Love
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
Are their any philosophers that BTFO the illusion of love? Ive never heard of a philosopher critique it other than minor parts of shopenhauers "on love" essay.
>>7870864
You can't 'BTFO' an illusion. The strongest blows land against thin air and are wasted- how can you destroy that which does not exist?
define 'illusion of love'
>>7870894
Fuck that, define 'love,' for starters. Is it the love of a boy for a girl, or the love of Christ on the cross, or something else?
>>7870909
>0909
>comma in the quote
a man after my own heart
Read AristotleAnd realize that love is only called illusion by those who cant get it
>>7870921
>you're just bitter
>real love is unconditional
If you have to peddle it like an unquestionable doctrine then it's a belief.
>>7870864
>still not believing in love
yo so youve never been in love eh?
bummer, itll happen, and itll hurt, but youll be a completely different person after. you cant write about what love actually is, it must be experienced. wisdom kiddo, how do u get it
>>7871029
there's a quote from as i lay dying about that... feelsy stuff.
>>7871029
fuck off
Love is an observably real phenomenon. It exists. The only reason anyone questions it is because of the narrow social norms for love. Monogamy and whatever. This isn't fucking difficult shit, being in love doesn't mean you stop being self interested and stop having a dick.
>>7870915
Fucking burgers. If the comma isn't in the original quote, it doesn't belong there. OP never said anything about the illusion of love,.
>>7871426
you've never been in love
>>7871442
you too
Love is quite a vague term desu, it covers a broad spectrum of emotion and feeling. I hate that the English language has only has one word for such a broad thing, Sanskrit has 96 words, ancient Persian 80, and Greek 3.
Love in English is usually associated with romantic love, but that's only one connotation.
At its core Love is about acceptance, and an acknowledgement of self in other. Love is a binding.
The spontaneous act of a stranger to help another about to meet their end, possibly sacrificing their own life in the process, is a breakthrough of Love and a sudden acknowledgement that that other out there is of the same essence as yourself and is worthy of redemption.
>>7871447
i have though.
rec me stuff that will help me come to terms with totally unrequited love into fucking forever.
read cs lewis, cucks
>>7870864
It's as much an illusion as any other emotion.
What you're looking for is philosophy that touched on the subject of illusion in general. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Baudrillard...
>reading philosophy to reaffirm and justify your pre-existent ideas
Fuck off. No, fuck off.
"Love is a battlefield"
>>7870868
How can you claim that an experience you had weather that was an emotion or a dream did not exist?
Baby don't hurt me.
if you destroyed the "illusion of love" you would find everything you hold dear—whether our culture, our traditions, our poetry, our music—will come crashing down around you. Without love we have no reason to do what we do; if love be an illusion, human life is a sham, and there is no reason why we should be here arguing about what is true or what isn't.
The illusion of love is your raison d'etre; if you could do away with it, you would make yourself into something new and less than human.
>>7871635
so you read philosophy to reaffirm and justify your pre-existent idea that philosophy should not be read to reaffirm and justify pre-existent ideas?
>>7872431
Don't get all sophist over me you wanker. For any serious study of philosophy you need to abandon 'common sense' ideas and learn their limitation.
>Why, Mr. Anderson? Why, why, why? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?
>yfw smith BTFOs humanity
>>7872490
The Matrix would have been a classic if Mr Smith had won in the first movie and delivered some more edgy speeches like this.
>>7870864
someday you will grow up, until that day, refrain from saying stupid shit like this irl
>>7872490
>yfw Neo literally BTFOs Smith by his inexorable insistence on hope
>yfw the Matrix is a super obvious religious allegory that comprehends the nihilist but does not agree with him
>>7872494
> I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.
>I admit it is difficult to even think encased in this rotting piece of meat. The stink of it filling every breath, a suffocating cloud you can't escape. Disgusting. How pathetically fragile it is. Nothing this weak is meant to survive.
based smith
>>7872517
neo BTFOs smith cause he did some rigged shit with deus ex. it was literally cheating
>>7871358
five seconds in google
>He had a word, too. Love, he called it. But I had been used to words for a long time. I knew that that word was like the others: just a shape to fill a lack; that when the right time came, you wouldn't need a word for that any more than for pride or fear...
The Four Loves by Lewis. Read it and get back to me. You beta's who don't believe in it need to watch yourselves. It's tough to talk about something you know nothing about and have never experienced. Silly children.
>>7872524
was there supposed to be an irony in the fact that the machines are even more like viruses than humans are?
>>7872555
careful so you dont cut your self
>>7870864
One of my favorite quotes from Jung.
"Love isn't real!" - Very Deep Thinkers
everyone defending love sounds like a faggot
>>7871029
All "love" is is chemicals in your brain, nothing to be celebrated or revered.
"Love" is a social construct.
>>7872806
that chemical makes you feel "love". that's like saying pain is a social sonstruct
>>7872811
It is
If niggas can walk over hot coals barefoot, than I can live without love. (more specifically romantic love)
Being physically attracted to women is literally objectification, and the male-female relationship is inherently oppressive.
>>7872806
>created in the brain
>is a social construct
>created in the brain
>in the brain
>social construct
>brain
>created in the brain
>chemicals
>chemicals in your brain
>is a social construct
>>7872806
Because an emotion or an experience or a mode of being has a biological part it is not worth to be celebrated? You know that everything that we ever experience has biological roots. If we are to say that its not valid because of that then nothing we ever feel is of any "worth". And if love is chemicals in your brain then that is not a social construct either. It is a biological reaction.
Is the "love is not real because chemicals in brain" thing babies first philosophical thought?
>>7871452
thunderrated toast
>>7870868
>>7870864
>>7870894
>>7870909
>>7871003
>>7871029
>>7871442
>>7871655
>>7872490
>>7872806
>>7872811
I don't understand. How can so many people grow up without ever having the faintest feeling of "love". Do none of you have parents who raised you as their child? Tended after you affectionately? Laughed with you? Helped you when you fell down and supported you till you grew up? Provided for you? In the face of all this unconditional affection, how can any of you not feel any love towards them?
I am not from american or european culture (which I've heard tends to be much more atomic and families tend to break apart much more quickly). I am from a place where family values are held extremely high in one's moral code which has resulted in tight-knit families that look out for each other (at least in the middle class).
This has resulted in my parents believing that their happiness is a function of mine and their ultimate fulfillment lies in seeing me grow as a happy person. THAT itself fills me with love for them. I can't define how it is, what it is. But I just know that I care for them on a deeper level than most other things.
When it comes to women or "romantic" love, I like most of you have yet to come across a girl who has found me worthy of showing such unconditional affection and care. I don't blame women but I see that the romantic love women offer is fundamentally inferior to familial love which is often unconditional (despite often being a result of societal/cultural moral norms). On the other hand, I have to prove myself worthy in order to barter affection and "care" from women as a trade, a degenerate barter to satisfy an innate repugnant compulsion to fuck or to die alone.
Things are a bit different in my country (Sex ratio is a bit skewed causing few women and way more men) which leads to some utterly despicable things. I've seen men grovel, beg, plead and debase themselves in the meanest most abhorrent ways to appease and please women in the hopes that she might throw them some attention (or maybe eventually fuck them). It sickens me. It seems no better than a heroin addict debasing himself for a quick fix.
Despite this cynicism, I hope I come across a girl who shatters my perspective on things.
>>7872862
>what is evolution
>>7872872
I feel like I'm a shit person and not worthy of unconditional love, even from family members. In fact it pisses me off when a family member says that they love me, the family unit is arbitrary, if they weren't my family member they wouldn't give a shit about me, so why should they suddenly care just because we are related?
>>7872893
>the family unit is arbitrary
Explain
>if they weren't my family member they wouldn't give a shit about me, so why should they suddenly care just because we are related?
And the world would function if people felt that love for everyone? No it wouldn't.
>>7872524
that's my dad's favourite movie scene of all time
>>7872555
>>7872524
I used to think this was a pretty based commentary on humanity but I don't anymore.
>equilibrium
>consequences of human action are "unnatural"
>virus=evil
smith literally copy pastes himself from the next movie and utterly subverts the very principle of "equilibrium" that he uses to condemn humanity.
why? because power. like humanity, smith sought power and there is nothing that states in the absolute sense that justice and virtue is higher than power.
>rotting meat
>stink, breath
>disgusting
>fragile
to be honest, even I can throw adjectives around with a snarky grin
>cold
>steel
>unfeeling
>machine
>brute
>"is" weak -> "ought" not to survive.
hume would bitchslap smith so fucking hard.
>>7872909
I feel like most parents just tell themselves that they love their kids because they feel like they are obligated.
If I'm not worthy of being loved by non family members, they why should I be loved by family members? Isn't that kind of an arbitrary reason? If I'm a horrible person, they why does it matter that I came out of your vagina?
>>7872891
No my point is that you have no clue what you're talking about, none.
Firstly the chemical soup theory of how the brain works is old news and highly inaccurate, and secondly you obviously have no clue what a fucking social construct is. Family, law, religion, philosophy, government, etc, are all examples of social constructs. Notice how not one of those examples is a biological process of the human body? You might as well say hunger is a social construct.
Goddamn anon, goddamn.
>>7872916
smith would just turn hume into a copy of himself
humanity BTFO yet again
>>7872923
im someone else, but here goes:
>hunger is a sensory input
>love, feelings are an internal self-model input
that said, I imagine love emerged as a tool for the survival of tribes, which you could call families. it drove them to fight not for themselves, but for the existence of the whole group. as the human mind evolved, love, and other emotions, became more profound and more self-centered because their basic needs were met most of the time(food, safety)
i can only give vague explanations, as the evolution of the mind is only starting to be unraveled. with this in mind, it IS a chemical soup and it IS a social construct.
>>7872919
>I feel like most parents just tell themselves that they love their kids because they feel like they are obligated.
This is definitively the case for some. But to go as far as to say that is "most" parents, that i would say is foolish. One thing is that parents aren't perfect, and the worse a job parents do with their kids the less they will actually like the kids because bad parenting results in shitty kids and because parents are like all people they can only stand some amount of shitty kids before they start feeling negative towards them. That is not the kids fault though and if the kids had bad parenting which resulted in kids acting out which resulted in parents liking them even less then that are some parents that did a mighty good job of fucking their kids up. And if the kid on top of that feels its the kids fault then that is even worse and probably requires therapy or something. This is why good parenting is important, its about socializing the kids so they become bearable for other people the world and them self.
>>7872919
It's better if they don't truly love their kids since that love would be at the expense of other people's kids. Loving particular people is the root of all evil.
>>7872919
>>7872893
>i feel like I'm a shit person and not worthy of unconditional love, even from family members
I feel the same way. join the club. but that's why their love is unconditional. you being a shit degenerate doesn't factor into their affection for you. if it did, it would be pretty conditional anon.
sure there are parents who might say it to their children because they're obligated to. many probably even say it as a habit. but you can really tell when they mean it. and their actions almost always convey a fervent sense of affection and "worry" for a child. at least in my case it does. My parents can't bear the thought of me being in distress. I feel compelled to hide all my problems and sadness from them for this reason because I don't want them to feel bad for me and worry for me so much.
why do they have this? the reasons for "why" probably don't lie in any great cosmic truth or some godly fundamental principle of beauty.
The reasons why they care for you might be pretty basic or biological, or societal or cultural or simple the values they adopted while growing up. They might love you simply because they grew attached to you as most parents do as children grow up.
but that doesn't make it any less worthy of appreciation to me. just the existence of their affection and love is sufficient. the why is inconsequential here imo. your mother might love you because you came out of her vagina and grew up under her care but the fact that a person is willing to offer unconditional love at personal expense in such a short life alone is enough for me.
do you think they don't know about how short life is? through many conversations with my parents, I realized that they fully understand the consequences of their altruistic actions to me. the sacrifices they made. they weren't oblivious to what they were losing. tell me then, would not such unconditional love make you feel vulnerable? would it not evoke the same feeling of affection, gratitude and love from with you as well?
>>7872948
I'm sorry but you're just wrong about the chemical soup thing. ANY current neuroscientist or psychiatrist will scoff at the idea. Neural circuits and their structuring are the basis of consciousness, not the neurotransmitters. The chemical soup idea posits that it's the oil that runs the car and not the engine.
As far as the tribal origins of love, that is highly questionable to me as there are several examples of non-humans exhibiting what we would call love, it predates the tribal unit. Tribes themselves are much more complicated than the simple family unit, which by necessity needs only 2 individuals to exist. But I'm digressing
>>7872872
>I am not from american or european culture (which I've heard tends to be much more atomic and families tend to break apart much more quickly).
it's not entirely true. It is sadly becoming more of a thing with the advance of rationalism and individualism; but the european tradition has ever been centred around families, even when the theorists said otherwise. In Europe and in America you will still find very strong family bonds in many families especially in the lower middle class.
I'm sorry to say my family isn't a shining example. I'm of course extremely close with my siblings and parents, and pretty close with my grandparents; but cousins not so much (and there aren't so many of them), and anything beyond that not at all. Family reunions are short and far between, and very awkward besides.
I do envy my asian friends their close-knit networks of cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents, etc. I worry that the extended family is in decline in America.
>>7873000
>Neural circuits and their structuring are the basis of consciousness, not the neurotransmitters. The chemical soup idea posits that it's the oil that runs the car and not the engine.
Bot are true in the sense that it is both the oil and the engine. But that does not change the premise of the argument that because it is biological and in the brain it is not "real".
>As far as the tribal origins of love, that is highly questionable to me as there are several examples of non-humans exhibiting what we would call love
Yeah mating and romantic pair bonding is different then general social behavior in a group.
>>7872253
>weather
Really?
>>7873020
>But that does not change the premise of the argument that because it is biological and in the brain it is not "real".
There I agree with you. People that say something isn't 'real' simply because it's a biological process are being edgy, idiotic, and about as un-scientific as you can get. The fact that love is an action of the body means that it IS about as real a something can be.
>>7873036
Exactly man! They are fucking fedora tippers
![320x240[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/oL83J23.jpg "320x240[1].jpg")
Love is primitive, we need to become more like Vulcans.
Except for that whole wedding ritual thing in that one episode.
>>7871428
i vehemently disagree
mein gott the spooks itt....
read stirner on love and be done with it
Lucretius
>>7873095
does he dismiss love as a spook too?
>>7873095
Define spook. Someone explain it to someone who hasn't read stirner yet an does not know the meaning of the word spook other than it's literal definition.
it sucks but i think it's meant to just 'pass', the first time is never going to work out
>>7873146
illusions. stuff you think have meaning and a metaphysical basis, but are actually just figments of your imagination and do not mean anything.
>>7873146
Essentially the same thing as a social construct. Spooks according to Stirner are ideas/concepts/institutions etc that coerce the individual to act against the will of the ego.
Btw, when someone says read so-and-so without saying another word they basically cannot form arguments on their own and must let their pet authoritarian figure speak for them. When people do this in regards to Stirner the amount of irony is almost painfully humorous.
>>7873198
>>7873216
thank you based anons. what I had in mind was pretty close to this.
anyway, for a noob, would you recommend "the ego and it's own"? I'd like to read someone elaborate on the idea of spooks which I find interesting.
I'm going through the greeks but can i cheat and read the ego and it's own right now? Or does it require or necessitate some previous reading which would be preferable in order to understand this book in its full capacity?
>>7872806
HAPPINESS IS JUST SMILES IN THE FACE! NOT REAL
those chemicals don't necessarily invalidate love. there's nothing impure about chemicals in your brain, you know?
>>7871452
We in the west only have one term for it because we're more advanced. We recognize that the force which binds erotic couples, families, and friends is one universal thing. That's the legacy of Christianity on our language. It's all the same love.
>>7871525
Petrarch's "sparse rhymes." Here's number 190:
A white doe on the green grass appeared to me, with two golden
horns, between two rivers, in the shade of a laurel, when the sun
was rising in an unripe season.
Her look was so sweet and proud that to follow her I left every
task, like the miser who as he seeks treasure sweetens his trouble
with delight.
"Let no one touch me," she bore written with diamonds and
topazes around her lovely neck. "It has pleased my Caesar to
make me free."
And the sun had already turned at midday; my eyes were tired
by looking but not sated, when I fell into the water, and she
disappeared.
>>7873349
> We recognize that the force which binds erotic couples, families, and friends is one universal thing. That's the legacy of Christianity on our language. It's all the same love.
let me paraphrase that bullshit for you
> We delude ourselves that the force which binds erotic couples, families, and friends is one universal thing. That's the unfortunate legacy of Christian sophistry on our language. It's all the same love: is what we have to tell ourselves.
yeah. that should do it.
also you should go watch this movie. I think you'll love it considering that it's targeted at people like you.
>>7872428
good shit
>>7872893
>I feel like I'm a shit person and not worthy of unconditional love, even from family members.
Who are you to decide who is and who isn't worthy of something as powerful and as mysterious as love? If you really had a low opinion of yourself, you wouldn't dare to toss such monumental judgements hither and thither. Learn some humility and accept whatever love you can—it'll save you a lot of undue suffering.
>>7872893
Also your usage of hypothetical situations is meaningless. You're just trying to make yourself feel bad. They might not love you if you weren't a family member—but that's irrelevant, because you are a family member. Someone would love you, at any rate.
>>7873352
good argument
>>7873349
>because we're more advanced
top kek.
the west stands for nothing but decadence and degeneracy and there is nothing remotely culturally advanced about it in its current state it begins and ends at capitalist consumption. it's sad to observe people not be able to see this.
but oh well, I hope you enjoy your fries. both serving them and consuming them.
>>7873396
that's a meme opinion
>>7873249
He only wrote one book
>>7873351
I have to agree, that's pretty based, anon
>>7873429
>meme
>factual
Not mutually exclusive. The problem is that it's not just 'the west' anymore, the sickness spread a long time ago to encompass the entire developed world.
>>7872428
What a spooky post.
>>7872811
>>7872862
>>7872866
>>7872872
>>7873342
He's right, there are two aspects to "love", the cultural (romantic) aspect is a spook, and the other is a biological drive for companionship either directly from neurological impulses or because they were ingrained into you through the spook.
"You know, actually we have no love — that is a terrible thing to realize. Actually we have no love; we have sentiment; we have emotionality, sensuality, sexuality; we have remembrances of something which we have thought as love. But actually, brutally, we have no love. Because to have love means no violence, no fear, no competition, no ambition. If you had love you will never say, "This is my family." You may have a family and give them the best you can; but it will not be "your family" which is opposed to the world. If you love, if there is love, there is peace. If you loved, you would educate your child not to be a nationalist, not to have only a technical job and look after his own petty little affairs; you would have no nationality. There would be no divisions of religion, if you loved. But as these things actually exist — not theoretically, but brutally — in this ugly world, it shows that you have no love. Even the love of a mother for her child is not love. If the mother really loved her child, do you think the world would be like this? She would see that he had the right food, the right education, that he was sensitive, that he appreciated beauty, that he was not ambitious, greedy, envious. So the mother, however much she may think she loves her child, does not love the child. So we have not that love."
>>7872806
jab a fucking ice pick into your balls and try to tell those are just chemicals you're feeling.
>>7872806
>Getting this apathetic over social constructs
Dude chill out, apathy is literally a social construct.
>>7874470
wow. that's pretty stupid anon. whoever wrote that wasn't too intelligent it seems. also, it's written in such a clunky and awkward prose that a high school student could edit this dumb paragraph.
>>7872872
no one is ever going to love you like your family does. if you're looking for a girl who will do so she is going to be lying to you and herself.
not to say it can't come close, close is good enough.
Crowley
>>7873498
yea convince yourself you need someone because you need to satisfy your neurological impulses what a sad fucking way to exist
>>7872872
>they dedicated their lives to make me happy
>that makes me feel love for them
sounds more like forced obligation desu. There are hundreds of examples of loving parents getting abandoned by their kids. You were just brainwashed by your culture to believe its natural love that makes you not be a dick like them.
>>7872806
Can we stop this "if it's understood or a mechanical process that somehow changes its value" meme?
It literally doesn't matter if it is a mechanical process or emotional construct, etc. Humans are logical relations and emotion, and perceive literally everything as such. There's no "authenticity" in that sphere.
>>7875080
Would you rather do business with someone who you know for sure is a liar, or someone who says they aren't a liar?
Would you rather evaluate employees based on short-term projects that allow you to review employees' progress in as short a period as one month (modern CPU manufacturing), or evaluate employees based on long-term projects that allow you to review employees' progress as measured in years? (Aerospace Engineer)
Would you rather trust a seemingly barely competent person who is a certified engineer to build a bridge or a seemingly extremely competent person who isn't a certified engineer to build a bridge?
People make evaluations based on what they can see and measure. The more visible and quantifiable something is, the more valuable/"real" they will consider it. In some cases it's a matter of liability, but in all cases there's a matter of reliability.
>>7875080
There is the mindless "hurr it is love, love is unconditional" and then there is the "it is a feeling that affects my thinking that i better satisfy but i shouldn't let it get in way of my true goals/achievements in life". Understanding it does change its value, thats what understanding is all about, but it doesn't mean we should just start ignoring it, since it still is a chemical process in our brain and our brain is... Well, our brain.
>>7875084
I agree with you entirely. I think i didn't word my post very well. I should have said worsened or becomes less significant, instead of changes value.
>>7875086
I'm shit at writing. I just meant that it doesn't make it less real or human; a brain derives value from emotion in base form, regardless of the process involved. It could be a gerbil on a conveyor belt hooked to a generator, but it'd still be as significant. There's not even room to assign value to anything, it's like what color is to a human, separate from how it it's physically transmitted. The two "systems" don't interact with each other.
>>7875086
and in your post lies the bullshit no mind/pure mind dichotomy on love that 90% of people in this thread have adhered to.
the truth is it's all context based depending on the person and the situation, to theorize what is the best way to approach love when love itself has so many different variations is fucking stupid. i mean sure theoretically there could be an ideal way to approach love but if you've ever felt love you know that doesn't work out, in fact i've found that the people who are all "love is chemicals in my brain" tend to be the ones who get enslaved by their emotions.
trying to objectify your subjective experience doesn't work and it just creates zombies of human beings. what people don't realize is that if you mute whatever emotion you don't want you end up muting everything. then when you start feeling something remotely pleasant you become enslaved by it.
rationality would work if human beings were rational. the biggest flaw of modern society is in thinking that we are.
>>7875166
>rationality would work if human beings were rational. the biggest flaw of modern society is in thinking that we are.
I agree with this. Humans are simply incompatible with current applications of rationality when it comes to themselves. Not like rationality is globally incompatible with humans, but more like it has appropriate spheres which are derivatives of processes we required to have a lot of mental horsepower for. When you try to deny your humanity in favor of some shoddy system you think is correct, when no human has what it takes to calculate what would warrant a "correct" system, you just end up disturbing important processes that are ironically the pillars of an "intellectual". A lot of people reject being human because they view it as base somehow, when that's absurd because it's your value system itself.
>>7872806
>"Love" is a social construct.
What are you trying to say here? Describing something as a social construct doesn't legitimately remove it or makes it less valid or real. Of course you need a certain biological disposition in order to have the emotional capacity for love. Not being able to experience a feeling or state that can be described through the term "love" would indicate that you're emotionally dysfunctional, or "reduced" in lack of a better word. The social construct of love doesn't create "love". It only teaches you the social codes for how you're allowed to express love and how it's meant to be practiced in a way that your society or culture deems acceptable. See:
>>7871426
>The only reason anyone questions it is because of the narrow social norms for love. Monogamy and whatever.
Pretty much what this guy said.
>>7873352
>april 1
lolwut
>>7875268
look at the date again and then feel ashamed of yourself
>>7874916
Krishnamurti wanted to reach as many people as possible, so of course it's written in a simple way. You also don't seem to understand the point of the quote.
>>7875662
he seems to be under the delusion that if love exists it must be "distributed" to everyone equally an it would be impossible for one to love one individual more than the other.
>>7875916
This is defect of the english language, not what Krishnamurti is trying to say about love. We only have one word for Love. The kind of love that Krishnamurti is talking about IS something that the world lacks. It's the love of the Bodhisattva. The best way to describe it is a universal acceptance and compassion; the desire to bring about fulfillment in the other, whether they be your mother, your child, or you greatest enemy.
>>7875916
No, what he's saying is that if it is something that has to make people selfish and petty to exist, it's not love; if by "loving" someone, you are only excluding the rest of the world, then you only are with that person negatively, comparatively and calculatively--does that really deserve to be called "love"? Can you really say you love someone you only like for what they're not, or which you measure against others, or you do them good only for your own pleasure?
>I will never feel romantic love
Feels detached
>>7872858
actually, the coal-walking thing isn't ignorance of pain. A layer of sweat is allowed to accumulate on the base of the feet, and the coals being used have a high index of resistance preventing any actual serious burns.
>>7872858
>Being physically attracted to women is literally objectification, and the male-female relationship is inherently oppressive.
And that is bad, how?
>>7874470
this is the stupidest thing I've read all week
