Kevin's Watch

Menolly wrote:*snort*

Do I want to ask?

No...I didn't think so.

...not based on previous conversations...

I picked the wrong place to grieve.

Although, thinking of Soul Mates, I think mine would have to be my friend Josh. We're like Turk and JD from Scrubs. Right down to the 'Guy Love' song, how he's horribly embarassed about dealing with the fact we love each other "but in a totally manly way," and how we're closer than he and his wife are.

If by 'soulmate' you mean the Platonic definition - that each of us is born with half a soul, and don't become complete until we are united with the 'other gender half' of our soul, then absolutely not.

I you mean a close romantic relationship, then yes - but it's not something that's pre-ordained by fate. It's something you grow into.

And romantic relationships aside, I believe in kindred spirits.

Edge...

I believe each soul is whole and complete onto itself. But, when what I see as a soulmate is found, the combination is more than the sum of it's parts. Would that be more kindred spirits then?

That's difficult to answer, as I think in any healthy relationship, the sum is more than it's parts. Perhaps if I try to define my terms better...

Soulmate: a romantic, till-death-us-do-part, intimate relationship with one person. Not 'fated to be', and possible to develop with any kindred spirit to whom you are romantically attracted.

Kindred spirit: Any person you instantly identify with, as if you resonate on the same frequency. Someone with whom you can have one conversation, and feel as if you've known them all your life.

OK, then with some adaptation, I am speaking of what you call kindred spirits, since I do not think a soulmate need be romantic in nature.

I do think it is possible for one to be a kindred spirit to another, and not know it instantly. Too much 'trash' gets in the way, but is easily sorted through.

I think the easiest compromise of free will, while accepting that some people end up being perfect together, is that their are soul mates (plural) out there. That tends to be what I believe.

Tjol wrote:I think the easiest compromise of free will, while accepting that some people end up being perfect together, is that there are soul mates (plural) out there. That tends to be what I believe.

yes. soulmates presupposes soul. definitions on that are sketchy at best and fall horribly short at worst.

connections are made. they grow, culuminate from need or desire or chemistry.
flourish if handled well.

belief is an odd thing too.
if you think there is, there damn well may be and you may or may not end up finding it.

if you think there's not, there may not be.

the cat in the box, iddenit?

The concept has become popular, coincidentally with the fall of faith in traditional marriage as something for life, an irrevocable promise, and is basically intended to replace it - to allow the hope that there is someone totally for you without the risk of a lifelong commitment.

rusmeister wrote:The concept has become popular, coincidentally with the fall of faith in traditional marriage as something for life, an irrevocable promise, and is basically intended to replace it - to allow the hope that there is someone totally for you without the risk of a lifelong commitment.

Well said.

For me the term implies a commitment. There is nothing that Josh can do that will make me stop being his friend -- mainly because we are both close friends and care about each other too much to hurt each other like that, unless necessary. And if it's necessary, what harm is being done?

I think the rise of the 'soulmate' and the fall of marriage has do with with instant gratification. Relationships are work. Hard work. Lots of it. People don't want to have to do work. So they break up. Divorce. Et Cetera. Over the stupidest reasons. It leads to the following sorts of exchanges*:

"You're breaking up with me because I forgot a lunch date you told me about when I was falling asleep? Did you ever stop to think that I never miss any of our dates? And call you when I even think I might be late? Did you never think that something might be wrong, or that maybe I could have forgotten, and that you should call me?"

"... I'm still breaking up with you."

Of course, the sword cuts both ways. I broke up with my last girlfriend because I was the one *doing* all the work. I paid several hundred dollars and drove several hours to fly her up here for a few weeks so we could see each other, spent a great deal of money on her when she was here, and all she did was ignore me and play on the computer.

Atleast I managed to break it off earlier (financially) than I usually do.

An essay by G.K. Chesterton for thinking people on commitment and divorce...

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/divorce.txt

The amazing thing is that this stuff was written a hundred years ago and is yet so relevant today!

How can there be soulmates when there are more women then men?

Homosexuality

Emotional Leper wrote:I think Avatar might be my soul mate, if I believed they existed...

Too bad Av's a guy.

See above.

All I can say is, in the few serious relationships I've been in, my attitude has been one of building towards love. I mean, I've dropped the l-word and thought it was being honest at the time, but in hindsight it was absolutely spur of the moment + not wanting to hurt the other person + hormones.

I think the rise of the 'soulmate' and the fall of marriage has do with with instant gratification. Relationships are work. Hard work. Lots of it. People don't want to have to do work. So they break up. Divorce. Et Cetera. Over the stupidest reasons. It leads to the following sorts of exchanges*:

I sometimes wonder whether the mistake here (when it comes to marriages) is about having rushed into it too fast, or about people not working hard after the marriage. Wonder is the key here, don't have a clue.