What is ... Love?

A moderated forum for more thoughtful discussion.

Moderators: pd Rydia, LadyDragonClawsEDW

Wolfbelly
 

What is ... Love?

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Tue May 09, 2006 11:57 pm

Whilst discussing the subject of love on a far more engaging board, I stumbled upon a definition that all of you may find interesting.

"Love" itself is a subjective state of being where the person in love feels strongly for someone else. That other person may or may not reciprocate the feelings, or even be aware of such feelings. But the person feeling the love is very involved in the sensation and feels all the difficulties/benefits associated with it. So, the intensity of "Love" is determined by the strength of one's beliefs in how well someone else will suit their needs.

Discuss. <p>Image</p>

User avatar
Capntastic
Aa, cracked glass!
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:09 pm

Re: What is ... Love?

Unread postby Capntastic » Wed May 10, 2006 1:18 am


User avatar
Ganonfro
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 9:25 pm

Lady don't hurt me... No more.

Unread postby Ganonfro » Wed May 10, 2006 1:19 am

Didn't we have a discussion about this a couple months ago? ...I think it's still on the first page.

But either way, that is an interesting definition. I don't have much to comment on it, since it seems to cover all the bases.


User avatar
Capntastic
Aa, cracked glass!
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:09 pm

Re: Lady don't hurt me... No more.

Unread postby Capntastic » Wed May 10, 2006 1:21 am

He even posted in it.


User avatar
BrainWalker
✔+
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2002 8:59 pm

Re: Lady don't hurt me... No more.

Unread postby BrainWalker » Wed May 10, 2006 11:27 am

Yes, let's all point out that a topic already exists instead of being useful and not jerks.

Oh, and I liked that little jab there. "Far more engaging board." Nice to know where we stand in Wolf's estimation right off the bat, before a topic is even introduced.

Anyway, that definition seems pretty academic. I suppose it defines the term fairly well, but offers rather poor description of the sensation. I think the meat of this defintion, or at least the part that makes it interesting, is that last scentence. That's something that gets overlooked sometimes. <p><div style="text-align:center">Image</div></p>

User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Lady don't hurt me... No more.

Unread postby Besyanteo » Wed May 10, 2006 2:53 pm

To be fair, they're being nicer and less inflamatory here than Luj typically is in other discussion threads. Hell, you can still look in Asley's thread about her Anthropology project (also on the front page) and see where he spammed the topic.

What goes around comes around, and all that. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div></p>

User avatar
Animala
HATED BY SKELETONS
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:52 pm

Re: Lady don't hurt me... No more.

Unread postby Animala » Wed May 10, 2006 3:07 pm

Mike, where do babies come from?


Also, trying to define love is like trying to juggle feral cats whilst at the same time shave them in mid-throw. Standing in water sprinklers. Okay, perhaps not always so painful--not always--but just about as difficult.

Since it's been pointed out, though, the last line of the given definition rings offkey to me. It's very much a matter of semantics, I'm sure, but I find "need" is inferior to "want"(/desire) in the case of love and relationships. I need, and will die, without food, water, warmth, and et cetera. I want certain people in my life, but however I would feel without them, I would live on.

I have known of where the line of need and want in relationships gets blurred, and it's frankly rather scary. No one should feel that their life will end with someone else's life...or if someone else is gone on a trip...or without someone specific's approval...or if someone else can't help them with a problem.

-- Dia


[edit] re: jabs
lol, mutual trolling, get over it <p>
to make the pain go away
i cut the universe
with ribbons
because that makes perfect sense.</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=whiteknightdelta>White]&nbsp; Image at: 5/10/06 15:24

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: Lady don't hurt me... No more.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Wed May 10, 2006 4:22 pm

I, for one, would very much like to hear the ideas on love and marriage and that kind of shit from a decidedly non-Western culture. Like, Australian aborigines, or eskimos, or pygmies. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=priamnevhausten>PriamNevhausten</A]&nbsp; Image at: 5/10/06 16:23

Wolfbelly
 

Re: Lady don't hurt me... No more.

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Wed May 10, 2006 11:59 pm

Oh please, over 15 days of no responses and my post is trolling? Should I have waited a month? Psshhh ...

Anyway, segue-ing onto the topic presented by Dia/WKD (since my statement on love is pretty ironclad *smug look*) I think that want and need is something that becomes subjective when it comes to emotions (technically, EVERYTHING becomes subjective when it comes to emotions). Like, is a yearning for companionship really an emotional want or an emotional need? Technically you can live without companionship, but can your sense of self-worth survive the lack? It's an interesting topic of discussion however. So let's move onto that.


User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: Lady don't hurt me... No more.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Thu May 11, 2006 12:08 am

How far up on Maslow's do you go before you stop saying that things are needed, i.e. required for continued existence? Man does not starve from lack of affection, but lack of food will fuck a guy's week over. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

User avatar
Capntastic
Aa, cracked glass!
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:09 pm

Re: Lady don't hurt me... No more.

Unread postby Capntastic » Thu May 11, 2006 12:31 am

To be fair, my somewhat terse remarks came solely from actively ignoring the "far more engaging board" comment.

I feel that love is a lot of things, and that it can change. It can be a physical thing (Looks/sex, dependance on a mother, that sort of thing), emotional thing (Needing someone to lean on, needing to be leaned on), or a personality-type thing (Mutual qualities, enjoying just being around the other and stuff.) There's probably some other details but those are the bold strokes.

Also, heirarchy of needs, yeah. It's like a house of cards in that if the base is disturbed, the rest comes crashing down. Priam's example is superb.


Edit: As to 'your' definition of love, Sir Lloyd, it only takes romantic love into account. Furthermore, it's rather far-off than how I experience my occasional forays into unrequited romantish love. It's hardly anything that sucks me in or causes me to feel anything particularly exclusive to the feeling of love-- it's merely a sort of hopeful excitement.

Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=capntastic>Capntastic</A]&nbsp; Image at: 5/11/06 0:37

Wolfbelly
 

Buah?

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Fri May 12, 2006 9:06 pm

I suppose that on Maslow's you'd go as high as it gets before you get to things that aren't needed. Seeing as how Maslow's theory is that certain things have to be satisfied before higher things can really be perceived/worried about, it follows that things are "needed" before the next level can be achieved.

So naturally, if you kick out one of the fundamentals supporting the concept, the rest of it either gets put on hold or gets lost while you scramble to find food/shelter/clothing/etc.. How does this apply to what love is? Sorry, I just don't see the connection.

As for love being a multitude of different things; yeah, that's the point. Whatever your needs are, be they having someone that laughs at your jokes, to getting spanked by a leatherclad dominatrix, to being with someone that likes to think about Hockey a lot, if you believe that someone will satisfy those needs, then you'll be more "in love." The more needs that are seemingly fulfilled by what you perceive them/it to be, the more "in love" you'll feel. Right?

And as for the trolling issue, since this topic seems to be segue-ing there anyways, I suggest you all follow Dia's advice and get over it. Especially you Brian and Bes, since you're the ones whining about it.

Psh ... wussies.


User avatar
BrainWalker
✔+
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2002 8:59 pm

Re: Buah?

Unread postby BrainWalker » Fri May 19, 2006 12:59 pm

Eh. I've just always felt that the discussion forum should contain discussions.

Anyway, it's difficult to talk about "need" in relation to emotions, because technically you don't really need emotions at all, in the sense that they aren't necessary to support your biological functions and keep you living. But "staying alive" really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. When you're talking about emotional needs, you can't just say "need;" you have to set a goal as well. Like, "need to be happy" or "need for personal fufillment" or something. If Our Koss were to get stabbed in the face five times, or eaten by bears, or something, I'm pretty sure Diane would still be alive afterwards, but she might not really want to be. For a time, anyway.

It's strange how some people seem to want to transcend their emotions, and pretend that they don't need anything that doesn't keep them alive and financially secure. I think it's that attitude that leads to stress and mental breakdowns. Sure, I don't "need" video games, peanut butter, or Alexis; but if I cut myself off from these "frivolous luxuries," and just concentrated every last one of my efforts on not dying and building a future for myself, I'm pretty sure I would go completely insane in a matter of weeks. So, in that sense, I do need things that promote my general emotional wellbeing.

Although I don't like the "formulaic" nature of this particular attempt to define love, it is true that one's ability to meet someone else's emotional needs is a key factor in the "equasion." I mean, you can satisy wants with any one of your friends, but you don't fall in love with everyone who makes you laugh or is into D&D, or whatever. At least, I should hope you don't. At what point do you advance to the next step, then? Why is it that some couples that seem to have everything in common can be totally wrong for each other, and some couples that are as different as night and day can be great for each other? That's where these mysterious and enigmatic "emotional needs" come in. They're a lot harder to define than you might think. That's why relationships can get to be tricky. It's a lot easier to explain why you like something than why you truly love someone. <p><div style="text-align:center">Image</div></p>


Return to Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron

Yalogank