Do you believe in soul mates?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Are they all not essentially the same thing? I dont call anyone a soulmate, and its all good for those who do, but I know there are some people who for whatever reason, are particularly special.
 
Anthony said:
I don't believe in soul mates.

I think its just a way to avoid facing the cold hard fact that no one ever understands another person completely.

It's purely popular romanticism.

Ant.

Actually, I don?t believe that you really are this opinion. I think you just want to steer up the discussion ;)

True?
 
G'day mate

I suppose you would have to have a very clear definiton of the term "soul mate" If you then did believe in the idea and it meant there is only one individual who is perfect for you,you would have to be very lucky to meet them.
The odds of each of us meeting them would not be that great.
Whereas kindred spirits abound. The concept of a soul mate in marriage seems a very chancy thing. Hoping and waiting to find yours for a long term marriage may lead to some disapointment.
Dive in anyway, the water's fine.
But I think two people, like your best friend, the one who knows so much about you and still loves you,the one you can ring too early in the morning when you have to, the one who'll stay up late and listen when you have to....... you know the one? they are the real mate.
MATES:up:
best,old , trusted, great,weird, wonderful, faraway, flat, school, bed, room, soul....in all their forms...I :heart: mates

I can't even recall your original Q. Hmmm, hope that answered...something:wave:
 
Actually, I don?t believe that you really are this opinion. I think you just want to steer up the discussion

No, actually, that IS my opinion. LOL. You're wrong, I really am as bitter and twisted as I made myself out to be. :)

No, seriously, of course I believe in what I said. Is it really os hard to believe? Do I really look like some hyperactive Romantic? I think its a pretty realistic opinion.

Ant.
 
Anthony said:


No, actually, that IS my opinion. LOL. You're wrong, I really am as bitter and twisted as I made myself out to be. :)

No, seriously, of course I believe in what I said. Is it really os hard to believe? Do I really look like some hyperactive Romantic? I think its a pretty realistic opinion.

Ant.

What makes you think no one ever understands another person completely? Because everyone is unique? I mean, it depends on how you define completely. Most persons don?t understand their own personality completely. A psychotherapy usually messes up things even worse.

But what about children? Don?t you think they are able to understand to a "complete" extent? To simply understand, on another level? Don?t you think grandparents are able to understand their children, because they?ve been through the same? This has nothing to do with romanticism.
 
Yes, whenhiphopdrovethebigcars, I do believe that a lot of understanding is possible - I believe that 'essential' understanding is possible, but not complete understanding, simple because most people don't understand themselves anyway.

Perhaps I should explain.

Two people may love each other and spend an entire lifetime with each other, however, and I absolutely guarantee you, one day one of them will completely suprise the other, and vice versa. It is this element of surprise that proves to the other party that there is an entire universe in that person he or she loves, and because of such a sheer scope - it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to understand and know every single detail about the person.

I believe that humans are complicated beings, they contain their own private and personal universes (whether intellectual and emotional) with hundreds of shades of grey to nearly every infinite subject - how can one person EVER hope to understand another entirely?

However, I do believe in 'partial' or 'essential' understanding. Humans are indeed able to understand each other, two people who love each other, for instance, may understand and know each other better than any other person in the universe, however, this does not entitle 'complete understanding'.

My criticism of romanticism is this image, this imago of a 'soul mate' that two souls are destined to find each other and live as two halves of the same - I don't buy it.

Ant.
 
Angela Harlem said:
Are they all not essentially the same thing? I dont call anyone a soulmate, and its all good for those who do, but I know there are some people who for whatever reason, are particularly special.

Ooh, Ang, was qn this directed at me? If it was, the difference between soulmate and kindred spirit is this:

To me, 'soulmate' implies all the fatalistic romanticism that Anthony (see his posts) doesn't buy.

And 'kindred spirit' is more realistic because it simply means people who 'click' together in a very special way; nothing to do with fate/destiny at all. For more info on kindred spirits, consult your nearest Anne Of Green Gables volume :D


foray
 
unless they are in fact a 'bosom friend' heeeeh

i think gilbert blythe is my soul mate
 
hey forte, I didn't mean to single you out with that, your reply made me ask the question though. I'm with those not applying a hallmark philosophy to love and those you love, so I guess I was just musing at what, if any, difference there is between the 2. I think you summed it up though.

Gawd, its been years since I read Anne...hehe.
 
Anthony said:
Yes, whenhiphopdrovethebigcars, I do believe that a lot of understanding is possible - I believe that 'essential' understanding is possible, but not complete understanding, simple because most people don't understand themselves anyway.

Perhaps I should explain.

Two people may love each other and spend an entire lifetime with each other, however, and I absolutely guarantee you, one day one of them will completely suprise the other, and vice versa. It is this element of surprise that proves to the other party that there is an entire universe in that person he or she loves, and because of such a sheer scope - it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to understand and know every single detail about the person.

I believe that humans are complicated beings, they contain their own private and personal universes (whether intellectual and emotional) with hundreds of shades of grey to nearly every infinite subject - how can one person EVER hope to understand another entirely?

However, I do believe in 'partial' or 'essential' understanding. Humans are indeed able to understand each other, two people who love each other, for instance, may understand and know each other better than any other person in the universe, however, this does not entitle 'complete understanding'.

My criticism of romanticism is this image, this imago of a 'soul mate' that two souls are destined to find each other and live as two halves of the same - I don't buy it.

Ant.

:yes:
 
Put a different spin on this debate.....

What is a "soul" and do we really have them? If "souls" are something imaginary that humans have made up to answer questions such as "what lives on after we die" - how are we supposed to find "soulmates"?

I also want to put a corny-humorous spin on it - I am a American Shoe size 10 1/2 - do I have any Solemates?

______
:wave: I probably just killed this thread with corny humor.
 
Back
Top Bottom