soulmates and fate… do you believe?
today mee, sherry, and jeanette somehow got into talking about soulmates. they both thought that there is one soulmate for every person. i guess i used to think that also, but now i’m not too sure. hum, how UNhopelessly romantic, eh? well either way, there are people who think soulmates don’t have to be ROMANTIC soulmates… just ordinary people. if anything, i agree with that more. but who knows… maybe i just haven’t met mine [maybe i will never…?]
the thing is… how do yoo kno if someone really is your soulmate? just because yoo click with that person doesn’t mean he’s your soulmate. sherry and jeanette said it was someone that makes yoo go like, “wow, i’ve never been so happy.” but how do yoo kno that? maybe tomorrow yoo will find another guy that makes yoo even happier…
and the other thing is fate. i definitely definitely do not believe in fate. that’s kind of the fundamentals of christianity, so maybe that’s one of the reasons christianity no longer appeals to mee. either way, i think fate is what you make of it. what is that? existentialism or something? who knows. either way, i dun believe in a pre-planned fate, and i think your fate you can change with the decisions you make. so maybe there are soulmates. and if someone doesn’t meet his soulmate, that’s not because he was FATED not to. cuz in that case, he just got screwed. i think it is more that maybe he isn’t trying hard enough or there is something about his personality that he just has to change. who knows?
let’s keep a running tally…
people who believe in soulmates — 3
people who are not sure if they believe in soulmates — 2
people who don’t believe in soulmates — 2
people who believe in fate — 4
people who are not sure if they believe in fate — 1
people who don’t believe in fate — 2
(diana’s response:)
the aristophanic theory of “soul mates” [which my soul mate would know about >;D] is that in the beginning, we were one androgynous being. we were both male & female [and in some cases male & male… to make room for the homoeroticism that was open & accepted back in the good ol’ days. but then again, it was sexist homoeroticism. if there could be male & male, there should also be female & female!! equal-opportunity homoeroticism, goddammit!!! >P].
the gods split us into separate beings, and it is our cruel fate to search the world looking for our “other half”. sex is supposed to give us temporary relief from the awareness that we are MUTILATED and INCOMPLETE [if we were “whole”, then we’d feel the way we feel @ the peak of orgasm all the time]. according to aristophanes [but in actuality, plato. it’s called an aristophanic theory but it was plato’s and attributed to aristophanes], we’re these poor, pitiful halves on a neverending search for our other half.
…useless information. that’s what i’m good for. =P
ermf. i must clarify: there WERE female & female beings [there were male & male, female & female, male & female]… except they were easily dismissed by aristophanes. the people cut from the male & male being… who became homosexual men… were the most highly regarded by aristophanes. so it’s still biased. >P to be cut from the male & male was the best… and then the male & female… and then the female & female. >P
the strangest thing about the theory is the fact that while we were “complete”, we were these round things who rolled around with 4 arms & 4 legs [along with 2 sets of everything else]. o_O scary.
all in all, the aristophanic theory is about love — or desire in general — being nothing more than desire for ONE particular person. there’s only one particular person [the one who was cut from the same round being as you] who can complete you.