If only you'd allow the two to be combined. I feel that in order to truly love someone you must understand them, and vice versa. To have to choose is difficult, but I think of it like this... Which would be something I could live without? Well, I can live without being understood, especially since I'm usually misunderstood as it is, but love? No, all you need is love to quote the Beatles. That's just what I think. Others may not agree, but that's ok.
I think it may be possible to seperate the two, to be understood and not loved would entail someone appreciating your view, but disagreeing with it completely.
Being loved and not understand would entail caring for someone that you can't do anything for, but you wish you could do more for. I'm sure parents feel this all the time, especially with teenagers.
My opinion? My logical side begs to be understood, while my emotional side yearns for love. Which one wins out? Normally I would lean towards the logical side, but I don't think I'll ever be truly understood - at times I don't even understand myself. So I'd choose to be loved, to have someone genuinely interested in my life and caring enough to show it.
I would like to say love is not all you need. Look at the Beatles, half are dead and the drummer is on shinning time station. Apparently you need more then love. I know little about both, never know love of another and never fell understood. I think I would love someone who understood me, yet I may not like someone that loves me. So I vote for understanding. It is better to see throgh someone’s eyes then look into them.
Well Judge, I wasn't referencing the band in particular, just the song, the song is good. So, : -p. Although I must say that having the love of another is one of the most wonderful things, I think I've become addicted to it, I crave it. Looking into someone's eyes and looking through someone's eyes......I don't know, you learn to understand things by looking into a person's eyes as well as looking through them, but that's just my opinion.
The interplay of free association is amazing Kels. Look at how people take two ideas and apply them to what they know and are familiar with. As an idealist I would vote for love... but at the same time, the tiny realist in me says that understanding can bridge culture and race gaps. This is one of those philosophical things like which came first, chicken or the egg?
How can one even begin to separate the two? Ask around to anyone and see what argument they make for keeping this two ideas intertwined. Part of the burden of knowledge is trying to tease out the truths to questions like these. In the end, the idealist always beats up the tiny realist in me. For now, I will abstain from making any decision. Too complex to decide in just a couple of minutes.
8 comments:
If only you'd allow the two to be combined. I feel that in order to truly love someone you must understand them, and vice versa. To have to choose is difficult, but I think of it like this... Which would be something I could live without? Well, I can live without being understood, especially since I'm usually misunderstood as it is, but love? No, all you need is love to quote the Beatles. That's just what I think. Others may not agree, but that's ok.
I think it may be possible to seperate the two, to be understood and not loved would entail someone appreciating your view, but disagreeing with it completely.
Being loved and not understand would entail caring for someone that you can't do anything for, but you wish you could do more for. I'm sure parents feel this all the time, especially with teenagers.
My opinion? My logical side begs to be understood, while my emotional side yearns for love. Which one wins out? Normally I would lean towards the logical side, but I don't think I'll ever be truly understood - at times I don't even understand myself. So I'd choose to be loved, to have someone genuinely interested in my life and caring enough to show it.
And Stuff,
~Vasu~
I would like to say love is not all you need. Look at the Beatles, half are dead and the drummer is on shinning time station. Apparently you need more then love. I know little about both, never know love of another and never fell understood. I think I would love someone who understood me, yet I may not like someone that loves me. So I vote for understanding. It is better to see throgh someone’s eyes then look into them.
Well Judge, I wasn't referencing the band in particular, just the song, the song is good. So, : -p. Although I must say that having the love of another is one of the most wonderful things, I think I've become addicted to it, I crave it. Looking into someone's eyes and looking through someone's eyes......I don't know, you learn to understand things by looking into a person's eyes as well as looking through them, but that's just my opinion.
A part of being loved is being understood by that person. so loved.
The interplay of free association is amazing Kels. Look at how people take two ideas and apply them to what they know and are familiar with. As an idealist I would vote for love... but at the same time, the tiny realist in me says that understanding can bridge culture and race gaps. This is one of those philosophical things like which came first, chicken or the egg?
How can one even begin to separate the two? Ask around to anyone and see what argument they make for keeping this two ideas intertwined. Part of the burden of knowledge is trying to tease out the truths to questions like these. In the end, the idealist always beats up the tiny realist in me. For now, I will abstain from making any decision. Too complex to decide in just a couple of minutes.
so far it's
Love 5
Understood 1
Once agian odd ball out.
Post a Comment