/lit/ - Literature

>>20429534
No.

No, friendship is, read Montaigne

>>20429534
no, that would be infatuation with nymphettes

>platonic love

>>20429534
Agape

>>20429534
What is sexual love?

>>20429534
not really. just the most "intense" one i guess?

>>20429534
No, the love a parent has for their child is stronger I bet

>>20429534
No

>>20429534
Of course. It is ridiculous to reduce the sexual desire to abstract categories such as platonic love, which are simply meaningless and have no real denotation.

>>20429534
Yes.

>>20429534
This picture is too cute bros...

>>20429713
Also, I wouldn't say that the modern understanding of platonic love has a real argument behind itself because even as it presupposes some phenomenon of transcendence that occurs in a love relationship, love itself is grounded equally on physical and spiritual beauty so that transcendence is more a consequence of a love relationship than its cause, as Plato himself said in Symposium that the necessary aspect of finding an object of romantic passion is that this object has a physical beauty and spiritual beauty, which determines by characteristics of good.

But in the end, I'd say that the concept of platonic love is still absurd, as love obviously does not aspire to any kind of transcendence, but it's rather a question of if a person accepts some sort of idealistic worldview.

t. going full schizo mode in the morning

>>20429713
Sexual desire is fleeting so it's ridiculous to reduce a concept like love to getting your rocks off

>>20429600
Baby dont hurt me

>>20429765
Serious question that nobody is answering

>>20429759
Well, we would say people build some sort of friendship after participating in a sexual relationship, but it's still absurd to deduce any transcendental motives from this. And the other thing is that you won't love a person who you don't find physically attractive, so. The concept of male love is a separate topic, by the way.

>>20429773
Attraction is not beauty. You can be attracted to ugly people

>>20429773
Also, parents love their children and owners their pets.

>>20429773
>we would say people build some sort of friendship after participating in a sexual relationship,
Not even close to being generally true. Some might even just view it as rape after the fact out of spite. Because love had nothing to do with it.

>>20429725
>tfw no gf.

>>20429534
The love is not just a meme?

>>20429534
Agape. Love of all, the whole.

>>20429718
you cant read retard

Love is when you have sex with someone.

Love is when you sit in your room all day fantasizing about anime girls

>>20430709
no

>>20429600
How do we explain the uniqueness of sexual love? For instance, when we say 'making love', we hardly mean anything but sexual love; on the other hand, if we say that some person is 'loving', we hardly mean this in a sexual context. When we talk about falling in love or being in love, we hardly mean anything but sexual love. So if friendship is a higher form of love, as someone claimed, why do we not say that friends are in love? Or where does the eroticism of 'being in love' come from, which is apparently absent from other forms of love? When Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, we might call this a loving act, but no one would think to call it an erotic act, though we might say that it was an act 'performed in love'. But by this 'performance in love' do we mean the same thing as 'being in love'? Or if we say about some act that it was performed 'out of' love, why do we not say the same about sexual love? In other words, we would not say that the sexual act of loving was performed out of love. Clearly, the sexual act is love, whereas the act performed out of love is not itself love, but stems from it, is performed 'out of it', as it expression. But where does the love come from in the first place? Where else is love made if not in the sexual act? We may do good deeds for one another; we may show mercy or kindness; we may pray, silently for others; we may even die for one another; are such acts of the same caliber as the act of lovemaking? Are they higher forms of love? Does it settle the matter to say that the difference between sexual love and all the others is merely a question of degree, or perhaps impurity?

Yes. When you gaze into your lovers’ eyes you can see, know, and feel infinite beauty.

>>20429754
Platonic love is absurd and fleeting just like romantic love

Arguably none of them exist past a certain amount of time

Love of God is highest, and love of one’s children is higher than sexual love.

>>20432074
Love in god is basically love of yourself

Self-fellating concept

>>20432084
All love is simultaneously egoistical and selfless you dork. Care for a thing is defined by how you believe it is related to yourself, the more important to who and what you are, the more you care for it. the complex of Will and desire aggregates is fundamentally regulated in experience by the force of care/concern, whether that Is of the most bestial aspects of the mind or the most intellectual higher faculties, care is what defines how you perceive and how you will.

Love then, love is when your care for an object, an otherness, something that is in your perception, is so much so that you believe it truly essential to your identity and manner of being, to your way of will, and the greatest love is such that you say “this thing that I love is I, so much I that even if I died, it would be better than if it died, for it is more important to who I am than my narrative of who I am, of my experience of who I am.”

Thus all love is a reflection of the self within the other. True love with a woman is not lust for her nor first sight, it is association with her identity and person internally so that, after years of mutual shared work and experience, you see her as not at all separate from yourself. Your children are more so this since they literally come out of you, everything in your mind screams the child is your emanation, it is you multiplied, all of the child’s history and identity is, for you, phenomenologically wrapped about who you are as a person. Thus the love of your child is inherently of a deeper sort than the love of your woman.

And the love of God, that is the origin of your self, that is love itself, that is the self by which your self was emanated, the original model of all that is and all you are, the most essential to who you are and all else is and the origin of all that one can care for. To truly feel the love for God is to experience the deepest love precisely because it is both the most egotistical and the most selfless at once. To feel the love of God is to love God with the love he loves you with, to look at his I/eye with your I/eye and find it is the same eye, self to self in mirror.

This opinion can be found echoed in the great philosophers and mystics of basically every culture.

Here have a poem by Blake on love.

Love seeketh not Itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care;
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a Heaven in Hells despair.

So sang a little Clod of Clay,
Trodden with the cattles feet:
But a Pebble of the brook,
Warbled out these metres meet.

Love seeketh only Self to please,
To bind another to Its delight:
Joys in anothers loss of ease,
And builds a Hell in Heavens despite.

The answer to the riddle of this poem is the marriage of heaven and hell.

By the way on the “platonic love doesn’t exist”

You guys need male friends, genuinely, genuinely you need to make friends who are men of your age group, and you need to have good times with them, to eat with them, drink with them, go through hard times and have them help you and vice versa, to have your daily sorrows and situational anguish obliterated by the company of your male friends. You need to feel the spirit of going out with a group of men who are all close with each other including you, and truly become absorbed in the spirit of fraternity.

Then you will feel a platonic love, and contemplating the depth and how great it is, you will see the beauty of fraternity. There’s another Blake poem I love which speaks of God in, what is to me, the language of fraternity of God with Man, and it’s beautiful. Here is a fellow singing it along with the poem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c09cAcSNbU

Can I see another's woe,
And not be in sorrow too?
Can I see another's grief,
And not seek for kind relief?

Can I see a falling tear,
And not feel my sorrow's share?
Can a father see his child
Weep, nor be with sorrow filled?

Can a mother sit and hear
An infant groan, an infant fear?
No, no! never can it be!
Never, never can it be!

And can He who smiles on all
Hear the wren with sorrows small,
Hear the small bird's grief and care,
Hear the woes that infants bear -

And not sit beside the nest,
Pouring pity in their breast,
And not sit the cradle near,
Weeping tear on infant's tear?

And not sit both night and day,
Wiping all our tears away?
O no! never can it be!
Never, never can it be!

He doth give His joy to all:
He becomes an infant small,
He becomes a man of woe,
He doth feel the sorrow too.

Think not thou canst sigh a sigh,
And thy Maker is not by:
Think not thou canst weep a tear,
And thy Maker is not near.

O He gives to us His joy,
That our grief He may destroy:
Till our grief is fled and gone
He doth sit by us and moan.
Can I see another's woe,
And not be in sorrow too?
Can I see another's grief,
And not seek for kind relief?

Can I see a falling tear,
And not feel my sorrow's share?
Can a father see his child
Weep, nor be with sorrow filled?

And can He who smiles on all
Hear the wren with sorrows small,
Hear the small bird's grief and care,
Hear the woes that infants bear -

And not sit beside the nest,
Pouring pity in their breast,
And not sit the cradle near,
Weeping tear on infant's tear?

And not sit both night and day,
Wiping all our tears away?
O no! never can it be!
Never, never can it be!

He doth give His joy to all:
He becomes an infant small,
He becomes a man of woe,
He doth feel the sorrow too.

Think not thou canst sigh a sigh,
And thy Maker is not by:
Think not thou canst weep a tear,
And thy Maker is not near.

O He gives to us His joy,
That our grief He may destroy:
Till our grief is fled and gone
He doth sit by us and moan.

>>20429534
It's the lowest actually. Because it comes with conditions. If in order to love someone you must also want to fuck them, that is a defect. Surely a mother's love of her child is stronger than romantic love. And typically moms aren't to keen on fucking their kids.

>>20432145
Not love in god. That's just you saying you love your existence and how great of a person you are

Same reason why terrorists kill people for their god, or why wars are fought because everyone is an "agent of god"

>>20432196
>Not love in god. That's just you saying you love your existence and how great of a person you are

I don’t fear my ego as an enemy, it’s simply the truth that the experience of the ego and the conception of it determines our phenomenological relations, your attempts at viewing that emotionally or as a question of pride do not have weight here because this is the truth according to harsh phenomenological analysis, it is simple. You love a thing because you care for it, care is defined by relationship with self, it is at once completely selfish and utterly selfless, this is the beauty of love, for it overcomes the dichotomy of self and other in itself, by making the self, the identity, be absorbed in the beloved, and the beloved integrated into the lover. If you have another definition for the phenomenological experience and creation of love, let us hear it, if not, the fact is, love is experienced based on relation to self.

>Same reason why terrorists kill people for their god,

Yes and? I agree with the terrorist who kills the other in love for God that such is zealous for God and theoretically would be good if they shared my God, and deem it respectable even if they have done it improperly. Better is insanity and following after the most beloved than subjugation of your love to anything.

>or why wars are fought because everyone is an "agent of god"

Yes and?

>>20432196
Let me even double down here, do you think the terrorist who genuinely has killed because he believes in Islam, who genuinely has done what he had done, going as far to even kill friend and family alike in the name of allah, do you think he doesn’t love allah? Do you think this love is not both the most selfish and selfless thing, for in it the most essential part of his being is satisfied, that is his love, and it is selfless for that which he does it for is another. Of course this is love, of course this is true love, of course this is greater than the love that will not kill and die for, of course this is greater than the love between two people, for all that he is, he believes is satisfied and drawn from allah and will return to allah, thus all of his self is given to his god, the entirety of his identity, and this both gives up who he is while fulfilling who he is. Such is the way of Love, that the more you give in love of your self, the more of yourself you gain in satisfaction and completion.

>>20432207
>I don’t fear my ego as an enemy
That's why you worship it and speak in tautologies just like old testament god

>I agree with the terrorist who kills the other in love for God
I don't even need to address this, even if you both believe in the same god - that's basically just saying you advocate for might is right (which is all of evolution btw)

>Yes and?
So you're retarded. That's all there is to it.
>>20432217
>do you think he doesn’t love allah
He loves allah too much, that's the problem moron. Just like you advocate for killing people in the name of god

>>20432063
>fleeting
All is change.
This is water. Now it’s cloud. Now it’s snow

>>20432226
> That's why you worship it

Here comes the bombshell chief! I literally do see the ego as a vessel through which God is worshiped, as being the image of it is the idol purified by worship of God and used to gleam the existence of God. Your complaint cannot work because genuinely am giving the position, show me your account of what is love and care phenomenologically that is devoid of self, until you do that you show yourself as simply afraid of your own identity.

> I don't even need to address this, even if you both believe in the same god - that's basically just saying you advocate for might is right (which is all of evolution btw

No it isn’t, I am saying he is right in the act of all consuming love to love, but that I disagree with that which he proclaims his love towards, And even so, I DO believe in the material world of nature that might is the dominant force and in the human world Will in its conflict as derived from care is the dominant force. basically all of the French theological turn agree with these Nietzschean and Heideggerian positions.

> So you're retarded. That's all there is to it.

I see no reason to deny causality.

> He loves allah too much, that's the problem moron.

No such thing you, who are afraid of yourself. There is no such thing as too much love of God just as there is no such thing as too much self in the self, God is love, to love God utterly is the only logical option for the one who sees God as existent.


>Just like you advocate for killing people in the name of god

True love would be willing to die and kill anything that is not loved as much for that which is loved the most, for ones life is more essential to the self than one’s arm, though one cares for their arm they will gladly sever their arm if it comes between them and life itself, such as if the arm is diseased, in this same manner, God being loved the most by them and seen as the most essential, it is fully logical that all aspects of life be seen as inferior to this love; for all aspects of nature derive from this God, how can one pick the non essential over the essential? The gift over the giver? It is not possible for those who truly love God.

In any case, they demonstrate their superior love and you yourself say they “love too much” which shows the superiority of the power and magnitude of their love over the sexual love you prefer.

The hierarchy goes
Romantic > Platonic > Sexual
Romantic love is the best feeling one can experience. Sexual love doesn't exist with romantic love

>>20432255
>I literally do see the ego as a vessel through which God is worshiped
Then we refer back to my original statement.

>>20432196

Not reading any more of this egotistical nonsense

>>20432265
You back off because you do not even have a conception of what love is, that is the truth.

>>20432271
>I'm right and you're wrong.
>God's on my side.

>>20432286
No no I’m literally asking for an account of how love works, I’m not saying “you do not have a conception” in a kind of “oh you don’t know what love is you never felt it” I’m saying it as, I doubt there’s an actual analysis of what love is that defines it in accordance with analyzing how it is felt in experience and dividing that down to its essential components of what it is and what makes it that which it is, I doubt there’s been work on the “what” of what love is. Because any analysis of love will see the importance of care and “i” within it.

There is no declaration and experience of, there isn’t a saying of, “I love you” without an “I” and a “you”

The relationship between I, care, otherness, harmonization and identification is not something you need to take on faith or get beaten into you via scripture, you need simply sit down and analyze what’s going on when you love something according to how you feel the love, introspection on love will show I and Care is essential.

>>20432207
>If you have another definition for the phenomenological experience and creation of love, let us hear it, if not, the fact is, love is experienced based on relation to self.

1) The whole of Buddhism disagrees with you.

2) From my personal experience doing the Robert Anton Wilson't heart chakra exercise and doing Buddhist meditation - plain mindfulness meditation, not even metta - exercises that don't involve any form of worship of any gaseous invertebrates - I can say that the less selfish you are, the more loving you are. You help others and care about others because that's the natural thing to do, no self service or self love present. You don't think. It just happens. It's like a stream of bliss in your chest that makes you do things that make other people happy. Or sometimes you feel someone else's pain so much you just need to help. I'd rather believe my experiences rather than argue with your own half-cooked definition of phenomenological experience and creation of love - something that gives a clue that, despite being a high adept in tantric and taoist orders, you do not have a direct experiential grasp of their truth.

>Because any analysis of love will see the importance of care and “i” within it.
>There is no declaration and experience of, there isn’t a saying of, “I love you” without an “I” and a “you”
You absolutely can feel love without any sense of I. In fact, the less I, the more love you feel, which is something that be experiences through formless Buddhist meditations and, for the dull, MDMA.
You should try it.

>>20432179
I love my friends but they are far away

>>20429534
Martyrdom is the highest form of love

>>20432363
>The whole of Buddhism disagrees with you.

Lmao no it doesn’t I’m initiated in vajrayana, studied in Mahayana and the Theravada abhidharma, love is defined in accordance with Pratītyasamutpāda in basically all of the post Theravada lit, and in the Theravada lit is associated with the interrelation of the dhammas, the love that is the Buddhist compassion, which is identical to anatta is precisely due to the equivalence of the entirety of samsara and its equanimity with nirvana, and these being all fundamentally the delight of conscious, this is why so many depictions of Buddhas and dharma protectors in sexual positions exist, their sexual love being the love of wisdom/conscious with experience identified with awareness/otherness, it’s literally the same formula.

2=They simply define it apophatically and shivaite tantra defines it explicitly in terms of ego, once more, to Love is to be made less and by being made less to be made complete, this is identical to the dialectical definition in Hegel of love, that Self is made more itself by emptying itself out into the other, I do not fear the ego so I do not mince my words, love is when the self sees the other as essential to itself and is made complete in self satisfaction by the act of annihilation in the other, which is, the actual completion, the interpenetration.

>You absolutely can feel love without any sense of I.

Absorption of i in the other is not a lack of I, it is the love that occurs when the I is given to the other that only the beloved is seen, the I still remains in faana, in samadhi, this is the equanimity of self and other in such a matter that they are perfectly married in the higher forms, and in the even further states according to tantra and Taoism, the I likewise regains prominence.

>In fact, the less I, the more love you feel,

Once more, love is both absolutely selfish and selfless, the emptying process is her fulfillment, just because the male lover experiences death in orgasm, he is not less a male, he is in fact the most masculine in the moment of orgasmic death/impregnation.

>which is something that be experiences through formless Buddhist meditations

Don’t worry! I’m by no means just a reader, I am a ritualist and practitioner by all means, I simply do not talk about my rituals and meditative practices much because, when is it relevant? The dissolution you speak of, also called bitul by Jews, can be experienced also by intense prayer or simplistic dhyana, this is not the end nor the height. And the various drugs, dmt, mdma, while I’ve not taken drugs, I have confirmation from various teachers they are inferior to even the moderate mystical attainments of samadhi.

>>20432447
Cool story

>>20432363
>You help others and care about others because that's the natural thing to do, no self service or self love present.

As for this, I say look to anyone you love and see that it is you who cares. Of course it is invisible because it is the structuring principle and the lover, of course in the act of love the lover focuses on the beloved, yet there is no beloved without the lover.

>It's like a stream of bliss in your chest that makes you do things that make other people happy. Or sometimes you feel someone else's pain so much you just need to help.

Notice how you associated in both, you associated the help of the other with bliss which is the experience YOU feel, you associated the harm of the other with your own harm, this is the precise ego-love I speak of. Love is always both selfish and selfless.

>I'd rather believe my experiences rather than argue with your own half-cooked definition of phenomenological experience and creation of love -


It is not mine, you can find it verbatim in Hegel and abhinavagupta, or demonstrated in the Song of Solomon.

>>20432456
It is!

>>20432447
What was that which you just said about me, my friend? I think you ought to know that I have completed my time as a novice-monk, and I've passed through the Gateless Gate, and I've lived for over 300 cycles of rebirth. I am trained in anapanasati and I'm the most senior bhikkhuni in my local sangha. You are nothing to me but just another human being worthy of dignity and respect. I will have compassion upon you with loving-kindness the likes of which has never been seen before in the Cycle of Samsara - you would do well to remember these words. Do you believe that you can say these things and still escape the principle of dependent origination? Perhaps you should reexamine those beliefs, brother. As we speak I am contemplating the importance of accepting your words with detachment and equanimity, so, without malice, I advise you to prepare for the storm, young one. The storm of suffering that afflicts all living creatures in this world. You are trapped in a cycle of death and rebirth, child. Not only am I extensively trained in the Mahayana Tripitaka, but I have access to the entire Pali canon as well, and I will use its teachings to their full extent to help alleviate the suffering within you which causes you to say hurtful things about others. You could reach Nirvana anywhere, any time, and I can help you achieve enlightenment in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with the study of Koan. If only you could understand what evil karma these words of yours would sow, perhaps you would have had the wisdom to keep silent. Nevertheless, this was beyond what you have been prepared for, and so I promise that I will do my best to ease the suffering that you have brought upon yourself. I will teach you the path of the Bodhisattva and you will revel in it. Your suffering may yet reach its end, child.

>>20432505
What the fuck did you just say about me, you uninitiated simpleton? I’ll have you know I am the head of my lodge at the OTO, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret rituals in Thelema, and I have over 300 confirmed spells. I am trained in the Book of the Law, and I’m the top degree in the entire Order. You are nothing to me but just another Wiccan. I will wipe you the fuck out with curses the likes of which has never been seen before in this Aeon, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of occultists across the USA and your aura is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, muggle. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your paradigm. You’re fucking dead, chaosfag. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my wand. Not only am I extensively trained in Ceremonialism, but I have access to the entire works of the Golden Dawn and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn Carroll worshipper. I will shit hexes all over you and your chakras will drown in it. You’re fucking banished, chaote.

>>20432505
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you Profane bitch? I’ll have you know I'm the Initiated Gyrecarl of my Quadrigia in the Nameless Companie of the Serpent Cross, and I've been involved in numinous clandestine Esbats of the Synastral Covine and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in the Rites of the Crooked Path and I'm the top Karcist in Blood-Acre entire. You are nothing to me but just another You are nothing to me but just another False Idol for the Iconoclast. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before through the Mysts of Elphame, mark this fucking Wytchtonge. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the internet, think again, Opfer. As we speak I am skrying my secret bloodline of the Mighty Dead across the Eld and your Aetheryic Residuum is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, muggle. The storm of Wytchfyre that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your praxis. You’re fucking dead, Childe. My Shadow Selves can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my Rootwork. Not only am I extensively trained in Wortcrafte, but I have access to the entire manuscript archive of Alogos Dhul'Qarnen Khidir, and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable speculations off the face of the occult publishing market, you little shit. If only you could have known what Draconian retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have nailed your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit Abrosial Poison all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking Exiled, hedgewitch.

>>20432516
Ah man, there was a tantra one too but I don’t have it.

>>20429534
Sexual love is conditional, and the condition there would be attraction. If you partner isn't attracted to you or vice versa, that's the end of it. I would Maternal love higher than sexual love because it has zero conditions. You mum will love you no matter how much of a fuck up you are. I am often perturbed when I hear someone cut ties with his mum. Sometines even for their wife. That's just stupid. Maternal love is eternal. Too bad many children are too stupid to love back their mums unconditionally.
Another kind of love is romantic love. Men tend to love unconditionally. With women, it rarely happens. Romantic love is heavily one sided in terms of unconditionality.
The only kind of love I can think of where there is mutual unconditional love is platonic love between male friends. I don't know anything about female friendships, but male friendship is quite something. Especially between brothers.

>>20429534
No, love of God is.

>>20434016
That’s just schizophrenia

>>20429534
For anons who have children, what's it like? I want to have kids but I don't know if I want to pass on my genes, I was quite ill growing up. I think if I had a child I'd love them more than anything

>>20429534
No, protector love is. I saw protector love because I mean parental love divorced from the idea of literal parenthood.

>>20432179
>You guys need male friends, genuinely, genuinely you need to make friends who are men of your age group, and you need to have good times with them, to eat with them, drink with them
You're gay mate.
Male "friends" are for material transactions.

This was a very nutritious thread, thanks for participating everyone.
>especially frater

>>20429534
>highest form of love
two monks both renouncing material life, drinking tea on a warm summer day, enjoying the passage of time in each others company, no words required

>>20429534
"Form" of love? Forms are not a thing

>>20434451

>>20429534
No, otherwise it would be logically impossible for a parent to love their children more than they love their spouse.

>>20434451
>>20434556
Sounds like virgin cope

>>20434568
Is rather never taste pussy again than give up the 1/2 lifelong friendships I have. I’m sure parent-child bonds are stronger, but there’s something to be said for relationships where neither could possibly have anything to gain from the other.

>>20434590
>relationships where neither could possibly have anything to gain from the other
All relationships are transactional. If the relationship was not profitable for both parties, it would not exist.

>>20434603
i think he meant where one party isn't in it to get some favors or material goods from the other

>>20434603
>All relationships are transactional.
If you outline everything as transactional, "transaction" loses all meaning.

>>20434620
All relationships are. I talk to my good friend because I have a good time with him. I help my friend with X because that means he will like me more and I will be able to spend more time with him in the future. These are inherently transactional.

>>20434603
You use profit only to feed into your "transactional" statement, but I think you mean more benefit. I'm not convinced that a mutually beneficial relationship is somehow "transactional." Merely enjoying someone's company does not mean you're getting a quantifiable good that can be writ up in a ledger and reciprocated in equal measure.

>>20434634
Benefit is basically synonymous with profit.
A good time is a quantifiable good otherwise people would not pay for holidays, escorts etc. You are speaking of a service essentially.
Any business deal is a mutually beneficial relationship else it would not be executed (subjectively since some can agree to deals that appear good to them but might not be in reality).

>>20434643
>sex is a transaction because both get what they want
okay shekelberg, it's time to go to bed

>>20434643
>Benefit is basically synonymous with profit.
Not really. Profit has a monetary connotation that one is essentially better off (usually financially) than they were before. Benefit has a far broader scope, such that one can say that having pets or children is a "benefit" despite the lack of profit in those relationships.
I disagree with your reductive notion that spending time with someone is somehow a quantifiable service "good." Consider shared experiences like going to the theatre or cinema with a friend or loved one. Merely being with them is the benefit, and without them actually doing anything else.

>>20434651
>sex is a transaction because both get what they want
Yes.

>>20434658
Profit isn't always used in monetary terms either. This semantic argument isn't very helpful.

>without them actually doing anything else.
Incorrect. They are suffer an opportunity cost of spending time with you.

>>20434628
>All relationships are.
...so "transactional" doesn't mean anything in regard to relationships, as anything and everything you do or do not do in a relationship is "transactional".

It's a tautology (Wittgenstein.png) in the same vein as "all physical events are physical because they involve physical entities and interactions". It has no information content, as it simply says "X is X". The concept of transaction in relationships can only mean anything if we can differentiate between things a relationship which are transactional and things that are not transactional.

>>20434662
does that not make you a thief if you fail to satisfy your wife shekelstein

>>20434666
And benefit isn't always profit, but it makes your reductive point of view appear more valid, so you cling to it. No, not helpful at all.

>They are suffer an opportunity cost of spending time with you.
I don't even know what you meant to say, here.

>>20434676
Yes. Relationships are transactional by definition. When I say relationships are transactional, I am not introducing any new information. I agree.

>>20434682
I pay for tyrone to pleasure her for me.

>>20434687
oh my god it all actually makes sense now, jesus christ no wonder you people are such cuck shills

>>20434687
>When I say relationships are transactional, I am not introducing any new information. I agree.
In that case, we can reduce the "transactional" characterisation of relationships as empty meaningless noise that is only used by people who project their own personal meaning into it for their personal reasons which has nothing to do with the concept of relationship itself, so that we can more clearly consider relationships without it.

>>20434687
>Relationships are transactional by definition. When I say relationships are transactional, I am not introducing any new information.
Definition that does not introduce any new information is a useless definition.

>>20434299
John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends

Anon I just think you’ve never truly had a close friend. If you actually felt that kind of love you’d never mistake it for anything sexual and you’d respect it as one of the high points of life. I sincerely hope you get your mind changed by experience with it.

>>20434708
Kys tripfag

>>20434695
>>20434703
The inherent character of relationships is not useless noise.

>>20429534
I feel like it's both the lowest and the highest depending on the relationship the participants share. Casual sex is cringe, passionate and loving sex with the person you care about is kino.

>>20434744
I'd say it's more like French cinéma.