Section II: Know Thyself
AKA: “I love you, I just met you but I will fill in the blanks despite the fact I can’t possibly really “love” you in any meaningful sense at all, being I don’t know you”.
You know the poet Abelard ultimately welcomed castration instead. So I am comforted by the thought that there is always that.
When do you truly “know” someone? That is a difficult question to be sure.
But I’d be willing to argue a far lesser, but quite relevant, riddle is when do you NOT know someone. The answer? Pretty much the rest of the time.
Can you love someone you don’t know? What are you stupid, what does that even mean? I really don’t see how I… alright, hang on… I’ll check… *riffles through bag for DSM5*… oh wait! Here it is! Yes, yes you can: It’s in the section on bizarre and non-bizarre delusions.
Well, I stand corrected.
Double hang on! No I don’t. The way you people carry on.
Tell me, exactly what can “love” mean in this setting? Only childish and emotionally hollow fantasy surely. At best.
And what lover worth their salt would be anything but completely insulted in such a situation?
At the very least, they can’t love YOU: it doesn’t matter what they say or what mating rituals they perform, that much is certain.
Whatever our definition of “youness” turns out to be, I have never seen any version of it gleaned in an instant in any meaningful sense. That is what this would require at minimum.
In most of these relationships: there is no YOU in them, for the other of either party.
And as a matter of pure reason I don’t see how anyone can argue there can be.
What there is, however, is an archaic culturally specific implicit agreement to pretend from the get go with whomever, till forever, or whatever the case may be in your particular case.
J.J.Raphael (2012). Philosophy of Love Series. The Journey Chronicle in Letters and Science, First published Issue 8 (11). 4th Edition (Current Ed 9th).