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.
>>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.
>>24946386>[Projection], anyone saying anything to the contrary is a liar.>This already demonstrates [comfortable illusion I parrot so I won't feel the need to put any effort into life].
>>24946403Ad Hom. I'm married with kids. I realize I love my kids but am not capable of loving my partner in the same way, ever.
>>24946386>>24946412Incoherent garble and nothing more, kys /pol/faggot
>>24945804Redditor atheists think they’re big shit acting like love has no meaning because we understand somewhat the mechanism by which love is expressed in the body. It’s so lame, and they rarely acknowledge that ALL human behavior is the sum of electric charges and chemical releases, they single out love to protect themselves from the fact that are hurt children who can’t cope with disappointment that has come their way. “Hur my girlfriend in high school left me when we went to college, whatever it’s just chemicals anyway.”
>>24945823>>24945894>>24945936This says more about you than love or relationships, though.>Autistic and cold understanding of relationships>Resentment toward womenAlso, your history of love is very limited and biased. Sappho existed. Dante existed. Homer existed. Kalidasa existed. The Song of Songs exists. Ramayana exists. All classic antique literature deals with love. In fact, it's a major theme of all classic literature. Crime and Punishment. War and Peace. Master and Margherita. Ulysses ends with an orgasm. Finnegans Wake is about a love affair from the past haunting the hero over and over and over. As about leaving partners, it's not that nihilistic. Shitty people do that. Normal people usually stay with their jobless husbands (plenty of that in literature and IRL) and sick wives (plenty of that in literature and IRL). Maybe it's American capitalist brainrot, but here, in Estonia, people tend to stay in sickness and (transitory) poverty. There are people who live their sick loved ones, but it just ruins your reputations - everyone will know you're a gold digger whore, and treat you with disdain.>>24945990Aphrodite is a goddess of love. You're twisting facts to support your thesis.And, yes, the concept existed back then, too. Have you heard of the hermaphroditic theory of Plato? And I don't understand what you mean by Shakesperean idea of love, because he wrote more or less standard situation that happen IRL (people who love each other but their families are enemies or from antagonistic social strata; a woman causes the downfall of a man; man wastes his time on a woman instead of doing the job; female schemes; male schemes). Apart from linguistic virtuosity, Shakespeare is a very down to earth author. Your argument would stand on better ground if it used the Romantics as the scapegoat; but even then, the issue is that the force of their poetry is based upon the feeling that you think doesn't exist. You write well and smart, but a quick look and a little bit of pondering destroys every your every single point. Your only good point is that modern society and how relationships work through apps may cause unhealthy patterns that makes men and women miserable and feeling like they lack something.Good bait. If bait. If not, get into therapy and deal with the issues surrounding your mother.
>>24946451Based
I've been 8 years in a relationship with a girl I love and who loves me. Lust or fear are not the central forces keeping us together; we deeply care for each other, trust each other, like being around each other. I can't not believe in love because I live it, and threads like this one always make me feel extremely lucky or extremely out of touch with reality.
>>24945823But I'm happy sometimes, anon. If happiness is fake and gay, then how come I've had it before? Further, if happyness is fake, then so must be sadness and other states of mind for similar reasons.
>>24946489cool, im happy for youhow did you two meet?are you a normie?
>>24945804
>>24946505I read Whatever by Houellebecq the other day, and everything he describes I've felt. I was pretty much living out that book when my 20's started. I met her in college and I just knew she was different from everyone else and precious when I heard her speak.
>>24946530im just reading the synopsis, i dont know what to make of it. so you're not a normie? are you rich?how the fuck did you make it
>>24946293That's lust.
>>24946561I'm far from being rich or a normie, and I was at my lowest, most miserable point when I met her. I was failing college, had never had a job, couldn't even drive, and I had lost all my friends from high school. I spent hours sitting alone doing nothing at a park (sometimes crying) and at home playing shitty games, browsing 4chan, jacking off. There were weeks in which I wouldn't shower, I had starting collecting garbage in my room. I pretty much had given up on everything and a seething hatred was starting to grow inside of me. It's crazy to think about it now, but I really was about to go full /r9k/I went to school one day and we had to watch a movie. It was some french movíe about a kid and an old man. I didn't pay attention to it, but as the credits rolled I heard someone crying, and it pissed me off. The teacher asked this person why they were crying, and that's when I heard her for the first time and I fell in love with her without even seeing her, because she spoke with such honest and sincere emotion of her sweet and tender feelings. Not a shred of ironic distancing, no posturing, no jokes. It was like a breath of fresh air. Then I saw her and I liked her even more. I was extremely shy, but something made me feel that this person was one of a kind, that if I didn't give it a shot I would never have a chance like this again. So I showered, and I talked to her (it was nerve wracking), and as we talked I liked her even more and she was nice to me. My original plan was to befriend her first while I pulled myself together and then try to make a move, but the sense of urgency was overwhelming, so I went all in and just asked her out.I guess the answer is that a) I actually fell in love instead of having a mere crush, and this made me overcome myself and b) I was lucky I found a person that liked me and I could get along well with.
In old times women stayed with men out of fear of poverty or social repercussions and if they whored around they probably did it secretly and got away with it.Nowadays women have pretty much no incentive to stay in long term relationships and it's hard to hide cheating or sleeping around. Women no longer have any reason to be loyal and we see them at their worst every day. Romance is dead.I may be biased because I'm fresh off of a seven year relationship.
>>24945936Counterpoint: my wife stayed with me when i chose to retire early (at 31) and, later, i stayed with her all through cancer, accompanying her to every appointment, cleaning her when she was too sick, and taking care of all chores so she could spend her dwindling time on fun. Don't claim that love isn't real simply because you lack the devotion and patience to find it yourself.
>>24945936>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.any proof of this , that would also carry for beffore the 1920 or later.
>>24945804Love proves God is real
Many thinkers today are not purely reductive materialists, and theories of the nature of love outside of its biological impetus are still open to discussion. So, to answer your question, you would have to see how the minds of antiquity synthesized the latest scientific/biological/psychological information of their time with their belief system - and make assumptions from there. The first hand experience of any intense emotion feels like its source could be transcendent or exterior - which is why the narrative that love is more than just chemicals still survives. The thing that incels and other data and stats worshippers fail to analyze is the psychology of people who do experience love despite it being inconvenient or not biologically advantageous. These are seen as rare exceptions, lies, malfunctions, or unreliable anecdotes. I don't think it's wise to disregard anecdotes, or assume that these things are merely anomalies. Some people are capable of directing their desires - and many thinkers of antiquity would think that the transcendental nature of love can be witnessed when one sublimates their base desires, or transmutes that energy. In material terms, this would be having the capacity to leverage what you know occurs chemically to serve your will. This is why I would imagine that clever people who remain in stable, long term relationships, commit to simulating an environment where novelty, dopamine, attachment, oxytocin, are constantly flowing. Further, what often fails to be discussed is the will of desire itself, and what shapes it. The current cultural climate does not reward patience, repairs, codependence - it rewards cheap and fast pleasure. So ultimately, any thinker that projects the weakness of his will onto humanity, who is deterministic, or who does not believe that energy can be transmuted, would likely be redpilled. The rest could still find non material explanations for the existence of love.
>>24945804Simply, because they were wise enough to control women and so the only obstacle in their way was women's own innately treacherous, mendacious nature. That's why all the angsty love poems of antiquity only concern fickleness and/or infidelity, because those were the only things that could fuck up love between a man and his prize slave.
>>24945804We only think love is a neurochemical bit of intoxication because we have millennial and zoomette women to deal with on the day to day. Sure, we can lust over them, or we can get a little fuzzy feeling here or there. But we just assume that this is all it is.Only religious people at this point know love is the abiding thing in life and is the fabric of everything. Agape is fundamental and is all-in-all -- "Deus Caritas Est." St. John really understood this and implied it. Credit to Jordan Peterson, he almost stumbled upon this too in deeming sacrifice the base reality. But I reckon "The Symposium" implied it first in figuring love to be truly preexistent.
>>24945823Complete BS.
>>24946757Based
>>24945823> It's mostly incels online that are sceptics towards the classical concept of love. Eunuch-jewish claws typed this, as an proud volcel i am very angry at this bait, so angry that i must reply, incels are the ones who feel love and wish to be loved, incels and volcels are like the sith, to much love, the bitterness comes from not being shown affection from the opposite gender, you wrote faggotry and you probably sound like one to, bet you cross your legs like a bitch and drink wine as well and when alone you wear womens clothes, cunt.
>women are animals, their sole purpose is to be breed.-Every Greekuhh guys?
>not a single mention of AI companions in the coming yearsthe only thing that will prove if any of the larps here or in antiquity meant anything
>>24945804>>24945823The thing is that Love is both strictly a chemical/biological matter of certain molecules and structures in the brain and body, while also being a transcendent, mutually reinforcing, synergistic strategy which bears untold fruits in the right circumstances. When both partners are committed to each other, AND STRICTLY TO THAT COMMITMENT, then, paradoxically, each person receives more benefit to themselves, thus justifying it on a selfish basis. But, if it is measured on a selfish basis, it immediately loses the engine by which the surplus benefit is generated, and it completely falls apart. Thus, in an age of the glorification of selfishness, Love has been utterly killed, and all that remains are tenuous business partnerships of domestic life, partnerships devoid of sentimentality or longevity. Once such a state of affairs has emerged, the next generation suffers immensely, as they are robbed of a healthy domestic upbringing where in they can establish proper relationships with men and women, role models of proper behavior which become invaluable in adult life. How many young ladies are endlessly miserable because they gravitate towards bad men? And how many of these cases are women who's fathers were absent? Thus, a vicious cycle has been created, one where only a Herculean individual effort by intrepid souls can overturn the tide of a toxic society.
>>24947265I am a materialist utilitarian and I agree that mutual sacrifice for one's partner bears selfish fruit beyond what any individual could get by themselves. That's the whole point though, you can justify love on selfish material grounds, but the actual situation of love must never be measured on those grounds in any particular case, otherwise the engine which produces the surplus benefit breaks down. Sentimentality exists for a reason, and while it tends to get a bad rap from pretentious pseuds, it is an absolute requirement for a happy romantic/domestic relationship. Religious thinking is not required here.
>>24945804why is chud with boymoder?
>>24945820It isn't even known who Shakespeare was. This is some next level absurdity.
>>24947762But the question is 'is love chemicals smacking around, or is it a thing in itself.'Religion vs. Quintessence of Dust -- doing the smacking around determinism thing-y.'Tis a religious matter.
>>24945804I mean they didn't even know what a "neurochemical reaction" was.I have to think that if the knowledge necessary for materialism to exist in antiquity existed then yes some of them would have been materialists
>>24946386I'd have a wife and a cat and we'd (wife and me) translate books together and go for walks in the woods in the evenings but otherwise leave each other alone. We'd sleep in separate rooms but with beds large enough to cuddle together some nights.Whenever we met someone like you we'd share a laugh. As if to say "thank goodness we never gave up hope" and squeeze each others hand, and we'd be happy, because we aren't just value calculations, but human beings who found someone to see them and appreciate them for who they are.
Look up metaphysical Love
>>24945804Men are waking up to the true nature of reality
>>24948073It is a thing in so far as it is a concept with the attributes I mentioned earlier. You would have to expand on what you mean by "a thing in itself". It is a feeling and a strategy, it is based on hormones and brain structures, but is apprehended by the consciousness as a thing of value. This can and is all rooted in material phenomenon with no need for recourse to anything supernatural.
>>24945804>Why is it that all great minds of antiquity thought that love was more than a crude neurochemical reaction?I don't think anyone actually thinks this. No, I don't care what academia or wordcels like >>24945823say or do, they are suffocated in their own little worlds.
>>24947584I have gooned to AI bots hundreds of times, and let me tell you that I can instinctually tell whatever algorithms forms languages that happen to correspond to my prompts is definitely not human in any shape or form. This uncanny valley feeling will simply never go away no more how advanced AI gets, because we know its wrong.
>>24946037Polygamy is how you enforce narcissistic psychopath societies where 90% of the male population hates women. Completely dysgenic and irresponsible.
>>24946653interesting. i hope you realize you are very very luckyonly similarity of your story to mine is that i also fell in love in college but only thing i got from that is extreme, prolonged and intense suffering for 5 or so years. i tried to make a move, she would leave me in orbit always, late replying to texts etc. then she started running through boyfriends and that's something that if not breaks you irrepairably( hopefully not), just makes you suffer immensly. im happy for you bra, i always wanted true love.let's hope i will have better luck with love in future
>>24948203Are you really using terms like "word cells" unironically while posting on /lit/
>>24945823ABSOLUTE TRVKE
