NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought I knew what love (romantic love) was, I thought I'd felt it, but in retrospect I'm not so sure.
Is love a real thing or is it just a feeling caused by hormones and a sense of attachment to someone that disappears as quickly as it came?

Who the fuck knows for sure?

You've got to come to your own conclusions, no one can tell you what it's really like.

Somewhat yes, love is also the mixture of physical attraction (hormones), the mental attraction, emotional attraction, and similar/antagonistic personality traites. Love can come and go, but I would suggest that when it comes, it rarely goes, but when it goes you know without a doubt it has left. Love is foremost, in my opinion, unconditional.

I thought I knew what love (romantic love) was, I thought I'd felt it, but in retrospect I'm not so sure.
Is love a real thing or is it just a feeling caused by hormones and a sense of attachment to someone that disappears as quickly as it came?

Definitely, though it isn't a magic and wonderful thing all the time. It hurts.

I thought I knew what love (romantic love) was, I thought I'd felt it, but in retrospect I'm not so sure.
Is love a real thing or is it just a feeling caused by hormones and a sense of attachment to someone that disappears as quickly as it came?
Two words: Pheromones and dopamin.

I reckon we're all actually closet psychopaths, and romantic love is just a means of getting a leg over.

The feeling is real and compelling sometimes for us, sure, but in terms of the bigger picture it's the device that makes us want to bang eachother.

Depending on who you are and how you look at it, it can be either. Scientifically, it is just hormones and chemicals in your brain telling you your very happy with this person. Chocolate does the same kind of chemical reaction (I believe, I'm not 100% sure on that).

On the other hand, I do believe love is real. Everyone has the want to be loved even if it's not recognized. I'm pretty young, but I think I'm the closest to love I'll be so far. Granted, nothings perfect and not all loves are felt on both sides.

I think you shouldn't get discouraged. There are over 6 billion people in this world, there's someone for everyone, if relationships don't work out, then it wasn't "meant to be" as they say. But keep trying, I'm sure you'll find love.

there is a point where science goes to far, and it is when people define love as some sort of chemical reaction or something. science isn't the answer to everything. get over it.

Definitely, though it isn't a magic and wonderful thing all the time. It hurts.

I don't know...I think it's pretty magical how love manages to hurt so much sometimes ;-)

Depends what you class as "real". If you view emotions, hopes, and any kind of feelings for other people as real.

I would class it as real, yes. I can't believe that something which is such a huge part of my life, how I view the world, how I view myself, how I view relationships, and how I feel about my life in general, isnt real. It's incredibly real to me.

I thought I knew what love (romantic love) was, I thought I'd felt it, but in retrospect I'm not so sure.
Is love a real thing or is it just a feeling caused by hormones and a sense of attachment to someone that disappears as quickly as it came?
everything we do is caused by chemicals. emotions are just chemicals... hell we are just walking bags of chemicals, so in that sense, love is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain.

BUT on a personalable/individual/experience level, love may "just" be tha, but that by no means diminishes the power of the feelings, or the strength of the connection between two people who love each other. it doesn't make it, at all, 'less good' (cos its great :fluffle: )

I really get the feeling that it's overemphasized and over-romanticized at the very least. Everyone goes on about how love lasts forever and you never get over it, but I don't think that's true, at least I've never had a problem with love never going away. Perhaps this is why so many people divorce, they have this romantic idea about what true love should be so tehy can't accept the fact that real life doesn't match up to the fairy tale business.

Does it matter? Did you enjoy the experience when you had it? That's all that really matters. I rarely find myself wondering exactly why I enjoy watching football or eating my mom's spaghetti. I just do.

Lust is caused by hormones, and such, physical attraction, the feeling of being bonded to someone. The feeling they show on movies, the ups and downs, the can't eat, can't sleep, lost without someone thing, it's just lust. It comes, and goes, and it's fleeting at best.

Love on the other hand, isn't a feeling at all, it's an action, it's something you decide to do, it lasts forever because you work at it.

Yeah...
But now that I think about it, how do you define it? Is love the attraction you feel, is it the realization that someone feels the same way about you, Is it that fluttery fealing inside your chest and head all at the same time? Why is the love that i feel for my family different than the love that I feel for...a girl? What makes one person SO special and everyone else so mediocre? I think that love exists, but in many forms, in ways that only the "lover" can define. Love at first sight, that I'm not sure about. But love, love has made nations, started rivalries, inspired books, stories, plays, it has thrust itself into being wherever humankind exists. To quote Moulin Rouge "love is like oxygen", how can someone live througout life without it. I'm not talking about the boyfriend girlfriend sort of love, but the real tangible stuff. The love of a pet, of a mother or father, of a son or daughter, of a spouse. The love of ones country, of ideals, of God. So many times people regard love as simply a way to express sexual longing, but it is so much more than that. It is at the root of how we act and how we develop. When you break down human emotion to the core, isn't it simply love and hate? But defining hate is a completely different topic. If people are able to hate however, then we are presented with one eternal truth, Love exists.

I really get the feeling that it's overemphasized and over-romanticized at the very least. Everyone goes on about how love lasts forever and you never get over it, but I don't think that's true, at least I've never had a problem with love never going away. Perhaps this is why so many people divorce, they have this romantic idea about what true love should be so tehy can't accept the fact that real life doesn't match up to the fairy tale business.
I could just say "well, you've never felt true love then". But I have a feeling it would be utterly pointless. Nothing will convince you except the experience itself.

I could just say "well, you've never felt true love then". But I have a feeling it would be utterly pointless. Nothing will convince you except the experience itself.
Yes, and I think I have been in love. Are you saying that your ability to be in love is somehow superior to mine and gives you an extra source of knowledge unavailable to me?

Love is definately real. I think that exceedingly few people feel it these days because it has been so commercialized and slashed up.

Let's take the sex aspect, for example. There was a time when the majority of people thought that sexual acts were for people you love. Now many people are just as happy to say "well, sex is not exactly that, because lots of lifestyles can have sex just for fun". Since we have been "cultured" into becoming tolerant (which in this case is just another word for "looking the other way"), we have inadvertantly accepted those lifestyles into society and now kids growing up in said society think that way and apply it to their lives.

Sex used to be a big part of love because it was such a huge commitment. Now it's just a vehicle for pleasure. The ones who do take it seriously often get hurt because they go out with someone who doesn't.

But then, that's just one little corner of a bigger shift in attitude. Nobody believes in love anymore, they just believe in hormones and chemicals.

Yes, and I think I have been in love. Are you saying that your ability to be in love is somehow superior to mine and gives you an extra source of knowledge unavailable to me?

Well, yeah. Would you trust an experienced surgeon more than someone who just got out of school and has only ever read books?

Though, I think personally that true love must be reciprocated to be "true", and I think that if this happens then you will be with this person until the end.

many spiritual ppl would answer that love is an acknowlegement of the higher self. To be aware of conciousness beyond simple everyday physical needs. you should jus be happy for those great experiences u share with a like minded soul.

Love is what you decide it is, really. If you think something is love, it can be love. Love as people imagine it is more of an abstract concept in the end than anything.

In my view, love is a certain type of bond that you can form with people over time. Throughout our lives we can form plenty of bonds like that, most probably aren't romantic, but connect people to their family and friends. If you actually form a loving bond like that with someone, chances are it's not going to fade suddenly.

I would say that the chemical reaction in the brain that's been associated with romantic love/infatuation, is rather different than the form of love I think of, and could easily be something that fades.

I could just say "well, you've never felt true love then". But I have a feeling it would be utterly pointless. Nothing will convince you except the experience itself.
imo true love doesn't fade away. I love my husband, but I would never base a marriage on chemicals and emotions, it's too easy for me to have a mood swing and screw it up. I think too many people base their relationships, on the chemical end, and then when the chemical rush fades they say "oh, I fell out of love" or worse they get a chemical rush for someone else and cheat and say "I can't help who I fall in love with"

It may be true that you can't control your chemicals but you can control your actions, and you can decide to love someone past when the overwhelming chemical based emotions start to fade.

Love is definately real. I think that exceedingly few people feel it these days because it has been so commercialized and slashed up.

Let's take the sex aspect, for example. There was a time when the majority of people thought that sexual acts were for people you love. Now many people are just as happy to say "well, sex is not exactly that, because lots of lifestyles can have sex just for fun". Since we have been "cultured" into becoming tolerant (which in this case is just another word for "looking the other way"), we have inadvertantly accepted those lifestyles into society and now kids growing up in said society think that way and apply it to their lives.

Sex used to be a big part of love because it was such a huge commitment. Now it's just a vehicle for pleasure. The ones who do take it seriously often get hurt because they go out with someone who doesn't.

But then, that's just one little corner of a bigger shift in attitude. Nobody believes in love anymore, they just believe in hormones and chemicals.


Agreed

Well, yeah. Would you trust an experienced surgeon more than someone who just got out of school and has only ever read books?

Though, I think personally that true love must be reciprocated to be "true", and I think that if this happens then you will be with this person until the end.
I have been in love, or so I believed at the time and it has been reciprocated. It went away though. Does this mean that what I thought I felt wasn't true or real then? This poster said that when I'm in love then I'll know all about it, well, as I said in the first post, I have been in love, or so I thought at the time, but by the definitions of the word people like to throw around, love should be everlasting...

I guess all that comes to mind from your question is "Jerry Mcguire." Was that love when she admired him from afar, or when she sacrificed her job to follow him out of the agency? Was it love for him to marry her out of need? hmmm...

My mom always told me that men and women love differently: Men love their jobs and women love their men, for some reason this is to keep balance and respect within the relationship. For the woman would not respect or love her man, if he did not love or respect himself... I don't know, something like that... nothing too profound.

I guess all that comes to mind from your question is "Jerry Mcguire." Was that love when she admired him from afar, or when she sacrificed her job to follow him out of the agency? Was it love for him to marry her out of need? hmmm...

My mom always told me that men and women love differently: Men love their jobs and women love their men, for some reason this is to keep balance and respect within the relationship. For the woman would not respect or love her man, if he did not love or respect himself... I don't know, something like that... nothing too profound.

I guess all that comes to mind from your question is "Jerry Mcguire." Was that love when she admired him from afar, or when she sacrificed her job to follow him out of the agency? Was it love for him to marry her out of need? hmmm...

My mom always told me that men and women love differently: Men love their jobs and women love their men, for some reason this is to keep balance and respect within the relationship. For the woman would not respect or love her man, if he did not love or respect himself... I don't know, something like that... nothing too profound.

Yes, and I think I have been in love. Are you saying that your ability to be in love is somehow superior to mine and gives you an extra source of knowledge unavailable to me?
No. I was actually going to go on and say the exact opposite as another reason why it was pointless. Love is too personal. There is no universal definition for it. For all I know, the way I feel happiness could be utterly different to everyone else, let alone love which is a whole lot more complex IMO. I can't say, with complete certainty, whether anyone is in love or not, except myself, without faith of some kind. All I can say is that it seems like you're doubting it, and, from my experience, if you're in love you know it. That's purely anecdotal, but I don't know what else you were expecting.

My mom always told me that men and women love differently: Men love their jobs and women love their men, for some reason this is to keep balance and respect within the relationship. For the woman would not respect or love her man, if he did not love or respect himself... I don't know, something like that... nothing too profound.
...I think your mom might be a bit old fashioned in the "men should work and women should stay home" kind of way.

imo true love doesn't fade away. I love my husband, but I would never base a marriage on chemicals and emotions, it's too easy for me to have a mood swing and screw it up. I think too many people base their relationships, on the chemical end, and then when the chemical rush fades they say "oh, I fell out of love" or worse they get a chemical rush for someone else and cheat and say "I can't help who I fall in love with"

It may be true that you can't control your chemicals but you can control your actions, and you can decide to love someone past when the overwhelming chemical based emotions start to fade.
So when the feelings go away you should force them to stay?

imo true love doesn't fade away. I love my husband, but I would never base a marriage on chemicals and emotions, it's too easy for me to have a mood swing and screw it up. I think too many people base their relationships, on the chemical end, and then when the chemical rush fades they say "oh, I fell out of love" or worse they get a chemical rush for someone else and cheat and say "I can't help who I fall in love with"

It may be true that you can't control your chemicals but you can control your actions, and you can decide to love someone past when the overwhelming chemical based emotions start to fade.
I can't say. I haven't been in love long enough. Part of me feels like it's almost out of my control, but the other part knows how much I work at it and how much effort is put into it.

No. I was actually going to go on and say the exact opposite as another reason why it was pointless. Love is too personal. There is no universal definition for it. For all I know, the way I feel happiness could be utterly different to everyone else, let alone love which is a whole lot more complex IMO. I can't say, with complete certainty, whether anyone is in love or not, except myself, without faith of some kind. All I can say is that it seems like you're doubting it, and, from my experience, if you're in love you know it. That's purely anecdotal, but I don't know what else you were expecting.
Well, I knew it at the time, but I don't know so much anymore. Moreover, I think I was pretty stupid at the time.

yeah- i'll say. but i still think there's some wisdom around her ideas, psychologically speaking. however, it certainly depends on one's formative conditioning... in terms of how they relate to love, yes? does one flouresce in love or turn into a two year old? I don't know...

So when the feelings go away you should force them to stay?
I wouldn't say that. All I was trying to say is that too many people get married or into LTR over chemicals and aren't really commited. Chemicals are fun, but if you are going to be in a commited relationship you need more than "how he makes me feel".

Yup. It's a bio-chemical reaction in you brain.

So when the feelings go away you should force them to stay?

I wouldn't say it's something you should force, but something you can work at, like you would work at friendships. Just because an initial, chemically-driven euphoria has worn off doesn't stop you from forming (or trying to form) a deeper connection with someone. If you can't form a lasting relationshipm afterwards, than that person probably isn't right for you.

I can't say. I haven't been in love long enough. Part of me feels like it's almost out of my control, but the other part knows how much I work at it and how much effort is put into it.
It's absolutly fine to have the chemicals, it's quite fun. If however you are looking to be in a long term relationship you have to figure out if this is someone that you actually can love unconditionally, if not it may be time to move on. Life is hard, relationships are hard, if you feel like you are in love and everything is always going to be perfect then you are in for a huge surprise and when things go a little worse then expected people run.

There's a mass of psychological/scientific/ethical trouble when you ask if anything is real. Because emotions only take place in our mind, it could be argued they aren't real, as hallucinations 'aren't real.' It could be argued that anything that has been thought of has existed as a thought, and thus been real. There's really no end to it, since nobody can prove anything.
I, personally, view love as something that makes you happy being around someone else. There doesn't need to be a reason, maybe there is, maybe not. Whether you're just happy to around them, or smething you do makes you happy, is immaterial. If it brings you happiness, you may as well call it love.
As a result, I'm a very 'love comes and goes' type of person. It can be permenant, certainly, but it isn't always.

Hell yes love is real. I dont think that voluntarily laying ones life down for another-one of their loved ones, would be cause by hormones.

I feel more confused than anyone on this thread. I had been going out with a girl for about 10 months, and she broke up with me about a week ago. I feel confused, weird, perhaps still in denial. I never expected her to break up with me. I still feel like I love her, it hurts me to not be with her, yet she told me a few days ago that she fell out of love with me months ago. I can't tell what was real and what was not. I thought I was making love to her a few weeks ago, but apparently that was fake. I suppose only I loved her, and thus our love was not unconditional. Perhaps, as others have said, the chemical reactions she had towards me ended and she thought it wasn't worth working for it. She's also young, so I suppose that makes a difference. I am also somewhat young, and I thought our love was unconditional, but I was very wrong. Anyway, sorry to rant a bit, but It's strange how you can be so sure of love, or being in love, yet have everything fall apart, lose everything so easily. It's hard to obtain and keep, but apparently so easy to lose.

[QUOTE=Shakti Blue Pearl]I guess all that comes to mind from your question is "Jerry Mcguire." Was that love when she admired him from afar, or when she sacrificed her job to follow him out of the agency? Was it love for him to marry her out of need? hmmm...

My mom always told me that men and women love differently: Men love their jobs and women love their men, for some reason this is to keep balance and respect within the relationship. ''A Mans' love is of his life a thing apart, tis' a womans' whole existence.''. I'm not sure who said that but i think they hit the nail on the head there.

I thought I knew what love (romantic love) was, I thought I'd felt it, but in retrospect I'm not so sure.
Is love a real thing or is it just a feeling caused by hormones and a sense of attachment to someone that disappears as quickly as it came?
It depends upon what you mean by the word "love." In my particular version of the universe, "love" is a decision. Romantic love depends upon hormones such as dompamine, serotonin ... a veritable cocktail of brain and endocrine system chemicals ... and thus an illusion. Decisional love is an act of will and thus not subject to the viscissitudes of chemical-dependent emotions.

It depends upon what you mean by the word "love." In my particular version of the universe, "love" is a decision. Romantic love depends upon hormones such as dompamine, serotonin ... a veritable cocktail of brain and endocrine system chemicals ... and thus an illusion. Decisional love is an act of will and thus not subject to the viscissitudes of chemical-dependent emotions.
:eek: That's what I was trying to say

There are three kinds of love...but more and more only one kind is being recognized.
The first form (which gets the most attention nowadays) is a passive kind of love; where the outside world affects the emotions of the person involved...producing a positive feeling.
The second kind of love is the act of willing the good of another (an active form). For example, you see them as a mirrored image of yourself so their happiness is your happiness. And you wouldn't do something to them that you wouldn't want done to yourself.
The third, and most important kind of love, is the self-giving love, in which the person sacrifices for the other, and ultimately gives their whole being to the other...so much so that they become like one entity.

Do emotions exist? Sure they do.
Can one will the good of another? You tell me.
Finally, can one sacrifice their whole being...even their life for another? Yes, yes, and yes again.

I don't believe in love. At least not romantic love. I believe in an initial chemistry that may make two people stop long enough to get to know each other and possibly develop liking and perhaps love. That initial chemistry is fun, but it's nothing to base a life on.

''A Mans' love is of his life a thing apart, tis' a womans' whole existence.''. I'm not sure who said that but i think they hit the nail on the head there.

That's nice Shaendra! It sort of reminds me of Petrarch's ongoings in his Canzoniere, with Laura, and subsequently his Secretum with Lady Truth.

A man is in love with what-- now-a-days, is the question I beg to ask... flesh/ spirit/ or humanistic and philanthropic ideals that he can identify with, in a spouse. Why settle for the argument of the material world of love is all there is... when, if both parties agree, love can be all encompassing...

In all sincerety, I ponder that should not both men and women be in love with "the one" who brings out the best in them (i.e. to flouresce/ flower/ grow) knowing that these virtues ride on the humble wings of temporariness? Is true love not a fleeting glimpse of that spark into the unknown void, askanse the brilliance of becoming his own beatific swan? I think Shakespeare ran the gamut of plays around love, which to this day are still untouched- I think mankind are so underestimated when it comes to real love... and what it truly portends, Dakini.

Thereby, I claim, a man whom loves his job, is in his element and therefore attracts a women capable of loving him in his element... perhaps I find this nonsense to be more real, in the efforts of love, than the western scientific descartes deconstructive parallels...

There are three kinds of love...but more and more only one kind is being recognized.
The first form (which gets the most attention nowadays) is a passive kind of love; where the outside world affects the emotions of the person involved...producing a positive feeling.
The second kind of love is the act of willing the good of another (an active form). For example, you see them as a mirrored image of yourself so their happiness is your happiness. And you wouldn't do something to them that you wouldn't want done to yourself.
The third, and most important kind of love, is the self-giving love, in which the person sacrifices for the other, and ultimately gives their whole being to the other...so much so that they become like one entity.

Do emotions exist? Sure they do.
Can one will the good of another? You tell me.
Finally, can one sacrifice their whole being...even their life for another? Yes, yes, and yes again.

I completely agree with you, Sic et non, about altruistic love and becoming one with them... this is the highest form of love I have experienced, thus far... and do you know of this third kind of love yourself, personally?

I wouldn't say that. All I was trying to say is that too many people get married or into LTR over chemicals and aren't really commited. Chemicals are fun, but if you are going to be in a commited relationship you need more than "how he makes me feel".

May I pose another scenario? What if perchance one were trapped into marriage through a pregnant woman, and had only noble virtue to honor this unplanned event, then eventually fell in love with her. Albeit the sex was there and perhaps not so bad, but does the careless act remain as resentment, even though the threshold of love has been broken into? What type of chemical commitment would you call this?

There's a mass of psychological/scientific/ethical trouble when you ask if anything is real. Because emotions only take place in our mind, it could be argued they aren't real, as hallucinations 'aren't real.' It could be argued that anything that has been thought of has existed as a thought, and thus been real. There's really no end to it, since nobody can prove anything.
I, personally, view love as something that makes you happy being around someone else. There doesn't need to be a reason, maybe there is, maybe not. Whether you're just happy to around them, or smething you do makes you happy, is immaterial. If it brings you happiness, you may as well call it love.
As a result, I'm a very 'love comes and goes' type of person. It can be permenant, certainly, but it isn't always.

Written like a true Dalai Lama... ;-)

May I pose another scenario? What if perchance one were trapped into marriage through a pregnant woman, and had only noble virtue to honor this unplanned event, then eventually fell in love with her. Albeit the sex was there and perhaps not so bad, but does the careless act remain as resentment, even though the threshold of love has been broken into? What type of chemical commitment would you call this?
How does one get trapped into marriage? You made the decision to get married, right? (you in general, not you personal) I would say that if you don't want to get married then you shouldn't.

How does one get trapped into marriage? You made the decision to get married, right? (you in general, not you personal) I would say that if you don't want to get married then you shouldn't.

Does a decision, (nobles oblige) based on doing what's right (perhaps for the unborn child) allow room for the emotion of true love to grow, to happen, to be real? The other party involved has trapped the man into a life of commitment, although his heart may not be in it... but he is trying to do the right thing...

Does a decision, (nobles oblige) based on doing what's right (perhaps for the unborn child) allow room for the emotion of true love to grow, to happen, to be real? The other party involved has trapped the man into a life of commitment, although his heart may not be in it... but he is trying to do the right thing...
Oh, yeah. I suppose that love can grow, but not the chemical kind. I am on a completely different level of love with my husband then I was when we first got together. You can always love someone more deeply than you did, it takes work though, it's not *flash bang love* like it was when you first got together, it takes a concious decision and a strong commitment, love does not grow on it's own, it may start with chemicals but if you add nothing else to the relationship pretty soon chemicals fade, and you are left to figure out what to do next and sadly for a lot of couples it's "find someone new", and the cycle begins again.

He must have had some little twinge of chemicals before the marriage though, or she wouldn't be pregnant.

anyway, I don't think that "getting married" is always the best thing for surprise kid's parents to do anyway. It may sound strange coming from a Christian, and believe me the world imo would be better off if people didn't have extra-marital or pre-marital sex, but I would much rather a couple not fix their problem with irresponsible sex by getting into an irresponsible marriage. I have seen this happen too many times, they are miserable for about 2 years, fight for about 6 months after that and then divorce, each one resenting the other the whole time, and more often than not, a poor kid trapped in the middle used like a bargaining chip, until both of them get tired of taking care of the little one, and then things get really bad. :(

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/tpattiso/ITB/flashbang.gif

Flashbang love.

Here's a quote from Captain Correlli's Mandolin (well, the film adaptation at least):

"When you fall in love, it is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake, and then it subsides. And when it subsides, you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots are become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the desire to mate every second of the day. It is not lying awake at night imagining that he is kissing every part of your body. No... don't blush. I am telling you some truths. For that is just being in love; which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over, when being in love has burned away. Doesn't sound very exciting, does it? But it is!"

yep something like that..........it overwhelms your senses you know?;)

Here's a quote from Captain Correlli's Mandolin (well, the film adaptation at least):

"When you fall in love, it is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake, and then it subsides. And when it subsides, you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots are become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the desire to mate every second of the day. It is not lying awake at night imagining that he is kissing every part of your body. No... don't blush. I am telling you some truths. For that is just being in love; which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over, when being in love has burned away. Doesn't sound very exciting, does it? But it is!"
wow. exactly........


*goes to hunt for exact quote*

:D yep something like that..........it overwhelms your senses you know?;)

Good analogy, 'cept love usually isn't followed by a SWAT team or Navy SEALs.

:D

Good analogy, 'cept love usually isn't followed by a SWAT team or Navy SEALs.
I suppose it depends exactly what type of relationship that you have, and to whom you are "in love" with...............LOL

Love on the other hand, isn't a feeling at all, it's an action, it's something you decide to do, it lasts forever because you work at it.
What she said.

An action of the soul.

There are three kinds of love...but more and more only one kind is being recognized.
The first form (which gets the most attention nowadays) is a passive kind of love; where the outside world affects the emotions of the person involved...producing a positive feeling.
The second kind of love is the act of willing the good of another (an active form). For example, you see them as a mirrored image of yourself so their happiness is your happiness. And you wouldn't do something to them that you wouldn't want done to yourself.
The third, and most important kind of love, is the self-giving love, in which the person sacrifices for the other, and ultimately gives their whole being to the other...so much so that they become like one entity.

Do emotions exist? Sure they do.
Can one will the good of another? You tell me.
Finally, can one sacrifice their whole being...even their life for another? Yes, yes, and yes again.
I've been up to the second one. But after so much giving and feeling no reciprocation from it, it doesn't work. I'm at the point where I think I should be the one to look out for my happiness.

Oh, yeah. I suppose that love can grow, but not the chemical kind. I am on a completely different level of love with my husband then I was when we first got together. You can always love someone more deeply than you did, it takes work though, it's not *flash bang love* like it was when you first got together, it takes a concious decision and a strong commitment, love does not grow on it's own, it may start with chemicals but if you add nothing else to the relationship pretty soon chemicals fade, and you are left to figure out what to do next and sadly for a lot of couples it's "find someone new", and the cycle begins again.

He must have had some little twinge of chemicals before the marriage though, or she wouldn't be pregnant.

anyway, I don't think that "getting married" is always the best thing for surprise kid's parents to do anyway. It may sound strange coming from a Christian, and believe me the world imo would be better off if people didn't have extra-marital or pre-marital sex, but I would much rather a couple not fix their problem with irresponsible sex by getting into an irresponsible marriage. I have seen this happen too many times, they are miserable for about 2 years, fight for about 6 months after that and then divorce, each one resenting the other the whole time, and more often than not, a poor kid trapped in the middle used like a bargaining chip, until both of them get tired of taking care of the little one, and then things get really bad. :(

A Catholic Priest told me once that he did not consider pregnancy a reason for marriage. He want on to explain that so many more things had to exist than that "necessity" and that taking responsibility for one's actions did not mean trapping oneself in a situation that could damage three people, mother, father and child, irreparably.

I have been in love, or so I believed at the time and it has been reciprocated. It went away though. Does this mean that what I thought I felt wasn't true or real then? This poster said that when I'm in love then I'll know all about it, well, as I said in the first post, I have been in love, or so I thought at the time, but by the definitions of the word people like to throw around, love should be everlasting...
"True love" is being treated differently by you than by me. I'm treating it as a single noun with its own definition, while you are taking each word individually.

"True love" is everlasting, I think, and on a different scale than the following.

"True" "love" is love that is true, but has no chronological meaning.

Love was made up by the greeting card and candy industries to sell stuff an Valentine's Day.

:eek: That's what I was trying to say
Sorry. I didn't mean to "steal your thunder" hon. :(

love as understood by the western world is a medieval invention; courtship and the like.

we have internalized it to the extent where it is as real as gravity (i use this example because we generally accept gravity as a fact, when by scientific standards it is a theory...the theory of gravity). since birth we are shown images of love and what love is, and even if love is just a social construct (like gender or sexuality), it is still there. so i guess people can choose to not believe in it and rebel against it (the way gender warriors do), but since pretty much every western society has accepted it is an extremely desireable goal....why would you?

we are socialized into doing and accepting a lot of things without question--but that doesnt mean that they are all wrong.

A Catholic Priest told me once that he did not consider pregnancy a reason for marriage. He want on to explain that so many more things had to exist than that "necessity" and that taking responsibility for one's actions did not mean trapping oneself in a situation that could damage three people, mother, father and child, irreparably.
But that's a personal opinion, not a religious one.

But that's a personal opinion, not a religious one.
still a good one tho

Sex used to be a big part of love because it was such a huge commitment. Now it's just a vehicle for pleasure.
It also was a vehicle for pleasure. The pleasure was nature's vehicle to drive us into the commitment, because it produced offspring which had to be cared for. But evolution couldn't predict contraception, so now we're left with entirely natural pleasures where we can turn off the natural consequences.

But then, that's just one little corner of a bigger shift in attitude. Nobody believes in love anymore, they just believe in hormones and chemicals.
They believe in both. Love is, and always was, a hormonal/chemical/neurological process; but for most of human history, nobody understood that, so they thought of it in more mystical terms. But when love happens, it is every bit as real as it always was, even to a scientist who has some idea of what is going on in his brain.

Though, I think personally that true love must be reciprocated to be "true", and I think that if this happens then you will be with this person until the end.
Yes, true love is a two-way process (whereas infatuation isn't). But that's still no guarantee that it will last forever.

love as understood by the western world is a medieval invention; courtship and the like.
That is a mid-20th century doctrine which is being challenged by modern science and anthropology.

I thought I knew what love (romantic love) was, I thought I'd felt it, but in retrospect I'm not so sure.
Is love a real thing or is it just a feeling caused by hormones and a sense of attachment to someone that disappears as quickly as it came?
I'm afraid I don't understand the question. A "feeling caused by hormones and a sense of attachment to someone that disappears as quickly as it came" is still a "real thing."

Romantic love does not need to be eternal to be "real" or meaningful. The very notion of "true love lasting forever" is disturbingly juvenile (as is the notion of "true love conquering all") but there are many who can profit from spreading these myths and so we are left with a culture of romantically-retarded adults who think that falling out of love automatically renders all previous events meaningless.

It's a bit like how some people think that human life is pointless if there is no afterlife. I find such ideas bizarre; is a play meaningless because the curtain will eventually fall? Is a book made worthless by having a final chapter? Does a painting become empty and pointless when the artist brushes on the last stroke?

Love, like life, will end in its own time. This does not in any way diminish or degrade it.

Please define the term as you are using it. A "feeling caused by hormones and a sense of attachment to someone that disappears as quickly as it came" is still a real thing, after all, so your either-or question doesn't make sense to me.
thank god I dont have to argue against you on this one
[relief]

thank god I dont have to argue against you on this one
[relief]
Hmm, should I take that as insult or compliment...? :)

Hmm, should I take that as insult or compliment...? :)
take it how you wish my dear

Hmm, should I take that as insult or compliment...? :)
thank your god I dont have to argue against you on this one

now that would be an insult :)

thank your god I dont have to argue against you on this one

now that would be an insult :)
Haha, fair enough :).

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. A "feeling caused by hormones and a sense of attachment to someone that disappears as quickly as it came" is still a "real thing."

Romantic love does not need to be eternal to be "real" or meaningful. The very notion of "true love lasting forever" is disturbingly juvenile (as is the notion of "true love conquering all") but there are many who can profit from spreading these myths and so we are left with a culture of romantically-retarded adults who think that falling out of love automatically renders all previous events meaningless.

It's a bit like how some people think that human life is pointless if there is no afterlife. I find such ideas bizarre; is a play meaningless because the curtain will eventually fall? Is a book made worthless by having a final chapter? Does a painting become empty and pointless when the artist brushes on the last stroke?

Love, like life, will end in its own time. This does not in any way diminish or degrade it.

wow, I kinda almost agree with that. today is super weird, first I agree with Grave_n_Idle concerning a religious issue, and now I agree with Bottle concerning a relationship issue.............OMG I think I am sick or something and need to go back to bed........does my head feel hot? maybe I have a fever............

From a purely rational view, no, it doesn't. There is simply no room for things like emotion or will and the scientific explanation, one of hormones and chemical reactions, meets all the standards necessary to qualify as fact, at least for all practical purposes. Love, like everything else is just chemicals reacting and particles flying around. Things like human dignity are a farce at best. It would make no more sense than to speak of "rock dignity", but I digress.

From a purely rational view, no, it doesn't. There is simply no room for things like emotion or will and the scientific explanation, one of hormones and chemical reactions, meets all the standards necessary to qualify as fact, at least for all practical purposes. Love, like everything else is just chemicals reacting and particles flying around. Things like human dignity are a farce at best. It would make no more sense than to speak of "rock dignity", but I digress.
Um, according to "the scientific" explanation, emotions most certainly do exist, and there is plenty of room for emotion and will in the rational view. They may or may not be real, and there is lots of ongoing debate on the subject, but there is certainly room for them in a rational view. The fact that emotions and consciousness are the result of electrochemical reactions does not render them meaningless, any more than spoken words are rendered meaningless by the fact that they are "merely" disruptions of air pressure.

I guess maybe you are just trying to help me out by providing a concrete example of the bizarre attitude I was musing about earlier...?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. A "feeling caused by hormones and a sense of attachment to someone that disappears as quickly as it came" is still a "real thing."

Romantic love does not need to be eternal to be "real" or meaningful. The very notion of "true love lasting forever" is disturbingly juvenile (as is the notion of "true love conquering all") but there are many who can profit from spreading these myths and so we are left with a culture of romantically-retarded adults who think that falling out of love automatically renders all previous events meaningless.

It's a bit like how some people think that human life is pointless if there is no afterlife. I find such ideas bizarre; is a play meaningless because the curtain will eventually fall? Is a book made worthless by having a final chapter? Does a painting become empty and pointless when the artist brushes on the last stroke?

Love, like life, will end in its own time. This does not in any way diminish or degrade it.
Hmm. I never thought of it that way.

Though I'm not sure I appreciate the bit about being a romantically-retarded adult, I guess it's better to realize that while I'm not that far into adulthood so I can make some changes, right?

But what does this mean for the really long term relationships? The whole idea of 'til death do you part sort of thing. How is it that someone can remain in love with the same person all those years?

It's absolutly fine to have the chemicals, it's quite fun. If however you are looking to be in a long term relationship you have to figure out if this is someone that you actually can love unconditionally, if not it may be time to move on. Life is hard, relationships are hard, if you feel like you are in love and everything is always going to be perfect then you are in for a huge surprise and when things go a little worse then expected people run.
Oh, I'm aware of how hard it is. One of the things that we're quite good at is being realistic about problems/potential problems and being open about doubts or fears or insecurities. Working together to deal with obstacles and being aware of flaws in relationships so you can handle them healthily is essential. Also figuring out what works best for us as individuals.
All the effort and work put into is worth it though, or that's how it would seem so far.

Oh, I'm aware of how hard it is. One of the things that we're quite good at is being realistic about problems/potential problems and being open about doubts or fears or insecurities. Working together to deal with obstacles and being aware of flaws in relationships so you can handle them healthily is essential. Also figuring out what works best for us as individuals.
All the effort and work put into is worth it though, or that's how it would seem so far.
it sounds like you are on the right track then ;)

Um, according to "the scientific" explanation, emotions most certainly do exist, and there is plenty of room for emotion and will in the rational view. They may or may not be real, and there is lots of ongoing debate on the subject, but there is certainly room for them in a rational view. The fact that emotions and consciousness are the result of electrochemical reactions does not render them meaningless, any more than spoken words are rendered meaningless by the fact that they are "merely" disruptions of air pressure.

But the feeling is an illusion arising from stimulus and response. That's not even to get into the fact that science renders free will impossible, making democracy pointless and human dignity a myth.