Love doesn’t exist... also sacrifice whatever because of love is quite infantile.

love is a grave mental disease - Plato.

Love is a madness - Sócrates

There are two ways around to it. There are those who think of love as something for themselves, like a feeling they want to 'have.' And there are those that think of love as giving yourself to others, although it doesn't need to go so far as 'sacrifice.'

I dont have anything to say on which is 'more true',' but I do observe, what tends to happen is that those with the former perspective get broken hearts they blame others for, and get cynical.

I agree with Socrates and Plato, but that does not mean mental disease and madness don't exist.

The other day I was thinking about the phrase "beside myself" and thought how descriptive that phrase is. Then I looked up the etymology and it really tracks with being out of ones mind.

I was thinking of the thread on antinatalism and how the only time I've ever felt shear, unadulterated joy was the moment my son was born. I was beside myself. It's almost like I wasn't even there. I have experienced many feelings (mostly rage, cynicism, boredom, doubt, etc.) but love is the only one where I have been beside myself. My rage, for instance, has always been checked by sanity.

And when I think of it, maybe when my son was born was the only time that I was really me. Maybe the norm is not me. Maybe it's a misnomer. Maybe being normal is mad, a disease. I think that may be why I like artists. They seem mad.

Maybe the "sane" are beside themselves, and that is why we all seem a mystery to each other.

I also believe there are different types of love. And that there are only two feelings in life: Love and Fear. All other feelings are manifestations of one of those two.

For me, love is the ultimate sacrifice. It is the surrender of all of yourself - your health, your safety, your vulnerabilities, ego etc anything you could possibly offer for the well-being and prosperity of another. It is cherishing of someone or something with such high regard that you would put it all on the line to protect said thing. — Benj96

You're not incorrect. However, most love is myopic and counter-productive when espoused with primal emotion and in line with "one's jollies". What I mean by that is that which ultimately benefits you, emotionally, the idea of "sacrifice" is false, as doing so ultimately brings you a form of joy, pleasure, and euphoria, you would not experience if you had not done so. This lesser, youthful form is what I would call jollies. Only a proxy of, the illusion of not, merely looking out for number one, the self. Protection or sacrifice toward that or who elevates the self and provides for ones primal needs, is hardly a sacrifice at all, merely another vacuous self interest.

If you sincerely care for the well-being of a child for example, you will not allow them to do what is counterproductive to their own well-being and overall progression simply because it makes them happy or what they believe is their own well-being and prosperity. If as you say, you cherish someone or something, you will set aside your self-serving interests (requited admiration, short-term happiness or bliss) for something far greater. If you are not willing to do this, to be sad yourself, or witness that which is cherished to be in a temporarily sad or less-successful state in order to ensure a much less myopic and grander form of well-being, well, you are and have never not been in love, but with yourself.

Thoughts? — Benj96

SK:

Love is all, it gives all, and it takes all.

Love is the expression of the one who loves, not of the one who is loved. Those who think they can love only the people they prefer do not love at all. Love discovers truths about individuals that others cannot see.

The commandment is that you shall love, but when you understand life and yourself, then it is as if you should not need to be commanded, because to love human beings is still the only thing worth living for; without this life you really do not live.

Don't forget to love yourself.

And that there are only two feelings in life: Love and Fear. All other feelings are manifestations of one of those two. — James Riley

I don’t see the correlation between love and fear with feelings as uncertainty, pessimism, nihilism, etc... I guess love or fear are just emotions and depend about who is the person. You put as example your son. You had a lot of emotions about it. But they don’t come from love itself but the birth of your boy.
I don’t have kids yet neither a relationship. These two factors are supposed to be connected with love... this is why I don’t want them to exist.

I don’t see the correlation between love and fear with feelings as uncertainty, pessimism, nihilism, etc.. — javi2541997

They are all manifestations of fear.

You had a lot of emotions about it. But they don’t come from love itself but the birth of your boy. — javi2541997

I don't see a distinction with a relevant difference.

I don’t have kids yet neither a relationship. These two factors are supposed to be connected with love... this is why I don’t want them to exist. — javi2541997

And that could very well be why it is you (the rational mind) that is beside yourself, mad, suffering from a grave (no pun intended) mental disease. That is not intended as an insult, any more than a rational mind might charge that breeding is insane, given the circumstances. However, maybe our circumstances are a result of the rational mind. " . . . serious examination should lead us to realize how distasteful existence in the universe must be for a creature - man, for example - who finds it essential to divert himself." I think that was Jose Ortega yGasset, Meditations on Hunting, but I'm not sure.

They are all manifestations of fear. — James Riley

Not necessarily. Pessimism or nihilism can be connected to the feeling of not having hope about what the future holds but this context doesn’t make me have fear.

And that could very well be why it is you (the rational mind) that is beside yourself, mad, suffering from a grave (no pun intended) mental disease. That is not intended as an insult, any more than a rational mind might charge that breeding is insane, given the circumstances. However, maybe our circumstances are a result of the rational mind. — James Riley

I didn’t understand it as a insult. I really liked it and is a good explanation :100: :up:

Not necessarily. Pessimism or nihilism can be connected to the feeling of not having hope about what the future holds but this context doesn’t make me have fear. — javi2541997

The fear comes first. It is only because you are afraid that you lack hope for the future or what it holds, hence the pessimism or nihilism. That is my opinion, anyway.

I'll have to go to my "religion" and quote what I think it is:

Strangers passing in the street
By chance, two separate glances meet
And I am you and what I see is me
And do I take you by the hand
And lead you through the land
And help me understand the best I can?

I know that the main point of the song (Echoes) is about empathy, but I suspect empathy and love are not as far removed as they may initially seem. I'm still personally struggling with my own articulation of my own philosophy, based as it is in Schopenhauer's metaphysics.

Simply put, I think that the idea of different people is an illusion, which arises from lack of adequate cognitive capacity. If we have more of it, we'd be able to clearly see that individuation is something we to do the world, that does not belong to it originally. There are problems to be ironed out here, but on first approximation, I think it's correct.

So, in my view, one definition of love would be to see yourself in other people.

If we have more of it, we'd be able to clearly see that individuation is something we to do the world, that does not belong to it originally. — Manuel

I would place my emphasis on the word "world" that you use there. In that light, it's not merely "different people" which is an illusion, or that individuation is intra-specific.

Maybe "All" is one, and our artificial (perceived) separation from it is original sin. Maybe domestication of species, where we took something (a wolf?) and deprived it of it's essence, making it a dog, is where that misperception of separation began. I agree with you that love may be the way back ("If we have more of it, . . . ).

That is exactly right. I used the example of other people to make the point somewhat easier to conceptualize than the whole world.

I hope there is a way back, we have too little precious time left to save the human experiment and most of the wonderful life that we take liberties to destroy, with no consent. I get the intuition of what you say about "depriv[ing] of it's essence", but I happen to think that dogs are the most wonderful people. :p

:)

So I’ve a had a few glasses of wine and I want to go into the more mushy sentiments of Philosophy. — Benj96

Urgh, fine. Lets talk about the categorical imperative.

Like “love”.

Oh. :meh:

. Such a mediocre answer ...

. You did not even understand what they meant whith that truth ...

. What is Love?

. It depends. There are as many loves as there are people. Love is a hierarchy, from the lowest rung to the highest, from sex to superconsciousness. There are many, many layers, many planes of love. It all depends on you. If you are existing on the lowest rung, you will have a totally different idea of love than the person who is existing on the highest rung.

. Adolf Hitler will have one idea of love, Gautam Buddha another; and they will be diametrically opposite, because they are at two extremes.

. At the lowest, love is a kind of politics, power politics. Wherever love is contaminated by the idea of domination, it is politics. Whether you call it politics or not is not the question, it is political. And millions of people never know anything about love except this politics – the politics that exists between husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends. It is politics, the whole thing is political: you want to dominate the other, you enjoy domination.

. And love is nothing but politics sugar-coated, a bitter pill sugar-coated. You talk about love but the deep desire is to exploit the other. And I am not saying that you are doing it deliberately or consciously – you are not that conscious yet. You cannot do it deliberately; it is an unconscious mechanism.

. Hence so much possessiveness and so much jealousy become a part, an intrinsic part, of your love. That’s why love creates more misery than joy. Ninety-nine percent of it is bitter; there is only that one percent of sugar that you have coated on top of it. And sooner or later that sugar disappears.

. When you are in the beginning of a love affair, those honeymoon days, you taste something sweet. Soon that sugar wears off, and the realities start appearing in stark nakedness and the whole thing becomes ugly.

. Millions of people have decided not to love human beings any more. It is better to love a dog, a cat, a parrot; it is better to love a car – because you can dominate them well, and the other never tires to dominate you. It is simple; it is not as complex as it is going to be with human beings.

. At a cocktail party the hostess couldn’t help overhearing the conversation of a suave gentleman.

. “Oh, I adore her. I worship her,” declared the gentleman.

. “I would too if she were mine,” agreed his friend.

. “The way she walks and swishes. Her beautiful big brown eyes, her head so proud and erect…”

. “You’re very fortunate,” commented his friend.

. “I would too if she were mine,” agreed his friend.

. “The way she walks and swishes. Her beautiful big brown eyes, her head so proud and erect…”

. “You’re very fortunate,” commented his friend.

. “And do you know what really thrills me? The way she nibbles my ear.”

. “Sir,” the hostess interjected. “I couldn’t help listening to those affectionate words. In this day of numerous divorces I admire a man who so passionately loves his wife.”

. “My wife?” said the gentleman, surprised. “No – my champion race horse!”

. People are falling in love with horses, dogs, animals, machines, things. Why? Because to be in love with human beings has become an utter hell, a continuous conflict – nagging, always at each other’s throats.

. This is the lowest form of love. Nothing is wrong with it if you can use it as a stepping-stone, if you can use it as a meditation. If you can watch it, if you try to understand it, in that very understanding you will reach another rung, you will start moving upwards.

. Only at the highest peak, when love is not a relationship any more, when love becomes a state of your being, the lotus opens totally and great perfume is released – but only at the highest peak. At its lowest, love is just a political relationship. At its highest, love is a religious state of consciousness.

. I love you too, Buddha loves, Jesus loves, but their love demands nothing in return. Their love is given for the sheer joy of giving it; it is not a bargain. Hence the radiant beauty of it, hence the transcendental beauty of it. It surpasses all the joys that you have known.

. When I talk about love, I am talking about love as a state. It is unaddressed: you don’t love this person or that person, you simply love. You are love. Rather than saying that you love somebody, it will be better to say you are love. So whosoever is capable of partaking, can partake. Whosoever is capable of drinking out of your infinite sources of being, you are available – you are available unconditionally.

. That is possible only if love becomes more and more meditative.

. ‘Medicine’ and ‘meditation’ come from the same root. Love as you know it is a kind of disease: it needs the medicine of meditation. If it passes through meditation, it is purified. And the more purified it is, the more ecstatic.

. Nancy was having coffee with Helen.

. Nancy asked, “How do you know your husband loves you?”

. “He takes out the garbage every morning.”

. “That’s not love. That’s good housekeeping.”

. “My husband gives me all the spending money I need.”

. “That’s not love. That’s generosity.”

. “My husband never looks at other women.”

. “That’s not love. That’s poor vision.”

. “John always opens the door for me.”

. “That’s not love. That’s good manners.”

. “John kisses me even when I’ve eaten garlic and I have curlers in my hair.”

. “Now, that’s love.”

. Everybody has their own idea of love. And only when you come to the state where all ideas about love have disappeared, where love is no more an idea but simply your being, then only will you know its freedom. Then love is God. Then love is the ultimate truth.

. Let your love move through the process of meditation. Watch it: watch the cunning ways of your mind, watch your power-politics. And nothing else except continuous watching and observing is going to help. When you say something to your woman or your man, look at it: what is the unconscious motive? Why are you saying it? Is there some motive? Then what is it? Be conscious of that motive, bring it to consciousness – because this is one of the secret keys for transforming your life: anything that becomes conscious disappears.

. Your motives remain unconscious, that’s why you remain in their grip. Make them conscious, bring them to light, and they will disappear. It is as if you pull up a tree and bring the roots to the sunlight: they will die, they can exist only in the darkness of the soil. Your motives also exist only in the darkness of your unconsciousness. So the only way to transform your love is to bring all the motivations from the unconscious into the conscious. Slowly, slowly, those motives will die.

. And when love is unmotivated, then love is the greatest thing that can ever happen to anybody. Then love is something of the ultimate, of the beyond.

. That is the meaning when Jesus says, “God is love.” I say to you: Love is God. God can be forgotten, but don’t forget love – because it is the purification of love that will bring you to God. If you forget about God completely, nothing is lost. But don’t forget love, because love is the bridge. Love is the process of alchemical change in your consciousness.

Love always risks heartbreak; yet, it is written, 'hearts are made whole by breaking'. (Lost, after all, is the future tense of loved.)

:death: :flower:

For me, friendship (i.e. mutual care-pleasure-advantage ... re: I-You) is the highest form of love, and solidarity (for justice) is the highest form of friendship.

I don't remember asking your opinion about my answers pal :up:

Love means risking life ,it originate from lack and need
It's also a desire to possess the good forever

Love is how much of yourself you share with the other person/subject. How much of you that's been invested and adopted into the other, and vice versa. We love children the most as they are copies of us from the start and become more like us over time. The longer you are close to someone, the more you love them, even when you don't like them very much.

Infatuation and romantic love is mostly chemical with the added simulation of dreaming about the Beautiful future you can imagine with this new person, who seems, just perfect for you. Until the brain stops drugging your perceptions and you see the person as they are, which is hopefully somewhere close to the amazing, ideal person, you thought they were.

It's that simple in my opinion.

Until the brain stops drugging your perceptions and you see the person as they are, which is hopefully somewhere close to the amazing, ideal person, you thought they were — Razorback kitten

:up:

Simply put, I think that the idea of different people is an illusion, which arises from lack of adequate cognitive capacity. If we have more of it, we'd be able to clearly see that individuation is something we to do the world, that does not belong to it originally. There are problems to be ironed out here, but on first approximation, I think it's correct. — Manuel

This reminds me of a similar philosophy I journeyed into a few months back whereby I considered what it would be like to see the world not as discrete objects and things and definitions but one large continuum.

The difficulty is that when seen as an indiscreet unconfined and undefined whole ... speaking of “change” or “transformation” is pointless because from “what” is it “changing” and “leading to”. With no defined objects or descriptions for things... change is mute point. However there are things to learn about interactions from avoiding specifics and maintaining a macroscopic view “big picture”.

I think this is why sometimes the most basic observations are the most profound. Anyways as with regard to love I feel maybe “empathy” is the degree to which we compartmentalise and make discriminations between people.

For example I would say someone who begins by making note of peoples colour, background, social class, weight, height etc lacks empathy more than someone who begins with the inclusive: well we are all humans we all have the same emotions dreams ideas etc, and only after appreciating that , acknowledge the minor importance of specifics.
So I get what you mean

I don't remember asking your opinion about my answers pal :up: — javi2541997

This is a public forum. If you post here expect opinions when I don’t want input from others I simply “think to myself”

Agreed but I guess typing my comment as simply mediocre is not input at all. It is just mocking or underrating my opinion without argument.
I can be disagree with you but I don’t underrate your opinion/comment.

It is the surrender of all of yourself - your health, your safety, your vulnerabilities, ego etc anything you could possibly offer for the well-being and prosperity of another. — Benj96

Provided they do the same for you, first.

Besudes, what you're describing is known by the name "obsession".

true. There is little in the way of rationale to go with the sentiment in this case. Nothing to learn from

Provided they do the same for you, first. — baker

See part of me agrees: one would like to think they would return the favour. But then part of me believes that’s too “transactional”.
I will give you A if you be me B. It doesn’t feel like an encompassing definition of love but more “business” or “politics”.
For example a child could take for granted all that they receive from their parents and then not reciprocate very much if anything at all. And the parent will still love them in most cases. Also “unrequited” love is very real and this by definition is non transactional because the pursuer is getting zero interest from the pursued (unless we argue that the pursuer wants the “untenable” sensation). Is it infatuation or true love? I cannot say in that case.

But what I was getting at is that when someone loves their partner enough. They put the others happiness before their own even if it results in an outcome they personally didn’t want. Like losing them to another and not being vengeful and spiteful but instead hoping that they are happier with their new partner and wishing them good things.

I understand why people believe this is naive or stupid/ daft. That someone is deliberately letting themselves be a pushover. But on the contrary I think it’s one of the strongest character traits: to get out of the grip of transactional thinking. To not reference every act either directly or indirectly to how the self benefits.

This reminds me of a similar philosophy I journeyed into a few months back whereby I considered what it would be like to see the world not as discrete objects and things and definitions but one large continuum.

The difficulty is that when seen as an indiscreet unconfined and undefined whole ... speaking of “change” or “transformation” is pointless because from “what” is it “changing” and “leading to”. With no defined objects or descriptions for things... change is mute point. However there are things to learn about interactions from avoiding specifics and maintaining a macroscopic view “big picture”. — Benj96

Perhaps I am skipping or dancing around the problem but I'd take Schopenhauer's views here. The world is my representation - as it appears to me. The changes I'm able to detect are also representations. Behind those representation is will or energy. So at a higher level of complexity we get these differences, which at bottom end in one thing. But I could be way wrong.

For example I would say someone who begins by making note of peoples colour, background, social class, weight, height etc lacks empathy more than someone who begins with the inclusive: well we are all humans we all have the same emotions dreams ideas etc, and only after appreciating that , acknowledge the minor importance of specifics. — Benj96

That looks likely. The issue is it's impossible to have empathy all the time. I think we have only so much empathy we can show - a reserve of empathy if you will.

But yes, the more we distinguish others from ourselves, the easier is to treat them as not human and as not being part of my larger family. That can lead not only to indifference, but to hate too.

I understand why people believe this is naive or stupid/ daft. That someone is deliberately letting themselves be a pushover. But on the contrary I think it’s one of the strongest character traits: to get out of the grip of transactional thinking. To not reference every act either directly or indirectly to how the self benefits. — Benj96

People who indulge in romantic delusion are still engaging in it for the benefit they assume it has or will have for themselves.

The whole point of romantic delusions of the kind you describe is to derive pleasure from thinking of oneself as having "overcome transactional thinking", "being someone who is able to love unconditionally", and such. Such seemingly self-sacrificing romantic delusions are a massive ego boost.

Such seemingly self-sacrificing romantic delusions are a massive ego boost. — baker

I see your point. Perhaps it is for the indulgence of seeing oneself as somehow better/ inflating the ego but what bothers me is that if this type of love doesn’t exist, and the mind can only work in a “transactional” sense... and can be reduced to simple interactions of chemical “give and take” then we must dispose of any form or notion of consciousness that isn’t based firmly on materialistic mechanical scientific objectivism. The mystery as it were is sapped out of the human psyche and replaced with very cold hard objective grounds for the existence of a subject.

I’m not sure if I concede to that. In the basis that for example there are emergent properties which are seemingly larger than the parts. For example hydrogen and oxygen form a liquid with properties neither oxygen nor hydrogen can offer alone but only as a collective. Perhaps then ... the basis for the mind is transactional (like most of biochemistry would have us understand) but the collective sum.. is an emergent property that goes beyond transaction.

That’s why I believe this romanticised “delusion” may exist. Also in order to use the term “delusion” I would imagine you would have to have some superior knowledge of what the true “reality” is from which we all deviate when we are “deluded”. Please elaborate on such a reality as I’m sure the world would find this a very revolutionary discovery

. I think we have only so much empathy we can show - a reserve of empathy if you will. — Manuel

I agree because of such phenomena as “desensitisation” to violence for example. Things are horrific in rarity and somewhat expected/ un-noteworthy in regularity. We can only see the same act occur so many times before we lose interest no matter how extreme it is. This is partly why I imagine the privileged west persists in looking down on/ shunning the more aggressive/ inhumane activities that go on in third world countries. Because it is a “privilege” to be outraged - meaning it doesn't effect you enough to deplete the “shock factor” and so you can afford empathy.

I can imagine if you saw crimes every day you would have an apathy toward them that someone might misinterpret as you having no empathy. The usual “how can you just sit by and let this happen?” As you quite rightly said... there’s only so much empathy reserve. What is normal for one is abnormal for another.