Water. Oxygen. Food. Shelter. These are needs for a human being. You have to do these things to survive, or you will die.
Computer games. Music. Beer. These are wants. You don't have to do these things to survive, but you do them anyway.
But since white can eventually fade to black or red can become orange gradually, wouldn't it make sense for their to be something between want and need? What word could possible describe this idea where you have an equal balance of want and need, and they compliment each other?
Love is the perfect balance of want and need, because it is both something you want and need. It is also something you don't may not actually want or need. But when you love someone, you are saying that you have achieved a balance of both needing them in your life and wanting them - neither taken to an extreme. When you say you love a song, you are saying that it has become a part of your life that is something that you needed and wanted.
Remember today, of all days, that while you may be single that love is waiting - you just need to find the balance before you can find it.
Love is the perfect balance of want and need, because it is both something you want and need. It is also something you don't may not actually want or need.
Which one is it? Those two sentences contradict each other.
Your conclusion that 'you just need to find the balance before you can find [love]' doesn't follow from anything you said either. If you define love as something that one both wants and needs.. then why would I need to find 'the balance' (no idea what balance) before I would be able to find love? Surely you can't mean that one has to want and need something to an equal degree (no idea how you would measure that) before being able to find love (because I can want and need water when I'm thirsty, but that has nothing to do with love), and even if you mean wanting and needing some person before being able to find love, then that is exactly your (not very good) definition of love, so saying one has to do x -before- one can do x makes no sense.
I'm sorry, but if I could give you less than 1 star, I would.
Love is the perfect balance of want and need, because it is both something you want and need. It is also something you don't may not actually want or need.
Which one is it? Those two sentences contradict each other.
Your conclusion that 'you just need to find the balance before you can find [love]' doesn't follow from anything you said either. If you define love as something that one both wants and needs.. then why would I need to find 'the balance' (no idea what balance) before I would be able to find love? Surely you can't mean that one has to want and need something to an equal degree (no idea how you would measure that) before being able to find love (because I can want and need water when I'm thirsty, but that has nothing to do with love), and even if you mean wanting and needing some person before being able to find love, then that is exactly your (not very good) definition of love, so saying one has to do x -before- one can do x makes no sense.
I'm sorry, but if I could give you less than 1 star, I would.
You have taken my post far too literally.
First of all, tell me on person who thinks love is logical. With that in mind, why are you trying to apply logic to it?
Second, what I said wasn't a contradiction. I realize it was phrased weirdly, but what I meant was that love can be both of those, and sometimes it can be at the same time. Sounds impossible, but multiple girls have told me it is possible. But in a lot of cases, the idea that love is either of those depends on the circumstance. If it's a former lover, then you still love them, but you neither want or need them.
Third - How are you going to find more of x without finding a little bit of x to start with? I understand it doesn't make sense to suggest that in order to find love you have to find love, but there's a reason that I said you have to find a balance to find love despite the fact that I am claiming they are essentially equal. The balance is found within yourself, then expressed to another who has acheieved a similar balance. So yes, the phrase that in order to find love you have to find love does make sense - i just phrased it extremely poorly, and I apologize for that.
Uhm, no, need is pretty much clear cut. The only real "balance" occurs where there's a difference between societal needs and subsistence needs.
For example, you don't "need" a job. Money isn't a "need". However, due to societal structure in civilized countries, it is sort of a need. You "need" money to get the basics to subsist, unless you choose to avoid society entirely.
Every new set of "needs", then, is being imposed by social conformity. The flip side to this, though, is that social conformity frequently derives from our wants. So we choose our needs based on what we want.
On February 15 2013 02:25 hoby2000 wrote: First of all, tell me on person who thinks love is logical. With that in mind, why are you trying to apply logic to it?
This one is easy: I do. But even if love were 'not logical' (I don't even know what that means), then it wouldn't follow that we can't 'apply logic' to it. I can 'apply logic' even to meaningless gibberish like afagsdga and uighjuirag. Look:
If afagsdga then uighjuirag. afagsdga is the case. Therefore uighjuirag.
Perfectly logical!
Second, what I said wasn't a contradiction. I realize it was phrased weirdly, but what I meant was that love can be both of those, and sometimes it can be at the same time. Sounds impossible, but multiple girls have told me it is possible. But in a lot of cases, the idea that love is either of those depends on the circumstance. If it's a former lover, then you still love them, but you neither want or need them.
Multiple girls told you it is possible, therefore it must be the case?
Third - How are you going to find more of x without finding a little bit of x to start with? I understand it doesn't make sense to suggest that in order to find love you have to find love, but there's a reason that I said you have to find a balance to find love despite the fact that I am claiming they are essentially equal. The balance is found within yourself, then expressed to another who has acheieved a similar balance. So yes, the phrase that in order to find love you have to find love does make sense - i just phrased it extremely poorly, and I apologize for that.
You say that 'balance' and love are the same thing, and that 'balance' is found within yourself and then expressed to another who has found a similar 'balance' within themselves. So basically, you find love within yourself.. and then express it to someone who has found love within themselves. So if you don't find balance, you cannot love. But a lot of people have not done any soulsearching or lead horribly unbalanced (unhappy, miserable etc.) lives and yet they love - and some are even loved in return!
On February 15 2013 02:25 hoby2000 wrote: First of all, tell me on person who thinks love is logical. With that in mind, why are you trying to apply logic to it?
This one is easy: I do. But even if love were 'not logical' (I don't even know what that means), then it wouldn't follow that we can't 'apply logic' to it. I can 'apply logic' even to meaningless gibberish like afagsdga and uighjuirag. Look:
If afagsdga then uighjuirag. afagsdga is the case. Therefore uighjuirag.
Second, what I said wasn't a contradiction. I realize it was phrased weirdly, but what I meant was that love can be both of those, and sometimes it can be at the same time. Sounds impossible, but multiple girls have told me it is possible. But in a lot of cases, the idea that love is either of those depends on the circumstance. If it's a former lover, then you still love them, but you neither want or need them.
Multiple girls told you it is possible, therefore it must be the case?
Third - How are you going to find more of x without finding a little bit of x to start with? I understand it doesn't make sense to suggest that in order to find love you have to find love, but there's a reason that I said you have to find a balance to find love despite the fact that I am claiming they are essentially equal. The balance is found within yourself, then expressed to another who has acheieved a similar balance. So yes, the phrase that in order to find love you have to find love does make sense - i just phrased it extremely poorly, and I apologize for that.
You say that 'balance' and love are the same thing, and that 'balance' is found within yourself and then expressed to another who has found a similar 'balance' within themselves. So basically, you find love within yourself.. and then express it to someone who has found love within themselves. So if you don't find balance, you cannot love. But a lot of people have not done any soulsearching or lead horribly unbalanced (unhappy, miserable etc.) lives and yet they love - and some are even loved in return!
Your arguments are really weak. I'm not going to reply to you after this because I can see that you're not actually arguing a point, you're just dancing around semantics, but I'm going to address this post anyway.
First - No, you can't apply logic to the illogical. The example you gave was basically gibberish (haha, even you said it). All I learned from my example is that you do not understand how logic actually works.
Second - I will agree that the evidence I have for that is purely anecdotal but again, we're talking about something that cannot be proven in the physical realm, so I'm not sure what you want me to say. What other evidence should I provide you with? No scientific study can explain love, or the idea of both loving and not loving someone at the same time.
Third - Those who have not soul searched are not in love. If you don't know yourself, how do you expect to know what you want? You claim they love, yet to love you have to understand yourself. There's no if, and, or but about it. Anyone who is convinced that they can fall in love without knowing what they want isn't talking about love - They're talking about lust. I don't know why provocation caused this lust, but i assure you that without knowing yourself, you will never find love. You can lie to yourself all you want about it, but you won't.
On February 15 2013 01:35 Cokefreak wrote: The Beatles put it best.
Newer generation has barely heard of this legend, forgive them.
This is the song he was referring to:
---
What you "need" to survive is very clear-cut TBH.
Things that extend beyond your own survival, even trying to extend your needs to include the needs of your friends/family, is not longer what you need for surviving, instead it would be for thriving.
Doesn't Maslow's heiarchy of needs claim that love is one of those things though that you need? Or to feel accepted?
Also - like I said. The need and want in love isn't as strong as it is in just a need or just a want because it is a feeling of both, therefore it must be balanced. Neither can be too extreme, hence why I kept the phrase need in there, though yes, like you said, it's not necessarily a need for surviving, but more for thriving.
Some of the most happily married people are also the dumbest. Some are also quite smart, but let's not pretend that simpletons without self-reflection don't find love. In fact, I'd say it's far easier for them.
On February 15 2013 03:52 farvacola wrote: Some of the most happily married people are also the dumbest. Some are also quite smart, but let's not pretend that simpletons without self-reflection don't find love. In fact, I'd say it's far easier for them.
This is the problem about talking about love - People are instantly assuming that it has to be a love between a couple, but I'm referring to love generally. Without knowing who you are as a person, the people you call friends, or the person you call your significant other, or the person you call your brother are no more than strangers because they only have given you information of them based on what you've given them about you. So if one is a simpleton with you any self-reflection, I really doubt that they have actually found love, regardless of who it's between.
On February 15 2013 03:52 farvacola wrote: Some of the most happily married people are also the dumbest. Some are also quite smart, but let's not pretend that simpletons without self-reflection don't find love. In fact, I'd say it's far easier for them.
This is the problem about talking about love - People are instantly assuming that it has to be a love between a couple, but I'm referring to love generally. Without knowing who you are as a person, the people you call friends, or the person you call your significant other, or the person you call your brother are no more than strangers because they only have given you information of them based on what you've given them about you. So if one is a simpleton with you any self-reflection, I really doubt that they have actually found love, regardless of who it's between.
Well you are wrong. Sorry. Intellectual judgement and emotional intelligence can be interrelated, but they by no means must be. The world may be an easier place to understand if you simply consider shallow, unintelligent people less than smart people or that their emotions are somehow less "authentic", but that doesn't make such a consideration correct. Humans, even dumb ones, interact with one another in a practically infinite number of ways.
On February 15 2013 03:52 farvacola wrote: Some of the most happily married people are also the dumbest. Some are also quite smart, but let's not pretend that simpletons without self-reflection don't find love. In fact, I'd say it's far easier for them.
This is the problem about talking about love - People are instantly assuming that it has to be a love between a couple, but I'm referring to love generally. Without knowing who you are as a person, the people you call friends, or the person you call your significant other, or the person you call your brother are no more than strangers because they only have given you information of them based on what you've given them about you. So if one is a simpleton with you any self-reflection, I really doubt that they have actually found love, regardless of who it's between.
Well you are wrong. Sorry. Intellectual judgement and emotional intelligence can be interrelated, but they by no means must be. The world may be an easier place to understand if you simply consider shallow, unintelligent people less than smart people or that their emotions are somehow less "authentic", but that doesn't make such a consideration correct. Humans, even dumb ones, interact with one another in a practically infinite number of ways.
Well, first of all, intelligence is relative. So someone can be pretty dumb a lot of things but still understand love. I find no trouble with that idea at all.
Second, I never said that only smart people would have an authentic love.. What I said was that without knowing who you are as a person, which doesn't require intelligence - it just requires awareness and willpower - then I fail to see how can know what you want and/or need, therefore I find it impossible that someone could actually find love. And I also think that a lot of people make assumptions about their feelings, and label it as love when in reality it's just lust.
On February 15 2013 03:52 farvacola wrote: Some of the most happily married people are also the dumbest. Some are also quite smart, but let's not pretend that simpletons without self-reflection don't find love. In fact, I'd say it's far easier for them.
This is the problem about talking about love - People are instantly assuming that it has to be a love between a couple, but I'm referring to love generally. Without knowing who you are as a person, the people you call friends, or the person you call your significant other, or the person you call your brother are no more than strangers because they only have given you information of them based on what you've given them about you. So if one is a simpleton with you any self-reflection, I really doubt that they have actually found love, regardless of who it's between.
Well you are wrong. Sorry. Intellectual judgement and emotional intelligence can be interrelated, but they by no means must be. The world may be an easier place to understand if you simply consider shallow, unintelligent people less than smart people or that their emotions are somehow less "authentic", but that doesn't make such a consideration correct. Humans, even dumb ones, interact with one another in a practically infinite number of ways.
Well, first of all, intelligence is relative. So someone can be pretty dumb a lot of things but still understand love. I find no trouble with that idea at all.
Second, I never said that only smart people would have an authentic love.. What I said was that without knowing who you are as a person, which doesn't require intelligence - it just requires awareness and willpower - then I fail to see how can know what you want and/or need, therefore I find it impossible that someone could actually find love. And I also think that a lot of people make assumptions about their feelings, and label it as love when in reality it's just lust.
You are still affixing a predetermined value to the concept of introspection, a process that a great many people will simply never undergo by virtue of the fact that they simply lack the "zoom out" tools necessary to truly self-reflect. Some people can be quite aware, quite strong willed, and unable to "see" themselves in the mirror, and yet are still able to find love. Perhaps this love looks different to the introspective person, but on what basis are you to indict the quality of their love based on your own perspective? You talk about making assumptions, yet make rather large ones yourself. Humanity is more than the inward glance.
On February 15 2013 01:21 hoby2000 wrote: Love is the perfect balance of want and need, because it is both something you want and need. It is also something you don't may not actually want or need.
This isn't even pseudo-intellectual, I've seen mud puddles with more clarity and depth.
On February 15 2013 01:21 hoby2000 wrote: Love is the perfect balance of want and need, because it is both something you want and need. It is also something you don't may not actually want or need.
This isn't even pseudo-intellectual, I've seen mud puddles with more clarity and depth.
hahaha I lol'd. I was going to go for the pseudo intellectual label but apparently that doesn't fit either.
It is also something you don't may not actually want or need.
Oh Oh there's a double negative. Man I hardly ever see those. I don't want to see no double negatives yo.
EPT
