What exactly is "love"?

[TwoShanks]

In the suicide thread, there was a bit of discussion about the idea of a set amount of available "love" from each person.

My question is: What is "love"? Does it make any sense to say you give "all your love" to something or someone?

What does it mean when people say "I love X", where X is whatever?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by TwoShanks
My question is: What is "love"?

Love is a grave mental disease. -- Plato

[Yahweh]

Philosophical explanation:
Love is a term invented by humans to describe a complex human emotion related to intense emotional attachment (usually resulting through familiarity) and/or sexual desire/affection.

Love is also a score of zero in tennis.

[Yahweh]

"Love Is" is a cartoon strip that appears in the newspaper about 2 naked 8 year olds who are married...

[Fun2BFree]

Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another-unknown author

[Sundog]

Love is that feeling I get every day, after I've driven home and am walking to the front door; that feeling that, any moment now, I'm going to see my precious wife.

Awww.

[Dancing David]

Sundog, you are sooo right.

Love is often mistaked for suffering. Or control.

[csense]

This is the best description of Love I have ever read:

(from The Prophet / Kahlil Gibran)
Then said Almitra, "Speak to us of Love."

And he raised his head and looked upon the people, and there fell a stillness upon them.

And with a great voice he said:

When love beckons to you follow him,

Though his ways are hard and steep.

And when his wings enfold you yield to him,

Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.

And when he speaks to you believe in him,

Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden.

For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.

Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,

So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.

Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.

He threshes you to make you naked.

He sifts you to free you from your husks.

He grinds you to whiteness.

He kneads you until you are pliant;

And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast.

All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.

But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,

Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor,

Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.

Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.

Love possesses not nor would it be possessed;

For love is sufficient unto love.

When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, I am in the heart of God."

And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

Love has no other desire but to fulfil itself.

But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:

To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.

To know the pain of too much tenderness.

To be wounded by your own understanding of love;

And to bleed willingly and joyfully.

To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;

To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy;

To return home at eventide with gratitude;

And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips.

[fishbait]

"There is a fine line between love and nausea" - King Joffee Jaffa of Zamunda

[TwoShanks]

Heh, and there i was expecting some long philosophical arguments.. I find it interesting that something that has always been among the most important things in human life doesn't seem to have come under all that much scrutiny from the philosophers..

Then again I'm a physics student, so I wouldn't really know if it had.

Any of the philosophy folks on the board like to chip in? Interesting Ian perhaps?

[demon]

"Love and hate are two horns on the same goat."

"The Vikings" 1958

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by TwoShanks
Heh, and there i was expecting some long philosophical arguments.. I find it interesting that something that has always been among the most important things in human life doesn't seem to have come under all that much scrutiny from the philosophers..

Then again I'm a physics student, so I wouldn't really know if it had.

Any of the philosophy folks on the board like to chip in? Interesting Ian perhaps?
I think I did a good job of describing love in philosophical terms. The fact is, everyone knows what love is, and few will differ in opinion describing it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Kate Millett ( I have no idea )
The concept of romantic love affords a means of emotional manipulation which the male is free to exploit, since love is the only circumstance in which the female is (ideologically) pardoned for sexual activity.

This seems to be another version of the saying:

" Men play at love in order to have sex, women play at sex in order to have love.. "

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Love is the value one places on another.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

In my opinion, LOVE is the value one places on another.

Each person will experience the emotions associated and often confused with Love.

To properly experience true love one has to have a criteria for valuing another. Otherwise one renders the mind worthless and allows irrational emotions to take over the value application.

Love, therefore, is to be used modestly as it is also a gift of sorts.

The reason people cannot understand what it means to be loved is because people do not think about what they are feeling and why.

Ultimately, to the rational person love is like a light switch. One can turn it on or off or adjust its value.

To the Objectivist proper application and use of love is very easy because we Objectivists have an absolute moral standard and we judge others based on how well one lives according to this standard.

Max

[Gregor]

Love is . . .

I was going to make a joke about getting out of his house before Sundog gets home, but I'll refrain.

My own two zlotys:

For those 'in love' - it is a psychological crutch to forget or diminish the stresses of life and personal insecurities by constructing a false image that you and another person will provide for, defend, and accept each other even with all your faults and through all of life's trials. It can be combined with sexual attraction or not. It is a mental bandaid to avoid having to deal with bad stuff.

For those seeking 'love' or who have lost 'love' - it is a psychological whipping boy on which people place their personal insecurities, rather than rationally dealing with those insecurities.

Not quite Byron

[AtheistWorld.Com]

The fact is, everyone knows what love is, and few will differ in opinion describing it.

LOL! So everyone knows what it is but nbody can define it in any certain terms?

In truth, VERY FEW people know what love is.
To know what love is one has to understand it and to understand it one has to study it and having studied it one has to set its standards based on a logical criteria.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Gregor
Love is . . .

I was going to make a joke about getting out of his house before Sundog gets home, but I'll refrain.

My own two zlotys:

For those 'in love' - it is a psychological crutch to forget or diminish the stresses of life and personal insecurities by constructing a false image that you and another person will provide for, defend, and accept each other even with all your faults and through all of life's trials. It can be combined with sexual attraction or not. It is a mental bandaid to avoid having to deal with bad stuff.

For those seeking 'love' or who have lost 'love' - it is a psychological whipping boy on which people place their personal insecurities, rather than rationally dealing with those insecurities.

Not quite Byron

Someone's hurting. ;)

I don't want to argue the point, but as true as that may be in some cases, it's certainly not a general rule.

Love can be a completely honest, completely wholesome human relationship, between two people who simply enjoy each other's company above that of all others. Those who can't understand that, simply haven't achieved it yet. IMHO of course.

Is this your sock?

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Love can be a completely honest, completely wholesome human relationship, between two people who simply enjoy each other's company above that of all others.

How does one come to the conclusion that love is the same as relationship?:confused: :rolleyes:

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com


How does one come to the conclusion that love is the same as relationship?:confused: :rolleyes:

Main Entry: re·la·tion·ship
Pronunciation: -sh&n-"ship
Function: noun
Date: circa 1744
1 : the state of being related or interrelated <studied the relationship between the variables>
2 : the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship: as a : KINSHIP b : a specific instance or type of kinship
3 a : a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings <had a good relationship with his family> b : a romantic or passionate attachment

Don't start with me. :D :D

[AtheistWorld.Com]

I think you need to stop reading between the lines.

Love is either an irrational reaction/response to one's circumstances relative to a person or persons or it is a logical sum of one's values for another as I have explained above.

To the Objectivist love is a simple cold hard fact and very knowable. To the irrational love is an unexplainable or undefinable emotional experience.

It is very simple, really!:wink8:

[Sundog]

I really don't care care about the chemistry involved. Nor do I care what is happening in my brain chemically when I enjoy a symphony. I acknowledge the physical causes, but I have no intention of letting that reduce my enjoyment of them.

Sure, love can have psychological causes; it doesn't deny its reality. We simply like being around each other. A lot. We don't have some sort of codependent relationship where one is emotionally leeching on the other, etc.

As for the contention that love is somehow emotionally dishonest, my thinking is that love, like pain, is experienced differently by different personalities. I've been with my wife for ten years and, although we of course couldn't prove it to the outside world (except of course for our video, $24.95 plus tax) we have no doubt between ourselves what's going on.

I think sometimes people judge love by the love THEY'VE found so far; that's understandable but limiting, in my view.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

:rolleyes:

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
:rolleyes:

Well, if that's the best you can do, please place me on ignore; you probably won't like anything else I think either.

:p

[AtheistWorld.Com]

Love is very logical and very rational to the rational. Love is only irrational for people who are themselves poorly educated and have little or no knowledge of logic and objectivity.

Emotions can come into play to the extent one allows them to. Again, an emotion, to the logical person is a form of reward a way one rewards oneself by allowing onesellf to endulge in them. But emotions do not have to come into play if one does not allow it.

It all comes down to self control and self discipline.

It takes practical living as an objectivist to become disciplined in self control and cool headedness if you get my drift.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by AtheistWorld.Com
Love is very logical and very rational to the rational. Love is only irrational for people who are themselves poorly educated and have little or no knowledge of logic and objectivity.

Emotions can come into play to the extent one allows them to. Again, an emotion, to the logical person is a form of reward a way one rewards oneself by allowing onesellf to endulge in them. But emotions do not have to come into play if one does not allow it.

It all comes down to self control and self discipline.

It takes practical living as an objectivist to become disciplined in self control and cool headedness if you get my drift.

LOL, fine, Mr. Spock. You live your logical, clinical life and I'll live my human one. I wonder who'll enjoy it more? But the arguments about education will get you nowhere around here; we call that an ad hominem argument. Around here you have to USE your logic, not just brag about it, or we take you down.

[Ricomise]

Does "love" actually exist as a coherent phenomenon?

It appears to me that Yahweh has come the closest with this definition:

Love is a term invented by humans to describe a complex human emotion related to intense emotional attachment (usually resulting through familiarity) and/or sexual desire/affection.

I mean, think of all the different ways we use the word. Platonic love, romantic love, love of country, I love chocolate ice cream....

I would go even further and say that it is a term used to describe a set of several different emotional responses that occur in different combinations.

Without minimizing the emotional attachment people (like Sundog) may have for one another, I'm not sure I believe there is any single emotion that could be labelled "love."

[LillyThePink]

Love is patient and kind; love in not jealous, or conceited, or proud; love is not ill mannered, or selfish, or irritable; love does not keep a record of wrongs; love is not happy with evil, but is happy with truth. Love never gives up; its faith, hope, and patience never fail.

Love is eternal.


Just to upset y'all

I think Yahweh said it best. Very concise as well :) *applause*

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Ricomise
Does "love" actually exist as a coherent phenomenon?

It appears to me that Yahweh has come the closest with this definition:



I mean, think of all the different ways we use the word. Platonic love, romantic love, love of country, I love chocolate ice cream....

I would go even further and say that it is a term used to describe a set of several different emotional responses that occur in different combinations.

Without minimizing the emotional attachment people (like Sundog) may have for one another, I'm not sure I believe there is any single emotion that could be labelled "love."

Absolutely right. Let me make clear that I am only talking about love in the sense of Yahweh's definition.

[AtheistWorld.Com]

or selfish

LOL! That is exactly one of the characteristics of love, selfishness and it is avirtue.

[LillyThePink]

In what way is love selfish?

I think loving someone and wanted them to be happy regardless makes one self-sacrificing, rather than selfish.

Don't confuse love with orgasm, ok? ;)

[Sundog]

Everyone gets the quality of love they deserve.

If you think love is selfish, take a look in the mirror.

[Mercutio]

I have an exercise I use for my students, when we talk about methodology in psychology. I ask them to "define love." Then, after they know a bit about methodology, I ask them to "operationally define love." The latter seems to me to be what dotcom is speaking of when "objectively" defining love; it would behoove us to remember than any operational definition is necessarily incomplete, just a way for us to derive numbers from a more complex topic.

My point, however, pertains to the first assignment. I ask them to define love, and well over 2/3 of them include some version of the phrase "love cannot be defined", ironically making the phrase predictable enough to use as part of a definition. Overall, their answers are remarkably similar to one another--it would appear that we only think we are talking about the undefinable.

Part of the ephemeral nature of "love", in my opinion, is that we are making what some logicians call a "category mistake" when we use the word. We say that writing poems, sending roses, singing underneath balconies, feeling our heartbeats skip, etc. (and who among us could not fill a page with such symptoms), are done because of love. This leaves love itself, the power behind the curtain, undefined. In truth, all these symptoms are love. Love is the emergent property which we define by seeing these behaviors. In a sense, love exists because of those behaviors (that is to say, we say it is love because we see someone climbing a balcony to talk to, oh, let's call her Juliet), rather than the behaviors existing because of love.

Of course, there will be some who prefer their love mysterious and unexplained. I personally think love is incredible enough to withstand a bit of philosophical dissection. After all, the heart still does skip a beat, the roses still smell as sweet, and Juliet still doth teach the torches to burn bright, whether we understand cardiology, olfactory sensation, or oxidation or not.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Of course, there will be some who prefer their love mysterious and unexplained. I personally think love is incredible enough to withstand a bit of philosophical dissection. After all, the heart still does skip a beat, the roses still smell as sweet, and Juliet still doth teach the torches to burn bright, whether we understand cardiology, olfactory sensation, or oxidation or not.

Whoof. After such a dazzling display of language skills I need a glass of water.

Very well said!

[Mark]

"Love is the condition wherein someone else's welfare and happiness are crucial to your own." ---Spider Robinson

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Mark
"Love is the condition wherein someone else's welfare and happiness are crucial to your own." ---Spider Robinson

Heinlein, I think? From "Time Enough for Love". I can agree 100% with that definition.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Sundog


Heinlein, I think? From "Time Enough for Love". I can agree 100% with that definition.

He said something very, very similar, if I recall. Spider made it a bit more succinct, though. I agree with it, too; kind of brings the whole thing right down to its essence, I think.

[Ricomise]

In a sense, love exists because of those behaviors (that is to say, we say it is love because we see someone climbing a balcony to talk to, oh, let's call her Juliet), rather than the behaviors existing because of love.

This is an interesting idea. Does "love" exist in the absence of those behaviors however? In other words, unless I engage in those behaviors that we (collectively) would describe as "love," I do not possess that characteristic? If I stay on the ground and keep hidden while Juliet talks to moon, I can not be "in love?" (Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to clarify for myself what is being proposed.)

And what if I do climb the balcony, but stab Juliet with my sword? (I'm angry with her, or just feeling a bit peckish.) Is my (described) emotional state dependent upon my behavior, or is it the other way around?

Perhaps I'm not completely understanding your idea.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Ricomise


This is an interesting idea. Does "love" exist in the absence of those behaviors however? In other words, unless I engage in those behaviors that we (collectively) would describe as "love," I do not possess that characteristic? If I stay on the ground and keep hidden while Juliet talks to moon, I can not be "in love?" (Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to clarify for myself what is being proposed.)

And what if I do climb the balcony, but stab Juliet with my sword? (I'm angry with her, or just feeling a bit peckish.) Is my (described) emotional state dependent upon my behavior, or is it the other way around?

Perhaps I'm not completely understanding your idea.
A word, even "love", is defined by its use. Staying hidden on the ground, pining away silently for Juliet, would I believe be accepted by our language community as an example of love. (Actually, we would tend to say that love "made you" pine away--which was addressed in my earlier post). As for stabbing her, remarkably few (this is just a guess on my part, based on my observations within this language community) people would consider that something you did "because of love" (we, perhaps in order to insulate ourselves from that sort of possibility, usually call it "obsession", "madness", or some other pejorative--each of which is also a categorical noun describing a class of behaviors. Isn't this fun?)

It is absolutely understandable that this idea is hazy. We are used to language examples with easily indicated objects. We are taught that the word "red" is associated with a particular color, and with the exeption of the colorblind and those with no fashion sense, we have very good agreement as to which things are "red". But when you learn "love" or "pain" or "madness", you are learning to label your own feelings from people who have no access to them! They look at your behavior and infer that you are in love (or in pain, or mad). You may very well be, but it might also be indigestion. To the extent that there is not an exact match between your behaviors and that internal state you are learning a label for, we simply will have hazy definitions.

It is a bit counter-intuitive--even though we are the only people with direct access to our feelings of love, pain, or madness, we are less likely to accurately describe them than we are to describe more public objects. (This includes the sort of confusion that your question quite rightly points out.) Just bear in mind that the feeling and the word are not the same thing, and that we learned the word from those people who did not have access to the feeling.

Did that help?

Edited to add: Oh, and thanks, Sundog!

[bignickel]

It's savage and it's cruel
And it shines like destruction
Comes in like the flood
And it seems like religion
It's noble and it's brutal
It distorts and deranges
And it wrenches you up
And you're left like a zombie

It's guilt edged
Glamorous and sleek by design
You know it's jealous by nature
False and unkind
It's hard and restrained
And it's totally cool
It touches and it teases
As you stumble in the debris

-Eurythmics

[Ricomise]

Thanks for the explanation, Mercutio.

I completely agree that our "labels" for emotions are learned from external sources, and as such may or may not correspond to the emotions others equate with the same label.

I still wonder, however, about whether you think that "love," as a discreet phenomenon, actually exists. In other words, is "love only a set of behaviors that we, or others observing us, label as "love," or is it something else?

I probably wasn't clear with my examples, and I understand that "pining" for someone would likely be construed as love by others, and stabbing someone would not.

My question was whether remaining silent (without any behavior that might even be construed as pining) would negate the possibilty that "love" still somehow existed. Or, could I still "love" Juliet, even if I never manifested any behavior that might be construed as "love."

In a similar vein, is it only my action of stabbing Juliet that means that I "hate" or am "angry" with her, or do those concepts exist independantly of any behavior on my part.

I hope these questions do not seem silly, I have always been interested in exactly what emotions are, especially more complex ones like "love." I've often wondered whether we experience them only in the context of what we percieve to be others reactions to them.

[Sundog]

To me, the essence of what I'm calling love is this. It's not in the act of actually giving my wife flowers; it's in the thrill I get in buying them, knowing how happy it will make her. It's not in demonstrations of love, it's in looking in each other's eyes and knowing the other person feels the same thing you do. It's not in buying her a new car, it's in wishing that I could. Love is an emotion, to me, first off and above all.

[Ricomise]

it's in the thrill I get in buying them, knowing how happy it will make her

I've always been partial to this definition myself, Sundog. But as I've gotten older, I've begun to wonder what differentiates one thrill from another.

I feel good when I get flowers for my girlfriend because I know she likes them. I feel good when I can help my friend move, or take his car to the shop, or just talk about his problems, because that helps to make him happy. I feel good when I can make an aquaintance laugh when I know they've been feeling bad. I feel good when I can help someone I don't know by whatever means I have to do so.

So, are all these instances of "love?" If so, are they different kinds of "love?" The feelings are all pretty similar. Why do I say I "love" some of these people. Is it because there is also some physical attraction present? Or is it because I've always been taught that some of these are instances of "love" and others of "altruism" or some other idea.

I'm not sure that the answer really matters, but it has made me take a much closer look at what label I put on different "feelings" I have.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Ricomise


I've always been partial to this definition myself, Sundog. But as I've gotten older, I've begun to wonder what differentiates one thrill from another.


All I can say is from a personal standpoint, the thrill I'm talking about is not comparable to any other. :)

[Mercutio]

Ricomise, if you don't mind, I'll answer your question using Sundog's beautiful post:
Originally posted by Sundog
To me, the essence of what I'm calling love is this. It's not in the act of actually giving my wife flowers; it's in the thrill I get in buying them, knowing how happy it will make her. It's not in demonstrations of love, it's in looking in each other's eyes and knowing the other person feels the same thing you do. It's not in buying her a new car, it's in wishing that I could. Love is an emotion, to me, first off and above all.

Love is not a "discrete phenomenon", nor is it a particular set of behaviors. It is a fuzzy category, only completely defined when we have every usage of the word (again, meaning comes from usage, not vice versa). The thrill Sundog feels is itself a behavior (albeit a private one), as is getting lost in one another's eyes, or wishing you could buy her a car. All uses of the word define the word, because it is a categorical rather than a specific word.

Our misunderstandings come when we treat it like a specific noun, and see that we have an undefinable word on our hands. Then comes "how do I know you mean the same thing I mean when I say I love you?" and a simple misunderstanding ends with broken hearts and thrown vases.

edited to fix unforgivable spelling error.

[Ricomise]

Thank you to both Sundog and Mercutio for your eloquent insights.

What I understand you both to be saying is that "love" is defined by the individual that is feeling it. That is, "love" is whatever I experience it as. (This may be an oversimplification, but what the hell.)

Then comes "how do I know you mean the same thing I mean when I say I love you?"

And this is exactly the kind of thing that got me thinking about this! I get the feeling that when my girlfriend says "I love you," she means something quite different than when I say it. As I stated previously, I don't know that it's very important that there be a definition of "love," but it has bothered me from time to time.

Thanks again for indulging my curiosity as to how others view this question.

[Gregor]

As an even more objectivist addition to my prior definition. . .

'Love' is a bio-feedback loop. Your body releases endorphines when you contrive to behave in a certain manner and elect to believe certain facts as true. Your brain convinces itself that a condition exists that is 'emergent' - i.e. the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

This false construct is demonstrated when you 'fall out of love' quickly when you see your beloved show affection for another.

-- Oops, I forgot. I needed to post this in the materialist science forum.

For the Philosophy forum,

let me dig around here in my psyche. . .

. . . hold on . . .

Um, um, I seems to recall some Pope, some Emerson,

well, let me get some Merlot, and I'll get back to you.

[Yahweh]

Ricomise:

It appears to me that Yahweh has come the closest with this definition:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love is a term invented by humans to describe a complex human emotion related to intense emotional attachment (usually resulting through familiarity) and/or sexual desire/affection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LillyThePink:

I think Yahweh said it best. Very concise as well *applause*


Sundog:

Absolutely right. Let me make clear that I am only talking about love in the sense of Yahweh's definition.


Thank you guys so much! :)