just out of curiosity, how exactly do you choose to become a moderator?

and, Quiet, you'll often find that some people consider snarky, others find bitingly insightful. especially when an OP in a PHILOSOPHY thread is calling MENTAL processes SPIRITUAL.

I love myself first and foremost. That allows me the opportunity to love others, in my opinion.

There was a time in my life when I didn't love myself. I'd go so far as to say I hated myself. And it showed. I was a bitter, mean person. I had no confidence, wasn't outgoing, hated life and all there was about it.

Then I changed.

I put myself first, before everything and everyone. I decided that I liked myself, and if somebody comes along who is of a different opinion, then so be it. I don't need other people to love me, because I know ultimately I have myself. I'm now able to enjoy life, and all it has to offer, more, because of that.

Also, now, when it comes to loving other people, it's true, and pure. I can love friends, or 'lovers', in a pure sense... because they're great people. Not because I'm seeking love in return, or attention (to be defined as love/caring). Sure, it's great when it is returned, but I'm confident enough to put it out without yearning for it back.

Or may I add, a western language's most detailed combined usage and etymology reference western like it was a bad thing.

my "moderator" status of this thread was only to say that i do not want this going off topic as it is. I don't (and neither does anyone who really wants to discuss Philosophy) care about only your personal experiences as your points/justification on love. I said it's vital and encouraged, because it's impossible to make love non-personal, but I'm still trying to keep a balance. That's all.

Snarky comments isn't the norm of how Philosophy is discussed either. To my understanding, philosophy is to discuss the patterns of thought and where we can take those thoughts minus the "distraction" of emotion. A similar thing was said in regards to the Politics forum, except it is more acceptable for snipid comments to run around in Politics...

Now, I don't want to get any more off topic. I asked in my first post that people should refrain from being "snarky" (as you put it) in this thread anyway. In my opinion, snarkyness will only make this thread run itself into the ground quicker than it needs. If you disagree, I ask you to please take this subject and start a thread where snarkyness is acceptable and leave "my" thread alone/free of those types of comments.

Mature enough for you?

hmm....i actually don't know how to approach this topic, and it doesn't help that i've basically skimmed through this thread to get a rough idea on what's going on....

i think perhaps i'd like to go a different route if that's alright.....specifically, what is love?

in some sense, love could be considered to be nothing more than an intense emotional experience that is, in it's true form, an elevated sense of desire......desire can be applied to anything.....you desire a Chessburger Combo with Fries and a coke rather than the Chicken Combo.....why? does it really make a difference which one you desire more? in the end, the resolution is the same: to cure your hunger......but we desire A over B.....why? is it a conditioned response? perhaps.....is it a reflection on the inner-self? perhaps.......but in the end, the answer is a moot point, for no matter what you desire, you're really just aiming to cure/fix/satisfy something......

is the same thing with love? well, sure......to love yourself.....why? to change your life? perhaps.......

but what about the idea that love is just an opposite of pity/despair/depression/loneliness.........so i guess, what i'm asking, is it possible to just love? or is it a mere reaction to something negative? does love even exist?

it's interesting to note that of all the species known to man, only a relative few which are sentient are known to have feelings of "love"........a certain species of primates (i'm not sure which) have been documented as portraying this emotion......a female may be the alpha-male's property, but when said alpha-male isn't around, the female is known to sneak off with another male (always the same one) from time to time to mate........is this love?

so how much credit should we give love? is it something that's on a primative level, or is it something grand? and for what purpose do we love?

love is anal fucking sex.

yes. i'm in a mood.

p.s. i'll respond properly when i get over how ruined this thread seems.

i'm sorry.....i was just wanting to define love before discussing Its facets....

haha. no it's cool. i think we could start there instead..i'm too tired tonight though.

seemingly, but not really... you're trying to use your feigned detachment to grant yourself a sort of moral highground.

that and your definition in that thread of "philosophy" is more a definition of logic... and while logic can be a big part of philsophical discussion, it is not the end all be all.

step off, quiet, and take a long breather... discussion is about multiple minds finding common ground together, not one mind saying 'this is my ground, get your ass over here or else!'

capiche?

I thought this thread was about loving yourself vs. loving others... or well, at least some aspect of love. Maybe I was wrong, or maybe I should just stick to offtopic where I expect the threads to go astray.

I think it could be about Quiet's vagina, although I'm not sure.

i don't think love its strictly situated in anyone's genetalia... that's purely lust.

Not if it's a SUPER VAGINA.

Well this thread has pretty much gone to pot. Superb. Another fantastic example of how too many egos spoil the discussion.

'Define this' and 'define that' does jack for a conversation, it's completely unhelpful and obnoxious; everyone has a different interpretation and definition of emotions, because (and this is fundamental) people feel differently.

This could have been a fairly productive thread, so here's an idea:
How about focussing simply on the topic in hand- 'The facets of love'- and whichever facet is being discussed, refer that to whatever love may mean to you.

but that doesn't work... what is love to you isn't love to me isn't love to someone else...

we're trying to define something that noone can really nail down... so you're trying to take the easy road and say "use whatever you like."

which doesn't work.

So thus this thread was obsolete before it's conception?
Funny how several people managed to make coherent and thoughtful posts about it then, before it went careering into the realm of the usual DF rubbish, which, I may add, has been aided by you, who as moderator of this forum in- of all places- the 'Serious Discussion' board, should probably be encouraging active participation rather than aiding it's decline.

so you're saying that my arguements against definitions of foggy concepts are against the spirit of serious discussion?

oh and this is for all of you in this thread and others here... i do NOT allow personal attacks (this means YOU Peter & Quiet)... but i DO allow challenging statements. there's nothing wrong with being antagonistic so long as it doesn't devolve into flaming baiting...

so enough about vaginas and telling people to fuck off... neither is productive.

got it?

Foggy concepts? I wouldn't say this was a foggy concept. I'd say that the people who did comment in an appropropriate manner had fairly clear concepts of love.

Just because we define it differently does not mean we can't have a serious discussion about it. There would be no discussion if everyone had the same concepts and definitions of the subject matter.

then stop flappin yer metaphofical gob and maybe address the points i made earlier concerning the incapacity for loving oneself (and subsequently others) when a deficient mental accuity denies the self.

I don't like the way you set it up. Those are two completely different kinds of love. They aren't measured together, and everyone has full capacity to feel both.