Love is the most misunderstood concept mankind has ever tried to comprehend.
Love as people think of it today is based upon this notion that it should be ‘constant and lasting’ and it should be ‘unconditional and given freely’ even though we know it isn’t.
I remember touching briefly on Nietzsche’s theories on love and how every sort of love regardless how self-less the act is, there is still some sort of ulterior motive.

Closely examining the proposition that we’re all cells in a body I can see that there are holes in the theory.
Each individually can operate as a separate entity (whether you choose or not is another story) while cells in a body cannot.
If the cells in the lung dies out, then the heart cells will not be able to operate because there is no oxygen being bought into the body to allow the heart to pump the blood around the body, thus the heart cells will eventually die as a result of the lung cells dying. The cells in a body are totally dependent on each other.
If one human being died then the rest of the population, even those closest to the dying being will survive fine, there may be a certain type of void in their life, but their fundamental survival will not be affected.
Therefore we cannot draw this analogy, it doesn’t make a strong comparison to the meaning of love. It’s wishful thinking, because it makes people believe that there is a common goal between my lover and I. It makes us believe that on a day-to-day operation, everything that I do is beneficial to both my lover and myself.
I see it as everything that I do for my lover is an investment to advance myself, and that is the reality of ALL relationships. This analysis is drawn upon close examination of all ‘lovers’ I know of. Whether it is my relationships, my friends, my families, love stories in movies, love stories in books. Just because all actions are associated with self-interest, that doesn’t mean it is mutually exclusive to benefiting the receiving partner as well.
There is nothing wrong with this theory and it’s probably a testament to human nature, except people are not recognising that this is the foundation of love. This is the implicit condition to love, that a lover imposes on the loving.

When my boyfriend and I fight, and he claims to be the only person to love me ‘unconditionally’ I laugh and ask him whether he would love me if I slept with someone else. His predictable answer ‘no, because if you loved me then you wouldn’t feel the need to sleep with anyone else.’
‘Well then you love me on the fundamental condition that I love you in return, therefore you cannot claim for it to be unconditionally can you!!?’
Lets deconstruct the love that is seen to be the most ‘self less’ form of love.
The love of a mother to her child?
A mother is suppose to love and care for her child and provide it with ‘unconditional’ love and at face value it seems that this type of love is ‘unconditional’.
Firstly, most mothers have a certain yarning to have a child, whether it be a mental calling, or an inkling need to ‘love’ something. Therefore the relationship already starts off being a self-fish act, and a want to have a child to satisfy something in a mother. Well then what about a mother who falls pregnant unexpectedly and even though she knows the child would be a hurdle in her life she still has the child, based on the principle that it too has the right to live.
This may not be a clear example of a selfish act but the mother is without agenda. She is bound by the constraints of society therefore there is normally the saying “I could never live with myself”. This means that the mother is doing it because she has been told by society that she needs to do it, not because she WANTS to do it.

The lecture also refers to love as the need to embrace the philosophical virtues of non-possessiveness, ironic humour, playfulness, free beauty, positive belief, and affirmation of life in general.
This is true, if one could possess these qualities the life in general would be fore filling and there would be no need for an external being, or object to complete oneself. But it is deriving and embracing wholly these virtues that is the difficult part, and regardless how much one wants to embrace the ‘right’ way to love, living in an environment where you would be the only individual who carries these virtues, would mean that you would be eaten alive by the vultures who prey on that sort of innocence.
Love – at its purest form or in a destructive and malicious form can still be considered love. Maybe love is an intention, and a passion that cannot be described. The answer, “what is love” has never been answered because it doesn’t have an answer. Love is diverse and defies all the norms. It doesn’t care about social acceptance, nor does it care about law or order.
If all those things are taken out of love, then what is there left? There would be no excitement or no volatility.
We can still accept and ‘love’ those who don’t have the same ideals as us (evil people, murders) by employing other assumptions such as determinism, accepting them as result of a consequence beyond their control.

Watching the movie Kama Sutra – a tale of love, it further questioned my understanding of love.
I don’t think it’s as simple as just a love story. I mean the situation between Mira and Jay is obviously one of banished lovers, but that relationship only furthers my argument that every love is selfish and destructive in some way or form.
Even though Mira gives her self up to save Jay’s life, she was the one who seduced him into wanting her and only practiced the ancient art of ‘be mean, keep em keen’.
It furthers the argument of the difference between sexual pleasure and romantic love. Could you possibly have one without the other? That question obviously derives us at the age-old question of ‘what is love?’
Love is neither here nor there, in the sense that it can be described and attainted in different ways.
Romantic, sexual love could be considered an art form. You start off with a base and then work on it, with no real direction or purpose. You follow your instincts and move with the flow. The conventional act of love (sex) is so easy to perform (well for most of us anyways… hahaha) but to perfect it and find the right angle of love for one self is the difficult part.
‘The union between man and woman can go beyond lust and animal instinct.’ (Kama sutra, a tale of love) love is a holistic sense would need to go beyond materialism. It is more than the sexual sensation of penetration.
For every love, there should be a different approach and love shouldn’t be restrained or explained. It looses its appeal and mystery, and mystery is what keeps romantic sexual love alive!
‘Don’t look for straight lines, love is not like that.’ (kama sutra, a tale of love)

I have never been bought up in a religious family so I’ve never had a firm belief in god or Christianity but it was always considered kinda cool to believe in god.

There was a time when my god mother (or the Vietnamese version of god mother, it really has nothing to do with God but it’s the closest interpretation I could find) took me to church at a very young age. I remember thinking “who is god?” and “where does he reside?”

I remember being told that ‘god is almighty’ and he is there for us regardless.

Growing up I never really strongly thought about God, but every now and again when I’m in the shits, I wonder why he would allow for this to happen.
I wonder why he is making me suffer.
When I was able to eventually ask someone who saw themselves as a devote, they eventually told me that ‘god loves us so much that he gave us life so that we could live the way we chose and find it within ourselves to love him on our own accord.’
My response to that was ‘then why would he allow harm to come to us?’
If he created everything and gave us free will then why would he put obstacles in our way to challenge our free will?
If god’s intentions are that which my friend had described then it could be compared and contrasted to the love of a parent. They give us life, and allow us to do things so that we can grow as a person.
The major difference here is that our parents can not control the environment in which we live in, they just conform and adjust to it. But if they could control the environment they wouldn’t put in evil, war, destruction, or natural diasters. They would try to eliminate these factors, and shelter us from harm.
If god is almighty and the creator of everything then he must have created evil and suffering. Why would someone who apparently loves us allow those conditions to occur?
The points used by god-harbourers is that god created us good but then we turned evil. This notion in itself seems quite absurd. If everything was good then it would not have any reason to be evil. When you think about ‘conventional’ evil things, such as ‘stealing’ for example, then we can clearly dissect the problem and see that this notion has no legs.
Ok, so stealing is considered evil.
If the world was originally good, then everyone would be able to eat the same, dress the same, and have enough things in their life to live a satisfactory life. Stealing derives from one not being able to provide a certain need or want. If everything was created good to begin with, then there would be no room for temptation to need or want anything that is no already provided.
Another illustration of this point is the good-ole Adam and Eve story.
The story suggests that Adam ate the forbidden apple thus dooming man kind for eternity for his sin.
If god was almighty and created us in the splitting image of him, then does that mean that he was in the position of adam, he too would have taken a bite of the apple?
And even if god wasn’t in the position of adam, does that mean that God allowed for the serpent to come into the garden and lure Adam & Eve to sin?
This also brings us to the point of original sin. How can it be called original sin, when Adam and Eve didn’t even know it was a sin?
If the original notion that my friend bought up was true, that god wants to give us freewill to live the way we chose and love him independently of his force, then why is he punishing those that are exercising that right.

I love the question:
Could god create a stone so heavy even god cant lift it?

It definitely challenges the notion of god and his abilities. It’s a paradox that exists to evade any doubt of gods existence.
That is one of the reasons why I think the bible is a narrow minded path to what is ‘real’ and what ‘god’ or who ‘god’ really is.
Someone who apparently loves us regardless of our flaws, would never have allowed for the creation of a hell. That’s almost the same as capital punishment in the mortal world. The god who created us ‘originally’ good would see the core or foundation of our character and want to rehabilitate us from our strayed ways. Therefore no body, not even murders and rapist should go to hell, the idea of hell shouldn’t even exist.

I guess if anything, the only purpose of religion isn’t to represent the truth but to represent the desirable.
The inconsistency in its teaching and the fact that it is written on perception already makes it fictional to a certain degree. Just as people who are highly religious try to preach us about the dangers of not believing, the non believers should preach about the wasted efforts of people who SOLEY dedicate their time to religion. They are wasting good years of their lives breathing and living a certain philosophy that is falsified and dangerous if precautions are not taken.
To condemn each other and not love or accept another based on their inability to see god, is a sin in itself, but its almost an unspoken commandment in the bible.
Condemned to be sent to hell where ‘the flames forever burn but never consume’, that is JUST SO WRONG.

The theory behind dualism definitely has its flaws and can probably be probed and poked at until its reduced to nothing at all.
But then it can also be argued that a good lawyer, or reasoner could reduce anything to nothing at all.
Who am I?
When conversing with others. I normally answer this with the usual “my name is manda, Iam of some-sorta origin, I go to TIMR, work at the ZNA… blah blah blah…”
But when I ask myself in private I don’t know how to answer it. I am still searching.

It’s hard to rule out that there is no soul, and that everything can be explained from scientifically. Purely because there is no way to prove that a soul doesn’t exist.
There is no instance where I could seriously think that a certain action or emotion I was feeling was directly due to my soul. When I’m tired my soul doesn’t seem to tell my body to feel sleepy and feel restless. Growing up in western culture, its so easy to be lured into thinking that there really is no soul. There seems to be more concrete evidence that there is nothing beyond the physical existence, but because the idea is out there, I can help but find evidence against it to be able to rule the theory out.
As I was saying before I don’t feel my current existence has anything to do with my soul and I don’t really particularly feel connected with this so-called ‘soul’ but I can’t understand why then are some people more intelligent, wise or evil than others. I’ve always believed that we’re all born like a clean piece of canvas, with a few smudges and blemishes from our DNA or parents influence, and we add colour and patterns to this canvas as we grow older. Every sight, every sound, smell, feeling, taste of ours contributes to our canvas. But then how do we interpret these sensory experiences to be able to translate them into meaning?
Why are there people who seem to understand innately the true sense of being human and some have no idea about anything beyond themselves and their needs.
There must be an explanation as to why someone is so wise and why some of us study all day and night and still not able to understand the natural occurrences of life.
I toyed with the idea of the existence of a soul and maybe, just maybe… we live in a parallel world. On one hand we live as material matter, having a body to experience things. Living means we’re bound by certain rules, these rules come in different degrees, there are larger rules that apply to everyone that chooses to exist in this material world, that is birth, death, (&tax!!! Hahaha), gravity, pain ect…
The second degree of rules is governed by our choice of environment. For example if we choose to live in western culture then we are bound by certain expectations that we don’t steal other peoples husbands, that we don’t steal… ect.
We’re also bounded by the rules of our other self, aka the ‘soul’. These rules are undetermined by anything in the material world. They have been carried from many lives of experience. (on the lines of reincarnation)
Things are understood and practiced based on experience. When our ‘souls’ were born they were naive and inexperienced, and our material self probably died very early due to neither the mind or the body knowing how to survive efficiently.
Our ‘souls’ act as a note book to our survival. It may not necessarily inhabit itself as a white floaty object, nor does it have to occupy a certain area in our physical self. It could be up above or down below observing and analysing. Sending messages to the physical self, allowing it to further understand things it doesn’t already know.
The ‘soul’ not only acts as an advisor to the body, it, itself also learns through out the journal. There may be new experiences and events in which the soul has never felt in its previous journeys. Therefore as our physical self grows older, and our views and opinion changes then it could mean that our mind has also grown. It can also be said that as we grow older, we are more aware of this ‘advisor’ we have. If the ‘soul’ was to pass on everything it knew from the moment we are born, then the ‘soul’ would not have a further opportunity to learn. It’s like when you do something repeatedly even though you’ve done it a million times before, sometimes you will discover something new that you missed the last time. So the ‘soul’ does this to ensure it will absorb everything! (it is selfish when it comes to knowledge.)
Sometimes the soul may have to leave its mission to advise another soul, or the ‘soul’ feels as though it cannot learn anything from the physical existence then it will move on.
In passing of the physical self, the ‘soul’ will take its knowledge and move onto another physical self.

After watching the movie the Matrix I started to ponder on its ideas. Would it be far fetched from the truth that exists today?

Firstly I considered the possibility that machines are taking over the world and we were just bodies in a pod, perceiving everything via electronic impulses generated to our brain.

Considering this as a possibility, what would be the purpose of the machines? Human’s generated machines for a reason, that reason was the better enrich our lives. We created them purely with scientific knowledge; therefore they have no ‘feelings’. Without these feelings, what would generate or entice them to want to rule us or take over the world? And if this were somehow feasible what then would be their purpose? What would they do with the energy/life that we give them? Would they sit together in groups and play scrabble? (my fav past time)

I like the ideas purposed by Kant. They seem to fit my agenda on life. I know that somehow I exist but I cannot find a ‘true’ definition of myself. Every time I find some kinda classification or category for myself, I can easily argue opposing to why they’re not suitable.
I do believe that there is a physical self. I don’t know exactly what it is, but there is a high percentage of possibility that it is out there. I’ve had this idea that who we are (as a physical being) is and can only be defined in relation or reflection from things, like other humans, other minds perception, or our own minds.
The only reason I give it such a high percentage of existence is because materialism seems constant while the mind is subjective. When people look at me, they tend to describe me the same, from one person to another. Therefore it isn’t ONLY just the perception of each person.
I cannot experience myself directly; I can only experience myself through something.

Kant also establishes that we perceive things as an interpretation from a stimulant that we get.
Starting off on this point, we can view the mind as a central computer to every thing. Every computer needs a filing system to be able to interpret it back to the body. This is where space and time come in.
Firstly start off by computing time: If time was constant and real then we wouldn’t need to state a general consensus on it. We all need a clock because we need to establish a general consensus about something that isn’t nature or exist without our acknowledgment.

If there is some comparison to be made between the transcendental self and playing video games, then we must look at the other objects surrounding our existence.
For example, is the game like a Playstation game or is it a network of player?
If we live in a world like a Playstation game, then there is only 1 controller, one transcendental self, and the environment is already pre-programmed. But if we were ‘living’ in something, which resembles World of Warcraft, then it would mean that the transcendental self only controls the one body and someone or something else controls everything else, and we are just acting amongst other transcendental selves.
I think I prefer to ‘play’ in the WoW game better. The more solipsism view of a Playstation situation seems rather lonely, and the paradox is endless.
If we were the only existence then why would we need to experience things like feelings, to enlighten ourselves, or entertain ourselves because it doesn’t really serve ourselves to any purpose?
What do we really do in our ‘real’ existence? Where does the self (transcendental) go after death? Or does it die at all!? Is it immortal?
I find it difficult to comprehend that my mind is the only mind that exists in the universe, because I have experimented on other peoples reaction to my actions, they seem predictable to a point but unpredictable to the point where I can comprehend.
If there is some higher force, which has invented this game called life, they must be the most sophisticated programmers ever. There is not one action in life that is predictable or follows a certain rule that can be mapped.
Therefore, it’s hard to accept the loneliness that would follow a solipsism view.
I choose many transcendental selves in the universe and each and everyone of them transcendentals has a separate, secret agenda.
Mine? To discover the secrets of other transcendental selves.
I want to steal their knowledge and better myself, and continue the chain of growth.

I was driving along a freeway one day after the Solipsism lecture thinking about it.
Am I really the only one in the world? And is all that I see in my mind?
An illustration of how I have derived at my conclusion would be:
When you see something in your mind, and it is so vivid and clear, and you try to explain the logic to a friend, but they don’t understand it, they cannot see how it is logic that you’re talking about.
I agree with the solipsism viewpoint that everything that we see and experience is all relative to ‘my’ own perception and appearance and relative can differ from mind to mind.

This view may only be shared amongst those of us who are open minded enough to understand the difference of mindset.
I think a majority of us living in this materialistic view believe that their reality is the only reality. Before really thinking about what reality really is, I was socially conditioned not to question the material world in front of me.
I knew that a television was a television; I never questioned whether the television was real. Was it real in my head, or was it real in terms of protons and electrons?

My favourite philosophical proclamation “I know nothing!” can also be seen as the heading of solipsism.
It is true though, how can one claim to KNOW something or everything if they cant exactly prove their claim? They can only serve us evidence arising from their own understanding, but they can never table hardcore facts because they do not know what is factual in our heads. They cannot guarantee any claim.

Plato held that ultimate knowledge could be found through a higher state, which involved training and a process of self-purification, but I don’t think that is attainable if one is to hold on to the theory that reality only exists in the mind of each individual. Doesn’t matter how far you take reality, it will only exist in your own mind, there can be no ultimate truth. But then this could also be as far as my intellect will take me to think, maybe there is such ultimate truth, but my mind is so blinded by some sort of social conditioning that I cannot see beyond the initial understanding.
Like being locked in a room, the only thing you would know (or think your know) is what’s contained in that room.

How did it all begin?

This is the second philosophy subject taken by me and I cant say that the first truly reflected my enquiring mind.
Obviously a contributing hindrance to the failure was due to my inability to focus and complete. Modern society plays a major contributing factor to that. It sucks away your innocence and mocks the wisdom out of you.
But I’ve found a way, almost like the light that people are always talking about. It isn’t simple and is an acquired taste matured only through time.
And what is this?

Claim to know nothing.

As conditioned by my environment I always claim to know everything. I know that I am human and I know that I exist. I know that I have a mother and a father and I know that I am of asian origin.

One day whilst trekking through the Himalayans I began to revisit my child hood memories and the questions that I use to ask myself.
They were questions of knowledge, they were questions of wisdom.
“who am I?”
“what am I”
Do I really exist and if so what is my existence and why am I in existence.

When exploring the two divergent approaches to philosophy – the Aristotelian type and the Socratic type, they seem quite distinguished.
But to me they’re almost the same, and maybe it’s the combination of these two approaches that is more suited to modern day life.

For example. When I fight with my boyfriend, the fighting begins with me wondering why he doesn’t clean the house, and why he doesn’t enjoy the opera, and why he doesn’t wash the dishes when I’ve been cooking all day. This wonder leads me question him and what begins as questioning results into an argument.
After nasty words are exchanged and a few stabbings (no not really, although one more straw on the camels back & it would have resulted in that) I begin to acknowledge that I only know what I know and that I do not know what he knows.

I guess if we’re all able to apply the logic of philosophy and inherit all the different methods and ways of thinking then we can all maybe live a more explored and fore filled life.
But then one must acknowledge that disagreement equates to war and hatred, just like religion and faith. But if philosophy was applied I guess people would be able to comprehend the inevitable fact that we all have different opinions based on our own experiences and exposures. That is definitely some logic that is missing in man-kind these days.