To be objectified is to be a part of the world of subjects and objects. The subjects look to objectify that which fits their ideal. Someone who becomes offended when objectified for their looks can now feel good about themselves at least half of themself instead of acting in disgust of the subject. The other half of themselves acts as objectfier and too need to idealize those who objectify them for attraction of object to object to occur. The idealization of an object indicates weakness on the part of the subject doing the objectifying because it assumes an inferior position and opens themselves up to rejection of the object as well as putting the subject back into the mode of objective consciousness. If a subject never idealizes over an object, then he is the object for everyone else to objectify. There remains much doubt over the true existence of object, as the object must be all knowing and embody perfection, however there can be no way at this moment to derive a thesis for such objectivity which lies outside my subjective-objective being. My only idealization can be for that which i do not know and so only when it comes to questions of my being and the universe can i be a subject.
What men and women desire is not their partners rather, an objectified version of their partners, this idealized version can never comes to be for its an ever changing subject behind the object. The ideal can only continue to be an ideal if it never becomes actualized. The subject who idealizes will change his/her ideal for the sake of maintaining the idealized idea in said partner. When this ideal fades, so does love for love is in essence the idealized version of said partner. When one looks at his/her partner as she is as subject, one finds at the most a friend.
My sincere apologies for the lack of clarification dear Anon. Yes Romantic love. Although I have recently thought of love after writing this some time ago, and I am beginning to doubt love’s existence. I’m beginning to believe love does not exist at all, and that we use the term “love” as a sort of compensation to make up for the lack of knowing the right words to use in the place of “love” It may just be a language problem and the overwhelming feeling of emotion during “love” prevents us from truly identifying what we like about the person so we say we “love” them. I think our “likes” are truer and more accurate because we are not so high strung on the “passions” of love. Passion is violence while love is a mask for intense passion.
Mmm, i think words, no matter whether they are vocalised and made into sounds or remain unspoken as thoughts, can cast an almost hypnotic spell upon you. You easily lose yourself in them, become hypnotized into implicitly believing that when you have attached a word to something, you know what it is… By telling some one you love them, you have only covered up the mystery with a label. Its really unknowable because it has unfathomable depth. And each love is different to the next. Words reduce reality to something the human mind can grasp which is not much. Still words have their own beauty.
Love depends upon the people involved. Their priorities, their desires and needs. Some just get hot and horny for thier prospective partner and call that love. Others actually get to know all aspects of their partner and love that person’s good and bad within, they become partners in a very real sense.
Most humans are somewhere in between these extremes.
Of course labels have no depth. Words are just sign posts to ideas, and ideas have depth. Words have no inherent depth, but they have depth by proxy only by proxy.
Etymology itself is a relatively superficial area of study.
The interpretation or understanding of any idea, including love varies in its depth and in its nature from person to person. There are no objective ideas and ones understanding of an idea is largely even a mystery to oneself.
Good response and thank you for responding.
People relative to people, how does love depend on people? Their needs and desires are theirs? Did nature not give us these needs and desires without our consent? If i call a fig tree love, does that make it love? Even seeing the perfection in imperfection still is blind to the idealism in one’s mind of the partner in question.
Is knowledge of partner really knowledge? Can one not just say that it’s the traits themselves that I find valuable? The ideas of the knowledge that i find valuable? What makes it so important to see them manifested in human form? Are our ideals of the knowledge or aspects of the knowledge which we find valuable truly within the individual? Could it be that one knows what they are because they do not know knowledge? What is real truly?
Hi Joe,
Love is not one size fits all. It is very different for each of us. How can we give consent when we are created from a sperm and an egg? You can’t expect something from nothing. And while nature does put needs and desires into us, nurture does far more. I would say that nature supplies the seed and nurture provides the soil, the water the fertilizer.
I know my husband loves me differently than I love him. How he loves, what he loves, and when he loves me is different from me to him. Its real because we say it is real. We will always be partners til death. We irritate each other, neglect each other, we take each other for granted, we also support each other, we know each others likes and dislikes mostly, we accept each others odd and irritating ways and even are fond of them. We are friends first last and always, then we are mates and lovers. These things make our living together possible and loving. People have stared at us because one second we are fighting calling each other horrible names and then, shortly afterwards all is well. There is no residual anger.
No grudges. I have seen this work for other couples as well. Not all. Other relationships work far differently because they are different people. Love cannot be the same for all. Nor can its intensity. Some is passionate others are very nonpassionate.
what is real is what is in you. Your real is not mine. We would have to share a brain for that to happen. You will know real love , when you can be who you are without being afraid of scaring off the other person. Love in its most basic sense is actually allowing the other person to know who you really are. If they don’t run screaming or they don’t give you a disgusted look, you know they have real caring feelings for you. And if you give such trust they in turn most likely will eventually return that trust. That is the only trust truly needed in a relationship. Trusting the other with who you really are. That is real Joe. that is what we all mostly desire and need, to be ourselves around those we care for.
Do you understand what i mean about being your real self?
Words have no inherent meaning. There is nothing in the universe that has any inherent meaning because everything in the universe is something like an accident. When the universe was created, there was no manual, rules or set of instructions, everything just happened and expanded and developed in a chain reaction that had no pre-designed path.
The idea that things have inherent meaning is a result of the human desire for making connections, and links to the past. It is both the motivation for and the cause of ritualism.
There is no purpose or meaning, there is cause and effect and there is understanding of the nature of things.
Cause and effect does not just apply to peoples idea of a clinical and scientific understanding, cause and effect applies just as much to the stirring of comforting and yet unfamiliar feelings that occur to you when a distant sound sparks a memory that you can’t quiet recall.
FYI everything is predetermined, free choice is an illusion. We are just too limited in intelligence to see the cause and effect of the creation of everything…
Thank you for sharing Kris, and what you have said about being your self is true. However i have some doubt about what a true self truly means. When we are ever changing beings, one with biases from birth to death, how can any of who we “are” truly be who we are, if we have become merely products of the factors of life itself. I doubt the freedom of existence, and beginning to accept human limitations, as how I see it we are all fate bound which stems from the first instance of creation. To be our true self means exactly what?
My friend if we did not change we would stagnate or die. Be who you know you are at the time. Of course letting the person you are with know there is a change coming is only polite, right? Most times we do not change as much as we think we do. Be mostly honest, care and give and that is all you can do .
I have come to the point of questioning the value of value and existence. As i said to another, if there is no objective truths then there is no point to thinking and thought.
Animals think and have thoughts, expectations are not needed , wether you have goals or not you have picked a path and you will find yourself working that path. Living requires thought and thinking, from simple to complex. In any relationship even if you don’t work on it you will, just by participating.