True or false: It's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all? (dating, woman)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
False.
Having loved and lost, is far far worse, that not having loved at all.
One does not know the pain of being burnt until they have been burnt, and that memory is always significant.
The poem you are quoting is Tennyson's
"In Memoriam A.H.H." . The stanza to which you refer goes like this:
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it when I sorrow most;
Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
This is about the sudden death of Tennyson's best friend,
Arthur Henry Hallam, from a brain hemorrhage and the immense loss Tennyson felt and his search for hope during the 17 years it took him to write this poem. It has nothing to do with romantic love.
Famous saying. Do you think this is true or false?
When I think of this from a general standpoint, I think it's true and I would encourage anyone to go for something rather than live life with nothing.
But, when I personalize this (as it pertains to my own life and relationships) I think I was happier before I had love and sex, when I was inexperienced. Of course, I still dreamt of those things and wanted them when I was inexperienced, but I didn't really know what I was missing. I just had ideas. You don't really know what you're missing until you have it. Now that I have had it before and don't have it now, I find that I am less happy than I was when I was inexperienced due to knowing exactly what I am missing. I mean, comparatively speaking. So, in a sense, I think it was better to have never loved at all.
What are your thoughts?
I think it depends.
I've thought about love and loss in the past several months and I think when people say "It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all." can sometimes be just, well cliche.
I lost my ex (well, late) boyfriend to suicide. Although I know I should not blame myself or anybody else for his death, I do wonder if I haven't loved him, maybe he is still here today. If I could have predicted the future years ago, I would have never chosen to love him.
All the relationships I have in the past have taught me something, so in terms of learning lessons, yes, I can say that it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. But with my late boyfriend, I am not so sure if I can agree with that statement because the loss is traumatic.
False.
Having loved and lost, is far far worse, that not having loved at all.
One does not know the pain of being burnt until they have been burnt, and that memory is always significant.
Even with all the possible downsides I would prefer to know what its like to love and be loved in return. Here is another passage from this same poem:
"Regret is dead, but love is more
Than in the summers that are flown
For I myself with these have grown
To something greater".
The first line of another passage in this same poem is particularly poignant:
"This held that sorrow makes us wise"
This is why I want to know what its like to love and be loved and gain the experiences Tennyson speaks of.
Famous saying. Do you think this is true or false?
When I think of this from a general standpoint, I think it's true and I would encourage anyone to go for something rather than live life with nothing.
But, when I personalize this (as it pertains to my own life and relationships) I think I was happier before I had love and sex, when I was inexperienced. Of course, I still dreamt of those things and wanted them when I was inexperienced, but I didn't really know what I was missing. I just had ideas. You don't really know what you're missing until you have it. Now that I have had it before and don't have it now, I find that I am less happy than I was when I was inexperienced due to knowing exactly what I am missing. I mean, comparatively speaking. So, in a sense, I think it was better to have never loved at all.
What are your thoughts?
I have been single for 4 decades and is now married for more than a year. I can say I am more content and of course happier. It's not even because of sex. I really don't care for it. But having someone who who loves and cares about you and vice versa is really a BEAUTIFUL thing.
I have always been a loner and anti-social. But I can't imagine life without my husband. I still am anti-social. That's one of the few we argue about. I told him I only just need him I don't need any friends. I really don't see a reason to have one.
I think anyone who has ever been through a gut wrenching heartbreak may be able to consider the "never loved at all" bit.
It was during those times that I really think its better to not know what you are missing, then to experience it and know what you had and feel that deep pain of loss.
I have a friend who has never been in love and she's in her 30s. While she wonders what its like and wants it one day she has also never known that heartbreak of loss.
I've definitely had heartbreaks in my past that I could look back and say I'd been better off if I never met that guy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
