First love, actually, is a little foolishness and a lot of curiosity; only that the foolishness thing makes you repent and the concept of curiosity fails you in your ultimate objective. I am aware of the usage of words, and there lies the stark element of foolishness. Of course, it should not startle you if I propose that the very conception of the same forwards you into the realm of the innocuous and inane irrationality.
No one has ever fallen, and none can ever fall in love, let alone the cliché: “I fell in love with you at the first sight.” (Please put up with me, when I continuously mention love). And well, the Savage Garden song “I knew I loved you” is a miserable disaster for the followers of this ideology named Love. It’s the territory of foolishness and curiosity again. Foolishness because you grossly misinterpret the feelings and curiosity because you impulsively feel like knowing the degree of foolishness in the third person concerned.
The philosophy of alienation scores poorly in all forms of its applications, and the story is no different here. The love for someone is just a measure of the amount of recognition you receive when you make yourself foreign to the society as a whole, in favors of the enamored individual. Love as a notion, is introduced to let you know the strength of your individuality, and the sycophants who proclaim themselves as your “lovers” are mere stooges in this altruistic social outlook. Alluding from my previous version, the whole discussion concludes in the cruelty of the providence, in using “love” just as an expression for continuation of its potency. How true it seems to me now!
My cousin someday surfaced the probable confession a man in love would make. The metaphysical aspect of love brings out momentous facts about the same. People seek shelter in this so-named interdependence. The paradox lies in the fact that this “understanding” first leads to the individual’s alienation and gradually this alienation becomes the one’s resignation to the same. This concludes in the one seeking refuge in the bounds of “love”. The interesting part in this context would be the inherent reply to the question, “Do you love me?” The reply, most often, is an assertion stating some bodily characteristics, and a great deal of emotional stuff. Love is identified with feelings like trust, emotional bondage understanding et al. The final statement ends the reply, in a sigh, “Do I need a reason to love you?”
Yes, you bloody need a reason to love someone. Just browse the lexicon for the meaning of this word, and you get my intentions. Beg your pardon, but this very thought drives me into the portals of nonsensical re-arguing. Shakespeare rightly says that it’s the complexity of the situation, more than the situation itself, which drives you out of your reason and puts the thought of suicide in your mind. (I am not thinking of a suicide anyway…..).
“Why do you keep mentioning her? You don’t love me.anymore.”; the obvious answer to a statement which it is meant for. Yes. There the failure of love portrays itself again. You are free to love as many individuals as you choose. You are free to decide on who should you shower your love and who should remain devoid of it. Love is just a gross exaggeration of one’s liking for the other. Ah! There I hit upon the right word. Liking. You never love, you always like, and this extent of your liking, your inclination, defines the new term: LOVE, and thus, weird definitions. They say love is free of bounds and is unconditional. Well, a husband is bounded by the society to “love” his wife, and vice versa, out of some socially accepted etiquette. There emerges the difference between love and liking. Love is a bondage where as liking is not. Liking doesn’t require situational adaptations, Love does. Liking does not require your constant attention, Love does. Liking doesn’t demand your continuous thought, Love does. Liking cares no expectations, Love does. Liking needs no explanations, Love does. You dislike someone if you don’t like the one, but you desert and hurt someone emotionally, if you no more love the one. This is what the underlying failure of Love is apparently. The faculty of human reasoning is bounded and its reins are controlled by Love. How rightly they claim Love to be blind!
“Why do you keep mentioning her? You don’t love me.anymore.”; the obvious answer to a statement which it is meant for. Yes. There the failure of love portrays itself again. You are free to love as many individuals as you choose. You are free to decide on who should you shower your love and who should remain devoid of it. Love is just a gross exaggeration of one’s liking for the other. Ah! There I hit upon the right word. Liking. You never love, you always like, and this extent of your liking, your inclination, defines the new term: LOVE, and thus, weird definitions. They say love is free of bounds and is unconditional. Well, a husband is bounded by the society to “love” his wife, and vice versa, out of some socially accepted etiquette. There emerges the difference between love and liking. Love is a bondage where as liking is not. Liking doesn’t require situational adaptations, Love does. Liking does not require your constant attention, Love does. Liking doesn’t demand your continuous thought, Love does. Liking cares no expectations, Love does. Liking needs no explanations, Love does. You dislike someone if you don’t like the one, but you desert and hurt someone emotionally, if you no more love the one. This is what the underlying failure of Love is apparently. The faculty of human reasoning is bounded and its reins are controlled by Love. How rightly they claim Love to be blind!
A brief discussion, apart from ‘this type of love’. Let me give a brief view of family love. You may say that this type of love is pure and free of any of the aforementioned vices. But let me introduce to you the concept of privatization and property. Economically, Marx says that the history of men is nothing but their economic evolution, and rightly so. A family loves the offspring because its existence and identity depends on the offspring. The latter loves because the latter inherits.
Simple enough!
“Love” is named to give a reason and furtherance to identity. This foolish and quaint misinterpretation of ideas is what leads to the sustenance of the philanthropic existence of identity, and the existence of anthropos.
No comments:
Post a Comment