What is love

[DR OF DEATH]

ok probably an old theory but what is love?

some people say it is a virus, comes on strong at the start, gradually goes away, may kick in a again a bit later then start going away again. etc etc.

who has another explaination.

 

[maximus]

that warm fuzzy feeling you get brought on by the desire to reproduce and climb in social status.

 

[eNtRopY]

Originally posted by drdeath
what is love?

Baby don't hurt me.
Baby don't hurt me.
No more.

Ah, that joke never gets old.

eNtRopY

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by maximus
that warm fuzzy feeling you get brought on by the desire to reproduce and climb in social status.

Actually, he asked "what is love?", not "what is selfish sex?".

Please remember that, while Evolution may have made use of both love and sexual tendency, they are not necessarily the same thing (and have rather often conflicted with each other in the behavior of Homo sapiens sapiens, which is the only animal I know of that experiences it, btw).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
Baby don't hurt me.
Baby don't hurt me.
No more.

Ah, that joke never gets old.

eNtRopY

Har har.

 

[LURCH]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, love is a choice.

Hey, when there's so much about which I am uncertain, I gotta take every chance I get to give an answer I'm really sure about!

 

[Dissident Dan]

I wouldn't say that love is a choice. A person has certain dispositions which are not by choice. These dispositions include tendencies to like certain qualities in the opposite (or same) sex.

 

[jb]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
Baby don't hurt me.
Baby don't hurt me.
No more.

i was just thinkin of that...

i saw a few versions of will farrell and kattan's snl skit today on tv, gotta love old snl reruns on comedy central.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, he asked "what is love?", not "what is selfish sex?".

Please remember that, while Evolution may have made use of both love and sexual tendency, they are not necessarily the same thing (and have rather often conflicted with each other in the behavior of Homo sapiens sapiens, which is the only animal I know of that experiences it, btw).

i always get beat up about this, but i don't know if i believe in "love". at least not the hokey definitions that people have given me. i believe that love exists, but i think we misunderstand its purpose in our evolution. i love my mother, of course. but i realize that this love is probobly only because if we do better (i'm talking evolutionary here) if we stay with our parents as long as possible. get what i'm saying? i don't think i described this well.
and i understand (or at least i think i do) romantic love, but i atribute it to reproductive needs more than anything. and the fact that the younge of our species do better with two parents.
who knows, maybe when i'm older and have fallen in love, i'll regret saying this. but for now, i try to function on cold-hard logic. i'll see how far that takes me before i give it up. (i'm talknig about the Eye now, mentat. this is its function.)

 

[DR OF DEATH]

maximus well put and a very good point,

mentat, again well put.

enthropy good joke.

but what people are saying is right how do you define love, yes i know its an emotion, but defining it is difficult. keep trying guys

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
Baby don't hurt me.
Baby don't hurt me.
No more.

No, that's called fun. People in love can have fun ; many would argue more fun than when just for fun. But hey, fun is fun..as long as you don't get fouled!

I love my wife, parents, and siblings. I love my cats and dogs, and I know that they love me. What evolutionary advantage do I have by loving my cat? I love tacos and my property. I love Star.Trek.* and the X-files and snl re-runs. Clearly we mean many splendored things when we think of love.

Do I really mean that I like or need these things? We have a hierarchy of concept of importance, and also of strength of emotion when we consider various likes or needs. As for evolutionary concepts, I can hate a thing that I need and therefore tolerate. I can also give up someone that I need because I love them. I would argue that to be in love is to be vulnerable, if not stupid. Perhaps monogamy, and mate loyalty in general has greater advantages that could be the motivating force for the evolution of love. However, though I may sound the naive romantic, I feel that love is a force of nature and not a mere result of advantage.

What kind of force, well, I obviously don't mean a force in the conventional sense. But to reduce love to electrochemical reactions and hormone releases I think ignores the power and the lasting force for change that love can create. Why would one serotonin release leave me feeling happy for a few hours, while the same release, when confused as being a feeling of love, can cause me to change my life? I don't feel that simple chemistry can explain situations where, for example, a mother or father knowingly sacrifices his or her life to save their child; or when a soldier chooses to die for his comrade’s sake. These are sometime conscious and considered actions that IMHO cannot be explained by chemistry. I am sure that even heroes and fathers can feel morbid fear but then choose to give up their own life anyway; going against every natural impulse. Love often involves intellectual choices. Love is when we choose not to act in our own best interest, but rather in somebody else’s best interest; when we care more about someone else than we do for ourselves.

I love tacos, but what I mean is that I really like tacos. However love is real. Love is the essence of God.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I wouldn't say that love is a choice. A person has certain dispositions which are not by choice. These dispositions include tendencies to like certain qualities in the opposite (or same) sex.

Exactly my point. What I'm saying is that these "tendencies" and "dispositions" are not love. Neither is the "emotion" or "feeling" to which the word so frequently refers in modern culture.

The word has more than one meaning, I realise, but I think we can all agree that the intention of this Topic was to explore the meaning of the type of love shared between a romantic couple, yes? Like the type of love found in marriage. Perhaps we could look at the merriage event itself; the wedding.

In the vows of a traditional wedding, a couple promise to "love, honor, and cherrish" one another. Q.E.D.; when these vows were originaly written, "love" did not refer to a feeling, emotion, or predisposition over which one has no choice, since one cannot promise that over which one has no influence or controll.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
Baby don't hurt me.
Baby don't hurt me.
No more.

Ah, that joke never gets old.

eNtRopY

Damn, beaten to the punch

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

No, that's called fun. People in love can have fun ; many would argue more fun than when just for fun. But hey, fun is fun..as long as you don't get fouled!

I love my wife, parents, and siblings. I love my cats and dogs, and I know that they love me. What evolutionary advantage do I have by loving my cat? I love tacos and my property. I love Star.Trek.* and the X-files and snl re-runs. Clearly we mean many splendored things when we think of love.

Do I really mean that I like or need these things? We have a hierarchy of concept of importance, and also of strength of emotion when we consider various likes or needs. As for evolutionary concepts, I can hate a thing that I need and therefore tolerate. I can also give up someone that I need because I love them. I would argue that to be in love is to be vulnerable, if not stupid. Perhaps monogamy, and mate loyalty in general has greater advantages that could be the motivating force for the evolution of love. However, though I may sound the naive romantic, I feel that love is a force of nature and not a mere result of advantage.

What kind of force, well, I obviously don't mean a force in the conventional sense. But to reduce love to electrochemical reactions and hormone releases I think ignores the power and the lasting force for change that love can create. Why would one serotonin release leave me feeling happy for a few hours, while the same release, when confused as being a feeling of love, can cause me to change my life? I don't feel that simple chemistry can explain situations where, for example, a mother or father knowingly sacrifices his or her life to save their child; or when a soldier chooses to die for his comrade’s sake. These are sometime conscious and considered actions that IMHO cannot be explained by chemistry. I am sure that even heroes and fathers can feel morbid fear but then choose to give up their own life anyway; going against every natural impulse. Love often involves intellectual choices. Love is when we choose not to act in our own best interest, but rather in somebody else’s best interest; when we care more about someone else than we do for ourselves.

I love tacos, but what I mean is that I really like tacos. However love is real. Love is the essence of God.

I think you hit the nail right upon the head there. Love is indeed when we choose to sacrifice our own bests interests in the the name of someone else's. Too many people forget that in marriage nowadays, especially in America where the divorce rate is now over 60% and has taken on a fast food mentality of move in, get married, and split assets the first time you hid a speed bump. That is not love, that's called convenience. And yes, I agree that some of those decisions are based on deep thought. I have been in love and I can say that I've given thoughts on those people more time then possibly any other subject. Does that make me a hard-core romantic? Any of you who HAVE been in love may know what I'm talking about.

Love is definitely not scientific. Yes you can speak of seretonin releases and other chemical reactions. But that does not explain some of the very illogical actions we take in the name of love. Love flat out defies logical scientific understanding. Speaking as someone who's done some really stupid things in the name of love, I can vouch for that. Afterwards I was of course thinking "what the hell was I doing?" But in the name of love...

 

[einsteinian77]

I think love is the strongest possible unity between two seperate beings, human or not.

 

[eNtRopY]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I love tacos, but what I mean is that I really like tacos.

The pursuit of tacos is my inspiration for getting out of bed in the morning. However, I wouldn't say I love tacos... I think it would be more appropriate to say my feeling for tacos is lust.

eNtRopY

 

[Sourire]

I really think that the word love is way over used. I love my dog and I love my child. The feelings that I have for my dog is WAY different then the feelings that I have for my son. The word love is so over used it is almost like it has no meaning any more.

But I do have to agree with Lurch in that it is a choice!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
I think it would be more appropriate to say my feeling for tacos is lust

I can go with that!

 

[Sourire]

I heard a really good definition of love last night

If it doesn't cost you anthing then it more than likely is not love.

By that I am meaning physically as well as emotionally.

 

[DR OF DEATH]

i would agree that someone in "love"puts the other person before themself,

but what is it?

is it a need, an emotion, a choice or what? how can define it when we dont know what it is?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by drdeath
i would agree that someone in "love"puts the other person before themself,

but what is it?

is it a need, an emotion, a choice or what? how can define it when we dont know what it is?

That's your whole problem. You're trying to "define" love in logic terms when it can't be. Love has it's own terms.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by eNtRopY
The pursuit of tacos is my inspiration for getting out of bed in the morning. However, I wouldn't say I love tacos... I think it would be more appropriate to say my feeling for tacos is lust.

eNtRopY

Right there with ya!

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
I think love is the strongest possible unity between two seperate beings, human or not.

Human or not? /ponders

 

[Linda]

Originally posted by maximus
and i understand (or at least i think i do) romantic love, but i atribute it to reproductive needs more than anything. and the fact that the younge of our species do better with two parents.
who knows, maybe when i'm older and have fallen in love, i'll regret saying this. but for now, i try to function on cold-hard logic. i'll see how far that takes me before i give it up. (i'm talknig about the Eye now, mentat. this is its function.)

Wow, that's cold Maximus. If romantic love is attributable to reproductive needs, then can a childless (by choice) couple partake? Or are they sentenced to a life of unromantic love??? Love is many things, part choice and part happenstance (Lurch and D. Dan you're both right). You can choose to love someone for whatever reason, but it's the relationship you share that determines the intensity of that love. Many of us were born with the idea that we should love our family and be loved in return, but people really didn't talk about it. Consequently, parents today (including me) go overboard with the "I love you's" and now our children think the love they feel for their friends is comparable to that of a mate.
I remember telling my father that I could marry anyone because I can always find the good in someone and I could 'love' them for that alone. Not true. Love is NOT entirely logical, my dear Maximus - even the definitions of 'logic' will vary between two individuals. Couples that plan to stay together, 'logically' need similar interests so they can enjoy the time they spend together, but they also need to fulfill a need(s). My husband and I are both scientists so we have a lot to talk about and experience, but we also have different talents that we can draw upon to make our lives more pleasurable. He's sociable, I'm not; he can throw together a delicious meal, I cook from a box; He can't fix a thing, I can visualize and get it running; He takes care of my needs, I never think of myself...Do you get the picture?
When you find someone who cares enough about you that your happiness is their happiness, ..well, Ivan S. said it best: "Love often involves intellectual choices. Love is when we choose not to act in our own best interest, but rather in somebody else’s best interest; when we care more about someone else than we do for ourselves". and I'd like to add, 'When you feel incomplete when they are away, and when you are a better person because of their existence, it just might be love...'

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Linda
Love is NOT entirely logical, my dear Maximus - even the definitions of 'logic' will vary between two individuals.

i respectfully disagree, my dear Linda. true logic cannot vary. either one of them has it wrong or both of them.

there is not one aspect of love that i have ever incountered (personal experience or otherwise) that would make me believe it is so mytical and out of the realm of biological and social sciences. i'm not saying that love doesn't exist, or that it isn't beautiful. what i'm saying is that it can be described in different terms. scientific terms, to be more accurate.