What is love ?

  • Thread starter XMLT
  • Start date
Short anwser:
What Mazuz said.
 
37
0
Love is of course give and take. It is said that you should give more than what you take, but it is also said that in the end it is always equal. Love is also that the fruit gives to you, only after it has been cut from its tree. hypnagogue - About highways, do you think nature loves them? Polution isn't love, but I see the give and take in it... Somewhere. Love in my opinion is within everything we observe and do. In every act and thought. Even hate breeds love. And you know how that subjective stuff goes.
 
596
0
Mazuz said:
Love is seeing yourself in another.
Absolutely! But go tell that to the 'Jones', they will think that you are trying to invent another theory......perhaps for fear of climbing out of a clusterphobic, self-crushing paradigm that Thomas Kuhn (1962) accused the scientific world of. And then, with their eyes spitting fire, the next thing they will do is to ask you to prove it. You are right, seeing oneself in another does substantially count as love, it serves the purpose of self-identification both in your own eyes and in the eyes of he or she through which you see. And most importantly, the compensatory value induced is substantially real and empowering, especially when it comes to the notion of moving things forward existentially.

Think Nature! And may the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is good!
 
Last edited:
231
0
Love don't cost a thing.
 
163
0
pace said:
Love don't cost a thing.
I disagree. Love is usually very expensive. Let me explain why, from the perspective of a male, starting from the simple things. First, there's the price of condoms to consider (always practice safe sex boys and girls!). Second, there's the price of fasionable clothes (you are not going to attract a girl with $10 sweatpants). Third, there's the price of dinners and drinks and cinema tickets and presents. Fourth, you'll need a car; that almost goes without saying. Fifth, to afford all those things, you'll need a job, and a fairly decent paying one, which usually means an education, and educations are expensive. Sixth, as the relationship gets more serious, and/or you get older, things like starting a family start to be considered, and this is where it really gets expensive! Now, you can no longer rely on your good looks (they may be gone by now, anyway, assuming you had any to begin with) or your personality. You must become part of a serious team which will have to provide for the kids and the middle-class dream. Instead of a job, you'll need a career. Your happy-go-lucky attitude to work disappears, and you'll become a little bit nastier and meaner; if what it takes to save your career is some backstabbing, then that's what you'll do. The price is sacrificing some of your humanity, and that's very expensive.

The vast majority of us think this expense is worth it, so there must be something to this love thing.
 
231
0
haha :biggrin:
 

Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
818
14
Real love is a willingness to perceive your mate as positive as possible (within reason, not to say tolerating abuse is ok). It is also the willingness to work at understanding and respecting that person while maintaing that positive perception.

I think this view comes far easier for your parents or children because they are physically a part of you. Seeing them in a negative light and reducing the love for them could have the tendency to deflect that negativity upon ourselves because of the biological relationship. The love we share for a mate/spouse has to be more consciously developed, but the effort in that is worth it for many.
 
1
0
Preator Fenix...You make interesting points. I was wondering your views on soulmates. Do you believe there is one special person out there for everyone? Do you believe that you can only truly love one person and never another? Do you believe people always end up with their soulmates? Also, do you think there is an age limit on who can actually know what love is? I hear lots of people say children and teens don't truly know what love is, even if they believe they are. Love is very beautiful.
 
163
0
Actually, this idea that there is one special person out there for you is complete bollocks. I'd say that, for most of us, about 1 in 10 members of our preferred sex and age group would make an excellent soulmate, maybe even 1 in 5. On every bus and train you catch there's probably a few potential soulmates on board. This gives great hope to people who lose a soulmate for whatever reason; there's always another one around the corner.

Now, as for the belief that people always end up with their soulmate ... la-la land is that-a-way. I'd say that most of us do find a soulmate (perhaps several) at some point in our lives, but don't always end up marrying them. Or we marry them, and then you both change so much until you're no longer soulmates. A sizable minority of us never find a soulmate at all. And some of us miss out on any mate altogether, for the term of our natural lives. I might write a story about that latter group; I'd call it my autobiogaphy.

Move along, nothing to see here. Good luck in the game of love.
 
35
0
I just wonder if you are really in love with someone, can anyone else stop you from loving them? If they can, then do you really love that person or just having some kind of a feeling?

XMLT
 
34
0
L'amour est fantastique.
 
413
1
I haven't read the whole mushy thread, but I tend to agree with what some others have said,..

True love is not being dependent on the ones that you love.
True love is respecting the values of the people you love.
True love is accepting the people you love for who they are.

If we can't do these things, then we don't love people for who they are, but rather for what we are trying to mold them into becoming.
 
163
0
NeutronStar said:
True love is not being dependent on the ones that you love.
True love is respecting the values of the people you love.
True love is accepting the people you love for who they are.

If we can't do these things, then we don't love people for who they are, but rather for what we are trying to mold them into becoming.
I have to say, I think that's a rather limited and/or unrealistic notion of love. To treat each statement seperately:

True love is not being dependent on the ones that you love.
A lot of people depend on each other. Mutual support and dependency is part and parcel of a lot of loving relationships. It was part of my parents' relationship. And they're still together after almost 40 years, the love is still strong between them. You grow together.

True love is respecting the values of the people you love.
All of the values? For example, I have no respect for alternative medicine. I think it's nonsense. But if my significant other decided to try it out, then I could live with that. And I think our relationship could live with that. The same goes with many things I think are nonsense. And if she had no respect for my obsession with cosmology, it wouldn't bother me much. My values can change. I prefer doubt over faith. I am open to criticism of my values. I am comfortable with differences of opinion over values.

True love is accepting the people you love for who they are.
Again, I don't think this is absolutely necessary. I think you're always going to see flaws and faults in your partner. Meekly accepting them is not productive, in my opinion. I would love feedback from her on how I could improve as a human being, and I would hope that she would love my feedback on how she could improve as a human being. The problem starts when at least one of you is unable to handle criticism.

But coming from a southern European cultural heritage, where we talk and argue a lot, spend a lot of time together in large groups, blow steam without keeping things bottled in, where the family is just as important as the individual, well, I might have a different perspective on these things than you.
 
413
1
cragwolf said:
I have to say, I think that's a rather limited and/or unrealistic notion of love. To treat each statement seperately:,...
Well, I must say that I hadn't really thought of my comments from the vantage point that you seem to have taken them. I suppose that love can't really be put into words because words are too easily misunderstood.
 
You know you love someone when you are willing to suffer instead of them!
 
Last edited:

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
XMLT said:
I just wonder if you are really in love with someone, can anyone else stop you from loving them? If they can, then do you really love that person or just having some kind of a feeling?

XMLT
Since I don't think anyone has offered an agape-like version of love, I'll give that a shot.

The last 1/4 of my life I have often felt love without an object to love. It is like being in the experience of love without my friends or mate or cute kitty around bringing it out of me. This is just my own interpretation, but sometimes I sense that my consciousness is part of something bigger than myself, and when I feel that most strongly it seems to create a feeling of being in love.

I remember this song by Joni Mitchell ("A Case of You') where she sung, ". . . love is touching souls." That's not exactly the love I've been describing, but it helps to complete the explanation. Maybe love (leaving hormones out of the picture) is the feeling of unity one feels with some greater conscousness. That would explain why some feel the object-less kind of love; but because other beings are present there too, one can actually "touch souls," feeling-wise, and experience love also with other beings.

I realize there are also a lot of behaviors that one can practice which help preserve or express the feeling. When it's love between two people, being tolerant or affectionate, for example. But the more I've separated relying on having someone to love for love, and learned to just sort of be "in" the experience of love by myself, the more I seem able to enjoy love. :!!)
 
Last edited:

AiA

95
0
Simple, easy to understand

Love first off is NOT an emotion nor is it a feeling, you can't love an animal cause it can't love you back, you can't love an object because it can't love you back.

Now as to what love is: First and for most it is the act of will, you need to be willing to love, you don't "fall" in love, its not accidental, it requires will
Second, Self sacrifice, thats pretty self explanatory, I'm sure all of you heard at one point of your lives "relations need work", well that involves self sacrifice.
Thirdly, not putting the other in danger, of course accidents happen so you can't hold that into acount, but when one desires to put the one they hurt (when in full control of their mind at the time, passionful events would most likely result in hurting the one you love.) See, pretty simple right, right.
 
293
0
Hi,

Leaving aside the sexual component for a moment, I would say that love begins with friendship, caring, and appreciation. I don't think it can really exist on a basis that excludes any of these three.

juju
 

AiA

95
0
love and sex

Juju's statement is quite correct, love must come from some foundation.
But what one must realize is in terms of love, ideas of sex are confused, sex is meant for a marriage for a good reason, one gets married when they are truly in love, that is when sex is apropriate, cause then they can procreate that love. Now when people have premarital sex they are using the other for their body which goes against what love is, premarital sex is for the sake of an orgasm, for self joy, for using the other for sexual pleasure, using a human soly for their body is degrading and is wrong.
 
163
0
AiA said:
But what one must realize is in terms of love, ideas of sex are confused, sex is meant for a marriage for a good reason, one gets married when they are truly in love, that is when sex is apropriate, cause then they can procreate that love. Now when people have premarital sex they are using the other for their body which goes against what love is, premarital sex is for the sake of an orgasm, for self joy, for using the other for sexual pleasure, using a human soly for their body is degrading and is wrong.
Utter nonsense. Sex is a pleasurable activity. Pleasure is not immoral or degrading. There's absolutely nothing wrong with premarital sex.
 

dekoi

cragwolf said:
Utter nonsense. Sex is a pleasurable activity. Pleasure is not immoral or degrading. There's absolutely nothing wrong with premarital sex.
Sex is a pleasurable acitivity. No one ever questioned that. It is not immoral or degrading, as long as you are not degrading anyone else or your own mind.

Premarital sex is extremely degrading and immoral. It is an act in which we are turning the body and soul of other humans into pure physicality.

But, let me guess, you don't believe in a soul.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
dekoi said:
Premarital sex is extremely degrading and immoral. It is an act in which we are turning the body and soul of other humans into pure physicality.
I'm having some difficulty following the reasoning here. By analogy to your argument, we can conclude that jaccuzis is degrading and immoral, receiving a massage is degrading and immoral, eating a piece of cake, if it serves no nutritional purpose, is immoral. All of these acts treat a human body as purely physical and all serve no purpose other than self-pleasure.

In fact, I cannot even see a moral difference between premarital sex (provided it is consentual) and married sex performed for a purpose other than procreation. There is no law that says two married people are any more in love or less objectifying toward one another than a non-married couple simply because they are married.

You've yet to give a good reason why a consentual act of mutual pleasure should be considered immoral. What could be more moral than two people getting together and agreeing to perform an act upon each other that increases the happiness of each, even if only for a half hour at at time? I might see extenuating circumstances you can cite as being immoral, such as one party being pressured by another, one party forming an attachment while the other does not, both parties being careless and getting pregnant or contracting a disease, but these are all circumstances separate from the act of sex that are themselves immoral. None points out any intrinsic immorality in the act of premarital sex itself.
 

AiA

95
0
STD's and pregnancy are a result of sex, hence why premarital sex shouldn't occur cause it causes these problems, and people who are in love should get married, if you are just as truly in love with some one that your not married to in relation to a married couple, then why not just get married then have sex, and also again, you must realize sex is not for pleasure.

And you say eating pie is immoral, your not disregarding its soul or mind are you, if you are I apologize for ever eating pie, or using a hot tub cause I disregarded the hot tub's soul, you want me to go apologize to the hot tub.

Now when looking at the example of a message, (a good example), that is used for ones personal pleasure and is done by a human who you pay for the act to be done on you. the difference between a message and sex is first off, your not putting the other at risk in any shape way or form, secondly, your not indulged in any passion while receiving a message unlike when your having sex, see, while having sex it becomes for the sake of getting an orgasm for yourself, using the person for an orgasm, and if your really nice you'll help the other use you to get an orgasm, how great. But when given a message your not in any way indulged, you can very easily talk to the person giving you a message.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
AiA said:
STD's and pregnancy are a result of sex, hence why premarital sex shouldn't occur cause it causes these problems, and people who are in love should get married, if you are just as truly in love with some one that your not married to in relation to a married couple, then why not just get married then have sex, and also again, you must realize sex is not for pleasure.
I'm still having difficulty following the distinctions you're making. If a married couple has sex purely for pleasure, is that immoral? As it stands, you've only covered careless sex anyway. If neither party is infected and birth control is used, then there is no danger of either STD infection or pregnancy. Under your contraints, given these circumstances, sex should not be immoral. I would agree if all you were saying is that infecting someone with an STD or getting a women pregnant against her will was immoral.

I also cannot see why two consentually and knowingly putting themselves at risk is immoral. That would seemingly make it immoral to engage in any dangerous act. Is it immoral a cab driver to speed up beyond the posted legal limit when asked to by his charge because of the chance of accident? (Consider the case separate from the morality of breaking the law.)

And you say eating pie is immoral, your not disregarding its soul or mind are you, if you are I apologize for ever eating pie, or using a hot tub cause I disregarded the hot tub's soul, you want me to go apologize to the hot tub.
But how are you disregarding the soul/mind of your partner if that partner wants you to have sex with her? Is premarital kissing immoral? What about some other non-procreative act that a woman derives physical pleasure from? For instance, my girlfriend really likes simply for me to lightly scratch my fingernails across her lower back. Given that I am paying no attention whatsoever to her soul/mind and simply pleasuring her body, is this immoral?

Now when looking at the example of a message, (a good example), that is used for ones personal pleasure and is done by a human who you pay for the act to be done on you. the difference between a message and sex is first off, your not putting the other at risk in any shape way or form, secondly, your not indulged in any passion while receiving a message unlike when your having sex, see, while having sex it becomes for the sake of getting an orgasm for yourself, using the person for an orgasm, and if your really nice you'll help the other use you to get an orgasm, how great. But when given a message your not in any way indulged, you can very easily talk to the person giving you a message.
All right, you're really losing me here. First, you can talk to a person you're having sex with. Second, consentual sex in which both parties are pleased is not "using" either party. Third, when done with the proper precautions, sex is not dangerous to either party. Second, unless it's a therapeutic necessity, what purpose does a massage serve other than indulgence?
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: What is love ?

  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
114
Views
103K
Replies
9
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Top