ITT: the truth about soulmates

[1]◊

edited 31st Mar '12 10:41:14 PM by LightArrow

-has mine-

yay

Ha, I have the internet. DISTANCE IS NOW IRRELEVANT, AND I'VE ALREADY FOUND HIM.

Though Distance is an awesome Dubstep producer, you should check him out.

I has a sad.

Found mine too

ITT: Post that could have gone in Romance.

And it didn't. And That's Terrible.

So, is there a website that helps you track your soulmates? I should patent a device that reads your psychic emanations and pinpoints the general direction of your soulmate.

SPOILER. Its just gonna be a machine that points in a random direction every time you hit a button.

When I believed in soulmates, I was open to the possibility that they could also be asynchronous. As in, your soul mate may be centuries away from you, and neither of you is likely to get access to time travel.

ITT: A forever alone person is bitter about it and wants to share.

Or maybe that soulmate even exists in another plane of existence, away from our concepts of time and space.

Eh. I don't really care whether I meet my "soulmate" or not.

Would it be fantastic if it did happen? Sure. But... eh. There's more to life than sitting around waiting for "the one" to find you.

Like video games.

Forever alone. :(

nah

Agreed. Right on bro.

edited 31st Mar '12 11:11:18 PM by LightArrow

"Or maybe that soulmate even exists in another plane of existence, away from our concepts of time and space."

[1] pdf This is hilarious. They actually made a paper of this.

Abstract:  I argue that if David Lewis’ modal realism is true, modal realists from different possible worlds can fall in love with each other. I offer a method for uniquely picking out possible people who are in love with us and not with our counterparts. Impossible lovers and trans-world love letters are considered. Anticipating objections, I argue that we can stand in the right kinds of relations to merely possible people to be in love with them and that ending a trans-world relationship to start a relationship with an actual person isn't cruel to one's otherworldly lover.

That paper is genius

I think that "soulmateness", insofar as the term even makes sense, is not something that exists from the get-go but something that is developed over time.

It's not some static quality, determined since the time of one's conception; it is a phenomenon that arises when people develop certain especially solid emotional bonds with each other.

edited 1st Apr '12 12:07:33 AM by Carciofus

Never believed in it, anyway. Although it was an amusing essay, nonetheless.

Don't believe in soulmates.

I don't believe in soulmates, in the "There is one, and only one, intended partner for you out there, and your relationship, should you find them, will be unimaginibly perfect" sense.

I think that for most people there are multiple people out there sufficiently compatible for a very happy relationship indeed. I think that's better, if less hopelessly romantic and all that.

edited 1st Apr '12 12:37:58 PM by Morven

ITT: We post unproven assumptions as though they were true and then use that to (il)logically reach a fallacious answer in order to appear smart.

edited 1st Apr '12 12:39:43 PM by Ramus

Why is it only one person? :(

This.

edited 1st Apr '12 12:39:44 PM by TParadox

How about a soul band, then?

Sounds jazzy.

I believe the concept of soul mates is a complete load. After all, you wouldn't discard a magazine after firing one round and not hitting what you were aiming at.

It's shortsighted at best.

edited 1st Apr '12 12:55:38 PM by MarkVonLewis

That sounds more like an argument for polyamory than I think you'd make. My understanding of soul mate theory is that you try lots of people that seem right until you click with the right person. It'd be more like throwing away a magazine after the first shot if you didn't hit exactly what you were aiming at.