Exactly. You can't love all people. It's fluffy liberal bollocks.
Well, you don't have to. You just love. Love life. Leave everything else to work itself out. That is the universal love i presume you were wondering about.
Exactly. You can't love all people. It's fluffy liberal bollocks.
Why can't you hate though? It's an emotion like any other. Or is it a case of it actually being there but people wanting to call it something else?
But then it's not really love. It might be some kind of warm funny feeling but it's not love, because for it to be there has to be reasons behind why you love them in the first place even if it's unconditional, even as simple reason as "because it's my kid". Otherwise you might as well have that kind of vague warm fuzziness about a cardboard box.
you're such a fucking hippy
Seriously though. There's a difference between loving life, loving people, etc, and loving ALL life and ALL people. As much as you may think you do or want to, you don't do that mate
That might be debatable, but there's certainly nothing wrong with not having hatred.
Who says I'm seeking universal love?
Do you love George Bush? Of course you don't
Who says there is? It just seems prudish to feel an emotion that's exactly like hatred and then say that it's sometihng else (not that i'm saying that jer or anyone else on this thread is doing that btw)
Mate, i'm not necessarily talking about what i do or am. I'm human eh?! But i do think i'm talking about what we can all do.
Love is the art of the possible, so is life. Avoid hatred, fear, and death, and life is all that's left. And from life comes love...
Sorry! I am replying based on the premise that you were looking to further interpretation and understanding as to what love might be or mean. I guess i ought to reread your OP. But in any case, no george bush is a complete and utter bastard, that is anti-life. But do i hate him? No, not for one minute, it would mean he wins twice, and i lose twice. That ain't a good return for me frogw!!
agreed, certainly. But, and perhaps this is the key, do we have to feel emotions? Do we have to feel hatred, in the absence of love? If one feels an emotion that language best describes as hatred, then there we go. But, if one does not engage with the trigger that causes the emotion, then are we not on the first rung of ridding ourselves of the emotion of hatred?
And I disagree btw, I think love is a strogner form of liking someone, and there is often an obsessional component in it as well with romantic love and relationships. Nothing necessarily wrong with that though. They're all emotions.
you might not hate him, but the question is do you love him? No, obviously. Love and hatred aren;t the only two emotions that there are. "Strong dislike" might be another one.
"Love is the art of the possible" - I guess we have different definitions then?
To me love is something you feel for your family and friends and it's bound up with other stuff like loyalty, protection, etc. It's a very complex concept and that emotion IMO can't really be felt for random strangers just because you feel it "should" or because you want to make the world a better place. You might feel some kind of warm glow, but love it ain't.
I don't go around hating everyone I see, that's equally as sttupid (and impossible). I'm just questioning the idea that hatred is always bad, because some positive things can sometimes come out of it.
No, love isn't just really liking someone, I hear so many people talk about love when really all they are is dependent on that person and what that person provides for them, they may not even like that person as an individual. Love is stronger than this imo. I have no time for the modern reductionist view, it is quite frankly boring.
you're such a fucking hippy
Seriously though. There's a difference between loving life, loving people, etc, and loving ALL life and ALL people. As much as you may think you do or want to, you don't do that mate
But IMO it's devalueing the concept of love to reduce it to something that you can just feel for random strangers you don't even know or even heard of. You can love a thing, life, people, etc, as a concept, but that's not the same as what i'm asking about in my op.
And sorry but - you don't love GB because he doesn't represent the concept of life? He obviously represents it for *somebody* - and what's the criteria for deciding that someone doesn't represent the concept and doesn't get any love?
Thanks for this discussion btw, it's very interesting
Who decides that they don't count? I'm not saying I don't agree btw, but this is the problem when it comes to things like this, that I referred to in my OP. I'd have a lot of difficulty showing "universal love" to some of the cunts in the video i've been editing recently, and why try to make yourself feel something that you can't feel and indeed SHOULDN'T feel in some circumstaces?
That's not what I'm saying. And you haven't actually got a clue what sort of stuff I've been doing or what I'm talking about, do you. When I said "fucking horrific animal cruelty" I wasn't talking about lab technicians (i know one) or mentally ill women throwing cats in bins ffs.
let's not forget your mate deisel either - do/did you hate him? Walked into that one didn't you?
belushi says you're a tool btw
I don't love all animals unconditionally btw. I like animals, but I don't love all of them. Especially not wasps.
let's not forget your mate deisel either - do/did you hate him?
I don't think universal love is about approving of everyone at all, its not the same thing. You're making love sound very practical, a kind of prioritisation of those who are close to, modern psychobabble nonsense to appease practical people in practical relationships imo. Love is overwhelming desire to be privy to (I won't say possess with its overtones of patriarchy) what is beautiful (in the most general sense of the term). Thus we love towards a beautiful nature, moral beauty as well as physical beauty. A love of humanity is merely an appreciation of what is beautiful in it. If you stop believing in the inherent beauty of human nature you quickly degrade into misanthropy. The fact that people have such strong moral reactions to certain individuals is anything a sign of this appreciation and a distain for what threatens it. One only has to look at a old copper or criminal judge to see the degrading effects of being constantly being present of the uglier side of human nature.
I think it would probably be better to analyse love in terms of Philia, Eros and Agape as opposed to lumping them all together although at base they are all the same.
But it has nothing to do with "modern" or not. This idea, and adoption from Christianity and Judaism into other belief systems only came about relatively recently. Shakespeare when he wrote his love poetry and his sonnets, when he talked about love and about human relationships, didn't talk about it like an ideal. He talked about it how it actually existed in the world and in his and his characters' minds. Even in the New Testament where it says, "Greater love hath no man than the man who lays down his life for his friends." Is that some sort of wooly abstract concept based around vaguely caring about people you don't know? No.