Seven Figures or Love

College Confidential Community
121

<p>
[QUOTE]
My argumentation obviously isn't circular if you're providing me with a direct clash against the statement I made. I was making a clear statement. "Love" may be more than a sum of its parts but I'm willing to take the sum of the parts if it means I can live in the lap of material luxury. That is, this "undefinable" quality of true love

[/QUOTE]

Love has definition, but not in the form of quantity, as material possessions have. Materialism is based on the needs of the self, however love is completely selfless. Love transcends money by offering a connection to the spiritual, the emotional, the human side of things. Money only is there as a system to keep the flow of resources regulated. So you have a new Lexus. Big deal. What makes that SO much better than a Kia as to substantiate true and complete happiness, let alone replace that of love. So you have a house with 30 rooms. Does that make you any better of a person, emotionally, than the person in a single room apartment? Materialism is all a state of mind. If you look through history, even the lower classes of today (in America) have many luxuries when compared to the rich nobles of five centuries ago. Yet back then, the nobles still ruthlessly pursued their selfish and gluttonous ways. It is all relative. People who define their status by their possessions are nothing more than advertisements on TV. If life is only about what we have, and not what we REALLY have, in our hearts, in our souls, then life is not worth living. End of story.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
(two sidenotes, well sort of - they're related to you're post: 1. I don't think the undefinability wholely constitutes love anyway - can love REALLY be separated from trust and loyalty?

[/QUOTE]

Yes, it can. However, it would not make sense for a person to have one without the other. Take trust for example. A father sees his beloved child about to enter a dangerous situation. The child insists on entering the situation, and gives all reassurances to the father. The father does not trust the child in this instance, however, because of his love, stands in his position. The same idea applies to loyalty. Love is a selfless and emotional concern for another person (this might not be the most complete definiton, and may need to be expanded/modified).</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
and 2. I don't think the quality is TRULY undefinable. It is the quality of finding loyalty, compassion, companionship, trust, caring etc. AND physical passion in a single person) can be replaced with material luxury if the two were mutually exclusive.

[/QUOTE]

Any quality is not quantifiable, it wouldn't then be a quality, now would it? You associate love with WHAT CAN IT DO FOR ME. But that is not love at all. I suppose that such a greedy definiton could be compared to material wealth.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Why are you even arguing with me if you believe love is undefinable?

[/QUOTE]

I don't feel that love is undefinable, I feel that it cannot be quantified. Maybe I said something in a weird context, or did not explain myself sufficiently, and was thus interpreted. I hope my responses in this post clarify what I mean.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
You lead us to one conclusion no matter how you choose to look at it - 1. If love is undefinable then we can't rationally be arguing about this anyway because love in and of itself is subjective. It 's value is based solely on individual interpretation. Thus, for all your argumentation - you're simply reiterating that were YOU personally in this situation, you would choose love (because of its undefinable quality) over lots of money. But because love has this undefinable quality, my interpretation of its replaceability is completely irrelevant to what you believe so there is no reason for you to be wasting your time. We can't objectively discuss this.

[/QUOTE]

Ah, sorry, see above. You see, I did not mean that love cannot be defined, but that love cannot be defined by the parts you presented.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
2. If, as I am inclined to believe from that second paragraph, this "undefinable" love is inherently equated in your mind with pure happiness or complete irreplaceability (which believe it or not does define or at least qualify it), then the original poster's question was complete bs and we shouldn't be wasting our time dignifying it with a response (or a debate for that matter). If in your opinion there is nothing in the world, definable or not, that can take the place of true love, then there is no reason for you to be debating me - it makes this argument ENTIRELY pointless.

[/QUOTE]

Well it is in my opinion that love cannot be replaced by anything in the world. However, why is that not something worthy of discussion? If you disagree with somebody's opinion, then that would be the time to argue your position, correct? The only other option would be to argue with somebody that you agree with. If our dispute initially is comparing the value of love to money, and we view money similarly (except relative to money), then the properties of love are logically the next thing to address. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
3. assuming that the undefinable quality of love is completely irreplaceable has more ramifications than that though. It leads you to assume, as you did in your second paragraph, that rich people who have not found true love are inherently unhappy and if they are "happy", they are deluding themselves.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is correct.

[QUOTE]
That basically means that those who have not found true love are extremely unhappy - that is QUITE the assumption considering that would make true love a necessity for happiness while a seven-digit salary is clearly not. And you're telling me not to weigh love according to cba because it's an unfair method?

[/QUOTE]

Yes. Why not? Just because I do not open up a logical weakness clear for you to exploit, that makes my argument unfair? No, that makes my argument strong. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
In order for us to be talking objectively (that is, in order for it to be worth your while to be arguing with me), we're forced to accept that love is on a certain level definable. Otherwise, it is all simply a matter of opinion - and MY opinion is that 1. CBA is a fair method of analysis because in my mind I have placed a certain value on love - it's not irreplaceable and 2. a seven-figure income outweighs. End of story.

[/QUOTE]

So basically you are right because you say you are right. That sounds oddly similar to the self-brainwashing that I described with the rich folks :D.</p>

122

<p>
[quote]
You associate love with WHAT CAN IT DO FOR ME. But that is not love at all

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your entire post is a self-contradiction. You tell me love cannot be defined according to what it does for a person because it is inherently selfless and yet you tell me that without true love, one can't be happy (which is entirely false because not all happy people find "true love" or even believe in it). Even if you say selflessness inherently makes one happy (which is COMPLETELY false - this coming from a very personal experience; for the sake of argument though, I'll just accept it), you are still using INDIVIDUAL HAPPINESS as a standard which means you are interpretting love according to what it does for you. You're clouding the real issue by bringing up who the "better person" is. Bringing morality into this is simply a method of making me look bad without actually debating the issue (maybe you should be a politician?).</p>

<p>Not to mention you're further clouding the issue by equating "true romantic love" with all types of love. Just because I'm rich doesn't mean I won't have the love of a parent or a best friend or a sibling. it doesn't mean I can't be selfless. You need to prove that ROMANTIC love >specifically< cannot be replaced by material luxury. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Any quality is not quantifiable, it wouldn't then be a quality, now would it?

[/quote]
- most definable qualities can be weighed in value (that is, they become quantifiable) when compared to other definable qualities. I turned the seven-figure income into a quality by essentially defining it as material luxury (as opposed to specific things I would buy). Material luxury isn't necessarily quantifiable because it's EXACT interpretation is specific to each individual person. In that sense it is just as much a quality as trust, loyalty, companionship etc. Just because you don't know the mass of two objects doesn't mean you can't weigh one against the other on a scale.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Yes. Why not? Just because I do not open up a logical weakness clear for you to exploit, that makes my argument unfair? No, that makes my argument strong.

[/quote]

The basis of your argument is an ASSUMPTION. People who have not found true romantic love are either not happy or deluding themselves. That's a total assertion. Where's your warrant for that? There is NO logical reason as to why that would be true. I'm saying you can get trust, loyalty, companionship, physical passion through other means. You can get the selfless emotional concern that "defines" love through relationships with friends and family. You can be even more selfless by donating time and energy to charity organizations or people in need. In my opinion the assertion is entirely false in the first place. </p>

<p>But even if we reject all of my reservations as to the truth of the matter, because you give no logical analysis (yes, you do need logical argumentation - not solely opinion; otherwise we can't have rational debate) as to why a lack of romantic love makes one inherently unhappy, we'd have to accept it as an assumption/observation taht comes before weighing of the sides (which I admit, I made several of in my original cba post; however, none of them were inherently biased and I gave some line of analysis as to why we should accept them). It creates a foundation for discussion that's inherently leaning towards your side- that is, an obviously unfair playing field. </p>

<p>So at best the argument creates an unfair basis for analysis and ought to be rejected; at worst it's simply false and ought to be rejected.</p>

<p>I have of course left out the most glaring contradiction in your post. You tell me Cost-benefit analysis is unfair because love is not quantifiable, yet, by making the argument that accepting romantic love over money is necessary for happiness whereas money over romantic love is not, you have inherently accepted my original framework of CBA because you have used happiness as a standard to weigh the two. My original analysis came down to - "Money makes me more happy because I can get most of the benefits of true romantic love (compassion, trust, loyality, selflessness, righteousness etc) AND material luxury". Your analysis is "True Love makes me more happy than plain money because plain money without love is no happiness at all. Thus, by accepting love, I have some happiness while accepting the money means I have no happiness." That IS CBA! This means you have now made love "quantifiable" to a certain extent - nullifying your original argument and accepting all my original analysis as fair. The problem is you never refuted my analysis other than saying it was unfair. Since I actually gave logical reasons (and since cba is a logic-based method of analysis, this is a second reason you must give logical reasons in order to make a viable argument) as to why my conclusion was true, I would think my argument holds SIGNIFICANTLY more weight.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So basically you are right because you say you are right.

[/quote]

that was based on a misinterpretation of your saying love is undefinable.</p>

123

<p>Your entire post is a self-contradiction. You tell me love cannot be defined according to what it does for a person because it is inherently selfless and yet you tell me that without true love, one can't be happy (which is entirely false because not all happy people find "true love" or even believe in it). Even if you say selflessness inherently makes one happy (which is COMPLETELY false - this coming from a very personal experience; for the sake of argument though, I'll just accept it), you are still using INDIVIDUAL HAPPINESS as a standard which means you are interpretting love according to what it does for you. You're clouding the real issue by bringing up who the "better person" is. Bringing morality into this is simply a method of making me look bad without actually debating the issue (maybe you should be a politician?).

[/QUOTE]

Happiness is not an inherent result of selflessness. Happiness too is not an incentive to love, because then as you point out, it would be impossible to be selfless. My point in that area was that actual happiness can only come from love, NOT that it always will.

[QUOTE]
Not to mention you're further clouding the issue by equating "true romantic love" with all types of love. Just because I'm rich doesn't mean I won't have the love of a parent or a best friend or a sibling. it doesn't mean I can't be selfless. You need to prove that ROMANTIC love >specifically< cannot be replaced by material luxury.

[/QUOTE]

I think that defining "types of love" clouds the issue, as love is universal. Types of love only designate the persons in the relationship, and in this case it does not matter, as love is greater than money, even if it is love for a family member, friend, spouse, child, etc.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Any quality is not quantifiable, it wouldn't then be a quality, now would it? </p>

<ul>
<li>most definable qualities can be weighed in value (that is, they become quantifiable) when compared to other definable qualities. I turned the seven-figure income into a quality by essentially defining it as material luxury (as opposed to specific things I would buy). Material luxury isn't necessarily quantifiable because it's EXACT interpretation is specific to each individual person. In that sense it is just as much a quality as trust, loyalty, companionship etc. Just because you don't know the mass of two objects doesn't mean you can't weigh one against the other on a scale.

[/QUOTE]

However, once you have converted to a quantity, it ceases to be a quality. I do agree that you can weigh qualities against one another, but then what matters is how you judge their relative value. As I said before, if your measure of value is "WHAT I GET OUT OF IT" (which is in a way, quantifiable), then money can be greater than love. However, I define the greater of two things as applied to decision-making as that which is the most emotionally and spiritually fulfilling.</li>
</ul>

<p>Why should anyone make any decision? Morality is applicable in decision-making! Surely you do not mean to imply that our decisions should not take morality into account. In such a case, I think that choosing love, which is inherently selfless, is always equal or better than choosing money, which may be a selfish decision, except in cases where both love and money are attained (having money, I believe, is neutral morally, but sources, motivations, and uses of money usually are not neutral). This rests on the assertion that being selfless is always better than being selfish. This might seem counter-intuitive; some feel that the best decision is the most self-serving decision. I disagree, and think of selfishness as a base, animal-like form of thought, some psychological twitch that facilitates survival but is not spiritually fulfilling (which itself rests on the assertion that there is such a thing as spiritual fulfillment, a huge debate of its own). Spiritual fulfillment is not synonmyous with happiness One can be unhappy and spiritually fulfilled, but one cannot be happy and not be spiritually fulfilled. One cannot truly feel sad unless it comes from his spirit, nor can he be truly happy. Even will can only come from or to the spirit. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Yes. Why not? Just because I do not open up a logical weakness clear for you to exploit, that makes my argument unfair? No, that makes my argument strong. </p>

<p>The basis of your argument is an ASSUMPTION. People who have not found true romantic love are either not happy or deluding themselves. That's a total assertion. Where's your warrant for that? There is NO logical reason as to why that would be true.

[/QUOTE]

See above.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I'm saying you can get trust, loyalty, companionship, physical passion through other means. You can get the selfless emotional concern that "defines" love through relationships with friends and family.
You can be even more selfless by donating time and energy to charity organizations or people in need. In my opinion the assertion is entirely false in the first place.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, you can have both love and money, which is all that you really said, using my definition, but that invalidates the (impossible scenario, if money is taken figuratively) question of having to choose one or the other.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

But even if we reject all of my reservations as to the truth of the matter, because you give no logical analysis (yes, you do need logical argumentation - not solely opinion; otherwise we can't have rational debate) as to why a lack of romantic love makes one inherently unhappy, we'd have to accept it as an assumption/observation taht comes before weighing of the sides (which I admit, I made several of in my original cba post; however, none of them were inherently biased and I gave some line of analysis as to why we should accept them). It creates a foundation for discussion that's inherently leaning towards your side- that is, an obviously unfair playing field.

[/QUOTE]

You make a point, and I hope my short comments above give my argument more of a base.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
So at best the argument creates an unfair basis for analysis and ought to be rejected; at worst it's simply false and ought to be rejected.

[/QUOTE]

As a complete argument, I agree, this is something that volumes of books have been written for, but the assumptions are not preposterous.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I have of course left out the most glaring contradiction in your post. You tell me Cost-benefit analysis is unfair because love is not quantifiable, yet, by making the argument that accepting romantic love over money is necessary for happiness whereas money over romantic love is not, you have inherently accepted my original framework of CBA because you have used happiness as a standard to weigh the two. My original analysis came down to - "Money makes me more happy because I can get most of the benefits of true romantic love (compassion, trust, loyality, selflessness, righteousness etc) AND material luxury". Your analysis is "True Love makes me more happy than plain money because plain money without love is no happiness at all. Thus, by accepting love, I have some happiness while accepting the money means I have no happiness." That IS CBA! This means you have now made love "quantifiable" to a certain extent - nullifying your original argument and accepting all my original analysis as fair. The problem is you never refuted my analysis other than saying it was unfair. Since I actually gave logical reasons (and since cba is a logic-based method of analysis, this is a second reason you must give logical reasons in order to make a viable argument) as to why my conclusion was true, I would think my argument holds SIGNIFICANTLY more weight.

[/QUOTE]

Ah, yes, and if your interpretation of what I said were correct, you would be right. My comments in this post hopefully show that I do not consider happiness the end-all.</p>

<p>I hope that there's a decent amount of logical fodder this time around :D.</p>

124

<p>I need love. I can't imagine having a lot of cars and living in a big house with no one to share it with.</p>

125

<p>
[quote]

I think that defining "types of love" clouds the issue, as love is universal. Types of love only designate the persons in the relationship, and in this case it does not matter, as love is greater than money, even if it is love for a family member, friend, spouse, child, etc.

[/quote]

But you are failing to answer the original question (choose between true romantic love and money). If I were forced to choose being completely lonely as the cost of tons of money, then all of your arguments would be justified. However, in this sense, love IS quantifiable. I can still love others without the love of a spouse, even though I'll love fewer people or arguably love less in general. You need to prove that there is something especially spiritually-fulfilling about romantic love specifically such that it outweighs a seven-figure income or you're not answering the original question (whose basis is that different types of love exist).
In my opinion, love doesn't exist unless it is specific to a person(s) even if that person(s) is nameless. There is no such thing as love unless you can in some way identify the receiver. The sentence "I love" simply doesn't make sense. Classification of love is thus justified. There IS however, a capacity for love that may exist irrelevant to the receiver. I assume in my original post that this capacity exists whether I have money or not. Were I to choose between the ability to (capacity for) love and money (which is the question you're forcing upon me), I would choose the former in an instant because I agree that the selflessness inherent in love is spiritually and emotionally fulfilling (though I don't think it is inherently linked to morality; a love for the family, for example, does not preclude an individual from murdering another outside the family). </p>

<p>My argument in answering the ORIGINAL question, however, was that because there is nothing inherently more spiritually or emotionally fulfilling about the love for a romantic partner than any other classification, it can be replaced by money as long as I still have the capacity to create and maintain purely platonic relationships with family and friends. </p>

<p>This may be irrelevant at the moment, but I still believe you're using happiness as the final standard by saying that a lack of spiritual fulfillment means that true happiness can never be met.</p>

126

<p>
[QUOTE]
But you are failing to answer the original question (choose between true romantic love and money). If I were forced to choose being completely lonely as the cost of tons of money, then all of your arguments would be justified. However, in this sense, love IS quantifiable. I can still love others without the love of a spouse, even though I'll love fewer people or arguably love less in general. You need to prove that there is something especially spiritually-fulfilling about romantic love specifically such that it outweighs a seven-figure income or you're not answering the original question (whose basis is that different types of love exist).

[/QUOTE]

I agree, it just did not seem to me that the question meant "choose between romantic love or money and possibly some other type of love."
I took 'romantic' as meaning 'ideal.' While that is probably a poor way to interpret 'romantic' when discussing love, I did so because that caveat makes the question that much more absurd :). </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
In my opinion, love doesn't exist unless it is specific to a person(s) even if that person(s) is nameless. There is no such thing as love unless you can in some way identify the receiver. The sentence "I love" simply doesn't make sense.

[/QUOTE]

Hm, it seems to make as much sense as saying "I run" or "I eat" without saying "I run through the park" or "I eat potato chips." Love can be directed towards something nameless, as you say, but it doesn't have to even be towards a person, but something more abstract, potentially, and just the general 'love' becomes feasible, especially in describing a person, i.e. 'a loving person.'</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Classification of love is thus justified. There IS however, a capacity for love that may exist irrelevant to the receiver. I assume in my original post that this capacity exists whether I have money or not. Were I to choose between the ability to (capacity for) love and money (which is the question you're forcing upon me), I would choose the former in an instant because I agree that the selflessness inherent in love is spiritually and emotionally fulfilling (though I don't think it is inherently linked to morality; a love for the family, for example, does not preclude an individual from murdering another outside the family).

[/QUOTE]

I would think that the choice would have to be permanent, as the question connotates things like life decisions, and prioritization. Also, the greatest love is universal love, and if someone really loved his family members, could he murder the family member of someone else? It still would be linked to morality, because if the person did not love the victim, it would remove the motivations that might stop the person from murdering the family member. Again though, I think that love is universal, and it brings people together, instead of isolating them as with devotional love to one purpose. Obviously, love can cause people to make decisions based on conflicting devotions, but if they are linked to a more universal love, overall it is better, even if the individual suffers either way.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
My argument in answering the ORIGINAL question, however, was that because there is nothing inherently more spiritually or emotionally fulfilling about the love for a romantic partner than any other classification, it can be replaced by money as long as I still have the capacity to create and maintain purely platonic relationships with family and friends.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
This may be irrelevant at the moment, but I still believe you're using happiness as the final standard by saying that a lack of spiritual fulfillment means that true happiness can never be met.

[/QUOTE]

Happiness can mean pleasure, or it can mean contentment. If you are spiritually fulfilled, you will be content, even though you might experience pain, whereas if you are not spiritually fulfilled, you still might experience pleasure, which is transient.</p>

127

<p>Love, because that's the only thing money can't buy.</p>

128

<p>Money. I'm 13, I don't need any guy's love. XD</p>

129

<p>Money. I won't be able to get "true, unconditional, head over heals love" but i'll have the opportunity to do a lot of other things. Travel around the world, have no financial worries, have a stable life and partner, help out friends and family, give to charities, send my kids to the best colleges, have nice cars and houses, etc.</p>

<p>Love is too narrow, too selfish...</p>

130

<p>Wow, this has turned into an entire philosophical argument regarding the nature of love. Well, I think most of us would choose money without hesitation at first. But then you meet <em>someone</em>, and it all changes. That kind of feeling overwhelms your common sense. Logically, money SHOULD triumph over love! But when you actually fall in love, your entire perception becomes skewed. <em>Sighs sadly</em> I'm afraid I'm one of those people who've allowed themselves to get blindsided by emotion. Unfortunately for my bank account, I'd have to choose LOVE.</p>

131

<p>Wow, this thread still exists!!! </p>

<p>Now that I think about it, who cares??? The OP's logic is fllawed because a 7-figure income and love are two mutually exclusive things.</p>

132

<p>Love is the mystery that I have never really captured. I feel I've learned so much about it after listening throught Songs About Jane (Maroon 5) Even though I've never been in true love, it's so passionate, painful, beautiful, raw, mysterious so...everything. I'd pick true love anyday.</p>

133

<p>For love or for money?</p>

<p>For the love of money.</p>