Yes of course There are variations of feelings and intensities of what constitute love. Are you talking about loving too people at the same time as relationships?
Was kind of meant to be a logic riddle, lol. Meaning, if love was when you loved a person %100, how can you love two people. That would mean you would have to divide it because you couldn't give your all to two people, right?
Oops....sorry:redface: I get it now... Doesn't hundred percent means you really do love them and not just half love them. I don't ever use this expression to express love. It sounds numebered because then you have to say to someone else you loved them hundred and 10 percent...there is not stopping you from going up one more number.. Because love is a feeling, it is not tangible then you cannot divide it in decimels you can only increase it in intensity or decrease it..
Well, there is no such thing as loving a person %110, lol. You can't give more than all you can give, which is %100. But I see what you mean
Have you heard of the expression 110 Percent? If you have then who is to say someone else's won't come along and say 120 Percent?
the riddle is flawed, so can't be solved as worded, imo... first, we are asked to assume that 'if' bit is a fact, which it may not be... but what is meant by 'giving yourself'? in reality, people certainly can and do love more than one person... mothers do it all the time, as it's an inherent biological 'directive'... as a result of this natural proclivity, women can even love more than one man [or woman, if so wired] at the same time...
Humans are hardwired to spreed the love around, so to speak. Even if you stay with one partner your entire life I highly doubt that will be the only person you'll have loved, or even just found sexually attractive.
I just got a very disturbing image of someone literally giving 100% of themselves to someone... it was very bloody.
so, what IS your definition of 'giving yourself to someone 100%'??? consider this: if both partners in a love relationship gave 100% of themself to the other, would they still exist as individuals?... and what would the resultant 'hybrid' consist of?
At first I want to say the most ideal relationship ever imagined. Two people who compliment one another so much they become each other. But then...I wonder if this absolute devotion to each other winds up alienating them from everyone else around them in some way Since nothings perfect, it seems there would be some consequence to the perfect relationship between two. Just not sure what that would be.
Don't try to apply logic to love. Don't try to apply the concept of perfect to anything. You can, but not seriously. In the end, it's the equivalent of mental masturbation.
I'd get sick of my girlfriend if I was around her all the time; and if we thought the same, and acted the same. I also wouldn't be entirely me, as Maia correctly says. My girlfriend is an art student anyway, and art is something I have only a passing interest in. Diversity is what makes my relationship really work, and it's been like that in every relationship I've ever been in.
there is no such thing as idealism in any relationship. You don't design love and you don't control feelings. summing up love to a number is not the way to go about it. it is a not Maths or a percentage it is about a feeling that you learn to control or project.
there is no such thing as idealism in any relationship. You don't design love and you don't control feelings. summing up love to a number is not the way to go about it. it is a not Maths or a percentage it is about a feeling that you learn to control or project.
That actually helps me picture the whole thing. It seems impossible to give %100 percent of yourself too anything, but in terms of love, the more successive relationships might be the degree to which two people find harmony in being themselves and being with each other. This began as a riddle or joke, really, but I do try to apply logic to most things anyway. Bad habit or good depending on how you see it.
Hmm, that must be very difficult. But what I think you're referring to is "rationally", rather than "logically". As in, you try to apply rational understanding to most things, rather than logical understanding. You wouldn't get far in life trying to ascribe deductive approximation to most things.
This reminds me of the old, logic flaw in omnipotence: Can an omnipotent being create a boulder it cannot lift?
to begin with, 'romantic love' is an abstract societal construct that originated in the western world... it didn't exist in prehistoric times, doesn't exist in many cultures even today... romantic love, marriage, and the 'nuclear family' are all the products of certain religions' and governments' need to find ways for the few to control the many... so when indulging in discussions like this, don't forget to keep in mind that only a relatively small and very 'new' percentage of the planet's population views 'romantic love' as anything more than an artificially created expansion of biological directive, or 'lust'... if some children today were born into a cloistered society that didn't believe in the ownership of women and children in 'marriage' and had no access to/influence from books, movies, tv, religion, government, or anything else that promotes the concept of 'romantic love' they'd never 'fall in love' with each other, or think they were supposed to be 'married' to one mate, or live as a 'nuclear family' group... and i can guarantee ya, that would be a much more peaceful and violence-free society!
