Wouldn't it stand to reason that if you never had something before that you would not know you were missing it?
I just do not understand the meaning of that quote.
2006-06-27 10:31:09 · 6 answers · asked by Scooter 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Well, 'tis better to have lived and died than never to have lived at all, I'd say. And if loving and knowing you're almost certainly going to lose the object of that love bothers you, never have a dog or a cat.
2006-06-27 11:30:13 · answer #1 · answered by johnslat 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Loving someone open up a part of you that you never knew existed and until you love you will always like part of you is missing.One needs to feel whole and that missing piece is the key to becoming a whole person.
2006-06-27 19:47:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What it is meaning to say, is that the experience of being in love is something that you should shoot for even if it is lost. In other words, the pain of losing love is far outweighed by the experience of having loved.
2006-06-27 17:43:27 · answer #3 · answered by bigbadjohnsnow 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think if you have never loved at all, then your missing out. But if you loved and lost that love, then it hurts just as bad.
2006-06-27 17:36:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im not really sure about that quote thing but im thinking that sense you get the posibility to love then its better then not knowing what its like... im not really sure if that helps or answers that ? but ya sorry just helping out..
2006-06-27 17:37:07 · answer #5 · answered by *~BabiGurl~* 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because love brings such happiness
2006-06-27 17:34:06 · answer #6 · answered by Josephine 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋