Love Does Not Exist

A short discussion on the nature of love!

Love Does Not Exist

If I told you love didn’t exist you would think me mad; devoid of heart, hard and cynical in nature. But you would be wrong for I am a romantic who allows notions of the perfect affection growing between two people to fill his dreams. So why am I suggesting love does not exist? Well it is simple and it is this. We all form constructs, they are hypothetical in nature and help us to make sense of the world in the case of things that have no observable and agreed form. The literature on this subject suggests that, for example, to understand what a fish is does not need a construct because, although there are many varieties of fish, we mostly agree what a fish is and we can contrast it with say a bird or a horse as references.

Hypothetical constructs are made up by each individual from groups of functionally connected behaviours, attitudes, processes, and experiences. For example, Instead of seeing love (it is not a physical phenomenon), we build in our mind indicators, or signs of what we think, for us, constitute love. So in some ways its existence depends upon our individual conscious and subconscious thoughts and their consequential feelings.

So in essence, unlike the fish, love does not exist as an object and therefore it is simply a manifestation of our minds. In that context it does not exist. However there is still hope. Each of us creates a construct that is normally determined by the society in which we exist and our experiences and personalities. And I hate to pour scorn on the theory that there is one true love for each of us on this planet, but it is simply not true.

Meeting people is a pretty random process whether we do it at work, in the supermarket, at a fitness club or on-line. How we choose someone to 'love' is less random for some people who perhaps are a little more cautious, anal as Freud might say. For others it is a less cautious process as they rush in headlong and trust the object of their affections. And all shades in between.

To be successful in finding lasting love we have to either match our constructs as closely as possible or be prepared to acquiesce. The latter is not love in the true sense but to sacrifice one’s self for another has deep blessing if done in the cause of love and not fear.

And it is possible to ‘love’ more than one person at a time or to fall from one ‘love’ to another in series. It all depends on our construct which in turn is linked to our perception of attraction. Some hold very tight definitions of the person they would chose to fall in ‘love’ with; others are less structured and see beauty or attraction in different aspects of a person.

There are so many variables that it is little wonder the definition of love has eluded mankind for millennia. There is no way to scientifically study it or to form an agreed taxonomy. Therefore it remains a loose construct subject to the whims and beliefs of each individual. It cannot be touched, handled, collected, measured or calibrated. It can only be felt subjectively and as we all experience it differently it is a phenomenon not an object; therefore it does not exist.

Reviews

[SRMarx]

Interesting essay, but not much of a story.

[Drew Harvey]

This is a very interesting read!

[John Alexander McFadyen]

Thank you Drew for seeking out this piece.

[Frieda P]

A well thought out thesis, the problem is getting these theories to work in relationships. I hardly think its eluded mankind, when you love someone, it certainly exists and feels tangible, we know it to our depths, we recognize it, we embrace it....it's the falling out of love that needs definition....

[John Alexander McFadyen]

My Lady we fall out of love simply because it is a myth, a magical concept thatb we all see differently and have different expectations of. It is often the differences (which often emerge after the fact) that lead to relationship breakdowns. So matching constructs can have a powerful protective influence upon the longevity of love.

[Lyn Anderson]

This is great, and sums things up beautifully. You are right, of course. There are some minor things you might want to tweak, grammatically speaking, but the logic is spot on. Coming from a romantic such as yourself, it is really effectively delivered.

[John Alexander McFadyen]

Thanks 'M' willl look it over. I guess the trick is not having rose tinted glasses! Not that it hepled me much.

[Botania]

so absolutely and completely wrong lol

[John Alexander McFadyen]

Discuss........................................................

[SouthSoul]

Well thought through and presented, very true.
Thanks

[John Alexander McFadyen]

Thank you for reading and commenting SS