>>If you've never loved at all, you don't know what you're missing.
>You mean the human experience?
There's more to the human experience than just love.
>Unless you happen to be a hermit, then you are a part of society. If you are a hermit... then what pressure?
The pressure placed upon people by society and culture that attempts to force people to adhere to behavioral norms. An example of this would be a corporate policy that grants vacation preference to married employees over single ones. Such a policy represents an implicit push to get employees to marry -- fulfill society's expectations of proper behavior (get married) and you can take vacation whenever you want, provided you've accumulated the time. Refuse to get married, and you can take your vacation only if no married employees want that particular vacation slot, regardless of how much time you've banked up.
>time heals all wounds
Fair enough, but the wound's still there.
>>have experienced pleasures of love that counteract
>not counteract, but contrast
But if one loses love, one might reasonably attempt to use fond memories of the relationship to help temper the blow of its end. I stand by my wording.
>>you have no conception of whatever pleasure derives from a relationship, so you can't mourn its absence.
>You can, in the same way a person orphaned from a young age can mourn never having had the love of a parent.
Such mourning, however, would be founded solely in idealism, given that the individual has no experience of that which he/she mourns. It is not genuine mourning, but rather pained nostalgia for a fantasy.
>>the one who has never loved will have found other pleasures in lieu of the pleasures of love.
>The only thing better would be an opiate, which carries far greater costs.
The person who has never loved would not know that. Example: if I live my entire life underground, from birth to death, and see only through the aid of artificial illumination, I have no comprehension of the qualities of sunlight that most people find to be refreshing. Does that mean that my life, as I see it, is diminished through my subterranean existence? No, because I am still capable of living a full and complete life without once ascending to the surface. One who lives above ground might gape with incredulity at how one could possibly bear a life lived without once experiencing the sun's rays warming one's skin, but that is not a statement of absolute human truth -- that is the evaluation of one form of experience through the lens of another. It's purely relative.
In my example, there is no fundamental aspect of the human condition that necessitates living under natural sunlight, so neither party is denied the human experience. Likewise, with respect to our current argument, the contribution of love to the human experience is relative. A life lived without love is only incomplete as viewed through the lens of experience possessed by one who has loved.
>quod eram futurus reproba