love?

If love is the strongest emotion you can have and the one we all long for the most then how come it is indefinable? How come sometimes we arent even aware its in our faces? Why do we tell ourselves we love someone and truely believe that we do, when we actually dont we just say we do to make ourselves feel better about who we are? If love was the strongest emotion i sometimes think its tangibility would be less fraught with fear and confusion. Why are we all chasing something that seems so elusive ? and why once we have captured this dream of being in love that we then take its greatness and wholeness for granted ?

If I may venture an answer...

I think that the reason that the blend of emotions that we call 'love' is indefinable is because the vast majority of people believe it's something greater than 'ordinary' emotions, such as happiness, sadness, etc.

The truth is, love is nothing more than an evolutionary 'reflex' as it were, implemented by our subconscious when we find someone who we view as a potential mate. When your subconscious brain activates that 'reflex' we 'fall in love' which means that we're given a greater desire to fuck that person, and thus evolution wins, because we're then more likely to continue the existence of the species.

The human obsession with 'love' and how its so damn intangible, is quite amusing when you consider that its that obvious.

-plaz out-

only someone soulless could define love as an evolutionary emotive

and what about love for your friends ? you dont want to reproduce with them. i certaintly have friends that i dont want to sleep with, friends i love and friends i like; and explain homosexuality? Are you saying that only Hetrosexual people experience true relationship love ?

I'm going to split this across into it's own thread... i think it warrants discussion, any problems email me and i'll stick it back in.

[Edit] wow that was nice and easy

VB

Love is a strong emotion... But Rage is the strongest.

haha plaz, you fucken cynic.

I think its undefinable, not indefinable, but anyway.

Love is something you know - you don't have to think about it. The mind has no place in love. I think to truly feel love, it has to be reciprocated. You may love someone, but if they don't love you back then you're only getting half the deal.
I've had the privlege of finding love so early in life and having that love returned - however, we were never officially in a relationship.

I think plazmas description of love is, for lack of a better word, shit. Love is not just wanting to 'fuck' someone, that is lust. Love is not wanting to be apart from that person, it is the feeling of completeness when you are with them, it is being in each others arms and the feeling of nothing else mattering - love transcends...

But hey, maybe im just corny and wrapped up in a feeling of love for someone, who knows?

That is the extreme of relationship love, theres obviously the love for friends, family etc which are different, but... eh. I dunno
Lets just say its grouse.

Adikkal

Love is a strong emotion... But Rage is the strongest.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but love has more legs.

Rage can be over in a matter of moments. Love, true love, can last for a lifetime.

I appreciate and understand your responses. My question relates to not what is love but why are we chasing love like an elusive dream that has the possibility to harm. Im also asking the question if love is so strong an emotion why is the fundaments of love so indefinable (thats what i meant adikkal!;>) equivocal and intangible. How can something we all yearn for search for and revolve our lives around be something like this? Its amazing ocnsidering most of lives are spent around carefully planning every other aspect of it.

Jumping to conclusions is bad, you often have to jump back!

Nowhere at all did I say that 'love' was us merely wanting to fuck someone. Nowhere at all. My explanation doesn't make the feeling we call 'love' any less real or enjoyable. It just provides it with an explanation backed with evolutionary theory and psychology.

As to the 'love' you feel for your friends and family? Its a different kind of love, and it is just, to my point of view, for the purposes of my theory, Friendship^2. As opposed to being the same emotion as being 'in love' which is what I was covering.

Homosexuality? Well who's to say that with a great many people the subconscious can't say 'hey that person'd be good to pro-create with' regardless of their actual gender.

Only someone soulless could define love as an evolutionary emotive.

Click to expand...

How perceptive of you.

-plaz out-

I agree with Adikkal, 'lust' provides a far more convincing story than 'love' if you want to travel down the path of evolutionary explanation.

In terms of propagation of the species, the true concept of 'love' would seem to mean that we stick to breeding with one person at a time, thus baring only one offspring at a time.

Similarly, sticking to a single mate would mean that we're not mixing the gene pool as much as possible, which once again you would think is an evolutionary imperative.

In reply...

In terms of propagation of the species, the true concept of 'love' would seem to mean that we stick to breeding with one person at a time, thus baring only one offspring at a time.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is correct in part, the reason 'love' is so convenient from an evolutionary point of view, is that it encourages the male to stay with the female in order to raise their offspring. This ensures that any offspring have the maximum possible chance of reaching adulthood. While in this day and age it is no longer imperative for this to happen, it is the culturally accepted and natural norm in almost every culture. Bearing only one offspring at a time however is false, because during the course of a childbearing relationship the norm is several children, though that number has decreased as the survival rates for infants and adults have increased.

Similarly, sticking to a single mate would mean that we're not mixing the gene pool as much as possible, which once again you would think is an evolutionary imperative.

Click to expand...

Human beings are not monogamists, they are SERIAL monogamists, this means that they have one partner who they stay with for a while, then they will often leave and start up with another partner, etc. This means that the gene pool is mixed, and the evolutionary imperative is fulfilled.

Happy?

-plaz out-

BREAKaBEAT said:

why are we chasing love like an elusive dream that has the possibility to harm.

Click to expand...

Because there's nothing else in life worth pursuing. There's nothing else which brings the same degree of pleasure and validation.

Unless you feel the same way about money, or power. But those are just substitutes for love, in my opinion.

Bearing only one offspring at a time however is false, because during the course of a childbearing relationship the norm is several children, though that number has decreased as the survival rates for infants and adults have increased.

Click to expand...

Nowhere at all did I say that 'bearing one offspring at a time' was us merely bearing only one offspring in the course of a relationship. Nowhere at all.

We *do* generally only bear one offspring at a time. This doesn't mean that we can't bear multiple children in a relationship. All it means is that we bear them one at a time.

My point being that by way of lust as a more plausible explanation to evolutionary theory.. we could feasibly go on an endless partner swap.. bearing many children through different partners *at the same time*.

As far as the diverse gene pool argument goes. Evolution isn't about half measures, it's about finding the most efficient means possible, in that sense it can't be 'fulfilled' - it's only fulfilled until a more efficient method comes along, which to my mind lust is.

I think love is far above issues of propagation.. It's pure and emotive. The reflex to continue the species is best served by the hormonal and chemical instinct of lust.

Evolution 101

I think you missed my point somewhat. I agree, lust is the best way to concieve as many children as possible, but where 'love' comes into it, is in having TWO people, not one, around to care for those children and ensure that they grow up and reproduce themselves. Something that evolution depends on. This is why lust is often a precursor to 'love', you have the desire to reproduce, then you have the desire to stick WITH that person you wish to reproduce with.

My point being that by way of lust as a more plausible explanation to evolutionary theory.. we could feasibly go on an endless partner swap.. bearing many children through different partners *at the same time*.

Click to expand...

See above for WHY that's incorrect.

I'll restate as simply as I can. Lust is a great way of conceiving as many offspring as possible, from as diverse a genetic background as possible but that's useless to evolution if they don't survive.

Secondly, diversifying the gene pool isn't what its all about, its about picking the genes with the best possible chance of survival, hence girls usually go for Big guys or Smart guys. Its because the big guys are tough, and the smart guys are intelligent, both are characteristics which aid surival, in evolutionary terms. Human beings have only been living in 'civilisation' for about the last 4000 years if that, we have been around for 40,000 at a minimum. Evolutionary reflexes die hard.

I think love is far above issues of propagation.. It's pure and emotive. The reflex to continue the species is best served by the hormonal and chemical instinct of lust.

Click to expand...

I don't particularly wish to insult you, but I find this to be a highly simplistic and naieve view of 'love'. Hormonal and chemical instincts are what sparks attraction, 'love' is what encourages us to pursue a binding and long lasting relationship beyond the purely sexual. This is basically exactly what evolution requires. Lust is one part of the coin, 'love' is the other, they are certainly not so far apart as you put it, indeed a great many people seem to have difficulty in differentiating one from the other.

-plaz out-

errr...

....

so anyway, evolution aside...

I thought it was undefinable, though it seems both are acceptable. I prefer the UN prefix, rock on!

Anyway,
Why do we pursue love when it has such possibility to hurt?
Well i kind of liken it to climbing a really tall ladder that you know you can fall from and hurt yourself, but you keep climbing because the view from the top is incredible...
In my opinion its better to feel something, than nothing at all.
As the saying goes "It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all"

Sure the bad is bad, but the good is most definitely good. I've loved, been hurt, but i wouldn't do it differently because some of my best memories are of the good times, and the bad times provoke lyrics - so, its not ALL bad.

I think its perfectly logical that something we all strive for is indeed intangible and equivocal. Hell if it were straightforward and simple then it wouldn't be worth pursuing so adamantly.
It transcends.
There is depth.

Just keep thinking of love as that really big fucking mountain with the awesome view, and remember that it hurts like hell when you fall, but you won't forget that view

Adikkal

I think you missed my point somewhat.

Click to expand...

No, no I didn't. I understand your point completely.

I just happen to believe that if you want to turn it into a debate that focuses purely on survival of the species.. bearing as many offspring as possible (lust) with different mates trumps bearing one at a time with one mate - and then sharing in the raising of that one child (love). It's a matter of opinion I suppose.. I dont think you could quantitively prove it either way other than to say the animal kingdom works in this way (although I understand a simple comparative association may not be so simple).

Humans are tribal, social creatures after all, and we benefit from the collective goods derived from community. It is not as if in a more natural state mothers roam the countryside alone fending for themselves and their young.

Similarly, when it comes to strengthening the gene pool as you indicate, lust is well positioned to do this. After all we lust after the beautiful with strong physical characteristics.

Hormonal and chemical instincts are what sparks attraction, 'love' is what encourages us to pursue a binding and long lasting relationship beyond the purely sexual. This is basically exactly what evolution requires. Lust is one part of the coin, 'love' is the other, they are certainly not so far apart as you put it, indeed a great many people seem to have difficulty in differentiating one from the other.

Click to expand...

Firstly I think we've both interchangeably used "evolution" with "survival of the species".. which is a bit confusing.

But I certainly don't think lust and love are far apart, but they are conceptually distinct. At a base level I think it's very easy to confuse lust and love; but nonethless, I think love is something we have definitely sublimated (from something), and attached important social and romantic connotations to (for intellects and not evolutions sake). At any rate, love as a concept *now* is something that transcends the simple survival of the species. Consequently I think it is a mistake to talk of love purely in those terms.

Why is love so indefinable, intangible and difficult to find? Why do we go to such lengths to get it in any form, even when we know it will hurt others or ourselves? Why will we fight, kill, or die for it? Why do we pursue it and fear it at the same time?

Beacuse LOVE is a drug, the ultimate high, pure, free, brain chemistry at its best. The human brain is engineered so that love is its peak. Any one who has had that dizzy endorphin hit knows it is a high that can last weeks, months or if you can find the really good stuff a lifetime. That’s evolution, that’s why it scares and excites us all at the same time.

I’ve certainly done things more wildly out of character because of love (real or perceived) than any artificial substance. Unfortunately like all drugs though love too has its dark side, just look at the singles thread!

BREAKaBEAT said:

only someone soulless could define love as an evolutionary emotive

Click to expand...

So someone who does not believe in souls cannot love?

What about just *feeling* love?

Backo said:

Love is a strong emotion... But Rage is the strongest.

Click to expand...

You stand corrected.

Hope is by far the strongest emotion.

I think it's a huge ask to say that love is the strongest emotion we have; I don't think any of us really knows what love is. We spend our whole lives holding "love" up to this ideal that we all form some picture of during childhood... reality can be a far cry from what we're told as kids.

Look at this, each and every one of you has a different idea about what love supposedly is, it's a shame really that we spend so much time in search of something that is likely created to make us feel better about the way we act.

She's a cum-guzzling exhibitionist whore! No, not at all, she's in love. 8) He’s a possessive asshole! No, not at all, he’s in love. 8)

Not to mention that the word love in itself can mean more than one thing for each person. You can’t define the word because it’s not fixed. My definition of it will be different from anyone else’s and not only that but the levels within that definition will each contain their own nuances.

Love is a fairytale. It's an ideal that people simply can't live up to, yet the lure of the ideal keeps us searching for more, just like the child being shown a picture of a toy for months on end then suddenly being told it doesn’t exist continues to look for it, people will forever continue to search for their ideal of love.