Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkersten | Hacker News Reader

This is something that always bothers me. A lot of people forget that you have to work on relationships and then eventually they fall apart. I'm of the opinion that a belief in "soulmates" or finding "the one" or whatever is a big part of the problem: if they're your soulmate, then everything should always be perfect, right? and if its not, then that means they weren't actually the one, so end of relationship and move on hoping to find the true one... But it doesn't work like that in real life, no relationship is perfect all the time and both people need to work on them. Relationships are like gardens, they don't stay beautiful if they're neglected.

View on HN

I think we can "blame" romanticism for that imaginary vision of a soul mate. I really like Alain de Botton's take on Romanticism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPOuIyEJnbE

Romanticism, that sweet youthful foolishness. Living tragically can be beautiful, and lead to deep despair.

Thanks for sharing this. It was an important watch for my wife and I.

That's a great video, thanks for posting it!

I think understanding "soulmate" -whether or not it exists - can be understood by looking at the antithesis. I know I've been in a mistake of a relationship where I had found the opposite of a soulmate. The things that made her awful for me are characteristics I used to filter people out until I found my wife.

There's definitely an argument that soulmate don't exist. That anyone can be the one that you want as long as you see it through until you feel indifference. For some people, though, that indifference comes much faster. Trust and respect erode way faster than can be undone.

I think its pretty clear that some people just don't get on, so I don't think its true that basically any two people can "be the one". You need some kind of shared values and ideals first. Beyond that though, I think most people can work if both are willing to work on it. My main point is that a belief in the romantic notion of someone being "the one" seems to give people a false sense of complacency: if they're truly "the one", then surely you don't need to work on the relationship, and if the cracks start to show, that's clearly a sign that they weren't actually "the one". In reality, life isn't so rosy and we have to work on our relationships, even if we get on amazingly well with that person.

No, the concept of a soul mate is that you have a bind that transcends this life, that there this is a journey your souls decided to take together before your birth.

Ups, downs, whatever, it will work in the end, because that was the mission. To teach a lesson. Maybe the lesson was how to overcome differences?

Now the common modern usage of soulmate just means “person was meant for me” and that’s open to 100% of your criticism.

Do you think they were using the meaning that nobody's heard of or the modern one that everyone knows?

“Nobody has heard of”

You are not everyone.

But I included the second caveat to cover each potential usage. Maybe you’ve learned something today

Just gonna trudge on with the pedantry then? Nobody means literally nobody when they say nobody. It's a rhetorical exaggeration.

> Nobody means literally nobody when they say nobody.

This is a funny sentence because you're using "nobody" in the exact way that you claim "nobody" else does.

I mean that's half the joke, but am I though? :)

Maybe take that one back to the drawing board. It’s got some potential.

The other poster was actually pointing out something insightful: That the term "soulmate" can (and does) mean different things to different people. What you call the modern usage... isn't. It's used to describe multiple concepts including "the perfect puzzle piece human" and "someone I am bound to through thick and thin". The former is problematic because it allows people to bail at the first sign of trouble while taking no responsibility whatsoever. The later is probably better overall, but I've seen it used to rationalize staying in an abusive relationship.

For what it’s worth, I’d only heard of the one you’re saying nobody has ever heard of so I thought it was a useful comment. What others are describing as soul mates I have heard described as an expectation of love at first sight, whereas soul mates are like the old couple that’s been together for 50 years (or one that’s on their way to that).

Since people seem sensitive about it I’m not trying to say one or the other is right just sharing how I’ve heard the terms used.

> No, the concept of a soul mate is

there truly is no limit to what people on HN will argue about

We have been together for over four decades and are cautiously optimistic it might work out...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com