Love is not enough
The one who says that love is enough is wrong twice over. Wrong not only in his assertion, but wrong more fully in the hypothesis that came before it. Love enough? Enough for what? Just to say ‘enough’ means that there is some greater need which love can fulfil. But what greater goal is that? Just as a solution must be greater—that is, superior in some meaningful way—than the problem to which it is applied, so too for the consummation of all such solutions for the accomplishment of one final goal, that goal must be greater than any one of its parts. But then, is it the tool or the task that is superior? If the tool is fashioned only so that it might fulfil the task well, then surely the task is higher than the tool; the shape and attributes of the tool depends entirely on the requirements of the task. But what if the tool were greater than the task, for surely an answer provided evidences a higher intelligence than a question merely posed. So then, if love were to be enough; as a tool it may be true. Love could be enough—the tool sufficient—if the task were to create a feeling of companionship or intimacy between two people. Love could be enough to summon the wayward home, or to prompt the memory of an absent friend. Enough for that. But what if, instead, it was a question requiring answer rather than a task requiring duty? What could the question be that leads us to love? I don’t know the answer, and neither do I really know the question. But I do know that to merely say that love is enough is, in itself, insufficient. There must be something more.
- Posted by flyingkiwi on 10/10/2006.
- flyingkiwi's site
Please sign in or join etribes to add comments.
