What is Love

File: 1.73 MB, 450x337, 1424799003811.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What is Love Anonymous Sat Feb 28 03:31:27 2015 No.6204647 [Reply] [Original]

What do the great philosophers/writers say about Love?

Is it purely physical (chemical reactions) and thus worthless, or is it a metaphysical-transcendent thing, and thus precious?

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Sat Feb 28 03:35:29 2015 No.6204653 If happiness were just "chemicals", would it also be worthless? Considering the physical to be worthless is what Nietzsche meant when he used the term "nihilism".

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 03:36:33 2015 No.6204654 File: 59 KB, 512x525, aristocrat face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204653 >Nietzsche >quoting a physical being point discarded.

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Sat Feb 28 03:37:51 2015 No.6204657 >>6204654 Dionysus says the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 03:38:34 2015 No.6204660 File: 84 KB, 957x710, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204647 is that a wig or just a burnt out mop

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 03:39:39 2015 No.6204665

>metaphysical-transcendent thing, and thus precious?
this, it's just a feeling for guarantee sex, so the nature makes safe that human beings doesn't die. one of my friends really loved his gf, however, in holidays he cheated on her. srsly, its just for producing children.

>implying monogamy isn't the solution for this problem

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 03:40:52 2015 No.6204666 >>6204647 Baby don't hurt me Don't hurt me No more rocking synth line lacan

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 03:42:12 2015 No.6204670
File: 30 KB, 500x295, Cptl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6204647
>>6204647
>Is it purely physical (chemical reactions) and thus worthless, or is it a metaphysical-transcendent thing, and thus precious?
Ask yourself the exact same question about money, then realize that you framed the question in a way that makes a good answer impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 03:44:41 2015 No.6204678 File: 108 KB, 1237x1017, 1413346018644.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204670 money has higher dimensions beyond the material...

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 03:49:21 2015 No.6204680 >>6204678 Yeah, but are they 'transcendend-metaphysical', or if so, does this fact alone make money be valueable? Bit of a stretch really.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 03:50:12 2015 No.6204682 >>6204678 oh fuck I laughed like a cunt you stupid nationalist bastard

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 03:51:09 2015 No.6204687 File: 459 KB, 500x579, 1421216774897.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204678 >significant figures >significant events My god.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 03:57:35 2015 No.6204700

>caring what a bunch of ancient dudes who lived back when marriage was a contract said about love

Come to your own conclusions, sheeple. Context means a lot when dealing with something as vague as love. Not to mention that the Greeks wouldn't known jack about chemicals in the brain.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:01:28 2015 No.6204708 It's just chemicals and it doesn't need a capital letter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:05:15 2015 No.6204719 File: 50 KB, 600x900, 1424865230543.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204682 >>6204687 >marxists >in charge of Love full kek...get out of my thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:08:45 2015 No.6204722 >>6204719 Love isn't the kind of thing you can be in charge of, not that reactionaries would know the first thing about such matters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:12:35 2015 No.6204728 File: 24 KB, 448x308, Der Furher 1920s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204722 >Love isn't the kind of thing you can be in charge of are you saying love is a reaction? Guess who knows a lot about reactions...

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:14:08 2015 No.6204734 >>6204728 that's not what he/she is saying at all

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:14:31 2015 No.6204735 >>6204647 Plato - Symposium

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:14:41 2015 No.6204736 >>6204722 You can, actually. You can manipulate your brains bio-chemistry quite easily.

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Sat Feb 28 04:16:48 2015 No.6204743 >>6204736 >distinguishing "you" from your brain's biochemistry

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:17:33 2015 No.6204745 >>6204728 Since the reaction of reactionaries largely consists of denial and clinging to the things you're used to, yeah, I have a clear picture of their relation to love. It scares them and they strive to make it impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:17:56 2015 No.6204747 >>6204743 You have a whole body outside of your brain, dood.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:19:14 2015 No.6204751 >>6204745 >Since the reaction of reactionaries largely consists of denial and clinging to the things you're used to Like those faggots who read paper books instead of ebooks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:23:07 2015 No.6204761 >>6204751 Personally I can't stand reading books or just long works in general off of a screen. It's not that I think it's an inferior method, it's just that I can't focus for shit when I try to use it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:23:57 2015 No.6204764 >>6204751 Now there may be something close to love in that, even if it's an utterly sterile, misguided love.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:29:05 2015 No.6204777 >>6204764 >implying sterility is bad

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:34:37 2015 No.6204788

>>6204777
In terms of biological reproduction, no, it's probably even good. I meant sterile in a more abstract sense, a love that nothing will ever come out of, as the physical book don't love you back, because they're just piles of paper. Also, a love that is primarily narcissistic, as the books are mainly loved as an extension of your love to yourself, even if some aspects, the smell etc. may have an erotic component.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:35:48 2015 No.6204791 >>6204747 this, and acculturated habits and bodily techniques and muscle-retentions, etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:41:21 2015 No.6204804 We're all just chemical mechanisms, life has no meaning, perception is just an illusion, and just be yourself :) ;) :D

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:50:54 2015 No.6204830 File: 505 KB, 1132x1392, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204804 >perception is illusion No. But the rest are true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:54:47 2015 No.6204834 >>6204830 Of course they are, this is 2015.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:56:02 2015 No.6204837 >>6204719 No greather love hath a worker than to lay down his job for his class.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:56:14 2015 No.6204838

>>6204830
That part about perception being accurate has recently become important among the fedora tribe, probably because they realize that once we begin to question our perceptions, this relativizes the part about us just being chemical reactions. So, in order to retain your adoration of science, you become unscientific, as if you wanted to prove the thesis of a dialectic of enlghtenment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 04:59:08 2015 No.6204840 File: 112 KB, 1280x720, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204838 No, it's just that there is no evidence that what we experience is an illusion :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:01:04 2015 No.6204845 File: 33 KB, 160x173, Heidegger-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204840 If that is so then everything we experience must be regarded as true. Aletheia.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:02:31 2015 No.6204848 File: 15 KB, 201x277, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204845 Not unless we have evidence that what we experience is true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:02:41 2015 No.6204849 >>6204840 >there is no evidence to warrant skepticism You're a special kind of retard, aren't you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:04:21 2015 No.6204852 >>6204848 But "evidence of truth" makes sense only if you keep the truth/illusion dichotomy, that is to say, if you split or duplicate this world into two opposing worlds.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:04:26 2015 No.6204853 >>6204849 >calling what we experience an illusion >scepticism No, anon, you are the retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:05:29 2015 No.6204854 >>6204852 No, there is what is and what isn't. Everything must be one of these.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:06:18 2015 No.6204855 >>6204854 >There is what isn't. eh

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:06:55 2015 No.6204856 >>6204853 I didn't call it that, I just pointed out how insistence that it is accurate has somehow managed becoming part of the fedora creed, when in fact we don't, and presumably won't, know how our perceptions relate to anything outside our minds.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:07:48 2015 No.6204857 >>6204855 Isn't is a categorisation describing a lack of existence in the physical world, as opposed to imagination.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:08:58 2015 No.6204858 >>6204856 Oh, so you were arguing against a strawman. Why reply to me about it, then?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:09:02 2015 No.6204859 >>6204647 The important questing is who is the semen demon?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:09:18 2015 No.6204861 >>6204854 >look at this everyone, see it? >this is one of those things that aren't >[pointing at thin air]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:11:41 2015 No.6204863 >>6204861 I don't think I ever did that, anon. There are things, you know, that exist only as imaginary figures, such as unicorns, vampires, gods, and sea monsters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:12:14 2015 No.6204865 >>6204858 >a strawman Someone in this thread said the sentence 'perception is an illusion' wrong. Not unwarranted, mind you, but wrong. That was the person I was replying, and if you aren't that person, then why did YOU start replying?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:13:54 2015 No.6204866 >>6204865 I am that person. It is wrong, there is no evidence for it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:14:10 2015 No.6204868 >>6204857 And what makes you distinguish those two worlds in a fundamental and/or fixed way rather than it being a difference of degrees?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:15:16 2015 No.6204869 >>6204863 >There are things Okay. >that exist I like where this is going... >only as imaginary figures Aaand ya blew it. That application of 'things' and 'exist' is pretty damn dubious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:15:23 2015 No.6204870 >>6204868 Because it is a dichotomy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:16:25 2015 No.6204871 >>6204869 Because 'exist only' in the imagination means they are exclusive to the imagination and cannot exist outside of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:17:25 2015 No.6204874 >>6204866 There is no evidence either way, so by your own reasoning, our perception is neither accurate nor inaccurate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:18:28 2015 No.6204877 >>6204871 Do you think there is a direct experience?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:19:08 2015 No.6204878 >>6204871 The point is that there are no 'things that exist in imagination' because 'thing that exists' already means it's real, not imaginary.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:21:43 2015 No.6204880

>>6204877
Define 'direct experience' if you mean the reaction of senses to external stimuli, then yes, this can be observed.
>>6204874
Good job, retard. You've found out that you don't need to take a stance on everything.
>>6204878
That's not what it means, moron. Go back to /pol/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:22:32 2015 No.6204881 >>6204880 reaction to stimuli =/= direct experience

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:24:55 2015 No.6204886 >>6204880 >Define 'direct experience' experience that isn't mediated or contextual or in any other way dependent on something other

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:25:58 2015 No.6204888

>>6204880
>You've found out that you don't need to take a stance on everything.
Whereas you took a stance on something you cannot possibly know. In other words, you have succeeded in proving yourself wrong.
>That's not what it means, moron. Go back to /pol/.
Ok are you trying to imply that the statement existence=reality is antisemitic?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:27:16 2015 No.6204889 >>6204881 Then define 'direct experience' >>6204886 So something that is not dependent on anything? Because everything in the universe is dependent on something else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:29:17 2015 No.6204892 >>6204889 >everything in the universe is dependent on something else That means there's no ultimate reality then (against which you could oppose illusion).

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:29:26 2015 No.6204893 >>6204889 >everything in the universe is dependent on something else. If something wasn't, you wouldn't be able to detect it in the first place, so justify your ontological faggotry.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:29:49 2015 No.6204894

>>6204888
I didn't take a stance, though, you moron. I simply stated that there is no evidence for the claim that reality is an illusion.
Existence means that it is. When I say that it exists only in the imagination I am saying that it is only in the imagination.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:31:45 2015 No.6204897 >>6204892 >ultimate reality Define 'ultimate reality'. >>6204893 >you wouldn't be able to detect it in the first place how so?

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:35:14 2015 No.6204900

>>6204894
>I didn't take a stance, though, you moron
Yes you did, you said it is untrue that perception is an illusion, when you had arrived at that conclusion by reasoning that just as strongly implies the truth of the statement, as there's no evidence for perceptions being accurate, either. So, if you applied your logic with any degree of rigor, you'd arrive at 'a and not a' which is literally the paradigmatic case of a necessary falsehood.
>Existence means that it is
Don't try to heidegger me, cunt. That's a meaningless statement and you know it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:37:00 2015 No.6204903 >>6204897 >how so? Well, in order for you to detect it, it needs to have a, however mediate, relation to you (say, that light reflects off it and into your eyes).

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:37:52 2015 No.6204905 >>6204900 No, I said it is wrong, not that it is absolutely untrue. Given current evidence it is wrong. It's not my fault that you don't know what existence means.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:38:57 2015 No.6204909 >>6204903 That wouldn't make its existence dependent on anything, though.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:42:48 2015 No.6204912

>>6204905
>I said it is wrong, not that it is absolutely untrue
That's a meaningless distinction if I ever saw one. Statements without evidence aren't wrong, they're simply unwarranted, and may still be either right or wrong. Maybe you're conflating knowledge with truth?
And you don't know what existence is, as is very clear from your heideggerian esoteric ramblings. 'I am' doesn't mean anything, it's simply an incomplete sentence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:43:43 2015 No.6204915 >>6204912 >right and wrong are the same as true and untrue Right and wrong don't even concern the validity of a claim, you idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:46:13 2015 No.6204919 >>6204909 I thought this was about knowledge and perception, not existence? Also, being made out of the kind of stuff upon which light reflects seems to at least imply dependence on a lot of things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:48:02 2015 No.6204921 >>6204919 How do you know there are things that light doesn't reflect?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:49:58 2015 No.6204926 >>6204915 >Right and wrong don't even concern the validity of a claim, you idiot. Do you have access to a thesaurus dipshit, right and true are literally synonymous, as are wrong, false and untrue.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:50:29 2015 No.6204927

>>6204909
It does insofar as you consider the way a thing appears. Supposing that a thing is something beyond its appearance has no absolute basis.
It is true that a world can appear as being divided into the worlds of appearance and truth, but such doubled and oppositional world is based on some desire or will rather than necessity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:51:00 2015 No.6204928 >>6204921 My point exactly, I wouldn't know. Unless I can perceive them with my other senses, that is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:53:29 2015 No.6204930 >>6204926 >implying any words are direct synonyms >implying you know a anything >>6204928 Then I don't believe they exist (remember, this is not the same as saying I believe they don't exist).

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 05:59:19 2015 No.6204941 >>6204930 >no direct synonyms Ok you're grasping at straws now, let's leave it. >Then I don't believe they exist This wasn't about their existence to begin with, but rather about our capacity of knowing anything about them in case they do exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:02:53 2015 No.6204947 >>6204941 >in case I don't posture.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:04:17 2015 No.6204950 File: 137 KB, 500x282, thatguy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204947 Did you just call hypothetical statements posturing?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:05:18 2015 No.6204951 >>6204950 >what if stuff exists that you cannut no!' >so le deep epic continental philosophy xD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:06:19 2015 No.6204954 If one doesn't love the earth or the dirt then I don't trust their love of men.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:08:15 2015 No.6204957 >>6204951 >only continental philosophy concerns itself with hypothetical questions Guess we'll have throw theoretical physics and math in with the literature departments, then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:08:31 2015 No.6204959 >>6204647 99% of philosophers (starting with the Greeks) agree - Women are subhuman and exist only to breed more philosphers, while showing your member up a boys hindmost is the true measure of life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:09:16 2015 No.6204961 >>6204954 Who said that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:14:07 2015 No.6204966 File: 596 KB, 1000x750, 1424896597107.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204957 >I don't know the difference between a legitimate hypothesis and posturing

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:17:35 2015 No.6204971 >>6204966 >marxist-leninst >defender of human rights everytime

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:19:08 2015 No.6204972

>>6204966
Well, since you're the one wjo talks of posturing, explain the difference, and please include an explanation of how my statements regarding hypotheitical entities and our knowledge of them are illegitimate.

Also, what gives you the idea that this has anything to do with continental philosophy, Foucault and Derrida talk mostly about history, literature, power and sexuality, not about the relation between a thing's existence and our ways of perceiving it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:20:47 2015 No.6204976 >>6204972 Hypotheses are based on current evidence, posturing is just asking questions with no grounding.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:20:51 2015 No.6204977

>>6204961
I did, but I'm really just aping Nietzsche and Pessoa.

How does one in general love and befriend someone else who doesn't love the earth, who doesn't love existence and feel that they are overflowing with life from the simple brute impact that the entire world makes upon them?

How do I make myself love a women who doesn't feel the cold biting wind across her face in the evening and feel that she hasn't already from that simply impression redeemed her existence in full?

It's getting too lonely on these mountain peaks.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:23:57 2015 No.6204984

>>6204976
I didn't ask a question, though, I made a statement based on evidence: our perception of objects is dependend on their physical properties, therefore things with different physical properties would exist unperceived. So, what are you on about?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:24:50 2015 No.6204986 >>6204977 >Pessoa Wasn't he closer to Schopenhauer and his pessimism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:25:00 2015 No.6204988 >>6204977 It really does sound like a cheap justicification of your scat fetish tbh.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:27:39 2015 No.6204996

>>6204986
Alberto Caeiro's (one of his major heteronyms) early stuff is pretty much an optimistic, affirmational poet. Downplaying the intelllect, exulting feeling and existing purely, embracing things as they are in their exteriority. Not much like Schopenhauer at all.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:28:27 2015 No.6204998

>>6204984
>our perception of objects is dependend on their physical properties
>dependend
OK

But your posturing has no basis, there is no reason to believe these objects exist at all.
>durr but you can't know nuffin
You're wrong. We can detect all objects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:30:30 2015 No.6205002 >>6204996 >Alberto Caeiro Do you recommend any work in particular?

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:31:46 2015 No.6205006

>>6204998
>there is no reason to believe these objects exist at all
I never made a statement regarding the probability of the existence of anything whatsoever, that's completely besides the point.
>We can detect all objects.
Yeah right, and I'm the one making claims without evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:32:46 2015 No.6205009 >>6205006 My claim is not without evidence, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:34:34 2015 No.6205011 >>6205009 Ok, evidence for our ability to detect all objects, present it. And it better not be a list of objects we have detected, because that doesn't prove shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:35:46 2015 No.6205017 >>6205011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2856835/We-supervision-human-eye-invisible-infrared-light-researchers-find.html

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:40:02 2015 No.6205028 >>6205017 So, we can perceive a spectrum of light we already knew was there, and that's your proof that no entity can elude detection? You're either very young or very stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:40:51 2015 No.6205031 >>6205028 >>>/tumblr/ Go cry about science there, kid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:42:44 2015 No.6205034 >>6205031 You're the one making claims without evidence, not me. Science is not your friend, science thinks you suck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:43:35 2015 No.6205036 >>6205034 >You're the one making claims without evidence see>>6205028

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:48:40 2015 No.6205047

>>6205036
Which of these was a claim without evidence?
The part about perceiving infrared draws from the article you posted, the part about you considering this to be proof that all objects can be detected is derived from the fact that you posted the link to the article as an answer to my demanding such proof, and the inference that you are either a kid or a retard can be inferred from the discrepancy between the the two. Everything I said has a basis in evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 06:57:38 2015 No.6205063 >>6205036 wow, give up

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:06:52 2015 No.6205085 >>6205047 >he thinks evidence accounts for everything pure ideology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:09:18 2015 No.6205090 >>6205085 I don't think that, and didn't say it, so kindly fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:11:38 2015 No.6205096 File: 163 KB, 310x330, IMG_4252.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6205090 Stay butthurt, analytic faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:14:21 2015 No.6205102 >>6205096 Dude, the guy I was arguing with was emphatically on the analytic team, and kept accusing me of being a continental. But if if you're doing this to make sure I stay balanced and despise everyone equally, I apprechiate it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:16:07 2015 No.6205104 File: 402 KB, 893x1024, IMG_0428.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6205102 Learn to spell, too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:31:45 2015 No.6205132 >>6205104 Ok, you're just trying to make me mad, but unless you don't know the difference between emphasis and empathy, I don't see how anything in that last post would strike you as incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:34:00 2015 No.6205135 >>6205132 >apprechiate

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:39:35 2015 No.6205148 >>6205135 Oh snap, I am terribly sorry about that. English isn't my fkrst language, so shit like that keeps happening. None of that is an excuse, though, brb killing myself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:48:27 2015 No.6205162 File: 42 KB, 587x599, 1407534664097.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] To love something is to make it yours, to take it up into your own.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 07:57:09 2015 No.6205169 >>6205162 This is to kill it. Love is possible only on the basis of an irreducible otherness.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:00:16 2015 No.6205172

>>6205169

Hardly. Irreducible otherness is not love, its submission. If I help my friend because I respect his will, then he owns me. If I help my friend because his causes are my causes, because I feel his pain and take ownership of it, then what is that but love?

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:11:35 2015 No.6205189

>>6205172
Without otherness there is no relation at all. Your fear of otherness, of aliens and alienation, your perception of it as submission discloses your slavery to the values of the I, identity, and property.
If you want to remove alienation you must become absolute spirit, having then nothing outside yourself that would determine you. You must become a tyrant in relation to yourself.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 08:53:17 2015 No.6205262
File: 259 KB, 1024x1024, B9qfCVBCEAAhy3h.jpg large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

From what I've read, I'd definitely say it's majorly psychological and to deal with your subconscious' wants. What the "soul" wants.
The matter on if you need that love is up for debate, but your subconscious tends to believe to know what's best for you with good reason, for the most part. It's rather new territory that should be covered more. All of that which deals with the fact that we "use 10% of our brains" is rather true, at least consciously we do use a very small portion; we don't pay conscious attention to every little detail, but our subconscious does. The subconscious records and picks up on cues which the conscious mind simply can't and the cues which people in love tend to send out are generally things you've been looking for, whatever it may be. There are several ways to make them sync together with one another, however, and that's what you want and you won't achieve that by being a self-loathing little tumblr kid or having no dreams since we work on a goal-system, but most of us shut out that voice or desire to carry out these goals by worrying too much whether it'll work or not. That's where "intuition" comes into play, the gut feeling isn't typically for nothing, but it depends on how much you've tended to trust it throughout the years. It's all very vast. Synchronicity would deal much with the matter of love and this is what's regarded as so mystical about it, "love", but inside you've always had the thought of seeing your love again, of having them, and your subconscious one way or another calculates things which your conscious mind can't and it all seems like a coincidence and that it's "meant to be", but your thoughts really do have power and if you've got a goal in sight and think of only that goal, you'll start to work towards it even if you don't realize that the inner workings of your brain are already headed towards that goal via networks that your conscious mind can't connect, however bright you may think you are, your subconscious is definitely much more brighter and you have to get these two to work as one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 09:34:10 2015 No.6205408 >>6205262 >more brighter

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 09:45:00 2015 No.6205455 >>6205408 Sun is more brighter than grass is brighter than night. It's a comparison between two different brighter-than relations. Are you seriously this unliterary?

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 09:47:53 2015 No.6205462

>>6204647
>No one can live happily who has regard to himself alone and transforms everything into a question of his own utility; you must live for your neighbour, if you would live for yourself.
- Seneca

>No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
-John Donne

>When two lie tasting, limb by limb
>life's bloom, when flesh gives foretaste of delight,
>and Venus is ready to sow the female field,
>they hungrily seize each other, mouth to mouth
>the spittle flows, they pant, press tooth to lip -
>vainly, for they can chafe no substance off
>nor pierce and be gone, one body in the other.
>For often this seems to be their wish, their goal,
>so greedily do they cling in passion's bond.
- Lucretius

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:07:03 2015 No.6205516 >>6204647 It's not purely chemicals. Is a heroin addict happy? They experience euphoria, but are they truly happy? I happiness as more of a gestalt state of being

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 10:28:19 2015 No.6205596
File: 323 KB, 1280x1032, 1418563671280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>The ultimate aim of all love affairs is more important than all other aims in man's life, and therefore it is quite worthy of the profound seriousness with which everyone pursues it; for what is decided by it is nothing less than the composition of the next generation.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 11:33:00 2015 No.6205781

>>6205462
>No one can live happily who has regard to himself alone and transforms everything into a question of his own utility; you must live for your neighbour, if you would live for yourself.

So let your neighbor fuck thy wife?

>No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

Orgies!

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 11:43:10 2015 No.6205802

>>6205516

You're equating being in love with happiness, which I don't think applies. Would a person facing every kind of misfortune (financial, disease, w/e) say that they are happy as long as they are still in love?

Or how about just the simple fact of having one's love one taken away, for whatever reason. Does the person stop loving immediately after their loved one(s) die or are kidnapped or just decide to take a vacation of their own accord?

Love is a drug, no more, no less. People tend to turn to it when something is missing, much like some people do to heroin.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 11:49:07 2015 No.6205820

>>6204838
>recently

Whatever happened to the Wien Circle and logical empirism? Don't people even bother to acquaint themselves with the history of their discourse?

I'm joking of course, the average fedora-head is 99% likely to be a STEM faggot, which usually also means that one is completely ignorant of any underlying philosophical issues with their work. Muh 'objectivity' and all...

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 11:54:44 2015 No.6205841 >>6205596 > some things people do are more important because they lead to more people doing more things

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 12:01:16 2015 No.6205871

Both of the options you give are attempting the same thing: reducing a changing complex phenomena to a fix simple formula. Which is a normal human tendency. So, the correct answer is just that which seems convincing to you, cause its role is not to reveal you the real state of things, just to get rid of the question.

What we call love is just a social relationship, or rather our image of a social relationship. It is just the individual experience of a social phenomena. We need to bind ourselves to others in different ways otherwise there would be no society, so our minds use all sorts of means to do this. "Love" is one of them, but there are many others.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 12:44:40 2015 No.6206004 >>6204647 That's a man

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 12:59:26 2015 No.6206079 >>6204647 Baby don't hurt me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 13:37:54 2015 No.6206260 >>6205841 >no things will be done at all if we stop doing this

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 13:46:31 2015 No.6206299 define "love"

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 14:13:41 2015 No.6206383 >>6204647 Bby don't hurt me :(

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 14:52:57 2015 No.6206521 >>6204647 "love was a string of coincidences that gather significance and became miracle" -Chimamanda Adichie

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 14:58:01 2015 No.6206552 File: 34 KB, 450x330, Adorno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6204647 Love is the power to see the similar in the dissimilar.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 16:21:56 2015 No.6206888 >>6204647 Love is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's the vehicle that facilitates our conception and understanding of Beauty-in-itself.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 16:33:52 2015 No.6206926

>>6205189

>remove alienation you must become absolute spirit

lel, if this is the same as abandoning the world and going total idealism, it's hardly something that will make you have something to do in power relationships.

it's obvious that if you abandon the problem you will not have nothing to do with it, no relationship, but it's questionable that is the best solution for me

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 16:38:11 2015 No.6206944 >>6204647 Love of a woman - purely physical (chemicals, plus social conditioning, plus learned reflexes) Love of the Lord - metaphysical-transcendent (the most precious and blissful thing in the Universe)

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 16:49:24 2015 No.6206993 >>6206944 I don't get it. Are you trying to tell me that the love of a good woman is infinitely more immediate and tangible than the "love of God"? Because that's what I'm getting from this.

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 16:51:32 2015 No.6206998

Oh, and love is just an institution based on human frailty
What's your paradise gotta do with Adam and Eve?

Maybe love is just an economy based on resource scarcity
But what I fail to see is what that's gotta do with you and me

-The enlightened Father John Misty

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 16:59:21 2015 No.6207032 >>6204653 what is happiness other than just 'chemicals'?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 17:04:38 2015 No.6207058 >>6207032 Some monolithic metaphysical mystery. Remember kids; if you can explain it it's utterly worthless to the human condition. Everything's gotta be spooky and unknowable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 17:11:17 2015 No.6207088 >>6207058 it's gotta be because it is

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 17:12:10 2015 No.6207090 >>6206944 >not speaking of love univocally >not closing your eyes while dancing the same way you close your eyes in your lover's clutches Love of the earth is love of the sky is love of man is love of everything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 17:13:54 2015 No.6207094 >>6207058 this is actually true

Anonymous Sat Feb 28 17:17:11 2015 No.6207107

>>6204647
I think it's a chemical reaction in the brain, purely a physical affair, but I don't think that detracts from the beauty of it.

Even something like altruism or love of a god is turning those physical processes towards an abstract idea. There's no difference in my opinion, the human brain is rather complex so I don't see any reason why love cannot be applied to ideas rather than physical entities. I think by applying this love to abstractions makes humans more apt to believe this is something greater than love of another person, and certainly I think that such a love is unusual and out of the ordinary for most people, so unusual states of consciousness or odd sensations and emotions might ensue, and we tend to mistake those as something "divine". But in reality it's just a psychological illusion we put upon ourselves.

Sam Harris has some interesting discourses on meditation, of controlling human psychological phenomena to benefit us emotionally, psychologically, and physically. I think this is a proper view to be had on the matter, rather than labeling it as prayer to some divine being or beings, which as I mentioned before can achieve similar results. The attribution of this phenomena to the divine is an outdated concept that's prone to cause a number of other issues. Staying grounded in rationalism is a necessity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 17:24:03 2015 No.6207131 >>6207088 >>6207094 Joke's on you lads. I was being satirical.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 17:29:00 2015 No.6207145 what is love? i think it's more interesting to ask why there is love/procreation out there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 28 18:36:10 2015 No.6207391 >>6207145 >why there is love/procreation out there. This is largely a scientific question and one scientists have a pretty good idea about, which is fitness.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature