Love vs. Practicality

[silverwhisper]

flyin free: you're free to disagree w/ me but there isn't much i can say in response w/out understanding what makes you say that.

i don't understand the concept of having romantic love for more than one person at a time. no: i understand the concept. i really don't understand how it works.

ed

 

[Flyin_Free]

flyin free: you're free to disagree w/ me but there isn't much i can say in response w/out understanding what makes you say that.

i don't understand the concept of having romantic love for more than one person at a time. no: i understand the concept. i really don't understand how it works.

ed

You're misunderstanding me. I don't understand the concept of having romantic love for more than one person at a time either...I could never do that and that's not at all what I was disagreeing with you over.

You said "I believe that if genuine love exists, everything else should become secondary" and THIS is what I was disagreeing with. Sometimes no matter how genuine your love is, no matter how much you love somebody, you just can't be together. Love can't fix everything. Sometimes "practical" has to overshadow "love"

On a side note and for the record, I could never love more than one person at a time, heck I could never even have deep feelings for more than one person at a time.

 

[silverwhisper]

w/out knowing the specifics, it's hard for me to say much more.

ed

 

[eudaemonia]

In my experience, the feeling of love is something other than love. It's a complex of emotions that result in the desire to be around someone and to bond with that person. The feeling is not the love; the love is what you do to nurture the relationship.

Here, I'm uncertain of whether you have a specific context in mind or not. The desire to be around and bond with a particular person, to become identified as a couple -- as "we" -- is a different sense of love than we experience for our children, our friends/family, occasional strangers.

In the "we" sense of love, I'm having difficulty understanding how the feeling I experience in that context is not love (as noun). Love is also verb, as you point out: To "nurture." Love is both a state of being -- a felt sense -- but also a quality of certain actions towards a beloved.

I've been reading a collection of non-scholarly essays by one of my favorite contemporary philosophers, including one most recently titled, "Love's Bond." I think he (Nozick) captures the essence of what some of us here are grappling with in the naming and descriptive part regarding the notion of love.

If anyone is interested in reading that chapter PM me and I'll send you a .pdf of it. It's not terribly long and it's a really lovely piece to chew/meditate on.

 

[eudaemonia]

Something else I wanted to add about love and practicality.

I think that, for me, love is necessarily a practical component of life because without it you're not at your best. Of course, you can live without romantic love for periods of time just like you can live without familial love for periods of time. I'm not sure you can live without any type of love at all for long periods of time though.

Given the nature of this forum, I would think that we're speaking of romantic love? If so, then what I've written above stands. But I would also add that romantic love is the most intensely personal type of love humans ever experience and that's why it tends to be such a singular event. Singular in that it's evidently very hard to maintain more than one such type of relationship at time (although some here on Lit seem to have achieved it -- I still think it's rare).

It's possible, of course, to experience serial singular events due to break-ups, divorce, death. I don't honestly think there is only person for each of us, but probably one you would forsake others for in the foreseeable future. Share history counts for a lot and I'm not sure that "trading up" is a practical way of looking at love.

 

[Munachi]

okay. i thought about this more, and came up with some more concrete examples. in part, based on own experiences and people i know, in part, what-ifs and questions...

let's say, A lives in country X, which he/she doesn't want to leave, because the former husband/wife lives there with their child, and A wants to be close to the child (if A had custody of the child, but former husband/wife has the right to see the child, what would happen if A was going to move to a different country?) - A goes traveling for a while though, and meets B, who lives in country Y (which might not even be B's own country, but B just lives there for the time)... They fall in love. Very much in love. Like saying, the other is "the one" and all that.

So, they decide that B should go to country X at first on a tourist visa, so they can spend time together, and then if things work well, get married. But at the border it turns out that B has a criminal record, some thing dating back to their youth, not a big deal at all, but still there. country X is very strict about these things, B gets denied entry. A does visit B in country Y as often as he/she can, but of course that's not really enough, A does have to work after all.

Now, the remaining option seems to be a fiancé visa, if A's country does that, or getting married without any trial period, so B can come to A's country. Because I suppose you would agree with me that children are a certain priority, and that chosing being close to your child over being close to the person you are in love with, isn't something that means "you don't love them".

Now a few questions and what-ifs: can B, with a criminal record and a history of being denied entry into country X, still get a fiancé visa? And what if country X ties the "right" to get married to a foreigner to income? There are countries that do that, I guess you can still get married, but the decision of whether your partner can live with you depends on your income (and that even if your partner is from a rich background). So what if A works some kind of really low paid job?

oh, and - if anyone reading here recognizes themselves in parts of this story: It's not you I mean. I am talking about someone else...

 

[midwestyankee]

Share history counts for a lot and I'm not sure that "trading up" is a practical way of looking at love.

You know, e, I learned a lot about the basic elements of living from my father as I grew up in the 1950s and 60s. One of the most important lessons I learned was that trading up meant one thing: bigger tailfins and brighter headlamps. Funny thing, but I see a lot of that same sort of trading up happening even today.

 

[Cathleen]

I think there are almost always obstacles to overcome for a love relationship. The difficulty of the obstacles vary as does ones ability to deal with them. Each person, each couple, has to come to their own solution for both themself and the 'we' of the relationship.

How willing we are to love, how willing we are to work is very individual. It is certainly possible for one person to have a higher threshold than the other which can threaten the relationship/love. Love isn't always enough.

Sometimes the obstacle has the power, unfortunate but very possible.

 

[Quoll]

I think there are almost always obstacles to overcome for a love relationship. The difficulty of the obstacles vary as does ones ability to deal with them. Each person, each couple, has to come to their own solution for both themself and the 'we' of the relationship.

How willing we are to love, how willing we are to work is very individual. It is certainly possible for one person to have a higher threshold than the other which can threaten the relationship/love. Love isn't always enough.

Sometimes the obstacle has the power, unfortunate but very possible.

Thanks Cate, you just saved me some typing and said it so much better than I could have.



Which is going to make you happier and leave you with the least regrets?

 

[EJFan]

How willing we are to love, how willing we are to work is very individual. It is certainly possible for one person to have a higher threshold than the other which can threaten the relationship/love. Love isn't always enough.

for some reason i'm confused by this passage... can you explain it to me like i'm a four year old? what do you mean by "higher threshold"... do you mean an inequity in the expression of love or how hard one's willing to work at love?

 

[Quoll]

I read it as two separate issues, the willingness to love and the willingness to work (job/career). To some career is the be all end all of life and love must fit in with that ideal.

 

[EJFan]

I read it as two separate issues, the willingness to love and the willingness to work (job/career). To some career is the be all end all of life and love must fit in with that ideal.

that makes sense... but i'm still lost on the "higher threshold" phrase. does this mean that one person may have a higher threshold to accept work having a higher priority than the other?

 

[Quoll]

explain it to me like i'm a four year old?

You're too young to understand.

 

[Quoll]

that makes sense... but i'm still lost on the "higher threshold" phrase. does this mean that one person may have a higher threshold to accept work having a higher priority than the other?

That's how I see it, in this case work conquers all.

 

[Quoll]

I just found an interesting quote, with a few modifications I think it fits your question nicely.

as far as a relationship is concerned, i wouldn't discount it. i don't think you should work so hard at imagining what's practical and worrying about all sorts of possible situations where your work might get in the way of one another. i think the best thing you can do is to continue to spend time with one another and see where it leads. the way i look at it, there's no bad outcome here.

don't rule anything out because of fear though. move forward with an open mind and an open heart.

 

[EJFan]

I just found an interesting quote, with a few modifications I think it fits your question nicely.

you play dirty pool, Q.

 

[Quoll]

you play dirty pool, Q.

Maybe, but it's good advice and I respect the source.

 

[EJFan]

Maybe, but it's good advice and I respect the source.

thanks, man. if you were a chick i'd kiss you full on the lips.

 

[Cathleen]

thanks, man. if you were a chick i'd kiss you full on the lips.

Yeah, but would he close his eye?

 

[Quoll]

Yeah, but would he close his eye?

Never on the first kiss.

 

[Cathleen]

Thanks Cate, you just saved me some typing and said it so much better than I could have.


Which is going to make you happier and leave you with the least regrets?

You're so welcome Qman, so glad to help your fingers rest a little.

I don't like your question. That's all, I don't like it.

for some reason i'm confused by this passage... can you explain it to me like i'm a four year old? what do you mean by "higher threshold"... do you mean an inequity in the expression of love or how hard one's willing to work at love?

Sorry to have not been more clear, EJ. I realize now I forgot some words. (Go ahead, gasp...I'll wait. It will give me time to think of more words.)

You're right about my meaning of working. How willing are we to work on the relationship? Sometimes people want it easy but I've yet to see an easy relationship for the most part. The threshold is about our willingness and our ability to work on it. Kind of like we all have a different pain threshold, or bullshit threshold.

Our individual character, desire, ability, knowledge -- it has to be figured into the situation. Each person has to decide where they draw a line personally and I kind of think the couple has to decide where that line is too. I suspect that drawing that line is like containing a liquid in your hand rather than a glass.

 

[Quoll]

You're so welcome Qman, so glad to help your fingers rest a little.

I don't like your question. That's all, I don't like it.

Agreed, if the answer was clear cut we wouldn't need to pose the question.

Sorry to have not been more clear, EJ. I realize now I forgot some words. (Go ahead, gasp...I'll wait. It will give me time to think of more words.)

You're right about my meaning of working. How willing are we to work on the relationship? Sometimes people want it easy but I've yet to see an easy relationship for the most part. The threshold is about our willingness and our ability to work on it. Kind of like we all have a different pain threshold, or bullshit threshold.

Our individual character, desire, ability, knowledge -- it has to be figured into the situation. Each person has to decide where they draw a line personally and I kind of think the couple has to decide where that line is too. I suspect that drawing that line is like containing a liquid in your hand rather than a glass.

Doh, I guess I took it from a whole different perspective, I figured working on a relationship was just a given (I'm not trying to sound holier than though, I just don't see the point in having a relationship if we are not prepared to put in the effort) so I just glossed over that bit and equated it with a career and a relationship. Mea culpa.

 

[Cathleen]

Agreed, if the answer was clear cut we wouldn't need to pose the question.




Doh, I guess I took it from a whole different perspective, I figured working on a relationship was just a given (I'm not trying to sound holier than though, I just don't see the point in having a relationship if we are not prepared to put in the effort) so I just glossed over that bit and equated it with a career and a relationship. Mea culpa.

Love means never having to say mea culpa.

'That' question is too close to the heart for much of a reply from me. You are truly a wonderful man. I hope all the Qfamily is well.

 

[EJFan]

...(I'm not trying to sound holier than though, I just don't see the point in having a relationship if we are not prepared to put in the effort) ....

wait a minute... there's supposed to be effort?

 

[EJFan]

very interesting responses and discussion cate, Q, mwy, sw, e, munachi, se, et al. thank you.

what we're all tending to agree on is more or less what i suspected... the core of it at least. i think love and practicality each take on different significance and varying weight based on the two (or more) individuals involved as well.

let me pose this question... how much of the "practicality" side of the equation should each side expect the other to bring into the relationship and how much is best built THROUGH the relationship? by "practicality" here i'm referring to professional stability, retirement planning, medical insurance, housing... all the tangible things that are part of a normal life (not limited to what i'm listing here).