Hypothesis Is it better to love or to be loved?

[eudaimonia]

I would rather love . What about you?

Spoiler: Why I would rather love .

Spontaneously, we would tend to think that it is better to be loved. It is better to be loved because being loved means being validated, being recognized, having the certainty of existing for someone. Of mattering. Being loved means receiving from the other the proof of one’s own worth, of one’s own dignity. The proof that one deserves to be loved. But this therefore means depending on what is external to us. For Aristotle, wanting to be loved is wanting to be honored, wanting the other to grant us the honor of their attention, their love, their affection. But then, we become slaves to our passions. Slaves to our need for recognition, because that is what wanting to be loved truly is: wanting the other, like a mirror, to give us the assurance of our existence and to acknowledge our value. This means that we are unable to recognize ourselves on our own. We need the other in order to have confidence in ourselves, and so we become dependent on them. For Aristotle, this cannot serve as a foundation. Nothing positive can be built on passivity. In his view, loving is necessarily better than being loved. Because in “being loved” one suffers, one is passive. We can see this even from a grammatical standpoint: in “to love” we find the active voice, while in “being loved” we find the passive voice. In the passive voice, the subject undergoes the action, whereas in the active voice, the subject is the one performing it. It is evident that being in control of one’s actions is preferable to passivity. The word passive comes from the Latin patior and the Greek pathos, both of which refer to suffering. Being loved will always be inferior to loving, because loving is something positive. When we love, we are in action, we are in creation. The essence of a relationship, according to Aristotle, is not to receive but to give. Even if one is not loved in return, this feeling remains positive. Whereas when one systematically seeks to be loved, one is left waiting for recognition from the other. One is trapped in dependence on one’s own passions. One becomes a slave to one’s own needs.

 

[Alexander Wolfgang]

I would rather love . What about you?

Spoiler: Why I would rather love .

Spontaneously, we would tend to think that it is better to be loved. It is better to be loved because being loved means being validated, being recognized, having the certainty of existing for someone. Of mattering. Being loved means receiving from the other the proof of one’s own worth, of one’s own dignity. The proof that one deserves to be loved. But this therefore means depending on what is external to us. For Aristotle, wanting to be loved is wanting to be honored, wanting the other to grant us the honor of their attention, their love, their affection. But then, we become slaves to our passions. Slaves to our need for recognition, because that is what wanting to be loved truly is: wanting the other, like a mirror, to give us the assurance of our existence and to acknowledge our value. This means that we are unable to recognize ourselves on our own. We need the other in order to have confidence in ourselves, and so we become dependent on them. For Aristotle, this cannot serve as a foundation. Nothing positive can be built on passivity. In his view, loving is necessarily better than being loved. Because in “being loved” one suffers, one is passive. We can see this even from a grammatical standpoint: in “to love” we find the active voice, while in “being loved” we find the passive voice. In the passive voice, the subject undergoes the action, whereas in the active voice, the subject is the one performing it. It is evident that being in control of one’s actions is preferable to passivity. The word passive comes from the Latin patior and the Greek pathos, both of which refer to suffering. Being loved will always be inferior to loving, because loving is something positive. When we love, we are in action, we are in creation. The essence of a relationship, according to Aristotle, is not to receive but to give. Even if one is not loved in return, this feeling remains positive. Whereas when one systematically seeks to be loved, one is left waiting for recognition from the other. One is trapped in dependence on one’s own passions. One becomes a slave to one’s own needs.

tldr


I prefer both, although id rather be loved a little more

 

[Luxe]

Same nighas who say their “deep”

 

[eudaimonia]

I would rather love . What about you?

Spoiler: Why I would rather love .

Spontaneously, we would tend to think that it is better to be loved. It is better to be loved because being loved means being validated, being recognized, having the certainty of existing for someone. Of mattering. Being loved means receiving from the other the proof of one’s own worth, of one’s own dignity. The proof that one deserves to be loved. But this therefore means depending on what is external to us. For Aristotle, wanting to be loved is wanting to be honored, wanting the other to grant us the honor of their attention, their love, their affection. But then, we become slaves to our passions. Slaves to our need for recognition, because that is what wanting to be loved truly is: wanting the other, like a mirror, to give us the assurance of our existence and to acknowledge our value. This means that we are unable to recognize ourselves on our own. We need the other in order to have confidence in ourselves, and so we become dependent on them. For Aristotle, this cannot serve as a foundation. Nothing positive can be built on passivity. In his view, loving is necessarily better than being loved. Because in “being loved” one suffers, one is passive. We can see this even from a grammatical standpoint: in “to love” we find the active voice, while in “being loved” we find the passive voice. In the passive voice, the subject undergoes the action, whereas in the active voice, the subject is the one performing it. It is evident that being in control of one’s actions is preferable to passivity. The word passive comes from the Latin patior and the Greek pathos, both of which refer to suffering. Being loved will always be inferior to loving, because loving is something positive. When we love, we are in action, we are in creation. The essence of a relationship, according to Aristotle, is not to receive but to give. Even if one is not loved in return, this feeling remains positive. Whereas when one systematically seeks to be loved, one is left waiting for recognition from the other. One is trapped in dependence on one’s own passions. One becomes a slave to one’s own needs.

Highly based on «Nicomachean Ethics» by Aristotle as I don’t think for myself often lol .

 

[eudaimonia]

Same nighas who say their “deep”

When did I say that ?

 

[chudlite67]

I would rather love . What about you?

Spoiler: Why I would rather love .

Spontaneously, we would tend to think that it is better to be loved. It is better to be loved because being loved means being validated, being recognized, having the certainty of existing for someone. Of mattering. Being loved means receiving from the other the proof of one’s own worth, of one’s own dignity. The proof that one deserves to be loved. But this therefore means depending on what is external to us. For Aristotle, wanting to be loved is wanting to be honored, wanting the other to grant us the honor of their attention, their love, their affection. But then, we become slaves to our passions. Slaves to our need for recognition, because that is what wanting to be loved truly is: wanting the other, like a mirror, to give us the assurance of our existence and to acknowledge our value. This means that we are unable to recognize ourselves on our own. We need the other in order to have confidence in ourselves, and so we become dependent on them. For Aristotle, this cannot serve as a foundation. Nothing positive can be built on passivity. In his view, loving is necessarily better than being loved. Because in “being loved” one suffers, one is passive. We can see this even from a grammatical standpoint: in “to love” we find the active voice, while in “being loved” we find the passive voice. In the passive voice, the subject undergoes the action, whereas in the active voice, the subject is the one performing it. It is evident that being in control of one’s actions is preferable to passivity. The word passive comes from the Latin patior and the Greek pathos, both of which refer to suffering. Being loved will always be inferior to loving, because loving is something positive. When we love, we are in action, we are in creation. The essence of a relationship, according to Aristotle, is not to receive but to give. Even if one is not loved in return, this feeling remains positive. Whereas when one systematically seeks to be loved, one is left waiting for recognition from the other. One is trapped in dependence on one’s own passions. One becomes a slave to one’s own needs.

Be loved

 

[Luxe]

When did I say that ?

On Saturday

 

[catlady]

Same nighas who say their “deep”

n****r

 

[jest]

be loved but loving is beautiful too

 

[Deleted Member 120131]

be loved but loving is beautiful too

I want things to beautiful. I forgot things could be beautiful. I forgot that i was an option

 

[Deleted Member 120131]

Hey OP, hope you’re having a good day. I agree with you for the most part

 

[eudaimonia]

Hey OP, hope you’re having a good day. I agree with you for the most part

Terrible day but thank you

 

[jest]

I want things to beautiful. I forgot things could be beautiful. I forgot that i was an option

devi mcallion my angel

 

[Deleted Member 120131]

devi mcallion my angel

Based reference getter

Terrible day but thank you

The Law of Equivalent Exchange says that tomorrow will be a good day!

 

[catlady]

Same nighas who say their “deep”

Nig

I would rather love . What about you?

Spoiler: Why I would rather love .

Spontaneously, we would tend to think that it is better to be loved. It is better to be loved because being loved means being validated, being recognized, having the certainty of existing for someone. Of mattering. Being loved means receiving from the other the proof of one’s own worth, of one’s own dignity. The proof that one deserves to be loved. But this therefore means depending on what is external to us. For Aristotle, wanting to be loved is wanting to be honored, wanting the other to grant us the honor of their attention, their love, their affection. But then, we become slaves to our passions. Slaves to our need for recognition, because that is what wanting to be loved truly is: wanting the other, like a mirror, to give us the assurance of our existence and to acknowledge our value. This means that we are unable to recognize ourselves on our own. We need the other in order to have confidence in ourselves, and so we become dependent on them. For Aristotle, this cannot serve as a foundation. Nothing positive can be built on passivity. In his view, loving is necessarily better than being loved. Because in “being loved” one suffers, one is passive. We can see this even from a grammatical standpoint: in “to love” we find the active voice, while in “being loved” we find the passive voice. In the passive voice, the subject undergoes the action, whereas in the active voice, the subject is the one performing it. It is evident that being in control of one’s actions is preferable to passivity. The word passive comes from the Latin patior and the Greek pathos, both of which refer to suffering. Being loved will always be inferior to loving, because loving is something positive. When we love, we are in action, we are in creation. The essence of a relationship, according to Aristotle, is not to receive but to give. Even if one is not loved in return, this feeling remains positive. Whereas when one systematically seeks to be loved, one is left waiting for recognition from the other. One is trapped in dependence on one’s own passions. One becomes a slave to one’s own needs.

To love .

 

[eudaimonia]

This was lowkey shit icl I don’t want to love anymore.