3

A satisfied singledom is the bedrock to a long satisfied love life.

After reading this quote it really got me thinking. And one of the main questions I encountered was the following. If I really want a relationship I have to start loving myself and be satisfied with myself and if so, if I am satisfied with my relationships, why would I ever need another relationship? To be honest, the quote doesn't make any sense to me. So I hope this community would provide me with a concise answer to solve this dilemma of mine.

BillOnne
  • 1,507
  • 3
  • 14
Akash. B
  • 165
  • 4
  • 2
    I have two quotes that might be helpful: "The self is too small an object for perpetual enthusiasm", and, "*God wished to enjoy His being through many selves*" – Scott Rowe Oct 09 '22 at 12:30
  • 1
    @ScottRowe. I really like and agree with the first one. But the need for others - for some of us at least - might not need to be romantic. They might be adequately found (for example) in friendship, collegiality, charity and/or casual aquaintance. – Futilitarian Oct 09 '22 at 12:35
  • 1
    Why would you need another relationship? Well who is going to drive you to the ER if you get really sick? You would have to take an expensive ambulance without some help. (Smile) – Gordon Oct 09 '22 at 14:15
  • 2
    If you're happy on your own it's cool. But there is a difference between "I like you" and "I need you for emotional validation". The point of the quote is that needy people make for bad partnerships. Needy people suffer when their advances are rejected, they tend to repulse all but the people who will abuse them, their neediness makes the relationship difficult and the break up disastrous. – armand Oct 10 '22 at 00:44
  • 2
    You seem literally interpret the first "satisfied" in the quote, as in your own case if you're *really* satisfied with yourself and all existing relations as you claimed then why you still have significant question lingering in your mind and have to resort to this community to try to seek an answer?... – Double Knot Oct 10 '22 at 02:08
  • e.g. i am currently unsure if i am in a relationship with someone, or if they ave ended it in farcical circumstances. self reliance is good, but that doesn't mean anything goes –  Oct 10 '22 at 08:19
  • To get along with anyone else, you need to sort out your own ego, otherwise, it will constantly make a hash of everything. I think that this is very old advice. People don't seem to go to it first though. The question, "why would I want a relationship" will disappear if not asked by your ego. – Scott Rowe Oct 10 '22 at 10:32
  • 1
    Self responsibility has many guises. I would suggest starting off by not ever claiming what you persist in doing is unintentional. –  Oct 10 '22 at 13:49
  • 1
    A friend once told me, "Don't drink to feel good -- drink to feel better!" I think that applies to relationships just as well. – Yuri Zavorotny Oct 11 '22 at 02:37

3 Answers3

2

At best, two people make a new branch of society, begin a new society, found a new tribe. It is a way of saying yes to your own way of being, that you are willing to advocate it for someone unborn.

David Benatar challenges the idea that coming to be is intrinsically positive, in Better Never To Have Been Born. I'd challenge his conclusion by saying, we are built on a tower of people who said yes to passing on their inheritance, to their own conditions of being, augmented by what they saw in the genes and socio-cultural skills/vision of a partner. To form a lasting partnership to raise children, is a declaration of hope that they can be part of the journey towards better being - or it should be, to bring children into the world in good conscience.

I jump to conditions involving offspring, because I take that to be implicit, in seeming to exclude consideration instead of finding deep friendship or comradeship. And the apparent disinterest in seeking someone to experience sexual pleasure with for it's own sake, as being it's own motivation.

The poet Rainer Maria Rilke said

"But what you love to see are faces that do work and feel thirst.

You love most of all those who need you as they need a crowbar or a hoe."

Personally I think that is better, than being dome kind of free-floating brain capable of total self-sufficiency, that only chooses partnership with another having already attained 'satisfaction'.

But I just don't think there can be one recipe for everybody. Just try to make joy when you can, is the only advice that matters.

"Praise tinker and saint, and the rose that takes its fill of sunlight, though a world breaks."

-from The Storm, by George MacKay Brown

“And what would humans be without love?" RARE, said Death.” ― Terry Pratchett

CriglCragl
  • 19,444
  • 4
  • 23
  • 65
1

I was at a self-inquiry weekend retreat years ago, and in a Q and A group with the teachers, one of them was asking about my motivations for things I did, like running a charitable retreat center. I said I wanted to help other people.

The second teacher leaned towards me and said, "There are no 'other people'. "

Which turns out to be true. Look in to Nonduality.

Scott Rowe
  • 617
  • 7
  • 12
  • How does your (I admit to assumption here) notion that there are no 'other people' impact your day-to-day behaviour; ie. your relationship with what most people would call 'other people'? – Futilitarian Oct 10 '22 at 11:04
  • 1
    @Futilitarian It removes the main obstacle: separation. – Scott Rowe Oct 10 '22 at 11:41
  • I remain _highly_ skeptical, but what would be your go-to primer text? It's a fascinating concept. – Futilitarian Oct 10 '22 at 12:14
  • 1
    @Futilitarian Being skeptical is good. The person whose writing seems to me most similar to mine is Cheryl Abram. Her book "Firing God" has been well-received. You can find a blog post by her called "Love: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing". – Scott Rowe Oct 10 '22 at 14:17
  • First I am you, then you are me. – CriglCragl Oct 10 '22 at 17:36
  • 1
    Your seeming solipstic claim "*There are no 'other people'*" here seems in outright logical contradiction with your position expressed in the comments of this recent [post](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/94060/what-is-the-solution-to-the-problem-of-other-minds) about theory of other minds?... – Double Knot Oct 10 '22 at 18:54
  • @DoubleKnot Do you mean the suggestion of conversing with people? I had some questions for myself about having posted anything, that it would probably be misunderstood, but we worked it out :-) So, the idea is that separating oneself, seeing the relationship as involving an 'other', often leads to problems. All people have a lot in common, and so avoiding 'othering' in one's thinking prevents a lot of trouble. Of course there is a lot more (or maybe a lot *less*) to Nonduality, but it is a start. Maybe I missed your question. To see no separation, you have to first acknowledge the separation. – Scott Rowe Oct 10 '22 at 19:50
  • Gurus know how to work with all kinds of issues, but I am "only an egg". – Scott Rowe Oct 10 '22 at 19:56
  • Thus per your own line of (egg?) reasoning above (*so avoiding 'othering' in one's thinking prevents a lot of trouble*), then isn't its net effect exactly the same as that post's topic about the epistemic non-access of other minds? That is, if you just concentrate on the common portion of other minds with yours and avoid their idiosyncratic part, you're actually only accessing and dealing with your own mind?... – Double Knot Oct 10 '22 at 20:00
  • 1
    @DoubleKnot I think you are thinking harder about this than I am. Hmm... So one Q asks why bother to have relationships, the other Q seems to wonder if they are possible? I can't do much about the fear one, it requires reaching out, then it should dissolve naturally. They seem stuck on something. The self-satisfied one needs to reach out too. The problem in both cases is separating oneself, likely due to fear. "*Fear is the mind-killer*", but it does a lot of other damage. – Scott Rowe Oct 10 '22 at 20:07
  • 2
    I would agree it could be said to be able to dig deeper philosophically from the thesis/antithesis here... – Double Knot Oct 10 '22 at 20:14
0

It's a catchy saying that has some truth to it, but you shouldn't take too literally.

There is a spectrum of how dependent you would be on your partner and how much they would improve your happiness.

If you are perfectly happy being single, you would indeed have no desire to start a relationship.

If you are chronically depressed and you can barely get out of bed, it's commonly accepted that a relationship won't fix that. When people say "you need to be happy being single", they're typically implying that you need to fix that first.

You should be somewhere in the middle, and preferably at the point where getting into a relationship would take you all the way to "perfectly happy". This typically means you should have your own hobbies and friends and whatnot, with good mental health, and able to financially care for yourself, and you shouldn't rely on your partner to provide any or all of that for you (not that I would recommend remaining single until you fix all of that, but rather that you try to fix that independent of whether you're dating anyone).

It's also the case that some people just need a relationship more than others, and would prefer a relationship where they do practically everything with their partner (and vice versa).

Some people want to be more independent and want a partner who doesn't want to do everything with them.

This is related to (and/or part of), but not the same as, the above. Some people may treat it as one and the same though.

NotThatGuy
  • 4,003
  • 13
  • 18