"love at first sight"....

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So I met a girl yesterday who I'd say is a great match for me, and I'm bonkers. Is it hormones, or is "love at first sight" a reality...?

[James]

Hormones.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

thanks! :)

[Jixby Phillips]

BITE HER

http://ebay1.ipixmedia.com/abc/M28/_EBAY_d7edcc93d5b2ca26221d77350a38c60b/i-1.JPG

[Protoclown]

There's no such thing as love at first sight. That's lust, man.

Love takes time to cultivate.

[James]

That's not true, Proto. Love doesn't exist at all.

[Protoclown]

Wrong. I love my family, and I love my friends.

[Helm]

No, you respect your family, you want to protect them and you care for their needs. Does that amount to love? I think not. I think love is a hyperbole, an ethical rationilization of the instinctual leanings of protection and companionship.

[AChimp]

Yeah, the love you feel for your family is definitely not romantic love. :puke

[Royal Tenenbaum]

The love you feel for your family should be the I hate you but I have to love you because you're my family type.

[Protoclown]

Who the hell ever said we were JUST talking about romantic love?Jamesman said that "love doesn't exist". I said he was wrong, because he is. There are many different types of love.

[AChimp]

So I like to jump on bandwagons. What are you gonna do about it? >:

[Zebra 3]

:/ - He's truly amazing. He first debunks that fuckin' "love at first sight" bullshit, then goes off the cliff by saying, "love doesn't exit at all."

[Royal Tenenbaum]

I believe in love at first sight, because you have to have some intial desire or spark imo.

[Protoclown]

The initial attraction you feel when you see someone isn't necessarily "love" though.

[MISTER FART]

HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SAY IT DOESNT EXIST IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS, JACKASS

[sadie]

:rock

[NONBonham]

i have to agree with sadie on this one

[KevinTheOmnivore]

:/

[Cybernetico]

I dunno, what kinda person are you, what do you think, are you more sex driven than love driven?

Then again, WHY DO YOU GO TO A FORUM TO ASK FOR LOVE TIPS FROM PEOPLE WHO 99% OF THEM HAVE NOT SEEN A LIVE BARE BREAST IN THIER EXISTANCE, YOU MORON

Thank you, I say it's hormones

[punkgrrrlie10]

I think you can know after that first conversation,..but at first sight, no.

[Cybernetico]

Well, you girls (I'm taking you are by your name) seem more aware and cautious about meeting the right guy. Us real men pant around the biggest tits we can find (or afford?) until the girl decides to use us for her own sick needs (buying crap)

[Protoclown]

Maybe if you're a shallow idiot.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Then again, WHY DO YOU GO TO A FORUM TO ASK FOR LOVE TIPS FROM PEOPLE WHO 99% OF THEM HAVE NOT SEEN A LIVE BARE BREAST IN THIER EXISTANCE, YOU MORON


I don't care about the topic any longer, I was just weirded out by the turn the thread took....

[Royal Tenenbaum]

You just wanted to gloat. :/

[KevinTheOmnivore]

About not getting her number? :/

[Olly]

The ancient Greeks had 17 different words for "Love". Each has a slightly different literal translation for the "type" of love they express.

I don't think they'd make up 17 words for something that doesn't exist.

[wreckreation]

i'm sure the "gods" exist too. while we are at it whenever you get ideas it's really a god inspiring you.

[wreckreation]

not to mention most of those types of love were purely sexual depravity like love between a man and a boy.

[Protoclown]

I'M SURE "YOU" EXIST >:

[sadie]

i won't be sure till i see THE PROOF. :P

[roonTing]

Do I have to see his penis too?

[GnrySgtHartman]

YOU MAKE ME SAD >:

[Slinky Ferret]

I think this is best explained with this quote:

"Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being "in love" which any of us can convince ourselves we are.

Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident. Your mother and I had it, we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two." - Captain Corelli's Mandolin

So that means when you are really in love with someone you realise you can't be without them. Like Mr Mock & Doopa. I've never met them but they seem a very good match.

[Olly]

not to mention most of those types of love were purely sexual depravity like love between a man and a boy.

That's it? That's your fucking reason for why "love" doesn't exist? You've obviously done your research on the Greek language.

First, to your remark about the Gods and what not, lets forget for a moment that the entire point of language and a word such as "Love" is to attempt to somehow communicate an idea or emotion from the mind of the communicator to the recipient, therefore by nature imperfect, and attack exactly what I said.

Yes. I was saying that anything the Greeks used a word for must have literally existed. I was not in any way indicating the idea that the Greek language supporting 17 different words to translate to the same meaning would somehow support the idea that the concept of love as an emotion, ideal, or concept is in someway valid.

Man. You burned me. You are fucking brilliant. What was I thinking? That just because an entire race of human beings somehow thought that their ideals/emotions/concepts were valid enough to construct a living language used to communicate and express ideas, somehow that's indicative of human nature? Just because nearly all languages in the world have some sort of equivalent of expressing the emotion/concept/ideal of love in some lingual format that it might be a valid concept in nature?

Man, you schooled me!

Plus, your remark concerning how much the Greek culture indulges in homoerotic pedophilia was just SPOT ON! Because we ALL know that all 17 words in the ancient Greek language used to express the concept of love were sexual in nature!! DESPITE what certain "Historians" and "Anthropologists" would have us believe, YOU cleared it all up for the rest of us!!

Obviously, because Greek Gods do not exist, love cannot exist. The concept/idea that people have been attempting to communicate via written and oral linguistics is a SHAM. A FRAUD.

You've helped me to see clearly now. You have achieved your life potential. You should go help others now, at other boards. We will all miss you here.

[glowbelly]

and wreck gets under one more person's skin...

how many is that now, young man?

[James]

I love how one sentence from wreck sends his dellusional dolt into a billion-paragraph rant. Wreck has powers. :)

[Protoclown]

Actually I thought it was pretty funny.

The whole "there's no such thing as love :tear" argument comes across as nothing more than teenage angsty bitterness.

[James]

Well, let me put it like this.

People believe in religion. But all this faith brings is pain and bullshit. If there was a God, why would all this be going on in his name? Why would he let this happen? Why would he not show up to renew the faith? Hence, there is no such thing as God(s).

Same thinking works for love. Faith in love brings nothing but pain and bullshit. If love existed, why would all this occur in its name?

/stupidtheory

[sadie]

because people are stupid. :rolleyes

[GnrySgtHartman]

Why would he not show up to renew the faith? Hence, there is no such thing as God(s).

I'm really sure you heard of judgement day. Let me ask you a question, are you sure where you're going to go when you die? It's your choice to make a huge ass gamble to not have faith.

[CaptainBubba]

If it is a huge ass gamble to assume an entity intelligent and powerful enough to create exsitence itself isn't ignorant enough to damn someone to "enternal punishment"...well I guess I might as well kill myself.

Because that means the chance of this duct tape protecting me from chemical weapons is frighteningly low.

[James]

Yes, I heard about judgement day. I also heard it was supposed to have about 3 years ago. :rolleyes

[GnrySgtHartman]

HAHAHA AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD MOVIE TOO LOLOLOLOLO!!!!!11111

[Zebra 3]

Faith in love brings nothing but pain and bullshit. If love existed, why would all this occur in its name?...
:( - Because love hurts.

[Protoclown]

If love didn't have the POWER to cause great pain, it wouldn't have any power at ALL. Because it means so much it also has the power to hurt us a great deal. Without that, it would be meaningless, and worthless.

[roonTing]

A stick has the power to hurt. :/ And I bet meaningless sex could hurt. :/ On the other hand... wreck bought me a sundae.

[Cybernetico]

Love?

Cannot compute

[glowbelly]

you people are always focusing on the bad side of stuff.

no wonder your lives suck.

[James]

Show us a good side then? And lies, denile, and delusions don't counts at "good sides."

[glowbelly]

some of my best friends, that i still talk to today, are people that i was in love with at one point in my life. i wouldn't give that up for anything...as a matter of fact, i need to work on getting one of them back into my life.

[James]

That doesn't prove shit. Oh, the boys you used to be with based on delusions that love is real are still your friends. That really proves love is real. :rolleyes

I'm asking you to give me actual evidence that love is a real thing. Not your little stories about boyfriends who stuck around to be treated like shit by you with no fucking as consolation.

[Zebra 3]

http://maliciousgifts.com/Images/diaper.jpg
Everytime a parent changes a dirty diaper.

[MrAdventure]

What the fuck is that, butter and beef jerky? >:

[Protoclown]

I'm asking you to give me actual evidence that love is a real thing.

I love my friends, as I have stated before. Sure, you say, it's not romantic, but it doesn't matter. It's still love, we're talking about love, and I am telling you I love them and it is real. It counts. If you disagree you should have specified "romantic love". But then, how can one type of love be real and another not?

Jamesman, how can you talk shit about it when you haven't even EXPERIENCED it? I mean, I'll admit, sometimes I get in a pissy mood and I talk trash about it too, but the fact is, I have never BEEN in love, so how can I even pretend to know what it's like?

I have a lot of love in me, and I have a lot of capacity for love. I can feel it, I just haven't really had the chance to use it much yet, at least in a romantic sense.

[James]

Considering the original context of the word's use in this thread, I figured the romantic part was a given. But OK. I mean romantice love. That kind of love that gets your willy singing and your jeans steaming. In other words, the love that is just a figment of our imagination, because we'd hate to accept the truth that we were born, will live, and will die alone. Just like death. We are so afraid of death that we put all out faith into some fictional concept of an afterlife or reincarnation, when the truth is everything about us will vanish. Our minds and conscious will just zap out of function. You won't even know you're dead, because you'll cease to exist. No floating foggy ghost, no coming back as another person, no floating into the clouds to live in luxury beside "God."

And you're right, Proto. I haven't experienced love. The reason being that love doesn't exist. I can't experience something that isn't real. It's that simple. Sure, there were times that I thought I cared about people, but that was because I was naive. Now, I can accept what we are, and I'm much happier now than I ever was falling victim to a fantasy land of happiness of gumdrops, and having someone to "love" forever, until you go into the afterlife. It's all incredibly stupid.

[GnrySgtHartman]

Have you ever actually seen a ghost before? Please put your reply as a question.

[CaptainBubba]

Jamesman: How do you deal with the thought of oblivion? I have the same opinion on what occurs after death, but when I confront the idea about eternal non-existance I become overwhelmingly sad.

This isn't the same kind of sad you get when a relative dies, or when your girlfrined dumps you, or you lose your job. This is an indescribable unbelievably horrifying depression that makes my blood run cold.

Usually turning on the T.V really quick or distracting my mind with pleasant thoughts can remedy the problem, but sometimes I just can't avoid it. How can you possibly deal with the reality of never getting to experience life ever again? That for the remainder of all existance you will never "be"?
:(

[Royal Tenenbaum]

I mean romantice love. That kind of love that gets your willy singing and your jeans steaming. In other words, the love that is just a figment of our imagination, because we'd hate to accept the truth that we were born, will live, and will die alone.


Just because we die alone doesn't mean we can't feel love for someone. It's not a "figment of our imagination" because we actually feel it, it actually exists within our bodies and mind. I accept I will die, but I don't accept that love doesn't exist.

[James]

because we actually feel it, it actually exists within our bodies and mind.

There are many of things in this world that can fool your mind into thinking something's real. So much so that you can actually feel it and think it exists. LSD is a good example.

Just because you can be hypnotized to fool your perspective doesn't mean that it's real. Try again.

[wreckreation]

horror movies make you feel scared. love doesn't exist. well. romantic love doesn't.

[Protoclown]

Considering the original context of the word's use in this thread, I figured the romantic part was a given. But OK. I mean romantice love. That kind of love that gets your willy singing and your jeans steaming. In other words, the love that is just a figment of our imagination, because we'd hate to accept the truth that we were born, will live, and will die alone.

Sounds to me like you're just bitter because you see what other people have, and you have thus far failed to achieve it for yourself. I mean no disrespect to you OR wreck, as I like you both, but you both come across as desperately bitter in your attitude towards love. The whole "oh, it hasn't happened to me so it must not be real" schtick. You think I haven't been there? Oh, I've been there. But I outgrew it. I still have never experienced romantic love to this day, and maybe I never will. But I've finally put the childish "if I can't have the toy I want no one can" whining aside. Because that's EXACTLY what you're doing. You're trying to say that if YOU haven't felt it, then it isn't real for ANYONE. That's bullshit. I have friends who are in love. Do I KNOW for sure that they are? No, but I believe it, because they act that way. They display it with everything they do. I don't know their heart, but I know what I can see plainly in front of me with my own eyes.

Just like death. We are so afraid of death that we put all out faith into some fictional concept of an afterlife or reincarnation, when the truth is everything about us will vanish. Our minds and conscious will just zap out of function. You won't even know you're dead, because you'll cease to exist. No floating foggy ghost, no coming back as another person, no floating into the clouds to live in luxury beside "God."

So I take it you've died before, Jamesman? You seem pretty sure of yourself here. Personally? I believe in God, and I believe in the afterlife. But to say there IS or ISN'T an afterlife for CERTAIN is to willfully embrace ignorance. I won't say you're right, or that I'm right. How can either of us know for certain? It would be arrogant and foolish to suggest that we do. I accept the POSSIBILITY that I could be wrong. I leave myself open to new ideas. Can you do the same?

And you're right, Proto. I haven't experienced love. The reason being that love doesn't exist. I can't experience something that isn't real. It's that simple.

And yet there are apparently millions of others that CAN experience it. And millions of others that experience God and a belief in the afterlife as well. All of these things "don't exist" to you, but can you deny that people are "experiencing" them, even if what they are experiencing is nothing more than a belief IN them?

Sure, there were times that I thought I cared about people, but that was because I was naive. Now, I can accept what we are, and I'm much happier now than I ever was falling victim to a fantasy land of happiness of gumdrops, and having someone to "love" forever, until you go into the afterlife. It's all incredibly stupid.

Translation? I'm hurting and lonely and I need a girlfriend. You know how I know that's what all that really means? Because I've said it myself more than my share of times, too. But looking back on myself, and looking at this now, it all seems really fucking silly to me. That is NOTHING more than bitterness talking, that's all.

And Wreck...did we or did we not talk for hours upon hours on AIM over the love you felt over a particular girl roughly a year ago? Was that just my imagination, or have you just become so insanely bitter that you deny the existence of the thing you used to yearn for more than anything?

The fact that I have turned around and now believe in this thing that I have never personally experienced, which you so emphatically suggest does not exist in the first place, either makes a strong point for the argument that it is a real and powerful thing...or I'm the biggest idiot ever.

[wreckreation]

you're not an idiot. :)

yeah for sure a year ago i believed in it. Or at least more so than now. However, i don't now. I totally agree that people think they are in love or something. But love is not some special state that exists above "liking" someone. Everyone i know who is in love has convinced themselves that they are, and most of them are sad. Our concept of love was made up a few hundred years ago. It hasn't always been like it is today. It doesn't exist because it is a big circle. How do you know you are in love with someone? Because you fell a certain way in response to him/her. But the media and society in general perpetuates the modern concept of romantic love so really you're just buying in like a mcdonalds commercial. Not that it is bad. I think everyone should experience it at least once. After that, you can make up your own mind. It is the most hilarious thing to see flirting couples all posturing to be cool and the fucking second they say the L word it all changes and they start to have less fun and more problems. Love is a really great ideal to have, but it just isn't gonna happen. If you really looked at couples up close you can see that a lot of times the only thing holding them together is just fear of being alone and that they both still fervently believe they are in love.

[Skulhedface]

Sometimes, though, all it takes is patience. Surely you didn't think that you'd meet the girl of your dreams right out of high school, did you? Hang in there, for Chrissakes.

Getting back to the original post: I DO believe in love at first sight. I didn't before I turned 20 years old, but I do now. I met the girl of my dreams and was instantly turned into so much testosterone soaked mush. It takes a special girl to turn a guy into mush without reaching into that mushy pocketbook ;D

All jokes aside, she felt the same way, and just to make sure we weren't fooling ourselves as far as the "love at first sight" thing goes, when we hit our big ol' anniversary, we talked about it and indeed agreed that what we had was love.

And of course, the daily boinkings (Sorry to throw that in, but I have to throw some testosterone in there SOMEHOW heh heh eh)

Final word? Love is real, but it's subjective. It will be more joyous to some and more heartwrenching to others (if life was fair, this wouldn't happen, but then death and all that wouldn't either.. oops, I'm talking metaphysics!)

I'd just like to think I got lucky. I never got cocky. I just consider it luck. Your luck will come through one day (spoken like a true optimist... I'm not doing much to keep my 'cynical asshole' rep in check) but well, everyone has their own opinions. This is mine. You might not agree with it, but bear this in mind:

"I might not agree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death to make sure it's heard"

So instead of blasting it, maybe you could think about it for awhile, eh? ::slaps self:: I'm not Canadian, why the hell did I say that?

Have fun, kiddies.
http://members.tripod.com/~evil_bicky/aodpics/aod23_s.gif

[wreckreation]

when people say "you'll find love one day" it really makes me laugh. they are affirming themselves. It's such a mentally conceived notion. If it existed for real it shouldn't fucking matter who believes in it or not. However, everyone says that all the time. They need to believe that everyone will find it to keep their own faith in love. Too many people equate love with happiness and can't possibly imagine people being truly happy without love. They say "you'll find it some day" like that is the only way to be happy. Like it is the primary goal in life. idiocy! Buddhist monks don't have girlfriends! they are fucking pretty happy about life. When you say "Your luck will come through one day" you are just trying to have hope for the world when you should re-examine your whole concept of things. It pisses people off when they have "love" and all that crap and someone says of their own personal beliefs that they don't want to fall in love. How's that for "I might not agree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death to make sure it's heard"?
If you started being a huge asshole 24/7 with your girl, how long would she love you?

[James]

Proto, you don't know shit.

Bubba, when it comes to accepting the fact that my existence will simply "blank out" when I die, I don't. I try not to think about it, because death terrifies me. I've gone many a time sleepless and starving, because I can't stop thinking about it. So I just try to jerk off or punch myself in the face to make me think of something else.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

Jamesman & Wreck, you'll never find love, kill yourselves.

[Protoclown]

Proto, you don't know shit.

I acknowledge that I have room to grow and that there is much I have to learn. Do you?

And I seem to remember, Jamesman, that just recently you posted a sad little sob story about how you cared about this one girl and got her all these gifts for Valentine's Day one year, but then she turned you down. Why would you have done all that, or told us about it, if you didn't believe in love? You were looking for pity and understanding in that thread, you weren't trying to say "HA HA, LOOK WHAT A YOUNG AND BRASH FOOL I WAS A YEAR AGO!"

No, you're not bitter at ALL. :rolleyes

Bubba, when it comes to accepting the fact that my existence will simply "blank out" when I die, I don't. I try not to think about it, because death terrifies me. I've gone many a time sleepless and starving, because I can't stop thinking about it. So I just try to jerk off or punch myself in the face to make me think of something else.

I'm not exactly wild about the idea of dying, but I don't fear death like this. Gee, maybe that's because I actually believe in an afterlife. Even if I'm wrong, I'll gladly go through life clinging to hopes that may be false rather than live in perpetual crippling fear.

I'd rather be an idiot who believes in something than a skeptic who believes in nothing.

[CaptainBubba]

The problem is that once it occurs to you how unfounded and unsupported the idea of an afterlife is, it becomes practically impossible to force yourself into accepting religion. I would LOVE to believe that after life there is more. I would do anything to think that.

For example: If I was more happy believing that there was a unicorn in my refrigerator, could that desire alone truly make me BELIEVE it? No. I could claim to, but in my mind I'd know there is practically no chance of there being a unicorn in my fridge.

I'm seriously considering voluntary brainwashing. I'd rather live misguided and content that in fear of the gruesome truth.

[Helm]

I'll avoid all the bullshit that's been posted on this topic, just to say that

The ancient Greeks had 17 different words for "Love". Each has a slightly different literal translation for the "type" of love they express.

I don't think they'd make up 17 words for something that doesn't exist.

I'm greek, and I know my ancient greek very well, and there are no 17 words for Love. There are words for feelings, and for shades of them, like lust, awe, respect, liking but to say that 3 words expressing 3 degrees of lust are just another 3 words for love is silly. Check your info before making such strong claims.

And to answer your initial question, yes, just because my ancestors had many different words for a thing, that doesn't absolutely mean that thing was as valid as you'd like to think. Linguistics are governed by the rule of necessity, not by that of validity. The greeks were in a position to socialise a lot on the agora while the slaves laboured for them, so it's only natural that language would have evolved so as to include slight deviations from strong social terms such as love, so as people would communicate their thoughts better. They also had so many words for different ideals, and shades of them, that doesn't make any of them inherently more or less right.

Your argument is unfounded.

[Olly]

If [love] existed for real it shouldn't fucking matter who believes in it or not. ... Too many people equate love with happiness and can't possibly imagine people being truly happy without love.

Actually, I agree with you.

I know love exists, as far as I'm concerned, and I feel I can verify that through the feelings/emotions I have for my wife.

But here's the thing. You guys are trying to prove/disprove whether or not an EMOTION exists.

Seriously. Think about that for a second. How can you prove or disprove the existence of an emotion?

I can say that pain doesn't exist. I can say that and back it up with proof. There are people born every day with a condition that leaves their nerve receptors unable to transmit tactile sensory experiences.

These people usually die early in life because they'll accidentally cut themselves and not realize it. This isn't science fiction, but documented Medical fact. For these people, there is no such thing as pain.

But, if you've experienced pain, then of course you'd be like "Bullshit, there is such a thing as pain" blah blah blah.

Truth is, you can't say love doesn't exist. You can say you don't KNOW love, haven't experienced it, haven't really seen it as far as you're concerned, but that's as far as you can run with it.

You can't disprove an emotion. You'd have to have the ability to experience everything every sentient being has ever felt since the beginning of time to confirm or deny the existence of love.

Now, if you can do that, not only will I believe you, but I'll be impressed.

[Helm]

Couldn't fucking help it. It's hard to not comment on stuff like this.

you people are always focusing on the bad side of stuff.

no wonder your lives suck.

I was thinking of replying to this in some sarcastic all-caps way like "WOW! GLOWBELLY'S GOT IT ALL FIGURED OUT! IT'S SO SIMPLE!!11!1!" but for the sake of the discussion, I'll refrain from that.

You make the mistake of assuming too much, and generalising much too much. But even if you're right, and seeing too much into things does stand to make your life bleak, or bleaker, there's a very important goal to be had, and that's awareness. Happiness, when based on uncertainty and occasional wellbeing doesn't last long anyway. It's momentarily euphoria. Not the most solid of foundations. If by being 'optimistic', by disregarding that terrible uncertainty that tells you that everything you believe in might be a social construction made so you can feel at ease, you're achieving that euphoria, I say the tradeoff isn't a good one, but hey, if you differ, more power to you.

But there are others that are willing to be a little more uncertain, risk a little more unease and maybe arrive at conclusions - no matter how stark- that are conclusions nevertheless. Those people shouldn't be treated with that generalising triviality that you have shown. Not everyone that claims that love is a social construction is a teenage goth (Also to you, Protoclown), and not everyone that desires knowledge over happiness is a depraved misery-craving pessimist.

I've thought I was in love in the past, and whereas I'm reluctant to degrade the feeling of that memory for selfish reasons, I must say I can see where those feelings stemmed from. There's no mystical unfathomable magic dust there, as I see it now. There's mainly lust, followed by respect, caring and a need for communication of a deeper level(hopefully). I cannot accept those feelings to be called Love though, even if they are said to be elements that make said emotion what it is, because Love is also something else besides an osmosis of those positive emotions; It is also a demand to some higher ethical reasoning that wants us to achieve some sort of 'completation' in finding a 'rightful soulmate'. That's, for me, completely unfounded and naive. It requires faith in some omnipresent objective definition of what's 'good' and what's 'bad', that also dictates which person is 'ment for you' that is simply unreasonable.

What I see, are people struggling to believe that they're special, and in doing that, shifting the burden of proof of that claim to the incomprehensible magic dust that is Love. That's bullshit. There's nothing so special in wanting to mate, and there's nothing special in wanting an understanding partner in that. There needs to be a demystification of that awesomenes that's supposedly Love, down to the bare level of atavistic tendencies. Why? Because this perpetuated lie about Love is hurting us more than helping us. It confuses people in it's absurdity, it dissapoints them, in it's unnatainable-ness (good god, there's no such word). It's much simpler, not to mention more logical to call for natural urges to mate when explaining the behaviour of the sexes, and also the communal urge to communicate and understand, when explaining the dialectic aspect of attraction, rather than to speak of hazy absurd terms like 'true love of one's life' and other fairytales.


So, I've arrived to the conclusion that Love is not only a notion, it's also an excuse. And there's no need for excuses. We already have enough problems with social interaction as it is. The process of mating should be made -not simpler- more honest.

[Helm]

You can't disprove an emotion. You'd have to have the ability to experience everything every sentient being has ever felt since the beginning of time to confirm or deny the existence of love.

That'd be all nice and jolly if love was just that, an emotional state. It's not. It's also a reactionary state, and a logical state. Reactionary in how a person in love chooses, given his attributed love, to react to social stimuli, and logical in how a person chooses to rationalise this emotion. The latter two attributes are in question, not the feeling of lust or that of adoration.

[Olly]

I'm greek, and I know my ancient greek very well, and there are no 17 words for Love. There are words for feelings, and for shades of them, like lust, awe, respect, liking but to say that 3 words expressing 3 degrees of lust are just another 3 words for love is silly. Check your info before making such strong claims.



Helm, I'll check my books on Ancient Greek, which I understood to be different from modern day Greek, but if you're right, then I apologize.

However, my argument still stands. Even if there is only one word for love, I can supply you the word for love in a dozen languages. Easily more than that if I really dig deep.

The point is that if so many people felt strongly enough that this EMOTION existed that they created a word to express that emotion, that proves that the CONCEPT of this emotion exists.

The fact that we are having this discussion at all proves that the Concept of love exists.


And to answer your initial question, yes, just because my ancestors had many different words for a thing, that doesn't absolutely mean that thing was as valid as you'd like to think. Linguistics are governed by the rule of necessity, not by that of validity. The greeks were in a position to socialise a lot on the agora while the slaves laboured for them, so it's only natural that language would have evolved so as to include slight deviations from strong social terms such as love, so as people would communicate their thoughts better. They also had so many words for different ideals, and shades of them, that doesn't make any of them inherently more or less right.

Your argument is unfounded.

That's kind of a ridiculous statment you just made, Helm. No offense, but from what you've said, my argument is validated.

This whole argument is to ask whether love exists. Love can only exist as an emotion and concept. It is not a physical presence. It's conceptual in nature. It's expressive of a feeling.

The fact that words were needed to express the feeling is validation that a feeling existed that necessitated the creation of a word.

Language did not happen by accident. Words aren't just "found". Meaning isn't assigned randomly. People expressly assign meaning to particular words and phrases, allowing communication.

Like I said, I'll check on that translation, and if you're right, there are a lot of professors here at VA Tech that will be surprised.

And if you're offended that I chose Greek for my analogy, well, I could just as easily choose Hebrew or Latin if you like.

[Protoclown]

I can't stand the way you try to dissect and classify everything, Helm. It drives me nuts. Don't get me wrong, I've always liked you, I just don't see how you can live like that.

I like believing in things that cannot be seen or proven. I like mysteries, and the unexplained. For example, I believe in ghosts, I am fascinated by them. I would never want them scientifically explained or debunked. What fun would life be then?

For me, these "fairy tales" are what make life interesting.

[Olly]

That'd be all nice and jolly if love was just that, an emotional state. It's not. It's also a reactionary state, and a logical state. Reactionary in how a person in love chooses, given his attributed love, to react to social stimuli, and logical in how a person chooses to rationalise this emotion. The latter two attributes are in question, not the feeling of lust or that of adoration.


I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.

You're suggesting that a human being, at any given moment in time, could be in one of 3 states, emotional, reactionary, or logical?

A Reactionary state, from what I've read of your post, seems largely dependent on the emotional and logical state of the human in question. Because of the emotional and logical coniditon of the person, they may be expected to react in a specific number of ways in a given set of social stimuli. Is that what you're saying?

Also, for the state of logic, how can you define that? What are your requirements to confirm the logical state of love given a proper rationalization of the emotion?

I *think* you're suggesting that Love should be considered as more than an emotive quality, that is somehow transcends feeling and can be quantified in someway.

If that's the case, I'd have to disagree. Because of the nature of thought, we have no way to really quanitfy how someone feels EXCEPT relative to the person in question. We can make relativistic claims, but there is no absolute measurement standard.

However, I did not major in Psychology. If that's your field, please let me know if there is in fact a unit of measurement. I would be very interested in knowing how this kind of procedure could be done.

[James]

And I seem to remember, Jamesman, that just recently you posted a sad little sob story about how you cared about this one girl and got her all these gifts for Valentine's Day one year, but then she turned you down. Why would you have done all that, or told us about it, if you didn't believe in love? You were looking for pity and understanding in that thread, you weren't trying to say "HA HA, LOOK WHAT A YOUNG AND BRASH FOOL I WAS A YEAR AGO!"

Funny, I seem to recall that being the "FUCK VALENTINE'S DAY" thread I started, where we ALL were supposed to share are VD misadventures. I was merely getting the ball rolling. Believe me, I don't want pity over wasting 50 bucks on a girl who I was stupid enough to think she was worth spending it on.

[CaptainBubba]

Proto: The fact that you refer to them as fairy tales seems to suggest that you acknowledge their lack of scientific founding.

Theres nothing wrong with it, but are you positive that you actually believe in things like love? Or is it just that you want to so badly that you perpetually tell youself that they must exist.

I for one don't know what the hell "love" is. I do know that there are some people I would not enjoy life without however. If that is love then it at least exists to me, be it an allaborate illusion I've fabricated for myself, or a natural emotion.

[Olly]

...
I cannot accept those feelings to be called Love though, even if they are said to be elements that make said emotion what it is, because Love is also something else besides an osmosis of those positive emotions; It is also a demand to some higher ethical reasoning that wants us to achieve some sort of 'completation' in finding a 'rightful soulmate'. That's, for me, completely unfounded and naive. It requires faith in some omnipresent objective definition of what's 'good' and what's 'bad', that also dictates which person is 'ment for you' that is simply unreasonable.




I see we may be working with 2 different definitions of "Love". I don't think that Love requires a higher ethical understanding or belief, but I see that your definition of love requires something that transcends human nature.

I don't know that humans *can* do something that transcends their nature, because then it would become part of their nature by the fact that they *could* do it.

I would like to say, however, that I really like the way you think Helm, and the way you debate. It's very well thought out and thought provoking. :)

[Helm]

Helm, I'll check my books on Ancient Greek, which I understood to be different from modern day Greek, but if you're right, then I apologize.

Yeah, they are different in how olde english is different from American. Beowulf to say, from Seinfield or what you call it. But I said I know my ancient greek very well, because I've always been fascinated with the subject of language and how nececity is expressed through it, and I persued this in school.

emotion, that proves that the CONCEPT of this emotion exists.

Nobody tried to say the concept of love doesn't exist (or if they did, they're silly and I'm not defending them). What I am saying, is that said concept is flawed, unfounded, and prepertuates social issues that need to be resolved. Sure, people mean about the same when they say love, but that doesn't nec. mean that what they mean actually translates into reality. Not by a longshot.

The fact that we are having this discussion at all proves that the Concept of love exists.

As in the concept of god? Sigh. It's a good analogy. Sure, the concept of *anything* exists, to try a CLAspinster defence, but what does that tell us? Nothing terribly important, besides the fact that said concept is needed, and that it serves a social purpose!

The fact that words were needed to express the feeling is validation that a feeling existed that necessitated the creation of a word.

Ridiculous? Read my statement again. Last line. I never said "blah blah blah makes any of them more or less existant", I said 'makes any of them more or less right". I was making an ethical argument, not an existential one. And as such you should approach it. Anything exists as a notion. It's whether it's a socially positive notion that's on question now. Again, I make my position clear: I do not say Love does not exist. I said we attribute to the sum of the feelings we claim to be Love, too many things, without as much founding, and because of questionable reasons. I do not deny the existence of the chemicals in your brain that make you want to stick your penis in orfices, or your social need for communication and mutual respect, or what you deem as Love. I question what you, or any other uses the social construction that is the notion of Love for though.

Language did not happen by accident. Words aren't just "found". Meaning isn't assigned randomly. People expressly assign meaning to particular words and phrases, allowing communication.

Yeah. Language operates on necessity. Where did I give you the impression that I supported the theory that words just pop up?

Like I said, I'll check on that translation, and if you're right, there are a lot of professors here at VA Tech that will be surprised.

And if you're offended that I chose Greek for my analogy, will, I could just as easily choose Hebrew or Latin if you like.

That claim of 172342435 words for love is just more pop guess what? unfounded trivia that people like to throw at each other at parties. Ask around. And I wasn't offended at all, especially after your astute debunking of the 'greeks are homosexuals so whatever they did must have been about homo lovin' sillyness. You seem to have a grasp of the historic truth, it's just what you said was more than what you could back up on that case. I'm not out to play greek vigilante or anything.

[Olly]

Again, I make my position clear: I do not say Love does not exist. I said we attribute to the sum of the feelings we claim to be Love, too many things, without as much founding, and because of questionable reasons.


OK, see, I didn't see that you were saying that love *does* exist. I missed that in your post. I thought you were arguing against the existence of love.

Actually, given your above definition, I'm inclined to agree that people use the word "Love" too loosely, to tie together too many different emotions.

[Helm]

You're suggesting that a human being, at any given moment in time, could be in one of 3 states, emotional, reactionary, or logical?

Excuse my bad english. Not my first language, and that doesn't help the situation. To answer, I believe that man is at all three at all times. A man feels foremost, then a man relates that feeling with the outside world, and lastly a man applies reason on both the feeling and the application of it on the world. A definition of love cannot be complete without an assessment of how said love operates withing a social enviroment. It is there where I have my objections. I do not argue wether a man feels the feeling, that's silly. I disagree on how man relates and rationalises the feeling. I think love to be a manifestation of mating instinct foremost, lust, so to speak, but amplified by the social urge man has. As Aristotle said, man is a communal animal, a political animal a logical animal, and finally, an ethical animal (Plato on Protagoras makes such a case as well). It is there where I base my belief that whereas with just lust man satisfies one instinct, with 'love' he/she stands to satisfy the communal instinct as well, and that automatically make the sensory feedback more poweful(as with any satisfaction of an atavistic tendency) , hence the bigger reactionary value we place on love over lust. It's in the [ethical] rationalisation of this sensory feedback where I strongly dissagree with the common way of thinking. People like to attribute those strong feeling to some mystical value 'true love' holds, which as I've stated twice over, I find socially retarded.

Also, for the state of logic, how can you define that? What are your requirements to confirm the logical state of love given a proper rationalization of the emotion?

Man inherently rationalises, because reason remains his stronger asset for survival. A logical interpretation of emotion is only natural, especially in a logical enviorment such as a community. I have a feeling this doesn't answer your question, though. It is, maybe because I do not fully understand the question.

I *think* you're suggesting that Love should be considered as more than an emotive quality, that is somehow transcends feeling and can be quantified in someway.

Yes.

If that's the case, I'd have to disagree. Because of the nature of thought, we have no way to really quanitfy how someone feels EXCEPT relative to the person in question. We can make relativistic claims, but there is no absolute measurement standard.

I didn't call for any absolute measurement.

However, I did not major in Psychology. If that's your field, please let me know if there is in fact a unit of measurement. I would be very interested in knowing how this kind of procedure could be done.

That is not my field.





I see we may be working with 2 different definitions of "Love". I don't think that Love requires a higher ethical understanding or belief, but I see that your definition of love requires something that transcends human nature.

No such thing. I am saying that 'love' requires besides the instinctual urge to mate, some intellectual stimuli that are found in people with which we can communicate on a satisfactory level. The quenching of two insticts thus, that of the mating and that of communication, produces an amplified result of mixed respect, admiration, adoration, protective tendencies and hormonal outletting, which we have dubbed love. Now, people, in their rationalising, want to believe that this amplified feeling produced surely must have some mystical founding. THAT is what I'm criticising.

I don't know that humans *can* do something that transcends their nature, because then it would become part of their nature by the fact that they *could* do it.

Astute. That is how Gods are also disproved. Not relevant to the discussion, however.

I would like to say, however, that I really like the way you think Helm, and the way you debate. It's very well thought out and thought provoking.

Thanks.

[glowbelly]

i love my ex. just because he broke up with me doesn't mean i hate him. i'll never hate him. i've loved him forever and i will continue to do so. he knows that too...and i'm pretty positive that he feels the same way about me (and even if he didn't, it wouldn't change my feelings for him).

you can all dissect this conversation all you want. you can point your big words at my small ideas and tell me how wrong i am, but nothing is going to change this fact:

I HAVE BEEN IN LOVE. IT EXISTS FOR ME. IT IS NOT A FIGMENT OF MY IMAGINATION, OR A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. IT IS PURE AND IT IS THE BEST FEELING IN THE WHOLE WORLD. IT IS MINE AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FROM ME NO MATTER WHAT YOU TRY TO SAY OR DO.

so, nyah.

[wreckreation]

sorry to drag this back up:
"Jamesman & Wreck, you'll never find love, kill yourselves."

lol. been there, done that. It'll be amusing when you break up with your g/f. Or do you really think you're gonna spend the rest of your life with her?
Statements like:
"you'll never find love, kill yourselves"
crack me the fuck up. Totally implying that love is the goal of life, and if you can't attain it, life is pointless. That sounds so goddamn pathetic and co-dependent. I don't want love, not anymore. I'm happier without it. It's not my goal in life. If you think this sounds jaded and pathetic, you should figure out why you think love is the goal in life.

[Helm]

I can't stand the way you try to dissect and classify everything, Helm. It drives me nuts. Don't get me wrong, I've always liked you, I just don't see how you can live like that.

I like believing in things that cannot be seen or proven. I like mysteries, and the unexplained. For example, I believe in ghosts, I am fascinated by them. I would never want them scientifically explained or debunked. What fun would life be then?

For me, these "fairy tales" are what make life interesting.

Proto, excuse me from taking this a bit too far. I won't tell you how to live your life, but consider this hypothetically. Besides the wanting to be happy, wouldn't you say man has an inner drive towards understanding and progress? Maybe that drive could be more than instinctual? Have you ever considered the possibility that being -or wanting to be- happy could just be a failsafe, a custom built faux-purpose we're all given so we don't feel completely defenseless against the awesome dread that is to think that there is no reason to exist, and we must invent one? Wouldn't you like to know? Once you realise that this question MUST be answered before you can stand on your two feet and be more than a dog or a turtle that lives on instinctual desire, to be Man, there is no way to ignore it any more. One must invent his pupose, and no failsafe happiness will keep him content for much until he faces that truth. This isn't classifying, and cataloguing. This is killing the gods that you are given in fright, in favour of erecting a symbol of belief in your own self.

Ghosts, Love, Gods or the tooth fairy and whatever else momentarily distracts you from this purpose will not last long when you've come to terms with your inner ambition. There's more than being happy in life, I think.


Sorry for being all art faggoty.


I HAVE BEEN IN LOVE. IT EXISTS FOR ME. IT IS NOT A FIGMENT OF MY IMAGINATION, OR A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. IT IS PURE AND IT IS THE BEST FEELING IN THE WHOLE WORLD. IT IS MINE AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FROM ME NO MATTER WHAT YOU TRY TO SAY OR DO.

Are you saying that to me, or to yourself? Why do you feel the urge to shout that out?

[James]

I'm gonna contradict myself here. I apologize for my statements on death. I am a big fan of mythology and the unexplained, and that includes ghosts. So I do believe that there is something to our deaths besides worm food. I was caught up in my distaste of all these hippies talking about love being so great and cool, and real.

But I do not retract any statement made about love.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

"lol. been there, done that. It'll be amusing when you break up with your g/f. Or do you really think you're gonna spend the rest of your life with her?"

I just might. The point isn't whether or not love hurts when you break up with someone; you can have something and lose it. It's that you claim loves doesn't exist... ever. It does.

[wreckreation]

You say that now because you have to believe that. If you didn't your relationship would be pointless. I can speak from a much more objective stanse. Love is just this state of mind you convince yourself you are in, it's like a hypocondriac thinking he/she is sick. When( and if :lol) you break up you will look back and see how altered your perceptions get. Breaking up isn't "having something and then losing it", it's waking up and changing your mind. It's all just a decision. I don't attach any significant existence to someone simply thinking differently. Call it brainwashing, or opinion or whatever, but it's not fucking magical romantic goal in life love.

[Anonymous]

My definition of love isn't cosmic osmo or a fantastical state of mind and being that teleports your consciousness into a field of roses and rainbows, it's simply knowing that regardless of what's said and done, you'll still deeply care for the person and put their welfare at least slightly before yours.

I don't split up love into categories, I simply have one definition.

And by that definition, I love four people right now.

Same principle applies to sex - as long as you don't expect it to be an earth-shattering experience and the very definition of your gender, it's great.

[Protoclown]

Proto, excuse me from taking this a bit too far. I won't tell you how to live your life, but consider this hypothetically. Besides the wanting to be happy, wouldn't you say man has an inner drive towards understanding and progress? Maybe that drive could be more than instinctual?

Yes, I would, Helm, and I do appreciate that quality about humanity a great deal. I just think personally that sometimes people try to take their understanding a bit too far, for my taste anyway. But that's because I like mysteries. The REASON ghosts fascinate me so much is BECAUSE we don't know much about them. I love the speculation, the theories, the imagination, and wonder that well up within me when I think of them. I'm a real sucker for anything paranormal or unexplained, it's that kind of thing that exercises MY mind more than any scientific evidence explaining how something works in minute detail. But that's just MY personal preference, I'm not saying that humanity should ignore the quest for truth. Scientists should certainly continue to try to explain things such as the "ghost phenomenon", it's just that their eventual revelation of truth won't interest me (and in fact will disappoint me) when they do.

Possibilities excite me a great deal more than nailed down, definite terms. But to each their own. I did not mean to criticize, I just wanted to point out how different we are in how we view the world. I think that's interesting, and your point of view often gets me thinking of things I never would have bothered to explore on my own.

Have you ever considered the possibility that being -or wanting to be- happy could just be a failsafe, a custom built faux-purpose we're all given so we don't feel completely defenseless against the awesome dread that is to think that there is no reason to exist, and we must invent one? Wouldn't you like to know? Once you realise that this question MUST be answered before you can stand on your two feet and be more than a dog or a turtle that lives on instinctual desire, to be Man, there is no way to ignore it any more. One must invent his pupose, and no failsafe happiness will keep him content for much until he faces that truth. This isn't classifying, and cataloguing. This is killing the gods that you are given in fright, in favour of erecting a symbol of belief in your own self.

I actually agree with this, Helm, and I have explored this quite a bit over the years, in philosophy classes and in my own personal ventures, to the point that I'm satisfied. I have reached conclusions that make sense to me, and that's really all I was looking for.

Ghosts, Love, Gods or the tooth fairy and whatever else momentarily distracts you from this purpose will not last long when you've come to terms with your inner ambition. There's more than being happy in life, I think.

I certainly won't dispute that. But I think being happy certainly makes the trip easier. That doesn't mean that I AM happy, but I'm not entirely disatisfied with my existence either. Happiness is but one of many pursuits that often embroils mankind.

Chojin, I like your take on this whole "love" thing.

[george]

hmm.

i have known my wife for a very long time. she was actually the first girl i kissed. we were seperated for a few years. the first time i saw her again after our seperation, i did not recognize her, but in those first few seconds i fell in love with her. i could almost hear the universe click.

when each of my children were born, the first moment that i saw each of them i loved them more than i can ever describe.

in each case i KNEW that my life would not be complete without them in it. in each case i felt a level of emotion that went far beyond anything that i ever imagined existed, and could not/can not imagine living without them.

i have had ups and downs with Nancy, but i have never not loved her. there are parts of relationships that get tricky and hard, and it is not always easy to stay together. but even if life had driven us apart (and i speak from experience on this) there is nothing that would make me not love her. she is a part of me as a person, and has been since a sunny july day in 1988.

i believe in love at first site. i believe that love is a very powerful emotion. maybe it does not happen for everyone. i can see where wreck is coming from, and i think you can live just fine without it and be happy. maybe even happier than someone who does have it.

but no argument you make can prove that is anything less real than concrete. i have seen it for myself. maybe i am the exception. but i doubt it.