jpahmad

How is this negative?

My bad, we agree on that. However, can you give me an example of a negative attachment? I can't think of one. I would say addiction, but I'm not sure it can be considered negative if it is being substituted for an unfulfilled need. The person is using it to emotionally stabilize him/herself.

Hmmm, as humans we have needs. Needs manifest themselves in the form of attachments. An infant has needs, and therefore is attached to its caregiver, literally sometimes. Organisms are attached to things that they need to sustain them either physically or emotionally. So, attachment doesn't have to be negative. Think of a barnicle and a whale. We can also be attached to land, where we find food and water.

Ah, but attachment is the main category and love, lust, and companionship are sub categories. That latter is contained within the former.

Oh man, that's not my experience

Yes, you have a point. He is being a flake. You are giving him the opportunity to know he is being flake, so he should thank you.

I think there is a lot in common between our feelings towards our pets and our feelings towards our children. The difference is a matter of degree. A dog can't be virtuous. A child can't be virtuous, but the child will grow and can become virtuous. At any rate, we don't claim that we love our children only when they become virtuous. What we do have that endears children to us is the same as stated above; understandable, predictable, and completely dependent on us. It's only only the understanding part that is so many times greater than that of our feelings towards a dog, because of course, your child is human just like you. We can relate to them infinitely more. There is an obvious pecking order in terms of beings that we empathize with. A mosquito, I won't think twice before squashing it. This is because I can't relate to it in any way. However, a mouse, I wouldn't want to step on that, and certainly not a cat, which I can relate too much more than a bug. Those animals that are more complex, we identify with more, therefore we can develop compassion for these creatures. An actually human child takes that idea to the highest level. I would argue that once understanding has reached the highest level, that is what love is. I would also argue that we don't love evil people, because we don't understand them. We cannot relate to them. Who can understand a sociopath?

I changed my mind. I don't think lust and love have anything to do with each other. The drive for sex (lust) exists completely independent of what we call love. Think about it, you can want to screw people you don't even like, let alone love. It makes it much easier now to define what love is with lust out of the equation. Let's start with the "love" for pets. Dogs for example. Why do I find my dog endearing? He's not virtuous. Anyone have any ideas? My guess is that we love our pets because they are so easy to understand, predictable, and completely dependent on us. I think if we can figure out why we love our pets, then we can figure out why we love anybody.

How old are you Joshtown?

self-defense I suppose

Samuels, do you love your dog?

I know I've experienced lust. I know I've experienced friendship. Too me, love is just the combination of the two. Isn't it that simple? Am I missing something? dsayers, correct me if I'm wrong, but are saying that the word love cannot be used to describe a healthy parent-child relationship? Is it something different all together?

I think you have to crawl before you walk, walk before you run...etc. Progress inch by inch, and be satisfied with how far you've gotten so far. It sounds like you are moving in the right direction.

Saarl, I'm a little confused with what you mean by the "sex issue." Are you having trouble being intimate with other men, or are you just feeling really bothered by what happened in the past with your ex-boyfriend?

Welcome Saarl, Do you have the resources to see a therapist?

True. I'll go with that. I'll let you know if I find any more efficient means of getting people to come to their senses. I'm working on it.

understood

Fair enough. It is quite possible that you're theory is valid. However, how would you explain what happened in xelent's story below? Xelent claims that they were unreasonable, which is why he detached himself from the relationship. But then, they returned in his life as reasonable people? And yes, you nailed it. That is my view point. You can add "natural causes" to time and technique as well.

I see your point. I would suggest, never go for the "knock-out punch" by grabbing the carpet and yanking it out from under them, philosophically speaking. We have to be smart. We all now what we're dealing with hear. Approach the topic from odd angles, nibble at the edges, be very tactical. There are ways.

Yes, dsayers, that's exactly it! I understand this and agree with you. I'm just taking it a step further. When you say there are "others that so desperately need the propaganda" it tells me that they are emotionally dependent on something, an idea, a concept, which keeps their ego up or fear at bay. To break them of this cycle of irrationality and self-deception, you have to appeal to their emotions when confronting them. Otherwise you will most certainly always fail. Once you have emotionally stabilized them, then you can start getting them to listen to your argument from reason. In religion, there is fear. Fear is the strongest human emotion, which is why it is utilized by every psychopathic dictator in history. It's going to take more than one session to break someone from this deep visceral fear of the wrath of "god" that has been pumped into them since birth. It's gonna take serious work. Not just a few philosophical debates. Your father, will most likely never be able to accept what he has done. It would destroy him, he would have to erase himself. The truth is to painful to accept. Therefore, I agree, as soon as you can, you should kick him out of your life. But this is not the case for all "irrational" people.

Hello! Welcome!

Here is an idea I have been playing with. One way to appeal to emotions, and/or get through the "ego shell" is to put an idea out there that is logical, and then somehow make them feel like they came up with it! I wish I could give you and example, but it would be hard to communicate the nuances of the technique through written words. I'm not as savvy with my writing skills. I could try though. I think, with people of your generation, you're going to have to cut through ego every time you have these sorts of discussions. I agree with dsayers, it is one of the most important things that need to be discussed. But it has too be approached the smart way.

"Beyond reason" in the way I am using it means: without the capacity to reason. Or, without the mental faculties to reason. Which would mean they can't be human. Unless, you have an example for me? Xelent, you can't make this claim and then also claim that these individuals can't reason.

Have you met someone who is "beyond reason"? What empirical evidence do you have that these people exist? Assuming they are not mentally handicapped.

Cheddar, I feel your frustration. It's good that you parted ways with this fellow. I thought that there was a chance at reconciliation, but I guess not. What have you learned from this interaction though? I have gone through this, and as a result have decided that using reason is not the best tool in the toolbox when dealing with certain people. There is a sharper, more primal tool; emotion. The fellow that you're dealing with seems to be wrestling with emotional problems, not reasoning problems. I think you could have more success if you find out what moves him emotionally, and then appeal to that when making your case. It's too late now. Just move on. But you will encounter this problem again with someone else.