Who was in the right about love

[Anonymous No.11310688]

S
>Every kind of love, however ethereal it may seem to be, springs entirely from the instinct of sex; indeed, it is absolutely this instinct, only in a more definite, specialised, and perhaps, strictly speaking, more individualised form. If, bearing this in mind, one considers the important rôle which love plays in all its phases and degrees, not only in dramas and novels, but also in the real world, where next to one’s love of life it shows itself as the strongest and most active of all motives; if one considers that it constantly occupies half the capacities and thoughts of the younger part of humanity, and is the final goal of almost every human effort; that it influences adversely the most important affairs; that it hourly disturbs the most earnest occupations; that it sometimes deranges even the greatest intellects for a time; that it is not afraid of interrupting the transactions of statesmen or the investigations of men of learning; that it knows how to leave its love-letters and locks of hair in ministerial portfolios and philosophical manuscripts; that it knows equally well how to plan the most complicated and wicked affairs, to dissolve the most important relations, to break the strongest ties; that life, health, riches, rank, and happiness are sometimes sacrificed for its sake; that it makes the otherwise honest, perfidious, and a man who has been hitherto faithful a betrayer, and, altogether, appears as a hostile demon whose object is to overthrow, confuse, and upset everything it comes across: if all this is taken into consideration one will have reason to ask —“Why is there all this noise?"

H
>Love means in general terms the consciousness of my unity with another, so that I am not in selfish isolation but win my self-consciousness only as the renunciation of my independence and through knowing myself as the unity of myself with another and of the other with me. Love, however, is feeling, i.e. ethical life in the form of something natural. In the state, feeling disappears; there we are conscious of unity as law; there the content must be rational and known to us. The first moment in love is that I do not wish to be a self-subsistent and independent person and that, if I were, then I would feel defective and incomplete. The second moment is that I find myself in another person, that I count for something in the other, while the other in turn comes to count for something in me. Love, therefore, is the most tremendous contradiction; the Understanding cannot resolve it since there is nothing more stubborn than this point (Punktualität) of self-consciousness which is negated and which nevertheless I ought to possess as affirmative. Love is at once the propounding and the resolving of this contradiction. As the resolving of it, love is unity of an ethical type.

[Anonymous No.11310707]

>>11310688
Hegel.
Fuck Schoppy, he was too grumpy.

[Anonymous No.11311126]

>>11310688
to question Schopens sentiment, we would ask, how different would the the earthly relations of love be if there was no such thing as sex?

Well we must imagine there to be some form of producing new people, so lets imagine just take some cells and put it in a flower and a baby comes out male or female (in bodily form, except in this thought experiment no genitals and sex organs), likely there would still be the desire to raise the child not alone.

And if there were no need for children, but male and female bodies existed (without genitals or sex organs) and they were immortal on earth, would they still desire to interact, and love one another? Would they still kiss and hug and cuddle? One might say yes, if they still have other nerves of pleasure, so then we must more ask, if they did not have nerves of pleasure, what would be the extent of their desired relations?

[Anonymous No.11311620]

>>11310707
t. girl who believes in romance looking for love in all the tinder places

[Anonymous No.11311634]

>>11310688
>Every kind of love, however ethereal it may seem to be, springs entirely from the instinct of sex;
what about love for your parents or kids or your friends

[Anonymous No.11311663]

>>11310688
>Hegel claims that subject-object identity (the identity of subject and object is realized only in self-consciousness because only in self-consciousness are the subject and object of consciousness one and the same), such self-consciousness, exists perfectly only in love. What he means is that in love the self (the subject) finds itself in the other (the object) as the other finds itself in the self. In the experience of love subject and object, self and other, realize their natures through one another, and moreover each of them recognizes itself only through the other. Hence there is subject-object identity because there is a single structure of self-consciousness holding between self and other: the self knows itself in the other as the other knows itself in the self. Further, love involves not only a moment of identity, but also a moment of difference; it is unity-in-difference. There is also difference in love because by its very nature it consists in appreciating the other just because it is an other; love is possible only through the mutual repsect between equal and independent partners. The self does not love the other if it attempt to dominate and subordinate the other to itself. Love is thus the paradoxical process whereby the self both loses itself (as an individual) and finds or gains itself (as a part of a wider whole). Love contains therefore the moment of self-surrender and also of self-discovery. There is a moment of self-surrender in love because the self loses itself by renouncing self-interest as its ultimate value, and by ceasing to define itself in opposition to others. There is also a moment of self-discovery because in love the self also finds itself in and through the other; it sees that it is no longer something oposed to the other but the unity of itself with the other.

Hegel wins

[Anonymous No.11311685]

>>11311634
*chuckles* heh... gotcha, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.11311720]

my diary desu

[Anonymous No.11311736]

>>11311634
either he was talking strictly about man-woman love, or maybe he is suggesting the love of ones kids is an extension of the love of sex (as they are a result of it, and you take care of the kids so your wife gives you more sex), and maybe the love of parents is a love partly due to them allowing you to experience sex

[Anonymous No.11311745]

>>11311736
the love i felt for my gfs was pretty similar to the love i feel for my friends and family, a sort of soft, peaceful feeling. The sexual feeling is distinct, and it was not limited to the girl i was dating, i can have sex with absolutely no element of love at all.

his description above there doesnt make a lot of sense to me

[Anonymous No.11311822]

>>11311745
>i can have sex with absolutely no element of love at all.
thats a completely separate path, but you would be wanting sex in that case, and it can maybe be said as he maybe said, when you want something, it may be said that in some way you love that.

And yeah, but maybe you cant separate the desire to have a girlfriend with the desire to have sex

[Anonymous No.11311848]

>>11310688
Schopenhauer:
>aesthetic love
Hegel:
>ethical love
Kierkegaard:
>BTFOs both

[Anonymous No.11311853]

>>11310688
What about love of god?

[Anonymous No.11312311]

>>11311848

How so?

[Anonymous No.11312520]

C.S. Lewis has the definitive essay on love.

[Anonymous No.11312547]

>>11310688
Schopenhauer, of course. When it comes to serious theory Schopenhauer is almost always right and Hegel is almost always(-already) wrong.

[Anonymous No.11312590]

>>11311620
Idiot, those girls would rely a lot more on Schopenhauer’s idea of love to justify their behavior.

[Anonymous No.11312612]

>>11312590
If they justified their base and materialistic behavior by naming it base and materialistic, that would mean they are doing a thing they know they ought not to do. They would then have to make up another justification to justify their justification. It's not a very good one.

[Anonymous No.11313379]

>>11310688
Schopenhauer is so much more lovable for his style. His meaning likewise ends up being superior.
>>11311745
Read Metaphysics of the love of the sexes. It’s short and you can get the idea of what he’s talking about. Schopenhauer is talking about man and woman love and if you can honestly say you feel the same thing you do with your best friends as with your girl, either your living in lala land or I am unaware of that being possible, because my girl and I are opposites. Schopenhauer says this is the best kind of relationship with the most sexual tension because the next generation gets the benefit of having both worlds. (This is pre-Darwinian, remember). He also says a great man can surpass the notion of growing bitter after having a kid and realizing he sacrificed his own personal happiness for the generation’s bettering (because, after all, since opposites attracts for prosperity, you’re going to disagree with a lot of things the woman does (unless like I [he] said, you’re great). This is all laid out and then some in Schopenhauer’s work, in his superior style. Like Montaigne and Nietzsche, I don’t see how someone can not love him if they love the classics.