Thou Re Superficial
--
People arguing the character of the actor in film. They say it should be one of the man who be loved, or be hurt. As they were the screen writer, as fact the judgers. I am trying to not talk wiser, or write deeper, even thinking clearer. Everything’s now just a mess. But I got obviously feel that, the value which every meat to be had. Then run when it get stuck on their head. Say it could ruin they sad and get so real blue either red.
Never really meant to get this feelin or argue what sayin. Every words was an approval by the nozzle. I like to say from the autonomy of impact then the way of philosophical analyses so it could be justified obviously.
Didn’t really need to hear all of these bulliyin stuffs. Coz all those words crawled. When it came words like, I love cooking for ya, means I found engaging in a certain activity or being a certain kind person to be part of identity and that was make my life worth living. I valued this, as high as I will well say couple weeks ago.
Is it matter of caring? I didn’t think so, coz I didn’t really love ya. We will say as kind of deficient mode of the sort of love we tipically reserve for person. It depends on specific time and places. Meanwhile, the personal life wouldn’t be the focus here, kind of superficial.
By the philosopher from the ancient greeks distingushed three notions could properly be called love: eros, agape, and philia. We’ll focus in agape. And why we should be? It doesn’t never be your bussiness. Kidding, coz the term is superficial understandable.
Early disclaimer was I fall for the characters not the person. I didn’t really recognize how many importance the person should be. Or am I just a stubborn insanity. No one will break me twice, this could be complex and confused. By the Islamic tradition I found this term. While His Love doesn’t appear in shallow holes.
However agape comes from christian tradition, and I thought they have almost same meaning. In the paradigm, case of Him is agape ‘spontaneous and unmotivated’. Nygren said, I don’t even know him-sorry, he reveals not that we merit that love but that God’s nature is Love. Yes, God is Loving, the most. No one ever the same. Neither His creatures.
Otherwise responding ti antecedent value in its object (human), it supposed to create value in its and therefore to initiate our fellowhip with God. Means, the person who did more activities towards Him would be have characterized the agape as independent of loved individual’s fundamental towards other. As characters as particular person he is.
When we were adapting this nature to His creatures, will we be found love there? I think it would be, superficial love.
