Do you really love philosophy?

That is true in the most of the cases.

with love,

If I’m listening to pink floyd, it’s either “time” or “lost for words”.

That is the right relationship to philosophy. As I said:

Yes. But what about Eija-Riitta Eklöf-Berliner-Mauer then?

I’ve never remembered a time when i wasn’t.

So you have been loving the philosophy since you can think, haven’t you?

If you like (or even „love“?) the philosophy, you may probably also like (or even „love“?) the arts, for example, the poetry, the visual arts, and especially the music.

Here some art examples I like very much:

A) Poetry:

„Ich bin ein Teil von jener Kraft, // Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft. // … Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint! // Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht, // ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht; // Drum besser wärs, daß nichts entstünde. // So ist denn alles, was ihr Sünde, // Zerstörung, kurz das Böse nennt, // Mein eigentliches Element.“ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe,[i] Faust /i, 1790 / 1808, S. 64-67.
„I am Part of that Power which would // The Evil ever do, and ever does the Good. // … I am the Spirit that denies! // And rightly too; for all that doth begin // Should rightly to destruction run; // 'Twere better then that nothing were begun. // Thus everything that you call Sin, // Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent- // That is my own, real element. “ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, p. 64-67.

B) Visual arts:

Caspar D. Friedrich, Kreidefelsen auf Rügen, 1818, & Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer, 1818.

C) Music:

Ludwig v. Beethoven, 5. Sinfonie, 1800-1808. The Doors (Morrison, Manzarek, Krieger, Densmore), The End, 1967.

Do you like the arts, or do you even love the arts? And what about the philosophy? Do you like the philosophy, or do you even love the philosophy? It is certainly no quibble, no logomachy, no hair-splitting, because even here in this thread there are conflicting statements:

Pro LOVE - for example:

PRO LIKE - for example:

The distinction between „love“ and „like “ seems to be important, meaningful.

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

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][/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”:

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!

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