If love were like addiction, you'd need a bigger "dose" of your partner to get the same feeling as time passes, which is not the case.
I think asbie made a good point for this.
If someone was addicted to their partner, that would be dependency, not love. It's unhealthy and is usually a sign of unresolved childhood issues, such as abandonment, etc.
Why isnt the case?
How do we define what love is to begin with?
The experiences vary but they can have the same outcome. Love can be addictive, destructive, possessive etc...
That's your definition of love.
You're confusing a phenomenon (love) with its physical manifestation (dopamine release). One is caused by the other but is not equal to it. Hurricanes destroy cities. Hurricanes are a phenomenon. Destroyed cities is their physical manifestation (the way they affect the environment). That doesn't mean everything that destroys cities has the same basis as a hurricane. They can be entirely different but have the same physical effects.
I dont think Im confusing but anyway let me explain what I was trying to say.
If I want to destroy a city, I'll use things that have a destructive element to them (hurricanes, bombs, earthquake)
Now hurricans and earthquakes occur naturally, we cant control them but the result is a city being destroyed.
Whereas bombs, which are man-made and not a phenomena still produce the same outcome.
How does that relate to love and drugs?
They have something in common to begin with , therefore the outcome is the same although it almost feels like two completely different experiences.
Also what do you think pushes someone to develop romantic feelings towards a person they dont even know? Isnt it a bunch of chemical reactions? How do you explain that?
Even natural phenomenas have an explanation, even though we dont know when they are going to strike, likewise we dont know when someone is going to be attracted to someone.
Why do people seek love?
To Feel better.
Why do people take drugs?
To feel better.
Im not saying the experiences are the same but the outcome is the same.
Just like earthquake are not the same as hurricanes and bombs, they still do produce the same outcome. They have the destructive force in common.
I'm not disagreeing that neurotransmitters play a role in love. But equating love to a chemical in the brain is reductionist.
We can talk about anything at an atomic level, how is that reductionist?
Snow, love, chocolate are still awesome for me at least, even if we talk about them at a "reductionist" level.