Falling in Love or Not

[BigApplePi]

Although there are a great many things that could be said about love, let me bring up this topic.

When you first "fall in love" is it always the case that there is a part of you that believes you will be loved back? Is that true even if it turns out your feelings are not reciprocated?

Is the opposite true: If you are a person who has never fallen in love, is that because you believe you won't be loved back?

Although I have in mind another person of your species, feel free to apply this to a non-person.

 

[Dormouse]

Falling in love is the act of infatuation. It's rather different than being in love.

You can fall in love with a country, an idea, nearly anything. It does not require respect or mutual admiration. It is not easily controlled.

 

[Trebuchet]

Falling in love is the act of infatuation. It's rather different than being in love.

You can fall in love with a country, an idea, nearly anything. It does not require respect or mutual admiration. It is not easily controlled.

Well said, Dormouse. I agree that love and infatuation are different.

Everyone has the potential to be loved. People who don't believe they can be loved have a hard path ahead of them, to get past it.

 

[y4r5xeym5]

As a member of the latter case, all I can really say is that I haven't found someone that piqued my interests. Not so much a fear of not being loved, but more of a lack of finding someone that I would want to love in that manner.

 

[BigApplePi]

You can fall in love with a country, an idea, nearly anything. It does not require respect or mutual admiration. It is not easily controlled.

I agree with that. I would say this kind of falling in love is an involvement. One can control the initial phase, but once one is involved it sets up a momentum that takes hold of you.

 

[White Rabbit]

Where do we place Altruism in the 'love' spectrum?
Which perspective I ought to take in regards to your definition of love - deep affection/infatuation or unconditional surrender?

 

[asmit127]

I'm going to stick with romantic love of another human as I'm not sure the same ideas can really be applied to inanimate objects/ideas - these obviously can't love you back! Who knows what animals are thinking, they may just suffer petting as it's easier than going out to catch some food rather than really appreciating your actions. Can't ask them so can't know.

I've only fallen once and can say that even though I hated myself, and indeed the whole of humanity, at that time I didn't even consider the possibility that she wouldn't reciprocate. On a theoretical level it should be about about self confidence (if you don't really like how you are how can you think that anyone else will?) yet for some reason this doesn't seem to apply. Never really thought about it before but maybe it's just another strange side of something we still can't define (you can go with whichever you want White Rabbit - when it happens you'll know, but defining it is harder )

 

[Alexk]

I feel that the belief that you'll be loved back isn't necessary for one to fall in love if you look at the journey of the opportunity as more important than the outcome. If your feelings aren't reciprocated, then I think that the whole "falling in love" feeling might only remain should you believe it possible to find reciprocal feelings.

As for people who never fall it love, your reasoning is one explanation but I wouldn't say it applies to all. Specifically, I think people who are seeking very rare qualities, or qualities that are hidden until you get to know some one well enough, may have never fallen in love because of that difficulty to find these things. And by seeking qualities I mean both consciously and subconsciously.

 

[Cognisant]

Is the opposite true: If you are a person who has never fallen in love, is that because you believe you won't be loved back?

Hmmm, not exactly.
Personally I don't have much difficulty believing that someone or indeed anyone could love me, but y’see that's the problem, if I could theoretically fall in love with anyone and/or theoretically anyone could fall in love with me, then what is love if not the mind's enslavement to some arbitrary biological imperative.

It's not that I believe love doesn’t exist, I just don't believe in its validity.

I can't help but consider anyone who hypothetically declares their love for me a fool, a sentiment I wear on my shoulder it seems, and likewise I can't do so myself for fear of being likewise ridiculed.

 

[Minuend]

Is the opposite true: If you are a person who has never fallen in love, is that because you believe you won't be loved back?

I don't know, that reason sounds a bit simple. Maybe if it's combined with a life where love was scarce and so. But then it wouldn't really be that thought which was responsible per se.

I think the main reason I've never fallen in love is because I've not been out much growing up. Rarely met new people. The type I would fall for is probably a bit rare, so the probability of meeting him is smaller, I suppose. Also, I think I have a very thick shield that protects me from complicated things like attachment and such.

There have been a few interested in me, and seeing all the other weirdos who have partners, is not logical to assume nobody ever could be interested. If my feelings agree, I cannot tell. They usually have their own opinions they communicate rather poorly.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Although there are a great many things that could be said about love, let me bring up this topic.

When you first "fall in love" is it always the case that there is a part of you that believes you will be loved back? Is that true even if it turns out your feelings are not reciprocated?

Is the opposite true: If you are a person who has never fallen in love, is that because you believe you won't be loved back?

Although I have in mind another person of your species, feel free to apply this to a non-person.

Whether or not someone falls in love has nothing to do with what they expect of their hypothetical partner. It just happens, regardless.

Hence, what someone believes is absolutely irrelevant. Love destroys the intellect and consumes the individual anyway, as I've experienced.

I was the staunches rational. Marriage was stupid. Love was irrational. Females were unintelligible, unfathomable creatures that I didn't understand, and I didn't really want to. Then I met someone right for me (an INFJ with thinking tendencies who's into psychology, philosophy, anthropology, ect). I was consumed immediately. My fear of love or philosophy of love—IN FACT, ALL MY INTELLECTUAL ATTITUDES TOWARD LOVE ALTOGETHER—went right out the window over night.

Long story short, I fell in love with her.
Doing so has changed my perspective on things.
And only after the fact can you really see things properly.
Trying to intellectualize that which isn't rational is irrational.

Part of our condition as humans is irrational; part is intellectual.
Love is more on the primitive, irrational side of things.
Hence, these questions are pretty pointless.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Falling in love is the act of infatuation. It's rather different than being in love.

You can fall in love with a country, an idea, nearly anything. It does not require respect or mutual admiration. It is not easily controlled.

Exactly correct.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Hmmm, not exactly.
Personally I don't have much difficulty believing that someone or indeed anyone could love me, but y’see that's the problem, if I could theoretically fall in love with anyone and/or theoretically anyone could fall in love with me, then what is love if not the mind's enslavement to some arbitrary biological imperative.

It's not that I believe love doesn’t exist, I just don't believe in its validity.

I can't help but consider anyone who hypothetically declares their love for me a fool, a sentiment I wear on my shoulder it seems, and likewise I can't do so myself for fear of being likewise ridiculed.

Love isn't something you rationally control. When it happens, it happens.
There's no intellectuality involved whatsoever.
Hence, I think it's utterly irrelevant whether or not you intellectually value it.
It's an entirely irrational process which consumes an individual, entirely engulfing their interests and mind altogether.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I don't know, that reason sounds a bit simple. Maybe if it's combined with a life where love was scarce and so. But then it wouldn't really be that thought which was responsible per se.

I think the main reason I've never fallen in love is because I've not been out much growing up. Rarely met new people. The type I would fall for is probably a bit rare, so the probability of meeting him is smaller, I suppose. Also, I think I have a very thick shield that protects me from complicated things like attachment and such.

There have been a few interested in me, and seeing all the other weirdos who have partners, is not logical to assume nobody ever could be interested. If my feelings agree, I cannot tell. They usually have their own opinions they communicate rather poorly.

Well, firstly, not falling in love doesn't really a thing to do with what someone thinks of love, based on my experience. Instead, it merely determines the probability that they'll fall in love at any given time or period of time. So there's never really a particular opinion responsible for someone not being in love. If you're a recluse whose attitude toward relationships is that they can make you look foolish and break your heart (and many INTPs would want to avoid such an unintelligible situation, as I did , myself), then you'll probably try to avoid superficial relationships and wait around for someone right to come by and for a moment to just happen.

This was my approach. I never liked the superficial boyfriend/girlfriend thing in high school. I wanted something serious and substantial, if anything at all. Hence, I was rational and waited for someone right, and it eventually happened.

Thus, the question "What do you believe that explains why you aren't you in love?" really doesn't make sense, to me. As you seem to acknowledge, someone most likely isn't in love because they just haven't met the right person/people, not because they just won't give into love altogether. If someone meets the right person, a large majority will indeed give into infatuation and fall head over heels, regardless of their personality type.

Hence, it's pretty obvious why people who aren't in love aren't in love, and it really probably has nothing to do with their attitude toward love, as you seem to be getting at. All their attitude toward love entails is whether or not they'll be involved in frequent superficial relationships, which is not akin to falling in love. Falling in love isn't easily controlled and doesn't easily relate to someone's opinion of love. It's beyond it almost entirely.

So perhaps these questions need some rephrasing.

 

[Cognisant]

Love isn't something you rationally control. When it happens, it happens.
There's no intellectuality involved whatsoever.
Hence, I think it's utterly irrelevant whether or not you intellectually value it.
It's an entirely irrational process which consumes an individual, entirely engulfing their interests and mind altogether.

So it just happens... that's an incredibly dissatisfying answer.
Not that I begrudge you for your honesty of course.

Actually it all seems terrifying, considering that my interests & rationality are more-or-less the entirety of my personality, stripped of them who would I be?
Something pathetic I'd assume.

Then again you could suggest that I'm already pathetic and there would be little I could put up in my defence.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I don't think giving into the realities of the emotional aspects of human nature really makes us rational people pathetic. It just means that we're people who prefer the rational aspects of life who are actually aware of humanity and that we at least acknowledge it in some fashion. So, I would say that accepting the reality of love—even if it's ultimately an irrational piece of shit—just makes us well-rounded individuals who are no more or less rational for doing so, because it's part of what we are, no matter how much we want to try to deny it. Hence, long story short, we are also human, like everyone else, at the end of the day. Everyone has the capacity to fall in love. I would just think it likely that some people have just been unfortunate (seeing as it's a thing that happens by chance and all).

We INTPs are like the Vulcans from Star Trek (forgive the nerdy reference if it's bothersome): we want to be completely rational, yet our own nature isn't always rational. Hence, we're always going to struggle to accept the reality of our own condition and nature. It's a part of our natural development, just as it for Spock.

In fact, I'm going to go further and actually say that it's not surprising or unnatural for an INTP (at least I think) to be of the opinion that love is not a worthy or respectable endeavor or "thing," because I was the same way when I was younger. I didn't value love in any sense. Then it happened and now I'm changed. I suppose I've slowly matured over the past five years and I've 'somewhat' come to accept love as a natural part of life. I still have my moments of rational reluctance, but mostly I've just learned to deal with it.

And indeed, you're still 19. I was just beginning to fall in love at 19. At 18, I was very cynical and rational to the core. I had this crazy attitude that life should be lived completely and utterly devoid of emotion. Totally and completely. I thought it'd be best to live like an android. But, then I feel in love and learned to accept it (as I've already said). So, perhaps you're still developing and hopefully you'll meet someone worthwhile in the future (if you haven't, of course). I just think it's a normal thing for INTPs to have this particular offish attitude toward love in our youth. I can clearly affirm this from personal experience. But I think it's also a somewhat naive notion of which most of us eventually learn to grow beyond. So, I'm not saying that it will happen. I just think it'll probably fade away in the future, as you come into contact with more aspects of life and, indeed, we are all slowly becoming more accepting of society and the people in it. As we age and experience, the less hostile we are to people and feelings. At least I think that's the case.

 

[BigApplePi]

Whether or not someone falls in love has nothing to do with what they expect of their hypothetical partner. It just happens, regardless.

Hence, what someone believes is absolutely irrelevant. Love destroys the intellect and consumes the individual anyway, as I've experienced.

I regret I can't spend as much time as I would like on this important topic. My view is a little different. First falling in love, like love itself, is an involvement. As far an involvement goes it doesn't matter whether the object is animate or inanimate. Inanimate doesn't present as much of a moving target though.

Let me give a more primitive example of what happens. Because it is primitive all the other variables won't have to be dealt with. Let's pretend one's interest is stamp collecting. I picked this because not many will identify, but one has to believe such an interest exists. So this stamp collector's interest is stamp collecting. At first he can turn this interest on and off. But the more he gets involved the more it becomes an ongoing endeavor. One day he meets another stamp collector. His emotions are immediately sparked. Why? Because he has encountered a new situation for which he has been primed. He has brought desires, wishes, fantasies to the table and now there is a potential for them to be realized. He can now "fall in love" with the situation. He will want to talk to this fellow stamp collector, get his ideas, trade stamps.

There is nothing irrational in understanding this. There is the emotional factor though. Is the emotion derived from the situation and does the emotion control the person? The answer depends on where one is, what one is, the intensity of one's desires, the knowledge beforehand of the realities of satisfaction, and I'm sure more things I haven't thought of.

I was the staunches rational. Marriage was stupid. Love was irrational. Females were unintelligible, unfathomable creatures that I didn't understand, and I didn't really want to. Then I met someone right for me (an INFJ with thinking tendencies who's into psychology, philosophy, anthropology, ect). I was consumed immediately. My fear of love or philosophy of love—IN FACT, ALL MY INTELLECTUAL ATTITUDES TOWARD LOVE ALTOGETHER—went right out the window over night.

Long story short, I fell in love with her.
Doing so has changed my perspective on things.
And only after the fact can you really see things properly.
Trying to intellectualize that which isn't rational is irrational.

Part of our condition as humans is irrational; part is intellectual.
Love is more on the primitive, irrational side of things.
Hence, these questions are pretty pointless.

The more one experiences women, the more one will learn what they have to offer, the more one will know about one's own needs and whether there is going to be a match. The less one knows about this, the more the unexpected, the more one is going to learn and the more one is going to experience the "irrational."

Good luck to you Philosophyking87. You have some good experiences ahead of you.

 

[Lobstrich]

I don't think I've ever fallen in love. But I was close once.. I had this friend (INFJ), I had a great time and she did (I hope, hehe)
Same interests. She understood my INTP'ness which is a rare thing for me. She is the first girl I've met which really accepted me.. And not just tolerated me.
And if I had gotten some more time with her I would surely have fallen in love with her.. I probably did.
But for some reason she kind of turned on me all of the sudden (I hadn't said anything prior to this happened.. Not anyting out of the ordinary)
She told me we couldn't be friends. And there it ended.
Anyway, I would never have gotten in a relationship with her..
I have this problem where I get in the "friend zone" Or whatever it's called.
Believe it or not. The jerk I am. I always enter the friend zone, unbelievable..
I guess I was in love with her.. I felt like I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her, because she really understood and accepted me.. I wasn't really sad when she "broke up" though. I was more kind of "bummed"
Oh well. That's probably the closest to in love I've been..

 

[snafupants]

This might sound crass or something but I always equated love with the social reality that one has less freedom - "honey, can I go there tomorrow" - and has to dedicate oodles of otherwise useful time to PDA. The truth for me is I have neither the time nor motivation to put myself out there on dozens of dates to find someone I am mildly compatible with. Plus, it will fall like a house of cards inevitably.

When I was younger and needed a sexual release, I would either get drunk and hook up with someone pretty arbitrarily or play the flute in my bedroom. Dont waste your time on trivial biological matters. Eat when you have to, sleep and defecate when needed, and...you see where this is going.

Having said all this, I think searching for companionship instead of love is a worthwhile endeavor. The former will not lose its luster the way that romantic love tends to burn out. I think searching for love is a female's game, and a fool's errand, truth be told.

Peace