What is love to you?

[Grayman]

Religious people commit these crimes while believing in god. Anyway you derailed the topic to proselytize. You should be flagged.

I don't think it was to proselytize. People who believe in god see god as being connected to most everything and thus every topic. When a believer discusses a topic they are likely to see it being connected to god is some way.

The next problem is that non-believers will attack this belief as being obviously incorrect and further cause a disconnect from the topic. They are unlikely to discuss the belief as connected to the topic because the root of the problem, to the unbeliever, is further back in the belief itself.

There will be other occurrences such as this. I am very surprised that this forum has been free of it for so long. In other forums I go to this is a common occurrence. Most of these discussions result in a pure religious debate and the original topic being forgotten.

 

[Spirit]

I would propose that you have shown acts of love in all of those situations, if your intention was to give to those people or institutions for their sake.

If you were doing it out of guilt or for yourself or for whatever else, then you were not doing anything loving.



I don't think love is "abstract" in the sense that it is a special action rather than just a warm fuzzy feeling. You cannot "love" something without a direct object to show love to. until love is manifest, it's just an idea. Otherwise we're back to the alcoholic blubbering at the bar about how he loves his family, while in reality he hasn't shown them any love towards them at all.

Love vs Acts of love
Love
-is an idea

Acts of love (Acts to make others aware you love them)
-Societal rules and customs dictate what they must do to show someone they are loved
-People internalize this framework and decide they are loved

It's easy to con people if you know the triggers

 

[Spirit]

Jenny is correct. In these cases your are loving them. Loving them like a friend if that helps you understand it. The first is only true if they did it for the companies sake and not out of fear of new territory.

You have shared opinion. Consensus does not mean correctness

That is true but it does not mean that love is not selflessness. Selflessness is not a trait of a committed relationship. A committed relationship exists as a "give and take" but love exists as a "give without expectations". You can commit to love someone within a committed relationship as well as out of it.

Ahh love. Love is everything and nothing at once

I never stated that it was. They have connections but having connections is not the same as being the same thing.

Ok

Marriage can exist without love but I would not recommend it.
Commitment exists as a small part of love, but this commitment is very personal.
A relationship without some love is not a very promising relationship. I would never have such a relationship as it is a waste of time and often destructive.

Really? People plan to be in a loveless relationship?

See bold ...

 

[Spirit]

I don't think it was to proselytize. People who believe in god see god as being connected to most everything and thus every topic. When a believer discusses a topic they are likely to see it being connected to god is some way.

The next problem is that non-believers will attack this belief as being obviously incorrect and further cause a disconnect from the topic. They are unlikely to discuss the belief as connected to the topic because the root of the problem, to the unbeliever, is further back in the belief itself.

There will be other occurrences such as this. I am very surprised that this forum has been free of it for so long. In other forums I go to this is a common occurrence. Most of these discussions result in a pure religious debate and the original topic being forgotten.

Off topic.

 

[Grayman]

Off topic.

You are obviously correct. Just try not to make a false accusation next time so I don't have to risk going off topic.

 

[Aerl]

Love vs Acts of love
Love
-is an idea

Acts of love (Acts to make others aware you love them)
-Societal rules and customs dictate what they must do to show someone they are loved
-People internalize this framework and decide they are loved

I did not consider such approach.

I can now agree perfectly that Love is an idea and something abstract.
While Acts of love, or to express Love, is to make others aware of your love
through particular set of Societal rules and customs.

and the reason why it's hard for teens and young-adults to establish long
lasting realationships is because their idea of what is love isin't perfect and
as such, it is being tested in a particular fashion while they believe that they
know what love is.

p.s.
Thanks Grayman, I might use word God often but it's in a comical or
symbolic sense. Not anything in particular.

 

[Grayman]

Really? People plan to be in a loveless relationship?

It is called family.

 

[Grayman]

Love vs Acts of love
Love
-is an idea

Acts of love (Acts to make others aware you love them)
-Societal rules and customs dictate what they must do to show someone they are loved
-People internalize this framework and decide they are loved

It's easy to con people if you know the triggers

Yes this is the more modern understanding of many but not all and it is really redefining coveting as love.
"I want your attention and affection." -> NOT LOVE (NEEDY COVETER WHO Wants a relationship without real love)
vs
"I want you to have my attention and affection so that you are happy" -> (LOVE)


The greeks had a word Agape and this is the earlier understanding of what I described as love and this is the accepted form of love in more functional relationships.

 

[Spirit]

It is called family.

Really, people plan to be in a loveless relationship?


Not sure if ...

 

[Aerl]

Really, people plan to be in a loveless relationship?


Not sure if ...

I've heared of it.

Durring middle ages when Royal figures would arrange marriage of their
children in order to aquire lands or alike.

Or at current times, making promises at the table to form bonds with other
families in such fashion.

There is also a factor of financial security in place.

So yes, such relationships do exist, to my knowledge.

 

[Red myst]

How can you define love? It is not only an abstract subject to the perspective of the individual, but it is a process. And this process will continue to evolve over ones lifetime. Everyone will see it a little differently, approach it a little differently, experience it a little differently.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yes this is the more modern understanding of many but not all and it is really redefining coveting as love.
"I want your attention and affection." -> NOT LOVE (NEEDY COVETER WHO Wants a relationship without real love)
vs
"I want you to have my attention and affection so that you are happy" -> (LOVE)

I wouldn't call the second one love because it doesn't specify reciprocation. You're basically saying love is all "give" and that "takers" are bad but a relationship involves both giving and receiving. e.g. What would Santa be without children to give presents ?

My point is that it's okay to want someone's attention and affection and it's also healthy behavior within the context of a relationship. It's not healthy when it's one-sided self-love and the person is dismissive/neglectful/abusive etc of the other one.

 

[Grayman]

Maybe covet is too strong a word. Desire is better.

I wouldn't call the second one love because it doesn't specify reciprocation. You're basically saying love is all "give" and that "takers" are bad but a relationship involves both giving and receiving. e.g. What would Santa be without children to give presents ?

Taking is bad, receiving is not.

If two people are loving then they are both receiving. They can both have their desires fulfilled but having your desires fulfilled is not loving them. If someone does not love you then they are not healthy to be around as it may be too much to love them when you are never loved. It is not healthy for them if you enable them either. They need to find a greater purpose than fulfilling their simple desires and their way will keep them from having any real relationships with anyone. They need to be taught love or they need to learn through hardship.

My point is that it's okay to want someone's attention and affection and it's also healthy behavior within the context of a relationship. It's not healthy when it's one-sided self-love and the person is dismissive/neglectful/abusive etc of the other one.

It is a natural behavior to want things but it is not love it is desire. Why do we need to consider desire as a part of love? We do not need to nurture desire but instead disband it. Desire comes on its own in quantity. Love needs nurturing. Love is about purpose and real substantial needs. Concentrate on what is really important what brings real purpose. Purpose is greater and more joyful than desire.

If love and desire are as one, how can a person nurture love?

 

[Jennywocky]

Love vs Acts of love
Love
-is an idea

Acts of love (Acts to make others aware you love them)
-Societal rules and customs dictate what they must do to show someone they are loved
-People internalize this framework and decide they are loved

It's easy to con people if you know the triggers

Uhhhh.... you need to go beyond convention here. Sounds like you think everything is just part of the system and cannot be individually driven.

I wouldn't call the second one love because it doesn't specify reciprocation. You're basically saying love is all "give" and that "takers" are bad but a relationship involves both giving and receiving. e.g. What would Santa be without children to give presents ?

My point is that it's okay to want someone's attention and affection and it's also healthy behavior within the context of a relationship. It's not healthy when it's one-sided self-love and the person is dismissive/neglectful/abusive etc of the other one.

Yeah, that's where it gets a little more complicated in terms of relationship.

I think people can do something for another person on an act-by-act basis for a "loving" reason, but a relationship is like riding a tandem bicycle. One person can try to do all the pedaling and the other person can coast, but the bike won't go very far. It's the cycle of energy moving through the relationship that deepens it and allows it to continue.

Tends to be why marriage counseling and fixing broken marriages is hard. Typically you get two people who are angry or disappointed in each other, who don't trust each other anymore, and to fix things they each have to start trusting to some degree enough to throw energy into the relationship. Also, if they're just doing it totally for themselves (e.g., "I'll do nice things for him so that he'll do nice things back"), typically things won't get fixed. Yet to do that runs the risk of being exploited, if one is giving and not receiving, and the other is just taking but not giving back. There has to be a cycle where both play the roles of offerer and recipient. As part of that, yes, it's okay to desire the affection and attention of the other person, even as you give them yours; it's just something that cannot be demanded, only given. If the other person won't or can't give it, then it's best to end it.

 

[Spirit]

I've heared of it.

Durring middle ages when Royal figures would arrange marriage of their
children in order to aquire lands or alike.

Or at current times, making promises at the table to form bonds with other
families in such fashion.

There is also a factor of financial security in place.

So yes, such relationships do exist, to my knowledge.

Yes. These relationships do exist. So technically this premise you propose is correct. Generally, people do not plan to be in a loveless relationship when the "control the decision" of whether they can leave or stay in the relationship.

 

[Grayman]

Yes. These relationships do exist. So technically this premise you propose is correct. Generally, people do not plan to be in a loveless relationship when the "control the decision" of whether they can leave or stay in the relationship.

People can get into relationships to get something out of it but may have little concern for the other. The concern they have may be to ensure the relationship works so they can continue to get what they themselves need. This is not love. They are only sustaining the relationship and are no longer trying to enhance each others lives.

 

[Spirit]

Uhhhh.... you need to go beyond convention here. Sounds like you think everything is just part of the system and cannot be individually...

People are a product of the frameworks in their society and the customs that people they admire practice. Each person has to accept this input and make own their decision.

When two people get together, each will observe and then appreciate acts of love they identify with from the other person based on the customs the have been exposed to. I still do not agree that these examples of acts of love can be referred to as the definition of love.

 

[Grayman]

People are a product of the frameworks in their society and the customs that people they admire practice. Each person has to accept this input and make own their decision.

When two people get together, each will observe and then appreciate acts of love they identify with from the other person based on the customs the have been exposed to. I still do not agree that these examples of acts of love can be referred to as the definition of love.

You really cannot separate and define what you feel inside of you? Their true meaning cannot be fully encased in words but they can be understood and noticed. You cannot see the complex combination of the pieces that make up how you feel about a thing or a person or about what occurred? Is it only understood by experiencing it as an output caused by everyone elses making and not your own? Sure society sways one to bias on reason but emotions are not just social values. Emotions are their own function but their reaction to society can change based on experiences with society.

 

[Jennywocky]

People are a product of the frameworks in their society and the customs that people they admire practice. Each person has to accept this input and make own their decision.

When two people get together, each will observe and then appreciate acts of love they identify with from the other person based on the customs the have been exposed to. I still do not agree that these examples of acts of love can be referred to as the definition of love.

It doesn't matter whether or not you agree; the reality is that people don't NEED to go by customs that they've been exposed to. They can just interrelate directly, perceiving the actual needs each person might have. It's not nearly as robotic and programmed as you make it out. Even if the two people were never raised in the same culture, it's possible to relate directly by observation and self-identification -- seeing ourselves in the "other."

That's where I think you're selling the whole thing short. It's not that you're not right in some circumstances, you're just assuming that's the only way relating is possible. Your view seems far more cynical than how actual relating is practiced.

 

[Aerl]

People are a product of the frameworks in their society and the customs that people they admire practice. Each person has to accept this input and make own their decision.

When two people get together, each will observe and then appreciate acts of love they identify with from the other person based on the customs the have been exposed to. I still do not agree that these examples of acts of love can be referred to as the definition of love.

Love seems to have a shifting abstract definition and each person defines it
diferently, doesn't mean that they are wrong in how they define it. They are
wrong to think that they can define it in a correct way to begin with.

i.e.

1.If I say that I consider Color green to be perfect, someone will most
likely disagree because:

a. he doesn't like the color and can't explain.
b. his definition of perfect is diferent.
b2. he doesn't believe colors can be perfect.

2.Someone might say that us indulging in this discussion could be
interpreted as an act of love.

So in a sense, love symbolises the magnitude of value.

p.s.
I also agree with Jenny to an extent.

 

[StevenM]

This may sound INFP but:

To me, love is magic. It performs impossible miracles of blissful power. It shatters the world, and it crumbles it into a beautiful oasis.

I guess that's how I feel, when sharing romantic love.

Aside from that, in my opinion, love is the foundation of living harmoniously with yourself and other people. Despite your own, and other's, weaknesses and vices, you are still able to support each other, and build into a fruitful and sustaining community.

Maybe not factual, or reasonable and may be flawed, but it is an ideal interpretation for me.

 

[Grayman]

1.If I say that I consider Color green to be perfect, someone will most
likely disagree because:

a. he doesn't like the color and can't explain.
b. his definition of perfect is diferent.
b2. he doesn't believe colors can be perfect.

We can all agree on what is green although we do not see it in the same way. The point of defining something is that you can talk about the same thing and understand each other.

The problem with the word love is that it describes too many feelings that are not even objectively the same.

The greeks had it right in breaking it down a little further.

 

[TBerg]

Love is the opposite of detachment, which is synonymous with psychosis. Ergo, love is the opposite of insanity.

 

[Grayman]

Love is the opposite of detachment, which is synonymous with psychosis. Ergo, love is the opposite of insanity.

Insane people are inherently unloving?

Poetically incorrect statement you just made. You should wash your mouth out to prevent further dissonance.

 

[Kuu]

I've never liked the L word, nobody ever fully agrees on what it's supposed to encompass (like my other two loathed words, "god/spiritual" and "art"). I agree with both Amagi and Grayman that the umbrella concept of "Love" should be broken down into more specific ones. I think it is far more useful for oneself, and far less confusing for the other, to express oneself in clearer concepts. I also think it is much more intense ("romantic" one could say) to be more explicit with emotions instead of using such vague catch-all words like "Love". Make some effort, damn it!

The suggestion someone made earlier that young relationships are so confusing because of the nebulous definition of the word is something I've had on the back of my mind for quite some time without ever having thought of it explicitly. No clear expectations, and no simple way of troubleshooting, because "love" is a black box. I do think that the elimination of that word in favor of a variety of other words would alter positively relationships in western culture.

I still use the word though, but I always express what it means to me in full detail before I begin using it with someone...

 

[Aerl]

Spoiler

I've never liked the L word, nobody ever fully agrees on what it's supposed to encompass (like my other two loathed words, "god/spiritual" and "art"). I agree with both Amagi and Grayman that the umbrella concept of "Love" should be broken down into more specific ones. I think it is far more useful for oneself, and far less confusing for the other, to express oneself in clearer concepts. I also think it is much more intense ("romantic" one could say) to be more explicit with emotions instead of using such vague catch-all words like "Love". Make some effort, damn it!

The suggestion someone made earlier that young relationships are so confusing because of the nebulous definition of the word is something I've had on the back of my mind for quite some time without ever having thought of it explicitly. No clear expectations, and no simple way of troubleshooting, because "love" is a black box. I do think that the elimination of that word in favor of a variety of other words would alter positively relationships in western culture.

I still use the word though, but I always express what it means to me in full detail before I begin using it with someone...

My view point changed to that, as the more correct approach to the problem.

 

[TBerg]

Insane people are inherently unloving?

Poetically incorrect statement you just made. You should wash your mouth out to prevent further dissonance.

Yes, because they don't love reality but might love certain mental animations.

 

[nanook]

unloving=hurt

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Love is a capacity, the depth of which is determined by your self-development. Until you have some degree of a solid flexible self, your capacity to love someone, including yourself, is severely limited as is your tolerance for profound desire. Love, desire, and selfhood are innate human abilities we all need to develop. An indicator that we have reached a mature level of love is when we place our partner's desires on par with our own. Can love be an illusion? Of course it can but that's more a result of the undeveloped person. The never ending process of developing a solid and flexible self is the driver from illusory love to deep reality-based love.

 

[kora]

@Higs-how can love be a hell of a lot of fun?

Well, sometimes it's hellish and very tragic and breaks you up inside, and fun because all the other times it's like being a kid in Disneyland. Which is why it often makes people write a bunch of poetry, as they've got all these extreme ups and downs depending on how the object of love reacts to you, you're in a constant state of hope and desire. I'm talking about the state of "being in love" obviously. As for love in general, well that's another matter, I'm told they are different things. It's all very confusing anyway.

 

[Cherry Cola]

To me love is something which comes naturally after I smear myself in my own urine and semen.

 

[Jennywocky]

To me love is something which comes naturally after I smear myself in my own urine and semen.

Sometimes I worry about you.

(Other times I just want to hose myself off.)

 

[deadpixel]

Its some kind of cruel game that our minds make us play. You can evade these mind games with enough practice.

 

[Spirit]

You really cannot separate and define what you feel inside of you? Their true meaning cannot be fully encased in words but they can be understood and noticed. You cannot see the complex combination of the pieces that make up how you feel about a thing or a person or about what occurred? Is it only understood by experiencing it as an output caused by everyone elses making and not your own? Sure society sways one to bias on reason but emotions are not just social values. Emotions are their own function but their reaction to society can change based on experiences with society.

Are these rhetorical questions?

 

[Spirit]

It doesn't matter whether or not you agree; the reality is that people don't NEED to go by customs that they've been exposed to. They can just interrelate directly, perceiving the actual needs each person might have. It's not nearly as robotic and programmed as you make it out. Even if the two people were never raised in the same culture, it's possible to relate directly by observation and self-identification -- seeing ourselves in the "other."

That's where I think you're selling the whole thing short. It's not that you're not right in some circumstances, you're just assuming that's the only way relating is possible. Your view seems far more cynical than how actual relating is practiced.

You are right, it doesn't matter whether anyone agrees only that people can voice their opinions and come up with their own conclusions.

Love is not robotic, acts of love can be robotic. I do not expect everyone's definition of love to be the same or that all acts of love will "work" for everyone.

 

[peoplesuck]

the relationship i have with me. Tbh i dont understand people who hate themselves.

 

[Grayman]

Are these rhetorical questions?

I am really curious. I cannot be certain what is in your head.

 

[Spirit]

You really cannot separate and define what you feel inside of you?
Yes

Their true meaning cannot be fully encased in words but they can be understood and noticed. You cannot see the complex combination of the pieces that make up how you feel about a thing or a person or about what occurred?
Yes, love is a complex idea and acts of love are complex rituals.

Is it only understood by experiencing it as an output caused by everyone elses making and not your own?

No.

Sure society sways one to bias on reason but emotions are not just social values. Emotions are their own function but their reaction to society can change based on experiences with society.

See bold.

I love songs like this when I think about love
Otis Redding

I've been loving you so long
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vUc17A0SNY

These arms of mine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sBoUZ6gMkc&feature=kp

 

[Flawed_Ravvn]

@Spirit- you should try hearing Fall into me by Brantley Gilbert, I think you might like that one.

 

[Grayman]

See bold.

I love songs like this when I think about love
Otis Redding

I've been loving you so long
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vUc17A0SNY

These arms of mine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sBoUZ6gMkc&feature=kp

Do these direct your thoughts to something relational in your life? I have little understanding to the emotions behind music. I dont generally listen to music unless I have to.

 

[Flawed_Ravvn]

@Cherry Cola- I think its safe to say we did not need to know that.

 

[Grayman]

@Cherry Cola- I think its safe to say we did not need to know that.

I dont think anyone but his psychiatrist would need to know this. Some of us just don't want to.

Personally I enjoy knowledge for the sake of knowledge. It can be helpful. Like this. I now know I dont want to touch cc if he is feeling really loving.

 

[Flawed_Ravvn]

@Grayman- LOL!!!!! I'm not sure is psychiatrist is gonna wanna know that. If I was the psychiatrist, would probably scream and run out the door.

 

[Spirit]

Do these direct your thoughts to something relational in your life? I have little understanding to the emotions behind music. I dont generally listen to music unless I have to.

Let me ask you to listen to the songs ... specifically the words and tell me what you think about them. Otis often talks about love and describes it as a pain. I guess because real love to him can make you cry. Painful and happy situations can cause you to cry.

Thats how strong my love is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd9AEGQkobc

Most people can relate to being in pain. Love is anything but the way you treat everyone. There is being kind and then there is love. When you feel pain you recognize it is different from your "normal" existence. Love is the same way, very different than a normal existence.

 

[Spirit]

@Spirit- you should try hearing Fall into me by Brantley Gilbert, I think you might like that one.

hmm

 

[Aerl]

@Cherry Cola- I think its safe to say we did not need to know that.

Speak for yourself, that's very valuable information regarding in how we interact with CC when he's in a "love" state.

 

[Flawed_Ravvn]

@Aerl- I'm not even gonna ask.

 

[Variform]

Me and my Grandma were having this conversation last night and I thought it would be interesting if I got others opinion. What do you think love is? or do you even thing it exists?

If you feel it, it is real. Only a deranged person would deny his own experience.
Perception is reality.

I'm in high school and I've always wondered how a couple could date for a month or two, say that they are madly in love with each other, then break up and then a week later they are back to dating someone else.

I wished I had that as a kid.

I've never gotten how they could do that. I hear girls all the time say that they are madly in love with a guy that just met about a week ago. In my mind I'm thinking how can you love a guy you just met a week ago? Better yet, do you even know what love is? Does anyone know what love is?

It is different for all people. Because we experience reality differently.

"Love is an irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired."
-- Robert Frost (1874 - 1963)

That is one opinion. I do not concur with Frost here. It sounds smart, but it is a little more complex.

A friend of mine:

"Love is somebody acting toward you in the ideal way you wish you could act toward everyone else."
-- Selfs layer

More complex, right?

First of all, let me say this, that americans use the word love way too often and so it is prone to ongoing inflation. I believe the word should be spoken rarely. If people desire so much to be told they are loved, what is wrong with them?
Should not the actions of your partner or lover show it? It should be spoken only in the most intimate and private moments. At funerals, at births, in bed. But not when you leave the house to go to work or school.

And it should never be said like 'Love ya!' Not any of that sort of abbreviated hasty style. And you should never reply with 'Love you more!' That sort of joking style is really bad.

When you tell someone you love them it needs to shock their system! There should be tears or at least glossy eyes. And must be accompanied by a heartfelt hug that is really tender. It should be followed by a moment of silence and contemplation. It may only be ended with a passionate kiss, on lips or in the neck.

That is how one uses the word love in a phrase.

In all other cases you can simply use words like appreciation, liking, greatness, wishing well.

In some ways, I've already defined what love is to me. It is rare and precious and profoundly deep.

What is love?

One part of it, to me, is that you wish the recipient all the sincere best. I love a woman right now. I do not know her nor will she even know I exist. I have no idea what her life was like, what it is like today. I have no idea how her voice sounds, what humor she has, how she moves. But I love her so deeply that I pray she is okay, doing well, that she is happy. I pray to god, though I am an atheist.

Love is that what makes you pray and wish and desire that the person you love is in the best possible way.

it was from this that I started thinking does love even exists or is it just a figure of are imagination? Kids at my school say that love is when you get butterflies in your stomach or your can't stop thinking about them or you can't stop staring at them in class.

They describe the 'symptoms'. And maybe a 'crush' or the next step, 'falling in love'. True love, probably not. Lust more likely, or a connection based on physical preferences.

True love exceeds all personal preferences. The woman I love is blond. But I have always liked black hair. Except in grade school, when I had a crush on a blond girl.

True love means that appearance becomes irrelevant. It is that what drives you to want to know everything about them.

Me and my grandma talked about can a person fall out of love?

I think that is possible. I am struggling with this right now as my relationship of 14 years is going down the drain. What I can tell you is that the girls I loved, truly loved, are still in me and they never go away. There is no closure possible.

I believe unrequited love is a trauma and as such there should be grief involved. But I cannot grieve because I cannot let go. Once I love a girl, it is for life.

She said that she didn't how a person can fall into love, back out of love, then back into love. I kind of agree with this cause if you really love a person, I think they will always have a place in your heart throughout your life. That's why I also think the phrase "I will give you all my heart" is a lie because I do think that their will be people you come across that just have a special place in your heart. Now of course if you get married, that person will have the majority space in your heart and they rightfully should, they are your spouse.

Any thoughts guys?

You re right, if the love is true, that is, 'I love you beyond personal preferences, argument, any form of reasoning.', then they will never leave your heart. All the rest is 'I like you, I like your eyes, your body.'

 

[Variform]

Sure love do exist, but not nessecarily permenant, a temporary chemical rush,
...
like love for family, love for money, love for violence, and what not....

No, that is just the word love being misused. You don't love money. You like money. Or violence. Love, by default, by its definition, cannot be abused.

If violence is loved, it cannot, it is hate. In a way, when you appreciate violence, you must say 'I hate violence'. Because hate and violence go together, violence is the fish in a sea of hate. Here 'hate' is used to express appreciation or 'love' for violence.

This is a linguistic problem. Love and hate oppose each other. But in language there is no opposition, because when you say 'I love violence' you are using a paradoxical statement by the use of the word love.

Love cannot be used to describe an inherent hateful act, such as violence is. And vice versa.

also no one cuts out and give your heart, heart is again an abstract concept,
heart is just a blood pumping organ, why so much romaticizing it geez,

it is just in old days, the philosophers used to think it is the centre and stuff,
but some pseudoscience still tries to give value to heart as more than heart pumping organ,

Love is beyond notions of reductionist bullcrap. :-)

Basically you are attacking the physical heart where the heart is a symbol. I am not sure where it is from, but if I intuit it, I would say that the pump that is the heart represents the flow of life, so love equals life. In biology that surely is the case. It is also the flow of awareness in that to live is to love, because without love for life there is death, as there is no motivation to remain alive and so there would be no survival instinct, not any instinct to preserve anything, like protecting the offspring.

also loving everyone and everything can be very healing, it can liberate from many negative feelings, especially fear, I had some personal experiences,

but still does not matter much, I hate everyone, still.

No reductionism here then?

 

[Variform]

p.s. atheists are scarier than religios people, because they don't conform to any
set of spiritual rules.

I agree if you talk about reductionist scientists.

Although I am not a strict atheist, for the sake of discussion I would call myself that. In reality there is no term for what I am or believe in. I call it 'quantum solipsist' myself. It sounds interesting and maybe I can look cool that way :-)

I, however, have a good set of spiritual 'rules' or guidelines or process of believe. One does not need to be a christian or religious in any sort of way to have a moral compass, a good set of values or a methodology towards life in which you avid harming others.

Religious people always try to gain the monopoly on values.

"The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ."
-- James Kennedy (Center for Reclaiming America)

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."
-- Jerry Falwell