|
Post by LaFille on Nov 6, 2009 16:32:01 GMT
Elliot's points seem to be based on the premise that he thinks one can only be in love with one person at a time. While not the case most of the times, I personally do believe that one can be in love with more than one person at a time.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 6, 2009 16:48:19 GMT
Let's just say that in all cases I have ever been aware of, "I love two or more people" really translates as "I love the attention I get from both those people" or "I feel validated/worthy/whatever because of the attentions of both those people."
It is certainly possible for many people to love the same person. But I have never yet come across a true example of one person loving more than one other person at a time.
I suppose that like much else, it is possible in theory. In practise, I have my doubts.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 6, 2009 16:54:32 GMT
including parents loving children?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 6, 2009 17:12:47 GMT
Ah, so knowing the experiences of others IS enough to make decisions? Closing avenues based on logic rather than personal experience IS perfectly rational after all? Welcome to my world! ;D As long as that logic is sound and based on a variety of sources, not just the ones representing 1 view. After all if you don't have enough sources - Arsenic saved many people from syphilis in the last few centuries, and it is currently used to treat leukaemia so logically arsenic must be good for you. Or - DiHydrogenMonOxide has been found in 100% of all cancers, can cause intoxification, and in extreme cases death. Is universally addictive, and withdrawal is universally fatal. It pollutes all rivers, streams, ponds, and oceans. It's the major component in acid rain, and it kill 1,000's of people every year. - Logically a substance as dangerous as this should be banned.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 6, 2009 17:39:49 GMT
Grasping at straws now, DPR, as I'm sure you know. Parental love is not the same as romantic love.
True romantic love tends to demand emotional exclusivity. It's just the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Nov 6, 2009 18:32:07 GMT
True romantic love tends to demand emotional exclusivity.
Agreed - though it doesn't always gets it...
And I can see that one can, at least for quite some time, be torn between two (or more) attractions - usually because of complementary traits in different personalities.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 6, 2009 20:09:42 GMT
As so often I should really program a macro to type it out faster for me, I agree with Glance ;D
|
|
mobbie
Chaosite
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Lalala
Posts: 906
|
Post by mobbie on Nov 6, 2009 20:29:18 GMT
Hey, I just wanted to say I'm not quiet cause of your hijacking, if I had anything I dared say I would have said it.... I'm just quite uncertain at this point so I'm quiet ^^
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Nov 6, 2009 20:44:25 GMT
I'm not sure if it's worth dwelling on.
Well, we can agree on that. I now understand everything you meant perfectly, btw.
............
I think it's perfectly possible to be in love with more than one person at a time.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 6, 2009 21:39:00 GMT
Grasping at straws now, DPR, as I'm sure you know. Parental love is not the same as romantic love. True romantic love tends to demand emotional exclusivity. It's just the way it is. No just pointing out that parental love (like brotherly love, friendship love, and all the other loves) is not exclusive, so logically, why would romantic love need to be exclusive. As you yourself said it tends to be exclusive. The only cavet I'd add to that is that most of us on this board only have experiance with western culture and mores, and as such have been indroctinated from a very early age that the perfect relationship size is 2, no more, and no less, and so our views on love are equally coloured by the fairy tales and fiction that we grow up with in addition to the relationships we see around us.
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Nov 6, 2009 22:06:58 GMT
Let's just say that in all cases I have ever been aware of, "I love two or more people" really translates as "I love the attention I get from both those people" or "I feel validated/worthy/whatever because of the attentions of both those people." It is certainly possible for many people to love the same person. But I have never yet come across a true example of one person loving more than one other person at a time. I suppose that like much else, it is possible in theory. In practise, I have my doubts. I used to feel this way until I was put in my present situation, which is what usually happens with what I think are stable opinions (Woo!). I'm currently in love with two people, one of which is my "first love," and it doesn't have anything to do with attention. I just love them. I think I most likely always will, but to varying degrees and possible changing of the kind of love over time. I don't know why someone would put themselves in this sort of situation for attention happy fun time, it is quite a [Censored] and confusing experience that I hope never to experience again. Unless you've dealt with everyone, it is most likely you'll be proved wrong with that sort of statement. There really is no point in it. I agree with Dark Phoenix Rising about it probably having to do a lot with the fact that we're extremely Westernized.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 6, 2009 22:46:00 GMT
I think it has more to do with the fact that we use one word to cover so many concepts. Love for a parent or a child or a friend or a sibling is not the same thing as romantic love. They cannot truly be compared.
DPR's 'It's the fault of Western myth' also breaks down if you are at all familiar with Eastern legend, which is just as full of 'boy meets girl' as the West. Granted, more of them end tragically or are unfulfilled because honour prevents consummation, but it's still all one on one.
What I suspect DPR's main point is based on is not story, but the actuality that the East (From Arabia onwards) has a far greater historical tendency for polygamous relationships, with wealthy men often having many wives or concubines. It is worth noting, however, that these relationships were generally the result of political alliance, slavery or other coercion or arrangement. Love rarely if ever came into it. So again, the comparison does not really stand up.
What I suspect DPR is doing is romanticising an Eastern arrangement by trying to add Western values - which does not, of course, work.
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Nov 7, 2009 0:57:31 GMT
I think romantic love can be given to two people. Forget family love, what a red herring that was. EK based on earlier posts it sounds like you're including exclusivity in your definition of true love, and so if a romantic relationship isn't exclusive, it can't be true love, even if every other aspect of true love were met (I can't even begin to list all those aspects). As DPR said, it only tends to be exclusive, because it's so damn rare to even have that relationship with one person, let alone two.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 7, 2009 1:15:34 GMT
I am including emotional exclusivity, yes. I believe that is one of the strongest proofs of love vrs affection.
If I had to describe love, it would be as the sudden realisation that the centre of your world around which everything else revolves is no longer yourself, but another person. A complete acceptance that someone else is more important to your life than you are.
Anything that strong, that powerful... is unlikely to divide.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 7, 2009 9:43:19 GMT
I am including emotional exclusivity, yes. I believe that is one of the strongest proofs of love vrs affection. If I had to describe love, it would be as the sudden realisation that the centre of your world around which everything else revolves is no longer yourself, but another person. A complete acceptance that someone else is more important to your life than you are.
Anything that strong, that powerful... is unlikely to divide. EK you have just described perfectly the situation that most fathers find themselves in when they first hold their newborn baby. It also perfectly describes the romantic period of a true relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 7, 2009 9:48:49 GMT
I think it has more to do with the fact that we use one word to cover so many concepts. Love for a parent or a child or a friend or a sibling is not the same thing as romantic love. They cannot truly be compared. DPR's 'It's the fault of Western myth' also breaks down if you are at all familiar with Eastern legend, which is just as full of 'boy meets girl' as the West. Granted, more of them end tragically or are unfulfilled because honour prevents consummation, but it's still all one on one. What I suspect DPR's main point is based on is not story, but the actuality that the East (From Arabia onwards) has a far greater historical tendency for polygamous relationships, with wealthy men often having many wives or concubines. It is worth noting, however, that these relationships were generally the result of political alliance, slavery or other coercion or arrangement. Love rarely if ever came into it. So again, the comparison does not really stand up. What I suspect DPR is doing is romanticising an Eastern arrangement by trying to add Western values - which does not, of course, work. Can I just point out that it's not just Eastern, but also african, native american, myan, aribic, egyptian etc.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 7, 2009 13:32:07 GMT
I am including emotional exclusivity, yes. I believe that is one of the strongest proofs of love vrs affection. If I had to describe love, it would be as the sudden realisation that the centre of your world around which everything else revolves is no longer yourself, but another person. A complete acceptance that someone else is more important to your life than you are.
Anything that strong, that powerful... is unlikely to divide. EK you have just described perfectly the situation that most fathers find themselves in when they first hold their newborn baby. It also perfectly describes the romantic period of a true relationship. Yes. But there's no competitive element with a child. The Mother will feel the same, so it's another thing the couple do together. (Also ensures the father does not see the child as a competitor for the attentions of its Mother - rather important, in nature...) I included Arabia, myself, and that includes Egypt. Interestingly enough, you'll find a lot of Egyptian myth that romanticises and encourages incest (At least amongst the ruling classes) but none that encourages a romantic view of polygamy. Polygamy arises in any culture where the number of one sex available greatly outnumbers that of the other (Usually the result of warfare or disease). It is usually a matter of arrangement, not romance. Mormonism is an excellent example of this (And a Western one, yet!). In tribal societies, owning many women can be somewhat akin to owning many horses - a sign of wealth and prestige. Again, it has nothing to do with love or romance. in such societies, women are often bought and sold - and valued at less than a really good horse would be. You are trying to add love in places it would only rarely have existed at all, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Nov 8, 2009 5:22:35 GMT
Being in love is a state, being in a relationship is different. One that would be in love with 2 persons could be in a love relationship with one, both or none at all and it wouldn't change the fact that he/she would be in love with the 2.
I think that most romantic relationships demand exclusivity not because one can't be in love with more than one person at a time, but because one would have a hard time to be happy with the fact that the loved one would be in love with another as well. Exclusivity is the most convenient way to minimize the impact of potentially destructive aspects like jealousy, insecurity, possessivity, competition, etc.
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Nov 8, 2009 14:35:20 GMT
this thread is more successful than most Humanology threads. ;D all thanks to mobs! ;D ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 8, 2009 15:13:07 GMT
And hopefully will keep him distracted, too ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|