tljulythree (tljulythree) wrote,
tljulythree
tljulythree

Brian Conversation # 3 Romanticism and Eternity

me: so i'm curious as to what you've been thinking about. You mentioned to me before that you had a lot on your mind.
can u give me a topic so i can do a lil research on my spare time
Brian: Hmmm
12:44 PM Romance and Religion
but not Romance in the sense of "love"
I mean it in the more general sense
maybe it would be better to use the word Romanticism
12:45 PM me: hmm... i analzyed a hopless romantic just recently. A lil off topic i know, but in the general scope i think
12:46 PM i wonder if a connection can be made...
12:47 PM i asked myself: "why type of people are hopeless romantics?" and my answer was: generally, people who fail to love themselves and/or whom society has failed to love adequately
thus they focus the love the have lacked and put it upon one single person
12:49 PM i think romanticism is the wanting from one person to be loved by another
12:51 PM Brian: well
that is the sense in which I was not using the word
so I think we might be talking about two different things
12:52 PM me: agreed. So be a little more specific.
are you thinking about romanticism as in the style of art
?
12:53 PM Brian: no
here...
I will try to explain
12:54 PM Shit, it is not an easy concept
...
12:55 PM me: we generally dont discuss easy concepts
Brian: Romance is the feeling of mystery and awe that is inspired by different things for different people. For example, I find mountains incredibly romantic
and most people find sunset romantic
12:56 PM Most people find history romantic - that of the world, and their own history (we commonly call that phonomena "nostalgia")
12:57 PM There is always an element of magnitude - a sense that what one is experiencing is in a sense "larger" than oneself, that makes it romantic; and there is always a sense of mystery which makes it romantic
12:58 PM me: ok, i have a much better sense of what you mean by romantic now
Brian: Most people find the stars and night sky romantic
ok
so if you get that much, do you agree that for most people, romance is the most important thing in the world?
It is a heavy claim, but think about it
12:59 PM me: heavy indeed
Brian: Or maybe it is earier to see it this way....
1:00 PM Imagine a word in which the sunset could not be romantic, or in which you would feel nothing when you looked at a star-filled sky, or in which romanitc love was impossible
(all of these things are"Romantic", so, in other words, imagine a non-romantic world)
1:01 PM Wouldn't it be terrible?
1:04 PM me: I would question the strength of your argument because i think i could put in things more important, like love in a general sense, caring, etc. However, I would say that there are lot of people who are do not get that sense of romance that you speak of. I think it takes a life loving and emotional person to really experience it.
1:05 PM Brian: Love in a general sense is romantic
It is romantic to ascribe to it any significance other than biological precesses
1:06 PM And the same can be said for anything that any type of person views as important
me: how far are you blanketing things with your idea of romance? Would you say that if i care for sick mother, that that is romance? I would say it is not.
1:07 PM Brian: It is romantic to claim that your sick mother's life has any inherent value
It is romantic because it call on something vast and eternal for that value
1:08 PM calls*
Namely, something Supernatural
A Materialist philosopher would say that your mother's life is just the produce of simple biology, and that the same could be said for your attachment to her
1:09 PM But a Romantic philosopher (what I think is a Supernatural philosopher) would say that, actually, her life IS valuable, and that your love for her is REAL
ANd I think the latter of the two worlds is a hell of a lot more preferable to the former
1:11 PM Try not to think of the word romantic only in a modern sense
1:12 PM me: hmm... i agree, but i'll throw some arg. out there to the contrary: 1) A mat. phil might respond by saying that the latter might be preferrable, but he is after truth and his view embrasses what he knows to be true, and the latter only hopes or assume the existence of an eternal being
1:15 PM there are also arguments that there can be values without eternity, and we can value a sick mother, even though there is nothing eternal. Of course a arg. would have to be made that "real" is what is real now and in relation to us in our present being
1:16 PM Brian: but there is no way to make that argument; that is exactly my point
without anything eternal, nothing can have "real" value
Anything of inherent worth must be grounded in the eternal
1:18 PM Otherwise we are all just a bunch of molecules floating aroundin space, for no reason other than "that is the way things are." Our emotions and mental goings-on would be merely by-products of the collisions between molecules, or something as menial as that. Even Reason itself could be boiled down to being a by-product of biology; in fact many scientists and philosophers think that it is

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 minutes

1:24 PM me: i sense that you reject that, but why? with what reason?
1:25 PM i think ppl make that arg. because it is the easiest to make with what we know thus far, but i have a sense that deep inside they dont truly buy into it
at least i hope not
1:26 PM Brian: you think that people make WHAT (sorry I don't have italics) argument?
1:27 PM me: the scientific one about us being nothing but a bunch of molecules
1:29 PM Brian: Exactly
Well
That is exactly what I was about to say
Here is the thing
1:30 PM IF they accept those arguments, they leave no room for MEANING or ROMANCE in their lives
because they exclude the eternal, which is needed to ground that meaning or romance
1:31 PM me: what about the notion that their sense of romance is that they simply a small molecule sized form of existence in a much greater, and bigger universe
which is all still material
i am narrowing the scope for that arg though
1:32 PM Brian: Material is material. ANd there is an infinite gap between something that is BIG and something that is ETERNAL. It wouldn't matter how many stpes you took in that regression; you still wouldn't approach anything like true eternity - i.e. true significance or meaning
1:33 PM me: i want to go slightly off topic for a lil bit
to share a scary feeling i had two nights ago
1:35 PM i woke up in the middle of the night, not with thoughts but a feeling that can be expressed or somewhat reproduced by these questions: What if I go to heaven and live in eternity? Then what? What do I do for eternity? What purpose is there in that? What if my existence is only to the point of my phsycal existence? Then what point is there in living when all will be wiped away?
1:36 PM i refused to give it thought and i dont want to think about it now, but that feeling lingers in me now
1:38 PM Brian: I know that feeling well, especially the first of the two. I used to have it all the time, as a young kid contemplating the notion of Eternity, which I'd been taught about in Religion class
I was deathly afraid of living forever
1:39 PM And I used to do exactly what you are now, avoid thinking about it!
me: it triggers my anxiety attacks
that's how powerful that thought is
1:40 PM Brian: Our minds don't do well with the infinite
But remember two important things
1:41 PM (from a Christian perspecitve, anyway)
me: no it does not
Brian: First, we are finite beings, but we are destined for the infinite, that is, for God.
And so we can know that when we "get there," we will feel at home, not scared or uncomfortable.
1:42 PM Second, remeber that Eternity is not an infinte extension of time, it is a lack of time
Rather than "living forever," you will be living instantaneously.
1:44 PM me: i fear things i cannot emotionally comprehend and these things i cannot. I feel i have reached my limits for philosophy and am left at a dreadful place, a feeling that i have gone too far
1:48 PM Brian: You can't go too far in philosohpy. The only bounds are the Rational limits, which simply can NOT be passed. Of you;ve gone past the limits of USEFUL philosophy, there is always time to turn around, and it will benefit you to know (through experience) that it is a "dead end street" so to speak.
If*
1:49 PM me: oh i know, and that end street is a horrible place to be
1:50 PM maybe i should be a cop-out and follow ayn rand
don't worry i'll never stoop so low, lol
1:51 PM ok well i must run to class, but let's finish this up some other time. I'll give more thought into what you have said
Brian: Alright man
Talk to you soon
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments