What the heck say you? (philosophy of love vs lust)

That ought to get your attention. Got a bit of my philosophy for you to sink your ears into. How shall I begin? Lets get straight to it. Love is stupid/foolish/stubborn which is the opposite of just fun lust or seriously passionate lust. What say you?

A fool is blind. And they say love is blind. So love is definitely foolish. And for those of you who don't move on to the next fish in the sea, you see how love is stubborn. Love makes you do stupid things, so you see how love is stupid.

So case solved.

Listen, the devil loves and likes love because the devil is a stupid/foolish/stubborn person. So while you want a world of love, if you do, I want a world of lust. Lust is not stupid, foolish, or stubborn. Lust is not blind. Lust doesn't make you do stupid things. Lust allows you to move on to more of the fish in the sea with no stubborn problem. Ha! Again, what the heck say you? With lust you can say any damn word you want during sex to make it better (more exciting!!). But with love you can't just say any darn word. Love is so weak. Love so sucks. Lust is where it's at, baby! To hell with love! Hello lust! And you know love breeds jealousy. Lust does not breed jealousy. Love basically can cause you stress and frustration whereas lust will relieve you of stress and frustration.

What is your love philosophy? I'm all ears.

A fool is blind. And they say love is blind. So love is definitely foolish

reply to post by Tormentations


Irrational argument. Correlation does not imply causality.

There are different kinds of love.

Love of your family, children, job, pets....etc.

Love lasts for ever while lust is only for a few moments.

reply to post by Tormentations


Your viewing love as 2 people, not as the whole.

I agree and disagree......

I simply don't think "love" exists. But I have to say it does, so don't tell me GF that.


lust on the other, while quite fun, can get you into serious trouble.
so be careful, and wrap it up buddy.

Originally posted by Tormentations
A fool is blind. And they say love is blind. So love is definitely foolish.

...they say justice is blind too...

Originally posted by Tormentations
And for those of you who don't move on to the next fish in the sea, you see how love is stubborn. Love makes you do stupid things, so you see how love is stupid.

So case solved.

...ahahahaaa!...

Originally posted by Tormentations
Lust doesn't make you do stupid things.

...lust sure can make ya do stupid thangs and stupid people at the same time, lmao...

Originally posted by Tormentations
Lust allows you to move on to more of the fish in the sea with no stubborn problem. Ha! Again, what the heck say you?

...does laughter count?...

Originally posted by Tormentations
With lust you can say any damn word you want during sex to make it better (more exciting!!). But with love you can't just say any darn word. Love is so weak. Love so sucks. Lust is where it's at, baby! To hell with love! Hello lust!

...put that to some blues licks and you've got a hit...

Originally posted by Tormentations
And you know love breeds jealousy. Lust does not breed jealousy. Love basically can cause you stress and frustration whereas lust will relieve you of stress and frustration.

...a control freak's idea of love is tangled up with jealousy... thats why you (if you're not into being someone's puppet) should only entertain thoughts of attempting a love relationship with a control freak as often as you desire to eat worms (unless you like worms, then, well, gosh, you got bigger problems)...

Originally posted by Tormentations
What is your love philosophy? I'm all ears.

...just do it like ya know it and dont make a big deal out of it...

when love is seen as the end then it is always wrong, there where you would see lust fitting better in truth existance reality life

love should be perceived as the source of yourself life, so it concerns only you as an individual living abstraction freedom knowledge of your positive drives free moves to realize objective realities of yourself while happy there in doing it for you

what made you happy in doing yourself as constance reality existing would always be there of you to do, and this lead you to become then a professionnal source of something always real by simply the sense of enjoying it you would get the reward sense of being a source of yourself whole extensions regarding the object of your means loved adapted to the situations you must deal with, so this can give you a fully free positive sense reality while positively active that is very rewarding of its positive certainty as living constance independantly

while perceiving love as an end lead to lust reality, because only the existing fact as the awareness abstraction of its constant reality definition can be alive , you cant become something or someone else

so in meaning love as an end you can reach to get from being positive always you would end by getting lust experience translating the need of positive fictionnal sense you dont have

so love is a source of yourself life only if you as existing realize fully alone yourself from the abstraction of your awareness existance reality the most positive as the knowledge of its roots ways to realize objectively, then it means your freedom as self living move reality you direct from that joy you know its positive source being it more by doing it

reply to post by Tormentations


What the heck say you? (philosophy of love vs lust)

*Without getting into this too deeply, my thoughts are that you have gotten the two mixed up.

jaleousy is expected always from meaning to get of another source than you

because existance is exclusively the constance reality freedom of the awareness itself
and life is exclusively the constance absolute positive reality freedom of the awareness itself

so when you the outside body faculty in living realities is the exclusive source of your deep joy awareness sense, it is the only way to provide to your true awareness a living sense of constant reality your can realize objectively

when you lean on another source for this, you would face the inerty from expectations dispositions that would result on the lackness of constance reality existance waiting too
the inner awareness frustrations of lacking the minimum existing constant reality would be translated outside of you the body living objectively by jaleousy justifications sense asserting the reality of minus compared to normal ones

that is why who dont mean positive constance realities as living free moves, win in that script, because of what meaning business is allowing yourself constant reality to be always there while if you are particularly attached to an expectation the total flop of all reality would be immediately the only fact there of yourself existance destabilisation of its major base need

reply to post by Tormentations

A fool is blind. And they say love is blind. So love is definitely foolish.

As Smyleegirl so eloquently put, this is circular logical. Illogical. So I'm a fool for love. weeeeeeeeeeeeee! Let the good times roll.

Listen, I don't mean to belittle you or anyone else. Here's one of the gems of my 52 years and I'll share it with you free of charge. Lust and love can coexist~! WHOA! See, the secret is to be creative. Ya gotta keep things fresh.

Love is like building a structure -- it builds upon the foundation and strengthens. I know that sounds boring, but it perseveres as long as it is fed by both parties. Lust is for fun, and doesn't mind if love rears its head during the process, as long as its cousin passion is along for the ride.

What a wilde ride it's been. I think we've got another 50 in us. If lust becomes flaccid, love will shore it up.

y'see, we're creative. 'nuff said.

I don't agree. I just think you haven't experienced proper love.

Originally posted by smyleegrl

A fool is blind. And they say love is blind. So love is definitely foolish

reply to post by Tormentations

 

Irrational argument. Correlation does not imply causality.

The Venn diagram supports your assertion! We now know there could be alot more blindess than love or fools. Some fools could be lovers. We just don't know for sure!



[edit on 2/24/2010 by EnlightenUp]