Socrates on Love: Agree?

[ZzzleepingBear]

14 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@ZzzleepingBear

   Well, in this case it wouldn't be called 'love' or 'desire' after the obtaining of that car, it would instead be called 'cherish' or 'cherishing' or 'appreciation' of this object you have physically, so it become a semantics issue more than an issue of a lack of love, or a deluded form of love. And even this is ultimately love too, metaphysically, epistemically and existentially speaking.

Agreed.

A semantic issue that may create more confusion if left unchecked imo. So love is only beautiful until it isn't anymore. Love is conditional.

[Leo Gura]

23 hours ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

Unity isn't unity unless there is something or other that unites. So you can't for example say that you want to unite nothing with nothing.

What you're missing is that nothing is identical to nothing, and identity is the highest form of union. You cannot unite nothing with nothing because they are already absolutely united. So it's like you're saying you can't turn on an on light switch. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Quote

The distinction between something and nothing is that one of them represent form, while the other is either absence of form or just unknown.

All your distinctions are imaginary. So....

Quote

To say that something "is way deeper than that" is at best a weak argument

I don't make arguments. I state truths.

Why on Earth would you think that Socrates understands Love? This is just a foolish starting assumption. Perhaps it's not wise to listen to a guy who tells you that love lacks anything.

Not to toot my own horn, but few people who have ever lived can tell you what love is. I'm one of the few people on the planet who knows. Of course you can't know if that's true. But eh... that's not my problem. I gave you the most direct explanations of love that any human has ever given. Whether you get it or not is up to you.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Leo Gura

[ZzzleepingBear]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What you're missing is that nothing is identical to nothing, and identity is the highest form of union. You cannot unite nothing with nothing because they are already absolutely united. So it's like you're saying you can't turn on an on light switch. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Nothing as nothing is my way to describe to you that there can't be a unity to be recognized unless there is something uniting with something. So there needs to be something uniting with something else for the possibility to acknowledge a word such as unity to have meaning or validity at all. Identity is a common denominator for the ability to acknowledge a unique difference between things. That's why someone or something can be identified by some level of difference.

My ultimate agreement with Socrates statement is that love is conditional to something. So love attach itself through desire of something rather than nothing. That's all.

35 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

All your distinctions are imaginary. So....

And so are your response here then. So....

36 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't make arguments. I state truths.

And if your truth is that something is deeper because YOU say so. All I can really do with that, is to assume that you believe in something else that you can't or won't disclose for some reason or other.

40 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Why on Earth would you think that Socrates understands Love? This is just a foolish starting assumption. Perhaps it's not wise to listen to a guy who tells you that love lacks anything.

Because when we speak of love, and probably when we think of love too. We do so by objectifying it outside our selves, or make mental object out of it to make up the picture of what it is that we love. And so love contains the beauty and the ugly depending on if our loving desires are meet or rejected. But there needs to be something to be loved, to call it love. Love doesn't lack anything, it can only be added to, and that can be a problem depending on if you can pursue what you love or not.

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Not to toot my own horn, but few people who have ever lived can tell you what love is. I'm one of the few people on the planet who knows. Of course you can't know if that's true. But eh... that's not my problem. I gave you the most direct explanations of love that any human has ever given. Whether you get it or not is up to you.

I don't mind you tooting your horn at all. But since you engage in the topics you do, you can't expect people to believe you in blind faith just because you make a claim and slap on a self certified "truth-lable" on it and call it a day.

[Leo Gura]

25 minutes ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

Nothing as nothing is my way to describe to you that there can't be a unity to be recognized unless there is something uniting with something. So there needs to be something uniting with something else for the possibility to acknowledge a word such as unity to have meaning or validity at all.

Incorrect.

Unity is prior to your ideas of something and nothing.

Unity isn't a word. Unity is.

Quote

My ultimate agreement with Socrates statement is that love is conditional to something. So love attach itself through desire of something rather than nothing. That's all.

Love is nothing.

Quote

But there needs to be something to be loved, to call it love.

Love is everything.

Quote

I don't mind you tooting your horn at all. But since you engage in the topics you do, you can't expect people to believe you in blind faith just because you make a claim and slap on a self certified "truth-lable" on it and call it a day.

I don't expect you to believe me.

Awaken and see what Love is for yourself.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Leo Gura

[ZzzleepingBear]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Unity is prior to your ideas of something and nothing.

I mean, if you want to say so, you can. But you will stil fail to explain unity as to how it comes to describe what it is pointing towards. The best way to describe unity by your standard, is to not mentioning it at all then.

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Love is nothing.

It sure can be. You make a indirect valuestatement out of the word nothing by saying that you love nothing. I have no conscious desire = I love nothing.

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Love is Everything.

And everything hint's towards alot of somethings once they are cherry picked out of all there is = Everything. Correct. There is alot of things to love.

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't expect you to believe me.

Awaken and see what Love is for yourself.

Good. I'm on my way.

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

I mean, if you want to say so, you can. But you will stil fail to explain unity as to how it comes to describe what it is pointing towards. The best way to describe unity by your standard, is to not mentioning it at all then.

When two droplets of water connect into a single one, that's unity.

When two things you think are different and separate connect in your consciousness and become identical, that's unity.

[ZzzleepingBear]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

When two droplets of water connect into a single one, that's unity.

When two things you think are different and separate connect in your consciousness and become identical, that's unity.

And yet we have to acknowledge the separation inorder to get to understand how unity came to be. Two people who doesn't love and desire eachother won't unite. So there is an underlying desire to something that what we consider to be love.

We for example don't call raindrops falling to the ground, a process of "falling in love with the ground out of their desire", we acknowledge it to be to the force of gravity due to the collected mass forming into raindrops.

I don't oppose the process of unity. I only opposing your lack of acknowledgement to how you arive at your understanding of the word unity. There is no unity outside of any prior separation. I think you can agree with that atleast.

[Leo Gura]

You have a relative notion of unity which excludes separation. I am talking about absolute Unity, which includes separation.

When you love a thing, you are connecting with it.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Leo Gura

[NK13]

6 hours ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

We for example don't call raindrops falling to the ground, a process of "falling in love with the ground out of their desire", we acknowledge it to be to the force of gravity due to the collected mass forming into raindrops.

But what drives "gravity" to pull things down? Or what drives gravity to be the way it is? 

6 hours ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

I don't oppose the process of unity. I only opposing your lack of acknowledgement to how you arive at your understanding of the word unity. There is no unity outside of any prior separation. I think you can agree with that atleast.

Unity by its own concept (regardless if you awakend to it or not) must include everything within itself—not even nothing can be outside it. One cannot have the whole or unity on one side, and the parts, forms, or differences on another. You see?

To grasp a concept which contains everything in its full difference and contradiction in respect to itself, yet is not an empty abstraction like pure being or empty nothingness is not an easy task. 

So unity is only unity by virtue of the parts and differences which make it up, and these differences only are differences insofar they find themselves in a united whole and their respective place to each other within the context of the whole. 

This separation and these Differences, when looked at from a higher consciousness, they'll seem tautological. So they're differences that really aren't differences lol

Edited August 29, 2022 by NK13

[ZzzleepingBear]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You have a relative notion of unity which excludes separation. I am talking about absolute Unity, which includes separation.

When you love a thing, you are connecting with it.

I find it funny that you say this, as I explicitly put emphasis on the importance of separation to understand unity. It sounds like we are on the same page on this matter now atleast.

 

 

11 hours ago, NK13 said:

But what drives "gravity" to pull things down? Or what drives gravity to be the way it is? 

What about it?

 

11 hours ago, NK13 said:

Unity by its own concept (regardless if you awakend to it or not) must include everything within itself—not even nothing can be outside it. One cannot have the whole or unity on one side, and the parts, forms, or differences on another. You see?

To grasp a concept which contains everything in its full difference and contradiction in respect to itself, yet is not an empty abstraction like pure being or empty nothingness is not an easy task. 

So unity is only unity by virtue of the parts and differences which make it up, and these differences only are differences insofar they find themselves in a united whole and their respective place to each other within the context of the whole. 

This separation and these Differences, when looked at from a higher consciousness, they'll seem tautological. So they're differences that really aren't differences lol

I mean I don't see anything in particular that I would disagree with. But I don't see why you felt the need to explain your view of unity for me though.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

On 27.08.2022 at 4:30 PM, Leo Gura said:

Love is not that.

Love is the Unity.

Then you do not love?