NationStates Jolt Archive

People define "love" as many different things, but not usually as "a decision." I would love to know what you think of this. If you like, I can elaborate on this more at a later date.

Humans, besides being rather sophisticated members of the animal kingdom, are also rational and rationalizing beings. True, at times our emotions can completely eliminate rational thought, but most people can, with a bit of practice, overrule their emotions and make rational decisions.

Everyone who has been married, or has been in a long-term relationship, has had moments when they were so angry at the other that they began to question whether they truly "loved" the other person anymore. Where were all those feelings they had when the relationship was young? What happened to that pit of the stomach, semi-dizzy, giddy euphoria?

It's at these points when we need to come to the realization that "feelings" are great, but the real test of love is when the pressure's on and everything seems to be going to hell in a hand basket. This is when we need to remember that love is a decision even more than it is a set of feelings. Sometimes we need to call upon our rational natures, overrule our feelings, and decide to love the other.

In a classic "which came first" question, most people would protest that "love should come first," then the mind will follow. What people mean by this is that feelings of being "in love" should come before we decide that we're in love with another person, a kind of "engage feelings before putting mind in gear." Unfortunately this approach doesn't have a very good track record. When we allow our feelings to dictate our reactions to other people, we wind up on an emotional roller coaster, falling in and out of "love" with alarming regularity.

That's why love is a decision, not "pheromonal attraction," not "two sets of pupils dilating at the same time," and not "I love how you touch me!" When we realize this, we can decide, indeed must decide, sometimes as often as moment to moment, that "yes, I choose to love this person." Put another way: "engage brain before putting emotions in gear!"

* feels warm and fuzzy inside *

:fluffle:

* feels warm and fuzzy inside *

:fluffle:

LOL! Did that come from "love" or from something you ate? :D

* feels warm and fuzzy inside *

:fluffle:

Who is this "warm and fuzzy" person and why are you feeling him inside?

* feels warm and fuzzy inside *

:fluffle:

Way to go, Elmo!!!

You have to fall in love before you decide to love. Otherwise you'll never know anything about that great warm and fuzzy feeling.

People define "love" as many different things, but not usually as "a decision."

Psychologists have also described many different "types" of love. Which are you talking about? Or are you generalising the term?


Humans, besides being rather sophisticated members of the animal kingdom, are also rational and rationalizing beings. True, at times our emotions can completely eliminate rational thought, but most people can, with a bit of practice, overrule their emotions and make rational decisions.

Debateable. When a soldier takes the bullet for another soldier, did he/she have time to make a rational decision in the split second before jumping in front of his/her friend/comrade/etc?

Everyone who has been married, or has been in a long-term relationship, has had moments when they were so angry at the other that they began to question whether they truly "loved" the other person anymore. Where were all those feelings they had when the relationship was young? What happened to that pit of the stomach, semi-dizzy, giddy euphoria?
I can't really comment on this because I haven't experienced it. However, I'm really doubting that I ever will. It would truly shock me to think that I could ever get so angry so as to doubt my love for someone.

It's at these points when we need to come to the realization that "feelings" are great, but the real test of love is when the pressure's on and everything seems to be going to hell in a hand basket. This is when we need to remember that love is a decision even more than it is a set of feelings.
I don't understand your logic. Surely the above means that love is more emotion than rational decisions?


Sometimes we need to call upon our rational natures, overrule our feelings, and decide to love the other.
Oi-fucking-vey!
You're joking right?
There is so much wrong with this...I don't even know where to start!


In a classic "which came first" question, most people would protest that "love should come first," then the mind will follow. What people mean by this is that feelings of being "in love" should come before we decide that we're in love with another person, a kind of "engage feelings before putting mind in gear."

Ah, so we're talking about romantic love!



Unfortunately this approach doesn't have a very good track record. When we allow our feelings to dictate our reactions to other people, we wind up on an emotional roller coaster, falling in and out of "love" with alarming regularity.
What's wrong with this?

That's why love is a decision, not "pheromonal attraction," not "two sets of pupils dilating at the same time," and not "I love how you touch me!" When we realize this, we can decide, indeed must decide, sometimes as often as moment to moment, that "yes, I choose to love this person." Put another way: "engage brain before putting emotions in gear!"
You definitions and logic are too vague for you to make this kind of conclusion.

LOL! Did that come from "love" or from something you ate? :D

No, that came from me just being tired and sleepy at 4:03 AM EST. ;)

Seriously though, I think love is a decision you have to make on some levels, because you have to be able to open yourself up emotionally and what-not with another person, and that takes balls (in a non-male sense).

Refused, will you marry me?

You have to fall in love before you decide to love. Otherwise you'll never know anything about that great warm and fuzzy feeling.
I completely agree... but i dont think love is really a decision... think about it WHATS TO DECIDE?????

Trust me, when you've been trying to talk yourself out of loving someone for two years and it still ain't workin', it ain't a decision.

I've had the "you really have no reason to like this person" thought process actually work before. Quite a few times, in fact, and it has saved me from several emotional hellholes and cost me more than one potential decent relationship. Sometimes, though you just can't talk yourself out of loving someone. If you still get a shit-eating grin on your face every time you think about someone you haven't seen face-to-face for a year, despite telling yourself to act like you hate their guts or just don't care, that's a pretty good indicator that the quesy feeling ain't indigestion.

I completely agree... but i dont think love is really a decision... think about it WHATS TO DECIDE?????
It's not a decision, but sometimes you have to work for your relationship. And be willing to do that. The warm fuzzy feeling may fade if you don't do something about it. I think that's what they mean with decision.

It's the glorification of love as a warm, fuzzy, feeling that "you just know is right" that is the main reason we have so many divorces today.

I think that what Etrusca is trying to say is that, while we can't control the chemical firestorm going on in our head when we "love" someone, we should try and make rational decisions concerning those feelings and that person instead of letting our emotions cause us to do rash things that will hurt them or us.

It's the glorification of love as a warm, fuzzy, feeling that "you just know is right" that is the main reason we have so many divorces today.

I think that what Etrusca is trying to say is that, while we can't control the chemical firestorm going on in our head when we "love" someone, we should try and make rational decisions concerning those feelings and that person instead of letting our emotions cause us to do rash things that will hurt them or us.

This, I can support. There's a distinction between "love" and "lust" (or agape and eros, I guess), that manny peoples can't quite grasp. Sometimes someone is perfect for you and you can hear the voice inside your head grinning whenever you try to ignore it, saying "I know you'll come around, I can wait, you'll admit there's no-one else who can possibly compare sooner or later." On the other hand, sometimes there's a voice in your head that tells you "try it- you'll have a lot of fun, consequences be damned."

They might be saying the same thing in different terms, I'm not an expert on brain language, but there's a bit of persistence involved in the first one...

Humans, besides being rather sophisticated members of the animal kingdom, are also rational and rationalizing beings. True, at times our emotions can completely eliminate rational thought, but most people can, with a bit of practice, overrule their emotions and make rational decisions.
Agreed, I've experienced both sides of the spectrum.

Everyone who has been married, or has been in a long-term relationship, has had moments when they were so angry at the other that they began to question whether they truly "loved" the other person anymore. Where were all those feelings they had when the relationship was young? What happened to that pit of the stomach, semi-dizzy, giddy euphoria?
Possible, but that would either take a monumental fight or a couple who didn't have an exceptionally strong bond.

It's at these points when we need to come to the realization that "feelings" are great, but the real test of love is when the pressure's on and everything seems to be going to hell in a hand basket. This is when we need to remember that love is a decision even more than it is a set of feelings. Sometimes we need to call upon our rational natures, overrule our feelings, and decide to love the other.
Your conclusion does not follow from your statement. That the real test of love is when everything is going downhill is undebatable. However, it is not the logic of the moment that tends to bring people back to the realization of their love; it is the feeling you seem to be scorning. If that feeling were not overriding, people would not continue to remin in relationships that did not benefit them in any particularly definable way. The fact that they do stands as evidence that the emotional side of it is the predominant force.

In a classic "which came first" question, most people would protest that "love should come first," then the mind will follow. What people mean by this is that feelings of being "in love" should come before we decide that we're in love with another person, a kind of "engage feelings before putting mind in gear." Unfortunately this approach doesn't have a very good track record. When we allow our feelings to dictate our reactions to other people, we wind up on an emotional roller coaster, falling in and out of "love" with alarming regularity.
You've never experienced "love at first sight," have you? The fact that I fell in love with my current girlfriend (with whom I am rapidly approaching a three-year relationship) during a period of time in which I hated myself and had decided that love between myself and another human being was an impossability disproves your idea rather rapidly. The fact that I did so the first time I ever met her further underlines the point.

I also make note that, while I have occasionally seen them meet with unfortunate luck in romantic matters, my own experience is that those who turn off the logic and "follow the heart" do not fall out of love with anything less than a traumatic, monumentally negative experience.

That's why love is a decision, not "pheromonal attraction," not "two sets of pupils dilating at the same time," and not "I love how you touch me!" When we realize this, we can decide, indeed must decide, sometimes as often as moment to moment, that "yes, I choose to love this person." Put another way: "engage brain before putting emotions in gear!"
You make a poor argument for logic, as you fail to employ it in your reasoning. I must assume that you base your statements off a handful of negative experiences you have had or witnessed; however, I can assure you that such experiences are not the norm by any means.

Love, by definition, is an emotional thing. If one chooses to love another, I must question whether that love is true or forced. It is also an illogical and irrational thing; examples can be found with occasionally alarming readiness of individuals falling in love with people with whom a relationship was or would be an extremely negative thing; one need look no farther than Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet for a prime example. To say, then, that one should put their logical side ahead of their emotional side in matters of love is folly. To say that people generally do put their logical side first is simply wrong.

You have to fall in love before you decide to love. Otherwise you'll never know anything about that great warm and fuzzy feeling.

Definitely NOT true! I know that for a fact. :)

Trust me, when you've been trying to talk yourself out of loving someone for two years and it still ain't workin', it ain't a decision.

I've had the "you really have no reason to like this person" thought process actually work before. Quite a few times, in fact, and it has saved me from several emotional hellholes and cost me more than one potential decent relationship. Sometimes, though you just can't talk yourself out of loving someone. If you still get a shit-eating grin on your face every time you think about someone you haven't seen face-to-face for a year, despite telling yourself to act like you hate their guts or just don't care, that's a pretty good indicator that the quesy feeling ain't indigestion.
It's probably just your reaction to either their pheremones or their bust size. Take a cold shower. :)

People typically fall in "lust" first. Now this is certainly a partially sexual term, but not entirely. People lust after traits in an individual they desire, and these are not always physical traits, they can also be perceived personality traits.

I'm a current fan of the iron-will behavior, where you put your own personal mental strength over your emotions.

It's the glorification of love as a warm, fuzzy, feeling that "you just know is right" that is the main reason we have so many divorces today.

I think that what Etrusca is trying to say is that, while we can't control the chemical firestorm going on in our head when we "love" someone, we should try and make rational decisions concerning those feelings and that person instead of letting our emotions cause us to do rash things that will hurt them or us.
Yayyyyy! Vittos scores again! :)

People typically fall in "lust" first. Now this is certainly a partially sexual term, but not entirely. People lust after traits in an individual they desire, and these are not always physical traits, they can also be perceived personality traits.

I'm a current fan of the iron-will behavior, where you put your own personal mental strength over your emotions.

I'm not an advocate of completely disregarding emotions.

Why do we have feelings? Feelings are there to call our attention to something we need to think about and consider. They are also there to add color and depth to our relationships. However, if we make decisions based solely on our feelings, we will almost invariably make wrong decisions. Why? Because feelings, by themselves, are notoriously unreliable as a means of decision-making. That's why God, or the Universe, or whatever term you choose, designed us with a brain which has the capacity not only for feelings, but for rational thought as well. If we react strongly to another person, that's feelings. But to make wise choices about what our feelings are telling us requires that we examine why we feel this way and what we're going to do about it...that's rational thought.

Feelings without thought are dangerous. Thought without feelings is colorless. Put another way, feelings are like a wild, untamed stallion; thought is like the bridle and bit you use to control him. Put the two together and you have an exciting, but controllable ride.

From what science has been able to tell us, what we humans often refer to as "love" is, in fact, comprised of a number of different elements.

Pheromones, one of the basic components of smell, are picked up by receptors in the nose and converted to electrical impulses which tell areas of the brain that "here is someone to whom I could be attracted." "The evidence has now become quite strong that humans produce and detect pheromones," agreed Edward W. Johnson of Idaho State University in Pocatello. However, we should note that other researchers say more study is needed to find out if they are as powerful in humans as they are in other species.

Humans, particularly males, are visually oriented, and sights that please us cause what is known as "pupillary dilation" (your pupils dilate when you see something you like).

The parasympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system which mediates sexual arousal, induces such responses as pupillary dilation. When two people look at each other at the same moment, and both sets of pupils dilate, the result is what some people refer to as "love at first sight." We're reacting to the reaction of the other person, as well as to our own reaction to them.

Humans, particularly females, react strongly to the sense of touch. The outer covering of skin is our body's largest "part." Skin makes up about 15% of the body's weight, and occupies some 21 square feet of surface area. Being touched by someone lowers blood pressure, releases endorphins (the brain's equivalent of opium), and causes many other strongly positive reactions. One report of touch deprived women revealed that only a tiny percent had ever had an orgasm.

Taken together, all of these responses lead to sexual attraction, which affects our emotions, which many people translate as "love."

It's probably just your reaction to either their pheremones or their bust size.
No, he's one of the ugliest SOB's I'd ever met at the time, and still probably holds a space in the top ten.

Take a cold shower. :)
That was one of the tactics tried multiple times in the two years of "Don't do it, Jake, you'll ruin both your lives." Works about as well as not eating the green M&Ms.

One definition I've come across relates well to the "decision" aspect of the original post. It does not discount emotions, but considers them effects of love rather than a cause. It also draws a distinct line which differentiates love from lust, and also explains the "you get what you deserve" phenomenon we often see in love.

It basically goes like this: Love is the recognition of one's values in another person.

People define "love" as many different things, but not usually as "a decision." I would love to know what you think of this. If you like, I can elaborate on this more at a later date.

Humans, besides being rather sophisticated members of the animal kingdom, are also rational and rationalizing beings. True, at times our emotions can completely eliminate rational thought, but most people can, with a bit of practice, overrule their emotions and make rational decisions.

Everyone who has been married, or has been in a long-term relationship, has had moments when they were so angry at the other that they began to question whether they truly "loved" the other person anymore. Where were all those feelings they had when the relationship was young? What happened to that pit of the stomach, semi-dizzy, giddy euphoria?

It's at these points when we need to come to the realization that "feelings" are great, but the real test of love is when the pressure's on and everything seems to be going to hell in a hand basket. This is when we need to remember that love is a decision even more than it is a set of feelings. Sometimes we need to call upon our rational natures, overrule our feelings, and decide to love the other.

In a classic "which came first" question, most people would protest that "love should come first," then the mind will follow. What people mean by this is that feelings of being "in love" should come before we decide that we're in love with another person, a kind of "engage feelings before putting mind in gear." Unfortunately this approach doesn't have a very good track record. When we allow our feelings to dictate our reactions to other people, we wind up on an emotional roller coaster, falling in and out of "love" with alarming regularity.

That's why love is a decision, not "pheromonal attraction," not "two sets of pupils dilating at the same time," and not "I love how you touch me!" When we realize this, we can decide, indeed must decide, sometimes as often as moment to moment, that "yes, I choose to love this person." Put another way: "engage brain before putting emotions in gear!"I don't know if you can have a rational decision based on the way you feel. I do know though that the person you fall in love with is rarely part of a long term plan, and not often even good for you.

That's why love is a decision, not "pheromonal attraction,"
First of all, love is the human method of reproduction. You fall in love in order to reproduce with others, it's a biological fact. Physiology is influential in love, but pheromones are not a big factor in humans. Our pheromonal olfactory receptors have dwindled and lost a lot of our ancestors' functionality. Not that they are not a factor, but probably not a very large one.

Humans, besides being rather sophisticated members of the animal kingdom, are also rational and rationalizing beings.
No. Not at all. Our neocortex allows us some more logical thought, as well as some other more evolved areas of the brain, but humans are still emotional creatures. We use to think differently, that we are rational and logical beings, but, and I forget when or who, we realised that we did so many things that are certainly not rational, that it was impossible to continue that mindset. Take propaganda for example--no one can say it isn't effective, or that it appeals to anything but emotion. Again, we do have our thoughtful side, but it is pathetic compared to our emotional side.

Love comes in states:

You make me come
you make me complete
you make me completely miserable.
:)

Actually psycologists have identified the stages of love and attraction.

There is the romantic stage where all is fussy, the realzation stage where you find out the other person is just a person (where most relatinships end) and then the actualization phase where you go to the next level and become true soulmates.

There are extra-environmental events that can impact this cycle - other romantic opportunities, work/travel, chemical addiction, stress, etc. Sometimes the cycle will occur more than once in a relationship.

*snip*

I agree...to a point. Romantic love, to me, is a situation in which you care enough about a person that you wish to share your entire self and entire life with them. There *is* a warm, fuzzy component to this, in that it is a wonderful relief to find someone you can trust enough to do so - and for whom you have such strong feelings.

I don't think it is the idea of "being in love" that has caused divorce rates. I think it is the dissolution of the idea that marriage, and love, is something you have to work at. Too many people these days are like "Oh well, we had a fight. Guess we'll just get divorced then." This is evidence of one of two things: (a) they were never in love to begin with or (b) they're just plain lazy. If you really wish to share your life with someone, you *will* have to work at it. There *will* be rough times.

First of all, love is the human method of reproduction. You fall in love in order to reproduce with others, it's a biological fact. Physiology is influential in love, but pheromones are not a big factor in humans. Our pheromonal olfactory receptors have dwindled and lost a lot of our ancestors' functionality. Not that they are not a factor, but probably not a very large one.

My boyfriend has sleep pheromones - and they are really strong. I can't be within two rooms of him when he's sleeping without wanting to go curl up and go to sleep myself. If I don't go, chances are I'll just fall asleep right there. Funny things is, I really can almost put an odor to it. Makes it really difficult when I need to study and he's gone to bed already.

i dont think that u can choose who u like n who u r attracted 2, that just happens. but stuff like getting married 2 ppl is making a decision that u will love them n look after them... ie 4 life... so thats a decision but in my experience u cant choose 2 or not 2 like someone...

Love typically comes with lust but it is not always true... you don't always lust for someone u fall in love with...

Love is one of those difficult things to explain because there are so many types of love... there are so many different ideas on what love is and many people don't even know when they are in love until one day it hits you and ur like "wow"!

There is such a thing as being in love with someone and being in a relationship with this person for so long that you fite with them ova lil stupid pointless things... the reason for this is because love and hate are such deep feelings that instead of being opposites, they are actually related... i believe that you have to have loved someone to truly hate them and you have to have hated someone to truly love them... hence why ex's are in love with each other for so many years and then when they break up they suddenly hate each other... thats without the divorce proceedings and custody hearings already...

my view on love is that it is not a decision... you can convince yourself that you don't want to love someone but that feeling is forever there.... you can convince yourself that nothing could ever happen between you and this person so u r wrong to have feelings for them but the feeling will still be there... take it from my personal experience... i tried so long not to love someone but eventually i succumbed to the feeling because it was so overwhelming... it was so strong that i couldn't ignore it anymore...

i think the pheromones come with love because u can almost put an odour to them... u can smell the pheromones in the air but no-one else can, because they are not in love with that person...

my girlfriend has the strongest pheromones i have ever known... its really difficult sometimes...

I think that the world has gotten to a stage where romance is on its deathbed... damn shame. Howvere, its still great to have that "warm and fuzzy" feeling inside when you see the person that you want to spend the rest of your life with.

Love is like a split-personality syndrome because u act so different around someone you "like"... you act like ur ashamed of the way that you and ur friends act but when u are truly in love with someone, you finally realise that this person will accept the way you are with your friends and you no longer are ashamed of the way that you act around them...

I don't think love is a decision. I mean, I didn't decide to fall in love. It just happened. However, you base many many decisions on your love for that particular person, for example, how you react to them if you're angry.

I think that if you're looking for love you're less likely to find it. It's on of those things that just sneaks up on you.

I think that love can be both. IT starts as a fuzzy feeling, but for it to last, it must become a decision. YOu can't say that it isn't a feeling or a choice, but it can be one or both. It really depends upon the relationship.

And I do think that you only know it as both once you have experienced both types of love.

yeah HF thats wat i was tryin 2 say, i jus did it in different words... :)

I'm sorry to say I have never been in a relationship, but I think that love is a desicion. You might have feelings for many different people, but you can only spend the rest of your life with one. Legally, anyway. :D

Humans, besides being rather sophisticated members of the animal kingdom, are also rational and rationalizing beings.


Bah! This is one of the dumbest statements I've seen on these forums (and i'm including homophobes and Zealots). Humans are not sophisticated animals, which can mostly demontrated by our tendancy to blow each other up. Human are a relativly new group on animals on this planet (all the rest have well adapted to their enviroment long ago before we started changing it). As for being rational, well just look at stock markets for a clear demonstration of human irrationalbility. As for "love" some people can make a consious choice but most are just during by their base animal urges.

I have a cat. :)

I think in order to define the word "love", many social connotations need to be viewed and dissected, and ideas of what "love" can and cannot be need to be seriously looked at and questioned. "Love", as the vast amount of society defines it, boils down to little more than gumdrops and warm fuzzies. Notice I said "vast amount", as there are definitely people who feel differently. But, as a whole, the meaning of the word "love" has been so diluted that is hardly recognizable for what it should be.

It can be used so many different ways. "I love Butterfingers!" and "I love you" are just two examples of the vast amount of degrees with which "love" is used. Society at large, I feel, understands "love" to be just a stronger version of "like". Given the context in which most of us use "like" and "love" in everyday vernacular, this conclusion is not surprising. If you think Butterfingers are pretty good, then "yeah, I like Butterfingers" works just fine. But if they are, by far, your preferred mass-manufactured confection, then "I love Butterfingers!" may be more appropriate. It is also supposed that "love" is only emotion; That it is no more than a feeling. It is something you can be in, or something that you feel toward someone else. However, with love being merely emotion, there is no way one could stay "in love" with anyone indefinitely. It is therefore easy to break up on the grounds of "falling out of love". Humans aren't made to sustain feelings or emotions, especially in heightened levels, for long periods of time. It would then be an inhuman feat to be able to fulfill your wedding vow "...to love and to cherish as long as you both shall live." And if "love" is merely an extension of "like", we are also in trouble. "Liking" something depends solely on what it can do for you. You don't like a candy bar because it has saved your life. You like it because it tastes good. If it worked that way, you would be saying, in essence "I love you as I love my Butterfinger I had today for lunch... only more so." Hardly romantic, and hardly functional. It is possible to "fall out of like" quite easily when the object of that affection no longer does what you want it to do, or when you find something in that object that you don't like, or otherwise doesn't meet your requirements.

Another thing that I've discovered through my discussions with different people about love is the fact that the vast majority of them believe that defining love is only necessary/relevant in the realm of romantic relationships. Using this confine, it is a most unfortunate circumstance we are confronted with. As has been observed by probably everyone here, emotions can't just be "turned on" or "turned off". Things can be done to make them happen more frequently, and there can be Pavlovian circumstances resultant in those feelings; but emotion, in general, is flighty and inconsistent.
Part of the traditional marriage vow goes something like "...to love...as long as you both shall live." Now, if love is an emotion, how are we to uphold our vow as we promised? We are stating that we will always feel love for that person, consistently, 24/7, without a hitch. No matter what the circumstance, we are to experience (and exhibit) that feeling of love and never let up. How feasible is that? It can be viewed via society at large that people cannot/will not do this.

Apparently, when that "honeymoon" feeling is gone, and the fuzzies of "love" are gone, it means the two people weren't meant to be married. "I don't love my spouse any more. The fire died. I guess we didn't really love each other after all." People often get married solely on the basis of *feelings*. This view stops the progression and proliferation of healthy marriages cold. They get married on the basis of physical attraction coupled with the feelings they experience when they are around their significant other. They may find each other on a cruise, or a dance, have a drink, go home, have sex, and decide that "this must be love" and, after a few short weeks of getting the specifics nailed down, they tie the knot, only to run into the problem that plagues any relationship, healthy or not: Someone doesn't feel like loving. If our definition of love is limited to understanding it as a mere feeling, how can we expect to fulfill any promise of undying love? And, if you are aware of this going into a relationship, why state such a blatant lie?

When you experience the feelings socially described as "love", you will do things for your signifigant other that you may not otherwise do. In school, you may have waited for her at her classroom and have been there when she got out. You'd send her flowers, hide a note in her locker, and dismiss the company of your friends at lunch just to be in her company. False expectations are created and understood as things to be expected by the receiver of said actions. Soon afterwards, however, the flowers stop. You start hanging out with your friends again. Not as many notes in the locker, and you just don't have the time to wait by her door any more. What happened? Sounds like you don't *feel* like going out of your way for her like you used to. Sounds like you don't *feel* like making a sacrifice for her any more. Sounds to me like you fell out of love, apparently. Guess this relationship didn't work out. Guess you weren't made for each other. Guess y'all may have to try again. Better luck next time. And so it goes, society telling you "don't worry, she wasn't the right one for you. You'll find that special someone some day, and you'll really be in love." And so on it goes, up through adulthood, and then you find someone, and the same type of things happen there. You call her whenever you can. You take time out of your day every day to have lunch with her, even if she's across town. You spend all your time, when you aren't working, with her. "Could this be love? Must be. I feel like I can love her forever." But no more than a few months later, something familiar takes place: You don't call her as much any more. Not enough time. You need your space, so you don't keep her company as much as you used to. No more flowers, definitely. You make all the excuses as to why you aren't doing these things any more, and try to explain that you are really, truly, cross-your-heart still in love. But it's not true. You just plain don't feel like doing it any more. Again, you don't feel like going out of her way, making sacrifices for her.

I propose that love is an action first, emotion second. Without works, love is dead. It means nothing, and cannot amount to anything more than fireworks and sizzle. I am going to take a quote from a book many of you know of.
"Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right."
"Ohhh yay, it's the Bible. /rolls eyes. Why did you quote that? I don't believe in it." The reason I quoted this passage here is because it is relevant, and because it *works*. Regardless of who you think wrote the Bible, or of how many errors you believe it to contain, there are many parts in there that are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for greater understanding of humanity. In this case, the Bible sheds very applicable light on a socially skewed and misunderstood subject. Love, using the quoted definiton, is perfect for a relationship, yes? And a relationship of any kind, not just a romantic one. Love can be used without any hint of romantic or emotional attraction. This is why I believe it to be action first, emotion second. Love is the genuine caring of the welfare of another. It is looking to the good and well-being of others or another. Love acts. It displays itself.

To delve even further, let's look abroad. In the Greek language, there are very clear definitions for different kinds of love:

Agape (ah-gah-pay) - This love is unilateral and unconditional. It is desiring that which is best for the other person being willing to go to whatever length is necessary in order to achieve that well-being with no expectation of return. Here, words mean nothing, and actions are necessary for the communication of this kind of love. This love cannot be based on emotion.

Phileos (fi-lay-ohs) - This is the word for love from which we get the word Philadelphia: the city of Brotherly Love. There are some people we say that we love like we love a brother or a sister. It describes the relationship between two people which implies a commitment. It says, "there are a select group of people who are so important to me that even though they are not my family, I would be willing to make a sacrifice if it would help to make their life better." Again, this kind of love is displayed totally by action. Words mean nothing here, and again, cannot be based on emotion.

Storge (stor-jay) - This is the Greek word for love which is used when describing the kind of love a parent has for a child or a child for a parent. It is the love which someone feels toward another when they are responsible for their well being. It is instinctive and it is protective, but it is not universal. It is reserved for those for whom we feel responsible. Here, again, it is not emotion that drives this kind of love, but a sense of responsibility.

Eros - (eh-rhos) This includes physical attraction and the "puppy love" between two people. It is a love which feels wonderful, but it is fleeting and unconstant. It does not last and needs to be constantly reinforced to be the basis of a relationship. This is the most commonly-used definition of love, especially in America. This is what is glamourized in the media. And the applying of this definition to the yardstick of how our society considers love to be is the largest reason marriages, and relationships in general, do not stay solvent. The understand of love stops here for so many people, and they grow up believing that this is what should be able to be sustained in a romantic relationship, and if it disappears, then they have obviously nothing left, and depart from each other's presence. Using this definition, it is indeed possible to "fall out of love" by no decision of your own. It is an emotion, and the human body is not created to have an emotion "equipped" for extended periods of time.


These definitions have the pedigree of a nation's language behind them. I believe them to be very informative as to what love meant, and how it was used, and how, today, in our life, it should be applied.

I hope this can shed light on a totally convoluted subject. As I think about this more I am sure I'll embellish, delete, or otherwise alter the contents. But these are the extent of my thoughts for the time being.

Polygamy. Monogamy. What the hell is up with it? If you love more than one person, you should have the right to love them, and if not, then your sex life doesn't suffer as a result.

Speaking as one with little experience in the matter, i believe there are two places where love is described in its entirety: the Bible and Shakespere.
The bible seems to cover the sort of love that idealy everyone would have for everyone else. The most famous love stories in shakepere, Romeo and Juliet, Othello and Desdemona, Miranda and Ferdinand etc. all seem to be a sort of spontaneous love that does not initially require a decision and is more an impulse. Love seems to require sacrifice however, and so the greatest decisions revolving around love seem to be choices.

So i have spent a paragraph saying absolutely nothing

Cool!

Einstein Big-Heads, no-one cares about Shakespeare, and I don't care about the Bible, no offense to anyone who took it.

I wouldn't know because I've never loved anyone outside my immediate family.

Einstein Big-Heads, no-one cares about Shakespeare, and I don't care about the Bible, no offense to anyone who took it.
I care about Shakespeare. :)

Shakspeare is the greatest repositiory of emotional intellegence in the entire history of literature. I consider anyone who is not at least aquainted with his work to be uneducated on this matter.

Hey you! I don't know u, but i'll talk to u anyway. Maybe you should try loving someone (outside ur family)!!! It could be some fun! And it doesn't have to be some passionate love, just have some fun!

William Shakespeare (amongst other things) invented the words "assassin" and "bump." Isn't history interesting!!! :D :D :D

That goes for u 2 robbie, and yes, i heard everything u said and i can also read ur mind !

but plz choose carefully who u go out and luv...make sure you both have given consent...even if it is not vocal!

"If i speak in the tongues of men and angels but have not love i am only the resounding gong or a clanging cymbal

If i have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if i have a faith that can move mountains but have not love i am nothing

If i give all i posses to the poor and surrender my body to the flames but have not love i gain nothing

Love is patient, love is kind. it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

It is not rude, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

Love never fails.

then theres a break...

"And now these three remain: Faith Hope and LOve but the greatest of these is Love."

thats a passage in the bible... im not quite sure where...

hey no using names guys

I find it hilarious how we are all giving deep insights into love when none of us have experienced it.

"If i speak in the tongues of men and angels but have not love i am only the resounding gong or a clanging cymbal

If i have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if i have a faith that can move mountains but have not love i am nothing

If i give all i posses to the poor and surrender my body to the flames but have not love i gain nothing

Love is patient, love is kind. it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

It is not rude, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

Love never fails.

then theres a break...

"And now these three remain: Faith Hope and LOve but the greatest of these is Love."

thats a passage in the bible... im not quite sure where...

now this person knows what they're talking about.

Everyone who has been married, or has been in a long-term relationship, has had moments when they were so angry at the other that they began to question whether they truly "loved" the other person anymore. Where were all those feelings they had when the relationship was young? What happened to that pit of the stomach, semi-dizzy, giddy euphoria?

They were still there and I'd never questioned whether I loved her...when she left me for another guy *sigh* (and boy, did she not have a good reason, or in fact any reason... bleh, guess that's love. I found someone (just barely) better since anyway.

Oh yeah "LOve Never fails" was in the bible passage 2... i jus 4got the quotations...

Hey everyone. I agree with health Foods about consent and everything.

now this person knows what they're talking about.

um... not all of us are Christians :rolleyes: The Bible also defines love as many things which has been scientifically proven wrong... such as exclusively between men and women.

I find it hilarious how we are all giving deep insights into love when none of us have experienced it.

well put, but i wont listen to the opinion of a communist catholic

Gabby (HF), you can't convince someone to love someone else, so stop trying to convince that person to fall in love with the next person he meets...

thats wat u think, commie catholics!

um... not all of us are Christians :rolleyes: The Bible also defines love as many things which has been scientifically proven wrong... such as exclusively between men and women.

Sorry i jus thought it was a good description... n ur second point depends on ur beliefs....

um... not all of us are Christians :rolleyes: The Bible also defines love as many things which has been scientifically proven wrong... such as exclusively between men and women.

It people like you who irritate me: you summirarially disagree with anything in the bible because you dislike christians.

Robbie raises a good point, we're all trying to pass ourselves off as wise, culture people when most of us are teenagers who have never experienced love. I love my family. I love my cat. But this is a different type of love.

I find it hilarious how we are all giving deep insights into love when none of us have experienced it.

Teenagers love differently. Adults think too much about whats goin on in their lives, but its more fun being in love when you're younger coz you throw everything you have into it.

its Melly XOXO here not Lashie

we're all trying to pass ourselves off as wise, culture people when most of us are teenagers who have never experienced love.

which is why the smarter ones of us are quoting the two sources of literature that best describe love.

Commie Catholics we may not have eperienced love but we have role models who have proved that love can happen and they have taught us well enough to have deep insites into love.

Sorry i jus thought it was a good description... n ur second point depends on ur beliefs....

As a bisexual, I know it isn't based on beliefs. A blind man can't tell a perfectly able-visioned person what it is like to see. A straight Christian can't tell me I don't feel the same feelings for men as for women.

The thing is there is an anomously large percentage of Christians who think they can say no wrong.... and try to think they can tell us what we feel. So people now treat it as a belief issue. It isn't.

Commie Catholics we may not have eperienced love but we have role models who have proved that love can happen and they have taught us well enough to have deep insites into love.

such as shakespeare and the bible.

which is why the smarter ones of us are quoting the two sources of literature that best describe love.

EBH, whilst I believe in love (not love at first sight, however) and I have read some Shakespeare, it is very difficult for me to believe that words printed on paper can adequately describe the strongest feelinhg in the world (apart from maybe hatred).

:headbang:

It people like you who irritate me: you summirarially disagree with anything in the bible because you dislike christians.

That's funny because last time I checked it was Christian convention to use a capital when describing the Bible... wait... hang on... I know that because I was one for seven years.

I study religious texts... Christian, Wiccan and Setian (Satanist) mostly. I know the contents of most modern (and some historical) translations of it.

Such as the blatant misuse of the term 'witchcraft' throughout modern translations, derived from a word actually having nothing to do with witchcraft, instead relating to 'the art of murder with poisons and other subtle means' or a description to that effect (easy to look up if you want a more accurate one).

Definitely NOT true! I know that for a fact. :)

This is a quote from long while back but... if you DO know that for a fact... I do wonder if it was really love... you can really care for someone and not it be love... You can love a girl or guy much more than your own parents... or anything in the world...

Now I think I can agree with when your relationship gets a bit dull after years of marriage THEN you need to put your mind to it... but you really should let love come first... that is the point of marriage... it is to show someone that you would really do just about anything in your power for them if very nessisary.

That's funny because last time I checked it was Christian convention to use a capital when describing the Bible... wait... hang on... I know that because I was one for seven years.

I study religious texts... Christian, Wiccan and Setian (Satanist) mostly. I know the contents of most modern (and some historical) translations of it.

it is excedingly satisfying to see that in order to gain the upper hand in an argument, you have to resort to petty point scoring by pointing out grammatical mistakes. lol

EBH, whilst I believe in love (not love at first sight, however) and I have read some Shakespeare, it is very difficult for me to believe that words printed on paper can adequately describe the strongest feelinhg in the world (apart from maybe hatred).

I agree because feelings cannot accurately be described on paper. Even if you are writing down your own emotions, between you and the paper they can be messed up and come ut wrong.

I don't think I'm opinionated enough to make a splash in this thread. I've never been in true love, the only thing I've come close to loving aside from my family is a sporting team.

Hey IW.

I was just wondering, not to be prejudiced or anything, but if you study mostly satanist texts then do you still feel love strongly or is it mainly hatred. are you yourself a satanist?

Btw Iw I Have To Go Now But Could You Find Some Way Of Answering My Question

it is excedingly satisfying to see that in order to gain the upper hand in an argument, you have to resort to petty point scoring by pointing out grammatical mistakes. lol

actually, it's subtely blasphemous to your own religion, not a grammar mistake :p

What is rather more petty is that you haven't replied to the content of any of my posts, instead making derogatory comments. Come on, try and pull a real argument out of the bag, I dare you.

so, eu, does this mean you said to your daugher "its as easy to love a rich man as a poor man"? since its a decision.

and furthermore

does this mean that we should go to the system of arranging marriages for our kids? after all parents have enough perspective to see who would make a good match for our children and all THEY have to do is decide to fall in love with the person they just married.

love is and is not a decision. or maybe there are just men who arent worth the bother of trying. but once you have made a committement to a person it IS a kind of decision to keep loving them. it still has to be a 2 way street though, if your spouse doesnt put in the effort, your love isnt going to last and neither is your marriage.

Hey IW.

I was just wondering, not to be prejudiced or anything, but if you study mostly satanist texts then do you still feel love strongly or is it mainly hatred. are you yourself a satanist?

No... I'm Wiccan. Wicca is generally considered one of the most peaceful religions around by studiers of religions. Also, please read this thread I posted on a religious forum:

http://realmagick.com/discuss/messages/8/512.html?1100879079

For those who can't be bothered to read that text of mine: Satanism is not what Christianity makes it out to be. Satan (Set) was a God worshipped before Christianity existed. That is what Satanism is based on (once you get past all the teenage music-social related non-sense). Christianity then demonised Set, like they have done to every other religion. They even went so far as to portray him as the root of all evil, since he portrays individual freedoms, things which the initial Christian church was highly opposed to.

Satanism is not the anti-Christ as Christianity preaches it... it is infact more an anti-Wicca. Where Satanism use magick for self-improving (arguably self-serving) purposes... Wiccans would use it to improve the standard of life for someone. Of course, both are lied (there's no doubt about this, any religious writer will agree) about in Christian texts.

The art of witchcraft (practised by a majority of religions, including Wicca and Satanism) was derided in the Bible because the original Christian churches were afraid that if people could act in the will of God through magick then their would be no purpose in a church. In the very first Bible texts, all 'miracles' were referred to as acts of magic and 'prayers' were referred to as rituals. These were stamped out by the Church because they implied any person held that power. Wicca is based around giving people the freedom to use magick and the power of the life force (whether you call it God, Set or worship its different aspects) in order to help people achieve daily goals (such as getting people food to eat each day).

For those who can't be bothered to read that text of mine: Satanism is not what Christianity makes it out to be. Satan (Set) was a God worshipped before Christianity existed. That is what Satanism is based on (once you get past all the teenage music-social related non-sense). Christianity then demonised Set, like they have done to every other religion. They even went so far as to portray him as the root of all evil, since he portrays individual freedoms, things which the initial Christian church was highly opposed to.

"[Satan is] the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds"
-Bakunin

Sorry, nothing to contribute. You just reminded me of that quotation.

And wrenching the thread back to the origonal post ....

I don't know about warm and fuzzy feelings, but I do know that the first time I saw my partner, at a distance of about 20 feet, the air turned black, the ground shook and all I could see was her. No exaggeration.

Hard-nosed, rational decisions have since been taken about our relationship, but I doubt I would have made the same decisions without the emotional basis underlying it.

Love is a lot of different things. Love is a feeling, love is an attachment, and yes, love is a decision. But mostly I think it's an attachment. Love of our friends and family is an attachment. The romantic, partnership love that we refer to mostly, is a combination of the attachment and the feeling and requires that we make the decision, be it conscious or unconscious, in order to sustain the relationship.

Then of course there's the difference between the "love" feeling and the "infatuation" feeling, and I still haven't answered the question whether you can have love the feeling without love the attachment.

And of course, you can make the decision to love anyone, at any time. It is usually made in a context of the other loves, but isn't dependent on that.

In other words: Let your emotions go where they will, but remember to bring your brain along for midway evaluation.

actually, it's subtely blasphemous to your own religion, not a grammar mistake :p



Ah, the hypocracy. to be called blasphemous by a satanic.

I think this is the most accurate description of love:

GOD is love
(I Jo. 4:8)

Ah, the hypocracy. to be called blasphemous by a satanic.
I thought he was Wiccan.


I think this is the most accurate description of love:

GOD is love
(I Jo. 4:8)

I've always found:

"Love is the state in which another being's happiness becomes integral
to your own" - Stranger in a Strange Land

The best definition.

I suppose the phrase 'what ever floats your boat' apllies here

"If i speak in the tongues of men and angels but have not love i am only the resounding gong or a clanging cymbal

If i have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if i have a faith that can move mountains but have not love i am nothing

If i give all i posses to the poor and surrender my body to the flames but have not love i gain nothing

Love is patient, love is kind. it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

It is not rude, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

Love never fails.

then theres a break...

"And now these three remain: Faith Hope and LOve but the greatest of these is Love."

thats a passage in the bible... im not quite sure where...

I Corinthians 13

It's usually accepted as one of the best poetic definitions of non-romantic love.

I find it hilarious how we are all giving deep insights into love when none of us have experienced it.
I obviously can't sepeak for others on here, but I most certainly have, many times, both romantic and decisional love. I'm not saying that romantic love won't work but it's a hit or miss proposition at best. Decisional love has a much better track record.

Teenagers love differently. Adults think too much about whats goin on in their lives, but its more fun being in love when you're younger coz you throw everything you have into it.

its Melly XOXO here not Lashie
Come back and talk to me when you reach 50, if I'm still here. :)

This is a quote from long while back but... if you DO know that for a fact... I do wonder if it was really love... you can really care for someone and not it be love... You can love a girl or guy much more than your own parents... or anything in the world...

Now I think I can agree with when your relationship gets a bit dull after years of marriage THEN you need to put your mind to it... but you really should let love come first... that is the point of marriage... it is to show someone that you would really do just about anything in your power for them if very nessisary.
Well, I decided to love my wife and fell in love with her deeply later, and our marriage lasted almost 30 years. Does that make me qualified?

People define "love" as many different things, but not usually as "a decision." I would love to know what you think of this. If you like, I can elaborate on this more at a later date.

Humans, besides being rather sophisticated members of the animal kingdom, are also rational and rationalizing beings. True, at times our emotions can completely eliminate rational thought, but most people can, with a bit of practice, overrule their emotions and make rational decisions.

Everyone who has been married, or has been in a long-term relationship, has had moments when they were so angry at the other that they began to question whether they truly "loved" the other person anymore. Where were all those feelings they had when the relationship was young? What happened to that pit of the stomach, semi-dizzy, giddy euphoria?

It's at these points when we need to come to the realization that "feelings" are great, but the real test of love is when the pressure's on and everything seems to be going to hell in a hand basket. This is when we need to remember that love is a decision even more than it is a set of feelings. Sometimes we need to call upon our rational natures, overrule our feelings, and decide to love the other.

In a classic "which came first" question, most people would protest that "love should come first," then the mind will follow. What people mean by this is that feelings of being "in love" should come before we decide that we're in love with another person, a kind of "engage feelings before putting mind in gear." Unfortunately this approach doesn't have a very good track record. When we allow our feelings to dictate our reactions to other people, we wind up on an emotional roller coaster, falling in and out of "love" with alarming regularity.

That's why love is a decision, not "pheromonal attraction," not "two sets of pupils dilating at the same time," and not "I love how you touch me!" When we realize this, we can decide, indeed must decide, sometimes as often as moment to moment, that "yes, I choose to love this person." Put another way: "engage brain before putting emotions in gear!"

Love can be induced via chemical consumption, as it is nothing more than chemical reactions occuring in the brain. When you find another individual attractive for any reason, you release chemicals before any conscious decision is made. This is the heart of your discussion, which seems to center more on lust than love. Lust is a very strong attraction to another founded by different chemicals when such attraction occurs. When those wear off, if warm and fuzzy comfort chemicals don't come into play, you will likely abandon that person for another that creates that same feeling of lust. Or, stay with the other until no longer able to repress feelings of lust for others. Which is not choosing love.

If warm and fuzzy chemicals do come into play, then it depends on the capabilities of the individual as to whether they can overide the chemically induced feelings with judgment. A period of detachment is necessary to lower/eliminate the effects . So, if the person is capable of creating circumstances for detachment, and not overcome with comfort feelings when re-encountering the other person, then you could try to say that love is a choice. However, that is more like testing your chemical activity when in the presence of the other, not a conscious choice to love or not (rationale reasoning). Would not say that most are capable of this, as most people are not good at reaoning or logic in general.

Love can be induced via chemical consumption, as it is nothing more than chemical reactions occuring in the brain. When you find another individual attractive for any reason, you release chemicals before any conscious decision is made. This is the heart of your discussion, which seems to center more on lust than love. Lust is a very strong attraction to another founded by different chemicals when such attraction occurs. When those wear off, if warm and fuzzy comfort chemicals don't come into play, you will likely abandon that person for another that creates that same feeling of lust. Or, stay with the other until no longer able to repress feelings of lust for others. Which is not choosing love.

If warm and fuzzy chemicals do come into play, then it depends on the capabilities of the individual as to whether they can overide judgment. A period of detachment is necessary to lower/eliminate the effects . So, if the person is capable of creating circumstances for detachment, and not overcome with comfort feelings when re-encountering the other person, then you could try to say that love is a choice. However, that is more like testing your chemical activity when in the presence of the other, not a conscious choice to love or not (rationale reasoning). Would not say that most are capable of this, as most people are not good at reaoning or logic in general.
Did you read any of the subsequent posts I made in this thread? They come to conclusions not much different from yours.

Example: Why do we have feelings? Feelings are there to call our attention to something we need to think about and consider. They are also there to add color and depth to our relationships. However, if we make decisions based solely on our feelings, we will almost invariably make wrong decisions. Why? Because feelings, by themselves, are notoriously unreliable as a means of decision-making. That's why God, or the Universe, or whatever term you choose, designed us with a brain which has the capacity not only for feelings, but for rational thought as well. If we react strongly to another person, that's feelings. But to make wise choices about what our feelings are telling us requires that we examine why we feel this way and what we're going to do about it...that's rational thought.

Feelings without thought are dangerous. Thought without feelings is colorless. Put another way, feelings are like a wild, untamed stallion; thought is like the bridle and bit you use to control him. Put the two together and you have an exciting, but controllable ride.

Maybe its because that sometimes people refuse to blame their stupidity than blaming their vulnerability, that way in the end they blame their feelings and not that they were not able to process everything logically cause if they did then they wouldn't have to end up being hurt. In that sense feelings came before or without logic/reason and reason helps you avoid being hurt. Its like your feelings is your offense, it makes you attack but also makes you vulnerable and reason is your defense, it makes you shield yourself and plan for your next step.

At first a large part involves feelings and a small or none goes to reason. BUt as time takes its toll, reason has to be stronger not to find an explanation on whys and hows and a way to get out but to guide and to remind you of that time when your feelings was so overwhelming for that person to the point that you don't care about reason at all.

I Corinthians 13

It's usually accepted as one of the best poetic definitions of non-romantic love.

Although some parts of it can most definitely be used for romantic love too

Did you read any of the subsequent posts I made in this thread? They come to conclusions not much different from yours.

Example: Why do we have feelings? Feelings are there to call our attention to something we need to think about and consider. They are also there to add color and depth to our relationships. However, if we make decisions based solely on our feelings, we will almost invariably make wrong decisions. Why? Because feelings, by themselves, are notoriously unreliable as a means of decision-making. That's why God, or the Universe, or whatever term you choose, designed us with a brain which has the capacity not only for feelings, but for rational thought as well. If we react strongly to another person, that's feelings. But to make wise choices about what our feelings are telling us requires that we examine why we feel this way and what we're going to do about it...that's rational thought.

Feelings without thought are dangerous. Thought without feelings is colorless. Put another way, feelings are like a wild, untamed stallion; thought is like the bridle and bit you use to control him. Put the two together and you have an exciting, but controllable ride.

Nice metaphors. Calvin has a good saying about academia and the use of language.

If your going to ask big why questions, you can slippery slope all the way back to emotions serve as our original decision making process. We have evolved the ability to reason, that does not mean it serves to completely overide emotions, as is presumed in your comment.

Love is never a "decision".

Quite simply, it is considerably more hormonal than neuronal.

Love is never a "decision".

Quite simply, it is considerably more hormonal than neuronal.
Which is precisely, IMHO, a part of the problem, not to mention a major part of the question. :)

Which is precisely, IMHO, a part of the problem, not to mention a major part of the question. :)

I think people are mixing up definitions here.

Love itself is never a decision. One doesn't sit down and say "I choose to love this person" and simply have it happen. The beginnings of it are very much based in hormones and emotion - and that simply isn't going to change.

However, how we treat love, or more properly, the relationship that develops in love, *is* a decision. There are points in every relationship where things get a bit hairy and we have to decide what to do about it. Any relationship where there truly is love is worth working for - and it does take a *lot* of work. The rational answer to a simple conflict is not to break off the relationship, but to work at keeping it. And sometimes, although love is present, a relationship is unhealthy beyond repair, and we must make rational decisions in that case as well.

love rocks! :fluffle:

Wouldn't it be better to say humans do not choose to love, but choose how to love?