There are many successful partnerships (in all senses of the world) that have more than two members; in fact, I'd argue that partnerships with more than two people accomplish many more things.
Commitment isn't necessarily about filling emotional vacuums. And commitment isn't synonymous with monogamy/monamory. I think a person becomes committed to another person through devotion - if you want to talk about ideals, that should be the highest one of all, to simply be devoted to another person because that person is great in all senses of the word. Not out of duty, or social pressure, or anything but simply because it feels right to love that person. Even a completely emotionally stable/satisfied person can still want to devote him or herself to another - in fact, that kind of commitment is a truly selfless one, because that person isn't doing it to fill a hole or meet a need, it's just happening because it's right and good.
When you look at it that way, the question still left in the air is - why should a person only be devoted to one other person? And of course the counter-claim there is "because that person receives all the benefits of the sole devotion" and that goes back to not being willing to share again. What's so wrong with sharing? If you can afford to "donate" some of your resources to others, why wouldn't you? And I'd argue that now, more than any other time in human history, more people have the resources to spend more time and energy on more people and spread more love everywhere throughout the world.
So why is any particular limitation or compromise necessary? I think compromise certainly creates easier choices, but why is making the easier choice the best (and as some would claim, the only) choice?
Would a fund manager put only one stock in his or her portfolio, or diversify it?
no subject
Commitment isn't necessarily about filling emotional vacuums. And commitment isn't synonymous with monogamy/monamory. I think a person becomes committed to another person through devotion - if you want to talk about ideals, that should be the highest one of all, to simply be devoted to another person because that person is great in all senses of the word. Not out of duty, or social pressure, or anything but simply because it feels right to love that person. Even a completely emotionally stable/satisfied person can still want to devote him or herself to another - in fact, that kind of commitment is a truly selfless one, because that person isn't doing it to fill a hole or meet a need, it's just happening because it's right and good.
When you look at it that way, the question still left in the air is - why should a person only be devoted to one other person? And of course the counter-claim there is "because that person receives all the benefits of the sole devotion" and that goes back to not being willing to share again. What's so wrong with sharing? If you can afford to "donate" some of your resources to others, why wouldn't you? And I'd argue that now, more than any other time in human history, more people have the resources to spend more time and energy on more people and spread more love everywhere throughout the world.
So why is any particular limitation or compromise necessary? I think compromise certainly creates easier choices, but why is making the easier choice the best (and as some would claim, the only) choice?
Would a fund manager put only one stock in his or her portfolio, or diversify it?