❤️ Love ❤️

Conclusion: that stance is the centrism of social life.

What i mean is that love is relative.

The bestest girl in a town is not even clos to the bestest hirl in the us, and thats not even close to the bestest girl in the world

OP read this:
archive.org/details/TheArtOfLoving

Bad meme.

Sounds anti-intellectual

usually, I shitpost when I see a thread like this, today I don't understand how OP can be any more fucking stupid.

My point was that love isn't rational, so it doesn't matter whether the person you love is the best or not. If your love for someone is dependent on them being successful then it's likely not actually love.

I wasn't talking about the market, I was taking about utility (i.e. use value).

I would like to clarify that im not talking about shit like loving your parents. Thats unconditional love, though i do hate my parents for some of my autistic reasons.

I an talking about loving someone unrelated to you

HOW IS THIS STUPID besides being unrelated to leftism?

You're autistic. Stop posting.

It is. There is nothing intellectual in love. Is spontaneous, uncalled for and uncontrollable.

Obviously being able to love someone is an utility. What the fuck are you even talking about?

Love is utilizing EACHOTHER

The part i dont understand about love is why not love someone who is perfect [for you]?

Seems like most idiots just choose some random person, hence divorce in 5-10 years

Because it's an autistic question.
Like what? Why? because you're currently in love with them maybe? Doesn't take a big brain to realise you don't want to fuck up your current relationship for a relationship you MIGHT have in the future.

No it's not

Not so much about being successful.

Its about loving someone who you will get along with the most.

Don't listen to these mongrels. They have a very fetishistic view of love where it is perceived as something external to you, a kind of natural force outside of human control. In their world you fall in love by chance and your romance ends the same way. Happiness is a matter of luck in their romantic delusions. Obviously it doesn't work like that at all, perceiving love as some feeling just sets you up for failure. If you are interested in understanding love it's much better to perceive it as an activity, which enables you not only to better understand how relationships are built and destroyed but also allows you to experiment with getting better at it.

Lemme see how can I explain this to an autismo… hmm.
Well, you see, love is a feeling, you don't choose to have a feeling, you just have it or not.
Sometimes your path crosses with someone else whom makes your heart beat differently and that's nothing you can do about it, it simply happens.
It's 100% random, you don't choose it and you can't rationalize your way out of it when it happens.

It is. You have excess of yourself that you feel like giving away but you need an outlet.

Love is an excessive fetishization of another human being and thus spooky

Imagine a very powerful app that would map all your memories and based on that, it would produce the most perfect match to you on your entire continent or the entire world. I bet my fucking ass you would meet up with that girl and be disappointed ten fold because you don't know in what ways she is exactly supposed to be a good match to you, and besides that, you are still dreaming about that qt that you met back in high school who is not at all a good match to you, but for whom you have the fondest memories.

Welcome to human emotions, OP. This is Ep01: Love

But what if you find someone whos better than her? And then you find someone better than that person?

that's the state of most marriages now anyways

Then if you no longer no love your current partner you go fall in love with someone else. This isn't a difficult concept. Some people just love one person and one person only, it happens.

All emotions are spooks comrade. Even the fetishization of rationality is spooky.

Because there's no perfect [for you], despite what romantic novels like to tell you. Most people settle for good enough and live happier lives than those who waste their life searching for the perfect commodity TRUE LOVE.

...

When you are in love nobody is better than your sweetheart. If you "find someone better" then you weren't in love in the first place.

That's fucking wrong though. Utility is always utility for a subject. A claim of utility is a claim to know the other, and as such it ignores the self-contained identity of that object. Love on the other hand acknowledges that the other has it's own, ecstatic content and appreciates that through a process of communication.

Can you say it again in English please?

Next time you are at a party, or a bar, or any of the other bad excuses for festivity that our time has to oiler, notice the behavior of the couples there. See how they clutch at each other constantly, how they can hardly bear to he separated for one second, how one will suspiciously follow with their eyes any attractive person passing by.

It’s no accident that we are surrounded by the imagery of love on every side — comics, movies, cards, poems, songs, novels, and commercials sell back to us the fantasy of the happy ending we’ve never had, the perfect relationship we can never find. We feel that if we could just run into the right person somehow, everything would be fine — none of the ten thousand little humiliations and frustrations that stud our lives like the spikes of a bed of nails could touch us anymore: we would live forever in the frozen perfection of the last frame of the love-story comic; the eternal moment of meeting, the kiss that never ends. Love offers the last hope of escape from the terrifying isolation in which we find ourselves -the little box of a room inside the bigger box of our parents’ house, the apartment building, the commune or the college dorm, surrounded on every side by a million other identical little boxes, each one closed round its loneliness like mouths holding back the long scream they’re afraid to let out. Walk through the streets, anywhere, any night in the ghetto or in the suburbs, and listen as you pass an open window — the choked sobbing you’ll hear always sounds the same. Inside each of us is the naked, terrified child that was never allowed its childhood, dreaming of that one human being somewhere in the world to whom it can show itself, to whom it can sing and laugh and cry without being betrayed.

And when we find someone, there is the fear of loss. Couples try to build around themselves an airtight capsule to prevent the oxygen of their passion from boiling away in the huge cold vacuum around them. Often they succeed: they get rid of any outside threat to their union. But without renewal, the air inside gets stale. They turn on each other, tearing the thin walls to shreds, and hurtle away in opposite directions through emptiness. Or else they stay together, held less and less by any real desire for each other and more and more by a complicated web of habit, guilt, fear, deception and resentment, slowly poisoning each other, until they become helpless, vicious ghosts whose relationship is long revenge.

Explosion or suffocation, the result is the same — loneliness. No wonder “older and wiser heads” advise us to restrain such desires, to put up with scraps from the bare table of “companionship”. Settle for less, they say: true love is a fairy-tale. And we circle each other warily, our hearts clenched like fists around the fear of betrayal: we prefer starving alone, after awhile, to barely tasting a feast that can be snatched away from us without warning or that turns rotten after the first mouthful.

youtube.com/watch?v=s7w0eqUBp3c

Meme game fail

When you find something useful you're generally not appreciating the qualities of that thing because utility is always utility for you. By claiming that something is useful you're giving it a purpose outside of plainly existing. With love this isn't the case because you love your partner precisely because they're their own person. They serve no purpose other than being themselves. Because of this love consists of appreciating that person's qualities rather than using them to your own ends.

Sounds pretty dumb. To be able to love them is a purpose outside of plainly existing. It is using them for your own end, that end just happen to be love.

It's not dumb, you're just to stupid to appreciate what I'm saying. To say that you're "using" another person for their love misses my point entirely, which is that love is irrational and useless. Because it's useless utility doesn't apply to it –in the usual sense at least, you could absolutely twist that word around like a faggot if you wanted.

People with this autistic application of materialism should go fuck themself

Love is certainly not useless.

Oh really? What's is love used for then?

Its used for companionship.

Or it could be an excuse to relieve sexual tension

sexy times

To ease the anxiety of our separateness.

This is your brain on capitalist alienation and pornography

This is your brain on 19th century idealism and religious delusions.

Companionship and sex are both separate things from love. You can have them without also having love.

Exactly! And it's precisely because it it's useless that this happens. Love isn't subjecting another to yourself, it's a process of communication. If you ever fully understood the person you loved then you would cease to love then.

It is not useless because it happens.

Explain what you mean by this. There's loads of useless shit that happens all the time, how does something happening mean it's useless?

The first one I said isnt

Useful*

Yes it is. How isn't it?

I said or not and

That's irrelevant.

How is wanting a companion capitalist alienation?

I think you meant this as a reply to tbh.

Remember kids…

really it should be changed to romance but whatever.

It is useful because it causes something that is desirable ("easing the anxiety of our separateness").

Companionship is not a fucking thing of value (in the vulgar sense) or has anything to do with love.
Buy a dog of find some bloke at the bar

Even if love/romance is a bourgeois construct (which I don't think it is) I think it's still one worth keeping around. It's not like being invented by bourgeoisie makes something intrinsically bad.

You're making the claim that something being desirable means it has a use, which just isn't true.

Yeah and your hormones don't affect your behavior at all because gender is le spook and biology ain't real.

What the fuck do you think use means.

Desire is not love.

It's decadent and allows for excuses for the status quo. Ignore the world, retreat into your relationship with your wal-mart brand hambeast, at least you're getting laid huh huh.

Who said anything about desire?

Love is just lust + familiarity, all the other bullshit sprinkled around it is bourgeois.

That's the chemical reaction you talk about. It has nothing to do with love, which is a conscious activity.

Use isn't a synonym for "fulfilling a desire", brainlet.

t. incel who is angry that nobody loves them

Why not tell me what it means then? Since you are clearly intellectually superior to me. By the way, all intelligences are equal.

t. someone who will betray the revolution because she responded to a text 4 hours later with one word.

Use is a purpose for which something is employed. Love has the effect of fulfilling your desires some of the time, but characterizing that as it's use is just wrong.

t. retard who thinks that love means basing your sense of self on another person, because years of chronic loneliness has left them with a dependent personality and no way to relate to others without couching it in terms of revolutionary action

Love is employed to ease our feelings of separateness. To ease it is a desire. I really don't see what's so confusing about it.

Love isn't something you choose to do. It can't be intentionally employed, which means it doesn't have a purpose.

It is, though. Read Fromm:

Not sure where that books says that love is something that is intentionally employed. I'd appreciate it if you'd point me to where it says that :^)

From page 1 (16 in the PDF) to page 133 (148 in the PDF).

Wow, you didn't seem to make an argument to support your point here, user. How unexpected! :^^^)

Names are not something that can be argued for. Read the first 6 pages, it should convince you that talking about love as an activity instead of a natural force outside our control leads to much more fruitful understanding of what it means to be human.

You could say the same thing about friends OP. Or basically any choice in life. Stop being an autist and just have some fun ;).

I wasn't born wealthy, extremely attractive, white or female. It is others interests that they stay away from me. I can only bring down someone socioeconomically. To say this isn't true is absolving capitalism of any effect on romantic relationships. I'm not saying without capital I would be swimming in potential partners, but maybe I would have a chance save for winning the powerball or something.

Love is spooky but I'm entirely okay with being possessed by this spook.

...

Love being an activity is entirely irrelevant to it being useful/intentional or not. You can try to love someone, but you can't choose to.

Do you love your parents? do you have lust for them?

I think this thread is specifically about romantic love and not platonic.

Wow I had no idea Schopenhauer posted on Holla Forums!

Love is just an autistic obsession with a person in stead of a class of objects.

Nuke all incels

Romantic love can evolve into platonic love over time.

I disagree with Schopenhauer on a lot, but it's hard to deny that he made a lot of good points. Anyways, I'm not sure Schopenhauer would agree with my characterization of love, since I don't view love as a uniquely powerful psychic force.

getting a job and making friends is a lot easier than a gf.

It has nothing to do with your delusions about love. If you accept love for what it is, i.e., an activity, your last sentence's meaning is very close to how Schopenhauer viewed free will.

When you put it that way it sounds fucking awful.

Don't worry, it's not true. Love is not a feeling, it's an activity.

love is the self commodification of the human unit for sexual consumption for other humans

you just found one other unit and stuck with it

Love is what this discussion has been about, no? I don't think my views on love are entirely irrelevant here. You're reading a bit too deeply into my posts tbh.

Anyways, I think that Schopenhauer's views on free will are very similar to Freud's (and Lacan's), so I can see how you'd mistake me for a Schopenhauerian, but I'm more of a Lacanian tbqh.

Gross.

I'm critical of Lacan, and I can see how people dislike him, but honestly I think there's a lot of worthwhile stuff that can be pulled from his work.
Anyways, that's not an argument, user. You're just mad that I'm right and you're wrong tbqh

I know what I believe to be right, if I'm mad for anything it's that you are unwilling to consider love as an activity for a second and go on an intellectual adventure exploring the implications of this change in definitions. It should excite you, but I think you might be just lazy.

I think the distinction you draw between love as a feeling and love as an activity is a false one, and furthermore I don't think the implications of considering love as an activity/process in any way challenges my claim, which was that love has no use in itself. Call me lazy, but I'm not going to respond to an argument you've only as of yet alluded to.

What a great argument.

I agree my argument was good, but this response to it was outstanding. Truly impressive, user :^)

...