Sorry, don't get cranky, its just too much to expect some people to appreciate that everything that we dress up and call love is in actual fact just a reflection of some need in ourselves, and those we love are the people on which we feed to satisfy those needs...
Craig Delson prefers to think of love in more 'romantic' terms.
But I'd like to examine the idea that all of those 'romantic' notions we have about love (like walks in the park, teddy bears and the 'one') are all illusions covering up the fact that what we really want out of love is what we lack inside (honesty, control, strength, safety)
That’s not to say that romantic love isn’t real, and my word I don’t think that my relationships would have endured even to the extent that they did if it wasn’t, but its important to be honest with oneself about what is actually going on.
Lets face it, if you weren't getting what you wanted on some level from a relationship, you wouldn't be there...
I will caveat the above by also saying that what we want/are driven to seek in relationships is not always healthy either. e.g. people in destructive relationships who don’t walk away although it seems so clear that they should. They 'love' because deep down they have some issue which is validated when someone else treats them like dirt. And vice versa for the partner who can't feel whole unless they ARE treating someone like dirt
Of course some people are healthier than others and therefore have fewer issues to iron out. But then again, unhealthy co-dependency (which is just another succinct way of saying that people fall in love with or date others because they both provide something the other person needs) is extremely common.
But as to relationships being based on psychological needs, why do you even feel the urge to meet others, to share your thoughts and feelings with others, to be close with, communicate with and eventually procreate with others? That’s a baseline psychological need right there.
Look at your typical career woman in her mid 30s, desperate to find a breeding partner, both for core biological and social reasons. Her capacity to 'fall in love' becomes so skewed that she would fall for anything in a suit which could pass for half decent and who knew how to use cutlery. Now that’s twisted.
If humans were perfectly self sufficient we would die out. End of story. We breed and the species survives. We also bond in breeding pairs to ensure the survival of the offspring... So that’s a cold blooded explanation of 'love'. But it’s not necessarily accurate because humans and human relationships have evolved in many ways beyond the bare primitive urges to procreate.
So: Love can be special and meaningful. However, if 'love' were always 'special and meaningful' there would be no divorce, no unhappy relationships.
So we conclude that either (a) love doesn't exist, or (b) many people think they are in love but are in reality undergoing some entirely different psychological process.
People can argue (a) all they like. No clear answer there. (b) offers a reasonable explanation that agrees with what I have seen in my moderate span of years on this planet.
Craig Delson prefers to think of love in more 'romantic' terms.
But I'd like to examine the idea that all of those 'romantic' notions we have about love (like walks in the park, teddy bears and the 'one') are all illusions covering up the fact that what we really want out of love is what we lack inside (honesty, control, strength, safety)
That’s not to say that romantic love isn’t real, and my word I don’t think that my relationships would have endured even to the extent that they did if it wasn’t, but its important to be honest with oneself about what is actually going on.
Lets face it, if you weren't getting what you wanted on some level from a relationship, you wouldn't be there...
I will caveat the above by also saying that what we want/are driven to seek in relationships is not always healthy either. e.g. people in destructive relationships who don’t walk away although it seems so clear that they should. They 'love' because deep down they have some issue which is validated when someone else treats them like dirt. And vice versa for the partner who can't feel whole unless they ARE treating someone like dirt
Of course some people are healthier than others and therefore have fewer issues to iron out. But then again, unhealthy co-dependency (which is just another succinct way of saying that people fall in love with or date others because they both provide something the other person needs) is extremely common.
But as to relationships being based on psychological needs, why do you even feel the urge to meet others, to share your thoughts and feelings with others, to be close with, communicate with and eventually procreate with others? That’s a baseline psychological need right there.
Look at your typical career woman in her mid 30s, desperate to find a breeding partner, both for core biological and social reasons. Her capacity to 'fall in love' becomes so skewed that she would fall for anything in a suit which could pass for half decent and who knew how to use cutlery. Now that’s twisted.
If humans were perfectly self sufficient we would die out. End of story. We breed and the species survives. We also bond in breeding pairs to ensure the survival of the offspring... So that’s a cold blooded explanation of 'love'. But it’s not necessarily accurate because humans and human relationships have evolved in many ways beyond the bare primitive urges to procreate.
So: Love can be special and meaningful. However, if 'love' were always 'special and meaningful' there would be no divorce, no unhappy relationships.
So we conclude that either (a) love doesn't exist, or (b) many people think they are in love but are in reality undergoing some entirely different psychological process.
People can argue (a) all they like. No clear answer there. (b) offers a reasonable explanation that agrees with what I have seen in my moderate span of years on this planet.
This wearies me.
