Do you really love philosophy?

Welcome, Pharaoh!

First of all, a kid is normally loved not only by the mother, but also by the father. So you should say: Parents normally love their kid.

As i said: I don’t love philosophy, I like philosophy. So before I give you a “number from -100 to +100”, I would like to determine that scale a little bit, for example in this way:

-100 to -51) “I hate …”;
-50 to -1) “I dislike …”;
+1 to +50) “I like …”;
+51 to +100) “I love …”.

  1. How much are you attracted towards philosophy (say, love philosophy)? My answer according to the scale: 40 to 50.
  2. How deep are you interested in philosophy? My answer according to the scale: 90 to 100.

But again and again: I don’t love philosophy, I like philosophy. ALthough I like philosophy very much, I don’t love philosophy.

What about you?

Sorry for delay.

Thank you.

I wouldn’t have thought you’d take it literally. I just mentioned a mother, because she loves her baby even before it is born. Don’t you agree with me, that true or false, mothers are symbol of love for their children, unless a male chauvinistic drive rules it out?

At noon, +30
In the afternoon, +50
In the evening, +75
Around midnight, +90
Early morning -40
In between, there are lots of other figures.
This is approximately what has been the case during last three months, asked about earlier periods, I should think hard to remember! What I mean is that, feeling that a person has for something, is not all that rigid. It may go through alterations, as the time pass by, and different events happen in life.

Does this apply to only one of the two questions, or both?

Here are the two questions again:

  1. How much are you attracted towards philosophy (say, love philosophy)?
  2. How deep are you interested in philosophy?

2 the point of self destruction: the neglect of the petty and mundane which sustains us all.

2 the point of self destruction: the neglect of the petty and mundane which sustains us all.

Would you mind explaining what you mean?

No. Can’t remember all of my earlier thinking, but i can think of most of my remembrances.

You can’t be in love with the Berlin Wall. It might have given/gives meaning to something in her life that she needs or desires to hold onto.
We use the word 'love" to express a multitude of things which other words might best describe.
I don’t think that my cat, Yoda, loves me as much as he is attached to me, needs me for his existence, and is used to have me around - or the other way around.
Your second image to me is more about a man who is wondering "Where did I go wrong with that damn woman or he might just as much be wondering “What do I want for supper?”. His look is not perplexing enough really not at all.

I do not anyway. But the Swedish Eija-Riitta Eklöf-Berliner-Mauer does! Do you think that she lies? :icon-redface: :-k :wink: :slight_smile:

That image should merely represent “philosophy” or “thinking” and (I admit it) a bit suggest that one can’t love philosophy or thinking. :slight_smile:

I estimate that merely 20% of this forum members are really interested in philosophy, the other 80% are not really interested in philosophy or even don’t
know what philosophy is, they just want to have fun, or even to derail, to troll, to insult, … and so on. I guess, that if one asks for the emotional relationship to philosophy, the most of those 20% would say “I like phislosophy”, while the most of those 80% would say “I love philosophy”. That leads to the following questions:

1.) “Who are those 20% and 80%?”
2.) “What do they mean when they use the words ‘love’ and ‘like’?”
3.) “What is philosophy?”
4.) “Is it possible or even necessary that one loves philospohy in order to philosophise?”

That are smart questions, aren’t they? Am I similar to Sokrates, just because I like maieutics? :-k

Note:
Dear 80%, I don’t want to insult you; you may be right (see question 4.); but if so, then you should prove or give evidence for your thesis that one can really love philosophy.

She actually married the Berlin Wall in 1979 and when it was destroyed in 1989 it was a big tragedy for her. She created the term ‘Objectum Sexuality’, which means that the object has feelings and a sexual desire. (I wonder how that works :confused: ) “We have an equal relationship and are not bothered about conventions, our story is one of two lovers and our souls will be connected eternally”

1979? So, the following song is her song or dedicated to her:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aeETEoNfOg[/youtube] :romance-heart:
The Smashing Pumpkins, “1979”, 1996. :open_mouth: Oh scary! This picture is not of 1979 but of 1978. :open_mouth:

But I just found out (here) that she got married on June 17, 1979.

For people who are interested in the “couple”: berlinermauer.se/

Do you believe that, Mithus?

If she is able to be in love with the Berlin Wall and their “souls” really “will be connected eternally”, then it might also be possible to love philosophy. But do you really believe that? :-k :slight_smile:

B.t.w.: Please remember the many murder victims and other victims at the Berlin Wall!


Translation:
Memorial // Günter Litfin // first murder victim on 24/08/1961 // Humboldthafen in Berlin-Mitte // and all the victims of the Berlin Wall // from 13.08.1961 until November 1989.

One can most certainly be in love with an inanimate object or specific action, such as philosophizing, knitting, running, singing,… To love means to deeply care for, emotionally and physically the action of strongly supporting against somethings/someones adversaries, both inner and outer adversaries, “deeply desiring it to be strong/harmonious/happy”. And is usually accompanied with a desire to unite with or be “one with it/he/her” (attachment to, a part of). Maybe they should have just cemented her into the wall. :-k

And as far a sexual relation, well … they are making cyborg sex surrogates, yaknow. :confused:

Or the wall into her? :-k

More than everybody here, added together.

Would you mind “explaining” that, if possible?

Yes

There is a hole at the core of existence, a void, which represents the darkness of the whole universe, like a black hole. This void is obvious and palpable. And if you ever had the grave, unfortunate opportunity to meet me, then you would soon feel dizzy, nauseous, and faint with fear. Because this darkness sometimes slips out of me and into others, corrupting and consuming them, sucking them into a nightmare of infintie doubt. This deepest doubt represents the greatest possible, imaginable unknowable. And I find my home in this great unknowable universe, in the darkest locations where nobody would ever think to search.

This void represents my complete, utter, absolute lack of knowledge. And so I seek knowledge, true and pure. True and pure knowledge, is wisdom. So I know that I know nothing at all, and this makes me the wisest man. People claim to know things, but, I see through all their errors, false beliefs, and contradictions. For example, arcturus descending claims that she “knows that she is alive”. It’s observed readily by my extremely acute hypersensitivity. I see the holes in people that they don’t care for. People speak lies and errors, not even caring if it’s true or not.

Some call this, philosophy, a curse. Others call it a blessing. I suppose that just depends on how you use doubt, and attempt to search for knowledge and wisdom. Yet the more I search for knowledge and wisdom in others, in what you humans call your “humanity”, the more empty I seem to become. It chips away at what little I have left, to go searching in places that yield no end result, no rewards. It’s like asking a dog, a squirrel, a pig, their opinions on life. As if they could speak. As if they represented any form of “higher” intelligence or animal superiority, upon the hierarchy of life.

Therefore I must conclude there is a hierarchy, and wisdom is at the top of life. Do I have knowledge? No, and the more I seek it in others, the less I have. So sometimes I lose faith, and give up the search, for fear of future disappoints that will wear me closer to absolute nothingness. And I will have no soul left, and become so empty that I may see all the light of the universe at once.

Because it is within the deepest darkness that all light becomes readily apparent, and all knowledge reveals itself to you.

Maybe you are missing the truths of personal and social human experience. Maybe not all truth is literal. Maybe truth isn’t always the highest good. Maybe there is truth that transcends the factual.

Of course I’m aware there are other values than truth in life, either complimentary or contrary to truth.

The word “philosophy” means “love to wisdom”. So “I love philosophy” means “I love love to wisdom”. To love a kind of love (in this case: the love to wisdom) is exaggerated, isn’t it? Do you love exaggeration or hyperbolism?

It is possible to love the love, for example the love to wisdom. But my main question is not whether it is possible, but wether it is good, whether it is really worth living for. Perhaps it would be better or would be worth living for to hate philosophy, to fight philosophy, to be the antagonist of philosophy in order to overcome philosophy by philosophising. To work on at the philosophy in order to overcome it would be good, would be worth living for, wouldn’t it? But I think, not “love” and “hate”, but “like” and “dislike” are the most adequate words for describing the relationship between humans and philosophy.