What is love?

>>17571219

its different for everyone. theres dumb love and smart love and everyone will tell you its different.

a teenager can seem so sure of their love and an old person will claim they're just being silly and that old people love is real love.

both can leave their partner just as easily for whatever reason and claim it was mature. the big difference is really more passion.

there is no definition of love. we'll all give you different answers. does it matter? love is just a feeling, so if you have feelings for someone, its love.

its no big deal mayne. if ur trying to find out if shes marriage quality love, that isnt really about whether you love someone but whether A) you can see yourself spending your entire life with them but B) you still accept the inevitable end of the relationship.

>>17571240
>love is just a feeling
i disagree on this, but the rest of your post is spot on

>>17571243

>lovei sn't just a feeling

what? thats what it literally is. you could argue that if you love someone it shows in your actions and blah blah blah, but i dont think that love is limited to people with a head on their shoulders. someone who is horribly violent and kills his wife loved just as powerfully if not more than the guy who just grows old and never argues.

id be willing to argue there are healthy loves and not so healthy loves, but love isa feeling. its an emotion. its a chemical rush.

even religion is pretty 'meh' about love.

>>17571240
>a teenager can seem so sure of their love and an old person will claim they're just being silly
> that old people love is real love.

lol you seem really sure of the truth of this proposition

>>17571219
it is nothing more than a chemical response that evolved to ensure the continuity of the species. romantic love is tooth-fairy-tier nonsense, and people will use your belief in it against you.

>>17571273

sure that old people tend to not take teenage love seriously?

its pretty common.

>>17571294
well true.

>>17571286

where'd you get that fedora, id love to get one too.

Humans are clearly greater than the sum of their parts. We've made evolution irrelevant to our development as a species.

yes, it is a chemical reaction in the brain to ensure the continuation of the species. but its not JUST that, especially at this point. its inspired a lot more than just breeding at this point.

at the very least calling it tooth-fairy-tier is an exaggeration.

>>17571286
Even so that doesn't mean it is not real. Out whole being is chemical responses in same way.

>>17571258
>someone who is horribly violent and kills his wife loved just as powerfully if not more than the guy who just grows old and never argues.
wut? what kind of example is this? lol
>love isa feeling. its an emotion. its a chemical rush.
i'd say passion is the emotion. love is more like a long standing thing imo. like happiness. i can have a crappy day at work, but still come home and realize i'm happy with my life even if i'm not particularly joyous in that moment. the same thing is with love imo: you can stop feeling the passion, or you can argue with your loved one or whatever, and you two feel like hating each other in that moment, but in the long run and in the big perspective of things you do love each other. or not, maybe you're fooling yourself. anyway imo that's what love is. passion is the chemical rush. love is something else entirely imo

>>17571302
no fedora here, anon. just an ancientfag whos been around the block a few times. there may have been a point in which it was more than brain chemicals, but that point is long past
>>17571313
>whole being is chemical responses in same way.
this is the truth of it. i never said love wasnt real, i just explained it without the touchy feely extraneousness

>>17571286

*tips fedora*

>>17571325

my point was that everyone has a different idea of what love is. and they all think theirs is the real definition of love because its the one they experience.

its all the same chemicals rushing. in your mind love is more the actions and commitments that follow the rush.

and thats what i would call (as i mentioned earlier) a 'healthy' love. its realistic, and compattible.

but i think the truth is that love stems from that feeling, that emotion, that rush. thats what sets it forth no matter how you define it, everyone agrees there is a feeling that accompanies it. the common denominator here is what we feel.

you can disregard the entire populations idea of love because its not as mature as you see your own.

but commitment isn't that feeling. that speaks more to teh stability of you, and the compatibility of your partners. but by your own logic a child cannot feel love. and id agree he cant feel the same kind of love, but its still love nonetheless.

your definition of love is rare. its a love that comes coupled with compatibility.

but its far more common for people to believe themselves to be in love, but for it not to work because of other unrelated reasons that affect the relationship. if you want to continue to disregard those people and their feelings, i cant stop you, the whole world does in their own way.

but i think its a bit narrow minded. its all love. even the guy who murders his wife can still love her. hes just not stable. doesnt make the love less real.

>>17571333

>art doesn't exist anymore

lol

>i didnt say love isnt real
>just that romantic love is the same as the tooth fairy

so what you believe in the tooth fairy?

>>17571363
i can understand what you're saying
i can see why you'd think i'm narrow minded
i don't actually think people are stupid or anything for saying their strong passions are love, i think they just don't know any better and if they feel like saying it then by all means they should. it's the only way they'll learn for themselves.
i try not to be narrow minded in front of other people but yeah i've been told i'm a big stiff.
but having been around for sometime now, i don't think i can change my opinion.
this is a nice discussion.

>>17571379

its pretty civil desu. you dont quite say they're stupid, but you still insist yours it he right path.

and i believe you are 100% correct in terms of caompatibility and stability. This is the path everyone is on (or should be on) in terms of their development. i just dont think it makes their love any less real in the process.

stability is a personal growth, not an emotional one.

and compatability happens regardless of love.

many older people end up in a relationship where they are in love, and admit its the best relationship, but it doesn't mean the love was as strong or as important or meaningful as past more 'crazy' relationships they had. and many will admit this (when their partner is not around).

but again, my concept is that everyone has their own idea of love, and i certainly fall under that argument with the argument itself. meta.