True love

I am looking for philosophical answer on at war, I know ...
So, do you think that true love is possible ? Why is ? Why isn't ?
If it is, will all people actually feel it, or just some ?

Secret of true love lies somewhere deep in the forums of SP Police...

True love is within us all we just need something or someone we truly care for to feel it.

This is true love
http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=29007

लिखा द्वारा Nero, 05.01.2017 at 20:04

This is true love
http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=29007

No, this is true love
http://atwar-game.com/users/profile.php?user_id=1316

Well, true love is difficult to define, but real love (not romances or lust) consists mostly of reliving the unconditional love our parents gave to us. thus, we can define true love as truly unconditional love. truly unconditional love is most likely possible, but you need someone stupid enough to abandon his hedonist ways and ignore the archaic drive for sex with good looking people and only care about not even your character but simply your being. tldr: jfreders is right

yea i know my argumentation wasnt stringent and i did presume a lot. i didnt want to write a three pager, sorry >_>

Love is the release of chemicals in your brain that is telling your doing a great job at attempting to reproduce. That leads into why divorce rates are so high, eventually your brain stops awarding you with the chemical release, so you go and cheat or abandoned the relationship. Same goes for family and friends but the chemical is released in another form known as companionship our ancestral pack mentility manifesting itself as a chemical release telling you your doing a good job surrounding yourself with pack members for survival.

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 05.01.2017 at 22:34

saying love was just chemicals in our brain rewarding us is convenient, as it makes love seem quite undesireable, yet quite oversimplyfied. psychology isnt that simple though. note that this only applies to love, not lust or romance, wich indeed are chemicals in our brain that ensure our reproduction. wikipedia:

Psychologist Erich Fromm maintained in his book The Art of Loving that love is not merely a feeling but is also actions, and that in fact, the "feeling" of love is superficial in comparison to one's commitment to love via a series of loving actions over time. In this sense, Fromm held that love is ultimately not a feeling at all, but rather is a commitment to, and adherence to, loving actions towards another, oneself, or many others, over a sustained duration. Fromm also described love as a conscious choice that in its early stages might originate as an involuntary feeling, but which then later no longer depends on those feelings, but rather depends only on conscious commitment.

लिखा द्वारा Tirpitz406, 05.01.2017 at 22:44

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 05.01.2017 at 22:34

saying love was just chemicals in our brain rewarding us is convenient, as it makes love seem quite undesireable, yet quite oversimplyfied. psychology isnt that simple though. note that this only applies to love, not lust or romance, wich indeed are chemicals in our brain that ensure our reproduction. wikipedia:

Psychologist Erich Fromm maintained in his book The Art of Loving that love is not merely a feeling but is also actions, and that in fact, the "feeling" of love is superficial in comparison to one's commitment to love via a series of loving actions over time. In this sense, Fromm held that love is ultimately not a feeling at all, but rather is a commitment to, and adherence to, loving actions towards another, oneself, or many others, over a sustained duration. Fromm also described love as a conscious choice that in its early stages might originate as an involuntary feeling, but which then later no longer depends on those feelings, but rather depends only on conscious commitment.

But that leads back to the chemical reaction, we do those things in order to feel good, which in turn is still a chemical reaction. Which there is nothing wrong with labeling the reaction as love as long as people understand that love is not some mystical force it is something you personally must strive for or your body will stop producing the feelings you crave in order to fulfill the relationship.

I personally care about one thing in this life and it is my dream to make a mark on human history, I want to be remembered like a great general, philosopher, scientist or leader, I wish to further humanities advancement and have no need or want for actual love, with that being said I'm still human and maintain a healthy relationship because it makes me feel good, but it is far from what's actually on my mind.

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 05.01.2017 at 22:49

But that leads back to the chemical reaction, we do those things in order to feel good, which in turn is still a chemical reaction. Which there is nothing wrong with labeling the reaction as love as long as people understand that love is not some mystical force it is something you personally must strive for our your body will stop producing the feelings you crave in order to fulfill the relationship.

the whole is more than its part. most of our thinking isnt based on chemicals, but on electricity flowing trough our brains. thats what nerve cells, wich our brain consists of do, let electricity flow. obviously mystical forces dont exist, but you still are wrong. you still think about the archaic lust, forgetting about how complex relations, emptathy and thus functional love, actually are. to actually love someone for a long time requires you to be friends with the other person. and being friends with somebody is one of the most complex things ever. just for a second think about all the different people you have been friends with, most will be quite similar to you, but some might differ, some probably are way different to you and some might be total opposites of your personality.

you cannot presume everything was about gaining an evolutionary edge, when most friendships exist more because of the need to socialize than because we needed the friendships in order to help us.
i mean, are you lazy to gain an evolutionary advantage, are some people less smart than others to gain an evolutionary advantage? of course, our main goals in life are to reproduce and live long, but that doesnt stop a machine so complex, it understands itself, from making simple things much more complex than we needed for evolutionairy effectiveness. we dont make art to gain an evolutionairy edge, we didnt invent weapons that could wipe us out to gain an evolutionairy advantage.

unconditional love, referring to my first statement, is rare, but does exist, and it is entirely anti evolution. analistically speaking, unconditional implies that the referred action does not give the actor an advantage. thus, evolution cannot be the reason, why we actually love someone after the evolutionairy advantage has been gained.

the feeling of familiarity is not simply to feel good about surrounding our tribe with people advantageous to ourselves. you cant trust someone you simply have spent much time with, people we know usally arent people most useful to us. this part of love is an psychological phenomenon. this part is about relving the unconditional love that our parents gave us. friendship can develop a similar apparence, where neither party gains an advantage, but they simply like eachother because they like eachother. this is what romantists (the writers of that timeperiod) always tried to reach, solace with another person , a lost paradise, that often is never found again.

getting someone to love you unconditionally is often easier when you have loved them with little conditions before. a young god kissing an ugly fifth daughter of a poor farmer will start this way of thinking and often helps with achieving, what ATCZiviniceWasps called "true love"

लिखा द्वारा Tirpitz406, 05.01.2017 at 23:33

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 05.01.2017 at 22:49

But that leads back to the chemical reaction, we do those things in order to feel good, which in turn is still a chemical reaction. Which there is nothing wrong with labeling the reaction as love as long as people understand that love is not some mystical force it is something you personally must strive for our your body will stop producing the feelings you crave in order to fulfill the relationship.

the whole is more than its part. most of our thinking isnt based on chemicals, but on electricity flowing trough our brains. thats what nerve cells, wich our brain consists of do, let electricity flow. obviously mystical forces dont exist, but you still are wrong. you still think about the archaic lust, forgetting about how complex relations, emptathy and thus functional love, actually are. to actually love someone for a long time requires you to be friends with the other person. and being friends with somebody is one of the most complex things ever. just for a second think about all the different people you have been friends with, most will be quite similar to you, but some might differ, some probably are way different to you and some might be total opposites of your personality.

you cannot presume everything was about gaining an evolutionary edge, when most friendships exist more because of the need to socialize than because we needed the friendships in order to help us.
i mean, are you lazy to gain an evolutionary advantage, are some people less smart than others to gain an evolutionary advantage? of course, our main goals in life are to reproduce and live long, but that doesnt stop a machine so complex, it understands itself, from making simple things much more complex than we needed for evolutionairy effectiveness. we dont make art to gain an evolutionairy edge, we didnt invent weapons that could wipe us out to gain an evolutionairy advantage.

unconditional love, referring to my first statement, is rare, but does exist, and it is entirely anti evolution. analistically speaking, unconditional implies that the referred action does not give the actor an advantage. thus, evolution cannot be the reason, why we actually love someone after the evolutionairy advantage has been gained.

the feeling of familiarity is not simply to feel good about surrounding our tribe with people advantageous to ourselves. you cant trust someone you simply have spent much time with, people we know usally arent people most useful to us. this part of love is an psychological phenomenon. this part is about relving the unconditional love that our parents gave us. friendship can develop a similar apparence, where neither party gains an advantage, but they simply like eachother because they like eachother. this is what romantists (the writers of that timeperiod) always tried to reach, solace with another person , a lost paradise, that often is never found again.

getting someone to love you unconditionally is often easier when you have loved them with little conditions before. a young god kissing an ugly fifth daughter of a poor farmer will start this way of thinking and often helps with achieving, what ATCZiviniceWasps called "true love"

Well no one has ever loved me unconditionally maybe in that respect your lucky, iv only experiance those who have wanted something out of me and those iv wanted something from, so maybe your right maybe your wrong it's all very speculative and there has not been an applicable amount of research done into the phenomenon so I'll leave it at that,from my own personal stand point love to me is satisfaction and nothing else.

It was all good until redzi's scary ex got involved.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 06.01.2017 at 02:15

It was all good until redzi's scary ex got involved.

How butch was he?

लिखा द्वारा Tirpitz406, 05.01.2017 at 22:44

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 05.01.2017 at 22:34

saying love was just chemicals in our brain rewarding us is convenient, as it makes love seem quite undesireable, yet quite oversimplyfied. psychology isnt that simple though. note that this only applies to love, not lust or romance, wich indeed are chemicals in our brain that ensure our reproduction. wikipedia:

Psychologist Erich Fromm maintained in his book The Art of Loving that love is not merely a feeling but is also actions, and that in fact, the "feeling" of love is superficial in comparison to one's commitment to love via a series of loving actions over time. In this sense, Fromm held that love is ultimately not a feeling at all, but rather is a commitment to, and adherence to, loving actions towards another, oneself, or many others, over a sustained duration. Fromm also described love as a conscious choice that in its early stages might originate as an involuntary feeling, but which then later no longer depends on those feelings, but rather depends only on conscious commitment.

Trying to explain "love" through psychology. Top kek. Psychology can help in our everyday life but cannot explain complex biochemical reactions that happen in our brains, psychology is not even a real science. Try neuroscientists instead.

Love is in the air

लिखा द्वारा blond pony, 06.01.2017 at 05:47

Trying to explain "love" through psychology. Top kek. Psychology can help in our everyday life but cannot explain complex biochemical reactions that happen in our brains, psychology is not even a real science. Try neuroscientists instead.

well, psychology gives us models that, in many cases, work with the data we have gained from empirical experiments, and yes, this includes evidence from neuroscience. so, you could call it theoretical neurosience, but people that like to think they were just comodores hooked up to a chunk of flesh wouldnt quite appreciate seeing that their world isnt as simple as it may seem...

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 06.01.2017 at 02:15

It was all good until redzi's scary ex got involved.

Ye, Mate can be jealous if he wants to.

लिखा द्वारा Tirpitz406, 05.01.2017 at 22:00

Well, true love is difficult to define, but real love (not romances or lust) consists mostly of reliving the unconditional love our parents gave to us. thus, we can define true love as truly unconditional love. truly unconditional love is most likely possible, but you need someone stupid enough to abandon his hedonist ways and ignore the archaic drive for sex with good looking people and only care about not even your character but simply your being. tldr: jfreders is right

yea i know my argumentation wasnt stringent and i did presume a lot. i didnt want to write a three pager, sorry >_>

only unconditional love is love.. love is the quality of a low entropy consciousness.

About this topic, i will just tell oxytocin. People that needed to understand, will understand.

लिखा द्वारा Oleg, 09.01.2017 at 19:14

About this topic, i will just tell oxytocin. People that needed to understand, will understand.

Wow, u are such a mysterical biatchhhh :fp

लिखा द्वारा Croat, 09.01.2017 at 20:34

लिखा द्वारा Oleg, 09.01.2017 at 19:14

About this topic, i will just tell oxytocin. People that needed to understand, will understand.

Wow, u are such a mysterical biatchhhh :fp

Omg, my true love Croat came