It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

All Things Come From Love

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
Love is accepting things as they are and appreciating it anyway...

Happiness is loving your life
Appreciation is loving something
Care is loving someone
Peace is finding a way to love a situation

Even negative things:

Hate is just a lack of love
Lust is a love of a physical body
Greed is a great love of a physical things
Selfishness is a great love of the self

What do you think?


I think your logic is flawed.

If love is accepting things as they are, and appreciating them anyway, then you are equating love with "embrace" (which I would take issue with), and making love exclusively a verb, which means nothing can come "from it," since it is only the action of some thing or someone.

Furthermore, I would say that happiness need not be loving your life. It could merely be loving a single moment in your life, or a few moments here or there, but there is certainly no qualification that one love the entirety of their life in order to experience happiness.

Your definition of "appreciation" may be adequate.

If your definition of "care", which is to love someone, is accurate, then why do most people separate the terms and state, "I care for that person, but I do not love that person?"

And your definition for peace..."Peace is finding a way to love a situation." I disagree. I would say that peace can also be "the lack of a situtation," or "the situation finding a way to love you". I would personally suggest that "peace" is a state of harmony, and then quickly run away without defining harmony.

Furthermore, I disagree that hate is the lack of love, for more often than not love is the cause of hatred, whether it be love for self or twisted love. If someone loved their girlfriend, and then went bonkers and shot her because she cheated on them, then we would call that an act of hate, but it was done because he loved her and she hurt him. Also, if someone is racist and they beat on someone of another race, we would normally call that hate, but more often than not the person is doing it because they perceive the other race as a threat to their own, and so they are doing it out of love for their self and not necessarily any sort of lack of love. I'm mainly pointing out that love can still be present in a situation of hate; therefore, it is not necessarily lacking when hate is present.

I believe I can agree that lust is love of a physical body, but I would add that there are some instances where one lusts for something which is not physical, but which either has the potential to be physical or which is an abstract concept intimately attached to sensory perception. For example, one can lust for their eighteenth birthday, or their future wife, or even to have love (which is a non-physical thing), so it would seem that lust is more of a desire for perceived possession than anything.

I don't think greed need be a great love of strictly physical things either, and I think the definition you provide may be flawed or inadequate, as under your definition someone who loves to acquire physical things for the purpose of giving them to the needy would be considered "greedy". Would you normally call a charity greedy? And I don't think we could just throw "for the self" at the end of your definition and have it be adequate, as groups can also be "greedy".

Finally, you said selfishness is a great love for the self, but your definition of love is accepting things as they are and appreciating them anyway. Well, what of people who get sex change operations? How do they fit into your definition? And some say that suicide is selfishness (and I agree with that assessment), so then how are they accepting things as they are?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Just like to mention that love will ultimately be responsible for the collapse and destruction of human civilization. How? Because we all want a better world for our offspring and to protect those we care about. And to a lot of people that means wanting the best food possible, drowned in pesticides, and the most expensive medication available regardless, and biggest SUVs to take the kids to their schools and lessons, and heat and water and protection and more children and more people and the ability to fight anybody who wants to take any of that away.

So we burn the world to create and protect the people we love. It's just a matter of time before it all blows up. Maybe not in my lifetime, but maybe yours.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
And to a lot of people that means wanting the best food possible, drowned in pesticides, and the most expensive medication available regardless, and biggest SUVs to take the kids to their schools and lessons, and heat and water and protection and more children and more people and the ability to fight anybody who wants to take any of that away.


Are you sure you didn't mean the end of America instead?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Franz von Humboldt

Originally posted by Blue Shift
And to a lot of people that means wanting the best food possible, drowned in pesticides, and the most expensive medication available regardless, and biggest SUVs to take the kids to their schools and lessons, and heat and water and protection and more children and more people and the ability to fight anybody who wants to take any of that away.

Are you sure you didn't mean the end of America instead?


The world. Because we'll all kill and fight for our loved ones, no matter where. And pretty soon the entire world will run out of the things we want and need. And if you don't think America will use its massive army to take what it needs from the rest of the world, you haven't been paying attention.


edit on 22-11-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

The world. Because we'll all kill and fight for our loved ones, no matter where. And pretty soon the entire world will run out of the things we want and need. And if you don't think America will use its massive army to take what it needs from the rest of the world, you haven't been paying attention.


edit on 22-11-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)


Ooops, my bad, brother. For a moment there I thought you were describing America.


edit on 22-11-2011 by Franz von Humboldt because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


once you're fighting and killing, you've left the state of love.




top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join