Shireroth

What, if anything, has innate meaning? If there weren't people to ascribe meaning to things the whole universe would be meaningless; yet we exist and we give shape and meaning to these things anyway. What we call love is one of those definitions. Just because this thing may have no relevance beyond the human context, that doesn't mean it is meaningless. Humans have shaped it, given it a name and meaning, and it is deeply relevant to us in our context.

I still hold Love isn't what people wanna think it is.. that it's just an illusion... a mask we put on simply instincts and chemical addictions. Love is nothing more then a wish...

While I agree that many kinds of love are debatable in how real they are, a strong, loving relationship is not so debatable. It's the ongoing, loving relationship (and friendship!) that is more important than the transitory infatuation, and much more real.

Never heard it called that before. Huh. and love is real. I've felt it before. And I shall feel it again some day! Just got to get out of North Carolina and find a real girl (aka, avoid girls with scarlet accents).

Thank you David... as a psych major... I find that a good read...

but I still maintain love is meaningless and pointless. And while it may feel good... I don't believe in what most people call.. "love" anymore...

Perhaps love is something more than a human creation, Letifer. Perhaps beings like humans feel naturally compelled to love...something, I mean, beyond a chemical reaction in the brain. I mean, if I may be unscientific but perfectly realistic, that it is the most desperate urge of the human soul to love. I mean, perhaps, that human being are naturally intended to love (by God?) and that other emotions or states of mind (i.e., anger, jealousy, fear, and even sadness) are what should aptly be called mere chemical reactions, given names by humanity. I believe these things are mere denizens of our cursed reptilian brain. I have long stated that pure, simple love (maybe not just the love between a man and a woman, or vice versa) and reason re the only two things humans should let rule their lives. For indeed, love and reason are divine.

I had meant to write something with that....

something like, that the pointless drug like mental problem which is what people mean when they say they are in love, sounds like what you are refering to. and yes, it is stupid. but maybe there is somthing better that you may or may not get if lucky

Putting love on a pedestal like that... saying it is above or greater in value than the other emotional states, I believe is false. Though this changes the topic a bit. it's my belief that all emotional states are as valuable and useful as any other. Niether good nor ill in their own right. I have made greate use of Anger, Hatred, Love and compassion all in my life. All have their use and purpus. So to rule your life with but only Love and Reason leaves out everything else. Happy and sad are both equal and oposite in value in the human condition. Love and Hate. Joy and Sorrow.

And oddly, this transcends now it's my Theory of Human Nature. And coincides a bit with Maslow's Hiarchy of Needs, of which "Affection/belonging" is one of them.. I believe it is the 3rd... and the 1st of what I call the "Social Animal" needs.

It is my believe that human nature is neither good nor evil... neither agressive nor passive, neither loving nor hateful. That we are a species are simply animals. And in fact most of our species never transcend into what we call being human. That most Homo Sapiens are not Human. And very few are even trying to be. That it isn't until we work to move past simple animal needs (both the simple Animal needs and the Social Animal needs), that we attain the status of human. Self-Acualization and Transcendence, if I bring Maslow back in again.

I'm rambling. What was the point again?

Oh yes.. Love. What we call love has meaning in the sense that our societies (at least western...) have given the concept a definition and a idealized value. But "love" as a psychological process and chemical process is indeed just that... chemical reactions brought about by the Social Animal in us's desire for affection and belonging. And, further by the procreation instinct.

That Homo Sapiens in their aragance want to believe we are special, and are more than our animal drives and needs, and thus try to call these drives and processes "Love" and to ascribe to this concept some ideal and higher meaning which transcends our Animalism. I don't believe this is so. I especially do not believe this is so for the average Homo Sapien whom is nothing more than a Social Animal. Rarely attaining the status of Humanity.

Furuther, most arguments I see for "love" and for we as a species being more than animals are based on linguistic tricks, god and hubris.

Dark view of the world? perhaps. But this is what I get for being in Psychology.

Love isn't something that transcends the human context, but neither is it exactly unreal as it exists within that human context. To me, to say that just because an emotion is the result of chemical reactions - and that the mind interprets that emotion, that it is completely meaninless is just as transcendental as claiming some higher, even divine value for it. It seems to argue that any kind of meaning with value can only come from something beyond the human mind. However, this is a problem for me because it seems to me that it is only humans who are capable of giving any meaning at all to the universe they encounter.

Oh god, I'm glad I never fell in love with you. (Not, of course, that that was ever remotely likely, but from a hypothetical standpoint.) You would depress the hell out of me.

My views on love, what I consider real love, are based on not only the chemical reactions of young love, infatuation, lust, limerance, what have you, but also on a basis of friendship, mutual trust, and a wish for the other's well being. The last is the biggest one for me: a sincere desire for the best for one's beloved. A long-term, loving relationship is a partnership that gives not only passion and companionship, but also a built-in support system. A good, loving relationship is beneficial to both sides.

Also, procreation need not come into play at all for love: I love Mike sincerely and deeply, and want to stay with him, but I do not want to have children with him. I do not want to have children at all (and neither does he, actually), largely because I have never felt the strong biological imperitive to pass my genes on to the next generation. I have almost never looked at a woman holding a baby and felt the strong "I want one!!!" reaction that so many other women get (it's true), and even then, only during certain parts of my hormone cycling.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that your views on love are not only depressing, but I think they miss the point what love can be, of deeply-rooted, long-term love. There is so much more to love than what you have experienced, it seems.

"My views on love, what I consider real love, are based on not only the chemical reactions of young love, infatuation, lust, limerance, what have you, but also on a basis of friendship, mutual trust, and a wish for the other's well being. The last is the biggest one for me: a sincere desire for the best for one's beloved"

Yes, Hypatia! That's what I mean! Real, actual love is more than just lust! And regardless of humans' ancestry, I do believe that it is this ability to love (as well as the ability to create, and think on a complex level), if I may use a cliche, that sets us apart from animals. Perhaps it is hubris to consider that maybe this is the work of God, or some being like God, but that does not change the fact that is possibly true.

Example: I have a cat. She likes to be petted. She likes it because it feels good. Now, a human being may love a cat. Petting the cat is a symbol of affection. Yet the cat enjoys being petted not because she knows the human in question loves her, but because it feels good physically, and maybe because it's an assurance that she won't be cast out into the cold.
Fear of exposure to the elements and the need for simple physical pleasures are basic, animalistic. The cat has these...only these. Survival instinct. While the human has these too, he also has the need and ability to love, as more than simple procreation urge or hormonal compellances (though he, as all humans, has these as well.) Draw from this what you will.

All of this opens up another debate about the nature of humanity.

Even after having lost my recent love, I still generally agree with what Hypatia said. Perhaps I am just a hopeless romantic after all... Who knows... But if I keep searching, hopefully, someday, I'll find a match for myself.

I can sit here and mope about all depressed, which I do every now and again. But that's not going to solve anything. I have an objective. I want a wife, kids, and family. And procastinating about it isn't getting me any closer to that goal.

"I have an objective. I want a wife, kids, and family"

So you seek love so that you can have these objectives? A mate and to sire children...?

Well, he can't have kids with a duck...

A duck?! The least you could have said was an elf or somethin! :P

But no, it's not just about "a mate and procreation", it's deeper than that. Companionship. Partnership. Call it what you want. But I want a "significant other" to be a lifetime partner and friend, and someone I can rely on to raise a family with. I came damn close to achieving that with Tanya. But that didn't work. So now I'm going to try again. And if I fail again, I'll pick myself up and try again. I'll keep trying until I either achieve my goal or die.

Good luck, Ryan!

Affection and Belonging...

Ryan wrote:So now I'm going to try again. And if I fail again, I'll pick myself up and try again. I'll keep trying until I either achieve my goal or die.

*Raises glass.*

Hear, hear!

I'll second that!

*raises glass in toast with theres*


Also, yes, a duck. I know you have a thing for them. Admit it! :P

No one replied to my post.

French Philosophers hate all of you guys!

Ditto baby.

I'll drink to it too! *raises glass of spiked punch!*

... Met a girl..... hehe.... And she was at a party last night... and the punch was spiked... and we played cards... and I got a hug....... that was about it.. hehehe.... and some flirting...

I was at a party last night but jesus, I swear every single one of the cute girls there was already with a guy. what a drag

plus people started arguing over Hugo Chavez instead of rocking out to Rush - 2112.

I have neither confirmed nor denied the presence of a male in her life... but I guess I'll find out soon enough.

that can be a most dangerous game

Indeed.. my plan is to ask the friend who initially intoduced us by name... and who's party we both went to. perhaps she will know.. If not.. than... I will watch.... and prey.. well.. not really... I'll just be cautious until I know.. and I will make it known that *I* am single.. and see if she says anything abot her being single.. but I must move with caution... I must drop it in conversation randomly... and hope for a favorable responce.. and not react if the responce is not in my favor.

I am in a delicate phase now... Haste will cause all to be lost, cuation in excess with allow opportunity to slip by.... a tight-rope is to be walked.. and I shall balance it with skill...

There's this cute girl who sits next to me at college who I've been chatting and joking with. She's nice, she's funny, she's hot, et cetera, et cetera, and I'm wanting to ask her out... Dunno if she's got a boyfriend tho... Kinda hard to ask when we've only got a 5 minute break in the class... bah...

I totally suck at introductions and breaking the ice.

Just walk up to her and say, "Hi, I'm Ryan," or whomever you are...
wait..we're dealing with women here...something that simple would never work...

Actually, being female, I know that if there had been a guy I'd been chatting and lauging with in a class who actually got up the GUTS to ask me out (while I was still single), I probably would have at least gone out on an experimental date with him. Come to think of it, my first boyfriend (of two months) and I were together pretty much because he was the first guy to actually take an overt interest in me and ask me out.

A direct approach like that really could work, if she's remotely interested (and single).