03-12-2008, 04:29 PM | #1 | |
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
The nature of love.
I know, sappy topic, but I had an interesting thought.
How do you define love? Is it in the positive feelings felt when you're around your beloved or in the negative feelings you associate with being separated from your object of affection. For example, imagine two men, we'll call them Paul and Dan. Paul loves being in love. He falls in and out of love seemingly at the drop of a hat, and he does so for a reason. When with someone, he is the happiest he could possibly be. However, when they split up, he moves on without any extended drama or depression. He simply accepts it and moves on, eager to fall in love again. Dan, on the other hand, is more picky with his significant others, and for good reason. He's happy when he's with someone, sure. Not as much as Paul, but he finds it agreeable. But when Dan breaks off a relationship, it tears him apart. We're talking therapy, days going by without attending class, sappy poetry, late night drunk phone calls, the whole deal. It takes him a long time to get over her (or him), and it takes him a long time to find someone new. Which one of these two experiences "love" more? Is it the happy-go-lucky Paul that derives amazing amounts of joy from his feelings of love? Or is it Dan who feels so much pain because of his feelings of love?
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
Last edited by All_That_Chaz; 03-12-2008 at 04:52 PM.. |
|
03-12-2008, 04:44 PM | #2 |
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Age: 33
Posts: 680
|
Re: The nature of love.
I think I'm sort of in the middle. Seems quite hard to actually prove which of the two would love more. I'd have to say that it's the happy-go-lucky guy, but that's just my intuition.
|
03-12-2008, 07:00 PM | #3 | |
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
Re: The nature of love.
It's a thought experiment. It's really just supposed to determine whether you associate love more with happiness or sadness.
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
|
|
03-12-2008, 07:12 PM | #4 |
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cary, NC
Age: 29
Posts: 695
|
Re: The nature of love.
Right off the bat, I would say the happy-go-lucky guy should find a girl/guy to go steady with for at least a decent amount of time. All dating is is learning more about yourself and learning more about what you love in a person. I think Paul is abusing that, he dates a lot, but he needs to find who he truly loves.
Dan, on the other hand, is over-reacting. Love doesn't always succeed on the first try. (Not much to say about Dan) What is love? That's a difficult question to ask. There are many different definitions to love, which apply to different people. Love can be several things: physical attraction, "inner qualities" attraction, affection attraction (they like a lot of snuggling and hugging and holding hands and kissing), etc. I am in a relationship right now with wonderful Sara. I am in love with her because she is cute and she is really understanding to me. It was difficult moving us from good friends to a couple. There was a lot of self-debating if I should or not, I was afraid she might reject me and that would make our friendship go away. But now we are really close. I am taking this relationship really slow, unlike Paul, and it is going perfect. We've been together for a couple months and I haven't ask her out yet. However, we are still together. In summary, love should definately not be rushed, for it should be enjoyed. But you must not be ashamed of it. Don't go into a deep depression because of it. |
03-12-2008, 07:21 PM | #5 | |
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
Re: The nature of love.
Well you've kind of hit a major point I wanted to touch on, but I don't think you meant to.
You assumed that Paul felt love less love than others would simply because he likes to be in relationships. You think because he dates a lot that he doesn't love who he's with. I guess what you're trying to say is that "there's one person out there for everyone" which I don't really agree with, and certainly Paul wouldn't.
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
|
|
03-12-2008, 08:54 PM | #6 |
The 40% Iron Chef
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denver
Age: 33
Posts: 4,894
|
Re: The nature of love.
In Paul's view he seems to think love=dating. You can have love for someone without a relationship, and yet at the same time you can be in a relationship without love.
You also didn't point out(unwillingly I'm sure) the love between friends. I love some of my friends dearly as if they were my own family, but I wouldn't say I'm in love with them because they are not someone I dedicate myself to. Basically, because I am not in a relationship I don't dedicate myself to finding true love, but I have love for them none the less. I think Dan has more feelings than Paul, but you couldn't say that he then loves any more than Paul. Just because you become more affected by a relationship doesn't mean you are more in love than someone else. It's like saying just because someone is a girl she will love more than a guy because typically the girl is more in touch with her feelings. All in all both men would potentially love equally, but their expression of love is very different.
__________________
|
03-12-2008, 09:31 PM | #7 | |
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
Re: The nature of love.
relationships != dating. Paul doesn't necessarily just enjoy dating per se, but rather dates in order to be in relationships. You could suppose that means that the person is less important than the relationship, but I don't see it that way. It's more that Paul is capable of falling deeply in love with people much more easily than Dan.
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
|
|
03-12-2008, 11:07 PM | #8 |
FFR Player
|
Re: The nature of love.
I don't know alot about love, I'm only 17 and I haven't gotten lucky yet (sarcasm), but I've seen what it can do. And from what I've seen, it is the most destructive emotion embeded within us. Extreme happiness, diehard hatred, jealousy. The best humans have to offer. Obvioiusly it affects everyone differently, Paul is more laid back and dosen't mind being dumped, while Dan is more indecisive and gets alot more emotional. So I guess in order to define love, you have to think about the kind of person you are.
I know I'm not really answering the question here, I guess I really don't know how to.. |
03-13-2008, 06:28 PM | #9 | |
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cary, NC
Age: 29
Posts: 695
|
Re: The nature of love.
Quote:
|
|
03-13-2008, 06:49 PM | #10 | |
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
Re: The nature of love.
Look, both Paul and Dan already "know how to love" or whatever you're implying. The only difference between the two is love affects one more positively and the other more negatively. It seems like the pain caused by love is a more compelling argument to most of you since you're writing off Paul as uncaring or promiscuous or whatever.
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
|
|
03-13-2008, 07:12 PM | #11 | |
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cary, NC
Age: 29
Posts: 695
|
Re: The nature of love.
Quote:
I'm tying in love with what dating is about. Love is nothing to go into depression about. Especially when you start dating, you may only spend a few days with someone. I think the reason Paul and Dan have different reactions is more personal than it is a general application. It sounds to me like Dan, when he finds somebody, expects to stay with them for a long time. So when he gets broken up with before he wants to, he gets depressed. Now why he gets so depressed is even more personal or maybe just a disorder, and is hard to answer. Paul, however, is different. Have you ever seen Drake and Josh, on Nickeldodeon? Well, Paul is like Drake. Drake dates many girls [in a short period of time] for the joy of dating girls and for his self-image. Paul maybe just wants to meet a lot of girls, and he enjoys that. |
|
03-13-2008, 08:30 PM | #12 |
Beach Bum Extraordinaire
|
Re: The nature of love.
I dont think you typed what you wanted to ask.
I think you cant clearly define any emotion, and of all the emotions humans have, love is the most complex one there is. Assuming that your examples where ment to mean "One guy gets over failed relationships better, one doesnt" I'll have to say that Paul is simply seaching harder to feel that emotion, while Dan gets too depressed to really look for it. |
03-13-2008, 11:31 PM | #13 |
tool
|
Re: The nature of love.
Kind've off topic, kinda not. I'm an engineer, I try and break things down to their components to understand them. To me, love is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions that shoot off in one's brain given a certain trigger. Now, for some people that trigger may be one specific person, it may be a whole group/society of people, God, what have you. The question I'm posing to the crew here is what is so special about love that makes some of us over-analyzing bastards think it's not just a gimmick?
__________________
|
03-13-2008, 11:54 PM | #14 | |||
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
Re: The nature of love.
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
Last edited by All_That_Chaz; 03-13-2008 at 11:57 PM.. |
|||
03-20-2008, 01:58 PM | #15 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 412
|
Re: The nature of love.
|
03-20-2008, 09:06 PM | #16 |
FFR Player
|
Re: The nature of love.
wow i came into this thread just now thinking "did i provoke this" but then i noticed the date
funny how everyone seems to think of the same things around the same time I would define love simply as finding extreme joy in knowing someone intimately. The negative is an interesting concept, but I don't know if I'd define it as love. Not finding happiness in love, but being unhappy when void of it isn't love, it's dependence.
__________________
Last edited by Tokzic: Today at 11:59 PM. Reason: wait what |
03-20-2008, 09:43 PM | #17 | |
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
Re: The nature of love.
The negative interests me because something you constantly hear in today's culture is how those who are truly in love are those that experience extreme depression when the two are separated. It seems that the actualy relationship is ignored and instead the validation of the feeling occurs after the fact. However, one could argue that love is not a joy but an obsession. In that case the test of the obsession occurs after the relationship ends.
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
|
|
03-20-2008, 09:55 PM | #18 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: The nature of love.
So you can't truly know what you had was love until it ends and you feel crappy?
|
03-20-2008, 10:38 PM | #19 | |
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
Re: The nature of love.
I'm not saying the negative and the positive have to be mutually exclusive. I did so in my example to simplify.
Here's a common dialogue between friends that might better describe the situation better: Dan - "Goddammit I'm so depressed." Paul - "What's wrong, dude?" Dan - "I broke up with Cindy, I don't know what I'm going to do. I just want to die. I can't live without you." Paul - "Aww, that sucks man. You guys were awesome together. But you can't let it get you down. Enjoy yourself! Maybe find someone new!" Dan - "How can you even suggest finding someone new?! I don't know how I'll get over her! It's like you have no feelings at all. You don't even know what love is." Paul - "Dude, chill."
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
|
|
03-23-2008, 09:31 PM | #20 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
Re: The nature of love.
Are you asking for the definition of love or how love is "supposed" to be?
You basically recreated my topic: Love, What is it? |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|