FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Romantic love selfish/selfless/uninterested ?
Romantic love selfish/selfless/uninterested ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Love is giving her your last rolo. Or haribo. Or pushing her out of the way of an oncoming runaway Ford fiesta and getting crushed to death in the process. A" And now I have The Smiths ..there is a light that will never go out in my head... | |||
"Perhaps I'm jaded. But I think that if you don't hold onto a little selfishness when you're in love, you risk being consumed by love, and what you'll do for that person. The person you need to love first is yourself, because you're the only one you can rely on." True, otherwise you’ll become a doormat in this relationship | |||
"Love is giving her your last rolo. Or haribo. Or pushing her out of the way of an oncoming runaway Ford fiesta and getting crushed to death in the process. A" Haribo maybe...  Ain't happening with the rolo. #NoWay | |||
| |||
"I think love is where the selfish becomes the selfless in an unbroken circle/cycle of fulfilling the other to feed their needs so they fulfill yours and you each support, encourage, replenish eachother to the point of being emotionally symbiotic. Not co-dependant though. It is a harmony. A dance. Without avarice or design. It's a naturally occurring emotional gluttony. An appetite which that one other can sate just by existing and by orbiting you." Definitely agree with you. It transcends and created a third. However, I would say it is co dependant a tad. If one claims to be deeply in love someone does no suffer when the object of love temporarily leave, one could question the sincerity of this love. | |||
"You could argue that love is selfish. It fulfills an emotional need. Are there any wholly unselfish acts? I don't believe there are." Totally agree. It fulfills the deep need of attachment that humans are so dependent on | |||
"Uninterested how? Bit tired to properly think through the quote. People often fall in love with the idea of love and how it makes them feel, not always with the other person. " Therefore it has interested purpose. Do you love me or the idea of me ? | |||
"Love is giving her your last rolo. Or haribo. Or pushing her out of the way of an oncoming runaway Ford fiesta and getting crushed to death in the process. A Haribo maybe... Ain't happening with the rolo. #NoWay"Just one rolo? True love is when the entire household supply of KitKats goes missing, and you pretend not to notice... | |||
"I think love is where the selfish becomes the selfless in an unbroken circle/cycle of fulfilling the other to feed their needs so they fulfill yours and you each support, encourage, replenish eachother to the point of being emotionally symbiotic. Not co-dependant though. It is a harmony. A dance. Without avarice or design. It's a naturally occurring emotional gluttony. An appetite which that one other can sate just by existing and by orbiting you. Definitely agree with you. It transcends and created a third. However, I would say it is co dependant a tad. If one claims to be deeply in love someone does no suffer when the object of love temporarily leave, one could question the sincerity of this love. " Oh definitely there is the need to be near and a sense of loss or lack in their absence. I just think there is a risk from certain co-dependant traits if they take over. I think it can be a worry if there is a mismatch, a symptom of disfunction, a negative mindset. One that drains as opposed to a positive emotional connection that feeds. | |||
| |||
"I think love is where the selfish becomes the selfless in an unbroken circle/cycle of fulfilling the other to feed their needs so they fulfill yours and you each support, encourage, replenish eachother to the point of being emotionally symbiotic. Not co-dependant though. It is a harmony. A dance. Without avarice or design. It's a naturally occurring emotional gluttony. An appetite which that one other can sate just by existing and by orbiting you. Definitely agree with you. It transcends and created a third. However, I would say it is co dependant a tad. If one claims to be deeply in love someone does no suffer when the object of love temporarily leave, one could question the sincerity of this love. Oh definitely there is the need to be near and a sense of loss or lack in their absence. I just think there is a risk from certain co-dependant traits if they take over. I think it can be a worry if there is a mismatch, a symptom of disfunction, a negative mindset. One that drains as opposed to a positive emotional connection that feeds." I tend to agree but also believe that love that is easy, convenient and painless lacks depth in my opinion. I think a mismatch on certain aspects is sort of necessary. | |||
"Love is an illusion, love is a trap that snares those that don't know better , a person thinks they're in love but the other person just totally nails them to the wall ..why ? .. because they do !! " This illusion would reside in the way one interprets love. | |||
"I think love is where the selfish becomes the selfless in an unbroken circle/cycle of fulfilling the other to feed their needs so they fulfill yours and you each support, encourage, replenish eachother to the point of being emotionally symbiotic. Not co-dependant though. It is a harmony. A dance. Without avarice or design. It's a naturally occurring emotional gluttony. An appetite which that one other can sate just by existing and by orbiting you. Definitely agree with you. It transcends and created a third. However, I would say it is co dependant a tad. If one claims to be deeply in love someone does no suffer when the object of love temporarily leave, one could question the sincerity of this love. Oh definitely there is the need to be near and a sense of loss or lack in their absence. I just think there is a risk from certain co-dependant traits if they take over. I think it can be a worry if there is a mismatch, a symptom of disfunction, a negative mindset. One that drains as opposed to a positive emotional connection that feeds. I tend to agree but also believe that love that is easy, convenient and painless lacks depth in my opinion. I think a mismatch on certain aspects is sort of necessary. " Well that's where things stay fresh. I mean more in the sense of the needs of one being beyond the other and not viable/sustainable longterm by the other. Love does not conquer all. Opposites do not necessarily attract. Some difference is a good thing and fosters curiosity. Often the differences repel. Too much difference or difference in fundamental areas will lead to friction and typically breakdown the connection over time | |||
| |||
"I think love is where the selfish becomes the selfless in an unbroken circle/cycle of fulfilling the other to feed their needs so they fulfill yours and you each support, encourage, replenish eachother to the point of being emotionally symbiotic. Not co-dependant though. It is a harmony. A dance. Without avarice or design. It's a naturally occurring emotional gluttony. An appetite which that one other can sate just by existing and by orbiting you. Definitely agree with you. It transcends and created a third. However, I would say it is co dependant a tad. If one claims to be deeply in love someone does no suffer when the object of love temporarily leave, one could question the sincerity of this love. Oh definitely there is the need to be near and a sense of loss or lack in their absence. I just think there is a risk from certain co-dependant traits if they take over. I think it can be a worry if there is a mismatch, a symptom of disfunction, a negative mindset. One that drains as opposed to a positive emotional connection that feeds. I tend to agree but also believe that love that is easy, convenient and painless lacks depth in my opinion. I think a mismatch on certain aspects is sort of necessary. Well that's where things stay fresh. I mean more in the sense of the needs of one being beyond the other and not viable/sustainable longterm by the other. Love does not conquer all. Opposites do not necessarily attract. Some difference is a good thing and fosters curiosity. Often the differences repel. Too much difference or difference in fundamental areas will lead to friction and typically breakdown the connection over time" Indeed, old adages are not necessarily in line with the experience of love. Unless we are in Hollywoodian perspective of it 
Anything in life needs to be balanced and nuanced. Especially when it comes to romantic connection | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Love is compromising for one another "Should one though ? Which compromise are we talking about ? I believe there is a level of compromises that is acceptable. | |||
| |||
| |||
"You first have to define what you mean by love as two people will have a different meaning and understanding of love." Oh yes and will draw on different perspective of it. before developing feelings, do you try to understand the perspective of the potential recipient of your love ? | |||
| |||
"The art of love is to give. Nothing less" Do you believe that you can give without expecting some sort of reciprocity ? If so, is it sustainable for the long haul ? | |||
"Love is compromising for one another
Should one though ? Which compromise are we talking about ?
I believe there is a level of compromises that is acceptable. "You sit talk and come up with solutions together. If you can't do that what are you? | |||
"The art of love is to give. Nothing less Do you believe that you can give without expecting some sort of reciprocity ? If so, is it sustainable for the long haul ? " Yes. I misquoted. It was an Oscar wilde quote but I've forgotten it. If you love you love. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Came across Alan Watts’ quote about love which made me ponder. ‘As I try to find the agent behind the act, the motivating force at the bottom of the whole thing, I seem to see only an endless ambivalence. Behind the mask of love I find my innate selfishness. What a predicament I am in if someone asks, "Do you really love me?" I can't say yes without saying no, for the only answer that will really satisfy is, "Yes, I love you so much I could eat you! My love for you is identical with my love for myself. I love you with the purest selfishness." No one wants to be loved out of a sense of duty.’ Can romantic love be uninterested ? " *gazes longingly at you like some giggly young teen* 
I’d eat you 
But in a serious answer…
So if I love me, does that also mean I love you? And is uninterested the same as indifference? | |||
" Or pushing her out of the way of an oncoming runaway Ford fiesta and getting crushed to death in the process. " That. That is proper romance there | |||
| |||
 | |||
"You first have to define what you mean by love as two people will have a different meaning and understanding of love. Oh yes and will draw on different perspective of it. before developing feelings, do you try to understand the perspective of the potential recipient of your love ? " Depend on where you are in the relationship. As love is very abstract, hell hatred is a form of love but can lead to sadness. love is an emotion that has many facets that are rooted in personal experience, so getting an understanding of someone's perspective I'd say is important. When you love something, you don't want it to die, but you want it to grow, to be safe, be nurtured, and be cared for, but you can leave without it. | |||
"The ancient Greeks had at least words for different types of love. Philos - intellectual love. As in "I love astronomy". It's where we get the suffix -phile, as in Francophile or bibliophile. Eros - erotic, physical love. Not difficuotvto see what word we get from that lol. So far so familiar. But they had a third which may be useful for this. Agape- dispassionate, disinterested, self-sacrificing love. The love of someone who throws themselves on a grenade to save the others. Or who nurses their partner through alzheimers without hope of reward, just because they're them. Or, far more trivially, who picks up someone else's litter when there's nobody there to see them. Of course we can find examples of what PURPORTS to be agapeistic but is in fact selfish - flattery is a classic- but that doesn't show that selfless love is impossible: it just shows that wasn't it. Just my tuppenceworth lol" Agape - that’s love to me. When you say I love you , you’re making a statement of what you do, not how you feel. When someone tells me I give them a warm fuzzy feeling, I just think they likely need therapy for it | |||
"Came across Alan Watts’ quote about love which made me ponder. ‘As I try to find the agent behind the act, the motivating force at the bottom of the whole thing, I seem to see only an endless ambivalence. Behind the mask of love I find my innate selfishness. What a predicament I am in if someone asks, "Do you really love me?" I can't say yes without saying no, for the only answer that will really satisfy is, "Yes, I love you so much I could eat you! My love for you is identical with my love for myself. I love you with the purest selfishness." No one wants to be loved out of a sense of duty.’ Can romantic love be uninterested ? " Yes it can. Love isn’t equitable because we are all individuals ‘feeling’ love in different ways. For some there is a physical need, for others a romantic need and certainly in the middle of that will be the compatible  | |||
"Love is giving her your last rolo. Or haribo. Or pushing her out of the way of an oncoming runaway Ford fiesta and getting crushed to death in the process. A" To be fair, you’d both have time to take a leisurely stroll out of the path of a Ford fiesta | |||
"Came across Alan Watts’ quote about love which made me ponder. ‘As I try to find the agent behind the act, the motivating force at the bottom of the whole thing, I seem to see only an endless ambivalence. Behind the mask of love I find my innate selfishness. What a predicament I am in if someone asks, "Do you really love me?" I can't say yes without saying no, for the only answer that will really satisfy is, "Yes, I love you so much I could eat you! My love for you is identical with my love for myself. I love you with the purest selfishness." No one wants to be loved out of a sense of duty.’ Can romantic love be uninterested ? Yes it can. Love isn’t equitable because we are all individuals ‘feeling’ love in different ways. For some there is a physical need, for others a romantic need and certainly in the middle of that will be the compatible "I struggle with this , idea that just knowing someone loves you without acts is enough. For me Love is a verb , it’s a description of acts of service , adoration, sacrifices etc etc The other kind always worries me , into if the abuser who traps people declaring they love them so much , but acts in a completely inconsistent way | |||
"Came across Alan Watts’ quote about love which made me ponder. ‘As I try to find the agent behind the act, the motivating force at the bottom of the whole thing, I seem to see only an endless ambivalence. Behind the mask of love I find my innate selfishness. What a predicament I am in if someone asks, "Do you really love me?" I can't say yes without saying no, for the only answer that will really satisfy is, "Yes, I love you so much I could eat you! My love for you is identical with my love for myself. I love you with the purest selfishness." No one wants to be loved out of a sense of duty.’ Can romantic love be uninterested ? Yes it can. Love isn’t equitable because we are all individuals ‘feeling’ love in different ways. For some there is a physical need, for others a romantic need and certainly in the middle of that will be the compatible
I struggle with this , idea that just knowing someone loves you without acts is enough. For me Love is a verb , it’s a description of acts of service , adoration, sacrifices etc etc
The other kind always worries me , into if the abuser who traps people declaring they love them so much , but acts in a completely inconsistent way "Your comment reminds me this scene in Closer (2014) between Nathalie Portman and Jude Law, when they are on the bed and he tells her: ‘I love you’ She replied: ‘But where ?! I can’t see it, I can’t touch it, I can hear words but I can’t do anything with your easy words’ | |||
"Came across Alan Watts’ quote about love which made me ponder. ‘As I try to find the agent behind the act, the motivating force at the bottom of the whole thing, I seem to see only an endless ambivalence. Behind the mask of love I find my innate selfishness. What a predicament I am in if someone asks, "Do you really love me?" I can't say yes without saying no, for the only answer that will really satisfy is, "Yes, I love you so much I could eat you! My love for you is identical with my love for myself. I love you with the purest selfishness." No one wants to be loved out of a sense of duty.’ Can romantic love be uninterested ? Yes it can. Love isn’t equitable because we are all individuals ‘feeling’ love in different ways. For some there is a physical need, for others a romantic need and certainly in the middle of that will be the compatible
I struggle with this , idea that just knowing someone loves you without acts is enough. For me Love is a verb , it’s a description of acts of service , adoration, sacrifices etc etc
The other kind always worries me , into if the abuser who traps people declaring they love them so much , but acts in a completely inconsistent way
Your comment reminds me this scene in Closer (2014) between Nathalie Portman and Jude Law, when they are on the bed and he tells her: ‘I love you’
She replied:
‘But where ?! I can’t see it, I can’t touch it, I can hear words but I can’t do anything with your easy words’
"To come back on Babs’ comment and yours. Both makes sense. I think what babs was trying to say is that actions and words are contingent on the perspective of love one draws on. Consequently, it is not a question of whether one loves the other or not, but more so whether both loves are compatible on the long haul. | |||
"You first have to define what you mean by love as two people will have a different meaning and understanding of love. Oh yes and will draw on different perspective of it. before developing feelings, do you try to understand the perspective of the potential recipient of your love ? Depend on where you are in the relationship. As love is very abstract, hell hatred is a form of love but can lead to sadness. " Totally agree. Love, like everything else, in my opinion is highly - yet not entirely (as you underlined)- dependent on perspectives. " love is an emotion that has many facets that are rooted in personal experience, so getting an understanding of someone's perspective I'd say is important. When you love something, you don't want it to die, but you want it to grow, to be safe, be nurtured, and be cared for, but you can leave without it. " If you can live without it, can you really say that you were in love ? If ‘live’ was the word ? | |||
"Came across Alan Watts’ quote about love which made me ponder. ‘As I try to find the agent behind the act, the motivating force at the bottom of the whole thing, I seem to see only an endless ambivalence. Behind the mask of love I find my innate selfishness. What a predicament I am in if someone asks, "Do you really love me?" I can't say yes without saying no, for the only answer that will really satisfy is, "Yes, I love you so much I could eat you! My love for you is identical with my love for myself. I love you with the purest selfishness." No one wants to be loved out of a sense of duty.’ Can romantic love be uninterested ? *gazes longingly at you like some giggly young teen*
I’d eat you
But in a serious answer…
So if I love me, does that also mean I love you? And is uninterested the same as indifference? "I personally believe, maybe be wrongly, that no one should love another without loving oneself first. Having said that love is not as simple as this statement made it sound. Loving oneself is one thing but falling in love with another, for a myriad of reasons, sure, but also because this other bring something into your life that you didn’t know you needed before meeting that person. Although synonyms (uninterested- indifference), in this specific case I think that they have a different meaning. at least, in the context of my question. Can one loves another without having a selfish interest? | |||
"Love is an illusion, love is a trap that snares those that don't know better , a person thinks they're in love but the other person just totally nails them to the wall ..why ? .. because they do !! This illusion would reside in the way one interprets love. " Absolutely...a person can think they're in love , feel they're in love and next thing they're in the " what's for me is also for you " scenario and everything they want to do is immaterial..what a person wants to do at 40 is different to what he wants to do at 20..it takes a lot ..a lot.. to be in love for that amount of time...be careful what you wish for ..Love comes in all sorts of disguise's | |||
| |||
"Isn't there potential to ruin something that feels enjoyable by thinking about it too deeply?" Or elevate it by understanding it better. | |||
| |||
"I've seen it said that you shouldn't enter a relationship if you have unresolved personal issues. That you need to be 'whole and ready' and in a great place individually. Whilst I can see why they think that is good, it's not true of every situation. If you are in recovery, for example, the stresses and strains and demands of a relationship could derail your sobriety if you don't give yourself the attention you deserve and need. You need to be in a position where you don't disregard your own needs to meet those of others. So you do need to be at a 'minimum viable dateability' level. But if you wait until you are 'fixed' you'll be losing time and missing opportunities for happiness. We are all a WorkInProgress throughout our whole entire lives." If a person isn't ready ,ie they have things to sort out first , then sort them out , it's completely unfair to the other person when those things aren't sorted out because those issues will always be there , issues that were brought by one person ..and that alone isn't fair on the other person . | |||
"I've seen it said that you shouldn't enter a relationship if you have unresolved personal issues. That you need to be 'whole and ready' and in a great place individually. Whilst I can see why they think that is good, it's not true of every situation. If you are in recovery, for example, the stresses and strains and demands of a relationship could derail your sobriety if you don't give yourself the attention you deserve and need. You need to be in a position where you don't disregard your own needs to meet those of others. So you do need to be at a 'minimum viable dateability' level. But if you wait until you are 'fixed' you'll be losing time and missing opportunities for happiness. We are all a WorkInProgress throughout our whole entire lives. If a person isn't ready ,ie they have things to sort out first , then sort them out , it's completely unfair to the other person when those things aren't sorted out because those issues will always be there , issues that were brought by one person ..and that alone isn't fair on the other person ." Your point is totally valid but it can also be counterproductive to close oneself to love. Your past experiences, even if there is a common denominator (you) they didn’t happen in a vacuum and are contingent on external circumstances (the other). As humans are not a homogeneous kind, so your past romantic partners are as responsible as you for the ‘failure’ of those relationships. (Failure or learning curve depending on which perspectives one decides to draw on ) Consequently, pairing with an individual who is intrinsically different from your past experiences, may result in a completely different outcome. | |||
| |||
"You first have to define what you mean by love as two people will have a different meaning and understanding of love. Oh yes and will draw on different perspective of it. before developing feelings, do you try to understand the perspective of the potential recipient of your love ? Depend on where you are in the relationship. As love is very abstract, hell hatred is a form of love but can lead to sadness. Totally agree. Love, like everything else, in my opinion is highly - yet not entirely (as you underlined)- dependent on perspectives. love is an emotion that has many facets that are rooted in personal experience, so getting an understanding of someone's perspective I'd say is important. When you love something, you don't want it to die, but you want it to grow, to be safe, be nurtured, and be cared for, but you can leave without it. If you can live without it, can you really say that you were in love ? If ‘live’ was the word ? " If you can live without it, can you really say that you were in love? Yes, being Interdependent is the key here, for example, a lot of parents will say they love their kid, right? but what if your kid's goals, values, beliefs, or politics were substantially different from yours would you still love them, if the answer is no, then love is being used as a manipulative language. If yes then you accept who or what they are instead of playing tit for tat which fear surfaces due to the expectation to live up to. Of course it is a lot easier said than done since we all manipulate our surroundings in some way. | |||
"You first have to define what you mean by love as two people will have a different meaning and understanding of love. Oh yes and will draw on different perspective of it. before developing feelings, do you try to understand the perspective of the potential recipient of your love ? Depend on where you are in the relationship. As love is very abstract, hell hatred is a form of love but can lead to sadness. Totally agree. Love, like everything else, in my opinion is highly - yet not entirely (as you underlined)- dependent on perspectives. love is an emotion that has many facets that are rooted in personal experience, so getting an understanding of someone's perspective I'd say is important. When you love something, you don't want it to die, but you want it to grow, to be safe, be nurtured, and be cared for, but you can leave without it. If you can live without it, can you really say that you were in love ? If ‘live’ was the word ? If you can live without it, can you really say that you were in love? Yes, being Interdependent is the key here, for example, a lot of parents will say they love their kid, right? but what if your kid's goals, values, beliefs, or politics were substantially different from yours would you still love them, if the answer is no, then love is being used as a manipulative language. If yes then you accept who or what they are instead of playing tit for tat which fear surfaces due to the expectation to live up to. Of course it is a lot easier said than done since we all manipulate our surroundings in some way." At prima facie I get your point but there is no sexual involvement with parents. I join you on the expectations bit. Yet, a relationship is bound to have some expectations of some sort. You can’t keep on giving without a bit of behavioural symmetry. | |||
"Came across Alan Watts’ quote about love which made me ponder. ‘As I try to find the agent behind the act, the motivating force at the bottom of the whole thing, I seem to see only an endless ambivalence. Behind the mask of love I find my innate selfishness. What a predicament I am in if someone asks, "Do you really love me?" I can't say yes without saying no, for the only answer that will really satisfy is, "Yes, I love you so much I could eat you! My love for you is identical with my love for myself. I love you with the purest selfishness." No one wants to be loved out of a sense of duty.’ Can romantic love be uninterested ? Yes it can. Love isn’t equitable because we are all individuals ‘feeling’ love in different ways. For some there is a physical need, for others a romantic need and certainly in the middle of that will be the compatible
I struggle with this , idea that just knowing someone loves you without acts is enough. For me Love is a verb , it’s a description of acts of service , adoration, sacrifices etc etc
The other kind always worries me , into if the abuser who traps people declaring they love them so much , but acts in a completely inconsistent way
Your comment reminds me this scene in Closer (2014) between Nathalie Portman and Jude Law, when they are on the bed and he tells her: ‘I love you’
She replied:
‘But where ?! I can’t see it, I can’t touch it, I can hear words but I can’t do anything with your easy words’
"Exactly - he is telling her he has a warm fuzzy feeling born out of his own insecurity, a dependence on her. That’s not love | |||
"You first have to define what you mean by love as two people will have a different meaning and understanding of love. Oh yes and will draw on different perspective of it. before developing feelings, do you try to understand the perspective of the potential recipient of your love ? Depend on where you are in the relationship. As love is very abstract, hell hatred is a form of love but can lead to sadness. Totally agree. Love, like everything else, in my opinion is highly - yet not entirely (as you underlined)- dependent on perspectives. love is an emotion that has many facets that are rooted in personal experience, so getting an understanding of someone's perspective I'd say is important. When you love something, you don't want it to die, but you want it to grow, to be safe, be nurtured, and be cared for, but you can leave without it. If you can live without it, can you really say that you were in love ? If ‘live’ was the word ? If you can live without it, can you really say that you were in love? Yes, being Interdependent is the key here, for example, a lot of parents will say they love their kid, right? but what if your kid's goals, values, beliefs, or politics were substantially different from yours would you still love them, if the answer is no, then love is being used as a manipulative language. If yes then you accept who or what they are instead of playing tit for tat which fear surfaces due to the expectation to live up to. Of course it is a lot easier said than done since we all manipulate our surroundings in some way. At prima facie I get your point but there is no sexual involvement with parents. I join you on the expectations bit. Yet, a relationship is bound to have some expectations of some sort. You can’t keep on giving without a bit of behavioural symmetry. " I think you are right, unconditional love , like for children has no expectations. You might not always like them , you might even need to kick them out to protect you or them, but the love never stops no mattter what, even if they hate you, you simply can’t switch it off But for a partner there are many conditions , they should love you back be honest, faithful, loyal normally at minimum, probably always have your back and put you first too. | |||
  | |||
"Came across Alan Watts’ quote about love which made me ponder. ‘As I try to find the agent behind the act, the motivating force at the bottom of the whole thing, I seem to see only an endless ambivalence. Behind the mask of love I find my innate selfishness. What a predicament I am in if someone asks, "Do you really love me?" I can't say yes without saying no, for the only answer that will really satisfy is, "Yes, I love you so much I could eat you! My love for you is identical with my love for myself. I love you with the purest selfishness." No one wants to be loved out of a sense of duty.’ Can romantic love be uninterested ? *gazes longingly at you like some giggly young teen*
I’d eat you
But in a serious answer…
So if I love me, does that also mean I love you? And is uninterested the same as indifference?
I personally believe, maybe be wrongly, that no one should love another without loving oneself first. Having said that love is not as simple as this statement made it sound. Loving oneself is one thing but falling in love with another, for a myriad of reasons, sure, but also because this other bring something into your life that you didn’t know you needed before meeting that person.
Although synonyms (uninterested- indifference), in this specific case I think that they have a different meaning. at least, in the context of my question.
Can one loves another without having a selfish interest?
"I’m inclined to agree, if you don’t love yourself then you can’t really love another. It can be a very complex, multifaceted emotion. I think a lot of “love” is more about the other person being a mirror of our own desires, needs, wants and deepest darkest fears or traits that our subconscious wants us to improve or understand. The other person is showing lessons we must learn to accept ourselves for who truly and authentically are, and be this at all times. Once we accept this then we can love unselfishly because you no longer want/need something from the other, you are just two souls sharing a space and time, not to become one whole but two distinct individuals on the same path, but until then romantic love is indifferent. Ooops, I was a bit waffling there! I’m sure it’ll make sense someday | |||
"Love is giving her your last rolo. Or haribo. Or pushing her out of the way of an oncoming runaway Ford fiesta and getting crushed to death in the process. A" Was the Rolo saved in the unfortunate accident? | |||
