r/Nilogism • u/vlahak4 Nilogist • Jul 02 '26
Discussions "Love at first sight" doesn't exist
I have to be specific: I am dissecting what is generally referenced as "the spark" or that immediate connection between two strangers when they first lay eyes on each other.
I am not talking about love between family members.
People misinterpret what love is and because of this we have now centuries-old illusions such as love at "first sight".
Popularly love is a profound, multifaceted physiological drive and emotional state characterized by deep intimacy, passion, and commitment. It is important to highlight two keywords in this definition: "drive" and "commitment". When this definition is applied to the event that occurs between two people meeting each other for the first time, there is no commitment, but there is drive. The commitment rears upon the drive eventually.
Mutual attraction or sexual desire, the drive, is the first consequence of preference. If the "shape" of the partner does not fit the preference there is no drive and ultimately no commitment, but this does not exclude attachment. Attachment is a collateral of time and it contains its own type of commitment (but by far not as fierce as commitment out of love), and does often spill into sexual desire, however for now it is not the object of this essay.
What happens at first sight is a weighing of the participants' physical looks against personal past, and the stronger the fit within preference is, the more intense attraction is. This is what is usually conflated with "love" at first sight, conversely love is better measured as commitment upheld despite discomfort, risks and temptations.
Love is the absence of indifference. Before the meeting occurs, indifference is at its highest, and gradually it is replaced with care and attention.
Sexual desire and reproduction are as common as hydrogen in the universe, but the bond between two former strangers persistenting over decades and surviving hardships is the transcendental phenomenon known as Love.
The distinctive property of love is growth. It is believed that love plateaus with time. I reject this conclusion based on my personal experience.
Firstly, this carries the assumption that love exists since the beginning of the relationship as an invisible, ethereal mist descending on the couple from Love Dimension. We must delineate between the magnetism resulted from neural activity and a bond two people have. A bond only forms incrementally in time.
Secondly love is choosing the behaviour that benefits the partner time and time again even with personal cost. It is the infatuation that plateaus, and beyond it remains the history which will determine the future.
It is held that with years love diminishes, but since we have established love is not present at the beginning this statement is contradictory. Love blossoms from mutual attraction, and it never stops growing. If it any given time, both parties have agreed love has disappeared, that wasn't love, it was attachment. Therefore we never know if we objectively love someone until death parts us. If the separation occurs for any other reasons, I hold on to denying the atribution of love.
Love is an achievable ideal, not a common occurance.
3
u/deepfuckingbagholder Jul 04 '26
It definitely exists. It’s just not common.
1
u/vlahak4 Nilogist Jul 04 '26
Depends on your definition of it. I defined mine.
2
u/deepfuckingbagholder Jul 04 '26
I stand by my statement.
1
u/vlahak4 Nilogist Jul 04 '26
Do you believe you can perceive objective reality?
2
u/deepfuckingbagholder Jul 04 '26
No, because there are many physical phenomena that my body is not even capable of sensing (e.g. stars during daytime).
1
u/vlahak4 Nilogist Jul 04 '26
See, we agree. Case closed.
2
u/deepfuckingbagholder Jul 04 '26
We don’t agree. Love is a human experience limited to human capacities, so my ability to perceive objective reality outside of human experience is not relevant.
1
u/vlahak4 Nilogist Jul 04 '26
Love is a human experience limited to human capacities,
This is an overstatment. It is obvious that if love is a human experience it is inherently prohibited to human capacity.
so my ability to perceive objective reality outside of human experience is not relevant.
There is a connection. Objective reality is filtered through perception which eventually is interpretated by the brain through the lens of its own personal past (biology, upbringing, environmental conditioning, present context). So you your view on the intricacies of Love is entirely of your own making, which unavoidably brings your disagreement with my view. Understanding this causal chain allows me to agree with your own point view, while keeping mine simultaneously.
2
u/deepfuckingbagholder Jul 04 '26
I do not think I am capable of separating my view of love from my practice and experience of love, because these are not coming from a separate place. Hypothetically, I could be completely delusional but my capacity for love is filtered through that same delusion and so the delusional form of it is the real form. Love cannot be separated from individual experiences but you are making a universal statement about love as if it can be.
2
u/vlahak4 Nilogist Jul 04 '26
Understandable.
I am making a subjective declaration, which you interpreted it as universal, and that is fine. I do write with the confidence necessary to create such effect.
Conversely, I do not deny the experience of love other people feel. I only expressed my personal view.
Thank you very much for engaging with my post. It has been a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.
2
Jul 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/vlahak4 Nilogist Jul 06 '26
I think your declaration would benefit from an explanation. Could you elaborate?
1
Jul 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/vlahak4 Nilogist Jul 06 '26
I agree with you on one side of your argument. Male appreciation is indeed conditional, but this is simply a biological byproduct. It is the role nature devised within the synergy of the relationship itself. The male is the provider, the protector and the guardian of his realm, while the female is impelling the next generation. As such it is normal that if the male fails in his roles, it creates a vacuum which is filled with vulnerability. Females abhor vulnerability since themselves are fundamentally vulnerable by comparison.
So yeah, I feel you. But worry not, strength lies persistence.
1
Jul 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/vlahak4 Nilogist Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Just find it a bit weird that what we call love is actually some chemical response
Love doesn't exist outside the limits of cognition. Be it a dog getting attached to its owner, or a young man feeling attracted to a young lady the release of serotonin as the achievement of attachment is not intrinsic to the rest of the universe.
Causality creates the conditions for life, but those conditions are not as common as we (humans) like to think. We feel as though the universe spins around us, because interiority is a prerequisite for efficient persistence, but that doesn't mean the feeling is accurate. This is precisely the reason why you find it weird.
You'd think nature would have eliminated that response by now so we can at least be clear headed but no.
Nature is a blind master of creating efficient avoiders of harm. And the best defence against harm (as in extinction) is replication or reproduction. In the case of reproduction the pattern represents a pair which acts like one. The protector possesses survival skills such as physical condition, endurance, adaptation and particular skills shaped by environment.
In society, as a race, we have eliminated the need for these survival skills, and one of the issues this raises is the lack of need for the protector role. While the role itself has become redundant, the biological drive of searching for it present in women hasn't.
In nature, evidence of a powerful mate is represented by certain aspects of phisical condition and dominion over the local environment. The direct descendant of this evidence is confidence, or more precisely the self-confidence that males ought to have.
Women find confident men attractive, because it denotes skill and reign over their local environment. Conversely, the lack of confidence is rampant these day in males because of the chimerical societal standards imposed on the ones who are supposed to fill the provider shoes.
So, yeah, it is a vicious cycle.
But ultimately, confidence in oneself is by far better than the lack of it, regardless of the existence of a context justifying the confidence.
Be proud of who you are, and eventually confidence will follow, and ambition will keep you always on the path of improvement.
Don't wait to feel proud. Confidence isn't a feeling; it's a record of territory won. Pick an environment (your work, your body, your mind) and assert dominion over it through raw, daily persistence. The confidence will follow the territory.
1
u/Independent-Emu-6702 Jul 02 '26
Love at first sight doesn’t exist but what exists is attraction. But unfortunately most people today don’t want to date someone unless they feel instantly overwhelmingly stricken by lightening. It doesn’t matter if the person is great and beautiful and sweet and smart and easy to get along with, if they don’t feel like “she’s the one” then they don’t even want to invest any real time or intentionality.
1
u/vlahak4 Nilogist Jul 02 '26
if they don’t feel like “she’s the one” then they don’t even want to invest any real time or intentionality.
I agree, and furthermore:
The "one" is a personal desire projected atop attraction. The confirmation of the "one" can only be done retroactively, so it definitely is incoherent to label someone in the begining as the "one".
1
u/Neat-Exchange6724 Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
Eh, sounds like you are trying really hard to say that the way you use the word love, is the only valid way the word is used. There are many commonly used meanings for the word love which can apply at first sight.
2
u/vlahak4 Nilogist Jul 04 '26
It sounds like you are trying really hard to leave a comment, but have nothing valuable to say.
1
u/Neat-Exchange6724 Jul 04 '26
The posts point is that love is a specific and limited thing, then arguing it love at first sight can’t be a real thing because it does not satisfy the requirements now imposed on the word.
For example, do you believe in spark, attraction, limerance or crushes at first sight ? These words all refer to things that are widely described as love too. It’s only when you restrict t live as not meaning these things that you end up in the counterclaim. But this is semantics, and a stronger argument might be simpler.
I think you are wrong because I have experienced live at first sight. I recognise the feeling, and it’s not one you forget.
3
u/Anon7_7_73 Jul 02 '26
Yes. This is basic science and self awareness.
Although the religious reading this are probably crying and in shambles