What is love?

[The New Consciousness]

?

[synthesis]

It has more than one meaning.

1. It can be romantic love, which is neurologically similar to obsessive-compulsive disorder.

2. It can be familial love, which is an evolutionary trait common in most mammals; it serves to secure social bonds.

3. It can be some vague, metaphysical abstract, like Plato's "beauty", which is the sense I suspect you're using it here.

That which we call love is generally associated with empathy, itself strongly connected to serotonin and also another product of social-evolution. I think that in itself is interesting in light of your earlier supposition that "drugs get us closer to the truth", because if "truth" is love, then there might not necessarily be an easily quantifiable difference between the two.

[benhur]

More interestingly, what is it that makes us love certain objects and NOT the others? Does that mean beauty is objective, rather than subjective? If beauty were subjective, then why is it all of us love symmetry when it comes to objects, we all love the sunset (rather than something plain and dull), the rainbow...you get the idea. We seem to love certain objects, like the butterfly, but hate others like bugs. There seems to be a common view on such matters, so is beauty subjective at all?

[Decolonize The Left]

More interestingly, what is it that makes us love certain objects and NOT the others? Does that mean beauty is objective, rather than subjective? If beauty were subjective, then why is it all of us love symmetry when it comes to objects, we all love the sunset (rather than something plain and dull), the rainbow...you get the idea. We seem to love certain objects, like the butterfly, but hate others like bugs. There seems to be a common view on such matters, so is beauty subjective at all?

I'm not sure if you are factoring social conditioning and individual upbringing into this picture. The question of 'why is one thing considered more beautiful than another' has many possible answers, not something as simple as beauty being subjective/objective.

- August

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Baby don't hurt me.

Don't hurt me.

No more.


Sorry, couldn't resist.

[benhur]

I'm not sure if you are factoring social conditioning and individual upbringing into this picture. The question of 'why is one thing considered more beautiful than another' has many possible answers, not something as simple as beauty being subjective/objective.

- August

A child loves the butterfly, hates the roach. He's not socially conditioned to do that. Does that mean he instinctively feels that a certain object is beautiful, and others aren't (with social conditioning and individual upbringing playing no role)?

[Elect Marx]

A child loves the butterfly, hates the roach. He's not socially conditioned to do that. Does that mean he instinctively feels that a certain object is beautiful, and others aren't (with social conditioning and individual upbringing playing no role)?

Conditioning is deep. We are taught to fear creatures that scurry or scamper. I used to pick up spiders as a child. I handed one to my mother and she thought I was just pretending :lol:

I dislike roaches because they breed out of control and invade my home, butterflies do not. On the nature side, butterflies are colorful and have interesting flight patters, something for beings of such a visual disposition to appreciate.

[Bandito]

It's all a part of evolution-based info.
If it's romantic love,it's serotonin and some other hormones running through your body,with a consequence of making a good choice for mating. Subconciously,we're all thinking about chances of our gene to survive and possibly improve. That also applies on gay population.
We have genetic informations inside our genome that tells us that butterflies are not harmful. As for rainbow,it is based on social "memes"-most children draw rainbows as something beautiful,not because it's their conclusion that they are,it's because they are taught it is. And it is beautiful,so no harm is done. Colours are appealing for the eyes,simple as that.
It's not hard to trace roots of affection for the family members. It secures social bonding and acceptance into world of adults. We all love our gene.

BTW,why is this in "Religion"? Does someone think that that feeling has something to do with religious feelings?

[Kronos]

Biochemically, love is no different than consuming large quantities of chocolate.

Here are the basic etymologies:


Agape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agap%C4%93) (ἀγάπη agápē) means love in modern-day Greek. The term s'agapo means I love you in Greek. The word agapo is the verb I love. It generally refers to a "pure," ideal type of love, rather than the physical attraction suggested by eros. However, there are some examples of agape used to mean the same as eros. It has also been translated as "love of the soul."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_%28love%29)
Eros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_%28love%29) (ἔρως érōs) is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. The Greek word erota means in love. Plato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato) refined his own definition. Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. Eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth by eros. Some translations list it as "love of the body."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia)
Philia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia) (φιλία philía), a dispassionate virtuous love, was a concept developed by Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle). It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality, and familiarity. Philia is motivated by practical reasons; one or both of the parties benefit from the relationship. It can also mean "love of the mind."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storge)
Storge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storge) (στοργή storgē) is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_%28Greek%29)
Xenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_%28Greek%29) (ξενία xenía), hospitality, was an extremely important practice in Ancient Greece. It was an almost ritualized friendship formed between a host and his guest, who could previously have been strangers. The host fed and provided quarters for the guest, who was expected to repay only with gratitude. The importance of this can be seen throughout Greek mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology)—in particular, Homer's Iliad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad) and Odyssey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey).

[DesertShark]

It has more than one meaning.

1. It can be romantic love, which is neurologically similar to obsessive-compulsive disorder.
That type of love effects the reward pathway in the brain the same way heroin does, which is why some people experience withdraw-like symptoms when they break off a relationship.


More interestingly, what is it that makes us love certain objects and NOT the others? Does that mean beauty is objective, rather than subjective? If beauty were subjective, then why is it all of us love symmetry when it comes to objects, we all love the sunset (rather than something plain and dull), the rainbow...you get the idea. We seem to love certain objects, like the butterfly, but hate others like bugs. There seems to be a common view on such matters, so is beauty subjective at all?
Beauty is subjective, as noted by the importance of social conditioning among other things. Most people with a symmetrical face aren't attractive (check out this website to see some examples of what people would look like if their faces were symmetrical, and you can see what you would look like: http://www.symmeter.com/symfacer.htm). I think the sunset, rainbows, and mountain scenes are enjoyed by people because they're natural phenomenon that early on in our cultural development couldn't be explained and the shear awe of them extends into today. Some people don't like those things, and some people enjoy non-colorful bugs over colorful ones - that's why beauty is subjective. While there may be an overall common view shared by most people, not every person agrees on it.


Biochemically, love is no different than consuming large quantities of chocolate.
Not just chocolate (surprisingly there are some people who don't like chocolate), getting large quantities of anything you enjoy will have an effect on the brain: in the reward pathway.

[Holden Caulfield]

love is anarchy

http://radicalgraphics.org/albums/Anarchy/heart_blackandwhite.sized.jpg

[Bandito]

Again,why is this in "Religion"?

[Pogue]

Love is dicks and fannies and justification for that.

[Brother No. 1]

Love is a emotion where you care, and like, very deeply for something or somone.
Love can also mean you have "need" for someone or you have a strong deep feeling for them.
Love can be classifed into many things. just depends what YOU see love as.

[The New Consciousness]

This vital question: 'what is love?' is one of great importance. For surely only when humans learn to love unconditionally with compassion the world will know peace. In discussing this question it seems, so far, that there has been much talk of conditional love, i.e. limited, specific love. Love conceptualised and nourished by thought, the nervous system, and in some cases 'human nature'.

The central question is whether or not compassion can be reached through thought. It would seem that it cannot. Thought is grounded in measurement and fragmentation. Is compassion selective? Is compassion conditional? Of course not. Compassion is communion. Communion is unbounded. Thus it follows, logically, that compassion cannot be 'reached' if you will, by any process of thought.

There has been talk of 'romantic love'. What is that? I am inclined to agree with Kun Fana that it is an 'obsessive-compulsive disorder'. Infatuation and the desire to possess the object of attraction cannot be considered compassionate as it is limited and conditional. Is there any real difference between this and the love a child has, say, for a plastic toy?

'Familial love' has also been mentioned. The familiarity and security of such a relationship is one defined by shared experience, a sense of collective identity and physical makeup. This is an example of fragmentation. It is jealous. It is possessive and not too dissimilar to the aforementioned 'romantic love'. Can this be compassion?

There has been talk of 'metaphysical' Platonic, idealistic love: the love of an idea or concept. This is purely intellectual. This kind of commitment to ideals and concepts cannot be considered compassionate as it is, once again, conditional. An ideal, by its nature, is limited and will always come into contact with conflicting ideals. Then we have the situation of 'self' and 'other' as the ideals come into conflict. Conflict cannot be considered compassion. Compassion is communion.

The apparently instinctive love of 'beauty' as benhur so rightly noted is a selective love which condemns certain objects and animals and exalts others. But surely compassion extends to all things, including the most 'foul' of creatures, like those who illicit a natural response of fear or loathing such as snakes and spiders? Is this a natural response or is this social conditioning? If the latter, it can be overcome, but the former? What then? Is our love then purely determined by our instincts? In which case we are no longer humans. We are merely animals. Yet we have seen how some humans have overcome this. Take the late Steve Irwin for instance. Instinctive love or hate is only another fragmented form of love, a movement, if you will. Compassion, an expression of free will, can overcome that.

TheCultofAbeLincoln jokingly wrote the lyrics of the famous pop song by Haddaway. But those lyrics are very revealing. 'Don't hurt me' is the kind of love one would associate with romantic love, the hurt invariably caused by the perceived 'loss' of the love. The love in this case is not so much love, but the possession of the other. In compassion there are no winners or losers. There cannot be for there is no possession, no fragmentation.

One person asked why this was in 'Religion'. It would seem that if we are to achieve peace on Earth, we must look for a kind of universal, unconditional, even spiritual love, i.e. compassion. Surely by seeing that which isn't compassion: romantic, familial, idealistic, sensual (like chocolate) or instinctive love; we can perhaps understand what is compassion thereby moving forward on the road towards a more peaceful world.

[The New Consciousness]

Soon I'll start a thread on suffering. It is vital to our understanding of love.

But to keep the debate here going I'll just ask:

'If love entails suffering, is it really love?'

[DesertShark]

Love all, trust few, do wrong to none. -Shakespeare

[Lynx]

Perhaps we can discuss what compassion is. And gratitude.

[The New Consciousness]

Good idea, I think I'll start a thread on compassion at some point, just to narrow it down.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

you naturaly have love for everything.But it is now an illusion

[The New Consciousness]

Could you perhaps expand on that rather enigmatic post, friend?

[Glorious Union]

Love is inferior to logic.
-Me (1992-present)

[Random Precision]

'If love entails suffering, is it really love?'

I love my best friend/girlfriend, and she loves me. I live in New York and she lives in Chicago. We both suffer because of that. Still love? I'm inclined to think so.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I like your post Benhur:


More interestingly, what is it that makes us love certain objects and NOT the others? Does that mean beauty is objective, rather than subjective? If beauty were subjective, then why is it all of us love symmetry when it comes to objects, we all love the sunset (rather than something plain and dull), the rainbow...you get the idea. We seem to love certain objects, like the butterfly, but hate others like bugs. There seems to be a common view on such matters, so is beauty subjective at all?

I think it does come down to some sort of social conditioning for some things. From birth I don't believe we have some perference between certain things. It is a very interesting thing. Without any conditioning and social contact with the world what would someones perception of certain things be? Would they have no preference between things people in the world see as beautiful and things people see as ugly?

[The New Consciousness]

Without conditioning we'd all be a lot more open-minded, that's for sure.