Obsession vs. Dedication

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Ok, here's a sort of relationship 'riddle me this' question that I've recently been thinking on after a discussion with friend.

In romance movies, books, songs, etc, it is a common theme where boy/girl leaves boy/girl. Boy/girl is so in love with the other that they go through trials, face many hardships, but always they are willing to wait/struggle/live alone because their love remains and their heart is wholey given to the other.

There is a song I really like called 'Austin'. It's about this guy and girl and the girl says she 'needs to catch her breath' and so leaves to her hometown. Boy in the meantime continues on with life. A year or so later she finally calls him back and gets his answering machine, saying if you are calling about the car it's sold, if it's saturday he's fishing, etc, but at the end he says, 'P.S., if this is Austin (the town she left to), I still love you.' And she's like amazed that he would 'hang on that long, what a love it must be'.

I always thought it a really sweet and romantic song and obviously it was meant to be such.

However, it seems that others, if it really happened to them, would be creeped out instead. 'He... is still waiting, and put me on his answering machine... ewwwww!' or 'He's not in love, he's just obsessed!' then others say, 'What a loser, move on already!'

Then there is another romance song, More Than A Memory, which touches just on that. People say that he needs to get on with his life, but he says they don't realize that...

"Is when you're dialing 6 numbers just to hang up the phone
Driving across town just to see if she's home
Waking a friend in the dead of the night
Just to hear him say its gonna be alright
When you're finding things to do not fall asleep
Cause Know she will be there in your dreams
That's when she's more than a memory"

Again, a song I personally thought had a message but in others it just triggers their Psych-o-meter.

In my opinion those above really have no concept of what romance is, or they have had such horrible experiences that it has totally warped their perceptions, because if you think in that way, pretty much all romance can be boiled down to 'creepy'.

I really think people in this day and age are just getting so jaundiced to everything that every person who likes kids is a pedo and everyone who disagrees with someone of a different skin tone is a racist.

I mean, lets take marriage. If say the spouse dies many cannot bring themselves to try to love another. They are just too much in love. This is a decision I can fully understand and would likely make myself. However, if you're not married you're weird/loser/obsessed. My belief is, if you've given your heart away, you've given it away regardless of relationship status. I believe marriage is something any two people who love each other should be willing to commit to, but if you haven't married yet it doesn't mean you don't love someone less.


What's your take on this?

[Half-blood]

Now you my friend. Have a good point. Please note that one "Weird Al" has touched that subject via "Do I creep you out." (a song) which is in a strange way. Much like most love songs.

[Brickwall]

'tain't creepy. Take it from the most heartless being alive that you can be in love with someone as long as you like. Creepy or obsessive is when it overtakes your ability to act normally outside of romantic matters. Other than that, you're allowed to love forever.

Or until she sleeps with your best friend. Who is your dog. That's usually a good time to stop. :smalltongue:

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Now you my friend. Have a good point. Please note that one "Weird Al" has touched that subject via "Do I creep you out." (a song) which is in a strange way. Much like most love songs.
LOL, that song both cracks me up and yet makes me want to go and have a good wash at the same time.

That is a good example of the wholey and truly creepy side.

However, here is my thought. If you are obsessed it is all about you. If you are in love it is all about them.

The above song is about someone who doesn't care what the other person feels, while the songs I posted are about someone who does, but if you notice never actually forces themselves upon them or anything. Just leaves a rope or what have you for them to grab if they so wish.

Thats my philosophy at any rate.

I would be horrified to find someone thought I was being creepy, but that right there makes me think I wouldn't be then. It's your consideration of the other person that makes the difference.

[Raistlin1040]

Obsession and Dedication are one and the same. I think it's all about perception. If you love someone, you should be obsessed with them (in a non-creepy way). You should want them to be happy, and want to be with them, always. And if someone you love dumps you or something, there's going to be some stuff going on. You'll want them to get back together with you, right? So you send her a poem you wrote, asking that she take you back.

Some would consider it romantic, and sweet, and dedicated. Others might call it creepy, stupid, and obsessive. It's all about perception.

[SweetLikeLemons]

The thing with marriage is that it is a mutual decision. One hopes, at least, that if people get married, they each have strong feelings for the other. Not all relationships are like that, and I think that a big disparity of love and commitment is something that makes people very uncomfortable, and that is a big part of the creepiness factor in those songs. Nobody wants to feel like they have broken someone's heart.

I do think the first example is more sweet and romantic than creepy, but the second really creeps me out. "Driving across town just to see if she's home"? Um, that's called stalking.

The big difference between the two songs for me, is that in the first one, yes he is still thinking of her and hanging on to what they had, but he obviously has a life outside of that. I mean, she got his answering machine. And he is not calling her to tell her that he loves her, he is respecting her wishes and giving her her space, until she feels ready to call him again.

In the second song, he is obsessing. I'm not saying he should go out and find someone else, but he does need to live his life, and stop making her responsible for his happiness, or lack thereof. Ok, so he still loves her. Apparently she doesn't love him. Maybe she did once but evidently she doesn't anymore, since they are no longer together. It is not the fact that he still loves her that is creepy, it is the way he is behaving because of it. If they had never been together, would it be romantic for him to drive past her house repeatedly? No, not at all. It would just be creepy.


Oh, and I disagree with you, Raistlin. I don't want the guy I'm with to be obsessed with me, even while we are still together. I want him to love me and think about me and all, but I want him to have other interests, and other friends, and even parts of his life that I am not necessarily involved in, because I want to keep some parts of my life for myself. I want him to be the guy I fell in love with, not a lapdog, and I need a little space to maintain my sanity, so that I can be a decent girlfriend.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Ok, maybe the driving across town is a bit weird, but then again maybe just seeing if she's ok, looking for lights being turned on... but then it could also be thieves then. I dunno. Other than that though, c'mon.

And yes, obsessing even while in love may not be the greatest, but my thoughts are you are partners in all sense of the word. You may have your different interests and do your own thing, but at the bottom, you are still working together. One hand may be tapping the head, and the other rubbing the stomach, but they are both still connected.

[Brickwall]

I do think the first example is more sweet and romantic than creepy, but the second really creeps me out. "Driving across town just to see if she's home"? Um, that's called stalking.

...no, it's called being too stupid to use a phone. It's only stalking if she never told him where she lived.

I think you serve well to prove VT's point that some people take harmless things the wrong way. In case anybody needed an example.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

...no, it's called being too stupid to use a phone. It's only stalking if she never told him where she lived.

Haha... well, that actually is covered by trying to call her but keep hanging up.

More like being too much of a coward to use the phone.

[Cobra_Ikari]

I really think people in this day and age are just getting so jaundiced to everything that every person who likes kids is a pedo and everyone who disagrees with someone of a different skin tone is a racist.

I think this is one of the truest things I've ever read.

Also, the line between love and obsession? I think obsession is the point in which A) your well being is dependent upon the other person's actions and mood or B) your "dedication" to the person interferes with either of your lives outside of the relationship.

Keep in mind that when most people speak of love, they're actually thinking of codependence. Which is unhealthy. I guess we just like being mildly obsessed?

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Well, except emotions do not equal obsession.

You can get into an argument with a stranger and be in a bad mood for awhile, and it could very well affect how you go about life for at least a short time. You're not obsessed however, just ticked off and got aggression chemicals flowing.

With something as emotional as love, the object of your affections will have far more of an impact than that stranger.

In fact, love is famous for making it difficult for people to concentrate on their normal activities. Thats not obsession unless you call all of love such.

[rubakhin]

I think there are also cultural differences in play ... I've noticed that Americans have a very low threshold of intensity tolerance, they'll read creepiness into just about anything.

Of course, I'm probably not the right person to ask about that sort of thing. I have no idea what normal relationships are like, mine tend to be unhealthy and bizarre. I've never been obsessively in love with anyone myself, but I seem to have a disturbing effect on others.

I'll take obsession over the kind of person who breaks up with someone because they don't like his haircut, though.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Well, except emotions do not equal obsession.

I can get into an argument with a strange and be in a bad mood for awhile, and it could very well affect how I go about my life for a time. You're not obsessed however.

With something as emotional as love, the object of your affections will have far more of an impact than that stranger.

In fact, love is famous for making it difficult for people to concentrate on their normal activities. Thats not obsession unless you call all of love such.

Then that is obsession, I guess, parallelling of what I've been told.

...I guess our society's conception of love is a mild obsession.

[SweetLikeLemons]

...no, it's called being too stupid to use a phone. It's only stalking if she never told him where she lived.

I think you serve well to prove VT's point that some people take harmless things the wrong way. In case anybody needed an example.

Driving all the way across town to drive past her house is creepy. If one of my exes was doing that, I definitely would not think it was harmless. It would make me really uncomfortable, and maybe even a little scared. Not to mention pissed off.

And when I hear about a guy (or a girl, for that matter) doing that, "checking to she if she's ok" is not the first reason that comes to mind. Maybe I am overly suspicious, but "seeing if she is out with someone else" seems more likely. And what if she is? What is he going to gain by knowing that? He is just going to make himself more miserable.


Also, the line between love and obsession? I think obsession is the point in which A) your well being is dependent upon the other person's actions and mood or B) your "dedication" to the person interferes with either of your lives outside of the relationship.

I really agree, especially with A. That is the point I was trying to make about the second song that VT mentioned. I guess B is more a matter of degree, but I think it is very important to have a life beyond your relationship.

[Gitman00]

I think it's a telling point that, for as cynical and jaded as we all think we are... songs like "Austin" still get written, and frequently. I think there's something inside most people that longs for a love like that. The divorce rate remains at about 50%, yet people still think of love as something that lasts forever. Deep down, we want to find that someone who will love us no matter the circumstances, who will be there waiting no matter how long we're away.

And, if I may be so bold, I'd venture a guess that most people, when they first fall in love, believe in their hearts it's going to last forever even if their heads say otherwise.

So, let's look at this another way. Instead of "Why are people so jaded that they find 'Austin' creepy?" how about, "Why, if that behavior is creepy, do people still write songs like 'Austin'?" Or maybe, "Why are chick flicks so popular, even with a lot of guys?"

I submit that such feelings are entirely natural. The "Voice of Eros," as C. S. Lewis would put it (I'm going to shamelessly plagiarize Lewis's book, The Four Loves), speaks in absolutes. Eros says, "This is meant to be." He also says, "I will be forever true." At his most extreme, he says, "Better to be with my love and unhappy, than to be happy without her." If the voice you're hearing doesn't say this, then it's not Eros. He's an extremist, and he tells you not to count the cost.

People like romance. We like hearing about it, reading about it, watching it on TV. And Vorpal, I've got a couple of thoughts about the kind of people who would call that creepy. First, I'd bet that a lot of them are fooling themselves. They don't truly believe what they're saying, and they flippantly say it's creepy because it makes them feel worldly, sophisticated, and superior to do so. To quote Lewis again (The Screwtape Letters this time), it takes a clever man to make a real joke about virtue, or anything else for that matter. But anyone can be taught to talk as if it were funny. To the rest (I'll wager, a very small percentage) who truly do believe that it's obsessive and creepy, well, I have a great deal of pity for people who need to believe the worst about someone who is in love.

[Jimblee]

We generally read actions through a perception lens at a greater degree than we'd like. Take Rosenhan's famous "Sane in Insane Places" experiment. He took a few healthy, normal people, sent them to doctors, and asked them to say that they hear voices. Most (or was it all?) were committed to asylums on just that singular base.

They then went about their normal behaviors in the asylum, only to have their every move interpreted as an expression of their madness. For example, one of the nurses made a note "the patient engages in writing behavior" - he was taking notes on the asylum's interior.

So, somethings creepy if the receiving end thinks the other person is creepy, just like how writing is a sign of one being completely insane if they're in an asylum. Its all by-person.

I personally would find driving an hour to my house to be adorable. But I know folk who would think it a bit extreme if I did the same to them. I don't think I'd be able to stand anyone who'd have the slightest chance of interpreting anything as nuts, since that would lead into a thousand half-imagined personality traits which boil down to "stupid" in my books

[Jae]

There is something to be said about an equal balance, in all aspects of life. This is hardly a concept strict to romance. If you take any aspect of your personality, or anything you aspire to be, even just a goal, to the extreme than you're bound to fail or corrupit it. Point blank.

And, in my personal experience, it's obvious when somebody is genuinely head-over-heels and when they're genuinely just obsessive and creepy. Generally, people are only obsessive with bad intentions. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule..but to genuinely be crazy/in love with somebody you have to understand their faults as much as their good points. In doing so, people are no longer put on a pedestal and you don't tend to idolize/obsess over them.

When somebody really is crazy about you, it's kind of sweet. :smallredface: When somebody really is following you home, it's not. :smallannoyed:

[Syka]

My guy has dated girls who thought he was too goofy or overly romantic.

For me, those are parts of him I absolutely adore.

It depends on the person involved as to whether it will seem sweet or creepy.

Cheers,
Syka

[Cobra_Ikari]

...with nearly everyone I've loved, I was happier that they were with someone that treated them well than that they were with me.

Also, you don't actually have to do anything to be obessed. I'm told I obsess about people, and the limits of that are things like being unable to eat or sleep if I know they're in pain or things like that. *shrugs*

...just more thoughts to throw out there.

[Pyrian]

Did any of you ever see Flashdance? It cracks me up how behavior that was considered romantic then would probably get you arrested now.

But you know what? It's an improvement. I'll bet there was a time when sneaking into your beloved's village and grabbing her away in the middle of night was considered romantic. It's a good thing that's gone. (Well, good for women, anyway.) And I'm glad stalking is considered wrong now, too.

The answering machine thing is just severely dysfunctional, which is different. People in general aren't going to like you purely for your devotion to them - it's not even really a plus in most books. They're much more interested in their own devotion - and justifiably so, IMO. Just because you really really really (really) like someone doesn't mean they owe you a damn thing, and if they like someone else, well, tough.

A million stupid tales to the contrary, when rejected, it's time to move on.

...Personally, I have a friend whom I've been in love with for about a dozen years. I made a pass at her, long ago. It didn't work out. I still love her. But having this special person in my life is frankly far more important to me than acting out my own feelings to her discomfort. These so-called "romantic" acts of creepiness are about self-absorption, about indulging one's own feelings, not about caring for the other person. So, I let her go, moved on, got (and eventually lost) another girlfriend, sought several others, etc., etc., but always kept in touch, and hopefully always will.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

btw, was thinking on this in the shower about how it was said that it's obsession if it alters your life, well... with my current thoughts I say as pointedly as I can, 'PFTTT'.

Many people base their entire lives around their family, and guess what, the family is healthier, more successful, and in general happier. A family only needs be two people.

Personally I think a lot less of people who's lives revolve around their jobs than their family.

If I could choose between a job and my love, that job is out the window. That is not to say that you should not focus on a career to help care for said loved ones, but always choose what is best for the family, not the career.

If this is an obsession it is a beneficial and healthy one. Far better than not being obsessed.

[Pyrian]

But the subject really wasn't family, it was unrequited love.

I'm dubious of any underlying distinction between obsession and devotion - the difference is merely whether it's a good thing or not. Trying to pigeonhole the line between is not destined to be successful.

That being said, I would argue that the exact same action could be devotion when it's towards your own family and dysfunctional obsession when it's towards someone you're not actually in a relationship with.

[Cobra_Ikari]

...in the end, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. It takes a rare kind of person to admit to being "obsessive" instead of "highly devoted". What's more important is how the object of your affections sees it.

Also, VT...country? >.<

[The Vorpal Tribble]

But the subject really wasn't family, it was unrequited love.
Well, it also went on a slight tangent that obsession with family isn't good either, or basically with any kind of relationship. Obsession in this case being anything that kept you from doing your job.



And I'm from the same state as you Cobra :smallwink:

[Cobra_Ikari]

Yes, but...how could you give in to the dark side like that!

Sacrifice is a nice thing, but keep in mind who you're doing it for and why.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Precisely. Sacrifice for those you care for. They'll then give you happiness (usually). Reasonable tradeoff from my point of view.

[Tom_Violence]

Here's where you're going wrong-

You're judging people's internal/mental states by their external/behavioural states. Don't do that, it doesn't work.

Why does it not work? That is obvious: one instance of behaviour can be explained by reference to many different mental states. E.g. guy leaving answering message - could be cos he genuinely loves her, could just be cos he's weird and obsessed. The behaviour (which is all you have to go on) tells you literally nothing!

Conclusion: You can't complain if people have issues with these situations, as their realisations have as much weight as yours. Which is close to nil.

[Trog]

It's only creepy if the person who is being longed for no longer wants this person. Even in spite of their "dedication" or "obsession" or what have you. If the person being longed for was also longing for the other then it would be hugely romantic to the two. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

That being said usually it's a bit pathetic. I mean really, if a guy/girl is longing for a girl/guy and has no hope of it happening you feel bad for them. Cuz unrequited love sucks hard.

Better to make a move than to wallow and do nothing, I say. Yes your heart may be broken but better that than it slowly bleeding to death. Hearts can mend with time.

[horseboy]

It kinda reminds me of this short I saw once. I think it was called The Difference Between Romantic and Stalking. It was about two couples. The guys literally did the exact same thing, but the two women responded in completely opposite ways. It ended with the smexy guy getting married and the dumpy guy going to jail.

[Toastkart]

Precisely. Sacrifice for those you care for. They'll then give you happiness (usually). Reasonable tradeoff from my point of view.

Except that no one can make you happy but your self. That's what is wrong with a lot of these songs/movies/examples: happiness is conditional upon the favor of the other person. It shows an external locus of control that is focused on one particular object, and yes, the other person is very objectified.

That's also why most of the people that have already replied say that in real life it would be creepy or stalking if a guy did what happened in the songs. This is because if it goes that far it is no longer about the other person as a person, but rather the other person becomes a means to 'fix' the guy. That's another thing, no one else can fix or complete you.

Also, about your example of marriage and one partner dying and the other not remarrying. Men are more likely to remarry than women are, and always have been. Why? Because women's identity is more tied in to who their husband was. Once he passes away, a large part of her identity is gone. It's why women are more likely to also pass away within a year after their husband dies, although it becomes more and more equally likely for men and women the older they are/ the longer they were in a relationship. Some of these trends are starting to change as women gain more equality of status.

what might also be interesting is Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love) where there are three main characteristics of love and many categories based on how those characteristics interact.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Except that no one can make you happy but your self.
Ok, now I think we're going off the deep end of philosophy.

You still often require an outside source to make yourself happy, which for all intended purposes is the same thing as them making you happy.

Sure, you can make yourself laugh, but you still go to watch a comedy.

Gotta have that catalyst, y'know?

Might as well say there is no happiness, just chemicals in our headmeat mixing around and the resulting reactions are just interpretations, blah blah blah.

[Castaras]

Except that no one can make you happy but your self. That's what is wrong with a lot of these songs/movies/examples: happiness is conditional upon the favor of the other person.

I'll disagree partly with this...Sure, you make yourself happy. But don't you feel happy when the one you love is happy also?

That's how it's been with me, anyway...

And just noticed VT put it better than I could. =P Ah well

But yeah...Someone also said something about it being obsessive if you depend on another person for wellbeing and such...

That would mean I'm not obsessive with my boy, but with my parents and brother? o.O doesn't really make much sense to me. Even if it is obsession, it's a good obsession.

<.< >.> Just my random thoughts here.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Precisely, Castaras. I think many folks responding here are definitely amongst those who are thinking too hard on this or have just had some rough times.

[Skippy]

I meant to post this last night but my internet died. Here it is:

I'll try to make this a short post, but I don't know how this will end.

I've talked about my life in both the Depression Thread (a long time ago) and in Random Banter, about certain things that have happened in my life.

First, we have the girl for whom I broke up with my ex girlfriend. Without trying to make this a long story, let's say that I'd do for her whatever she wants me to do. I've done so for more than a year now. I care for her happiness so much that I don't matter what happens to me. Maybe one day she'll finally listen to my plea and go on a date with me. But even if she doesn't, I'm glad just with her happiness.

On the other side, there's my stalker. According to her (or him, I don't know for sure), s/he is a person I only know "by sight". However, s/he knows my name, how many brothers I have, what and where am I studying. And my cell phone, of course.

The first one, I call 'Dedication'. I know her, I care about her and everything I do, it's putting her before me. It's been like that for over a year and probably will be for my life. She's really important for me and even if I get to meet someone else, it will never be the same.

The second one, I call 'Obsession'. I'm a total stranger for whoever it had been, and yet s/he found a way to getting all the information and erasing her/his track. That's freaky, isn't it?

[Cobra_Ikari]

I'll disagree partly with this...Sure, you make yourself happy. But don't you feel happy when the one you love is happy also?

That's how it's been with me, anyway...

And just noticed VT put it better than I could. =P Ah well

But yeah...Someone also said something about it being obsessive if you depend on another person for wellbeing and such...

That would mean I'm not obsessive with my boy, but with my parents and brother? o.O doesn't really make much sense to me. Even if it is obsession, it's a good obsession.

<.< >.> Just my random thoughts here.

Mkay. What I meant by that is...are you only capable of being happy if you're with them? If they're not around, do you fall into the pits of despair until they return? Things like this mark obsession.

Also, VT, I'm just going off what I've been told by the nice people in the white coats. I'm not condemning it or anything...I'm just saying. In our society's eyes, you cannot have love without a degree of obsession.

[Toastkart]

To VT and Castaras, it's actually a psychological concept. Yes, what another person does or their wellbeing in general can give you a reason to be happy, but they can not make you happy. There's a distinction there. Happiness is as much a decision based process as deciding to be angry or offended is.

Requiring an outside source is, as I mentioned, a form of external locus of control, which is a bad thing. That's not saying that you should completely isolate yourself from others, but it is saying that if your happiness is contingent on them then there's a problem.

Also, saying that emotions are just neurotransmitters is a bit extreme. The mind and the brain are separate, but connected. What that means is the physical reaction to a stimulus and the interpretation of that stimulus/ reaction occur as close to simultaneously as measurable.

[Pyrian]

Meh, that "only you can make yourself happy" is tripe which belongs in motivational speeches and nowhere else. It certainly is not a factual statement, or any sort of useful description of how psychology works. It's just meant to be a way to get through to people who've screwed up their own lives by their own choices - which happens to be precisely the kind of people who pay to listen to motivational speeches.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Meh, that "only you can make yourself happy" is tripe which belongs in motivational speeches and nowhere else. It certainly is not a factual statement, or any sort of useful description of how psychology works. It's just meant to be a way to get through to people who've screwed up their own lives by their own choices - which happens to be precisely the kind of people who pay to listen to motivational speeches.

...I very much disagree with this.

[Jimblee]

Also, saying that emotions are just neurotransmitters is a bit extreme. The mind and the brain are separate, but connected. What that means is the physical reaction to a stimulus and the interpretation of that stimulus/ reaction occur as close to simultaneously as measurable.

Actually, I'm pretty sure happiness is nothing but neurotransmitters. Just like how paintings are just wood and color. Its just that sometimes simple things are meaningful

Anyway, happiness is personal. Some people need a love, some people need themselves, some people need to be working for some higher goal, and still some need to make others suffer. If you only gain happiness from someone who isn't you, then I would say theres something wrong - but thats just me.


Meh, that "only you can make yourself happy" is tripe which belongs in motivational speeches and nowhere else. It certainly is not a factual statement, or any sort of useful description of how psychology works. It's just meant to be a way to get through to people who've screwed up their own lives by their own choices - which happens to be precisely the kind of people who pay to listen to motivational speeches.

Are you telling me that theres only one method of happiness, and thats through other people? Completely, totally impossible to make yourself happy?

Preposterous. I know quite a few people who only crawl out of their holes if asked to, and many who only associate with others out of necessity. They're some of the most content people I know. In fact, its those who rely on relationships who are often the most distressed, since their happiness is in constant jeopardy

[Pyrian]

Meh, that "only you can make yourself happy" is tripe which belongs in motivational speeches and nowhere else.
Are you telling me that theres only one method of happiness, and thats through other people?No, and I have no idea how you got that idea from my post. I'm against ridiculous over-simplifications, not for them.

EDIT: So, if your statement about the causes of happiness is based around the word "only" I'm probably going to disagree with it.

[Brickwall]

Also, saying that emotions are just neurotransmitters is a bit extreme. The mind and the brain are separate, but connected.

Are...are you AGREEING with DesCartes? :smalleek:

People with almost no training in logic can find numerous flaws in his philosophy. The notion that someone agrees with him is downright horrifying.

Uhh, right, anyway, I'll address the topic you were talking about.

Happiness results from chemicals, yeah. But those chemicals are triggered by various things, and that's what we're discussing. Outside factors are extremely important, but what is also important is how you react to them. A man with almost nothing can be happy (a man with absolutely nothing is dead), and a man with everything can be miserable. I personally get a lot of joy from a good breath of fresh air. It's my responsibility for that happiness, yeah. Of course, it's someone else's responsibility for my lack of happiness if they decide to, say, throw canisters of tear gas around me, or smoke or something. Self-reliance and dependence are entwined delicately in all human thought processes, and it's a matter of balance. Pyrian has hit the nail on the head in saying that the extremes people are using are over-simplified and just outright incorrect.

Hmm...*looks over post*

Yeah, I think that's condescending enough. :smalltongue:

[Quincunx]

Vorpal Tribble's post described devotion of the sort we expect from dogs. Some people expect their followers to have the devotion of dogs (recall my Inner Animal avatar). Some don't.

[KoboldMight]

I am completely and utterly incapable of making myslef happy in any way/shape or form.

[Xuincherguixe]

Well this is certainly an interesting thread.

What it usually amounts to is that it's dedication if the one person likes the other, and obsession otherwise.

This also works in cases of really dysfunctional relationships. People can choose not to see each other for what they are.


Being obsessed with someone is not a crime. And while it can certainly be unhealthy, it's even more unhealthy to be obsessed and think that it's wrong. No that doesn't mean you have an obligation to make them love you. It means someone just dumped a bunch of rocks on you, and you need to figure out how to move with them. Try to get over it, and if you for some reason you can't, live with it.


We shouldn't believe that our feelings are wrong, and should in fact embrace them. What matters is what we do with those feelings. What are the right actions? Well that's the real question isn't it. And the answer probably isn't even the same for each person.


edit: To KoboldMight I can only say to embrace your unhappiness. It usually helps character growth a lot more anyways :P


edit again: Obsession gets a bad wrap, but you know what? If I wasn't "obsessive" I'd be a pretty terrible programmer. You need to be obsessive to hunt down all the bugs, and go in with an approach that can be compared to screaming so long and so loud, you bleed. And then you keep at it. Because that's what good programming is.

[Toastkart]

Meh, that "only you can make yourself happy" is tripe which belongs in motivational speeches and nowhere else. It certainly is not a factual statement, or any sort of useful description of how psychology works. It's just meant to be a way to get through to people who've screwed up their own lives by their own choices - which happens to be precisely the kind of people who pay to listen to motivational speeches.

Albert Ellis (http://www.intuition.org/txt/ellis.htm) would like to have a word with you.



Are...are you AGREEING with DesCartes?

People with almost no training in logic can find numerous flaws in his philosophy. The notion that someone agrees with him is downright horrifying.

While I've read some Descartes, I wasn't aware that statement in particular originated with him. Again, it's a psychological concept. What is so difficult about accepting that the mind exists as a distinct concept from the brain? You might also want to read the Albert Ellis interview I linked above. In it he explains how rational thought(cognition), emotion, and behavior are all part of an interlaced system wherein affecting one part of the system affects all other parts.


Happiness results from chemicals, yeah. But those chemicals are triggered by various things, and that's what we're discussing. Outside factors are extremely important, but what is also important is how you react to them. A man with almost nothing can be happy (a man with absolutely nothing is dead), and a man with everything can be miserable. I personally get a lot of joy from a good breath of fresh air. It's my responsibility for that happiness, yeah. Of course, it's someone else's responsibility for my lack of happiness if they decide to, say, throw canisters of tear gas around me, or smoke or something. Self-reliance and dependence are entwined delicately in all human thought processes, and it's a matter of balance. Pyrian has hit the nail on the head in saying that the extremes people are using are over-simplified and just outright incorrect.

I may be a bit confused by what you're trying to say, but the first half of this paragraph seems to be restating in more detail what I already said about the mind and brain being separate but connected. The second half, however, is a bit harder to get at what you mean. I'm going to share a quote with you from Viktor Frankl that might help explain more about what I mean when I say only you can make yourself happy.


We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.

The word 'make' being the operative word here. I'm referring to causation. No one but you can cause you to be happy. Influence yes; cause, no.

[Pyrian]

Albert Ellis (http://www.intuition.org/txt/ellis.htm) would like to have a word with you.Apparently he would like to agree with me:
MISHLOVE: If I could get to the kernel of your thought, it is basically that whatever happens to us in life, it's not totally responsible for our emotions.

ELLIS: Right. It's partly, it contributes to it. ...


The word 'make' being the operative word here. I'm referring to causation. No one but you can cause you to be happy. Influence yes; cause, no.I do not see any merit in that distinction. Influence is causal. "Influence yes; cause, no" is a direct contradiction in terms; if you influence, you at least potentially cause. If there is no even potential causality, there is no influence.

At this point you are effectively backpedaling; you are chipping away at the rather absolutist statement "only you can make yourself happy" to the point where it doesn't mean much of anything at all. If all you wanted to say is that you influence your own happiness, I don't think many people would particularly disagree. Unfortunately, the context in which the statement was originally made WAS entirely absolutist and so it is being correctly attacked on that line - even by your reference, Albert Ellis.

For what it's worth, substantial poverty is by far the largest scientifically demonstrated long-term factor in reported unhappiness. Otherwise, people do indeed tend to return to an apparently individual baseline level of reported happiness after enduring (or enjoying) the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

[Nathan W]

if you cant make yourself happy in the shot run by playing video games or wacing tv or reading a book of geting high on drugs, then you obseesd.

[Brickwall]

While I've read some Descartes, I wasn't aware that statement in particular originated with him. Again, it's a psychological concept. What is so difficult about accepting that the mind exists as a distinct concept from the brain? You might also want to read the Albert Ellis interview I linked above. In it he explains how rational thought(cognition), emotion, and behavior are all part of an interlaced system wherein affecting one part of the system affects all other parts.

It is called Cartesian Dualism, you know. While I certainly can't prove that the brain is the source of all thoughts (attempting to disprove the existence of a soul is madness, not Sparta), it's got a lot of supporting points, and it provides more answers than "the brain is not responsible for thought". Ellis seems to agree with me, pointing out that thinking is biological early in the interview. Concious thought is simply the rational part of our brain (which is still part of the brain) looking at its little command center and realising that it has conflicting goals somewhere along the line. Which it chooses is, again, up to biological factors, like how deeply each need is currently weighed. While certain things can overcome what is even as deep as the most base instinct, they do so by the proper, biological route, not through "spirit". People with strong willpower are simply those who can amplify the necessity of things that go against their base desires well. It's a skill with basis in psychology. The brain is designed to change its wiring according to the desires of the conscious part of it. It's still all in the wiring though. No "mind" is needed to explain it, and I'd rather not place my beliefs on an idea that is neither logical, nor does it have any useful implications.

Thank you for the link to the interview, though. It's a good read.

I'll stand by my guns that there are both internal and external factors in the emotional equation, and they are heavily intertwined to the point where it becomes difficult to separate the two. Saying a person is fully responsible for their own happiness is an extreme that places an unfair burden on those who have difficulty with positivity, but saying a person has no way to change their happiness is so far beyond absurd it comes right back around. To absurd again. We are, in fact, conscious beings who can make decisions, and that includes changing both our environment and our perceptions.

Original topic: There are some extremes that just can't be explained in a positive way. (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/364202)

[Bitzeralisis]

Obsession = Bad.
Dedication = Good.

Enough said. :smallamused:

[Cobra_Ikari]

Obsession = Bad.
Dedication = Good.

Enough said. :smallamused:

Ah, but what makes a certain case which? That's the hard part. *nods*

[Tom_Violence]

Obsession = Bad.
Dedication = Good.

Enough said. :smallamused:

Proof once again that any statement with the phrase 'enough said' (or any derivation thereof), can safely be ignored without missing anything important.

[Serpentine]

Kinda along the lines of the happiness thing, I'm inclined to think that if you can't be a whole person on your own, you shouldn't be getting into any really meaningful long-term relationships, especially not with the intent of making yourself a "whole person".
I remember seeing something on TV a while ago about stalkers. They said that most stalkers are just misguided romantics. They think they're being sweet and, well, romantic when they leave flowers at your doorstep and notes on your car and messages on your phone, of the kind seen in certain movies. Such people will back off as soon as their target - probably though legal means - makes it clear to them that the attentions are unwanted. It's the ones that don't get the message that you have to worry about.
VT, I think the distinction, at least in terms of pursuit of a prospective lover, is more obsession vs. persistance. Persistance can be a good thing, especially when it's necessary to convince the other party of your... ugh, brainblock. Your... genuineness, anyway. It's when said party makes it very clear that your attentions are unwanted, when you are incapable of leading your life without their involvement, when you are determined to be involved in their life, that you've fallen into the deep dark depths of obsession.

[Vella_Malachite]

Ok, this is just my two cents:

I agree with the fact that you cannot entirely make yourself happy without catalysts in the form of other people, but that you must interact correctly with the people and think about the interaction in the correct way for them to have any positive impact on your happiness.

I believe that the human mind, while it can be simplified to its component neurotransmitters and electrical signals, at the same time, it cannot. Your conscious mind needs to interpret the external stimuli in a certain for the electric signals to convey certain messages. For example, if you just made a speech, and your best friend said "Good speech, but I think you said a little too much about crabs", you would say "Thanks, I'll remember that next time," maybe feel a little put out, and take their opinion into account next time you made a speech. Conversely, if your worst enemy said exactly the same words, you'd say something uncomplementary, then walk away deciding not to listen to his advice, even though your best friend would say exactly the same thing. (Interestingly, but off topic, you'd stress about the opinion more than if your best friend said it because your worst enemy isn't worried about saying something that would offend you. Depending on the person in the scenario, of course). Two completely different reactions to the same stimuli with one small factor changed, depending on past experience and the conscious thought about the person delivering the information. Tone could also be the variable.

As to the inner romantic in everyone, your basic human is 'programmed' to want to continue the race. I'm not going to say that this is the only thing we were born to do (biologically, yes, but philosophically, no), and this isn't the main body of my debate, but it is a major milestone in the life of someone, so the feeling of love is programmed to release endorphins and hormones into the bloodstream to make us happier. We just gave these concepts words. We want to be in love because, due to chemicals, it makes us feel good. So we want someone who will give us feeling for a long time. So, yes, biologically, the 'inner romantic' makes sense.

And I believe that you cannot have love without obsession. It's part of the whole experience, it can make it a little sweeter, or harder to bear if the love is unrequited. We are wrong in categorising obsession as 'bad' and dedication as 'good'. Maybe it's hard to say dedication is bad, but there is good obsession and bad obsession, and the line between them is very, very fine.

Maybe there isn't even a line? What if (shock, horror!:smallwink:) there are actually shades of grey in the world?

Sorry about the wall of text.

[averagejoe]

To respond to the original post:

Love is something I've thought long and hard about. I don't pretend to completely know what's "obsessive" or "creepy," but I think often it is true that obsessiveness is caused by the love of the idea of a person than love of a person themselves. (And no, this is not me being a cynical youngster. I do think it's possible for a person to insult a person with different skin color and not be a racist. :smalltongue: ) It might not even be love of the idea of that person, but love of the idea of love. Allow me to explain more fully.

I have a particular view of love which, to me seems kind of obvious, but I find that many people disagree; I've found, in fact, that I've never been able to sell anyone else on the concept. I tend to think of love as a choice we make, not something that just kind of happens; that is, we don't fall in love, we love someone because we choose to. Keeping this in mind, I try to love as much as I can, with varying degrees of sucess. There is still, of course, more and less. For example, the list of people for whom I would lie down in traffic is very short. However, I find that I am not obsessed with these people. When they are happy it makes me happy, and when they are sad I get a strong burning desire to remove that sadness. However, it is pretty much completely free of jealosy, or any sort of desperate need to be with them. I mean, I like being with them, and would do it more if it were possible, but in the end it is enough for them to be happy and healthy.

Now, I would call obsession unhealthy. You can think about someone a lot, and do lots of little sweet, romantic things for them, but there's a line somewhere between sending someone flowers and sending them your ear when it becomes just not okay. I'm not sure where that line is, but past a point it really isn't love anymore.

This is, perhaps, tangental, but, though there isn't anything wrong with it per se, I've always found most forms of romance to be quite silly, especially the celebrated ones. It isn't creepy or anything, I just think it says little about the person perfoming the gestures, and at times is downright disgenuine.

I'd also like to say that a person is the only one who can make themselves happy, and, in fact, the best way to be happy is just to practice being happy. I don't say this because it's something I've read in a self-motivational book or anything (in fact, for awhile I thought I was the only one who knew about this), I say it because I've tried it and it works. We all have more self control than we think, and most of us never use it. I would like to make an adendum, however. It may be true that we are the only ones who can make ourselves happy, but there are things we can do to help us make that decision. I think for many people falling in love is like an intervention; you've had the ability to go to that AA meeting all along, but you needed a good push in the right direction, so to speak. That said, simply being happy has worked wonders for me. I suggest you all try it.

[Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick]

Oddly, I only have pretensions to that kind of hopeless romance; dedicated, well-developed pretensions, but pretensions nonetheless.

I don't think real love, if you want to talk about such a thing, consists of obsession or dedication.
The reason I love the person I do is because they know me, and I them; we get along, we make each other laugh, and we've been together a long time.

That's not obsession or dedication in a vacuum, which is, to me, what most 'tragic romances' seem to be, dedication for its own sake. I'm dedicated to a person who can make me laugh, and think I'm handsome, and be pretty and desirable to me; I couldn't be dedicated to a petrarchan ideal.

I don't think it's particularly creepy for someone to hold on to the memory of a relationship, or want to be with a particular person to exclusion- I feel those things myself. But I also don't think dedication to the person, of itself, is any kind of good basis for a relationship.

"I waited for you" is a sweet thing to hear, but I'd rather hear that the person remembers something I said years ago, of an inside joke I share with the person. Waiting is passive. Remembering is, fundamentally, passive.

Love, in my view, requires action.
So, you could say I'm divided on the issue.