Question about love... [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

PoeticPassions

05-04-2009, 07:55 AM

I wrote the following quite a few years ago... my sort of take on love:

"As toddlers the word "love" is introduced into our vocabularies. Most are exposed to it in some form from birth. I remember as a little girl my mother would ask me, "how much do you love me?" Upon which I would spread my arms as far apart as I could and say "this much." Perhaps as a child I believed that love is something that can be measured, and that its measurement varies from person to person. Though now I know it is not a quantifiable notion or emotion, it surely can vary in intensity, and is different for each person. The love I have for my mother, for my best friend, for humanity, or for any man I might have loved in my short lifetime is so different that it cannot even compare. Not to say one is less valuable than the other, or that one is superior. However, all loves should share a few common traits: selflessness, durability (permanence), and peace.

People quickly misjudge passion or lust for love, and soon find that the basis of their relationship was built on sandcastles. No wonder marriages crumble and friendships fade away into lost memories. Love should be eternal, but since people and people's emotions are fickle, love becomes fickle as well. Love has the ability to destroy you, but also the ability to change you and to give you renewed life. We take the risk of destruction and devastation because the benefits of love are so great. Love, even in its suffering, is beautiful.

Ultimately, though, do we really want to know the answer to "what is love"? If we knew all of the intricacies of the human mind (or the human heart) we would be nothing more than shadows; if we could explain God and understand the vastness of our universe there would be no need for faith. So if we could explain what love is exactly we would no longer be intrigued by it, no longer write sonnets about it, and perhaps no longer be capable of sacrificing everything for it."

Now, looking at this, and being in a long-term relationship, all I can say is that one just KNOWS when one is in love. It is just a feeling. It might be for a moment in time, or it might be for our entire lifetime, but that one moment, in its purity, is just as wonderful as a thousand moments put together.

Niamh

05-04-2009, 08:02 AM

PoeticPassions

05-04-2009, 08:21 AM

perhaps when you are ready to sacrifice your own happiness for the happiness of another... that is true love. It has to be selfless, I think.

Once you realize that the person next to you is a person you could give your life for perhaps then you know that you love that person.

It's a tough question. But I think that lust or infatuation fade over time, or relatively quickly, and in their momentary state may seem stronger than love, but are not permanent. Love sticks around.

AimusSage

05-04-2009, 08:33 AM

giving up your happiness for another is not love. That's sacrifice, and a love killer. Love is more akin to being able to make each other happy.

Love does stick around longer than infatuation or lust. but it needs time to grow, which it can do from infatuation or mutual friendship and respect and many other ways. It can also fade with time, if it is not given enough attention. Because Love isn't always easy. It does need work, and neglecting it gets you fired.

Or whatever, I don't know much about love to begin with, just that society puts a huge pressure on the experience of love and as such manages to damage it tremendously for a lot of people.

Niamh

05-04-2009, 08:37 AM

Hey I was just about to say that about sacrifices.
I personally dont believe love is about sacrificing your happieness. surely to love is to be happy in some way? And why do people believe that in order to love someone they need to give up so much? if two people are truely in love, should understanding and acceptance be more important?

PoeticPassions

05-04-2009, 08:43 AM

I meant more that you would be ready to give it up. IN the sense that if that person decided that they would be happier without you, that you would sooner let them go than try to keep them selfishly.

But you're right that love should involve happiness... sometimes compromise. I think that in love two people grow together and become better in many ways. But I agree with Aimus, love isn't always, if ever, easy, and sometimes it is not enough.

Understanding and acceptance are really important, in my opinion, as is communication.

BienvenuJDC

05-04-2009, 08:46 AM

Very well written...PoeticPassions...

I think that infatuation is another emotion that we have...when your heart flutters at the thought/sight of someone. That is great, but also realize that LOVE is an action as well as a noun, adverb, adjective, etc. At different points in your life/(relationship with a person) you may realize that you are not "IN LOVE" but that you DO LOVE someone enough that you will remain committed to that person. It may not be...when do you realize that you are IN LOVE, but when are you ready to make a commitment TO LOVE. And of course, there is the harder to realize factor...do you think that they other is ready to make the commitment TO LOVE back...forever! It is as easy to fall OUT of LOVE as it is to fall IN LOVE, that is when one must make the decision/commitment to continue TO LOVE...and that is why I think that so many relationships fail, because people want to be gratified by the infatuation/heart flutter!!

Nightshade

05-04-2009, 08:49 AM

I don't believe in love as 'love' maybe there is something but I object to the use of the term love. That being said I just remembered something I wrote in my diary when I was 13, basically being me I decided to find some kind of empirical measure of it all and decided that the best way was to read as many romances as I could get my hands on- I read loads of the classics, pulp fiction, devoured things like Colin Forbes and Dick Francis looking for the other side, the male opinion.
anyway 2 quotes I found from the Amorist by e Nesbit " Love is when you only care to help the person you love and not care to help the person you love and not care whether they hate you or not."
and the other was form the Harvester by gene stratton-porter " Wanting to be with the person day and night, wanting to hug them , sometimes without any reason wanting to help them is only childlike affection, not love"

I also made a notation on how sacrifice seems to be a feature in a lot of peoples idea of love and how this was weird. and Like I said I don't believe in love and I don't pretend to understand it but if you add the idea of Divine love , or rather love of the Divine, into a type of love. Then sacrifice has always been a feature of love hasn't it? Giving something up so someone would love you more? so you are proven 'worthy' of love? To prove how much you love someone . You know what I think its a kind of manipulation.

As for social pressure and love, yes there is far too much of that. I cant count the number of times I have been called abnormal or unhealthy or whatever because I don't choose to believe in he existence of love, and quite frankly haven't the time at the moment to spend dealing with a 'relationship' and any mess it might bring with it. :nod:

Can I just ad OT I was obviously meant to be a librarian and I never realised , Ive got fully referanced citations from when I was 11 in my diary I am actually quite impressed with the mini me!

BienvenuJDC

05-04-2009, 08:56 AM

Giving something up so someone would love you more? so you are proven 'worthy' of love? To prove how much you love someone . You know what I think its a kind of manipulation.

Unconditional love...as the Greeks called AGAPE...is not sacrificing so that someone would RETURN their love, but to GIVE to another, whether or NOT they return...and to be willing to give it AGAIN knowing that it may not be returned.

PoeticPassions

05-04-2009, 08:57 AM

what about the love of a mother? or love for humanity? or love of our brothers or sisters?

do you believe in that type of love? love takes many forms. If it didn't exist, I believe that a lot of things would cease. Like progress, compassion, etc.

Unconditional love...as the Greeks called AGAPE...is not sacrificing so that someone would RETURN their love, but to GIVE to another, whether or NOT they return...and to be willing to give it AGAIN knowing that it may not be returned.

agreed. It is not about HAVING to give something up, but being willing to give without expecation to receive.

Niamh

05-04-2009, 09:07 AM

I was kind of hoping we could stick to the love supposed to be shared between a man and a woman here. :) (or man and man etc)
Divine love and family love are relevant but i'm more interested in peoples opinions or romantic and possibly even plutonic love.

agreed. It is not about HAVING to give something up, but being willing to give without expecation to receive.

yeah but sometimes this can go terribly wrong. Its were abuse from the other half could happen, here the other person begins to expect you to do all these things for them. thats when it get manipulative and sours.

Nightshade

05-04-2009, 09:28 AM

what about the love of a mother? or love for humanity? or love of our brothers or sisters?

do you believe in that type of love? love takes many forms. If it didn't exist, I believe that a lot of things would cease. Like progress, compassion, etc.

Actually no Im not convinced as to the exsitanceof any of that. Oh there is something I will grant that, but a noble emotion that seperates us from the birds and the bees, as it were, rather than a basic survival instinct no Im not convinced, but that isnt the point of this thread this is for romantic love so if you want to discuss the otherstuff with me starting another thread might be a good idea.

Nimah, I don't know the closest I would come to what I would suppose you could call love is trust real honest to goodness trust, becuase here is thething that has always got me about relationships, basically what you are doing is handing over the right to hurt you , oh Im not talking delibratly or physically, but the risk is always there and I just don't get it why? The number of wailing people I have had to comfort over the years I can't see the point, unless you somehow trust someone and know them well enough that it doesnt matter anymore, or oh I don't know. Trust and equality and sharing have to come in there somewher I guess? :confused:

grotto

05-04-2009, 10:28 AM

Love isn’t about sacrificing yourself for another, it’s about sacrificing your own illusions about happiness and the other person to see what is real. Love is not infatuation, lust or possession. Love between two people is a process that continually morphs and grows, it can’t be contained or controlled.

Love is not an obligation nor is it something that is owed you. Love takes work and most of the work is on the personal level, not on the others or for the good of the relationship. If you are seeking to gain without giving, when you expect, demand or feel like you deserve, you lose.

BienvenuJDC

05-04-2009, 11:24 AM

Niamh

05-04-2009, 11:58 AM

NikolaiI

05-05-2009, 01:44 AM

right so, i've been thinking about this. I've had a couple of discussions about it in the last 24 hours, and this is what i want to know...
How do we know that what we are feeling really is love, and what is this feeling?

The feeling is happiness, or bliss. The only way to know if it is true is to give it time, all of your attention, and meditate. Only by giving it time and your attention can you ever learn about it - in other words, about yourself and the person you love.

I wrote more but I'll just leave the post at this.

Love is higher than words and mental understanding. We aren't simply mind, though. This is the most essential flaw anyone has ever made and it is made so widely these days... Love is higher than mind, but it is real.

Not to take this in a wrong direction really.. but I have to say that what we feed our hearts, mind, soul, etc., this has an effect on us. We are more than the senses. We are more than the mind. So why do we spend so much time on those? We will never be satisfied by trying to satisfy our senses, or even the mind. There is still a heart within us, still a soul, which is only satisfied by peace, knowledge, and love. Love is rare, and it is difficult; it is rare also because people do not spend enough time and effort trying to perfect themselves; what I mean is, not enough effort trying to find who they really are.

librarius_qui

05-08-2009, 11:27 PM

right so, i've been thinking about this. I've had a couple of discussions about it in the last 24 hours, and this is what i want to know...
How do we know that what we are feeling really is love, and what is this feeling?
And as my friend said, " If love is blind, then how does it find you?"

And if you truely do love someone, then what is it that makes us realise?

Maybe love is blind, but I am not.
Even if I could not see, I would still not be blind.
Because love is about choosing.

Problem is, once you chose, there's no way you can get rid of it easily. (With me, at least.) I'm in great trouble because I decided to give love to a girl, and now, no matter she despises me, I cannot simply throw her away. I have to wait, until someone else comes to fulfill the emptiness she leaves in me (by choice of hers).

Love is choice: you don't realize it. You choose it. You trust it. Or not. It isn't coincidence. It's gravitational. Everything works out, in the very beginning, and, after it, everything goes wrong, for quite a while.

Love is born, and it dies. I never had the chance of seeing love to last long, in my life, so, what do I have to say? But I'm saying what I believe and have seen.

My parents are married for 33 years, by now.
There's love in this.

I have a friend who's just .. er got together with his girl.
There's love in there.

It's visible.
It's visibly (in both mentioned cases) a matter of choice (from both sides).
(choice of keeping ahead together; choice of beginning a mutual life together.)

----

And, of course, there are other kinds of love. Not only love between man and girl. But, well, I .. felt/trusted your question to be like this kind of love I spoke about.

lq~

Mrs. Dalloway

05-10-2009, 05:17 PM

mmm that's definitely a complicated question. It may sound romantic but I think you know it's love when you don't give importance to his/her shortcomings. Or only when you enjoy the simplest things with him/her.

The Comedian

05-10-2009, 08:29 PM

May I quote?

Love is "like a red, red rose that's newly spring in June"

and

"Love hurts"

and

"how do I love thee? Let me count the ways"

and

"love scars"

Love is a lot of different things. And, to tell you the truth, I don't know what love is. But I do know that it is, that it is something. . .something good. And, I'm sure that people know it when they feel it. It's like delivering a baby, hooking a fish on a surface lure, or tasting a good sip of wine. You know it upon the instant, there is no doubt. But where the child turns out good, whether you get the fish in the boat, or whether last sip of wine will taste as good as the first, no one knows.

I bet that if you think you're feeling love, Nimah, then you are feeling love.

Good Hunting!

librarius_qui

05-10-2009, 10:07 PM

it has to do with the first 2.40 minutes of this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_jCHeU_H8c&feature=PlayList&p=C19D8646EAE8E608&index=22

it makes a man stop, think, and go back ...~

(wow .. perhaps I should go back.
blast!: SHE doesn't love *me* :bawling: )

Chava

05-11-2009, 05:04 AM

Niamh, your original question was about 'knowing'. I think this is very different for all of us, and I think we will know differently for the different people we love. Many people I have thought myself in love with, I was really only fascinated by them. Attracted to their intelligence, their creativeness, their free natures. When I grow to love someone, I want to not only see their world, I want them to see mine.
I think that love is about being able to understand someone else. Which is why these infatuations of fascination never seem to last. Sooner or later, people will always be people, and they start to seem ordinary. Maybe after one great evening together, maybe after a week, or for some years. Maybe you will know when you don't mind the mundane and the ordinary, as you can see their extraordinary nature shine through the dishwashing, the clohes drying, and the crazy work schedule.
When we fall in love initially, we let down our barriers, and let people into our lives, absorbing their characters, and indulging in their beautiful natures. And as the everyday starts to reestablish itselves, it is love that allows us to leave space for someone. And it is love that keeps us coming back even as our everyday barriers are buildt. I don't think most people ever allow themselves to get past the reestablishing of personal barriers. I also believe it is important to have tried different loves, to have fallen madly, to have fallen reluctantly, to have fallen painfully, so that we can recognise within ourselves, when we are falling for the right ones.

billl

05-11-2009, 05:14 AM

wow, chava. great take on warm, personal, human love.

Niamh

05-11-2009, 05:26 AM

:lol: i'm just curious as to what everyone thinks love is and whats makes them believe it. never said anything about me! its my nosey nature! And i just wanted us all to have a discussion on a topic that becomes a part of each of our lives at some point...

Niamh, your original question was about 'knowing'. I think this is very different for all of us, and I think we will know differently for the different people we love. Many people I have thought myself in love with, I was really only fascinated by them. Attracted to their intelligence, their creativeness, their free natures. When I grow to love someone, I want to not only see their world, I want them to see mine.
I think that love is about being able to understand someone else. Which is why these infatuations of fascination never seem to last. Sooner or later, people will always be people, and they start to seem ordinary. Maybe after one great evening together, maybe after a week, or for some years. Maybe you will know when you don't mind the mundane and the ordinary, as you can see their extraordinary nature shine through the dishwashing, the clohes drying, and the crazy work schedule.
When we fall in love initially, we let down our barriers, and let people into our lives, absorbing their characters, and indulging in their beautiful natures. And as the everyday starts to reestablish itselves, it is love that allows us to leave space for someone. And it is love that keeps us coming back even as our everyday barriers are buildt. I don't think most people ever allow themselves to get past the reestablishing of personal barriers. I also believe it is important to have tried different loves, to have fallen madly, to have fallen reluctantly, to have fallen painfully, so that we can recognise within ourselves, when we are falling for the right ones.

this is exactly what i wanted to know... that personal feeling about love. :thumbs_up
That was great Chava. :) I actually agree with the whole infatuation thing!

PoeticPassions

05-11-2009, 05:48 AM

very nice response, Chava. I agree.

Jozanny

05-11-2009, 06:04 AM

I wrote a post about getting real about love as a social construct, but my connection was acting up because of my anti-virus software, and I could not rewrite it when things returned to normal, so, until the next time my cynicism flares--

laidbackperson

05-12-2009, 01:14 AM

Many years ago I read about a famous lady’s take on this subject on a newspaper. She has undergone numerous affairs in her life and at a mellow age was commenting something like that it can happen but is a very rare thing. I mentally recorded that it can exist.

Second instance I recollect of a married actor divorcing and marrying a younger girl. And a decade later, leaving this second girl also for another girl. He was commenting something like this after divorcing the second girl- ‘Though we are separating, we can not say that the feelings that we had for each-other earlier were not true.’
I think, at that time, if he had to risk his life for her, he could have actually gone ahead and done so.

I remembered another colleague’s take on this topic: Whether you love in life or don’t love, it is not of paramount importance for it is not a permanent feeling. But the feeling that you have when you are in love, is something very pure.

Another instance, is of a Reader’s Digest true story of a young boy and girl of 16 something age in love with each-other getting separated due to parents pressure, loosing all contact with each-other for many years and then again running into each-other by fluke (divine intervention, seems more appropriate) chance when they got in their 60s or 70s. Both had remained unmarried in their lives as they could not find a better person than their first love in their lives. Of course, they happily married and I presume lived happily ever after for whatever time was left to them.

Then I recall a sentence of Sidney Sheldon novel, when a heroine who loved one man fall in loves with another man and commented something akin: Oh, the difference between loving a person and being in love with a person.

In Jane Eyre, plain Jane has fallen head over heels in love with Rochester and is initially jealous of beautiful lady Ingram as Rochester showed interest in the beautiful maiden. But when she studies the character of lady lngram, she finds that she is not a good person, not fit for Rochester and Rochester too don’t take her that seriously, her jealousy completely diminishes.
Similarly, Rochester once feels jealous when he becomes aware that her own mistress has a different lover. But the moment he sees him (an inadequate person he already knew) his jealousy as well as charm for her mistresses disappears.
Later blind and handicapped Rochester again feels jealous of Jane, when he learns that she has been in contact with a handsome, able bodied man, but as he truly loved her, he tells her to leave him and go to this man.

So when you fall for a person, it is a connection between souls and not the physical beauty. At that time you become more beautiful than Angelina Jollie or handsomer than Brad Pitt.

My own point is like this: In true love there is an intense yearning for your lover and at the same time there is a full selflessness towards her or him. You may feel jealous, you may feel hurt but for you, the happiness of your lover is more important than your own happiness and you will go all the way for your lover even if it means letting go your lover to another person (his/her lover).

Where is true love, when a married person falls for another married person, or a married person fall for unmarried person and vice versa. I don’t know. But I think that if we show restraint and dignity and quiet, and don’t go physical, then God will not give us negative marks. After all it is through God’s grace alone such feelings can sprout in somebody’s heart.

Another important factor is time. Time changeth everything.

With times our priority changes, you have your new interests, you may have health problems or get financially tight or have job insecurities or children become more important than your own lives. You may start worry more about these than your lover now. With time, whether you love has found fulfillment or has remained unfulfilled, whether you could marry your lover or not, the romantic feelings subsides greatly. Pheromones effect seems after all real. Chava’s post number 24 on this thread tells of the real life and problems nicely.

After many years of married life, you may care for your spouse’s interest more than your own interests but at the same time if you are still as much in love as you were earlier, then, I think you are already in heaven in earth, something of true love..

But by God, I have yet to come across such a couple. I sometimes think God you are slightly selfish here.

There are other forms of love and I have covered only love between man and woman.

All said and done, I think you have not lived if you have not loved.

But don’t take me seriously in this serious discussion.

For another thing I also keep saying is that you have not really lived, if you had not owned a dog in your life.:D

Jozanny

05-12-2009, 10:58 AM

For another thing I also keep saying is that you have not really lived, if you had not owned a dog in your life.:D

Dogs are too overweening in their affections;); overjoyed to see you and jump on you, always smiling or drooling. Now a cat, a cat understands the dignity of having their own space, but when mom is making a ham sandwich, they like nothing better than to sit on mom's lap and say I love you, at least for a chance to get a swipe at the ham:p.

I have always had more authentic relationships with cats than with men. It is true my disability put me at long odds for success in this arena, but I now suspect, as I close in on fifty, that I never learned from my mother how to be patient, and not develop contempt for both the person and the sex. In my thirties I had three affairs, and the housewive-writers who I interacted with in my writing groups were appalled. I am not, not even today.

There is something exciting and even slightly dangerous about the forbidden liason. In the end though, I was tired of the role, and discovered married men use mistresses as a form of therapy, a kind of grievance against the wife. The mistress is supposed to understand and soothe those poor wounded egos.

I nearly married a disabled cop, but I couldn't do it in the end because I in fact did not fall in love with him. Our engagement was the worst lie I ever foisted on myself.

This is why I do not believe in love as an abstract entity. Sure, there are *good* marriages, but what enables two people to stay together has more to do with learning how to negotiate a relationship.

I doubt I will ever get *involved* again, but it is, oddly, okay, and the cats are fine with that.

a_little_wisp

05-12-2009, 11:34 AM

I like Chava's post and

giving up your happiness for another is not love. That's sacrifice, and a love killer. Love is more akin to being able to make each other happy.

Love does stick around longer than infatuation or lust. but it needs time to grow, which it can do from infatuation or mutual friendship and respect and many other ways. It can also fade with time, if it is not given enough attention. Because Love isn't always easy. It does need work, and neglecting it gets you fired.

Librarius (i love xkcd!):

Because love is about choosing.

... both of these.

You know, I definitely don't think there's a radar for knowing. Definitely not or mine is broken. My last relationship lasted a month before, in a nutshell, I said a very apologetic, "oops." And I can... honestly say I've never been in love (I love my family and friends, however, and have lived, in that). I know, however, that in the beginning of a relationship if you feel like you're forcing it- don't continue. It really isn't about sacrificing your own happiness - that sucks you dry.

My grandparents just had their 50th anniversary. ... I don't think they married out of true love, but I think it grew into that. Despite what people say, I don't think opposites ALWAYS attract. I think there has to be some similar interests, definitely some commitment thrown in, an ability to adapt, and to accept. Accept, that is, that people do change- and realize, too, that at the core there are some things about that person that will remain the same. To realize that people are human.

The falling in love bit is the easy part. That's the part where you just know (though we all realize differently). It's the holding on bit that's the most difficult- and quite possibly the most wonderful.

If you want my two cents... *looks around, cautiously, then whispers* ... I think there has to be a LOT of laughter involved to make it really work. Yep.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/useless.jpg

librarius_qui

05-13-2009, 10:33 PM

...

For another thing I also keep saying is that you have not really lived, if you had not owned a dog in your life.:D

I might have a cat. It's more difficult to love a cat ... :rolleyes:

subterranean

05-14-2009, 04:39 PM

Ah yes but the question is, how does one know? what makes one so certain?
It could go back to believing you are in love and in truth its really only lust.
What are those emotions, those signs that can hint that what one feels is love?
As i've already said, love is blind. Could that mean we could go through our intire lives side by side with someone, and not realise that they are the ones we love?
(great piece of writing btw.)

When I was with my boyfriend last Sunday there was this moment when I hugged him and then I just suddenly shed a tear. I didn't know where it came from or how did it started but I came to that point where I know that I love him. So how did I know? How did I get so certain? I just know and I am very certain. Was that just emotions or feelings? Well, I can list down the benefits of dating him and they can be the basis to say that it is not just a blind feelings. So it's most likely a combination of those things, which are explainable and unexplainable.
.....Am I babbling or what? :crash:

librarius_qui

05-14-2009, 11:59 PM

.....Am I babbling or what? :crash:

Nop', I don't think so.

OFF TOPIC
Funny: once I hadn't visited your profile, I never .. guessed you were a girl. (Which happens with many, many people, in this forum. In the playmobil forum things are usually a lot easier to figure out :rolleyes: )

subterranean

05-15-2009, 12:52 AM

OFF TOPIC
Funny: once I hadn't visited your profile, I never .. guessed you were a girl. (Which happens with many, many people, in this forum. In the playmobil forum things are usually a lot easier to figure out :rolleyes: )

I know what you mean. Some posts make more sense when we find out, 'Ah, so (forum name) is a s/he!' :)

Chava

05-15-2009, 03:54 PM

Niamh, just for you here is a Grook (short haiku like poem) about love;

Love is like
a pineapple,
sweet and
undefinable.

-Piet Hein

Jozanny

05-18-2009, 10:34 AM

I wanted to clarify something in relation to what I posted earlier, when I wrote I don't believe in love as an entity. What I meant was I don't believe in elevating the basic emotion of love and walling it off from its reality in a social context. Western literature bears some blame for doing this, in opera, or romance, but I suspect the best writers are as equally suspicious of idealizing it as I am. Shakespeare certainly is, and Dante transforms it into a form of metaphysical purity, as opposed to a passion for (the other) to be realized, or satisfied through marriage.

Not to say that I haven't tripped myself up on my belief in my own detachment, because I have. I *fell* for husbands I both did not and did want to take, and was relieved when the one trotted off, and bitter when I realized the sightless one was playing me for the virtue of his own amusement, and I nearly married a poor fellow I despised because I thought I might as well settle for his offer, but realized I needed a bit more to settle on than what I had, and the fact that we were both getting rather stout and were physically impaired, these things just weren't enough, since we had next to zero shared interests and no real physical compatibility. What we have now is I order him around against my better judgment, and try, on my side, out of pity, to get him to live a little better, but unlike some odd couples, like Carrie and Mr. Big, I have not mellowed in appreciation for my ex. I just doubt I have the capacity for anything more than the familiar of being an ex, much the same way that a divorced couple still knows the road map in relation to the former spouse, for good or ill, and in the US, that is usually the latter.

NovemberGuest

06-17-2009, 02:29 PM

I'm only 17. I'm young an inexperienced and I often think with feeling or emotions rather than with my mind...be that good or bad. I don't claim to know everything there is about love or even close to it. But a very wise fellow once told me (I don't know who told him) that "Love is a commitment, not an emotion." To tell if you are in love with someone...ask yourself, "am I willing to stay with this person forever?" I think that if more people asked themselves this question, less marriages would end in divorce. Its easy to FEEL in love...but to TRULY love someone...even when you don't feel like it...thats REAL love. Emotions and feelings change...but a true commitment to another person will not. Thats my 2 cents :)

The Atheist

06-17-2009, 10:07 PM

But a very wise fellow once told me (I don't know who told him) that "Love is a commitment, not an emotion." To tell if you are in love with someone...ask yourself, "am I willing to stay with this person forever?"

I'd be taking bets against that person's wisdom myself, as I don't believe "love" is anything to do with commitment. We commit to people because we love them, but times change, people grow, and they sometimes grow apart.

I have no question that my ex-wife and I were in love by any description you can give it, but we had a child and we changed and for the past 16 years, we've hated each other's guts.

Why does forever have to be part of love? It won't apply to love as it works with music, food, literature or art, because you will outgrow some things which are really important to you now. Why should it be different just because the object is a human being?

I think that if more people asked themselves this question, less marriages would end in divorce.

Yet, history would prove you dead wrong. 30 years ago, pretty much every single western wedding contained vows of "till death us do part", and you cannot get much more emphatic than that, but we know that a huge percentage of those couples chose top divorce.

Its easy to FEEL in love...but to TRULY love someone...even when you don't feel like it...thats REAL love. Emotions and feelings change...but a true commitment to another person will not. Thats my 2 cents :)

You may need to ask yourself that question again in 20 years' time.

;)

Chava

06-18-2009, 02:26 AM

Also, I don't think it is a bad thing that relationships end in divorce. I think it is more important to recognise that two individuals have loved each other and shared good times together, but that they at some point might make each other miserable for whatever reason.

Insomniac

07-02-2009, 01:33 AM

Thinking about love, huh? Can't say I know too much about that. I've just graduated high school, and I haven't had anything more than some lust and heavy infatuation that resembled love.

However, knowing now what infatuation is -- and how to spot it -- I've come to my own conclusions about love.

I love reading books. I really do. Or rather, I did. Right now, I love reading Manga (Japanese comic books).

Not too long ago, I would have said that the one thing I truly loved was reading. And I believed, then, that I would always love reading over everything else (literally)!

Then I read some Manga and found that I liked that even more than reading books!

It's still technically reading, but really, it's not the same. Is this just an infatuation I'm having, then? Will my ardor for reading Manga cool down until I would prefer to read books again? Do I really love reading books if I have a stronger infatuation for reading Manga?

Which one is actually love?

Or can love only truly be considered love when it's between two people?

Is love the same between a mother and child as it is between a man and wife? What about love between two men? Two women? A person and a pet?

How can you love someone more than you love a different person?

If a man loves his wife more than he loves his child, does he really truly love his child? Does that mean he would sacrifice his child to save the wife he loves more?

If he would sacrifice his child, doesn't that mean he didn't TRULY love his child?

And what if that man found someone he loved more than his wife? Is that true love?

What about the love he HAD for his wife? Was that merely a crush then?

Can't you argue that love is actually a large combination of good feelings?

Say a man loves his wife. He's proud of his wife, he's happy with her, he feels good around her. He wants to make her feel good and be happy because that makes the man happy. He feels good when he's around his wife.

Is love a description of how good you feel when you're around a particular person or thing? Does that mean love is actually selfishness?

Then, does love have to be reciprocated?

What if a man loves his wife, but his wife does not love him? Is it still love? If the man found out his wife did not love him, would he stop loving his wife? Can you just stop loving? If he still felt good around her, wouldn't that mean he still loved her? And if he no longer felt good around her, wouldn't that mean he didn't love her?

Isn't love just the level of how good you feel around something or someone?

If you feel good around someone, and they feel good around you, wouldn't that make you feel better? Does that mean you love that person more?

If you feel the best you've ever felt, in every way possible when you're around another person, doesn't that mean you love them? Isn't that the only outcome? Can you feel your best and happiest around a person and not love them?

Based off of everything I've just said, I think that I can define love.

Love is the act of feeling good around something, or someone, or while doing something.

True love is when you feel the BEST around something, someone, or while doing something.

Therefore, you realize you love someone, or something, when you realize that it makes you feel the best.

Love is blind because you can't just choose what you love. What you love has already been decided, and you can't just change that. You find what you love. Love doesn't find you.

Thanks, I hope I made sense.

JBI

07-02-2009, 01:55 AM

Alright I'll post here, since I've refrained from doing so until now.

The thing with love is, ultimately, to deny its existence is to deny a real purpose in life (unless you fill the void with the "love" of a diety) and in that regard, only the most nihilistic person can doubt its power.

Of course, the power of real emotion has lead people to do extreme things - love then, to me at least, reads as a strong emotional connection - something which, ultimately, gives a purpose and meaning to life (as does strong hate too, though love seems more powerful). In a sense then, it is futile trying to codify it, as clearly that just does a disservice to the thing as a whole - in a sense, we really cannot no we are in love, until we have, for one reason or another, lost it - the upset of a heartbreak, for example, is given its pain by the emotional attachment we made to the other in the relationship.

That being said, one can essentially, based on idiosyncrasies, come up with a general hunch of when they are feeling love - I like to think, anyone who I can stand to be around for an extended period of time, without talking or doing anything, yet at the same time, feeling content and not sensing a lacking, is someone who I, in a sense, love. In that sense, I think of it as more of a romantic thing.

As for parental love - that's a social conditioning brought about by certain factors. That's something that, fortunately, comes much easier, as, in a sense, the process occurs gradually when young, as apposed to later, when other factors and complications enter the mix (such as sexuality, which seems to screw around with everything [hehe with the pun]).

PeterL

07-02-2009, 08:53 AM

grotto

07-02-2009, 10:11 AM

blazeofglory

07-02-2009, 10:52 AM

PeterL

07-02-2009, 11:04 AM

Why thank you PeterL for breaking it down so simply as a basic biological chemical reaction. All the centuries of work, the study and stories broken down to nothing more than electrons firing in the brain! Alas! The mystery solved! We are but automatons continually firing off each other with no greater purpose in life than to fart, watch TV and reproduce the next batch of Wal-Mart shoppers! I feel so much better now!

You are more than welcome. I used to be mystifies by love until I learned about the collection of neurotransmitters that are involved. Fear not, I realize that you were trying to be sarcastic.

May I pose a question? What if the neurotransmitters are a physical response to a field that is yet indefinable? What if the feeling (for lack of a better term) predates the physical response? Maybe the firings in the brain are the biological responses to that feeling, not the neurotransmitters firing and then love. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

That is conceivable, but it is not what the evidence indicates. If you have been following that search for consciousness, you will understand that a lot of people are looking for that mysterious field, but no one has found it.

You can see and only measure response to and against something else, what sets it all in motion from the start? Electricity is all around you, but not until it can be funneled, harnessed, made and passed through some controlled form can it be measured; so what is it before it is measure and whence forth did it come? So yes, there is work in the brain, sane as in the bowels, but where and why does it start?

If you can demonstrate the existence of these things that you suggest exist, then I think that you should publish. If you are referring to mystical levels of consciousness, then it is a matter that has been known for thousands of years, but it has not yet been shown to exist on the physical level.

Sorry, it's not that simple PeterL.

Don't be sorry. I have followed mystical practices, and I am fully aware of some of the other levels of consciousness. Emotions are not mystical in origin.

Insomniac

07-02-2009, 11:23 AM

In fact, given what we see, cases of divorces, split families, abandoned homes and the like I simply cannot say there is anything called love, deep down.

We all fulfill our own needs, urges in the name of love.

It is skin-deep. Do not idealize and depend on any person. Too much attachment is not love.

I agree completely blaze. Earlier I came up with my own theory; that love of a person is nothing more than how good you feel around said person.

The level of goodness is equal to the perceived level of love.

People change, and love is sometimes lost. However, you stop loving someone because you don't feel good around them anymore.

grotto

07-02-2009, 03:08 PM

No need to fret PeterL and I thank you though for getting the sarcasm, most was said tongue in cheek.

I don’t follow any mystical path though; I think it is neither one nor the other, and to say prove one or the other is not my bend. Evidence only shows what one is searching for or trying to prove a point on at times, not what really is, and if we stayed the course of mere evidence alone without question, the world would still be flat, human sacrifices, blood lettings by the barber and sex for procreation alone would all be unquestioned to this day, well, that is assuming we would have ever even evolved that far.

There are many things yet to be discovered and I’m not so foolish as to assume it is all known, or knowable. A little mystery is a good thing as long as you’re not afraid of it.

To me, Love is many things, but it is not something to hide in, covet, aspire too, seek or hold. I can’t buy or have some one give it to me, control or point to it and I have no interest in proving whether it exists or doesn’t. My point in the neurotransmitter firing sequence was only to point out that, yes, it’s there, but, what caused the fire? When you sit idly, doing nothing and lets say something excites you and an emotion arises, what struck that sequence in motion? Biochemistry only registers that it has happened, not that it started it.

PeterL

07-02-2009, 03:54 PM

I don’t follow any mystical path though; I think it is neither one nor the other, and to say prove one or the other is not my bend. Evidence only shows what one is searching for or trying to prove a point on at times, not what really is, and if we stayed the course of mere evidence alone without question, the world would still be flat, human sacrifices, blood lettings by the barber and sex for procreation alone would all be unquestioned to this day, well, that is assuming we would have ever even evolved that far.

Au contraire, if people operated from evidence alone, then science would be much further developed than it is. It was from evidence that the ancients first deduced that the Earth was not flat. Medicine was a purely empirical science. The emotion of love was designed so that people, and maybe other animals, would have feelings toward spouse and offspring that would encourage them to stay together and raise the children until the children could fend for themselves. The forces that oppose evidence have been religions and those whose livelihoods depended on things being more or less constant.

There are many things yet to be discovered and I’m not so foolish as to assume it is all known, or knowable. A little mystery is a good thing as long as you’re not afraid of it.

To me, Love is many things, but it is not something to hide in, covet, aspire too, seek or hold. I can’t buy or have some one give it to me, control or point to it and I have no interest in proving whether it exists or doesn’t. My point in the neurotransmitter firing sequence was only to point out that, yes, it’s there, but, what caused the fire? When you sit idly, doing nothing and lets say something excites you and an emotion arises, what struck that sequence in motion? Biochemistry only registers that it has happened, not that it started it.

I understand your problem, but it would take a few months of five hundred word replies to teach you how DNA operates people and uses emotions to get humans to do things that they wouldn't do without some reward or punishment. The whole matter is faairly simple when one knows the pieces, but there are many pieces.

grotto

07-02-2009, 04:28 PM

As you wish PeterL, I have no interest in debating and I do not see myself as having a problem, but that is for you to prove with evidence and as the answer is in the DNA package, it shouldn’t take much.;) Evidence has never been wrong now has it? I guess it’s all in how you read that evidence and how it is presented or understood.

I agree to disagree, yet I see your point and will keep it in the back of my mind as I do a lot of thoughts, but then again, what is the mind and what is thought? :p

The Atheist

07-02-2009, 05:20 PM

Love is a very simple matter, but most people choose not to accept the actuality. Love is a matter of certain neurotransmitters being produced and released to the blood, where they affect a variety of physical systems. The result of those chemical releases are feelings of warmth and happiness, especially with respect to the person or thing that caused the reaction. The reason for love is for survival and evolutionary goals. When we experience something that will lead to our survival or reproductive success, then the appropriate neurotransmitters are released, and we feel love.

Extremely well put.

I've found that that example is far too obvious for most people to be able to handle, and they cover it up with this kind of retort:

Sorry, it's not that simple PeterL.

The bad news is that all evidence, sceintific, psychological and sociological, says that it is that simple and we just ought to accept it.

grotto

07-02-2009, 06:26 PM

Just accept it?

Wow! Life is going to be pretty dang boring from here on out! :D

billl

07-02-2009, 08:54 PM

Well, we have a right to have opinions about the best way for those neurotransmitters to be firing, or at least how we think they do or should for some of us. Different societies and cultures have an effect on the playing field in which all of the brain machinery operates (whether you think there's free will there or not), and the environment might also bring about changes in "habits" or "fashions" or "memes" about how we love--and we ourselves might effect, indirectly and directly, the nature of our environment, as it relates to love. Human relationships and culture(s) (and the vagaries of everyday life) end up having an effect on our emotional needs. And the problems and solutions in that sphere aren't properly addressed by simply pointing to the chemicals under the hood. (Unless there's a movement to just hand out "love" pills to everybody or something.) It's a little easy to slap people with a reductivist perspective when they want to engage in something a little more searching. I know there's good motives in it sometimes, but things really aren't that simple. (Incidentally, I don't think there was any reason to think that grotto is particularly uninformed regarding DNA and the role of neurotransmitters, not much more than anybody else posting anyhow.)

I think it's fair to look beyond the chemicals and into the nature of human experience, where all the evidence is, if we want to discuss the word "love". And THEN say, "But, hey, look how chemicals were involved." But don't ever expect for sure to have it all pinned down, no matter how good and reliable science most definitely is when it manages to get its hands around something completely. Because science is about modeling, and generalizing in a universe that always seems to get as complex as we could want it to be.

C'mon guys! There was some good discussion going on earlier.

Delta40

07-02-2009, 09:07 PM

Comment from an onlooker:

I think science is God when it comes to Love so we can:

a) acknowledge that we do have feelings
b) acknowledge we have feelings and they are not in our control
c) we don't get our feelings hurt

It's that simple. I do enjoy reading the reductionist viewpoint on life though.

The Atheist

07-02-2009, 09:27 PM

Just accept it?

Wow! Life is going to be pretty dang boring from here on out! :D

That's a common, but badly flawed, answer.

Why does love being explicable and materialist lessen the emotion?

Well, we have a right to have opinions about the best way for those neurotransmitters to be firing, or at least how we think they do or should for some of us. Different societies and cultures have an effect on the playing field in which all of the brain machinery operates (whether you think there's free will there or not), and the environment might also bring about changes in "habits" or "fashions" or "memes" about how we love--and we ourselves might effect, indirectly and directly, the nature of our environment, as it relates to love.

None of the changes the universality of electro-chemical actions in the brain. We use human constructs to "feel" the feelings, but they're the same everywhere.

Human relationships and culture(s) (and the vagaries of everyday life) end up having an effect on our emotional needs. And the problems and solutions in that sphere aren't properly addressed by simply pointing to the chemicals under the hood.

Which parts aren't properly addressed by materialist answers?

(Unless there's a movement to just hand out "love" pills to everybody or something.) It's a little easy to slap people with a reductivist perspective when they want to engage in something a little more searching. I know there's good motives in it sometimes, but things really aren't that simple.

But because they are, why do you think that lessens it?

Is a fast car any less exciting because we understand how the internal combustion engine works?

The problem seems to be that most people want "love" to be something special - i.e. not purely material.

Hard luck!

:D

I think it's fair to look beyond the chemicals and into the nature of human experience, where all the evidence is, if we want to discuss the word "love".

Alas, if that were entirely true, people brought up without love wouldn't be capable of it, and they clearly are.

But don't ever expect for sure to have it all pinned down, no matter how good and reliable science most definitely is when it manages to get its hands around something completely. Because science is about modeling, and generalizing in a universe that always seems to get as complex as we could want it to be.

Nope. Science is about observation. Science cannot generalise.

billl

07-02-2009, 10:22 PM

None of the changes the universality of electro-chemical actions in the brain. We use human constructs to "feel" the feelings, but they're the same everywhere.

Which parts aren't properly addressed by materialist answers?

The parts involving individual experience, preference, and our thoughts about where things might best go from here. The parts which we ourselves participate in.
And if you think that we are simply materialistically determined agents with no free will, then it would be silly to lament why people don't understand that. How could they not, if that's their materialistically determined fate?
And if you think there is free will involved (via some interesting materialistic mechanism), then a broad avenue of discussion opens up.

Anyhow, I am not trying to deny the universality of certain electro-chemical process. But things are "that simple" only if you are only concerned with electro-chemical processes. If those processes are going to be considered in light of their relation to external processes, conditioning/imprinting, and the environment, then things are no longer simple at all.

But because they are, why do you think that lessens it?

Or, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" :D Oldest rhetorical trick in the book...
Anyhow, I don't think scientific explanation lessens anything, but lets still allow ourselves to talk about the forest as well as the trees. I just sort of felt a a discussion about peering into the distance was being dismissed by a sudden focus on how eyeballs work.

Is a fast car any less exciting because we understand how the internal combustion engine works?

No, but do we really agree about where to go? Seatbelts? Speed-limits? Exactly how much alcohol we could add to our chemical machinery while driving?

The problem seems to be that most people want "love" to be something special - i.e. not purely material.

Hard luck!

:D

I hear you, and I'll leave it at that. Well, actually, I will mention that this is a literature site, with a poetry section and everything.

Alas, if that were entirely true, people brought up without love wouldn't be capable of it, and they clearly are.

Excellent point. I overstated things there. I should have said "half" of the evidence is there, or however we might value a fingerprint relative to the dust that brings it to light. What is truly wonderful is that the built-in emotional drives can lead to such variation through cultures and individuals, and yet remain recognizable in particular instances.

I think the fact that emotions are part of our (evolutionary!) design, and that they help us navigate life and survive, thrive, and reproduce is a really important point. I am not trying to join anyone in denying that.
But, if we look at birds on Galapagos Island, we don't just point at their DNA. We observe behavior, and look for ways in which their design and adaptations are shaped by their environment's demands. In fact their adaptations can spur adaptations in other members of their ecological community. Adaptations might even have unexpected effects on mating rituals, and so on. I think a discussion of "love" can reasonably move beyond DNA and neurotransmitters as well. And if we want to think anything is "special" in our lives, I think the word "love" would make the cut for a lot of people, and understandably so, in my opinion.

Nope. Science is about observation. Science cannot generalise.

Ugh, you got me--kind of ;) I think you are of course right that science isn't simply about generalization, but typed too quickly when you say "cannot". Unless statistics is voodoo.
Anyhow, I was talking of course about inductive generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Generalization) The great power of science is that it can predict what will happen in certain individual cases, based on previous cases. As this power is stretched further (for example into increasingly complex, or fuzzy realms such as psychology, sociology, and galaxy formation), science can do wonders via generalization. But the phrase "It's that simple." applies less and less. That's what I was swept up in, how science, and it's power to generalize might usefully address a human discussion of love (rather than dump cold water on it).

The Atheist

07-02-2009, 11:45 PM

The parts involving individual experience, preference, and our thoughts about where things might best go from here. The parts which we ourselves participate in.
And if you think that we are simply materialistically determined agents with no free will, then it would be silly to lament why people don't understand that. How could they not, if that's their materialistically determined fate?
And if you think there is free will involved (via some interesting materialistic mechanism), then a broad avenue of discussion opens up.

Nah, I just find that thanks to several centuries of theism, people generally have a poor understanding of what "free will" means.

That is latched onto people's misunderstanding of what materialism and determinism mean. If I say your traits and actions are determined, it doesn't equate to a set fate, just that you are a product of your genes and conditioning. Because random (in casino-speak) things happen all your life, the determined path contains billions of choices, all of which you satisfy with what is known as free will.

Anyhow, I am not trying to deny the universality of certain electro-chemical process. But things are "that simple" only if you are only concerned with electro-chemical processes. If those processes are going to be considered in light of their relation to external processes, conditioning/imprinting, and the environment, then things are no longer simple at all.

They are really, it's just that we can't predict them, because we don't keep a second-by-second diary of our lives and we aren't allowed to conduct experiments with humans which would prove the theories right. If we could take control groups of children and either nurture or ignore them, we could make some pretty interesting studies, but when we're limited to working with humans whose constructs have already been set by their environment, we can't have an adequate control group.

Or, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" :D Oldest rhetorical trick in the book...

Not really - I find even hard atheists and materialists still want to put love on a higher plane than say, defecation. Given that both are simply material processes, I can't do that, nor do I need to to see that one is inherently a superior function than the other. Snails can defecate, but I bet they can't fall in love.

Anyhow, I don't think scientific explanation lessens anything, but lets still allow ourselves to talk about the forest as well as the trees. I just sort of felt a a discussion about peering into the distance was being dismissed by a sudden focus on how eyeballs work.

But it's all the same - material is as material does. It's just that moving one's eyeball is a little easier than picking a mate.

No, but do we really agree about where to go? Seatbelts? Speed-limits? Exactly how much alcohol we could add to our chemical machinery while driving?

Individual choice - you can use that free will to decide whether the risks outweigh the rewards.

I hear you, and I'll leave it at that. Well, actually, I will mention that this is a literature site, with a poetry section and everything.

I know. My hard materialist attitudes often don't gel with aesthetic appreciation - you ought to check out my "Shakespeare is over-rated" thread!

:lol:

[QUOTE=billl;745377]Excellent point. I overstated things there. I should have said "half" of the evidence is there, or however we might value a fingerprint relative to the dust that brings it to light. What is truly wonderful is that the built-in emotional drives can lead to such variation through cultures and individuals, and yet remain recognizable in particular instances.

I'd be the first to agree that experience is subjective.

I think the fact that emotions are part of our (evolutionary!) design, and that they help us navigate life and survive, thrive, and reproduce is a really important point. I am not trying to join anyone in denying that.

And if those emotions which we've constructed end up killing the species?

I think a discussion of "love" can reasonably move beyond DNA and neurotransmitters as well. And if we want to think anything is "special" in our lives, I think the word "love" would make the cut for a lot of people, and understandably so, in my opinion.

You're not alone there!

That's what I was swept up in, how science, and it's power to generalize might usefully address a human discussion of love (rather than dump cold water on it).

Faur enough; I think it's just a semantic difference - I'd call it prediction rather than generalisation.

Zee.

07-03-2009, 12:44 AM

billl

07-03-2009, 01:15 AM

Awesome post limajean. Lots of important stuff going on outside the head.

Zee.

07-03-2009, 04:06 AM

Please don't tell me that was... sarcasm?

billl

07-03-2009, 04:28 AM

not at all. it just took me 100 times as long to say it.

Zee.

07-03-2009, 04:30 AM

Haha sorry,

thanks

The Atheist

07-03-2009, 06:31 AM

Well I think you're all wrong. About the chemical factor etc
people say that love is just what, chemicals in your brain? uhhhh no. That is your response to love.
I mean, you have to love the thing first, before you feel the feeling. What i'm saying is, we don't feel "love" for everything, we feel it for specific things. If love was just a chemical reaction than it would be unruly. Love isn't just a feeling you get..

I can't agree, and watching kids has hardened my belief to certainty that the responses are conditioned.

About time we disagreed on something!

The unruly idea is still explained by societal constructs. If we were conditioned to love spiders, we'd love spiders. There are lots of psychological experiments we can do which show this clearly.

I mean, the feeling i get when i love something is just telling me/reminding me that I love it, nonetheless, i care for it. There isn't a chemical for caring, as far as i'm concerned.

The chemical produced in our brain is the feeling of love, but it isnt what makes us love.

This tells me that you might be just confusing things - the chemical doesn't make us love someone/thing - we are attracted to things/people because we've learned it, then the chemical kicks in.

PeterL

07-03-2009, 08:43 AM

Just accept it?

Wow! Life is going to be pretty dang boring from here on out! :D

How one deals with it will determine the amount of drama.

PeterL

07-03-2009, 08:47 AM

grotto

07-03-2009, 08:55 AM

I can't agree, and watching kids has hardened my belief to certainty that the responses are conditioned.

The unruly idea is still explained by societal constructs. If we were conditioned to love spiders, we'd love spiders. There are lots of psychological experiments we can do which show this clearly.

This tells me that you might be just confusing things - the chemical doesn't make us love someone/thing - we are attracted to things/people because we've learned it, then the chemical kicks in.

I totally agree on all of this, to a point though. We are all conditioned, it doesn’t matter who or what, if you have been raised, you have been conditioned, but, at some point, there are some who question, ask why and seek beyond what it is they were taught, (that in it self is conditioned thought). We are also conditioned to “accept” answers out of ignorance and fear, we are afraid to step outside of the social order because we are conditioned to be of a social species.

A perfect example of conditioned thought is this forum, it’s literature! By the responses of many here, we are conditioned as to what is good and acceptable in terms of quality, not so much from individual experience, (I learned as a Lit major, my teacher said, it’s popular therefore it must be good) We are told what to understand, but not how to understand for our selves. Just look at the arguments about what some 300 year old dead poet really meant in his poem! There are the “science is all” conditioned here too, evidence and proof are their gods, it’s their belief and they hold that line as strong as any religious fanatic, their blinders just face a different way, I don’t need to even bring up the “religion conditioned”. We are socially trained to be acceptable puppets who jockey to get to a higher more esteemed level in that controlled group, pushing, nudging to be noticed while still seeking acceptance from those who we push and nudge against. We are conditioned for the answer, not the question, to be questioning shows weakness in our current culture.

The topic is love, and we have been conditioned since we were born and have been strangled with it as a form of guilt in disguise, an owing/owning, a debt to be repaid, something to be feared or strived for, it’s a powerful marketing tool, a blinder to wear and socially acceptable when presented in front of the “right” people, but, what is it? Our conditioned society says it’s one thing, religion and science another and we all know, in order for something to be “right” we need many to agree, I however, do not agree and will not “accept” what I once was taught. So I guess it comes down to what the definition of love is and what the conditioning is that we are talking about.

Atheist and PeterL, when I said it’s going to get pretty boring from here on out, I was being sarcastic, “note the grin icon”. I don’t give up the ghost that easily, I do not put love on a mystical higher plain and I have no tolerance for artificial sociably conditioned drama.

PeterL

07-03-2009, 09:47 AM

I totally agree on all of this, to a point though. We are all conditioned, it doesn’t matter who or what, if you have been raised, you have been conditioned, but, at some point, there are some who question, ask why and seek beyond what it is they were taught, (that in it self is conditioned thought). We are also conditioned to “accept” answers out of ignorance and fear, we are afraid to step outside of the social order because we are conditioned to be of a social species.

Humans can start to operate outside of the conditioning, when they become aware that there is conditioning. The first and paramount conditioning is imposed by DNA, which is concerned with survival and reproduction above all else. The emotion of love exists as a mechanism for DNA to reproduce itself. The various sorts of cosial conditioning are of little consequence in comparison to the chemicals that our bodies produce.

A perfect example of conditioned thought is this forum, it’s literature! By the responses of many here, we are conditioned as to what is good and acceptable in terms of quality, not so much from individual experience, (I learned as a Lit major, my teacher said, it’s popular therefore it must be good) We are told what to understand, but not how to understand for our selves. Just look at the arguments about what some 300 year old dead poet really meant in his poem! There are the “science is all” conditioned here too, evidence and proof are their gods, it’s their belief and they hold that line as strong as any religious fanatic, their blinders just face a different way, I don’t need to even bring up the “religion conditioned”. We are socially trained to be acceptable puppets who jockey to get to a higher more esteemed level in that controlled group, pushing, nudging to be noticed while still seeking acceptance from those who we push and nudge against. We are conditioned for the answer, not the question, to be questioning shows weakness in our current culture.

The topic is love, and we have been conditioned since we were born and have been strangled with it as a form of guilt in disguise, an owing/owning, a debt to be repaid, something to be feared or strived for, it’s a powerful marketing tool, a blinder to wear and socially acceptable when presented in front of the “right” people, but, what is it? Our conditioned society says it’s one thing, religion and science another and we all know, in order for something to be “right” we need many to agree, I however, do not agree and will not “accept” what I once was taught. So I guess it comes down to what the definition of love is and what the conditioning is that we are talking about.

Then how do you choose to define 'love'? I believe that society, religion, and science would agree what it is in the way it is expressed, but there would be some disagreement as to the fundamental nature of it. The discussion here reflects the different interpretations of the nature of love; although I think that we agree as to its effects. Some branches of science consider love and other emotions to be created by society, while the explanation of emotion as chemicals signals that reward or punish behaviour by how well it leads toward survival is held by many people in anthropology and some people in psychology. The problem is that people prefer the illusions to the reality.

grotto

07-03-2009, 10:43 AM

I don't hold to a definition, you however do and that is my point.

PeterL

07-03-2009, 11:21 AM

I don't hold to a definition, you however do and that is my point.

How much can one say about something that is undefined?

The Atheist

07-03-2009, 04:32 PM

The problem is that people prefer the illusions to the reality.

Amen, brother!

Insomniac

07-04-2009, 11:59 PM

Ah, all this talk about "love can be/is defined by science" and "love is more than purely science" has gotten me all lovesick.

Everyone (I think) wants love. Some people more than others. Some don't realize it, and some look too hard for it.

I've seen a lot of light shed on love in this thread, and I'm continuously updating my own feelings and beliefs over it.

I believe now, that there is a thing called love, that has little to do with brain-chemical science.

I also believe, that all that neuro-mumbo jumbo chemical stuff that occurs in our brain really does play a large role in love, too.

To me (and this is liable to change at some point), love is an idea. It has transcended mere chemical processes in the brain to become a 'belief.' Love is many things, and yet it can still be considered a direct and singular thing (ya, I know, "thing" is a really loose and vague term, but get over it for now).

What I think happens is we have these chemical processes and neuro-thingamajigs happen in our brains. We feel 'something' for someone, or something. It's a strong and almost singular feeling. Then our consciousness takes a pass at explaining what we feel. Guess what it rationalizes that feeling as? It's the idea of love.

Almost everyone has grown up hearing about love. You're parents (might have) loved each other. You're friends (might) love their partners. We hear about it, and see it ourselves, and we start to hope for it. It's very strong and persuasive.

We want to believe in it and, since we believe we perceive of it in others (or ourselves), we sometimes really can believe in a thing called love (haha, there's a song or something. . .).

Love is an idea, but it's still love. Sure it's involved with chemicals in your noggin, but an idea isn't as simple as mere chemical processes. I think.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a person's conscience or mind more than mere chemical processes?

stephofthenight

07-05-2009, 12:13 AM

Here is a question to ponder...
Is love realy an emotion?

Do you ever say I am feeling love today?
we say I feel happy, sad, and other emotions. we ask are you happy? do you ever say I am love? or Are you Love today? you can add every emotion into those basic statments, except love???

Zee.

07-05-2009, 01:01 AM

I hate talk about love. And i hate people who make it out to be non existent or "fake"

It is not simply a chemical reaction, the feeling of it sure, but not love itself. Don't be stupid.

JBI

07-05-2009, 01:07 AM

Honestly, talking about it is stupid - either you haven't experienced it, aren't going to experience it, or don't know you have experienced it - best to take it in stride, you'll know if you get there, and if you don't, you'll know you can look forward to something - after all, even if love didn't exist, we would still need to imagine it, because, hate to break it to you guys, a world without love in it is certainly not one worth living in.

There's no chemicals or whatever - or electricity if you are Chinese :p, but rather merely a working between people that seems to work on a level that words and geeks cannot quite understand - leave it at that.

The Atheist

07-05-2009, 01:12 AM

I hate talk about love. And i hate people who make it out to be non existent or "fake"

It is not simply a chemical reaction, the feeling of it sure, but not love itself. Don't be stupid.

Haha! I really think you've fallen into a trap here. Just because it's a completely natural reaction doesn't make it any less. Do you get joy from certain tastes? Smells? Sounds?

Responses are individual - the chemicals aren't the emotion, they're why the emotion exists.

stephofthenight

07-05-2009, 01:18 AM

I think we throw the word love around too much as a whole in society. making the word itself meaningless. Think about it. I know myself in a day i get told I love you about 30 times a day. so the feeling is real. (even though some wish it wasnt) but is the classification correct? And should we continue to degrade it with the commen uses we throw it around in.

blazeofglory

09-12-2009, 12:37 AM

Defining love is a big challenge and we have no exact metrics to gauge love and nothing exists to compare it with. We cannot have any description of love for words and sentences cannot contain it, and it is too vast a thing for us to imprison it in a few structured words or sentences as a matter of fact.

Of course we feel it, and only we can feel it and we cannot put them into dry words.

Love is vital and vivacious, lively and we cannot realize it until we can sense, the way we observe a flower. We observe a rose through its beauty and fragrance at the same time.

tuncay_87

09-29-2009, 10:34 AM

What is love for you?

The Comedian

09-29-2009, 11:34 AM

A lot of things really.

It's this: "Daddy look! I caught another blue gill!"

And it's the warm touch of my wife on a cool fall evening as the cold night air drifts down on us from the open window above.

It's when I take my slittin' maul to my log pile and cut wood for this winter's fires.

It's the "psht!" of a cold can of Pabst Blue Ribbon after a long day at work.

It's the peace of whispering to myself some lovely passage by Willa Cather or Thoreau as I sit on my deck in the shade beneath the oaks.

It's planting my garden or building a fence.

And I'm sure it's a few more things too. . .

Dori

09-29-2009, 12:40 PM

:argue:

That's love.

prendrelemick

09-29-2009, 04:00 PM

Love is the greatest thing
The oldest, yet the latest thing
I only hope that fate may bring
Love's story to you

baddad

10-14-2009, 10:31 PM

Love is a physical, internal release of brain chemicals, whose cerebral effects typically lasts 18 to 32 months.

.......love is a noun, a verb, pronoun etc.

......love is a catch-all phrase for the verbally lazy, or those just 'smitten' and at a loss for words that may be more discriptive.

love is an ethereal beast, capable of great feats of selflessness, terriible feats of revenge.

It comes to me now that I don't know the origins of this word, it first common acceptable use, by which culture, during what time period.

Love seems a mist...........

motherhubbard

10-14-2009, 10:38 PM

Here is what I have to say about love. I don't think we can call this high we get when we fall for someone love. I believe that love is a verb. It's what we do for someone else and now necessarily how we feel for them. I may not be much of a romantic, but I do have a very successful and happy marriage. It's not because I've had that love high everyday. It's because I've lived everyday to make my husband happy, and he's done the same for me. Even on the days we haven't liked each other much.

baddad

10-14-2009, 10:50 PM

Well said, mother.

Gladys

10-15-2009, 01:30 AM

Even on the days we haven't liked each other much.

Well said, indeed!

I am reminded of the monumental ending of Ibsen's first successful play, Brand. The compassionate young Pastor, who always acts out of the toughest love, his hopes decimated, flees to snow-clad mountains, utterly alone save for a mad gypsy. His short life of love has led nowhere, but his faith somehow survives.

Through the Law an ice-track led,
Then broke summer overhead !
Till to-day I strove alone
To be God's pure tablet-stone ;
From to-day my life shall stream
Lambent, glowing, as a dream.
The ice-fetters break away,
I can weep, and kneel, and pray !

Brand screams out to God, asking, "Doesn't the will of man avail a little?" In response, an avalanche buries him, swallowing up the whole valley. A voice, akin to a Greek chorus, calls through the crashing thunder,"God is Love".

http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20080523elpepucul_19/XLCO/Ies/Reincidente_Noruega.jpg

DanielBenoit

10-18-2009, 10:39 PM

Love for me is the highest feeling of consciousness, the deepest insight into ourselves as human beings. This insight is not arrived at through any sort of methodology or logic, but from that pure human sensation locked inside our consciousness. Love can be anything, from a deep aesthetic appretiation, to love for another human being. It is art in its highest form.

But along with the escasy found in love, there also comes pain. It is both beautiful and soft, cruel and hurtful. It is the absolute nessicitity of life, mainly because most of life itself is contained within its wonders.

blazeofglory

10-19-2009, 11:48 AM

J Kelley

08-05-2011, 03:10 AM

yeah but sometimes this can go terribly wrong. Its were abuse from the other half could happen, here the other person begins to expect you to do all these things for them. thats when it get manipulative and sours.

Just because someone morphs into a gigantic douche doesn't mean you don't love them. It's just pretty strong evidence that they don't return the sentiment. Love always leaves you vulnerable. Always, always. That's why it takes so much courage to love another person, because there's always the possibility that you can be hurt, manipulated, abused. Being in love means trusting that the other person isn't going to wreck you, even though they could, and unfortunately sometimes you fall for the wrong person. Then you get your heart broken but someday you find the courage to love again blah, blah....happily ever after blah, blah....

Revolte

08-05-2011, 06:11 AM

As for the saying "love is blind" it means when you love someone you don't have to fabricate reasons why you love them, because your heart knows you need them.

As for what love is. That can be confusing. Today I found out I was being cheated on by my fiance, I thought she loved me, I thought they way shed come back for me after leaving me, the way she talked of having a family with me, all that was love. But for her, it wasn't love.

But I was told tonight, by a dear friend.

"You will always have me as a friend, I think that's what love is, when you are there for a person no matter what."

And I think I agree.

When you go years without seeing someone, and then sit next to them, and instead of catching up, you just exist with each other, as if you never parted ways. That is what love is. Love just is, it's something that doesn't come from words or desires or lusts or anything else. It's it's own creature, it's own soul and it's own heart. It just is.