The nature of love.

[All_That_Chaz]

You're not even the first person to link to that thread in here, so you obviously haven't read my thread, which does not emulate your thread in the slightest. Here I ask the very specific question over whether love is related more with the positive feelings when it is experienced or the negative feelings when it is absent.

[Zythus]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

Here I ask the very specific question over whether love is related more with the positive feelings when it is experienced or the negative feelings when it is absent.

Seeing that you already justify that love is a positive thing, somehow, it is my fault for not understanding.

Negative.
For self explanatory proof, just read some of the love poems in Literature.
We humans crave this endearment as an instinct, we are in love with being in love, and nothing more. Seeing how you topic "differs" greatly from mine, I would cease to go one step further to justify it.

[devonin]

He doesn't justify that love is positive, he simply asked a question and then provided his own view of the answer. That doesn't mean he even thinks his view is necessarily correct, just that as a starter to the discussion, here is what he thinks about the question he asked.

Looking at the two OPs, I agree with Chaz that his thread is asking a fundamentally different thing than yours. You were looking to answer the question of what love is, in the sense of what kind of thing it is, quantitatively; and Chaz is asking more psychologically which of the two states of love we most strongly identify with, the positive aspects of being in love, or the negative aspects of the aftermath of love.

You also just said "negative" which I assume means you are answering his question with "It is the negative aspects of love that we identify with" and then go on to say that "we are in love with being in love, and nothing more" which suggests instead that you feel we identify with the positive aspects of love more.

I guess the question was complex enough after all to justify being its own thread.

[Shenlon]

I would have to say that I think most people identify with the positive aspects of love. I mean, love can make someone do some pretty great - or pretty terrible - (or pretty stupid) things. But it is an upward momentum. It is an active drive, not a reactive or neutral emotion. Yea.

And while I guess someone could say 'well by that understanding almost all emotions are positive because they make you want to do something'. And that is true. To all of you I say go away. And after thinking about it some more, I realize that instead of telling you to go away, I really mean that the fundamental difference is love is an emotion that I believe <i> should be </i> tailored toward someone or something else. You do things for them. Not because of or in spite of. When you're super sad/depressed and want to kill yourself, well, you may also want to kill yourself for loads of other reasons, like to escape torture, or to end current suffering, or from curiosity. When you're angry, and it's one of those deep-seated angers that doesn't rely on momentary passion, I am of the opinion that people do things for themselves. Anger is a selfish emotion. But love...

What other emotion can drive someone to do all sorts of crazy things for the sake of making someone else feel better or to be happy? If your heart is broken, you have all that raw emotion and the wound isn't cauterized so it's just bleeding everywhere, with no true outlet, but instead of that being negative I think it's just a positive force that is being blocked. Hell I think if you get your heart broken, you should buy a dog or a cat or a muskrat, and try to channel your unsatisfied, lingering emotions in a way that is applicable to the pet. Or... drink a lot of Whiskey.

[Zageron]

In my opinion 'Love' is the greater sense of rhythmic synchronization with another being. Be it animal or human the sense will be the same. If an extended period of time near someone and healthy arguments, agreements, laughs, and perhaps romance take place, the two will find themselves deeply in sync. Their inner Rhythm will beat steadily with the other.

This Rhythm can be broken by an external force however, be it voluntary or involuntary (rape or a serious accident), when the arguments heat up beyond a certain level, or perhaps the two will spend time apart. The Rhythm will loose it's focus and become out of Sync.

Reading other responses... the Drive that could cause one to try to forcefully synchronize ones beat with another. It is caused by the instability of ones lifestyle or the longing to become synced with another. It works, theres no doubt about it, but one is more likely to create a successful relationship (a perfect synchronization) if they let the beats slowly meet the same tempo.

[All_That_Chaz]

Originally Posted by Shenlon

What other emotion can drive someone to do all sorts of crazy things for the sake of making someone else feel better or to be happy? If your heart is broken, you have all that raw emotion and the wound isn't cauterized so it's just bleeding everywhere, with no true outlet, but instead of that being negative I think it's just a positive force that is being blocked. Hell I think if you get your heart broken, you should buy a dog or a cat or a muskrat, and try to channel your unsatisfied, lingering emotions in a way that is applicable to the pet. Or... drink a lot of Whiskey.

It is this part of your post that interests me the most. I have to say I completely disagree with you when you say that you're upset simply because you have so much love to give and no one to impart it upon. If this were the case, yes, a pet would probably solve a lot of the problems. Or quickly getting into another relationship would also do it. However, this rebounding often doesn't really assuage the depression but only reaffirms how miserable you are without the person you had before. The rebound relationship can never live up to the serious relationship you had prior. It only serves to solidify the feelings you had for the person you're no longer with, making them even more special, and making you even more depressed because you're no longer with them.

[Shenlon]

Chaz, I believe you misunderstood what I meant. I never once said anything about someone being upset because they have all this love to give and no one who wants it, but I see how you can take that from my paragraph. Let me try to be more clear. What I meant was that if your heart is broken, and you come out of a serious relationship or a relationship where you may/may not have been in love but it certainly felt that way to you, to suddenly be denied the opportunity for channeling all that love, can lead to heartache and misery. A pet is an aid to getting over heartache. Substitution is a common form of therapy. But it was just a simple example. The inherent problem with rebound relationships is that they aren't meant to last, but to say they are often counter-productive I think isn't true. A rebound is there to help you get over a girl or boy. And yea - they might depress you or fail to capture your interest/heart for a laundry list of reasons but the fact you've gotten another person is a step in the right direction. That is to say, trying to move on, and channeling those pent up feelings you have.

Of course the stifling feeling of heartache could simply evaporate. It's a complicated thing (no ****) and I'm no love doctor. Well I am... but unless you want advice on spicing up your sack life, I'm really just throwing out ideas. Truth be told my opinion on this has changed, and I suspect it'll change again depending on how I feel. Sigh.

[All_That_Chaz]

I really don't see how I misunderstood you. What I said was that I don't believe in the effectiveness of substitution in the case of getting over a serious relationship. However, I think there is room to disagree with my opinion and after all, that's kind of what I'm trying to get at with this topic.

So just so I get where you're coming from; you associate love more to the positive feelings while you're in love than to the negative feelings when it is absent, correct?

[Frozen Beat]

I had love once.

And I don't want it again.

In this case. Love is a negetive thing.

[Lipidman]

Is unrequited love classified as something else? It's been said that love can either be associated with the positive feelings while in love or the negative feelings when love is absent, but what about love that is absent (in a reciprocal sense) and yet you still feel the postive effects of being in love?

[All_That_Chaz]

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]

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]

Immediately thought of this.

[Lipidman]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

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]

Originally Posted by Lipidman

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]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

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]

Originally Posted by Lipidman

"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]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

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]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

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.