Love

[Akans]

And the sexual attraction as I'm sure you are referring to in your statement, doesn't necessarily stand for "LOVE", so describing an act with an abstract idea may lead to misconceptions which might lead us into a fallacious argument (hence what I just read from this first two pages). Let us try to focus on what 'LOVE' really is-^

No i'm not referring to sexual attraction. And that argument on the first page was really me trying to disprove (unsuccessfully) that love is not just the urge for reproduction.

Love is quite something deep.
I see it as not something easily described, but more like an Essence.
Love is an intangible form. Something everyone has an idea of but something that can't ever be perfect or of this world (like Justice and Virtue)
Love is what we call a strong bond between two individuals. It is something shared, not held by one. Something poetic yet reserved.
It is the greatest muse and the worse of poets.
It is the ruin for many and the trail to greatness for most.
Love is more than the eye can meet, and far greater than what words can give it justice for.
It is simply indescribable^
You might as well ask someone what a color is. You can only describe it by what you know about it, and thus, our outtake on it will always be filled with human biased. So Love is simply indescribable.

Lovely words. I agree with you. But it doesn't explain what love is. You've described it, but not explained the phenomenon of it.

So I see it as a fairly bad example to bring up^

I never used it as an example. I just said that was what made me think about love. I agree that Romeo and Juliet was a bit... unrealistic.

I'm not saying that lust is a bad impulse.

Mmmm... how would it be good then? I'm confused...

Love acts like an impulse, but is rather deeper and more complex than one. It is like a combination of impulse and thought.

I like that explanation XD

Whereas breed out of need begot breed out of love because our species soon grew out of the need to constantly defend and feed ourselves for self-preservation. The natural evolution of human compassion has produced love, and that love itself has evolved over the course of our natural history. In it's basest emotion, it remains the same, but how it is expressed is ever-changing through the generations.

Mmm... so your saying love came from self-preservation? Love has evolved from the need to reproduce? What about maternal love for a child? Or homosexual love? Neither of those accomplish the need to reproduce, yet they still exist.

It's the worst of Shakespeare's tragedies that I've read.

Funnily enough, its also the most popular with the public. The more educated don't like it as much XD

[Morningstar]

Originally Posted by Akans

No i'm not referring to sexual attraction. And that argument on the first page was really me trying to disprove (unsuccessfully) that love is not just the urge for reproduction.

lol.

Mmm... so your saying love came from self-preservation? Love has evolved from the need to reproduce? What about maternal love for a child? Or homosexual love? Neither of those accomplish the need to reproduce, yet they still exist.

Homosexuals- I've already explained this.
Children- That's a case of companionship and a desire to preserve your genetic line. Love has the need to reproduce contained within, and hopefully not too many people feel this towards their children.

Funnily enough, its also the most popular with the public. The more educated don't like it as much XD

Eh. That's the masses for you.

[Dark-Disciple]

Originally Posted by Akans

No i'm not referring to sexual attraction. And that argument on the first page was really me trying to disprove (unsuccessfully) that love is not just the urge for reproduction.

But still, this statement gave it that connotation:

its hard to get your mind off the boy/girl you like,

So I rest my case^

Originally Posted by Akans

Lovely words. I agree with you. But it doesn't explain what love is. You've described it, but not explained the phenomenon of it.

As I stated at the bottom of it, I wasn't trying to explain it, I was describing it so as to have some ground to stand with, in order to attempt to explain why such things are the way they are..... And thus, start closing on an idea we can all relate to.

Originally Posted by Akans

I never used it as an example. I just said that was what made me think about love. I agree that Romeo and Juliet was a bit... unrealistic.

No, and I agree. As I said, [like you apparently], I just wouldn't use it as a source for this argument.

Originally Posted by Akans

Mmmm... how would it be good then? I'm confused...

Well, one could say that the impulse for sexual intercourse is good because as we all know, it is a needed part of a marriage to show your partner that you "love" them. Its just an impulse that happens to be in need of oppression more than the other impulses, but that doesn't make it a bad one^

Originally Posted by Akans

I like that explanation XD

^_^
Thank you^
I guess if more people agree to it, we can build it up and go in more detail with it^

Originally Posted by Akans

Mmm... so your saying love came from self-preservation? Love has evolved from the need to reproduce? What about maternal love for a child? Or homosexual love? Neither of those accomplish the need to reproduce, yet they still exist.

Yeah, that statement of his confused me a little as well.
I wouldn't completely refute it though, due to how it does seem to have some truth in it. However, seeing as how Akans pointed out the fact that it doesn't apply to all kinds of love in general, we should try to attempt to reach first an idealistic and general meaning before we get into specifics.

Originally Posted by Akans

Funnily enough, its also the most popular with the public. The more educated don't like it as much XD

Like I said, it's a brilliant play. And such being due to the timelessness of the points stated on it. I mean, you have to give the man credit. Thousands of years from now, kids will still be able to read this play and relate to it in some way, so it does in fact do a great job at impacting the masses. Saying that the higher intelligentsia doesn't really enjoy it as much is quite a bleak overstatement though^

[Morningstar]

Originally Posted by Dark-Disciple

Like I said, it's a brilliant play. And such being due to the timelessness of the points stated on it. I mean, you have to give the man credit. Thousands of years from now, kids will still be able to read this play and relate to it in some way, so it does in fact do a great job at impacting the masses. Saying that the higher intelligentsia doesn't really enjoy it as much is quite a bleak overstatement though^

I enjoyed the language and quality of writing, but the plot was terrible.

The only reason teenagers can relate to it is because they think every three day long relationship is true love.

[Dark-Disciple]

The only reason teenagers can relate to it is because they think every three day long relationship is true love.

^Amen to that, dude^
__________________

[Morningstar]

Originally Posted by Dark-Disciple

^Amen to that, dude^
__________________

Eh, that's teenagers for you.

[Raticus]

Originally Posted by Akans

Mmm... so your saying love came from self-preservation? Love has evolved from the need to reproduce? What about maternal love for a child? Or homosexual love? Neither of those accomplish the need to reproduce, yet they still exist.

Putting words of ignorance in my mouth is not appreciated. If you want to dissect others' posts paragraph by paragraph, then do it correctly and respectfully.

What I'm saying is that out of this instinct came love that evolved naturally with our species. Love has always been natural, but never really explainable in it's finer aspects, but in one sense of it's explanation it has grown out of a mere need for self-preservation. We do not love for self-preservation anymore, as we have many resources available to us to live comfortable lives. However, we still seek out these emotions that love instills in us and that it has evolved past it's primordial meaning and intent into many forms of love including the ones you have mentioned.

I also recieved a message from Dark-Disciple stating that I made a good point, but did not contribute to what we can define as "love". In this post I respectfully reply:

Again, as I've said before, love is something that has grown into many facets of the original term. It is ever-changing and evolving, and with each generation comes a new perception on what love and passion entails. It is something that can easily be defined in it's broadest sense, but as far as the specifics, it would take volumes to fully explore what it means to us as a species.

[Dark-Disciple]

Again, as I've said before, love is something that has grown into many facets of the original term. It is ever-changing and evolving, and with each generation comes a new perception on what love and passion entails. It is something that can easily be defined in it's broadest sense, but as far as the specifics, it would take volumes to fully explore what it means to us as a species.

Quoted for truth^
I do believe I owe you an apology then. I was wrongfully mislead.

Eh, that's teenagers for you.

Now, I was thinking, and here's an interesting question:

Does this mean that Maturity is a requirement for "Love"?
And also:

The only reason teenagers can relate to it is because they think every three day long relationship is true love.

If it is obviously impossible for someone to fall in love with someone else in the passing of three days, what would you say would be a fair amount of time, since you were soo willing to give us that limitation^


(p.s. this is not an attack, so don't view it as one. I just want to get a point across. Do please answer though^)

[Morningstar]

Originally Posted by Dark-Disciple

Now, I was thinking, and here's an interesting question:

Does this mean that Maturity is a requirement for "Love"?

It would seem so.

But then again, there are simple people who are 'in love', and happy.

So maturity really isn't a factor, I'd say. Although the members of the relationship should have a similar maturity level, to make things easier.

Originally Posted by Dark-Disciple

If it is obviously impossible for someone to fall in love with someone else in the passing of three days, what would you say would be a fair amount of time, since you were soo willing to give us that limitation^


(p.s. this is not an attack, so don't view it as one. I just want to get a point across. Do please answer though^)

I'm not quite so shortsighted to see that as an attack, but thank you for the disclaimer.

This is another one of those situational questions. Three days is definitely not enough to fall in love. You can experience lust, but love is something that requires a good knowledge of the person, and the feeling of comfort when you're around them. To put it in a number, three months of regular communication would make a decent minimum.

[Raticus]

Originally Posted by Dark-Disciple

Quoted for truth^
I do believe I owe you an apology then. I was wrongfully mislead.

No, no, no. No need for apologies. :3

[Dark-Disciple]

Originally Posted by Shamdeo

No, no, no. No need for apologies. :3

No, but seriously. I can admit when I falter. And that's exactly what I did.^

Originally Posted by Morningstar

It would seem so.
But then again, there are simple people who are 'in love', and happy.
So maturity really isn't a factor, I'd say. Although the members of the relationship should have a similar maturity level, to make things easier.

Hmmmm could you please explain what you mean by Simple People?
I can't formulate a concrete answer unless I have that cleared. I don't want to be mislead again^

Originally Posted by Morningstar

This is another one of those situational questions. Three days is definitely not enough to fall in love. You can experience lust, but love is something that requires a good knowledge of the person, and the feeling of comfort when you're around them. To put it in a number, three months of regular communication would make a decent minimum.

Hmmmmm three months?
Now let me ask you..... If you were, lets say.... trapped on a Deserted Island with someone else, and you were forced to pass every second of your life with that other individual, then would you agree with my logic that such number could in fact be decreased?
My logic here is based in the idea thatTime is but a measurement of change. It is perceptional: {What might seem like half an hour to someone might seem like a year to someone else}, so couldn't we say that Love too is depending on the situation and individuals, and thus, time shouldn't really be a factor?

[Morningstar]

Originally Posted by Dark-Disciple

Hmmmm could you please explain what you mean by Simple People?
I can't formulate a concrete answer unless I have that cleared. I don't want to be mislead again^

People who have no great aspirations, are content to pass the time with some simple rewarding activity, are maybe not the most well educated.

Just for the questions sake.

Hmmmmm three months?
Now let me ask you..... If you were, lets say.... trapped on a Deserted Island with someone else, and you were forced to pass every second of your life with that other individual, then would you agree with my logic that such number could in fact be decreased?
My logic here is based in the idea thatTime is but a measurement of change. It is perceptional: {What might seem like half an hour to someone might seem like a year to someone else}, so couldn't we say that Love too is depending on the situation and individuals, and thus, time shouldn't really be a factor?

I was just trying to put some sort of concrete number, but I agree with that.

[dantedevilking]

love is too hard too describe, i believe that love is a way for some, if not most people, to feel good with another person. Like Sora and Kairi, they shared their childhood together and now they're all grown up (well mostly, sora's still got some years to catch up on). but nonetheless, they grew older and because they knew eachother so well, and the other person in their life made them feel happ, they fell in love.
THAT'S LOVE MY FORUM FRIENDS.

[Morningstar]

Originally Posted by dantedevilking

love is too hard too describe, i believe that love is a way for some, if not most people, to feel good with another person. Like Sora and Kairi, they shared their childhood together and now they're all grown up (well mostly, sora's still got some years to catch up on). but nonetheless, they grew older and because they knew eachother so well, and the other person in their life made them feel happ, they fell in love.
THAT'S LOVE MY FORUM FRIENDS.

I'm afraid that's not going to cut it.

You might care to elaborate.

[Dark-Disciple]

Originally Posted by dantedevilking

love is too hard too describe, i believe that love is a way for some, if not most people, to feel good with another person. Like Sora and Kairi, they shared their childhood together and now they're all grown up (well mostly, sora's still got some years to catch up on). but nonetheless, they grew older and because they knew eachother so well, and the other person in their life made them feel happ, they fell in love.
THAT'S LOVE MY FORUM FRIENDS.

You lost me as soon as you mentioned the kh analogy.
(I hate doing this.)
Just a couple of posts ago we were arguing on how Romeo and Juliet was a bad example..... Please try to refrain from fictional characters or stories in basing a definition for love.
You do make somewhat a relevant point though^
I believe that in that statement that I placed in bold from your quote, you are basing your argument on the proverb:
"Love is when one soul is shared between two bodies"

Which I must say, is a fairly valid point.
(now, if someone here doesn't believe in the existence of the soul though, we might be a little screwed over.... but yeah, I guess it holds^)

Thank you for your opinion though^
Please elaborate and read our other posts, and feel free to share and post other opinions here^
(^_^)

Originally Posted by Morningstar

People who have no great aspirations, are content to pass the time with some simple rewarding activity, are maybe not the most well educated.

Oh..... so are you saying that a humble farmer can't possibly be a mature individual? (yeah dude, I know you are not, but we if I were to read your argument without any further knowledge, I would believe this after reading this. Bear with me though.... I want to make another point here)

I believe you see maturity as something developed over time and thought by through experience and by our surroundings right?
_______________
Sounds fair...
However, let me bring you back to the whole "Trapped on a Deserted Island" analogy:

If you were there for your whole life, and since there is no outside force or individual acting on you or guiding you on what maturity is, then you would be saying that maturity would be unattainable to that person...

So I was thinking, and I believe I got a little simpler definition for maturity that might help our case:
Isn't maturity just the passing from Self-Centerness and Selfishness into Selflessness and Caring for Others?
Think about it^

Would this then prove to be a certain requirement for love?
I actually feel confident enough about this definition that I'm going to take the liberty to make this next statement:

Wouldn't it be logical that any type of love must be composed of individuals who care more about the other person than themselves?
I believe this is true.......
So then certainly, both individuals must be mature for such relationship to be successful^
So....... maturity is certainly a requirement.

Now Let me slow down and put a question to refute that^
If we were to agree that maturity is a requirement for love, wouldn't that also imply that there should be other requirements?
And if so, maybe we can try to discuss to find those other ones, if in fact there are any others^

Originally Posted by Morningstar

I was just trying to put some sort of concrete number, but I agree with that.

lol^
Yeah dude, Don't worry, I understand.....
I wanted to get to that point, so I guess I should apologize for the rhetorical question ^_^
A point was proven though, so that's always a plus^

[haha, holy crap this is long..... I guess I got a little carried away^
I'm enjoying this^]