Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Question. Just because I can't think of any pure motive for love doesn't mean I don't believe in it, does it? I hope not. Because then I'd have to reevaluate my life significantly.

Or maybe I'm just second-guessing myself too much. Who's to know?!

10 comments:

Greg said...

You just going to have to sit down and define a few things. What the hell is a pure motive? For anything? What kinds of love are we talking about? Romantic love (by Greg's definition :-D ) is mutual between two parties. So is it unreasonable to expect that each party might have their own wants and needs fulfilled through the relationship. Is that impure?

To be honest, I distrust the purely altruistic character, because I find it to be an unrealistic ideal. Even that altruistic person is behaving that way to fulfill a certain want or need.

I don't know, maybe I'm just modern enough to believe there is a motive behind everything. I just have no criteria with which to judge its purity.

Ayejae said...

Greg is right. What constitutes "impurity?" Other than the love God has for us, there is no "unconditional" love, if that's what you're getting at. Every love, even if seen an "unselfish" is given to satisfy the lover. He/she may simply obtain pleasure from giving the love. Is that selfish? Impure?

Diana said...

This is the problem. I can't see a "pure" motive for anything, let alone love. I don't even know what one would be, or if one exists.

But just because the fries are better at Burger King than they are at McDonald's doesn't mean they're good.

Frankie said...

While in many cases purity or a lack thereof indicates value or another lack thereof, in certain cases such things cannot be so easily determined.

Simply because a love or lover is not completely and absolutely "pure" in it's or his/her intentions does not make it undesireable.

If a lover enjoys loving the lovee and the lovee enjoys being loved, who loses? Unless the love steals from, or harms, or limits the other, a lack of purity to some extent does not necessarily indicate a lack of need/desireablilty.

In short, if you like Burger King's fries better, and you want to go to Burger King, and the employees at Burger King are kind and caring, why the not go to Burger King?

In more complicated terms, if a mutual love is edifying to both parties and they are made better people by loving each other, why not seek that out and/or participate in it when you find it?

Diana said...

It's not really a question of whether anyone is losing, I shouldn't think. It's more a question of whether or not I'm determined to make myself miserable. ;)

I'm all for mutually edifying love/relationships, really. It's just that when I look at the things that people seem to want in relationships, or at least want whether they know they want it or not, generally it is something other than what that romantic relationship ideally entails--which is what, by the way?--like a mother or a friend or an idol...

So going back to that question... What should one want in a romantic relationship? What's the definition of a "healthy romantic relationship"?

Greg said...

It's just that when I look at the things that people seem to want in relationships, or at least want whether they know they want it or not, generally it is something other than what that romantic relationship ideally entails like a mother or a friend or an idol.Yes, and we're saying those relationships are bad, mmmkay?

What should one want in a romantic relationship? What's the definition of a "healthy romantic relationship"?Frankie's mutually edifying relationship is an excellent place to start. The relationship should be a nurturing and safe environment. At the same time, if that's all the relationship is then it looks a lot like one of the bad relationships from above.

Sigh. We should just make a list of "healthy romantic relationship" attributes. Make it a wiki or something.

Diana said...

It's rather a difficult question, is it not? :)

Ayejae said...

Frankie - Agreed. LOL You may become a business-person yet!

And what exactly constitutes a "romantic" relationship anyways? There is nothing wrong with being motherly or being a friend AND being romantically involved. After the romance, there's got to be something left. Romance is the frosting of the cake. Friendship and "mothering" are the real substance.

This is why I believe you have to be friends first. With that comes the urge to "protect" the other person, aka "mothering." Only after that can romance be introduced. That way when the romance isn't there (which most of the time, isn't), there is still the actual cake you can bite into.

Diana said...

I definitely agree that there are aspects of all kinds of relationships inherent in a romantic one. But what I'm referring to is the need that some people have--when, for example, the role of mother (since we're using it already) isn't filled--to fill it, and to seek to fill that role in particular with not an aunt or other such possibly more fitting substitute, but to fill it with the person they are romantically involved with. In this case, it seems as though the motive is not necessarily "pure," as it isn't "loving the person for who they are" (which, again, also may not be "pure," but in my opinion is a lot closer to it), but rather for "what you think they can do for you." In essence, this does not necessarily allow them to be who they are apart from you, but forces them into a role that relates to you in a different way--a way that they may not appreciate at all.

Sorry. I'm an INFJ. I don't express myself very clearly; my thinking is too abstract. ;) :D

Sparkala said...

ROFL!

[in response to ayeyae's last comment]