[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Start with the Greeks

Catalog

See 8chan's new software in development (discuss) (help out)
Please read: important information about failed Infinity Next migration
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 2 per post.

Sister Boards [ Christ ] [ Politics ]

File: 1417307127742.jpg (40.59 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault.jpg)

d47824 No.478

What is love? What does it mean to trully be in love? I know now after looking up some Carl Jung that what I thought love was is only just my anima projection. I guess Iv never felt it before. How does it feel, how does one fall in love? How do you know if someone is the right person? Im just curious iv never really loved and I dont know now if its a thing that even exists.

78b78d No.481

Okay, you've referenced Carl Jung in your post, who was a psychologist, firstly. That in itself should be enough of an indication for you that this belongs on some sort of board having to do with psychology.

Secondly, I don't think you have any idea what philosophy is. If you're looking for a single "answer" to what love is, look elsewhere, because for everything that is said in philosophy, there is always room for a counterargument.

d47824 No.482

>>481
I was looking for Interpretations actually, not a single answer, I also do know that Carl Jung is psycology, but Iv seen many places where philosophy and psychology are being bought up together on other sites so I thought this could also turn into a philosophical debate.

78b78d No.483

File: 1417310419307.jpeg (586.97 KB, 834x1273, 834:1273, The Look.jpeg)

>>482
Psychology is a pseudoscience, but anyhow:

"Love" is real by virtue of its existence as a phenomenon; the question of whether or not it exists originates in the simple minds of people who believe their concept of "love" is love itself. The shallow, unrealistic concept "love" that you and probably most people have of it who have raised this question is structured into you by your culture. It is nothing more than the re-casting of a generic naturalism that Capitalism essentially is, in which survival is converted to a calculable attainment of wealth and reproduction (thus fulfillment of one's life in this naturalist framework) is converted to the attainment of an ideal of "love" that is supposed to make on a complete human being. Of course, this is a harmful way of thinking and the reason why many people, on 'chans in particular it seems, are so miserable to be alone; they have the inauthentic belief that happiness consists in the attainment of this ideal.

This is already kind of far from being a serious philosophical discussion of the concept "love" though. What I just gave was a generic Continental discussion of it. I don't really know what Analytics have to say about it, and most philosophers prior to contemporary philosophy don't seem to take love very seriously.

But, we have at least shown that the question of whether or not "love" is real or not is a misguided question. If you're interested in examining further into what the phenomenon "love" is, you should look into Phenomenology. Phenomenology was a movement in philosophy interested in understanding what human experience consists of, which would then of course include the experience of love under that.

Unfortunately, I can't remember exactly what they're interpretations of it are, but Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir both have good things to say about love - Sartre in Being and Nothingness beginning on p. 474, de Beauvoir in The Second Sex in the chapter, "The Woman in Love".

I don't recall reading anything by Maurice Merleau-Ponty on love, but if he has anything to say about it (which I'm sure he does), it'd also be worth reading.

d47824 No.488

File: 1417314533205.jpg (2.16 MB, 2500x1600, 25:16, vivi_second_stage_by_john_….jpg)

>>483
Thank you so much for this interesting answer. Iv read just now what an analyst has to say about love from Sartre and it seems its very similar to what Jungs Anima Projection is. It was interesting I guess. But I think you insulting me in the first paragraph is abit wrong. I dont think love is some excuse for just reproducing. All I wanted to know is that if that feeling we feel when we are in love is just an anima projection (Jungian Psychology here) What would true love be, or is it all just a projection. Anyways iv never heard of phenomenology before beyond its name, but I will look into it.

78b78d No.490

>>488
You should re-read the first paragraph, then, because you misunderstood it. It wasn't directed at you specifically, but rather at the conditions that make the concept of "love" from which people derive the judgment, "love doesn't exist" possible.

d47824 No.491

>>490
ahh, well my bad.

a0d638 No.492

If you asked the common person their first answer would be some deep sounding quote about ideal love they heard from somewhere, such as the bible. But if you were to get an honest answer they'd likely speak of love in two senses: the falling in love type of love, which is an irrational flood of massively powerful emotional desire and adoration of the beloved. Second would be the more idealized aspect of love as a rational choice and commitment to the beloved, come what may.

Philosophical discussions of love, as far as I have ever gleamed in classical philosophy, are so idealized and unreal that they're a joke. Regardless of that, however, I also personally think that philosophizing about love is one of the bigger wastes of time humans can indulge in. To those who have not experienced natural love, that uncontrollable tsunami of emotions, love is an enigma that just plain makes no sense. I had a very rational and idealized concept of love up until last year when i finally fell in love for the first time. Pretty much everything i believed on the topic has gone out the window since it wasn't even in the same dimension of reality as actual love.

People who talk of "true" love believe in a ridiculous contradiction since they believe that an ideal concept of love is true, whereas the actual reality of love is somehow false or incomplete. What's real is what is true. As someone else said, this belief in "true" love as a goal in life and things like absolute monogamy and emotional slavishness to the beloved as its symbol has done harm to individuals.

d47824 No.493

>>492
This was a brilliant answer. I have fallin in "love" the second time now. Its as you described it, an extremely irrational powerful emotional desire. But unfortunately the first girl didnt like me, and I dont know if this one does either (havent even talked to her yet). But I realized after reading some Carl Jung that the powerful emotion of wave we have had just might be nothing more than us projecting our anima on to another person. After I realized this I noticed that my emotions just died out. I still want to talk to the person and if she is interested maybe id like to date her (lol who would date me?) But after falling heavily in love and then realizing that its an anima projection, I have no idea then what true love even could be. If love isnt just finding a mating partner, and its not that extreme feel of overwhelming emotion, what is it?

d47824 No.494

>>492
One more thing, by true I dont mean right or rational, but I mean pure and real, without illusions cast by the mind

a0d638 No.497

>>494

I don't know any Jungian terminology, but as far as projection in a sense goes, yes, romantic love is caused by projecting that which we believe will "complete" us in the other, hence the common use of phrases like soul mate, other half, etc. I would not say it IS the projection, but rather a natural mechanism that follows it to ensure that psycho-biological bonding happens in the strongest way possible.

I think you make the mistake of idealizing what is really a material phenomenon. Romantic love, that tsunami of desire, is a gateway to long term attachment through a very real and physical psycho-biological bonding, a bonding that makes it all the easier for one to take the step to make that rational choice to commit to the beloved no matter what.

One could say that love as a concept has to be multifaceted. Romantic love, family love, friendly love, love of activities, love of experiences. Romantic love is the one that philosophers I have read had the most stupid ideas about. Familial and friend love are very close and depending on personal closeness the same. Loving something you do, or something you experience may likely fall more into the aesthetic side of things.

As far as I think of it, love is real and ineffable, something that isn't really contained in any theory.

a0d638 No.499

File: 1417369967187.gif (74.59 KB, 576x784, 36:49, 1397438207513.gif)

>>497
pic related

d47824 No.500

>>497
That was a great read. I still dont understand it at all and probably never will. I think your last sentence really hit the nail on the subject.

d47824 No.501

>>497
Oh and I forgot to mention, the reason why im asking this question is what you said in the 2nd paragraph, "Romantic love, that tsunami of desire, is a gateway to a long term attachment." Well according to Jung that entire emotion in itself is a projection and just an illusion, I wanted to know then what is love, but like I said in my last post, Ill just give up on trying to figure it out. Its as you said, "Love is real and ineffable, something that isnt really contained in any theory."

46f667 No.502

You're formulating your question in an essentialist manner: "what is x truly? What is the essence of x?".

Trying to answer such a question will always reduce to a version of the no true scotsman: "true x is about this!" "Nay, true x is about that".

A better question is: "what should we call this strong emotional bond, which occationally forms between humans?" An answer might be "love".

In this sense, there is no such thing as "true" love. There are however, a wide rainbow of nuances: romantic, brotherly, forbidden etc. Recognizing this allows you to evaluate your feelings more accurately than by playing the definition-game ad absurdium.

Interesting question btw.

959dcb No.503

>>502
thank you!

c9e44d No.534

>>483
Do you sincerely believe that the need for the concept "love" everybody on chan and many others yearn, is just from some Capitalist-driven cultural hypnosis to fulfill its "need" to keep the system going? We are biologically driven to find a mate and reproduce, for the non-majority (i.e. homosexuals, etc.) they are just wired differently. We had the yearning for love, for companionship, before Capitalism, before social constructs. We are only here because of that primal-driven motive to reproduce. Don't diminish it to some conspiracy of a Capitalist agenda.

4134ae No.536

>>534
Read all of it.

78b78d No.552

File: 1418611280777.jpg (85.6 KB, 550x446, 275:223, straw man.jpg)

>>534
what this guy said>>536

My point is that the idealized, unrealistic and vague concept of "love" pushed on us in our culture is an inauthentic and damaging one. The actual phenomenon of love has existed well before Capitalism.

>pic related; your argument

3009c2 No.2847

Baby don't hurt me

Don't hurt me

No more


964a24 No.2848

Someone should start a thread questioning the merits of the emotional bonds formed in polygamy...


482536 No.2871

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]