You don't need to be a Marxist to answer this. I've felt both together I'm pretty sure.
Results 1 to 20 of 44
Fear, love
I'd like to know how Marxists answer on the following question:
Can you feel fear and love at the same time?
The results will be posted on my blog.
My blog: Beyond Ayn Rand's Objectivism
You don't need to be a Marxist to answer this. I've felt both together I'm pretty sure.
I've asked around and got the same answer that whether you are a Marxist (or an Objectivist... pending) or neither, you can feel fear and love at the same time. Since, I think, we know what at the same time or at the same exact instance of time means, the only questionable part is what to feel means, especially as it refers to (experiential) emotions.
My blog: Beyond Ayn Rand's Objectivism
Easily - during a BDSM session, for example.
You could have said the same about the Stockholm syndrome. However, make a thought experiment when you are in a BDSM session or have that syndrome. Would you feel fear of punishment by your abuser? I would say that you would actually want that punishment because you accept it as being something pleasant and good. Would you be afraid of something pleasant and good? I don't think so. I think you would desire and love it rather than be afraid and want to escape from it. So, this is an instance of love (however seemingly distorted or skewed it is because it is culturally reprehensible), not fear.Easily - during a BDSM session, for example.
Now, has anyone had a contrary experience while being a part of a BDSM relationship?
My blog: Beyond Ayn Rand's Objectivism
That's exactly what I was thinking! Without going into detail; I love being dominated and to be made to feel fear during that stuff. So yah ummm yep, I'm pretty sure emotions aren't mutually exclusive of each other and a variety of emotions can come and mix, although this question has had me thinking about emotions a lot, in which i struggle to regulate mine often and feel them in extremes. I'll have to get back here laterEasily - during a BDSM session, for example.
i'm going to answer "no", not because i even know what i think but because nobody else did so i'm going to try to argue the other perspective
love and fear are each others' antithesis and result from opposites: love happens when you understand, whereas fear happens when you don't understand. it seems ridiculous that you could feel both except in very peculiar situations, of which BDSM may be but probably isn't one. if you're actually seriously afraid that something bad is going to happen to you in a BDSM type situation, that would probably just be a sign that you don't actually trust that person and that you need to gtfo of that situation asap.
Yes! This reminds me of a situation in the movie Spring. A guy couldn't understand one girl, and so he was afraid of her, but he wanted to understand her, so he could love her. The two emotions were shown as mutually exclusive in the film.
My blog: Beyond Ayn Rand's Objectivism
Sure. The most obvious example seems to be fear of loss. In that case, you fear because you love, right?
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
Once you fear losing love, you don't have love as an emotion anymore. Love becomes simply a thought, such as in your statement "you fear because you love" or in your signature: "The first wanted to be realistic nationalists; the second want to be realistic socialists. In the end they betray nationalism and socialism alike in the name of a realism henceforth without content and adored as a pure, and illusory, technique of efficacy" (a want to love/realism does not necessarily make it into love/realism but may make it into an illusory love/realism).
My blog: Beyond Ayn Rand's Objectivism
yeah so i'm definitely going to watch that and get back to you
I'm not sure I follow. So in the moment that the life of someone you love is threatened, if you fear for their safety then you no longer love them? Logically, the very opposite is true.
"I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will." - Antonio Gramsci
"If he did advocate revolutionary change, such advocacy could not, of course, receive constitutional protection, since it would be by definition anti-constitutional."
- J.A. MacGuigan in Roach v. Canada, 1994
At the time you fear for their safety, you don't love them, no. Remember that love is an emotion, not just a thought. Emotions happen at a particular time, not constantly. You are talking about love as valuing, not love as an experience.
My blog: Beyond Ayn Rand's Objectivism
I would say that in many situations, there would be no fear if there was not also love. I wouldn't care what some random person thinks of me, but I definitely worry when my girlfriend is mad at me or is feeling bad.
Dragging Marxists into the modern age, kicking and screaming, one pointless argument at a time.
I'd say love is more long term than just at particular times. You can love somebody and still be annoyed by them from time to time, for example, without forgetting how much they mean to you .
"We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time's carcass." Karl Marx
Since my philosophy is physicalism, I believe that everything is physical. Consider, then, my definition of emotion:
Emotion is a change in heart-rate that is embodied in a pulsation of the blood tissue, which is a part of the circulatory system regulated by the heart.
My blog: Beyond Ayn Rand's Objectivism
...which is an organ in the human body responsible for pumping blood through the blood vessels in the circulatory system, which is also called the cardiovascular system, and is an organ system that permits blood to circulate and transport nutrients (such as amino acids and electrolytes), oxygen, carbon dioxide, hormones, and blood cells to and from cells in the body to nourish it and help to fight diseases, stabilize body temperature and pH, and to maintain homeostasis.
Keep padding, man! You gotta pad harder!
On the other hand, I shall remain, and maybe you can even learn something new from me. Everything you mention is a basis of my definition. Do you think otherwise? The only difference between us is that I start, in explaining emotion, with a pulse, which is an electromagnetic bio-wave (a type of a standing wave in our tissues). Its immediate embodiment occurs in a tissue, a blood one in this example. This is only a part of the circulatory system, of which heart is the center, or main organ.
Yes, among many other useful functions, heart is "responsible for pumping blood through the blood vessels in the circulatory system, which is also called the cardiovascular system." But instead of integrating, you go in reverse and disintegrate this organ system into blood tissue "to circulate and transport nutrients," or organic compounds as well as inorganic molecules and atoms. Then you illegitimately jump to cells (how you get those from inorganic molecules while bypassing organelles is a mystery to me). Then you jump to bodily diseases and conditions/states, which are only relevant to a (human bodily) consciousness in relation to its immediate environment.
How do you jump levels so? You just take the matter of our bodies for granted without showing how it all comes together to form an alive organism! What connects all this through heart is lost in your explanation. You also probably have a metaphysical conception of our body (i.e., ego) like Nietzsche had (no wonder Marx was influenced by him!). Do you know what a metaphysical conception is? It's a conception that, if improperly formed, becomes an anticonception, a conception in conflict with reality because you are forcing to make the conception isolated from reality (as in isolated systems scientists love to construct while still calling them natural). You try to do this in vain, Lily, although you may like making yourself and others into synthetic, and philosophically disingenuous, humans. That's what transhumanists are also trying to do. Have you ever heard of them? So, Lily Briscoe, who is padding harder, you or me?
A suggestion: instead of repeating reductionists such as Ramus, Descartes, or Leibniz, you can conceive of a soul as being different from mind, and by focusing on soul, the problem of reductionism simply goes away, and you finally become a whole person who is able to feel real emotions.
My blog: Beyond Ayn Rand's Objectivism
You're such an idiot. My god.
Haven't we covered the thing about emotions coming from the brain, not the heart? Jesus fuck go hang with ckaihatsu (he believes in quantum pendants, you'd get along well).
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
