I will start the article by saying that love does not exist.
The love of one person for another is the correspondence of the visible qualities of a loved one to his idea of what a loved one should be like. It can be appearance, or his personal qualities. But this does not mean that the one to whom sympathy extends really corresponds to the vision of the sympathizer.
Simply, if we talk about "love" not from the point of view of purely pragmatic motives in relation to another person, but when a person is guided by subjective motives that are not conditioned by any pragmatic goals. This may be the influence of hormones, or some other condition due to some external factors. So, love is not something sublime that is described in novels and other romantic crap.
A person, endowing this word with a romantic meaning, in fact, creates the opposite of love - dislike. And he becomes interested in dislike as well as in love. Since he has created for himself a kind of illusory idea of love as something good and bright, he opposes love to dislike. That is, a loving person will definitely hate someone in order to justify his "love".
It is for this reason that people who are disappointed in their "love" are prone to unpredictable actions towards their lovers and other people around them. It turns out that the "beloved" person himself exists, but he ceases to correspond to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe feelings of the "loving". In fact, this has nothing to do with love, because this is just a manifestation of the human ego, when one attaches importance only to his vision of relationships. In the end, it turns out that it's just a matter of inconsistency with the subjective idea of "love".
In one of my articles I wrote about What does one consider love.
The notion of "love" is inherently destructive, because it, in itself, creates an antipode. "Loving" as if claims to be selective: well, I love, and this is the "second half", it complements me. But if someone completes you, are you complete or complete yourself or yourself? From here, various kinds of "leaving" in a relationship: a person attaches importance only to what is connected with a loved one. In fact, he only thinks about his idea of "love", because it will constantly collapse as soon as there is a reason for this in the form of "dislike".
It would probably not be correct to use the phrase "genuine love", since I do not put anything into this definition that would be in any way connected with the prejudices that it can cause. But in true love, no one corresponds to anyone or anything. Loving people remain absolutely free. There is no control over each other, no jealousy, resentment. In fact, this is not an idealization of relationships, as it might seem at first glance. This is what remains if the so-called "relationships" are rid of the meanings brought in from outside, formed by personal, cultural patterns.
Looking at what is happening around, it seems that if people do not fill their life together with jealousy, control, generally accepted rituals, an oath of allegiance, obligations, false compromises, etc., then they simply will not have anything to do. Emptiness and inactivity would deprive these "relationships" of even outward viability.
True love cannot have obligations. Often people think that if one of them does something for his "beloved", it automatically means a response on his part, but this may not happen, because in true love no one owes anything to anyone.
What does a person feel after a breakup?
Although, what I am talking about here can be attributed not only to what can be called love, but simply an attitude. After all, this word has acquired a too pretentious meaning. I will call it simply the attitude of people towards each other. It must be strange when someone loves only one person. It turns out that if one loves someone one, then he will definitely hate someone else. In his article " Second half - MYTHOpens in a new windowI wrote about the essence of such relationships.
Often the actions of one individual in relation to another are associated with the hope that he will reciprocate. But he may not even have a thought to somehow respond, because this is just a hope on the part of the other that he will meet the desired reaction from him. The collapse of his own hopes in relation to his beloved, he can call " betrayalOpens in a new window".
With all this I want to say that love is not the focus of attention on an individual person. Love affects the whole attitude of an individual to everything with which he interacts. The focus of attention on a single person is a way of avoiding inner emptiness. When one needs the other, this is a kind of psychological addiction, in this case it can be called love addiction.
Animal component
Some people call love a hormonal attraction when people want to have sexual relations with each other. Maybe this is good. And this can also be called love. But what does that have to do with anything romantic? Article of justice does not existOpens in a new window.
That is, the whole question is what are the motives of this or that interaction of people, which, in turn, depend on a combination of factors. There are no bad or good relationships, as they are the result of certain motivational reasons.
the relativity of love
What is true love?
It is not possible to define what is true love. One way or another, everyone will put their own meaning into this concept, for someone there is no such concept at all. I do not even consider this phenomenon as a kind of quality of human interaction, since this is, first of all, the basis of a person's relationship to himself. And in this regard, the whole is manifested - the person himself and his attitude to other people and to the whole world.
Human independence - what is it?
We can say that this is the center of the human individual, around which his subjective world is formed, influencing the subjective worlds of other people. Love is not a waste of oneself, but it is a mutually enriching interaction of people, affecting in general their entire existence.
True love is when people become freer with each other, and not interdependent. True love is the freedom of people, including from each other, and not attachment to each other. This is not a projection of all your feelings onto some particular person, but this is an attitude that relates to the whole attitude to the world.
The Selling Essence of Modern Relationships
selling essence of modern relations
Relationships are corrupt in most cases, when one verbally or non-verbally requires the other to change his behavior in a certain way as a response to his actions. I think that this venality of relations arises against the background of a general-averaged idea of the "correctness" of relationships. It is easier for a person to hide behind a form of relationship than to admit his own inadequacy in front of himself.
The so-called "cell of society" is nothing but a part of the social matrix that only enslaves a person until the end of his days. He prefers the kind of "social arrangement" of true love. Because authentic love is transcendent in its essence and goes beyond social relations, moreover, love is an extra-social phenomenon.
I am not saying that this is good or bad, because I am far from value judgments. Man has what he is in essence. You can not give something those properties that are not inherent in it. This can only be done by fundamentally changing it. In this regard, I would very much like to quote a quote from Ernst Fischer:
I quoted this to the idea that a person forms his behavior based on the degree of conditionality of the socio-cultural environment in which he was formed as a person. His behavior is the result of a combination of external and internal processes. But in the end, he gets the result based on his responsibility to himself for his actions, regardless of what fruits he reaps in relations with people.
If a person chooses average relations, then he gets average results. Conditionality gives only even greater conditionality, because it requires the rejection of personal principles in favor of everyone understandable "happiness", to which there will be no questions, because this is a standard that does not need any explanations and justifications. This meets the needs of the people around, because they also suffer from their own inner emptiness, which needs to be filled with external stimuli.
The rejection of one's own personal dignity is a feature that characterizes modern relations. This is typical for people whose psychology is based on guilt, and one renounces his own Self and demands from the other the same renunciation of himself. Since it is initially assumed that people are not self-sufficient.
Therefore, their relationship is a kind of non-verbal arrangement in which each of them does not belong to himself. Actually, the rejection of oneself is the condition on which such relationships are built. This is a kind of moral prostitution for the sake of creating a kind of "social arrangement" in which neither the animal nature of the individual nor the mental one is supported. Such relationships do not imply the existence of personal freedom.
Freedom in this case even sounds like something abusive. In this case, humans are two mindless pieces of human flesh with no gender or identity. They only amuse themselves with the presence of each other's sexual characteristics that distinguish them, although in essence they are asexual beings.
Relativity of love
Love between a man and a woman, especially in its social context, is relative or even formal. However, it is not clear what is meant by love in this case. The motive of intersexual relations is the sexual instinctOpens in a new window. Such relationships, in and of themselves, do not imply any love. In this case, a person performs a biological function.
If we talk about a woman, then I often come across the fact that a woman positions herself precisely as a woman. That is, there is no question that a woman is first and foremost a person. Women's gender, in modern society, as if automatically makes it a value enclosed in itself. At the same time, value is understood as the fact that a person is simply a carrier of female genital organs.
Speaking about the social aspect of such relationships, any of these people loves until they meet someone who, perhaps, meets his various needs to a greater extent than his current partner.
If a person loves another and all his attention is projected on the one he loves, then this is not love. It is impossible to love what all attention is focused on. And when one tries with all his might to keep his beloved or beloved, then this is also not love. Since a truly loving person will never make his beloved dependent.
A true lover is the one with whom the one he loves becomes freer, develops, with whom he gains understanding without words. This trust comes from the heart, not an attempt to limit the one you love. The desire to limit arises from one's own limitations.
All attention is focused on the object of love when the "lover" sees the meaning of his life only in the object of love, and this is dependence. This is a kind of rejection of oneself for the sake of another, because there is no own meaning of being and therefore all attention is riveted to a single person. This is a kind of attempt to put the responsibility for your life on another.
Truly loving people always remain free from each other, but this does not mean indifference. This means recognizing the other as a free person who independently chooses his own actions. True love is love for the freedom of another person, this love is capable of actualizing his freedom, and not suppressing it.
Self love is the foundation of all love.
A person who does not love himself cannot love anyone, and no one will love him. Self-love is the love on which any relationship to others is based. In the case of a lack of self-love, the "lover" demands fidelity from a loved one, trying to fit him into the framework of a certain behavior.
Of course, if a person's parents raised him in dislike and suppressed his personality in every possible way, without supporting this personality in him, then it is unlikely that such a person will love himself. In this case, you need to learn first of all to love yourself, through the complete acceptance of yourself as you are. And if you love yourself through complete acceptance of yourself, then others will fall in love with you.
Then your love will spread to everything and you will not know what it means to fixate on understanding love as something limited, based on attachment to any one person.
Love yourself!!!!!!
When I talk about self-love, I do not mean something abstract at all, but absolutely clear criteria. This is love for all your spheres: body, soul, your own aspirations, those qualities in which you show your uniqueness. This is the preservation of what I call sustainability . You will not drink water from a puddle.
So, this also applies to relationships with people. Respect the ecology of your contacts. Communicate only with those people with whom you feel comfortable as a person, who are interested in your personality. With those with whom you are interested in being yourself. Extend the rules of ecology to all areas of your life.
If we talk about me, then I just need to look into the eyes of another person to understand whether I will have contact with him or not, whether he is interesting to me and whether I am interesting to him. Everything plays a role in determining the level of connection with a person: the expression of his eyes, facial expressions, what he says, how he says it. You need to trust first of all your intuition at the moment.
The difference between self love and narcissism
Some confuse self-love with narcissism. But narcissism is not self-love, narcissism is opposing oneself to others. When a person achieves something, at the same time, considering himself in relation to the achievements of other people. And against the background of greater achievement relative to those who have achieved less in the same area, he has a haughty perception of other people.
Although he spends most of his own energy on this achievement of the ideal. The narcissist is more of a suffering person, as he strives to be perfect in a world in which nothing is, by definition, perfect. He contrasts his greatest achievements with the achievements of other people.
I think that narcissism has social roots, since this problem concerns his interaction with others on the basis of the values of this society. But this is purely my opinion and I do not pretend to be scientific in my definitions.
As soon as the ideals of the narcissist collapse, then the whole model of his worldview collapses, rather not even a worldview, but a traumatic pattern of self-perception and perception of the world around him.
Religious "love"
From the point of view of religion, love is something perverted, you need to love a certain "god" and at the same time be afraid of him. I think how in general it is possible to love someone and at the same time be afraid of him. Usually fear is the fruit of ignorance of the object of fear, and certainly not of love. But here at the same time and fear, and "love" and ignorance. I think that only a perverted person can be afraid and at the same time love the object of his fear.
Love and happiness
When, suppose, one person cannot live without another, and at the same time, explaining this with love for him. But in fact, this is not love. This is exactly the case when one fills his inner emptiness with another person. The feeling of happiness is given precisely by the fact of being near a lover. But this "love" has nothing to do with happiness. Happiness, in this case, is the satisfaction of one's psychological dependence, since people cannot be apart.
Such "love" is characteristic of many people. In fact, this is nothing more than mutual dependence on each other, which is also complemented by manipulation, natural for such "love", such as resentment, jealousy, etc.
Disappointment in people - what are its real causes!
Love is an illusion
Love for a single person is an illusion, it is a projection of one's own flaws onto his person. Since true love does not give rise to any dependence and does not deprive a person of his inner freedom. From true love, a person cannot become unhappy, since such love affects all living things, such love does not deprive anyone or anything, since this is love based on the unity of everything that exists.
The concept of "Love" itself, as it were, contains a division, because if a person loves someone very much, then it turns out that he does not love someone very much. Since in the case of love for someone alone, he is forced not to love someone in order to justify his "love" for another. It is such a self-affirmation in one's own love at the expense of dislike for someone else.
Can anything be constructive and constructive at all, if at the level of definition it introduces a division of people into categories of loved ones and unloved ones?
Love as an imposed stereotype
Living in a society, a certain stereotype is imposed on a person in every possible way that if he is alone and he does not have a partner of the opposite sex, then such a person is not quite complete. It is imposed from movies, songs, etc. And then a "miracle" happens: he still finds such a person, and now he has a feeling of completeness, but not for long, and if for a long time, then people live with satisfaction from the fact that they are each other's social attributes.
After all, such relationships are built solely on a person's own inferiority complex, which must be overcome with the help of someone (external in relation to oneself). In one of my articles I wrote about love addictionOpens in a new window.
I would like to know your opinion in the comments!
I would like to know your opinion in the comments about what love is, in your opinion!!!!!!!!!!