You Cannot Adequately Define Love

[Pyrian]

Every simple perception, every simple thing we're aware of, is essentially an internal experience. Where nature expresses a mixture of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, we merely perceive blue. Not that long ago, we could not have adequately defined blue - the best we could do is merely point at blue things. If a given person internally perceived them as red, but had always had them pointed out as blue, neither they nor anybody else would be able to notice the distinction. Now, knowing a great deal about light and the human retina, we can more or less precisely define blue, although people will still disagree on exactly when a shade ceases to be such.

This ability to define blue is missing in love. We may one day know the exact effects and processes involved, but right now we do not. We only have internal experiences that seem more or less like other people's internal experiences, as they express them. And yet, we do have reason to think that those internal experiences vary in cause and effect between people (sort of like how color blindness can substantially change how people perceive blue). So, we feel something, and notice that it has something in common with how others behave when they say they feel love, and associate that feeling with love, regardless of whether it's really the same thing. We can't yet know that at all.

Ask a dozen people to define love and you will probably get a dozen different answers, many of them quite substantially distinct. Asking people to define love basically invites fallacy; in most cases you'll be able to tear their definition apart on purely logical grounds. (Hell, ask them to define blue and you can probably find considerable entertainment if you enjoy that sort of thing.)

Anyway, the point is that you cannot guarantee that the love you feel inside is the same as the love another person feels inside, and we don't have the neurology yet to define such feelings precisely in those terms, and therefore no truly adequate definition of love is possible at this time.

As an aside, behavioral definitions of internal experiences are probably adequate in some animals, but humans are simply too complex and just too dang willing to lie to make it very practical in us. You can't guarantee any particular pattern of behavior unique to love, and indeed the attempt leads to some very interesting conflicts, like does a stalker love their object? Scientifically, I doubt the term itself is even of much value, and that components such as interest, empathy, and desire for attention will be considered as related but separate.

[Rutskarn]

While there is some truth in this, keep in mind that evolutionary psychology can give us a substantial grounding in the basic principles of love among humans. There are more than a few areas in which we can make generalized observations.

[Pyrian]

Right, we can certainly make behavioral generalizations and relate them to other primates and indeed a great variety of living things, I'm just saying it all falls short of a precise and adequate definition.

[Trog]

Love always seemed something more along the lines of needing a rather vast encyclopedia entry rather than a concise dictionary definition to me.

I do feel, however, that using other words to help describe the feeling you are perceiving as "love" helps to ground your feelings in things that can be defined more concretely and thus aid communication of the particular type of feeling you are having. By doing so you can develop a vocabulary between yourself and the people you communicate this to which will help more concisely define what you mean when you say [insert your words here] and aid future communication with them.

[Rutskarn]

Certainly, in any serious discussion, an operational definition of "love" must be clearly established before getting too deep into it. This may or may not reflect the breadth of the subject.

[Pyrian]

I must confess some irony in the fact that I'm not sure I grasped what you meant right there, Trog. :smallbiggrin: It sounds reasonable, but could you give an example?

EDIT:
Certainly, in any serious discussion, an operational definition of "love" must be clearly established before getting too deep into it.It's one thing to do that objectively as observers of third parties, it's altogether different when the discussion centers on one of the participants, and they're talking about their own experience of love.

[Bor the Barbarian Monk]

Due to my romantic affiliations since 2000, I find it exceptionally easy to define love. Love is a score of zero in tennis. :smallsigh:

[Rutskarn]

EDIT:It's one thing to do that objectively as observers of third parties, it's altogether different when the discussion centers on one of the participants, and they're talking about their own experience of love.

This is a valid point, although I was referring more to objective discussions rather than anecdotal comparisons.

EDIT: Ah, yes, Bor has reminded me. It's apparently quite easy to define love.

Love is...a bunch of naked freaks whose lives consist of one nauseatingly sweet banality after another. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_is...)

[LurkerInPlayground]

So?
The word, "blue" is not any less meaningful because blue light has a "tolerance" value for qualifying as "blue." Words derive their meaning by their relationship to other observable packets of information. The languages of numbers, mathematics, was invented specifically to measure gradation to augment one level of meaning with additional levels of meaning.

This is why we construct sentences. Language depends on relationships and math is merely another language. We can just say "the ball is blue." Or we can say, the "light bouncing off the ball is blue *and* roughly ~460 nm in wavelength."

Either way, this creates actionable knowledge. I can ask for a friend to pass the blue ball. Or I can examine the wavelength of light from a spectrometer to discern the rough structure of organic molecules. It really depends on your need and the required level of understanding for a given situation.

As we discover new knowledge, all we do is refine our understanding of a idea by adding new relationships. This is why good dictionaries of high academic pedigree carry etymologies (i.e. history) of words, because the meaning of words evolve with time.

"Faith" can mean belief without adequate justification. It can mean trust and goodwill in a person.

"Love" is one of those words with multiple meanings that vary in context. And romantic love, even when expressed in different ways, carry common markers for devotion and intimacy.

How else do you explain the notion that the heart is the seat of emotion? Because ancient people thought that's what you thought with. We know this to be factually incorrect, but the mode of expression still holds so that "heart" has a different meaning under this different context.

You need to constantly define things for yourself in order to think well and to think critically. Because language is an active living process that depends on processes and relationships, not upon set dogmas and the foolish notion of absolute metaphysical certainty.

The notion that you cannot adequately define a concept is a lazy one.

[Yarram]

I think some more trouble would come in that different people value in different ways to each other, so what one person considers love could be considered something entirely different by another.
(Shallow example follows)
E.G. One person believes they love their friend, and because they feel like they want to be with that person all of the time.
The friend on the other hand considers love to be the intent to help someone for no justifiable reason.

[Rutskarn]

Lurker has a fair point, there. Language itself can be a bit of slippery bugger if you're moving away from anything but pure, hard values. The actual topic might not factor into it a whole lot.

This in mind, I ask: what drives you to make this specific point?

[LurkerInPlayground]

Lurker has a fair point, there. Language itself can be a bit of slippery bugger if you're moving away from anything but pure, hard values. The actual topic might not factor into it a whole lot.

This in mind, I ask: what drives you to make this specific point?
That is so not my point.

My point is that there is no such thing as hard absolute metaphysical certainty in words *or* numbers. It doesn't exist. It's a myth. It's an oxymoron.

Even hard values depend on relationships. Nine is one integer greater than eight. Eight is one integer greater than seven. Nine is also three times greater than three. All this does is exact a higher standard of establishing a given relationship.

To say that you cannot *adequately* define a concept means that you simply aren't willing to expend any effort into achieving appropriate understanding of a given context.

I make this point because when confronted with expressing an opinion, people will sometimes simply hedge by vaguely saying that, "[so-and-so] could never be adequately expressed to communicate an idea. "

[Trog]

I must confess some irony in the fact that I'm not sure I grasped what you meant right there, Trog. :smallbiggrin: It sounds reasonable, but could you give an example?
Heh! Sure.

Okay, say you are talking to someone you are with whom you have romantic feelings for while you are on a date of some sort. You feel, at that moment, like you have butterflies in your stomach and you have a euphoric feeling in your head and you feel a bit like you are light headed and you cannot stop smiling.

What I am saying is you are better off saying all of that description above and then labeling that feeling with some more concise word/s of your own choosing. Perhaps you pick the phrase "I feel floaty." By describing what this feeling is in concrete terms and then defining it somehow the other person now knows what you mean when you say to them "I feel floaty" sometime in the future.

Now many might jump on this description and slap a label on it be it love or lust or infatuation or what have you. All of those words are loaded so by making your own set of words (floaty, in this case) you can be more clear and more descriptive as to what you are actually feeling without either you or another broadbrushing your feelings with a word that you may not feel fits how you are feeling.

Uh... is that more clear?

[Rutskarn]

That is so not my point.

My point is that there is no such thing as hard absolute metaphysical certainty in words. It doesn't exist. It's a myth.

To say that you cannot *adequately* define a concept means that you simply aren't willing to expend any effort into achieving appropriate understanding of a given context.

I make this point because when confronted with expressing an opinion, people will sometimes simply hedge by vaguely saying that, "[so-and-so] could never be adequately expressed to communicate an idea. "

Yeah, that's basically what I was saying. Words aren't magic Define-It-All devices that perfectly capture a concept, like an animal preserved in tar.

When I say "basically", I mean that you can argue values such as 2 are more or less ironclad.

[Jamin]

An interesting view with valid points but you can define what loves means to you and I would say that is all that really matters.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Yeah, that's basically what I was saying. Words aren't magic Define-It-All devices that perfectly capture a concept, like an animal preserved in tar.

When I say "basically", I mean that you can argue values such as 2 are more or less ironclad.
Ah, excuse me. I misread your post. As always.

You always manage to sneak in a bit of succinct meaning in there that I always run roughshod over. It's a very bad habit of mine.


An interesting view with valid points but you can define what loves means to you and I would say that is all that really matters.
I consider that to be rather narrow-viewed.

The things that *other* people love is a messy messy affair.

People are dangerous and righteous when they love things or ideas. If we're talking about the love of a couple, it's two-way street. If it involves families and other such groups it becomes even more complex. It isn't all about just what *you* love.

[Pyrian]

You need to constantly define things for yourself in order to think well and to think critically.A simple (elemental) experience or feeling should not be defined internally, because if you slap a definition on it, you can confuse it from the experience, and it's the experience that's important. Once you slap a definition on an internal experience, you are open to the possibility that that definition is incorrect or even outright fallacious. Then, logic and experience collide and obscure your perceptions.


The notion that you cannot adequately define a concept is a lazy one.Nonsense; laziness implies that I'm arguing it's not worth the effort. I'm instead arguing that it's not achievable.


Language itself can be a bit of slippery bugger if you're moving away from anything but pure, hard values.Oh, absolutely. But semantic precision is the goal, here. When someone asks what exactly do you mean by what you feel, they're effectively asking for the wavelength of blue from someone who merely knows that they see a color.


This in mind, I ask: what drives you to make this specific point?Partially scrubbed discussion in another thread. I don't think I should go into detail.


My point is that there is no such thing as hard absolute metaphysical certainty in words *or* numbers.
...
To say that you cannot *adequately* define a concept means that you simply aren't willing to expend any effort into achieving appropriate understanding of a given context.Are you familiar with the concept of a postulate? You can't prove a mathematical postulate - that's its role. The rest of math is build on relations to that. A simple internal elemental experience is the concept-building counter-part of a mathetical postulate: all other internal definitions can be derived down to simple internal elemental experience.


An interesting view with valid points but you can define what loves means to you and I would say that is all that really matters.Interestingly, one of the reasons I bring this up is precisely because I think that in the vast majority of cases you will fail, and find yourself either experiencing love when you think you shouldn't or not experiencing love when you think you should. This can lead to failures of internal perception; by slapping a definition on something that should be felt, you obscure it.


Uh... is that more clear?Yes, thanks. I'd considered going deeper into a discussion of the variety of experiences we label love, but cut it for space. Basically, yes, if you can distill the experience of love (or "floaty" in your example) into simpler elemental experiences then that successfully invalidates my argument entirely.

[LurkerInPlayground]

A simple (elemental) experience or feeling should not be defined internally, because if you slap a definition on it, you can confuse it from the experience, and it's the experience that's important. Once you slap a definition on an internal experience, you are open to the possibility that that definition is incorrect or even outright fallacious. Then, logic and experience collide and obscure your perceptions.
Science works by observational experience that people then document. And this is pretty much an exercise in language at the highest level.

That's the thing about scientific philosophy: it's all about open-endedness and revision.


Oh, absolutely. But semantic precision is the goal, here. When someone asks what exactly do you mean by what you feel, they're effectively asking for the wavelength of blue from someone who merely knows that they see a color.
No, when somebody asks you for what you mean exactly by the color blue, it depends on the situation. Which is to say, is your definition exact enough for a given use?

That's where your semantic precision is derived. As long as our definition creates actionable knowledge for a given situation, then that word is accurate for its given use in its given situation. Precision is just a matter of standards.

Of course you're not going to know everything about the phenomenon that is the color "blue." But you don't have to. You're labeling the phenomenon, not its properties. Defining its properties is an entirely different proposition altogether.


Are you familiar with the concept of a postulate? You can't prove a mathematical postulate - that's its role. The rest of math is build on relations to that. A simple internal elemental experience is the concept-building counter-part of a mathetical postulate: all other internal definitions can be derived down to simple internal elemental experience.
So because the postulates have meaning to ourselves you are inclined to distrust it? Is that what you're getting at?


Interestingly, one of the reasons I bring this up is precisely because I think that in the vast majority of cases you will fail, and find yourself either experiencing love when you think you shouldn't or not experiencing love when you think you should. This can lead to failures of internal perception; by slapping a definition on something that should be felt, you obscure it.
So if you incorrectly slap a label on something and treat it like an item of some other category, you're going to get wrong results? So what?

The barcode doesn't mean anything if the scanner is broken. Delusion isn't generated at the level of the raw elemental observational stimuli, but in how those stimuli are processed.

In your case, the emotion is a stimuli. Incorectly labeling the emotion and treating say . . . psychophantic cowardice as "love" is obviously going to create problems, since our notion of "love" has certain commonly held objectives.

[Jamin]

I consider that to be rather narrow-viewed.

The things that *other* people love is a messy messy affair.

People are dangerous and righteous when they love things or ideas. If we're talking about the love of a couple, it's two-way street. If it involves families and other such groups it becomes even more complex. It isn't all about just what *you* love.

That is not what I meant. Let me try to explain it better. It is more important for you to understand what you love and care about than what other people love or care about. Of course it is important to try and understand other people's feelings but in order to really understand people you have to understand yourself.
Hope that cleared that up. If there is one thing I suck at it is explaining my position on things.

[LurkerInPlayground]

That is not what I meant. Let me try to explain it better. It is more important for you to understand what you love and care about than what other people love or care about. Of course it is important to try and understand other people's feelings but in order to really understand people you have to understand yourself.
Hope that cleared that up. If there is one thing I suck at it is explaining my position on things.
Meh. It's a *much* better explanation.

[Trog]

Yes, thanks. I'd considered going deeper into a discussion of the variety of experiences we label love, but cut it for space. Basically, yes, if you can distill the experience of love (or infatuation in your example) into simpler elemental experiences then that successfully invalidates my argument entirely.
:smallmad: LABEL! LABEL!!

It's "floaty"! :smalltongue: :smallwink: :smallbiggrin:

[Dracomorph]

I suppose it's been stated already in other ways, but the real problem with defining love is that it's an abstract concept, and like many abstracts, ambiguity is inherent to the word.

Not because it is impossible to nail down what one person means by love, mind you. You can get a very good idea from a short list of example relationships. No, it's problematic because different people work from different definitions, and do not often explain what they mean when they use the word.

Additionally, love in particular is a ridiculously broad word, covering the emotions between two long-time friends, the give and take between good housemates, or the easy quiet between an old married couple. This is, oddly, more of a problem in English specifically than in some other languages.

[Destro_Yersul]

What is love? (Baby don't hurt me):smalltongue:

With that out of the way, you're right. I've tried to, and you just can't. Even having felt it, the English language does not have the proper words to express the feeling. You will know it when you feel it, though, and it is undeniably a good feeling.

The complications only seem to arise if you attempt to explain it.

[Pyrian]

No, when somebody asks you for what you mean exactly by the color blue, it depends on the situation. Which is to say, is your definition exact enough for a given use?And the comparison I drew was that no, it wasn't, because "just a feeling" isn't necessarily amenable to a more precise definition.


You're labeling the phenomenon, not its properties. Defining its properties is an entirely different proposition altogether.Hold that thought. It's an important part of my position.


So because the postulates have meaning to ourselves you are inclined to distrust it?No, that's not it at all.


By slapping on a label to a feeling, all you've done is just that. It doesn't meant that you're sorting or prioritizing the labels correctly according to other definitions, self-mediated instructions and so forth.Correct. Slapping a label ("love" or "blue") on an elemental internal experience is fine. Defining that elemental internal experience, however, is extremely dangerous: someone might come up with "who I most want to be with" or "The color of the sky", but later find those definitions highly misleading.


Delusion isn't generated at raw elemental observational stimuli, but in how those stimuli are processed.Exactly; delusion does not come from the label, but can come from an inadequate definition. Thus, it is important for definitions to be adequate in this regard, and I argued that an internal elemental experience sometimes cannot be (remember, I argued that "blue" can be adequately defined, as a contrast).

EDIT:
:smallmad: LABEL! LABEL!!

It's "floaty"! :smalltongue: :smallwink: :smallbiggrin:Sorry. Fixed. :smallcool:

EDIT 2:
With that out of the way, you're right. I've tried to, and you just can't. Even having felt it, the English language does not have the proper words to express the feeling. You will know it when you feel it, though, and it is undeniably a good feeling.Seriously, I had totally thought this thread was just begging for people to actually submit definitions and argue for their adequacy. :smallbiggrin:


I suppose it's been stated already in other ways, but the real problem with defining love is that it's an abstract concept, and like many abstracts, ambiguity is inherent to the word.It doesn't feel particularly abstract.


Additionally, love in particular is a ridiculously broad word, covering the emotions between two long-time friends, the give and take between good housemates, or the easy quiet between an old married couple. This is, oddly, more of a problem in English specifically than in some other languages.Right. The original topic was definitely in the eros side of things, and perhaps I should have carried that specificity into my original post.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Exactly; delusion does not come from the label, but can come from an inadequate definition. Thus, it is important for definitions to be adequate in this regard, and I argued that an internal elemental experience sometimes cannot be (remember, I argued that "blue" can be adequately defined, as a contrast).
Alright, I can buy that. That doesn't mean it's impossible to adequately define "love" for a given person or situation for reasons more succinctly stated than I have so far.

I find it puzzling that you cannot seem to accept the notion that "love" can have many definitions assigned to one label that varies depending on how it's used.

I also cannot agree with the idea that some internal "elemental" stimuli cannot be defined just because you might get it wrong.

[Jacklu]

I have carefully considered the arguments being offered up by both sides, weighed the evidence, sought out insight from trusted sources and have prepared the following as my response:

I concede the point. You are most correct. I cannot, indeed, adequately define love. What I can do, however, is muddy the water. When you speak of love, are you speaking of it in terms of a feeling, an abstract thought to describe an idea, or a verb describing a specific set of actions?

[Coidzor]

I may not be able to define it, preferring more to ramble on about it with no clear victor instead. However. I am more than adequate when it comes to performing. :smalltongue:

[Pyrian]

That doesn't mean it's impossible to adequately define "love" for a given person or situation for reasons more succinctly stated than I have so far.A fair point. My use of "adequate" was perhaps too absolute for that word (although I think I generally got across what I meant by it); an adequate specification for a given purpose can be achieved, certainly.


I find it puzzling that you cannot seem to accept the notion that "love" can have many definitions assigned to one label that varies depending on how it's used.Again, this is a failure in the specificity of my original argument. Love is indeed a broad enough term that a more specific label will usually be necessary to achieve the level of describing a single, simple elemental experience (i.e. a mere feeling). I meant it in terms of the "eros" of the original discussion.

[Dracomorph]

It doesn't feel particularly abstract.


Well, that's rather the point, isn't it? It's a feeling; they're abstract by definition, and tricky by association (with people; people are always tricky).



Right. The original topic was definitely in the eros side of things, and perhaps I should have carried that specificity into my original post.

See, now you're approaching an adequate definition already!

I mean, for me, I like the generality of the word, and love is more like 'being capable of enjoying doing nothing together', which can apply to pretty much anyone. But I can see that being too specific and/or inclusive for usefulness, sometimes.

Maybe, for eros-type, a relationship which shares characteristics of tendency toward physical closeness, and endorphin reactions at sensation of the other? I mean, yes, you'd have to cut open the brain to be certain on the endorphins bit, but you can get a reasonable estimate even without vivisection.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Maybe, for eros-type, a relationship which shares characteristics of tendency toward physical closeness, and endorphin reactions at sensation of the other? I mean, yes, you'd have to cut open the brain to be certain on the endorphins bit, but you can get a reasonable estimate even without vivisection.
Umm.

We can simply define it as a recognition of the desire for emotional intimacy with potential mates. Typically, the intimacy is a nice thing to have for offspring for reasons of survival.

However, the tokens of proffered intimacy may be unacceptable to a potential lover.

[Dracomorph]

Umm.

We can simply define it as a recognition of the desire for emotional intimacy with potential mates. Typically, the intimacy is a nice thing to have for offspring for reasons of survival.

However, the tokens of proffered intimacy may be unacceptable to a potential lover.

To help assuage your obvious discomfort, most of that paragraph was an excuse to use the word "vivisection".

[Jallorn]

We cannot accurately define any word. Such definitions would require a language of far greater complexity than any one human mind could even comprehend. The complex simplicity of language, english at the very least, is necesary for swift communication, though obviously it allows for misinterpretation. Besides, you're trying to define something with other somethings that require definition. Some things you have to experience to even begin to comprehend, although others are derivitive.

[V'icternus]

That's easy. It's an emotion that makes human's do crazy things. Avoid at any cost.

[Coidzor]

No no no no, it's a series of bitter and broken platitudes that are only ended by a cold, lonely death that leads to a big question mark of uncertainty, ignorance, and fear.

[Zeb The Troll]

With that out of the way, you're right. I've tried to, and you just can't. Even having felt it, the English language does not have the proper words to express the feeling. You will know it when you feel it, though, and it is undeniably a good feeling.

The complications only seem to arise if you attempt to explain it.The bolded section I categorically disagree with. With most people, there are occasions when we think we feel it, only to revise later that what we felt was something more banal like lust or infatuation. Indeed these feelings are often confused, especially at the onset. It could be (and should be, I offer) argued that, from a romantic perspective of the word anyway, these feelings are a sort of proto-love that is necessary in order for the more poetic assessment of the term to be reached.

Several things apply to help further blur the lines of defining a romantic 'love' amongst conversants. The first is that it is commonly held that individuals experience this emotion differently. The second, and more vexing, is that individuals experience it differently even unto themselves with successive partners.

If pressed, I would tell people that I have loved, with all the trappings and nuance expected of such a declaration, three women in my life. Not one of them did I experience in the same way as any previous. There are overlaps to be sure, such as the feeling of being centered and calmed when in their presence, especially when external forces are otherwise causing me distress. However I would never claim that I know I love Alarra because she makes me feel the same way as my daughter's mother made me feel. These are two vastly different experiences and attempting to do so would be a disservice to both of them.

How then, could I hope to define for someone else that which I'm not even able to define, or even describe, for myself?

[Destro_Yersul]

The bolded section I categorically disagree with. With most people, there are occasions when we think we feel it, only to revise later that what we felt was something more banal like lust or infatuation. Indeed these feelings are often confused, especially at the onset. It could be (and should be, I offer) argued that, from a romantic perspective of the word anyway, these feelings are a sort of proto-love that is necessary in order for the more poetic assessment of the term to be reached.

I knew, at any rate. I agree that sometimes it will just be lust, or something similar, but when you do feel actual love, you'll know for damn sure what it is.

[Mx.Silver]

The main problem with defining love is that the word itself applies to more than one emotion. It can be simply a strong liking of something ('I love cake!'). Then you have familial and platonic love which are characterised stong feelings of trust, emotional closeness, protectiveness and obligation but without any physical intimacy. Romanitc love is characterised by very strong levels of intimacy both physical and emotional following, often following an early period of infatuation.

It's something of a peculiarly quirk of the english language that there is lack of distinctive words for those various different feelings. Particularly when the negative emotions have rather a lot of different words which denote varying degreess of intensity (hatred, loathing, detesting, despising etc.).

[Zeb The Troll]

I knew, at any rate. I agree that sometimes it will just be lust, or something similar, but when you do feel actual love, you'll know for damn sure what it is.A person will certainly think that they do. My point is that of all the times a person will "fall in love" they will only be right a fraction of the time. The truth of it will only be ascertained later. I submit in evidence the fact that I'm now twice married, and I have been twice otherwise engaged to be married but did not make it down the aisle. Just these involvements add up to more than the three times I've claimed to have loved a woman. There have been others that I "knew" were going to be the love of my life but didn't even make it to the proposal stage. Of course, this is anecdotal evidence from one man's perspective but I don't believe that I'm alone in this for men my age. Surely, there are anecdotes of high school sweethearts being lifelong loves, but we all know those are hardly the norm.

This next point will probably cause a lot of friction based on the average age of posters on this site (nobody wants to hear "you're too young to know what you're talking about!" and that's not the way that I mean it, but that's the way it will sound), but I honestly believe that the younger a person is, the less likely that person is to actually be feeling what they will look back on in 20 years as "love".

[Destro_Yersul]

A person will certainly think that they do. My point is that of all the times a person will "fall in love" they will only be right a fraction of the time. The truth of it will only be ascertained later. I submit in evidence the fact that I'm now twice married, and I have been twice otherwise engaged to be married but did not make it down the aisle. Just these involvements add up to more than the three times I've claimed to have loved a woman. There have been others that I "knew" were going to be the love of my life but didn't even make it to the proposal stage. Of course, this is anecdotal evidence from one man's perspective but I don't believe that I'm alone in this for men my age. Surely, there are anecdotes of high school sweethearts being lifelong loves, but we all know those are hardly the norm.

Not what I said. What I said was that, when someone does find love, then they will know what it is. I'm not talking about the ones that don't work. I'm not talking about when you find someone that you think will be the love of your life. I am talking about when you do actually find the love of your life. Someone you would do anything for. When, as you say, it is later and the truth has been ascertained.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong, I personally have never gotten that far. Came close once, and I certainly believed I was in love at the time, and the feelings I hold for the person in question I would still call love. But you see the point I'm trying to make?

[Mauve Shirt]

This is why I can't help but doubt when I think I'm in love. Having never felt it before, how on earth am I supposed to know that's what it is? If I'm supposed to just know, well, I guess I'm not, because I don't know.

[Fiendish_Dire_Moose]

I believe HK-47 defined love quite well actually.

[Castaras]

My definition of love? All love stories are fairy tales, you just don't know if you'll get your happily ever after or not.

Friends and lovers are like gemstones, if you each have the right facets for each other you look beautiful together, but throughout life we are all shaped and changed by life, and our facets change - so a pair of gems that looked beautiful before clash.

[Yarram]

My definition of love? All love stories are fairy tales, you just don't know if you'll get your happily ever after or not.

Friends and lovers are like gemstones, if you each have the right facets for each other you look beautiful together, but throughout life we are all shaped and changed by life, and our facets change - so a pair of gems that looked beautiful before clash.
I'm not sure what you meant by this. Are you saying that there is no such thing as love because it's only found in fairy tales? Being in love is like being in a fairy tale (which doesn't mean much to me I'm afraid =P). Or did you just mean that we can't always gain happiness from love? I don't know. You just said something in a very profound tone that didn't seem to mean anything.
Your metaphor also bothered me, because I've always felt there was more to a relationship than "the right match" and when we change "we just don't get on anymore."

To be honest... The only metaphor I think works with complex emotions and people, is "People are like people... Bloody complex and impossible to pin down by comparing them to an inanimate object."

I've always felt that love was wanting to help out someone without any form of payment, and helping that person makes you happy.

[Castaras]

I'm not sure what you meant by this. Are you saying that there is no such thing as love because it's only found in fairy tales? Being in love is like being in a fairy tale (which doesn't mean much to me I'm afraid =P). Or did you just mean that we can't always gain happiness from love? I don't know. You just said something in a very profound tone that didn't seem to mean anything.
Your metaphor also bothered me, because I've always felt there was more to a relationship than "the right match" and when we change "we just don't get on anymore."

To be honest... The only metaphor I think works with complex emotions and people, is "People are like people... Bloody complex and impossible to pin down by comparing them to an inanimate object."

I've always felt that love was wanting to help out someone without any form of payment, and helping that person makes you happy.

Sorry if it wasn't clear - love is like a fairy tale, it exists, but it is like you are living a fairy tale.

..and that probably made it no more clearer. :smalltongue: I'm bad with saying what I mean. The bolded is close, but not quite right...

[Toastkart]

A person will certainly think that they do. My point is that of all the times a person will "fall in love" they will only be right a fraction of the time. The truth of it will only be ascertained later.

That largely depends on your definition of love, and your attitudes and beliefs towards it as a whole. If you believe that love is only real if it lasts until you die of course you're going to consider it false every time a relationship ends before death.


This next point will probably cause a lot of friction based on the average age of posters on this site (nobody wants to hear "you're too young to know what you're talking about!" and that's not the way that I mean it, but that's the way it will sound), but I honestly believe that the younger a person is, the less likely that person is to actually be feeling what they will look back on in 20 years as "love".
Or, you know, people's values, attitudes, feelings, and beliefs change over time.


The bolded section I categorically disagree with. With most people, there are occasions when we think we feel it, only to revise later that what we felt was something more banal like lust or infatuation. Indeed these feelings are often confused, especially at the onset. It could be (and should be, I offer) argued that, from a romantic perspective of the word anyway, these feelings are a sort of proto-love that is necessary in order for the more poetic assessment of the term to be reached.

Out of curiosity more than anything else, what do you consider the distinction between thinking we feel an emotion and actually feeling an emotion? I ask mostly because I understand the distinction between having an emotion and owning your emotion, and am curious if that's what you're trying to get at or something else entirely.



The main problem with defining love is that the word itself applies to more than one emotion. It can be simply a strong liking of something ('I love cake!'). Then you have familial and platonic love which are characterised stong feelings of trust, emotional closeness, protectiveness and obligation but without any physical intimacy. Romanitc love is characterised by very strong levels of intimacy both physical and emotional following, often following an early period of infatuation.
I don't think this is as much of a problem as it is proposed to be in debates like this. The Triangular theory of love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love) really does a good job of distinguishing different types of love in general.



Correct. Slapping a label ("love" or "blue") on an elemental internal experience is fine. Defining that elemental internal experience, however, is extremely dangerous: someone might come up with "who I most want to be with" or "The color of the sky", but later find those definitions highly misleading.
So, you're saying that people can't revise their definition as life happens to them? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but why is this even an issue? People define lived experiences by subjective standards, for lack of a better way to put it. Trying to apply an objective definition to a subjective, lived experience is horribly reductive. As an example, defining creativity in such a way that it has to include a product and that product has to have a significant impact on the domain in which it was made really denies what creativity is as a concept. You can operationalize a concept any way you want for a given use (say, for a research study), but you also have to realize the limitations of that operationalized definition in relation to the concept itself.


A simple (elemental) experience or feeling should not be defined internally, because if you slap a definition on it, you can confuse it from the experience, and it's the experience that's important. Once you slap a definition on an internal experience, you are open to the possibility that that definition is incorrect or even outright fallacious. Then, logic and experience collide and obscure your perceptions.
So you're saying we shouldn't think about our experiences and feelings?



Oh, absolutely. But semantic precision is the goal, here. When someone asks what exactly do you mean by what you feel, they're effectively asking for the wavelength of blue from someone who merely knows that they see a color.
Except that the exact nm of light that makes up blue doesn't really mean anything other than being the exact nm of light that makes up blue, whereas the colour blue has a host of associated meanings for every individual. It's not precision, it's a different kind of knowledge.

[Player_Zero]

Love is an invention of bank managers to make you overdrawn.

[Zeb The Troll]

That largely depends on your definition of love, and your attitudes and beliefs towards it as a whole. If you believe that love is only real if it lasts until you die of course you're going to consider it false every time a relationship ends before death.I'm clearly not stating that any relationship that ends was not love. I directly stated that I have had two previous relationships that I still look back on and say "Yes, I love(d) that woman." I have had many where, in the moment, I thought I was in love. Looking back, however, I can see that what I was actually feeling, though it was lovely, was not "love". No, I cannot explain why.


Or, you know, people's values, attitudes, feelings, and beliefs change over time.Of course they do. And 20 years later, I still look back at my first love and know that what I felt for her was what I call "love" despite the fact that I am not remotely the same person as I was back then. This is what I was getting at.


Out of curiosity more than anything else, what do you consider the distinction between thinking we feel an emotion and actually feeling an emotion? I ask mostly because I understand the distinction between having an emotion and owning your emotion, and am curious if that's what you're trying to get at or something else entirely.I mean that in the stages of a relationship where someone is usually at the point of declaring love, they certainly believe it to be the case. However, whether or not this holds up to be truth requires an amount of time that those in the relationship are not usually willing to wait before hearing/saying the words the other wants/needs to hear. I am certainly no exception and I'm not implying that people should wait until they're ready to propose marriage before making the utterance, so long as you believe it at the time you're saying it. I'm merely suggesting that one should not be surprised to look back later and realize that they were, in fact, mistaken about what they felt.

Here's an example from the women I've mentioned already. There was a woman, I'll call her Tanya. We dated for a couple of years in my early to mid twenties. At one point we were engaged to be married. I clearly believed that I was in love with her. Not long after my accepted proposal, we hadn't even set a date yet, I realized that I was actually unhappy in the relationship and what I was actually feeling for her was complacency and a comfort zone compounded by the fact that I didn't want to be alone anymore. I needed her, I liked her, I respected her, but I didn't love her. I wanted something more, though I couldn't, even then, define what that meant. Fortunately for both of us, I suppose, she realized it too and she broke it off with me. I say fortunately because I was in a frame of mind that, even after the realization came, I wouldn't have called it off with her because of that need and we'd probably both be miserable or divorced now.

Or perhaps I'm just a crazy old man who has no idea what he's talking about. It's happened before and it'll happen again. Though, then I'd have to ask myself "Do I not know what I'm talking about? Or do these youngsters just believe I don't know what I'm talking about because 'parents just don't understand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0dCVwdedE)'?" :smallcool:

[Destro_Yersul]

Or perhaps I'm just a crazy old man who has no idea what he's talking about. It's happened before and it'll happen again. Though, then I'd have to ask myself "Do I not know what I'm talking about? Or do these youngsters just believe I don't know what I'm talking about because 'parents just don't understand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0dCVwdedE)'?" :smallcool:

Hey, you aren't that old. :smalltongue:

I, for one, put a great deal of stock in your words. You've been there already and have the benefit of 16 or 17 years head start on me. You'll have a lot of experience that I don't have.

If there's one thing that video games have taught me, it's to listen to the old guy in the tavern. He usually knows what he's talking about. So what if this is a message board and not a tavern? My point stands. :smallbiggrin:

[Trog]

If there's one thing that video games have taught me, it's to listen to the old guy in the tavern. He usually knows what he's talking about. So what if this is a message board and not a tavern? My point stands. :smallbiggrin:
*is an old guy on the forums who also for a long time owned a forum tavern*

:smalleek: ...Dear lord please don't start listening to Trog. Or consorting with Trog. You know Trog warned you kids about that!!

*sprays you all with The Hose™ WHOOOOOOOSSSSHHHH!!*

IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU'RE OLDER!!!

[bosssmiley]

*is an old guy on the forums who also for a long time owned a forum tavern*

:smalleek: ...Dear lord please don't start listening to Trog. Or consorting with Trog. You know Trog warned you kids about that!!

*sprays you all with The Hose™ WHOOOOOOOSSSSHHHH!!*

IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU'RE OLDER!!!

Cheers Trog. I'll be telling my young ones the same when I force them to music classes (or up the chimney) at gunpoint. :smallbiggrin:

"You Cannot Adequately Define Love", eh?

You can define love through common experiences ("You know when..."). Anyone who does not share these experiences has no common frame of emotional reference with you, and is thus probably 1) a clinical psychopath or 2) not a human.

Four words for you: στοργή, φιλία, ἔρως, ἀγάπη (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love)

All Playground threads are just footnotes to Plato. :smallwink:
(and header notes to my posts)