Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

RosaReborn wrote (edited )

Fairy tale 'happily ever after' love most certainly doesn't, nor do most teenage loves. But love is certainly real, it just comes along with a lot of other things as well. Love for a partner requires a lot of respect and empathy, and you sometimes hate the other person and sometimes they bore you or disgust you but you still love them for the person they are. Maybe not forever and definitely not always in the same way, but it certainly is important

5

GrimWillow wrote (edited )

You can see love in the fiercest defenders against the capitalist system. You see love in the fists of Antifa. Love in the hearts of the Zapatistas, and in the determined stand of the land defenders in south america against capitalist resource extraction. From la ZAD, to Rojava, to the Anarchist Greeks, there is a burning passion. Love is in the heart of all the revolutionaries fighting in any way against the incredible tides of violent bare faced oppression, it is the biggest elephant in the room of our era (and it has been that way for a long ass time).

I mention this love specifically because many people out there like to talk about love, and then go shit on revolutionary action saying that "the hard left" is so hateful. Where liberals, centrists, and reactionaries seem to meet is on this idea that "Antifa are the real fascists!" "look at their techniques! They're stifling free speechh!!" and they completely overlook the fact that cops and fascists are tools to hold us down and kill us! How much blood has poured before these people can see the shadows of love and pain behind the eyes staring out from behind the masks you find in a black bloc? How many times do massive slaveshops in Bangladesh have to burn before they notice the wickedness behind the forces of these clothing shops? How could you solute a flag that has been found guilty of some of the most enormous acts of demonic hell action while suggesting that you worship a god of "love"?

4

bloodrose wrote

I used to not understand 'love'. I had a therapist once ask me if I loved a boyfriend I was seeing and I demanded she define the word before I could answer the question. Then I felt love. I told the therapist how I felt about the man I was in love with, I said "I'd rather sit there arguing with him than not have him be there" and she said, "bloodrose, that's love!" Now that I have a child, holy shit, do I know love is real. It's a different love than for another adult and it's fiercer, more intense and so primal. With adults, the chemical that causes you to feel love fades in about 5 years and you either have to do something to restart the chemical process or remember how it felt before. My kid is 4 and there is no fading on this chemical at all. I could just sit there and listen to her babble until the end of time and still be happy.

4

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Is anything “real?”

2

UnkownReality wrote

It's real as long as you chose to make it real. Everything is defined by perspective since that's really the only form of reality we're ever going to feel. You will never know if another person is even feeling, but despite that you chose to make that person a reality to yourself, so since there's nothing neccesarily going against that I guess we could say your perspective is real.

2

md_ wrote

Is anything “real?”

Sort of.

3

amongstclouds wrote

Prove it.

3

md_ wrote

There's no such thing as "proof" outside of maths and formal logic.

2

amongstclouds wrote

Okay, great deflection, so how can you go about 'sort of' showing things are real?

3

md_ wrote

I suspect you made a lot of assumptions from my two-word comment that was just matching the tone of the first commentator. It's not a deflection though, we really can't prove things in a system we do not know the limits of.

In earnest, my view is that there is stuff out there, but human understanding relies exclusively on abstraction, symbolic representation, and building models of the world. If we have useful (fit-for-purpose) models that make predictions which hold, then that model is "sort of" real. If we never hit upon outcomes that falsify it, and it explains the things we want explanations for, it's in a very strict sense as good as the reality.

That's what I mean with "sort of real".

2

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive, but 'sort of real,' has always came off as a weak, but almost correct point of view. It's some weird logical safe ground where the 'sort of' saves our view from being totally wrong and acts as a shelter that only gives us temporary protection from the elements.

I'm literally just interested in talking about this subject and there isn't really any room for 'blah blah blah you're making assumptions,' like of course I'm making assumptions just as you also make assumptions about what I mean.

3

md_ wrote

Fair enough, and that's why I gave quick summary of what I think it is the case, to reassure you that I'm not just being flippant.

4

365degrees wrote

It's about as real as the fancy long-named hormones stimulating one's brain.

3

amongstclouds wrote

The problem is language; not whether love is real or not -- language is a barrier that makes it impossible to know.

2

GaldraChevaliere wrote

It's absolutely real. People are more than just biological triggers and impulses.

1

succtales_backup wrote (edited )

golly gee whiz I don't know. What I'm trying to say is that the concept is somewhat alien to me. What you might call "love," may be better described as obsession, or even avarice in most situations.

-14

OKC wrote

No man would agree to get married if it weren't.