Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

On the nature of love

  1. Nov 28, 2005 #1
    Can love be for one person and not for another as well? I mean: can i say that i love, if that love is for one person and not for another, as well? is love, then, both love and not-love? it appears that this must be true. i shall elaborate before this opens for debate.

    can love be said to be transient, fleeting... changing with the whims of the mind? can we really attribute love to such a state, or shall we attach a more suitable term, such as desire, lust, longing, dependance. Do we really love the person or do we find pleasure in the way that they make us feel. is love so perverted? perhaps there is a sense of security... but is that love, or is that comfort (perhaps of familiarity... or safety) Or maybe it is the need for that, that we call love. can either of these be what love truly is?

    it seems that 'to not love' is the disease of particular minds... meaning, two feelings of love, had by two different minds, can interact conflictingly. can love be in conflict with itself? logic and intuition says, no. can the interaction of two love's produce a subsequent state that is other than love? not unless the feeling was obscured by the ignorance that is the product of particularized mind identification. identification with names and values and divisions and seperateness. (these are the germs of isolationism; ie. ego-development)

    please comment if you find that it pleases you.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 28, 2005 #2
    Love is a value which demands first to be understood and then can be appreciated. To love someone/something is to appreciate its value. Until one can do this one can neither be worthy of nor able to return love to those whose share this ability and the desire to do so.
  4. Nov 28, 2005 #3
    your "love" is based on a perception of value. your "love" is both a prejudice and a hatred; a hatred for that which does not comply with your prejudice. this is not Love. Love cannot be hatred. Can one Love through prejudice? to reiterate: love cannot be both love and not love.

    self-centeredness can only manifest as the identification with things that give the self pleasure, comfort, safety. no? these desires are called "Love", because they are vital to the sustanence of self-centeredness, and therefore express that some gain is to be had from them.. no? does Love seek to gain anything from "loving". that is business. no? business is surely not an institution of Love, where gain is had at another's expense.
  5. Nov 28, 2005 #4
    such "love" or prejudice eventually comes full-circle. whence, that which was neglected, becomes "loved" for some new reason.

    "I love this house. it is highly valuable. (but then eventually the house can become a burden). i love this other house, now, and not my initial house, because the first one no longer satisfies my appetites, or needs."

    this is preference. not Love.
  6. Nov 29, 2005 #5
    What business are you in, not that it's any business of mine? I engage in business to exchange value for value, same as with love. If I have nothing of value to give than I would certainly expect nothing of value in return and I am quite certain that that is exactly what I would get. Love is a skill, which must be learned if it is to have any hope for a successful outcome. First, one must learn to love oneself. This means learning to perceive life itself as a value, something worth struggling to gain and to keep. In that struggle, we create our own value. Humans are born only with the potential to realize this value but it’s through our own efforts to understand what we are, our relationship to each other and the world we live in and then do what is necessary to maintain and promote or existence that we actually come to appreciate the value that is our own life. Only then are we entitled to deal in the fair trade of love.

    If you do not perceive love as a value than why would you pursue it or wish to inflict it upon someone else?
  7. Nov 29, 2005 #6
    can you inflict love on someone else? and, if life is valuable, where do you begin to draw the line between who/what deserves love and who/what doesn't? it seems obvious that your distinction is not based on loving Life, but rather some more complex set of emotion/perceptions/desires, for things that might be extracted from Life, for your own personal gain. in this way, you have already seperated yourself from Life, in the attempt to glorify and magnify your OWN life, with all its fears and desires and passions, etc., as a result, you have de-valued Life by increasing the perception of your OWN value. you have exited the realm of Love and have entered a realm of calculated action, where gain and loss are valued higher than Life itself.
  8. Nov 29, 2005 #7
    No, love by its natural can not be inflicted. If the value of love is not recognized by those to whom you wish to give love than you are simply throwing it away. This can only happen if you have not come to appreciate its value yourself in which case it wasn't love to begin with. This is an amazing attribute of value of any kind. Failure to recognize it deems it worthless and so it has a built in protection from abuse. Value and earning it go hand and hand. Knowing who is deserving of love comes with recognizing its value.

    Setting aside these abstractions for the time being perhaps I should clarify what I mean by love. I know I have caused myself a lot of grief by not asking what someone else meant when they said, "I love you", and I imagine there are a lot of other people who can relate to this.

    Love exists in a variety of forms; aesthetic love, (music, art etc.), love for ones children, romantic love, love for truth, (philosophy), to name a few. All forms of love have a common root; the emotional response to something which we endeavor to gain or to keep. The last part of this is in fact the definition of value, (something we work to obtain or retain).

    Since love is an emotional response to what/whom we value perhaps it is imperative that we consider what our values might be.

    Life is the most fundamental of all values and is where value arises. The reason for this is that life relies on selection of the proper ingredients for its survival (food/poison), (carbon-dioxide/oxygen), (fresh/salt water), etc; that which sustains or promotes a particular life form are the values it must possess.

    For humans the equation is a little different. We are not born with automatic guidance (instinct) or foundation (environment) for maintaining our existence. We must learn what we need and how to get it. Determining this is what leads to our values and if we choose wisely we live and flourish but if we don’t than we suffer and die of our own accord.

    I hope this helps to clarify what I mean by love/value enough that you can give it some careful consideration. Good luck to you in your search for meaning, purpose and joy in your life here on Earth.
  9. Nov 29, 2005 #8
    "What is love" ? Love is a subjective emotion that proceeds from evaluation of an existent object as being a positive value and a source of pleasure (modified from Ayn Rand). The "object" may be a thing, an event, an activity, a pet, another person, one self. I hold that there are only two fundamental ways to love (1) internal self love and (2) love of all that is external to self. Internal love requires the subject of "i" to love the object of "I". External love subsumes both the general of all that exists (existence, some folks call this "love of God") and specific existents (such as another person, a pet, an event, etc.). All these types of love come in different degrees of intensity depending on the measurement weight of the value received. I hold that external love of any thing is not possible if not derived from self love, that is, if one does not value them self, it is impossible to love anything external to them self. Because love derives from value, its intensity can be measured. The true Christian loves those that hate them -- makes sense to those that hold "love of God" as being a high positive value and pleasure to them. The ultimate romantic love is when both (a) and (b) hold the other to ultimate value such that (a) and (b) entangle to form a union of [ab]. Tragic romantic love is when only one of the two holds the other as an ultimate value.
  10. Nov 30, 2005 #9
    don't confuse passion or lust, or longing, or dependance, or a sense of completion, or any other self-centered desire/need, with Love. Love is pure, without the influence of the mental complex that runs the lives of passionate, self-gratifying individuals. love is not because a person makes you feel a certain way. can't you see that that is something else altogether. that kind of "need" for a person or thing is founded in psychological weakness. it is a dis-ease of the mind, that seeks "remedy" through the "having" of something else. that "having or needing" is meant to fill a psychological "hole" or emptiness, right? seeking wholeness through things "exterior" to oneself cannot be the equivalent of Love, rather, it is something more complex, and calculated altogether. It is more, "the business of personal pleasure" rather than loving for the sake of loving, expecting nothing in return, but loving and giving love, because that thing is love for what it is, in itself. love does not expect anything in return. psychological fallacy and weakness is not satisfied with "love" because it is not satisfied unless it can "have" something to fill its sense of emptiness. that means to "possess" something, which only imprisons it, within your own selfish desire to "have and to hold". love is not a complex psychological calculation of value and worthiness, but is rather a the pure act of loving, with nothing expected in return. thus, i asked: can u love one person and not another. Love can not be "love" to one person while at the same time, that "love" for that person, is manifest, also, as a hatred for some other person. love, i am suggesting, is the only expression that is not two-sided. the same way that desiring one thing is at the same time expressed a aversion of some other thing, love is always expressed as love, or else it is part of the self-centered complex of the psyche. no, perhaps i shouldn't have explained this, but it is not easy to grasp. "One Love"... what does that mean??

    Love is One? but what does that mean? Love of the One? what does "One Love, One Heart" mean? Why was it ever spoken the first place? do you know its meaning? if not why does the song appeal, or not appeal to you?
  11. Nov 30, 2005 #10
    Love does not make one whole. Wholeness comes from realizing what it means to be human and the recognition that this is good. Giving without any hope of receiving anything in return, (unless it is in payment for something already received), is not love; this is sacrifice. Sacrifice is the refusal to recognize that value comes at a price and that the unearned is the undeserved. Sacrifice of the good for the sake of the evil is the lowest form of evil possible; not only does it diminish the value of good but contributes to the proliferation of evil in the process.
    Until one learn to respect oneself and the human struggle to gain understanding and respect for each other the ‘love’ you describe has no capacity to contribute any sense of well-being, only destruction and unhappiness for all concerned.
    The refusal to take responsibility for one’s own life and happiness can only lead to the unwelcome consequences of the kinds of actions that follow from contempt for the kind of love that can only be a created by those who are willing to make it real.
  12. Nov 30, 2005 #11
    besides being a bunch of chemicals in you brain that produce pleasure it's also the satisfaction of someone who provides you with a sense of fulfillment and wellbeing.

    complex made simple again :!!) lol
  13. Nov 30, 2005 #12
    ? What can this mean, love is located within the big toe perhaps ? Of course the "emotion" of "love" is a "mental process". I find most of what you just wrote to be so convoluted I am at a lost of how to proceed with a dialog. If you would perhaps just present one thought at a time, that sure would help me keep interest in this thread.
  14. Dec 1, 2005 #13
    your reply misses the mark immediately and fails to recover. it was never said that love makes one whole... in fact, that was the objection: namely, that the idea that "having" "love" could make one whole.

    But then, you almost recover!! you say, "wholeness comes from realizing what it means to be human..." and from this, I say, is where Love is.

    first, Demystification, you must find out what it meas to be human. if you know, even, what it means to Be, you certainly know this... so please, enlighten the group. :)
  15. Dec 1, 2005 #14
    oh mugsby.... (shakes head) i thought you were ripe.

    you have taken the easy way out, AGAIN... even after that post in "Atheism"!!

    easy does not equal simple... get it?

    your sense of satisfaction is already a highly complex emotion. just becuase you do not want to see what it is does not mean that you have realized simplicity. you are just extending the reign of ignorance... you must look, if you want to see!! if you don't... you are just a pawn of your mind, to be controlled by its whims and desires... that is not simplicity nor is that freedom, and it certainly is not wise.

    your idea of "chemicals occurring in the brain" is also an extremely complex and compounded notion. do you see? it not simple at all. your idea of simplicity, is being the equivalent of the foam on the crest of a wave. you are living a very shallow, complex and superficial existence, i am very sorry to say. this is not a put-down, rather, take it as the lighting of your shadows. we all have them, or have had them.... it's ok, for now.
  16. Dec 1, 2005 #15
    then, rade, you are close, i say.

    i will tell you what love is... though u might find it unsatisfactory.

    actually, where we'll find Love is the same place we will find Happiness and also that which is perceived as Goodness; In their purest forms, no less.

    When the complex structure (of calculated assessment, which then founds beliefs and prejudices, desires and aversions) is naught what is left, shines forth as Love. This occurs as a result of the state, in which, one finds themself, when the mental complex (or imaginary construct) commonly known as "mind" is empty.

    I am saying that Happiness, Love, Being are all the same. not only that, but That, is our our Real nature. the way that we think we are is not what we really are.

    the name is not the thing, for the thing is much greater than the name.

    Hence, the wise men tell us that our nature is "Sat-Chit-Ananda" and also "Being-Consciousness-Bliss"

    only when you have taken yourself to be the image of yourself, rather than the unnamable nature of It: you have taken yourself to be particular (and thereby limited) *(a body, a mind, an idea, a thought) you are not what you are and what you express from that state is never Love. What is known is never Happiness. What you are is never what You Are. do you see the extreme simplicity of all this? it is so simple that you find it complex... for you are lost in syntax. Lost in the world of symbols and names and words.

    but remember, words are not the truth. words are meant to act as "signposts" or "directionals" pointing your awareness in the direction of meaning. don't mistake the sign for the thing that it wants you to see.
  17. Dec 1, 2005 #16
    To be human is to step beyond the given, the automatic, the instinctual programming that enables the existence of creatures for whom it is not necessary to think and to choose. Those other creatures survive by beating the odds that what has worked for them in the past will continue to see them through into the future. Other than the slow grind of adaptation this is their only hope to continue as a species.

    Humans have acquired a much advanced means of adaptation to change. Our ability to comprehend our own nature and our understanding of how the world works presents us with many more options not available to our instinctually driven and preprogrammed predecessors. The price for this ability is that we must think clearly and rationally. Humanity has embarked down a path from which their is no turning back to the realm of cave dwelling and club wielding barbarians, (although there are some still willing to try, I have no desire to join them on their road to oblivion).
    In essence humanity is distinguished from other living things by the need to instill in ourselves the desire to live and to think, since this is our means of survival. We choose to be and therefore to think.

    Now that I have answered you question in a clear and concise manner would you care to define for me what you mean by the term love. Where does love come from and what is its purpose? How does it contribute to the betterment of anything worthwhile or is it simply pointless, useless and totally without meaning or value?
  18. Dec 1, 2005 #17
    oh wow, demystifier!!! you have given me just as much to reply to as you did orefa in the "other" post.

    humans are not, "just beating the odds"? we have acted, in such a way that we are actually destroying ourselves!! we sure are doing a good job of "choosing" and "clear thinking" when, our idea of surviving as a species, is acted out by destroying ourselves over ideologies.

    so you are of the belief that we comprehend our own nature, but you do not even know what you are. the idea is that you're a human, but you don't know what that means, obviously. We comprehend our world??? surely you did not mean to write this, as it is apparent, in science that we do not understand this place. if you are not pre-programmed, why have you given such un-examined answers and claims?? as though programmed to answer, thusly, from some 'programming source'.

    our "thinking clearly" is doing a great job, wouldn't you say? taking us down the path to annhilation!! by destroying our planet, wantonly, and simultaneously destroying ourselves, mentally, physically ( mental illness, physical diseases: cancer, heart disease, diabetes) you are ignorant to think that you are thinking clearly, let alone that humanity is thinking clearly. you know about mob-mentality. no one thinks clearly in the mob. yet you are expressing, right here, the pre-programmed beliefs of "them" the mob.

    do we need to instill desire into ourselves? i already runs rampant. you know, desire is the same as aversion, and desiring that which is pleasurable inevitably brings us pain and hardship. so in essence we bring to ourselves, that which we intended to avoid. so maybe intead of thinking, you should look more, and see what is really happening, without trying to do more classifying and divided... in other other words, more of the same destructive actions. surely humanity is not seeing clearly.

    yes, you have clearly displayed what you think. and i am showing you that what you think is really confounded in ignorance and assumption. you do not even see what's Real, so you certainly do not have thoughts that clearly express what is.

    i already stated what Love is, but you couldn't see. you are too intent on making me a fool... even though i never claimed to be a man of knowledge.

    Without seeing what I have said we will continue to act in ways that only damage ourselves, our planet, our psyches, our bodies and infect our experience with delusion and suffering.

    Love is like gravity. without gravity, there is no physical world. without love there is no harmony, happiness, joy or experience of being. rather, there is only delusion, illusion, ignorance, suffering, self-destruction, and the like.

    only love can save us from our present disarray and destructive behavior. but first you must see for your self what it means to Love and how we can Love. you dont know what love is so you want me to tell you. i am telling you how to find it, and it is not through the mind. it is through direct experience of being and what it is that is being.

    god speed.
  19. Dec 1, 2005 #18
    Humanities problems are not so much a result of being human as of denying our humanity; not from recognizing our nature but from condeming it. Our success as a species will untimately depend on the choices we make, choosing not to choose can only result in failure.
    When knowledge becomes your enemy than you will know no friendship and when knowledge breeds only hate then you will know no love.
  20. Dec 2, 2005 #19
    Friendship comes not from discernment and prejudice, but from Being a Friend. knowledge of "things" is prejudice and ultimately, belief. it breeds contempt and hatred. Being is Love. Humanity's problems are your problems. don't try to fix humanity, such "revolutions" only breed more contempt, see what's mistaken in Your own identification; in your psyche.

    don't deny or renounce, See. don't impose, or force, Be. don't think about being, You Are. Right now, see this, be It and never let it go.

    (why do I capitalized It and many other words? you might wonder, or might even assume that you know. i will tell you, now. "it" is a term meant to denote a "thing". since no"thing" can ever be seperated from any"thing" else; which is to say, that every"thing" is connected to every"thing". "It" is the one, inseperable, undifferentiated existence.)


    this is what has been and is happening in science, as well, for example. first, classical mechanics (every"thing" is independent of other things; they cab ne considered seperate and "objective", then relativity (no space/time difference; ie. inseperability), then QM, (non-locality of events; collapse of "ideas" of space and time and body, in Reality), now, strings (every"thing" is really the same kind of "thing"), and for the future? There is only One. From the first, not another was or is. seperation is an idea, which is illusion, which is deluding, divisive, destructive and false. see? Only One, not two.
  21. Dec 2, 2005 #20
    To be is to be something (existence) as opposed to ‘being’ nothing (non-existence). Knowledge is understanding what something is (identity) as opposed to ignorance (a lack of understanding about the nature and properties of something that exists). How can you be a friend if you can not discern between a friend (someone who understands the nature of and approves of your existence) and an enemy (someone who disapproves of and works to annihilate your existence). Putting ones understanding of the nature of reality into a blender and homogenizing ones mind negates its function and purpose. To deny what something is, is the refusal to accept what it is.
    The refusal to acknowledge, identify, understand, know pleasure is the desire to escape from the reality of pain but the desire does not make it so. The same applies to fact/fiction, truth/lies, enlightenment/deception, science/religion, respect/worship, knowledge/belief, certainty/faith, mysticism/learning, reality/fantasy, wisdom/whim, method/madness, reason/rhyme, thoughts/feelings, love/hate, hope/fear, joy/sorrow, good/bad, right/wrong, purpose/intent, help/hurt, autonomy/dependence, earning/stealing, morality/usury, self-interest/irrationality, success/failure, life/death, existence/nonexistence, etc.
    The one exception to this rule applies to the human realm where choice is an option. By attempting to escape the responsibility for ones life, choices and actions one exempts oneself from their membership to the human race.
    There is no imposition of force here, science, physics, philosophy, these will not make your decisions for you, the choice is yours. Ultimately reality will determine if you have made the right one.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook