Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Leon on September 26, 2010 at 11:17am

It might be because I'm young and have hope for some bit of my future, but I believe romantic love is a real thing, but I think what is defined as romantic is only worthwhile as a personal definition.

I would say it's worth finding out what is what your significant other considers romantic and go for it, whether it's taking them out to a gun range to shoot things or a candle light dinner.

So I guess to some point romantic love exist when you have appropriate chemistry and it's not one of those "I'm just gonna settle with you" relationships.

Permalink Reply by Apeman Jim on September 26, 2010 at 11:52am

The video link below the question is an interesting perspective from an unlikely source.

Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on September 26, 2010 at 12:26pm

According to Schopenhauer, my dad should not have found the love of his life while in his 60s since reproduction was out of the question. I do believe long lasting romantic love is possible. I don't think you'll find it described in a romance novel. Perhaps so few philosophers write about love because it is so obvious. I imagine none of them wrote about the love they felt as children or the love they had for their children or grandchildren, but if they had children and grandchildren I am sure that at least some of them loved their children. IMO. the deepest love one will ever feel is the love one has for his or her children, but it is seldom wrote about in philosophy. However, I am not a big reader of philosophy, so it could very well be and I would not know it.

Permalink Reply by Apeman Jim on September 26, 2010 at 12:47pm

I dont know if age plays as much into it because mother nature is a wicked engineer. Look at the limits to which so many animals go in their mating process (bowerbirds for example). Would it be so far to say that we may be wired to pair up, regardless of the outcome? We are a social creature, and extended families have been shown to be an evolutionary advantage...

Permalink Reply by Miisa on September 26, 2010 at 2:36pm

I think romantic love may be a difficult subject to analyze, as it is so very subjective. We have no real concept of the measure or intensity of someone else's love, and discover that even our own won't sit still and be recognizable long enough to study it ourselves, even. While the love of a child or long-term partner is fairly stable, I am sort of with old Schoppy on that romantic love is as much a fleeting incentive for our biology as orgasms are.

Permalink Reply by Orson_Zedd on September 26, 2010 at 2:47pm

What do you mean is it an illusion? Do you mean does it exist? I'm thinking it does. I mean, of course it does. Even if it's a composite of several different things in a chemical soup we call a brain, as a concept and in practice yes it does exist.

Permalink Reply by T Rose on September 26, 2010 at 3:06pm

I think the fact that we are still questioning whether it is or isn't lends to the argument that romantic love very well might be an illusion!

It might not be an illusion but it can surely disappear overnight whether we want it to or not and we have to push that reality out of our minds when we are in love if we want to be happy. We can do lots of things to "keep it vibrant and alive" but there is always a possibility that our love might not last despite all the effort we put into it.

Permalink Reply by Tom Pandelaere on September 26, 2010 at 3:38pm

In my experience, yes.
I am, by-the-bye, a great Schopenhauer fan. He provides good arguments for eschewing emotional entanglement.

Permalink Reply by Craigart14 on September 26, 2010 at 9:40pm

Define romantic love? Unconditional? Happy every minute of every day? Never thinking about another woman? Never being angry? Or just willing to work on a relationship?

Permalink Reply by Apeman Jim on September 27, 2010 at 9:07am

Those are all valid questions to which many people would provide many different answers. What is your definition?
What do you perceive to be the common perspective of what it is supposed to be?

Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on September 27, 2010 at 12:10pm

I believe like everything else, love evolves. Ever growing. Ever changing and sometimes dying. No matter what kind of love it is. Right now, as my cat gets older and has health problems and needs loads of extra care everyday, my love for him is evolving with my growing acceptance that one day he will die. I think it's the same with people. Only with people things are a lot more complicated. Wouldn't it be nice if loving other people was as uncomplicated as loving your pet?

Permalink Reply by Logan Blankenship on October 4, 2010 at 7:59pm

That depends on how you define "illusion". Do I believe romantic love exists because of the need for a biological mechanism to facilitate reproduction? Yes. Does that neccessarily mean it's pointless to adapt it differently? No. Regardless of it's evolutionary origin or "purpose", if you want to use that word (I don't like it), like all things with a phenomenological aspect to them, it can be adapted to your own wants, needs, purposes, whatever. Sure it's got a utilitarian reason for existing, but it still feels good, it still feels deep, and there is no reason why that particular aspect of it should qualify it as an illusion.

Now, I do believe that the popular image of romantic love is an illusion. Specifically, I mean this idea that there is a "right" person for everyone, that the relationship with that "right" person is infallible and infinitely strong and the strength of love will overcome yadda yadda yadd. Put differently, I categorically deny the idea that you can know that a relationship will last or be certain of anything about it. It can last for years, appear very strong and committed, and still die. I also deny that there is any logic to the partners most people pick, that it is really an arbitrary, chance-based choice, a child of circumstance mostly.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page