Love - a social construct?

>>8873007
Love is a spectrum.

>>8873009
What does that mean exactly?

>>8873011

It's shitposting.

memeing aside, love is a biological construct necessary for species survival.

Love is a fucking meme, there is no love and love is none.

>>8873026
But if you're not interested in the proliferation of your genes, love is basically an empty concept. It's nothing more than what society determines as normal.

File: DRUMPF.jpg (24KB, 440x500px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 440x500px

>>8873026
Most living beings do not experience love in the same fashion as humans.
Plants, for example do not depend on love to proliferate their genes. Love is not a necessity for species survival.

>>8873083
>Plants, for example do not depend on love
where's the proof?

>>8873046
>It's nothing more than what society determines as normal.
that's like saying having hands is what society determines is normal.

>>8873092
Love is a little harder to establish as an objective reality than fucking hands. Much of what we think of love may very well be made up and enforced by societal norms.

>>8873007
It's a chemical construct.

>>8873139
>may very well be made up and enforced by societal norms.
that's some nice science there bud.

>>8873153
My point is, there is no hard science behind it. Love could just be a temporary cluster of emotions fueled by sexual desire, which comes and goes. Our whole idea of love and the relationships built on that idea, could very well be bollocks.

>>8873163
your penis could also be a snake. you better cut it off before it kills you. :^)

If you really want to understand basic human psychology more, I suggest you study archetypal psychology.

>>8873172
So love is the realm of psychology?

>>8873007
k strategist vs r strategist

>>8873181
psychology is in the realm of biology

Love is an illusion. You think she loves you? You're wrong. As soon as she gets bored or finds a hotter guy, she'll drop you with no remorse or regret. And you better not be married or else your life is fucked in the divorce.

>>8873187
This doesn't answer my original question.
>>8873195
Agreed. There is nothing that can be objectively called love between two adults.

>>8873007
Love is the result of the emotions and memories two people share. If you truly want love, I'd suggest spending time with someone without the goal getting laid and pick your partner based on who they are to you, not their body.

>>8873259
So, no real science behind love?

humans make fewer children and take care of them longer so it's advantageous for the parents to stick together so we evolved one another
>we're k strategists

It is an emergent behavior. If some reductionist tries to tell you it's just chemicals man then let me tell you one thing: that person is a brainlet trying to be profound and "scientific" (without even understanding the nature of scientific models and emergence, lol.)

>>8873302
we evolved to love*

>>8873311
It's all just vibrating strings, mang.

>>8873007
It's all you need.

>>8873007
I know it's OT but someone please sauce that picture, she's beautiful

File: 1491846876907.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

>>8873313

Whether love is a magical energy force that transcends space and time or chemical inside the heads of mortals, it's still love. I don't understand why being able to physically describe it lowers it's value to some people. We can describe nuclear explosions and food and music, but they are still just as entertaining and stimulating regardless. So love is just chemicals, so what? Humans are just atoms, taste is just an informative signal, heat is just stuff moving around really fast. And that's fine just the way it is. I would still beat the shit out of anyone who tried to fuck with someone I loved, even with the technical knowledge of what love consists of. You're pretty weak minded if you can't still retain your own feelings and values for things just because they can be explained by science. Liking things simply for their mysteriousness is pretty immature desu.

>>8874045
Comparing empiric science with an entirely subjective expirience as love leaves you with this kind of post. I think this is the failure of most of posts here, your not being the worse though.
It is obvious that there is a strong biological component in this matter, but the beauty is not seen by this method. Love can be only understood when reaching its absurdity, the opposite of its biological meaning: when the love is so strong you'd kill yourself if your beloved died. It is a retarded addiction to an image of happyness made up by you. So strong is this attachment that without it we wouldn't have civilization, art, meaning.

Of course it is a social construct, same as marriage. Love is a fluctuating thing, in other words, if you lived with the exact replica of yourself, how long would you be together? Sometimes you like yourself for acting like you did, sometimes you hate yourself for it. If you married the most beautiful woman in the world (in your opinion) and she turned out to be a pain in the ass, that face would turn ugly to you.I suspect that marriage was created in order to force monogamy on women (most of the animals try to be as promiscuous as possible). Also, the wedding ring is a great sell for goldsmith, since once you buy them, you won't probably sell it so the goldsmiths basically have monopoly on wedding rings because of the definition of marriage.

>>8873007
Ah, a robot looking for validation from what he thinks are smart people by writing a seemingly intelligent OP

Love is a chemical. Whether or not you embrace it is up to you.