|
love
Oct 15, 2005 20:15:53 GMT -5
Post by KiddoFreak on Oct 15, 2005 20:15:53 GMT -5
I think he's saying he hates all emotion, love being no better than hatred. In his experience, his life had lost quality while he was "going out" with someone or whatever. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I disagree with everything I read on the last two pages. "Love" is mostly chemical and a little genetic. You see, we experience "love" mostly during sex when a certain chemical (who's name I cannot recall) is released. However, "love" can manifest in other ways - however most is based on chemicals. I think it has something to do with the other's immune system or something, but I don't know a whole lot about that. Only a small part of love is actually choosen - most of it, as has been said, just mostly happens. Thus, if I met someone and they were perfect for me, even if they had a horrible personality and sucked at life, I would probably love them. Which is, I'm pretty sure, why people seem to love people they know they shouldn't. Love, or any emotion, is just the brain telling us what to do to reproduce the fastest - really. Love isnt some deep and meaningful thing. It's basically a reaction that helps us mate, and then stick with our mate to raise our young. Human logic is what really gets in the way of love... when we think it wont work or whatever - when we think we have a "life" to live. In my life - I've been in love once before without a doubt. It's definately strong and meaningful - but it's just chemicals in the brain. The pleasure gotten from love just gives off more chemicals in the brain then when we, say, eat chocolate. Love is sortof the opposite of happiness, but it makes us content. Why? Because our purpose in life is to reproduce and love helps us get to that point. Anyone who says otherwise is either confused or lying. Honestly, I hate thinking of love as just little things in the brain, but thems be the facts. If I ever fall in love again - it's just my brain telling me something. Love is not a part of the heart, no. It is simply another way of thinking.
|
|
|
love
Oct 15, 2005 20:54:05 GMT -5
Post by Azan on Oct 15, 2005 20:54:05 GMT -5
Im going to have to disagree on somethings, well some parts of your post I agree with but there are parts ide like to express my views, Love is chemical but it is not completly connected to sex, lust is purely chemical and purely for the purpose of sex and human reproduction. Such as you can see someone who you find attractive, and someone who isnt and love the person who isnt and not love the attractive person.
Now the reason love exists is because we are sentient, animals dont feel love as powerfuly as we do, allthough animals do feel lust. Now love does have purposes, such as in nature a man and a woman is ment to take care of a child, so love basicaly prevents the man from leaving the woman after having sex (and it has other purposes, but its manly created due to human compassion). Both lust and love technicaly are purely chemical, every emotion is its just that lust is for reproduction, and also is some part of love, but love manly is used for other purposes (all these purposes are for the survival of a child and its parents).
So yes love is for reproduction but not sex directly.
|
|
|
love
Oct 15, 2005 21:16:33 GMT -5
Post by KiddoFreak on Oct 15, 2005 21:16:33 GMT -5
Actually, studies were conducted on a certain type of shrew and the male only "loved" (stayed with) the female he mated with. Certain "love" chemicals are released in sex and are really only re-enforced during that time.
|
|
|
love
Oct 15, 2005 21:30:09 GMT -5
Post by Azan on Oct 15, 2005 21:30:09 GMT -5
Actually, studies were conducted on a certain type of shrew and the male only "loved" (stayed with) the female he mated with. Certain "love" chemicals are released in sex and are really only re-enforced during that time. Notice the word shrew, I had said in my post that human love was quite different due to the fact of us being sentient. Also just because he stayed with the female he mated with doesnt indicate love due to sex, as I had said in my previous post lust is also a part of it and I had mentioned that love is so a male will stay with a female for child rearing in animals and humans, humans have just far more complex emotions.
|
|
|
love
Oct 16, 2005 18:43:10 GMT -5
Post by chica on Oct 16, 2005 18:43:10 GMT -5
okay if you havn't read the news lately I really think you should! just cuz a guy has sex with a girl or does something with them doesn't mean he'll stay with her!!!!!!!!!!! I mean teens get pregnant all the time and most of the time the guy doesn't stick around. he just wanted booty. and yes "love" is in the brain not the real organ heart but if it's all just chemical and all about reproducing then why does it have a big part in our lives?
|
|
ek2
New Member
STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE
Posts: 19
|
love
Oct 18, 2005 19:43:52 GMT -5
Post by ek2 on Oct 18, 2005 19:43:52 GMT -5
screw biology.
i dont't believe that it's just chemicals. I think there's something more that humans attempt to break down and explain but it is one of those mysteries that humans are never going to be able to uncover.
love is complicated. hard to explain but I definetly know that u'll know when u are. i've been there and it's different from an infatuation. it just is. don't make me explain cause I can't. if ure questioning then I dont think ure in love.
|
|
|
love
Oct 18, 2005 23:29:34 GMT -5
Post by GamerMan on Oct 18, 2005 23:29:34 GMT -5
love is a fabrication of the mind to dismiss faults due to the "necessity" or addition to this idea that hte mind created in teh first place
|
|
|
love
Oct 19, 2005 18:23:16 GMT -5
Post by Azan on Oct 19, 2005 18:23:16 GMT -5
screw biology. i dont't believe that it's just chemicals. I think there's something more that humans attempt to break down and explain but it is one of those mysteries that humans are never going to be able to uncover. love is complicated. hard to explain but I definetly know that u'll know when u are. i've been there and it's different from an infatuation. it just is. don't make me explain cause I can't. if ure questioning then I dont think ure in love. Technicaly it is chemical, memory, happyness its all chemical But I do agree, like I said above Love and Lust are totaly seperate, love isnt for having sex lust is, love in nature is for the male sticking with the female but its technicaly not love, and in humans it definitly is different due to us being sentient.
|
|
|
love
Oct 19, 2005 21:30:57 GMT -5
Post by GamerMan on Oct 19, 2005 21:30:57 GMT -5
Love • noun 1 an intense feeling of deep affection. 2 a deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone. 3 a great interest and pleasure in something. 4 a person or thing that one loves. 5 (in tennis, squash, etc.) a score of zero. apparently from the phrase play for love (i.e. the love of the game, not for money). -Oxford English Dictionary
|
|
|
love
Oct 20, 2005 12:46:00 GMT -5
Post by Azan on Oct 20, 2005 12:46:00 GMT -5
Ahh but there are flaws in that def. can you not love life? love cheeseburgers? somehow I dont think a person is sexualy attracted to cheeseburgers if they say they love cheeseburgers.
|
|
ek2
New Member
STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE
Posts: 19
|
love
Oct 20, 2005 13:34:23 GMT -5
Post by ek2 on Oct 20, 2005 13:34:23 GMT -5
oh burn!
anyways...
everythings wrong with the def because there is no definition of love. its just there.
i have a feeling that science and god have a lot to do with what love is.
|
|
|
love
Oct 23, 2005 10:02:23 GMT -5
Post by GamerMan on Oct 23, 2005 10:02:23 GMT -5
Ahh but there are flaws in that def. can you not love life? love cheeseburgers? somehow I dont think a person is sexualy attracted to cheeseburgers if they say they love cheeseburgers. 3 a great interest and pleasure in something. 4 a person or thing that one loves. nope I have those covered in my definition
|
|
|
love
Oct 23, 2005 10:39:32 GMT -5
Post by Azan on Oct 23, 2005 10:39:32 GMT -5
Still if you are attracted to someone it doesnt mean you love them, love is something entirely different, sure love can be used for reproduction but its alot more than that.
|
|
ek2
New Member
STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE
Posts: 19
|
love
Oct 26, 2005 15:33:25 GMT -5
Post by ek2 on Oct 26, 2005 15:33:25 GMT -5
besides, the dictionary has a definition to attempt to explain wut love is. who says websters correct?
|
|
|
love
Oct 26, 2005 17:37:56 GMT -5
Post by myth1515 on Oct 26, 2005 17:37:56 GMT -5
I agree with ek2... there is no definition for love. And who is webster to explain what some people take their lives to interpret and others just seem to stumble upon and know?
|
|