?

Log in

a thought to ponder - The Most Fascinating, Yet Treacherous Journey Can Be Made... [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The Psycho-Explorers

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

a thought to ponder [Feb. 18th, 2005|01:51 pm]
The Psycho-Explorers

psycho_explorer

[ashrayne]
[i'm feeling... |contemplativecontemplative]
[play this in the jukebox: |first snow]

a thought to ponder:

there are more people who wish to be loved then there are who are willing to love.
LinkReply

Comments:
From: the_only_pirate
2005-02-19 01:49 am (UTC)
hey, welcome to the community!
~"administrater"~
(Reply) (Thread)
From: damige
2005-02-19 02:12 am (UTC)

Its very true.

You're right. But there is a difference between being loved opposed to being "in love". The difference for me is that being "in love" is that both people in the relationship want to love each other. Whilst some people want to be "in love", some just want to be loved. Also, just because someone wants to be "in love" doesn't mean that they will fall in love with anyone that happens to want to be "in love" with them.

Also, with any word, love seems to be a very controversial one, people have different opinions of the definition. Me, and the only pirate are currently "in love". But we have different definitions of love. Although from each of our own perspectives we love the other person, technically, from your statement, if it was made from either one of us, the other person isn't willing to love. Because each of our own definitions of love happen to be different. Perhaps you'd like to give me a very in-depth definition of love?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ashrayne
2005-02-20 02:19 am (UTC)

luvin'

lol thanks for the welcome

There is definitely a difference in being loved and being “in love.” it is a hard subject to explain. to start with, love can never be an emotion by itself, it goes hand in hand with pain. Even if one doesn’t experience any pain as a result of loving, or allowing themselves to love, (which is rare) there is always a vulnerability. There’s always a possibility that something could go awry and therefore cause pain, no matter how great or small the amount. Most people aren’t willing to love, or if they are, they want to be loved in return, which is the difference between being loved and being “in love.” When a person is “in love,” both people, like you said, want to love each other, and both are willing to love the other person, accepting the risk of pain and heartache. Of course, one person can be “in love” with another person, and the other person might not even know they exist. But aside from that, normally to be “in love” you get something in return. That’s what that statement means, maybe. People everywhere need love, no matter how great they are, being the human beings that we are, there is a need in everyone of us to be loved. Not to be “in love” per say, but to have the kind of love that you would get from a parent or a best friend. The kind of that we like to think is unconditional. If you have a parent or relative, or some person that’s been there for you, and loved you no matter what you did or said to them, that’s the kind of love everyone needs; it’s pretty much unconditional. Not totally unconditional, cause I don’t know that human beings are capable of that…maybe I donno. I don’t know how many times I’ve done or said something really stupid, and my parents still love me, even though they might be disappointed and hurt, but they still love me cause I’m their daughter. But that’s the love and pain thing again. The statement “there are more people who wish to be loved than there are who are willing to love” means that most people have the desire to be loved unconditionally, but most people aren’t willing to love like that because of the pain that might ensue, and the possibility of not being loved in return. I’m not sure if that helped…..that’s not really a definition of love at all. The simplest definition of love that I can think of is that love is action. But it’s really more than that. I donno, it’s a hard topic.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: the_only_pirate
2005-02-20 04:50 am (UTC)

Re: luvin'

do you think a person can be "in love" with more than one person at one time...without compromising anything with one of the people?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ashrayne
2005-02-21 03:37 am (UTC)

Re: luvin'

more than one person without compromising anything, at least, if they really truly love the person. If a person really truly is in love, (NOTE: there are no quotation marks around “in love”) with another person, then they wouldn’t want to be with anyone else.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ashrayne
2005-02-21 03:41 am (UTC)

ack

oops i didn't manage to get the whole thing in that one...so here it is again, sorry!



bleh……that’s another hard question. Personally, no I don’t believe a person can really be “in love” with more than one person without compromising anything, at least, if they really truly love the person. If a person really truly is in love, (NOTE: there are no quotation marks around “in love”) with another person, then they wouldn’t want to be with anyone else.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: the_only_pirate
2005-02-21 05:06 am (UTC)

Re: ack

i agree with that...but there seems to be no way to really defend that (in a friendly debate of course). i always thought that with love, committment and exclusiveness was a given.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ashrayne
2005-02-21 01:07 pm (UTC)

Re: ack

lol i agree completely, and you're right, there isn't really a way to defend that at all
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)