Love vs. Practicality

[EJFan]

to what extent does/can love supercede pracitcality? the old cliche goes that love conquers all but life is hardly as simple as a cliche... at what point do the two conflict or diverge?

 

[Phaedre]

I'm really not sure but somethings are worth compromising over and some things aren't.

I could perhaps counter and ask at what point does duty supercede love?

 

[silverwhisper]

i think that depends upon the items that are in conflict. strictly speaking, love cannot be in conflict w/ logistics or practical concerns b/c love is an emotion that cannot conflict w/ anything but another emotion. but now that i'm done being a literalist...

if however the issue is one of logistical concerns of, say, picking up one's life and moving elsewhere for the sake of being w/ the person one loves, i'd say that's a decision not to be made lightly. for some, it's not even a question; for others, it's an insurmountable obstacle.

IOW: IMHO, it depends. a lot.

ed

 

[Munachi]

oh as soon as the two are in very different places of their life, and places of the world, geographically and culturally, it can cause a lot of problems. don't know if that is what you mean, but sometimes one has to wonder, whether following love only is the smartest thing. like if it means you have to give up all you ever planned for your life.

 

[bobsgirl]

Sometimes love is not enough. You have to be able to face yourself in the mirror in the morning. There are responsibilities that must take precedence over all, including love. The biggest one that comes to mind is parenting. Young children come first. Always.

 

[midwestyankee]

Sometimes love is not enough. You have to be able to face yourself in the mirror in the morning. There are responsibilities that must take precedence over all, including love. The biggest one that comes to mind is parenting. Young children come first. Always.

Indeed.

Once again BG has given truth to an old saying, in this case: women and children first!

 

[silverwhisper]

EJ, what prompted the question?

ed

 

[EJFan]

well it was prompted by something that i've been going through, but has no direct impact on it... nor is it really related... it's just one of the spin-off's, so to speak, that my mind generates when i'm left to ponder things. my experience was my muse i suppose.

i don't know if this will just restate the the original post or clarify it... but what i was sort of pondering was this: suppose two people were in love, i mean deeply in love with one another... yet the practicality of life (like a chosen career or other responsibilities) kept them from being functional on the level of daily life as a couple.

to take it to the extreme (for illustration purposes) suppose you were to fall in love with a crack dealer. i know it sounds ridiculous but just suppose for a moment that you have genuine love in your heart for that person, and they for you... yet you know that the love isn't pracitical because they're in constant threat of death, prison, etc. between the two of you, life is wonderful on every level yet there's the reality that the lives you both enjoy can't really be shared.

so where exactly does that line fall... when does genuine love not matter because of extenuating circumstances.

 

[Phaedre]

At what point does the misery of not being together become overwhelming? I think that it is at that point that one would have to question just how much the relationship is worth what has been invested in it. Compromises can be made but the difficulty is in establishing just how much you are prepared to sacrifice to make it work.

 

[silverwhisper]

EJ, i firmly believe that if genuine love exists, everything else should become secondary.

ed

 

[Phaedre]

everything?

 

[EJFan]

i believe that too... in a romantic sense. the reality of life, i think, might push the limits of that though. can you really say that two people who are genuinely in love with one another can get through absolutely ANYTHING simply because they're in love?

 

[silverwhisper]

phaedre: generally, yes--everything. so long as there is love, absolutely: 1 cor. 13.

ed

 

[Phaedre]

yes, I'm familiar with that passage and as you know I particularly like Kahlil Gibran's works and these quotes seem applicable...

Follow your heart. Your heart is the right guide in everything big.

I want to be alive To all the life that is in me now, to know each moment to the uttermost.

each could be an argument for pursuing love no matter what but real life isn't as simple.

 

[silverwhisper]

phaedre, sometimes that's true. i was speaking generally, my friend.

ed

 

[Jheryn]

Real life is never so simple. But we do the best we can and deal with everything as it is before us.

Speaking purely in cliche's, Love can overcome any obstacle, and where there is a will, a way can be found...

I do believe this.

 

[Phaedre]

I know ed. EJ's question is very relevant and yet so very difficult to give a 'one size fits all' answer to.

 

[silverwhisper]

phaedre: that's b/c the right answer varies for different situations. :>

[trout-smacks phaedre]



ed

 

[midwestyankee]

phaedre: generally, yes--everything. so long as there is love, absolutely: 1 cor. 13.

ed

And if the two people in question happen to be married, and reasonably happily so?

 

[bobsgirl]

ed, I really believe there are circumstances where love isn't enough. In a perfect world, all the variables of life would fall in line behind love. But I can think of so many events in my own life where it just didn't happen.

 

[silverwhisper]

yank: to each other, did you mean, or otherwise?

bg: we appear to disagree.

ed

 

[midwestyankee]

yank: to each other, did you mean, or otherwise?

bg: we appear to disagree.

ed

In my example the two are married to different people.

 

[silverwhisper]

yank: to me the question is one of whether the two people in the example are in love w/ their respective spouses or w/ each other.

ed

 

[midwestyankee]

yank: to me the question is one of whether the two people in the example are in love w/ their respective spouses or w/ each other.

ed

In my example, the two people are in reasonably happy (but separate) marriages but are also in love with each other.

 

[Phaedre]

yank: to me the question is one of whether the two people in the example are in love w/ their respective spouses or w/ each other.

ed

And if they love each other and not their spouses how does that make it different? Even if the latter applies they are still married with all that that involves.