Is love real?

Can you truly learn to love someone one? What if learned love is the only true love there is? An instantaneous equal requited love sounds downright implausible because as love you learn, and what you learn you might not love. But learning to love sounds so unhappy, so forced, that could it ever be true?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=AoNNG9byXuw
ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter10.html
instagram.com/tylea.adore/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

is this literature?

philosophy

youtube.com/watch?v=AoNNG9byXuw
>[SNIFFING INTENSIFIES]

no, it's not. fuck off /adv/.

love is and always will be part of literature :P

Love should not be part of what you think. Loving is a part of life; loving is not hard, is not painful, is something beautiful, yet the adversities could make it baaaaad. There is no better love than the first love. After it we start to degrade it because of bad experiences. Learning to love is learning to do not fall in love; or learning how to keep a relationship at most.

yes. but it will only happen with your first.

first loves are harsh.

Rochefoucauld says that love may be compared to a ghost since it is something we talk about but have never seen, and Lichtenberg, in his essay Ueber die Macht der Liebe, disputes and denies its reality and naturalness — but both are in the wrong. For if it were foreign to and contradicted human nature — in other words, if it were merely an imaginary caricature, it would not have been depicted with such zeal by the poets of all ages, or accepted by mankind with an unaltered interest; for anything artistically beautiful cannot exist without truth.

“Rien n’est beau que le vrai; le vrai seul est aimable.”— BOIL.

Experience, although not that of everyday, verifies that that which as a rule begins only as a strong and yet controllable inclination, may develop, under certain conditions, into a passion, the ardour of which surpasses that of every other. It will ignore all considerations, overcome all kinds of obstacles with incredible strength and persistence. A man, in order to have his love gratified, will unhesitatingly risk his life; in fact, if his love is absolutely rejected, he will sacrifice his life into the bargain. The Werthers and Jacopo Ortis do not only exist in romances; Europe produces every year at least half-a-dozen like them: sed ignotis perierunt mortibus illi: for their sufferings are chronicled by the writer of official registers or by the reporters of newspapers. Indeed, readers of the police news in English and French newspapers will confirm what I have said.

Love drives a still greater number of people into the lunatic asylum. There is a case of some sort every year of two lovers committing suicide together because material circumstances happen to be unfavourable to their union.

ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter10.html

sad

The existence of love no longer belongs to the realm of philosophy after the discovery that the feeling of love is caused by chemical reactions in the brain.

Nigga is ANYTHING real?

all i know is that i love with those titties.

He's clearly cherry-picking La Rochefoucauld's claims. His take is much more profound than "DUDE THAT'S JUST AN ILLUSION LMAO"

bump

Of course love is real; it's an empirically verifiable chemical reaction in your brain.

The metaphysics of love on the other hand are whatever the fuck you like, you big retard.

>one of the oldest philosophical questions ever, dealt with by the presocratic philosophers as well as Plato
>not philosophy because I'm a virgin and the notion of love triggers me

NORMIES REEEEEEE return to the council board immediately!

Is this what's considered bait nowadays? So every time science quantifies something that something is no longer considered a suitable subject for philosophical discourse?

So, basically, philosophy is /x/ ?
Spectacular.

>“Rien n’est beau que le vrai; le vrai seul est aimable.”— BOIL.
You really not gonna translate that

I told a girl I loved her a month ago and I believe I fucked shit up hard, it was fucking platonic too but it must have not come out that way. I tell my brother I love him, I tell my one friend I love him, fucking hell I don't know.

why the fuck didn't you tell her you meant it platonically you fucking idiot

I thought it was fucking implied, fuck. I still don't know how she interpreted it, she was out of the country for a month and she has been back for two weeks and hasn't said anything, we were planning to get together to watch some shit when she got back but I don't know anymore. I raised some other red flags the day before though when we were driving, then I called her and fucked it all up, I'm just oging to wait, I asked her if she wanted to go to the symphony but she said she can't, I think I may just be fucked for now. It's pretty funny whenever I think about it though

Just ask her what she thought
Don't make things complicated that's how you really fuck up it

I think it's already too complicated, for me and my trash brain at least. When I told her, she thanked me, the reason for telling her had to do with her and my mental health/hospitalizations, I think that if I ask what she thought it would sound retarded or dramatic. She's a really busy/studious person and I am a jobless faggot, I'm probably just going to sit back and wait, if she is actually avoiding me it will just be more funny/absurd and I'll probably wait a year or two to make contact with her again, I don't even know if she is the kind of person I want to be friends with anymore
/blogshit

Source on that pic?

No.

>my mental health/hospitalizations

>I am a jobless faggot


what the fuck m8 what else did you say to her lmao.

Yeah, it's probably better to just wait then. If she's avoiding you for two years she's not worth keeping around.

instagram.com/tylea.adore/

Love is great, it's true, but it's also false. Analyze why you love a woman so much to put her above others and you'll come up with a list that applies to many women. Then you will say "she is special to me, thats all that matters." A very laughable excuse. Now you say "you must not know what it's like!". But i do, that's why i have thought enough about it to come to this conclusion. The memories you've shared with a love would give you the same feelings another love in the same memories would. Love is thought to be special and real because it is unique. So remember that it is not, and you won't be fooled by it. It's an illusion of happiness, because another person gives it to you. Therefore it can be taken from you and upset your peace and therefore is not to be held in value.

quasi-schizo, solipsistic, and misanthropic tendencies, , you know, the truth

thank you for this comforting post user, you have reminded of why I continue to come back to this place

>boohoo love can go wrong and it might hurt you therefore you shouldn't value it
>everything that results from the interaction between people is illusory and all true happiness is internal
>placing value on an insipid, sterile inner peace

spoken like a true autist.

A portrait of a person dependent on externals.

Love is just an attitude, not an education.

Yes, but men are unable of it, they only have infatuations, and by lust alone.

Nothing is external

Interesting thread you guys have here

Infatuation is closer to the idealistic love than a woman's use of love as an adornment, and her love of what a man is, but not the man himself.

Lust is a factor in both men and women's love. It's a part of initial attraction.

>a woman's use of love as an adornment
You must be joking. We're the ones who have been treated as trophies for centuries.

>her love of what a man is, but not the man himself
Develop on what you mean by this.

Men never used love as an adornment, but the attractiveness of a woman. It hasn't had anything to do with a man's affections for a woman but for impressing others, saying "i fuck sexy women", not "i love this woman". Men have considered love sacred, but often not a woman's body.

A woman loves a man for what is attached to him. He's prestigious. He's a womanizer, a casanova. He's a tough guy, a bad boy, a rebel.

I think it's something like
" Nothing is more beautiful than the truth; The Truth by itself is lovely "

Those aren't attachments, they're words used to describe types of behavior.

This hypocrisy is laughable. Men likewise love women for what is attached to them: their beauty. You confessed to this literally in the previous sentence.
Like men, women can love what is attached to a man, yes. But men aren't displayed like show ponies in the sense trophy wives are. The thing attached to him, which the woman loves, is something she has no desire to pose with because it's a true love, it is part of who he is - his personality. A woman doesn't plainly love a man for his "tough guy"-aura but for it represents in his personality and manner: he is a man who is strong, confident, a source of protection, etc or whatever it might be. This is much purer and noble than men falling in love with women's beauty because lol boobs are fun or for the purpose of being able to spout "bros check it out, i'm putting my penis inside this sexy woman lol".

This.

Why do people think that love and pain have to be mutually exclusive?

Ok but who dat girl in pic (un)related?

instagram.com/tylea.adore/

This is what happens to us in music: first one has to learn to hear a figure and melody at all, to detect and distinguish it, to isolate it and delimit it as a separate life; then it requires some exertion and good will to tolerate it in spite of its strangeness, to be patient with its appearance and expression, and kindhearted about its oddity:—finally there comes a moment when we are used to it, when we wait for it, when we sense that we should miss it if it were missing: and now it continues to compel and enchant us relentlessly until we have become its humble and enraptured lovers who desire nothing better from the world than it and only it.— But that is what happens to us not only in music: that is how we have learned to love all things that we now love. In the end we are always rewarded for our good will, our patience, fairmindedness, and gentleness with what is strange; gradually, it sheds its veil and turns out to be a new and indescribable beauty:—that is its thanks for our hospitality. Even those who love themselves will have learned it in this way: for there is no other way. Love, too, has to be learned.

This, men are hopelessly inferior.

Glad you see it.

Based Slavoj

That sounds like Fromm.

Love exists only between a woman and her offspring.

No other love is real

her tits look good but i would mostly like to cum on her feet

Not really famalam. Misses the point a bit.
"Nothing is beautiful but the truth. Only the truth can be loved."

I believe that through the entirety of hyper-consciousness in humans that many authors and other artists have attempted to capture the essence of what love is. We only really have a very superficial view of what the emotion is, when in reality, it is a blend of almost every other one.

Speaking from experience, love has a twisted and oddish way of combining itself into different things and able to pass itself off, still, as 'love'.

I have Borderline Personality Disorder. Many times, I have screamed and yelled, abused and emotionally crippled those that I have 'loved' in an attempt to keep them longer. Through my lens, this is still 'love' - a different form, yet love nonetheless.

Love is the harmonious blend of each emotion that we put any investment in towards a singular person or thing because of their ability to provoke these reactions.

You found her without asking, congratulations.

It's the Nietz

you haven't read the whole thread, have you?

who reads the whole thread before posting

Yes, but only men are capable of feeling true romantic love.
Which is why no woman has ever sacrificed her life for a husband, bf whatever.

this is clearly not from this century.

>Speaking from experience, love has a twisted and oddish way of combining itself into different things and able to pass itself off, still, as 'love'.

No, you just have BPD.

>Which is why no woman has ever sacrificed her life for a husband, bf whatever.
Or it's because men are fools.

>love cant be real because multiple women could illicit the same feeling, all else being equal

Love is one of the answers that humankind has invented in order to look death in the face. Through love we steal from the time that kills us a few hours which we turn now into paradise and now into hell. In both ways time expands and ceases to be a measure. Beyond happiness or unhappiness, though it is both things, love is intensity: it does not give us eternity but life, that second in which the doors of time and space open just a crack: here is there and now is always. In love, everything is two and everything strives to be one.

spotted the faggot who didn't start with the greeks

concede that only a certain type of man has trophy wives fool. it is not the norm

>and her love of what a man is, but not the man himself

are you retarded.

here's a fun fact, our brains haven't evolved much in the past 3000 years so this chemical reaction has remained pretty much the same from ancient civilization and on, but you know what? our definition of the word love in all our languages has continued to change with the times.

the more you know.

This is all wrong. You can't get along with everybody, there's a select few people that you click with.

get out of here homophone

what makes certain people special to me is that i don't want to just stop talking to them after some period of time. It's not a feeling of anger, or anything they did wrong or said wrong in particular, but I just get tired of talking to most people and want to be left to my own devices eventually. Sometimes I pretend I'm not there if they message me and I'm just not up for it.

The people who don't make me feel that way are the people I love. maybe my definition is retarded but that's just how it is to me.

It's absolutely real, some people inspire personal growth in you by giving you things like understanding and honesty and respect and you get a lot by knowing that the similar things you give them are being appreciated, that's love I'd say

Women always say they just want someone that makes them laugh, but they'll laugh at anything and everything said by a guy they think is hot.

You speak like a woman

That is actually what they mean though. Even if you are the funniest man in the world the girl will still laugh more from a normal conversation with a man she likes.

love is meaning
meaning is generated by humans
verisimilitude is generated by humans
love is real

>if it were merely an imaginary caricature, it would not have been depicted with such zeal by the poets of all ages, or accepted by mankind with an unaltered interest; for anything artistically beautiful cannot exist without truth.
t. theist

bump

only women know how to love:

love of men towards women = love of women towards children = utopian unconditional love

love of men towards children = love of women towards men = utility towards more pleasures and less pains.

Women don't know how to love, they're all superficial whores, it's been proven by science.

you cannot separate the eroticism from love when talking of courtly love. there is a difference, believe this there is. do you wish to fuck all these people? if not then this not the love being discussed here. love desires exclusivity, the fact that though we have no freedom we choose to be bonded to another individual and one alone. without this middle finger there is no love. friends are not exclusive, it is a community. this is not love user. you knew this

this also neglects eroticism. for lack of a better phrase, virgin detected. unless you are a pedo of course and an incestual one at that

eroticism is destructive, love is flourishing, but they are both sides of the same coin.

Well I did tell that to a girl not so long ago.
>I love you as a human being
We are both in separate and fullfilling relationships btw

Nah, love isn't real.

Infatuation and obsession is.

Love is literally just a drug, like MDMA, or cocaine, and while that subjective experience is real, and the chemical effects, what we mean when we say love, i.e the romantic 18th century bullshit invention, clearly isn't real.

I also blame Marx and Engels for writing that book about how marriage simply is a business transaction between parties who have something to gain, and how this was so horrible, which it isn't at all.

If people based marriages and life partners based on rationality, instead of their pathetic whims, we wouldn't have a 50% divorce rate after 5 years.

If that is your mom, i would breed her for you.

Are you still friends?

You confuse love and lust, user; you know the latter well, but have said nothing for the former.

lol love the grace in your first sentence,
>this also neglects eroticism
will use :D

i don't get your math there, according to your equations men possess both utopian and utilitarian love.
also i reject the idea that love is known like a biological trait. call me romantic, but love (all types) to me is a response to biological stimuli in light of human knowledge, for example
>infant: this is my mother she feeds me i cling to her
this we call love, but we can admit that this is not full love, the baby doesn't have the knowledge of others to really have a CHOOSING love, it operates on mainly biological instinct.
BUT:
>adult: this is my mother, she did feed me and clothe me. now i am grown, I will choose to spend time with her, defend her, feed and clothe her
the grown child here has no direct imperative to help his mother, she has fulfilled her duty to the child. but the child still desires to help her. this to me is the result of observing biological behavior and reacting with a taught or honed virtue. this is love. it most certainly is not universal, it most certainly is culturally relative, but nonetheless these actions undertaken for this purpose are what i call LOVE and they most definitely exist as potential.
in the case of sex, monogamous love is similar. it is a constructed set of actions taken (or abstained from) without direct biological necessity. note that adoration, view of perfection, etc. are not required here. the LOVE is in the sacrifice of options and time, which reflects the human wisdom (i.e. knowledge outside of biology) that monogamy can breed a longer, more virtuous relationship. i would add that most relationships don't sustain this LOVE action set for very long and fail. but just because most fail or do not attempt does not mean that the result does not exist.
i do believe LOVE exists. not a feeling, but actions.

I haven't had a crush in years, I think I'm incapable of loving. I just want to have sex.

longest fucking outro for what purpose

did you even graduate highschool?

i enjoyed it
it wasn't a rush to conclude
it let me linger

are you a hick? modern humans haven't mutated in probably at least 10,000 years desu, especially not our brains

if the romantic 18th century bullshit love isn't 'real' than most of 18th century bullshit literature isn't 'real' either

There have been some small changes, such as retaining the ability to digest dairy past infancy. but overall we're pretty much identical to people from thousands of years ago.

>tfw have been chucked by multiple boyfriends and now have problems with intimacy

I feel like a sexless drone.

Isn't the premise of the question worded poorly?
It's as real as any other unweighted, non-mappable entity. People say there's love, so there is love. People say there is God, so there is. Whether or not it impinges on your existence and to what degree is where it starts to get interesting to think about. And whether it exists without people to experience it is the farthest I've gotten in my questioning.

Or can we teach machines to love? Is love a consequence of consciousness? A survival strategy?

beta think that love is real

what the fuck is this