On Predestined Love

Personally, I do believe in predestined love. I do believe in the concept of soulmates. I believe that there is somebody out there that would someday make me feel complete.

According to a Greek myth by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium, humans once had complete souls. They had four arms, four legs and a head with two faces. They were great in mind and body, and attempted an attack against the gods, who became angry (I forgot why) and cut the humans in half and scattered them all over the world. In effect, the humans would spend the rest of their lives looking for “the other half.”

According to Indian philosophy, soulmates are two souls that are destined to be together; consequently, these pairs become lovers in several (if not successive) lifetimes. In modern Christian belief, God supposedly chose one specific person for you, to someday fall in love with and eventually marry. Unfortunately, many people have misconceptions about this romantic destiny, and it is manifested in published works of fiction or else misinterpretations of them.

Some people tend to take love at first sight as an indication that what a couple has is predestined love. I don’t believe in love at first sight. For starters, people cannot “love” one another without knowing each other first. One cannot “fall in love” after having just glimpsed a potential partner. Love at first sight means instant attraction; attraction is essential, but attraction alone is not love.

A famous example of this is the affair between Romeo and Juliet. People tend to point this out as the epitome of romance. They do not realize that Romeo and Juliet is a satire of how rash young people can be; the tragedy of the “star-crossed lovers” is magnified by their sheer immaturity combined by the feud between their families.

Many like to point out how strong Romeo and Juliet’s love was by citing how quickly they decided to get married and how upset both were upon each partner’s death. But Shakespeare’s eloquent writing had everybody fooled: these actions are exactly what made Romeo and Juliet so stupid.

The love at first sight part is out of the question: they were smooching before even knowing each other’s names—even people who actually do that would count it as a mindless encounter with the purpose of satisfying their lust. In other words, Romeo and Juliet were just struck by each other’s beauty that their hormones got ahead of them. They were just so horny that they wanna have sex right away so they decide to get married, as is the custom of the times. It was smart enough of them to get married, but even that wasn’t good: seriously, who would tell somebody, “Let’s get hitched,” after just knowing the other for only a few hours? (It seemed like minutes in the play.)

According to psychic experts, love at first sight/instant attraction could signify a romantic relationship in a previous lifetime, meaning that a couple who bond just moments after meeting each other just might be “meant to be together.” But let’s get real: just because you meet someone and immediately imagine a lifetime together doesn’t necessarily mean (s)he’s the one. Maybe you’re just horny.

As for the suicide part, I understand that it’s devastating to have somebody you hold dear die, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you’d have to die, too. I realize it’s hard for some to imagine a life without the significant other, but the fact that you are still living just might mean there could be more in store in live even without your lover.

Dependency is a tricky component of love. Possessive lovers in particular usually prefer the continual presence of the lover. Especially those new in the venture of romance feel a strong desire to be with their partner. These are the ones who claim they “cannot live” on the occasion of the beloved’s departure. To claim that the beloved is the “reason to live” would be healthy if it’s ‘coz life with the loved one is great. But letting yourself go when it doesn’t work out is over the top. I’ve never actually been in love so I don’t know what it’s like. So I wonder, is this pain enough for some people to give up living?—to start harming themselves with drugs and/or alcohol?—or even kill themselves? I don’t think it has to go that far, so that’s where we draw the line. It’s okay to grieve and mope; but don’t start getting yourself hurt under the excuse of a broken heart.

Besides, isn’t love all about giving what’s best for the other person. So what’s with the lines like “I can’t live without you [because] I need you”? It sounds selfish to me. Love means becoming a better person for the sake of the partner. If you love your departed lover so much, isn’t it better to pick yourself up and keep living?

Taking the events of New Moon into account, I think it is selfish on Bella’s part to start putting herself in danger so she could hear Edward’s voice in her head, when he left because he didn’t want her to be in danger in the first place. She should know better to take care of herself because that’s exactly what Edward would want.

Also take note that although it is reasonable for Edward would leave for the sake of Bella’s safety, the decision falls short of being the right thing because he knows how dependent Bella is on him. He could have talked it out with her and settled for a compromise instead of making the decision without even telling her beforehand. But no, Stephenie Meyer wanted an excuse to have a hot guy (i.e. Jacob Black) rescue her “strong and independent” lead character.

Sorry for the outburst.

Going back to the topic at hand, some people like to imagine that a person cannot fall in love before meeting the soulmate or that a relationship cannot work out if it is not between soulmates.

With the first issue in mind, I am citing the idea that Edward Cullen never took interest in ANY woman in his 100 years until Bella arrives. If he’s really 17 or as old as 25, I could still find it romantic. But at 101 years old, he seems too picky. For a guy, that’s greatly unrealistic.

Edward’s situation is similar to Landon Carter’s, who never had a serious relationship before meeting Jamie Sullivan. But compared to Edward Cullen, Landon is so much more believable. At 17, he has had many girlfriends, although almost all of them become playful flings that eventually end. But when he meets Jamie Sullivan and falls in love with her, he discovers a new meaning to romance: that love means becoming a better person not only for your partner but for your own good.

At the same age, it is equally understandable if Edward is not the type who is interested in getting into a relationship. But it is unbelievable that he wouldn’t at least steal a glance at a pretty girl nearby if it isn’t Bella Swan. He’s a guy! Men don’t stay dormant when it comes to girls once they reach adolescence. Besides, it’s not like Bella is the ONLY one who could be worth his time. And Bella isn’t even the best girl you could possibly meet: she is a superficial, killjoy bitch who catches everyone’s attention simply because she is beautiful.

From that, I would relate the second issue which would be applicable to the relationship between Bella Swan and Jacob Black: despite the fact that Jacob comforted Bella when she was depressed over Edward’s departure and protected her from Laurent, she chooses Edward because he is her “true love” and not Jacob.

Even psychic experts would disagree with this: I have read that people may not marry their soulmates and still be happy. Sometimes, your soulmate is not the only person who could be good for you. Just because he’s the best choice doesn’t mean nobody else could possible make you happy, too. At times, people never know for sure it they person they’re in love with is their soulmate. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter. Whether or not a couple is destined to be together, a healthy and meaningful relationship in which each partner could grow as individuals is all that is necessary.