April 21, 2022
" better to have loved and lost than never to have loved...
Love is ubiquitous. Songs and other media tell us that love is a goal worth achieving. People are saying that love is inherently good so we should thrive it. I think that this notion is naive.
The citation conveys the impression that people should long for love instead of not loving at all. it even goes further. The saying claims that love itself outweighs the loss of it.
The message of this saying is in my opinion misleading.
First, love is a narcisisstic force. I think about love as a fixation on a person which is replaceable. After loosing love ,people are searching for love again. The person longs for another object to satisfy the intense urge to reexperience the thrill again. This state of mind is neither good nor bad. But it allows to progress my argumentation.
If people love somebody , there will be often the fear of loosing it. When we think about love ,then we also think about loosing " the love of my life". The media contributes to this notion by singing about their "loved" person who left them. In Addition, nearly every soap-opera ,for instance Greys Anatomy, creates their "thrilling" storyline with "failed love".
We are all the time confronted with love in its negation (lack of love).
People want love and are searching for it. When they find it, they want to perpetuate it. Therefore people who have loved, are stuck in a perpetuating circle. They want to replicate the same conditions when they first felt this feeling/ met the object of love. People who never loved are not in a perpetuating circle. They stand outside thus they can observe the lovers from a different point of view.
The saying implies that love can be lost. But should an "intimate" relationship be a fleeting one ? Loosing someone means that a person or both come to the conclusion that the condition where they are now does not correspond with the situation while they had met each other. We can say that this love is embedded in (unconcious) narcisissitic conditions ("Fulfill me !"). If the conditions are not fulfilled , the relationship is "lost"
In my opinion it is not a kind of love that I want.
For me, people who are outside of this perpetuating circle have a higher chance having a relationship which fulfills more and is sustainable. For people inside ,it is more difficult.
The aim in my opinion should be finding "agape". Agape is a kind of love which is not narcisissitic. It is love that does not want something from the other person. It is unconditional love. This love is an ideal and it is questionable if somebody can attain it completely. Though the saying implies another type of love which is called "eros". It is passion ( In german we would say: "Leidenschaft ,die Leiden schafft"= passion which creates suffering) , it is a fleeting feeling. Sometimes agape and eros are mixed so it is difficult to differenciate.
A person who observes love from the outside does not confuse easily agape with eros like other people. Maybe, they do not experience the bitter sweet feeling of eros but they have a wider scope of thinking how they can attain a higher level of "forever lasting love" which the media tries to recreate unsuccsessfully.
" bBetter to have loved and lost than never to have loved..."
Love is ubiquitous.
Songs and other media tell us that love is a goal worth achieving.
People are saying that love is inherently good so we should thrivecherish/foster it.
"Thrive" doesn't really work here, which German word did you have in mind?
I think that this notion is naive.
The citation conveys the impression that people should long for love instead of not loving at all.
iIt even goes furthergoes even further than that.
The saying claims that love itself outweighs the loss of it.
The message of this saying is misleading in my opinion misleading.
First, love is a narcisisistic force.
I think about love as a fixation on a person whicho is replaceable.
After lolosing love , people are searching for love again.
The person longs for another object to satisfy the intense urge to reexperience the thrill again.
This state of mind is neither good nor bad.
But it allows me to progress my argumentation/reasoning.
"Argumentation" isn't wrong, it's just not very commonly used in similar contexts.
If people love somebody , there will be often thebe a fear of loosing ithem.
When we think about love , then we also think about loosing " the love of my life".
The media contributes to this notion by singing about their "beloved" person who left them.
In Addition, nearly every soap-opera , for instance "Greys Anatomy", creates their "thrilling" storyline with "failed love".
We are all the timeconstantly confronted with love in its negation (lack of love).
People want love and are searching for it.
When they find it, they want to perpetuate it.
Therefore people who have loved, are stuck in a perpetuating cirycle.
They want to replicate the same conditions when they firstof having felt this feeling/ met the object of love for the first time.
People who never loved are not in a perpetuating cirycle.
They stand outsidehave an external view, thus they can observe the lovers from a different point of viewangle.
The saying implies that love can be lost.
But should an "intimate" relationship be a fleeting one ?
Loosing someone means that a person or both come to the conclusion that the condition wheres they are nowcurrently in does not correspond with the situation whilen they had met each other.
For the record: one "looses" an arrow, and "loses" one's keys.
We can say that this love is embedded in (unconscious) narcisissistic conditions ("Fulfill me !").
Btw, I think you're confusing narcissistic with egotistical ...
If the conditions are not fulfilled met, the relationship is "lost".
In my opinion ithis is not a kind of love that I want.
For me, people who are outside of this perpetuating cirous cycle have a higher chance of having a relationship which is more fulfills moreing and is sustainable.
For people insidwithin such a cycle ,it is more difficult.
The aim in my opinion should be finding "agape".
Agape is a kind of love which is not narcisissitic.
It is love that does not want something from the other person.
It is unconditional love.
This love is an ideal and it is questionable ifwhether somebody can attain it completely.
Though the saying implies another type of love which is called "eros".
It is passion ( In german we would say: "Leidenschaft , die Leiden schafft" = passion which creates suffering) , it is a fleeting feeling.
Sometimes agape and eros are mixed, so it is difficult to differenctiate.
A person who observes love from the outside does not easily confuse easily agape with eros like other people.
Maybe, they do not experience the bitter sweet feeling of eros, but they have a wider scope of thinking how they can attain a higher level of "forever lasting love" which the media triesy to recreate unsuccsessfully.
Feedback
Saubere Arbeit.
April 21, 2022
People are saying that love is inherently good so we should thrivecherish/foster it.
I thought of "streben nach"
April 21, 2022
Danke für deine Korrekturen :)
April 21, 2022
I thought of "streben nach"
That would be "to strive for" or "to pursue sth."
April 21, 2022
I thought of "streben nach"
"thrive" is "blühen", "florieren", "gut gedeihen".
April 21, 2022
Danke für deine Korrekturen :)
War mir ein Vergnügen. Dein Englisch ist schon recht gut! Die paar Germanismen wirst du auch noch los :)
April 21, 2022
P. s.: In the Greek triumvirate of words for love you're missing philadelphia ;)
April 21, 2022
P. s.: In the Greek triumvirate of words for love you're missing philadelphia ;)
I know... But my text shouldnt be longer ... :)
April 21, 2022
I know... But my text shouldnt be longer ... :)
Verbesserungsvorschlag: „My text was long enough as it is." ;)
|
" better to have loved and lost than never to have loved... " |
|
Love is ubiquitous. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Songs and other media tell us that love is a goal worth achieving. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
People are saying that love is inherently good so we should thrive it. People are saying that love is inherently good so we should "Thrive" doesn't really work here, which German word did you have in mind? |
|
I think that this notion is naive. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
The citation conveys the impression that people should long for love instead of not loving at all. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
it even goes further.
|
|
The saying claims that love itself outweighs the loss of it. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
The message of this saying is in my opinion misleading. The message of this saying is misleading in my opinion |
|
First, love is a narcisisstic force. First, love is a narcis |
|
I think about love as a fixation on a person which is replaceable. I think about love as a fixation on a person wh |
|
After loosing love ,people are searching for love again. After |
|
The person longs for another object to satisfy the intense urge to reexperience the thrill again. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
This state of mind is neither good nor bad. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
But it allows to progress my argumentation. But it allows me to progress my argument "Argumentation" isn't wrong, it's just not very commonly used in similar contexts. |
|
If people love somebody , there will be often the fear of loosing it. If people love somebody |
|
When we think about love ,then we also think about loosing " the love of my life". When we think about love |
|
The media contributes to this notion by singing about their "loved" person who left them. The media contribute |
|
In Addition, nearly every soap-opera ,for instance Greys Anatomy, creates their "thrilling" storyline with "failed love". In Addition, nearly every soap-opera |
|
We are all the time confronted with love in its negation (lack of love). We are |
|
People want love and are searching for it. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
When they find it, they want to perpetuate it. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Therefore people who have loved, are stuck in a perpetuating circle. Therefore people who have loved |
|
They want to replicate the same conditions when they first felt this feeling/ met the object of love. They want to replicate the same conditions |
|
People who never loved are not in a perpetuating circle. People who never loved are not in a perpetuating c |
|
They stand outside thus they can observe the lovers from a different point of view. They |
|
The saying implies that love can be lost. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
But should an "intimate" relationship be a fleeting one ? This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Loosing someone means that a person or both come to the conclusion that the condition where they are now does not correspond with the situation while they had met each other. Lo For the record: one "looses" an arrow, and "loses" one's keys. |
|
We can say that this love is embedded in (unconcious) narcisissitic conditions ("Fulfill me !"). We can say that this love is embedded in (unconscious) narcis Btw, I think you're confusing narcissistic with egotistical ... |
|
If the conditions are not fulfilled , the relationship is "lost" If the conditions are not |
|
In my opinion it is not a kind of love that I want. In my opinion |
|
For me, people who are outside of this perpetuating circle have a higher chance having a relationship which fulfills more and is sustainable. For me, people who are outside of this perpetu |
|
For people inside ,it is more difficult. For people |
|
The aim in my opinion should be finding "agape". This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Agape is a kind of love which is not narcisissitic. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
It is love that does not want something from the other person. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
It is unconditional love. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
This love is an ideal and it is questionable if somebody can attain it completely. This love is an ideal and it is questionable |
|
Though the saying implies another type of love which is called "eros". This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
It is passion ( In german we would say: "Leidenschaft ,die Leiden schafft"= passion which creates suffering) , it is a fleeting feeling. It is passion ( |
|
Sometimes agape and eros are mixed so it is difficult to differenciate. Sometimes agape and eros are mixed, so it is difficult to differen |
|
A person who observes love from the outside does not confuse easily agape with eros like other people. A person who observes love from the outside does not easily confuse |
|
Maybe, they do not experience the bitter sweet feeling of eros but they have a wider scope of thinking how they can attain a higher level of "forever lasting love" which the media tries to recreate unsuccsessfully. Maybe |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium