The Coast | News, events, restaurants, concerts and Burger Week for Halifax, Nova Scotia
Home of the Best of Halifax Reader's Choice Awards, the award-winning independent newspaper covers the Halifax news, politics, events, concerts, movies, restaurants, and nightlife scene.
You know, I was told once, “If you love something, set it free.” I’m sorry but that is BS. Thats not called “setting it free”, it’s called giving up. That my friend makes you a quitter. —Figaro
This article appears in Jun 6-12, 2013.
16 Comments
Be the first to know about breaking news, articles, and updates.
And if you DON’T love something, ‘setting it free’ also works quite effectively.
what that MEANS is you have to let someone live their own life. And you WOULD too if you really loved them.
It doesn’t mean giving up. It means allowing someone the freedom to make the choices that are best for them.
Don’t be a stalker. If someone wants to be with you, they’ll be with you. if they don’t, why on earth would you subject someone you CLAIM to love to constant harassment?
The title of this bitch makes me cringe: ‘I can’t let go’ – you’d better let go, sweet cakes, or the metaphorical tire iron will thump you on the head once more.
Sounds like your ‘quitter’ escaped with his life.
You use “quitter” as a pejorative. There’s nothing at all negative about giving up something toxic – cigarettes, drugs, or a necrotic relationship.
Pinocchio?
Wrong, just… no, you’re wrong OP
This bitch is CREEEEPY.
OB, you need to let go what ever remnants you imagine are left. If you continue to belabour this only ill feelings will remain.
Be a good memory, not a shitty one.
i love how you think other people’s freedom is BS op.
Freedom doesn’t mean a person leaves you. It means they’re allowed to make their own choices. If their choice is to leave you, forcing them to stay is not going to make them want you any more.
It’ll make them hate you. If they don’t already.
Everyone assumes OP’s friend doesn’t love OP (that’s the vibe I got by reading the previous comments). Perhaps OP’s friend is giving up for some other reason(‘s), ie: convenience.
It’s not “giving up”. It’s coming to the realization that love, alone, is not always enough to sustain a relationship. The act of “setting someone free” is, in a sense, an act of love itself.
Anyone that wants to live their own life is obviously a narcicist.
“If you love something, set it free.” Figaro
Figaro maintains that this is bs, that setting it free is more properly called “giving up.” Is this true? Three concepts are in play, love, freedom and giving up. Can the inter-relationship of these concepts be harmoniously resolved?
While the difficulty ultimately turns on what is to be understood by the higher-level concept of love, can any purchase on the question be made by deconstructing the embedded concepts of freedom and giving up? While the concept of giving up might be seen as a prudential virtue – one is able to recognize, for one reason or another, that continuing a current course of action is pointless and so ought to be discontinued – a more nettlesome question relates to the nature of freedom. What is it?
Traditionally, philosophy has distinguished between “freedom from” and “freedom to.” While the former relates to the elimination of external constraints – one can see its connection with the prudential virtue of giving up – the latter implies the conscious determination of some course of action. The two concepts of freedom need not be connected. For example, while constraints on action might be eliminated, this does not mean that the agent knows WHAT TO DO. In other words, freedom without structure invites not liberty but rather chaos. In still other words, the concept of “freedom-from” is a purely formal concept, one which lacks any substantive content in itself. This then turns the analytical spotlight on “freedom-to”. But then the question arises, “Freedom to do what?”
I think that Figaro should sit down and have a philosophical discussion with her interlocutor and determine what, in fact, he intends to do with his freedom. In other words, what content will he give to the concept of “freedom-to”? Figaro might devise a scale which will rank the legitimate forms of her interlocutor’s “freedom-to.” These might vary from lying with whores at the low end to becoming a priest in the service of God at the upper end. On the basis of her ranking Figaro can then determine which course love will prompt. Of course, only Figaro herself can answer this question.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
i love farts and set them free accordingly.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7wjbbgN…
Fi-gar-o. figarofigarofigarofigaro… FEE… GAR…OHHH
The subject of this bitch is probably locked up in a chamber in Figaro’s basement as we speak.