K
Kain99
Guest
Looking forward to it sweetie! Ya know we have both been considering it for a long time now..... Wanna just take the plunge, dump the husbands and get married?
J
justhangn
Guest
Originally posted by Kain99
Looking forward to it sweetie! Ya know we have both been considering it for a long time now..... Wanna just take the plunge, dump the husbands and get married?
:shrug: Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free??
K
Kizzy
Guest
Originally posted by justhangn
:shrug: Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free??
And, we will have to move to California and find a new camera man. Pete's feelings are going to be hurt.
J
justhangn
Guest
See what you get for not including him.
K
Kain99
Guest
OMG! You just publically said No.....
Thats ok, I guess I was an a$$hat to ask in public!
J
justhangn
Guest
Originally posted by Kyle
Are you offering them your own private studio??
K
Kizzy
Guest
Not thee shed.
J
justhangn
Guest
Originally posted by Kyle
I thought this was keeping with the subject matter.
No?
You picture is of covered fecal matter.
sleuth
Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
I'll repost the definition I concur with, from this thread:
http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12893
Love, we are repeatedly taught, consists of self-sacrifice. Love based on self-interest, we are admonished, is cheap and sordid. True love, we are told, is altruistic. But is it?
Imagine a Valentine's Day card which takes this premise seriously. Imagine receiving a card with the following message: "I get no pleasure from your existence. I obtain no personal enjoyment from the way you look, dress, move, act or think. Our relationship profits me not. You satisfy no sexual, emotional or intellectual needs of mine. You're a charity case, and I'm with you only out of pity. Love, XXX."
Needless to say, you would be indignant to learn that you are being "loved," not for anything positive you offer your lover, but—like any recipient of alms—for what you lack. Yet that is the perverse view of love entailed in the belief that it is self-sacrificial.
Genuine love is the exact opposite. It is the most selfish experience possible, in the true sense of the term: it benefits your life in a way that involves no sacrifice of others to yourself or of yourself to others.
To love a person is selfish because it means that you value that particular person, that he or she makes your life better, that he or she is an intense source of joy—to you. A "disinterested" love is a contradiction in terms. One cannot be neutral to that which one values. The time, effort and money you spend on behalf of someone you love are not sacrifices, but actions taken because his or her happiness is crucially important to your own. Such actions would constitute sacrifices only if they were done for a stranger—or for an enemy. Those who argue that love demands self-denial must hold the bizarre belief that it makes no personal difference whether your loved one is healthy or sick, feels pleasure or pain, is alive or dead.
It is regularly asserted that love should be unconditional, and that we should "love everyone as a brother." We see this view advocated by the "non-judgmental" grade-school teacher who tells his class that whoever brings a Valentine's Day card for one student must bring cards for everyone. We see it in the appalling dictum of "Hate the sin, but love the sinner"—which would have us condemn death camps but send Hitler a box of Godiva chocolates. Most people would agree that having sex with a person one despises is debased. Yet somehow, when the same underlying idea is applied to love, people consider it noble.
Love is far too precious to be offered indiscriminately. It is above all in the area of love that egalitarianism ought to be repudiated. Love represents an exalted exchange—a spiritual exchange—between two people, for the purpose of mutual benefit.
You love someone because he or she is a value—a selfish value to you, as determined by your standards—just as you are a value to him or her.
It is the view that you ought to be given love unconditionally—the view that you do not deserve it any more than some random bum, the view that it is not a response to anything particular in you, the view that it is causeless—which exemplifies the most ignoble conception of this sublime experience.
The nature of love places certain demands on those who wish to enjoy it. You must regard yourself as worthy of being loved. Those who expect to be loved, not because they offer some positive value, but because they don't—i.e., those who demand love as altruistic duty—are parasites. Someone who says "Love me just because I need it" seeks an unearned spiritual value—in the same way that a thief seeks unearned wealth. To quote a famous line from The Fountainhead: "To say 'I love you,' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
by Gary Hull, Ph.D. in philosophy, a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, Calif.
http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12893
Love, we are repeatedly taught, consists of self-sacrifice. Love based on self-interest, we are admonished, is cheap and sordid. True love, we are told, is altruistic. But is it?
Imagine a Valentine's Day card which takes this premise seriously. Imagine receiving a card with the following message: "I get no pleasure from your existence. I obtain no personal enjoyment from the way you look, dress, move, act or think. Our relationship profits me not. You satisfy no sexual, emotional or intellectual needs of mine. You're a charity case, and I'm with you only out of pity. Love, XXX."
Needless to say, you would be indignant to learn that you are being "loved," not for anything positive you offer your lover, but—like any recipient of alms—for what you lack. Yet that is the perverse view of love entailed in the belief that it is self-sacrificial.
Genuine love is the exact opposite. It is the most selfish experience possible, in the true sense of the term: it benefits your life in a way that involves no sacrifice of others to yourself or of yourself to others.
To love a person is selfish because it means that you value that particular person, that he or she makes your life better, that he or she is an intense source of joy—to you. A "disinterested" love is a contradiction in terms. One cannot be neutral to that which one values. The time, effort and money you spend on behalf of someone you love are not sacrifices, but actions taken because his or her happiness is crucially important to your own. Such actions would constitute sacrifices only if they were done for a stranger—or for an enemy. Those who argue that love demands self-denial must hold the bizarre belief that it makes no personal difference whether your loved one is healthy or sick, feels pleasure or pain, is alive or dead.
It is regularly asserted that love should be unconditional, and that we should "love everyone as a brother." We see this view advocated by the "non-judgmental" grade-school teacher who tells his class that whoever brings a Valentine's Day card for one student must bring cards for everyone. We see it in the appalling dictum of "Hate the sin, but love the sinner"—which would have us condemn death camps but send Hitler a box of Godiva chocolates. Most people would agree that having sex with a person one despises is debased. Yet somehow, when the same underlying idea is applied to love, people consider it noble.
Love is far too precious to be offered indiscriminately. It is above all in the area of love that egalitarianism ought to be repudiated. Love represents an exalted exchange—a spiritual exchange—between two people, for the purpose of mutual benefit.
You love someone because he or she is a value—a selfish value to you, as determined by your standards—just as you are a value to him or her.
It is the view that you ought to be given love unconditionally—the view that you do not deserve it any more than some random bum, the view that it is not a response to anything particular in you, the view that it is causeless—which exemplifies the most ignoble conception of this sublime experience.
The nature of love places certain demands on those who wish to enjoy it. You must regard yourself as worthy of being loved. Those who expect to be loved, not because they offer some positive value, but because they don't—i.e., those who demand love as altruistic duty—are parasites. Someone who says "Love me just because I need it" seeks an unearned spiritual value—in the same way that a thief seeks unearned wealth. To quote a famous line from The Fountainhead: "To say 'I love you,' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
by Gary Hull, Ph.D. in philosophy, a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, Calif.
Last edited:
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I'll bet this poor schmuck never got a single date in high school.
His premise is utterly stupid, but it might be because he is a philosopher. If love is self-sacrificial, it can ONLY be that way if it is utterly, completely and totally self-sacrificial or it defies the "term". And it must supplant any other feelings completely.
At least, if you're a philospher, and people are robots.
They're NOT robots. And love is not a philosophical concept that is perfectly shoehorned into an idealized version of the world.
And it ain't so. I love my pets. They kind of love me back, but most of the time, not really. I love my garden and especially my roses, and I take care of them even though they never love me back. I love *humanity*, even though, as a whole, it doesn't give a fig about me. And I just generally like people, until they give me good reason to believe otherwise. And I usually am very patient even THEN.
I suppose if you play some kind of Socratic game of why I do anything, you could say it's always selfishness. That I do for others, because it makes me feel good about myself, or makes me feel pride in satisfying my Creator, or SOME such point.
Such silliness must drive philosphers crazy - if everything is selfish, then there ain't no such animal as "self-sacrifice". Which makes the argument moot to begin with.
It's not that complicated - you have a life of choices, but when you become a parent, you forego many of them for the sake of another life. That IS UNselfishness. Period. These guys need to define selfLESSness better.
It might actually get them a date.
His premise is utterly stupid, but it might be because he is a philosopher. If love is self-sacrificial, it can ONLY be that way if it is utterly, completely and totally self-sacrificial or it defies the "term". And it must supplant any other feelings completely.
At least, if you're a philospher, and people are robots.
They're NOT robots. And love is not a philosophical concept that is perfectly shoehorned into an idealized version of the world.
And it ain't so. I love my pets. They kind of love me back, but most of the time, not really. I love my garden and especially my roses, and I take care of them even though they never love me back. I love *humanity*, even though, as a whole, it doesn't give a fig about me. And I just generally like people, until they give me good reason to believe otherwise. And I usually am very patient even THEN.
I suppose if you play some kind of Socratic game of why I do anything, you could say it's always selfishness. That I do for others, because it makes me feel good about myself, or makes me feel pride in satisfying my Creator, or SOME such point.
Such silliness must drive philosphers crazy - if everything is selfish, then there ain't no such animal as "self-sacrifice". Which makes the argument moot to begin with.
It's not that complicated - you have a life of choices, but when you become a parent, you forego many of them for the sake of another life. That IS UNselfishness. Period. These guys need to define selfLESSness better.
It might actually get them a date.
