Thread: Here's a philosophical question

That's not a philosophical question.

Does man love another person, or does he love the other's love for him?

1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

My question can be shaped very easily into one by provide an answer dealing with the conduct two people share with each other in regards to this.

It's still not a philosophical question. It's psychological at best. The answer varies from person to person, there's no "man".

Love in the context of attraction

Being attracted to someone not attracted to you is a vexation

Being attracted to one who is attracted to you as well is sheer delight

Thus attraction itself has its own weight it would seem

This from personal observation over the years

it depends I think. there's no such thing as love, because the quantity in that its given is always limited by missing pieces and we are all missing them

Uh generally a man loves another person. See unrequited love, for example. But I suppose in very strong relationships love can become quite mutual like that, yes.

Which man?

I say it depends,
someone might love someone just because the other person loves him...

depends what you mean by love. For example, in a purely measurable 3-axis system of lust, chemical compatibility, and psychological compatibility, yes, said man would love the other person. In a 1-axis system of definition based on "Is he willing to give up his sense of self, or his life, for this person?" then yes, he would love that person partly for them, but mostly the love that the femalke has for him, or will have, and he would effectiely do anything to increase that love.

Really, it all depends on the definition. I worked out several effective definitions years ago, nearly all of them contradictory.

My answer is; man should love all other persons, because they are just like him. My question is, why would you not love all people? How will not loving all people bring you any profit? Sure, you have more love for your family and friends, but in the end, you have infinite love, so you can just love everyone... the more love you give, the more love you will get...

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

My answer is; man should love all other persons, because they are just like him. My question is, why would you not love all people? How will not loving all people bring you any profit?

For one, you would keep the ability to protect yourself against criminals, idiots and assholes. Also, the meaning of love is lost when you love everybody.

Sure, you have more love for your family and friends, but in the end, you have infinite love, so you can just love everyone... the more love you give, the more love you will get...

Yeah, except when the other person doesn't care and kills you because they're deranged.

You don't really love any actual real people in the first place...You love the idea of them. There is no way any person can truly know another person to actually love that "person."

For example...I love X person...However my definition of X person includes him being a loving person...so by that definition if he were a murderer and I didn't know, then I would actually love him, I would love the idea of him.

That example is over the top but it stresses the point. You love idea's of people not the actual person.

If a man could not love another person and could only love the other person's love for him, there would be nothing to love since the other person could not love him and could only love his love for him/her, which could not exist for the same reason, ad infinitum. So a person in such a case would only love the other person's love for his love for her love for his love for her love for his love for her love for his love for her love for.... There would never be a point of substance, so there would be no love.

Hey UM I can't tell from just looking at it but is that an impossible shape in your avatar?

Penrose triangle (yes).

I figured that it was something like that. Mind trippy.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Hey UM I can't tell from just looking at it but is that an impossible shape in your avatar?

Yeah, it's an impossibility. It goes from bottom to top and then back to the bottom by going horizontal. It reminds me of some of M.C. Escher's sketches, except it involves photographs.

M. C. Escher did actually use something very like that in the lithograph waterfall, and it was based off the work of Roger Penrose in fact. All his impossible objects were (ascending and descending for example).

It's weird that these things were only thought of last century really, because I swear I used to make them up all the time as a kid.



Sorry, tangent. Really should make an Escher thread.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's weird that these things were only thought of last century really, because I swear I used to make them up all the time as a kid.

Well to be fair, there may have been, and probably were, artistic designs like these before known dates. For example...you say you did it as a kid...how many people know about that? Hehe. I suppose it was hard to find the material to draw also even 200 years ago. Even if you could find material I doubt you could find people with the time, or desire.