"Sometimes to love someone, you've got to be a stranger." What do you think of this line?

[Toad-1]

Not gonna say where i got it from :P

But what do you think?

[HornetEvergarden]

I agree, but only if you knew them previously e. g. They were a past partner, if you love them you let them go. I personally never stopped loving my ex partner but I decided to sacrifice the relationship because the relationship itself wasn't working, we cared about each other but it was causing us both pain, we both couldn't really handle the relationship maturely, he felt depressed when I broke up with him, I felt bad but I knew it was for the best.

Fast forward a few years (don't worry I don't stalk him he's just in the same kind of general area so I tend to bump into him a lot) and I see he's a much stronger/happier person than when we were together, sure it hurts to know I can't be with him but it's for the best he feels better, and surely enough I eventually will too, I'll find someone else one day more suited to me.
So now we're strangers practically, I don't talk to him since I don't want to bring up any hurt feelings, for myself really, he looks over it but I can't talk until I'm ready really. So yeah to love someone in my case I have to be a stranger.

[vivmatt]

It's more of an observing thing. No matter your relationship with the person, you can feel a different side to love when you're watching them separate from you. See all that they are when you're not there and still find them beautiful. You don't have to be a literal stranger, but watching your love from a strangers standpoint can make you realize a deeper love.

[Ccmama]

Yes , I agree because sometimes it’s hard to be around someone you love when they don’t feel the same or any other problems you’ve had with them. In those cases it’s best to distance yourself from them

[Máiiréad]

Yes. You used the perfect words that I was looking for.

[Toad-1]

yeah unrequited love is something i was thinking to with this line

[elegantprincess]

Women are so smart

[Wonderer89]

😛 blade?

But for the quote itself? Not to me... you’ve got to know someone to love them, otherwise you’re attracted to the idea you’ve created in your head not the person themselves

[Archaegis]

The character who says this knew the person they were referring to. By your logic, the quote would say "Sometimes to love someone (you don't even know), you've got to be a stranger" - which then yes, they love the idea, not the person. But this wasn't the case. Sometimes to love someone from afar and allow them to be what they are is the best way to show one's love for them. Remember, true love has no conditions.

[Wonderer89]

@Archaegis the question isn’t relating to the characters saying it, it’s about the quote in general and my answer is based on that interpretation.
No love is unconditional, everyone has their limit to where that is. If they don’t then again, they’re loving the idea of that person and their ideal state of being and not how they actually are. Love is messy and in a huge shaded spectrum there are many forms. All of them come with *knowing* who you love, not what you imagine them to be

[prevayl]

I dont agree with the philosophy of how you understand the quote. I believe the order in which things are said are also needed to be taking into the understanding of the quote. You want to disregard the character's story and you want to analyze just the quote itself. But the quote did come from the character within a story and it was said in a specific order in the story so that the other character it was being said to would also understand the timeline of it, hence loveing someone was said first before the 'being a stranger.". So in actuality there is a hierarchy within the quote regardless of you knowing the character's backstory or not. The first part of the quote states 'Sometimes to love someone," with that You must understand that within the quote that 'loving someone" is being said first. The context of it being said first already shows that that happening of the love occured first. And then 'you've got to be a stranger.' i can be seen as a turning point, so be=become.

[Wonderer89]

@prevayl you don’t have to agree with it, if I cared about the relevance to the character I would have watched the movie before answering the question.
As the question wasn’t relating to the movie plot or the characters interpretation of the words - it’s purely asked “what do you think of the quote” it’s been answered as such

[zig000]

Just watched where this line came from. Its context is that the guy had to protect a loved one from being hunted by people with self-interests. And to protect that loved one's anonymity, he had to have no contact with that loved one at all; just in case he's being watched. For me, I believe that this is sticking to a principle that you believe is for the genuine good of your loved one, not letting the loved one's feelings for you keep you from taking some responsibility. Like a parent who loves a child that he has to teach the child discipline, so he does not just give whatever the child wants. Or a friend/GF/BF/partner who confronts you for your destructive habit. They're willing to be told "I don't know you anymore" for their loved ones' sake. Note that the word sometimes is integral to the sentence; saying that this only happens when necessity calls for it.

[Archaegis]

To truly love someone means without conditions. There are times when silence or absence is a powerful way to leave something beautiful be as it is. Letting the flower be pretty in the sun without picking it. Sometimes to love someone, you admire it from afar.

[LalaIbby90]

I see how what this quote is trying to say "you can love someone and still be a stranger" (if they don't love you in return for example). But I can never do it. I either love someone. If they don't reciprocate, I kind of start hating him to get over him. That's how I work, I am not going to lie.

[queenlion]

I think it was written by someone who chose to be a stranger in a person's life.
Sometimes you have to let go of someone u love. You have to set them free especially if they can't love you back in return. You also have to save urself from the pain. :)

[Tania_bilkis]

Maybe this quote is trying to say that sometimes to love someone you have to see them from different light, from different perspective. Like trying to know the person like you first met them, like a stranger.

[LunaJ]

nice thought

[Tania_bilkis]

Thank🙂

[rocky236]

Really super thought.

[Tania_bilkis]

Thanks

[elegantprincess]

I agree so much!

[vittle1999]

It seems to me that the line indicates redefining the relationship every so often to keep it interesting. For instance when things start to feel routine, to change it up like Ur doing it for the first time with someone new.

[Aelin]

Sometimes this can be true. Like for instance, if you knew someone as a child, you might not be able to get over that impression of them to see them differently as an adult.

[Izumiblu]

Maybe it means someone is so fucking annoying the only way you can not murder them is by not knowing them. Lime love as a human being not love as intimacy. You know, cuz they're actually worthless.

[CubsterShura]

I don't know man, maybe...

Recalling the first time someone sees his partner
Could be about keeping mysteries
Not sure

[zazuun]

I don't like it. I don't see the point of loving someone I can't be close to.

[LunaJ]

it's rather about that you love the person without really knowing him.
like when you just fall in love after week 1

[zazuun]

@LunaJ That's more of infatuation

[tyrsson]

I think truly loving somebody is knowing that person completely and loving them for who and what they are

[pinkzoesbb]

It doesn’t apply to me. I need to know the person in order to love them.

[idcanymore]

No you don't

[pinkzoesbb]

I do. Do you not need to?

[idcanymore]

Love is a complex thing, being smitten is different than thinking a girl is hot.

[pinkzoesbb]

It depends on how open your heart is. Loving someone doesn’t mean they will necessarily love you back.

[idcanymore]

That is true

[poop89]

The appeal of secrecy will always be trumped by the appeal of honesty

[JuanFrank7]

"Most times to love someone you have to love yourself"

[Kat_puppies]

it means you meet someone then get to know them to love htem

[ThisDudeHere]

I don't get it at all.

[elegantprincess]

It means that when you love someone, sometimes you have to distance yourself, and after a period of time they become like a stranger to you. So it would be like meeting them and falling in love with them all over again.

[ThisDudeHere]

@elegantprincess no I get that, I just don't get why it's a good idea. This stuff, if it happens then it happens, sure. But to force it is disengeneous.

[serious]

It's a good question.

[OjosOscuros2]

Sounds like something a stalker would say.

[Nikeclay]

I have no idea what that means😂

[Artemisia8]

Nonsense

[Toad-1]

how so?

[mistershaytan]

interesting

[Toad-1]

Any thoughts?

[mistershaytan]

I get the staying afar to realize the value of the other but that's not something to do when in love

[Gelliwman]

What the quote is trying to say is, in my mind, that under certain circumstances, and if you truly and selflessly love someone, it could be better for the person you love that you keep a distance and do what you can for your lover from there. That is, giving up your personal wants and agenda if there is a conflict between them and the best for you lover. It is a bit patronising, but that's how I understand it

[omgjassy]

Sounds pretty creepy

[frozenhorizon]

Makes no sense

[BronzedAdonis]

agreed

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

What?