Something other than love
Saturday, January 19th, 2008
Why do you speak of “true love” when you can just speak of “love?”
When speaking of “love,” It is understood that love is true, for if it is not true, then it is not really “love.”
And if you must insist on speaking of “true love,” and at other times just “love,” then I shall have no other choice but to reason that when you speak of just “love,” it must be something other than love.
That’s a good point. It’s a bit like the logic of information (sounds odd but it’s true). You’re informed if the info conveyed is true, otherwise there’s no information at all. Misinformation doesn’t inform, as ‘untrue’ love is not love at all. You see, that’s not a matter of being “something other than love” as you said, I think. It’s just redundant, if it’s love it is true and finito.
Nice blog Travis!
Best regards!!!
Interesting point Travis. When speaking of love, it should always be true love, otherwise it’s not really love, but perhaps something else such as lust.
Good point. I like your short thoughts.
It’s only language. ‘True’ is used to distinguish this love from other degrees of love – lust, infatuation, adoration,etc.
I have a problem with Bernardo’s seeming to know what love really is beyond what he feels himself. I love all of my 8 cats, some a little more than others. How many will sneer at my use of the word love here, without knowing what I feel?