CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Though many people believe love is a feeling I would like to believe otherwise. Love is a choice and most likely not too much of a feeling. Yes, some may get their nerves excited or something like that, but one needs to keep in mind that feelings do not last forever. Emotions are based off of the neurological mind and/or genetics. So essentially we are just our father's father (and so on) prodigies and ultimate productions. We are indeed no I, for we are just all of our pre neurologically set experiences. So I suppose in light of that, love can, at many times be a miss-understanding, but I cannot possibly fully concede to my thoughts quite yet.
If not a feeling, then what else would love be? What reason do you have to think that love is a choice, or that we can even actually make choices at all for that matter? And, more importantly, what does our agency in feeling love have to do with whether or not love is a misunderstanding?
You make a strong point about if we ourselves are even liable to make our own choices. And this is why I say that our predetermined neurological mindset captivates our interpretations of our personal experiences. So to a quite limited degree I believe we can make somewhat of an extent to our choices, but unfortunately, our biology on such matters predetermine how things will in turn happen.
Now in regards to your comment about what this has to do with whether or not love is a miss-understanding is essential to know. Through our choices we often find ourselves believing we create ourselves, and in a manner you can believe it and really feel and/or find comfort in believing that. This is how the miss-understanding comes in. No two people may ever expect to know and understand fully who they so as choose to be their lover. And if one cannot know and explore all aspects of another, they may never understand who the other is, for it is practically inexecutable. And if one lacks even the slightest miss-understanding of another, they lack the knowledge of also themselves in a manner. Our neurology keeps us remaining restrained in certain aspects, but whenever presented with new knowledge and/or ideas, we keep on developing our individuality and our thought process going. Unfortunately, because we can never know our own true selves or another we may never, in turn, fall in love But we can foolishly choose to have love, or at least our own sense of what we may individual believe as love.
Our perceptive experience of making choices has actually been invalidated by research as a basis from which to conclude we actually have free will. This research has demonstrated that the course of action was already determined and set in action before participants were aware of making the choice, even though they were convinced that they made the choice and the action followed.
I do not think that it is necessary to fully know another in order to understand them, at least on the level required for a healthy and happy relationship. Particularly if the inability towards perfect understanding is acknowledged. Further, we cannot truly say that we know ourselves either but I do not think that one could argue that we completely misunderstand ourselves so much that we cannot get on with ourselves. For that matter, as a metaphysical nihilist, I do not think we can certainly know anything and yet we get on alright. I would say that relationships, at least the ones not on the rocks, are predominantly about what is understood rather than what is not.
There is also an argument to made that the self is non-absolute and non-finite, meaning that we do not exist consistently from moment to moment and that our existence extends beyond our bodies since the self is a matter of subjective perception.
I actually agree with much of what you have to say, and I myself have read plenty of books on studies such as us taking certain actions before we are consciously aware. Although it may not be a necessity to be fully aware and all knowing of individuals, I still see how things can get mangled, misinterpreted, and such if one cannot fully interpret another, thus leading to misguided conclusions. Though even having said so, I still definitely see your point and would actually appreciate it if you talked to me more on the subjective perception and existence beyond physical form (bodies). My stance on this topic was, and still remains inconclusive, though I partially believe love can be a misunderstanding my opinion still remains to be more thoroughly developed. If you so choose to further your explanations on such a topic I'd much appreciate that, but if you choose not to I'm still curious as to if you could please consider recommending some books for myself to read.
Epistemological nihilism holds that knowledge is not possible. The implication of this is that we can never know anything with actual certainty, and that when we speak in certain terms we are actually speaking in terms of probability. One does not know that the Earth actually exists, let alone that it revolves about the Sun (which we also do not know exists). Nevertheless, we must operate upon our imperfect observations and probable perceptions because we are incapable of doing otherwise (even to respond with total inaction is a response to the perception that we can not know anything). What follows is that whatever objective reality actually exists, we can only reach approximate understanding of that reality through our subjective perception and moreover can never know how accurate that perception even is. It further follows from there that our own perception of self may be thoroughly fallible so that we do not exist as we assume ourselves to exist, which means that the self may extend beyond our finite sense of it. It is postulated that for all that we know (which is nothing) that the self is actually an extension of a larger whole which is all interconnected so that it is not really isolated and distinct unto itself at all (rather as a wave belongs to the ocean and cannot be separated from it).
Further, from the same philosophy, one would more rightly consider the self as a matter of perception than a certain truth. The self is therefore detached from the physical body and objective reality, being as it is a thing which cannot rightly be said to exist beyond perception. If the self is a matter of pure perception then upon what basis might we claim that our perception of what constitutes our self is more valid than the perception of another of the same? Even where these perceptions are incongruous they nevertheless co-exist and arguably constitute the whole of what the self is; the whole of the self is made not only of our self-perception but of the other-perception.
Another basis for concluding that the self is not finite is the field of psychology, which we might presume to be probably reliable enough to advance an argument from (unless we propose to abandon thought entirely, which is not invalid but is counterproductive to our mutual desire to think). What we understand about the self is that it is generated by the physical brain, and that rather than having unto ourselves a singular and consistent self we are multiple selves constantly shifting and changing. These changes may be precipitated by external stimuli, or in other words by the environment in which our physical body finds itself. A suitable self is conjured forth by the brain to meet that environment. What others think of us and how they treat us does influence what self manifests, so it becomes difficult to think that the self is purely a matter of our own devising.
You may also find Hume and Parfit interesting reads, I think, if you have not read them already. In particular, Parfit on the illusory self.
I much thank you for your clarification and knowledge held within such a topic. I will indeed make sure to read up more on these matters. Thanks again and good day sir.
Certainly. If you are interested in learning more about the nihilist approach I might recommend Max Stirner and Nietzsche. If you are not familiar with the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy they are also a wealth of largely reliable, free material.
i think love is not limited to 'something' between two people, but it's attachment towards something. it could be love for debating here or love to go fishing or love for following a religion sincerely (again this is another debate though) or it could be attachment towards someone. like how do you describe what parents do for their children...just the way you feel good by doing any of the above, you also feel good being with someone, caring or supporting. i think it's just the happiness and satisfaction you get in doing something. unfortunately people who do things with iniquitous intentions definitely put the genuineness of it in jeopardy!love is a sincere dedication towards something/someone, and dedication is again a relative thing. so some may feel it's true, some may feel foolishness.
If love is a misunderstanding between two fools, which it is not, then most of the world's population since the dawn of time have all been fools. Love is the sweetest thing, what else on earth could ever bring such happiness to everything as love's own story. Love is the oldest thing yet the latest thing............ Sad is the person who has missed out on the glories of true love.
