The nature of love.

[All_That_Chaz]

Re: The nature of love.

Unrequited love is something that isn't captured by this thought experiment, since this takes place after a hypothetical serious relationship.

However, it's an interesting topic. I would argue that in the case of unrequited love that the positive feelings are outweighed by the negative feelings associated with not being loved in return.

[bluguerrilla]

Re: The nature of love.

Coming from a scientific point of view I'd have to say it's the 'change in what you feel' that determines how much you experience love. Max[|d/dt(<3)|]

By defining how much you experience love in this way I would have to go with your second option.

However, I don't know your definition of joy as it's something more mysterious to me than love.

I also don't agree to love as an obsession. Obsessions are obsessions and love, while it can include obsession, is not so limited, which is also part of the reason why it is hard to define.

[All_That_Chaz]

Re: The nature of love.



Immediately thought of this.

[Lipidman]

Re: The nature of love.

Unrequited love is something that isn't captured by this thought experiment, since this takes place after a hypothetical serious relationship.

However, it's an interesting topic. I would argue that in the case of unrequited love that the positive feelings are outweighed by the negative feelings associated with not being loved in return.

Fair enough, but if we're talking about the selfless kind of love, then does it really matter whether or not it is returned? Can't you have you're own secret love for someone, intending for them to be happy and such, and still accept that they don't wish the same?

In a sense, all loving relationships with pets are unrequited loves, but that doesn't deter the individual from loving them.

[All_That_Chaz]

Re: The nature of love.

Fair enough, but if we're talking about the selfless kind of love, then does it really matter whether or not it is returned? Can't you have you're own secret love for someone, intending for them to be happy and such, and still accept that they don't wish the same?

In a sense, all loving relationships with pets are unrequited loves, but that doesn't deter the individual from loving them.

I guess this can have some bearing on the question at hand. What would you argue is a stronger feeling of love - the selfless love you speak of where all you want is for the other to be happy, or the abject need to be with someone where unrequited love would be torturous?

To me it kind of sounds like comparing apples to oranges, but I'll take a stab at it. While I do think that the selfless love is a more "mature" kind of love in that you can put someone's feelings above your own, it seems that if your own love can overcome that maturity and make you unhappy when you can't be happy for the one you love who chooses not to be with you is a more powerful emotion. However, this may be a discussion more closely related to attraction than to love, since I would purport that you don't truly know someone, and therefore aren't truly capable of loving someone, until you've been together with them for some amount of time.

[Lipidman]

Re: The nature of love.

I guess this can have some bearing on the question at hand. What would you argue is a stronger feeling of love - the selfless love you speak of where all you want is for the other to be happy, or the abject need to be with someone where unrequited love would be torturous?

To me it kind of sounds like comparing apples to oranges, but I'll take a stab at it. While I do think that the selfless love is a more "mature" kind of love in that you can put someone's feelings above your own, it seems that if your own love can overcome that maturity and make you unhappy when you can't be happy for the one you love who chooses not to be with you is a more powerful emotion. However, this may be a discussion more closely related to attraction than to love, since I would purport that you don't truly know someone, and therefore aren't truly capable of loving someone, until you've been together with them for some amount of time.

"Your own love", to me is just a longing that has expired it's interests. I don't see how a truly accomplished "selfless love" can be wittled down after having already acknowledged reciprocation as not being in the cards.

Could you also elaborate on your last sentence, please? To me it sounds like you're saying unrequited love is only an attraction to someone whom the person doesn't know well enough.

[All_That_Chaz]

Re: The nature of love.

"Your own love", to me is just a longing that has expired it's interests. I don't see how a truly accomplished "selfless love" can be wittled down after having already acknowledged reciprocation as not being in the cards.

Could you also elaborate on your last sentence, please? To me it sounds like you're saying unrequited love is only an attraction to someone whom the person doesn't know well enough.

Ah, I think I see what you're talking about. In order to be happy for the person, don't you have to "get over" that person? I mean yea it's nice that you can be happy for them, but getting over someone requires some sort of coping and I would argue that this means you force yourself to love them less.

And I would characterize unrequited love as an infatuation or obsession related to a positive response to what little you know about the object of your love. However, I believe that something like the proverbial "true love" is not something that can be unlocked without a long relationship. I believe that you can feel a deep attraction to someone in a first impression, but true love doesn't happen at first sight.

[Lipidman]

Re: The nature of love.

Ah, I think I see what you're talking about. In order to be happy for the person, don't you have to "get over" that person? I mean yea it's nice that you can be happy for them, but getting over someone requires some sort of coping and I would argue that this means you force yourself to love them less.

And I would characterize unrequited love as an infatuation or obsession related to a positive response to what little you know about the object of your love. However, I believe that something like the proverbial "true love" is not something that can be unlocked without a long relationship. I believe that you can feel a deep attraction to someone in a first impression, but true love doesn't happen at first sight.

It seems you don't think highly of unrequited love in regards to real love as much as I do. Not that I'm implying you should or you're wrong, but this is just proof that everyone has their own ideas about what love is (and its other incarnations).

Though, I agree with you in your second paragraph (bar the first sentence). No one can really know what they're "loving" until they get passed first impressions, so to speak.

For now let's continue with the topic (my bad for getting side-tracked heh). I think the associations with love largly depend on how the relationship ends (when or if it does). Compare the feelings of someone who has mutually broken up with someone to those feelings of someone whose love is cut short by unexpected means (ie death or infidelity).

[Zythus]

Re: The nature of love.

Ah, I think I see what you're talking about. In order to be happy for the person, don't you have to "get over" that person? I mean yea it's nice that you can be happy for them, but getting over someone requires some sort of coping and I would argue that this means you force yourself to love them less.

And I would characterize unrequited love as an infatuation or obsession related to a positive response to what little you know about the object of your love. However, I believe that something like the proverbial "true love" is not something that can be unlocked without a long relationship. I believe that you can feel a deep attraction to someone in a first impression, but true love doesn't happen at first sight.

Why should you love them less? If one truly loved a person, yet they broke up or any shananigan, I doubt one can delude oneself to think all the negative points of the person just to opress the love one had for the person.
Doesn't seem real. You, however, can wish for their happiness for their future relationship. If you really love the person, does it matter if the relationship was official? I think we can all agree mutually that the basic standard of "love being selfless" is to wish for the happiness of your partner.

Yet again, I feel that this is very much a paradox. Speaking of "selfless love", yet the whole fiasco of love is the possessiveness, the bond that binds both parties. You would feel sad if you broke up. Why? because you lose the bond of possessiveness that he/she is he/she'S girlfriend/boyfriend. Losing the possessiveness of love is what devastates most people. I do not see the "selflessness" of love.