Limerence, Sex and Nihilism

[arslongavitabrevis]

How do any of you feel about the concept of limerence and the idea of courtly love in itself?

"I'm a realist, I'm a romantic, I'm an indecisive piece of shit" - The Cribs

I love and despise the whole build up to being with someone. The chase, the spark, the chemistry, the whole alchemy of meeting and enjoying someone. There is often nothing better.
The moments where I think "this is the most wonderful feeling, I will never feel anything like this again". But, then that plateaus and passes and you're left wanting.
But, when it's alive and you're two entities floating in timeless space there is nothing better.
But then it passes and you're left wanting again.

 

[woxihuanni]

I don't care for it. What is good is having someone to wake up to the morning fart to.

 

[Stavrogin]

'Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. There are many things below it, but there are also things above it. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling. Now no feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last but feelings come and go. And in fact, whatever people say, the state called 'being in love' usually does not last. If the old fairy-tale ending 'They lived happily ever after' is taken to mean 'They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married,' then it says what probably never was nor ever would be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be 'in love' need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense — love as distinct from 'being in love' — is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be 'in love' with someone else. 'Being in love' first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. it is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.' - C. S. Lewis

 

[agentgeez]

I can certainly relate to that quote about being indecisive. I've thought about and longed for a magical, romantic love for a long time. But I don't really believe in 'true love', whatever that's supposed to refer to other than my vague conception of it. I try to put it into a meaningful context that somehow no other concept in the world can fit into except for love, but in the end it's really just akin to a drug.

Like you described, the spark and feeling of falling for someone is a great feeling, much like a drug, and the nature of this feeling remains the same regardless of if you love someone for 'shallow' reasons like appearance, or supposedly 'deep' ones like personality. Both are standards set for us by evolution. And like any condition, if you don't fulfill it, you don't get to be loved, which is perfectly logical and perfectly numbing. But I can't complain about conditional love when unconditional love is guilty of the same meaninglessness; what sense would it make for someone to love unconditionally? Anyone and everyone they met, they would fall in love with, if it's truly without conditions. You could do anything and they wouldn't care, which really makes you wonder what you are to them in the first place. It's really quite cruel that love feels empty regardless of if it's logical or not.

I also can't agree with the idea that love is when you're with someone for a long time and, even if you don't like them, you stay with them. That's what I call patience; that's what I call obligation. If we really followed that logic, staying with the most annoying and evil person in the world would be a sign of great love, since even if you hate them, staying with them shows how much you love them. No, I think this line of thought is used to justify staying with someone after you've already sunk so much time and effort into the relationship, in the fear of being alone and in the hope that things will return to being good again. I'm sure all this sounds overly cynical, but don't laugh when I tell you that I'm an idealist at heart. I think like this because I can't handle love not actually being a fairy-tale; I can't accept the notion that love is patience, for example, because it makes me uncomfortable, like I'm overlooking something about the meaning of love, and it's that feeling which eventually leads me to these conclusions. Anyway, good thread, I like a chance to talk about these thoughts without being swamped with rhetoric that I feel I've already addressed.

 

[woxihuanni]

I can certainly relate to that quote about being indecisive. I've thought about and longed for a magical, romantic love for a long time. But I don't really believe in 'true love', whatever that's supposed to refer to other than my vague conception of it. I try to put it into a meaningful context that somehow no other concept in the world can fit into except for love, but in the end it's really just akin to a drug.

Like you described, the spark and feeling of falling for someone is a great feeling, much like a drug, and the nature of this feeling remains the same regardless of if you love someone for 'shallow' reasons like appearance, or supposedly 'deep' ones like personality. Both are standards set for us by evolution. And like any condition, if you don't fulfill it, you don't get to be loved, which is perfectly logical and perfectly numbing. But I can't complain about conditional love when unconditional love is guilty of the same meaninglessness; what sense would it make for someone to love unconditionally? Anyone and everyone they met, they would fall in love with, if it's truly without conditions. You could do anything and they wouldn't care, which really makes you wonder what you are to them in the first place. It's really quite cruel that love feels empty regardless of if it's logical or not.

I also can't agree with the idea that love is when you're with someone for a long time and, even if you don't like them, you stay with them. That's what I call patience; that's what I call obligation. If we really followed that logic, staying with the most annoying and evil person in the world would be a sign of great love, since even if you hate them, staying with them shows how much you love them. No, I think this line of thought is used to justify staying with someone after you've already sunk so much time and effort into the relationship, in the fear of being alone and in the hope that things will return to being good again. I'm sure all this sounds overly cynical, but don't laugh when I tell you that I'm an idealist at heart. I think like this because I can't handle love not actually being a fairy-tale; I can't accept the notion that love is patience, for example, because it makes me uncomfortable, like I'm overlooking something about the meaning of love, and it's that feeling which eventually leads me to these conclusions. Anyway, good thread, I like a chance to talk about these thoughts without being swamped with rhetoric that I feel I've already addressed.

Good point about unconditional love. It's not a thing.