I’ve long speculated on the definition of love and its paradigm. What’s the ‘subject’ of this subject on love? How would you answer that? Here’s my simple answer:
It is projected that a woman is supposed to meet the love of her life by the age 25 whereas a man is to find his at the age 28. So roughly into a third of the way into your life, you’re supposed to find your marriage life partner (Marie Claire).
But also, on average, it will only last 2 to 7 years if it does end in divorce (Balance). And half of U.S. marriages do.
We all live in an age that options are endless and “marriage for love” is eagerly sought and idealized. In that sense, statistically, love seems renewable. It just cycles more often: more partners, more marriages, and more divorces occur.
So is love really, only a statistical chance?
Love without innate desire doesn’t sound palpable. Compatible.
There are specific undeniable biological factors that draw people together. This can range anything from your pheromones to your dopamine-seeking brain;
Genes see no social constructs on what love should “look like” in public or on paper. That explains why people- from different backgrounds, social circles, identities, upbringings, or cultures still inexplicably attract each other.
Does love “naturally” happen however?
Eye of the Beholder
I think the best modifier for love is not Math, not Science, but Art. Art has structure and finite value, like Math, but it simultaneously does not have limits or absolute truths like Math does.
Science can only prove something wrong while Art can prove a point.
Love isn’t math because it’s not absolute. It isn’t math because love’s deliberate (not just probability).
Love isn’t science because it’s not unnatural. It isn’t science because love’s indisputable.
Like Art, love is a decision in which its beholders relish. Lovers revel in their love because of what it personally speaks to them and what they personally want it to speak to others. Love, like art, is their beauty, chosen.