Is there a more selfish feeling than romantic love?!
In romantic love, you want the person for you.
You can only be happy if she is with you.
You will only manifest your love if she is by your side.
If she (or he) is with anyone else, you will feel something like sorrow or anger.
If she does not see you in the same way, you feel sad, you'll say things like you were friendzoned or rejected.
Romantic love is wanting a human being for you and you alone.
Normally, with any other form of love, like that between a mother and a child, or two brothers, even between friends or a human and his pet, it doesn't involve any of this!
I see romance as very, very selfish.
Would you agree?
How can romance be moral, ethic, etc, when it is inherently selfish? Is romance wrong?
>>8068212
Romance is for fags
>>8068212
>morals
>ethics
Child please
>>8068216
Even if what you said is true it does not contemplate my questions.
>>8068219
It's funny to read this reply when most people who believe in morals and ethics are well behaved seniors with families while those who criticize these values are edgy teen age fedora tipping losers with no friends or family.
What do you expect a person to be doing when not in romantic love that is superior morally?
Being in love is probably the best experience I've ever had even if it did turn to absolute shit.
kys op
I wholeheartedly believe that love is the only that matters in this shitty thing we call life
>>8068858
>you are asking for a lifetime mental breakdown and anxiety.
Yeah but I have that even when im not in love. The only difference is one makes it seem worth it.
>>8068815
>ad hominem
I have a loving family and a girlfriend with an Ivy League medical degree. I'm just a realist. Of course I love her because she represents many things I value largely for selfish reasons. I still love her though.
>>8068876
oh so you just suck then, whatever carry on
>>8068858
If it is so manifestly obvious that the only thing worth doing is work and charity and that romantic love is selfish then how come you are posting here, not contributing to work or charity.
Why is this not equally selfish. If not more selfish because in romantic love at least 2 people's lives are greatly improved whereas here, nobody's is.
Where is your leg to stand on, OP?
>>8068962
first of all, I'm not OP
second, i never said "the only thing worth doing is work and charity." Allow me to correct your awful awful reading comprehension:
THAT'S NOT WHAT I FUCKING SAID, RETARD
third, romantic love is not a guarantee of improved quality of life: that's completely myopic. How many miserable couples do you know? I know maybe one in 10 that are genuinely happy. Maybe. And even then, it doesn't last.
>>8068978
>What do you expect a person to be doing when not in romantic love that is superior morally?
>easy, work and charity.
If a person is to never be in romantic love, then what percentage of time will they not be in romantic love? 100% of the time, retard.
It is what you said, you're just too much of an idiot to realise it.
OP, talked abut the feeling of 'romantic love'. The feeling of romantic love is not the same as all the emotions one goes through in the relationship as i, perhaps optimistically, assumed you would understand. Romantic love in the sense OP described, i.e. the topic, has nothing to do with the misery you're describing
>>8068212
i don't think what op described IS love tautologically speaking.
seems to have describes love FEARS more than anything, without taking into account other aspects.
>you can only be happy if she with you
completely false and more a sign of codependency.
>you will only manifest your love bla bla bla
also false and more a sign of codependency. Op that is not love, maybe an immature and naive view of it perhaps, but that's being generous
>if they are with someone else
then there is no love anymore so i'm not sure how you fault this on it
>if she does not love you in the same way
how many different ways do you see someone can love you? i mean romantically? if you believe someone is the more loving in a relationship, then, more often than not, that is a sign of feeling inadequate and unsure, perhaps of having 'trust issues'
>romantic love is wanting a human being for you and you alone
no it isn't. desire is a part and monogamy can be as well, but i would dare to say love is so much more then pure WANT.
>>8068212
Romantic love is the result of oxytocin, which exists in order to improve pair bonding so that children are more likely to be raised in a functional family with two parents. Feels damn good though, can't blame people for pursuing it.
>>8068212
Romance is the feeling of possessing your prize, deeply embedded in the aryan man's soul. Modern life makes it difficult to live a life as a bandit and pirate, leads to isolation, will never die young, virile, savage and in love.
>>8068212
Poomantic love is le feeling of le chemicals in brain. DOESN'T EVEN REAL AHAHAHAHAHAHAH IDIOT!!!!
>>8069293
You could do this easily, but you don't because you aren't virile or savage. You post on 4chan because you're timid.
Nah, romantic love is shitty because it puts one person above everything else. It's necessarily an act that excludes the rest of the world.
>>8069303
what a retarded belief
>>8069301
Explain how I could do this easily, with no money and a disintegrated social structure
>>8069298
To be fair, it's a chemical produced by the anterior pituitary gland, not the brain. And the purpose of saying that is to show that it's not rational and its purpose is evolutionary, not magical or god-given. It's good for people to understand the motivations behind their actions, doesn't mean anyone is an idiot for making decisions based on it. Functionally similar to drug addicts, sure, but not idiots.
>>8069312
>no money
This is a reason FOR being a pirate, dumbass. Go steal some shit. Disintegrated social structure makes crime easier, just look at Somalia.
>>8069307
What a retarded post.
>>8069328
>steal shit
>go to prison because bleep bloop computer world sees every move
>even more confined
Good plan. I think my plan of saving up to buy a boat is better.
>>8068212
What's wrong with selfishness? Plenty of actions are taken purely out of self interest. You aren't ashamed at your own moral depravity when you wake up and have a slice of toast for breakfast, are you? Why must every action be done for a higher cause? Romance isn't wrong for the same reason that playing ping-pong isn't wrong, it's just an activity that people take part in. The fact that said activities don't include every other living thing on the planet is not a qualifier.
>>8069346
Fine, if you really have so little faith in your bandit skills, go live in a third world country where there are no computers. I guarantee you it'll be cheaper and quicker than buying a boat.
>>8069387
>go live in a third world country where there are no computers
Gringo, por favor, no hay escape de esta mierda.
>>8069409
Hay escape, pero no vas a hacerlo porque eres pinche joto pendejo.
>>8069424
>pinche joto pendejo
Apendé a hablar, indio caníbal.
>>8069387
I'd be less free than on a boat.
Also not a burger so I can't just roll down to Mexico and get it overwith.
>>8069437
North Africa and ISIS-land aren't too far from Europe, a flight wouldn't be expensive. And you can get the boat once you're there, all you have to do is kill some random fisherman.
>>8069453
What about securing my lineage?
>fall for someone
>spend so much time thinking about shit like "Do I love her because she's attractive, or is she attractive because I love her?"
>drive myself crazy
>she refuses to talk to me now
>>8069459
During the course of your raping and pillaging you'll find a nice white woman sooner or later. Take her prisoner, rape her, Stockholm syndrome sets in, you've got yourself a war bride.
>>8069460
What's wrong with that? If you like someone for their looks, you can always break things off after you fuck, as long as she isn't too crazy.
>>8069460
i fell ya man
got rejected after a year of getting worked up for a chick yesterday
dunno why i had to fall for such a bitch
dont wanna love anybody ever again
>>8069494
Oh I meant "attractive" as in all her qualities, not just her physical appearance.
It was a really strong longing for her, sometimes I wonder if she was "the one" because even now I still think about her
>Am I in love with you
>Am I in love with you
>Or am I in love with the feeling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYj4l5Xntt0
>>8069479
looking at tickets to Somalia right now 2bh
>>8069514
God speed anon, I wish you a manly death. I'll look for you in the news.
>>8068212
everything you fuckin do is borne out of self-interest
yes, even donating to africa or helping out at the soup kitchen. you did it either to make yourself feel good about being a "world citizen" (selfish) or to set a moral example for how you think humans should behave (selfish) to virtue signal to others about how holy you are to other people (selfish).
doesn't matter if you think you were 100% benevolent. you got something out of it or else you wouldn't be compelled to do it.
>>8069541
what about killing myself, i don't do that to feel good because i won't be around to feel.
check
mate
>>8069519
Though... Maybe I could find an easier starter country? Get my feet wet and all, I grew up fairly divorced from violence, haven't been in very many fights and I don't think any of the ones I've been in could have led to death.
Maybe join a militia in like, Nigeria first?
>>8069546
>the process of killing self feels good.
>>8069541
oh, add "i'm just paying it forward" to the list, too (selfish) and the most common answer: "it just makes me feel good" (selfish)
those of you saying 'love' is just chemicals in the brain lack knowledge on the etymology of 'love'.
those chemical reactions have existed long before the modern notion of 'love' has. cavemen experienced those same chemical reactions but they did not at all understand 'love' as we see it today;
>>8069563
>cavemen didn't have a written language so love isn't chemicals
>>8069546
you do that to end your own, personal suffering. thus you extract benefit. selfish.
>>8069563
>love is words
words come after everything, to describe pre-existing things observed. they don't create anything, despite what that famous book tells you.
>>8069563
The existence of a bunch of linguistic structures around a feeling does not change the experience of that feeling, only how we act on it. The purpose of saying it's chemicals in the brain is to separate the feeling and the connotations of the word, to show that those things can be separated.
>>8069553
Whatever you say, anon, I'm not here to judge. Just trying to help you follow your dreams.
>>8069571
how do i extract benefit if i am not there to extract any benefit?
>>8069575
You don't have any suggestions? I feel like the Congo and Somalia are kinda like the major league of warlording.
>>8069579
That has to do with low I.Q.
>>8069513
>Don't let one experience ruin you anon.
i know but its like
why would i even try again?
it seems so fucking pointless now
i wanna have a family and everything but it just seems impossible
even now i can feel myself grow more distant from her and i really liked her
how the fuck am i supposed to find someone who actually wants the same things as me?
>>8069579
take that up with your god
>>8069579
*takes bong hit* damn dude one of the few things society tells you not to do has a downside
>>8069583
True, I suppose it's best to work up to it. Nigeria might be a big intense though, due to the existence of Boko Haram. South Sudan, maybe?
>>8069588
The world is a big place anon, it's not unlikely that at least one person shares your goals. Make an okcupid or some shit, most of the people will be cancer but you have to play the numbers game if you're looking for a specific type of girl.
>>8069604
eh?
>>8069572
>>8069575
damn told. wittgenstein was wrong
t. anons on 4chan
all meming aside, take some time and read love and eroticism by octavio paz. i'm not going to try and argue the mechanics of language but perhaps a reading on the evolution on the literature of love can illuminate to you how something such as 'love' (more than anything else imo) has been shaped by language.
>>8069610
*takes another hit, blows weed breath in your face*
*unzips dick*
>>8069607
Hmm, might be hard to get my bearings in a tribal conflict, would be kinda like just jumping into it in Afghanistan.
>>8069292
This tho. People say "love is just chemicals lol" as if that's bad. What else did you expect? Did you think it was some kind of magical gift or something?
>>8069617
oh, haha!
>>8069614
Thanks, we will read the correct books to get the correct thoughts to correct our thinking.
>>8069614
Wittgenstein had an opinion, he's no more objectively right than any other philosopher or scientist. When I say "love is brain chemicals", it's to maybe prevent people from being as controlled as they are by the institutions surrounding a particular experience that results in the production of a particular hormone. I do not disagree that language shapes how we view things, but that shaping is subject to change, whereas hormones aren't. Hormones aren't the entirety of love, just the most essential and direct part of it.
>>8069629
your mother has bruised lips faggot
>>8069641
Why isn't she dead?
>>8069620
The point is to be powerful and manly, right? Find a tribe with a recently dead leader, fill the power void. Simple stuff.
>>8069623
I think the issue is that people use it to say love is a worthless the same way they use "weed is just a plant" to imply that it couldn't be harmful. It's an is-ought thing, saying love is chemical doesn't necessarily mean people shouldn't pursue it.
>>8069651
It's obviously just because people want to believe they are special spirits that won't die.
>>8069657
I doubt it runs that deep, people just condemn it because it's the kind of thing facebook pseuds post as if it makes them superior. Although I'm sure some of them are actual religious people using that perception to their advantage, same as the fedora meme.
>>8069668
>he thinks that's deep
It's actually quite shallow. A child's fairy tale.
>>8069678
Not sure if you're serious or not, but yeah sure I guess you could characterize it that way. I wasn't saying it was particularly "deep" though, just using the word relative to the other reason I gave.
>>8069693
Thanks for agreeing.
>>8069694
If understanding where you're coming from is close enough to agreeing for you, sure, no problem.
>>8069699
Thanks for the response.
>>8069706
Of course anon, think nothing of it. Anything else you need?
>>8069711
Take my dick out of your mouth.
>>8069720
I would if it was there, sorry I can't help you on that one.
>>8069723
I accept your denial.
>>8069728
Thank you anon, I appreciate your acceptance. Your words confuse me greatly but I wish you the best of luck regardless. Goodbye, friend.
>>8069733
Thank you for thinking of me.
>>8068212
>Love to one only is a barbarity, for it is exercised at the expense of all others. Love to God also!
-N
>>8069762
I appreciate your psychic abilities.
>>8068212
It's not selfish but it's the love closest to selfishness, because it's strength comes largely from sensual delight, the beauty of the beloved.
Love is primarily an act of the will, it is to will the good of another. Romantic love is in the will (else it would not be love), but it is heavily conditioned by the delight of the senses. Conjugal love, which is the perfection of romantic love, is more in the will and less in the senses, and is a superior form of love. Conjugal is more strong and stable, whereas romantic love can very quickly turn into resentment.
>>8069292
Oxytocin does not cause romantic love, romantic love causes the production of oxytocin.
>>8069764
Why do you feel the need to be hostile, anon? I know this site makes it seem otherwise, but not everything needs to be an argument. I simply stated a guess, an opinion, I never claimed it was factual or that I was infallible.
>>8069782
You're assuming an argument.
>>8069777
This is why the expression "falling in love" is used in regards to romantic love, because it is the most accidental form of love in that it arises initially out of the sensual delight taken in someone, which is something that happens passively, which is why it is the weakest form of love, because the more active, rather than passive, a love is, the stronger. Romantic love is not entirely an accident though. We often see beautiful people and take delight in them. In order for this mere sensual delight to become romantic love, one must make an act of the will based on that initial sensual delight.
This is why those that say oxytocin or some other chemical is the cause of romantic love are wrong. It is not the chemical that causes romantic love, but the act of love, the choice to love someone, that maintains the continual production of this chemical or whatever chemical is involved in sensual delight.
The reason people think romantic love is the strongest form of love is because of the intensity of the sensual delight. But that is not an act of love. The act of love is the will to do good for another, and if you examine romantic love you will found that there is a will to do good for another, but it's not that strong, as one is largely preoccupied with one's own delight.
>>8068837
>love envelops all, even death
>>8069794
There is no will to do good for another, except for that it benefits oneself emotionally ("spiritually") --or so we've been ... taught to believe.
>>8068882
>I'm a realist
>>8069805
If you have evidence for the existence of objective morals and ethics, by all means, please present it. I would be deeply impressed.
>>8069804
Just because one benefits from willing the good of others, does not mean that there is no willing the good of others. It just means that man is a social being who takes delight in the happiness of others.
>>8069460
>nigger meme
>this post
no wonder she left you
>>8069508
man he must've sucked so many circumcised pedo cocks in his time
>>8069808
I do. It's called THE BIBLE.
>>8069817
Hmm, you might have a difficult time convincing people with that one, but if it works for you that's great. I'm confused as to why you'd insult people while arguing for the bible though, doesn't it tell you to turn the other cheek and all that?
>>8069819
Whatever makes you feel better, anon. Do what you need to do.
>>8069827
disgusting tbf
>>8069829
I'm very sorry you feel that way, I hope you're able to work through it.
>>8069827
Groan
>>8069810
The willingness comes from the benefit of self-survival.
Man enjoys watching failure. It means the man watching wins.
Oh, you're the one who gives everyone a trophy. Carry on then.
>>8069803
>You're right, there is in fact a chance that you genuinely believe I have psychic abilities.
kekleon
>>8069657
>>8069668
>>8069678
>>8069693
>>8069694
>>8069699
>>8069706
>>8069711
>>8069720
>>8069723
>>8069728
>>8069733
>>8069741
I don't know if you're depressed or whatever but I seriously hope you guys don't do this.
I grew up in a favela in Rio and I've seen a lot of bad things. Disease, poverty, drugs, violence, rape, murder, corpses, trash on the streets, lack of electricity in some districts, ocasional fires and ocasional police brutality.
If you want to play the tough guy and you're feeling serious about it, why don't you join the French foreing legion? If you managed to go trough the enlisting process, in the future, you'll be among the first people they will send to somewhere in Afghanistan, and you'll have good chances to watch WW3 on the front rows. They will give you combat fatigues, a cool hat and a FAMAS. But you'll also be raped in the showers, beaten with clubs, humiliated and laughed at. You'll be made to perform all sorts of exercises and in the end you will thrown in the middle of a jungle in the French Guyana, being expected to survive and get out of there alive, all alone. If you're not ready for that you won't be ready to do anything beyond that league, and this is small league. I don't want to sound like rude or a SJW or whatever, but it's really annoying when first wolders come up with this talk that they want to see the horrors of war when they live in their perfectly safe bubbles and have nothing to fear.
>>8070147
Do you have a gun?
Romantic love is a spook, the creative nothing sees this and only lusts.
>>8069808
>implying relativistic morals aren't still morals
>A thread on romantic love with contributions from lonely autists who substituted any real relationships for a sense of superiority by reading 'hard' books in order to feel above everyone.
>it's a trainwreck of idiocy
>lesurprisedlizard.png
>>8070278
yeh, a good example of what i was saying
>>8070281
Wrong, I've been in a relationship before, but keep being intellectually and spiritually bankrupt.
>>8070289
you're a prime example
>tfw cuddling after sex with the girl you love
>>8070330
>tfw this post triggers OP and his virgin buddies
>>8070330
she probs farts on you as you cuddle. gross tb h.
>>8070317
>you're a prime example
>lonely autists who substituted any real relationships
>I've been in a relationship before
Stop posting anytime, intellectual lightweight.
>>8070359
>lonely autists who substituted any real relationships
This doesn't mean you've always done this and considering you say 'I have been' not 'I am' you can stop posting anytime, intellectual lightweight.
Getting more and more prime my good man
>>8070368
>considering you say 'I have been' not 'I am'
Because I have moved past love.
You need to despoil yourself.
>>8070381
Despook*
>>8070390
Except I'm not lonely, stop projecting your insecurities.
>>8070351
lol
if you think that girlie wobbly farts are gross is because a girl never gave you love farts, I feel sorry for you
>>8070393
Replied to the wrong person, fatfuck.
>>8070393
>love farts
this is how far you have to go to convince yourself relationships are worth having
wew
>>8070392
sure you're not!
>>8070407
I'm glad you realized this.
>>8068212
Go read The Art of Loving and get a girl you virgin
>>8070418
>Erich Fromm
>le can't handle freedom so love XD
sm h
>>8070417
realised what?
>>8070437
That not lonely and that you're projecting.
>>8070467
I've brought you down to this level so regardless of who posts last, we both know I've won :^)
>>8070471
You just admitted that I won, you lost.
>>8070393
sup, jimmy?
>>8070151
I have 3.
A .22, and two flintlock pistols.
>>8070562
Reported
>>8070566
Wrong, I'm the creative nothing.
>>8070562
>two flintlock pistols.
do they match your fedora
>tfw youve accepted that fact that you're undateable and unlovable with a sense of smug satisfaction and you don't have to justify your failure with edgy arguments about how you think love is bad
Normie virgins will never experience this feel
>>8070636
Everything about this post is retarded
>>8070579
I am Christian Catholic.
>>8070562
Pictures or it did not happen.
>>8070744
I posted this on /k/ some time ago so I hope it counts.
>>8070753
And another one.
Plato, in his dialogue Phaedrus (sections 246a–254e)...
...to explain his view of the human soul. He does this in the dialogue through the character of Socrates, who uses it in a discussion of the merit of Love as "divine madness"
>>8070267
Romantic love is based on sex, i.e. a deeply animalistic impulse. Of course it's inferior to platonic/familial love, it makes people much more likely to hurt each other for no good reason. I have no interest in feeling above anyone, I just don't like seeing people get hurt unnecessarily.
>>8072012
>Romantic love is based on sex, i.e. a deeply animalistic impulse
According to?
Can't everything be boiled down to sex, pointlessly. i.e. freud
>>8072532
>According to?
Science, bonding hormones are released in men after sex.
>>8072564
doesn't mean it's 'based' on sex because that doesn't mean much of anything.
Sex is just a big part and it has platonic love elements in it as well of course
>>8072532
>>8072633
Don't be dense. Look at every classical romantic myth, it's all about love at first sight and exceptional beauty, never about any sort of meaningful connection. Even if such a connection comes about later, it's peripheral, not the main goal; the initial impulse is sexual. And no, not everything can be boiled down to sex.
>>8072564
>science
>correct
>>8072665
The muth of love at first sight is not a proof of animalistic nature of love, just of hopeful nature of men: that love is emergent, transcendant, and not just a checklist of good qualities that make both partners tolerate each other.
Have you seen the autism of imagining a perfect woman as a number of her features? Good sex, smarts, beauty, grace, good temper do not birth a perfect partner, as nice as that would be.
>>8072665
>Look at every classical romantic myth, it's all about love at first sight and exceptional beauty, never about any sort of meaningful connection
It is literally never about just the prospect of sex. To say it is 'based' in sex means sweet fuck all. It is always about implied meaningful connection, otherwise it's a different story.
I mean, have you ever actually seen/read a romance thing. The classic trope is there is some moment in the future where they give some romantic speech about how: 'from the moment I saw you I knew I'd have kids with you and die old with you'
This is always the set up and to say that is just based in sex and has nothing to do with meaningful connection.... What on Earth are you talking about?
>>8069514
even there, fellow anons will keep you company
>>8068212
>Is romance wrong?
Nope.jpg
To sit where I can see your face
And hear your laughter come and go Is greater bliss than all the gods
Can ever know.
The bright dream carries me away:
Watching your lips, your hair, your cheek
I have so many things to say,
Yet cannot speak. I look, I listen, and my soul Flames
>>8072685
Well if you think love is magical, then I suppose I'm not going to gain any traction with you.
>>8072688
How would they know this from the moment the saw them? In that moment, the only information they have about the other person is their appearance, so unless you believe that their character is reflected in their appearance, the "love" must stem from mere attraction. If a meaningful connection happens later, so what? That connection could exist with someone who wasn't attractive, and then it wouldn't be romantic. Sex is the only difference between romantic and platonic love.
>>8072746
>How would they know this from the moment the saw them?
Because they feel it, 'they just know', that's the whole premise of love at first sight whether you think it's dumb or not.
If it were just sexual attraction it'd have plenty of assumption under it as well anyway, they assume they'll want sex and that they aren't secretly the other sex and that they aren't going to kill them once they have sex.
There is very little you actually know about a person just from looking at it so they pile on the implicit meaning. Again, this is the whole premise of very romantic tale ever. Plus character is revealed to a small extent in appearance. Clothing, what venue they meet at, if they are with friends and a million other things give a clue to character
How are you not getting this?
>>8072765
Fine, whatever, myths aren't about sex. But think about it this way - the only difference between "falling in love" and "being close friends with someone" is that the person you "fall in love" with is sexually attractive to you. So the thing that makes romance romantic is sex - even if you end up treating a partner differently than a friend (buying gifts, showing outward affection, etc.), it's only because those are the appropriate social conventions. If sex isn't the motivator for "romance", then what is?
>>8072833
>the only difference between "falling in love" and "being close friends with someone" is that the person you "fall in love" with is sexually attractive to you.
No, because you can be close friends with someone you find sexually attractive.
>So the thing that makes romance romantic is sex - even if you end up treating a partner differently than a friend (buying gifts, showing outward affection, etc.), it's only because those are the appropriate social conventions.
Pretty baseless assertion. You can't seriously think people in love are good to one another because that's the social convention. I remember having been in love, making the other person happy made me happy, this is pretty obvious and it exists, perhaps not as strongly in normal friendships too. Acts of kindness being a social convention purely I think is a pretty radical and wrong claim.
> If sex isn't the motivator for "romance", then what is?
A vast amount of romantic gestures have nothing directly to do with sex. Think of something most women probably find extremely romantic: a proposal. That is motivated by sex insofar as sex'll be part of their relationship but it also entails huge commitment, a professed wish to be with them till the day they die, to possibly have and raise kids and on and on. To say sex is the motivator or rather the base things that fuels the romance here is just idiotic.
Sex is an intrinsic part which coexists with a vast array of other intrinsic parts to make up a romantic relationship. That's it.
>>8072920
Sex (or the promise thereof) and affection are the defining characteristics of romance. Romantic affection is stronger than that of a normal friendship is because it's socially acceptable to show more affection to a romantic partner. The only thing that's "special" about romance is sex, because if you choose to ignore the aforementioned social convention, a friendship can fill the same role.
>>8072746
Of course love is magical, it is divine
see
>>8071146
>>8073099
Lovely dubs
Plato paints the picture of a Charioteer (Greek: ἡνίοχος) driving a chariot pulled by two winged horses
The Charioteer directs the entire chariot/soul, trying to stop the horses from going different ways, and to proceed towards enlightenment.
Plato describes a "great circuit" which souls make as they follow the gods in the path of enlightenment
>>8073104
...Love you nomader what...
>>8073099
>Of course love is magical, it is divine
And miracles happen, they happen even to ordinary people in
the realm of falling in love. Because there's something about where
the genes go...
>>8068212
There is no action a human can take that is not "selfish". By the measure of a selfish action being one that is performed with the intention of benefiting oneself and is thus unethical, living is unethical. The best course of action for the person concerned with living a selfless life is to incinerate themselves so they can stop being a drain on the planet's limited resources. The common moral idea of what is and is not selfish is dependent on whether the act benefits others, and isn't that the most selfish thing of all? How convenient, that only things that improve the world for everyone but yourself are encouraged as right. Selfishness is a virtue and romantic, jealous, all-consuming love is one of its more beautiful forms of expression.
>>8073148
>And miracles happen, they happen even to ordinary people
it reminds me that rainbow unicorn attack game
>>8073222
I'm more of a unicorn island typea person
https://youtu.be/5m11CljW7ZQ
>>8068212
Romance is just the emotion of love brought into mutual practice. Romance is two people who love eacother engaging eachother in a relationship wherein they both appreciate eachothers attractive characteristics. If one does not wish to engage in that mutual relationship, it is not relationship, but coercion, or a longing for a romance with that person if they are not forced into the relationship.
You cannot have romance without a mutual agreement, whereas you can have love without a mutual agreement.
>>8073521
>*it is not romance, but coercion
instead of
>it is not relationship, but coercion,
>>8072673
Hey man that's so cool, it's awesome, really, this is an amazing poist. I just told my family about your epic meme, everyone was amazed and they all asked me to congratulate you in their place, knowing they would never have the opportunity to personally congratulate someone as awesome as yourself. In Christmas we are going to tell even the most unrelated parents about your amazing post, and everyone will be happy to hear it. I also told some friends about this epic meme, and they did not believe me when I said I knew the person who made such an epic maymay. They all said they would honor your legacy to last a thousand years. When my neighbors came to know they were all shocked, and said they wanted to meet you in person. They said that, if you have the time, of course, they would be fulfilled to be visited by your grace, just so they can shake hands with your heighness, the meme master. With the knowledge of your post, people all arround the world are holding parties to celebrate your magnificence. Zeppelins and balloons fly with your face printed on them. Several streets and even cities are being renamed with your name. A famous businessman announced he wanted to hire you so you could give motivational speeches to his employees and make people work with as much energy as you create memes. You're not only famous on 4chan, the whole internet has come to praise your epicness. Even tumblr, 9gag and reddit stopped insulting 4chan after this incident, and now they all bow to us because we made possible for you to share your masterpiece with the rest of the world. Even Facebook and Twitter are now flooding /b/ with newfags, and they all want to see you, the one anon who made this post.
ISIS has disbanded and global CO emissions are being revised because everyone wants to live in a world where people can appreciate your post. Please keep being this awesome, wonderful, marvellous, beautiful and unique person that you are so we can all live in a better world.
>>8068212
you're concerning yourself with conditional love. towards the end of your tirade what you describe is unconditional love. just thought i'd point that out for you
>>8068962
regardless, convincing others to focus on charity is just as important as doing charity yourself. If you spend a lifetime convincing people to do charity and even three people are swayed to devote themselves to it, then three times as much good will come of your actions than if you had simply shut up and worked on charity.
>>8068212
>Is there a more selfish feeling than romantic love?!
Not when that selfishness literally breeds the compassion and willingness to sacrifice in the form of a family.
Your argument is shit and you sound like Chad stole your grill.
>>8068212
True love isn't about you, it's about the other person. I'm not saying that you should embrace the cuckold lifestyle because you're in love with a slut, if that's the case then you've chosen unwisely. Love to me, means my husband's wellbeing. If he doesn't eat at work, I feel terrible and will want to feed him as soon as he steps through the door. If he's angry and frustrated, I feel pity and sadness because I can't help him keep his composure. When you're in love, it's all about the other person. I would he unhappy that he's with another person, but I'd be even more unhappy of I'm not good enough for him. Love is taught differently, OP , I hope you can realize that.
>>8069014
again: allow me to correct your awful awful reading comprehension: YOU'RE FUCKING WRONG
>If a person is to never be in romantic love
how did you get that from
>What do you expect a person to be doing when not in romantic love that is superior morally?
"when not in love" implies that you spend some of your time in love. If you meant something different you should have said what you meant, dummy.
also, this nonsense:
>OP, talked abut the feeling of 'romantic love'. The feeling of romantic love is not the same as all the emotions one goes through in the relationship as i, perhaps optimistically, assumed you would understand. Romantic love in the sense OP described, i.e. the topic, has nothing to do with the misery you're describing
makes it clear that you worship the idea of romantic love and can't bear to hear anything negative about your cherished notion.
maybe someday the world will dash those stupid rose tinted glasses from your eyes. or maybe not. I don't give a fuck.
>>8069460
>spend so much time thinking about shit like "Do I love her because she's attractive, or is she attractive because I love her?"
btw answer to this question is "yes"
