Risk, Love & Truth

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Even the possibility of eternal return is enough to justify risking one’s life for love.

The only one’s to raise to the occasion are the ones who’ve been prepared to lose it all, and remain so.

Necessity is the mother of invention. - I am as I am, because my environment has demanded it of me.

It’s no sign of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society - I am not well adjusted to this society. Or to be near most of you. I’m a healthy human being.

One may fear losing their individuality because they don’t appreciate what it is to be part of the collective.

Fear is just one limb of love.

One can’t kill fear, without killing love.

The more one loves, the more one fears.

This is why the most loving people are so vulnerable.

When one lives a quality life, they will quickly get their dose.

The scariest moment for a loving person, is after they’ve completely prepared themselves to live, but haven’t yet began living. They are completely attuned to what is at stake.

If someone hates me, it’s because they don’t understand me.

Every single person who has ever understood me, had loved me unconditionally.

I am a human being, who maximizes hope, and minimizes threat.

I hope for the well being of others.

The pain and confusion of others, is mine and their biggest threat.

My challenge is to present a loving message, in the face of adversity.

My message is really everyone’s ideal message, therefore, I am acting in the interest of all. I am being an ideal man.

The ideal man ought not expected to be perfect, no ideal man is the past has been, but they’ve been completely loving - even unto death.

No one can kill the truth. It never dies.

It’s the most secure object that has existed.

If you internalize the truth, then regardless of adversity, you’ll be powered unconditionally.

I love all of you, despite what society has done to me, I forgive and accept you.

2

I find this type of msg, then the fuck you all stuff too.

I’m guessing you are trying to develop a universal benevolence but some people are throwing crap at it.

What about only showing love to the worthy, as an alternative to the heaviness of universalized love?

3

Thanks.

It likely makes sense to prioritize my efforts to those who are already receptive to them.

Why?

Because they could then become active participants in the process of caring for others themselves, and also, it’s less demanding on me.

I have to disagree on the worthiness point, though. That’s just not how view things.

I say we’re all worthy of support.

4

I refer to universal love as heaviness because of just how many beings need help and comfort and support, but then we are just one human in it all. I’m referring to animals also. I try to not feel sad about it, but I do my best also to try to help the ones I can help.

In a way nobody is worthy, in that they inherit things and did not obtain it. In another way, we are all worthy because we are like flowers to the sunlight. We can all change and do better.

5

Concise, clear, nicely worded. Though I agree with the sentiment, so I am biased.

6
7

Ben JS

But is it really? I think that in regard to love, fear is more an attachment to losing that love. That isn’t the same as loving, I don’t think. I would equate love as to water. The more pure the love, the clearer the water. The less pure the love, the more stagnant the water though perhaps stagnant is kind of a harsh word here to use.

We’re human, we fear loss. I don’t agree with you here. Possessiveness, jealousy, overt attachment are all, I think, symptoms of fear. If we don’t lose those symptoms, we may lose the love. I can affirm “unconditional” love but not unconditional behavior.

i certainly do not practice what I preach here, but I think that the more one really loves, the less one fears. Sure, being human, we all have desires and needs. I’m not so sure that any love is completely pure and altruistic but if love is rooted in fear, it’s more about attachment. Love at times has to be totally detached yet aware that it loves. if that made sense.

I do agree with you here but not because of fear but more so because really loving people value others more than unloving people. They put their hearts at risk.

We all get our doses, no matter the quality of our lives.

[/quote]
I don’t understand this.

8

Perhaps this is a gender thing.

Those I love live in an environment of constant threat. It is an unhealthy environment. Therefore, I am influenced to fight that threat. Even at the risk of myself being destroyed. I am willing to lose attachment to those which I love, but in hope that they will be healthy.

If I was motivated by fear of losing, then I wouldn’t try to help them. I’d stay close to them and guarantee myself the most time as possible with them, even as they drown.

That is not love, and fuck all the cowards in my life who have ever described it so.

No.

If one starves oneself, for the well being of another, one isn’t getting their own fill.

If one’s life is completely starved, then they’ve never had their dose.

So be it.

9

Ahhh… I can’t resist…

Necessity is the FATHER of invention.
Opportunity is its MOTHER.

10

It’s relevant.

Thanks, and well done.

11

Then you have to discern who is worthy and who is not and in such a train of thought as that, humans are shown to be fallible time and time again. Eventually you hit a point where none are worthy of it because each has some fault or another. Love everyone, but let each person define how that love is shown and show it naturally without remorse.