Talk:Love

'Love' doesn't exist

Could someone add to this article that 'love' doesn't actually exist, it's a biochemical and bioelectrical reaction in the brain, doesn't exist outside the brain, cannot be seen touched, tasted or smelled, and has no energy signature indicating actual presence, is used as a excuse to feed off of others (and when the feeder no longer experiences endophin release the 'love' disapears) and that studies that have found the above to be true? It's frustrating to come here looking for facts on the exploitive act of 'love' and find only further continuation of the lies taught to us as children (we all learn santa doesn't exist, but 'love' is utilized to manipulate and use others, they get dopamine, vasopressin etc, so no one bothers to point out to our young that they're beliving false data derived from people that weren't aware of brain chemistry or how the brain works.) I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how, and have little time. A section on the fallacy of love and the actual biochemical causes of such aberant behaviour is needed, this article is FAR too unbalanced towards the side of fallacy and deception. Thank you! 2001:569:BC3F:FB00:44A3:157:6789:CDCC (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"doesn't exist outside the brain". Prove that ANYTHING exists outside the brain. All that you have ever experienced is just biochemical and bioelectrical reactions in the brain. --Khajidha (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you prove that you exist outside that doobie? 75.80.179.156 (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the most Wikipedian/chronically online thing I've ever heard anyone say. - 25eanglin (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@25eanglin: without a doubt. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

User from 13 September 2021. He's probably right. The brain is the control center The Brain: The Command Center of the Human Body. ... If we don't choose our genes, the country where we're born or raised, or the system implemented to educate us, where is the choice? .... Neuroscience teaches us that the brain reacts to external and chemical stimuli, and suggests that the brain sells us the "illusion" that we decide. Imagination as a programming tool. 👣 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkasutoro (talk • contribs) 04:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The Caravaggio image in the Christianity subsection - inappropriate

I was shocked to find, in the Christianity subsection, the image shown, together with this caption: “Sacred and Profane Love (1602–03) by Giovanni Baglione. Intended as an attack on his hated enemy the artist Caravaggio, it shows a boy (hinting at Caravaggio's homosexuality) on one side, a devil with Caravaggio's face on the other, and between an angel representing pure, meaning non-erotic, love.[50]” Questions:

1. Whyever should a painting which was apparently “intended as an attack on his hated enemy” be selected as an image to illustrate Love? This is just plain wrong.

2. “It shows a boy (hinting at Caravaggio’s homosexuality)...” Eh? Was the writer of the caption being deliberately disruptive? Why should the idea of the boy suggest homosexuality? If it’s hinting at anything sexual, then it’s pederasty. The two are not the same. The mismatch of meanings adds to confusion for any reader, as well as being misleading, and therefore contributes further to the argument that the image is inappropriate.

3. Christian love is all about sacred love. It is not about profane love. Therefore, the image is entirely inappropriate.

Look, the image shouldn’t be there, and I’d delete it now, but so as not to ruffle feathers, I’ll wait three days. There isn’t a necessity for me to find a much better replacement, it simply has to go. It’s insertion there is offensive. Boscaswell talk 00:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

There having been no indications of any contrasting opinions, I have deleted the image. Boscaswell talk 23:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Extensive Substantiation Needed

There's a lot in this article that's stated rather blithely and I doubt could be objectively justified. Examples include

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive

Why? What is the evidence for love in mammals generally? The evidence for an absence of love in non-mammals? Evidence say, that iguanas, or sparrows or cockroaches don't love each other?

And ...

Interpersonal love between a male and a female is considered to provide an evolutionary adaptive benefit since it facilitates mating and sexual reproduction

You think? It's commonly cited as propitious in terms of caring for the [defenceless] child, but I would submit only lust is [optionally] required to facilitate mating. I submit sexual desire is altogether separate from the concept of love. A case of correlation, not causation. Love may 'cultivate' and 'facilitate' sex, but it's patently not a requirement of sexual reproduction. Not least the sexual reproduction of plants. Or do plants need love to sexually reproduce too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

AI

I have flagged likely AI text here, details: these 2024 rewrites; note WP:AISIGNS all over the place e.g. superficial analyses, AIVOCAB density, promotional tone, etc Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Love Inside the Brain

Of course love only inside the brain. Everything exists only in the brain. Read your Kant. ~2026-52072-61 (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2026 (UTC)