Philosophy: death not included. Actual quantity of death may vary.

[averagejoe]

Because, seriously, life should be about more than deciding which people ideally should die. "But averagejoe," I hear you ask, "What besides people dying could possibly be philisophical?" Well, I'll answer, "The properties of things which can't be measured." So, then, we'll embark on a discussion about a subject very near and dear to my heart. Metaphorically speaking, of course, because abstract concepts can't be physically near anything.

So, then, what's the deal with love, anyways? Is it a biological response built in to ensure sucessful reproduction? A sacred bond of spirits, trancending the world of flesh and matter? The state in which our self is the most fully expanded?

Let's spare ourselves the witicisms taken from overplayed songs, eh? We already know that love is "A many splendid thing," or, "All you need," thank you very much.

[Cyrano]

Just a game.

Sorry!

Anyway, in my opinion, love is a series of vastly unrelated and coincidentally-aligned chemical processes that together form the emotion state of "love" whilst causing our own minds to percieve it as something great and amazing. Which it certaintly is, once you get over the stomach dropping and the endless angsty thoughts. What else is there to say?

[Lord Iames Osari]

Can I say "all of the above"?

[Ranis]

Love is the only word in any language that cannot be defined by other words. It transcends rational and irrational thought, and is the one thing that we experience every day yet are unable to correctly define.

[SurlySeraph]

Love is someone else's desires to be fulfilled, and wanting all positive things to happen to that person. That's about as close to it as I can explain. Of course, there are multiple types of love. There's familial/ close friend love, there's romantic love, and there's charitable love. There are probably others, too, but those are the first I could think of.

[Sisqui]

Is it a biological response built in to ensure sucessful reproduction?

Yes.

A sacred bond of spirits, trancending the world of flesh and matter?

If you consider the mind to be greater than the sum of its parts, yes.

The state in which our self is the most fully expanded?



No. A part of that state most certainly. But that state in and of itself? Definitely not. IMHO anyway.

[zeratul]

Love is the only word in any language that cannot be defined by other words. It transcends rational and irrational thought, and is the one thing that we experience every day yet are unable to correctly define.

Exactly! Well put Ranis.

[Amotis]

No. A part of that state most certainly. But that state in and of itself? Definitely not. IMHO anyway.

And that's what I think too. QFT.

I think too much emphasis in our societies and cultures is put upon couples, love, and all that jazz. That's fine and dandy and enjoy your happiness for all it's worth, but I certainly don't think it's the end all to be all of self, worth, and expansion. None of this "you haven't lived unless you loved" or "love is the highest form of being" etc stuff. You, as in yourself, is just as if not more important.

My personal take for love is that it's accented when you're already self-expanded self. Define yourself by who you are, not who you're with. And with those things in mind you can find some wonderful connections because you're connecting on a deeper level. Accents on yourself and then you can fall in love with each other's accents.

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

*mutters about elitist posters not wishing death to be involved. Just because he didn't know of emotions (in the glands) dosen't mean he wouldn't comment on it...*

[Jimmy Discordia]

Let's spare ourselves the witicisms taken from overplayed songs, eh? We already know that love is "A many splendid thing," or, "All you need," thank you very much.

Does this mean I'm not allowed to say "I believe in a thing called love"? Whoops, I just did anyway. :smallwink:

I think the problem with a meaningful discussion of love is that it's basically a four-letter word that you can define in nearly-infinite ways. Personally, I'd go so far as to argue that all of those definitions are correct. Love is whatever you think love is. And yes, this includes all the definitions that some of us would call "dysfunctional" or "not real love." I agree with Ranis that love is a word that can't be defined using other words, but I wouldn't say it's the only word in any language that can't be pinned down with other words. What is "art"? What is "beauty"? What is "enlightenment"? The definition, ultimately, depends on the person defining it, and will never be accurately summed up in words.

[bugsysservant]

Let's spare ourselves the witicisms taken from overplayed songs, eh? We already know that love is "A many splendid thing," or, "All you need," thank you very much.

So, are we allowed to quote underplayed, crappy songs that don't relate to love? How about "Rock Lobster"?:smallbiggrin:

I think love is a series of biochemical reactions in our minds that we maintain a useful fallacy about. That is that it is some deep spiritual bond which transcends human ability to comprehend or define. Also the "Love is all" or "You haven't lived until you've loved" line also serves its purpose, that of propogating the species, but it too is wrong. Love is an effective way to be happy, but it isn't the only way, and it probably isn't the best.

Take for instance, the mother of a new born child. If, when handed her infant, she was asked if she "loved" it, she would undoubtably say yes. This is logical in the spiritual sense, because she would have had ten months with which to form a deep emotional bond. But, if she were handed another infant and told it was hers, and she couldn't tell the difference, she would say she 'loved" that child as well.

Another, more pertinent example: if you were to ask the bride and groom on their wedding day if they loved each other, they would both say yes. I don't know the statistics off the top of my head, but I believe the projected divorce rate is something like 50%. So, for half of those loving couples, their deep spiritual bond will be shattered merely by spending a few years together. Hmmm... that doesn't make sense. Or could it be, there was no bond to begin with!

Thus love is one of the various modi operandi by which our species is carried on, not some mysterious bond which we can never understand, surpass, or define. [/cynical rant]

[Toastkart]

I'm definitely not a fan of the current trend in the US that to be a whole person you have to be in a relationship, be it good, bad, or ugly. It's blatantly untrue and it's why the rate of divorce and bad relationships is so high.

Sternberg talks about infatuated love, platonic love, and consummate love, as well as some combinations thereof, but even these ideas don't always seem to hit the mark.

As a student of psychology, I know that emotion is as intangible as the mind. The latest theories say that any biological changes that accompany an emotion happen near simultaneously so that it is impossible to say that one causes the other.

As for propagating the species, love isn't necessary. Some animals mate for life, others don't. We just happen to be ones that can go either way. Of course, if you think about, we live longer than we naturally should, so it's no wonder mating for life is hard.

What another problem is is that it shouldn't be expected that all relationships will have the endgoal of marriage and children. There should be alternatives, but there really aren't. Cohabitation is often frowned upon, and this plays a role in its infrequency.

There's also a sort of psychological cliche that goes: you can't love anyone else until you love yourself.

I tend to think of love as when you consider someone's wellbeing as important as your own. no one can make you happy, you can only do that yourself.

[SurlySeraph]

I tend to think of love as when you consider someone's wellbeing as important as your own. no one can make you happy, you can only do that yourself.

Or more important than your own. And I dispute the idea that no one except yourself can make you happy. When I was in love, which I am not going to discuss in detail right now, I literally would have happily died to protect the girl I was in love with, or even if for some reason she would want me to die. Knowing that she existed - even if I was not involved with her in any way - was enough to make me happy. Of course, I'm (mostly) over her now, and no longer as self-sacrificing, but love lets you be happy in circumstances when you logically should be unhappy.

[Vuzzmop]

Love is a bunch of chemicals, nice chemicals, but chemicals. There is nothing spiritual about it, just chemicals in your brain. I don't know why everyone seems to get all angsty when I say that, they're perfectly good chemicals.

[bugsysservant]

As for propagating the species, love isn't necessary. Some animals mate for life, others don't. We just happen to be ones that can go either way. Of course, if you think about, we live longer than we naturally should, so it's no wonder mating for life is hard.

I am no psychology student, but I humbly refute your point. Perhaps I have fallen prey to the ambiguities of the word "love", but I would point out that you do need love at some point to mate (ignoring instances of rape and other, rarer scenarios). Neurochemists distiguish between physical love (akin to brain disease) and the later love, more akin to a platonic relationship. Young couples "love" eachother largely based on lust and other early mating instincts. As they mature, assuming no divorce, that initial love fades after, I believe, 2-3 years. This is replaced byvarious stages of "love", till you reach a venerable age, well past reproductive potential, where the "love" is almost strictly platonic. The type of love changes, but at no point in the mating/partnership cycle was it absent.

[averagejoe]

I think the problem with a meaningful discussion of love is that it's basically a four-letter word that you can define in nearly-infinite ways. Personally, I'd go so far as to argue that all of those definitions are correct. Love is whatever you think love is. And yes, this includes all the definitions that some of us would call "dysfunctional" or "not real love." I agree with Ranis that love is a word that can't be defined using other words, but I wouldn't say it's the only word in any language that can't be pinned down with other words. What is "art"? What is "beauty"? What is "enlightenment"? The definition, ultimately, depends on the person defining it, and will never be accurately summed up in words.

Of course love can be defined. It's whatever I point to and say, "That's love." So all I need to do is review every relationship ever, and we have an exhaustive definition of love. Brute force, (http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=854) for the win! :smallwink:


*mutters about elitist posters not wishing death to be involved. Just because he didn't know of emotions (in the glands) dosen't mean he wouldn't comment on it...*

Er, sorry Death. Nothing personal, you understand. I didn't mean that death had to be specifically excluded, just that this one isn't set up for death, as the other threads seem to be. I mean, death doesn't have nothing to do with love.


So, are we allowed to quote underplayed, crappy songs that don't relate to love? How about "Rock Lobster"?

Allowed to? Yes. "Rock Lobster?" Expected and encouraged. :smallbiggrin:

[TSGames]

Because, seriously, life should be about more than deciding which people ideally should die. "But averagejoe," I hear you ask, "What besides people dying could possibly be philisophical?" Well, I'll answer, "The properties of things which can't be measured." So, then, we'll embark on a discussion about a subject very near and dear to my heart. Metaphorically speaking, of course, because abstract concepts can't be physically near anything.

Hmm... I don't think I've read anything about people dying... even Nietzsche talked a lot about how people should live rather than their dying, although he talked about that too.



So, then, what's the deal with love, anyways? Is it a biological response built in to ensure sucessful reproduction? A sacred bond of spirits, trancending the world of flesh and matter? The state in which our self is the most fully expanded?

Let's spare ourselves the witicisms taken from overplayed songs, eh? We already know that love is "A many splendid thing," or, "All you need," thank you very much.
A 'biological response'? That's called hormones. I would agree that love transcends flesh and matter, otherwise it could be quantified and would have a market value. (Buying shares of LOVE at 10¢ each).

Are we 'most fully expanded' when we are in love? Perhaps you mean merely when we have a type of love? I would say, in a metaphorical sense, not necessarily to the former, and yes to the latter. To be in love with someone is to have love, but there is a type of love that is even greater than the love that one has for their other. There is love for all things, and when a person has that truly they are complete.

[averagejoe]

Hmm... I don't think I've read anything about people dying... even Nietzsche talked a lot about how people should live rather than their dying, although he talked about that too.

I was referring to the recent onset of threads on this board that are titled, "Philisophical Discussion," and have who lives/dies scenarios. I was being very tongue in cheek in that first paragraph.

[Zeful]

Take for instance, the mother of a new born child. If, when handed her infant, she was asked if she "loved" it, she would undoubtably say yes. This is logical in the spiritual sense, because she would have had ten months with which to form a deep emotional bond. But, if she were handed another infant and told it was hers, and she couldn't tell the difference, she would say she 'loved" that child as well.

Another, more pertinent example: if you were to ask the bride and groom on their wedding day if they loved each other, they would both say yes. I don't know the statistics off the top of my head, but I believe the projected divorce rate is something like 50%. So, for half of those loving couples, their deep spiritual bond will be shattered merely by spending a few years together. Hmmm... that doesn't make sense. Or could it be, there was no bond to begin with!

Another example is spousal abusors. When questioned they will say they love their spouse. If that was true, then why do they abuse them?

The emotional bond that is called 'love' is mearly an investment of emotions in another person. This bond is not very strong and can be broken easily under stress. This is what is called cathexis by Bell Hooks. She also portays love as a action, composed of seven things: care, affection, recognition, respect, commitment, trust, honest and open communitcation. Her definition of love is based around spiritual growth more than physical or sexual displays of affection.

This is my opinion, nothing more.

[Cryopyre]

Hmmm...

I'm no spiritual person, so I'd say, at a basic and purest definition, love is the series of chemical/electrical reactions experienced in your brain that leads to a deep passion in a person. It can be a mothers love for a child, or two people in a romantic relationship, as long as the deep feeling exists.

Now, that doesn't mean love is nothing, or that it serves no purpose, just because I see it as chemicals doesn't make it worthless. One should seek out this passion, if for no other reason but to enjoy each other's company for a while.

I also see no problem with divorce rates, while unfortunate for the children (I know, I am one), It is part of human life. Humans are not monogamous. Even women, aren't monogamous, though they stay seasonally with men, that doesn't mean they won't eventually seek anothers company.

[Koga]

So, then, what's the deal with love, anyways? Is it a biological response built in to ensure sucessful reproduction? A sacred bond of spirits, trancending the world of flesh and matter? The state in which our self is the most fully expanded?

Love is a buisness model. This aggarvates alot of people, but really it makes sense.

You would not jump right into a major financial plan would you? Ofcourse not. Such a stupid endevure would leave you pennyless. The same holds true with love. Yet people are so readily to jump into a relationship for the sake of "not being alone" or "it feels good" and putting thier physichal and emotional security at risk. Wether they are aware of it or not.

Therefore, love is a partnership. A decision for two parties to join thier coporations of individualism for greater gains and happyness models. Together they can accomplish more then they could alone, and feel better along the way. Increasing efficietcy and worker morale.

Marriage is the legal binding contract that you will respect and stay loyal to the buisness partner you've decided to merge with. Failure to uphold your end of the bargain should come with strict punishment. Just as a creep who outsources an overseas bank account and evades his taxes is.

Life is a buisness transition. The smart and the hardworking succeed, and the incompetant and lazy perish. As it should be.

[The Prince of Cats]

Love is a buisness model. This aggarvates alot of people, but really it makes sense.
Lern too spel!

Sorry... Just one of those little irritations...

I would agree on so many levels. Love is an investment of so many factors, something that should be entered into carefully and something which returns its greatest profit when both parties work hard at it. As a metaphor, a business-partnership or an investment would work quite well.

Love at first sight (something I believe in) is the most dangerous and the most rewarding kind of relationship. I was reading that people who marry shortly after a whirlwind romance actually have a lower incidence of divorce than those who take things slowly. (I would quote my source, but I think it was the UK edition of Cosmopolitan a few years back) That may be to do with social factors (working harder to prove themselves) or to do with the kind of person who would do such a thing. Whatever the reasons, I think spontaneous people will do better in love than timid ones.


Young couples "love" eachother largely based on lust and other early mating instincts. As they mature, assuming no divorce, that initial love fades after, I believe, 2-3 years.
Well, my wife and I are on 5 years and counting. Fully-requited eros is a lot of fun, even if it does lead to soreness...

[horseboy]

Endorphins are a hell of a drug.



Love is best used to defeat the Zentradi, and to mooch.

[Jensik]

Over. Rated.

Biochemically equivalent to eating large quantities of chocolate. Sure sure, it can be one of the most absolutely blissful feeling you can ever experience in a lifetime, but it can be, simultaneously I might add, be one of the most torturous and excruciatingly painful experiences ever encountered. I honestly cannot comprehend why so many people are so desperate and obsessed over finding an abstract concept which the human mind just conjured out of thin air.

Which is the same reason I don't do drugs, because I get the same effect from standing up too fast.

[horseboy]

Over. Rated.

Biochemically equivalent to eating large quantities of chocolate. Sure sure, it can be one of the most absolutely blissful feeling you can ever experience in a lifetime, but it can be, simultaneously I might add, be one of the most torturous and excruciatingly painful experiences ever encountered. I honestly cannot comprehend why so many people are so desperate and obsessed over finding an abstract concept which the human mind just conjured out of thin air.

Which is the same reason I don't do drugs, because I get the same effect from standing up too fast.

Not to sound excessively bitter or anything, :smallamused: but did you ever notice that "love" is the one time in your life where you're EXPECTED to hurt yourself over and over? Touch something hot, you learn not to touch. You do it again later on and everybody laughs because you did something stupid. Not so with "love." Interesting that.

[Vuzzmop]

Philosophy is a big question, and my answer to it isn't really allowed on these forums, so I'll give you one on love instead. Love is a nice little state of mind akkin to obsessive compulsive disorder. People seem to not know why we fall in love, it's just for the continuity and survival of the species. Now, the species in question may be a horrible earth sucking parasite like us, but love is still a neccessary part of said parasites survival. We fight against and question love, but when it comes down to it, there is no point. It's just life, we're animals, not machines

[Pyro]

Over. Rated.

Biochemically equivalent to eating large quantities of chocolate.

That made me laugh. Hooray for chemicals!


Hmmm...

I'm no spiritual person, so I'd say, at a basic and purest definition, love is the series of chemical/electrical reactions experienced in your brain that leads to a deep passion in a person. It can be a mothers love for a child, or two people in a romantic relationship, as long as the deep feeling exists.

Now, that doesn't mean love is nothing, or that it serves no purpose, just because I see it as chemicals doesn't make it worthless.

You just summed up almost exactly what I think about love in 3 sentences. You win a cookie!

[Cryopyre]

You just summed up almost exactly what I think about love in 3 sentences. You win a cookie!


Yumm, my first forum cookie. I hope it has chocolate so I can experience brief love.

[Siwenna]

Not to sound excessively bitter or anything, but did you ever notice that "love" is the one time in your life where you're EXPECTED to hurt yourself over and over? Touch something hot, you learn not to touch. You do it again later on and everybody laughs because you did something stupid. Not so with "love." Interesting that.

And not only that, but often people refuse to let go of the object until after they have been seriously burned.

I think love is purely a series of chemical reactions that help our species survive. Parents love their offspring because it keeps the family unit together, an ideal situation for raising children. Between adults, it serves to attract, and keep together, appropriate mates that will, hopefully, have stronger offspring. A while ago I read a neat artical about how female seals generally try to mate with males with certain heterozygous traits, probably since that increases the genetic possibilites for the offspring. I imagine love evolved for similar reasons.

[Cryopyre]

That reminds me of something I saw in an evolutionary video. It aid that what a women finds as a more attractive bodily scent smells that way to her, because their immune system is different (there-in covering more diseases if they breed.)

[Hell Puppi]

Love: I know nothing about it. I'm so entirely grey in most areas (in that I take no formal stances on many things) that there is only a few absolute truths which I have come to accept:

1. People cannot change because you want them to, they can only do it under their own will...sometimes

2. There are no square circles

3. Douglas Adams was right. About pretty much everything.

[horseboy]

3. Doglas adams was right. About pretty much everything.

Quoted for truth.

[Malik]

I find that love can be, and is quite often, a dual edged sword that we throw ourselves onto on a regular basis. Sometimes love can be grand and the best feeling in the world, other times love can tear you asunder with sadness. Love is such a difficult experience to define as it affect each and every individual differently. I've been in love before and thought that the world was just great but then i had that torn away from me, i wont go into greater detail at this particular point in time, and now I am afraid and i don't know if i will ever be able to love again. The pain that it can bring is extremely difficult to deal with. I'm not saying to everyone here not to go out and love because you might not have what happened to me happen to you i just like to mention that it is a double edged sword and is extremely dangerous.