[Guest]

Personally, I believe that love exists. I can't really explain why, I just.. Do.

but I recently noticed something, and I may be wrong in my thinking about this, so call me on it, if I am.

Any time you are overcome with some emotion, be it happiness, sadness, pain, etc. You cry. It's just your body's way of releasing all the extra horomones from your emotions.

I'm young and immature, and have only felt what I believe to be a small amount of what love really can be.

But any time I've been overcome with love, or deeply in love, or whatever, I've never cried. I've also never heard of anyone crying because of love.

So is it a real emotion? Or one we've conjured up because we've been tricked by its illusion... Or whatever.

Looking forward to any input, hope I explained this well

[Guest]

Oh Ploper there are many theories..

The lust we feel in the start is an anethesia to keep us together with the person.

Then we wake up and find that this person pushes all our buttons. Funny, its like

we choose the perfect person who will help us deal with all our issues.

Ah psychology!!

[Guest]

But any time I've been overcome with love, or deeply in love, or whatever, I've never cried. I've also never heard of anyone crying because of love.

Never cried because of love huh? Well, my dear, give it time! My guess is that you will shed a few tears spawned from your over-abundance of love on your wedding day, when you first look upon the face of your new baby, when that little baby says for the first time "I love you, Dad" without you having solicited the comment. If you are at all open to your emotions, you will without a doubt, some day weep for no other reason than for the sheer sake of LOVE.

[Yoruichi-san]

Wow...where to start...

The term "love" is ambiguous...everyone who tries to define it comes up with a different definition and a lot of ppl refuse to even try...

There is definitely a brain chemical response/shift that has physical and emotional effects, when ppl feel an "attraction" to others. This plays a large part in the continuation of our species. And not only because it promotes reproductive functions, but also because it causes humans to be protective about the people they "love", their families, whether by blood or bond (i.e. spouses, partners, etc.). Without this protective instinct that causes grouping, humans would not have survived.

But I think that now, when basic necessities of survival are in the back of the minds of those of us who live in industrialized countries, we're searching for a deeper "connection". We are searching for someone who can "understand" us and who appreciates our personalities. Using the Yin-Yang as a representation, I think we are looking for someone whose personality is the best compliment to ours, that is, it fits with ours. If the pieces don't fit well together, there will be poking and gaps and tension that will eventually lead to separation. I think we are searching for our compliments, and when we find them, we will want to be together and stay together. To use that phrase from Jerry McGuire...we are searching for the person who best "completes" us...

[Guest]

Personally, I believe that love exists. I can't really explain why, I just.. Do.

Believe it

but I recently noticed something, and I may be wrong in my thinking about this, so call me on it, if I am.

Any time you are overcome with some emotion, be it happiness, sadness, pain, etc. You cry. It's just your body's way of releasing all the extra horomones from your emotions.

I'm young and immature, and have only felt what I believe to be a small amount of what love really can be.

But any time I've been overcome with love, or deeply in love, or whatever, I've never cried. I've also never heard of anyone crying because of love.

So is it a real emotion? Or one we've conjured up because we've been tricked by its illusion... Or whatever.

Looking forward to any input, hope I explained this well

Well you're young but judging by your posts you're very mature. However you probably are too young to have experienced love in its most intense forms. IMHO people of your age tend (naturally and quite sensibly) not to form excessively strong attachments in love, even though of course it is still an emotional rollercoaster. Also when you are a teenager you experience a lot of things very intensely, but the emotional intensity is not so much "genuine", rather it is amplified by all those crazy hormones.

As to whether love is an emotion, I would say that it involves emotion but love has a a great many meanings and forms. In its most meaningful form it isn't really about emotion at all. It's more about knowing what you value. That may sound a little boring, and maybe it is, but the emotional rollercoaster of passionate love is really just a prelude to the genuine commitment of stable relationships. In many ways the passionate side, while fun, is very much an illusion, it's just your brain getting high on lurve chemicals. People say that love is blind and on balance I'd have to agree, it's amazing how people in love can lack perspective. Maybe that's not such a bad thing, it means that even people with very flawed personalities can find love.

But the stable, boring kind of love is genuine, largely because it isn't about emotion. I would think it most likely that the people you truly love the most would be your parents and (if any) siblings. Your relationship with them might not be so thrilling, but that kind of love lasts longer and means a lot more.

[akaslickster]

Love, in a nutshell. By me. Definition: When you trust to the ultimate extent of the other being and will do anything in your power to cherish and guide and help in times of need. Puzzlegirl fit the persona, so I love her with my heart.

Also to feel the familyness of the other as a deep respect to only one such as.

Edited September 23, 2008 by akaslickster

[Guest]

Believe it

One quick comment and then I'll keep any other for the Thiest discussion:

How can one state with conviction that Love definitely exists when there is no scientific evidence of it; yet adamently deny that God exists? Sound like a belief based on percieved personal convenience.

Uh, btw, for those of you who haven't heard: God IS Love.

Edited September 23, 2008 by puzzlegirl

[Guest]

Love, in a nutshell. By me. Definition: When you trust to the ultimate extent of the other being and will do anything in your power to cherish and guide and help in times of need. Puzzlegirl fit the persona, so I love her with my heart.

Also to feel the familyness of the other as a deep respect to only one such as.

You always know the right thing to say, my sunshine superman. I love you too!

[unreality]

One quick comment and then I'll keep any other for the Thiest discussion:

How can one state with conviction that Love definitely exists when there is no scientific evidence of it; yet adamently deny that God exists? Sound like a belief based on percieved personal convenience.

"no scientific evidence of love"? You've got to be joking lol. But somehow I don't think you are:

1) "God" is a clearly-defined object, of which there is absolutely no scientific evidence or support - in actuality, all clear-thinking logic and scientific discoveries essentially go against this idea

2) "Love" is not as clearly-defined, but in any of its 'forms', there is ample scientific evidence to declare it a fact. It's like saying "there's no evidence that 'freedom' exists" - which is ridiculous, because Freedom is a concept defined and invented by humans, and represents a broad array of general situations, all of which exist. Just like love, they are both "invisible nouns", like 'friendship' or 'hatred', but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Depending on how you define "love" and what you put under its umbrella, there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the existence of love

It's like when theists pull the "faith in your friend" card, ie, "You trust a friend to return a DVD, you have FAITH in them" - that's a figure of speech, not actual religious faith - it doesn't count as faith since you would have tons of evidence that your friend is trustworthy, etc. It WOULD be a leap of faith if a random stranger asked to borrow a DVD, and you let them. However, say they look like a really nice person, and you saw them in the grocery store helping an old lady. Then you might be more inclined to take that leap of faith, but that's because you have more evidence to the 'trustworthyness' of the person in question, and the leap of faith is less of a gap.

anyway, I'm getting off topic. The point is, (1) saying there is no scientific evidence for love is ridiculous, (2) Zeus is Love, duh, everyone knows that, get it right , (3) why are you trying to incite a religious debate in any which topic when, if you stopped to think for a couple rational seconds, you could've saved yourself from posting the above post as well as saved me 10 minutes of typing this

[Guest]

Call me a cynic...which I know I am, but I think it is just an illusion. To me it is merely a word that is tossed around and has no meaning whatsoever. Sure there is an emotion in which you care very strongly for another and only wish to be with that one person. But it is a rare thing. If love is just that, then once one falls in love be it unrequited or not, then no other, in terms of a life partner, should fit into that category, especially in the matter of unrequited "love". If another falls into such category then one has never truly been "in love." This concept of "love" has been thought to be and is typically portrayed and romantic, and "lovey-dovey." But what about all the negative action caused by such feeling as well? What about those who go crazy, kill others, commit suicide out of "love?" In the matters of family, again it is just a word to describe the bond between family members. but that is what it is, just a very strong bond. Call it love if you want, but it is just a word used to describe what typically cannot be described, thus making it a facade, or an illusion if you will, for something much more different.

Edit: Sorry PG I suppose this means we cannot be. Slick she's all yours.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Impervious

[Guest]

Never cried because of love huh? Well, my dear, give it time! My guess is that you will shed a few tears spawned from your over-abundance of love on your wedding day, when you first look upon the face of your new baby, when that little baby says for the first time "I love you, Dad" without you having solicited the comment. If you are at all open to your emotions, you will without a doubt, some day weep for no other reason than for the sheer sake of LOVE.

Well you're young but judging by your posts you're very mature. However you probably are too young to have experienced love in its most intense forms.

to both of you:

Well, wouldn't the threshold of how much love it takes to make me cry change with age and maturity?

For example, a baby might weep under the slightest distress, whereas it takes much more to make an adult cry.

EDIT: I used the wrong kind of "to" (I used "too")

Edited September 23, 2008 by Ploper

[akaslickster]

Edit: Sorry PG I suppose this means we cannot be. Slick she's all yours. Quoting IMP.

She's been mine since I can remember. I did find that we were very compatible long before you arrived. I still have to respect the hubby and kids. What they don't know will not hurt them.

Edited September 24, 2008 by akaslickster

[Guest]

to both of you:

Well, wouldn't the threshold of how much love it takes to make me cry change with age and maturity?

For example, a baby might weep under the slightest distress, whereas it takes much more to make an adult cry.

EDIT: I used the wrong kind of "to" (I used "too")

Nyuuurghh... you don't half pose some tough questions (unlike puzzlegirl; curse you unreality, I left the bait, she was MINE!!! And puzzlegirl, did you know that the easter bunny IS happiness?) Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the crying threshold.

The obvious answer would be that adults have more powerful reasons to cry. Particularly having a child is a kind of love that really exceeds anything you have ever known before, and can be utterly overwhelming. It can feel like your whole life upto that point was just spent killing time (not that you should rush into it or anything, I don't want to be responsible for you being a 14 yr old dad ). But also the relationship with your partner(s) get more serious, there's more at stake and you are thinking in permanent terms, so that side of things can be much more emotionally loaded too. It all means so much more.

But to be honest with you I'm not sure that's the whole story. Adults aren't really all that tough, we just live in a different world. When you're all grown up with kids, life is driven so much more by necessity and caring for those you love. It's a huge tradeoff, you lose the freedom to go about life driven by your own personal experiences, but gain enormous gratification from what you have at home. But because it is necessity-driven, you do what you have to do, and you are tough when you have to be. Even children have that capability, but mostly it is only adults who have the necessity. And so there is the illusion that adults are emotionally tough. But actually most of us are really just soft buggers under the surface. Just don't tell anyone.

[Guest]

Call me a cynic...which I know I am, but I think it is just an illusion. To me it is merely a word that is tossed around and has no meaning whatsoever.

The word love has a great many meanings and they all blur into each other causing a lot of confusion, though in a sense that does also make it meaningless. Particularly problematic is the distinction between caring about someone and being head over heels crazy obsessed in love with them. It's an over-used word and a bit more clarity wouldn't hurt.

Love certainly has illusory qualities, as I mentioned earlier, but it's not just an illusion. You cynic you.

Sure there is an emotion in which you care very strongly for another and only wish to be with that one person. But it is a rare thing. If love is just that, then once one falls in love be it unrequited or not, then no other, in terms of a life partner, should fit into that category, especially in the matter of unrequited "love". If another falls into such category then one has never truly been "in love."

Why? Why must it be permanent? I'm very much of the opinion that human beings are naturally semi-monogamous. That is, we have a tendency to form monogamous relationships which we consider at the time to be permanent, but then later on we screw around, and perhaps split up and start all over again. Particularly in the case of men, it's a natural balance between providing for, and protecting, our children, and spreading our seed as widely as possible. If that's the case, you would hardly expect "true love" to be necessarily a one-off thing, though we wholeheartedly believe it to be so at the time. And why not? It's one of the few occasions where I would recommend believing something which may not be true.

Incidentally, as a side note, I'm also of the opinion that if we follow our natural urges to be unfaithful we create all kinds of pain and conflict for ourselves and those we love. Much better to recognise your own nature and say "to hell with that, I'm staying faithful to one partner". We don't have to do what nature tells us, when our happiness is not part of nature's plan.

This concept of "love" has been thought to be and is typically portrayed and romantic, and "lovey-dovey." But what about all the negative action caused by such feeling as well? What about those who go crazy, kill others, commit suicide out of "love?"

That's life. I agree that romance is essentially deception, to a large extent (which includes self-deception). What can I say? Being too brutally honest is not a good recipe for a successful love life, but neither is dishonesty. There's a fine line you have to walk.

In the matters of family, again it is just a word to describe the bond between family members. but that is what it is, just a very strong bond. Call it love if you want, but it is just a word used to describe what typically cannot be described, thus making it a facade, or an illusion if you will, for something much more different.

We lack the language to describe love properly. That's a fault of our language, perhaps borne out of traditional family values, which place emphasis on creating a stable unit, and do not concern themselves with distinguishing between a passionate union of two lovers, a marriage of convenience, or a couple that stay together because of duty, social pressure, or children.

For all that, there is a core point that you seem to be making, which is that the idea that we all have a single soul mate out there, with whom we will fall head over heels in love, and blissfully remain that way happily ever after, is a big fairy tale. Of course it is. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as love. There is, and furthermore it is the single most important thing in life. It's just, well... complicated

[Guest]

The word love has a great many meanings and they all blur into each other causing a lot of confusion, though in a sense that does also make it meaningless. Particularly problematic is the distinction between caring about someone and being head over heels crazy obsessed in love with them. It's an over-used word and a bit more clarity wouldn't hurt.

Love certainly has illusory qualities, as I mentioned earlier, but it's not just an illusion. You cynic you.

First off, I'm actually glad you responded to this. I was hoping you would as you tend to have interesting opinions about different subjects.

Next, see...told you I'm a cynic.

Why? Why must it be permanent? I'm very much of the opinion that human beings are naturally semi-monogamous. That is, we have a tendency to form monogamous relationships which we consider at the time to be permanent, but then later on we screw around, and perhaps split up and start all over again. Particularly in the case of men, it's a natural balance between providing for, and protecting, our children, and spreading our seed as widely as possible. If that's the case, you would hardly expect "true love" to be necessarily a one-off thing, though we wholeheartedly believe it to be so at the time. And why not? It's one of the few occasions where I would recommend believing something which may not be true.

Without permanence there can be no stability. A family should have stability. The concept of broken families have seem to become such an epidemic in this day and age that it's almost sickening. I have sever friends, and several ex-girlfriends who have divorced parents, step-parents, and parents who go through boyfriend/girlfriend almost as often as they fill up on gas in their SUV. I see no balance here. I'm more or less the psychologist of my peers. So I've heard time after time that they wish their parents would have either just stuck it out and made due with their "accident" or that they wish they had just been given up for adoption instead of having to be torn between the parents. Also, I have a hard time believing in things that may not be true. Doesn't mean I don't take risks, I do everyday I commute to work, etc. Just the silliness fo wishing upon stars, at 11:11 or when you eyelash falls out seems ridiculous to me.

Incidentally, as a side note, I'm also of the opinion that if we follow our natural urges to be unfaithful we create all kinds of pain and conflict for ourselves and those we love. Much better to recognise your own nature and say "to hell with that, I'm staying faithful to one partner". We don't have to do what nature tells us, when our happiness is not part of nature's plan.

I don't think it is natural to have urges to be unfaithful. Personally I've never cheated, never wanted to cheat, and never plan to cheat. But that's just me. Cheating is a mental game. Most cheat because of the adrenaline rush and the thrill that they might get caught rather than just a natural urge. It can also be due to an unhealthy relationship. Either way there is a 'rush' or other sensation being fulfilled by cheating. It becomes a self-inflicted addiction which , as with all addiction, can be suppressed but still has a higher risk of occuring again even after one has "changed.'

That's life. I agree that romance is essentially deception, to a large extent (which includes self-deception). What can I say? Being too brutally honest is not a good recipe for a successful love life, but neither is dishonesty. There's a fine line you have to walk.

We lack the language to describe love properly. That's a fault of our language, perhaps borne out of traditional family values, which place emphasis on creating a stable unit, and do not concern themselves with distinguishing between a passionate union of two lovers, a marriage of convenience, or a couple that stay together because of duty, social pressure, or children.

Ah yes, the ever so delicate line of honesty. I've been on both sides of it, I think i even broke it a couple of times. (That was mass chaos) I don't think any language can fully describe this feeling of "love" especially the English language. My cynicism primarily stems form this multiple meaning aspect of "love." How can one word range form a bond between family members to a bond between life-partners? It just doesn't make any sense.

For all that, there is a core point that you seem to be making, which is that the idea that we all have a single soul mate out there, with whom we will fall head over heels in love, and blissfully remain that way happily ever after, is a big fairy tale. Of course it is. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as love. There is, and furthermore it is the single most important thing in life. It's just, well... complicated

Ah yes, the fairy tale ending. I'm with you on that being highly fallacious. I don't know about "love" being the single most important thing in life. I've never been "in love" and I'm still moving along.

[Guest]

I guess what I'm trying to put across is that people can and should mate for life, but shouldn't expect it to be hearts and flowers all the way. Why do so many relationships not last these days? I wouldn't put it down to a degradation of "family values", whatever they are. Instead I think the culprit is, largely, consumerism. We are conditioned to expect more from life. That's what keeps us buying things (because the things we have are never good enough). So if you started off a relationship with someone wanting to tear each others clothes off and romp naked in the long grass every 5 minutes, there will inevitably come a point, somewhere down the line, when you don't really feel that way anymore. What to do? You either settle for what you have, or get a shiny new love life. Consumerism teaches us that the former is not an option. It's a compromise, it's settling for second best, it's keeping something after the shine has worn off. We just don't do that any more.

Maybe too many people go into marriage, or other commitments, thinking "we'll stick together because we have such a passionate love for each other". Bad move. In my opinion it's far better to go into marriage thinking "we'll stick together because we have made a choice and a commitment to stick together, in full knowledge of the fact that some of our feelings may change". Keeping a marriage good and loving is a challenge, it's not automatic regardless of how you felt at the start. You have to give it some thought and some effort. That aspect of love which excites us the least, the caring and valuing and respecting part, is what holds it all together.

Maybe that sounds like a disappointing compromise, it's not love as it's supposed to be, or as it is sold to us. But it's actually pretty good. You just have to not believe the hype.