Love is a game. Or maybe not?

Turning on the tv, our attention is caught by scenes or discussions which have love as central object. In no age like this one, love has taken so much attention, till becoming an important product of interest for the mass culture and its marketing.
Everybody has some opinion to express: the expert opinion, normally, is offered by some psychologist or some sociologist. In the most of the cases, we hear about some boring and unpleasant truth. We know that there's something true in those speeches, but it sounds boring and unpleasant because we already know what they are talking about, and it's something that doesn't comfort us. For some people, these interpretatins are helpful for the self understanding. But there's also a negative effect, as we try to show here briefly. These talk-show dialogues, these books and these movies, with the visions of human things which they propose, get the effect to replace our constructive thinking with their own formal and interrogative skepticism. We cannot be skeptic towards every fact of the life and human existence. At least, we have to believe in something. But talk-shows thinkers and contemporary opinion-leaders want to convince us that the feelings are the result of a game, of a system of interactions. Romeo would love Juliet only because he meets her when he's horny and there's no other girl around: this would be an explication that our contemporary observers, "well educated" by tv and post-modern society theorists could think. It's a very arbitrary opinion, but the right to be arbitrary is substained by the latest cultural relativism. In the relativism climax, the winner position is alway the materialist one. Why? That's simple. Because a materialist interpretation doesn't need to search for an explication: everything is just confirmed simply with his evidence. But is it really evidence, this one? Let's look at Romeo and Juliet story. Reading the story, we notice that Romeo doesn't meet other girls. He cannot fall in love for other girls, because he doesn't see them or doesn't meet them. Some contemporary interpreter could argue that Romeo must fall in love with her, because there are no other girls to fall in love with. This would be a necessity, like a natural phenomenon.But in this case, we wouldn't be talking about "love" anymore. We would be talking about "necessity", and so about "interest", and other connected things. This is one of the extreme derive of the contemporary and post-modern thought, which is nothing else than an exaggeration, resulted by carrying the modern thought individualism and his method of causal imputation to the extreme consequence. We cannot reduce the reality and the essence of our lives to a "game" of social interactions. It can't be so: if it would be, we should consider our same lives as natural objects, located in a context of rigid formal laws. A context so ruled, by formal laws which just treat the individualities for their being an empty "something" and not a specific "something", wouldn't be a human context. No human context would correspond to this scenario, where the human relations are explained by strictly causal relations.This would be a natural context, where the feelings are totally replaced by the physical interests - and nothing else.So we must refuse all these contemporary and astonishing interpretations about love, feelings and other old facts which compose the constellation of meanings and paradigmatic experiences. These old facts with their old interpretations offer the sense and the measure of the human existence. Why we should see something of different in them, if we have survived until today without the need to kill each other for affirmating our right to structure the own existence in some social and peaceful way? New interpretations, driven by post-modern ideas, are deeply nihilistic, they deny any transcendental factor which could legitimate the human - and social - experience in a higher sense. Denying the transcendental dimension of love and feelings, pulls to deny also the necessity of a society. Why I should do something for the society, if the society cannot do anything for me? This is a quest that no contemporary materialist and post-modern theorist can face.

The topic would be long and would need to be properly articulated. We plan to return on this subject in other moment.