For a bit of philosophy, here I go again pissing people off with a dissertation on love.

The human mind is responsible for human will. It can only do that to the degree which it is functional. It is functional when it reasons using both branches of reasoning, logics and analogics.

The product then of the human mind must be expressed in terms of "will." not emotion--nor of what is called rationality--meaning for most simply empty words.

Love would then be all the things two people do together to maintain and promote their life.

We can not share emotion, but we can share our efforts to attain to common goals.

Most people use "emotion" to excuse their destruction of love, simply because they are clueless as to what love is. To them it is an emotion no one can share, as if that were important to anyone but themselves.

Others use the claim that they have this invisible emotion just to get laid--now that is pathetic.

What we do is what we say.


The function of the human mind was once hidden in a puzzle, what is the Name of the Beast 666.

It was and is a demonstration of the lack of rational ability of man--who could not reason enough to solve it.

It was promised that it's solution would come one day, so here it is, it is a double locked metaphor which can only be solved using principles of reason,

"To make our behavior so as to turn the past into the future and to bring the future to pass."

It is not only the standard for what our mind does, but for what two people do together when they really do know what love is.

Emotions come and go, unless one knows how to cultivate them. Attempting to hold someone else for one's own emotions is one of the most heartless and cruelest things a person can do to another. Emotions are personal, and no one but the self is responsible for moderating them.

I thought it was the biochemical and physiological equivalent of eating large amounts of chocolate.

Only if it is the really good stuff.

Hi John8659. This is the first time I've had to stop by here for a while so I'm a little late responding to your newness and your posts.



I'm not sure if I agree with the above quote yet becasue I need some claification.

Attraction, what is it that causes a strong attraction with a desire to be physically intimate between two particular individuals, instead of a desire to simply be platonic friends? Are you saying that said attraction is a self-moderated emotion? Or are you saying that our behavioral response to the emotion called attraction is what should be self-moderated?

This is my humble understanding of lovez:
Love is an action toward oneself as well as a path to reach others: living things or nonliving.
For example: love-esteem ; I reach out and express, show, share, give love to:
________________________.
Simple thought is mine. Although complex studies of human interaction speaks volumes of it: story telling! Books. :)

Love

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person’s virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one’s own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut.

The Virtue of Selfishness

“The Objectivist Ethics,”


http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/love.html


BTW,I wouldn't have pasted this,if I didn't agree with it!

"An emotion possible only to the man or woman of "unbreached" self esteem. Mans response to his own "highest" values in the person of another."
"Such a man is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values."
Romantic Love - "The profound, exaulted, lifelong passion that unites his mind and body in the sexual act."

Ayn Rand on Love...

yep!

Hello Con...She gets it right...She just "gets" it...

Happy 2012....!

I have nothing to say about cause, other than the definition of an environmental acquisition system. But we are responsible for our own behavior-- would you agree with that? And behavior is driven by emotion?

What I am saying is that we are responsible for how we express our emotions.

Virtue is a measure.

Objective Epistemology does not fall short of the truth of things, but those who try to express it do.

In the final analysis, when you clarify the one, then you clarify the many and there is no real distinction. Man = man. The same definition of the one is inclusive of the many. Study Plato.

Since it is the same definition that applies to one, as to all, Objective Epistemolgy, as expressed by many is gravely in error.

When you infer that we do what we do for pleasure, and not to fulfill our definition as a biological entity, you are not expressing objective epistemology at all.

i.e. it was once said by a very wise man, "to have life and to have it more abundantly.

Ayn Rand tried very hard to become a true philosopher, however her own character defects got in the way.

When you think you can use the same definition of man, to distinguish man from man, you have failed to reason at all.

So as I said, Objective Epistemology does not fail, it is those who speak non-sense in its name.

Or to put it in plain English, We always do unto others as we would have them do to ourselves, and we always do to ourselves as we would do to others. By definition of man, there is no getting around it.

Love is much more than an emotion, it's a force of nature.
Most are not in balance with nature...it shows in how we love.

Are you saying that nature is not nature, by saying that man is not a part of nature?

no,i didn't...
and I'm not sure how you got that out of what i said.

When you said that most are not in balance with nature, you implied then that nature is not in balance with nature. That a thing is different from itself.

I will admit, I do not know if you view "nature" in an anthropomorphic sense or simply as causality.

That is what you interpreted. I didn't say man is not a part of nature...

There are some who have NO clue there are even a part of nature....
this reflects in the way they love themselves, each other and the planet.

A rock is not aware it is part of nature, nor is a blade of grass, nor is it possible for anyone to love themselves. Relation to self is inadmissible.

A rock is not aware it is part of nature, nor is a blade of grass, nor is it possible for anyone to love themselves. Relation to self is inadmissible.

I'm not talking about rocks and grass...
and maybe rocks and grass are quite aware of their part in nature.

Which all has NOTHING to do with my point anyway.

I don't believe it's not possible to love ourselves,
I do believe it's difficult.

A great deal of what you are implying is that a less functional mind is more capable of love than a more functional mind. That is not even close to being rational.

You have missed so much of my argument and the implications that you would have to be led step by step. Your predication to make statements and judgments about thing you know nothing about certainly slows down your process to reason at all.

You might try reading some history. The greatest and most rational minds in history have demonstrated a far greater capacity to love than anyone.