I'm rather aghast over how people ITT seems to take all this love stuff so seriously. I mean, in one way, yes. It is important, perhaps one of the most important things... On the other hand, having a bad ending of a relationship or never beginning one despite wanting to (like OP) means nothing bad. Take the heartache, then move on.
astromarmot, on 13 December 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:
It does get a little confusing, you indicated there were no needs...I said Maslow might disagree...you then said I don't need air, but want air...but philosophically you cannot separate wanting to exist from needing to exist unless you permit a severance of consciousness from the ugly bag of mostly water that we call our physical self...which you kinda inferred that's all that existed when you boil emotion and feeling down to the simple chemistry of hormones and neural electricity, so forgive me if I was too presumptuous...a later post kinda indicated that you recognize that separation, which might go to make further discourse on this tangent moot ;-)
Hmm. Semantics first. You can need(1) something, in the form of a requirement to do or obtain something. And you can need(2) something, for something else to be logically true. These are different usages of "need"... Important: Maslow meant need(1), of course, since you need(1) air for self-realization, for example. He was not talking about the need(2) part: the hierarchy of needs is relating to the first form of the word...
Now philosophy. You don't need(1) to exist. Need it for what exactly? Need it to get something else, sure, but in that case it's still about wanting. You do need(2) to exist in order to to exist, but that is, see above, beside the point. Both arguments run the same regardless of whether or not our physical existence is all of our existence. Even an immortal, nonphysical being would not need(1) to exist, he'd want to exist, and need(2) to exist only if he exists. I could be wrong, if so, point out where.
Personally, I think that these rather beautiful bags of mostly water that we call our physical selves is where our consciousness is rooted, and that extinguishing the body would mean extinguishing all things related to it, including the mind, soul, feelings. I also don't think that this is a bad thing; rather the opposite. It would be horrible if all what we (and by that I mean all life, not just humanity) do on earth is for nothing at all, nothing whatsoever...! If existence is external to our physical body, then what is the use of that body? We might as well just sit it down to rot.
Beta Sprite, on 13 December 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:
It wasn't the point of the story. I can recount that story, if you'd like, but my point was that no matter how strong the feeling is, you might need to get your heart smashed a time or two before you are able to think clearly enough to know what you actually want. If I had not had the hard breakup in the middle, I may have started dating my original crush at the end of high school without thinking about it, and I believe that it would have been the wrong decision (not that I necessarily would have ever realized it).
Let me know if you actually want me to recount how I met my wife.
I definitely agree on the needing to have your heart smashed. Experience is how to learn things.
But I don't know why dating your original crush would have meant not meeting your wife. Or why you would be unable to switch over once you did. But I have no doubt that that will be all cleared up...
Yes, I do want to hear it!
that was OPs question from the start anyway, hehe.
Edited by raspberry jam, 13 December 2012 - 06:49 PM.