Love makes sense for me:
Love is one of the greatest forms of (subjective) truth.
"What more, in the name of love?"
But there are countless other factors in it, though I don't like to get involved in the messy emotions. I do... admit... to having them, and I understand it is an essential part of being human, whether I like it or not.
Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.
love is something you do, not just something that *is*
Love is a feeling, love is an ideal, love is a connection between people.
I don't understand the love=mood thing . Moods seem too "big".
moods seem to changable. feelings seem to changable.
"Something you do" seems meaningless :wink:
I'm not trying to make your perspective seem meaningless, just trying even out the score...
there are days every now and then when the feeling is not there and the mood is not there... but you still love that person... you still live with him, share your life with him... that's love
Edited for gayness.
I'm saying it's a long term thing, something not dependent on mood
Love is the feeling of mutual respect and benefit.
respect -> trust, good-willed actions towards each other, trust in the other person's abilities
benefit -> Both get a mental and physical satisfaction from love, neither has to "sell their soul" to be loved
I was trying to decide how to answer this and then I saw Kristiina's answer, and she pretty much nailed it IMO.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Connection. Something sparks over and you realize that there's a link between yourself and this beautiful, interesting person. Someone who is not yourself and who might be a bit weird or inexplicable, but it's like you could reach out and kiss their soul if you wanted to. It's like they could do the same with you.
Feeling safe in their presence. Accepting someone and being accepted. Feeling free to be yourself. Knowing you don't have to change to please them.
It's also about loyalty and keeping promises. My husband said that for him, saying "I love you" is a promise, not just a feeling. I kind of liked that.
ew, I don't ask for any promises
I like Kristiina's answer a lot as well.
Perceivers "do" love, judges recognize love.Originally Posted by Joy
I guess geniuses explore love.
I have no idea how I define it.
I've never really felt love before.
Both of those are meaningless unless you feel love. The "doing" might mean nothing, it could simply be a coincidence and how do you tell if they're "doing" because they actually love you or if it's just something they'd do anyway? Recognising love is not *love*, merely a perception (smelling roses is not *roses*, merely smelling roses).Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
I'm not trying to put down anyone elses' point of view, I'm just trying to express my own views on a subject that's very difficult for me to talk about and I hope I haven't offended anyone in the meantime
How does one recognise love, anyway?
For me, "to love" means to firmly believe in something(/someone), to uncompromisingly stand for it, defend it, support it, nurture it, accept it as it is and never oppose it.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
It wasn't about that. It's rather like you freely offer your commitment, and the other person never pressurizes you. It's simply your own decision from start to finish. Rather hard to describe, sorry.Originally Posted by Joy
More specifically, commitment.Originally Posted by Joy
fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza
I was wandering on wikipedia, and I came across this:
Given that, in a relationship both people should be theorethically almost equally in love, then the defintion would be coherent, since both parties would do their best to satisfy the other party needs, with the result of reaching a balance of give-and-take. However, this defintion would be true if and only if we equate love with actions, which do not necessarily stem from a feeling. However, since in most cases actions are results of a feeling, the defintion can be still considered viable, even if we still have to take into account the possibilty of exceptions.Originally Posted by [url
fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza
Edited for gayness.
OK, that's it. Now, I've got to kill you
Ooooh, let him. Fi "for its own protection quickly gives way to humour". (I read that somewhere.) He's an ENFP minus the inhibitions.
Now he'll have to kill me, probably.
I guess I just get a little squirmy when people start throwing around the C word
If any of you can get ahold of it, I would recommend reading Raymond Carver's short story, "What We Talk about When We Talk about Love". Just throwing this out since I have a response paper due on it tomorrow...
I think Carver has a point, though, that sexual love (and only sexual love) is kind of like, in my own words, ephemeral rose-colored shades that one day you put on for someone and the next day you take it off and put it back on for someone else. Love is like lying to yourself, I suppose, that you could have ever loved someone else other than the one you are with.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Originally Posted by Transigent
That is as scary as hell!
It is a very good answer. I was also kind of playing around with words, and thinking aloud - thus I hope not to be taken all too literally.
I think a lot of the difference has to do with the rational-irrational dichotomy too. For irrational types it seems feelings just appear and disappear and there is no sense of "responsibility for my feelings", for rational types there is more of conscious control, but of course we are all humans and no one can fully control their emotions, even if they should so desire, which probably is not to be fully recommended either...
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
You have been born to give and so you give a lot, to many because they seem so good. .. may be they are good but not good enough for you. The Life teaches you about your choices so that one day you know exactly what is yours, what is it you realy like, and who is worth to love and to give. It is not that all these relationships are not important, quite on the opposite, we learn from each ohter and non of the relationsip is waste - it is aleays a new info about yourself and ohters.
I went through the same lesson. May be because we are feelers we have to learn to direct them right. I believe that people are born either takers or givers and the life teaches them to be balanced.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
my point was that love is a lifestyle, not a commitment
Love is just an emotion. Real reasons to actually be together are so rare. Love is overrated! Liking each other in a relationship is at least as important as loving each other. (Otherwise it would be like this, "I love him, but he's soooo annoying!" or "He doesn't appreciate me, but I can't live without him")Originally Posted by Joy
Those "emotions" or "feelings" that you get are chemical.
http://www.cyberparent.com/love/love...-in-love-1.htmWhat Is Chemistry in Love Relationships?
When two people are attracted to each other, a virtual explosion of adrenaline-like nuerochemicals gush forth. Fireworks explode and we see stars. PEA or phenylethylamine is a chemical that speeds up the flow of information between nerve cells.
Also, involved in chemistry are dopamine and norepinephrine, chemical cousins of amphetamines. Dopamine makes us feel good and norepinephrine stimulates the production of adrenaline. It makes our heart race!
These three chemicals combine to give us infatuation or "chemistry." It is why new lovers feel euphoric and energized, and float on air. It is also why new lovers can make love for hours and talk all night for weeks on end.
This is the chemistry or the love sparks we all seek.
Actually when we have chemistry with someone, it's not exactly flattering. In fact, some might call it insulting.
Why? According to Harville Hendrix our brain dumps PEA when we identify someone who can:
1. Finish our childhood business.
2. Give us back what we lost to the socialization process of growing up.
Singles search for love armed with a list of qualities desired in a mate/lover, such as honesty, fidelity, loyalty, sense of humor, intelligence, warmth, etc. Yet when that person appears they say, He/she is a really nice person, but nothing clicked, just no "chemistry."
Unfortunately, we hear that click when we recognize our original parent/child situation. That's when our brain really gets those phenylethylamines and other chemicals moving.
Some people become veritable love junkies. They need chemistry or this chemical excitement to feel happy about and intoxicated by life. Once this initial rush of chemicals wanes (inevitable after six months to three years, depending on the individual and the circumstances), their relationship crumbles. They're soon off again, detectives seeking a quick fix to their forlorn feelings: another chemical high from infatuation.
These love junkies also have one other problem. The body builds up a tolerance to these chemicals. Then it takes more and more chemistry to bring that special feeling of love. They crave the intoxication of chemistry and infatuation.
Many adults go through life in a series of six-month to three-year relationships. If these love junkies stay married, they are likely to seek affairs to fuel their chemical highs.
Only about three percent of mammals are monogamous, mating and bonding with one partner for life. Unfortunately, scientists tell us humans are not one of these naturally monogamous mammals.
Maybe a few injections of vasopressin would help us. It has been called the monogamy chemical.
By isolating male voles before and after mating, scientists found that lifelong mating could be linked to the action of vasopressin. Before mating, the male vole is friendly to male and female voles alike. Within 24 hours after mating, the male vole is hooked for life.
When the chemical vasopressin kicks in, he is indifferent to all females but one. He is also totally aggressive to other males with a classic exhibition of the jealous husband syndrome.
The chemical oxytocin has been termed the cuddling chemical. Linked to milk production in women, oxytocin makes women and men calmer and more sensitive to the feelings of others.
It plays an important role in romantic love as a sexual arousal hormone that signals orgasm and prompts cuddling between lovers before, during, and after lovemaking.
Oxytocin production is derived from both emotional and physical cues. A lover's voice, his/her certain look, or even a sexual fantasy can trigger the release of oxytocin.
When infatuation subsides, a new group of chemicals takes over. This new type of chemical reward is created by endorphins.
These morphine-like opiates calm and reassure with intimacy, dependability, warmth, and shared experiences. Not as exciting or as stressful as PEA, but steadier and more addictive.
The longer two people have been married, the more likely it is that they'll stay married. In part, they become addicted to the endorphins and marital serenity. It is the absence of endorphins that make long-time partners yearn for each other when apart. Absent endorphins also play a part in grief from the death of a spouse.
http://www.oldguy.us/depression/chemistry.phpDopamine (dope·uh·mean): Function: thinking, pleasure, reward, loving feelings. If there’s not enough: lack of concentration, memory problems, lack of joy.
Norepinephrine (nor·eh·pin·ef·rin):Function: arousal, energy, drive. If there’s not enough: lethargy, lack of motivation, inattention, low libido, lack of excitement, poor appetite.
Phenylalanine (fe·nal·al·uh·nean) is an essential amino acid meaning if you’re not getting it from your diet then your brain isn’t getting what it needs to make the neurotransmitters that cause you to feel happy, loving and motivated.
I think "like" has to do with the level of compatability of personalities. That exciting warm love is what the article refers to as infatuation. Like is a prerequisite of long term romantic love, but the compatability of the values and lifestyles of the partners is also necessary. The endorphins are what keep us physically feeling good about the person we're with long term.
That's why I think people should wait at least 3 years to marry or especially have kids with the person they're with, btw.
Let the bitch fest commense.
Joy, I study biology, I know about endorphins and they 3-year theory... I have only one word, "Duh!" :wink:
But if you've been together for 5 years, which is not such a long time if you have children, then liking is so much more important. But I agree, liking is about the "level of compatibility of personalities".
You said it, ishy, you feel love.Originally Posted by Aleesha
It's this intense feeling of wanting to spend every single minute of your life with that person and to know what the person is feeling because you are feeling it, too, and to feel really comfortable and safe when s/he is around. It's this amazing connection with the person. It's not overrated! It's awesome!
The doing really means nothing. You can rationalize and decide you can't be with the person. You can still love him/her. Or you can decide to be with someone because s/he makes you feel a certain way (safe, appreciated, needed, etc.), but you don't love the person.
“Have enough courage to trust love one more time and always one more time.”
― Maya Angelou
“You cannot protect yourself from sadness without protecting yourself from happiness.”
― Jonathan Safran Foer
“The secret of happiness is freedom, the secret of freedom is courage.”
― Carrie Jones, Need
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
so is there a link between "love" and relationship type? does one type of relationship cause "more infatuation" than another type of relationship? is it possible to be infatuated in an information based relationship?
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.