What is easier?

[BRbeliever]

What do you think is easier: to love yourself, or to love someone else? And why?

Also, do you think it is easier to love someone close to you, or to love someone distant? Why?

Do you think your awnsers differ from what you think 'most people' will awnser?

[topherfox]

I think it is a lot easier to love yourself, since you can always lie to yourself, give yourself whatever you want, change your personality, all of which can't necessarily happen with someone else.

Also, it would be easier to love someone distant, provided its not lust. It's easy to semi-love someone, depends on what love context you are talking about, that is far away since all you need to do is love them from the last time you saw them, and provided you don't speak that often to each other, that love won't necessarily change. Since the English language has only one word for love, it would be better which type you specified.

This is what I would assume most people would agree with.

[Didymos Thomas]

Easier to love yourself. Most of us are pretty good about thinking about ourselves, and how things relate to us. Considering how what we do affects others can be more difficult.

Easier to love someone close to you. You may fight more, but proximity definately helps. It would be great if it was equally easy to love someone close and someone distant.

[Tainted]

I think its easier to love someone else, because you can accept who they are and what they are about, and accept them for all their beauty and inner warts a lot easier than you can accept those things in yourself.

[boagie]

Hi everyone!

I believe what is needed is to define love and how it works before asserting anything about its relations.

[Tainted]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hi everyone!

I believe what is needed is to define love and how it works before asserting anything about its relations.

That's a good point, I guess its different for everyone? Or is it?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Tainted

That's a good point, I guess its different for everyone? Or is it?

Tainted,

It is a formiable task, it has been said, one reserved for fools. Never the less, this is one fool who enjoys the process, I would agree with Schopenhauer that love is perfect sympathy but I believe it is a little more. As we move through this world we move among objects, people are in some degree objects as well, particulary if there are no connections no relations established with said individuals, then they remain objects. It is a spiritual experience to be one with object, whether this occurs through meditation or through the love of another, it is making this spiritual connection. Marriage, if you believe in the ritual, believe in the myth, is this at onement with another, which in effect is at onement with the world. So, your lover, just may be the greatest spiritual opportunity of your life.

[Tainted]

I'm a very spiritual person and agree with you completely Boagie

I see life as a voyage of connections.... with people, any living thing actually, with the environment, with emotions and experiences. I think love can be more than an emotion to experience, it can be the wire that connects us with everything else. If we reach out in love we may be turned away, but it will leave a lasting impression on that which we have reached out to. It will also leave a lasting impression on our spirit.

Which is why I think its easier to love someone else.

Unless we can master the act of reaching inwards, of connecting with our own spirit, our own essence, of sending love inwards.

I think that's a lot harder, and takes a lot more dedication, than reaching out to another. Not impossible and something we can relearn (we as a whole) but it seems easier somehow to send love outwards.

[boagie]

Tainted,

It is a very difficult topic and one where there will be many conflicting views. It think in relation to romance and physical love, there is a standing relationship, and the opposite sex triggers or evokes a reaction in the individual. The need is already there, the response I do not think one could say---in most cases---that it is willed, sexuality in general is involentary. This as such, constitutes or falls under the catagory of lust, desire ect.., and is not necessarily related to love. I think we should try to define love in the absence of any sexual connotation, sex simply confuses the topic with inferrances which do not properly belong to it. Duties call ---later!

[Tainted]

lol, yes sex always seems to confuse matters

Define love?

I look forward to carrying on this discussion, duty calls me too though so will be back