A brief history of love

July 21, 2017
59 upvotes

A primary reason that modern relationships and gender dynamics are so fucked up is because pop culture constantly bombards people with an insane, bizarre, psychotic conception of “love.” Pop culture portrays love as pure emotion, and this conception has become the dominant view in the modern world, leading to almost apocalyptic levels of heartache and unhappiness.

Instead of defining what the word love means, pop culture insists that love is undefinable, unexplainable, and “magical,” and furthermore, cannot be rationally understood or logically analyzed. This lack of definition allows love to constantly change form – sometimes it is “strongly liking” (“I love ice cream!”), having sex but not being too rough (“making love”), a zombie-like state you are in (“I’m in love!”), or a selfish, meaningless declaration (“But I love her!!”), etc... The only thing modern views on love have in common is that they all portray love as a wild, passionate emotion, devoid of any obligation or practicality. Nevertheless, pop culture demands that love must “conquer” everything else, including society’s rules, everybody else’s advice, one’s career, one’s interests, and even rationality itself.

According to pop culture, love is something you randomly “fall” into and “fall” out of with no forewarning or rational explanation. If you “fall” in love, you should drop everything and run to the person you love, no matter what the facts are. And when you “fall” out of love, well, you are free to leave, no matter what promises you made.

The pop culture conception of love is so deeply ingrained in modern people’s consciousness that people think it is totally acceptable to make a ton of commitments and promises to a person, and then leave the moment they’ve decided they’ve “fallen out of love.” Pop culture love is why women feel no shame in going on the Jerry Springer show and proudly proclaiming that their affair with a married man is beautiful because they are “in love.” Pop culture love is also why people allow themselves to endure all kinds of abuse and terrible behavior from their significant other.

In this article, I explain what I think love is, and I then briefly describe the historical processes that caused modern man to arrive at this twisted conception of love.

What is love? (Baby don’t hurt me)

To start with, I believe that love, like everything else on this earth, can be rationally understood. The moment you accept that something is fundamentally irrational or “magic” you allow yourself to be controlled by your emotions or whatever nonsense powerful and charismatic people are selling. Love is beautiful and the fact that it can be rationally and maybe even scientifically understood does not detract from its beauty.

True love is a contract between two people where the parties promise to do whatever is best for each other. You should only enter into this contract with people you like and feel attraction to, but once you are in, you must take the contract seriously.

Different types of love exist: love between friends, love between a parent and child, love between a man and a woman in a sexual/romantic relationship, etc... Each different type of love imposes obligations on the parties, depending on the nature of the relationship, the individual themselves, and the circumstances of the relationship. Ideally, you determine what is “best” for your beloved by cold, rational calculation, and not your selfish desires. For example, you may want your child to go to college near you, but it may be better for your child to go to Harvard.

Under my definition of love, you can love everybody commensurate with your relationship with them. Your love for your neighbor will be different than the love for your child, because your obligations to your neighbor are different than your obligations to your child. One day, ideally, all the world will come to love each other, but all we can do now is love people until they prove that they do not deserve our love.

I believe that once two people commit to loving each other, an emotional bond forms that I call the “real love emotion.” The real love emotion is the feeling derived from the knowledge that there is another human being in this cold world that cares about you and will do whatever is best for you. The real love emotion is also the warm, happy feeling you get when you make that commitment to another person. We are wired to both receive love AND give it. When two people commit to doing the best for each other, they create an infinitely positive feedback loop.

The real love emotion is the most primal, important, deepest, and strongest human emotion. It defines the difference between a fundamentally emotionally stable and happy person and one who is not. It should underlie all your other emotions like an operating system constantly running in the background and a person without it will feel empty and constantly need cheap pleasures: drugs, narcissism, distractions, etc... People who feel loved also like cheap thrills, but they do not have the same empty void to fill like a person who does not feel loved.

Because the real love emotion is completely unrelated to the other person’s looks, personality, status, possessions, family, or any other tangible thing, it can form between any two people, no matter how different they are, so long as they commit to loving each other. Real love does not require physical presence either – you can love somebody from afar as long as you are doing what is right for them. You can get the real love emotion from your friends, family, or even spiritual practices.

The constant, primal human desire to feel the real love emotion is best satisfied when we are actually loved. If you feel like your partner will leave when circumstances or feelings change, that bond will feel weaker. We can lie to ourselves that we are loved, but ultimately reality will intervene and crush our soul if it is not true. This desire is why people sometimes form an unhealthy attachment to animals and also why troubled young women, sometimes as young as teenagers, have children just to feel loved.

Some may argue that an alpha male does not have the same desire to feel the real love emotion that a beta male or woman would have because the alpha has no evolutionary need for anybody else’s help to obtain food, shelter, sex, and protection, so therefore evolution did not create that desire in him. I don’t know if this is true – I think it is very possible that the alpha male also evolved to need to feel love from the people in his tribe. But whether or not the alpha male needs love, no human man can feel like an alpha male at every moment. Every man has moments of weakness and vulnerability, and in those moments he needs to feel that there is somebody or something in this cold world that will help him.

Of course, people can feel a connection to each other through other emotions. I call these emotions the “peripheral attraction emotions.” Examples of peripheral attraction emotions are physical attractiveness, sexually desirability, fun, personality, money, status, etc… There is nothing wrong with peripheral attraction emotions, but I do not consider them part of “love.” In fact, peripheral attraction emotions and love are sometimes directly at odds – love requires you to do what is best for the other person, whereas peripheral attraction emotions are fundamentally selfish. My peripheral attraction emotions may want me to make a woman my fuck buddy but if I “love” her, I may encourage her to settle with a guy who will commit to her. Similarly, my peripheral attraction emotions may prevent me from confronting a drug addict friend because I don’t want to ruin our fun, but real love would require me to do so. The peripheral attraction emotions are temporary, which is why conflating them with love has caused so much heartache in the modern world.

My conception of love radically differs from pop culture love. Under my conception, there is no “falling” in and out of love. Love is purely a contract you enter into – after you sign on the dotted line you are in “love” and obligated forever. It is weighty and difficult. Mere pronouncements, promises, and feelings are not enough – love requires daily action. And you cannot love somebody until you have your own life together. Love is not a fun distraction from self-improvement – it is an integral part of it. A drug addicted loser who constantly needs handouts and help from others cannot “love” a woman because he is incapable of doing what is best for her.

In some ways, my conception of love is unattainable because you can always become a better person and do a better job of doing what is best for the other person. But that’s ok – I would rather love be an unattainable ideal we struggle to reach than a goal we feel like we’ve accomplished.

My version of love does not require self-immolation. If the other person cannot or will not commit to doing what is best for you, you are free to break the contract and stop loving them. In fact, you MUST break the contract. If your beloved is a lazy drug addict, they cannot do what is best for you, so they cannot love you, so you should not love them. My version of love actually requires a form of selfishness, where you focus on optimizing yourself first before you try to help others, because you cannot help others if you are ruining yourself. You cannot give if you have nothing to give. If “loving” somebody is diminishing you as a person, you are progressively becoming more unable to do what is best for your beloved.

Some philosophers define love as “doing things for other people and asking for nothing in return,” which sounds nice, but I think that type of love is unrealistic and unsustainable. Also, subsidizing and encouraging bad behavior by somebody is not doing what is “best” for them – it is creating a monster.

I do not intend my conception of love to be too harsh or rigid. I understand that people have problems in their life and it is wrong to leave somebody in their time of trouble or weakness. This is especially true with children. Sometimes you must tolerate bad behavior from children because they do not know better.

But to determine whether you should break a love contract, you should ask yourself certain questions. Is your beloved is acting badly because of genuine difficulties, or because they are just a shitty person who doesn’t care about you? In other words, is your beloved going to get better if you help them or continue to be shitty? Is your love actually helping them or just enabling and encouraging their bad behavior? Are you doing all this stuff because it is rationally what is best for your beloved, or because you are in the grip of irrational emotions? Is your love for this person destroying you? Remember, their blood is no redder than yours, and their life is no more important than yours.

A modern person might criticize my conception of love for ignoring emotion. I respond that the real love emotion is a very strong emotion, and the real love emotion coupled with the knowledge and feeling that the other party will keep their end of the contract will motivate you to keep the contract. Second, although the peripheral attraction emotions are not “part” of love, they are necessary for a healthy relationship, especially in the romantic context. You should not enter into the love contract with somebody you are not attracted to or do not like.

The interplay between peripheral attraction emotions and the real love emotion

Although peripheral attraction emotions are not technically part of love, they are incredibly important because human beings are apes and we have certain emotional and physical wants and needs. We need sex, we need food, we need shelter, and we need affection. If we do not get those things, it will be difficult for us to commit to loving somebody.

A healthy conception of love would view peripheral attraction emotions as necessary preconditions that must be fulfilled so that the real love emotion can form. Peripheral attraction emotions are like a bridge connecting two people that allows ivy to grow from one person to another, the ivy being the real love emotion. If the bridge weakens or falls the ivy also usually goes with it, unless the ivy is very strong. The ivy wants to grow no matter what, so if there is no bridge to another person, the ivy will grow on some other structure, often in a twisted or bizarre way.

However, the same way a cocaine addict cannot enjoy other parts of life if they are deprived of cocaine, people can become addicted to peripheral attraction emotions and ruin their ability to feel the real love emotion. For example, if a guy feels like he must have the hottest blonde at all times, he is naturally going to hop from woman to woman and never develop the real love emotion with any of them. Similarly, if a woman becomes addicted to rich men who buy her shit all the time, she will not be able to form the real love emotion because she will get bored of guys who stop spending money. Also, men will realize she’s just a gold digger and kick her to the curb when they find a cheaper, hotter hooker.

Interestingly, the media and entertainment industry encourages us to become addicted to peripheral attraction emotions by bombarding us with images of beautiful people, huge mansions, celebrities, fabulous lifestyles, crazy porn, etc.... Yet movies and TV shows simultaneously shame people who are attracted to money, appearance, or alpha males as “shallow,” while praising people who are attracted to stuff like personality (whatever that means) or shared interest in movies. Both messages are wrong: there is a room for attraction to appearance, financial stability, etc…, but one must not become addicted to those things, lest you constantly chase a stronger high.

The mixed messages sent by pop culture creates the worst of all worlds: people become addicted to peripheral attraction emotions, yet simultaneously feel ashamed of their addiction, so they date or marry a person whom they are attracted to for the “right” reasons, and then chase their addictions on the side. For many, a vicious cycle develops - because people are starved of the real love emotion, they chase ever more extreme versions of the peripheral attraction emotions, which cause them to have even more difficulty obtaining and keeping the real love emotion.

Ultimately, true love requires controlling the peripheral attraction emotions. Your wife will not be hot forever. Your kid will not be likable all the time. But the goal is to force your rational responsibilities and your real love emotion to overcome your peripheral attraction emotions, which are lower emotions.

The science

The following is therefore a very rough sketch of the relevant science, with the caveat that I am not a scientist.

Scientists have discovered many neurochemicals that are related to attraction and bonding between two humans, including serotonin (a neurotransmitter often associated with spiritual or mystical experiences – what your brain releases when you do psychedelic mushrooms), dopamine (a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure – what your brain releases when do cocaine, have sex, eat chocolate, etc…), adrenaline (a hormone that gives you energy), oxytocin (a powerful hormone released by men and women during orgasm which scientists believe is associated with feelings of attachment), vasopressin (a hormone that works with your kidneys to control thirst and has also been linked to feelings of attachment), testosterone (the male sex hormone), and estrogen (the female sex hormone). Many of these chemicals are associated with human “reward pathways” that are designed to make us feel good when we do something beneficial for our survival and reproduction. Of course, other, undiscovered reward pathway chemicals may exist.

These chemicals, as you may have been observed, are mostly related to the peripheral attraction emotions, at least partly because even scientists’ view of love is influenced by pop culture. Most scientists probably do not even know about the concept of the “real love emotion” and even if they have, it would be difficult to link the existence of the aforementioned neurochemicals to this particular conception of love using scientific methods.

A brief history of love

I present here a brief history of love. I make crazy overgeneralizations and oversimplifications (i.e., summarizing the entire Enlightenment in a sentence) to stay brief, so a real historian/philosopher would probably rip me a new butthole.

When I say “people in traditional societies thought like X” I don’t mean that every single person in those societies thought like X – I mean that X was the general prevailing thought pattern and was enforced by the powerful people in society.

I note that traditional societies did not create social rules by analyzing science, but rather by aggregating the life experiences and feelings of many people, observing subtle nuances of human behavior, creating general rules with this information, and then incorporation and synchronizing these rules into the tradition. This complex process allowed traditional rules to capture complex and subtle truths that science often cannot. This complexity, however, made traditional knowledge vulnerable: most members of the society could not rationally articulate why these rules were correct, and the younger generation were expected to unquestioningly accept the tradition without adequate explanation. An inadequately articulated and defined tradition is vulnerable, which is how modern and post-modern thinkers easily destroyed tradition by simply articulating sensible-sounding counter-arguments.

In my history, I do what I call “back-conceptualizing” – I describe social phenomena in bygone eras using concepts that the people in those eras may not have used or even been aware of. Historians do this all the time – the Enlightenment, Dark Ages, and Renaissance are just labels that modern people created after the fact to help understand those periods. Feminists back-conceptualize all the time. For example, they say that in traditional societies women were treated as “property” although nobody back then was consciously thinking “my wife is my property.”

Love in traditional societies

Most traditional societies viewed love similar to how I view love – as a contract whose terms depended on the nature of the relationship. In a parent-child relationship, for example, the child traditionally had an obligation to obey the parent, and the parent had an obligation to take care of the child. In male-female relationships, the contract was formalized by marriage (most traditional societies did not allow pre-marital sex or even dating), and each party was obliged to remain faithful to the other. Fidelity in traditional societies often had a far stricter definition than in the modern world; in some societies women were not allowed to even speak to another man without the permission of their husband. The man was usually obligated to work and provide for the family, whereas the woman was obligated to take care of the home and the children and to obey the husband.

These contracts were enforced by society if a woman was unfaithful to her husband, not only could her husband divorce her or punish her, the entire society would stigmatize her, leaving her a social outcast, sometimes on the verge of death. Sometimes adulterous women were killed. These rules were supposed to apply to men, but were often enforced unequally.

Biblical love is the epitome of “love as a contract.” In the Bible, God enters into a covenant with the Israelite people. The word covenant just means contract. Each party to the covenant was bound by certain obligations, including the duty to love the other. God promises to love the Israelites and the Israelites promise to love God. This is clearly not pop culture love. How can one be “obligated” to love God emotionally when one cannot see, feel, or talk to God? And when God loves humanity, he clearly does feel emotional the same way a modern person feels “in love.” God doesn’t love people because they have a pretty smile or because they like Seinfeld. In the New Testament (a better translation of the ancient Greek title is actually “New Covenant”), the Old Testament covenant is replaced with a new, expanded covenant that includes all of humanity, but the “love” aspect is similar. Interestingly, God harshly punishes those he “loves” because he does what is best for them, not necessarily what they want him to do.

Emotion was generally less important in traditional societies. Most people were expected to marry somebody that was considered “good” for them according to society’s rules. The match was often made or approved by third parties, and in some arranged marriages the parties had no say it all in choosing their partner. Once married, people were expected to stay in the marriage no matter what, even if feelings or circumstances changed. It was unacceptable to leave because you had “fallen” out of love.

Because emotion was less important in traditional societies, people were often prohibited from marrying people in rival castes, tribes, classes, etc... The idea of a “soulmate” that transcended cultural lines did not exist. Poets in traditional societies often churned out poems portraying a more “modern” conception of love, but the elders in those societies prevented people from putting that mindset into action.

Problems with traditional love

Although the traditional conception of love is similar to mine, love in traditional societies had serious problems. To ensure social stability, people were often matched for stupid reasons unrelated to the parties’ happiness or well-being like family alliances, social segregation, business reasons, etc... Traditional societies aimed for stability, so almost everybody was matched with somebody, even if they were unlikable and unattractive. The peripheral attraction emotions were largely ignored and many marriages were miserable, often from the very beginning.

A defender of traditional marriage may argue that by obeying society’s elders, married couples would eventually develop the “right” feelings for each other. This may be true to some extent, but the truth is that some people will never like each other, no matter how “correct” their relationship is on paper.

The traditional love contract was also often unclear, oppressive to the weaker party, and unfairly enforced. What happens if one person becomes an abusive, lazy, drug-addicted, asshole? Have they violated the contract or must the other party stay? Traditional societies often did not have answers for these questions, and usually erred on the side of keeping marriages together, implicitly accepting that many people would be miserable.

In traditional societies men often abused their position of power by imposing unfair and oppressive contractual terms on women. Women (and most men) have a primal desire to follow the leadership of an “alpha male” they respect, but most men are not alpha males (nor were they in traditional societies), so weak men often held onto their dominant position in the relationship by abuse, threats, and coercion. Furthermore, men that were not alpha males often mistook women’s desire to follow an alpha male for weakness and stupidity, and treated women according to this low opinion. Women, however, are not stupid, and this oppression only increased their resentment and eventually made them amenable to feminism.

Finally, because men were in power, they would often not enforce the contracts fairly, so, for example, a woman would be punished for adultery but a man would not. “Love as a contract” only works if the terms of the contract are fair, clearly understood, and enforced fairly, which was often not the case.

Men, however, were not free of obligations, and it interesting that as social views on love and relationships evolved, many of women’s obligations have been discarded (cooking, cleaning, raising the children), while men’s obligations often still remain (supporting his wife and children financially). Perhaps this shift is influenced by feminism. A woman who does not cook or clean, and passes her child off to nannies is not considered a wrongdoer by either the law or most modern people, but a man who does not support his family is looked down upon and can even go to jail. Feminists sometimes even admit that the evolution of social responsibilities is “revenge” on men for historical misdeeds.

Similarly, there is no enforcement mechanism for marriage vows, essentially making the institution of marriage an outdated relic of the past, like an old clock that decorates a room but no longer accurately tells the time. A few friends or family may shun a cheater because they see him or her as a bad person, but a cheater otherwise will generally maintain good standing in society and be able to date, find a job, etc... There are no legal consequences to cheating, and in fact, with the rise of “no fault” divorce, a person can cheat and still be legally awarded half of their spouse’s assets.

Before you accuse me of being anti-man or anti-woman, I will note that unfair enforcement of relationship contracts is the result of a power imbalance. For example, in traditional societies, parents had disproportionate power in the parent-child relationship, so those contracts were often unfair and enforced arbitrarily. Children in traditional societies were often treated like slaves, and one of the innovations of Judaism and Christianity was to prohibit child sacrifice.

The evolution of love

Western civilization has a unique intellectual history, which led to a conception of “love” radically different from that of most traditional societies. I will briefly and simplistically summarize this evolution.

In the Middle Ages, when Christianity had full ideological and political control in the West, a group of philosophers known as the “scholastics” began trying to justify Christianity with logic and rationality, often using ancient Greek philosophy to help their arguments. Most modern philosophers and respected intellectuals agree that the scholastic philosophers failed at “proving” religion rationally. No matter what you think of Christianity, you must admit that certain aspects of Christianity (god, heaven, angels, etc…) cannot be rationally proven because there are no indisputable “reasons” to accept their truth (remember rationality just means “with reason”). Although some scholastic philosophy was brilliant, much of it was absurd speculation, and the purportedly “rational” arguments were anything but. The joke about “arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” began as a knock against scholastic philosophers.

The scholastic philosophers created an important legacy, however: by re-introducing and emphasizing logic and rationality in European philosophy, and allowing non-Christian philosophers to join the conversation, the scholastics set the stage for the Enlightenment (around 1715 to 1789). Enlightenment philosophers criticized Christianity and tradition, much of which was based on Christianity, in favor of “reason,” turning the tools of the scholastics against them. Most Enlightenment philosophers were nominally Christian, probably because Christianity still held political control, but their work was subversive and often bucked Christianity and tradition.

Much of the Enlightenment, like most Western Philosophy, was a failure from a purely philosophical standpoint. Most of the “rational” arguments philosophers have made throughout history were not actually rational but rather influenced by their feelings, political and religious allegiances, accepted thought patterns of the time, and other unstated and sometimes subconscious assumptions. The Enlightenment was no different. Philosophers of all eras have been pretentious, arrogant snobs, but the Enlightenment philosophers were especially arrogant, anbelieved that they could safely throw any tradition in the trash if they could disprove it with their “rationality.” This Enlightenment tendency still exists in the modern world, and helps explain the horrific conception of love modern people have.

The Romantic movement

The Enlightenment produced a lot of great shit like science, theories of democracy, etc… But human beings are emotional animals, so any philosophy that tries to base everything on reason will lose popularity. Just as the Enlightenment was a backlash against the irrationality of Christianity, the Romantic movement (around 1780 to 1850) was a backlash against the “over-rationality” of the Enlightenment. Romanticism started as a “way of feeling” expressed in art and literature, and was only later articulated by philosophers. The Romantics emphasized emotion, imagination, spontaneity and individualism. And not just regular emotion, but deep, powerful, and crazy emotion. One could even say that Romanticism represented human’s search for transcendence in an overly mechanized and rational world.

Even though most people nowadays have no idea what the word “Romanticism” even means, the Romantic mindset has penetrated the modern consciousness so deeply that people don’t even realize there are other ways to think. In the “History of Western Philosophy” Bertrand Russell argues that Romanticism is the root of many of modern society’s worst tendencies–fake concern for the poor and oppressed, irrational rejection of tradition and morality, an unrealistic, idealized conception of reality, a rejection of practical things in favor of “beautiful” things, and worst of all, worship of wild emotions. Basically, the Romantic movement represents how far-left hipsters generally think. In art, the Romantics preferred crazy scenes of tall mountains, fearful precipices, sea storms, and according to Russell, “what is useless, destructive, and violent” to mundane, practical stuff like a lush meadow or fields of corn. In literature, Romantics rejected stories that could have happened to real people and instead focused on shit like ghosts, decayed castles, and pirates because they were only interested in shit that was “grand, remote, and terrifying.”

The modern conception of love

Modernity has combined the Enlightenment’s rejection of tradition and Romanticism’s embrace of wild emotion to create a completely nihilistic, irrational, impulsive conception of love. Movies, television shows, pop songs, popular novels, and even high-minded intellectuals and university professors constantly hammer this view into our heads to the point where people will shame you if you do not accept that the love is nothing more than a wild, uncontrollable emotion. The dominant conception of love is also irrational, based on an idealized conception of the world, and dismissive of any practical considerations – a legacy from the Romantic movement.

In love stories in movies and TV, two people that are not right for each other according to practical considerations nevertheless “fall in love.” After they are united, the movie ends. In other words, the movie ends before we can see the parties actually try to love each other.

The cycle of heartbreak

Because the modern world conflates “love” with peripheral attraction emotions, and relationships create no obligations, most people at least subconsciously know that the statement “I love you” is a temporary commitment at best and a lie at worst, subject to change when the person’s feelings change or when they find somebody they like more. A collective action problem exists in the modern world – nobody enforces love contracts, so nobody fully commits to anybody else out of fear they will get screwed. This vicious cycle causes people to act more and more selfish and insular.

The following story happens to many modern people, unless they live in a religious community that forbids dating:

In middle or high school, which are unregulated zoos of young apes acting horribly and frequently inflicting massive and lasting psychological damage on each other, boys and girls form crushes on each other. The low status boys and girls are repeatedly rejected and often form intense feelings of inferiority and resentment against the opposite sex. Unless they fix their issues, these people often become forever alone types, raging woman haters, extreme feminists, and all manner of weirdos. This resentment can develop anytime in life, but it is particularly dangerous when it happens in children, because children do not have the cognitive tools to rationally deal with these thoughts and feelings.

The “high status” or attractive boys and girls, on the other hand, get into relationships, often with no adult supervision or even adult knowledge. These relationships are often deep and passionate because teenagers have wild hormones and have never felt these emotions before. They also have not yet built defense mechanisms to getting hurt or rejected. This is why people often say your “first love” is the strongest.

However, because middle schoolers and high schoolers are stupid and immature, and not bound by any obligations, one party almost always ends up cheating or breaking the other’s heart. The pain of being rejected by your first love is extremely traumatic, causing most people to consciously or subconsciously decide to not “love” again and to reject anybody who implicitly or explicitly offers love or a deep emotional connection.

The real love emotion, however, is subconscious and can develop on its own, even if one does not seek a deep emotional connection. People’s fear of love creates a bizarre paradox: we erect a “love shield” to repel love, but we lower the love shield when people do not claim to love us, and because our shield is down, we subconsciously form both peripheral attraction emotions and the real love emotion for the emotionally distant person. In other words, we are attracted to emotionally distant people because they promise to not create feelings of attachment, but we form feelings of attachment to them anyway. This is partly why so many men and women are obsessed with people who do not care about them at all. Relationships are a selfish exercise for most: we choose somebody we are attracted to but who makes clear they want nothing from us, we project our own feelings of love and attraction on them, and then we run away if they ask for anything in return.

Furthermore, even though we try to repress the desire to feel love, the real love emotion cannot be destroyed and will express itself in bizarre and unhealthy ways. The real love emotion is often directed by the “soulmate fantasy,” which is the pop culture myth that every person is entitled to “fall in love” with their “soulmate,” who is “perfect” for them and thrills all of their emotions. Strangely, nobody’s soulmate is ever a fat, lazy, drug addict – don’t those people need soulmates too?

The “soulmate fantasy” is a selfish lie. When we feel deep attraction to somebody, the soulmate fantasy, coupled with our desire to feel the real love emotion, convinces us that our newly found “soulmate” must feel the same way about us. Remember, movies never depict a situation where a person’s soulmate doesn’t like them! Despite its absurdity, the soulmate fantasy provides an ecstatic emotional high which causes us to develop insane, bizarre fantasies about our future with somebody we barely know. The pop culture myth of “love at first sight,” provides further justification for projecting our wildest fantasies onto a stranger, even if that person has not invested in us at all.

When we feel like somebody is our soulmate, we begin to develop the real love emotion, even when there is no rational reason to. This is why people become stalkers. The person being stalked has not shown adequate interest, yet the stalker has created a fantasy in his or her own head that they “belong” together. As you can imagine, most stalkers are lonely and starved of the real love emotion.

The idea of a soulmate is insane nonsense, so people are constantly disappointed, causing them to become depressed and lonely, which causes them to seek their soulmate with even more vigor. Many people are deep in this vicious cycle, causing them to instantly act needy and strange in any kind of relationship or interaction with people they are attracted to.

Pop culture portrays love, relationships, sex, and dating as fun, lighthearted recreation, which causes people to not take these subjects seriously or think deeply or rationally about them. This lack of seriousness is extremely dangerous, because these subjects literally touch our deepest and most primal emotions, and can cause massive psychological damage and pain if they go wrong.

Love and game

Most pick-up artists and seduction gurus focus solely on peripheral attraction emotions and never mention “love” because, like most modern people, they have no idea what love is. They also assume that “love” is irrelevant to what they are doing. If I am correct, however, humans are always subconsciously seeking the real love emotion, even when they think they just want random sex.

Seduction gurus mistakenly think attraction is the "link" that holds a relationship together but the truth is that the real love emotion is the link and attraction is the scaffolding that keeps the real love emotion in place. An alpha male who is pursuing his mission and is not a needy pushover is simply creating a clear portal for a woman to form an emotional link to him. A man who is needy, supplicating, or weak is clogging the portal with selfish emotions that repel women. Pop culture is not wrong when it says that women want a nice guy who loves them - pop culture just leaves out the fact that the man must also be an alpha male who is not needy or emotional towards them.

In fact, women feel MORE loved around the alpha male who does not supplicate to her because he is being honest about who he is (a man whose focus is his mission), and is not trying to manipulate her with supplication. A weak beta male cannot do what is best for her because he cannot challenge her, protect her, be a role model for her, or expand her consciousness.

Go to my website: http://www.woujo.com

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/woujo3

"Like" me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/woujonation

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/TheRedPill.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title A brief history of love
Author Woujo
Upvotes 59
Comments 37
Date July 21, 2017 3:33 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit /r/TheRedPill
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/a-brief-history-of-love.44818
https://theredarchive.com/post/44818
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/6oonln/a_brief_history_of_love/
Similar Posts
Comments

[–]Elephantois27 points28 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

the best definition of love I ever saw was:

"Love is the feeling you get when you have told yourself you can't do better"

[–]MattyAnon11 points12 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Yeah............ I don't believe a word of it.

If your definition of "real love" exists for you woujo, then great. Certainly men feel love and act on it - making enormous sacrifices for the loved person.

But it objectively does not exist for women, who feel little more than a transient form of attraction and affection. Contractually (verbally) agreeing to a mutual commitment makes zero difference to a woman's feelings. She feels no compulsion to live up to her promises - if anything she feels trapped and resentful at her loss of freedom, and will blame the man who has committed to her for making her feel this way.

Every time a relationship ends (for any reason), the woman is always ready to extract the maximum amount of resources from it while simultaneously destroying the man.

So I would argue that if her "love" is contingent on the relationship existing in-perpetuity in its present form, then that so-called love is transient, worthless and ultimately meaningless.

Most pick-up artists and seduction gurus focus solely on peripheral attraction emotions and never mention “love” because, like most modern people, they have no idea what love is

People have no idea what it is because it doesn't exist. It's a manufactured societal ideal designed to compel men to act in beta ways for the benefit of women. "Because you love her" is all the justification needed for men to make crazy sacrifices for women. "Because you love him" means women do the same as they always do: fuck all.

As always with male-female agreements and contracts, love is one sided and one way.

[–]Woujo[S] 14 points15 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

First, it's absurd to say that "love" doesn't exist. Even if you don't believe that women can love a man in a romantic sense, it is clear that love exists between friends, between a parent and their children, etc...

So what's really going on?

Well, as I state in my article, you can't really have love if your other emotions aren't into it. You must be attracted to your beloved.

The problem in our modern society is that 99% of women are attracted to 1% of guys, meaning that 98% of women can't be with the guy they want to be with, so they have to settle for second best. For those "second best" women, everything you say is true - their feelings are transient, they don't really love the guy they are with, they are "extracting resources," etc...

But for those women that are with the 1% of guys they are actually attracted to, those women think they are in love and say they are in love. I mean, a lot of women think they have fallen in love, so you need to either explain that or accuse all women in all societies throughout history of lying.

YOu appear to argue that women cannot feel romantic because women "feel little more than a transient form of attraction and affection." I don't think that's true. There have been plenty of women that have been faithful to their husbands for their entire lives. There are also lots of women who are obsessed with the same guy for years and years. That's the whole concept of an alpha widow - after the guy she really wants rejects her, she can't like another guy before the first guy is on her mind.

[–]MattyAnon8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

But for those women that are with the 1% of guys they are actually attracted to, those women think they are in love and say they are in love.

Yeah? and don't divorce them? don't try and steal their resources? don't trick them into being child support providers? don't file false DV charges?

Women are women regardless of the man they are with - Briffault's law always applies. They do not love like we do. They have no concern for men, and only care about the benefits to THEM of the man they are with. Even for Chad.

I mean, a lot of women think they have fallen in love, so you need to either explain that or accuse all women in all societies throughout history of lying.

Oh, they are in female-love. It's just that this kind of love... the so-called love of a woman for a man.... is much more about what she gets than what she gives. And it's still transient, and still has no aspect of care of sacrifice for the "loved" one.

In other words - it's just attraction and need. There isn't anything deeper or more permanent than this. I've had countless women tell me how much they love me. Doesn't make one fucking iota's difference when the chips are down: they're still women, still deeply selfish, still don't actually DO anything for the one they profess to love.

That's the whole concept of an alpha widow

This is just attraction. Lots and lots of attraction.

In fact..... take a guy she's really attracted to, let them spend some time together and have hot sex. She's guaranteed to play the love card sooner or later. And it will mean as much as it always does: nothing at all.

[–]TheDreadnought18 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm a brazilian guy. Here in Brazil we have a guy that, between 2005 and 2008 wrote a series of books about women behavior, instincts, and even some relationship advice. He is like the prophet of Red Pill around here. His true identity is unknown, but the books are under the name of Nessahan Alita.

In his theory he explains the focus of this discussion really well, and what you're saying is really close to it. It goes like this:

The biological function of men in reproduction is basically one: fertilizing. He just have to bang the woman and BOOM, a baby comes 9 months later. The duty of feeding, teaching and raising the kid is hers. So instinctively, sex is seen to men as an END, a goal. Women are that who attract and provide to men what they utterly want, sex, as well as that good feeling of protecting someone and being cared and valorized. So men LOVE women directly, they tend to love and protect them as a whole and are really propense to fall in love with a specific girl that gives him that attention, that sensation of possession, and that sex.

To women on the other hand, fertilization is just the first part. They have to worry about protection during pregnancy, about giving birth, protecting, feeding and raising the baby until he is grown up and can survive by him/herself. In order to successfully reproduce, women have to do all of that. So to them, sex is not an end, but a "middle", a way, probably the easiest part of all this. The love of men is directed to women, but the love of women is directed to THEIR CHILDREN, and almost none to their men. They only "love" men in an utilitarian way, love their protection, their providing, their utility, but not them itself.

I have read all of his books more than once, and have no reason to disagree of his theory. Women love exists, but is mainly and almost solely directed to their children. That's why you'll see women dying for their sons, but you just can't find more than 10 cases a year, worldwide, of girls dying to save their boyfriends/husbands

[–]MattyAnon4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So to them, sex is not an end, but a "middle", a way, probably the easiest part of all this.

Right. But deep down she also knows that a guy who sticks around does so because he doesn't have other options, and is therefore a beta and fairly unattractive.

Her strategy isn't "have sex and then make him stick around". Her strategy is "have sex with hot guy and then make SOMEBODY stick around". Or the same in the other order.

They only "love" men in an utilitarian way, love their protection, their providing, their utility, but not them itself.

Exactly. You can't be loved unless you're offering something, and they still don't love YOU. Accepting this saves a man a lot of pain later.

That's why you'll see women dying for their sons

This almost never happens. Women SAY they will die for their children, but usually they get someone else to do the dieing.

[–]TheDreadnought10 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Exactly. He also stated that stuff about the women double standards, that they looks for the best genes to procriate, but accept staying with inferior guys for protection and providing, while giving them small, rationed portions of sex, caring and love, and still looking out for the best genes over there to receive a child from. AF/BB basically.

As for the women dying, yeah, in current world is just too easy, and probably someone will save both the woman and the child before anyone dies, but to them, the children's life always, always comes first. It's instinctive, if she has to step in front of a machine gun to save her child, she will. But she wouldn't do it for her dad, not for her mom, not for her brother, and definitely, not in a million years for her man

[–]MattyAnon3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

but to them, the children's life always, always comes first.

Nah.

I've seen too many women utterly neglecting their very children. In one case it was to go play with the dog while the child cries. In another it was to play video games while the child is bored senseless. In another it was to go and spend time with me.

The world needs to understand that women feel a need for CONTROL, not for nurturing or sacrifice or providing attention. Everything they do or say is a pretence in order to look good for men in order to secure resources. Including the pretence of being a good mother.

[–]Future_Alpha2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I agree.

'Love' as a concept was invented during the Romanticism Era in Europe, by poets. The entire conception of 'Love' fit the societal/cultural trends of that era (that was characterized by making flourishing gestures in every aspect of love).

Prior to the Romanticsm Era, there was no conception of 'Love' as we know it now. In fact, during the Classical Era, 'Love' was divided into four parts: Eros (Erotic/sexual love), Storge (familial love), Philia (brotherly love) and Agape (charity/religious love). If you look carefully, nowhere in that definition of 'Love' is there anything remotely resembling our conception of love. The only type of love possible between a man and a woman was sexual in nature, hence Eros.

As with most things regarding the human condition, the Greeks were right in this too.

Fuck the Romatics and their Romanticism. It really fucks up gender relations and fucks up men. Stay FAR away from Romanticism.

[–]MattyAnon5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There are two parts of this that are so bad for men they are probably actually evil:

Firstly the idea the "love is most important". This leads men to sit on their asses, being fat and lazy and doing nothing, and expecting to be loved.

The second is the expectation that female love is somehow a more fundamental or powerful driving force than resource acquisition or sexual attractiveness.

Women are perpetuating this love myth in order to stay fat (love is more important!) and to demand resources and commitment (this part of "love" is only expected to go one way of course).

Men for their part believe this myth and stay fat and lazy. Then a woman comes along demanding love and they do their part, not believing of her that she's just after his commitment, believing instead that she finds him attractive (love is more important than muscles!) and then believing she won't cheat for the same reason.

It's all a female-perpetuated long con, part of their commitment-and-resource acquisition strategy.

[–]Future_Alpha1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Firstly the idea the "love is most important". This leads men to sit on their asses, being fat and lazy and doing nothing, and expecting to be loved.

The second is the expectation that female love is somehow a more fundamental or powerful driving force than resource acquisition or sexual attractiveness.

Agreed on both accounts. My Uncle was raised with the Romantic conception of 'Love'. I attribute his alcoholism partly to this belief in 'Love'. He always says 'I'm all alone, have no family, no woman, no woman loves me blah blah' and then begins a week long binge. Watching him, I realized how dangerous Romanticism is, how it has no basis in reality.

Men for their part believe this myth and stay fat and lazy. Then a woman comes along demanding love and they do their part, not believing of her that she's just after his commitment, believing instead that she finds him attractive (love is more important than muscles!) and then believing she won't cheat for the same reason.

Agreed.

Romantics think female 'love' is somehow more 'pure' than male love and that while male love is physical, female love is somehow something greater. Fucking bunk.

[–]Woujo[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

'Love' as a concept was invented during the Romanticism Era in Europe, by poets.

The concept of love has always existed. It as in the bible.

The modern conception of love was created in the Romantic area.

[–]Future_Alpha0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was referring to the modern, Romantic conception. And the bible has been revised so many times that it has nothing of its origin remaining.

Plus, I don't understand why people believe in a 2000 year old religion made by and for desert tribes?

[–]JamesSkepp2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a manufactured societal ideal

An ideal worthy of aspiring to, provided all parties involved are ideally virtuous also and live in an ideal virtuous world. Since none of the parties are (cannot be, we are driven biologically first, economically second), the ideal remains an artificial concept on par with "world peace".

People have no idea what it is because it doesn't exist.

Most pragmatic explanation, also most likely true.

[–]blackedoutfast6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

But it objectively does not exist for women

that's ridiculous. we've all seen examples of women who would sacrifice their own lives to save their children. and i know it goes against the standard TRP dogma, but it's also possible for women to have that same kind of love for a man.

and we've all seen (or been) examples of men who broke a mutual commitment agreement with a woman they "loved" because that "love" was really little more than a transient form of attraction and affection

the reason women frequently break commitment/relationship contracts isn't because they don't really feel love. it's because they frequently sign commitment/relationship contracts even when they don't feel that kind of love for those men who are also signing the contract.

the real reason that mutual commitment promises are worthless in modern society is because it's so easy for one party to break the contract and get away with zero consequences.

there are a lot of flaws in the OP, but this idea that love is always a one-sided one-way deal where all women can't even feel love and all men always get screwed over is complete nonsense.

[–]MattyAnon5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

we've all seen examples of women who would sacrifice their own lives to save their children.

Yes, to save their CHILDREN. And even this is rare. They SAY this, but how many actually do it? How many work a low paid dangerous job to support their...... oh wait, that'll be MEN.

and we've all seen (or been) examples of men who broke a mutual commitment agreement with a woman they "loved" because that "love" was really little more than a transient form of attraction and affection

Sure, it's not always that great from men. But women loving men... what do they ever actually DO about it? They just demand more. "I love you" = "I obligate you".

the real reason that mutual commitment promises are worthless in modern society is because it's so easy for one party to break the contract and get away with zero consequences.

Right.

there are a lot of flaws in the OP, but this idea that love is always a one-sided one-way deal where all women can't even feel love and all men always get screwed over is complete nonsense.

Yeah? Check out the divorce courts some time. Look at who says "I love you and want you to be ok" and look at who says "I WANT WHATS MINE AND THATS EVERYTHING". Go on, see if you can guess which way round it is.

If you claim women love, adore and sacrifice for the men they love..... I wanna see some evidence, because the world around me is showing me the exact opposite.

[–]blackedoutfast2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

idk man. there are lots of shitty people on both sides, but there are also a lot of decent men and women out there.

i've never been divorce-raped. i know it's a real problem, but only for the guys who decided to get married despite the overwhelming evidence that it's a really bad deal for men. play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

all in all, if i added up all the give and take and sacrifices made by me and for me, i feel like i'm on the positive side. i've never moved across the country to be with a girl. i've never changed jobs for a girl. and add in all the little things like cooking meals and bailing my ass out of jail and shit like that. it seems like women have given me a lot more than i've given them over the years.

it really sounds to me like you've just never had a women truly fall in love with you.

[–]MattyAnon2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

i've never been divorce-raped. i know it's a real problem, but only for the guys who decided to get married despite the overwhelming evidence that it's a really bad deal for men. play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Right. You can say it's a dumb game.

But come divorce, men usually want a clean break and women usually do their best to completely financially eviscerate the man. Not always..... but there is that tendency. Women more than men.

bailing my ass out of jail and shit like that. it seems like women have given me a lot more than i've given them over the years.

Right, I accept that's your experience. It's not mine.

it really sounds to me like you've just never had a women truly fall in love with you.

Yes, but I would argue this is because women rarely fall in love and when they do don't sacrifice much. Men the opposite.

[–]owlsden1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How many men do you think even have the opportunity to benefit financially from divorcing a wealthier wife?

Not that many, relative to the number of women that have this opportunity, I'd imagine. Would you blame a guy for going after as much as he could in this scenario? Men can be just as mercenary when money is at stake, and screw people over just as easily, dude. I don't think this is as much of a gender difference as you're making it out to be.

[–]MattyAnon0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

How many men do you think even have the opportunity to benefit financially from divorcing a wealthier wife?

Very few, because women only marry richer men. They marry opportunistically, not for love.

Men can be just as mercenary when money is at stake, and screw people over just as easily, dude. I don't think this is as much of a gender difference as you're making it out to be.

Men have a degree of care for their ex wives that I don't see women doing.

Men never want to destroy their ex. Women usually do.

[–]owlsden0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok women marry opportunistically, but so do men. The calculations just tend to be slightly different -- women value resources, men value sex.

For example, I've yet to make the mistake of getting married, but whenever I'm breaking things off with a girl (or vice versa), if the sex was good I never go out of my way to burn any bridges. This leaves the possibility of sex open in the future.

For women, the calculations are slightly different. If they were at all invested in the relationship, they will be upset. Think about this through the lens of evolutionary biology. The end of a relationship for a woman who is possibly pregnant/caring for children would be, in many cases, a death sentence. Woman are programmed to have a highly emotional response to this, even if our current legal and social system has subverted this order.

Implicit in your response is the statement that men marry for love, which tells me you're still holding onto the blue pill. The correct approach, which hopefully you've now learned, is not to invest more in a relationship than the other has invested.

[–]MattyAnon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok women marry opportunistically, but so do men. The calculations just tend to be slightly different -- women value resources, men value sex.

But men are the ones CONTRIBUTING. Men are trying to build something together, men are giving. Women are taking.

Implicit in your response is the statement that men marry for love, which tells me you're still holding onto the blue pill

Men do marry for love, and this is indeed the blue pill narrative they are following.

The correct approach, which hopefully you've now learned, is not to invest more in a relationship than the other has invested.

Absolutely...... and ideally less. I now goad them into investing more so that I can invest less. It works extremely well because they end up protecting their investment and putting more in.

Manipulative? Perhaps.... but less so than every woman I've ever dated.

[–]zelyios1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You are bitter my friend, but this comment is not mature. I dowvoted sorry

[–]JamesSkepp1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

When two people commit to doing the best for each other, they create an infinitely positive feedback loop.

The real love emotion is the most primal, important, deepest, and strongest human emotion.

Explain cheating. If what you're saying is true, men and women would take FEELING "love" into account before cheating. What they really do take into account is - "god, i'm so horny for her/him". Cheating is in the interest of BOTH men and women as, purely biologically, it's the realization of their sexual strategies. She want's a better alpha or provider, he wants another woman. Your explanation assumes we take our spouses interest in the equation, that is a RATIONAL thing to do and not an emotion. If it's rational - then it's an artificial construct of our mind (or culture in the big picture).

 

When we feel like somebody is our soulmate, we begin to develop the real love emotion, even when there is no rational reason to.

Substitute love for soulmate and you have a tautology. In fact it is a tautology b/c "soulmate" is another hamstered version of "love". Same thing, different name.

You took the popular view of what love is, deconstructed it to other emotions to be rationally understood by reader, then took this rational deconstruction of different emotions as a means to show that there really is one love as an emotion. You went as far as call the rational, logical rationalization "real love emotion".

 

If I am correct, however, humans are always subconsciously seeking the real love emotion, even when they think they just want random sex.

True, with the exception of not "real love emotion" but "mutual relation that allows them to feel they belong to someone that is sexually attracted to them as they are".

 

Love is a combination (container word for combination of) of trust, sexual attraction, post orgasm hormones, non-sexual admiration of physical beauty and non-sexual admiration (and often whitewashing) the characteristics of the person you "love". Humans take this container word and use it to post-rationalize things about m-f relationships and other people.

It's a trick nature uses to get us to stay together after we banged to ensure the survival of the offspring.

[–]NeoreactionSafe1 point2 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

 

Basically, the Romantic movement represents how far-left hipsters generally think.

 

Correct. The Romantic movement was and still is a Blue Pill mythology.

 

  • The Enlightenment : AWALT

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Così_fan_tutte

 

Scene 3: The sisters' room

 

Dorabella admits her indiscretion to Fiordiligi (È amore un ladroncello—"Love is a little thief"). Fiordiligi, upset by this development, decides to go to the army and find her betrothed. Before she can leave, though, Ferrando arrives and continues his attempted seduction. Fiordiligi finally succumbs and falls into his arms (duet: Fra gli amplessi—"In the embraces"). Guglielmo is distraught while Ferrando turns Guglielmo's earlier gloating back on him. Alfonso, winner of the wager, tells the men to forgive their fiancées. After all: Così fan tutte—"All women are like that."

 

Red Pill love is the love as portrayed by Mozart.

It's seen through an Amused Mastery reference Frame.

We are The Enlightenment... we wake up the beta so he sees the light.

The Romantics are Blue Pill. (like Beethoven)

Love like Mozart, not like Beethoven.

 

Beethoven the Beta Orbiter: ("Beethorbiteroven")

 

His relationship with Josephine Brunsvik deepened after the death in 1804 of her aristocratic first husband, the Count Joseph Deym. Beethoven wrote Josephine 15 passionate love letters from late 1804 to around 1809/10. Although his feelings were obviously reciprocated, Josephine was forced by her family to withdraw from him in 1807. She cited her "duty" and the fact that she would have lost the custodianship of her aristocratic children had she married a commoner.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven

 

[–]empatheticapathetic0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Beethorbiteroven...how could I have been so blind.

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

 

She cited her "duty" and the fact that she would have lost..

 

Beethorbiteroven didn't realize that even when she explained her reasons she was still deceiving him.

The guy had no clue.

A romantic fool...

 

[–]owlsden0 points1 point  (24 children) | Copy Link

Staying on the subject of opera, you could also make this distinction by comparison to the plot of Beethoven's only opera - Fidelio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidelio

Fidelio deals with a woman who risks her life to rescue her beloved husband - a political prisoner - from execution. Its treatment of love is highly idealized. Hard to knock the guy's music though.

Worth noting that Mozart's other operas with librettist Lorenzo da Ponte - Don Giovanni and Le nozze di Figaro - also contain some very red pill material.

[–]NeoreactionSafe-1 points0 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

 

Beethoven represents the "sad puppy" type of music much like the genre of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlager_music

...so while Beethoven may have died his type of music lives.

 

An example:

https://youtu.be/wO_H7d8MzB4

 

Notice how the music builds, and builds, and builds your heart up, up, up... but then at the point of hopeful climax it falls.

It's like the romantic quest which always ends badly.

Totally different than a Mozart type piece which would have an Amused Mastery where you "climaxed" in the musical sense then returned to normal... proving that the universe is ordered and knowable.

The Red Pill is about "knowing" or reaching the end.

Romance is the perpetual striving, but never getting... the love of being a loser in getting to completion.

 

That being said... Beethoven and Schlager is very addictive.

 

[–]rockstarsheep0 points1 point  (21 children) | Copy Link

Beethoven's music is absolutely nothing like schlager music. Don't know how you can even attempt to equate the two.

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point  (20 children) | Copy Link

 

I know Beethoven.

Especially the "Immortal Beloved" song as I can basically replay it in my head at will.

 

https://youtu.be/GuWSqTlgUvA

 

That Schlager band I pointed you to always repeats the same theme which is to lift your heart up....up....up... then it cracks and falls to the ground.

This is the theme of "Immortal Beloved" where Beethoven is a beta male longing for his romantic unicorn love and entirely oblivious to the fact she thinks he's a fool.

The pattern is the thing... learn pattens.

And know how to feel what the music is saying.

This is an excellent discussion about Wagner:

 

https://youtu.be/xiYwWcImJjc

 

[–]rockstarsheep0 points1 point  (19 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough. I think you have to give Beethoven a little more credit than what you appear to give him. His body of work will trounce - more than likely - anything you or I will ever achieve. It's way too easy to trash him and call him names.

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

 

Actually I can criticize the pattern of thought.

Beethoven clearly and without a doubt can be placed in the Blue Pill romantic category.

Just as we openly say here:

 

Enjoy the Destruction of the Blue Pill mythology... "Kill the Beta".

 

If I wasn't willing to be bold like this I'd probably not be a Red Pill guy.

I'd probably be watching television and being politically correct.

 

[–]rockstarsheep0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

Mate, you're using a film as the crux of your argument. I mean, do you see the humour in this? A Hollywood production - as the basis of your argument. That's a little bit flimsy my man. It's hardly an academic study; it's an historical drama based on events and interpretations of them to create a romanticised drama. Or am I and everyone else missing something here?

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

 

No, I'm basing it on the music and his personal life.

Beethoven comes from the Romanticism Movement.

The opposing philosophy was Mozart and The Enlightenment.

Let's look at how the Red Pill identifies itself:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Così_fan_tutte

 

Scene 3: The sisters' room

 

Dorabella admits her indiscretion to Fiordiligi (È amore un ladroncello—"Love is a little thief"). Fiordiligi, upset by this development, decides to go to the army and find her betrothed. Before she can leave, though, Ferrando arrives and continues his attempted seduction. Fiordiligi finally succumbs and falls into his arms (duet: Fra gli amplessi—"In the embraces"). Guglielmo is distraught while Ferrando turns Guglielmo's earlier gloating back on him. Alfonso, winner of the wager, tells the men to forgive their fiancées. After all: Così fan tutte—"All women are like that."

 

So even our term AWALT is coming from The Enlightenment.

Beethoven can also be researched through a wiki link:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven

 

His relationship with Josephine Brunsvik deepened after the death in 1804 of her aristocratic first husband, the Count Joseph Deym. Beethoven wrote Josephine 15 passionate love letters from late 1804 to around 1809/10. Although his feelings were obviously reciprocated, Josephine was forced by her family to withdraw from him in 1807. She cited her "duty" and the fact that she would have lost the custodianship of her aristocratic children had she married a commoner.

 

So think about that...

Beethoven writes 15 passionate letters as a beta orbiter over the course of about 6 years and when she becomes available for marriage she has no attraction to him... gives him a story that he buys but was complete bullshit on her part. In reality if there was real desire on her part she would have married him and not hidden behind the "family" as an excuse. That was an easy way to lay blame elsewhere for her... "I'd love to marry you Beethoven, but my family thinks it wouldn't be right."

Face it.

Beethoven was a Blue Pill chump.

He was no Mozart... he was not Red Pill... he had no clue of things.

 

[–]rockstarsheep0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Alrighty then. I get where you're coming from. I think.

You and I differ on the degree to which we judge the man. I don't particularly think he was RP. There may have been a time when he was; I don't have the knowledge on him per as to prove that. He had to have a certain degree of ballsiness to produce the work he did; both in volume and in content. That's a rare sort of work ethic to blend in with talent.

I would also add that he was as much a product of his time as anything else. In many ways also a product of particularly strenuous upbringing. I'd cut him some slack, purely on the basis of his contribution to music over the course of his life and those he inspired after him. But to wholesale discount the man, without weighing up his other positive contributions; that's to demean him. Not all men are great at everything; absolutely everyone - you and me included here - have faults and weaknesses. And there will never be a time over the course of our lives where we don't have them.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I appreciate you taking the time and making the effort to have a conversation with me. You certainly didn't need to. 👍

[–]mushroom_overlord0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This discussion is necessary because the pop culture portrayal of love is designed to play your emotions for money. Enjoy films and novels as you like, but be aware that they corrupt the concept of love into one where satisfaction is always gained because "happy endings." Of course this portrayal is challenged in other works (the film Once comes to mind) that try to be more realistic but never really RP.

It's so obvious that concepts like true love, love at first sight (what is really "peripheral attraction emotions" at first sight to use your term) and "the one" are falsehoods, but people love to live this lie because it is comforting to think that by just sitting on your ass most of your waking life that "love will find a way" and that "love is eternal" when you find it. Challenging this type of bullshit is what TRP is about.

Still I don't buy your idea either, I guess I'm just not convinced by the evidence provided. Your definition of love as a contract just sounds like a personal one, not really useful in any objective way when just about anyone could make up their own that contradicts it. For example "men love women, women love children, and children love puppies;" I don't say that because it's true because I don't know if it is, but it's just an example of something that sounds good but will have to stand up to more scrutiny before it's accepted.

Maybe "peripheral love emotion" and "real love emotion" exist, maybe not. That said it's all a result of our biological programming promoting the individual, the tribe, or pair-bonding to ensure the reproduction of the species. Assign any meaning that helps you sleep at night if you need to.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter