This is quite a leap. It's not clear how the above follows.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. — Benj96
You know what else is very cold? Having abortions, damaging one's health with hormonal contraceptives, having children one does not want or cannot afford, going bankrupt, contracting dangerous diseases, missing out on opportunities to earn a living -- things that one can expect to accompany "romantic love".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.
Oh.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
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. — Benj96
Having abortions, damaging one's health with hormonal contraceptives — baker
Having abortions — baker
Those things are a potential blemish on the face of "romantic love". A face, if it indeed should be so wonderful as you say, should be completely free of blemishes. One blemish is one too many.All the things you have described can certainly occur in the context of “romantic love” then again they tend not to in such a large amount together and even alone each only occurs on occasion they aren’t necessarily the most common possibilities.
Which leads me to just see this as more of a personal dislike/ bias against the concept of “romantic” love. Which is fine. But cherry picking isn’t the most objective argument one could offer — Benj96
. A face, if it indeed should be so wonderful as you say, should be completely free of blemishe — baker
Then the sort of idealistic self-sacrificing love that you speak of in the OP is unavailable to humans.I never made any indication as to romantic or true love being “perfect” and free from wrongs/ failures. There are always blemishes. We are all imperfect. Perfection is untenable. But you can have a deep love despite these things that’s what makes it worthwhile for example if we all wait for this unblemished perfection I’m afraid we will be waiting forever — Benj96
Then the sort of idealistic self-sacrificing love that you speak of in the OP is unavailable to humans. — baker
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 — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.