Love or Logic

Can they both live together?

Do you apply logic in love?

Do you love logic?

There is no fucking logic in love. Love is only a delusion that inspires animals to have sex and produce offspring thus satisfying our eternal desire to exist forever, could there be a more fake emotion then this?

1. Hardly
2. I certainly try
3. Yes

Logic is just our way to explain everything, so it's sometimes almost impossible to apply logic to love which sometimes is irrational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatcdfan

There is no fucking logic in love. Love is only a delusion that inspires animals to have sex and produce offspring thus satisfying our eternal desire to exist forever, could there be a more fake emotion then this?

---

That seems to be lust? I feel love and lust are two different things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emailk2

That seems to be lust? I feel love and lust are two different things?

---

Yeah but the love that you talked about is purely driven by lust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatcdfan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emailk2

That seems to be lust? I feel love and lust are two different things?

---

Yeah but the love that you talked about is purely driven by lust.

---

So in a way you suggest that love tends be driven by lust.. isn't that can be termed as logic behind love. So whenever logic enters love that results into lust?

Can there be love without lust or logic?

Insensitive souls who don't care about love and try to find logic only in lust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatcdfan

There is no fucking logic in love. Love is only a delusion that inspires animals to have sex and produce offspring thus satisfying our eternal desire to exist forever, could there be a more fake emotion then this?

---

You're wrong. I can assure you love exists entirely seperately from lust.

No people social reaction is based logic, you need to accept reactions as set of rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emailk2

Can they both live together?

Do you apply logic in love?

Do you love logic?

---

Yes
Yes
Yes

Love is the application of logic to lust.

For everyone in here, love is also a feeling you have towards your siblings, parents, children. I wouldn't be so quick to equate it with lust...

Love is rather a sense of deep caring

A relationship starts out on lust, interest, affection. Eventually, the feeling of love is introduced and grown from a general investment into the other person. Once the relationship gets promoted by the acknowledged addition of love, the original drives of lust, interest, affection, etc. start to decline in variable rates. Eventually you'll end up with a hag/stretchysack who you don't care to fuck, kiss or listen to, but you'll be damned if you don't love the bitch/bastard. Either that or you just knock boots less often.

Of course, this all occurs in competition with contempt and feelings of its ilk, so that could alter the course in various ways. Love and contempt can coexist, just think about the relationships you might have with some of your family members, current lovers, exes.

Where does logic come into play? Well, it works into the development of love, your interpretation and understanding of the other person is a product of logic, and allows you to actively or subconsciously evaluate their worth in terms of your emotional investment. Logic plays its role in all of these factors that lead in and out of being in love. Logic is what keeps you from merely consuming their flesh and rolling around the floor covered in their innards.

Maybe too serious for a lounge post, I promise to derail subsequently.

Just as well really... otherwise chavis et-al would be well fucked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeamous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emailk2

Can they both live together?

Do you apply logic in love?

Do you love logic?

---

Yes
Yes
Yes

Love is the application of logic to lust.

---

lolwut the fucking fuck :lol:

===

I liked Mary Joe's post above about love being a sense of deep caring. I think it's wrong, though. Each time a commentator tries to quantify love, he or she ends up describing it as something else. Something different. Something that most certainly isn't love.

Oh, love is deeply caring about someone? Really, well isn't that just caring deeply. How deeply must one care before it's love. How deep is the line that separates love from care.
Love is when you take more pleasure in that person's pleasure than your own. Isn't that selflessness.
Love is when you can't get a person out of your mind. That's infatuation.
Love is when you get a funny feeling in the pit of your stomach when you think about someone. That's adrenaline released when you get excited. So, excitement.
Love is when the desire to look after someone over-rides everything else. Yeah, we're back to deeply caring again.

The are many more I could write, but I think that's enough for people to get the gist.
Basically I think what we describe as love is a mixture of any and all of these emotions. The more deeply you care/the more infatuated you are/the more you'd do for your partner, the more 'in love' you are.
You can't say it, though, because then you'd be accused of being cynical or 'incapable of love' or a sociopath. When people say; 'I love you', what they're actually saying is that they believe that the feelings they harbour toward the recipient of their utterance roughly equates to what they feel society's definition of love is.
Most people know this but it's left unsaid as it's so much easier to grunt 'I love you too'.


Love is the most intangible of intangibles. The reason for this is simple;
It doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squeamous

Yes
Yes
Yes

Love is the application of logic to lust.

---

lolwut the fucking fuck :lol:

===

I liked Mary Joe's post above about love being a sense of deep caring. I think it's wrong, though. Each time a commentator tries to quantify love, he or she ends up describing it as something else. Something different. Something that most certainly isn't love.

Oh, love is deeply caring about someone? Really, well isn't that just caring deeply. How deeply must one care before it's love. How deep is the line that separates love from care.
Love is when you take more pleasure in that person's pleasure than your own. Isn't that selflessness.
Love is when you can't get a person out of your mind. That's infatuation.
Love is when you get a funny feeling in the pit of your stomach when you think about someone. That's adrenaline released when you get excited. So, excitement.
Love is when the desire to look after someone over-rides everything else. Yeah, we're back to deeply caring again.

The are many more I could write, but I think that's enough for people to get the gist.
Basically I think what we describe as love is a mixture of any and all of these emotions. The more deeply you care/the more infatuated you are/the more you'd do for your partner, the more 'in love' you are.
You can't say it, though, because then you'd be accused of being cynical or 'incapable of love' or a sociopath. When people say; 'I love you', what they're actually saying is that they believe that the feelings they harbour toward the recipient of their utterance roughly equates to what they feel society's definition of love is.
Most people know this but it's left unsaid as it's so much easier to grunt 'I love you too'.


Love is the most intangible of intangibles. The reason for this is simple;
It doesn't exist.

---

I got bored of that halfway through the first line.
Also - poove.

You missed out on me ending that line with 'fucking fuck' and an appropriate smiley.
quality, it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

...
The are many more I could write, but I think that's enough for people to get the gist.
Basically I think what we describe as love is a mixture of any and all of these emotions. The more deeply you care/the more infatuated you are/the more you'd do for your partner, the more 'in love' you are.
You can't say it, though, because then you'd be accused of being cynical or 'incapable of love' or a sociopath. When people say; 'I love you', what they're actually saying is that they believe that the feelings they harbour toward the recipient of their utterance roughly equates to what they feel society's definition of love is.
Most people know this but it's left unsaid as it's so much easier to grunt 'I love you too'.


Love is the most intangible of intangibles. The reason for this is simple;
It doesn't exist.

---

You missed out the bit about love being able to co-exist with contempt.

Also the fact that 'love' can encompass various other emotions which you may feel for another doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a unique emotion. For example... when was the last time someone you only cared for emotionally hurt you?

You have my deepest sympathy... to have lived your life without having ever truly loved is a sorry thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

...
The are many more I could write, but I think that's enough for people to get the gist.
Basically I think what we describe as love is a mixture of any and all of these emotions. The more deeply you care/the more infatuated you are/the more you'd do for your partner, the more 'in love' you are.
You can't say it, though, because then you'd be accused of being cynical or 'incapable of love' or a sociopath. When people say; 'I love you', what they're actually saying is that they believe that the feelings they harbour toward the recipient of their utterance roughly equates to what they feel society's definition of love is.
Most people know this but it's left unsaid as it's so much easier to grunt 'I love you too'.


Love is the most intangible of intangibles. The reason for this is simple;
It doesn't exist.

---

You missed out the bit about love being able to co-exist with contempt.

Also the fact that 'love' can encompass various other emotions which you may feel for another doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a unique emotion. For example... when was the last time someone you only cared for emotionally hurt you?

You have my deepest sympathy... to have lived your life without having ever truly loved is a sorry thing.

---

I didn't miss anything out. Any paucity of words on my part was by design.
The fact that what you deem love can co-exist with contempt only goes to strengthen my claim that 'love' is a hotpotch of emotions.

As does your complete inability to substantiate your claim that love can exist as a unique emotion.

To answer your penultimate point, I don't think anyone I've only cared for has emotionally hurt me; however, someone I've deeply cared for, whose acheivements I could take vacarious pleasure in and who I was almost infatuated with has hurt me emotionally.
There's that reinforcing again ^

I lol in the general direction of your last, because it demonstrates clearly that you've misunderstood my premise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

...
The fact that what you deem love can co-exist with contempt only goes to strengthen my claim that 'love' is a hotpotch of emotions.

---

There's the nub... you called love intangible... whereas I would define it is undefinable, because love is something that doesn't fit the words you used to define other emotions... it is more than the sum of all of those... It might well encompass those emotions, but they're not enough to define it. For example none of those emotions are ones which can co-exist with love... you can't care deeply for someone and hold them in complete contempt at the same time... the two of them are incompatible... that's not the case with someone you love.

Quote:

---

As does your complete inability to substantiate your claim that love can exist as a unique emotion.

---

Covered above.

Quote:

---

To answer your penultimate point, I don't think anyone I've only cared for has emotionally hurt me; however, someone I've deeply cared for, whose acheivements I could take vacarious pleasure in and who I was almost infatuated with has hurt me emotionally.
There's that reinforcing again ^

I lol in the general direction of your last, because it demonstrates clearly that you've misunderstood my premise.

---

Hmmm interesting, but it doesn't detract from what I stated above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah

There's the nub... you called love intangible... whereas I would define it is undefinable, because love is something that doesn't fit the words you used to define other emotions... it is more than the sum of all of those... It might well encompass those emotions, but they're not enough to define it. For example none of those emotions are ones which can co-exist with love... you can't care deeply for someone and hold them in complete contempt at the same time... the two of them are incompatible... that's not the case with someone you love.

---

What I actually said is that it's the most intangible of intangibles. I described it that way to allude to its undefinable nature, we are in agreement.
It's precisely this which makes me assert that it doesn't exist on its own. That it can only be experienced as a by-product of many, much more tangible, emotions.

You're also right when you say that you can't care deeply for someone you hold in complete contempt. You'll agree that this is an absolute. If you hold every aspect of someone's persona in contempt, then there is nothing to care deeply about. All that could possibly be left is a sense of duty where you feel as if you have to look after that person. As in the case of an grown-up convicted rapist offspring with no where else to live, for example.

If you wish to tell me that you love someone that you have complete contempt for, I would counter by saying that you only hold certain aspects of that person in contempt, that there are other parts of her/him that you actually care deeply about or that you're still infatuated by.

Isn't this thread ironic to the macs? A bunch of unlovable bastards and an unloving ball breaker all discussing love. :wub:


EDIT: And a moron (welcome, WhatCD)...

A wee tune - that has a passing connection to the thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqDj5CP3Kag

For a thread that started off as a bunch of wanker tripe, this actually turned out half decent. I blame Mary. She made the first serious post in this thread.

As for love, I define it as a loose combination of concepts in this thread. As humans we can only ascribe our feelings to those accepted by society - after all they are abstract - but as a species we all work with the same pool of emotions and are programmed to "feel" what the other person feels simultaneously. From person to person this varies on an emotional range where "love" falls for them. Some people (myself included) vie for intellectual comfort, and can't imagine a relationship with someone who can't stimulate them on said level. Other people care more about shared interests like projected vision; so on and so forth there's multiple examples. From person to person the emotional combination that constitutes the perfect balance to nurture affection/"love" may vary, but I think the fundamental definition is a variation of what Macky described. Identifying yourself as being in "love" is in itself the time-point where you actually are first in love. Totally circular argument, like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

What I actually said is that it's the most intangible of intangibles. I described it that way to allude to its undefinable nature, we are in agreement.
It's precisely this which makes me assert that it doesn't exist on its own. That it can only be experienced as a by-product of many, much more tangible, emotions.

---

It's taken me a while to figure out how to phrase the answer to this... love isn't a by-product of those other emotions, it's the emotion which enhances all your other feelings for specific people. Often for no explainable reason. For example it's often not possible to explain why you love one person whilst not feeling love for a different person, who in real life might be someone who is seemingly much more your type... ergo love does exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah

ergo love does exist.

---

Please tell me you don't use "ergo" in your RL discussions. That would make you more of a twat than previously expected... :O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

I liked Mary Joe's post above about love being a sense of deep caring. I think it's wrong, though. Each time a commentator tries to quantify love, he or she ends up describing it as something else. Something different. Something that most certainly isn't love.

---

That could be chalked up to me losing my sense of romanticism. My answer could change depending on the nature of my relationship with a mistress, if I could ever bag one worthy of my interest. I feel like I should hurry before I become financially well-off and distinguished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Isn't this thread ironic to the macs? A bunch of unlovable bastards and an unloving ball breaker all discussing love. :wub:

---

Strangely, all of us are more capable in the terms of logic, yet the concept gets almost entirely ignored. Then again, it's easy, so bravo members for taking the challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

[to reject] Please tell me you don't use "ergo" in your RL discussions. That would make you more of a twat than previously expected... :O

---

I happen to do this at times. Though it's usually to maintain a pompous impression.

Oh! Good god no... I use "thusly" in RL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah

Oh! Good god no... I use "thusly" in RL.

---

Ergo, you are an insufferable twat. As expected. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emailk2

Can they both live together?

Do you apply logic in love?

Do you love logic?

---

Love is a feeling, and logic is not a feeling; it's reasoning. You can't apply reasoning to your feelings; therefore, the answer to your question is no: love and logic can't live together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OlegL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emailk2

Can they both live together?

Do you apply logic in love?

Do you love logic?

---

Love is a feeling, and logic is not a feeling; it's reasoning. You can't apply reasoning to your feelings; therefore, the answer to your question is no: love and logic can't live together.

---

Who let the retarded Vulcan in here? :unsure:

You are... I am... we are... we do things that... I... weed.

Great to see that there are still some people who think love is love. Its something where you don't expect anything in return. Its more like a faith where one tends to be unconditional, its about caring and is selfless. Moment you start applying reasoning or logic to any relationship that is based on pure love then it is not love any anymore. It start taking all sort of ugly form like that of lust, greed etc. Very true love or logic can't live together. Honestly, you can't define or quantify love. Still love is a very loosely used and most abused word.

Yes, we all are logical, we like logic. But do we follow any limits or rationale in applying logic to all situation including love?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OlegL

You are... I am... we are... we do things that... I... weed.

---

Best post you've ever made. :happy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emailk2

Its more like a faith where one tends to be unconditional, its about caring and is selfless.

---

Unfortunately, the only people I've ever encountered who tout "unconditional love" are FAR from worthy of such care, or emotion. If one is worthy, they NEVER have need to mention it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Best post you've ever made. :happy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emailk2

Its more like a faith where one tends to be unconditional, its about caring and is selfless.

---

Unfortunately, the only people I've ever encountered who tout "unconditional love" are FAR from worthy of such care, or emotion. If one is worthy, they NEVER have need to mention it.

---

Very true.. they are so humble to say even these words. And anyone saying or using the word unconditional has in-fact already applied the logic or has some hidden agenda behind this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emailk2

Great to see that there are still some people who think love is love. Its something where you don't expect anything in return. Its more like a faith where one tends to be unconditional, its about caring and is selfless. Moment you start applying reasoning or logic to any relationship that is based on pure love then it is not love any anymore. It start taking all sort of ugly form like that of lust, greed etc. Very true love or logic can't live together. Honestly, you can't define or quantify love. Still love is a very loosely used and most abused word.

Yes, we all are logical, we like logic. But do we follow any limits or rationale in applying logic to all situation including love?

---

I absolutely agree with everything you said in this particular post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

What I actually said is that it's the most intangible of intangibles. I described it that way to allude to its undefinable nature, we are in agreement.
It's precisely this which makes me assert that it doesn't exist on its own. That it can only be experienced as a by-product of many, much more tangible, emotions.

---

It's taken me a while to figure out how to phrase the answer to this... love isn't a by-product of those other emotions, it's the emotion which enhances all your other feelings for specific people. Often for no explainable reason. For example it's often not possible to explain why you love one person whilst not feeling love for a different person, who in real life might be someone who is seemingly much more your type... ergo love does exist.

---

So you think that love is some kind of emotional enzyme. A catalyst to enhance the intensity of other emotions you feel for a person.

I would say that other emotions do this too - you must concur that Occam's razor dictates that my explanation is much more palatable than yours.
Jealousy and infatuation oft go hand in hand and encourage each other to effect a manic spiral of actions the unafflicted would describe as mental. Deeply caring for someone coupled with an ingrained loyalty to that person can lead to a state approaching perfect altruism.

I suggest that the your last stems from the illogical nature of emotions; it might be more sensible for my missus to be scared of walking home from the pub alone than of spiders, instead she will stagger home and then pish in the kitchen sink cus there's a spider in the bath.
We cannot plan or decide to feel excitement, panic or happiness. Just like we cannot decide which person our broiling menagerie of emotions will tell us that we 'love'.

I cannot believe she pished in the kitchen sink.

Trying to describe love in words is silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Something Else

Trying to describe love in words is silly.

---

You mean illogical?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Something Else

I cannot believe she pished in the kitchen sink.

---

I said that too. Are you me, at all.

'I can't believe you pished in the kitchen sink'
'What else was I supposed to do, there was a spider in the bath'
'Pish in the toilet?'
'THERE WAS A FUCKING SPIDER IN THE BATH, ARE YOU DEAF'

I suppose there has got to be something in the definition of love that includes the sink pisser not being subject to homelessness, or battery. If not loved, at least the minimum standard for such a relationship rises to "VERY good friend"- one whose urinary boundaries have become marginalized...

There's a time factor involved as well as the expectation that they would allow you to cross a similar foul line. Few would allow sink use violation on a first, or second, date- even if the sex is above average. :noes:

Perhaps this test could be used by daters who are uncertain if the relationship is "going anywhere". :sly: