4 ms·
I used to think that. Until I met my true love. Hope you get to experience it some day. 23+ years of embarrassingly romantic, lustful, sacrificial, unconditiona
by lurquer 7y ago
I used to think that.
Until I met my true love.
Hope you get to experience it some day.
23+ years of embarrassingly romantic, lustful, sacrificial, unconditional straight-out-of-a-Shakespearean-sonnet divine true love.
There is such a thing. Rare. But it does exist.
- tokenpreneur 7y agoIt's not unconditional if it's also lustful.
- lurquer 7y agoHa. I'll leave it to you to parse adjectives. All I'm saying to the delightfully Spock-ian logical HN poster is that all the cynicsm and scientific Mumbo-jumbo about endorphines and the like vanish upon laying eyes on your soul-mate. I could never convince you of true love. I don't mean to even try. I hope you have the distinct pleasure and privilege of discovering it for yourself.
- tokenpreneur 7y agoThe GP was making a distinction regarding the application of the quality of unconditional to romantic love. At the minimum, if there's lust involved, it's by definition not unconditional. You snarkily leave me to parsing adjectives all the while triumphing your definition of true love over others. One can accept the notion of 'true (romantic) love' but pretending its unconditional is lying about facts. I'd also argue that even parental love and the love for the offspring is not unconditional either: you love them because they are your parents, or your children. We can participate in the varieties of the human experience, but let's not lose sight of the truth or muddle the meaning of words. I'm of the opinion that completely unconditional love can only occur in relation to an other from whom one stands to gain absolutely nothing.
- mistermann 7y ago> If there's lust involved, it's by definition not unconditional Can you elaborate on this?
- tokenpreneur 7y agoLust is conditioned by pleasurable sensory inputs and the prospect (or consummation, if you're lucky) of the sexual encounter.
- mistermann 7y agoRight, but how is that necessarily a condition (pre-requisite) for love?
- tokenpreneur 7y agoYou can't call a (romantic) love unconditional, if there's lust involved. The lust conditions the (romantic) love. This is not the same as saying lust is a necessary condition for love (but is usually a factor in romantic love), which I have not said nor implied.
- mistermann 7y agoWhy must lust necessarily impose conditions/pre-requisites on unconditional love? This is the part I don't understand.
- tokenpreneur 7y agoWe're talking about romantic love where lust is a dominant factor, if there was no sexual attraction bringing the two parties together, then how could there have been any subsequent love to arise? The sexual attraction (lust) is a condition that caused the love to sprout in the first place. I'm not saying there aren't other possible ways for people to get together, but we're specifically talking about cases where people get together because they're attracted to each other (the condition). I think what you're wanting to say is that a conditioned love (for example, one that starts with lust) can become an unconditioned love. But I don't think you can separate the cause and effect like that, because the memories, experiences and identity shared between the parties is still going to rest as a factor for them staying together for a "unconditional" love to take place, and hence its not truly unconditional: it's based on something.
- noonespecial 7y agoHe forgot to mention paradoxical. Which it so is.