The Answer to All of Our Problems: Love

a reply to: RogueWave

Disputation is not a waste of time.

Sharing a language is not a connection of any kind. What a gross misapprehension of the world. Do you seriously feel any connection to any person you talk to. If so, you might need to get that looked at.

Why do you feel the need to assert the false?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

See, just a s I expected. You are afraid of the notion of "connection" because you think it means something supernatural.

Sharing a language is not a connection of any kind. What a gross misapprehension of the world

What a gross misinterpretation of my use of the word connection. Sharing a language is not a connection itself. The level of understanding(in the ideal case.....) that follows after using this language, is the connection.

It's not supernatural, just a simple reality.

Like I said, maybe this is more a semantics discussion?

a reply to: RogueWave

Just as I expected, more pushing of an untruth. It's not a simple reality, friend. It's sophistry. It's speaking in a way as to make one feel better, and not to discuss any matters of fact.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How would anything I said make me feel better about what?

I am not making any existential claims or whatever.

What is your point then. That human connections don't exist?

Could it be that you are, in fact, trying to make yourself feel more miserable?

What was your name again?

So you hate humans.

I guess there is no connection there......

a reply to: RogueWave

You are not making any truthful claims, let alone existential claims. Are you not going to make any argument whatsoever and just assert your dogma?

My point is your notion of human connection, that because people can speak to each other means they are connected, is wrong.

What's your name again? Oh so you are a sneaky wall of water? There must be a connection there, right?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My point is your notion of human connection, that because people can speak to each other means they are connected, is wrong.

Even though I just explained what my interpretation is, you still get it wrong?

The connection between humans is not language in whatever form, but the level of understanding that follows the use of language, in whatever form.

So again, I ask you, what is your point? That human connection doesn't exist?

What's your name again? Oh so you are a sneaky wall of water? There must be a connection there, right?

You can take it literally of figuratively. No I am not really a "sneaky"(rogue doesn't mean sneaky....) wall of water.

Are there more ways to interprete your name "the misantrophist"?

I mean your posts seem to correspond to your title.

Or are just refering to the play "Le Misanthrope"?


So what is your point? Human connections don't exist?

The fact that people are not related is certainly open for debate, currently they are united through an ideal, ethnicity, nationality, shared interests and so on.

The love of one is in a direction, aimed at a need or want for his or her wellbeing, or a sense of belonging with something, the country, the flag, the religion, and it is excluding the rest, hence it is not love but attraction.

The question really should be 'what is love'?
Because i doubt that this is known despite all poems, writings, and expressions to describe love as true or unconditional while the fact is that humanity is very violent in its ways.

love is not a solution, it simply helps you cope with the problem.

a reply to: RogueWave

Even though I just explained what my interpretation is, you still get it wrong?

The connection between humans is not language in whatever form, but the level of understanding that follows the use of language, in whatever form.

So again, I ask you, what is your point? That human connection doesn't exist?

A common understanding isn’t a connection. “Levels of understanding” are not connections either. We both understand what the words mean, but it takes a stretch of the imagination to state we are connected because of it, especially when it is done with no evidence, logic or argument.

My point is you’re wrong. What’s your point?

You can take it literally of figuratively. No I am not really a "sneaky"(rogue doesn't mean sneaky....) wall of water.

Are there more ways to interprete your name "the misantrophist"?

My name refers to two of my favourite plays, actually.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My point is you’re wrong. What’s your point?

If I am wrong, then there has to be a point that you made, that is correct.

So is there a reason why you refuse to say what your point is?

Is your point that human connections don't exist, or is it not your point?

My name refers to two of my favourite plays, actually.

Les Miserables and Le Misantrophe?

a reply to: RogueWave

If I am wrong, then there has to be a point that you made, that is correct.

So is there a reason why you refuse to say what your point is?

Is your point that human connections don't exist, or is it not your point?

I just told you what my point is. I'll repost it for you:

"My point is you’re wrong."

I'm not sure how that equates to "human connections do not exist". I never stated nor implied anything like that. What I'm saying is your idea of "levels of understanding" is not any sort of connection, human or otherwise.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

O....k....

So let me rephrase it for you.

What do you consider a human connection?

I fully expect you to dodge this one too.....

a reply to: RogueWave

What do you consider a human connection?

Love, companionship, family, for instance.

What do you consider a human connection, besides "levels of understanding", of course?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Love, companionship, family, for instance.

Sure, so how do you reconcile your current definition with earlier statements like,

All connections are physical

Your connections to family and friends, and your love for them is physical?

Eww.

Yep, first thing tomorrow im gunna phone my creditors and tell them im paying their fees in love.

Ill let you know how it all pans out 😀

a reply to: RogueWave

Physical in the sense of sexual? I'm fairly certain that's not what I meant. It's probably best to keep your mind out of the gutter in discussions like these, if that's at all possible. I speak of family and that's the first thing you think about? Ew.

No, human connections are not actual connections. They are relationships. That is of course what you mean by "human connections". I'm merely adopting your terminology so we can reach the same "level of understanding", which is a connection according to you.

I noticed you dodged my question.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I noticed you dodged my question.

I actually agreed with your definition.

Physical in the sense of sexual? I'm fairly certain that's not what I meant. It's probably best to keep your mind out of the gutter in discussions like these, if that's at all possible. I speak of family and that's the first thing you think about? Ew.

Right, but you first said that all connections are physical. Then you said that human connections include, love family, companionship.

So love, family and companionship must be physical then. So how is it physical then?

No, human connections are not actual connections

Oh now they are not suddenly?

So it turns out I was right all along, and you do think that human connections don't exist. All over the place much?

No, human connections are not actual connections. They are relationships.

So relationships are not connections, but love, family and companionship are, only they are not real connections.

What a hilarious, yet not unexpected turn of events, lol.

I'm merely adopting your terminology so we can reach the same "level of understanding", which is a connection according to you.

Yes, a level of understanding is also a human connection.

a reply to: RogueWave

Right, but you first said that all connections are physical. Then you said that human connections include, love family, companianship.

So love, family and comapanianship must be physical then. So how is it physical then?

Right. A human connection is not a connection in any sense. It is a word used to imply a relationship, not an actual connection. You’re equivocating.

Love, family and companionship are relationships between two physical objects of the human variety. Without one or the other physical object there is no relationship, or in your equivocation “human connection”.

Oh now they are not suddenly?

So it turns out I was right all along, and you do think that human connections don't exist. All over the place much?

Not suddenly, but throughout human history. You’ve been wrong all along.

So relationships are not connections, but love, family and companionship are, only they are not real connections.

What a hilarious, yet not unexpected turn of events, lol.

Relationships are not connections. You must have forgot that you said “human connections”, not “connections”. A “human connection” is a relationship, not a connection. You're begging the question. You've assumed a "human connection" is a connection. It isn't. This is an example of confounding two different ideas in a vain attempt to make an argument. Unfortunately, it’s pure sophistry.

Yes, a level of understanding is also a human connection.

No it isn’t.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Right. A human connection is not a connection in any sense. It is a word used to imply a relationship, not an actual connection. You’re equivocating.

You are obviously backtracking and all over the place.

So again you say that human connections don't exist.

I asked if this was your point 3 times and you first dodged and denied it. Then you said that love, family and companionship are human connections. I then quoted an earlier post where you said that all connections are physical.

This sent you off on a hilarious back pedaling session of which I have seldom seen the likes.

a reply to: RogueWave

You are obviously backtracking and all over the place.

So again you say that human connections don't exist.

I asked if this was your point 3 times and you first dodged and denied it. Then you said that love, family and companionship are human connections. I then quoted an earlier post where you said that all connections are physical.

This sent you off on a hilarious back pedaling session of which I have seldom seen the likes.

No I'm saying you are equivocating. I'll repeat—a "human connection" is not a connection. You've assumed, wrongly, that a human connection is a connection, that a metaphor is literal. How else can I make it more clear for you?