Do you think that love is actually a made up concept?

[allrightalready]

So i ask again, is love real and what evidence (tangible not ideological) is there to disprove that its non existence its actually incorrect?

I know there is physical proof, because I feel love towards people. But I can also hate them in a second. I don't believe that love exists outside what the body can produce, which is why some people feel sexual attraction and I do not.

it is not even possible to prove that the universe exists in anything other than our own perception so how can we come up with anything more than a convincing argument about personal experiences within this universe (which as i said may be nothing more than a personal experience, recursive logic)

love and hate can happen at the same time because hate is just extreme anger which is a reactive emotion but love is a decisoin to care about someone. you can care about someone and still be incredibly angry at them (love/hate are not opposites on the same scale but different things entirely)

Love is one of our most basic human emotions, as it is one of the first to ever develop since birth. Freud describes love as having stages: oral (when we are babies and rely on our mouths for attention and food), anal (when we are toddlers and first learn self-control), oedipal (really really complicated, but its about loving your parent of the opposite sex basically), and so on and so forth. You can look it up for the rest.

that is not love that is affection or something like that. love is a decision not an emotion

[Rising Sun]

So i ask again, is love real and what evidence (tangible not ideological) is there to disprove that its non existence its actually incorrect?

I know there is physical proof, because I feel love towards people. But I can also hate them in a second. I don't believe that love exists outside what the body can produce, which is why some people feel sexual attraction and I do not.

it is not even possible to prove that the universe exists in anything other than our own perception so how can we come up with anything more than a convincing argument about personal experiences within this universe (which as i said may be nothing more than a personal experience, recursive logic)

love and hate can happen at the same time because hate is just extreme anger which is a reactive emotion but love is a decisoin to care about someone. you can care about someone and still be incredibly angry at them (love/hate are not opposites on the same scale but different things entirely)

I agree. I can try to demonstrate the existence of red colour to a colour-blind person who doesn't see red. At best, the person can understand different personal experiences of the world, but the colour-blind person will never understand what red truly is and can still doubt of its existence.

If we are our own universe, then love exists to most people, but love doesn't exist in a psychopath's personal universe. Just like some colours don't exist in a colour-blind person's universe. And just like synaesthetes can perceive things in their mind that don't exist for most people, but it doesn't make synaesthesia less real.

About loving someone and hating someone in the same time, feelings can coexist with emotions. Feelings are sort of stable long-term emotions, whereas emotions are more primal and immediate reactions to something. Love isn't an emotion but a feeling. Hate can either be a feeling or an emotion (especially when it's considered as synonymous with anger). Love (as a feeling) can therefore coexist with hate (especially hate as an emotion = anger).

[Lord Jade Cross]

Love being a decsition and not an emotion puts a spin on the subject that makes the idea of its non existence (farther than that of a concept) more plausible, if we looked at it from this perspective. It also makes me think about something else. If we choose to love, does that make love a controlable action? Could we say that we can control love?

[stanACEberatheon]

So i ask again, is love real and what evidence (tangible not ideological) is there to disprove that its non existence its actually incorrect?

We are communicating via the internet. This is possible because people cared enough for each other to actually have altruistic tendencies, that result in civilization occurring and then we get tv, the jet engine and chicken fried rice. You only get altruism through love and you don't need sex for that. ;)

[Lord Jade Cross]

Technically this thread was aimed at the love said to be experienced between couples, but it has included other types of love so can i ask you to explain your point a bit better?

[Rising Sun]

The thing is that romance isn't love in itself. It can either be love with romantic attraction, or just romantic attraction without love. People call it love because they frequently confuse attraction (obsession, intense feelings, butterflies in the stomach, etc) with love (caring about someone, more than you care about your own life when it's deep love).

[Lord Jade Cross]

Agreed. Didnt think anyone would make the same remark about the difference between the two as I have in the past. i guess im not alone:D

[Guest]

The thing is that romance isn't love in itself. It can either be love with romantic attraction, or just romantic attraction without love. People call it love because they frequently confuse attraction (obsession, intense feelings, butterflies in the stomach, etc) with love (caring about someone, more than you care about your own life when it's deep love).

I actually find it hard to imagine actual love ever occurring together with romance. Sure didn't work that way, for me. (Although I mistook romance for love, repeatedly, it never actually was love unless I managed to remain free from romance. My relationship with R. was the only time where I consistently managed to do so - unsurprisingly, that was after SSRI made me effectively aro.)

[Mandarina]

The thing is that romance isn't love in itself. It can either be love with romantic attraction, or just romantic attraction without love. People call it love because they frequently confuse attraction (obsession, intense feelings, butterflies in the stomach, etc) with love (caring about someone, more than you care about your own life when it's deep love).

This seems pretty clear, but at the same time, it made me think, that if love and romantic attraction don't go hand by hand, and aromantic person could still fall in love with that statement, because as far as I know, aromantics, don't experience romantic attraction. Isn't it?

[Rising Sun]

I actually find it hard to imagine actual love ever occurring together with romance. Sure didn't work that way, for me. (Although I mistook romance for love, repeatedly, it never actually was love unless I managed to remain free from romance. My relationship with R. was the only time where I consistently managed to do so - unsurprisingly, that was after SSRI made me effectively aro.)

Although as you know, I'm romantic (even though attraction happens extremely rarely to me), I somewhat agree with this. Romantic attraction that is confused with love can lead to really toxic and destructive situations. The fact that so many people value romance more than platonic love is certainly no stranger to that problem IMO.

This seems pretty clear, but at the same time, it made me think, that if love and romantic attraction don't go hand by hand, and aromantic person could still fall in love with that statement, because as far as I know, aromantics, don't experience romantic attraction. Isn't it?

"Being in love" usually describes experiencing strong romantic attraction. I make a big difference between "love" and "in love".

[Perissodactyla]

Love data
Data is essential
Data must flow
Data must be used
Data is neither good nor bad
There is no illegal data
Data is free
Data can not be owned
No man, machine or system shall interrupt the flow of data
Locking data is a crime against datanity
Love data

[Lord Jade Cross]

Indeed. A great deal of people jump from in love to love almost instantaneously and simultaneously believe that the two are one and the same. Technically people can love without being in love and viceversa but usually they subcategorize it and give it different names: friendships, parental, pet, etc.

All are forms of love but they are regarded as not love per se, but instead caring for another which just makes the whole cycle repeat as if love is defined as caring for another, then all carings would be "love".

But somehow, in peoples minds, "i love my friend(s)" does not constitute love, while "i love you" does constitude love.

[Frigid Pink]

But somehow, in peoples minds, "i love my friend(s)" does not constitute love, while "i love you" does constitude love.

Maybe for some people. I "love" my friends, family, pet, and romantic partner in different ways, however, that doesn't change the fact that I still classify my feelings as "love."

[Lord Jade Cross]

Exactly. They are all love, but many people dont seem to want or cant see it as such.

[Guest]

Maybe to an extent. It is, apparently, a function of hormones (though, do we truly know that hormones cause all of the emotions we feel?), and yes it is "in your head". That doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant or not real.

I definitely love my friends and family, pets. If someone hurts them I will be very angry.

Romantic love, IDK...I know what romantic attraction is and have felt it, but don't see dopey fuzzy feelings as "love". Love in it's purest form, IMO, is puting others before yourself. I think we humans are simultaneously selfish and selfless beings. We have a capacity to care for others, even sacrifice things for the sake of others, sometimes even our very lives. But at the same time, our love is selfish--we tend to love others because community, friendship, companionship are mutually beneficial things.

Families, if you think about it, are a little underappreciated. Okay, some of them suck...but family relationships are complicated. All families fight sometimes, and conflicts will arise that nobody even remembers where they came from. But they still stick together, support each other...y'know, hopefully.

I may not be all that close to my mom anymore and yeah a couple years ago our relationship was pretty strained. But that lady has given up so much for me and continues to do so even though I don't act as grateful about it as I should. I could be the most ungrateful brat in the world--and sometimes I have been--and she'd still do it. Loving someone else when you get nothing back in return is love.

[Guest]

But somehow, in peoples minds, "i love my friend(s)" does not constitute love, while "i love you" does constitude love.

I don't get that. I don't seem romantic relationships as much different from friendships...there are simply fewer boundaries and maybe some amount of fuzzy feelings. Otherwise it's just like a close friendship IMO.

Says the girl who has never been in a relationship. But still.

[crazypimpernelfan]

It seems to me that love is real, but is there a true CONCEPT of what it is? I don't think so--most of us don't experience and love everybody in the exact same way.

[Lord Jade Cross]

In a sense yes and in a sense no. Boundaries can be set for both in the same way.

[Lord Jade Cross]

It seems to me that love is real, but is there a true CONCEPT of what it is? I don't think so--most of us don't experience and love everybody in the exact same way.

But therein lies the contradiction.

[Guest]

I would say it's there, as in something that drives us to care about others in some capacity. It's just hard to define.

[crazypimpernelfan]

It seems to me that love is real, but is there a true CONCEPT of what it is? I don't think so--most of us don't experience and love everybody in the exact same way.

But therein lies the contradiction.

What contradiction? Please explain.

[Lord Jade Cross]

It seems to me that love is real, but is there a true CONCEPT of what it is? I don't think so--most of us don't experience and love everybody in the exact same way.

But therein lies the contradiction.

What contradiction? Please explain.

If love is real how can it lack a conceptual base? In order words, how would you know what love is if you didnt have a concept? And there the ideas get mixed up because if you cant determine what love is without a concept, how can you say its real or prove its existence?

[Perissodactyla]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

[Lord Jade Cross]

Even in there it says that love is difficult to consistently define.

[crazypimpernelfan]

It seems to me that love is real, but is there a true CONCEPT of what it is? I don't think so--most of us don't experience and love everybody in the exact same way.

But therein lies the contradiction.

What contradiction? Please explain.

If love is real how can it lack a conceptual base? In order words, how would you know what love is if you didnt have a concept? And there the ideas get mixed up because if you cant determine what love is without a concept, how can you say its real or prove its existence?

You make good points here, but it seems as though love has many different forms. How can you have a conceptual base if it has numerous forms?: Romantic love, sexual love, brotherly/sisterly love, etc.

The problem with love is we all think of it differently because of there being no real base for us to form from (unless you profess a religion which professes love, in which the God are the base). It's a very difficult belief to grasp.

[Lord Jade Cross]

There are religions that profess love but personally i wouls steer clear of any religion as i find that many twist and turn things to fit their personal agenda.

[crazypimpernelfan]

There are religions that profess love but personally i wouls steer clear of any religion as i find that many twist and turn things to fit their personal agenda.

... but ordinary people also do this with no religious base whatsoever as well.

[Digitus1]

As a sapioheteroromantic asexual:
I have experienced love twice, no way of 'proving' it any more than sexuals can 'prove' sexual attraction, but you damn well know when it happens because it blows you away and, looking back, it takes you over like a form of insanity!

[Otohime]

You make good points here, but it seems as though love has many different forms. How can you have a conceptual base if it has numerous forms?: Romantic love, sexual love, brotherly/sisterly love, etc.

That's why Greek has at least seven different words for love. The four common ones are storge, phileo, eros, agape (basically, familiar, platonic, romantic, and unconditional love). In English, the word "love" can mean any of those things, so it has a very broad definition. Even with the seven or more words of different loves, there's variances, but I do think if you dig into the definitions, there is a base for each one.

Interestingly, in Greek, romantic love - eros - basically means physical/sexual love. It is where the word "erotic" comes from. Obviously, I don't believe romantic love has to be sexual... I just think that interesting that that is basically how they define it. I find the idea of eros to be selfish - basically, I take it to mean "I love how you make me feel" which is more about the feeling and less about the action of really loving the other person.

[Lord Jade Cross]

There are religions that profess love but personally i wouls steer clear of any religion as i find that many twist and turn things to fit their personal agenda.

... but ordinary people also do this with no religious base whatsoever as well.

precisely. The religions are made up by people. So whether in a singular or collective group, the idea is twisted to fit an agenda. Its not a true representation (if one exists) but a created interest.

As a sapioheteroromantic asexual:

I have experienced love twice, no way of 'proving' it any more than sexuals can 'prove' sexual attraction, but you damn well know when it happens because it blows you away and, looking back, it takes you over like a form of insanity!

Isnt that just infatuation/obsession?