Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > philosophy discussion forum

Affirmations Of Love

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 174 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 19 Sep 2010 10:29:32 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Nov 2011 10:54:51 GMT
Original and unique contributions: There is only self-love from where there`s personal gain
Lust destroys the friendships of deprived hearts
Trust not even love for the sanctuary of the spirit
Friendship fights all battles, love fights some, but vanity only ever fights its own
Love, self-love, and the need to be loved, can play the same tune for most of the time.
Love is at its most double edged where desire is found to be the most strong.

Much younger/older partners - friendship/romance
Beyond cut-off years
Social age discrimination over friendships
Age disparity in relationships
Aging death and mid-life crisis.
Large age gap relationships
Nutrition and supplementation
What might replace sex.
In terms of friendship 18 -18 is as to 18- 50.
A superficial take on relationships
Orders of friendship.
Training for physical world records.
Is sex selfish.
The main driving force in society is still in the direction of ageing.
Why live.
What part does physicality play in relationships.
RAPE - Latest debate.

Posted on 20 Sep 2010 15:06:23 BDT
J.Yasimoto says:
Prefer Disco Stu myself...
"Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... AAY!"

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Sep 2010 18:36:24 BDT
I was rather thinking more in terms of some of your affirmational contributions!
There is no love where there`s financial gain.
The pathologically ageist always puts his indoctrination before the love of any person.

Posted on 22 Sep 2010 06:46:22 BDT
J.Yasimoto says:
Oh... you're too clever for me. I can't understand a word you're saying.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2010 18:14:38 BDT
Dreamer says:
Hi Kates.
Translate please.
Ok I think what you are saying is that selfishness is bad, love is ok and friendship is best because selfishness only ever helps one person, love helps other people sometimes and friendship helps other people always. And that love can't be brought.
Am I right?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Sep 2010 09:16:00 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Sep 2010 09:28:52 BDT
You do need to go with it, or not, in it`s affirmational form, for in trying to break it down some of what it actually says is always lost. It would be the same with verse. I`m saying, apart from considerable else, that self love is not a form of, neither a part of, genuine love. That there is an element of self love merely in being human. That a third party is the ultimate test as to whether the love is single edged, and therefore genuine, and I`ll give you the affirmation for this later. That conventional love, as opposed to other singled out forms, which I`ll cover later, is always double edged by its very nature, which I`ll clarify; especially so of the romance phase. That friendship can be the most superior relationship, but not plain friendship, it does require to be totally genuine and unconditional first, an entirely different form of love. Yes, this form of friendship/love is the only place where resides the potential for absolute perfection under all circumstances of it. This is because the emotion is never self serving. Other affirmations shall clarify this position.

Posted on 23 Sep 2010 09:27:25 BDT
Withnail says:
Duff Man says "Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem! Oh, yeah!"

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Sep 2010 11:21:00 BDT
J.Yasimoto says:
Ralph says "Me fail English? That's unpossible."

Posted on 23 Sep 2010 14:02:11 BDT
D R Kates - why on earth do you keep on starting threads concerned with love in some way. Your original post sounds as if you're coming from the Freudian standpoint where all actions are motivated by self-gratification, but I'm sure I've got the wrong end of the stick. In any event, such a cynical viewpoint is one that I could never agree with.

Real love is selfless, where other peoples needs/wants are continually considered to be a priority over one's own.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Sep 2010 17:17:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Sep 2010 17:19:50 BDT
I would define `real` love as being no more than actual love, as opposed to something, either different from, or, more than the emotion of simply love. To speak in terms beyond the mere emotion which is love, I`d use terms such as unconditional, erotic, platonic, and so on, even conventional, though this term is only required when others are also at the same time in use. Obviously, no love is completely absent of an active self component/ego, for without it, all be it locked away where it can do no harm, (and this is the secret), there can be no capacity for substantial love/love.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Sep 2010 18:36:59 BDT
Real love to me is "actual love" or "love" as you describe it, that is something beyond friendship, lust, or any shallow transient emotion, as it is a far deeper and lasting part of "being".

I still stand by my definition though that true love is selfless. One of the problems today is that love is often confused with the erotic and lust, whereas lust is a strong emotion, it is transient whereas love is not. The selfless definition holds true for all forms of love as well, not just that between two adults.

Posted on 24 Sep 2010 07:35:15 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Sep 2010 07:52:32 BDT
Otto Magus says:
most kinds of love are illusions which may be pleasurable for a short while but over the course of time inevitably lead to bitterness......

or not..... who really knows?......

self- love may be your only true friend....... nurture it if you can for it is the only thing which will sustain you when despair devours what's left of your heart from the inside out.....

or do something else..... no one will help you because no one can and most will not wish to........

love is what's left when you realise you have no choice.....

oh sh*t..... sorry....... i thought this was the poetry thread.........

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Sep 2010 09:58:35 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Oct 2011 15:52:02 GMT
It`s far easier when communicating concisely, surely, to start with the raw/mere emotion, and refer to that as being love, or, the emotion of love, and then to make any precise attachments after this. We need not discuss for too long what`s already out there as it were,I don`t think, for nobody should be suggesting that unconditional love is anything less than the tendency to selflessness When discussing love `true love` I`d suggest is better thought of as being love in an ideal form.
Love is at one level a raw emotion of basic yearning, greater, or less, but always true love, for it always is just the same in its pure emotional sense. On the other, by way it`s definitive nature. Obviously, it`s not incorrect to describe true love as being selfless, for this is how people think of it, though in truth, the only love with entirely the absence of self is `God`s`, as it were. It`s human nature for us to both believe in whilst at the same time idealising love.
The attributes which a particular form of love brings are usually realised better over time, so defining the nature of that love. Different individuals love in the detail in different ways, and the experience is varied. Apparently caring and unconditional love which spans even considerable time may well turn out to be as equally transient as other forms, but was it not still selfless whilst in that moment?
I believe that the erotic love emotion can at times be split, and you make a very good point here, that which is love from that which is lust, and which still includes the yearning which is the raw love emotion - Predominantly for a persons physical self, and clarified such with time. It would be clearer to refer to one as lust, and the other as physical love, for erotic confuses - You are often made aware of the physical element, but the actual nature of the yearning seems to be fairly constant regardless of whether largely over person or object. This is love at the conceptual level Love of groups operates quite differently.
I`m trying to move well beyond what`s already the generally held position. I don`t disagree with you because I`m aware of what you mean by your sentiments, but to remain only with those terms is not to explore the subject in more detail.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Sep 2010 16:47:51 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Sep 2010 17:06:45 BDT
Because there exists nothing in structure for two individuals in debate, beyond of course idealism, in trying to gain agreement over the concise nature of love/extension upon depicted by the word/words love/real love/emotions/sensations/ (or, to include) aspirations/want off, more than the standard text/the accepted terms, additional terms, and some of them new, require to be deployed, as appropriate, in order to cover a fuller spectrum of meaning/ To cater for the needs of every trend which begins in the wake of the basic emotion which we (still/even at this level), and I believe should still, refer to as being love. To do other would be a giant step back, because it could only add to whatever confusion over the subject which may already exist. Another debate?
Are there any affirmations at this point???
Otto: I understand your points, but you appear to be speaking from trends, and though very important, it`s difficult for me personally to combine the two debates. Perhaps another will pick-up on this with you. Genuine love/genuinely unconditional love, (as unconditional as humans are capable of) is very considerably more acceptional than most people seem to realise, and few even have this capacity for extended periods of time, in my view - It`s only when testing is total that you can know!

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Sep 2010 17:23:28 BDT
I appreciate there exists the term infatuation/`infatuous love`? (Probably no takers) - I`d prefer the term transient love in place of this one.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Sep 2010 18:10:09 BDT
Otto Magus says:
hi.... sorry if im being a bit slow on the uptake, but what exactly did you mean by "trends" in this context?.........

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Sep 2010 18:14:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Sep 2010 19:04:07 BDT
Otto Magus says:
i tend to think of infatuation as being a love that is not quite real, delusional or focused on a superficial aspect (which is exaggerated) without knowing the other person in any depth......

Posted on 24 Sep 2010 18:17:03 BDT
Otto Magus says:
first love is strongest and most romantic..... a wild and divine stupidity.......

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Sep 2010 10:38:21 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Oct 2010 10:18:33 BDT
I pretty much agree with your definition, and forms of love do require far more than just a few words in clarification.
I probably wouldn`t quite describe it as being unreal love, because then how can you also describe it as being a nature of love?, but your communication is never the less successful. Infatuation is, would you not agree, exactly the same as love in its raw emotional form, the very emotion we refer to as being love, and so therefore I`d suggest should be considered a form of real love, but of a transient nature? Love with a transient nature: Love preoccupied only with, and within, its own notion: Love which purely mimics substantial being: Love with the aspiration of genuine love:
I agree it`s delusional, but not that it`s always necessarily focused on a superficial characteristic, and in absolute terms, any more necessarily than can be said of what you describe as being true love. However, it might well be that the infatuation does precisely this, and also most infatuations, the majority of the time. I consider infatuation still possible where two individuals know each other well, though far less likely then.
It`s probably a whole chapter which could be written on each and every form of love, but know two individuals could ever quite agree on everything
Yes, strongest in its emotion, but not always the strongest/most lovingly positive in its actions/by nature/form of love - more double edged than/potentially double edged than, by way of reactions to third parties, etc(?)

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Sep 2010 11:11:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Sep 2010 11:23:19 BDT
I agree that `first love` is generally the emotionally strongest, but after that I don`t share the orthodox notion, by degree only, of the origins, of what I`d describe as a state of optimal/most meaningful romance, though I still operate entirely within the accepted definition. I would also describe the first emotion of love, at least as, often tending toward the most wild - in terms of actual actions it`s of course down to the individual, but wild in the sense that this yearning, to have, to share, to give, to be loved, etc., is substantive in degree of emotion. In terms of love this is the most wild time once objective events besetting love have been removed. Divine even when not reciprocated, quite so, for divinity is not subservient to pain. We agree on those observations, because what I have to say on romance is actually incidental to it`s common concept.
Neither am I a believer in `unrefrained love`/love which is over emotional/over subservient to its emotion/which relies more on the emotion of love than on friendship - conventional romance followed by common love. I would however make the very best job of it!

Posted on 26 Sep 2010 22:36:53 BDT
Dreamer says:
Love is too big a word.
It encompasses everything from solidarity to parenthood to friendship. I think the only way you can really define love is choosing others over yourself. Therefore it is impossible for love to be selfish. Where selfishness is, love is weakened, where love is, selfishness is weakened.
How well love works depends on the situation the person is in. For example in a marriage you need a combination of love and companionship for it to go well, in a friendship you need a combination of love, trust and companionship for it to work, with parenthood you need a combination of love and a sense of responsibility for it to go well. Love is key but it needs different add-ons to work in different situations.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2010 16:48:50 BDT
Last edited by the author on 27 Sep 2010 16:52:12 BDT
I don`t diagree with that, for it`s very well thought out, and most interesting. The add-ons to which you refer I would consider as being character traits, as opposed to forms of actual love, although the nature of love is very obviously concerned with character, for character at the same time is intrinsic to forms of actual love, and is the limiting factor. You at the same time refer to area of compatability, although these are of course not forms of actual love, they will as you point out enable loves smoother passage.
The main reason I couldn`t agree with your definition for love as that it suggests to being so idealistic as to virtually exclude humans from the equation. It totally excludes the emotion of love, yet to be specifically defined, and which may take a life time so to do? It excludes love which under the circumstances of a third party does other than to put self on one side. It excludes also, all love supported by reciprocation. Do you want to tell the world that it hasn`t the capacity to love, or, shall we operate in terms of the framework we`ve presently got, the mere emotion, the dizzy hieghts, and the middle ground.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Sep 2010 01:56:27 BDT
To say that friendship includes love, is surely to idealize friendship, and pretty soon by this thinking, everything which is not hate becomes love. I prefer the position of treating them as entities with a life of their own. With everything converged there would be left nothing to discuss. Love is simply too much emotion for most friendships, and the love which comes in the wake of truly unconditional friendship, despite being controlled emotion, cannot be expected of all friendships.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Sep 2010 22:36:26 BDT
Dreamer says:
It's not that idealistic. I have seen extrodinary acts of kindness from strangers that show how much love there is in human hearts.
I see we are in disagreement about the nature of love. you think it is a force that can preform a range of actions. I think it is just a fact that has an effect on people. the effect often depends on other feelings the person is experiences but the love itself is the selfless current in a person's nature.
Love supported by reciprocation is still love, you put them before you no matter what, just because they will do the same for you does not cheapen the love. In fact if both parties feel the love then it can solidify into loyalty which in some ways is stronger.
Of course the world has the capacity to love. On a basic level human beings love other human beings. The love is sometimes damaged or lessened by predjudice and disagreements but it is still there. I believe human beings are fundamentally good. I know many disagree but that is what i beleive and it forms the basis for all my other beliefs.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Sep 2010 22:39:43 BDT
Dreamer says:
Its not just friendships that include love. On a basic level all our connections with other humans include love. Love underpins the whole of how we percieve others. The capitalist system we live under does its best to smother that feeling in us but it cannot extinguish it entirely.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[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 philosophy discussion forum (106 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Participants:  18
Total posts:  174
Initial post:  19 Sep 2010
Latest post:  12 Nov 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions