It is better to have loved and lost...
"It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."
How entirely true is this? This phrase definitely assumes love as being one of the most important experiences, if not the single most important experience that life has to offer. I definitely do not agree with this. But, if one interprets "love" in this phrase as a general metaphor for every experience that life does have to offer, then this statement is, indeed, impossible to believe in conclusively. Furthermore, substituting something like love for eating the larynx of a skink, the phrase would be a little less romantic: "It is better to have eaten the larynx of a skink and only have gotten sick for a few days than to never have eaten the larynx of a skink at all." Doesn't have the same ring to it, and personally, I don't think I'll ever do at least half of the things that I want to do in my life.
But getting back to the love business. There are those in life who will never find love or at least the type of love for which they are truly searching. Yes - this is an inevitable reality for many. Love - true love - has many different guises, and it is not concrete that true love must happen under the most ideal circumstances (as recounted in countless operas, plays, movies, tv shows, etc...). Furthermore, it is not definite that true love must be requited, and this is the most difficult part about love.
It is also difficult at times to distinguish between true love and lust or a deep infatuation. The last two can manifest themselves in a manner other than physical attraction. Someone may indeed be in lust over another's ideas, lifestyle, talents, etc... This is shown quite often in girls who like rock stars, especially the ones who aren't particularly attractive.
But what is true love? I think this question will never have a definite answer. It will always differ amongst everyone, and it probably will change with each coming generation that has something else to offer to the world. But, if the definition of true love for someone yields for love to happen once one person feels as if they know the mind, heart, and sould of another, and the physical attributes are acceptable, then can one fall in love with a rock star? It's quite hard to say. People confuse themselves into love often. But if their confusion is their reality, and they are comfortable with their reality, then they will never ever be able to see or understand another person's truth.
This last statement is the most problematic to deal with. Everyone lives in completely different realities when one analyzes the details of the realities of each individual. It is these realities that define whom we are as an individual, and whom we are in comparison to others. There are general realities that exist in general labels - hypocrites, gays, politicians, the poor. These labels of convenience are also descriptions of certain realites that we reside in. People from other realities may stereotype the realities that we reside in. Homophobes have a stereotype of the reality of homosexuality. But not all homophobes share exactly the same stereotypes. It's in these details that our individual realities begin to be compartmentalized further and further, until something so unique is created. It it this uniqueness that serves as the foundation of love for many - or the process of discovering this uniqueness in others.
I have said countless times that love - true love - is perfect. It is NOT LOVE that causes problems, as the to 40 pop songs may preach. Rather it is THE ABSENCE OF LOVE that is the main cause of what every emo kid complains about. Unrequited love - one person is in love with someone else who's love for the other is absent. Divorce happens because, in one way or another, love has gone away. In the courting process, things can change depending on the existence of a specific type of incipient love, and what influences its development or retreat. These examples, and many more, all deal with the absence of love. But, to be more specific, problems when dealing with love happen because of the absence of a desired love unique to the desiree's specific reality. This accounts for more violent instances where the specific type of desired love on one person's behalf is misconstrued on the other's behalf.
Getting back to the statement at hand, is it truly better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? To answer this, one must first establish two things: 1) What type of love? and 2) What type of loss? It is then and only then that one can firmly believe this statement.
How entirely true is this? This phrase definitely assumes love as being one of the most important experiences, if not the single most important experience that life has to offer. I definitely do not agree with this. But, if one interprets "love" in this phrase as a general metaphor for every experience that life does have to offer, then this statement is, indeed, impossible to believe in conclusively. Furthermore, substituting something like love for eating the larynx of a skink, the phrase would be a little less romantic: "It is better to have eaten the larynx of a skink and only have gotten sick for a few days than to never have eaten the larynx of a skink at all." Doesn't have the same ring to it, and personally, I don't think I'll ever do at least half of the things that I want to do in my life.
But getting back to the love business. There are those in life who will never find love or at least the type of love for which they are truly searching. Yes - this is an inevitable reality for many. Love - true love - has many different guises, and it is not concrete that true love must happen under the most ideal circumstances (as recounted in countless operas, plays, movies, tv shows, etc...). Furthermore, it is not definite that true love must be requited, and this is the most difficult part about love.
It is also difficult at times to distinguish between true love and lust or a deep infatuation. The last two can manifest themselves in a manner other than physical attraction. Someone may indeed be in lust over another's ideas, lifestyle, talents, etc... This is shown quite often in girls who like rock stars, especially the ones who aren't particularly attractive.
But what is true love? I think this question will never have a definite answer. It will always differ amongst everyone, and it probably will change with each coming generation that has something else to offer to the world. But, if the definition of true love for someone yields for love to happen once one person feels as if they know the mind, heart, and sould of another, and the physical attributes are acceptable, then can one fall in love with a rock star? It's quite hard to say. People confuse themselves into love often. But if their confusion is their reality, and they are comfortable with their reality, then they will never ever be able to see or understand another person's truth.
This last statement is the most problematic to deal with. Everyone lives in completely different realities when one analyzes the details of the realities of each individual. It is these realities that define whom we are as an individual, and whom we are in comparison to others. There are general realities that exist in general labels - hypocrites, gays, politicians, the poor. These labels of convenience are also descriptions of certain realites that we reside in. People from other realities may stereotype the realities that we reside in. Homophobes have a stereotype of the reality of homosexuality. But not all homophobes share exactly the same stereotypes. It's in these details that our individual realities begin to be compartmentalized further and further, until something so unique is created. It it this uniqueness that serves as the foundation of love for many - or the process of discovering this uniqueness in others.
I have said countless times that love - true love - is perfect. It is NOT LOVE that causes problems, as the to 40 pop songs may preach. Rather it is THE ABSENCE OF LOVE that is the main cause of what every emo kid complains about. Unrequited love - one person is in love with someone else who's love for the other is absent. Divorce happens because, in one way or another, love has gone away. In the courting process, things can change depending on the existence of a specific type of incipient love, and what influences its development or retreat. These examples, and many more, all deal with the absence of love. But, to be more specific, problems when dealing with love happen because of the absence of a desired love unique to the desiree's specific reality. This accounts for more violent instances where the specific type of desired love on one person's behalf is misconstrued on the other's behalf.
Getting back to the statement at hand, is it truly better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? To answer this, one must first establish two things: 1) What type of love? and 2) What type of loss? It is then and only then that one can firmly believe this statement.
posted by Anthony Green at 11.12.06
1 Comments:
I miss your beautiful mind!
This statement can be looked at from so many angles. I started to make a long comment, but I soon realized that I forgot to comment on the portion pertaining to lossing what you have loved. It was more centered toward the idea that this is a statement of relativity. Here's what I wrote earlier, which may make little to no sense:
"After reading this entry, I thought to myself: if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? My point is if someone has never loved, how can they judge if they have missed out on something incredible or terrible? The concept of love in this sense is internal. Yes, it is fueled and influenced by all things external, but it is personalized to meet that individual's views, expectations, etc. If someone has no notion of loving, how can they know that it is worse than having done so? You can't say strawberry is better than raspberry without having tried them both; these things are relative. You can't say having loved and lost is better than never having loved because: (a) once you have loved, you fit the criteria for having done the former and (b) if you have never loved then you couldn't logically state you were worse off because you would need to have loved to make your comparison valid."
So there you have my nonsensical tirade. I hope to see you soon, for the end of my semester is drawing nigh and I have much to share with you!
longing for your ingenuity,
mari
Post a Comment
<< Home