Is today's concept of "love" truly love at all?

Post Reply New Topic

tuuuuuuuuuuuuune!

No, it is not. I'm not entirely sure that my definition of love (or friendship for that matter) truly exists. My definitions are absolute. If someone is my friend, I want to be around them all the time and I would do anything for them - love is very similar only including even more devotion and some adult themes

Then again these extreme views seems to be more common among people on the spectrum so perhaps I will have better luck with one of my own kind.

"Love" only ever was a completely abstract collection of meanings at best, and even that is pretty much completely at the mercy of of the context the word is used in.

Probably, yes, the lay standard for using the word has degraded quite a bit, though. It's an "I want to believe" kind of word, now. And sometimes a magical, "get lucky" kind of word, too.

Oh well! We can always make other words up!

Because not all attachment is based on these shallow qualities that you describe... and to one in need, one cannot disregard the importance of financial stability has to someone who has suffered poverty. Love is not always permanent, but nothing in life is constant... all things change. Some relationships grow from the initial attraction and develop into a deeper love, others are fleeting instances of intense emotion. And when we look back upon our past relationships, our own bias affects how we see what really happened.


M.

To each their own definition of love.

Love in the time of Cholera explores a lot of themes like that. Anyone read it?

Absolute, unconditional love for another individual is a characteristic bordering on divine. It isn't something human beings possess unless they have experienced raw, soul-crushing despair. People are obligated to have "unconditional love" for their families, but as was expressed by CelticGoddess above, if there is a major upset within the family, that "love" dissipates. It is very human, very limited, and very conditional.

If you're willing to sacrifice everything, though, I'm sure you can find it eventually.

Hey timeisdead, Rockford is an hour and a half west of where I live (Grayslake). I haven't seen anyone on here who lived that close before.

I never have, but I've liked what I've seen of Marquez; big fan of 100 Years of Solitude. Recommend it?

Would I recommend Love in the Time of Cholera? Definitely.

I'm already experiencing it

That's so cool!! Nice to see another Midwesterner!

I am experiencing unconditional love as we speak. If it is human nature to let go of love or not even open up your heart for it, my theory on human nature is correct; people naturally gravitate towards evil. Transient "love" is no more than a potent emotion.

A woman in poverty may feel the need for a man to take care of her but that's not truly love but desperation if that is the only factor bringing her towards him.

If he began to abuse your or the children, he wouldn't be putting either of you ahead of himself. This would not be an example of a loving relationship.

Eh, when you get down to it, love is really about finding someone you are happy with , and then sticking by them (and them sticking by you , has to go both ways) when things get tough.
Even with this definition, what most people call 'love' is really just shallow attraction that ends quickly, and leaves them no better off than before. Its a stupid, short-term type of thing, and it accomplishes nothing.

Thus the reference to attachment, not any sense of deep or true love. Love comes in many varieties, so to say it isn't love is to exclude those for whom that superficial determination is part of their definition of love. I can relate; I would not want a partner whose attraction to me was a reliance on my financial support. But it's not something that is unheard of, in our generation or any other.


M.

No, I wouldn't say it's love. Having said that, I'm skeptical of some past golden age when love was true love - in my experience, more traditional, more old-fashioned societies are even more materialistic when it comes to relationships than the West (works hugely to your advantage if you're an employed white male living in the West with a First World passport).
I agree with the comments on friendship, unlike for love, I do think it used to be better in the past. It also depends on culture; while friendship is superficial in the West and in Latin countries (and from what I've seen, it's also true of the Chinese), it appears it is taken seriously in Japan.

Better yet: Love is an abstraction of chemicals and hormones, corresponding with other chemicals and hormones generated from feelings and emotions, that evolved over time so that partners would be more willing to protect each other. That is how it is, just as we are big sacks of water, bone, and tissue. We are the Spartan method: Love generated for protection of each other. So love is interchangable with "A genetic disposition involving reactions of chemicals and hormones made so that one has a drive to protect a sexual partner."

Sentience may break that, but all animals are sentient, and not all animals love, therefore that is irrelevant.