What is easier?

@BRbeliever,

I think it is a lot easier to love yourself, since you can always lie to yourself, give yourself whatever you want, change your personality, all of which can't necessarily happen with someone else.

Also, it would be easier to love someone distant, provided its not lust. It's easy to semi-love someone, depends on what love context you are talking about, that is far away since all you need to do is love them from the last time you saw them, and provided you don't speak that often to each other, that love won't necessarily change. Since the English language has only one word for love, it would be better which type you specified.

This is what I would assume most people would agree with.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

Easier to love yourself. Most of us are pretty good about thinking about ourselves, and how things relate to us. Considering how what we do affects others can be more difficult.

Easier to love someone close to you. You may fight more, but proximity definately helps. It would be great if it was equally easy to love someone close and someone distant.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

I think its easier to love someone else, because you can accept who they are and what they are about, and accept them for all their beauty and inner warts a lot easier than you can accept those things in yourself.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Hi everyone!

Smile

I believe what is needed is to define love and how it works before asserting anything about its relations.:eek:

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi everyone!

I believe what is needed is to define love and how it works before asserting anything about its relations.:eek:

That's a good point, I guess its different for everyone? Or is it?

1 Reply

@Tainted,

Tainted wrote:

That's a good point, I guess its different for everyone? Or is it?

Tainted,

:)It is a formiable task, it has been said, one reserved for fools. Never the less, this is one fool who enjoys the process, I would agree with Schopenhauer that love is perfect sympathy but I believe it is a little more. As we move through this world we move among objects, people are in some degree objects as well, particulary if there are no connections no relations established with said individuals, then they remain objects. It is a spiritual experience to be one with object, whether this occurs through meditation or through the love of another, it is making this spiritual connection. Marriage, if you believe in the ritual, believe in the myth, is this at onement with another, which in effect is at onement with the world. So, your lover, just may be the greatest spiritual opportunity of your life. Wink

1 Reply

@boagie,

I'm a very spiritual person and agree with you completely Boagie Smile

I see life as a voyage of connections.... with people, any living thing actually, with the environment, with emotions and experiences. I think love can be more than an emotion to experience, it can be the wire that connects us with everything else. If we reach out in love we may be turned away, but it will leave a lasting impression on that which we have reached out to. It will also leave a lasting impression on our spirit.

Which is why I think its easier to love someone else.

Unless we can master the act of reaching inwards, of connecting with our own spirit, our own essence, of sending love inwards.

I think that's a lot harder, and takes a lot more dedication, than reaching out to another. Not impossible and something we can relearn (we as a whole) but it seems easier somehow to send love outwards.

1 Reply

@Tainted,

Tainted,

:)It is a very difficult topic and one where there will be many conflicting views. It think in relation to romance and physical love, there is a standing relationship, and the opposite sex triggers or evokes a reaction in the individual. The need is already there, the response I do not think one could say---in most cases---that it is willed, sexuality in general is involentary. This as such, constitutes or falls under the catagory of lust, desire ect.., and is not necessarily related to love. I think we should try to define love in the absence of any sexual connotation, sex simply confuses the topic with inferrances which do not properly belong to it. Duties call ---later!

1 Reply

@boagie,

lol, yes sex always seems to confuse matters Very Happy

Define love?

I look forward to carrying on this discussion, duty calls me too though so will be back Smile

2 Replies

@Tainted,

Define love? This should be interesting. Someone once told me of a book by a reputable scholar who argued that love doesn't mean anything, and in support he gave a great many definitions of love from various sources. I'll have to see if I can find it.

As for defining love, Boagie set us on the right track with some useful distinctions; however, I wonder how we can positively define love. We might say love is not this, or not that, but what is it?

Boagie, you talked about a oneness. What is it to be at one with something? Is this being aware of something that is regardless of our awareness, or something that only exists when we are at "one".

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

:)Sorry, had a rather lengthly reply but lost it-------computer troubles:mad:
Geneal systems theory states that there is no totality available to our experience, thus the reality is, we are all a part of something larger then ourselves. Subject and object are indeed inseparable, it is believed by many that duality is the illusion, not oneness. Again sorry for the brief reply. I shall expand later if necessary. Wink

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Subject and object are indeed inseparable, it is believed by many that duality is the illusion, not oneness.

If duality is the illusion, then the sensation of another as object is dispeled by oneness (as oneness brought by love). Thankfully, we are not all physically joined. Our physical seperaion and the domnating sensation of self, seprates us from each other, providing autonomy. Autonomy frees us from eachother but plauges us with objectification/seperation. So is the yin any less valuable than the yang? It is precisely the way subject object compliment and define eachother that is the interesting dynamic. To become one with very other is nirvana.

So love yourself first, then go love someone else:p.

1 Reply

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

If duality is the illusion, then the sensation of another as object is dispeled by oneness (as oneness brought by love). Thankfully, we are not all physically joined. Our physical seperaion and the domnating sensation of self, seprates us from each other, providing autonomy. Autonomy frees us from eachother but plauges us with objectification/seperation. So is the yin any less valuable than the yang? It is precisely the way subject object compliment and define eachother that is the interesting dynamic. To become one with very other is nirvana.

So love yourself first, then go love someone else:p.

:)Hi ogden!

:)Your points are well taken. This love yourself first, have we determine then just what love is? As it is an emotion, it happens almost entirely within, some marvelous chemistry changes, never the less the object of desire is always out there.The autonomy you speak of is not violated really by the desire for other but the whole thing is a response to an innate need, as one eats when one is hungry. What is your slant on just how the process---- assumeing we know what love is--of love works or functions, is it entirely an internal matter other than the orginal stimulus? What is the universal relation between the sexes, if indeed there is one, does this effect our defination of love, I think not, but it does need to be clearly eliminated.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

:)Hi ogden!

:)Your points are well taken. This love yourself first, have we determine then just what love is? As it is an emotion, it happens almost entirely within, some marvelous chemistry changes, never the less the object of desire is always out there.The autonomy you speak of is not violated really by the desire for other but the whole thing is a response to an innate need, as one eats when one is hungry. What is your slant on just how the process---- assumeing we know what love is--of love works or functions, is it entirely an internal matter other than the orginal stimulus? What is the universal relation between the sexes, if indeed there is one, does this effect our defination of love, I think not, but it does need to be clearly eliminated.

Hey boagie! Great point. It is useless to use words to rationalize a point when the meaning of the words are ambiguous or undefined. The problem is that sometimes the words represent an abstract concept like love. What was that wonderfull quote: the limits of my vocabulary are the limits of my reality? Also, am I to define love, when all the artists, poets, and philosophers, before me have so valerously failed? I think not, but I'll try. I will also try and maintain an analytical aproach. Emotive reasoning is not logically viable, even when attempting to define an emotion.

Love would seem to be the perception of a condition within ones self that is of a euphoric, favorable nature, and is in relation to someone or something. The favorable part is probably due in some way to the sensation of seratonin, dopamine, and oxycotin (feel good chemicals) produced in the brain that coinside with the perception of love. In some ways its like a clasical conditioned response in that there is an association between the good feeling and the person or thing. This favorable association is established and then is reinforced through repeated favorable experiences. Bad or negative expierience can disrupt or break down the favorable association.

You spoke of love as being an inate need. I will agree, and further; love hapens regardless of external conditons. By that I mean obviously external factors/stimuli can pramote chemical release, but I also think that the chemicals release nomater what, and when they do, you feel euphoric/love for no apparent reason.

In social ralationships, favorability pramotes acceptance of the other, so then loving yourself might be synonymous with accepting yourself. A persons ability to accept others/love others may be limited by fear of rejection from low selfesteem or from memory of a previous expieriance, so loving yourlelf is easier than loving someone else.

I read some of the thread on "the selfish nature of man", and I think (sadly) Love is a selfish act. You should check out the thread on "whats the deal with sex?" Teena posted some nice article links about love and sex.
I do love a good sunset:p.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

Very nice post Ogden, but is love purely the reason and process or is it greater than that?

I think to define love is the same as trying to define beauty. Is it subjective or objective?

I know how deeply and honestly I love my partner, and I sometimes think I know how much he loves me. I know how and why....its the how and why you describe....but that somehow doesn't even come close to a satisfactory answer for what it can do to a person, to a people even.

I have a theory...not one that could come close to defining love, but perhaps will put a different angle on it.

I think that love began as a means to ensuring continuation of the species, but as we have evolved we did so not just physically, but emotionally and spiritually also. Love has become greater than the sum of its parts. It has become, as we have grown, a greater force.

It used to be simple.

Love your mate, love your children, love your tribe. That was all we needed. But as our social habits have developed and encompasses what you could call a world wide tribe, our capacity for love has grown to accommodate. We no longer need to only love our family and small tribe to survive, but we need to extend the range of our love across a wide area and many many people.

Love isnt just about romantic love, family love, friendship, its also about loving the world and everyone in it...which might just save us.

1 Reply

@Tainted,

Tainted wrote:

Love has become greater than the sum of its parts.

Splendid! I knew a poet would come and help balance my sterile view. Yes, yes, it is so much more than any words can describe. I was just looking at it from a specific angle as it relates to the topic of the post.

If it is ok to drift off topic, this question "what is love" could branch into several other areas of philosophy.

I continue on by saying that man is a wonderous biochemical instrument that is capable of fantastic sensory perception, and ability to comprehend the subtle nuances, and sweeping complexities of relationships in a cognitive mental state that is, as you say, highly developed.

So what is the purpouse, cause, and affect of all this ability that we have developed? If love (whatever it is) has developed, is it still developing, and what might is become? Can we comprehend ouselves, and the depth and breadth of love?

Tainted, do you think it is easier to love youself or someone else, and why?

1 Reply

@ogden,

ogeden wrote:

Tainted, do you think it is easier to love youself or someone else, and why?

My own personal answer to this is connected to what you say here...

ogden wrote:

If love (whatever it is) has developed, is it still developing, and what might is become? Can we comprehend ouselves, and the depth and breadth of love?

I think its easier to love others..for now..because we are still learning how to truly love ourselves. Its hard to explain because i've never tried to put this into words before so bare with me Smile

Everybody has the ability to love another. Some try to block it and protect themselves from harm by refusing to acknowledge the feelings they have, but essentially everyone knows how to love another and doesn't need to try...it just happens.

But loving yourself is different. Some people are lucky enough to be naturally able to love themselves and dont need to work at it. But IMO, for the most, it is something that you need to be reminded to do and requires a lot of work. We are our own worst critics and its so much easier to hate yourself for something than it is to hate another for something. And perhaps there lays the duality of the situation.

Getting back to what you said about can we comprehend ourselves...I think we are learning to look inwards more and more. We are starting to wake up to the fact that there is divinity in all of us, that we hold the key to our own happiness. We are learning that love is something we need to send inwards aswell as outwards...but its not something we are used to doing IMO.

I think loving ourselves goes hand in hand with trusting ourselves, respecting ourselves, knowing ourselves and allowing ourselves to be less than perfect. Things that are not by any means easy to do, things we often have to learn. So taking all that into account, I really do believe it is easier to love someone else because we already know from birth how to do that.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

BRbeliever wrote:

What do you think is easier: to love yourself, or to love someone else? And why?

I think it is easier and smarter to love yourself for the simple reason that if you disappoint yourself, and really piss yourself off, you are easier to catch. And no matter how bad you want to kick your own ass, don't even try it without an audience. Humiliation ought to be to some ones pleasure. No one should keep that to themselves, or even try.[/B]
[quote]

Also, do you think it is easier to love someone close to you, or to love someone distant? Why?
[/quote] Distant is always better. If you never see them it is easier to love them. If they are dead you can lavish every sort of affection on them, and if they never existed, then that is all the better. Why do people stalk movie stars? Because the more plastic, and unreal they are the easier they are to love.

Quote:

Do you think your awnsers differ from what you think 'most people' will awnser?

They always do. I have never been most people, and I am as big as two, but I still fill only one pair of britches. In addition to this, I am crooked. Something in my life, my reading, my experiences, my something gives me a different take on life and existence. I have never seen it fail where if everyone one else says White I say what? Even my writing is crooked. I'll go tearing along and look back and see I was writing things phonetically. It is because I say as I write. And I do as I think.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

BRbeliever wrote:

What do you think is easier: to love yourself, or to love someone else? And why?

[/B]I find it easier to love others, as I see myself far more clearly than I see others. It's also easier for me to forgive others for their misbehaviors because I know the falsehood in my own excuses with certainty.

BRbeliever wrote:

Also, do you think it is easier to love someone close to you, or to love someone distant? Why?

[/B]
I have equal ease in loving those near or faraway, however there is joy in the presence of loved ones, and pain in their absence; so long distance relationships are more trying for me.

BRbeliever wrote:

Do you think your awnsers differ from what you think 'most people' will awnser?

As for your first question I think I am likely in the minority. When we were discussing attribution errors in a psychology class long ago, I was surprised that most people apparently find it easier to forgive themselves than others.

1 Reply

What is easier?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know