galiel

No, I was complaining that a specific statement made no sense.

The topic of the thread is not "what is love". The topic of the thread is "love". I do want to discuss the topic. You are the one barging in here demanding rigid definitions. To what end? And why do you use the logical fallacy of argument from authority? What relevance does Socrate's opinion about the importance of an objective understanding of love have to your demand that I define it?

Did Socrate's come up with an "objective definition of love"?

If so, then what is there to discuss?

If not, then why bring him up?

Infinity Lover

I think some people lack love in their life, and subsequently end up trying to get negative attention, just so they can get at least some attention. (While wondering why they aren't appreciated)

galiel

I think some people aren't interested in intellectual discussion, they only get their jollies with personal invective and childish taunts.

Agricola Senior

Love is God and there is no god besides Love.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Agricola Senior ]

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Agricola Senior ]</p>

The AntiChris

Amie

What do you mean by "deal with it"?

The only way I, as a non-theist, can "deal with it" is to try to understand the reasoning behind your beliefs. All you've really done when asked to justify your beliefs is to say the equivalent of "I just do, take it or leave it".

In the outside world I'm forced to just "deal with" the majority of religious nonsense I encounter. However, when you express your religious views on this (overtly secular) message board, it is incumbent upon you to justify your beliefs when asked to do so.

In the absence of any attempt at rational justification, your statements must remain merely meaningless platitudes.

Chris

galiel

AntiC, if she doesn't see the irony of posting:

..then any further discussion is hopeless. Clearly, this God's love could pass for most people's angry aggression.

Sort of like saying "Crush, mutilate, torture, maim, spindle and bend Hate!"

Oxymoron

Depends on the nature of the failure and the success. Do we need a cost-benefit analysis? A risk assessment?

The problem is, we don't know the future and we're rubbish at guessing it. We must tread a careful path between blinkered ignorance, naive optimism and fear of the worst-case scenario.

Fear is quite interesting, because when we're scared of something our minds are quite insistent that the thing we fear will happen. But how could we know? (given our crapness at telling the future). Our intellect, via induction and deduction can help to override any of the cognitive stuff that gives rise to our fears because at the end of the day beliefs are all software entities and can be changed (though it takes varying degrees of work depending on the belief).

One thing is certain: fear of the future - almost certainly a side-effect of having a hugely powerful cognitive system capable of asking questions coupled to a genetic survival engine - really is going to be a powerful braking force on our ambitions. Whenever our minds tell us that something will happen, we need to treat that with some suspicion. In reality, many outcomes - some predictable, some unexpected - are possible because life is big and complex and we can't model it all between our ears.

So I think the only really important questions are "what do I want to achieve?", "how do I go about achieving it" and "what (if anything) is preventing me doing it?"

Keith Russell

Greetings:

What about this?

Hope for the best; while expecting the worst.

Keith.

galiel

TRUST
but verify.

Oxymoron

I prefer: plan for the best; have a contingency plan for the worst; expect... anything