Love Does Not Exist, Only The Illusion Of

[Kid A]

Over the past few weeks I have been thinking about love, and I have come to the conclusion that the true, absolute, selfless love we all think about and hear about, is not real. It is only the illusion of. For instance...lets say you meet someone, theya re funny, they look good, they talk about interesting things and make interesting points...all in all they ENTERTAIN you. Are you nice to them and get them things and help them with their problems because you actually care for them? Or do you do those things because you do not want that entertainment factor to be destroyed?
Do you comfort the stranger on the road because you dont want them to be sad? or do you do it to avoid looking like an asshole? or do you do it because there sadness makes you sad, reminding you of times you were feeling like shit, thus making you upset? Taking this into consideration I do not think true love, that is selfless love with no self interest what so ever, does not exist and cannot exist. There is no love like this, only the illusion of.

[D.U.M.B]

Love does exist but you must remember there is so many types of love many people get it confused. Like for example the love one has for a family member, the one has for a pet, the one has for a partner, the one has for maybe a drug or something. All different but all can be classed as some type of love

Love is often confused with other things, lust, caring etc. so that is what causes the confusion over what is love and what is not.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good points!

[darawk]

You're right. Believing in love is just as irrational as believing in God. However, love is an instance of irrationality that I personally choose to accept. I recognize that it is irrational, but choose to believe in it anyway because I like the way it makes me feel. In this vein, I suppose 'faith' is a drug. While religion might be the opiate of the masses, love is the psychedelic/empathogen. And i'm just not an opiate person.

Reputation Comments on this post:

" While religion might be the opiate of the masses, love is the psychedelic/empathogen. And i'm just not an opiate ...

[Luaferilya]

Oh.. verx philosophic..!
But I guess you're right, unfortunately. It's sad.
I think that "selfless" is a difficult word, idn't it? I mean - just as you sad - there is always another reason - anything that makes yourself feel better.. anyhow.
But it seems to me that nobody can really understand the reasons for love - just like the sense of life, anyhow.
Just survive, maybe.

[Bajeda]

The illusion of love would therefore exist, so then love itself exists even if it is just an illusion willingly perceived by the mind.

I don't believe that anyways. You can't call love an illusion, as it isn't something that exists tangibly. Its a concept, an idea, a non-tangible entity that eminates from the culminating essence of all our senses and thought processes. You can't come up with a simple definition for love that will fit everyone, so you can possibly call what society would normally perceive as love an illusion.

I'd rather just perceive the concept of love in my own way. I believe it exists, but it isn't something you can understand really. You can only attempt to understand the feeling and the processes behind it and try to act on it.

Also, since love is intangible, you have to be careful passing judgement on it. It could potentially exist in every person, only to be restrained by various external factors. Love or things that appear to be it can manifest themselves, or they can hide behind the surface waiting to emerge in those priceless moments that make up the best parts of our memories. A good way to look at this is to take MDMA and consider what you are feeling. Is it just a chemical reaction? Is it an artificial sentiment produced by the drug? Or is it something deeper that exists in human beings that only needs the right catalysts (chemical or natural) to be manifested.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great post

[Kid A]

its like finding out how a magic trick is done. Something spectacular thats really something ordinary, just seen in a different way. Sure you can love your kids, your dog, or your iPod, but the way I see it, when you do things for them like give them food or play with them, your just keeping the entertainment going, feeding your selfish needs, giving the relationship fuel.

But the thing is, is it wrong to think this way? Does it make it less spectacular to see it that way, to see love as a symbiotic relationship?

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Kid A

its like finding out how a magic trick is done. Something spectacular thats really something ordinary, just seen in a different way. Sure you can love your kids, your dog, or your iPod, but the way I see it, when you do things for them like give them food or play with them, your just keeping the entertainment going, feeding your selfish needs, giving the relationship fuel.

But the thing is, is it wrong to think this way? Does it make it less spectacular to see it that way, to see love as a symbiotic relationship?

It isn't right or wrong to think that way because there isn't an established standard for concepts like these. Thats why there are so many religions, There are many dichotomies in how people think about abstract ideas, thats why there are so many religions. You can't really define love, as its meaning differs in many cultures. Even within those various cultures the definition of love varies among each individual. You create the meaning based on your past experiences, and specific knowledge and understanding you have developed. Thats why your perception of the world and the many concepts that you use to describe it change as you grow older. Your knowledge and experiences have grown so your perspective can broaden.

Maybe your previous experiences have put a negative connotation on the concept of love for you. Or it could be simple apathy that influenced the observations that led to these thoughts. I can't say anything really as I don't know you or your personal psychology. I would say though, that if you seek out more answers with an objective mind and good spirits you could very well come up with a different concept of love at some point. Or in time it could just happen spontaneously. Either way, just remember that your current perspective on life has a huge influence on how you choose to live your life, and the way you live your life helps to form your current perspective on life. If seeing love as a symbiotic relationship is beneficial for your life - even if it does seem less magical and mysterious - and has positively influenced your outlook then I wouldn't think it wrong to have such ideas. They fit you so why would you try to change to something else? If you feel like you are lacking something in holding these thoughts, or are simply feeling apathetic about it in general, then you should seek out more answers and tools to help you try and understand. Bringing about change of some sort can act as a catalyst to changing a particular worldview. Psychedelics could possibly help depending on the circumstances. Travelling around or simply meeting new people can bring you out of a singular track of thought.

Do you really think you have seen the whole magic trick? Can you predict what other people or even yourself would do in certain situations and be right. You may find that you are in a situation where you act quite contradictory to what you previously believed you would have done. Reading some psychology and/or philosophy could help bring about new insights. Or like I said earlier, just meeting new people and interacting with different minds can make you drop a particular train of thought. In any case, it wouldn't hurt to contemplate more about why you think the way you do, rather than if thinking the way you do is normatively/morally right or wrong.






Ok..... Swim was a bit not on this planet when he wrote the above, so he apologizes if it doesn't make sense. He tended to loose his train of thought quite often writing that.

[WrtngCocaineTutorial]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

It isn't right or wrong to think that way because there isn't an established standard for concepts like these. Thats why there are so many religions, There are many dichotomies in how people think about abstract ideas, thats why there are so many religions. You can't really define love, as its meaning differs in many cultures. Even within those various cultures the definition of love varies among each individual. You create the meaning based on your past experiences, and specific knowledge and understanding you have developed. Thats why your perception of the world and the many concepts that you use to describe it change as you grow older. Your knowledge and experiences have grown so your perspective can broaden.

there are established standards for this

SWIM is reading one of the books now, Robert Sternberg's book - "The Psychology of Love". And it's being use by pshycologists worldwide.

It has broad deifinistions, but SWIm has found it VERY useful. Not just with knowing why people love/don't love me, and therefore know what that can be done to make it happen.

But also why friends like me or not, and what's missing to make a good friendship into a great friendship.

It's kinda hard-to-understand-writing by I'm sure you'll understand it.

Here's a short version of it: Triangular theory of love

this is NOT like women books saying "if he does that, than you should do that" etc. It's none of that. It's about understanding the underlying causes of love. When you do that it's easier to steer where you want the ship to go

[bewilderment]

The sensation of love is mostly chemical reactions. But, that does not make it an illusion. If so, then all emotions would be illusions as well as all perceptions and anything that involves the body/brain. I also don't believe that love has to be selfless. Everything one does has elements of selfishness. Trying not to hurt the one I love is a selfish thing because when she suffers so do I. And, being in love does make me feel good which is also selfish. I also try to make my partner feel good which in turn makes me feel good so that is also selfish. But, it's still one of the many versions of love.

Reputation Comments on this post:

You make a very good point

[Solidly-here]

Is an Emotion REAL?

In one sense, all Emotions are un-real.
If I see a dog running up to me, I can feel:
1) WOW! What a sweet doggie;
2) Oh shit! Here comes a rabid dog;
3) Oh some mutt;
4) ...

So, I could feel Love;
I could feel Fear;
I could feel Anger;
I could feel Hate.

What is the REAL Emotion that I should feel?
_____________________

So, Love is un-Real;
Hate is un-Real;
Happiness is un-Real;
Depression is un-Real;
...
_______________________

Emotions are just what they are. They come-and-go. They are impersonal.

If I think that I feel Love, then that is my perception.
If that perception is just the ILLUSION of Love, so be it.
Either way, I feel something. So, it's REAL that I feel something.
The next question is: Is that "something" REAL?
To me, it does not matter ... one way or the other.

[Forthesevenlakes]

Its only wrong to think that way if you believe it is. I don't think anyone can really tell you if its morally "right" or "wrong" to make a value judgment about an abstract concept or meme. I would think that it would take alot of the enjoyment of love away, but some people may disagree. However, even if you believe love exists and is some grand, mysterious thing, you'd probably think of it as a symbiotic relationship anyway since it often requires another party to reciprocate.

I think the situation is something like this: whether you believe or do not believe in love, you'll tend to find evidence in the real world supporting your position. It's all a question of how you choose to view the world, and since we have no way of obtaining exact objective knowledge to say definitively whether or not love exists, we make do with the information presented to us. Theres probably enough evidence in either direction to support both sides' beliefs.

[Riconoen {UGC}]

What is right? what is wrong? They are merely social constructs of our judeo christian society.

[dip]

SWIM's opinion: love is an obsessive addiction with another human being. Like a drug

[yamahappy]

I suggest you get a hold of How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker.

Failing that, any book on evolutionary psychology will do.

All these trippy philosophical questions about the nature of love/altruism/self basically go back to biology and evolution.

Love keeps a man and a woman together long enough to raise a child. Empathy and kindness exist due to a complex evolutionary path based upon reciprocal altruism (basically 2 monkeys picking the nits off each others back, + a few million years and opposable thumbs).

It's hard to argue with the science - it all hangs together in an extremely rational way. However just because altruism, love and kindness evolved for ultimately selfish reasons (to ensure the survival and reproduction of the individual organism), that doesn't make these emotions any less genuine. Sure, they've been demystified and brought into the realm of the rational, but it's actually quite beautiful when taken on a species-wide level (i think).

Peace.

ps I just realised that monkeys have opposable thumbs too. Im leaving it in to teach myself some humility.
Although as the big N said, “He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.” Ah well, catch-22.

[~lostgurl~]

Catch 22 lol, people will take what they want and leave the rest, see you how they want to see you, not necessarily how you are.......

[WrtngCocaineTutorial]

Originally Posted by Kid A

Do you comfort the stranger on the road because you dont want them to be sad? or do you do it to avoid looking like an asshole? or do you do it because there sadness makes you sad, reminding you of times you were feeling like shit, thus making you upset? Taking this into consideration I do not think true love, that is selfless love with no self interest what so ever, does not exist and cannot exist. There is no love like this, only the illusion of.

if you put it that way, then selflessness don't exist either...

SWIm has though of this too, but not with love, but that everything we do including helping other is because we think it's the best choice for us..

[Kid A]

you may FEEL it but what I am saying in this theory, is that it is created in a different way than we think. Lets say for example that you were told that babies arrived by storks. Then you learned that babies come from a male and female having intercourse, sperm goes to egg yadda yadda yadda. That doesnt change the fact that there is a new baby in the world, but how that baby was made/came to be is drastically different than what you were told.

[Solidly-here]

OK, the Stork didn't do it. (Another great story shot-all-to-hell.)

Are you saying that MANY things in Life have a mystical quality ...
But then Science steps in and pooh-poohs it? (If so, I have some thoughts about it.)

But beyond that: In my mind, Life is a Miracle anyway.
How do those Sperm cells "KNOW" where to go?
How do they know what to do when they get to an Egg?
How does the Egg know when it's fertilized, and stops other Sperm?

[Orchid_Suspiria]

Love certainly exists and we all hear how beautiful it is but the deeper it is the darker the pools it is drawn from.Love is very ugly and causes so much hurt in the end,better to avoid it!

[Mona Lisa]

I'm convinced love exists and that it comes from a higher source. The love we experience here on earth is imperfect because we are imperfect, plus there is the duality of evil within us which caused us to experience ambivalent emotions including hatred. But I sense that there is more than just this level and that we often tap into sources of both light and darkness, which could help explain the ambiguity of the human condition.

[Orchid_Suspiria]

Then again if love came from a higher power how could it lead to situations where one feels thoughts of self hatered,sadness,loses sleep at night,turns to substance abuse?Love seems to be a part of the human condition and can be absolutely wonderful but it can also wreck a person like nothing else possibly could.

[Millsley]

I think love (acceptance) is the root of all emotions, however fear is its opposite (which still has its place). SWIM realized this on a trip. All emotions are different ratios of these two primal instincts. Negative emotions have a dash of love even though it is misguided. Sadness is a love lost, anger is a love defense mechanism, courage is fear recognized, etc. I think more of the positive emotions contain less fear than the negative contain love though.

The individual cells in your body are constantly working together to keep you alive. Every human being is a direct manifestation of love incarnate.
No organism would work at all if the very building blocks did not completely rely on eachother; if that isn't proof of love then here is an article on research that has found our brains are hard-wired to be generous.

http://www.physorg.com/news99581802.html

There is also the fact that archaeologists have found that warfare did not exist until about 10,000 years ago. (where some psychologists suggest we developed the "ego", interestingly) Before that, man coexisted peacefully. Every fear we project onto the world is eventually confirmed by our feeble minds. Notice any enlightened people advocating war and destruction? Don't think so. After conquering the ego's insecurity, one can live a much easier, more fulfilling life.

[someone111]

love exists, but if you never have felt true love i can understand your point of view, i use to not believe in love untill i actually fell inlove with my gf who i have been with for almost 2 years, me and her have been threw so much together that juss proves we are inlove, havin to deal with swims coke addiction, her being raped, her being sick and the doctors dont no whats wrong and she could possibly die, many more things too... if love didnt exists i would not be able to deal with all that, im inlove with that girl more than anything and thats all the proof needed to prove love exists

[Yukio Mishima]

The individual cells in your body are constantly working together to keep you alive. Every human being is a direct manifestation of love incarnate.

Love is a subjective state. Cells do not have any subjective perspective. Bricks can 'work' together to support an arch, but there is no love. It's just physics.

There is also the fact that archaeologists have found that warfare did not exist until about 10,000 years ago. (where some psychologists suggest we developed the "ego", interestingly) Before that, man coexisted peacefully.

I don't buy these noble savage myths. It is likely that humans were less efficient killers, but there was no age of peaceful coexistence. The tribes that persisted in a pre-industrial lifestyle into the industrial age actually were found to be incredibly violent. Plus, they honored violence. Men who had killed others were raised in status. That nature of mankind has not change that much over the duration of the species.

I believe that love exists, by the way. It has a basis in electrochemical brain states. It is not primary over other emotions like fear. I don't mythologize love.

[Yukio Mishima]

That nature of mankind has not change that much over the duration of the species.

The above should read: The nature of mankind has not changed that much over the duration of the species. The inability to edit makes me seem illiterate. I will have to remember to proofread first. I'm not used to it.