It's another form of manipulation. The goal of using 'love' is to get what you want.
The statement is just another angle that the idea of 'love' can be used to get that but
the act or guise is useless unless you get what you want in the end.
The sentence should read; if you want something from this person then make them believe that they are 'free' and then they will give you what you want.
The absurdity that 'you' can posses another being is at the heart of this.
2007-06-24 09:31:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by @@@@@@@@ 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
There is a big difference between real love and obsession / addiction. When you love someone, truly love them, you will do what is in THEIR best interest - it's not about clinging to someone because of what YOU want. If your relationship with them is not healthy for them, or the other person does not want the relationship, then forcing yourself on them is not love. At least, it's not love for the other person, it's love for yourself!
So loving someone enough to let them go doesn't mean you push away everyone you love, it means that you are more interested in ensuring the health and safety of the one you love than in yourself and what you want.
It's a situation-specific kind of thing. But guaging whether or not the situation calls for you to let go of the one you love requires an overall attitude of putting someone else's needs above your own. ...now that's real love!
P.S. This doesn't mean that you ignore your own needs or don't take care of yourself. It means you are careful not to cross the line between self-care and selfishness.
2007-06-24 09:41:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ode 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
KZ makes a good point and an essential one: we must define love. We are taught that there are many kinds of love: we love God, parents, friends, husbands, wives, children, countries. Is each love a different kind according to the object to which is directed? I think not. I think love is a transitive verb, i.e. an action that always requires an object to make sense and be completed. The object may change, but the action has one fundamental component: we always value who or what we love. It means that we give value, esteem of great importance that which we enjoy, brings us pleasure and enjoys us.
Sometimes the object of love is one that is in conflict with another. If we value one, the other feels bad and offended! This might be the case for VERY religious people, who say they love God above everything else, even parents and children! And if they don't, they are hipocrits!
2007-06-24 11:05:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by DrEvol 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The latter portion of that saying states that if the person returns, then the two of you were meant to be together. I don't know under what circumstances this will work.
For instance, if someone is called to the military, or a job in another state does one wait to see if they will keep in touch? Let them go. In such cases, people have been known to continue their love long distance until they can be together even if it means relocating.
The other instance is where someone you love may have eyes for someone else, or at least think they do. And no matter how you plead with them to stay, they insist on going to someone else...let them go. If they come back, you will be excited in the beginning; but later on, it will be a lingering issue.
Finally, someone you love may have a dream to pursue that requires them to travel, do you love them, and trust them enough to let them go to fulfill their dreams? Would you make them choose between following their dreams or calming your fear of loosing them? Let them go. See what happens.
2007-06-24 09:49:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by divabylaw 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Love= Trust
Trust= Letting Go
2007-06-24 09:29:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by kevrigger 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Love Enough To Let Go
2016-10-13 10:30:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by fackelman 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is a simple concept. If you keep someone by force, they don't really want to stay there. You let someone go when you love them, because if they stay with you it's a mutual love. And if they go away and find themselves happy somewhere else, out of love you are happy for them. The reason is because the ultimate recognizable aspect of love is that you simply want to see the other person happy (you are humble and not greedy). When you let someone go and they come back, it's said it's meant to be. They want to be there and you want them to be there. If you never let them go to see if they want to stay, you can run into problems. I found out that for seven months my boyfriend kind of wanted to experiment with other girls. I let him go for a while, he got bored and came back and said that what he did was stupid and they weren't half as interesting as he'd thought they'd be. We've been together ever since and, let me tell you, much happier because the secrets were gone.
"If you love it, let it go. If it comes back, it's yours. If it doesn't, it never was."
2007-06-24 09:30:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ava-Marie Germaine 2
·
6⤊
0⤋
Depends on what you mean by love. If you translate love to "I want you so bad" , "I need to be with you", "My existence has no meaning without you" and so on, then how can you let go?
That is what normally referred to as romantic love, and in this sense letting go of that person is a true contradiction to your love.
There are other forms of love like love of parents which is somewhat synonymous to trust and true caring. One would not probably pose the same question to this kind of love.
So I think we are entirely confusing this loaded word "love" with different feelings.
2007-06-24 10:30:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by kz 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
You're not narrow minded,just on the wrong page..I believe your question usually pertains to a death of a loved one.However in your case It's to love enough to respect their wish to be let go.They are gone not the love
2007-06-24 10:01:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by stones 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
In short, it refers to the ability to "let go" of someone for their benefit, putting your wants second to their happiness and what MAY be better for them. The thought being, if you love someone their happiness (which might require them not being with you) ought to matter more to you than you having what you want (in this case, having them in your life).
2007-06-24 09:30:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by guevon13 1
·
1⤊
0⤋