Why is it that all great minds of antiquity thought that love was more than a crude neurochemical reaction? Would they have been redpilled if they were alive after the 20th century when advancement in chemistry demonstrated that love/eros is basically just a powerful drug? Honestly explains many things about the current perception of love in relation to modernity.
>>24945804Im pretty Shakespeare would have stopped writing love sonnets after the first divorce rape kek
>>24945814precisely why shakespeare wrote sonnets to sublimate his lack of love for his wife
The great minds of antiquity didn't think that at all. In fact most didn't even consider women to be equals. Love was only something you experienced for your parents, children and your best (same sex) friends.Love as we know it now is mostly a concept that arose around the time of Shakespeare, after the invention of the Gutenberg printing press enabled lower quality entertainment (smut) to be spread around.It peaked around the time of the Victorian age when more and more women became enfranchised and were seen as proper individuals as well as potential customers for romance publications.Only right now is the concept dying out again, mostly again because women have stopped believing in it. I've seen more women jaded about love not existing because of their dating app fatigue than I've seen men being jaded. Most men I know IRL are still romantic. It's mostly incels online that are sceptics towards the classical concept of love. But every woman under the age of 40 is sceptical of love. This means the concept will probably die in 10-20 years time and people will look back on it as a weird myth people believed in. Like miasma theory of disease.The next frontier that a lot of people aren't willing to confront however is the concept of "happiness" which is also an artifact of our time and a result of romance publications. Happiness like how most westerners see it also doesn't exist. A lot of people think they fail in life or are losers because they aren't "happy" not realizing that no one is happy because that concept of happiness doesn't actually exist and is a relatively modern invention.What media would market as happiness would historically be diagnosed as mania, hysteria or smiling madness.Traditionally only the following things were considered, not in danger, not in pestilence, not in hunger. With the fourth criteria being "accepting of your lot" (this is the one most of modern society struggles with) if all four would be satisfied you were living better than 90% of all humans that have ever existed. There is no such thing as happiness.
>>24945823Touch grass immediately
>>24945823Based and true
>>24945823I agree with everything you said, but truth doesn’t really matter in this case. These things are narratives people need in their lives to not go crazy. It will stick around until we’re all cyborgs and eventually get wiped out trying to get these things to fall in love likes its Blade runner or some shit. If we could just accept that we are machines in a world with no myth or magic (love) we might stand a chance as a species.
>>24945859>we’re all cyborgsAnon..
>>24945823This can only be a partial truth vis-a-vis the core of the subject as long as it doesn't validate a certain principle aspiration that underlies these various presentations grotesque in of themselves to be sure.
>>24945823>The great minds of antiquity didn't think that at all. In fact most didn't even consider women to be equals.kek, entire books written by one of the poet goats about how men can find and keep a lover (Books 1 & 2) and how women can win and keep a man (Book 3), where to find potential partners (the theater, races, dinner parties) and offers advice on everything from dress, style, appearance, conversation, wit, deception, etc
>>24945823>The great minds of antiquity didn't think that at all. In fact most didn't even consider women to be equals. Love was only something you experienced for your parents, children and your best (same sex) friends.Utterly retarded. You could have brought up genuine examples of ancient philosophers commenting on love, instead you chose the most retarded option of claiming that the successfully reproductive human race, with countless myths and stories portraying romantic love, didn't experience romantic love in the period and place of ancient Greece.>Love as we know it now is mostly a concept that arose around the time of ShakespeareNo, it was a product of the medieval world and Elizabethan love poetry was based on late Medieval Italian love poetry. You're a fucking moron that has allowed retarded ideology to pervert your entire view of history. Please never assume that your opinion is worth effort posting in threads ever again.
>>24945874This is about "acquiring a mate", not about finding romantic Shakespearean love, which is what the thread is about.
>>24945884"Late medieval Italian love poetry" is not the same as Shakespearean love and you know this. Medieval "love" poetry is more about the Nobel values of chivalry and how to treat a lady. While that might have eventually evolved into the love known from Shakespeare plays this isn't at all the same. The emphasis was never about some sort of romantic ideal of a special bond between a man and woman. It was always about the chivalry on display from the nobleman/knight and the femininity on display from the lady. If you don't understand the difference then you don't have the social aptitude necessary to distinguish between flirting and romance in a modern setting.Attraction is real, flirting is real, courtship is real. Love is fake.
>>24945885i made the thread and i made the post about ovid, nothing about this thread's intention is exclusively shakesperean, both fall under the umbrella of love
>>24945894>Love is fake.Elaborate.
the great filterer....
>>24945904Based. This kills the deluded.
>>24945904It was an okay book. A little repetitive at times, but not bad overall.
>>24945902It doesn't exist, it's a made up concept and myth. Biological attraction, status signaling and social group signaling are the only things that determine attraction.If love is real how do you explain the phenomenon where women are very likely to leave their partner when they lose their job? Or men leaving their wives when they get cancer? We have academic proof that this is almost universal. There is a deep biological urge to leave your wife if she is ill. And a deep biological urge for women to leave her husband if his social status is downgraded.Love in the classical sense is some sort of special transcended connection between two lovers that is supposedly above these base desires. Most people actually believe they fall within this themselves. That only other evil people would do such things. Yet when it actually happens to them, they get the urge to leave and statistically act on it.Because this myth is very strong or at least used to be very strong people were acting as if it were true. In a way it even damaged relationships and families because it raised the bar to unrealistic heights for both men and women on what to expect from their partners. Women breaking up with their husbands because they met some tribal leader in Africa on a trip (real story) because they believe in soulmates/the one and realize their husbands weren't it (because it doesn't exist). Or men being obsessed and crushing on some girl thinking her his princess and being resentful towards the world for depriving them of love. Or even being resentful to their partners for "not truly loving them" not realizing it was always a form of transaction.Internet dating fatigue among women have completely demoralized them and caused them to not trust men at all anymore because they kept looking for this nonexistent unconditional love type of thing just to be pumped and dumped, because it isn't real.
None of the things you mentioned are entailed by physicalism.
>>24945936You make valid criticism and i agree with many. Many people confuse attachment as real love. The modern notions of love are possessive, conditional and the myth around it is damaging and does inflate expectations, but its not like romantic love is completely fake, if we look at Plato symposium, we see a very different perspective on romantic love as a particular mode and 'ladder' if you will towards the One. Even if you dont buy into that, there are cases where people do stick by (Although uncommon) what most people call love is possessive, transactional and people underestimate their self image and what it actually takes to build and maintain a romantic relationship.So while the modern notion of love is often flawed, that doesn’t mean the phenomenon itself is entirely unreal, it’s just uncommon and demands more than most are willing to giveForgive me, but you seem to be validly critiquing this possessive 'fake' love that is far too common, but it is a bit reductive to say all romantic love is fake, its just rare.Perhaps its better to educate people on what it really takes to cultivate romantic love rather than just induce some fantasy. I do dislike the concept of 'unconditional romantic love'. Romantic love by its nature is conditional. Maybe I missed your point, what do you think?
>>24945823It's a beautiful idea and i want to believe in it even if it's based on a lie.Do you have any sources for that idea or writers who spoke on that extensively though?
>>24945936Love is a choice, you absolute retard. Do you think of humans as nothing more than slaves to their biology? What separates humans from animals is the ability to act against nature. That’s why people make personal sacrifices for their spouse/family/children, that’s why they stick with certain people despite difficulties. >b-but some people leaveYea, they choose to. They make the decision not to love. What made you think love requires no work or sacrifice or even active decision-making from the individual?
>>24945936yes this is the case for most people, but how would someone explain the outliers? biological attraction doesn't explain pic related, why didn't she leave him when he lost his job? id like to believe its not just a very strong cocktail of chemicals/very susceptible individual to said chemicals, there's gotta be some reincarnation / lovers across the gulf of time shit involved in something like this
>>24945868>>24945948This. It's a caste thing what the materialist here deems as fundamental while it is really a reflection in the lowest forms of animal-humans.
>>24945952Cling to your illusions if you must. Its all one to me.
>>24945957I dont think that anon is a materialist, and he doesnt have to 'believe' in the transcendental. I will say my views on love as a whole are similar to how Walter Russell, author of 'Universal One' and other works. I do find modern notions of love to be possessive, fear driven and self centered in many cases. However I do find it difficult to ask people to love purely for the sake of the other without a deeper purpose beyond themselves and their egos, but I do think there are rare individuals who can, even without needing to believe in anything transcendental. How they do so is something I wonder.
>>24945804i had to come to terms with the fact that love isnt quite real some weeks back when i realized how connected the idea is to lust and that without lust there is nothing motivating you to want to love or be in love, and since lust is also a biological desire, and were animals that implies that love doesnt exist, only our biological needs of sexual reproduction existsbut its also my counter-theory that love does exist but that we cant reach it (or think about it) due to our limited animal brain, in other words if love is real we can never reach it since were not evolved enough>>24945823kinda true, happiness is just chemicals (dopamine, seratonin etc), what you want is being content, not facing troubles
>>24945823>The great minds of antiquity didn't think that at all. In fact most didn't even consider women to be equals. Love was only something you experienced for your parents, children and your best (same sex) friends.Which was why, of course, the Greeks sacked Troy and Aphrodite was the Goddess of Love
>>24945984So what must occur then?
>>24945985I case you're being sarcastic. Aphrodite is a indo-european derived god of beauty, not love which is a more modern reinterpretation, especially following the Renaissance. It is already conflated with the modern myth of love.We don't know what happened at the actual real Troy. They used linear B which predates ancient Greek and the ancient Greek didn't know how to read it. The myth of Troy you're referring to was originally a story about revenge and jealousy. Not about love, certainly not in the modern rendition of love like we're discussing in the thread.The concept didn't exist back then.
>>24945968I wasn't referring by materialist to the specific anon you had replied to there. And it's certainly not about some theoretical conviction in some transcendent either, however one may define it. When attachment (sanga) is dissolved, what remains is that pure, inner nature of the individual, and that is in the utmost sense loving, suggesting to us not in such realization that it was the egoic attachments, the desire of the hankering, anger, fear that were a mere superficiality and not inherent to the individual like earlier conceived; that was the materialism, the egoic-essentialism. The more sattvic an individual's constitution the more they will reflect this innate-nature, the most valiant, most courageous, most fearless, it inspires of the same in us to know of them. The cynic, the nihilist, the absurdist, whatever of such categories, they may be responding to the condition of nature and understand themselves, their response, to be elevated, which may be true, but it is still based on the same, the sanga-kama-krodha-bhaya-raga-dvesa. Ya get the point.
>>24945804Because in antiquity, women depended on men for their material comfort and continued existence, not the state or a corporation. If your dog got fed and housed by Wal-Mart, do you think it would give a fuck about you? No. Women aren't different.
>>24946001Interesting. I do not know much about indian thought, any recommendations?
It would be interesting if after every one of these comments the anons in this thread stated whether they believe they've been in love before.
>>24946009I am, although I didnt grow up with Disney bullshit. Its very possible but it requires admitting your flaws and communicating well with your partner. Don't choose an immature partner, you're just asking for trouble.
>>24946009No one has been in love before. They had crushes before.
>>24946008Just the Bhagavadgita, it will be a matter of getting to the right understanding of what it is and isn't saying though. It will be a project in itself.Aurobindo (Essays on the Gita), Evola (his Doctrine of Awakening), Guenon's work in hinduism and vedanta, can be helpful..
>>24946023Thanks anon, will look into it. :)
>>24945959What illusion? The illusion of choice?
Most societies don't have a concept of love because most societies aren't monogamous to begin with.Most of the thread seems to ignore that the concept of love is only a thing in abrahamic cultures because of their monogamy. If love was a true concept it would have been universal among humans and different cultures. Meanwhile you have places like ancient China and Japan where women weren't even expected to be monogamous because that's how little the husbands cared about their wives. Having as much women as possible was not only expected, they literally couldn't even comprehend the concept of monogamy when westerners introduced them to the concept.Most of Africa is still not monogamous even with centuries of Christian proselytizing, that's how much it goes against human nature.The concept of love rapidly crumbles if you stop looking at the world from a eurocentric perspective.
>>24946037Tranny
>>24945985Aphrodite was a huuuuge bitch
>>24945804It's not a meaningful distinction.If matter is all there is then it becomes the new focus.You cannot use mind body dualism selectively.
>>24945820shakespeare did not even want to be buried with her, his last words were cursing her
>>24945823I agree with most of what you've said, love is really only kept around because there is a clear, and obvious monetary incentive. "Love" is a fleeting emotion and is simply lust, love is something to make people look forward to. A dream, even. A foolish one, at that. We live in a cruel, harsh world, but the ideas that form it, are used, as a basis to help us survive. God knows what else we have.
>the egyptian creation myth where the sky and the earth loved each other so much that nothing could exist between them because they clung together too much so ra had to separate them>the myth of pyramus and thisbe>the ending of xenophon's symposium>song of songs>ephesians 5:25 (Husbands, love your wives.)>the fact that monogamous marriage has been the norm for the common man in literally every recorded human society to ever exist with the sole exception of a few isolated hunter gatherer tribesThe ancients obviously had a concept of romantic love. To pretend that it's some kind of modern social construct is a cope for people suffering from schizoid personality disorder. You believe that because you've never felt love, it must not be real. It is real, you're just defective.
>>24945804Men are waking up to the true nature of reality and women as well
>>24945956I think the outliers are simply more intelligent than the masses. Even the example you posted is of a woman with exceptional intelligence and resolve
>>24946293I think OP is saying that the ancients were wrong.Maybe.The post kinda reverses in the last two sentences.>>24946330I'm not an atheist or against religion but being blackpilled about women is just about the saddest reason to sign up for any kind of spiritual belief system.Gnosticism is just generally misanthropic.
>>24945804You start from the false premise that you're smarter and wiser than they were. I think we can assume they were 'redpilled' when every love poem is about suffering, transience, and the dishonesty of women. They did it anyways.
You guys need to be fucking honest with yourselves. If you had magical godlike powers you wouldn't be living with your "soulmate" or "perfect love". You'd be fucking harems of women from a sense of lust with no particularly strong connection to any individual woman. Anyone else saying anything to the contrary is a liar.This already demonstrates that the ideal state for your base desires isn't "monogamous love" but lust. All the illusions you have about love are merely there because of societal conditioning and because it's a coping mechanism of living in a society where you won't have the ability to mate with every woman you want, whenever you want. So the best intermediate solution is to either not have any standards and just fuck whatever accepts you (The Tinder path) which is quantity over quality. Or the quality path of finding the best potential woman you can mate with and investing all your time and energy into her.There is no love to be found here. It's merely a calculation, conditioning and it's completely arbitrary. Anyone willing to engage in this silly thought experiment would realize this already.This also holds true for women by the way, just in a different type of dynamic. A woman wants to be wanted, worshipped and cherished by as many men as possible, not necessarily penetrated, but the end-result of the thought-experiment remains the same. Neither sex would settle down with 1 singular partner for the rest of their lives if they had unlimited power and ability to actually choose.If love to you is "Well I can't fuck every hot person I want so I settle with the 2nd best option of the best girl I can hold" then love is real, for every other person that isn't doesn't hold that weird thought it's just fake.
>>24946330This is essentially just "having children is for niggers, real white men ignore sex and life." Look at the insanity of this religion.
