have to talk about social norms or what other people think. DO NOT JUDGE THE QUALITY OF YOUR ARGUMENT ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK. It is pointless and baseless. The point KV made was that basing your contentions on other people's viewpoints is not the right way to go because people are fucking retarded. Did you not read "Voting Illiteracy" by Jersey Campbell? Widespread agreeance does not mean you are right. You only need to look at human history to see that this point is correct.

We were trying to have a discussion about the topic, not a debate. Mr. Rob you came at this with the guns out ready to argue your point before ever hearing what anyone else had to say. If I'm not mistaken that's how young Trayvon got shot. We wanted a philosophical discussion, one that started from premises we agree on to develop into conclusions we'd all be in accordance with. The fuck happened?

Anyhoo, the point KV and I are trying to make about love is that the feeling of love is common to all, but the source of this feeling varies according to the individual. And since we will never reach an agreement about the original question, he attempted to shift the debate to a more peaceful place, instead focusing on general love, rather then "in love". Maybe through discussing this universal form of love we can begin to talk about being in love. Until then, let's stick to general love.

I was going to respond to a couple of things you guys said, but we really really need to press the reset button.

KV Sart
Forgive me if I am annoying you, I am merely trying to work through your premises and conclusions.  You shouldn't take my non-accepting of your definition on blind faith personally.  I like to believe things that are proven sufficiently true, and in the case that they are not, I try to abstain from a set opinion until sufficient truth presents itself.

I know what social norm means, it still isn't strong evidence.  The examples you give are the exact reasons why social norms are not strong evidence.  Social norms are constantly changing. Why? Because people discuss things, much like we are doing, and find alternative ways to think about old or outdated concepts.  You say there are still slaves in the world, which is true, and you also say that it is their social norm, which is also true, but I ask you, isn't that an easy case that we can point to and say the social norm is wrong or non-beneficial?  I do not admit that how you define love is the social norm, but even if it were, the case of socially normed slavery should make clear that social norms are not sufficient enough evidence to claim a definition as the most suitable or beneficial.

Examining your premises and conclusions (words) in depth is what philosophy is.  Have you never heard of Socratic method?  It's point counter point.  We start with a definition, then we give all the possible cases in which the definition fails, then we slowly rework the definition until we cannot poke holes in it anymore.  Just saying "PLEASE BELIEVE ME, PLEEEAAASSSSEEEE BEEEELLLLIIIIIEEEEEVVVVVEEEE MEEE" isn't a good way to do philosophy.

J. Camps
What have we accomplished? What did we learn from this debate/discussion?

The fact that we can't answer these questions means we just spent a whole lotta time jacking each other off. Maybe we'll revisit this topic another day, but for now, it's time to wrap this up.

Just so we're clear, whenever we have these PHILOSOPHICAL discussions, we are looking to come to some sort of conclusion on the topic at hand. We all failed. Miserably. We came into this debate with our convictions at the forefront; we need a more cooperative approach next time. And there will be a next time.

This was fun, but we need to clean up our format. The personal attacks are fine, they add to the spice of the debate so long as it is in jest. Now that we're done (not really, but whatever), I'd like to know what other people think about love and being in love. I know I'm teetering on the edge of insanity, let's see if others are willing to jump off the cliff of common sense with me.

Peace and love to my fellow Wannabe Writers, and to our three readers.

Somewhere, Jersey Campbell is kicking NYC Robert in the cheekbone for mentioning social norms again. There is no love lost between them. 

Next time we promise to make more sense and present an organized, comprehensive discussion on the topic. We may even revisit this one when the mental debris is cleaned up in the VC office.

Until then, thanks for reading, and let us know what you think about this debate, and whether it is possible to be in love with more then one person simultaneously. We'd love to know, and you'd love to tell us. 

No comments:

Post a Comment