#I am doing my utmost best not to feed into psychomythology

[liketwoswansinbalance]

Do you believe in soulmates??

Interesting query. Unfortunately, my answer is no. I'm not a mysticism-oriented person in general. Yet, I'll add that if science can't prove soulmates, philosophy has discussed them!

Do you believe in them?

I'd completely understand if you did since I doubt anyone can confirm soulmates don't exist. So, I guess the possibility exists. And if we look at the sum total of all mythology (though I can only speak on Western myths), we probably want them to exist and we are in love with the concept of them—just, look at Eros (Cupid) and Psyche. Or look at Plato's story about humans being split in half by Zeus. (This short video is a decent starting point. However, I do not believe love makes people whole. I believe love and compassion are part of what makes us human, and that we can be whole without romance.)

Or, for something beyond soulmates, look at Plato's Symposium, in which he rejects another (probably gay) man's advances, and discusses a "ladder of love," how people are hurt along the way/left behind during one to-be-enlightened individual's journey to a higher plane of being and love of the whole humanity and the world over a singular, physical body, if I'm remembering this correctly.

While I believe in/have seemingly observed near-instant connections in people, I don't believe in soulmates because the concept involves too much fate to feel plausible. I think relationships take work to maintain, which indicates that we all have some degree of agency in most if not all relationships.

In addition, I think a person can be compatible with multiple people out in the world. The person they do or do not end up with depends on many factors, and I'd say chance/proximity is at least one of them which limits the notion of "soulmates" or optimum partners ever encountering each other in practice.

(Yes, how ironic that this is based on a vague, unfounded "feeling" or sense of how the world appears to work. My knowledge is all secondhand. Thus, you should take anything I say about romance with a grain of salt since I've never dated yet. Another possibility exists: if I ever fall in love, I could change my mind by the appearance of a "soulmate." But even if something like that were to happen (I'm not actively seeking anyone now), I could just conclude that I've just found (a) love, not a soulmate, even if it felt like soulmates were real with said hypothetical person.)

If that was disappointing, I have several fun facts for you:

Optimal stopping theory proposes there is a way to choose the "best" potential partner over time, to maximize your chances of finding "the one."

A famous professor, Dr. Gottman, is able to analyze couples and determine with 94% accuracy whether a couple will divorce in the coming years of their marriage by assessing their patterns of disagreement.

(Not quite a fact, just my opinion.) About the play, Romeo and Juliet—two extreme interpretations of the play I've heard of are: they were "stupid," impetuous, infatuated adolescents vs. they were actually, truly in love. I think both of those conditions can coexist at once.

The mere-exposure effect: repeated exposure can endear you to or make you more attractive to someone. I think the same holds true for familiar traits alone and any other objects or sights in the world. This effect can also counteract enmity/prejudices.

According to psychological findings, opposites rarely attract. Similarity, especially on a core level, was more important to relationships. (I think the adage should be: "Like calls to like." Kudos to you, if you got my reference.)

I happened to see this quote somewhere a while ago, and I think it's closer to reality—even if it's dramatized and evokes Machiavellian orchestration by a bit much (and the notion of intention in relationships):