Good is an actual quality like water that we need to "drink"

[Celebritydiscodave2]

I read all of that a bit quickly, I could, it was clearly communicated, but there was nothing in its content, which stood out at me, that I disagreed with, I think that we can agree on all of it. It is only miniscule detail, I think, that we may still disagree over, and much of this may have more to say for miscommunication than actual disagreement. You really have to get inside of the other persons head over each and every term which they deploy to be certain of anything. If I can be described as any kind of philosopher it is on the level of instinctive ability. I think that my instinctive awareness is strong, and perhaps also in the area of relationships too. You come across as having studied, but this has not stood in our way. Under such circumstances it suggests a considerable amount of positive for your character, that you can join me in much that I have suggested to. You obviously possess a genuine philosophers mindset, one that writes self with a small "s". You are most definitely my superior in this department, perhaps even too some of the rest. I`m getting there, slowly!! I have never once received one single notification of a post to my threads. Should you reply please email onehourworldrecords@gmail.com

[Belinda]

Celebritydiscodave wrote:

You really have to get inside of the other persons head over each and every term which they deploy to be certain of anything.

Absolutely. I read three respectable authors on the meaning of the word "emotion". One of the authors, a scientist, drew the difference between "emotion" and "feelings" and linked his findings to Spinosa's notes on the emotions. To be fair not everyone agrees that there is a useful difference to be drawn between the two terms. But I do , and that is why your post interested me.

[Celebritydiscodave2]

I have moved on a little from where I`ve been of late. Realizations come to me whilst running. I have always considered romantic love to be super superficial, but perhaps now, if this is indeed even possible, more so. I would accept for a distinction between feelings and emotions, not necessarily more than a slight one though. Borrowed perception has helped.
We feel for a person, a person being an entity, the sum of his or her qualities. So to feel for a person what one feels must be based in that which has some kind of universal measure, it must be a quality.
We do not emotion for a person, for emotion is not over a substantive quality. We feel emotion because of a person as opposed to for a person, but we then go on to immediately associate the emotion with that person.
I am still trying to get my head around feelings, feelings then as opposed to emotions. Could it not just be that this same rule applies here too, sure we are dealing substantive qualities, so there is a distinction, just about, but perhaps here also what we feel is because of/as consequence to rather than for as well?
One of the biggest social problems besetting our society is its unfounded respect for romantic love.

[Belinda]

Celebritydiscodave wrote:

Realizations come to me whilst running.

I agree about romantic love. I see it as historical in origin, but I don't deny that people can become sexually or otherwise addicted or habituated to another usually of the opposite sex. Neither do I deny that nice persons commit themselves to another more or less according to the tenets in the Christian marriage commitment.

Romantic love is a bad idea for people getting married who need to be aware that the commitment stands through fading sexual desire, financial problems, sickness, and social problems especially where children are concerned.

Romantic love is a fiction which was given a lot of medieval publicity from Chretien de Trois and subsequent bards. This medieval fallacy was revived for the purposes of cheap labour during the urbanisation process of industrialisation,** and then perpetuated by Hollywood , pulp fiction, and commercial popular music.

** traditional mostly rural family and religious attachments had to be weakened so that young fit people could break away to go to where the work was. The myth of romantic love was useful as it legitimated the young couple and the individual as units in their own right unbeholden to the village, the family, or the pastor.

Love is not facile romantic love, and love is much more like St Paul wrote about in that letter to the Corinthians.Paul was a crafty publicist for the new Christianity but he did write good stuff a lot of the time.

[Celebritydiscodave2]

This all makes sense, and romantic love should even perhaps be considered entirely apart from love/genuine love, which I do appreciate has just been your point ahead of me. I consider them to be virtual opposites, romantic love being the nearest thing to hate, whilst genuine love being the furthest. One being genuine and the other a fallacy love, born only of raw animal emotion. Even common love, or at least the nature of too many folks "love" seems to have more to say for self love than actual selfless love. To be considered love/genuine love it must surely be selfless, at least as selfless as it is reasonably possible for humans to be. The joy must come from the exercise of selflessness, and the satisfaction from loving well. The mutual love principal should be to marry this actual genuine love with the precise same commodity, such that all the magic which is true love can be experienced whilst at the same time effortlessly, for the participants would always meet near middle due to both parties pushing for an outright victory. Now that is love. In my opinion love tends to full so far short in most relationships now that their best hope is with familiarity. and the fear of being alone. Of course empathy, but what chance high order empathy in the absence of true love. What most of society seems not to have on board is that the vast majority of romantic relationships fail, and many of those very badly. That what begins in a romantic relationship may finish in depression, even suicide. That older men are not the main problem, they are merely singled out to enhance the readership, for their own peer group presents with no story. I witness a considerable amount of reverse age prejudice, but it does n`t exist here, In public settings, obviously so, I find myself trying to protect children from the unfounded wrath of adults quite frequently, never their parents though, forI consider such territory to be none of my business. We are becoming/we are far more consumer orientated than ever before, and ownership is superseding relationship. Mind you, in terms of commodity value the Victorian aristocracy were quite obviously far and away worse.