• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Inability to understand love

What's wrong with these people?

  • Nothing, mega is flawed in some way

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • They need to grow up

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
Dr. Asperger once said "The delusional idea of a delusion is to try and explain it to the delusional."

Does this make sense?

They are there. They think there world is the right one. They will defend that belief as many of us would. Its just there way is not "socially acceptable". The trick is to just quietly ignore them and move on. For people like us this is a very hard thing to do. When I meet someone like that on thiis or any other site I leave myself a message so I don't get caught up. Not perfect but its better than nothing. When someone gets to the obnoxious point I put them on ignore.

You are probably right. When people are illogical I can't leave it alone until I make sense of it and find the "patterns"

Its like that bump on your back you can't quite reach, it drives you nuts.
 
Its a reason to the objectivists or the sympathizers of objectivists who believe that any human emotion, including love, is inherently selfish. I simply do not understand why they could some to such a conclusion and I am looking for answers.

When I first started on this forum, it was a quest to understand conservative thinking. I think I understand it pretty well now, so now I am trying to understand another group of people.
I think the problem is that most people who think like you failed to distinguish between 'love' and 'lust'. To remedy this, you simply abrogated the latter, made the former all encompassing, and started pointing fingers at 'insensitive' Conservatives.
 
I think the problem is that most people who think like you failed to distinguish between 'love' and 'lust'. To remedy this, you simply abrogated the latter, made the former all encompassing, and started pointing fingers at 'insensitive' Conservatives.

You think I confuse love and lust? What leads you to this conclusion? Also, when did I bring conservatives into this?
 
I think the problem is that most people who think like you failed to distinguish between 'love' and 'lust'. To remedy this, you simply abrogated the latter, made the former all encompassing, and started pointing fingers at 'insensitive' Conservatives.


I feel very confident in saying that if Mega has any kind of confusion going on, that ain't it.
 
The evolutionary process has resulted in a positive feedback loops that fills the brain with happy juice while performing social bonding with a mate or family member, aka love. That hardly makes love selfish. I get a movie ticket every few times I donate blood, doesn't change that donating blood is right and that I am a every so slightly better person for doing so. The whole concept that you need to suffer in order to truly do good is ridiculous.
 
Its a reason to the objectivists or the sympathizers of objectivists who believe that any human emotion, including love, is inherently selfish. I simply do not understand why they could some to such a conclusion and I am looking for answers.

When I first started on this forum, it was a quest to understand conservative thinking. I think I understand it pretty well now, so now I am trying to understand another group of people.

Are you talking about the rejection of the notion of true altruism?

I ascribe to that philosophy. It isn't a rejection of emotion or good deeds. It's just trying to explain why we do them.

If you feel nothing when you do this or that, how do you know what's right or wrong, kind or cruel? You don't. That's the problem that sociopaths have.

So, the fact that we feel good about doing good things, feel good about being loving towards those we care about, is how we know those things are good. Our reaction to them, or "reward," whether it's emotional or tangible, gives us the tip-off that we're doing something positive. Without that "reward," we wouldn't know the difference.

Therefore, nothing is truly altruistic. But that doesn't mean we're all "selfish" and that love doesn't exist. Our ability to pick up the emotions of others and to feel good when we do good things is how we tell what's good.
 
Do you think those people who seem to think that every human motivation are somehow damaged and unable to understand what love actually is? No amount of logic and examples are getting through to these people and I am running out of any other conclusions that make any sense.

Any alternative explanations out there as to why these people can't understand basic human emotion?

The whole thing amazes and saddens me

They do understand human emotions, they just don't live dominated by them. Love is one of those things that is different things to different people, and nobody has a market on the meaning of it. I love my family and friends. I would lay down my life for them, but that doesn't mean that I am obligated to lay down my life for someone whom I don't even know.

It is pretty widely believed that the true beneficiary of giving is to the giver more than he who receives. The person who receives gains goods and/or comfort, but the one who gives gains a sense of having done something good, which is infinitely better for your sense of self-worth.
 
Oh, no, no, no. I can no longer direct you to his posts, the forum no longer exists, but he is very real. He lives on a farm in Texas. Grows his own everything and no matter the evidence or argument, he insisted he was an island, needing one one and nothing from anybody. I briefly crossed paths with someone here like this, but I'm so sorry, I can't remember who it was. We didn't go beyond two posts and replies ad it was over.

You do know its possible he doesn't need anything from anyone, yes? People can actually survive well without anyone in their lives and do so for their entire lives however long and pleasurable that might be. It might not be a desirable way to live, but it is perfectly possible.

I don't want to degrade the person from the other forum, he was very earnest in his beliefs, but I do think, he was just out of touch with the concept that one life, touches so many others.

That is a different argument though. There is difference between self reliance and touching or affecting other lives and the difference is pretty notable.
 
You do know its possible he doesn't need anything from anyone, yes? People can actually survive well without anyone in their lives and do so for their entire lives however long and pleasurable that might be. It might not be a desirable way to live, but it is perfectly possible.

That is a different argument though. There is difference between self reliance and touching or affecting other lives and the difference is pretty notable.

Of course, but he insisted that there was nothing in his life that he didn't provide. Well, he drove a truck, on public roads, which he fills up at the gas station. Uses phones and electricity and the internet on a computer he did not build. Just for starters. He could never directly address any of that. Taxes were collected from other people to pay for those roads and others labor provided those services. Doesn't sound like an island to me.

He did not see how his life was effected by anyone else beyond himself, his wife and daughter. Period. Love is weakness and compassion was selfish.

Again, accept my description or don't. No worries. Just that I knew this person on the forum for four years. We had several long threads going back and forth and he never, ever deviated from his beliefs.
 
. I get a movie ticket every few times I donate blood, doesn't change that donating blood is right and that I am a every so slightly better person for doing so. The whole concept that you need to suffer in order to truly do good is ridiculous.

It's not the movie ticket, but the boost in your concept of self-worth which makes it an act that you consider worthy. We are conditioned to respond to feeling good about ourselves, as a result of what we do for others. Iow, we believe that we should be selfless, thus we try to be.
 
Do you think those people who seem to think that every human motivation are somehow damaged and unable to understand what love actually is? No amount of logic and examples are getting through to these people and I am running out of any other conclusions that make any sense.

Any alternative explanations out there as to why these people can't understand basic human emotion?

The whole thing amazes and saddens me


what makes you believe that they do not understand basic human emotion?

Ayn has written quite a bit about love ( the highest of emotions, as she calls it)...and she has written about it as it pertains to the selfish and selfless man.

nothing she has written on it is particularly earth shattering... or original for that matter

as for thinking "every human motivation is somehow damaged", i'm not sure what you mean....got examples?
 
what makes you believe that they do not understand basic human emotion?

Ayn has written quite a bit about love ( the highest of emotions, as she calls it)...and she has written about it as it pertains to the selfish and selfless man.

nothing she has written on it is particularly earth shattering... or original for that matter

as for thinking "every human motivation is somehow damaged", i'm not sure what you mean....got examples?

Love is a selfless emotion and some people only seem to be able to understand it in the context of what it provides for the person giving the love. Its a baffling stance.
 
Do you think those people who seem to think that every human motivation are somehow damaged and unable to understand what love actually is? No amount of logic and examples are getting through to these people and I am running out of any other conclusions that make any sense.

Any alternative explanations out there as to why these people can't understand basic human emotion?

The whole thing amazes and saddens me
He who does not know love does not know god for, god is love. – 1 john 4:8
 
I think the problem is that most people who think like you failed to distinguish between 'love' and 'lust'. To remedy this, you simply abrogated the latter, made the former all encompassing, and started pointing fingers at 'insensitive' Conservatives.

"people like him". I am people like him too. It is not a matter of not being able to distinguish those two particular issues. its a matter of how our brains are wired in general. Regardless, what he is talking about can be seen clearly in the thread about the young girl who committed suicide due to bullying. There are people there who have a truer inability to understand emotional reactions or responses than either Meg or me.
 
"people like him". I am people like him too. It is not a matter of not being able to distinguish those two particular issues. its a matter of how our brains are wired in general. Regardless, what he is talking about can be seen clearly in the thread about the young girl who committed suicide due to bullying. There are people there who have a truer inability to understand emotional reactions or responses than either Meg or me.
I was referring to his comment about how he felt he had Conservatives pegged.
 
what makes you believe that they do not understand basic human emotion?

Ayn has written quite a bit about love ( the highest of emotions, as she calls it)...and she has written about it as it pertains to the selfish and selfless man.

nothing she has written on it is particularly earth shattering... or original for that matter

as for thinking "every human motivation is somehow damaged", i'm not sure what you mean....got examples?

He has Aspergers Syndrome like me and it is our constant struggle to understand how you NT"s (neurologically typicals) function. Within our own minds our universe is very small. It takes some of us years to understand basic of social functioning. Some never get it. For us it is like trying to solve the question "which came first the chicken or the egg" or the eternal question of "whose on first?)
 
I was referring to his comment about how he felt he had Conservatives pegged.

I am sorry but I do not agree

I think the problem is that most people who think like you failed to distinguish between 'love' and 'lust'. To remedy this, you simply abrogated the latter, made the former all encompassing, and started pointing fingers at 'insensitive' Conservatives.

this is what you said. People like you fail to distinguish. or am I missing somethng.
 
I am sorry but I do not agree

I think the problem is that most people who think like you failed to distinguish between 'love' and 'lust'. To remedy this, you simply abrogated the latter, made the former all encompassing, and started pointing fingers at 'insensitive' Conservatives.

this is what you said. People like you fail to distinguish. or am I missing somethng.
People who THINK like you, fail to distinguish. If you're going to analyze every fragment of my posts, be sure you cover all of it, and not just what you want to understand. ;)

He said he had Conservatives pegged. It's obvious he was referring to Conservatives and their purported insensitivity toward gay & lesbian love. My stance is that people who think like him have confused love with lust where gay marriage is concerned.
 
I think that a lot of the time love is inherently selfish. When you love someone you always want to do right by them and make them happy, but why do you do that? Because it makes YOU happy. So, even when you genuinely love someone, it's still a little selfish.

On a side not, this is something I've always thought about when I think about love. If love is really forever, then how many people really know what love is?
 
in my opinion ,unless you feel it by heart you may not understand it..
 
Love is a selfless emotion and some people only seem to be able to understand it in the context of what it provides for the person giving the love. Its a baffling stance.

I'm curious... where do you come about the understanding that love is a selfless emotion?

as far as objectivism in concerned, Love is an emotional response to virtue.
the way Ayn explain it is that a selfless man ( altruism) is incapable of love... as emotions are a function of the self... self esteem is the root of love, self esteem is the result of rational egoism, etc etc etc.
of course, Ayn is the only one to touch on it from that angle either, there are plenty of folks whom have professed things like ' to love another, one must learn to love yourself".. and other related stuff...
I'm not sure Love is a selfish emotion, or a selfless emotion... and I would be hesitant to claim either one is true.

In any event, I don't know the truth.. i don't know if there is a truth to the matter
but I do know objectivism is widely misunderstood, even by self professed objectivists.
 
Is it possible that the word 'selfish' is being confused with the words 'rational self-interest' ?
 
Do you think those people who seem to think that every human motivation are somehow damaged and unable to understand what love actually is? No amount of logic and examples are getting through to these people and I am running out of any other conclusions that make any sense.

Any alternative explanations out there as to why these people can't understand basic human emotion?

The whole thing amazes and saddens me

I wanna know what looooove is...I want you to show mee....:rock
 
When I first started on this forum, it was a quest to understand conservative thinking. I think I understand it pretty well now, so now I am trying to understand another group of people.

Are you trying to understand the people, or are you trying to underst their reasoning? I hope you mean the latter, you won't get far with the former if you don't.

Altruism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Selfishness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Game theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Selfishness — Ayn Rand Lexicon
The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind. In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment. Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests. This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

Of note is that Rand's definition of selfish is not the popular usage definition, nor is it the more precise game theory definition. So if you're rejecting beliefs about "Selfishness" as you do above, but you do not understand all of the defintions in the proper context, you will not be successful at understanding the dilemma.
 
Back
Top Bottom