What Is Love?

[Wwanderer]

I've come to believe that isn't really love but merely trigger signals to initiate sexual reproduction.

What does the word "really" mean in this sentence?

Imo, this is an example of what I referred to as a "semantic game" in a previous post. @roots reggae 's definition of love (that it has to be returned or that it is not actually/really love) is another one. In principle there is nothing wrong with making such special/restricted definitions as long as one is clear about it and uses the word in a way consistent with one's definition. However, in my experience, it often leads to misunderstandings and sometimes fuzzy thinking when one defines a word in a way that excludes the way it is ordinarily used by most people. And in any case, one should not kid oneself into thinking that something has been learned about a topic simply by (re)defining words in some way that simplifies its meaning(s).

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

To me at least, love is simply what you want it to be and the word has a different meaning depending on who uses it.

Exactly. Even to a single person it can mean many different things at different times and in different usages.

-Ww

 

[Sinapse]

Perhaps we can infer something from the Haddaway song itself.

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

In this first iteration of the refrain, Haddaway expresses a mixed, tragic, and confused sentiment. In the first sentence Haddaway seems to offer a simple philosophical question, much like the OP posted here. However, upon reaching the second line, the audience begins to suspect tht rather than simply intellectual curiosity, there is a single, real, painful, and currently occurring experience from whence this existential question has arisen. The author has experienced pain at the hands of either a small child, or more likely, their lover or object of their desire. The first "baby don't hurt me" potentially could indicate that due to the authors' feelings the "baby" in question (hereafter referred to as "the girl") has the capability to hurt the author, presumably because of the author's strong feelings towards the girl. The second "don't hurt me" followed by the "no more" indicates that not only is hurting the author a possibility given his feelings towards the girl at this point, but it is a reality, one that has already occured.


Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me
No more
What is love?
Yeah

In this stanza, the author repeats his request to not be hurt, his question, and ends with a "Yeah." Presumably this yeah indicates that he will expound on his situation presently, and emphasizes the strength and conviction of his worries.


I don't know why you're not fair

The author here indicates that the girl is not acting responsibly, and she "owes" him something, or that the balance is somehow uneven.

I give you my love, but you don't care

We learn here that the author is presumably in pain because of unrequited love. Whereas his feelings are strong towards her, she does not feel the same. As Roots mentioned:

to qualify as genuine love, the sharing need be balanced between self and other.

According to roots' definition, the love the author experiencing is not "genuine."

So what is right and what is wrong?

This sudden descent into morality indicates that the authors' entire intellectual capability is shaken, to the degree that he is unsure of "right and wrong". Perhaps he is contemplating violence, towards himself or her. Perhaps he is wondering if he should leave her alone or follow his own love as a true and "valid" feeling and descend into "impossible love" as Roots has indicated here:

Impossible love is desire for someone that has little likelihood of fulfillment. Typically, the object of impossible love is thought of as someone who can appease your desires, but for various reasons is beyond your reach. Since humans are motivated to savor and maximize positive emotions and minimize negative ones, experiencing impossible love is stressful.

I think the author would agree that it is indeed "stressful."

Gimme a sign

Given that the girl has made it clear that this is unrequited love, the author's desperate plea to "gimme a sign" is asking for some reason, any reason to continue down this stressful and painful path of loving someone who doesn't love you.

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

The author repeats the refrain twice more to emphasize his conundrum. Clearly, his reality is being shattered by this. I think @just4fun can relate:

memories of pain and suffering..........

If the love is unrequited, then the question we must ask is, why does the author blame the girl for "hurting him" as if his pain is her choice? Perhaps @User#8628 can shed some light on this paradox:

I guess just being pulled to someone no matter what. Even if being with them could come between your life goals, even if they hurt you. I think love means that it's emotionally painful to stay away from someone.

So it's painful to stay away, and yet it's painful to keep trying to get something which you cannot. A conundrum indeed! The author is damned if you do, damned if you don't.

(Woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)
(Woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)

A sudden musical interlude from a female singer. The audience must wonder - is this the girl of the story? Is Haddaway banging an Uggo to get over the girl in question? Is it a supportive female friend? Or an unrelated character here to witness the unfolding of more drama? We will never know.

Oh, I don't know, what can I do?
What else can I say, it's up to you

The author begins to come to terms with the fact that he has no true recourse and everything is up to the girl's decision. Unfortunately for him it seems she has already decided.

I know we're one, just me and you
I can't go on

The author indicates that he knows he and the girl are "one" - presumably as in, one body, one soul, one essence. They are so alike as to, by all reasonable inference, be drawn inseparably together. Since this has not happened, the author is having an emotional, moral, and philosophical meltdown. The author's strong wording indicates it is his belief that he doesn't merely suspect, he knows they are one, if only she could see it. Roots has more to say related to this:

For the sake of this post, let’s just consider the healthy version of love as involving two individuals who maintain their separate identities, yet intimately join together based on mutual interests, excitement, enjoyment, the sharing of novel or stimulating experiences, and a shared capacity to learn from the negative emotions they experience.

The author believes that he and the girl are destined to healthy love, however, she cannot see it and thus is "hurting him".

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

The author is repeating himself at this point. It seems his logical functions may be overridden by desire to drive home this point.

(Woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)
(Woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)

Again, the mysterious female singer appears. Who is she? Are there any clues?

What is love?
What is love?
What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
Don't hurt me
Don't hurt me

One could call it intense emotional feelings, among others we have already touched upon, i.e. obsession and addiction.

We are indeed reaching the realm of "obsession and addition" as the author repeats the refrain for the sixth and seventh time in less than a minute.

I want no other, no other lover
This is our life, our time

The author renounces all future or current other lovers, dedicating himself to the girl now and forever exclusively. Will she reciprocate? Does he imagine that this will help him? Perhaps he has cheated in the past and this is his pledge to be true in the future.

We are together I need you forever
Is it love?

Is the author "together" with the girl, as in a relationship? Perhaps they have had a long and fruitful relationship - even involving travel, marriage, or other major milestones, and now she is waning in interest yet he remains firm, or stronger than ever. Nonetheless, forever is a very long time, and "need" is a strong word. Without her will he cease to exist?

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

The author keeps repeating himself here, perhaps hoping that repetition is convincing to the girl in question.

Yeah, yeah, (woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)
(Woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)

One would imagine that if he "wants no other" and if they are "together" then perhaps he should have not had this woman sing on the track, lest the girl he desires think him unfaithful. Seems like a classic oversight here. Or - perhaps it is purposeful. He suspects that the presentation of another woman will spark feelings of jealousy and ignite the passions of the girl and drive her into his arms.

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
What is love?

Another four times for the refrain. Even for Eurodance this is getting repetitive. Let's check out the thoughts of the OP on the matter:

What is romantic love?

I'm not sure, but I suspect that it involves performing an act that might be contrary to one's safety or self-interest.

We already have expressed doubts about the author's ability to refrain from violence - either directed towards himself, towards her, or to other perceived threats, and have established that he is going to be in pain for the forseeable future either if he keeps trying for this impossible love, or if he gives up and stays clear of this woman. Thus, the author has indicated that Jbagz is correct, he is acting both contrary to one's safety and self-interest.

We are left with a melancholic feeling, and a curiosity about what may happen in the future to this character. We have no real sense of her feelings on the matter besides the fact that she "doesn't care". Does she have another lover? Is she simply not into him? Did she used to be, but something he did or didn't do turned her off of him? We are left with more questions than answers, and the author used most of the 3 minutes of the song repeating himself in a manner akin to bashing his head against the wall to the synthy rhythms rather than provide more context. It's understandable, given that he's hurt, but we are left curious and a little sad (or even worried for the health of one or both characters in the story). This places the tune firmly at the "towards the end of the night" rotation, when everybody in the club is nice and drunk and feeling somewhat wistful. This certainly is not a song to pound shots to, but rather one to dance the small hours of the night to. Presumably, the lack of desire to end the night alone will spur the crowd into finding a mate so as not to feel existentially alone.

Haddaway himself mentions:

“People always ask me about what I meant,” he writes to Flavorwire. “I meant that ‘what is love’ needs to be defined by everyone by his own definition. It’s unique and individual. For me, it has to do with trust, honesty, and dedication.”

It seems that Haddaway agrees with some of the conclusions of this thread himself, and his song was indeed an attempt to illustrate the complex and personal nature of love.

 

[owlet]

Apparently it is a devolved mighty hawk
Or so I thought

But I like it better, cuter and more tamed

i was going to do a baby hawk... but they looked kind of weird.. and not cute.. and i like this fella, he has a kind of admonished look, which is how i was feeling haha

 

[rick]

It seems that Haddaway agrees with some of the conclusions of this thread himself, and his song was indeed an attempt to illustrate the complex and personal nature of love.

Help, Sinapse had some E at the club over the weekend and still hasn't come down!
He's going full roots reggae!

 

[Wwanderer]

the complex and personal nature of love.

It was a loooong slog to get to these last seven words of your post, but they do seem to nail the main reason that defining or describing love is such a difficult, probably futile, endeavor imo.

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

"I agree with the different kinds of love statement. That's why I singled out romantic love as being mutual. To me, if it's not mutual, it's not romantic love. Romantic love is shared and must be nourished by both parties. ...

Since this was reposted from another thread, let me also say here why I see it as rather flawed and problematic perspective on love.

One reason is that it labels what one partner is feeling/experiencing in part based on what the other partner is feeling/experiencing. One can do that, of course...labels are inherently arbitrary, but it is not how we deal with or describe other emotions. For example, I can be sad or excited or afraid or disgusted or surprised or impressed all by myself, without requiring that anyone else feel the same way (or differently). However, according to this odd (imo) view, I can't feel real/genuine love unless I have a partner who feels the same way about me. To me, this makes very little sense; if my internal emotional feelings are the same in two cases, one in which my love is returned and one in which it is not, why give these two identical emotions different names?

As a further illustration of how muddy this gets, consider a romantic couple, A and B, in which A loves B and B equally and similarly loves A. Imagine their love to be as deep and committed and wonderful as you wish. By @roots reggae 's preferred definition we can say that A and B genuinely love each other. But now, suppose something changes for one of them, let's say for B. B stops loving A for some reason...maybe due to a long separation, to falling in love with someone else, to a dramatic change in the couple's circumstances, maybe to a dramatic change in something about A, perhaps to dementia or a brain injury or even death. Maybe A isn't even aware that B is no longer sharing their love for some period of time. So, now according to this odd definition, A no longer loves B...at least not in a real/genuine way...even though nothing at all has changed in A's feelings! (Btw, I have never heard, and can scarcely imagine hearing, someone say that they stopped loving a romantic partner because he/she died or became too sick to return their love. That would seem surpassingly bizarre, wouldn't it?)

-Ww

 

[roots reggae]

Since this was reposted from another thread, let me also say here why I see it as rather flawed and problematic perspective on love.

One reason is that it labels what one partner is feeling/experiencing in part based on what the other partner is feeling/experiencing. One can do that, of course...labels are inherently arbitrary, but it is not how we deal with or describe other emotions. For example, I can be sad or excited or afraid or disgusted or surprised or impressed all by myself, without requiring that anyone else feel the same way (or differently). However, according to this odd (imo) view, I can't feel real/genuine love unless I have a partner who feels the same way about me. To me, this makes very little sense; if my internal emotional feelings are the same in two cases, one in which my love is returned and one in which it is not, why give these two identical emotions different names?

As a further illustration of how muddy this gets, consider a romantic couple, A and B, in which A loves B and B equally and similarly loves A. Imagine their love to be as deep and committed and wonderful as you wish. By @roots reggae 's preferred definition we can say that A and B genuinely love each other. But now, suppose something changes for one of them, let's say for B. B stops loving A for some reason...maybe due to a long separation, to falling in love with someone else, to a dramatic change in the couple's circumstances, maybe to a dramatic change in something about A, perhaps to dementia or a brain injury or even death. Maybe A isn't even aware that B is no longer sharing their love for some period of time. So, now according to this odd definition, A no longer loves B...at least not in a real/genuine way...even though nothing at all has changed in A's feelings! (Btw, I have never heard, and can scarcely imagine hearing, someone say that they stopped loving a romantic partner because he/she died or became too sick to return their love. That would seem surpassingly bizarre, wouldn't it?)

-Ww

We are not really in disagreement. Yes, people fall out of love. This is often painful for one or both parties. However, when those feelings are no longer mutual, the romantic love is a thing of the past. It's not easy to accept, I know that from experience, yet that is the reality of the situation. Certainly, other feelings take its place, but it's no longer romantic love.

Oh, by the way, I hope none of you get the impression that I feel as if I am an an authority on the subject. I am merely stating my opinion, based on my own experience, my observations, and reading the opinions of the many researchers on the subject.

Just responding the best way I can to the question.

Whatever definition works for you is just fine with me.

 

[phil3k]

 

[roots reggae]

And let's not forget Tina Turner's wisdom:

 

[phil3k]

Love with a Little L

 

[roots reggae]

To me at least, love is simply what you want it to be and the word has a different meaning depending on who uses it.
That's why I never say "I love you".
And if I'm being told "I love you", I would't know what it means exactly.

Just my opinion, when you don't know what love is, you are missing out on one of life's true joys. And based on my interpretation of some of your past posts, it seems this creates a void in your life.

Still, you have time to define love and when the time is right, I hope you will take the leap of faith to experience it.

And the French have a rich history when it comes to the art of love.

Your life, your choice.

Best of luck!

 

[Wwanderer]

We are not really in disagreement.

I also think we are not in any disagreement about the real topic here, at least not so far, but rather just about what labels to use for what situations.

Certainly, other feelings take its place, but it's no longer romantic love.

The part of your sentence I made bold indicates one of the problem with any rather narrow definition of the word "love" such as the restriction that it has to be mutual to count. Namely, you are left without a name for lots of very similar and very strong emotions/feelings that most people call "love" using the more common broad definitions.

In other words if you are in love with someone, by your definition, and they fall out of love with you, but you still feel enormous attraction, affection, care, devotion, adoration, bonding, desire etc for them...just as you did before, what are you supposed to call it if not love? In common usage, people will say things like, "Oh, I still love my ex very much even though he/she doesn't care for me any longer." What word should they be using if not "love"? Should they say, "Oh, I now have strong positive 'other feelings' for my ex"?

-Ww

 

[Jbagz]

What does the word "really" mean in this sentence?

Imo, this is an example of what I referred to as a "semantic game" in a previous post. @roots reggae 's definition of love (that it has to be returned or that it is not actually/really love) is another one. In principle there is nothing wrong with making such special/restricted definitions as long as one is clear about it and uses the word in a way consistent with one's definition. However, in my experience, it often leads to misunderstandings and sometimes fuzzy thinking when one defines a word in a way that excludes the way it is ordinarily used by most people. And in any case, one should not kid oneself into thinking that something has been learned about a topic simply by (re)defining words in some way that simplifies its meaning(s).

-Ww

If I am able to explain what love is in my own terms to another person, I don't see how that is a bad thing or a waste of effort.

As long as I talk about it with whomever I'm considering a relationship with it reduces misunderstanding.

The most recent person I was having sex with was someone who believed love was linked to magic and that angels watched over her.

Sorry, but me having a rehearsed description of love as being a set of human behaviors would have helped me a lot.

 

[roots reggae]

One of my favorite Bollywood films, Dil To Pagal Hai , The Heart is Crazy, explores different views of love.

The leading male character, Shah Rukh Khan, has an idealized, rather than a realistic view of love-at the beginning.

His dance partner, Karisma Kapoor, is his best friend and secretly in love with him, believing love evolves from friendship.

The leading female character, Madhuri Dixit, believes that God intended for two people to be in love and it is up to them to find their soul mates.

A friend of hers is more traditional, saying that parents choose the best partner and then the couple falls in love over time.

Each of them, in their own way, finds love, sometimes changing their views as the story progresses.

Here's a clip. Be sure to click on the CC tab to get the English captions.

 

[Jbagz]

Perhaps we can infer something from the Haddaway song itself.

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

In this first iteration of the refrain, Haddaway expresses a mixed, tragic, and confused sentiment. In the first sentence Haddaway seems to offer a simple philosophical question, much like the OP posted here. However, upon reaching the second line, the audience begins to suspect tht rather than simply intellectual curiosity, there is a single, real, painful, and currently occurring experience from whence this existential question has arisen. The author has experienced pain at the hands of either a small child, or more likely, their lover or object of their desire. The first "baby don't hurt me" potentially could indicate that due to the authors' feelings the "baby" in question (hereafter referred to as "the girl") has the capability to hurt the author, presumably because of the author's strong feelings towards the girl. The second "don't hurt me" followed by the "no more" indicates that not only is hurting the author a possibility given his feelings towards the girl at this point, but it is a reality, one that has already occured.


Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me
No more
What is love?
Yeah

In this stanza, the author repeats his request to not be hurt, his question, and ends with a "Yeah." Presumably this yeah indicates that he will expound on his situation presently, and emphasizes the strength and conviction of his worries.


I don't know why you're not fair

The author here indicates that the girl is not acting responsibly, and she "owes" him something, or that the balance is somehow uneven.

I give you my love, but you don't care

We learn here that the author is presumably in pain because of unrequited love. Whereas his feelings are strong towards her, she does not feel the same. As Roots mentioned:



According to roots' definition, the love the author experiencing is not "genuine."

So what is right and what is wrong?

This sudden descent into morality indicates that the authors' entire intellectual capability is shaken, to the degree that he is unsure of "right and wrong". Perhaps he is contemplating violence, towards himself or her. Perhaps he is wondering if he should leave her alone or follow his own love as a true and "valid" feeling and descend into "impossible love" as Roots has indicated here:



I think the author would agree that it is indeed "stressful."

Gimme a sign

Given that the girl has made it clear that this is unrequited love, the author's desperate plea to "gimme a sign" is asking for some reason, any reason to continue down this stressful and painful path of loving someone who doesn't love you.

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

The author repeats the refrain twice more to emphasize his conundrum. Clearly, his reality is being shattered by this. I think @just4fun can relate:



If the love is unrequited, then the question we must ask is, why does the author blame the girl for "hurting him" as if his pain is her choice? Perhaps @User#8628 can shed some light on this paradox:



So it's painful to stay away, and yet it's painful to keep trying to get something which you cannot. A conundrum indeed! The author is damned if you do, damned if you don't.

(Woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)
(Woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)

A sudden musical interlude from a female singer. The audience must wonder - is this the girl of the story? Is Haddaway banging an Uggo to get over the girl in question? Is it a supportive female friend? Or an unrelated character here to witness the unfolding of more drama? We will never know.

Oh, I don't know, what can I do?
What else can I say, it's up to you

The author begins to come to terms with the fact that he has no true recourse and everything is up to the girl's decision. Unfortunately for him it seems she has already decided.

I know we're one, just me and you
I can't go on

The author indicates that he knows he and the girl are "one" - presumably as in, one body, one soul, one essence. They are so alike as to, by all reasonable inference, be drawn inseparably together. Since this has not happened, the author is having an emotional, moral, and philosophical meltdown. The author's strong wording indicates it is his belief that he doesn't merely suspect, he knows they are one, if only she could see it. Roots has more to say related to this:



The author believes that he and the girl are destined to healthy love, however, she cannot see it and thus is "hurting him".

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

The author is repeating himself at this point. It seems his logical functions may be overridden by desire to drive home this point.

(Woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)
(Woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)

Again, the mysterious female singer appears. Who is she? Are there any clues?

What is love?
What is love?
What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
Don't hurt me
Don't hurt me



We are indeed reaching the realm of "obsession and addition" as the author repeats the refrain for the sixth and seventh time in less than a minute.

I want no other, no other lover
This is our life, our time

The author renounces all future or current other lovers, dedicating himself to the girl now and forever exclusively. Will she reciprocate? Does he imagine that this will help him? Perhaps he has cheated in the past and this is his pledge to be true in the future.

We are together I need you forever
Is it love?

Is the author "together" with the girl, as in a relationship? Perhaps they have had a long and fruitful relationship - even involving travel, marriage, or other major milestones, and now she is waning in interest yet he remains firm, or stronger than ever. Nonetheless, forever is a very long time, and "need" is a strong word. Without her will he cease to exist?

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

The author keeps repeating himself here, perhaps hoping that repetition is convincing to the girl in question.

Yeah, yeah, (woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)
(Woah-woah-woah, oh, oh)

One would imagine that if he "wants no other" and if they are "together" then perhaps he should have not had this woman sing on the track, lest the girl he desires think him unfaithful. Seems like a classic oversight here. Or - perhaps it is purposeful. He suspects that the presentation of another woman will spark feelings of jealousy and ignite the passions of the girl and drive her into his arms.

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
What is love?

Another four times for the refrain. Even for Eurodance this is getting repetitive. Let's check out the thoughts of the OP on the matter:



We already have expressed doubts about the author's ability to refrain from violence - either directed towards himself, towards her, or to other perceived threats, and have established that he is going to be in pain for the forseeable future either if he keeps trying for this impossible love, or if he gives up and stays clear of this woman. Thus, the author has indicated that Jbagz is correct, he is acting both contrary to one's safety and self-interest.

We are left with a melancholic feeling, and a curiosity about what may happen in the future to this character. We have no real sense of her feelings on the matter besides the fact that she "doesn't care". Does she have another lover? Is she simply not into him? Did she used to be, but something he did or didn't do turned her off of him? We are left with more questions than answers, and the author used most of the 3 minutes of the song repeating himself in a manner akin to bashing his head against the wall to the synthy rhythms rather than provide more context. It's understandable, given that he's hurt, but we are left curious and a little sad (or even worried for the health of one or both characters in the story). This places the tune firmly at the "towards the end of the night" rotation, when everybody in the club is nice and drunk and feeling somewhat wistful. This certainly is not a song to pound shots to, but rather one to dance the small hours of the night to. Presumably, the lack of desire to end the night alone will spur the crowd into finding a mate so as not to feel existentially alone.

Haddaway himself mentions:

“People always ask me about what I meant,” he writes to Flavorwire. “I meant that ‘what is love’ needs to be defined by everyone by his own definition. It’s unique and individual. For me, it has to do with trust, honesty, and dedication.”

It seems that Haddaway agrees with some of the conclusions of this thread himself, and his song was indeed an attempt to illustrate the complex and personal nature of love.

That was a lot of fun to read.

Thanks much!

 

[Jbagz]

One of my favorite Bollywood films, Dil To Pagal Hai , The Heart is Crazy, explores different views of love.

The leading male character, Shah Rukh Khan, has an idealized, rather than a realistic view of love-at the beginning.

His dance partner, Karisma Kapoor, is his best friend and secretly in love with him, believing love evolves from friendship.

The leading female character, Madhuri Dixit, believes that God intended for two people to be in love and it is up to them to find their soul mates.

A friend of hers is more traditional, saying that parents choose the best partner and then the couple falls in love over time.

Each of them, in their own way, finds love, sometimes changing their views as the story progresses.

Here's a clip. Be sure to click on the CC tab to get the English captions.

That was cute, and I do enjoy a good musical every once in a while.

 

[Wwanderer]

If I am able to explain what love is in my own terms to another person, I don't see how that is a bad thing or a waste of effort.

As I said very explicitly (2nd sentence of the second, first substantial, paragraph of my post which you quoted), there is nothing at all wrong with it in principle; it is all very logical and naively a way of communicating especially clearly. However, in my experience, things mostly work quite differently in practice when you define "love" or any other major word ("honesty" or "sex" for example; "I never had sex with that woman.") in a way quite different from common/ordinary usage. People will tend to hear and try to understand what you are saying based on the more common understanding of the word or perhaps their own personal understanding, if not immediately then later when they are recalling what you said (possibly even years later) or when they repeat what you said to other people they may well leave out or minimize your careful definition of the word. Perhaps that is not your fault or concern; I am simply saying that using words in ways that differ from their normal understanding tends to produce confusion and misunderstandings. Surely that is not surprising or controversial.

As long as I talk about it with whomever I'm considering a relationship with it reduces misunderstanding.

Whoa! That is a big change of context for the discussion. Previously you said, "I am at a place in my life where I'm trying to understand humanity from a psychological perspective", and I understood this to imply that you were trying to understand and think about love as a sort of abstract intellectual activity. Now you are talking about using the word in relationship discussions with a potential romantic partner. That sounds like a HUGE difference to me! To be clear, I don't mean this a criticism but simply to say that change in context changes all the considerations imo.

The most recent person I was having sex with was someone who believed love was linked to magic and that angels watched over her.

Sorry, but me having a rehearsed description of love as being a set of human behaviors would have helped me a lot.

Interesting. Given two such fundamentally different ideas of love, neither of them exactly conventional ones, how did the two of you use the word? Whose definition prevailed in other words? More abstractly, in such a situation, how should two people communicate if they have wildly different understandings of love or some other basic concept at the core of a conversation?

Btw, I know how philosophers handle the problem, they define almost every significant word they use extremely carefully, complete with examples both positive and negative. This produces impenetrable book-length arguments.

-Ww

 

[Jbagz]

As I said very explicitly (2nd sentence of the second, first substantial, paragraph of my post which you quoted), there is nothing at all wrong with it in principle; it is all very logical and naively a way of communicating especially clearly. However, in my experience, things mostly work quite differently in practice when you define "love" or any other major word ("honesty" or "sex" for example; "I never had sex with that woman.") in a way quite different from common/ordinary usage. People will tend to hear and try to understand what you are saying based on the more common understanding of the word or perhaps their own personal understanding, if not immediately then later when they are recalling what you said (possibly even years later) or when they repeat what you said to other people they may well leave out or minimize your careful definition of the word. Perhaps that is not your fault or concern; I am simply saying that using words in ways that differ from their normal understanding tends to produce confusion and misunderstandings. Surely that is not surprising or controversial.

I think what I don't understand is the "normal understanding" of love. I'm trying to approach it based on human biology and psychology.

I don't think I'm being irrational by trying to understand my actions and behavior by looking at what drives us as a species to seek out a mate.

I have noticed a big difference in how we behave during the initial phase of a relationship as opposed to a year or two later.

I have concluded that we are being driven by hormones during the initial stages of a relationship. That heady euphoric feeling isn't love in my opinion. It is just our biological programming.

I don't think I'm being whacky looking at it this way.

Whoa! That is a big change of context for the discussion. Previously you said, "I am at a place in my life where I'm trying to understand humanity from a psychological perspective", and I understood this to imply that you were trying to understand and think about love as a sort of abstract intellectual activity. Now you are talking about using the word in relationship discussions with a potential romantic partner. That sounds like a HUGE difference to me! To be clear, I don't mean this a criticism but simply to say that change in context changes all the considerations imo.

There is me attempting to underderstand this facet of humanity and there are going to be times when I'll want to share my views with a potential mate.

I simply raised the second point in response to something you said about confusion.

Interesting. Given two such fundamentally different ideas of love, neither of them exactly conventional ones, how did the two of you use the word? Whose definition prevailed in other words? More abstractly, in such a situation, how should two people communicate if they have wildly different understandings of love or some other basic concept at the core of a conversation?

Btw, I know how philosophers handle the problem, they define almost every significant word they use extremely carefully, complete with examples both positive and negative. This produces impenetrable book-length arguments.

-Ww

Ultimately I just shut my mouth and let her ramble about guardian angels and love spirits. It bothered me that I couldn't express my views in a concise manner.

She isn't someone who I could have a lasting relationship with because of her beliefs. I don't respect them.

 

[Wwanderer]

I feel like we are chasing our tails in this conversation a bit and making our points too complicated and confusing. Probably my fault. Let me try to say what I mean more clearly:

First of all, this is a discussion of romantic love, the love that binds mates together...not love of children, pets, pizza, sports teams and so forth.

I think what I don't understand is the "normal understanding" of love.

As far I can see normal understanding and usage differs from yours mainly in that vast majority of people use the word "love" to describe a whole range of strong feels attracting them to a mate, whereas you want to dissect this range of feelings into different categories and label only one or some of them as "love". In other words, some of the things that people routinely call love, you define as not "really" love.

I'm trying to approach it based on human biology and psychology.

I don't think I'm being irrational by trying to understand my actions and behavior by looking at what drives us as a species to seek out a mate.

I also wouldn't call it irrational to try, but as I suggest in my first posts in this thread, I think it is extremely hard to learn/say anything really clear and definitive on the topic simply because it is so extremely varied, personal and subjective.

I have noticed a big difference in how we behave during the initial phase of a relationship as opposed to a year or two later.

I TOTALLY agree with this. In most cases not only the behavior but also the feelings and experience of a couple in love changes A LOT with time...in most cases (as @User#8628 noted in another thread, there are exceptions). I'd go even further and say that love changes not only between the initial phase and a year or two later but also between then and, say, 5-10 years later and then is again transformed after a few decades...and none of this is quite the same as the love one has for a partner with whom one has spent an adult lifetime and with whom one has grown old and shared many major life experiences etc.

However, despite all of these differences with time, the normal and imo sensible perspective and usage is to see all of these emotional and behavioral stages as part of a single process called (romantic) love. After all, one leads to another, and it is not like they are divided by sharp boundaries in time; the transitions are gradual and rather seamless. I don't see why one is more "real" (with the implication of being somehow more valid) than another.

I have concluded that we are being driven by hormones during the initial stages of a relationship. That heady euphoric feeling isn't love in my opinion. It is just our biological programming.

Here is where I completely lose your perspective/thoughts. Isn't it ALL, every single form and stage of it, rather obviously due to our biological "programming"...to instincts formed by the evolution of our species? Where in the world else would/could it come from? Love spirits? Mathematics? String theory? It doesn't seem to be cultural since the patterns are pretty much the same in all human societies.

And perhaps even more to the point, why should a behavior or feeling that ultimately derives from hormones and biological programming not count as love? Especially since it is the first phase of a process that leads to what you apparently would call love...

-Ww

 

[Jbagz]

Here is where I completely lose your perspective/thoughts. Isn't it ALL, every single form and stage of it, rather obviously due to our biological "programming"...to instincts formed by the evolution of our species? Where in the world else would/could it come from? Love spirits? Mathematics? String theory? It doesn't seem to be cultural since the patterns are pretty much the same in all human societies.

And perhaps even more to the point, why should a behavior or feeling that ultimately derives from hormones and biological programming not count as love? Especially since it is the first phase of a process that leads to what you apparently would call love...

-Ww

The reason I single out human behavior during the initial encounter phase as not being "love" is that it is entirely being carried by hormonal urges, in most cases.

You can have intense lustful sex with a total stranger, that isn't love. You can also meet a new person and become infatuated with them, experience that "head in the clouds" feeling without ever having sex with them.

That isn't love either.

If you go to the market and buy all the ingredients to bake a cake, you really don't have a cake.

If you line up eggs, milk, flour and butter on your kitchen table, there is still no cake. Mix the ingredients in a bowl, you've got cake batter, still no cake.

You see where I'm going with this.

I don't trust myself to make big relationship decisions when I'm in the infatuation stage.

I have a friend who has been married five times because he commits (well, temporarily commits) to women he has only known a few months.

I think that is insanity, and it is all to common a scenario.

 

[Wwanderer]

The reason I single out human behavior during the initial encounter phase as not being "love" is that it is entirely being carried by hormonal urges, in most cases.

You can have intense lustful sex with a total stranger, that isn't love. You can also meet a new person and become infatuated with them, experience that "head in the clouds" feeling without ever having sex with them.

That isn't love either.

Thanks for taking the time to respond again, and I do see/understand your perspective more clearly now and see where you are going with it.

Understanding does not mean agreeing of course, and we probably have to agree to disagree at this point. I still don't see why an emotion should be disqualified as love just because it is primarily or entirely hormonal; whatever its cause, it remains a VERY strong emotion, one that needs a name and that leads toward situations that you too would consider to be love (if I understand you correctly). More importantly, couples who spend a lifetime loving each other (by almost any definition) very often remember that "initial encounter phase" extremely fondly and recall it as one of the best and most important parts of their relationship, indeed as its origin and even cause. In any case, I'd say it remains semantics...just a matter of labels.

Moving beyond labels and talking about the thing itself, a tangential comment: Imo and personal experience, the two situations you describe in this pair of sentences:

"You can have intense lustful sex with a total stranger, that isn't love. You can also meet a new person and become infatuated with them, experience that "head in the clouds" feeling without ever having sex with them."

are quite different. I agree that what you describe in the first sentence isn't love. People, including me, routinely have purely sexual interactions that almost no one would call love (p4p encounters, swinging in HBs and such); they are indeed sex without love. However, the "head in the clouds" feeling you mention in the second sentence would qualify as love imo. People in that state tend to use the word "love" to describe their feelings and to exhibit a lot of the behaviors associated with more advanced stages of love, such as jealousy, protectiveness and attentiveness.

Certainly in literature the initial "head in the clouds" stage is understood to be love; see, just to pick one very obvious example, see Romeo and Juliet by some guy widely considered to have pretty good insights into the human heart.

-Ww

 

[Jbagz]

I am enjoying this conversation and I'm not continuing to reply just to engage in a squabble.

I'm getting something out of this by kicking it around with you. That said...

Moving beyond labels and talking about the thing itself, a tangential comment: Imo and personal experience, the two situations you describe in this pair of sentences:

"You can have intense lustful sex with a total stranger, that isn't love. You can also meet a new person and become infatuated with them, experience that "head in the clouds" feeling without ever having sex with them."
are quite different.

I agree that what you describe in the first sentence isn't love. People, including me, routinely have purely sexual interactions that almost no one would call love (p4p encounters, swinging in HBs and such); they are indeed sex without love. However, the "head in the clouds" feeling you mention in the second sentence would qualify as love imo. People in that state tend to use the word "love" to describe their feelings and to exhibit a lot of the behaviors associated with more advanced stages of love, such as jealousy, protectiveness and attentiveness.

Certainly in literature the initial "head in the clouds" stage is understood to be love; see, just to pick one very obvious example, see Romeo and Juliet by some guy widely considered to have pretty good insights into the human heart.

-Ww

Yes, those two scenarios that I mentioned are different. I was trying illustrate the part of the "love spectrum" where hormones are the primary driver human emotions and actions.

I'll admit that I am constructing a personal view of when to apply the lable of love. Regardless, I think most people would agree that a young man who gets that "head in the clouds" feeling over the new secretary in his office is experiencing a superficial version of love until he acts on it more than admiring her from a far.

If a younger coworker approached you for advice on courting a new female that he was smitten with, I doubt that you would say, "Yep, that sounds like love! Don't hesitate to rush into this and make big decisions that will alter the scope or your life for the next decade or two."

You sound like a reasonable guy and I can't imagine that you would not discriminate between an infatuation, crush or deeper love.

As for The Bard, well good old Bill and his crew at The Globe made a living with their plays. No doubt, they left an enormous cultural footprint on matters of the heart, but they were in the business of selling love stories.

Sometimes all does not end well, especially when we assign too much value to the base range of emotions called love.

 

[Wwanderer]

I am enjoying this conversation and I'm not continuing to reply just to engage in a squabble.

I'm getting something out of this by kicking it around with you. That said...

OK, good...glad to know we are on the same wavelength in that regard.

Yes, those two scenarios that I mentioned are different. I was trying illustrate the part of the "love spectrum" where hormones are the primary driver human emotions and actions.

Btw, a perhaps deeper question, but what is it that you think motivates/drives/causes love when it proceeds beyond the hormonal stage. Are hormones still a part of it after the couple has been together for a while, let's say 20 years? Are instincts? Is it rational/logical thought? Is it still really an emotion?

I'll admit that I am constructing a personal view of when to apply the lable of love.

OK, which is fine as I said from the beginning, but as I also have said a few times, you have to be careful with such personal labels or you will end up confusing other people about what you are saying. In any case, that semantic issue started us off down this interesting road that leads to some deeper points (imo).

Regardless, I think most people would agree that a young man who gets that "head in the clouds" feeling over the new secretary in his office is experiencing a superficial version of love until he acts on it more than admiring her from a far.

Hmmm...this is a somewhat different scenario than the one I have been imagining so far in this discussion. In particular, I have been thinking of those common (Romeo and Juliet-like) situations in which the couple are both "head in the clouds" smitten with each other rather than a case in which it is one-sided "love from afar". Have you mostly been thinking of the latter?

If a younger coworker approached you for advice on courting a new female that he was smitten with, I doubt that you would say, "Yep, that sounds like love! Don't hesitate to rush into this and make big decisions that will alter the scope or your life for the next decade or two."

You sound like a reasonable guy and I can't imagine that you would not discriminate between an infatuation, crush or deeper love.

No, I do of course discriminate between that and other stages of (what most call) love...and as I mentioned a few posts back, also other stages. For example, from the perspective of older people in long-standing relationships, the love of a young couple who have been together for, say, just a few years often looks like (and is sometimes called) "playing house". In other words, from that more "mature" perspective, it too looks still a bit superficial and in a sense "unrealistic". So, yeah there are a lot of stages.

However, I probably differ from most people (including you I infer) in that I do not consider the relatively brief "head in the clouds"/infatuation/crush stage emotions to be less powerful or important in people's lives than the so called "deeper" love that comes later. In other words, I do not equate duration with depth. The mere fact that it often passes quickly (and is perhaps mostly hormonal) does not imply that it is less strong or deep. I would say that love is complex, multidimensional and wildly variable from one person to another and that there is some conceit or even arrogance involved when older people dismiss as superficial or unimportant the feelings of young lovers whose emotions burn briefly but ever so hot.

As for The Bard, well good old Bill and his crew at The Globe made a living with their plays. No doubt, they left an enormous cultural footprint on matters of the heart, but they were in the business of selling love stories.

Sometimes all does not end well, especially when we assign too much value to the base range of emotions called love.

The theme Romeo and Juliet can be (and often has been) read to be that the power and depth of "superficial" young love is often underestimated by sober and mature adult society...with tragic consequences.

-Ww

 

[hkAlone]

What is romantic love?

I don't actually like the word Love.
I prefer talking about emotional attachment.
Love had been used so much by religion, singers, movies, etc... It cannot be defined anymore as it covers so many behaviours, feelings and ideals at the same time.

Emotional attachment is concrete. You can feel the attachment to someone and the intensity of the attachment.
You can say my attachment to my kids and my parents is unconditional. My attachment to my wife requires regular mutual expressions of our respect, our attention.
There is no obsession. You just feel good with the people you are attached to. Relaxed, intimate, connected. They can obviously hurt you. If it happens, it is better to be balanced inside to put it in the right context.

Passion is another animal. When you feel it, it is quite close to what Alice was mentioning. You are obsessed by the object of your passion. You want to be with him/her all the time. When you're not with him/her, you think about him/her. Passion doesn't last long but can still change your life forever
Passion can mutate in emotional attachment over time or hatred... or simply wait and it will disappear by itself.
You can feel passion for someone who resonates with your emotional memory. It doesn't have to be mutual. The object of your passion can have no respect for you.



What about me?
Passion is a drug.
It feels good.
I enjoy feeling a bit of it but as I have not a addictive nature I won't fall for it. I can feel it after one or two nights with a fantastic person. Usually I just wait three or four days for symptoms to disappear.

I let actually passion devoured me entirely once, a few years ago... for the best.
Emotional attachment on the other side had been very healthy for me. I feel strong to be "loved" by so many people. I'm enjoying how much they matter to me. This strength allowed me to be myself, to do things I like without caring about judgements.