“But how, tell, without love to live?“
Noticed curious paradox. All who absolutely reject a possibility of love between the man and the woman spend many forces and time to convince all and, it appears, themselves of absence of this most mysterious human feeling.
Their arguments are explainable because neponyatka with interpretation of this word take place, from - for what love call everything, up to addiction to strong drinks and occupation banal sex today, and it, of course, cannot but discredit that great and sublime sense which is traditionally attributed to this feeling.
And then - any conversation on love between the man and the woman does not do without instruction on the fact that this medal has a back: sad, it is sad - rasstavatelny, undivided and even tragic. In this situation no wonder to reflect: “And it is necessary to me, all this? “
Here, of course, solves everyone: it is necessary or is not necessary. To have, as they say, or not to have. But it seems to me that love, need for it - an integral part of human nature without which something loses life. Agree, anyway we try to surround ourselves in life with things which give us pleasure: we eat that we love, we listen to music which is pleasant, we aspire to having not only grain, but also favourite work, children, of course, we love, even we get a hamster of the house - not because that to us hunting to clean after it but because - well as it is possible not to love this muzzle gluttonous...
Perhaps, someone will object that all these calculations in the spirit of the famous song of Lyapis - Trubetskoy in love (namely in the relations between the man and the woman) do not clear up the most problem point, and to stir in one a lot of a hamster and love to a coffin - in general nonsense. And still I will not agree.
I think that tender feelings to a hamster both big and pure love - one of our kind. Just the first at us for some reason better turns out, more trouble-free, perhaps. And here the second is wrapped in time in such headache that some, having once taken such happiness, forever refuse to look in this party and willingly start all other options of love: to work, to joys different, to search of truth, to cultivation of cactuses or besides to a hamster again.
The person is so arranged that he should give heat, attention, care. And for some reason it is simpler to hamster to give it - we wait for nothing from him in exchange, well from him will take! And here with people it turns out more difficult: there is already a wish that estimated your return and in exchange offered own. Otherwise it is uninteresting somehow it turns out. I, so everything, and me anything.
And what here you will do? And if to take and give to this person it is so much how many you give to a hamster. Perhaps more, but exactly so much how many it is not a pity not to count on return. It is simple to give - and all. How you think what will be? There will be a conflict of interests? I think, no. Because there is nothing it to arise. There is no occasion. Giving in this situation of nothing waits. Absolutely.
And who told that so it is impossible to work in the relations between the man and the woman? Why near the word “love“ steadily there is a word “self-sacrifice“? Why it? Who thought up to use it in this context? How, explain to me, it is possible to love the one to whom you endow yourself, you give without the rest, having lost any interest in yourself as to the personality?
Is not present in sacrifice of love, there is only a requirement in such a way to give sense of own life.
I do not say that in human life there is no place to self-sacrifice at all - is, of course, but only not in love where the person aspires fortunately, to a peace of mind, tranquility. How silly to endow itself for the sake of a hamster, also silly to put on a sacrificial altar the life for the sake of children, the husband or the wife. To love - it means to give disinterestedly, without pressure.
And if you strain and you endow - means, just you do not love. Still this feeling, or the person not that did not come nearby. And the victims everything are absolutely useless.
Here from - for this of delusion people are also afraid of love, attributing it enormous destructive action. Well, so all this and not love at all. If destroys. Lyubov always creates.
And when suffer and suffer - so it because that the person wants to suffer, complexes in him play or just the illness happened (there are such pathological states like Adele`s syndrome and so forth) . But and here love? It here and close not.
As it is not also in sentimental literary and film stories about tragic, one-way love. All this an artistic image - bright, interesting, intriguing. And in life love absolutely another: quiet and peaceful.
But it precisely is. Because I personally do not know how it is possible to live without it.