What Is Love?

[Jbagz]

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 think that hormonal urge is less of a factor for the couple who has been together 20 years. What is probably at play to a greater degree are thoughts of safety, security and belonging. I think Maslow's hierarchy might come into play here.

Although some psychologists have tried to discredit Maslow's theory of human motivation, I think it still carries a lot of weight.

Especially when we consider that a couple of 20 years is likely to have a strong sense of family.

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?

I think the drive or desire might be higher in the "love from afar" scenario, more powerful, intense and more likely to interfere with rational thought, but I wasn't focusing on one or the other.

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.



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

Of course it is intense, so intense that we often betray our best interests just to be with another, if only briefly.

That is a big part of my point. This "head in the clouds" phenomena is or biological programming to reproduce. That drive can overwhelm rational thought.

It doesn't matter if you are a married guy with a dozen children, if that programming gets triggered it releases chemicals that you'll have to cope with, one way or another.

Is it possible to suppress these urges? Sure! However, humanity has constructed a set of social behaviors that are at direct odds with the biological urge to sexually reproduce.

I'm not saying that societal standards of behavior are necessarily flawed, but they are at direct odds with biological urges, and sometimes this results in disaster.

 

[hkAlone]

I think that hormonal urge is less of a factor for the couple who has been together 20 years. What is probably at play to a greater degree are thoughts of safety, security and belonging. I think Maslow's hierarchy might come into play here.

Although some psychologists have tried to discredit Maslow's theory of human motivation, I think it still carries a lot of weight.

Especially when we consider that a couple of 20 years is likely to have a strong sense of family.




I think the drive or desire might be higher in the "love from afar" scenario, more powerful, intense and more likely to interfere with rational thought, but I wasn't focusing on one or the other.



Of course it is intense, so intense that we often betray our best interests just to be with another, if only briefly.

That is a big part of my point. This "head in the clouds" phenomena is or biological programming to reproduce. That drive can overwhelm rational thought.

It doesn't matter if you are a married guy with a dozen children, if that programming gets triggered it releases chemicals that you'll have to cope with, one way or another.

Is it possible to suppress these urges? Sure! However, humanity has constructed a set of social behaviors that are at direct odds with the biological urge to sexually reproduce.

I'm not saying that societal standards of behavior are necessarily flawed, but they are at direct odds with biological urges, and sometimes this results in disaster.

Bringing everything to hormones is actually wrong. If you don't want to take any risk bring everything back to bosons and fermions...

Seriously a billion year of evolution made your brain activity depending on a mixed of hormones, neuro transmitters and even more importantly depending on your emotional and conscious memory.

Overall it's a very complicated thing that cannot be fully understood at the atomic level by a human mind. It still requires psychological models / studies.

Sorry for the confusion, but basically it's a strong stance to say infatuation is all about an hormonal need to procreate. I would say surely procreation as something to do with it. But we should not despite the feeling. It's quite pleasant and addictive as I'm pretty sure it is playing with your dopamine level (wanting neurotransmitter more than pleasure)... Pretty close to cocaine consumption.

 

[dlink]

Love is the subjective feeling of the instinct to pass genes into the next generation with the highest chance of success.. With generally good but occasionally faulty or counterproductive efficacy

 

[Willful]

What is love?

Haddaway posed this very important question in his 1993 Eurodance hit, and as far as this American can tell, all we got out of it was an incredibly funny Saturday Night Live skit.

I really want to know, what is love?

On the clinical level, I suspect that it is a hormonal response tied to human social interactions. Okay, that's my working definition, but I want more.

I'd really like to hear the TAG audience attempt to describe this fantastic and tragic human emotion.

I'm not sure I've ever experienced it. I have children and I do love them, I'd die to protect them in a flash.

However, I'm not sure that is really love. No matter how incredible and awesome I think my children are, I'm bound by biological programming to feel that way about them.

To focus this question on an aspect that is more relevant to the TAG forum, let's set a few parameters.

What is romantic love?

What is an example of you giving it?

What is an example of you receiving it?

My response:

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.

What is an example of you giving it?

I drove 500 miles to Georgia one time to pick up an ex-girlfriend who was in a bit of trouble. The thrill was gone between us, but I still cared for her enough to do that. It might be the purest example of love or altruism that I have.

What is an example of you receiving it?

Another one of my Ex GFs stopped by my place with a six pack of beer and a box of chicken wings on my birthday.

That simple act surpasses anything I've ever experienced in the sphere of someone doing something just for me. Sure, she might have had ulterior motives, but I didn't sense them. I really believe that she just wanted to do something for me, because she loved me.

That's all I have on this subject, and I really want to know more.

What is love?

I have the exact same questions on this highly subjective topic that human beings have come up with and try to define. All I know for sure is I have never really been in love. I've really liked girls before and I've been attracted to many girls, but never in love. Or maybe I have and I just don't know because love is too abstract, vague for me. Possibly this is due to my upbringing.

 

[Jbagz]

I just went back and read this thread again because I had a recent encounter with someone.

It was purely sexual at first, after a few days of being together I could truly say I enjoyed being with her. We talked about interesting things, I enjoyed her sense of humor and generally found her a pleasant person.

I knew she wanted a relationship, and I started to consider letting her into my life a bit more.

Once I contemplated the responsibility of being a boyfriend again, I lost interest.

I want companionship, but I don't want to be accountable to another person. Looking longer range, I don't want to become involved in the responsibility of a joint living arrangement.

I'm even more convinced than before that most people have a bullshit definition of love.

On the other hand, I might be too clinical on the subject.

What bothers me is did I just push away someone spectacular, or did I save myself from a relationship that would have eventually soured?

 

[Frenchy]

I just went back and read this thread again because I had a recent encounter with someone.

It was purely sexual at first, after a few days of being together I could truly say I enjoyed being with her. We talked about interesting things, I enjoyed her sense of humor and generally found her a pleasant person.

I knew she wanted a relationship, and I started to consider letting her into my life a bit more.

Once I contemplated the responsibility of being a boyfriend again, I lost interest.

I want companionship, but I don't want to be accountable to another person. Looking longer range, I don't want to become involved in the responsibility of a joint living arrangement.

I'm even more convinced than before that most people have a bullshit definition of love.

On the other hand, I might be too clinical on the subject.

What bothers me is did I just push away someone spectacular, or did I save myself from a relationship that would have eventually soured?

... or both ? All relationships eventually sour . Unless you live happily ever after with the perfect princess and you are the perfect prince and you die simultaneously. I totally agree companionship should not necessarily mean being responsible / accountable for the other. But if your lady had the same opinion and you both are able to stay independent yet in love... then yes you probably rejected a true gem for the wrong reasons.

 

[Jbagz]

... or both ? All relationships eventually sour . Unless you live happily ever after with the perfect princess and you are the perfect prince and you die simultaneously. I totally agree companionship should not necessarily mean being responsible / accountable for the other. But if your lady had the same opinion and you both are able to stay independent yet in love... then yes you probably rejected a true gem for the wrong reasons.

Yeah, all the relationships that I've been involved in, and all the ones that I have observed have eventually soured.

I'm pretty sure she had the vision of a breadwinner, or at least a view of someone to take care of all her needs.

Be they emotional, financial or security.

That kind of takes the shine off the "true gem" for me.

 

[Frenchy]

Yeah, all the relationships that I've been involved in, and all the ones that I have observed have eventually soured.

I'm pretty sure she had the vision of a breadwinner, or at least a view of someone to take care of all her needs.

Be they emotional, financial or security.

That kind of takes the shine off the "true gem" for me.

Then you probably did the right thing...