YES IN EVERY LANGUAGE. Period.
Good thing why wasn't asked--or else... I'd write a litany here.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Do you believe in God?
If you could have invented one thing, what would it have been?
a sleek and light headgear or contact lenses that would enable me to see through people's hearts
Are you more of a talker or more of a listener?
Tough question... I'm both.. But that also depends on who I'm with. Say, I'm with a talker. I definitely become a listener and v.v.
If you could have an endless supply of any food, what would you get?
French fries, salmon sashimi, blueberry cheesecake, steak
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
How should love be?
So I failed to talk about love in my earlier post. I have talked about the boy I like instead. The reason for that was because I was thinking about him. And given the nature of this blog--everything that's currently on my brain--, I have decided to create a post about him. And to make up for it, here in this post, I shall fulfill my earlier promise. I shall talk about LOVE.
First and foremost, I 'agree' with the old cliche 'love can not be defined'. It's true... I mean, even Webster's cannot define it entirely and neither can Ninja Words (my favorite online dictionary ever) or any other dictionary or general reference books. On the other hand, there are lots of books about love--none of which I have read-- and of course, the immortalized Nicholas Sparks novels (I like his books, just to straighten things out). But in actuality, love can be defined--on a case-to-case basis, that is.
I believe you would agree with me if I'll say that my definition of love is different from yours. Right? However, how I think love should be may be similar to yours. I guess this is because most of us share almost similar ideas about that four-lettered topic. I shall now proceed with the meat of this post... :)
First, I believe that LOVE should make the person loving and being loved happy. I mean, what's the point of giving love and receiving love if it's only going to cause you pain, right? I believe that both parties should be happy (this is also because as I have said in my first post, I do not believe that there is such a thing as one-sided love). Because if only one party is satisfied, that would be selfishness instead of love. This now leads me to my second belief: LOVE should never be selfish. If you're loving someone because you just want to satisfy yourself, do you think that your 'love' can even be called LOVE? Or if you're being loved by someone and you like what is being given to you but you're not reciprocating it, can you imagine how hurtful that must be to the person giving it to you? Aren't both instances just plain selfishness?
Moving on to my third belief: LOVE should never use and be used. For the independent clause, I would like to say that I think, LOVE is not meant to be a power over someone. Love is not meant to control and use someone. If you're using love as an excuse to have a power over the one you love, don't you think that you're being a coward? Because really, when you first accepted the fact that you are in love, and you told the person that you love them, you have already given them the power to both create and destroy you. As for the dependent clause, it's basically the same thing. It's just that this one's on the receiving end.
I'd like to share with you how I dream love to be. I dream that the love I will have would be built on TRUST. Because the strength of any relationship lies on how much parties love each other, right? But of course, for any party to be able to love another, they should really trust and not have doubts on the other. And just like in most relationships--any form of relationship--, doubts are the sources of conflict and damages. The main reason for that, as I see it, is that the person who you are doubting would get hurt really badly after learning that you do not fully trust them. It really hurts not to be trusted, right? And that person would also lose their trust on you because you don't trust them. I'd like to give an example here. Let's say that you're in a relationship and you're calling your beloved. Your beloved doesn't pick up so you've decided to call again. Still, beloved's not picking up. You start to wonder why beloved won't answer your call. So you decide to send beloved an SMS telling him/her to give you a ring as soon as they've read the message. A few hours later, beloved has neither replied to you or called you. You now start to think to yourself whether beloved is avoiding you or not. Either that or he/she's out and unintentionally left the phone at home. What you do now is that you call or text his/her friends, asking them if he/she's with them. The friends then tell you that they're not together. You now text his/her family members to check if he/she's out with them. The parents/sibling tell/s you "no". The next day, in the office/school/wherever, you see your beloved. You immediately walk up to him/her and ask him/her why he/she wasn't returning your calls and texts. Beloved apologizes and tells you that he/she was really preoccupied. You tell beloved that you've contacted his/her family and friends but both have told you that they've had no sign of your beloved. Beloved now starts to think that you do not trust him/her and asks you if you really trust him/her. You tell beloved that you do. Beloved reasons out that if you do, you wouldn't have gone that extra mile. You tell beloved that you were just worried. And then boom! Start of a word war. If only there was trust, you and your beloved wouldn't have reached this point. It doesn't mean that they're avoiding you or doing something behind your back if they have not returned your calls or texts. They're prolly just really busy or they've left their phone or they don't have enough prepaid credits at that moment. What if you just caught them at a bad time, right? See, I'm pretty sure that if the relationship's really built on trust, it would live long and you and your beloved would have a wonderful time together.
There are lots of other things about how I think love should be but if I'd share everything here, this post might be really long and you'd get eyestrain. So I shall end here, knowing that I have shared the most important points (IMHO).
First and foremost, I 'agree' with the old cliche 'love can not be defined'. It's true... I mean, even Webster's cannot define it entirely and neither can Ninja Words (my favorite online dictionary ever) or any other dictionary or general reference books. On the other hand, there are lots of books about love--none of which I have read-- and of course, the immortalized Nicholas Sparks novels (I like his books, just to straighten things out). But in actuality, love can be defined--on a case-to-case basis, that is.
I believe you would agree with me if I'll say that my definition of love is different from yours. Right? However, how I think love should be may be similar to yours. I guess this is because most of us share almost similar ideas about that four-lettered topic. I shall now proceed with the meat of this post... :)
First, I believe that LOVE should make the person loving and being loved happy. I mean, what's the point of giving love and receiving love if it's only going to cause you pain, right? I believe that both parties should be happy (this is also because as I have said in my first post, I do not believe that there is such a thing as one-sided love). Because if only one party is satisfied, that would be selfishness instead of love. This now leads me to my second belief: LOVE should never be selfish. If you're loving someone because you just want to satisfy yourself, do you think that your 'love' can even be called LOVE? Or if you're being loved by someone and you like what is being given to you but you're not reciprocating it, can you imagine how hurtful that must be to the person giving it to you? Aren't both instances just plain selfishness?
Moving on to my third belief: LOVE should never use and be used. For the independent clause, I would like to say that I think, LOVE is not meant to be a power over someone. Love is not meant to control and use someone. If you're using love as an excuse to have a power over the one you love, don't you think that you're being a coward? Because really, when you first accepted the fact that you are in love, and you told the person that you love them, you have already given them the power to both create and destroy you. As for the dependent clause, it's basically the same thing. It's just that this one's on the receiving end.
I'd like to share with you how I dream love to be. I dream that the love I will have would be built on TRUST. Because the strength of any relationship lies on how much parties love each other, right? But of course, for any party to be able to love another, they should really trust and not have doubts on the other. And just like in most relationships--any form of relationship--, doubts are the sources of conflict and damages. The main reason for that, as I see it, is that the person who you are doubting would get hurt really badly after learning that you do not fully trust them. It really hurts not to be trusted, right? And that person would also lose their trust on you because you don't trust them. I'd like to give an example here. Let's say that you're in a relationship and you're calling your beloved. Your beloved doesn't pick up so you've decided to call again. Still, beloved's not picking up. You start to wonder why beloved won't answer your call. So you decide to send beloved an SMS telling him/her to give you a ring as soon as they've read the message. A few hours later, beloved has neither replied to you or called you. You now start to think to yourself whether beloved is avoiding you or not. Either that or he/she's out and unintentionally left the phone at home. What you do now is that you call or text his/her friends, asking them if he/she's with them. The friends then tell you that they're not together. You now text his/her family members to check if he/she's out with them. The parents/sibling tell/s you "no". The next day, in the office/school/wherever, you see your beloved. You immediately walk up to him/her and ask him/her why he/she wasn't returning your calls and texts. Beloved apologizes and tells you that he/she was really preoccupied. You tell beloved that you've contacted his/her family and friends but both have told you that they've had no sign of your beloved. Beloved now starts to think that you do not trust him/her and asks you if you really trust him/her. You tell beloved that you do. Beloved reasons out that if you do, you wouldn't have gone that extra mile. You tell beloved that you were just worried. And then boom! Start of a word war. If only there was trust, you and your beloved wouldn't have reached this point. It doesn't mean that they're avoiding you or doing something behind your back if they have not returned your calls or texts. They're prolly just really busy or they've left their phone or they don't have enough prepaid credits at that moment. What if you just caught them at a bad time, right? See, I'm pretty sure that if the relationship's really built on trust, it would live long and you and your beloved would have a wonderful time together.
There are lots of other things about how I think love should be but if I'd share everything here, this post might be really long and you'd get eyestrain. So I shall end here, knowing that I have shared the most important points (IMHO).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)