Love is a contradiction because the term loving implies that it is something we are doing yet the very objective of the term, that is of performing the act of loving, to receive the act of love.
Thus the very term ‘loving’ is not a stand alone concept, it is dependent on what we receive in return.
So, love cannot exist without love. Love is dependent upon love.So how is it really love?
Love is a system not an element or an action within a system.
I don’t understand how anybody could want to live their life only for themselves.
It’s very hard to for me to understand how that kind of apathy can exist.
What kind of existence is it where one does not seek to get as close as one can to other human beings.
What kind of dark and solitary existence is it when one’s each and every action is directed against everything and everyone. When each and every action is meant to control, deceive, manipulate, extort, violate, hurt or destroy some other body or thing.
How can one’s conception of oneself that is not based on humanity and which therefore constantly creates conflicts not force one to question the nature and source of one’s conflicts.
It is because of this questioning that I have come to wonder about the nature of love.
If ultimately one never allows oneself to have a broken heart than one never experiences unselfishness.
Of course the psychology can explain the need to move on.
We need to move on in order to survive.
But psychology’s or our logic’s ability to explain things like this is what troubles me.
What makes the survival process meaningful is not the survival process itself. What makes it meaningful is something we have convinced ourselves is higher than the survival process itself.
Thus the process of surviving itself is not meaningful. Thus we must pay attention to what we are doing. What steps we are ready to perform in order to survive.
The overall objective is noble, for example to preserve the species, but that is not important because ideals are not testaments of humanity and truth.
Only deeds are.
Fundamental philosophy questions now.
What is the point in surviving if you have to kill and can never really and truly love for to love means to surrender yourself to somebody else.
What is the point in surviving if you have to kill abandon your lover and become death and coldness you wish to avoid. What theory can rationalize the need to survive at all costs if there is nothing greater than love and life.
How many new beginning should a person be given.
How can any intelligent human being not consider the nature of such things and questions.
The more troubling thing is how can one suppress the highest moral, ethical, philosophical questions and go on as if it were a minor theoretical hiccup. When such questions form the foundation of governments, education and communications system.
What’s the point in returning to the institutions whose foundations are not based on such fundamental ethical questions.
Could we say that we are without humanity.
How can love exist. Can love towards anything, of anything, for anything, in any way , exist if everything food, car, house, shirt, house, street, person are replaceable.
What of the power of truth, logic and memory. Can they be reset.
What would it even mean to reset them.
Are we no more than super intelligent self preserving bio chemical computers designed to perpetuate an inhumane civilization.
Are we ourselves the only individuals we can really and truly love.
This sounds like the foundations of some kind of philosophy of love and selfishness.
Is the term love really the term selfishness presented by the self to the self in a way the self can accept it.
What of the ethics of love.
We need to revise them in light of this realization.
That love and humanity are imaginary concepts.
Do love and humanity exist only deep down within us as the refined concepts invented by the self only to serve the self.
Does our definition of ourselves because of what I call the selfcentric system of perception create the ultimate limit of our experience of empathy.