Philosophers have argued that it is the most basic force driving the universe, that powers us, that keeps the entire creation chugging alone. Others have suggested such Philosophers not be so goddamned serious and love is just something that makes us want to boink others and make babies, which we will come to regret, but hey since everyone else is doing it, we're not thaaat bad off, right? Even other have accused the second type of people as being homophobic, because they argue such definition does not encompass non-child-related love, specially for the homosexuals. To which the philosophers have argued that those rabble-rousers go fck themselves. The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, as always.
In many a poorly-screenshot post on Twitter and other social media, young women have argued in recent years that it is love that leads to happiness. We can safely discard this hypothesis after considering empirical evidence gathered over thousands of years, which has manifested itself in many a sad love song and other works of art that imply that love is the cause of most if not all sorts of pain. While that may be an exaggeration, it is likely the case that they do have enough merit to debunk the 'love as a creator of happiness' hypothesis.
Some cynics have argued that love is merely a chemical phenomenon wherein the chemicals secreted by the loved serves as the 'key' to the right nerve ending-chemicals in the nasal and neural cavities of the lover, which makes one or both parties 'desire' each other, which may or may not lead to a feeling of 'fulfillment'. Critics to such arguments have countered by saying 'you're a goddamn blob of chemical, go away you clueless trolls', which carries merit and makes valid points. Regardless, while the argument does refute a theory, it does not offer any insight into what love might actually be.
A popular song from 1983 by the artist Pat Benatar has suggested that love is a battlefield. However, Benatar also suggests that love is mostly in the domain of the young, an assertion that is known to be patently false, so one must view her suggestion with a heavy dose of skepticism.
At this point, we must abandon trying to understand what love really is (for it is likely to take a piece longer than a blog post to unravel the meaning) and explore what love leads to.
The popular search engine Google offers suggestions on what many other think love leads to.
We can easily dismissed the love-as-war theme just as we dismissed that love is actually a battlefield.
Among the remaining points, there's one that is clearly worth some discussion. The very nihilist interpretation that 'love leads to nothing' is an interesting one.
If love leads to nothing, one must question what else leads to nothing. [...work in progress... this was meant to be sarcastic, haha. Not sure if I conveyed that?]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Tell me what you think. I'll read, promise.