Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Great Scenes in Movie History
1. Opening Scene to Star Wars: A New Hope.
This film should be studied for years to understand how all movies should start. Those little blue letters about a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...and then BOOOOOOM! John Williams hits you with that horn section, and the letters scroll up, and then you see that huuuuuge star destroyer, cut to where there's warning klaxons going on all over, the robots are running one way, the ship's crew are running the other, and then everyone gets in place.
It's quiet. A few ominous sounds of metal-on-metal, and then BLAMO again, as the stormtroopers blow up the door and start blasting everybody. And then, you guys, in the middle of this white-ish door steps through Darth f--king Vader.
2. The Scene In That One Church from Saving Private Ryan
Medic Wade: Actually, the trick to falling asleep is trying to stay awake.
Mellish: How is that, Wade?
Medic Wade: Well, when my mother was an intern, she used to work late through the night... sleep through the day. So the only time we'd ever get to talk about anything is when she'd get home. So what I... I used to do, I used to lie in my bed and try to stay awake as long as I could, but it never worked 'cause... 'cause the harder I'd try, the faster I'd fall asleep.
Private Reiben: Yeah well, that wouldn't have mattered none in my house. My ma, she would've come home, shook me awake, chatted me up 'til dawn. I swear that woman was never too tired to talk.
Mellish: That was probably the only time she could get a word in.
Medic Wade: Only thing is, sometimes she'd come home early, and I'd pretend to be asleep.
Mellish: Who, your mom?
Medic Wade: Yeah. She'd stand in the doorway looking at me... and I'd just keep my eyes shut. And I knew she just wanted to find out about my day - that she came home early... just to talk to me. And I still wouldn't move... I'd still pretend to just be asleep. I don't know why I did that.
Gets me every time.
3. Closing Scene to Field of Dreams.
Where he asks his dead dad to go play catch? Oh man, you'd have to be some sort of cold unfeeling robot (or a girl) to not cry at that. I don't know if women will understand that movie at all- probably not. It's probably like Brian's Song in its ability to make men cry, while women don't get it. So remember, sports-obsessed culture, if you want to tug on the heartstrings, make a movie about sports. Or war. Or wargames. I cry every time I play tic-tac-toe, now. Only Jordan will get that joke.
4. The scene in The Jerk where Navin gets randomly shot at.
I laugh throughout this movie, but never as hard as when Navin gets overenthusiastic about the Phone Book: "The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here! Things are going to start happening to me, now!" Cut to scene of maniacal killer selecting his victim at random from the phone book: "Navin R. Johnson, random sonofabitch milkface bastard."
And then the cans. "He hates these cans! STAY AWAY FROM THE CANS!!!" Steve Martin's horror when he finds that he's accidentally taken refuge behind a Coca-Cola machine is priceless.
5. Rain Scene from The Notebook.
It's so over the top that I can't help secretly liking it. "I wrote you every day for a year. It wasn't over. It's still not over." Ker-smooooooooooooooooch.
That's it. Those are the five best, ever. Everybody else go home. Where are you going to go from there? Forget about it.
This film should be studied for years to understand how all movies should start. Those little blue letters about a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...and then BOOOOOOM! John Williams hits you with that horn section, and the letters scroll up, and then you see that huuuuuge star destroyer, cut to where there's warning klaxons going on all over, the robots are running one way, the ship's crew are running the other, and then everyone gets in place.
It's quiet. A few ominous sounds of metal-on-metal, and then BLAMO again, as the stormtroopers blow up the door and start blasting everybody. And then, you guys, in the middle of this white-ish door steps through Darth f--king Vader.
2. The Scene In That One Church from Saving Private Ryan
Medic Wade: Actually, the trick to falling asleep is trying to stay awake.
Mellish: How is that, Wade?
Medic Wade: Well, when my mother was an intern, she used to work late through the night... sleep through the day. So the only time we'd ever get to talk about anything is when she'd get home. So what I... I used to do, I used to lie in my bed and try to stay awake as long as I could, but it never worked 'cause... 'cause the harder I'd try, the faster I'd fall asleep.
Private Reiben: Yeah well, that wouldn't have mattered none in my house. My ma, she would've come home, shook me awake, chatted me up 'til dawn. I swear that woman was never too tired to talk.
Mellish: That was probably the only time she could get a word in.
Medic Wade: Only thing is, sometimes she'd come home early, and I'd pretend to be asleep.
Mellish: Who, your mom?
Medic Wade: Yeah. She'd stand in the doorway looking at me... and I'd just keep my eyes shut. And I knew she just wanted to find out about my day - that she came home early... just to talk to me. And I still wouldn't move... I'd still pretend to just be asleep. I don't know why I did that.
Gets me every time.
3. Closing Scene to Field of Dreams.
Where he asks his dead dad to go play catch? Oh man, you'd have to be some sort of cold unfeeling robot (or a girl) to not cry at that. I don't know if women will understand that movie at all- probably not. It's probably like Brian's Song in its ability to make men cry, while women don't get it. So remember, sports-obsessed culture, if you want to tug on the heartstrings, make a movie about sports. Or war. Or wargames. I cry every time I play tic-tac-toe, now. Only Jordan will get that joke.
4. The scene in The Jerk where Navin gets randomly shot at.
I laugh throughout this movie, but never as hard as when Navin gets overenthusiastic about the Phone Book: "The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here! Things are going to start happening to me, now!" Cut to scene of maniacal killer selecting his victim at random from the phone book: "Navin R. Johnson, random sonofabitch milkface bastard."
And then the cans. "He hates these cans! STAY AWAY FROM THE CANS!!!" Steve Martin's horror when he finds that he's accidentally taken refuge behind a Coca-Cola machine is priceless.
5. Rain Scene from The Notebook.
It's so over the top that I can't help secretly liking it. "I wrote you every day for a year. It wasn't over. It's still not over." Ker-smooooooooooooooooch.
That's it. Those are the five best, ever. Everybody else go home. Where are you going to go from there? Forget about it.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Romans 1
Now with blockquotes!
This is a notable way to start out a letter to Christians in Rome. I can only assume that some would be Jewish converts, but that a larger share would be Gentiles. Would the Gentiles much care if Jesus had been promised and prophesied about many years before? Would they understand what it means that Jesus is related to David?
There is a common motif found throughout the New Testament that Paul also uses here. Elsewhere, when people talk about the flesh or the spirit, these are placeholders for the deprived state of human nature before God's grace, compared to the soul that has been renewed. Remember when Jesus is about to be betrayed, his disciples fall asleep when they should be praying, and Jesus says, "The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."
So what does Paul mean when he says that "who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead"? The 'human nature' that Christ has that Paul is talking about is part of Christ's Humiliation: that period of time that Jesus gave up his full powers as God and became a man that ate, slept, cried, walked, drank, and talked.
The Resurrection, then, is part of his Glorification- those periods when Jesus is revealed to be the Deity he is. The NIV translates the word 'Spirit' in this passage with a capital 'S', that is, the Holy Spirit. This might be taken to mean that the Holy Spirit declared Jesus to be holy, or something. It's confusing. But it doesn't really show that Flesh VS Spirit motif very well. A WELS seminarian, who is much better at this stuff than I am, writes an alternative translation:
"He was by the resurrection from the dead designated as the Son of God in power, in full accord with his spiritual mode of existence, an existence characterized by holiness.”
This is an excellent statement of the gospel's purpose. God is using it in order to save everyone who believes. Whenever people complain that God doesn't do anything, you can show this passage. God is using the gospel as his tool to redeem mankind. Compare popular conceptions of Christianity to this. Jesus may well be nice and good and want us to treat other people with kindness and respect, but the entire point behind this story is salvation, not behavior modification.
Lastly in this section, Paul begins one of the biggest themes of his epistle: righteousness. Don't make the mistake I sometimes make after watching too much Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and think of righteousness as an all-encompassing generally positive modifier. It has a clear meaning: doing the right things. Following God's Will perfectly.
The Bible often uses the illustration of a courtroom, with God as the Judge. People come before him, and are accused of wrongdoing (The Accuser is a popular euphemism for Satan). If they are righteous, they don't have anything to be worried about. But if they are unrighteous (hint: this covers a LOT of people), they are in trouble. Paul is saying that there is some way to be made righteous before God, even if you are unrighteous.
The first part of this section is cool because it deals with a variety of issues I've written about before: evolution, Creation, environmentalism, and the culpability of mankind.
Agnostics I've talked to bring up this point a lot: you are a Christian because your parents are Christian and that is what you have been taught. How is it fair for God to deny salvation to people who, through no fault of their own do not have access to Christian parents or the Bible or seminaries or missionaries?
Paul answers here that no one should be able to make that claim. The evidence of God's Creation is so powerful and manifest that "men are without excuse". All societies at one time had an understanding of God. Some threw that understanding away, exchanging an inconvenient truth for a lie.
Evolution and other sciences like astrophysics directly combat this point. The evidence of God's Creation is not convincing at all. We've looked and looked and looked, and our best answer is NOT that God made the universe, but that we exist as a cosmic fluke.
Environmentalism has a role to play in this, too. In this section, Paul says that the natural world testifies to the attributes of God. If we treat the natural world better, those attributes can better be seen. The restoration of the natural world would also be a great way to communicate the restoration of our place as children of God.
Now on to the homosexual stuff. You simply cannot maintain biblical integrity and claim that homosexuality is not a sin: it's condemned strongly here, elsewhere in the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament. Some people will actually try to do this, and tie themselves up in knots. If you accept only certain parts of the Bible, this is not a big problem: St. Paul was correct in his teachings of atonement, sanctification, and faith alone, but not this part about homosexuality.
I do not know why some American church bodies have reversed course on this issue. Which is more probable: the teachings of the church have been incorrect for thousands of years, or that modern churches are falsely changing doctrine due to social pressure? This may be one of the only times in recorded church history when churches have openly sanctioned activities that are condemned by scripture. Paul might have written today, "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.
To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is a notable way to start out a letter to Christians in Rome. I can only assume that some would be Jewish converts, but that a larger share would be Gentiles. Would the Gentiles much care if Jesus had been promised and prophesied about many years before? Would they understand what it means that Jesus is related to David?
There is a common motif found throughout the New Testament that Paul also uses here. Elsewhere, when people talk about the flesh or the spirit, these are placeholders for the deprived state of human nature before God's grace, compared to the soul that has been renewed. Remember when Jesus is about to be betrayed, his disciples fall asleep when they should be praying, and Jesus says, "The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."
So what does Paul mean when he says that "who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead"? The 'human nature' that Christ has that Paul is talking about is part of Christ's Humiliation: that period of time that Jesus gave up his full powers as God and became a man that ate, slept, cried, walked, drank, and talked.
The Resurrection, then, is part of his Glorification- those periods when Jesus is revealed to be the Deity he is. The NIV translates the word 'Spirit' in this passage with a capital 'S', that is, the Holy Spirit. This might be taken to mean that the Holy Spirit declared Jesus to be holy, or something. It's confusing. But it doesn't really show that Flesh VS Spirit motif very well. A WELS seminarian, who is much better at this stuff than I am, writes an alternative translation:
"He was by the resurrection from the dead designated as the Son of God in power, in full accord with his spiritual mode of existence, an existence characterized by holiness.”
Paul's Longing to Visit Rome
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you.
I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.
I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
This is an excellent statement of the gospel's purpose. God is using it in order to save everyone who believes. Whenever people complain that God doesn't do anything, you can show this passage. God is using the gospel as his tool to redeem mankind. Compare popular conceptions of Christianity to this. Jesus may well be nice and good and want us to treat other people with kindness and respect, but the entire point behind this story is salvation, not behavior modification.
Lastly in this section, Paul begins one of the biggest themes of his epistle: righteousness. Don't make the mistake I sometimes make after watching too much Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and think of righteousness as an all-encompassing generally positive modifier. It has a clear meaning: doing the right things. Following God's Will perfectly.
The Bible often uses the illustration of a courtroom, with God as the Judge. People come before him, and are accused of wrongdoing (The Accuser is a popular euphemism for Satan). If they are righteous, they don't have anything to be worried about. But if they are unrighteous (hint: this covers a LOT of people), they are in trouble. Paul is saying that there is some way to be made righteous before God, even if you are unrighteous.
God's Wrath Against Mankind
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
The first part of this section is cool because it deals with a variety of issues I've written about before: evolution, Creation, environmentalism, and the culpability of mankind.
Agnostics I've talked to bring up this point a lot: you are a Christian because your parents are Christian and that is what you have been taught. How is it fair for God to deny salvation to people who, through no fault of their own do not have access to Christian parents or the Bible or seminaries or missionaries?
Paul answers here that no one should be able to make that claim. The evidence of God's Creation is so powerful and manifest that "men are without excuse". All societies at one time had an understanding of God. Some threw that understanding away, exchanging an inconvenient truth for a lie.
Evolution and other sciences like astrophysics directly combat this point. The evidence of God's Creation is not convincing at all. We've looked and looked and looked, and our best answer is NOT that God made the universe, but that we exist as a cosmic fluke.
Environmentalism has a role to play in this, too. In this section, Paul says that the natural world testifies to the attributes of God. If we treat the natural world better, those attributes can better be seen. The restoration of the natural world would also be a great way to communicate the restoration of our place as children of God.
Now on to the homosexual stuff. You simply cannot maintain biblical integrity and claim that homosexuality is not a sin: it's condemned strongly here, elsewhere in the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament. Some people will actually try to do this, and tie themselves up in knots. If you accept only certain parts of the Bible, this is not a big problem: St. Paul was correct in his teachings of atonement, sanctification, and faith alone, but not this part about homosexuality.
I do not know why some American church bodies have reversed course on this issue. Which is more probable: the teachings of the church have been incorrect for thousands of years, or that modern churches are falsely changing doctrine due to social pressure? This may be one of the only times in recorded church history when churches have openly sanctioned activities that are condemned by scripture. Paul might have written today, "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Barack Obama: Socialist?
There can be only one answer when Barack Obama funds million-dollar bonuses at AIG with taxpayer money and gives $25 billion to the Big Three (on the condition that they lower their labor costs to be more in line with other companies).
Barack Obama is afraid of being called a Socialist, so he is doing the most non-Socialist policies possible.
Barack Obama is afraid of being called a Socialist, so he is doing the most non-Socialist policies possible.
Friday, February 27, 2009
On Green Lantern
So one of my favorite comic book heroes growing up was Green Lantern. For those of you who are in denial about their past, Green Lantern used the green power of a green ring he got from the good people of Oa. Or possibly Ao. He had two flaws:
1. His green powers wouldn't work against the color yellow. So he'd, like, make a green gun and shoot it at you, and if you were wearing a yellow hat, you'd be ok.
2. He would sometimes run out of power in his ring, and have to refill it using, get this, a Green Lantern. I guess sometimes even that green lantern would get low, so he'd have to go back to Oa every now and then.
So that was fun. Until they started messing around with the story. All of a sudden, they came out with new green rings that did work against the color yellow. But wait! Then they didn't work against yellow, once again. But wait! There wasn't a flaw in the rings all along! It was simply the fear and belief in the powerlessness against the color yellow that created a self-fulfilling prophecy that made them powerless against the color yellow.
Also, eventually, the planet of Oa was destroyed. You would think that this would end the entire sequence. Instead, the new (and last) Green Lantern has a ring of unlimited green power. That has no weaknesses.
Then he got a sidekick, Green Arrow. Green Arrow didn't have any superpowers or rings of unlimited power, but he did have arrows. Special arrows that would freeze people or stun them or release noxious gas or explode. Except he had a moral thing against killing people.
So, unlimited power that can be unleashed with a thought. And a sidekick who doesn't kill people and has no superpowers.
1. His green powers wouldn't work against the color yellow. So he'd, like, make a green gun and shoot it at you, and if you were wearing a yellow hat, you'd be ok.
2. He would sometimes run out of power in his ring, and have to refill it using, get this, a Green Lantern. I guess sometimes even that green lantern would get low, so he'd have to go back to Oa every now and then.
So that was fun. Until they started messing around with the story. All of a sudden, they came out with new green rings that did work against the color yellow. But wait! Then they didn't work against yellow, once again. But wait! There wasn't a flaw in the rings all along! It was simply the fear and belief in the powerlessness against the color yellow that created a self-fulfilling prophecy that made them powerless against the color yellow.
Also, eventually, the planet of Oa was destroyed. You would think that this would end the entire sequence. Instead, the new (and last) Green Lantern has a ring of unlimited green power. That has no weaknesses.
Then he got a sidekick, Green Arrow. Green Arrow didn't have any superpowers or rings of unlimited power, but he did have arrows. Special arrows that would freeze people or stun them or release noxious gas or explode. Except he had a moral thing against killing people.
So, unlimited power that can be unleashed with a thought. And a sidekick who doesn't kill people and has no superpowers.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
On Flying Carpets
Let's say that your magic carpet could, in fact, fly. It is still a terrible idea! There is nothing to hold on to, there is no protection from the elements, including the winds at high elevations, and it is not pressurized.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
On Love
In light of today being Valentine's Day, as well as hearing a sermon about love two weeks ago, I've decided to do a blog post On Love.
This is a terrible idea! Now with 30% more cynicism!
Thesis 1: Love is nebulous, and this is a bad thing. Love is so broad a topic and so broadly defined, that eventually it becomes a completely meaningless and useless construction. This is a Very Bad Thing, because verbal communication should convey meaning. Imagine the following scenario:
Ben Affleck: I have to go blow up an asteroid to save the Earth!
Liv Tyler: But I love you!
Ben Affleck: What does that mean?
Liv Tyler: It means that you're the sunshine of my life.
Ben Affleck: In this metaphor, am I the sunshine because I provide you with sustenance in the form of animal crackers?
Liv Tyler: Uh...
Ben Affleck: Perhaps it is because I provide you with 'light' so that you can see what you're doing. You get confused about something, and through my council and digging-ability, I help you understand it.
Liv Tyler: Kind of.
Ben Affleck: Is it because my regular and periodic appearance makes you feel secure?
Liv Tyler: Kind of. My love for you is like a truck, Berserker!
Ben Affleck: This broad definition of love is confusing me. I can't concentrate on blowing up this asteroid.
KA-BOOOOOOOM!
Other Bad Love Definitions Either Made Up Or Remembered By Me:
Love is that magical jelly-bean inside your heart that grows into a rainbow bridge when you water it with kitten smiles.*
Love is never having to say you're sorry.
Other Bad Love Definitions Found On Urban Dictionary:
For others, love is the ever-present peace, the constant comfort and the assuring knowledge that the one you love is there.
Imagine, an ever-present peace that only appears when someone you love is around!
That feeling you get when he holds your hand hugs you, simply looks at you. Your stomach flip flops and you can't think straight but can think just how amazing he is. You get in so deep you forget everything and spend hours with him without even realizing its been hours. THE MOST AMAZING FEELING IN THE WORLD!!!!!
I cannot think coherently, but I do think that you are amazing! Also, if you would like to not think straight and forget hours of your life, you could just drink antifreeze.
love is undefined, it has no right and wrong meanings, it's just there for you to overcome, loook back on, and fall deeper into, it's something that cannot be controlled.
This is a website whose express purpose is to define things. Also, I believe that love is the capital of Maryland. I hope I don't fall deeper into the capital of Maryland! It cannot be controlled!
So, let's talk about Romeo and Juliet.
OK, so Romeo and Juliet is the Greatest Love Story in the History of the World, right?
No. No, it is not. That is something that your 9th grade English teacher told you so that you would actually read the book. By the end of the play, Romeo and Juliet are both dead, as are Mercutio and Tybalt. This play is a tragedy, and uses love as an instrument to get to its tragic end. That doesn't reflect very well on love, does it?
Moreover, the message of the play itself is that the love between Romeo and Juliet is paper-thin. Romeo is very impulsive: his decision to crash the party, run away and get married, kill Tybalt, and kill himself are all spur of the moment decisions. He was totes in Luv with Rosaline not a week before. This is not an argument in favor of "love at first sight": it's an argument that Romeo is making a huge mistake.
Towards a Better Definition
I'm much better at being snarky and criticizing the efforts of others with enormous levels of bile, jealousy, and cynicism than making a positive contribution of my own. Blame Connor Oberst.
I'm of half a mind to just split love up into three things like the Greeks did. So love between friends is called 'Philia', and has different characteristics than love between romantic couples called 'Eros', which has different characteristics from 'Agape' love between God and Humanity.
But we speak American, so we're stuck with one word.
But here goes nothing: Love is the irrational motivation to unconditionally help meet the physical, emotional, or spiritual needs of a person or group.
1. Irrational. It is irrational to meet the needs of other people at the expense of your own well-being. Ask Ayn Rand about this. However, self-sacrifice is a big part of love. Ask a parent if they would be willing to die for their children. Many would say yes. And lest we think that this is motivated by a rational desire to ensure the survival of the species, I think it is safe to say that many children would be willing to die for their parents. Many husbands would be willing to die for their wives. Many wives would be willing to die for their husbands. There is no rational reason for this.
2. Motivation. I resisted the urge to refer to love as an emotion, because you can feel different emotions while experiencing love. For example, you might feel very happy when someone you love is around. You might feel sad when they leave. You might feel disgusted when trying to help someone. You might feel angry.
The idea of motivation also implies taking action. A love that doesn't cause you to do anything isn't very strong.
3. Unconditional. I know, I know- my history of Bible studies on Sunday mornings is showing. I'm trying very hard to be secular in this post, as it seems like nearly all my blog posts devolve into Jesus-tinted rants. But I think it's very helpful to say, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
This death was unconditional: Jesus didn't die on Good Friday, provided that we pay him fifty bucks on Easter Sunday.
Try a few secular examples. When you call a friend on their birthday, is this so that you will get a call from them on your birthday? Do you pick up someone's dropped groceries so that people will think that you're a good person? Do you get a person flowers because if you don't, they will become angry?
4. Meeting people's needs. This is an imprecise and clunky part of the definition. Again, I would like to convey the idea that love involves action. But 'meeting needs'? Getting a list of things that people need would be hard and controversial. Also, it's difficult to express 'tough love' in this framework. Sometimes it can be a very loving thing to do to tell someone how much their preoccupation with getting ahead in their career is damaging their health. Or whatever.
So that's it. Happy Valentine's Day!
*Note: "Love is that magical jelly-bean inside your heart that grows into a rainbow bridge when you water it with kitten smiles." is the single best sentence I have ever constructed.
This is a terrible idea! Now with 30% more cynicism!
Thesis 1: Love is nebulous, and this is a bad thing. Love is so broad a topic and so broadly defined, that eventually it becomes a completely meaningless and useless construction. This is a Very Bad Thing, because verbal communication should convey meaning. Imagine the following scenario:
Ben Affleck: I have to go blow up an asteroid to save the Earth!
Liv Tyler: But I love you!
Ben Affleck: What does that mean?
Liv Tyler: It means that you're the sunshine of my life.
Ben Affleck: In this metaphor, am I the sunshine because I provide you with sustenance in the form of animal crackers?
Liv Tyler: Uh...
Ben Affleck: Perhaps it is because I provide you with 'light' so that you can see what you're doing. You get confused about something, and through my council and digging-ability, I help you understand it.
Liv Tyler: Kind of.
Ben Affleck: Is it because my regular and periodic appearance makes you feel secure?
Liv Tyler: Kind of. My love for you is like a truck, Berserker!
Ben Affleck: This broad definition of love is confusing me. I can't concentrate on blowing up this asteroid.
KA-BOOOOOOOM!
Other Bad Love Definitions Either Made Up Or Remembered By Me:
Love is that magical jelly-bean inside your heart that grows into a rainbow bridge when you water it with kitten smiles.*
Love is never having to say you're sorry.
Other Bad Love Definitions Found On Urban Dictionary:
For others, love is the ever-present peace, the constant comfort and the assuring knowledge that the one you love is there.
Imagine, an ever-present peace that only appears when someone you love is around!
That feeling you get when he holds your hand hugs you, simply looks at you. Your stomach flip flops and you can't think straight but can think just how amazing he is. You get in so deep you forget everything and spend hours with him without even realizing its been hours. THE MOST AMAZING FEELING IN THE WORLD!!!!!
I cannot think coherently, but I do think that you are amazing! Also, if you would like to not think straight and forget hours of your life, you could just drink antifreeze.
love is undefined, it has no right and wrong meanings, it's just there for you to overcome, loook back on, and fall deeper into, it's something that cannot be controlled.
This is a website whose express purpose is to define things. Also, I believe that love is the capital of Maryland. I hope I don't fall deeper into the capital of Maryland! It cannot be controlled!
So, let's talk about Romeo and Juliet.
OK, so Romeo and Juliet is the Greatest Love Story in the History of the World, right?
No. No, it is not. That is something that your 9th grade English teacher told you so that you would actually read the book. By the end of the play, Romeo and Juliet are both dead, as are Mercutio and Tybalt. This play is a tragedy, and uses love as an instrument to get to its tragic end. That doesn't reflect very well on love, does it?
Moreover, the message of the play itself is that the love between Romeo and Juliet is paper-thin. Romeo is very impulsive: his decision to crash the party, run away and get married, kill Tybalt, and kill himself are all spur of the moment decisions. He was totes in Luv with Rosaline not a week before. This is not an argument in favor of "love at first sight": it's an argument that Romeo is making a huge mistake.
Towards a Better Definition
I'm much better at being snarky and criticizing the efforts of others with enormous levels of bile, jealousy, and cynicism than making a positive contribution of my own. Blame Connor Oberst.
I'm of half a mind to just split love up into three things like the Greeks did. So love between friends is called 'Philia', and has different characteristics than love between romantic couples called 'Eros', which has different characteristics from 'Agape' love between God and Humanity.
But we speak American, so we're stuck with one word.
But here goes nothing: Love is the irrational motivation to unconditionally help meet the physical, emotional, or spiritual needs of a person or group.
1. Irrational. It is irrational to meet the needs of other people at the expense of your own well-being. Ask Ayn Rand about this. However, self-sacrifice is a big part of love. Ask a parent if they would be willing to die for their children. Many would say yes. And lest we think that this is motivated by a rational desire to ensure the survival of the species, I think it is safe to say that many children would be willing to die for their parents. Many husbands would be willing to die for their wives. Many wives would be willing to die for their husbands. There is no rational reason for this.
2. Motivation. I resisted the urge to refer to love as an emotion, because you can feel different emotions while experiencing love. For example, you might feel very happy when someone you love is around. You might feel sad when they leave. You might feel disgusted when trying to help someone. You might feel angry.
The idea of motivation also implies taking action. A love that doesn't cause you to do anything isn't very strong.
3. Unconditional. I know, I know- my history of Bible studies on Sunday mornings is showing. I'm trying very hard to be secular in this post, as it seems like nearly all my blog posts devolve into Jesus-tinted rants. But I think it's very helpful to say, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
This death was unconditional: Jesus didn't die on Good Friday, provided that we pay him fifty bucks on Easter Sunday.
Try a few secular examples. When you call a friend on their birthday, is this so that you will get a call from them on your birthday? Do you pick up someone's dropped groceries so that people will think that you're a good person? Do you get a person flowers because if you don't, they will become angry?
4. Meeting people's needs. This is an imprecise and clunky part of the definition. Again, I would like to convey the idea that love involves action. But 'meeting needs'? Getting a list of things that people need would be hard and controversial. Also, it's difficult to express 'tough love' in this framework. Sometimes it can be a very loving thing to do to tell someone how much their preoccupation with getting ahead in their career is damaging their health. Or whatever.
So that's it. Happy Valentine's Day!
*Note: "Love is that magical jelly-bean inside your heart that grows into a rainbow bridge when you water it with kitten smiles." is the single best sentence I have ever constructed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)