Love, what is it?

[Zythus]

Truncated.

[windsurfer-sp]

For a start we are talking about "eros" love.

Originally Posted by wikipedia, Greek words for love

Eros (ἔρως érōs) is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "(romantic) love". However, eros does not have to be sexual in nature. Eros can be interpreted as a love for someone whom you love more than the philia love of friendship. It can also apply to dating relationships as well as marriage. Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. It should be noted Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction". Plato also said eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth by eros.

My own thoughts on love is that it is an extremely complex emotion that probably cant be perfectly described. I know I am in love, yet just trying to begin to describe it is so hard.

Love is suppose to be selfless, so your opinion about love being possessive isn't based on pure love but twisted love. Could you give some examples of where you think love can't be justified by its "shadows" that you claim it to cast.

[Goldenwind]

Note: I am a logical person who needs proof to be certain in something. Aka, I don't believe in religion, however I believe in the POSSIBILITY that it COULD be true (Aka, agnostic).

And I have an animal theory. It's not something I believe to be fact or anything, but just something I theorize could be true.

I'm now happy I wrote up all my theories

What sets the human race apart from the other species? One might argue that the biggest difference is our achievements:
- Culture
- Possessions (Clothing, buildings, stores, cars, computers, etc)
- Language

But are these really differences?

[Picture]
Culture - Many species travel in packs. The leader of those packs (Depending on the species) is sometimes determined by a fight. As another example, bees use the art of dance to relay the location of a flower to their fellow bees.

Possessions - We have houses with closets and different types of flooring and pictures on the wall and, and, and... but is this unique?

Birds have nests, beavers have dams, and so on, but how do we know that they don't decorate or that either? While we don't see picture frames hanging from their walls, I'm sure our picture frames don't exactly look like decorations to them.

[Picture of a cube]
See the picture of a cube? We know it's a cube, as we know from experience that this is what a cube looks like on paper. However, to someone who has never experienced geometry on paper before, this is just a bunch of lines - they can't see the 3D shape. Similar to this, if animals have possessions in their homes, it's unlikely that we'd even notice, much how that person wouldn't recognize a paper-drawn cube.

Language - Monkeys can communicate such that they work as a team. Dogs bark as a means for communication. While we don't really know what they're saying, it's pretty much a given that animals have their own languages. And hey, who says that a dog here speaks the same language or dialect of "woof" as a dog elsewhere in the world? Think about it Barks of accent!


So, are we really that different from animals?
Much like any of my notes, I welcome you to comment and give your own opinion. Theories are only theories, and this is by far one of my more interesting ones

If you accept that we are just another species on the planet, then these concepts follow naturally:
Animals are not below us - You already (should) treat other people the same way you would like to be treated, why not treat animals the same way? (Note: While I'm sure you'd looooove to hug that bear, realize it may not share the same feelings)
We are not above animals - If we're animals, then we carry some similar traits to animals. We can use this to answer some questions, and to notice some flaws in our society:
- You see someone attractive, however it is "unacceptable" to simply act on instinct
- You're hungry, however not being allowed to get a snack, as dinner is being prepared (When the primary purpose of eating is to alleviate hunger. Ironic?)
- Understanding human feelings (Reasons for lust, jealousy, greed. Understanding the motive for rape, as well as why it has such a shattering impact on the victim)
- Understanding implied natural gender roles (Females nurturing, males fighting, etc)
- Understanding specific "immoralities" (Eg, child molesters, polygamy (Human lust isn't magically "disabled" towards children, or when you have a partner))

It's important to realize that this is simply a theory - a way of looking at things. It can help you answer questions about why things are the way they are, or to understand certain concepts. Much like the "Best vs. Right" debate, this simply brings peace of mind, is all.


[Picture]
Walking in someone else's shoes?
Try perceiving the shoeless.

So, with that said, I believe "love" is just a word we use to tack onto this illusion. I don't believe it's magical, or mysterious, but rather could be just everyday mammallian attraction. We as a species seem to believe we're so special, and set apart from every other species... and while that might be true, it seems kind of arrogant to be presumptuous of at the whim of a book or otherwise.

(Reminder: It's a theory, not something I state to be fact)

[LLaMaSaUceYup]

Originally Posted by Goldenwind

So, with that said, I believe "love" is just a word we use to tack onto this illusion. I don't believe it's magical, or mysterious, but rather could be just everyday mammallian attraction. We as a species seem to believe we're so special, and set apart from every other species... and while that might be true, it seems kind of arrogant to be presumptuous of at the whim of a book or otherwise.

(Reminder: It's a theory, not something I state to be fact)

Ooh this is very interesting, ;D
Love can be an addiction
:O

[DoctorSerpentine]

Oh baby don't hurt me.

[funmonkey54]

Love is a feeling of great passion towards another self or being. Everyone has love assuming there is a need of approval within them. Think about it. All people need to be told they have done a good job or they become untrusting and depressive. The person they find this in is the one they "love". Whether they find that for a moment, a while, or long term, that is what we consider to be love.

[~kitty~]

Love is fake in so many ways... there are only a few things that real love is. That, too, is what makes us what we call "human". We are too species and arrogant, but not as much as so to many species to we seen and to a majority. There are low lifes who take "love" for granted and crap, but it is hard to explain, because animals that aren't human don't exactly "love".

You can see this on the fact that animals don't have to travel far and long to find a mate. They do it quick and through calls and stuff of that sort. Love is an advanced brain function, we may find out what love really is later, as of now, most things are theory and what not.


If I don't make sense, don't worry. I am saying this as I go. XD (any spelling or grammar errors, please correct me, especially if you're a forum mod/admin etc.)

[Zythus]

Truncated.

[Zythus]

Truncated.

[windsurfer-sp]

Pure love is the selfless affection that one person feels towards another.

So using that definition, pure love should and can only be a positive thing. Can you please give some examples of some sort of what you are trying to get at here.

[Zythus]

Truncated.

[Jokee]

My biology teacher said that the only purpose of life is surviving. Surviving by being the strongest, hunting down preys to feed yourself up and by passing on your gens. So the brain invent an attraction, a need to find someone else, to keep your ascendence alive.
That's what we call love.

[Zythus]

Truncated.

[WillTalbot]

Originally Posted by Zythus

Do you think pure love exists? does it really?
If you can think of a scenario that shows selfless and selfless ONLY, please care to enlighten me.
Somehow you say my judgment is based on twisted love. its the same being discribed here, twisted or pure.

My reasoning towards this purity, you can't get around possessiveness. Alright, lets say that you got some valid reasons and this love was pure because of selflessness, isn't the relationship still MY wife, HER husband? surely, devotion can be selflessness if you don't get it confused with addict/obsession, but the characteristics of love, you just can't avoid, whether good or twisted.

I believe that pure love exists and it is known as Agape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape. And while this is known to be a spiritual love of purity and perfection that according to Christianity God gives us, i believe that everyone has the potential for achieving this type of love because i believe that everyone is pure in self or in nature, but outside forces and modern day society have sort of erased this type of compassion with like mentioned, abused forms of the word love.

Being in the 9th grade, like almost every other high school the freshman are givin Romeo and Juliet to read as part of the curriculum. Now I didn't finish reading the book yet but as to what i know of it and what i hear about it, the two young lovers seem to do whatever it takes to share their love together with one another as much as possible. Now I mean I know its just a story but they were practically kids and maybe attracted physically so much that they thought it was astrological as I remember.

One last thing that you should consider is that the possibility of possessivness just being a "tag" that us humans created out of the ego, which i believe to be true as for my knoledge holds. And a pure relationship is one of no possession but rather depossession ... if thats even a word. See its a bit hard to explain so ill put it this way, I believe a true marriage is the unification of man and woman so that they not physically, but spiritually become one. While it may be hard to imagine this being possible now adays im sure it was possible back then when there was less interference and more self, self being detatchment from all things except ones self and being purely you. So my conclusion is that a pure relationship is two people in purity, totally their complete self living together in harmony as themselves, not as wife or husband but as one.

[Zythus]

Truncated.

[sarahxjane]

Love is merely another feeling that is triggered from your brain.

[WillTalbot]

Originally Posted by Zythus

Thats an interesting aspect Will, but aside from the whole idea of religion, which is irrelevant, your deposession would be considered devotion? Seeing how if the mutuality of the relationship was accepted, sure, just maybe. However, I would interject that possessive and ego is a characteristic of love, if thats what you mean by tag. I have yet to see purity in love because its immensely political.

As one? do care to explain. How do they feel? How do they justify this purity by being as one?

While religion may be irrelivant it may also influence the truth so it should be taken into consideration. Since it can neither be proven false nor true, it should be stated as possible which I am mearly doing. I don't quite understand what you mean by "your deposession would be considered devotion?" but i think that you mean that by breaking away from all that is but yourself that is considered devotion to your own breaking away ... once again correct me if I'm wrong. But if that is what you mean then don't you think its possible that you can be without any influence, just completely in oneself without trying? For example, does a baby who is born, with no understand of anything in the world "try" to become free of what we consider bad or good or ... whatever ... bottom line is that it just doesn't try. And an important aspect to remember is that the thought of becoming pure is not even in its sub conscious! So technically purity could be without knoldge ... actually i just thought about that but i guess thats a seperate topic.

I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "I have yet to see purity in love because its immensely political." but I'm assuming that you mean that love is so variable with so many interpretations that it would be difficult to find pure love? and even that in itself is variable. lol i'd love to discuss this with you as i too have alot of unanswered questions that i want clarified but i think we both could use a little more clarification.

Well those last questions you asked in your statement are very deep in philisophy atleast to my belief and alot of this is opinion based because if anything were proven to be true, there would nothing to be debated about ... except its being proven true be proven true ... ugh confusing. But ANYWAY I believe that EVERYTHING in nature is one because we are all composed of the same atomic unit, which are atoms! But not only in that are we similar but in spirituality. As for how they feel ... I'm not quite sure since i haven't experienced this for myself but i would presume they would feel EXTREMELY happy, or just not feel at all. And the last statement is easy to dispute because what i'm about to tell you might make the most sense out of what im saying, when we are brought into this world we are ourselves and purely that, as we gain knoledge and understanding we start to drift apart from ourselves, but not in all cases. Anyway, in relation to this topic i believe a pure relationship if composed of two pure people, they don't justify that they are pure, that would be considered using the ego, they just are like the clouds and animals, they just are. Without knowing. I know it is SO HARD to imagine something like this being possible because of our society's influence on our minds but you can't say that it is not possible because you can't prove its not, and if so please do ^_^

I remember this statement from a modern day philosopher known as Michael Tsarion that sort of opened my eyes a bit. And this is not an exact quote but a dog does not see a human for what the humans see themselves as, the dog sees the human for what it purely is, while you can't really prove it, as you can't really prove much it is something i believe because dogs don't have the capacity to logically think things out, so according to my believe they are pure because of that.

[Zythus]

Truncated.

[AquaTeen]

IDK what love is. I feel that love is a stronger feeling of likeliness towards another individual but I also feel that no one can truly know what love really is because to love is to be infatuated so love is basically infatuation. Love seems to be a non-existent feeling. But that's just how I feel other people are entitled to their own opinion concerning love.

[StringsnKeys]

Love is everything that hate is not. Funny how no one seems to have a hard time describing how much they can hate someone...........