|
love
Oct 26, 2005 17:52:22 GMT -5
Post by Azan on Oct 26, 2005 17:52:22 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree, love can be described but not defined so dictionaries try to define it anyways, and they cant completely but they can give a person a general idea (really general).
Or they could give a very specific true def. of how your neurons fire off and all that brain chemistry stuff.
|
|
|
love
Oct 26, 2005 20:15:34 GMT -5
Post by Lobstrosity on Oct 26, 2005 20:15:34 GMT -5
Well, many things can't be defined. Only the most concrete things can be defined well enough so their definitions are true beyond all reasonable doubt. As I recall. . . there is a debate thread called "undefinable concepts"
Maybe love is an undefinable (or hard-to-define) concept.
|
|
|
love
Oct 27, 2005 17:28:11 GMT -5
Post by chica on Oct 27, 2005 17:28:11 GMT -5
did we already mention it in that thread?
|
|
ek2
New Member
STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE STEWIE
Posts: 19
|
love
Oct 29, 2005 15:12:38 GMT -5
Post by ek2 on Oct 29, 2005 15:12:38 GMT -5
oh but it is.
|
|
|
love
Oct 30, 2005 10:06:08 GMT -5
Post by GamerMan on Oct 30, 2005 10:06:08 GMT -5
well I think oxford did a very good job explaining it, they listed effection, sexual attraction, deep interest, and love of poeple/things. I think that works very well, if "love" wasn't a bunch of bull with "love" neither excisting nor worth any consideration
|
|
|
love
Nov 14, 2005 19:53:57 GMT -5
Post by Sad Baby Green on Nov 14, 2005 19:53:57 GMT -5
Okay, I have read over and over and over again. Love is a cause by a chemical in the brain. This is like feelings like hot and nervous. So, it just does happen. Now love may be real or not. But, if you like that person enough and care about that person enough and want to spend your life with that person. I would call that love. At least isnt that how we see "love". It may just be something caused int he brain but I believe it goes deeper than that. It goes to the point where you want to be with a person. Not anything with sexuality or attraction. Well a little attraction I guess. But, to me love is something that happens and that you feel. It is an emotion. But, a strong one at that. Strong enough to forgive the person where they shouldnt be forgiven. Strong enough to care for that person when they are sick. Strong enough to stand up and ask that person to be with you and only you for the rest of your lifes. That is how I see love defined in human society. Is it not?
|
|
|
love
Nov 14, 2005 19:57:56 GMT -5
Post by chica on Nov 14, 2005 19:57:56 GMT -5
i totally agree with your post except there is at least some sexual and physical attraction to the person also but still love is caring and all what you said
|
|
|
love
Nov 15, 2005 16:40:07 GMT -5
Post by Sad Baby Green on Nov 15, 2005 16:40:07 GMT -5
i totally agree with your post except there is at least some sexual and physical attraction to the person also but still love is caring and all what you said Thanks Chica...i forgot the sexual area and attraction but that was meant to be included
|
|
|
love
Nov 18, 2005 16:52:05 GMT -5
Post by Decieved by the Truth on Nov 18, 2005 16:52:05 GMT -5
Not anything with sexuality or attraction. [glow=red,2,300]i do believe you did put in something about sexuality/ attraction. anyway, my theory on love is akin to that of gamermans. love is an emotion that, while being real, does nothing for one, and only serves to bring one down from ones full potential.i also believe that love is one of mans base instincts that should be resisted in order to reach perfection. love it useless. all it does is distract you and gives you one more thing to care about and stress over. I say, if you lesser mortals want to love each other, then go right ahead. I on the other hand, will restrain myself from my base instincts and go on to greater heights than you ever dreamed possible.[/glow]
|
|
|
love
Nov 18, 2005 17:53:56 GMT -5
Post by Azan on Nov 18, 2005 17:53:56 GMT -5
I agree with ye DbtT, without love I am free to do whatever I wish, and I have accomplished alot programming, graphical stuff (3d and 2d) good school grades, electronic knowledge and I dont have to worry about being depressed. Love is almost like a drug (well technicaly it is) one time along time ago I felt a small part of love, and when I look back upon it its addicting, once youve felt it you cant get enough of it untill... But dont get me wrong, I think love is great its just that thats what our instinct tells us to do so im not saying love is evil, just that other things should come first, such as your future, dreams or personal beliefs and if your dream belief or goal is to merry someone and have children then go right ahead and feel love
|
|
|
love
Nov 18, 2005 23:09:00 GMT -5
Post by Sad Baby Green on Nov 18, 2005 23:09:00 GMT -5
Well, marriage also doesnt always have to be based on love. What about those people who have a pre-determined marriage. And what if your not only foused on your partner but those other things important to you. Would you rather be all alone the rest of your life and have a good job and everything. But nothing to come home to. Or would you rather have a good job and a nice wife or husband to come home to and maybe some kids? Isnt that somewhat considered love? To me it is. I mean even if you get stressed out and you care for a person it is better than being all alone when you come home or even on the weekends, right?
All thanks for the correction DbtT. I didnt notice that. But by the way Chica wrote it I meant completely without sexual or anything and I kinda went off that topic in my last post. Thanks.
|
|
|
love
Nov 22, 2005 21:27:02 GMT -5
Post by chica on Nov 22, 2005 21:27:02 GMT -5
but if you aren't in love then would it be like coming home to a really good friend instead of the person you loved? even if you married? I don't get it.
|
|
|
love
Nov 24, 2005 21:49:00 GMT -5
Post by GamerMan on Nov 24, 2005 21:49:00 GMT -5
i say "love" is the ultimate obsticle in our way preventing us from having happyness. the moment you experience it, it doesn't bring you true happiness. true happyness comes from doing things you enjoy, achieving things you wanted to achieve, that type of thing. But love..., when its "real", the happyness is from spending time with someone you want to spend time with, not the fact that you are going out with/married to them. yet the "love", with the help of social preasures of 'normality' makes the lack of being able to claim "i found someone to love", being a negative thing, thus suddenly, the association between "love" and a rise in happyness happens and people time and time agian think that its the source of it. then they continue to get more and more attached to the idea, and it becomes an inexcapable trap with every failed "love" stacking up adding more and more pressure to someone.
|
|
|
love
Nov 25, 2005 18:51:53 GMT -5
Post by chica on Nov 25, 2005 18:51:53 GMT -5
so then is what you're saying is that "love" doesn't exist? but then how do you find true happiness? shouldn't you find it with the person that you love? or does love just not exist? and if so then how do you explain the feelings we get toward someone that we care for? and why do people get married?
|
|
|
love
Nov 25, 2005 19:25:05 GMT -5
Post by GamerMan on Nov 25, 2005 19:25:05 GMT -5
your points, in order. Yes, its as false as centripital force, you feel it, but its not truely there. "true" happiness is all happiness, as happiness is just a mood. no, you could spend it with someone who makes you happy and/or you want to have a family with, but you dont have to. see above. thats a mixture of some or all of the following: hormonal attraction, social preasures, enjoyment of encompenyment. Marriage's upstart is questionable. the first 'natural' marriage is a couples staying together for convienience (easier to refind a mate), and for added protection for offspring. later, those who chose to do this survived, and slowly outnumbered those who didn't, then forced those who didn't to change their ways using social pressures. from then on, it was purely a political/economic/social influence thing. this is how it stayed from the ancient egyptions (5000BC) until very recently (1820 is the earliest the new idea would have started to be used). Notice alot of shakespear is about sexual desire as their "love". most of it has been reinterpreted at 1820. Also, this is most likely the biggest reason divorce is now a common thing. we are more restrictive on devorce than the romans were, yet rome had less devorces. this is undobtedly because our idea of a marriage now adays is the idea of happiness and romanticism till death due you part. But this is a misconception, a marriage is WORK, everyone has these fantisys about how marriage is going to be, and how they "love" each other enough to get married, but its these misconceptions that are leading to the problems with these mass (92%) divorce rates.
|
|