First, thank you, everyone, for telling me your beliefs on the matter.
For the life of me, I've been trying to find some way to argue my point, but except for one fact about it, I really can't. In all honesty, your perceptions are probably better than mine; I gladly accept this. I really can't find a way to combat them, because in the way you all put your beliefs, I feel they're probably right, or at least for you, they are.
Again, because of my own experiences with the matter, it's simply easier for me to feel like romantic love is meaningless and non-existent, or at least for me. I basically acknowledge that it's something that can never happen to me again, and that's just the way it is, and like jekylljuice said, finding love isn't the only way to find fulfillment in life. You have your way, I have mine; whether either way is genuinely correct, no one can really know.
As for the moment I take issue with....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Marshmallow
I don't believe the whole romance is chemicals jargin, I think that's crap to be blunt because its a sterile way to describe our emotions. Pain, crying, laughter, any one of those emotions can be boiled down into a cold, lifeless scientific explanation through chemicals, neural impulses and stuff like that.
If you look at romance through that you may as well look at everything else in a sterile manner as well.
|
The thing is, we know by scientific fact that they ARE just chemicals. To say they aren't is to basically defy fairly well established scientific fact. And, in all honesty, science is one of the three main pillars I found my life around. I honestly don't see what problem there is with taking a scientific and logical viewpoint of life.