Relationships, Sobriety and Love

Virtue is under the skin

Virtue is UNDER the skin

With Valentine’s Day just around the corner, a post about romantic relationships should be appropriate. The majority of “love-based” relationships I have witnessed (and a great deal of my own past relationships) are based on lust, co-dependancy, lies, hedging, projection, insecurities, manipulation, bickering, and outright abuse.

All of these relationship problems can be solved on the first or second date, saving you energy, money, time, and the possible crotch-rotting disease that feels like you sat on a hot cactus. Not to mention having children with the wrong partner which is a complete catastrophe no matter how civil the split-up/divorced parents chose to be.

How can all of this be eliminated from the start?

“There was no way for me to have known he would have changed! He was so charming and funny at first. Then he started to turn into a real asshole!”

Before I continue any further, I will put forward my definition of love. There are many arguments for this definition but I wont go into too much detail on how this definition is valid.

love-588409_1920

Love- Love is our involuntary response to virtue, if we are virtuous.

In America, the word love has been completely stripped of any real context or meaning. I hear radio broadcasters telling complete strangers who call in to the radio show “I love you.” Completely empty of any real value or meaning. In todays culture, the word “love” is thrown around as a shaky platitude. Sorry folks, the word “love” has specific and direct purpose.

Of course you can say that you “love” chocolate cake but in this context that is a completely subjective opinion. Love between a romantic couple has to have objective and rational attributes. Having utility for one another is not love. Love is love; and only if you are both virtuous. If you claim to love someone who is an obvious abuser or sadist, I would argue that loving that person is not possible. It may feel like love, but it is more like a dysfunctional parasite that needs a host for survival.

The definition of love that I mentioned above (first brought about by Ayn Rand and slightly modified by S. Molyneux), is very powerful. If you break it down syllogistically, an evil person can neither love, or be loved. To love, you must have virtuous qualities and the person you are loving, must also have virtuous qualities. Therefore, if you and your partner are virtuous, you will both INVOLUNTARILY respond to each other with love.

This definition runs into a big problem in our culture because we are taught as children that family is innately virtuous. Philosophically- or factually, family is nothing more than a conceptual category placed on a group of individuals that were accidentally placed in geographical proximity to one another. Each person in the family is responsible for his or her own virtue or lack there of.  Because of this truth, the ideology of the voluntary family; I believe is valid. I will publish another post on the voluntary family at a later time. (If you have never heard the ideology of the voluntary family, you can find many online articles by an internet search.)

We are also taught to love ones’ country which is also impossible and irrational. A country is simply an imaginary boarder drawn on a piece of paper. Lines on a map. A country is a concept in our mind that doesn’t exist in reality. In other words, the relationship between myself and my country is a relationship based on manipulation and lies.

WHAT IS VIRTUE?

Nothing that is accidental or material can be virtuous. Not families’, not religion, not countries, not beauty, not height, not intelligence (IQ), not silky-soft lustrous hair, not bedroom eyes, not a ripped six-pack, not a houseboat, not a 6-bedroom home, not a Corvette, not a lawyer, not a doctor, and definitely not a blogger.

To maintain virtue, we must have honesty. Honesty is the first prerequisite for virtue. If we have honesty, integrity to our virtues is at least a possibility.

Integrity to virtue must be the fundamental principle in all of our relationships. Having integrity to our virtues creates security which is necessary but not sufficient for love. Other virtues include:

Genuine courage

What are you full of?

What are you full of?

Empathy

Moral perceptiveness

Curiosity

Negotiation

Ability to reason

Personal growth

Emotional receptivity

Intimacy

Adherence to the non-aggression principle

Clear and open communication

Self Knowledge

There are many other virtues of course, but if some of the basics are not present in your relationships, your relationships will cause major problems and most likely end in disaster. This post is focused more towards romantic relationships. However, all voluntary, personal relationships should be put through a virtue check in the same way. Ask your closest relationship some self-knowledge questions and see how open, or closed off they become. The majority of relationships I have experienced have been a thinly sliced piece of sentimentality covering over sarcasm, angst, vane utility, exploitation, with a side of sports, weather and empty minutiae. Any time I brought up an important or meaningful topic, the uncomfortable silence and nervousness from the other person would quickly stab through me like a knife.

I believe that if there are topics of discussion that are “off-limits” in a relationship, stated explicitly or implicitly- you are headed for a failing relationship. If you are walking through a field where there are buried land-mines, eventually, you will step on one! Together, you must dig them all up. Play in an safe and open field. If you claim to “love” the person, would you allow them to run freely into a field full of exploding land-mines? What topics are “off-limits” in your relationships?

Because of our biological drive to create more humans, we often confuse our biological drives of sexual lust, for love. This is tragic. We know that (biologically) females trade their eggs for resources and males trade resources for monogamous access to the woman, allowing a continuation of the bloodline. That of course, is a very basic and shortened explanation but none-the-less, when we allow our sexual relationships to be based on our biological drives they will turn out disastrous. This is because we are basing the entire relationship on economic status, beauty, Alpha male/female characteristics, and not on virtue. I have heard people talk about the word “chemistry” or “having chemistry”. Chemistry is a bullshit word that is used in the place of lust. There is no such hocus-pokus nonsense called chemistry. There is virtue and there is vice.

When on a first or second date, asking important questions can save you from making repetitive and very common relationship mistakes. If all your previous relationships died out or ended, you know that either one of you, or both of you were not adhering to virtuous principles. If you are single now, but have dated in the past, all of your relationships were a failure. I know that is obvious but why did they fail?

This is why it is so important to find out in the beginning if your date will be at all compatible; that you can both be fueled by virtue. Ask your potential romantic partner what kind of childhood they had. If you notice they have unprocessed childhood trauma, that is a red flag. If they have been through counseling and done a bunch of self work to repair their past, then you know they have self-knowledge and are more compatible (If you are virtuous). If sexual innuendoes are constantly being thrown around or if sex is offered right up front, you know this person has a low self-esteem and thinks that sex is all they can offer the relationship. Another red flag.

I used to believe that none of these “red flags” were visible in all my past romantic relationships but now I know that is very untrue. When I look back, I can see every single one of them, screaming at me to run in the other direction. Unfortunately, I was blinded by giddy lust and counterfeited virtues. I justified all of my own vices as virtues and I avoided confrontations by not expressing my own preferences. Completely avoiding topics that I knew would be volatile. I thought thats what love was. Not understanding what love was cost me 20 years of my life, thousands of dollars, many broken hearts, health issues and drug use.

I believe by the time we are old enough for the “birds and the bee’s” talk, we already know how to place a round peg in a round hole. I wish I would have been taught about parasitical women when I was 13 or 14. I found out by allowing them to destroy years of my life.

The “sex talk” should have been something like “DO NOT mistake accidental beauty for virtue. Resist your biological drive for sex by making sure the woman you are interested in has value outside of her curves and ocean-blue eyes. Picture her as a mother having to wake up at 4 in the morning to a crying baby and a sick husband; then if you can believe she would handle that situation with love and empathy, you can go forward from there. And of course the same holds if reversing the genders.

The moral of the story is if you are not virtuous and you do not strive for honesty everyday, you will never meet a virtuous partner. You are what you attract. This is absolutely true. If any of you are saying that you cannot make absolute truth claims about anything, you just made an absolute truth claim by stating “there is no such thing as absolute truth.” Which is itself, an absolute truth claim. 🙂

This is why it is absolutely vital to hold off on dating when you first get sober. You may think you are in a good enough place to get romantically involved but you are not. They say you should wait at least a year. I would say even longer. If you have recently become sober, please get some therapy and look into your childhood objectively.

Were you spanked? yelled at? abused? did your parents divorce? family member in prison? alcoholic family member? parents using drugs? were you breast feed? were you held often? taught how to negotiate? were you put in daycare before age 5? sexual abuse? how were conflicts resolved in your home? were you always told no without an explanation? were you allowed to have preferences? were you drugged instead of reasoned with? did your parents fight often? All these things have a significant effect on brain development and are correlated to addiction. Getting answers and working through your childhood trauma; no matter how justifiable or “normal”, is absolutely necessary for future growth, sobriety and self-knowledge. You will never know who you are if you don’t understand why and were you came from.

Before you can know anything about the world, you must first know yourself. Like the great Socrates said “know thyself”

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “Relationships, Sobriety and Love

  1. I liked your conclusion but the manner in which you got there left a little to be desired.

    One instance, of many, was your taking down of “love of country”. You boiled country down to an invisible border which is vastly over-simplified. Say I was a gay man living in Saudi Arabia or another Arab country, where being gay is punishable by death, then I moved to America where I was free. Would it not be easier to love that freedom? Of course it would, that’s a no-brainer. Say I lived in Russia where the left-wing smothers all those in opposition? I am free to be prosperous in America, no matter my political beliefs. Love of country can be just as virtuous as love involving another person because not all countries are created equal, just as all perspective mates aren’t. Interesting post though. You got me thinking.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You make a valid point Jim. My argument about love of country was truncated and over simplistic. I tried to expand on my argument but it took me too far off topic so I erased a lot of it. Maybe I should’ve redacted that point completely. I am an anarchist with respect to politics so I don’t know if you know the anarchist arguments. Many people believe that anarchy means no rules. That is incorrect. anarchy = no rulers”. Your points about freedom and unequal countries make sense but in physical reality, countries don’t exist except for the concept in our mind and the rulers who obligated to initiate the use of force in a given geographical location. I believe that the initiation of the use of force against another human being is immoral. The fundamental driver of governments is taxation. Taxation is the initiation of the use of force- or theft. Therefore government is immoral. This is the beginning arguments about countries as a concept and so on. I am not saying that America is terrible or anything like that. I am grateful I was born here but that is only accidental. I believe Nationalism is a very dangerous wedge placed between myself and a man in Iraq or Iran. I am no better a man than someone overseas. Anyway, I don’t want to keep droning on about these tangents. I do enjoy these topics and I am always searching for different perspectives and ideas. I appreciate your thoughts and angles on these ideas. The more ideas and arguments the better for us all. Thanks again Jim 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

  2. 🙂 Thank you Dustin. This description of the straight and narrow is what I need as an answer to the dificulties I have been going through the last days. I’m (almost) right back at my path. I’ve got the knowledge and the feel of the path, now I need to decide that I want to walk it. I guess I’ll read your post another few times and do my own cleaning up here. Thank you! 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    • You are welcome feeling. Sorry, I don’t know what to call you. I hope feeling works as a handle. 🙂
      Like I mentioned on your post, these are merely moral ideals. If you have integrity to moral and virtuous principles, (which I am still striving for everyday) then you won’t accept others in your life that aren’t willing to search for their own self knowledge. Knowing the reasons why I am who I am has taught me a lot. Knowing where you came from and accepting it was a huge breakthrough for me. My personality, my eating habits, my demeanor, my anger, my rage, my emotional spectrum, my virtues and my vices. Where it was all formed was an important place for me to explore. I don’t know if that is more confusing than anything- but I can now accept who I am- right down to the bone. You are such a strong person and very intellectual. Use it as a huge advantage to learn and grow.

      Liked by 2 people

      • My online name is Feeling, I guess. It tels about how I feel my way back into life after living in the darkness of addiction. I feel it back. 🙂 Because the feeling for what is good had not totally left me.
        I wholeheartedly agree with your view, it’s just that I never really had to deal with it in sober life. I’ve never really been sober when interested in somebody. 😦 And the bookstore man is a confusing first (ok, third) now because he is very much developped in all these fields, apart from being a pot head. 😦 So I guess the universe send me an extra difficult challenge with him. Pointing me back at taking care of my own business of repair after addiction. And that is good. 🙂 Because I’m only 5 months in and that does not give a stable base for something as complicated as a relation. And indeed, there’s a lot of work I haven’t done yet. I am happy that you and the other non using / sober bloggers walk before me and shine the light on the path.
        I hope I can put whatever I have to dealing with this addiction and repairing that what needs repairing. Thank you for walking this road too.

        xx, Feeling

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Pingback: Lovesick hippo search no further | feelingmywaybackintolife

  4. I’m a huge fan of Ayn Rand, so I “love” what you’ve done here. While I agree with you that nothing accidental can be virtuous, I do believe that material items, while not inherently virtuous, can open a window onto a person’s values. For example, six-pack abs or a six-bedroom house, if earned through honest means, can demonstrate that someone values hard work and self-discipline, or, conversely, that they value superficiality and image.

    Likewise, I believe that it is possible and right to love one’s country, if one’s country lives by values that are worth loving. If honesty is the highest virtue, and honesty means living in accordance with reality, then a country is virtuous if it expects its citizens to live in accordance with reality. And since reason is the means by which we apprehend reality, a virtuous country must also value reason.

    So a secular republic is more virtuous than a theocracy based on superstition. A country with a capitalist economy based on free choice is more virtuous than a country with a socialist economy based on redistribution and coercion. A country based on the idea that people own their bodies and their choices is more virtuous than a country where people’s bodies and minds are slaves to the state or society.

    And as for taxation… It should be kept to the barest minimum that ensures the functionaries of justice are able to do their jobs and punish those – and only those – who have injured others by force or fraud. That’s the only fair price of living in society, and everything else can be privatized.

    Drop in and say hi sometime.

    https://parkinglotpushups.wordpress.com/

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ayn Rand was definitely “the smoky Russian goddess of reason” She had groundbreaking arguments and amazing talents; including her proof that the free market punishes against bigotry when the leftists/marxist claims that the free market profited from bigotry (which is complete nonsense). She does have a few flaws in her reasoning. One being that she believed you could change peoples minds by using reason which is not the case. There are studies that show that when reason is brought to an irrational argument, it often times solidifies the previous bigotries of the irrational argument. I guess we see this everyday with heavy statist arguments.
      I hesitate to criticize Rand because most mainstream criticism’s are just monkeys throwing poo and calling it truthful argument.
      I agree with the majority of objectivist methodology, I just don’t accept minarchism as a plausible solution to controlling the growth of state power. There is historical proof that the smaller the government in the beginning, the larger it will become. When the free market is unregulated by government and is allowed to flourish, it generates massive amounts of wealth. The minimal governments have always used that wealth by borrowing against it- and that vastly grows the power of the state. No document or paper can stop this from happening. The founding fathers were some smart people and knew what the power of government can do. Nothing they tried ever worked. I understand Rand’s argument for proper government functions being courts, police, and National security. More of a service to society, rather than an owner/leader of a society. I truly wish a minimal government was possible but history has shown it to be more of a cancer that grows and grows and cannot be stopped.
      On top of its unstoppable growth, its immoral nature, holding theft in the form of taxation as a high moral necessity, cant have different moral rules than citizens. For moral rules to be objective, they must be universal. These of course are just my amateur thoughts on this which are greatly persuaded by Stef Molyneux. I appreciate your comment and thoughts to broaden the topic and bring forward some different angles. I look forward to reading your blog. I think we have a great amount in common. Thanks again!
      -John Galt 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hey Dustin – I hold to the “social contract” theory, which says that a man in a state of nature is his own government, free to avenge wrongs against him, but a man living in society with others *cannot* be his own government, at least in terms of dispensing justice. Otherwise we’d quickly have mayhem, because the strong would prey on the weak.

        This is why I don’t see minarchist taxation as theft, because it’s a necessary payment for the benefits of living in a society.

        In a community without a government, such as the anarchist community you describe, how would justice function?

        And as far as “the smaller the government in the beginning, the larger it will become,” well, yes, if we’re measuring by percentage. A hugely bloated bureaucracy at the start wouldn’t have much more room to grow. But that doesn’t mean a small government HAS to grow large.

        And to horn in on the part of the conversation about MRA and MGTOW and all that… one of my favorite websites is written by a female MRA: http://www.judgybitch.com

        She recommends “interviewing” potential mates, and I wholeheartedly agree.

        Liked by 2 people

      • There is an objective and rational theory of secular ethics that is universal to all human beings. It doesn’t use gods or governments to decide right from wrong. It is called Universally Preferable Behavior. That is the methodology that humans would know “the laws of the land”. The question of how justice would be served in a state of anarchy I think you have to ask how it is working now. The majority of what the government does is subjective and arbitrary. Wrongfully accused thrown in prisons to be raped, thrown in prisons for peaceful trade including drugs, war on poverty has created a permanent underclass, selling arms overseas to dictators, drone strikes on the innocent etc. Backed up law courts that force people to accept lower sentences instead of a real trial. That is a massive threat of their freedom, a scare tactic used to generate money. The current system is set up for cure instead of prevention.
        In a free society, there would be DROs (dispute resolution organizations) that would work close to an insurance company but they would benefit from preventing problems. You would hire a DRO to protect you from, say vandalism or theft. That company would be incentivized to make sure your neighborhood was clean and safe, they could interview neighbors etc. Have you heard of the non aggression principle? That is the primary principle in the free society. That and respect for property rights. Those two things are universally preferable behavior and they are accurate and true syllogistically when they are ran through the rigors of rational ethics.
        There are books on all these subjects that do a much better job arguing these complex topics. (Stefan Molyneux) If you are interested. I looked at that site you mentioned and I am thrilled to read more. Thanks for that link. I agree with the interviewing too. I am happily married now and will never get a divorce but I do hope to help others who are having trouble in that area. Especially drug addicts like myself. Have a great week and thanks for the comment.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I’ve heard of Universally Preferable Behavior. I’m a humanist and don’t have any magical gods or higher powers in my life. I generally look to evo-devo or evolutionary psychology to understand why people do what they do, and to formulate a secular code of ethics.

        The DRO’s sound interesting, almost like a homeowner’s association on steroids. Not sure how well they would handle serious aggressions, such as murder or rape. And I’m not sure what would stop them from growing too large, just like the government does, and becoming mafias, or warlords with private armies.

        And yes, I’m familiar with the non-aggression and the non-initiation principles. I agree that initiating force against someone is immoral, although I do think it’s moral to use force to stop a person from hurting the innocent. I’m no Quaker.

        So far, anarchism to me seems sort of like Marxism, in the sense that “Here’s this great idea that looks good on paper, where everyone just does the right thing because it’s the right thing, but it won’t actually work in real life.”

        That being said, I am VERY interested in learning more and always open to the idea of changing my opinion. A quick search on Amazon shows a ton of books by the author you mentioned. Can you recommend which one(s) to read first?

        Liked by 2 people

      • I enjoy talking with you. You are a thinker for sure. The DROs would have to keep a precise and inventoried list of every single gun or bullet they had. They could put a million dollars into a public account and if they ever tried to stock up or hide any extra weapons or ammo, they would have to pay out the retainer money to the people. Not to mention, when you use violence, it costs a huge amount of money. You have to have representatives and courtrooms and judges and attorneys and police and witnesses and videos and so on. Solving complex issues without using violence is extremely cost effective and in a truly free market, you can’t have any overhead that is extremely expensive. You just couldn’t compete with the other DROs. I’m not sure exactly how serious crimes are handled but I believe that there would still by a type of court system. People who are psychopaths obviously can’t be cured so serious violent crimes, rape murder etc would be dealt with. The book can explain it in full detail. Another great way to deal with “law breakers” is with ostracism. As atheists, we know how powerful ostracizing can be. In a free society, companies can work with the DROs and if a specific person has ripped people off or stolen, stores and gas stations can refuse business to that person making life a lot harder until he rights his wrongs.
        I agree with self defense as well. Look at Amazon, they employ over 250,000 people and have no court system or government to handle disputes. It is almost a free system that uses dispute resolution and a reputation system of ostracism. It works very well.
        As far as his books, maybe start with the guide to anarchy and the other anarchy book that he has will explain in detail how it all could work. They are free downloads at http://www.freedomainradio.com
        Thanks for the great chat!

        Like

  5. You’re embarking on big territory, Dustin. Hard to make a quick comment without making it sound like one is glossing over the content, and yet there is so much to mine that I fear in equalling word output to make meaningul discussion.

    There are many, many parts to this. I think what came to my mind was that this is obviously written in hindsight. I know when I was out there, lusting and loving or neither or both, I wasn’t concerned with compatibility in the long run. I was just out trying to have fun and to find value in myself and others. I see now I was always seeking validation from the external, but at the time, hell I was either trying to get laid or to have a nice girlfriend / companion to just hang out with.

    i think some may take exception to the idea of “interviewing” a potential mate. I do however agre that unexplored traumas will absolutely play out in a relationship. How could it NOT? As one of my therapists said – when two people go to bed, six people are really going to bed (i.e both parents of both folks enter, via psychology and history). You bring up some very valid points in that regard.

    What about the love of a pet? Can a dog have a virtue? If it is not love by the definition you present, then what could it be then? (I ask because I am really enjoying this discourse now!) I am really interested in your thoughts here – grand post, lots to chomp at.

    Thanks Dustin!
    Paul

    Liked by 2 people

    • Heya Paul!
      I don’t mind the extended thoughts. I love these topics and how others view them. I guess my question would be; when you were out “playing the field”, were you honest with the women you were with? My opinion is that as long as both parties know that it’s nothing more than a romp fest, there’s no moral issue. It’s the leading on and subtle hints of “something more” when there is no intent of more. I have not been one for deferring gratification (of course I’m an addict lol) the majority of my life and my relationships suffered as well.

      Your therapist was brilliant! Lol I like what they said to you. It is quite true. We imprint the relationship we saw in our parents because biologically that worked for them. Either a spray and pray, or nuclear family support. I think they call it type H reproduction and type K?

      Dogs don’t moral virtues even though they can have qualities of companionship and loyalty. They have instincts without the ability to conceptualize or reason. I think that puts them outside the realm of ethics. Quadrupeds mate but I don’t believe they feel “love”. Maybe comfort and happiness, but not love. They don’t have the human frontal cortex for reasoning and virtue. If they did, we would hold them morally responsible for beating up kittens. These are just opinions but I think they make a bit of sense anyways. Lol thanks for your comment Paul! Have a good one.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Thank you Dustin for this post! There was a lot that resonated on this subject, thank you for sharing your thoughts and wisdom! I have a lot of frustration being apart of the dating world because of the distorted views our society has these days and the lack of commitment I feel like I’ve observed over the years. I have a long way to go in my own recovery, although it is not recovery from drugs/alcohol, it is from childhood trauma, and mental/emotional wounds from my up bringing. I struggle with feeling worthy, and am currently on my own journey of healing and personal growth, trying to understand myself, what I have to offer and finding someone who will cherish that and treat it with respect, love, loyalty and kindness is really tough! Because there is a big portion of folks (in my opinion) who are only looking for one thing in this day and age, which is sex, and physical appearance. It’s like the things that should matter are the least of some ones concern as long as they are getting sex. This is super frustrating to me not only as a woman, but a woman who is always striving to grow spiritually, personally, mentally, and to be the best version of me possible to share with someone I love and care about, only to find myself questioning my growth because it feels like the odds are against me, morals, integrity, and values. (if any of this makes sense at all.) I am terrible with words and writing, but basically It’s a frustrating world we live in when it comes to LOVE from personal love, family, significant others etc… Having been married and divorced I see the lessons I learned from that chapter in my life, and I refuse to settle for less than what I deserve because of the stigma we have in Utah of being a single woman. I would rather be single than be lied to, and disrespected. We all deserve true, pure, honest love and happy endings. We are all capable of it, it’s if we let the evil in this world navigate us or chose to navigate it ourselves in a healthy way.

    Liked by 2 people

    • That makes a lot of sense and I can relate to what you are going through; just on the male side of the coin. I know I am married now and have found a diamond in the rough but for many years, it was a constant conveyor belt of amoral, superficial women. Not just in my relationships, but I would see it everywhere in both genders.
      It may seem weird for me to bring up the “nanny-state” but it has direct affect on relationships, ideology and current trends of men and women in America. Between the nanny state, hyper-sexualized media and the feminist movements, men have been constantly barraged as smelly, disposable, inconsiderate apes who are not necessary. Almost without fail, movies and tv shows portray the father figure as a dumb ass idiot that is full of incompetence. Even in Disney movies. This pressure and constant put downs on a gender has created movements like MGTOW (men going their own way) who have chosen a lifelong single lifestyle. Not to mention 50% of marriages end in divorce where men more times than not, end up paying alimony/child support for decades. This is all at the hands of government regulations and power- and the decline in marriage has taken a massive hit over the last 40 years. I’m not trying to say women are bad or anything like that, it’s just a small slice of how men have to look through that lens which can be very scary. Of coarse there are dirt bag players, scum bags, dead beats and so on who screw things up for the good men but they can easily be sifted through. When your looking for a needle in a haystack, time is not on your side so if you have a metal detector, it makes finding the needle that much faster.
      If you are interested, there is a message board website for philosophically and morally minded individuals who are looking for other people who are also, moral, emotionally available, ethical and brilliant minded. These people all strive to be better people. Anyway, sorry for the long rant. Don’t give up your principles for no one. You are doing the right thing. Thank you for such a great comment.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you for your response and the motivation to not give up! Some days I just want to throw in the towel and vow to be single the rest of my life 🙂 then I quickly realize I am to good of a catch to be alone the rest of my life. You are a great writer and love to read your thoughts!

        Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks ainsobriety. I appreciate that. Thank you for stopping by. I try to live that principle but it’s not always as easy as it sounds of course. I think we all at one time or another. I think as long as we don’t stay stagnant for too long or back peddle we can achieve almost anything.
      Stop back by anytime. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      • My belief is that if we are not striving for virtue, we are either stagnant or leaning towards evil. Which neither of the latter can create a healthy relationship. Just some thoughts. 🙂

        Like

      • Thank you, Dustin. I had not thought about it just in those terms. We do not strive to love; we just love. We do not want humility; we humble ourselves. Wow, this is powerful; people can act virtuously at any time. Could this be the case because people have virtue in them?
        Dale

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hey dale, it is a great topic and intriguing to me. I don’t believe all people have inherent virtue. I know that psychopaths are not capable of empathy which takes 12-13 different brain centers to activate the mirror neurons that are required for empathy. These parts of the brain are the first to be destroyed by abuse and neglect in childhood, as well as other reasons. If empathy is not present in a person, it can’t be “recovered” or fixed. Empathy is necessary for virtuous behaviors to exist. Thanks for commenting and have a great week.
        Dustin-

        Liked by 2 people

    • I read through it and it’s very interesting. I want to take a full shot at it tonight when I wake up because it will take me some time. I want to try and break it down and really work through it. Great work SC! I’ll get back to you this weekend!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s