Selfless love...

[Jon]

"Selfless love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."

[cbeast]

What a pile of horsecrap.

[Jon]

What a pile of horsecrap.

I am disappointed, cbeast. I thought you would give me some insight.

[cbeast]

What a pile of horsecrap.

I am disappointed, cbeast. I thought you would give me some insight.

I was being polite.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Shut up, Atlas.

[guruvan]

There are some who say there is no such thing as a "selfless act" - all acts are, at their root, selfish, for the basic reasons in the quote in the OP.

I'm not sure I agree, but there are certainly compelling arguments to make either way.

[the joint]

"Selfless love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."

No.

[Jon]

"Selfless love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."

No.

Why?

[the joint]

"Selfless love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."

No.

Why?

Because you, and/or whomever it is you are quoting, are confusing love with the byproducts of love which arise when the ego (hence, selfish) gets involved.

Something similar would be like saying "love hurts."  No, it doesn't.  Jealousy, anger, frustration, etc. are some of these hurtful byproducts.

Another similar example is like saying "I'm worried about you because I care about you," but worrying about someone and giving care to someone are two completely different things.

All of these negative byproducts (jealousy, anger, frustration, worry, etc.) and even the positive ones (lust, pleasure, etc.) are not love.   If you experience these and think it's love, you are wrong.  These byproducts are intense but shallow; love is subtle but deep.  Because  the byproducts (the derivations) are intense, they are what are often noticed; because love is subtle, it is not often noticed in it's purest form and rather it is confused like in your quote.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Because you, and/or whomever it is you are quoting, are confusing love with the byproducts of love which arise when the ego (hence, selfish) gets involved.

Something similar would be like saying "love hurts."  No, it doesn't.  Jealousy, anger, frustration, etc. are some of these hurtful byproducts.

Another similar example is like saying "I'm worried about you because I care about you," but worrying about someone and giving care to someone are two completely different things.

All of these negative byproducts (jealousy, anger, frustration, worry, etc.) and even the positive ones (lust, pleasure, etc.) are not love.   If you experience these and think it's love, you are wrong.  These byproducts are intense but shallow; love is subtle but deep.  Because  the byproducts (the derivations) are intense, they are what are often noticed; because love is subtle, it is not often noticed in it's purest form and rather it is confused like in your quote.

Stop making sense. You'll overload his circuitry. He's only built for pointless endless loops.

[the joint]

He's only built for pointless endless loops.

He should be your new avatar, then.

[Matthew N. Wright]

He's only built for pointless endless loops.

He should be your new avatar, then.

Touché, sir. Touché.

[Jon]

"Selfless love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."

No.

Why?

Because you, and/or whomever it is you are quoting, are confusing love with the byproducts of love which arise when the ego (hence, selfish) gets involved.

Something similar would be like saying "love hurts."  No, it doesn't.  Jealousy, anger, frustration, etc. are some of these hurtful byproducts.

Another similar example is like saying "I'm worried about you because I care about you," but worrying about someone and giving care to someone are two completely different things.

All of these negative byproducts (jealousy, anger, frustration, worry, etc.) and even the positive ones (lust, pleasure, etc.) are not love.   If you experience these and think it's love, you are wrong.  These byproducts are intense but shallow; love is subtle but deep.  Because  the byproducts (the derivations) are intense, they are what are often noticed; because love is subtle, it is not often noticed in it's purest form and rather it is confused like in your quote.

What is love then? Unicorn dust? Absolute self-sacrifice?

You do it because you value the person, period. It's selfish.

Caring for someone is a selfish act: You want to maintain the person's existent for your satisfaction. You will be upset otherwise.

[Matthew N. Wright]

What is love then? Unicorn dust? Absolute self-sacrifice?

You do it because you value the person, period. It's selfish.

Caring for someone is a selfish act: You want to maintain the person's existent for your satisfaction. You will be upset otherwise.

You can't have it both ways.

You: I don't need anyone.

2 minutes later

You: Can you guys please explain life to me? Pweeeaze?

[the joint]

"Selfless love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."

No.

Why?

Because you, and/or whomever it is you are quoting, are confusing love with the byproducts of love which arise when the ego (hence, selfish) gets involved.

Something similar would be like saying "love hurts."  No, it doesn't.  Jealousy, anger, frustration, etc. are some of these hurtful byproducts.

Another similar example is like saying "I'm worried about you because I care about you," but worrying about someone and giving care to someone are two completely different things.

All of these negative byproducts (jealousy, anger, frustration, worry, etc.) and even the positive ones (lust, pleasure, etc.) are not love.   If you experience these and think it's love, you are wrong.  These byproducts are intense but shallow; love is subtle but deep.  Because  the byproducts (the derivations) are intense, they are what are often noticed; because love is subtle, it is not often noticed in it's purest form and rather it is confused like in your quote.

What is love then? Unicorn dust? Absolute self-sacrifice?

You do it because you value the person, period. It's selfish.

Caring for someone is a selfish act: You want to maintain the person's existent for your satisfaction. You will be upset otherwise.

Love = wanting someone/some thing to be happy.  This is selfless because your focus is not on what it does for you, but rather it is determined as a result of who you already are.  The more a person loves himself, the more content they are and they will shift their focus naturally from wanting to make themselves happy to wanting to make others happy.  People who love themselves more are happier and act less selfishly -- people who do not love themselves are not as happy and act more selfishly.

Remember when I said projection is not only a defense mechanism, but also a truism?  This is a perfect example of that.  When you are less and less happy, the "love" you show will be more and more selfish.  When you are more and more happy, the love you show will be more and more selfless.  This is because your attitude inside is projected outward.

[Jon]

All we are arguing is about the word selfless. I think it's retarded.

True selflessness is death; you don't exist. Yes, I love seeing people happy but that's not selfless. I selfishly enjoy bringing joy to people's faces. It includes ME. I am not out of the equation.

That's all I am saying.

[MatthewLM]

Who loves bitcoin?

[cbeast]

I don't really blame Atlas personally for being a douschebag. I see a lot of this beatnik type lost generation that endured a decade of senseless war, recession, and raised by the "Me" generation ex-hippie hypocrites. The best advice I can give anyone that has been a survivor is "fuck-it, it ain't worth worrying about." Make a plan and stick to it. Ignore the fucktards, and drive it like you stole it.

[Jon]

I love being a "douchebag" because it gets what I put my mind to.

Everyone else is just jelly because I don't act like a weakling and let them stomp all over me. That's what we call selflessness.

[bb113]

Love = wanting someone/some thing to be happy.  This is selfless because your focus is not on what it does for you, but rather it is determined as a result of who you already are.

Love sounds robotic.