“Love of one is a piece of barbarism: for it is practised at the expense of all others. Love of God likewise.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche 1 Human emotion is all that is the case. 1.01 Human emotion is the totality of perceived facts, not of actual facts. 1.012 What is sensical and nonsensical is determined by humans. A proposition with no sense has no integral value or connection to the perceived reality of the senses, thus it is only a priori. 1.013 Love is the most misunderstood emotion. 1.1 Love is the exchange of sympathy and affection between the partakers. 1.12 Sympathy cannot be felt towards a person who has murdered someone you love, for example. 1.13 Sympathy is not absolute. 1.14 The definition of love is therefore moot. 2 Love is the shift of interest with time. Some say love devolves after a relationship has been established (to cut out the physical attraction variable) thus it can be said that love is the elevation or degradation of interest between two people in a relationship with respect to time. 2.01 Love is dynamic; it is not absolute. 3 The desire to do something is prevalent in all organisms. A depressed or indifferent person has the desire to not do anything. 3.01 Desire is absolute. 3.1 A question would be raised -- how does the lack of something propose the existence of it at the same time? It can be attributed to the following scenario: You cannot imagine nothingness; whenever you try to, something is manifested. A blank figure. A pitch-black canvas. These are all ‘things’. Something replaces the ‘nothing’ that you try to produce. 3.11 Existence is a tautology. 3.12 On our topic, we have the depressed/indifferent person not having the desire to do anything. The lack of desire that comes from this scenario is played perfectly into the previous proposition: it is replaced by something, that is, the desire to not desire. 3.2 The statement “I love you” does not hold credence or weight in these terms, or portray any sense as a non-contextual proposition. It should be replaced by the more logically consistent “I have interest in you that is dependent on the state of affairs of our relationship at any given time”. 3.3 Love does not exist. |
| No one cares, you fucking nerd. Grow up. |
Thanakos said: That's what she said. Until I proved love doesn't exist, so I left her and told her to fuck off my life.No one cares, you fucking nerd. Grow up. |
| Well, it looks like you've cracked it. |
 |
| Sounds like you just want love to not exist because the alternative for you in this if you're going by what Nietzsche said is you stopping believing in or loving god. Most of your argument you just make statements with no support of them being fact such as "love is the most misunderstood emotion", and "love is the exchange of sympathy", and "desire to do something is prevalent in all organisms". Bacteria has the ability of higher thought such as desire? Come now.. |
Well This was very insightful I guess. |
| knew this would be some vague catastrophizing edgelord philosophy when i saw the nietzsche quote |
traed said: Sounds like you just want love to not exist because the alternative for you in this if you're going by what Nietzsche said is you stopping believing in or loving god. Most of your argument you just make statements with no support of them being fact such as "love is the most misunderstood emotion", and "love is the exchange of sympathy", and "desire to do something is prevalent in all organisms". Bacteria has the ability of higher thought such as desire? Come now.. The quote has literally no relation to the content of the post whatsoever. The statement 1.013 is supported by its previous statements that go by number 1.xxx. And so on. If you have issues with the statements themselves, do prove them wrong. Desire does not need to be high thought. Bacteria has desire and will to reproduce. carseatheadrest said: knew this would be some vague catastrophizing edgelord philosophy when i saw the nietzsche quote As I said, the quote has nothing to do with the actual content. Nietzsche never even used this style of writing. It just shows your prejudice taking control against Nietzsche because he hurts your feelings. |
| Yes yes the appeal to utility. Much like Nietzsche, your philosophy is entirely uninteresting if that which you're describing doesn't exist. It would be better if you were trying to destroy it, rather then denying it. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Gan_water said: But it does. You can make whatever you want exist. You can hate Nietzsche for whatever reason you want, it still doesn't change anything about him. My philosophy is uninteresting because it is true, and taps into your inner self too much. You can love, I just state the fact that love, in the conventional sense, does not exist. You cannot love forever, nor can you love the same person all day every day. Yes yes the appeal to utility. Much like Nietzsche, your philosophy is entirely uninteresting if that which you're describing doesn't exist. It would be better if you were trying to destroy it, rather then denying it. If so, then I would also be lying, because I cannot destroy the basis of emotions and perception unless I was a total moron. |
Yarub said: traed said: Sounds like you just want love to not exist because the alternative for you in this if you're going by what Nietzsche said is you stopping believing in or loving god. Most of your argument you just make statements with no support of them being fact such as "love is the most misunderstood emotion", and "love is the exchange of sympathy", and "desire to do something is prevalent in all organisms". Bacteria has the ability of higher thought such as desire? Come now.. The quote has literally no relation to the content of the post whatsoever. The statement 1.013 is supported by its previous statements that go by number 1.xxx. And so on. If you have issues with the statements themselves, do prove them wrong. Desire does not need to be high thought. Bacteria has desire and will to reproduce. Yeah I didn't think it made sense to therrest of what you talked about but was loosely related so I figured you made some sort of connection not explained. You made the claims so you have to back them up. I can't be arsed to do that now. |
I'm pretty sure that's a Harry Potter spell. |
 |
| true love does not exist like nothing last forever should be better there imo but obviously there are execptions to the rule like the mother of Shigaraki (My Hero Academia) that im sure happens sometimes in real life EDIT: also god is love so they do not exist too if that is the case |
degJul 20, 2019 6:02 PM
Yarub said: Gan_water said: But it does. You can make whatever you want exist. You can hate Nietzsche for whatever reason you want, it still doesn't change anything about him. My philosophy is uninteresting because it is true, and taps into your inner self too much. You can love, I just state the fact that love, in the conventional sense, does not exist. You cannot love forever, nor can you love the same person all day every day. Yes yes the appeal to utility. Much like Nietzsche, your philosophy is entirely uninteresting if that which you're describing doesn't exist. It would be better if you were trying to destroy it, rather then denying it. If so, then I would also be lying, because I cannot destroy the basis of emotions and perception unless I was a total moron. Oh I don't hate Nietzsche I just think he's a bit over the top for himself. Yeah but clearly something known as 'love' exists however you define it. Like God or existence it's something that can only be experienced in the moment. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| Love is defined as things like "an intense feeling of deep affection" and "a great interest and pleasure in something"...so of course it exists. |
 |
| Presenting the newest Marvel movie... Thor: Redacted and Thunder |
| Perhaps true love exist only from parents to their children, but even that cannot be generalized. Other than those relationship, IMO people help, support, do kindness to each other for the sake of certain intention behind that, to please themselves in the end. This is just my random opinion though. |
 |
Who says that? How do you know it? Yarub said: 1.12 Sympathy cannot be felt towards a person who has murdered someone you love, for example. You don't know what people are capable of... Attraction exists. Yarub said: 2 Love is the shift of interest with time. Some say love devolves after a relationship has been established (to cut out the physical attraction variable) thus it can be said that love is the elevation or degradation of interest between two people in a relationship with respect to time. While I disagree with some other of your statements, this one is interesting. I remember in a book this topic was touched. It said like the most divorces happen after 4 years, when the hormones start to decline. After 4 years of relationship you either have build strong enough bonds (love?) or you end up in a divorce. "love is the elevation or degradation of interest between two people" I would not say it is degradation of interest but sexual desire/attraction maybe? Since you explicitly said "organisms"... No, not really. Animals are driven by instincts mostly, not by desire. If you look at more basic lifeforms it becomes even more obvious. I would rather say they do not "have[s] the desire to not do anything", instead they rather have "no desire to do anything". I do not see why. You state it as a fact, how do you support that statement? Water is wet. Again here I would argue that they rather have no desire instead of a desire not to desire Yarub said: ... “I have interest in you that is dependent on the state of affairs of our relationship at any given time”. Imagine saying that to your mom: Hey mom, I have interest in you that is dependent on the state of affairs of our relationship at any given time. Or just say: Hey mom, I love you. What is love? (Haddway track plays in a distance). Depends what you define as love. Sexual attraction? Parental love? Platonic friendship? How do you define existance or nonexistance of something that is not well defined itself? At this point it is just pure belief (like in god). Either you believe love exists, or not, or you don't care. |
| @traed I'll humour you this time. 1.013 is reminiscent of the fact that emotion, on a fundamental level, depends on the receiver. Humans command which emotion is good, and which is bad. What is sensical is also determined by humans. However, love while identified, is not stripped to its bare components. Which is why, it is humans that misunderstand it, not that it is inherently misunderstood. 1.1 How is it not supported? A definition of a phenomena supports itself. Sympathy and affection is all what is needed to describe the concept of love, in parentheses, because love as I define it here, while apparent to the bourgeois, it is false. Read further through the post. I provided a better definition. 3 is a posteriori. It can be observed in all living organisms. You don't need to think to want something. Instinct is simply fixated desire of nature. @SadMadoka A wormhole is defined as a hole that is a pathway to other space-time or dimensions in the same or in different universes, so ofcourse it exists. @RandomFriday Other than the fact that you clearly miss the whole point of what I said, I'll also humour you. Who says that? How do you know it? Looks at my response to traed. I don't just 'know' it, I state it because it's true. You don't know what people are capable of... Attraction exists. The fact that you are crazy or moronic enough to fall for a murderer, you're immediately forsaken below the threshold of being called a functioning human being. Since you explicitly said "organisms"... No, not really. Animals are driven by instincts mostly, not by desire. If you look at more basic lifeforms it becomes even more obvious. Instincts are fixated desires of nature. I do not see why. You state it as a fact, how do you support that statement? I support it by having the previous proposition do so by itself. Water is wet. That's a synthetic judgement. Water is not 'wet' because that how we define water to be. Much like "Every event has a cause" does not imply that every cause has a cause. Again here I would argue that they rather have no desire instead of a desire not to desire Existence is a tautology. How do you define existance or nonexistance of something that is not well defined itself? You approximate and draw conclusions. Having probabilities is better than knowing nothing at all.How is my post redacted? Do you doubt its ingenuity? |
YarubJul 21, 2019 4:21 AM
No, I was making a joke. Your final conclusion was the love doesn't exist so take away/redact love. Thor: Redacted and Thunder |
| @Yarub I am confused... You state: "Existence is a tautology." My question was: "How do you define existance or nonexistance of something that is not well defined itself?" You answer: "You approximate and draw conclusions. Having probabilities is better than knowing nothing at all." I agree having probability is better than knowing nothing. But if existence is tautology, how can it include probability? You say love does not exist. Why are you talking about probability now? "Instincts are fixated desires of nature." Idk if nature has any desires at all. Where did you read this? Who said it? |
| Friedrich Nietzsche really out of all people you could choose why him. You should've chosen someone less edgy. Love exist if you can't see that then I truly pity you. Your going to miss on one of the most important feelings in life that give it meaning. I think that everyone should experience love. |
  Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
| What am I supposed to say if I agree that love is a chemically induced hallucinatory state created by a human mind feebly grasping to give something grand meaning. Just like her twin sister, hate. The sooner you disabuse yourself of the fairy tale of love the easier your life will become. Nobody does anything for nothing, not even God. Apparently he needs my unconditional worship and love for eternity because he created my species. |
 |
RandomFriday said: I spoke of probability because you asked me a broad question. If a diseases' etiology is unknown, I look for evidence for it. If there is doubt in the information collected, an approximation to an extent can be made to lessen the symptoms of the disease.@Yarub I am confused... You state: "Existence is a tautology." My question was: "How do you define existance or nonexistance of something that is not well defined itself?" You answer: "You approximate and draw conclusions. Having probabilities is better than knowing nothing at all." I agree having probability is better than knowing nothing. But if existence is tautology, how can it include probability? You say love does not exist. Why are you talking about probability now? "Instincts are fixated desires of nature." Idk if nature has any desires at all. Where did you read this? Who said it? Probability has nothing do with the actual specific topic at hand. Every proposition I have stated either stands on its own or supports the ones below it. All variables I have mentioned are either clearly stated to be absolute, or not. What more feeding do you ask? I did not 'read' this. Yes it does. Look at the physical laws of nature, if there is no will to the laws, then why are they there? Desire is absolute. AnimeFeminist said: Here we go again. Just because Nietzsche hurts your feelings, doesn't mean he's wrong.Friedrich Nietzsche really out of all people you could choose why him. You should've chosen someone less edgy. Theoderic said: Simply that.What does the nonexistence of love imply? |
| @Yarub, I think I understand where you are coming from. In my opinion love is not something inherent to the nature, so it doesn't exist per se. Love is a word in english vocabulary (and other languages) created by humans. It describes certain feelings/emotions humans experience. Saying love does not exist is denying the emotions humans have. Think love of something that does not exist, but describes a set of things that really exist. I thnk when people say "I love X" is them just making an abbreviation for a range of feelings towards that thing X. Most people experience(d) love, but have a hard time describing what it really is. edit: I still stand to the idea I have written before: you cannot proof an existence/nonexistence of something that is not well defined. Does god exist? Does spaghetti monster exist? Probably. Probably not. We just don't know. The question cannot be answered. Same goes for love, and in fact many other non-physical things. |
RandomFridayJul 21, 2019 8:08 AM
Yarub said: Gan_water said: But it does. You can make whatever you want exist. You can hate Nietzsche for whatever reason you want, it still doesn't change anything about him. My philosophy is uninteresting because it is true, and taps into your inner self too much. You can love, I just state the fact that love, in the conventional sense, does not exist. You cannot love forever, nor can you love the same person all day every day. Yes yes the appeal to utility. Much like Nietzsche, your philosophy is entirely uninteresting if that which you're describing doesn't exist. It would be better if you were trying to destroy it, rather then denying it. If so, then I would also be lying, because I cannot destroy the basis of emotions and perception unless I was a total moron. Love is more than an emotion it's a way of treating someone and a decision to uphold values of love. Feeling love for someone and repeatedly remorselessly harming them isn't love. Being upset with someone doesn't mean you don't love them in that moment because people are capable of feeling multiple emotions at once and because love being more than an emotion it can trancend the fleeting emotions. Yarub said: @traed I'll humour you this time. 1.013 is reminiscent of the fact that emotion, on a fundamental level, depends on the receiver. Humans command which emotion is good, and which is bad. What is sensical is also determined by humans. However, love while identified, is not stripped to its bare components. Which is why, it is humans that misunderstand it, not that it is inherently misunderstood. 1.1 How is it not supported? A definition of a phenomena supports itself. Sympathy and affection is all what is needed to describe the concept of love, in parentheses, because love as I define it here, while apparent to the bourgeois, it is false. Read further through the post. I provided a better definition. 3 is a posteriori. It can be observed in all living organisms. You don't need to think to want something. Instinct is simply fixated desire of nature. 1.13 this is not true. You can love someone without them even consciously knowing and it makes it no less love. You can love someone that doesn't like you and it makes it no less love so long as you don't do things like harass and stalk them. You're confusing relationships with love. 1.1 I adressed this above. Also love is more complex than a simple dictionary definition. Sympathy is a part of love but it is not love. You can be sympathetic toward people you dislike by pittying them. 3.1 Desire is an emotion and a thought. Even if we assume all organisms have emotions and thoughts that does not inherently mean all have desire or even have thoughts like we do. Many organisms are at the whim of mere physics and chemistry not their own solitary will. For that to work you must argue that all matter is concious but you didn't. |
Yarub said: A wormhole is defined as a hole that is a pathway to other space-time or dimensions in the same or in different universes, so ofcourse it exists. You're using an example of something that hasn't been shown to exist and equating it with something that absolutely has been shown to exist. That's not a valid argument. Love simply involves thoughts and feelings. It's sheer folly to deny the existence of such a thing when there are endless examples of it, and you've surely experienced it yourself as well, whether it be affection towards a person or passionate interest in a hobby. |
|
| i...this post has so many things wrong about it that i don't know where to start. |
  i like soup |
| To all the incompetents that still didn't comprehend the content of my post, I do not denounce the "feeling of love", infact, I acknowledge it. I present an alternative, however, to the misunderstood emotion. It is much better to say to a person "I have interest in you that is dependent on the state of affairs etc..." than to say "I love you" because, by the current definition of love, you'd be lying. If noone can love -- in the abstract sense -- and human emotion is all that is the case; Love does not exist. @RandomFriday So you simply concede to the fact that you know not the topic of love. Therefore my tractatus still stands. Love can be understood, and I just do so. Stop denying it and lying to yourself. @traed The first part of the post is pseudo-science. You literally demand of me to explain self-explanatory logical propositions, and you spout shit like "Love can transcend all emotions"? The fuck? 1.013 -- How can you 'love' somebody and not know it? I know that God exists but I cannot prove it, therefore he must exist. What? How do I confuse relatonships with love while I present a valid perspective on what love is? 1.1 Which is why I also added "affection" to the already denied definition. You seem to be unable to understand, this proposition is proven wrong in the following ones. I state the general definition of love, and as such I can fully refute the idea of it completely. 3.1 Desire is not an emotion because micro-organisms show it. It is coded into their DNAs. Desire doesn't need to be the product of "free-will" of organisms, assuming that's your whole basis of denial. How can I argue that matter is conscious and still be taken seriously? SadMadoka said: Read my first paragraph in my post --- That being said, I never denied actual interactions between people. I do not command emotion by rationality, I subject it to itself. If you "love" someone, sure, go ahead. I'm just here to prove the logical inconsistency of this "love" you notwithstanding hold so high.Yarub said: A wormhole is defined as a hole that is a pathway to other space-time or dimensions in the same or in different universes, so ofcourse it exists. You're using an example of something that hasn't been shown to exist and equating it with something that absolutely has been shown to exist. That's not a valid argument. Love simply involves thoughts and feelings. It's sheer folly to deny the existence of such a thing when there are endless examples of it, and you've surely experienced it yourself as well, whether it be affection towards a person or passionate interest in a hobby. Stellapuer said: Because it presents to you the sins that you identify by, or never had the courage to commit. It also shows you your own shame of stupidity. No wonder you're on MAL.i...this post has so many things wrong about it that i don't know where to start. |
Yarub said: To all the incompetents that still didn't comprehend the content of my post, I do not denounce the "feeling of love", infact, I acknowledge it. I present an alternative, however, to the misunderstood emotion. It is much better to say to a person "I have interest in you that is dependent on the state of affairs etc..." than to say "I love you" because, by the current definition of love, you'd be lying. If noone can love -- in the abstract sense -- and human emotion is all that is the case; Love does not exist. @RandomFriday So you simply concede to the fact that you know not the topic of love. Therefore my tractatus still stands. Love can be understood, and I just do so. Stop denying it and lying to yourself. @traed The first part of the post is pseudo-science. You literally demand of me to explain self-explanatory logical propositions, and you spout shit like "Love can transcend all emotions"? The fuck? 1.013 -- How can you 'love' somebody and not know it? I know that God exists but I cannot prove it, therefore he must exist. What? How do I confuse relatonships with love while I present a valid perspective on what love is? 1.1 Which is why I also added "affection" to the already denied definition. You seem to be unable to understand, this proposition is proven wrong in the following ones. I state the general definition of love, and as such I can fully refute the idea of it completely. 3.1 Desire is not an emotion because micro-organisms show it. It is coded into their DNAs. Desire doesn't need to be the product of "free-will" of organisms, assuming that's your whole basis of denial. How can I argue that matter is conscious and still be taken seriously? SadMadoka said: Read my first paragraph in my post --- That being said, I never denied actual interactions between people. I do not command emotion by rationality, I subject it to itself. If you "love" someone, sure, go ahead. I'm just here to prove the logical inconsistency of this "love" you notwithstanding hold so high.You're using an example of something that hasn't been shown to exist and equating it with something that absolutely has been shown to exist. That's not a valid argument. Love simply involves thoughts and feelings. It's sheer folly to deny the existence of such a thing when there are endless examples of it, and you've surely experienced it yourself as well, whether it be affection towards a person or passionate interest in a hobby. Stellapuer said: Because it presents to you the sins that you identify by, or never had the courage to commit. It also shows you your own shame of stupidity. No wonder you're on MAL.i...this post has so many things wrong about it that i don't know where to start. look, i'm not going to waste my time to bother arguing with a delusional man, or one that is trolling. i just wanted to express my disbelief. i hope you have a good day. |
i like soup |
Yarub said: To all the incompetents that still didn't comprehend the content of my post, I do not denounce the "feeling of love", infact, I acknowledge it. I present an alternative, however, to the misunderstood emotion. It is much better to say to a person "I have interest in you that is dependent on the state of affairs etc..." than to say "I love you" because, by the current definition of love, you'd be lying. If noone can love -- in the abstract sense -- and human emotion is all that is the case; Love does not exist. Perhaps you're trying to say that unconditional love doesn't exist? Many would agree with that. When people say they love someone, they usually do simply mean for the time being. What is "the current definition of love" you're using? What do you mean by "all that is the case"? That's a rather vague phrase. |
|
SadMadoka said: Yarub said: To all the incompetents that still didn't comprehend the content of my post, I do not denounce the "feeling of love", infact, I acknowledge it. I present an alternative, however, to the misunderstood emotion. It is much better to say to a person "I have interest in you that is dependent on the state of affairs etc..." than to say "I love you" because, by the current definition of love, you'd be lying. If noone can love -- in the abstract sense -- and human emotion is all that is the case; Love does not exist. Perhaps you're trying to say that unconditional love doesn't exist? Many would agree with that. When people say they love someone, they usually do simply mean for the time being. What is "the current definition of love" you're using? What do you mean by "all that is the case"? That's a rather vague phrase. Yes -- not only that, but the idea general idea of love itself. The fact that: when you say you 'love' someone, they usually do simply mean for the time being begs the question: Can the standard definition or notion of love be this inconsistent? It is, which is why my tractatus exists. Love does not exist in the widespread view, and since the abstract idea of love also cannot exist, therefore it is not love that you experience; it is something entirely different. Look at 3.2 with a different figure of speech - interest that is dependent on the state of affairs of the relationship at any given time. It is not, one only needs to meditate on Wittgenstein to fully comprehend the content of my tractatus, it is self-evident in this thread, literally nobody got the point, save @Thanakos who determined the ineffectual conclusion. 1 Human emotion is all that is the case It is simply a linguistic gesture to state that emotion is the most important aspect of human interaction. It implies the fact that all emotions are finite, as in it can be discerned into categories, and shelved into orders of magnitude or effect unto the person. If so, then what is directly reducible to elementary emotion, is simply an effect, not an emotion. Emotions can be true or false, as in, real people or attachments to fictitious characters, respectively. Thus we come to the final inference: The totality of all true elementary emotions describe the whole concept of human emotion. This is the introduction to the following proposition - 1.01 where I state that emotion is the totality of perceived facts, not of actual facts, which is self-explanatory. |
Yarub said: Yes -- not only that, but the idea general idea of love itself. The fact that: when you say you 'love' someone, they usually do simply mean for the time being begs the question: Can the standard definition or notion of love be this inconsistent? It is, which is why my tractatus exists. But the basic definitions of love I shared don't involve anything unconditional. I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Yarub said: Love does not exist in the widespread view, and since the abstract idea of love also cannot exist, therefore it is not love that you experience; it is something entirely different. You claimed these things, but did not present sound reasoning or evidence to support it. Yarub said: Look at 3.2 with a different figure of speech - interest that is dependent on the state of affairs of the relationship at any given time. What you described is compatible with the standard definition. It's more or less implied. Yarub said: It is not, one only needs to meditate on Wittgenstein to fully comprehend the content of my tractatus, it is self-evident in this thread, literally nobody got the point, save @Thanakos who determined the ineffectual conclusion. 1 Human emotion is all that is the case It is simply a linguistic gesture to state that emotion is the most important aspect of human interaction. It implies the fact that all emotions are finite, as in it can be discerned into categories, and shelved into orders of magnitude or effect unto the person. If so, then what is directly reducible to elementary emotion, is simply an effect, not an emotion. Emotions can be true or false, as in, real people or attachments to fictitious characters, respectively. Thus we come to the final inference: The totality of all true elementary emotions describe the whole concept of human emotion. This is the introduction to the following proposition - 1.01 where I state that emotion is the totality of perceived facts, not of actual facts, which is self-explanatory. The original Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus your thread is inspired by stated: The world is all that is the case. What is the case (a fact) is the existence of states of affairs. One could interpret this to mean that all of existence is all that exists, and whatever configuration of things in existence would be the state of affairs. (Pretty redundant if you ask me.) However, human emotion is not all there is, and even within the context of human emotion, there are other factors, such as thoughts and reason...so I would say it is misleading to say that human emotion is all that is the case. If your goal was to list what you described just now, that phrase wasn't the best choice. I also think it's inaccurate to equate emotion with the totality of perceived facts, since you can perceive facts without feeling emotion, and emotion is not defined as perceiving facts (though it can be influenced by them). |
|
| You can love someone without having interest in him/her. It doesn't matter the fancy theorems, a lot of people feel love so there you have it. |
    |
| @SadMadoka But the basic definitions of love I shared don't involve anything unconditional. I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Nope. What you stated is abstract absolute love: "an intense feeling of deep affection" and "a great interest and pleasure in something". However, abstract and absolute love cannot be achieved due to emotion being the case. You claimed these things, but did not present sound reasoning or evidence to support it. The reasoning is at proposition 2 and 2.01 respectively. What you described is compatible with the standard definition. It's more or less implied. Then why isn't the notion "friends with benefits" more recurrent? Since it is implied, then surely no one would heedlessly love? I wonder why those people kill themselves after a break up, or go on a personal vendetta. All these people must not see invisible statements by implication, right? No. It is what it is, people don't imply certain definite time period for relationships.However, human emotion is not all there is, and even within the context of human emotion, there are other factors, such as thoughts and reason...so I would say it is misleading to say that human emotion is all that is the case. If your goal was to list what you described just now, that phrase wasn't the best choice. All information is what the senses provide. Rationality and thought are derivatives. Avicenna excellently described this phenomenon in his 'Floating man' thought experiment. His premises start where mine ends, I'm sure you can figure it out. I also think it's inaccurate to equate emotion with the totality of perceived facts, since you can perceive facts without feeling emotion, and emotion is not defined as perceiving facts (though it can be influenced by them). Nope, you can't. Emotion is the result of your perception, thus it directly relies on your understanding of the surroundings. A blind man cannot contemplate a painting, thus no emotion is conditioned. On the other hand, a normal person would easily be consumed by it. A paralyzed person with virtually no or highly dysfunctional senses, will just lay there; doing nothing. Also reference to the floating man, he cannot feel emotion, because he is secluded from the senses.Catalano said: Everyone feels pain, so it also must be real? I want to see you support this.You can love someone without having interest in him/her. It doesn't matter the fancy theorems, a lot of people feel love so there you have it. Take a look at your shitty fucking profile. If that isn't the epitome of - I'm an attention whore edgy girl, I don't know what to reply. |
YarubJul 24, 2019 12:32 AM
| @Yarub me the wrong way... That is the literal fucking definition. There's nothing abstract or absolute about it. Millions of people experience love (toward people and things) every day. It's a well-known fact of life. Get over it. It's also common for people to perceive facts without getting emotional about it. 2 + 2 = 4. Yep...I felt no emotion while perceiving that fact. You do not know what words mean, you do not know how logic works, and you have no business telling people love isn't real. You are clearly insane. No intelligent person could ever take your retarded threads seriously. Stop wasting everyone's time with your baseless delusional nonsense and get a life. |
|
Yarub said: 1.12 Sympathy cannot be felt towards a person who has murdered someone you love, for example. Tell that to the main character of katanagatari |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
SadMadoka said: I do not argue of the literal or non-literal definition, I argue what people believe of the definition.@Yarub me the wrong way... That is the literal fucking definition. There's nothing abstract or absolute about it. Millions of people experience love (toward people and things) every day. It's a well-known fact of life. Get over it. It's also common for people to perceive facts without getting emotional about it. 2 + 2 = 4. Yep...I felt no emotion while perceiving that fact. You do not know what words mean, you do not know how logic works, and you have no business telling people love isn't real. You are clearly insane. No intelligent person could ever take your retarded threads seriously. Stop wasting everyone's time with your baseless delusional nonsense and get a life. You can experience love, and I have said that countless times. But you're too degenerate to understand, I never denounced love, I merely interject the subject by proposing to change the value of non-existent love, to 3.2. You fucking idiot. You do not perceive the numbers 2 or 4, and not the function +. When you learned them in pre-school, you perceived them. This is the plane of my argument. Now, when you recall them, you simply create them. They are detached from reality. If you tell me something that isn't logical about my tractatus or my replies to you, then I would concede. If the conclusion doesn't suit your lovey dovey needs, doesn't mean it's illogical. It's actually the opposite, anything that is reminiscent to your backwards thought process should be disregarded. I do have a life --- a supposedly good one too, thanks for your consideration. Now, you'll need to demonstrate 50 more IQ points than what you currently possess to post in the next thread of mine, capisce? |
| Does it matter if it exists per se or not? Pain is body's way of telling you got hurt in some area and you need fixing, so some sort of electrical impulses to the brain. You can love an actor or an anime character, you had no fizical connection to him/her. Take my ex: I love FC Barcelona, it doesn't matter if the team loses of wins, I'm with them for life. Sure I'm angry when we lose and very happy when we win. Love is a feeling and a very good one. |
|
Come now everyone knows that only true intellectuals™ of the highest caliber rely on nietzsche quotes to make their arguments for them instead of cultivating their own opinions and thoughts on the matter. https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/  |
XstasyJul 24, 2019 3:05 AM
Catalano said: These techniques are applied to various fields of education. The fact that it matters if it is true or not should be explicitly found out and distinguished. Bricks build buildings, thus they are hard. But does it matter if they are intrinsically hard? Well, yes, so we can use to to build other things too.Does it matter if it exists per se or not? Pain is body's way of telling you got hurt in some area and you need fixing, so some sort of electrical impulses to the brain. You can love an actor or an anime character, you had no fizical connection to him/her. Take my ex: I love FC Barcelona, it doesn't matter if the team loses of wins, I'm with them for life. Sure I'm angry when we lose and very happy when we win. Love is a feeling and a very good one. Xstasy said: Come now everyone knows that only true intellectuals™ of the highest caliber rely on nietzsche quotes to make their arguments for them instead of cultivating their own opinions and thoughts on the matter. https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/ Now that the thread is almost exhausted, I might as well say it. I put the quote as an irrelevant piece of bait, it is to bait the prejudiced and the degenerates that read not the actual content of the thread; since the quote in relation to the thread is simply a novelty. Now I know the list of retards to add to my ignore list. Touché. |
Yarub said: I do not argue of the literal or non-literal definition, I argue what people believe of the definition. If you accept the definition(s), opinions of it are irrelevant to the existence of the phenomenon. Yarub said: You can experience love, and I have said that countless times. Then don't contradict yourself and assert it doesn't exist. Yarub said: But you're too degenerate to understand, Yarub said: It's actually the opposite, anything that is reminiscent to your backwards thought process should be disregarded. "Degenerate"..."backwards thought process"...that's rich... I'm not the one who follows a misogynistic, warmongering child rapist and genuinely believes he was a prophet of God. Yarub said: I never denounced love, How is "love does not exist" not denouncing love? *facepalm* Yarub said: I merely interject the subject by proposing to change the value of non-existent love, to 3.2. Define "non-existent love" and demonstrate your claim to be valid. Yarub said: You fucking idiot. You do not perceive the numbers 2 or 4, and not the function +. When you learned them in pre-school, you perceived them. This is the plane of my argument. Now, when you recall them, you simply create them. They are detached from reality. This is what I'm talking about. FYI, words have more than one meaning. English is obviously not your native language, so don't embarrass yourself. Yarub said: If you tell me something that isn't logical about my tractatus or my replies to you, then I would concede. If the conclusion doesn't suit your lovey dovey needs, doesn't mean it's illogical. Seemingly half of everything you say is illogical nonsense. The burden of proof is on you, the one making the claims. Actual logic involves premises that follow each other necessarily; you, on the other hand, just go all over the place, making wild claims. Yarub said: I do have a life --- a supposedly good one too, thanks for your consideration. If you can call posting indecipherable gibberish a life... Yarub said: Now, you'll need to demonstrate 50 more IQ points than what you currently possess to post in the next thread of mine, capisce? This is the default response you give to those who aren't gullibe enough to buy into your bullshit, and call you out on it. It's sad, really. |
|
| @SadMadoka If you accept the definition(s), opinions of it are irrelevant to the existence of the phenomenon. Even if I accept the definition, if there's no practicality to it, then it is simply useless. Hence 1.14. Then don't contradict yourself and assert it doesn't exist. Love doesn't exist. I've told you countless times. What exists is the "interest that is dependent on the state of affairs etc..." that you claim to be 'love', but it isn't. I'm simply humoring you. I'm not the one who follows a misogynistic, warmongering child rapist and genuinely believes he was a prophet of God. Ad hominem. How is "love does not exist" not denouncing love? *facepalm* I do not denounce the actual feeling of love; I denounce the abstract and widespread idea of it. You can love lolis, but for all I care, it is not the love you give, it is simply interest. Define "non-existent love" and demonstrate your claim to be valid. The "non-existent love" is the love that is abstract and widespread, as I previously stated. My claim is valid by virtue of: Emotion is the case, love is not absolute, thus it is not elementary, thus it is reducible, thus it is merely intensified interest -- desire. Read my thread, for god's sake. Everything is there. This is what I'm talking about. FYI, words have more than one meaning. English is obviously not your native language, so don't embarrass yourself. The burden of proof is on you, in regards to this. Seemingly half of everything you say is illogical nonsense. The burden of proof is on you, the one making the claims. Actual logic involves premises that follow each other necessarily; you, on the other hand, just go all over the place, making wild claims. What? I did not just come here and said "Love does not exist; deal with it", I wrote my tractatus, that is my proof. You disprove it if you disagree. Whether you find it worthy or not does not imply its invalidity. This is the default response you give to those who aren't gullibe enough to buy into your bullshit, and call you out on it. It's sad, really. Nah, it's the default response you give to those who claim insanity to the person who provides proof to what he states, and those that hold on to previous beliefs because little madoka loves mommy too much to believe that that love is vain. |
Xstasy said: Might as well be. That's the only thing that goes into your piss brain anyway.Yarub said: These techniques are applied to various fields of education. The fact that it matters if it is true or not should be explicitly found out and distinguished. Bricks build buildings, thus they are hard. But does it matter if they are intrinsically hard? Well, yes, so we can use to to build other things too. Now that the thread is almost exhausted, I might as well say it. I put the quote as an irrelevant piece of bait, it is to bait the prejudiced and the degenerates that read not the actual content of the thread; since the quote in relation to the thread is simply a novelty. Now I know the list of retards to add to my ignore list. Touché. Your style of debate and arguments in the nutshell |
More topics from this board
» Is the word 'simp' fallen out of context in 2024?Kiryotsu - 9 hours ago |
22 |
by traed
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Why do Americans workvasipi4946 - Yesterday |
24 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» Have you pushed yourself beyond your comfort zoneST63LTH - Yesterday |
12 |
by LenRea
»»
50 minutes ago |
|
» Do you celebrate your BirthdayST63LTH - Today |
17 |
by Longnines
»»
55 minutes ago |
|
» Did you ever cut ties with a family member or friend?Sad - Yesterday |
40 |
by _Nette_
»»
56 minutes ago |