Definition of Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
RioMacleod:
Thanks so much for your opinion. I appreciate it. I agree somewhat, but wishing someone happiness is NOT love. Sorry. I dont know, maybe im heartless, but i still dont see a valid argument. I agree that the media has bastardsized love. Its everywhere and everyone wants to be in it. Your not born with love, you learn it.:confused: :confused:
 
Why?

Is everybody so overly concerned with pointing out what love is NOT in their opinion??? Are you afraid of saying what it actually IS, or do you just don´t know? :confused:

Try your best to explain what it IS, without telling what it is not, and you will be much, much closer to the truth.

Love is, not...not.

:)
 
there is no one definition because it is different for everyone. but for me i love something or someone if i can not even be around that person or thing and it makes me smile when i am all alone just by thinking of it or them.
 
I agree many people confuse enfatuation and love, that is why the divorce rate sores.
For true love to develop between people they need to spend a little more then a few weeks together, it can take years even decades to truly love someone you must be able to take all that persons good points and bad points for what they are, you must be able to look through outer apperences, true love is blind.
I belive when you fall truly in love then your not in love with that person rather in love with that person soul, to make a bond as strong as that takes more time then people are willing to give and yes some people are just not compatable.
 
It's not wishing someone happiness. It's desiring only the Good for them.

Bebe: I am explaining what love is. But any definition requires exclusions as well as inclusions :)

khjavy: You've touched on one of my own pet peeves. I'll agree that the experience of love changes between people, the same as the experience of color, sound, smell, etc... but as I said before, the experience of an object is not valid way of defining something.



Anyway, I'm not belittling emotion, feeling or experiences of love. But when you talk definition, you have to get past all of that chaff to get to what you really are looking for.
 
Why are we having such a hard time defining and describing the nature of love? We are all human beings. Although none of us has ever seen love, many of us claim to have experienced love. Yet, we interpret love differently. Why can't we agree on what love is?

Does love really exist? Where is the proof? Is love real or have we simply been indoctrinated into believing that love exists?

Why do so many people have faith in the existence of love?

Is love, like, God*?

*Whoever/Whatever your Higher Power may be.
 
For all of our similarities, there are just as many if not more differences. Physically, emotionally, mentally, chemically, culturally, etc...

We are individuals.

As such we view and experience everything differently. This shouldn't be so hard to understand. And Love? Love is most certainly going to be defined in an infinite number of ways. How we love and who we love...what we love...why we love... It all varies.

What a boring world if we all defined things the same way.

Is there a law that says we have to ??

Do we want someone to define love and then have us all conform and accept this our own definition?


"Live and let live."

"Love and let love."
 
love love love

Love is gentle, love is kind, love is patient, love is passionate, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not rude, it, is not self-seeking. Love is not easily angered, it keeps no records of wrongs, it always forgives, it does not lie, does not steal and it does not kill.

If you truly love and want to be truly loved, these are the principles that must apply, and be strived for. Love is a perfect union of states of mind and emotion--more than a feeling, more than a thought--a state of being.
:)
 
Definition vs Experience

I for one, would not be happy in a world where everyone defines things differently. I don't think that should be the case. I do agree that everyone *experiences* Love differently, but the underlying reality is generally diffrent from the overlying experience
 
AND YET...

... the underlying reality is... that everyone doesexperience love in their own individual way; thus, their definitions are personalized. There is evidence of that on this thread. Even what seems clearly erroneous to some, would never be dismissed as such by others. Doesn't mean we can't try to define it, but the chances of ever coming up with a universally accepted definition are preeeeettty slim.

I still agree with Riomacleod that love is not selflessness and that love is not 'completion.' But that's my view... (and part of his)

In the very simplest of terms, imo, Love is honouring and preserving what one values. The methods of honouring and preserving will vary. The reasons for valuing will vary. The degree of value will vary. I, for one, would not agree with most other methods, reasons, or degrees...

All the same...

Love is an idea. For each person, a blank canvas upon which he/she may explore their own creativity with the notion of just what love IS to them, as well as to the larger world.

~~~

Counterbalance
 
Diversified testimonial evidence not withstanding:

If one denies the existence of God* for lack of proof then how and why does that individual accept the existence of love? (If one does).

*Whoever/Whatever your Higher Power may be.
 
Re: AND YET...

Originally posted by Counterbalance
....

I still agree with Riomacleod that love is not selflessness and that love is not 'completion.' But that's my view... (and part of his)

....
Click to expand...

All right, then what about the only quote from, dare I say it, the Bible, that I remember...

"greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend" or something to that effect.

Isn't that equating an ultimate sacrifice with love?
 
"For True Love to be, takes Two bodies and one soul"
Click to expand...

I mentioned this before and Riomacled replied:
Love is not completion. The human soul is not halved. It is full, and complete.
Click to expand...

Riomcled, the way you wrote it gives an understanding of a "Hater" rather than a "Lover". Always pointing out the negative aspects and faults of everyones cases towards their understanding of love, which inturn defies the very nature of its meaning.

I mentioned my Explaination due to something else that is encompassed with love. Passion and Romance, of course I'm sure you will try to twist these two words and there meanings into some demorilising state.

If you ask of me what I class as love, I would also mention two types. One that is expected of a mother for a child, that is maternal (Or two close family members with a platonic relationship) where no matter what you've done or what faults you have they are still there if you need them.

The other love is the one you mention of people marrying or becoming "Items". So they might encompass passion and take it along an near infactuating path, perhaps someone acts romantically or at least tries to keep something bonding between them.

I suppose you could say that love is like a candle burning in someways: A draft might extinguish it's flame putting it's fire out, or eventually the candle might burn all the way down to the point where there is no more wax or string to burn.

True love for me would be that of a latern that is fueled from a gas pipeline, that can't burnout through lack of material to burn, a draft won't extinguish it as the torch is eternal.

On another note Rioacled
Aristotle was never on crack, since crack is produced Chemically from Coca nd Coca originated from South America, which at his time of life wasn't even discovered and coca wasn't brought to Europe until the 16th Century AD by the Spanish (The world after his existance was still thought of as flat)

Although Aristotle was known to have been using Hemlock for it's "Properities" which tragically caused his premeture death through an overdose. (since Hemlock in quantity is a poison)
 
Stryderunknown:
If this were the simile board, or the metaphor board and not the General Philosophy board, I'd give it to you... unfortunately, saying love is like a lantern doesn't really get us to the core of what it really is. Certainly, it gives imagery, but there is still no definition. What makes love different from eternal hatred? Or jealousy? These are both long-lasting emotions which burn like a fire...

For those who aren't aware, the root of passion is To Suffer. I've been trying to avoid this part of the argument, because it gets messy, since English is about the sloppiest language there is.


"For True Love to be, takes Two bodies and one soul"

This is just wrong. First of all, bodies are not required to love. Second of all, it requires two SOULS. Human beings are WHOLE beings. We're not split mysteriously. We are not half-entities. We must strive to fine a person who complements us. Not the person who we must find to become a whole being. That's an ugly codependant road.


CB: I agree with you, but my mind isn't swayed. I think you're taking too light of a view of definition, although your most recent is a definition that I could live with as a "common ground" of sorts-even if it is a bit situational.


Stryderunknown:
Ok, and if you want to get bitchy about an offhand remark, South America WAS discovered in Aristotle's time, there IS evidence of trade between anchient egypt and south america. I was just making a simple statement that I don't agree with Aristotle almost categorically-I'm a platonic, go figure. SECOND of all, the greeks had calculated the circumference of the earth within like a percent BEFORE aristotle. Columbus knew about this, knew the circumference and wasn't surprised in finding land because according to the greatly exaggerated distance to East Indies that the portugeese had given-to discourage another nation from setting up an eastern route to the area. So, before you go spouting your mouth off, read a book.
 
Riomacleod

Let me point something out to you about my mentioning of Aristotle, It wasn't meant as a personal attack at you, So you can as HAL would say "Take a chill pill".

You are right that Mexico (Atlantis) was known by the ancient world and was traded with, but not in the way you percieve. It's almost as if the people that made it there got there by accident.

As for the information I know, it did come from books, and a whole host of other sources, so it's not like I was just outputting it from some flight of fiction.

Anyway I hope that clears that up and we can continue the discussion with some diplomacy without resorting to name calling ;)

I meantioned the Candle because it is a metaphorical and possibly old philosophical method of stating my meaning.

In simple terms Love can eventually burn out and thats why people leave, sometimes someone does something that acts like a draft and extinguishes the flame. (namely sleeping with someone else)

As for my explaination of an eternal flame, that is what love is, as mentioned before true love is unconditional, eternal and felt soulfully.

As for the definition of true love I put forwards, I don't mean two bodies entwined between silken sheets, I mean two bodies (A man and a woman, but due to recent gay rights protests it has to be omnifarious in statement)

Admittedly my explaination is based on a classical representation of love, from ancient Greece. Things would be far different then as True love was how I defined it with the meaning that a man and a woman that felt a mixture of emotions coelsce between them would become an "Item" and they would see themselves as only half-souls while they "existed" through life single.

Of course that has changed through evolution and Society, But it doesn't mean that the explaination is any less a reality.

What it also was meant to explain was that for true love to be takes two people that love one another, not a lier and a hater.

Theres one more saying that I'm sure your going to hate, but that is not the reason I mention it.
Love conquers all!
Click to expand...

It's meaning is that of the love of music soothing a savage beast, but love conquering that of negative emotions and factors.
If you live your life with negative thoughts of a person, and react like they are true, then that person will one day NOT disapoint you, because they might find that your overwhelming negativity too much to conquer with just love.

If you still disagree... No problem, I shall stick to my views and understanding no matter how deep they are, and you to your own. Afterall, love is not war :D
 
*rolls his eyes*

The Aristotle on crack thing was just an offhand joke. I felt the need to respond since the information you put up was in some places incomplete and in others just wrong.


My point is that you can love things without bodies. I can love my country, and I can love God... two examples of bodiless entities. I can love Beauty and hate its absence. I'm not even sure that love has to be reciprocated for it to be love. In my definition it doesn't.


And yes, I'm still going to disagree with you until you put down the metaphors.
 
LOVE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN YOURSELF AND EVERYTHING ELSE. WHEN SOMETHING IS AROUND YOU, WHETHER HUMAN OR AND INANIMATE OBJECT, ITS ENERGY CAN BE FELT. WITH THIS ENERGY A SORT OF BALANCE IS ACHIEVED BY BOTH OF THESE ENERGY WAVES, IF YOU WILL, FORMING ONE NEUTRAL WAVE. THIS NEUTRAL WAVE BOUNCES OFF AND COLLIDES (peacefully speaking) WITH EVERYTHING ELSE TO ACHIEVE A CERTAIN HARMONY...LOVE.;)
 
If you wanna git technical about it

It's the phenomerones! Yours and hers attract--that's the initial stage--then your brains start producing certain chemicals designed to make each party addicted to each other for the natural act of copulation, birth and rearing of offspring (what an unendearing word). As time goes by less of the love potion is produced and each party begins to see the other for what they really are. If they're lucky and sensible they work with each other, compromising and cultivating the relationship with or without strong binding force of unendearing word. Continuation of this careful cultivation and plenty of sex make the brain ejaculate more of the love juice making the parties more and more addicted. Of course many outside elements play a role in the relationship, cultural, familyal, financial, personal interests and ambitions and more, each thing can help to make or break a love bond. Eventually, if they stay together and 'in love' each person becomes a crutch for the other, unwilling to give up the fix of familiarity, intimacy and support. Such is true love btween the sexes.

Love of things.. the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that 'love' of anything is just a chemical thing in the brain. A mind-body reaction, mind pleasure drops to suit the occassion or the object--the sunset, the ocean, the craps table, the Gibson in the showroom, kicking the cat--all based on the individuals psyche, intelligence, emotional level and culture. Your meat might be some ones poison but only you know how surely sweet it tastes. The mind doles out its own custom made designer drugs, the pharmacist toiling away back there in the neurals making all the decisions--you vill enjoy zis-you vill not enjoy zis--but who wrote the prescription? Your genes firstly and most foremostly, then your environment, your peers, your culture.. your experiences of life. Perception=Reaction. But perception itself is so subjective and changes with your mood--chemical changes-shifts in perception-chemical imbalances-mood swings-chemicals, drugs, we are walking drug factories. We got so much home-grown dope in our heads that if it were possible, we would be illegal.
I just love all this philosophy shit oops! Shooting up again ts ts, I should be banned.
 
So love is boiled down to a biochemical reaction designed to propagate the species?

Does this mean that Love is also experienced by other animals in the animal kingdom? If so, how do they express their love?

As another, separate question to everyone, what are the acceptable expressions of Love or is there any limit to an expression of Love?
 
No, No, but they do emote.
Yes, there is a limit to the expression of Love. There is the logical limit to which if you only desire the good for your love, then you will not express your love in destructive ways-that is, Love can only be expressed in terms of The Good, and any action that is contrary to the Good is contrary to Love. Another expression of Love is beautiful creation. That is, a child, a well-ordered society,
On the other hand, there're many expressions of affection. What those are, and what are acceptable is more of a style/cultural sort of thing, and is (generally speaking) value neutral.

Perception=Reaction
Click to expand...

Certainly, when we talk about reflexes, this is the case. I hope you mean Perception -> Reaction, and not that the two are actually equal in some way. The true path would be Perception -> Imagination -> Cognition -> Rationalization -> Transmission -> Reaction. Of course, with too many people the path is Perception -> Imagination -> Reaction... with MAYBE cognition thrown in. That is the general path which animals follow as well, basic and medium patern recognition, emotional response and immersion, basically all of the traits of the bestial appetitive soul.

tablariddim, it cannot be only the way you provide because, as I argue before, I love my mother, and my father, and my sister, but have not once had the urge to have sex with any of them. What you mention is more like what happens with beasts in terms of reproduction, because they do not have the same rationality that men do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top