Yes I am familiar with Book III of WWR, what about it? The point I was driving has nothing to do with it. Furthermore it has absolutely 0 to do with S's discussion of genius. — Agustino

Actually, it does. Why don't you go read 5.1 of here and see the correlation to the transcendence of the spatiotemporal framework that is relevant to the argument on those that may be free on the principal of sufficient reason. We are talking about choices, no? Representations and the faculty of reason? The experience of objects in space and time? To be a genius is the only time the intellect can surpass the will, when for most it merely serves it.

I can't see how:

I'm quite familiar with Schopenhauer. — Agustino

With:

I don't see what anything I've written about has to do with genius. — Agustino

Are you unfamiliar with his aesthetics? You must be considering you didn't understand my spatiotemporal reference. And i'll ignore your little cheap diversion for now.

First, YOUR WILL isn't thing-in-itself. Second, Will (impersonal) can be thing-in-itself with reference to the phenomenon, but not absolutely. That's why S. leaves the thing-in-itself as unknown in Vol II. — Agustino

Yes it is. That is the point when it comes to 'choices' which is a mode of intellect and merely an experience of this undivided will in itself (book III, section 31) and hence why we can't know it, which works in the same way with movement. The experience of the will in itself - our representations - is a lower phenomenon that is irrelevant, spatiotemporal (hence the principal of sufficient reason). Now, I assume by not absolutely you are implying that not everyone is a genius, that some may perhaps be enabled with - or at least not subject to - this principle viz., Kant, but this ability to transcend is nevertheless related to Ideas and it doesn't change the fact that we are subject to the will that is a thing in itself.

And, please, I have no time to waste on a series of superfluous straw-mans — TimeLine

Neither do I :-} — Agustino

Wait, will stops one from being blind? I think Schopenhauer just turned in his grave. — TimeLine

That is what you call a straw-man. If you re-read what I wrote, you would know that:

Intellect is what gives eyes to the will and makes it see - stops it from being blind, and hence makes it able to choose based on the material the intellect furnishes. — Agustino

I think you may have confused what Schopenhauer meant here, that the will is independent, a thing in-itself. Our perception of the external world is merely a representation of this will, but what this representation may be perceived as does not necessarily represent reality as it is, as our instinctual drives can propel us to act independent of reason for instance. — TimeLine

I said will is still superior to 'choice'. That is not a straw-man. Now, run along.

Intellect is what gives eyes to the will and makes it see - stops it from being blind, and hence makes it able to choose based on the material the intellect furnishes. — Agustino

Wait, will stops one from being blind? I think Schopenhauer just turned in his grave.

Perception, and then thought based on perception, furnishes the material which make up the different options available to choose from. — Thorongil

To reiterate, how is your argument relatable to Schopenhauer with whom you have incorrectly associated it with? And, please, I have no time to waste on a series of superfluous straw-mans; intentionally substituting the argument by pulling focus on something unreasonable and irrelevant undermines your own intelligence.

Pfft, good luck.

I'm still trying to understand my own past, let alone a collective future. Not that it is a fruitless exercise. — 0 thru 9

Well, this is it, isn't it? Is there an arrow of time without memories of the past, a past that appears fixed and a future that also appears fixed considering that in the physical world, everything that is finite or dies requires an arrow of time. It all becomes futile, however the paradox here and in relation to Ishmael is that once we begin living in the present alone, your identity becomes absorbed into Nature and where the future interlinks with the past; the "future" like children are as much a part of you as is the well-being of the environment and the natural system as a whole. The only thing left is the joy of living a moral life.

The reasoning by your attempt to understand your past - which is absolutely imperative - is to attain the insight that is necessary to let it go and begin reasoning with a present-autonomy.

What do I look like? Hopefully I have a club and live under a bridge. — Heister Eggcart

That is an odd thing to hope for.

I find that when people use the phrase "free will," they really mean "free choice." — Thorongil

So, exactly how does one make a choice? Does it just pop out of nowhere, like a daisy?

I cannot will to stand up and sit down simultaneously. As Schopenhauer says, "man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills." — Thorongil

:-} I think you may have confused what Schopenhauer meant here, that the will is independent, a thing in-itself. Our perception of the external world is merely a representation of this will, but what this representation may be perceived as does not necessarily represent reality as it is, as our instinctual drives can propel us to act independent of reason for instance.

Not sure the correlation between sitting and standing to this (again, :-} ); our characters are shaped by this will and yes, there are limitations to free-will, but it is not entirely absent and suddenly replaced with 'choice' which basically contradicts what Schopenhauer was attempting to convey. The freedom we assume - the 'choice' - is actually illusory.

This place would be so dull without you :P

Hence, the no personality...

And you do >:O — Agustino

You remind me of...

It matters to me because I am a philosopher. I like to understand things. Further I do not accept things at face value, I prefer to look beneath the façade. — A Seagull

It is a forum, not an academic journal with qualified experts judging written content, just everyday people who are interested in chatting to one another about things that may be philosophically related. Threads that contain any merit rarely attract well-deserved responses and so the only enjoyment we have left is to confuse the regulars with a bit of controversy as they try to figure you out - is she religious? Is she racist? - hence the fun bit. It is impossible to see beneath the façade of anyone because the way that we write can easily be misinterpreted; in reality, I lead a quiet and gentle life, work with children and love my dog but I could appear to many outsiders as a raging amazonian genius who screams and eats whole cooked chickens while slushing down a pot of ale.

Like those people who audition for a singing competition but they sound like a dying horse need to be told that they won't get far in life as a singer, sometimes there are people who have a rather awkward intellect that need to be told that perhaps they should try dabbling in something less intellectually vigorous, like new age spirituality. It may just be that you unfortunately got caught in between, brush your shoulders off and move on.

That was awesome. Confession alert: I have a jar of homemade bbq sauce I labelled as yamok sauce 8-)

A chicken is slaughtered by the High Moderatum of the Forum who drags out the bird's innards onto the altar and searches for the gizzard. If the gizzard is found to be insufficiently bright and firm, the Post or Thread is struck from the record and the offal is then handed warm, wet, and stinking to the corroding and offensive author. — Bitter Crank

Geez Louise. :-O

Ok I have found the thread. So presumably it was just a few posts removed. But for what reason? — A Seagull

Why does it matter? It can be a bit of a shock to your ego unless you - like myself - post certain things knowing that it could be deleted and then smile when it happens. Roll your eyes and move on, the forum is for intellectual fun that alleviates night-time boredom for those of us who are single and hate social networking.

Well to change the situation in the world takes time, to say what needs to be said, or whatever, but my experience is that the change of mind is like flash of insight, or a burden dropped; it is instantaneous. "Actually, fuck it, I am the sort of person that walks out when the show is over." Years of misery can end with a simple insight. — unenlightened

Spot on, but the distress previous to that epiphany, the years of anxiety or depression is the emotional language telling yourself what you already knew. That instantaneous 'actually, fuck it' experience is the very moment you become empowered to autonomously make a decision that you have already long wanted despite it all, the temptations in particular that always make you doubt yourself, makes you think it will be ok and that you should be happy, that in fact you must be wrong. You are unable to articulate why you keep things going because of something behaviourally deeper or because you silenced your autonomy through conformism in order to make your environment survive and your environment knows exactly what to do to keep you thinking that way.

It is the reason why when we transcend to that level of autonomous reasoning, we are always gobsmacked at how easy it actually is and really wonder why it took us years to do something so simple.

Bin there, done that, got the scars. "I am not the sort of person that walks out when the relationship gets difficult." - is an attractive identity, that might look from the outside more like a doormat. — unenlightened

(Y) A perfect analogy for the powerlessness one feels when conforming to make things work, sacrificing your own identity for such an unwarranted and futile outcome. It is like pretending to yourself that life is wholly determined and that there is nothing you can do about it, waiting for things to end or begin independent of you. It is thus a lack of taking control of your own life and decisions.

I also totally agree with sleep, this is vital and to get the right sleep you need to eat right and exercise (thus take care of yourself).

Hey, don't die, okay? (Y) — Heister Eggcart

Ill be right, its my job and I was there last year and will be well protected.

There is something important here, but to put it this way does not make it easy to get at. Perhaps one could put it more open-endedly, that there may be a function, that depression 'works' in some way as a response to the world. Another question that I like better is, "what are you depressing?" — unenlightened

It is almost likened to a dependence on the self-defence mechanism itself that we use as a way to reduce the anxiety that is present when we genuinely confront the reality of why we feel a certain way and sometimes that reality is not pleasant that one would be happier (even if depressed) by remaining in the delusion, much more than they would confronting the reality of their circumstances. A woman in an abusive relationship, as an example, may have come from a history of abuse that the familiarity to that experience is more comforting in her reality than the idea of being on her own and why she may continuously return to an abusive partner.

Again, someone may not love their partner but the suggestion to leave them would cause a number of other 'losses' that it far outweighs it, thus one forms a certain tolerance that they blindly conform and silence their own voice to maintain a relationship that they are really unhappy in. To not lose everything else outweighs in happiness the feelings of depression or anxiety that the unhappiness of being with someone you don't love induces. We trick ourselves and very well indeed.

So, comparatively, it is to a degree that they enjoy and perhaps unconsciously work to maintain and continue the justification of depression or anxiety as it protects them from ever facing the real monster that may just be too overwhelming for them. To articulate the right language to speak and fight this monster takes time but for some, they are on auto-pilot and the defence mechanism has completely taken over.

There's a certain strength of the will that they (we) lack. there's a certain build-up of emotional and spiritual detritus that leads to an inability to cope with anything, or deal with anything real. This is what leads to the "alternate reality" of the depressed, the addicted, the suicidal. It is exactly that, and don't mistake it: this world is an alternate reality; a nightmare world. — Noble Dust

This is the reason for pointing out the necessity for articulating our capacity to voice autonomous thoughts and it is essentially a practice. The nightmare is likened to a bad dream where we cannot talk or scream or even move our body, trapped in a reality we know but cannot express in anyway. This is both epistemological and cognitive; if you think about PTSD, for instance, where our brains' limbic system automatically as a defence mechanism fails to process an anxious or difficult trauma-related experience and thus the experience does not become 'past-tense' but instead falls into the subconscious. The emotional reaction to that trauma continues as one identifies threats and risks similar to the same distress and shock of something that happened previously but the brain has yet to consolidate. This is also inclusive of the constant elevation of glucocorticoid that disjoints the lymbic system' capacity. To consolidate that experience and enable it to become past-tense is only possible by communicating about it, giving the very trauma a voice that one may not have had as a child and the very reason for the brain' inability to turn it into a former memory. When they do this, the emotional distress, increased feelings of threat and intrusive thoughts that cause irrational behaviour almost always dissipates and it is why the 'powerlessness' transforms to feeling empowered, and that is sensually our capacity to autonomously speak and accept the genuine reality of our circumstances.

It is not simply just chemical imbalances of the brain but the epistemic conflict between our external experiences with our private language, the intentionality whereby the intentional mental state is not accurately projected and the emotional display almost works as a signal to identify an error that we are unable to articulate; reality is what we are told and concede to something we really don't understand. The problem is that people in such states naturally seek to avoid the feelings associated and so they delay the process of recovery but making themselves even more unwell (not taking care of themselves) and thus the issue conflates or lay dormant. They can make a change, it just takes a series of steps that broadens the sensual experiences into a state of autonomy and build the courage to speak your own voice. Feeling empowered through autonomous thinking is possible only when one takes responsibility and control for their own lives rather than maintaining the same dependence we 'believe' is a given as we did when children.

Another was something my father used to often quote from Thoreau, that 'most people live lives of quiet desperation' (which I'm sure he often felt.) — Wayfarer

It is actually telling that you mentioned Thoreau. Well over a decade ago now when I was young, I picked up Thoreau in an effort to embrace the solitude that I was experiencing. I abandoned the material in a bid to strengthen the subjective hollowness that I had felt and I thought that after years of practice I had mastered this 'separation' and conquered the fear of aloneness. Indeed, I was quite comfortable being in completely quite environments where I was alone. That was until several years ago when I met a young man who - rather paradoxically - knew of Thoreau (which utterly surprised me at the time considering his persona as a 'bogan') and mentioned the very same quote, but his universe was split between this unknown desire for more and the identity he formed as part of his reality.

As such, his pathology also became divided and it was almost impossible to get him to understand that the reality he believed in so wholeheartedly that causally made him doubt himself was actually the illusion and thus as his confidence was so small because of this false innate perception of the world around him where social networking and the image he portrayed were all profoundly important to him, there was a part of him consistently screaming out as though the real 'him' was trying to articulate the anxiety he felt for having no voice. But this 'screaming out' was all wrong because of the power of the false representations he had of reality, whereby he was verbally abusive and consistently aggressive, he played games and lied, stepped on people who were weaker than him as he physically 'showed' a prowess by taking drugs for muscle growth, even though he would completely doubt himself enough to follow the opinions and suggestion made by others, just like a little child.

Most of the time when I meet such people, I immediately turn the other way because of the dangers -particularly the aggression - but his mention of Thoreau and a few other things made me, for some strange reason, believe that he had a chance of strengthening within and embracing his independence and autonomy. I mistakenly wanted to be his friend and show him some sisterly love. I have no idea why, but his consistent failures, just watching him play games with me (and himself) thinking I was too stupid to figure him out, it genuinely made me feel sad and hopeless not just for him but for humanity too. There was nothing I could do to enable him to feel empathy and that was when I learnt it is the key to autonomy.

This sadness he induced made me feel more lonely than I had ever felt before and I was forced into an existential crises due to him and a number of other external circumstances that made me realise I had never embraced my own autonomy or separateness either. The paradox is that while we attempt to find this autonomy, it is not by being alone and embracing the 'I' but rather appreciating that there is no 'I' but rather a 'we' and the autonomy is only how we perceive and understand the world around us, that therefore reason strengthens autonomy and to transcend the illusions of society. While I fought very hard to not allow the crises to overcome me, I soon realised that the disillusionment was merely a practical weakness and now I am solid because my understanding of the world is about my part to play in this world, which has pulled a focus on dedicating myself to justice, love and the betterment of society and myself and mind. That is only possible by feeling empathy or moral consciousness, being a friend to everyone in a world where no one is my friend.

Depends on the documentary, >:O — Heister Eggcart

I just signed a contract, i'll officially be in a documentary about ISIS, refugees and the impact of war on children from the Mid East. They're sending me to Iraq early next year and back to Bethlehem where I currently work closely with refugee children. :-! I was going to Iran but they have refused a visa because I worked in Israel last year (how else am I supposed to get to the West Bank?)

Totally nervous, couldn't sleep last night because of a meeting that I am going to today, now actually. I will be in a documentary, how cool is that?

My point, in part, is pointing out that depression has become a dependency disorder. — Question

Perhaps this dependency rests of your desire to maintain it? I knew a woman who had constant anxiety, her emotional malady always present despite years passing and I soon realised that despite all the advice given, she was unable to perceive what happiness actually was to her that her happiness almost became the anxiety. It is alluring to smoke cigarettes to alleviate feelings of stress, but the poison infiltrates your system to enable a false idea of dependence that a person actually begins to believe that they need to smoke despite the fact that it is actually because of the cigarettes that they prolonging the anxiety and killing themselves in the process. Her identity was in part formed by the anxiety she experienced that she created and unconsciously nurtured a life that enabled her to exercise this dependency. She had 'poisonous' people all around her.

It is not a mood disorder, but the mood itself is a result of a number of factors and they appear to be factors you may just be attempting to justify. You have the audacity to say [t]here's nothing emotional about synthetic a priori judgments, like "I am depressed" and yet seemingly avoid discussions pertaining to the decision-making, cognitive functioning, the phenomenological based on identity and the ethical application necessary to establish a clear mindset that empowers and thus alleviates the feelings you discuss.

Some people desire the depressive state because it enables them a justification to avoid responsibility for taking control of their own lives.

Perhaps ask yourself this; do you enjoy depression?

I don't believe being a practicing lawyer requires appreciation of the glory of God's favorite country, these United States. Perhaps you should have become one after all. — Ciceronianus the White

I am exactly where I want to be, in life and circumstances, and I think that is saying something about the professional decision I made. Several years ago, when I was merely working for profit to get me by, I was profoundly miserable. In both, I have to deal with people difficulties, but I am capable of dealing rather cheerfully with such difficulties now because my job is fulfilling. I do believe that to honour your legal profession, you would require an appreciation of the jurisprudential principles that it upholds nationally and as you and I probably both know, there is a lot to be desired.

I've always been fond of the classics and ancient history as well, and do what reading on them that I can. — Ciceronianus the White

There is nothing as compelling to me as ancient and medieval history, especially religions and philosophy. When I had the chance to write a journal article on the syncretistic Near-Eastern religions, I had never been so happy as I combed through several European libraries until they kicked me out each night while researching on the subject. But, that would be an entirely selfish endeavour if I were to pursue it as a (academic) career. I felt compelled to push that desire aside as I pursued something more practically worthwhile.

There are those who get a law degree and don't practice law. They call themselves lawyers, but are not. I can't speak for them. — Ciceronianus the White

I can. I chose not to venture down the legal profession because I see no glory in this Republic of yours or any country that values profit over human life. My efforts to finish a masters in human rights law was a requisite to work in the field that I desire(d), which is in international human rights and development with a particular focus on children. I currently earn mediocre pay with a national NGO that supports disadvantaged children and doing so intentionally to develop experience to pursue my career objectives in this field. But, I am also profoundly happy.

For me, it has always been a dream of mine to study the classics, ancient history and languages, but the utility of a degree is to enable the prospect of working in the field you desire. Not sure what compelled you to become a lawyer. :-$

And no, I don't call myself a lawyer. It's just painful having to explain the difference between having a law degree and being a practicing lawyer to those who don't know the difference.

The third aspect is kind of the wildcard. It is even more mysterious and impenetrable than the first two, because there is nothing necessarily to be done or learned or changed or expressed. — 0 thru 9

On the contrary, there certainly is something learned, changed and expressed and it is penetrable, it just takes some time developing that skill and we often delay the process because we become disillusioned by the emotional angst that we simply just want it to go away. I am glad that you have more clarity that has enabled you to avoid the depressive experiences that had almost killed you (well done, seriously, you should be proud of yourself) but one thing that I am afraid of is that some people learn to tolerate rather than confront the causal actuality of the depressive state, its reasons for being there in the first place, and that could mean that it is merely lying dormant and inevitably return in the future.

For instance, some people conform to their environment, give up and allow others to form their identity and decisions rather than doing so for themselves and though they are completely miserable, they feel secure and that is more to them than experiencing the negative sensations that depression can evoke. Indeed, while going through the depression one would need to continue fighting to survive the alluring need to shut down, neither to be controlled by the powerlessness that it permeates and instead focus on taking one step at a time, to cross each bridge when you get to it. It is so important to learn to take care of yourself and resist the harm and sabotage to our happiness that we inflict and this requires an objectivity, a way to rationalise what could harm you, confront what makes you unhappy, focus on a purpose and plan for the future. To do this one step at a time is by piecing one puzzle at a time, articulate a narrative of this 'mysterious and impenetrable' realm, to form a dialogue and communicate as you begin to improve the language of your own voice whether through writing or speaking or art and music.

Once you begin forming your own autonomous language and develop meaning of the external world according to your own interpretation, you begin to see objectively the causal roots for the initial depression and its relationship with your history, your present social and environmental conditions, and ultimately your future as you begin to experience reality rather than experience learned perceptions of a false reality. It is penetrable and you will forever remain empowered.

Specifically, when a philosopher point out that the will is powerless, what does he or she mean by that? — Question

There are a number of factors to consider and while epistemological, metaphysical and even ethical are important in considerations of the nature of mind, conceptual frameworks are often ambiguous and as such the primary problem is defining what depression actually is. I am of the opinion that depression has a link to a series of cognitive errors, that as we form our own subjective narrative, it conflicts with the epistemological narrative given to us to explain our social and environmental 'reality'. As children, we lack the cognitive capacity that coerces dependence on others, but as we mature and develop and start to form a sense of our own identity, what we have meaningfully framed as reality does not sit comfortably with us. We just don't know why at conscious level because in some ways we are 'new' to thinking independently.

We soon become afraid in a way from this existential reality; shit, that guy called my father who I (naturally) have a strong emotional attachment to is actually a bad person and I long believed I needed to live up to his expectations when he is actually an idiot, for instance. Most people in depression are caught between the two realities, not yet capable of forming this autonomous dialogue within themselves that objectively separates them from a mindless dependence on the meaning given by the external world. The powerlessness is really just being unable to raise to consciousness our own autonomous decision-making, of separating ourselves to engage and experience the external world and reconfigure our capacity to rationalise and develop meaning with reason and independently. What that means is that a depressed agent has not yet learnt how to think objectively; the idea of believing that you can detach yourself from infantile emotions that have caused you to latch irrationally to your father - despite the fact that he is a bad person - and that somehow the association of these emotions are permanent is an example of how we confuse ourselves with false judgements of intentional states.

The best way to achieve this autonomy, to separate oneself from infantile emotions and mature to rational emotions, to begin thinking objectively is through considerations of conscience, morality or empathy. To have a genuine, empathetic experience engages you into a dialogue that separate your immaturity and the experience of derealisation. This dialogue with ourselves toward the external world has not yet matured and the really unfortunate problem is that depressive people who experience this existential angst (feeling lost and confused) often fail to take care of themselves, whether it is with the people they choose to associate with, taking drugs or drinking excessively, unable to work or study etc. that they begin elongate the derealisation and never actually attempt to mature the process of accepting their autonomy.

This is mostly caused by the fear of dislodging from one's environment, as though there is a yearning to be yourself but a powerlessness caused by the fear of losing the people and identity you have formed around you. It is almost like you are trying to shut yourself down to cope and live with an environment you are not really happy with, but you cannot articulate that to yourself consciously.

It is why one becomes empowered when they begin to appreciate their autonomy and separate themselves from their own enslaved faculties and social environment. It is about taking responsibility and developing that independent thinking, to speak your own narrative by reasoning objectively. Which is why is actually correct, that the best course of action is to encourage a dialogue, to try and understand what inhabits your mind and perceptions and whether the meaning you hold of things - though most people may believe it to be true - is true to you. To not be afraid of loss because there is so much to gain the moment you actually begin to experience reality and form meaning as you want to.

While experiencing (a) it feels undeniably true. — Roke

The issue here is that (a) being life is obviously terrible misrepresents reality and it also represents your state of mind and therefore my remark relating to the lucidity of your inner world reaches a new position of plausibility. A narcissist, for instance, though one would think that his/her state of mind may perhaps be viewed as entirely self-delusional, their narcissism in fact relies heavily on the opinions of others.

I totally agree with you vis-a-vis your argument on anti-natalism; life is not obviously terrible, but we subjectively create meaning with an external world and there will inevitably be contact with what is considered terrible. But to say that it either is completely terrible or completely beautiful is quite simply delusional and a flaw in reason. Whether we create meaning or not, there is still an external reality and within it good and bad.

And when I don't, there's something somehow more lucid about my inner world where it seems clear that the 'life is terrible' outlook is the dream to wake up from rather than vice versa. — Roke

What if you are merely escaping to your inner world to retreat from the disillusionment you feel toward the external world, which is ultimately contributing to this lucidity? It is not preaching, but calling out from this inner world with the hope that maybe someone will hear and see you for who you are, to have the void, that loneliness filled not by the withdrawal but rather the engagement. We're out here, you know, chasing the echo of the same desperate calls in the hope of capturing one to embrace and save from the terror. We will never hear you if you remain caught in your own illusions.

Now you are saying that activities are "of love". This is inconsistent with "the activity itself is love", and demonstrates that you probably do not really believe in "the activity itself is love". — Metaphysician Undercover

Your unrelated propositions make little sense with whatever your objective is; 'of' is to possess love or a description of this trait, while 'is' is the activity itself in the singular. What is your point?

Alternatively, one could pick a meaning which doesn't conform quite so well with common usage, ignore rightful criticism of it, and stubbornly press on regardless. — Sapientia

Melchett: 'If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.' ;)

I remember the day my Father died – that night he came to me in a dream and said – “I love you”. That was it – short and sweet – I will never forget it. — woodart

This is beautiful, thank you for sharing. Dreams are really hard to determine and I fear would fall on the individual experience to ascertain an explanation behind them; guilt, passions, emotions that you are attempting to articulate through abstract imagery. Indeed, from a Jungian perspective dreams reveal the language of the psyche and the subconscious, but sometimes dreams can also just be cognitive rubbish as your brain attempts to recover.

I had one dream not long ago - actually in August 2015 that is how powerful this dream was! - where I was lying on a grey couch and I had a son, a toddler aged maybe 3 or 4, a little blonde boy who was lying on top of me and hugging me really tightly. He was smiling and his eyes were closed as tightly as he hugged me while I was relaxed, also smiling with my eyes closed, as I wrapped my arms around him. I cannot describe to you the feeling that I felt in this brief moment in the dream, but it was like absolute love. It was genuine love, unconditional and I could sense the love from my son (or that boy in the dream as I don't have any children) as much as the love I felt for him that it was so overwhelming, I woke up hyperventilating as though the intensity of the feeling in this dream caused me to hold my breath. I could not shut up about it for weeks and in my whole life I have never felt what I felt in that dream. It was one simple image of me and a little boy but the feeling was just overwhelming.

I am not sure what that dream meant, again I have no children, but sometimes it may provide you with access to knowledge, for me maybe the knowledge of what real love could actually feel like, maybe it describes my unconditional loving attributes that is parallel to a maternalism (I work helping disadvantaged children). I don't know, in the end we have only our own interpretations to rely on and that requires reason and a genuine understanding of ourselves and our history.

I have quite a decent medical knowledge (of course nothing like a professional - but I could go head to head with a 2nd year medicine student, and some conditions/diseases I understand really well), and many doctors I've been to were disappointing in their "knowledge" and advice. — Agustino

I'm sure you could, but an education is years of training and the application of this training vastly differentiates with knowledge of a given subject, which is why tertiary studies can be rendered useless if one does not actually work in the given field.

A degree does not undermine a person who may not have one neither is it necessary pending the career or professional objectives. I know many highly intelligent and creative people without a formal education; I am trying to learn the piano and have found it incredibly difficult, so when I listen to a musician play, I am always gobsmacked at the intelligence required to become one. Many intelligent people are lost in the economics as is already pointed out as much as there are many without degrees that know more about a subject I have studied and put me in my place.

A degree is not relevant to a person' character traits and abilities, but it is still useful if you seek knowledge of a particular profession.

We describe specific actions, but the described actions are not the same as the inferred love. We can only infer love with another premise, that such and such actions are indicators of love. But still the actions are not the love itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand your concessions, but I think there may be a confusion between "love" and will or the motivation within, that when you say one can produce a description of that action which you call love, the thing acting, and the exact motions which the thing was carrying out that these motions itself are the subjective inclinations that compel us to act. The activity itself is love, but the determining factor is one compelled by a "good will" - good and love work in unison to moral considerations stemming from reason and guide our subjective actions within the external world. Hence, love is moral consciousness since one cannot act lovingly neither authentically or accurately without the possession of this motivation. Without action, the subjective experience is merely a good will or morality itself and as love - like good - promotes feelings of happiness and euphoria, and as the action itself stems from this very part of ourselves, we confuse that love as an action is actually moral consciousness applied.

Are you saying that this claimed activity, which you call "love", is a type of pursuit? Are all activities of pursuit activities of love then? How is this any different from desire? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but not all activities are of love without first being compelled by a "good will" and the latter must motivate naturally in and of itself rather than solely by duty that lacks the consciousness of the reasoning behind moral demands. We act by being compelled through constraints such as external codes of conduct or regulations rather than an inherent and independent motivation. I think that when you say desire you may have meant 'passions' - desire is a motivation, but as one can be motivated by a desire to apply good will through acts of love (positive), one can also be motivated by a desire to apply irrational passions (ego, instinctual drives) that lacks the same consciousness and reasoning as does acting because that is what other people are doing or telling you to do.

Do you mean the seeking is the product of the happiness or the happiness is the product of the seeking? — John

They're not mutually exclusive. It is in our nature to desire happiness; by seeking to improve through self-awareness one experiences happiness (since reason enables authenticity of experience) and through this happiness one continues to seek improvement (by becoming conscious of our flaws). It is returning to our natural unity following the corruption by our subjective limitations and our relationship to an external world that we have yet to understand.

...but my contention has been that we have negative emotion towards something only insofar as we have positive emotion towards something else. — John

I think our confusion lies between the positive and negative responses to action or inaction, that when we passively experience evil external to ourselves we form negative emotions. What I am trying to say is that when we actively experience hate, subjectively and as a response through our ego or ignorance, that does not and cannot come from love or moral consciousness but rather the Kantian 'radical evil'. If you look at the story of the satan, for instance, the devil or evil was and remains subservient to God or Good and his attributes like ego and jealously that compelled him to try and prove errors in perfection ameliorates that not only is Good always superior and through Adam and Eve (humanity) before the fall our natural state, but that evil influences humanity that we soon experience the unnatural, evil and ultimately misery.

If, for instance, we attempt to pursue the intellectual love of God, which is to thus attempt to attain the virtues as forms that exemplifies the most accurate in reality - justice, charity, patience or what is Good - that in the pursuit of these virtues one becomes conscious of the vile and inaccurate that stains this reality - injustice, violence or what is evil - it does not substantiate evil emotions, such as hate. Sadness, yes, as that is a passive experience to this evil that renders a disillusionment but greater than that is a hope and a desire to make an effort to change evil for the better and return back to our natural inclinations of Good. To hate is to become the very thing that opposes Good, however it can also be used as a signal that proves this subjective stain in our own disposition.

I don't know about you guys, but I would want my doctor to have a medical degree.

Yes maybe for two lovers, but building a family takes more than just love. It takes discipline and commitment as well, combined with singularity of purpose. — Agustino

I agree, but why would anyone want to build a family with someone they do not love, even if this person embodies the character traits that they want? There will be an emptiness in this purpose and love itself personifies the joy and the peace needed for this, which returns back to my reference to reason and autonomy in the consciousness of this decision. For the longevity of happiness, love and respect for your partner takes away the effort discipline requires, as together in unity two people improve and develop one another through one another (hence the admiration) that therefore would mean the admiration will never cease and only strengthen since both continuously improve, hence the longevity. So, when you say but having a family is much more than sharing your life and continuously improving it is also inclusive of those in marriage and a very part of this discipline that two people share in unison.

With a social conformist you are right. But with "someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her" you are dead wrong. Unity of purpose is extremely important to success. — Agustino

One can portray humility and devotion without being mindless so I think that it may just be semantics considering you accept conformism as a flaw. It is the reason why autonomy is fixed to moral consciousness, which naturally enables the agent to adhere with humility and devotion to the principles of virtue. A person who is a raging independent does not necessarily mean they are autonomous neither morally conscious; in the US, there is a culture of 'individualism' when many blindly move in masses. Hence, the authenticity behind the commitment to virtue.

I think that perhaps you are speaking of the equilibrium between feminine and masculine attributes and indeed I would have to agree. This 'Yin and Yang' between male and female becomes a beautiful combination that should be respected but to attain this 'natural state' is to really find who you are as you are. The idea of being in a relationship with a man who conforms to his social environment and though an adult continues to do what his mother tells him implies a lack of 'masculinity' that would make it impossible to form a relationship with, particularly since he lacks consciousness and the autonomy needed to form a true bond with someone and to take control of his life.

However, to have a man tell me to stay silent and do what he wants lacks the respect and admiration for me as an individual and that too is a problem, hence humility and devotion from a man to a woman and vice versa. When I began to sense my own autonomy and began to develop moral consciousness - not to long ago actually and I am still learning - I genuinely started to appreciate my femininity and have since been developing my adherence to my natural, humble state. Such humility is impossible if the person has not yet achieved this moral consciousness and autonomy as their minds remain too chaotic.

When I say mindless, someone who has no critical thinking skills, who is not willing to try and talk about subjects other than something bullshit like what such and such did on instagram, who has no appreciation for learning new things. Again, if they are morally conscious and autonomous, they can and should respond but within the context of this uniformity, this loyalty that what he wants is just as much as what she wants but within reason where sacrifices must sometimes be made. Communication is essential for a thriving relationship, the lack thereof is just soul suicide.

I'm really busy at work at the moment (on my lunch break) and your posts require more attention, so I will get back to you tomorrow.

I disagree. I don't necessarily want my wife to be someone I admire. I'm looking for a few key character traits (religiosity, loyalty, compassion/kindness, humility, family-oriented), but those alone aren't sufficient to entail admiration. — Agustino

I think the confusion lies in the semantics, the ambiguity of the word 'admire' because it is certainly not a state of awe but rather a motivation that facilitates our desire to improve ourselves. Thus, when I say who we love must be someone we admire - within reason - a person that presents themselves independently and consciously it is to admire their very independence, who they are as they are and not what they present themselves as being neither the utility they may qualify, but the authenticity of their character, their genuine moral worthiness. It is not competition but rather a state of positive growth when two loving people mature together and the improvement is to improve our minds, reason and our morality.

Marrying someone like you is often a disaster. I'm too ambitious for example (in terms of everything I do pretty much) - if I married a woman who was equally ambitious, it would end in disaster. — Agustino

Again, the word 'mirror' is confused; as I said earlier, your partner should be one who is independent and morally conscious and the mirror itself is you as one who is also independent and morally conscious where together - in your own independence - you share your life and continuously improve. It would be impossible to do this with a conformist, or someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her, or someone who is evil or deceptive.

To mirror is to imply that our happiness becomes mutually dependent on both our desire to see our partner happy as much as our desire to continuously improve ourselves. You will find those in relationships that lack this admiration often never improve, years and years pass and nothing really changes for the better. I can form a relationship with anyone and try to make it work, but I would be delaying the inevitable and it would be self-deceptive if I did not admire them. Your lover is your best friend, the one that appreciates you for who you are not what they want you to be and vice versa.

...I haven't been treating love as one emotion among others, but rather as the disposition of care, concern or interest which I think is really the human form of life. — John

I agree, as l stated earlier that love is moral consciousness and certainly a disposition, this disposition being a rational, autonomous agent. The emotive experiences of moral consciousness such as care, concern, compassion are natural to our physiology and the authenticity of these experiences are derived by self-empowerment, the latter established when we cease to be controlled and subject to an instinctual and unreasonable will and transcend to a state of autonomy.

Even in this connection, though I would say it is commonplace for people to feel conflicting emotions about others, So, to say that, if one has any feelings of hatred or even indifference towards a loved one, then one doesn't really love them, could only be right if you were defining love as an absolutely pure emotion, an 'all or nothing' affair; but human love is never that I would say. — John

It would be false to assume perfection; the intellectual love of God will never be to know God neither is the description of a rational, autonomous agent imply an attainment of this "perfect", on the contrary it is seeking a perfection that we will never attain. But, it is the seeking itself that becomes the very product of our happiness. We have both positive and negative emotions and any negative emotions stem from negative actions or inactions. Love is not negative such as hatred or indifference so it cannot produce such negative emotions, but if it does then it is either a product of something unreasonable or irrational (hatred is always irrational), or it is a product of a passive experience out of your control (when a loved one suddenly dies) in which case one would eventually rationalise and accept.