Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Make your own...Fairytale


1x King
1x Queen
1x Prince
1x Princess
1x Fairy Godmother

Or is it 2x Princess?

Right, well I had a few discussions the other night. My argument to counteract theirs wasn't very coherent, I'll give them that. Now I feel the need to try again, and not because I only believe this because I've been told it. I honestly believe that monogamy>polygamy.
Most people have more than one close friend, but also they have one who is their first point of call in a crisis, their best friend - the one that they connect with the most. I'm not saying that all the other friends are superfluous, they too have their best friends, but generally we have one friend - who isn't more important, that's not what I'm saying. Well I think you know what I mean.

At some point in every person's life, they find someone who is just above their best friend. Someone who maybe embodies all of the things that the person could find in their friends, only in one. Someone who we want to hold hands with, be held by, be kissed by - and lets face it, have sex with in most cases. You know (those attatched people out there) that when your girlfriend/boyfriend tells you that they love you, it feels like nothing else matters for that one tiny second and you feel like the most important person in the world.

Now imagine if you were told that you were loved, the moment is shattered because you know that the speaker has said that to someone else. You're not special anymore, not the only one they'd do anything for, not the only one whose bad habits are put up with in the name of love. If one day you annoy your partner, you know that they'd have someone else to go to, someone that they'd rather be with. I'm also pretty sure that it would be quite hard not to have a favourite partner, you'd decide that you liked one better than the other and actually there's only one person you want to be with.
Please bear in mind that I'm talking out of my arse, none of the above has ever happened to me.
I have to go to work, I will resume this later.

*Later* Blah, crap day at work, will continue when I can be bothered.

*Tuesday* Right, so I just read over all that again, and I can't remember what my next point is. If the argument were to be won on facts and logic then I would certainly not be the triumphant. But the point is, it's not about facts and logic, no matter how clinical you try to make it, you can't change feelings.



Nodders said...

Oh god, the old spidey sense is telling me Keir will go off on a rant again =D

You're right that we probably wouldn't be triumphant in a fight with logic and fact, but that is the thing, love can't be justified through fact. Assuming it is a creation of our society, our own minds, it holds the same value as art or fiction - both of which are nonphysical ideas, but hold such importance and influence in our lives that it would be undesirable for everyone in the world (except the robot Keir) to dispell them. Love may well be a work of fiction, and a particularly creative manifestation of thoughts and feelings, but that is how our society has culminated and no matter how much someone stresses that romantic notions aren't important in the argument, the truth is that these stories, creative longings and what have you, form how we think and therefore operate physically.

To have a different perception of love and how it works, like polygamy, would mean for humans to work, think and operate entirely differently, and that is why I don't necessarily agree.

Um, so yes.

keir said...

Gordon, your arguement seems to be this:

P1 Love is like art
P2 Art cant be explained
C1 Love cant be explained

you then make the absurd leap that because someting cannot be explained, which i dont think is true of love or art, it should not be changed.

I would also argue that a comparison with love and art is unhelpfull, love is not creative, its just a feeling like friendship. sure it can be channeled into creating art, but just like any other feeling, such as sadness. what you seem to be trying to do is exempt love for normal laws of reason, but this tactic is doomed to fail because by doing this you cannot then argue for the status quo, as you have deemed love outside of the realm of reason.

Your last point seems to be this

P1 The world Is monogamous
C1 The world should therefor be monogamous

I think the fallacy here is plain to see, you are begging the question, arguing for the continuation of the status quo simply because it is the status quo.

keir said...

Ooooh that was cold 'n clinical :D

Davus said...

mmm, i'm sorry but i'm a little lost as to what your saying gordon. i'm not sure where your statement lies within the overall context of debate, ie. wether polygamy > monogomy. are you saying that because love is inexplicable and outisde the realm of logic that debating it's merits is pointless (which is effectively conceding the argument to keir)? could you rephrase your comment maybe, i'm probably just being stupid due to lack of sleep.

keir said...

Now its your turn Niki :P

Your right in that there will always be one friend who you are closest to, though in my experience i feel the diffrence is pretty much negligible between my closest friends (The fantastic 4 ;) ). Do you feel hurt if one of your friends is friends with one of your other friends? of course you dont, becuase you know that it doesnt detract from your friendship, and infact strengthens the bond between you all. Why not apply the same to non-platonic sexual love? The problem is you look at polygamy in a monogamous context, and you must remember its not just a case of blokes sleeping around, that is not what i am arguing for. Im not arguing for meaningless casual sex, but merely for multiple meaningful relationships.

If you annoy your partner in a monogamous world they can stil leave you... your arguemnt seems to be veering awfully close to the idea of soulmates :S

The thing is you feel secure with your friends, you can be annoying and they wil forgive you, as opposed to letting it go simply because they HAVE to be with you, surely this is what a plurality of romantic relationships shoudl be like?

As for changing feelings, you most certainly can, other people change my feelings constantly depending on how they choose to interact with me.

I feel like i should say something humanising now... but i cant think of anything... so for gordon: Destroy the family unit, all love is worthless

Davus said...

keirs asked me to put off me final post on my views on the matter for a wee while, till this renewal of the debate has died down. if everybody could post their final thoughts within the next couple of days it'd be nice, simply because i want to round up and summarise, and i can't do that till you've all said your piece.

Nodders said...

Yeah ok, so I'm being defeatist here - annoyingly, I agree with you on an academic, theoretical level. But I don't agree with you practically, and unfortunately, I have why. I just don't.

Good luck in making it happen though. =)

Stagestruckgal said...

aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! stop with the debating already! you're making my head swim! its so much more interesting over msn, keir, i can actually keep up with what you're saying! my favourite bucket of ice cold water! oh well. maybe you should be a die hard politician, or is that just pathetic? i suppose youre either gonna say, wow i love the idea, or present an arguement that puts me to shame, as per usual. never mind. its all good fun!

keir said...

woooo! round 1 to the lawsonator ;-)

Stagestruck: I do actually want to be a politician, but not a parlimentary one, i care about politics.

Niki said...

Woo hoo. Don't you just love a good debate? And while I see that because of pure lack of academic application Gordon and I are losing, still i feel that maybe that says something about what the whole thing's about. Erm, yes. Cold and clinical that was Keir, I'm terribly upset at you. And Davey. I think you both know what corner Gordon and I are fighting, and really you believe it too. You're just not wanting to be romantic. Which is silly. So there, we win.

Niki said...

"Im not arguing for meaningless casual sex, but merely for multiple meaningful relationships." Yeah right Keir, what a guy-argument. x

keir said...

im not even gonna bother to refute that one :P

Davus said...

wow, easy there, i haven't said what i think yet...

Nodders said...

If anything, I'm beginning to realise what being a Christian must feel like. Believing completely in something, but not having a scientific clue to back it up. It's quite an unsettling feeling, I don't know how those fundies live with it...

Niki said...

Sorry Davey.