hai all....this is from a specialist from abroad...
"we need to make a distinction first.
Are we talking "love" as a sentiment? A feeling? Or are we talking "love" as a relationship? And in this case, WHICH relationship?
There are many different "loves".
The love of parents for their sons is different from love for a partner, and both are different from "360° unconditioned love".
The Ancient Greeks had three different words for those "loves".
There is "philia", which is parents' love (even in a extended, figurated meaning).
There's "eros", which involves sex and passion, and is the marital love (and more, but let's stay with the basics here).
And there is "agape", which is the unconditional love, given without expecting anything in trade, 360° love, pure and "platonic".
Each one of these "loves" implies and involves different relationships.
But, "love" is always unconditioned, as a feeling.
It comes from inside, is a powerful energy we all have, and it doesn't depend on anybody else. And it's OUR DECISION to take that 360° feeling and concentrate it as a laser on a single other person, the one with which we'd like to share our life.
And this means starting a relationship...
When it comes to relationships, though, the relationship HAS conditions.
It simply can't have not. So I strongly believe that nowadays, with this fad for "unconditional love" AND the confusion between the sentiment/feeling itself and the relationship it implies, we're in trouble..
And to me, it sounds a lot like an alibi for letting commitment out of relationships, especially the marital ones.
But it may well be me. I'm "old school", in this, and I believe a relationship can only work in time if there's a set of shared "rules" that BOTH partners commit to and make their best effort in respecting.
And as these rules are freely accepted to begin with, it'a matter of taking responsibility for our free decisions. If we don't want to commit, then we should be in no relationship, as without commitment there can be no stable relationship.."
how is it?????
let us see more later...
rams
"we need to make a distinction first.
Are we talking "love" as a sentiment? A feeling? Or are we talking "love" as a relationship? And in this case, WHICH relationship?
There are many different "loves".
The love of parents for their sons is different from love for a partner, and both are different from "360° unconditioned love".
The Ancient Greeks had three different words for those "loves".
There is "philia", which is parents' love (even in a extended, figurated meaning).
There's "eros", which involves sex and passion, and is the marital love (and more, but let's stay with the basics here).
And there is "agape", which is the unconditional love, given without expecting anything in trade, 360° love, pure and "platonic".
Each one of these "loves" implies and involves different relationships.
But, "love" is always unconditioned, as a feeling.
It comes from inside, is a powerful energy we all have, and it doesn't depend on anybody else. And it's OUR DECISION to take that 360° feeling and concentrate it as a laser on a single other person, the one with which we'd like to share our life.
And this means starting a relationship...
When it comes to relationships, though, the relationship HAS conditions.
It simply can't have not. So I strongly believe that nowadays, with this fad for "unconditional love" AND the confusion between the sentiment/feeling itself and the relationship it implies, we're in trouble..
And to me, it sounds a lot like an alibi for letting commitment out of relationships, especially the marital ones.
But it may well be me. I'm "old school", in this, and I believe a relationship can only work in time if there's a set of shared "rules" that BOTH partners commit to and make their best effort in respecting.
And as these rules are freely accepted to begin with, it'a matter of taking responsibility for our free decisions. If we don't want to commit, then we should be in no relationship, as without commitment there can be no stable relationship.."
how is it?????
let us see more later...
rams
No comments:
Post a Comment