What is love?

[Seteleechete]

The term is so big and encompassing and used in so many various situations describing a lot of various things.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/13/what-is-love-five-theories
When you say love you can mean so many things so feel free to discuss anything about it but I am going to ask about romantic love.

I don't know if I have been in love, I have really liked some people but I have always had logical reasons for doing so(more often than not it goes: I really like her, why? Because her personality excites/appeals to me.) Going one step further I can argue for the potential fun I could have with the person and exciting debates that could result.

Extreme liking/love of someone(not lust) has never formed for me without the backing of logical reasoning so I can't quite understand what people mean with love being above logic.(Then again I am not the type of person that allows myself to be influenced by potential illogical feeling/hormones when it comes to interpersonal decisions. Alternatively it could just be a case of my utter lack of experience when it comes to deep relationships.)

What's up with this concept called love that's supposedly "unconditional" and "beyond logic"?

 

[RicBC]

the logic of love is the logic of magnetic working as polarity

unconditional refers to the oneness connections of source. all come from the same source.
those less bound to/by consciousness even feel it physically and interpret it as "love", a demeanor
unconditional excludes consciouness designs like beauty, personal preferences (ego and personality based) and cultural preferences (those the egos are subject to when living in a specific culture/place).

 

[Call Me Fishmael]

the logic of love is the logic of magnetic working as polarity

unconditional refers to the oneness connections of source. all come from the same source.
those less bound to/by consciousness even feel it physically and interpret it as "love", a demeanor
unconditional excludes consciouness designs like beauty, personal preferences (ego and personality based) and cultural preferences (those the egos are subject to when living in a specific culture/place).

You may want to work on your communication skills. Almost none of that was comprehensible.

In response to the initial post, though, we cannot say that we are not influenced by hormones or feelings. Like it or not, we are not robots, and denying our emotion is not healthy. This is not to say that we won't support our feelings with logic, but our logic will in almost every case be affected by sentiment.

It's a mistake to think that just because we think we are using a logical process we will reach a single, incontrovertible conclusion. You can logically justify just about anything you want, to a certain extent. That being said, our feelings tend to be aligned with whatever logical systems we think up, so there's obviously a high correlation between what we deem logical and what we choose to see as love.

 

[onesteptwostep]

There are four types of loves. Stroge, Philia, Eros and Agape.

Stroge is basically a hierarical type of love, a love that isn't equal in its balance but both parties interrelate to themselves asymmetrically which works out in the end. I would say it's a love based on necessity, but some people would argue against it. It's a love of 'familiarity'.

Philia is simply a strong friendship, through interests or by sharing of experience. "Empathy bond" or a "social bond". I would say it's just a deep friendship or like a relationship between siblings.

Eros is sexual attraction caused by biology. This too is asymmetrical, though it's more of the psyche/body rather than of a 'give and take' of commodity or necessity.

Agape is unconditional love. It's a form of enduring faith. It isn't a love based on necessity, biology, or chance. It's more one of those "love trandescends space and time" type of loves. I think a weak version of this would be something like having 'love for humanity'. "Grace" should ring a bell, if you're familiar with the Christian terminology.

Love is above logic simply because it silences it. Logic is not what makes the world go around, it's by an economy of 'loves'.

 

[Yellow]

Seriously? Do I have to do this?

Fine. On your own head be it.

Spoiler

Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more...

or better yet...

Spoiler

 

[Yellow]

I feel like I accidentally slowed the thread, so I'll give a serious answer.

All "love" is a product of our instincts as social animals to support effective survival and reproduction. The different types of love we experience act to reinforce the different types of valuable relationships we must form in order to be as successful as possible. Our love must be mostly unconditional in order to maintain cooperation whenever possible, and to sever ties in self-preservation when not.

That being said, romantic love is funny. Like all forms of love, it seems to be more than the sum of its parts.

It makes sense that we would develop strong feelings of infatuation to make us want to fuck, and then comfortable love to help us build a family while the child is most vulnerable. Then, we are free to be tired of each other and find new mates. At least, this is observed in our behavior, if not in our expectations.

So romantic love is the bond you form with someone you have judged to be a good candidate to help carry your genes to another generation. If you value wit, health, and stability in a mate, then you are also selecting those traits for your offspring. If you value aggression, confidence, and large stature, then some part of you must have decided that it is the best choice for you and your progeny.

Of course, what drives us to seek certain traits can be a combination of healthy and unhealthy factors. Rutting and spawning are controlled by both higher and lower brain functions that start collecting data and forming patterns infancy.

So who and how you love are shaped consciously by you and your life experiences, unconsciously by what you learned about relationships in your early childhood home, and primitively by hormones, pheromones, and desire for sex.

 

[Sinny91]

I just read Yellows post prior to reading the opening post, and was going to make a post explaining how Yellows logic has just dashed my hope's of there ever being 'true love'. (Romantically)

But then I read the OP, and saw Sete's comment about 'Love' being above logic and realised 'love' above logic really does exist.

I love my mother, even though she has barely given me any reason to love her.
Another side of me hates the woman with a passion, and I really, really don't like her.
But I still love her.

Logic has got nothing to so with love. Thanks for making me realise that.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

My ode to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfO2gKE_sAg

 

[Reluctantly]

It's different when someone actually cares about and nurtures another person. I'd call that love.

 

[J-man]

Now I'm going to have that song stuck in my head all day.

But the 90s nostalgia makes it almost acceptable.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Ugh that song makes me want shove candles up someone's

 

[Reluctantly]

Somewhere there's somebody that would like that; and probably somebody doing it right now.

 

[J-man]

Ugh that song makes me want shove candles up someone's

Urethra?

 

[StevenM]

"Ugh that song makes me want shove candles up someone's

...alluring chandelier, lit dim in fuzzy bliss, awaiting a night of waltz that would end in the fields under moonlight."

 

[al.otakupunk]

...alluring chandelier, lit dim in fuzzy bliss, awaiting a night of waltz that would end in the fields under moonlight."

"... as the stars shine bright in my lover's eyes, a gentle smile caressing their face. They stare alluringly into my eyes, causing my heart to pound against my ribs. They lean in close to me, their eyelids slowly coming together, and I follow their lead, comimg closer, closer..."

Sorry, I'm a writer and I read too much fanfiction. XD

Anyway, back on topic. I think romantic love is nothing more than a chemical reaction, the production of oxytocin caused by becoming (usually physically) attracted to someone, thereby pretty much imprinting on the object of your desire.

 

[Brontosaurie]

friendship + sex

or maybe more like friendship * sex

 

[emmabobary]

What is love? Now you asked I ask myself and I really don't know what love is. Doesn't show in my radar. But I can tell you one thing I know: there are loads of funny-funnier- things besides love, I mean the romantic side, friendships, and other bonds to the external world. There is so much more out of this world full of ethics and attachments, to me.

 

[Shieru]

I've been wanting to respond to this thread for a while, but wanted to have the time to formulate a meaningful response.. I hope it's not too late to be chiming in..?

When attempting to answer questions about love like the ones posited in the OP, I think it makes the most sense to address the psychological causality of the phenomenon, rather than the physical impetuses associated with it. Although reproduction may well be the primary factor which shaped the causality of the modern experience of love, it doesn't explain the nuance of its origins or flow in the moment.

I think that romantic love is an extreme form of affinity toward another person caused by an over exaggerated concept of how beautiful they are. The idea of unconditional love is often seen associated with an ideal of perfection - whether that be in the form of a god or "the perfect woman/man". If we desire that which we see as beautiful, then someone who is perceived to be perfectly beautiful would evoke a feeling of overwhelming desire and unconditional love; or really, love that would exist as long as the other is perceived to be perfect. I think the idea of unconditional love has many reasons behind it, most notably the fear of eventual loss of something seen as ultimately desirable (and which is associated to one's ego-image), and the concept of a perfect being that would evoke love indefinitely. Ultimately, it is one of those irrational constructs of the mind which can only stay intact if left in the realm of fantasy.

Romantic love can be like a sort of madness, something that is completely overwhelming and irrational. I think perhaps this is what is being referred to when people speak of love that is "beyond logic". Love like this is, indeed, wholly from a level of the brain that predates the cortex (I think it may be more accurate to say that it is below logic rather than beyond it.. ) The inner human - some call this the heart or soul - is often obscured to our awareness, it's wild, animalistic and can seem to have a mind of its own, especially in a developing individual (hence the prolific stories of two young lovers, driven to madness by their desire). When one is in love so much that they lose them self entirely to their emotions, it can seem as if a force outside of them - above logic, practicality, even fear or doubt - is driving their actions. This can be one of the most blissful and most terrifying/damaging forms of love.

There are many speculations about the causality of this romantic madness, unfortunately psychology is in a sort of pre-scientific state at this point, so there is little empirical evidence to back any one hypothesis. Personally, I think Jung's writings on the topic of the Anima and Animus give a deeply learned and well-thought explanation.. I doubt I could explain it in better words than this article.

 

[Stagename]

As noted by the Architect in the Matrix:

Love: The chemical precursors that signal the onset of an emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple and obvious truth.

And often combined with hope, as defined by the same brilliant personality:
It is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.

Spoiler

 

[Jennywocky]

I find unconditional love to be a more useful concept when it describes the willful, conscious choice to invest and sacrifice for the object desire even if that love is not necessarily returning the investment equally. (Such as a parent's love for one's child, although it can operate in any relationship.) It does not need an emotional source, to drive it just a thought-full one.

In fact, unconditional love with conditions [that the object of the love remain perfectly beautiful or perfectly desirable, for example] seems to be a paradoxical statement... it is no longer love without condition.

The key aspect is "conscious choice" to me. If you are sacrificing compulsively, that's more a type of bondage than a sacrifice. The devotion and sacrifice has to be freely given. It can also involve a choice to extend one's personal ego boundaries to include other beings. (The degree of ego boundary extension is one way to describe the extent of an individual's philanthropy.)

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

 

[gilliatt]

Love is a judgment or evaluation. The assessment is 'beneficial to my life.' 'Good for me.' Love is to value. It does matter whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut. You can love a hero, not a thug. Can an altruist love? No, impossible. Because an altruist has a breached self-esteem. Only a rational selfish man/woman of self-esteem, is capable of love-because he/she is the only man/woman capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man/woman who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone. 'Two consciousness, each dedicated to personal evolution, can provide an extraordinary stimulus and challenge to the other. Then ecstasy can become a way of life.' Another one, love is the expression of philosophy.(If you meet someone with your own philosophical sum, there is this conscious power of philosophy,'we reason, our minds are alike.' "I" love you." A self expression, its putting a bit of myself out there. So my feelings are in reality, not just inside of me.

 

[Jennywocky]

...and ragweed.

Don't forget ragweed.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The concept of love has been changing over the centuries. The idealized form of love was a sort of rebelion against institutionalized forms of partnership...

So for example if you were rich it was expected to marry a rich person. If you were a nobelman you would choose someone from your own social circles. Sometimes the bride would be choosen by your father or by someone else, not you yourself. There were certain social expectations. Even today there are certain social expectations. Like saying two gay people cannot marry etc.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Baby, don't hurt me.

 

[Shieru]

I find unconditional love to be a more useful concept when it describes the willful, conscious choice to invest and sacrifice for the object desire even if that love is not necessarily returning the investment equally. (Such as a parent's love for one's child, although it can operate in any relationship.) It does not need an emotional source, to drive it just a thought-full one.

In fact, unconditional love with conditions [that the object of the love remain perfectly beautiful or perfectly desirable, for example] seems to be a paradoxical statement... it is no longer love without condition.

The key aspect is "conscious choice" to me. If you are sacrificing compulsively, that's more a type of bondage than a sacrifice. The devotion and sacrifice has to be freely given. It can also involve a choice to extend one's personal ego boundaries to include other beings. (The degree of ego boundary extension is one way to describe the extent of an individual's philanthropy.)

Sorry Jennywocky, I just have to call you out on this one! o.o

You say that a parent's love for their child is an example of unconditional love.. however, there is still a condition in that circumstance, that the person they're loving is their child. The child apparently has a specific meaning to them, one that plays both into their ethics and emotions.

In any case (except maybe with the kind of universal love claimed by Christian philanthropists, etc.) some specific quality of an individual is a required prerequisite for love.

Also..

I find unconditional love to be a more useful concept when it describes the willful, conscious choice to invest and sacrifice for the object desire even if that love is not necessarily returning the investment equally. (Such as a parent's love for one's child, although it can operate in any relationship.) It does not need an emotional source, to drive it just a thought-full one.

There is a contradiction in this statement. It seems you realize that the conscious choice to sacrifice relies on an emotional desire toward the other individual. But, then you say that there is no emotional impetus driving the decision to sacrifice for another. I think, the reality is that the conscious choice to benefit another (whether it sacrifices our own self or not) is a direct result of emotional impetus. If, in the hypothetical case, a parent felt no care or concern for their child, nor felt any guilt for neglecting their child, nor fear of being socially condemned for their neglect, would they still proceed to sacrifice for them? It seems unlikely to me.

 

[Velcorn]

Love is a chemical reaction or several chemical reactions inside your brain. There are probably differences between different kinds of love regarding different definitions of love made by mankind.

 

[JimJambones]

What's love got to do, got to do with it?

 

[JimJambones]

...and ragweed.

Don't forget ragweed.

I'm horribly allergic to ragweed. It was hard to identify due to the high number of love particles in the air, which has a similar effect.

 

[Seteleechete]

[You know, I wonder if love isn't a bit like conciousness in regards to how it works. Its origins is from chemicals/brain/whatever but in itself it's a thing that exists despite that. Or in another view an illusion(3rd party perspective) brought on by the brain that we experience as reality(and as such becomes subjective reality.). We experience love as just existing and being a independent thing(not bound by strict reasoning) regardless of other factors that can explain it.]

 

[theanonymous]

[You know, I wonder if love isn't a bit like conciousness in regards to how it works. Its origins is from chemicals/brain/whatever but in itself it's a thing that exists despite that. Or in another view an illusion(3rd party perspective) brought on by the brain that we experience as reality(and as such becomes subjective reality.). We experience love as just existing and being a independent thing(not bound by strict reasoning) regardless of other factors that can explain it.]

Sometimes I feel in love with people who use brackets inside of parenthesis the proper way...

Spoiler

I'm a jerk. but s/he needs to know!http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/05/punctuation-junction-parentheses-and-brackets.html

 

[Seteleechete]

Sometimes I feel in love with people who use brackets inside of parenthesis the proper way...

Spoiler

I'm a jerk. but s/he needs to know!http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/05/punctuation-junction-parentheses-and-brackets.html

[Silina: check our signature. The brackets denote different thoughtforms of this body speaking. Though we honestly haven't decided on the best way to do so.]

 

[Shieru]

[You know, I wonder if love isn't a bit like conciousness in regards to how it works. Its origins is from chemicals/brain/whatever but in itself it's a thing that exists despite that. Or in another view an illusion(3rd party perspective) brought on by the brain that we experience as reality(and as such becomes subjective reality.). We experience love as just existing and being a independent thing(not bound by strict reasoning) regardless of other factors that can explain it.]

it's interesting how our psychological experience seems like a something. the ancients called this - what they thought of as the life-force in man - the spirit. and the spirit was something separate from and even beyond the individual, and moved him despite his will (this concept is still seen in religious thought today).

i think in a way the psyche exists in its own dimension; it cannot be understood fully by examining the physiological processes which manifest it. it's a sort of pseudo-object. but then, in reality i think this sort of thinking comes from our ignorance on the topic; we don't know what the physical activity of the brain means, we have no way to track it precisely or to deduce subjective experience from it.

with our current capacity for understanding on the topic, i think we may be able to come close enough to a definition of love from a multi-layered point of view. there's the biochemical level, where love can be described as an evolved set of physical responses. there's the anthropological, by which love is defined as a social mechanism. there's the psychological, which is about the meaning and causality of love. then there's the experience, which is how the event unfolds on the subjective level.

altogether, i think love is a complex phenomenon, in general like consciousness, reason/logos or intuition. these can all be categorized as psychological functions, but each has a different causality. to define something like love, i think one must look at the specifics which differentiate it from other events in the same category.

this is where the challenge is though, i think, because as you pointed out in the OP, there are many differing opinions about what constitutes love. the same goes for consciousness!

from here, all i have are my own deductions. but i think consciousness may be a delineated mental conception of things, as made possible by a certain threshold of processing power (the more neurons, the clearer the concept of reality). This would make sense in light of the fact that only the animals with the biggest, most evolved brains show signs of consciousness.

love, on the other hand, is an emotional causality which takes place both within and outside of conscious awareness. you could say it's a disposition which alters one's perception of reality, but fixations with strong emotional impetus tend to do this in general (depression being another example). taking all the levels at which love exists into account, it could be described as a biochemical reaction which promotes an emotional mechanism of social cohesion whereby an individual propagates the existence of another (or object/concept/idea) via nurturance. it implies both affinity and dependence, where the object of affection becomes a fixture in the individual's psyche which involves the perception of reward and/or ego association. it results in physical health due to reduced stress response, as well as a sense of fulfillment. love is the primary basis by which family units are formed.

 

[Rixus]

We're all aware that love is a bio chemical response. Your bond with someone is simply an association you have for that person where your brain produces Oxycontin in response to their presence. While this feels good, withdrawal from this chemical is actually physically painful - I'm sure we've all felt that at some point.

But why? Well, evolutionary, it's to facilitate bonding between other members of the pack. So that you will enjoy the mating, hunt together, share your food them and protect them predators. But we're a little more complex than that now.

The Greeks talked about 4 different kinds of love and I like to think of it in this way. (Or if I'm missing someone who's bond is no longer required or possible, I just call it Oxycontin withdrawal and put up with it in a detached state of dissociation):
1) Erotic Love
2) Friend love
3) Caring love
4) Love for your god or deity (though I have no experience of this one)

I think it's possible to experience only one of any of these for any one person, although what we call "true love" would be all 3 are mutual. Many people these days mistake just 1 for this feeling of true love, which whilst being intoxicating is not (in my opinion or experience) long lasting. Eroticism, friendship and care is all required both ways for it to last. People also seem to think 1 & 2 are enough - but again that will not last for long.

 

[ChainsofAssery]

There are four types of loves. Stroge, Philia, Eros and Agape.

Stroge is basically a hierarical type of love, a love that isn't equal in its balance but both parties interrelate to themselves asymmetrically which works out in the end. I would say it's a love based on necessity, but some people would argue against it. It's a love of 'familiarity'.

(...)

Eros is sexual attraction caused by biology. This too is asymmetrical, though it's more of the psyche/body rather than of a 'give and take' of commodity or necessity.

I'm not sure about your description of Storge. It's more of a love that occurs due to circumstance, it's rather passive and tends to just "happen". It does not, as I was taught, involve hierarchical. It can though, like the love one may feel for the Queen of England; simply because she is queen that person loves her.

Eros is not simply caused by biology, that's a gross generalization. There are many differences between biological reproductive urges and Eros. I would even argue Eros transcends our biology.


Love is hard to define or justify. We can explain why it happens, but we fail to find tangible justifications for it. Take anger for example. When angry, a person has a clear cause and justification for his emotion. With love, there can be justifications, but upon closer examination those justifications fall short. I could say I love a guy because of "his humour, his smile, his way of being just the right amount of an asshole, etc.", yet I would realize upon reflection that I would most likely love him even if he did not have those qualities. Moreover, it would make equal sense for me to give those same reasons for why I don't love him.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'm not sure about your description of Storge. It's more of a love that occurs due to circumstance, it's rather passive and tends to just "happen". It does not, as I was taught, involve hierarchical. It can though, like the love one may feel for the Queen of England; simply because she is queen that person loves her.

The Queen of England has a social status and rank that goes beyond any other citizen so in a way 'hierarchical' sort of does make sense. I'm not sure what you mean by love that 'just happens'. I feel like a love of familiarity, or a brotherhood or a bond you share with an entire class is the definition for Storge.

Eros is not simply caused by biology, that's a gross generalization. There are many differences between biological reproductive urges and Eros. I would even argue Eros transcends our biology.

Hmm I see. What do you think the definition for Eros should be? What you just laid out seems to remind me of Agape, not Eros. And if reproductive love is different than Eros, what category does it fall under, if any at all?

Love is hard to define or justify. We can explain why it happens, but we fail to find tangible justifications for it. Take anger for example. When angry, a person has a clear cause and justification for his emotion. With love, there can be justifications, but upon closer examination those justifications fall short. I could say I love a guy because of "his humour, his smile, his way of being just the right amount of an asshole, etc.", yet I would realize upon reflection that I would most likely love him even if he did not have those qualities. Moreover, it would make equal sense for me to give those same reasons for why I don't love him.

Yeah great points, love is really hard to define. I think Agape would be an apt definition that would cover your description here though, though you might disagree.

Thanks for you replying to such an old post though, haha.

 

[QuickTwist]

https://youtu.be/8KbS2HSE9yU

 

[AndyC]

Love exists on a spectrum.

 

[ChainsofAssery]

The Queen of England has a social status and rank that goes beyond any other citizen so in a way 'hierarchical' sort of does make sense. I'm not sure what you mean by love that 'just happens'. I feel like a love of familiarity, or a brotherhood or a bond you share with an entire class is the definition for Storge.

I was using that example to show how it can involve hierarchy. Yet Storge itself is not dependent on hierarchy. Another example that's non-hierarchal would be becoming friends with someone simply because he lives in the same apartment building as you. Unless that's what you meant by hierarchal?

Hmm I see. What do you think the definition for Eros should be? What you just laid out seems to remind me of Agape, not Eros. And if reproductive love is different than Eros, what category does it fall under, if any at all?

Oh boy *cracks knuckles*. I actually wrote an essay on Eros that got a 100% for a philosophy class. I think it should be a sort of grasping effect for another person, and it may not always be sexual. It encompasses desires to be close, happy, and appreciated with and by another person. Perhaps I am being overly romantic though when I say it "transcends" biology.

Have you read Plato's The Symposium? Essentially my key argument in my essay was that the speech of Aristophanes was conveying Eros. In his speech he talked about how humans were once born as two people, merged together as one. Then Zeus was a dick and separated them. So when we feel an deep, strong attraction for someone(sexual or not), that's Eros, and so we want to become "whole" again by "merging" with that person through intimacy.

If that was too weird of an argument, how Eros differs from biology can also be seen in the notion of equality and how other animals mate. For the former point, romantic love tends to emerge only when there is a reasonable amount of social equality and liberation. If Eros were purely biological, this shouldn't be the case. Biology doesn't necessarily care or know what's what in the world of patriarchy.

For the latter, imagine two male deers fighting for a doe. The doe will always go with the winner. Now this very well may be because humans are much more complex than deers, but generally if a person were to base her feelings of love for a person on things what he's achieved we would think her feelings of love are superficial and not real love. It would make sense for a woman to choose the "loser" in the fight just because that's who she feels Eros for.

Anyway, I don't want to start ranting ha. Thanks for the reply!

 

[onesteptwostep]

I was using that example to show how it can involve hierarchy. Yet Storge itself is not dependent on hierarchy. Another example that's non-hierarchal would be becoming friends with someone simply because he lives in the same apartment building as you. Unless that's what you meant by hierarchal?

Haha well no but I guess that would fall under the love of familiarity. I mentioned hierarchy because thats the type of relationship we're most exposed to out in society. Corporate or work life, for example.

Oh boy *cracks knuckles*. I actually wrote an essay on Eros that got a 100% for a philosophy class. I think it should be a sort of grasping effect for another person, and it may not always be sexual. It encompasses desires to be close, happy, and appreciated with and by another person. Perhaps I am being overly romantic though when I say it "transcends" biology.

Perhaps. And hey biological doesnt always mean sexual either!

Have you read Plato's The Symposium? Essentially my key argument in my essay was that the speech of Aristophanes was conveying Eros. In his speech he talked about how humans were once born as two people, merged together as one. Then Zeus was a dick and separated them. So when we feel an deep, strong attraction for someone(sexual or not), that's Eros, and so we want to become "whole" again by "merging" with that person through intimacy.

If that was too weird of an argument, how Eros differs from biology can also be seen in the notion of equality and how other animals mate. For the former point, romantic love tends to emerge only when there is a reasonable amount of social equality and liberation. If Eros were purely biological, this shouldn't be the case. Biology doesn't necessarily care or know what's what in the world of patriarchy.

For the latter, imagine two male deers fighting for a doe. The doe will always go with the winner. Now this very well may be because humans are much more complex than deers, but generally if a person were to base her feelings of love for a person on things what he's achieved we would think her feelings of love are superficial and not real love. It would make sense for a woman to choose the "loser" in the fight just because that's who she feels Eros for.

Anyway, I don't want to start ranting ha. Thanks for the reply!

I always knew the four terms were greek, but i never realized it was from the Symposium. I got the four loves from CS Lewis.

Yea, thanks to you too, interesting write up. ^^

 

[ChainsofAssery]

Love exists on a spectrum.

So does autism. By God I've found the missing link!