aya Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 what is love? to me is a fundamental question.can we cultivate love? (grow it)when someone tells us they love us are they doubting their love for us? I'm rapidly coming to the realization the term love is greatly overused in many situations & not expressed correctly, over recent years the term 'making love' is used. in my mind love should not be in line with sex in this way, sex is beautiful & allows us to express love, but I don't think we make love this way & it can cause confusion with lust. I believe this could be a reason people seek love through sexual interactions. any thoughts?
Bastii Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 From Stef's book Real-Time Relationships: Love is our involuntary response to virtue. One might can add "...if we are virtuous" to make it a bit more clear, but thats the definition most people here are familiar with. You can read the couple of pages in Real-Time Relationships (or the whole book ) if you're interested. And "greatly overused in many situations & not expressed correctly" is certainly correct, most people don't know smack about virtue hence they don't know anything about love.
ancapzeebo Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Love is our involuntary response to virtue. Stef nailed it! Never thought about it that way before.
aya Posted March 21, 2014 Author Posted March 21, 2014 I hear what you're saying I'll check out that book thanks =)_is it correct then to say stef's definition of love is, an emotional reflex ?
PatrickC Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Virtue isn't an emotional reflex.. It's a positive response to those that are like minded and hold the same values as ourselves.
dsayers Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Virtue isn't an emotional reflex.. It's a positive response to those that are like minded and hold the same values as ourselves. This is what I was going to say. Stef's def fits into this purview, but this definition also explains why people who are not virtuous find love in others who are not. It's just an affinity for those share our values and have sex with us. It's a biological instinct to help us find a suitable mate for the purpose of reproduction.
cab21 Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 what is love? can we cultivate love? (grow it) yes when someone tells us they love us are they doubting their love for us? no I'm rapidly coming to the realization the term love is greatly overused in many situations & not expressed correctly, over recent years the term 'making love' is used. in my mind love should not be in line with sex in this way, sex is beautiful & allows us to express love, but I don't think we make love this way & it can cause confusion with lust. not all sex is making love, not all making love is sex I believe this could be a reason people seek love through sexual interactions. any thoughts? yes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love
rock siles barcellos Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 well, virtue isn't an emotional reflex, but I'd say love is love is that feeling that we get of fullfillment when being with a like minded person, and wanting to be with that person again and again because of that feeling, love is also the realization of that wish, to be aware of that desire to the point of wanting to commit to it, the decision and taking the action of committing to it is when virtue comes in
fridolutin Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 Love is not sex and sex is not love Love is a feeling expressed toward the outside without any need for reward. It is feeled in the same way, love comes to us without any need for reward from the giver. When there is a need for retroaction, it is not love.
cynicist Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 How does one love on infant? You can't, but we have a biological attachment (babies are cute!) during that time.
jpahmad Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 So what's stronger, the bond between mother and child, or wife and husband? Assuming that both relationships are healthy and flourishing.
dsayers Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Can the two be compared? The stronger the marital bond, the more the product of that bond (child) will enhance it. For the first six months to two years, the mother and child are essentially the same person. It would be like comparing one's relationship with self.
jpahmad Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Can the two be compared? The stronger the marital bond, the more the product of that bond (child) will enhance it. For the first six months to two years, the mother and child are essentially the same person. It would be like comparing one's relationship with self. So for the first two years, the bond between mother and child is the strongest bond that could ever exist between two separate sentient beings. If they are not separate beings, then at what age in the child's life do they become separate? If they automatically become separate beings at some point in time, then to what extent does this effect the bond between them?
dsayers Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 If they automatically become separate beings at some point in time, then to what extent does this effect the bond between them? That's mostly going to depend on how well the mother will accept her child's ability to finally function without her constant contact. The father's job at that point is to sort of help the mother let the child be their own person, with their guidance of course.
jpahmad Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 I know I've experienced lust. I know I've experienced friendship. Too me, love is just the combination of the two. Isn't it that simple? Am I missing something? dsayers, correct me if I'm wrong, but are saying that the word love cannot be used to describe a healthy parent-child relationship? Is it something different all together?
SamuelS Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 I like Stef's definition, a lot...I like to also keep in mind the brain chemistry -- the feeling we know as love is a DRUG that our brain produces, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we could inject it in the future.
SamuelS Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 Samuels, do you love your dog? you could say that, though it does seem a bit odd to use the same word for so many different things...it's certainly not the same lusty drugged up "love" feeling caused by a neurochemical cocktail that I first discovered as a teenager...perhaps that's the difference, between love and lust.
rock siles barcellos Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 Love is when you're able to join lust and virtue together, having consistent reliable commitment for it, then you have love I think.
jpahmad Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I changed my mind. I don't think lust and love have anything to do with each other. The drive for sex (lust) exists completely independent of what we call love. Think about it, you can want to screw people you don't even like, let alone love. It makes it much easier now to define what love is with lust out of the equation. Let's start with the "love" for pets. Dogs for example. Why do I find my dog endearing? He's not virtuous. Anyone have any ideas? My guess is that we love our pets because they are so easy to understand, predictable, and completely dependent on us. I think if we can figure out why we love our pets, then we can figure out why we love anybody.
cynicist Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I know I've experienced lust. I know I've experienced friendship. Too me, love is just the combination of the two. Isn't it that simple? Am I missing something? dsayers, correct me if I'm wrong, but are saying that the word love cannot be used to describe a healthy parent-child relationship? Is it something different all together? Samuels, do you love your dog? ROFL I can follow the line of thinking there. It's like love = lust + friendship. I love my dog, therefore... wait a sec no, abort, ABORT! But yeah you are correct, they exist independently of each other. People use the word love many different ways but if you are going by Stefs definition (involuntary response to virtue) then it can't apply to animals since they can't be virtuous. In that case, endearment or affection are better words to describe how we feel about our pets. I like my cat because he can be funny and that makes me happy. I think that taking care of them also makes us care more about them, just from the knowledge that they would be pretty helpless in the wild. Maybe their dependency triggers an attachment similar to the one we feel for children.
jpahmad Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I think that taking care of them also makes us care more about them, just from the knowledge that they would be pretty helpless in the wild. Maybe their dependency triggers an attachment similar to the one we feel for children. I think there is a lot in common between our feelings towards our pets and our feelings towards our children. The difference is a matter of degree. A dog can't be virtuous. A child can't be virtuous, but the child will grow and can become virtuous. At any rate, we don't claim that we love our children only when they become virtuous. What we do have that endears children to us is the same as stated above; understandable, predictable, and completely dependent on us. It's only only the understanding part that is so many times greater than that of our feelings towards a dog, because of course, your child is human just like you. We can relate to them infinitely more. There is an obvious pecking order in terms of beings that we empathize with. A mosquito, I won't think twice before squashing it. This is because I can't relate to it in any way. However, a mouse, I wouldn't want to step on that, and certainly not a cat, which I can relate too much more than a bug. Those animals that are more complex, we identify with more, therefore we can develop compassion for these creatures. An actually human child takes that idea to the highest level. I would argue that once understanding has reached the highest level, that is what love is. I would also argue that we don't love evil people, because we don't understand them. We cannot relate to them. Who can understand a sociopath?
dsayers Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I changed my mind. I don't think lust and love have anything to do with each other. The drive for sex (lust) exists completely independent of what we call love. Think about it, you can want to screw people you don't even like, let alone love. I do not agree with this. In fact, when I was younger, there was this extremely hot girl that was all over me when we first met. It would've made for a great fantasy. In real life though, it was actually off-putting. I'm not suggesting that my experience is indicative of anything.
jpahmad Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I do not agree with this. In fact, when I was younger, there was this extremely hot girl that was all over me when we first met. It would've made for a great fantasy. In real life though, it was actually off-putting. I'm not suggesting that my experience is indicative of anything. Oh man, that's not my experience
SamuelS Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 perhaps what we feel for our dogs, maybe children as well, is simply attachment?
jpahmad Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Ah, but attachment is the main category and love, lust, and companionship are sub categories. That latter is contained within the former.
dsayers Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Ah, but attachment is the main category and love, lust, and companionship are sub categories. That latter is contained within the former. Can this be so? Attachment and love require large amounts of time, companionship has less of a time requirement and lust requires almost no time. Additionally, love, lust, and companionship are inherently positive while attachment doesn't denote attitude. I had nothing to do with my mother for the last ~10 years of her life. However, I think of her to this day as a result of my attachment to her that came from having overlapping lives for a quarter of a century.
jpahmad Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Hmmm, as humans we have needs. Needs manifest themselves in the form of attachments. An infant has needs, and therefore is attached to its caregiver, literally sometimes. Organisms are attached to things that they need to sustain them either physically or emotionally. So, attachment doesn't have to be negative. Think of a barnicle and a whale. We can also be attached to land, where we find food and water.
dsayers Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 attachment doesn't denote attitude. So, attachment doesn't have to be negative. I think there's been a miscommunication.
jpahmad Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 I think there's been a miscommunication. My bad, we agree on that. However, can you give me an example of a negative attachment? I can't think of one. I would say addiction, but I'm not sure it can be considered negative if it is being substituted for an unfulfilled need. The person is using it to emotionally stabilize him/herself.
Wesley Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 However, can you give me an example of a negative attachment? Stalking, addiction, Stockholm Syndrome, vice, illusion, hallucination, delusion, sadism, etc I am not necessarily saying all of these are bad, just providing potential examples. I would think a "negative" attachment would be anything that would be attachment to abuse, abusers, self-abuse, or mental fantasy. Some of the words for those were what I listed above.
cynicist Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Ah, but attachment is the main category and love, lust, and companionship are sub categories. That latter is contained within the former. Yeah I can see that, various different types of the same thing. To me love is specifically the response to someone being a good person, lust is just a biological response to someone's physical features, and companionship (ie friendship) is just two people with mutual affection towards each other. It's interesting how they work together. You can lust after a friend, but liking someone is a prerequisite for loving them. You can be friends without love, or desire someone sexually without either. Can this be so? Attachment and love require large amounts of time, companionship has less of a time requirement and lust requires almost no time. Additionally, love, lust, and companionship are inherently positive while attachment doesn't denote attitude. I had nothing to do with my mother for the last ~10 years of her life. However, I think of her to this day as a result of my attachment to her that came from having overlapping lives for a quarter of a century. That's a language problem. Attachment is used more than one way: 1) To denote a feeling which binds one to something 2) To describe a sympathetic or loyal connection to another person. You can blame psychology for the second one, it was used specifically for child > parent relationships. You are thinking of the neutral definition.
dsayers Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 However, can you give me an example of a negative attachment? I can't think of one. I had nothing to do with my mother for the last ~10 years of her life. However, I think of her to this day as a result of my attachment to her that came from having overlapping lives for a quarter of a century. @cynicist: I view definition 2 as just a positive example of definition 1. Denoting a neutral nature explicates the capacity both for positive and negative occurrences. Would you agree?
jpahmad Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 I had nothing to do with my mother for the last ~10 years of her life. However, I think of her to this day as a result of my attachment to her that came from having overlapping lives for a quarter of a century. How is this negative?
Recommended Posts