/lit/ - Literature

“One must learn to love.— This is what happens to us in music: first one has to learn to hear a figure and melody at all, to detect and distinguish it, to isolate it and delimit it as a separate life; then it requires some exertion and good will to tolerate it in spite of its strangeness, to be patient with its appearance and expression, and kindhearted about its oddity:—finally there comes a moment when we are used to it, when we wait for it, when we sense that we should miss it if it were missing: and now it continues to compel and enchant us relentlessly until we have become its humble and enraptured lovers who desire nothing better from the world than it and only it.

But that is what happens to us not only in music: that is how we have learned to love all things that we now love. In the end we are always rewarded for our good will, our patience, fairmindedness, and gentleness with what is strange; gradually, it sheds its veil and turns out to be a new and indescribable beauty:—that is its thanks for our hospitality. Even those who love themselves will have learned it in this way: for there is no other way. Love, too, has to be learned.”

Thread seems more on r9k's level. Take it there.

>>3368494
Yes, yes, yes.
You love cocks, cocks are your life, and they will give you aids.

>>3368494

What is love
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

>>3368494
Loving and being loved by my friends and family makes me pretty happy. Romantic love is more tricky. I've only truly pursued it once, and while it has gone to shit, it was still worth it in the end.

>>3370030
dit doo dit doo dit do dit dit doo

It's an instinct to keep us procreating.

>>3370438
That's lust.
Love is the one that encourages us to look after the women we knock up.

>>3370460
So, an instinct to ensure the survival of offspring?

>>3370462
Seems likely.
Also to ease social interactions in your peer group, you 'love' your friends to some degree.
What's your interpretation?

>>3370467
we work better in teams

>>3370467
Well sort of, but I don't agree fully, you don't need to love eachother to form a pack, which would ensure the survival of many, or atleast make it more probably. The substitute for a pack would in today's society be your closest group of friends, or something like that.

>>3370467
>>3370438
>>3370462
>>3370460

>implying telos

you bitches really need to read a book

>>3370484
Probable*, my bad.
>>3370485
Care to recommend anything on the subject?

>>3370488
Charles Darwin

>>3370488
not really. maybe aristotle and then some modern overview on evolution, but unless it's a good one it won't really illustrate my point.

so no. just read books.

>>3368517
Thank you! I'd have never expected this from Friedrich. In the same book he reduces it to egoism, envy and craving, in §14; this is also the sole passage of his on this subject I've read:
http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/THE_GAY_SCIENCE_FIRST_BOOK_.aspx?S=14

>>3368521
This theme is pervades all world's philosophy and literature in all civilisations inspiring all gods, kings and artists for without love - life of man would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short!

>>3370023
The love to cocks, the craving of Alcibiades for the Socrate cock, is where this term first entered the western tradition. The Socrate cock did not deliver any stds which was his owner's greatest virtue.

>>3370030
>>3370410
>dit doo dit doo dit do dit dit doo
replace it with a "hymen hymen hymen hymeneia" and it could pass for sappho verse

>>3370407
both an illness, you say, AND the matter of life?

>>3370438
And if we fall in a relationship which cannot bear fruit then the love is misguided? THEN it IS an illness?

>>3370460
Love isn't rational. It is more responsible for the destruction of families founded on rational mutual profit rather than for their creation.

>>3370484
that is friendship, not love
>>3370485
you could be reading any book because no serious or funny book can possibly evade this topic.
>>3370493
Darwin?
Why him of all things? He describes this thing in animals, not man. If you wanna be 19th century style rational, get Engels or Spencer. Spinoza, Descartes and de la Mettrie provide reductionist but rational explanations as well.
>>3370498
Evolution shmevolution
>Aristotle
Meh. The Nicomachean ethics reduce love to egotism; he also makes a distinction between the three types of love: one was based on mutual profit, another on lust and the third was based on reverence, if I remember right, to gain some virtue.
This distinction seems arbitrary claiming the relation between brothers, between merchants, between the teacher and you, listener, to be love as well.
You could as well be reading Vatsyayana or Plato for more arbitrary distinctions. You could be reading ANYTHING and not just Darwin and Aristotle.

agape? eros? pair-bonding? filial affection? define your terms.

>>3370836
>agape
this is hebrew (`ahav) for *drumroll* "love"
>eros
which eros? the TWO grecian godS? plato has half a dozen definitions littered over several dialogues. doesn't bring us any further!
>pair-bonding
mein Gott! Must be very modern and "scientific"
>filial affection
aristotle?
I have no terms, you can use yours. Each language has a word for love; you can read anything, pickup ideas, pickup words making them understood over here. This is our science, our own dialogue; here we are finding the truth ourselves

Love is the biochemical process by which organisms form an emotional attachment to a mate, resulting in intense feelings of desire, lust and affection often with the intended outcome of procreation. Attraction is twofold; one must have both a sexual and emotional relationship in order to feel satisfied.

Fuck I'm smart.

>>3370869
>organisms
silly definition; primitive organisms don't even need a mate and fishies love disembodied caviar which cannot love you back.
Shall we limit your love to "tetrapods"?

>>3370828
>He describes this thing in animals, not man.
>animals, not man.
Not the person you're replying to, but I think you're implying something you shouldn't be.

>>3370884
Sentient organisms.

>>3370889
what exactly? to plato man is a zoon politikon; so until a specie learns to make and follow rational laws, to define virtue and discuss philosophy it is MERELY an animal, not a political one. The English word is Latin for "the breathing one"; This would mean men are animals indeed while certain deep sea critters are not. To my feeling most people conversant in English rather prefer Plato's definition than the original meaning.

>>3370918
But a fish can feel! it is just passionately in love with caviar and not with other fishy things. So you can be in love with something that isn't sentient as well?

>>3370860
no, eros and agape have very specific philosophic definitions. look them up. pair bonding is a shorthand term for any long-term basically "mating" behavior between two individuals.

filial, sorrorial and fraternal affection are family and to an extent (though i hate to use the terms) the kind of thing you get in male beta groups and female heirarchies. and stilyagi type groups.

but you still need to tell me what your terms mean, instead of misinterpreting and disparaging mine. If theyre not whay you mean, what are you talking about. Limerance? Infatuation?

the problem is, catholic doctrine, (as an example) excludes the love of animals for their offspring form their definiton, and animal pair-bonding from their idea of eros. It's a doctrinal thing.

just limit it a little, if you don't mind: give a type example of what you mean.

>>3370986
>no, eros and agape have very specific philosophic definitions.
where?
>look them up.
where?
>pair bonding is a shorthand term
it's not short. The shorthand term is love.
>for any long-term basically "mating" behavior between two individuals.
doesn't work without viagra taking behaviour between a viagra bottle and an individual. if it's love you mean, say love. or did you mean "bondage"?
>filial, sorrorial and fraternal affection are family and to an extent (though i hate to use the terms) the kind of thing you get in male beta groups and female heirarchies. and stilyagi type groups.
>stilyagi type groups
so it nescessarily involves banned records and, ahem, komsomol defiance behaviour? i think you cannot quite decide if you wanna be a philosopher or an anthropologist or a psychologist; you just looked up some very specific definition and now believe they are chiseled in stone. but whose definitions they are and why they are nescessary you cannot say, my beta stilyaga frater.
>but you still need to tell me what your terms mean, instead of misinterpreting and disparaging mine. If theyre not whay you mean, what are you talking about. Limerance? Infatuation?
My term is love. See first post for reference, stilyaga.
>the problem is, catholic doctrine, (as an example) excludes the love of animals for their offspring form their definiton, and animal pair-bonding from their idea of eros.
who is the catholic doctrine? it was said once ex cathedra? aquin or boethius used to say stuff in that direction but are their writings dogma now? if you say eros i think about phaedros and symposion and then i want to slap you with my lingam for the usage of a worst possible term defined only in your own personal philosophy which you, also arbitrarily, call "catholic doctrine".
>just limit it a little, if you don't mind: give a type example of what you mean.
an example for love? there is no nescessity. Everybody has a dozen of agreeable examples

>examples
romeo and julia
lancelot and guinevere
catallus and lesbia (and the magnanimi remi nepotes)
mario and princess toadstool
achilles and patrocles
your free love practicing commune of choice
take your examples, frater; just make it is agreeable to all

>>3371080
well, if all you require is that my answer fit one definition of love, i'll pick the most general and commonplace one.

I love coffee. so, yes apparently, love exists.

I don't think anyone would have trouble understanding what I mean there, and I don't need to invoke any kind of complex epistemology.

love (in my example, is clearly not a dangerous illness, and it is matter (or a matter) of life. Good enough? If that's all you meant, I'm surprised you even asked the question.

Also, you have to know what I mean by catholic doctrine. Why plit hairs with my teerms while trying to keep your own as vague and general as you can? And if you don't even know what "agape" is, stop using phrases like "ex cathedra". I'm actually trying to answer your question; there's no need to make it a dispute.

Just phrase it clearly, limit the defintion, or give a few concrete examples and we'll go on from there.

Love is the most metaphysical of feelies;
Venus is the most physical of the Gods:
She descends to you with reason
And without any Raisins in the Sun;
Unlike Apollo and Dionysus, her true partners.

It's existence is questioned, due to its contradicting Nature: "Is it a dangerous illness or the matter of life?"
Saith the Op.

Therefore it does exist by having to ask the question. . .

So to put the matter in perspective it's probably a Disease, and you ought to kill yourself for something You deny that you need.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF95szVphME

Humains have had 2 words for lust in every language for centuries and nobofy even notices.
Since capitalism and advertising helped bad cultural content to spread like the flu in a closed sunbay, this "love" thing is getting out of hand.

>>3371273
jesus christ, that is some mediocre spelling I produced right there.

*Humans
*nobody
*subway

>>3371162
>I love coffee. so, yes apparently, love exists.
>love (in my example, is clearly not a dangerous illness
But then you can also love cocaine or some other hurtful thing. What kind of relationships are more like loving coffee and which ones are more like loving cocaine?
>I'm surprised you even asked the question.
this question has bothered humanity for as long as it exists.
>Why split hairs with my terms while trying to keep your own as vague and general as you can?
The topic is love and if we were to define the middle greek hebraism "agape" it would utterly break the dam because every anon is schooled in a different tradition not just byzantine theology. Someone would be raving about Kama, Lobha, Artha and Dharma; another anon would talk about 愛 and 仁 and the rest of the chan would gain nothing from our debate.
>what "agape" is
it's hebrew for love. You can love God, your wife, your dog - anything. So why say "agape" if you can say "love"? :)
>stop using phrases like "ex cathedra".
But this is your "catholic doctrine"! This thing about animals - was it ever spelled out ex cathedra? If not it isn't what the catholics hold to be the catholic doctrine but your own and personal doctrine which you, out of pure agape for agape, can term "catholic". You might even decleare yourself to be the anti-pope and your chair your papal throne. But then do not expect everyone to grasp your own "catholic" theology on the fly; you should explain it in different terms - take f.i. "love" instead; one can use centlazotla, netlazotlaltia or вожделение or agape if he believes it would bring clarity but then do get overwhelmed by questions from people who assume that you place hollow words expecting your readers to place the meaning.
>I'm actually trying to answer your question; there's no need to make it a dispute.
Yes! Do it! Love for Coffee is surely not the only love you can acknowledge to harmless and usefull. You named lots and lots of different terms...

>>3371280
one is clarified, coffeephilia. But what your other concepts, metaphysical and anthropological? are they extant, useful, good?

>>3371273
>Since capitalism and advertising helped bad cultural content to spread like the flu in a closed sunbay, this "love" thing is getting out of hand.
So love, the child of the feudal troubadours, is preferable to ... what? what is the horrible cultural content spread by advert agency trouveres? is lust disappearing as well?

>>3371273

The Capitalists knows there's a bunch of fuckin Hippies that know about this bullshit;
So if the media thinks the Hippies invented it,
They'll buy their own shit right back!

We're Geniuses!

>>3371285
>>3371280
Okay, then since we're not talking anything in particular, let's run the spectrum.

occasionally, due to the way the brain works, an object, person, place, action, or idea will gain an elevated status over those things which are similar but not identical to it. You could call that a preference. This is the root of love. The set of motivations associated with preference might be simple or complex, negatively or positively reinforced, based on how this prefernece affects the survivability and reproductive fitness of the individual.
It might be simple as not liking loud noises or direct sunlight (therefore prefering their absence) or it might be as complex as the set of interacting checks and balances that govern pair-bonding behavior and social interactions within and between groups.

the basis of this is something called a limbic template.

>>3371350
It's a very general set of easily recognisable characteristics, usually defined by contrasting potentials, which are genetically based, and interpolated between the neocortex, or striatal cortex, or it's equivalent and the ganglia associated with the hypothalamus. In the individual it works like this: You resolve a set of characteristics through sensory input that come near the set of activational potentials that make up a particular template. (think of it as a sort of paper doll) your neocortex compares this resolved "image" to other competing images in terms of how closely it conforms to the limbic ideal. It then "chooses" the closest match and does two things: It activates a hormonal loop dumping certain neurotransmitters into the body fluids, triggering a feed back process, and activates a sset of secondary behaviors that begin to modify the template part that resides in the neocortex by attaching by way of memory to it as many associated sensory inputs as it can. This second is the most important part for "love" because here is where the learning and modifcation takes place that will eventually allow the individual to differentiate the "love" object from other, similar objects that it does not "love".

is anybody really interested in this? it does go on awhile.

>>3371246
>Saith
I'm not an Anglist but I would presume the Early Modern form would be spelled "Sayeth" with every syllable getting pronounced, cognate to the Early Modern German form "Er saget".
>She descends to you with reason
>Unlike Apollo
Sheer blasphemy!
>Therefore it does exist by having to ask the question. . .
This is proof for everything else we can pronounce. Which is good! We invoke it, summon it, by saying it's name. We can do a road hog, too. Radiating everything we are.
>It's probably a Disease, and you ought to kill yourself for something You deny that you need.
By killing yourself do you deny the need? To me it seems most love suicides, failed or successful as such, seek to afirm the need as direly extant and love as the matter of life.

>>3371352
>is anybody really interested in this? it does go on awhile.
is that text yours?
so far i've read the first lines and they vaguely resemble the definition given by Descartes. But suddenly enters evolutionary babble; so before I read it tell if it is copypasta from some fashionable Kevin B. Macdonald or your own work :)

>>3371385

I'm writiing it myself, as i go along. Heres another view:

"love is the hope of happiness
love is the fear of loss
love is the way you're expected to feel
about jesus on the cross

love is a dream of waking
love is the dread of fate
love is the seed of lust and greed,
of envy, fear and hate

love is the heart's contentment
the peace that knows no bound
to share without resentment
a depth you cannot sound

love is the orphan babe of trust
love is the mother of grief
the sigh in the night for a single light
the hunger without relief

love is the souls awakening
love is the sleep of pain
love is the cup, that the soul fills up
now, never ask again"

try googling that one. made it up too. just like that.

>>3371396
>you're expected to feel about jesus on the cross
Are you American? :)

>>3371415

or Irish, or Kentuckian. You pays your money and you takes your choice....

fuck yr dumb thread about feels

>>3371425

'Kentuckian' is distinct from 'American'?

Captcha: Diffusing retrolit

>>3371468

Oh, yes. Ask anybody who knows us. Especially those of us from The County. (Jackson County, for those uninitiated)

>>3371425
Nope, the Irish lack that boner for evolutionary babble because they never had a debate which would imply a dichotomy between baptist and darwinist nonsense; nor would they ever use "being told" without a subject; this is more reminiscent of the American goth or emo movement. They feel opprossed but are at loss to explain by whom while the Irishmen know it is either the Pope or the Britons. And if not they'll put their sorrows into Marxian terms which never really penetrated deep America.
>Kentucky
isn't that a fast food chain?
Are you American?

>>3371486

>goths and emos
>Irish
>evolution
>Kentucky
>fast food
>the Pope

this is the weirdest troll i've seen in weeks

>>3371483

I'm not a native of the state, but I live in Louisville right now. Yes - I know that's not really 'Kentucky' by any stretch.

>>3371486

American at the moment, Kentuckian to be exact: I choose to keep my natal environs shrouded in mystery.

I'm a semi-retired Neuroscientist who writes essays and poems when I feel like it. And I know a truly horrifying amount about the subject at hand.

>>3371501
I'm not a troll. I'm not American either; you people just look much more weird from the our side of the pond.

>>3371505
What do you hold off Oliver Sacks and VJ Ramachandran?

>>3371520
Sacks is fun.

Ramachandran only really overlaps my work with his sensory cortex stuff. The somatic identity and reorganisation things really aren't my field, which i guess you'd call mapping motivational learning systems and the interplexes between the inherited mid-brain structures and organized para-conscious neocortical processes. any more specific and a jstor search would give you my name, and nobody wants that.

To my eternal shame, I'm the reason people use the word Template all the time when talking about sexual attraction, But I was never a major player in my field by a long shot.

>>3371356
Eh . . . the internets sayeth: saith. As I am of the internets unglobable opOnions on agreeing what spell check desires of my writ.

And Apollo never would have a stick up his arse For restraint; he that is the God of the stoics:
Can point to any Scientist to the true sense of the word and therein is your Apollo.

Dionysus is Apollo's Gateway; to understand Dionysus's Irrational nature, he needs Apollo: Thereby having Gay sex; giving birth to: Venus.

To avoid the homosecks: you ought to give Apollo a feminine non-suffix: the (-)ina, for Apollo's end after his 'O' replacing the 'O'; ergo, Apollina. OH.

To what Wittgenstein sayeth of some stuffin' on Every day, except Thanksgiving:
Ethics; Aesthetics; metaphysics: are Meaningless onto themselves without a sentient;
People give it meaning to 'it'.

And what is the best form of these to she that Has the entire canon with her. . .

The last one was tits for me.
But that bro Ozymandias: at the end looked pretty sad; hearing a Requeim of an Amadeus that he can't relate to. So it depends whether you are projecting what the Ozman feels after that moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPlhKP0nZII

'Cuzz the fucker just saved the world, do you think you could look another in the eye and tell them - you were satisfied, without ever knowing amore . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU6IndADEWI

Even if he's the closest we've ever seen to an Ubermensch.


To the Werther's:
There is not one; "only can be one,"
Says my ass, ye Highlander!

As one is to be so Individualistic that they become Universal and you will acquire all the wimminz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQDF9BJDz5g

Like the French fool, that wanders up and down
Starving his people, hazarding his crown.
Peace is his aim, his gentleness is such,
And love he loves, for he loves fucking much.

>>3370799
Life is itself pathological.

>>3371350
>>3371352
limbic platonism with a dash of descartes
where is the rest of it?

>>3371558
No one is impressed. G'way, chimp.

>>3371558
It would be funny if St. Vincent dressed like a gangsta. I would find this funny, and my facial expression would alter to portray this.

>>3373595
meh, ignore, let them starve.

>>3373683
>I would find this funny, and my facial expression would alter to portray this.
No it wouldn't. You would go on g-mail chat, and send the picture to Haley Joel Osment, and show your amusement with something like "lol" or ":D"

>>3373589
I never got back to the thread after I posted this:>>3371396
I'm surprised there's anybody paying attention, but I'll go on if you're still interested.

>>3375518
pray do, although you might rather want to move it all to reddit