Is it better, to have loved and lost or to have never loved at all?
Equally which is better, to never be understood, or to have been and to lose the person who understood you?
By what metrics do we decide which is "better"
The heartbroken would bitterly say it was better to never have loved
While the InCel would argue the opposite.
Is it so wrong to not know the answers even after experiencing both sides of the question?
To still be confused where you're own heart lies?
I know after the death of my best friend...the only person I could ever fully honest with, without fear of judgement, or offense....
That I miss his insights.
I miss his optimistic points of view...even when I knew he wasn't long for this world.
But did I let him become a crutch?
Did I rely to much on an honest philosophical point of view that could match my own thinking?
Was I better for it? No matter the madness that came after its loss?
Or would I have been better off without those 21 years of unbiased camaraderie?
Would I have seen all the perspectives myself?
It's strange to lose someone who was only a year older, and a millenia wiser.
Maybe it is better to live both experiences, to feel the full breadth of creations possibilities.
To love and lose, and to wallow in solitude?
To have another point of view, and to have to rely on your own...
The absence of that sort of wealth makes it so much more valuable.
A friend of mine used to say something that became very near and dear to my heart.
The sweet, is as only as sweet as the sour.
Life only becomes measured by the variety of experience. Suffering is what makes Salvation valuable.
Solitude is what makes Love beautiful.
You cannot understand Heaven until you have walked through your own Hell.
