This song is shedding light on what love actually is- a biological process with the purpose of advancing the human species.
Love is what causes males and females to attempt to find a lifetime mate, raising offspring together. This is because humans who are raised in this arental dynamic are -generally- at an advantage against humans raised with an unstable parental situation.
Being in love is simply a set of chemical reactions that takes place in the body and brain which causes people to become addicted to the pheremones of their lover(well-documented scientific fact). This chemical bond also exists between parents and children, siblings.
The song is pointing out that while we interpret love as this mystical, beautiful thing that makes human special, in reality love is only an evolutionary device designed to produce offspring who will be well-adjusted and successful in society.
Not quite. The song is titled "Love?", not "Love". It's not talking about Love, it's talking about "Love", what we call love, not the actual sacred love.
Not quite. The song is titled "Love?", not "Love". It's not talking about Love, it's talking about "Love", what we call love, not the actual sacred love.
Not quite. The song is titled "Love?", not "Love". It's not talking about Love, it's talking about "Love", what we call love, not the actual sacred idea love. Basically romantic love is not truly loving.
Not quite. The song is titled "Love?", not "Love". It's not talking about Love, it's talking about "Love", what we call love, not the actual sacred idea love. Basically romantic love is not truly loving.
@xBABYxJESUSx The comment on Ganondox is quite accurate in my opinion the ? mark is not here for nothing. I think it's more about how you can approach the idea of love when you don't know it or you've never felt it, like "what is this thing that humans feel and talk about constantly that leads their life ?".
However, if you're talking about what is actually love and not about what statements this song is making/proposing about love, I deeply disagree about your vision. That's how I viewed love for a long time but progressively I understood it was completely...
@xBABYxJESUSx The comment on Ganondox is quite accurate in my opinion the ? mark is not here for nothing. I think it's more about how you can approach the idea of love when you don't know it or you've never felt it, like "what is this thing that humans feel and talk about constantly that leads their life ?".
However, if you're talking about what is actually love and not about what statements this song is making/proposing about love, I deeply disagree about your vision. That's how I viewed love for a long time but progressively I understood it was completely absurd. We keep on reducing things to their scientifical explanations but we forget that science, here biology, focuses on mecanisms, on how does it work chemically and ONLY chemically so it ignores on purpose other "scales". By reducting love to what you say you ignore everything else about it, as what sociology, psychology or even philosophy says/knows about it. To compare it, it would be like considering human beings but ignoring societies, countries or humanity. All these scales need the other ones to make sens, you can't separate them cause in the end it makes no sense (and I think that this intelectual mistake is what feeds nihilism nowadays).
I don't know why but we always reduct things to what science says about it instead of using that knowledge by adding it to all what we already know. It's like closing one eye to see better or using only one hand when two are needed.
English is not my native language, I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here anyway, it's been hard to write it in english haha. Fuck, I would have loved explaining it in French ><.
I understand this comment but I also agree with @Euyavair ‘s comment (and I’m a boring scientist myself!)
I understand this comment but I also agree with @Euyavair ‘s comment (and I’m a boring scientist myself!)
I actually get a slightly different sense from this song altogether, less philosophical and more personal to the singer/story, but not necessarily to me. But I’d have to write that all out separately to explain what I mean and I doubt I’ll be doing it… interesting comments overall
I actually get a slightly different sense from this song altogether, less philosophical and more personal to the singer/story, but not necessarily to me. But I’d have to write that all out separately to explain what I mean and I doubt I’ll be doing it… interesting comments overall
This song is shedding light on what love actually is- a biological process with the purpose of advancing the human species.
Love is what causes males and females to attempt to find a lifetime mate, raising offspring together. This is because humans who are raised in this arental dynamic are -generally- at an advantage against humans raised with an unstable parental situation.
Being in love is simply a set of chemical reactions that takes place in the body and brain which causes people to become addicted to the pheremones of their lover(well-documented scientific fact). This chemical bond also exists between parents and children, siblings.
The song is pointing out that while we interpret love as this mystical, beautiful thing that makes human special, in reality love is only an evolutionary device designed to produce offspring who will be well-adjusted and successful in society.
Not quite. The song is titled "Love?", not "Love". It's not talking about Love, it's talking about "Love", what we call love, not the actual sacred love.
Not quite. The song is titled "Love?", not "Love". It's not talking about Love, it's talking about "Love", what we call love, not the actual sacred love.
Not quite. The song is titled "Love?", not "Love". It's not talking about Love, it's talking about "Love", what we call love, not the actual sacred idea love. Basically romantic love is not truly loving.
Not quite. The song is titled "Love?", not "Love". It's not talking about Love, it's talking about "Love", what we call love, not the actual sacred idea love. Basically romantic love is not truly loving.
@xBABYxJESUSx The comment on Ganondox is quite accurate in my opinion the ? mark is not here for nothing. I think it's more about how you can approach the idea of love when you don't know it or you've never felt it, like "what is this thing that humans feel and talk about constantly that leads their life ?". However, if you're talking about what is actually love and not about what statements this song is making/proposing about love, I deeply disagree about your vision. That's how I viewed love for a long time but progressively I understood it was completely...
@xBABYxJESUSx The comment on Ganondox is quite accurate in my opinion the ? mark is not here for nothing. I think it's more about how you can approach the idea of love when you don't know it or you've never felt it, like "what is this thing that humans feel and talk about constantly that leads their life ?". However, if you're talking about what is actually love and not about what statements this song is making/proposing about love, I deeply disagree about your vision. That's how I viewed love for a long time but progressively I understood it was completely absurd. We keep on reducing things to their scientifical explanations but we forget that science, here biology, focuses on mecanisms, on how does it work chemically and ONLY chemically so it ignores on purpose other "scales". By reducting love to what you say you ignore everything else about it, as what sociology, psychology or even philosophy says/knows about it. To compare it, it would be like considering human beings but ignoring societies, countries or humanity. All these scales need the other ones to make sens, you can't separate them cause in the end it makes no sense (and I think that this intelectual mistake is what feeds nihilism nowadays). I don't know why but we always reduct things to what science says about it instead of using that knowledge by adding it to all what we already know. It's like closing one eye to see better or using only one hand when two are needed. English is not my native language, I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here anyway, it's been hard to write it in english haha. Fuck, I would have loved explaining it in French ><.
I understand this comment but I also agree with @Euyavair ‘s comment (and I’m a boring scientist myself!)
I understand this comment but I also agree with @Euyavair ‘s comment (and I’m a boring scientist myself!)
I actually get a slightly different sense from this song altogether, less philosophical and more personal to the singer/story, but not necessarily to me. But I’d have to write that all out separately to explain what I mean and I doubt I’ll be doing it… interesting comments overall
I actually get a slightly different sense from this song altogether, less philosophical and more personal to the singer/story, but not necessarily to me. But I’d have to write that all out separately to explain what I mean and I doubt I’ll be doing it… interesting comments overall
@Euyevair I meant. Or the comment above Can’t correct/edit. Ok bye !
@Euyevair I meant. Or the comment above Can’t correct/edit. Ok bye !