Love or Logic

[Biggles]

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

[Quarterquack]

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.

[NotLettingItGo]

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.

[megabyteme]

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...

[mjmacky]

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.

[mjmacky]

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

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.

[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...

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

[NotLettingItGo]

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

[megabyteme]

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

Ergo, you are an insufferable twat. As expected.

[OlegL]

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.

[megabyteme]

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?