What is love?

a spook.

>>8704345
before, during, but not after, le orgasm

>>8704354
>a spook.

How?

>>8704354
Love is not a spook. Loving relationships are spooks though.

Love is like water; no matter how hard you squeeze your fingers, it always leaks.

Certain humanistic psychoanalyst would define love not as something natural, but as a practice to be mastered, a decision to assume somebody's happiness importance on par with your own, given the condition that one has overcome his inherent narcisism to a degree where they are able to genuinely perceive the other person as they are.

Or you can just disregard it as means to an end.

Or disregard it completely like this anon above, whose ideal of man would die out - but, that is not necessarily a con.

>>8704345
Baby don't hurt me.

>>8704419
how is love not a spook? have I misunderstood spooks? (have I misunderstood love?)

>>8704345
like to the 2nd power

>>8704519
Not bad.

>>8704498

If you didn't genuinely love something, but dogmatically tricked yourself into thinking you loved it, I suppose love could be a spook. Otherwise Stirner himself says love is an act of selfishness. You love because it makes you happy, and any sacrifice you make for that love is ultimately for your happiness.

>>8704474
>not the first response
Seriously how

File: 20160813_035159.jpg (60KB, 425x242px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 425x242px

We first have physical attraction, which is what we're conditioned to feel as animals, but the intense passion, which is very linked to thia attraction, is a misunderstanding of the human nature by our seemingly rational brains. It's an addiction, that is fuelled by our insecurity (not necessarily bad) and need to be loved and cherished.
I define love as when both go farther than the sparks of intense passion, get real intimacy, and are committed to live together.
Then Passion, like a fire pit, dims, but can be fed and if gone can still be lit again.

Think of the health of a relationship being distributed on 3 points:
- How much Passion there is (which also includes physical attraction, of course, and still tends to dim with time, can be very volatile, even within a single day)
- How much love there is (not very volatile, but can grow or fade away with time, if not taken care of by both parties)
- How much both are committed to letting undesirable things happen in virtue of maintaining the relationship (tends to grow with time, and the least volatile of all 3, it's like a strong opinion, that can change)

When one of those 3 points are stronger than the others, they can maintain a relationship by its strength alone, but will wear out with time. Ideally, they should each have their share of reliance and what is falling behind should be worked on.

This is the most realistic I could be with how little I know about love, and if you're a "true romantic", this dissecation shouldn't clash with your deeply set feelings about how genuine of a thing it is.

>>8704474
No more

>ITT: bitter shut-ins discuss love
Lmao

>>8705388
What are you talking about like 3/4 of the replies weren't bitter at all.

Love is the suffering of trying to satiate an unquenchable thirst.

But a mere whimsy.

>>8704474
>>8705233
>>8704532
/thread

Baby. Yes? Don't harm me. OK. What do you mean by OK? I mean that I understand. But that doesn't assure me whether you'll harm me or not. Don't worry, I won't harm you. OK, thanks, that's what I needed. No problem, honey. Love you, baby.

File: 1467202532770.jpg (35KB, 567x437px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 567x437px

>>8704345
I don't know

god is more than love can ever be.

>>8706014
coward (young pope)

File: ernst fuchs.jpg (598KB, 904x1280px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 904x1280px

Your immutable belonging to the Form of Good.

>>8704504
but God is love and also a spook, so love must be a spook. it's basic logic.

>>8704407
I don't think I've ever seen anyone ever laugh or get triggered by your responses. Why keep posting them?

you are welcome for the (you) by the BTW

>>8704345
a failed attempt of objetivity

Love isn't compulsive but that's not to say it can't be expressed as such and it should make you stronger not weaker. Romantic love is a blend of many things but you can love without romance and romance without love it just depends what you want and what you are capable of. Love dispels hate and fear. Love is the difference between serenity and apathy and so on and so forth.

>>8705534
dis me

>>8706878
god(or whatever you replace god with) is love for dummies.

>>8707376
>Love breeds hate and fear
you're confusing love with the lack of love, you probably confuse lust with love as well.

love is being there

>>8704345
It is Attachment

>>8707392
however insufficent

love is when you're next to a person and you feel butterflies in your stomach

>a biologically determined cognitive justification of attraction
>everyting

you pick, OP ;^)

>>8707219
I'm redpilled, retard.

>>8707398

Only a young person would say this. I haven't felt that in fifteen years.

>>8707498
How old are you?

>>8707394
>enlightened

>>8707538
25

>>8707568
25 is young not as if you were 10 (?) but young

>>8707568
aren't we all?

>>8704498
Because it can be a higher order desire...or what you really want.

{8220}{8253}Love is like an onion,
{8257}{8319}and you peel away layer|after stinky layer
{8323}{8433}until you're just...|weeping over the sink.