Love or Logic

[mjmacky]

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.

[NotLettingItGo]

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

[manker]

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

===

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.

[Proper Bo]

Yes
Yes
Yes

Love is the application of logic to lust.

lolwut the fucking fuck

===

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.

[manker]

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

[NotLettingItGo]

...
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.

[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.

[NotLettingItGo]

...
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.

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

Covered above.

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.

[manker]

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.

[megabyteme]

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


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