I’m in love with…what?!?!?

Friday night, the three of us are driving in the car listening to XM 26.  The song, I’m in Love With a Girl comes on.  Hannah Rose declares that she loves the song…sings along heartily. After the song is over, she wants to sing us a song–her rendition of I’m in Love With a Girl.

Her 15 minute re-mix?  “I’m in Love With Declan.”  (A boy she knew in preschool).  It was hilarious.  This was the first time we’ve heard about her being in love with anyone, let alone Declan.  She misses him, cause she hasn’t played with him in a long time.  She wants to be with him forever.  He actually played with her, unlike some of the boys at school now who won’t play with girls.  All this made it into the song…including attending his birthday party and the fact that his last name is Irish so he’s probably part Irish like her!

Daddy was loving it!  Not!  It was hilarious and we had to work hard not to bust out laughing!  We arrive at our destination, and she finishes her song only to realize she’s left a part out and wants to start all over from the beginning.  Daddy said not now.  lol

Then on Saturday she was talking about falling in love with Declan.  I asked her what that meant–she had no idea.  But she knew she had fallen in love with Declan.

Now, I’ll admit–I was boy crazy early on.  End of kindergarten.  But I don’t think she’s officially boy crazy just yet.  I think it’s more to do with popular culture….Disney movies, love songs, and oh yeah–the whole wedding thing going on right now.  Or so we hope.  She’ll have more than plenty of time for boy crazy days and falling in love.  But she only has so many days to be a little girl.

Advertisements

Quote of the Day

“There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are the messengers of overwhelming grief, of deep contrition, and of unspeakable love.”

~Washington Irving, 1783-1859 (American Writer)

Quote of the Day

“There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are the messengers of overwhelming grief, of deep contrition, and of unspeakable love.”

~Washington Irving, 1783-1859 (American Writer)

Stickers for Love

Hannah Rose was passing out stickers last night.  Chris thought he’d be funny and asked if he got his sticker for going potty by himself (Hannah Rose recently had a chart where she got stickers for going potty by herself).  She said no!  Thought he was silly and told us we got stickers for falling in love with each other.

Love and You Will Be Free

Just got out of philosophy.  We are studying a section on the meaning of life.  We just finished studying Epicurus who is a hedonist (although he’s not concerned with a profligate life, but a prudent one).  He believes the way to THE GOOD is found through pleasure (and avoidance of pain).  THE GOOD is that which philosophers are interested in obtaining.  It’s defined differently by different philosophers but usually entails live a tranquil life/obtaining peace of mind.

We just started studying Epictetus (What is it with these Greek names?  What were their mothers thinking???) who is a stoic.  Stoicism is also concerned with finding THE GOOD and living a tranquil life, but it gets there differently.  Stoicism teaches that we should resign ourselves to fate, submit to our duty and thereby we will obtain peace.

Stoicism appealed to both slave and emperor.  (Epictetus was born a slave, and Marcus Aurelius was also a stoic.)  Stoicism is concerned not with what happens to us, but with our perceptions (as in judgments not the sensations that Epicurus was concerned with) of what happens to us. 

Seneca was also a stoic and I agree with his statement, “For mere living is not a good, but living well.”  That’s a concept I’ve been concerned with for as long as I can remember.  However, Seneca’s interpretation of this leads him to the belief that suicide is both ok and good.  I disagree.  If one’s life enters the condition of mere living Seneca would argue that one should then end it.  I would argue that one should work to make changes (in circumstances, perceptions, etc.) that would allow one to live well.

In reading what Epictetus had to say I think that Paul (of the New Testament) holds to some of these ideas within stoicism–namely that of being content within himself no matter what the circumstances outside of himself are. 

I don’t hold with all the ideas of stoicism.  Epictetus actually said, “Laugh seldom and about few things and with restraint.”  Science tells us laughing is good for the immune system, and those that laugh often are healthier.  For me, laughter is a part of living life well!

Nor do I agree with this idea that fate is unavoidable.  Being more of an existentialist I believe that humans always have choices.  In the extreme, if our choices are reduced there remains at least always one–the choice on how we will perceive our life, self, circumstances.  That choice is the only true choice that Epictetus believes we have.  He did get that right so I’ll give him some props there! 

Epictetus asserts that to be free one should focus on what one controls (“perception, intention, desire, aversion, and in sum whatever are our own doings) and that to attempt to seek or avoid what others control (body, property, reputation, political office and in sum, whatever are not our own doings) will make us a slave.  This led me to the thought–If you seek to be loved, you are a slave.  Love and you are free. 

Unsurprisingly, the previous thought led me to Viktor E. Frankl (an existentialist) who said that the poets were right when they said that “in and through love is man’s salvation.”  Frankl was not talking about being loved, but rather about loving someone (regardless of whether that person was present or even alive.)  In fact, loving someone is one of the three ways in which Frankl argues one can find meaning of life. 

You cannot make someone love you.  However, you can choose to love someone–whether they love you or not.