Soulmates, do you believe that there truly is only one out there?

[Siberys]

So, recently I've been going out with one of my old high school friends, and she and I have quite a lot in common. I do mean QUITE a lot.

Now, as I continue this relationship, I find we have more and more in common everyday, which brings up the question, is she my soulmate.

Now, I don't believe in soulmates. With 6.5 billion people in the world, I sincerely doubt that there is only one single person that I could truly ever be with for life. But I do believe that if she thinks the same way I do about relationship things, maybe she's one in a million.

So, do you believe in a soulmate, do you believe that there truly is only one person out there for you? Or do you believe something else? Like how soulmates are based on perfect compatibility and relationships are never about perfection and the exact right combo, or maybe that there are multiple people that you could easily be with in a relationship if the chance ever arose?

What's your philosophy.

[fable]

No, I don't. I'm quite a romantic guy, in real life, but I can't help thinking that if circumstances had turned out otherwise, I would have found and been very happy with another mate--despite the fact that my wife and I share a very deep love. The lust is pretty good, too, but that's none of your business, so please, stop bringing it up.

Thanks.

The idea of soulmates was one of the sillier populist beliefs that arose during the Romantic Period of the 19th century in Western Europe. It has no earlier basis, so all claims (and I've read some amazing ones) of "Hindu reincarnations swearing to be with each other through the aeons" is blatherskite.

[mr_sir]

I believe in soulmates to a degree. I believe that there are people you just click with and will be close to for your entire life even if you are not in a relationship with them. I also believe there is someone right for everyone, but that is because statistically its just logical that out of the billions of people in the world there will be at least someone that you could get close to.

I don't know really, my idea of soulmates isn't really a boyfriend/girlfriend thing - I think true friends are the ones more likely to be soulmates as relationships come and go, but friends will always be there for each other, and true friendships that last forever are rare in this world.

[fable]

Originally Posted by mr_sir

I believe in soulmates to a degree. I believe that there are people you just click with and will be close to for your entire life even if you are not in a relationship with them. I also believe there is someone right for everyone, but that is because statistically its just logical that out of the billions of people in the world there will be at least someone that you could get close to.

Well, yes, but this isn't what the concept of "soulmates" is all about. It presupposes a single individual every person is truly destined for, someone who represents "their other half." It has nothing to do with statistics, and everything to do with some kind of planning. Prediestination is not something I care for, in any religion, or any form.

[Chimaera182]

Originally Posted by fable

Well, yes, but this isn't what the concept of "soulmates" is all about. It presupposes a single individual every person is truly destined for, someone who represents "their other half." It has nothing to do with statistics, and everything to do with some kind of planning. Prediestination is not something I care for, in any religion, or any form.

That's all well and good, but the question was about our own personal philosophies on the subject. mr_sir was just stating his own idea on the subject, not whether or not he believed in the classical idea of the soul mate. To limit his personal philosophy of "soul mate" to the widely-accepted version of the term in order to analyze his own different belief makes him look just dead wrong, as he clearly strayed outside that path. Not to mention the possibility that such a comment alienated him, and may have cost him a few HP off his Self Esteem bar.

That being said, of *course* there is a soul mate for everyone! One person in all the world that can complete you and no one else can possibly do. And if you don't find that one unique fit, you spend the entirety of your life incomplete, never feeling that sense of wholeness we all are told we need, and who wants that? This is why divorce rates are near 50/50 in the US: we can't find our soul mates! Not even with the expensive help of professional match makers who take a reading of your soul and compare it to other souls on the market for a perfect match (because if you are using a match-making site, clearly your soul mate has to be on there waiting for you to find them). It accounts for the suicide rates, because we feel so incomplete and lonely, and the lonlieness just gets to me... I mean us... I mean them! I remember in a Sociology class being told that Atheists and Protestants seemed statistically more likely to kill themselves, and if Atheists don't believe in souls or in predetermined match-making, we can't possibly find a soul made, so it's no wonder we pop ourselves off more frequently. And it's always so handy that the vast majority of us just happen to find our soul mates in the immediate neighborhood. We don't actually have to go out looking for them all across the world, because who we are destined to be with is seven times out of ten right in our own backyard.

As fable mentioned, this "soul mate" idea did have a shaky beginning. Why it is so very much embraced is beyond me, but so are a lot of the norms that the US seems to hold to. Before "soul mates" there was bride-buying (not to say these are the only two options, or that the latter was the only way people chose spouses). Not entirely as romantic, seeing how a family might prostitute out their daughter in order to gain more money, power, prestige. Some marriages were arranged, more out of necessity than out of love. So, between the two, it's easy to see why we would choose soul mates over dowry-bought mates. Although little really changes as a result except that we can now claim that we choose who to be "mates" with. The whole "soul mate" thing is just flash designed to sell the idea of love.

The soul mate in its contemporary definition I do not believe in. Nor do I believe anyone is truly "incomplete" nor can they only become whole once they have found that special someone that they are fated to meet. A soul mate is, in my opinion, the person you deem to be worthy of the title. It doesn't mean anything, not really, but, like a piece of colorful cloth or a word, the meaning in such things comes from us and are not inherent in the term itself. "Soul mate" may get batted around a lot, but that's what it is there for: it is a piece of fluff designed to garner attention. The feelings behind that display piece are far more important.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

That's all well and good, but the question was about our own personal philosophies on the subject. mr_sir was just stating his own idea on the subject, not whether or not he believed in the classical idea of the soul mate.

If we are to accept that soulmate can become any number of other things, I humbly request we henceforth refer to chicken-fried steak as soulmate. It is as good a definition as any, though admittedly heavier in cholesterol.

To limit his personal philosophy of "soul mate" to the widely-accepted version of the term in order to analyze his own different belief makes him look just dead wrong, as he clearly strayed outside that path. Not to mention the possibility that such a comment alienated him, and may have cost him a few HP off his Self Esteem bar.

Well, yes, but that was my secret plot. And now that you know it, of course you'll have to die.

That being said, of *course* there is a soul mate for everyone! One person in all the world that can complete you and no one else can possibly do. And if you don't find that one unique fit, you spend the entirety of your life incomplete, never feeling that sense of wholeness we all are told we need, and who wants that? This is why divorce rates are near 50/50 in the US: we can't find our soul mates! Not even with the expensive help of professional match makers who take a reading of your soul and compare it to other souls on the market for a perfect match (because if you are using a match-making site, clearly your soul mate has to be on there waiting for you to find them). It accounts for the suicide rates, because we feel so incomplete and lonely, and the lonlieness just gets to me... I mean us... I mean them!

If you were young enough, I'd probably adopt you. I think you're much more interesting, sarcastic, and intelligent than a chia pet, which I don't have, in any case.

The concept of The Soulmate gets me in the way that a number of other fuzzy-brained "new age" accepted concepts do, like reincarnation, the Great Goddess (who is just as self-contradictory and bizarre a construct as the Judeo-Christian God, IMO), Threefold, Atlantis, etc. These are redolent of sloppy thinking, of emotion accepted without challenge.

As fable mentioned, this "soul mate" idea did have a shaky beginning. Why it is so very much embraced is beyond me, but so are a lot of the norms that the US seems to hold to.

It had a tremendous hold on Germany, France and Britain in the 19th century. One of the central themes in one of Alexander Dumas' lengthy historical novel series was soulmates. An extremely popular play, Zvengali, had to do with a woman whose "real self" was the soulmate of a hypnotist she detested while awake. Upperclass women held ouija board seances where they attempted to find out whom they were when they were Egyptian priestesses, and who were the priests they loved at the time. (Because as we all know, priestesses of Isis always had a thing for priests of Osiris.) Or take H Ridder Haggard's celebrated bestseller "She," a novel about a pair of soulmates who offended an Egyptian god back in some old dynasty, and were cursed to reappear within days of one another through history before dying and reincarnating--never to truly settle down and raise little Egyptians together.

Before "soul mates" there was bride-buying (not to say these are the only two options, or that the latter was the only way people chose spouses). Not entirely as romantic, seeing how a family might prostitute out their daughter in order to gain more money, power, prestige. Some marriages were arranged, more out of necessity than out of love. So, between the two, it's easy to see why we would choose soul mates over dowry-bought mates. Although little really changes as a result except that we can now claim that we choose who to be "mates" with. The whole "soul mate" thing is just flash designed to sell the idea of love.

Well said. Because significantly, it was never the lower class, the ones who married out of necessity, who dreamt of the soulmate myth or read the stuff: it was the leisure classes. The ones who could afford to think that they were fated to be special, to love with the soul rather than alone with the mind and the body. In a way that was designated long before Time itself began. By the great romance-writer in the sky.

Curiously enough, this has its analogy in classical music: a 19th century development called organicism, that claimed each work was unique rather than according to a form, and that each composer was completely set off from society. This resulted in a lot of alienated composers, but in my opinion it didn't produce music that was any better than that devised by composers who regarded themselves as superior craftsmen.

[BlueSky]

Fable, I've got to pull my vote for dubbing the chicken-fried steak, and propose we apply that worthy mantle upon a prime-rib steak, medium done with a pink center.

[Gilliatt]

Originally Posted by fable

The idea of soulmates was one of the sillier populist beliefs that arose during the Romantic Period of the 19th century in Western Europe. It has no earlier basis, so all claims (and I've read some amazing ones) of "Hindu reincarnations swearing to be with each other through the aeons" is blatherskite.

I don't know about the Hindu reincarnations, but it was not invented in the 19th century. It goes as far back as Plato's Symposium(189c-193e). You sure can argue that Plato's concept did not have much to do with today's meeting websites, but it is still where the idea originated.

[dragon wench]

My thoughts on this subject are very similar to those of Mr.Sir.
I do not believe in the flaky, romantic notion that Fable outlines, but I do think..actually, let me put that more strongly.. I do know.. that there are some people with whom we connect at a very profound level.. In such situations.. understanding happens without any effort at all.. you are always on the exact same wavelength..and often you don't even need to speak to convey your thoughts and feelings. The bond is deeply spiritual, and goes beyond anything that can be described in conventional terms. Sometimes such a relationship takes the form of a friendship, sometimes physical desire enters the picture as well.

And often...things just happen... things that can't easily be explained in rational terms.

I have experienced such a relationship, I view it as a precious gift.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Gilliatt

I don't know about the Hindu reincarnations, but it was not invented in the 19th century. It goes as far back as Plato's Symposium(189c-193e). You sure can argue that Plato's concept did not have much to do with today's meeting websites, but it is still where the idea originated.

I wasn't clear, in that case, because I was primarily discussing soulmates. My mention of reincarnation (and Atlantis, Threefold, etc) was aimed, not at stating they were all 19th century concepts, but that they were all uncritically re-conceptualized new age notions, and that soulmates came along in the 19th century. As for Plato--reincarnation predated him, since it's mentioned in various contexts in earlier Hindi documents. That said, again it bears little or no relationship to the modern new age pop version.

[Gilliatt]

Originally Posted by fable

I wasn't clear, in that case, because I was primarily discussing soulmates. My mention of reincarnation (and Atlantis, Threefold, etc) was aimed, not at stating they were all 19th century concepts, but that they were all uncritically re-conceptualized new age notions, and that soulmates came along in the 19th century. As for Plato--reincarnation predated him, since it's mentioned in various contexts in earlier Hindi documents. That said, again it bears little or no relationship to the modern new age pop version.

No, it's me who wasn't clear. When I talked about the hindu reincarnation, I was just joking it was irrelevant to the rest of my sentence. But the Plato part is about soulmates, about how the androgynous where separated in two and are trying to find their other half.

Of course, the concept has changed a lot since then, but as I said, it is where it originated. I am not a Plato specialist, but I am pretty sure he did not believe in that. In the Symposium, it is Aristophanes who talks about the concept, so I think we can assume it was more something comical than philosophical.

As for my though on soulmates, I think pretty much the same as Mr_sir and DW. There are some people with whom we get really connected and with whom we have a special friendship/relationship, and I don't think there is only one in the world for each of us.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Gilliatt

No, it's me who wasn't clear. When I talked about the hindu reincarnation, I was just joking it was irrelevant to the rest of my sentence. But the Plato part is about soulmates, about how the androgynous where separated in two and are trying to find their other half.

Oh, but that's the Symposium, and it's not Plato speaking, by the words he gives to Aristophanes, if I recall correctly. And Aristophanes, as painted, is more interested in entertainment value. My guess (for what very little it's worth) is that if such a symposium ever occurred, and if Aristophanes ever uttered such words, they would be a tongue-in-cheek offering of the proto-Gnostic viewpoint.

Of course, the concept has changed a lot since then, but as I said, it is where it originated. I am not a Plato specialist, but I am pretty sure he did not believe in that. In the Symposium, it is Aristophanes who talks about the concept, so I think we can assume it was more something comical than philosophical.

You know, when we go overseas, I immediately try to interpret the German on any label without checking to see if there's English. My wife always get a laugh out of this. And so you write the above...which I could and should have read, before commenting, but didn't. Why do I even bother? I should just lie down, give up, and hope in my next life that I'm incarnated as a Central European diacritical mark. Then at least I'll travel well.

As for my though on soulmates, I think pretty much the same as Mr_sir and DW. There are some people with whom we get really connected and with whom we have a special friendship/relationship, and I don't think there is only one in the world for each of us.

I have no problem with this, which is simply a matter of close friendships, as you state. But that's a case of cultural upbringing, not (cue the theremin and special effects) mystical bonds that predate your current existence, mine, or anybody else's.

[Lady Dragonfly]

In order to really believe in soulmates, one has to believe in:

1. ...the soul as a spiritual entity separate from the body;
2. ...the possibility of dividing a soul into two halves (by Zeus, if you recall the Greek myth; that means you have to believe in Zeus to begin with);
3. ..."a match made in heaven", literally;
4. ...one everlasting monogamous relationship with your unique soulmate of opposite sex, with gays naturally out of the picture;

There is no limit to all kind of weird stuff people believe in when they want to believe. Especially if the matter is sufficiently loaded with estrogen/testosteron induced mysticism (so-called "chemistry" and "spark" and astrological "personal romantic compatibility").

[Gilliatt]

Originally Posted by fable

You know, when we go overseas, I immediately try to interpret the German on any label without checking to see if there's English. My wife always get a laugh out of this. And so you write the above...which I could and should have read, before commenting, but didn't. Why do I even bother? I should just lie down, give up, and hope in my next life that I'm incarnated as a Central European diacritical mark. Then at least I'll travel well.

When I started reading, I was wondering if you had actually red all my post! (Is it because you were more interested in replying than in reading what I had to say?)

I have no problem with this, which is simply a matter of close friendships, as you state. But that's a case of cultural upbringing, not (cue the theremin and special effects) mystical bonds that predate your current existence, mine, or anybody else's.

I agree with that.

[VonDondu]

I don't think we're going to agree on a definition of "soulmate" in this forum. Personally, I prefer a loose definition based on the idea that two people have a special affinity for each other that apparently goes beyond the usual bonds that are based "only" on sexual attraction, shared interests, and mutual concerns such as family, finances, and/or survival. I prefer such a weak definition because the term "soulmate" is used often enough to warrant some type of recognition of its meaning from people like me, but I don't want to use a definition that gets carried away. I don't believe that two people can literally share two halves of one soul, but I will grant that many people feel like they have an uncommonly special relationship with their partners. Who am I to say they don't?

I have my own ideas about the reasons why some people believe they have found a "soulmate". One reason is because they have an uncanny way of communicating with each other non-verbally. But surely such communication would not be possible if they were not using cues that they had learned while growing up. To me, it's just a happy coincidence that they can "speak the same language" so well. If they had grown up on opposite sides of the world or in eras a few hundred years apart, I doubt that their "souls" could "connect" so easily. By the same token, I think that "soulmates" share values, patterns of thinking, and ideas that are also the products of time, place, and upbringing. If any of us had grown up speaking a different language or if we had not, for example, read the same books we've read, our brains would not be the same as they are now. Even "soulmates" would not be able to have a meeting of the minds. Thus, soulmates are simply two people who coincidentally have thoughts and minds that seem to "fit" together when those two people engage in verbal or non-verbal communication. It must be very nice, but I think they're getting a little carried away if they think it's any more mystical than that.

I also think that identifying another person as your "soulmate" is a projection of your own desires. It's not just an attraction to another person; it's also a desire to have your "whole being" acknowledged and appreciated by that other person. We make ourselves vulnerable when we seek that sort of attention, and the object of our desire takes on an importance that most of the other people in our lives don't have. It's sort of like transferring our need for parental love onto a romantic partner and then expecting that person to meet all of our emotional needs--not just our need for romantic love, but also our need for basic approval. When our ego gets tied to a person like that, it won't let go, just as our parent-child bonds can never be completely broken. Subsequently, that particular person becomes "unique" and irreplaceable.

Of course, the danger is that the other person might not be everything we expect him or her to be. But once they become a "soulmate", that's it. When it comes to soulmates, a person's belief in the other person is what gives that person the unique identity befitting a "soulmate". Not only will the heart not let go, but the mind will also not let go of the belief that the other person is a "soulmate". That is a very powerful perception. The idea of a "soulmate" is a very compelling idea, at least to someone who is romantic.

There are times when love grips us unexpectedly and we fall for someone and our emotions are completely out of our own control. And most people have a strong tendency to believe that the people we love are unique. Does that make the other person a soulmate? No, especially not if you do not believe in soulmates. Personally, I think that we are all capable of bonding with more than one person whom we might happen to meet. Instead of falling in love with this person over here, we might have fallen in love with that person over there, and the alternative relationship could be just as pleasing and profound. I think that our biological and psychological dispositions are more accommodating than a lot of people give them credit for. It's lucky for us that we can meet an ideal partner in the same generation and in the same country, or sometimes even in our own hometown, and we're exactly the right age for each other. What are the odds? If my soulmate is some guy who lived in China two centuries ago, then I guess that means I'll never be happy.