Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen in Prime Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Does "I don't believe there is" equal " I do believe there isn't"?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 224 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 17:07:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Mar 2013 17:08:53 GMT
Kleist says:
Didn't you? Try Schopenhaeur, Sartre, Neitzsche, Hobbes, de Sade, de Beauvoir, Lacan. They don't, of course, deny the existence of strong human bonds. What they deny is that these bonds are really based on something that is recognisable as what we would call love. Really these bonds are based on desire for power, for pleasure, for procreation or for some unconscious drive that decieves the lover.
I won't give their arguments, because their books are readily available.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 17:22:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Mar 2013 17:39:58 GMT
Drew Jones says:
So they don't deny the existence of love or strong human bonds but say it's not as we traditionally think of it. That's not the same thing.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 17:41:08 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Mar 2013 17:42:12 GMT
Kleist says:
If you would prefer to put it this way I don't really mind. Usually thay say things like 'love is an illusion really it is...'

Or 'what men call love is in fact....' or 'men use the word 'love' when really no such thing exists, it's just a product of our desire that it exist'

Or as La Rouchefoucald wittily put it 'People would never fall in love if they had not heard love talked about.'

So, yes you can say this if you want. I suppose we might say something like 'men use the word 'God' when really no such thing exists it's just a product of our desire that it exist.' And we could go on to explain all the things that men have attributed to God's action in other terms: evolution, big bang and so on. I'm not sure whether here we might say that the existence of God is being denied, or 'it's not as we traditionally think of it.' I suppose it 'exists' in the minds of the believers, it depends, I suppose, on how you are to understand the concept of existence.

None of them think that the concept of love contains no more than the idea of strong human bonds, though this is part of it. Strong human bonds can be formed for various reasons I would guess.

I'm happy either way really.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 17:59:29 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"If you would prefer to put it this way I don't really mind."
You should as it doesn't support your original claim, you've refocused the argument to defend a slightly different idea.

"Or as La Rouchefoucald wittily put it 'People would never fall in love if they had not heard love talked about.'"
Well that's easily rebuffed. Kids attach themselves to care givers before they can speak.

"I'm not sure whether here we might say that the existence of God is being denied, or 'it's not as we traditionally think of it.'"
I'd say the hypothesis of a deity is shown to be superfluous.

"I suppose it 'exists' in the minds of the believers, it depends, I suppose, on how you are to understand the concept of existence."
I guess. Some people probably can tell the difference between a map and the place itself too.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 18:15:27 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Mar 2013 18:43:02 GMT
Kleist says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 9 Mar 2013 19:07:54 GMT
Kleist says:
Since it seems I need to be very clear here: They also believe that 'strong human bonds' can be explained without recourse to the notion of 'love,' they did not, as I intimated, identify these ideas.

Also I don't actually think that 'kids' fall in love with their 'care givers,' but I could be wrong. Anyway I don't think he would have believed that the reason that they 'attach themselves' to their 'care givers' is because they have fallen in love with them. If I know La Rouchefoucald he probably thought that they instinctively attached themselves to what they saw as a safe meal-ticket. (I might be being a bit unfair to him. He was probably not this crude, but he tended toward the cynical).

Posted on 9 Mar 2013 20:34:56 GMT
kraka says:
Mr. Anthony Wilde,

Greetings, my take on love is perhaps a bit different. Here's to stepping into deep water. IMHO I believe that pure love (compassionate love for all things) itself as an experience is intangible, indefinable. (and a bit rare). It completely lacks any selfish aspect being completely *selfless*,.is not self seeking and looks for nothing in return and is not beholden to being rational or logical. It stems from the heart (soul) not from the mind. The mind thinks.. it does not love, but that is not to say that it is divorced from it, it registers within the mind and is pondered upon and can attempt to verbally express it's pleasure.

Often love is not fully experienced and becomes a poor expression of it's true potential, tainted by selfishness, or used for trading to get your own way or needs or wants satisfied, so love is not only expressed in many different ways but also gets used.

I reckon that love registers in our emotions, our mind and brain which can be scientifically investigated, but not love itself. Many have laid down their lives for both spiritual love and for the love of another living being and gone to enormous lengths to prove their love.

Love could unite all human beings on the planet, which the human mind could never do.
No small thing.

Cheers.............................................kraka

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 20:41:37 GMT
Spin says:
Kraka; Without Love, passion, delight, life would not be worth living, would it?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 20:46:40 GMT
Kleist says:
I think that is a very moving picture and I hope that it is so. I am not in favour of reducing love to something else myself. I was only trying to show that there is nothing unusual about trying to deny its existence.

If your characterisation of love is correct, and I think it is close to a kind of transcendent idea of love, then one can certainly see how those who experience it would give it a deeply religious interpretation. Indeed one can see how the idea of a scientifically minded rationalist asking them for proof of their interpretation might fill them with either pity or contempt.

The idea is too powerfully romantic for my sense of the way things are, but I can see the appeal. Indeed it is how many of the romantic poets and writers saw things I expect. The romantic movement in Germany followed Kant's work, and indeed found inspiration from aspects of it. Though they also reacted against it. But this is a long story.

Posted on 9 Mar 2013 20:49:42 GMT
kraka says:
Spin....couldn't agree more. In fact i cannot imagine what life would be like without it, perhaps totally barren with no restraint to man's darker nature.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 20:56:19 GMT
Spin says:
Anthony: But Love, passion and delight does not only extend to human relationships. I love music, art and philosophy. I love wrestling with my kids. I love sitting down with my better half with a glass of wine and complaining about her choice of programs..."Love" is a varied and complex emotion and only a small part of it has to do with "Romanticism".

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 21:03:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Mar 2013 21:04:10 GMT
Kleist says:
Spin. That is very true. I was focusing on a central case. And the romantic movement found a central place for art, poetry and music. And not just because it expressed love in the sense of human to human love.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 21:16:47 GMT
Spin says:
Anthony: I must be honest and say Romantic and Sexual love play a BIG part in my enjoyment of Gods creation and natures randomness...=)

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 21:22:38 GMT
Kleist says:
Me too Spin. But love can be painful too, as I'm sure you know.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 21:27:45 GMT
Spin says:
Anthony: Indeed. But is it not "true love" that matters? True love cannot be influenced by any outsider. If love is "painful", it is not true love.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 21:39:05 GMT
Kleist says:
I'm not so sure about that. It is often unrequited, that can hurt.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 21:48:16 GMT
Spin says:
Anthony: True love does not have to be requited. Love is love for itself, not what it can bring you. Trust me, after years of loving the same woman I can assure you that "gain" has nothing to do with "Love" =)

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 21:53:15 GMT
Kleist says:
Gain? No certainly not.

Posted on 9 Mar 2013 22:02:50 GMT
Spin says:
To Love is to give oneself to something or someone, not for them or you, but for all. But in todays world, we are taught that you should not give yourself unless it benefits you. So even personal relationships are being dictated by societal, governmental approvals of love and commitment.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 22:11:14 GMT
Kleist says:
There is some truth in what you say. But matters are perhaps more complicated than that.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 22:20:33 GMT
Spin says:
Anthony: Of course matters are more complex, but this is the "net". When I get a chance to write my memoirs, then I can put forward the complexity of life. Until then, you guys will have to suffice with my general comments concerning life, sex, beer and religion. =)

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2013 22:36:55 GMT
Kleist says:
They're better than some I've read.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2013 13:41:09 GMT
Bellatori says:
Mr. Anthony Wilde says:"Also I don't actually think that 'kids' fall in love with their 'care givers,' but I could be wrong"

This made me think on a number of different tracks...

Firstly, its love if the feeling is returned otherwise its obsession.... ?

Secondly, I always wondered how love for parents, guardians, carers functionally differs from the 'Stockholm syndrome'?

Posted on 10 Mar 2013 15:14:30 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Mar 2013 15:16:25 GMT
Kleist says:
'Firstly, its love if the feeling is returned otherwise its obsession.... ?' I would imagine the distinction to be much more complicated than that. I don't suppose every unrequited love is an obsession, though it is in danger of becoming one. Indeed requited love can also turn into obsession (Othello being a very good example). And, of course, not every obsession is an unrequited love.

I am no expert on 'Stockholm syndrome' (nor on love) but I would have thought that the obvious difference is that those with Stockholm syndrome are already of an age at which they should be emotionally mature enough to know the difference between abuse and love. It is, I think, considered to be a function of the victim's helplessness that he or she identifies with the captor. It is perhaps this element which puts it in proximity with the helplessness of infants or babies.

I do think however that there is a qualitative difference between the love that a parent bears for a child (which is parhaps partly because of its vulnerability) and the love (if that is the right word) which an infant has for the parent. I am not sure at what stage one would be happy to claim that the child loves the parent.

There are lots of pathologies which are close to love, it is far from being a straightforward emotional state. Indeed, as I have already remarked, it is often considered to be a pathology.

Posted on 10 Mar 2013 15:59:31 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
154 12 Aug 2015
Remain or Leave? 454 24 minutes ago
If an all knowledgeable God created life, why is there cancer? 1090 26 minutes ago
What will happen first. The London BBC stop moaning that it's not fair, our side lost, wegot less votes but we supported remain and want the result changing. Or Jesus revisits the earth. 24 2 hours ago
Time to ignore the religion forums trolls.? 158 3 hours ago
2nd referendum, for those that don't believe in democracy. 19 3 hours ago
The Power of Prayer. 1856 3 hours ago
Christopher Hicthens 3972 4 hours ago
The Bible is not the "Word of God" 1541 4 hours ago
The EU is dead, it has been nailed to the cross. Three days later and the London BBC are still praying for resurrection. Give us our miricle they claim. We have a petition with over 2 million Londoners on it, all you had was over 17 million voters . 0 6 hours ago
Are atheists in Europe still living a Christian lifestyle? 128 7 hours ago
guilty until proven innocent. 486 23 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  25
Total posts:  224
Initial post:  6 Mar 2013
Latest post:  25 Mar 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions