"I can't speak for others (though I suspect they'd feel similarly) but I think that what causes that immediate averse reaction in most people is concern with the abstraction of human relations - that the metaphysical nature of an online relationship is a rude falsification of "real" human interaction. If this is true, then it must follow that ALL human interaction is necessarily an abstraction, for the following reasons.
Someone rather primitively suggested below that you can't "really know" your partner in an internet relationship. But how can you "really know" anyone? When is this ever true of a relationship? What does that even mean? If what you're looking for is 100% familiarity with another human being, then you will be sorely disappointed with life, I promise you.
It is logically impossible to fully convey your internal thoughts and emotions because all communication can only reach a flawed approximation of those thoughts and emotions. Whether it's language, art, math, or facial expressions, all of these things are inevitably only a rough translation of what you mean and who you are. So if you're arguing that an internet relationship doesn't allow for full communication and is thus inadequate, it follows that ALL relationships don't allow for full communication and are thus inadequate. But this is a "fruitless truth" to me. That it is impossible to "know" someone 100% does not make 99% or 1% any less valid.
As for con artists? Not only are they incredibly rare horror stories, but a determined con artist will use any means to achieve what they want. People take advantage of each other in physical relationships too. Is that any reason to dismiss all relationships?"
Our distinction between the two is arbitrary, is what I'm saying.
That having been said, you're in high school, and high school relationships are the least real things in the universe.
to be dating a guy 3 years older than me that I've never met?
← View full post
Going to repost this here.
"I can't speak for others (though I suspect they'd feel similarly) but I think that what causes that immediate averse reaction in most people is concern with the abstraction of human relations - that the metaphysical nature of an online relationship is a rude falsification of "real" human interaction. If this is true, then it must follow that ALL human interaction is necessarily an abstraction, for the following reasons.
Someone rather primitively suggested below that you can't "really know" your partner in an internet relationship. But how can you "really know" anyone? When is this ever true of a relationship? What does that even mean? If what you're looking for is 100% familiarity with another human being, then you will be sorely disappointed with life, I promise you.
It is logically impossible to fully convey your internal thoughts and emotions because all communication can only reach a flawed approximation of those thoughts and emotions. Whether it's language, art, math, or facial expressions, all of these things are inevitably only a rough translation of what you mean and who you are. So if you're arguing that an internet relationship doesn't allow for full communication and is thus inadequate, it follows that ALL relationships don't allow for full communication and are thus inadequate. But this is a "fruitless truth" to me. That it is impossible to "know" someone 100% does not make 99% or 1% any less valid.
As for con artists? Not only are they incredibly rare horror stories, but a determined con artist will use any means to achieve what they want. People take advantage of each other in physical relationships too. Is that any reason to dismiss all relationships?"
Our distinction between the two is arbitrary, is what I'm saying.
That having been said, you're in high school, and high school relationships are the least real things in the universe.