Philosophical question on love

[Demigod]

I saw this rather interesting passage in my philosophy book and wanted to share it with you guys to think over:

In loving someone, what is it about them that you love? 'I love some of their properties - that smile, that calmness, and so on.' Would you therefore love anyone else who happens to have those properties? That sounds like a worryingly vulnerable love. 'No, I love the particular combination of properties which only my beloved has.' A person's properties can change over time, though, replacing one combination with another: appearances change, as do characters. Will your love be correlatively transient? Would you need to love fresh combinations of properties - time and again? (Would your love need to be born anew - time and again?) And will this increase the risk of your ceasing to love that person, whenever they have a new combination of properties which you do not love? 'No, because among those properties I love are some that are essential to my beloved. Other properties might depart; these ones cannot. I love the essential aspects of my beloved's character. They will never leave.' But how easy is it to know which properties are essential to the person you love? What are the unchangeable aspects of your beloved's character? How do you know that they are any? Only limited evidence for thinking that a person is essentially fair-minded, say, is available, certainly early in a relationship. So, do we tend to love people on dangerously restricted evidence? Can we therefore never know that we love someone?

Makes me think about my beloved and how I think about her. I sometimes wonder if love is hollow, or merely a social convention. I also wonder if love is synonymous with committment. If you're committed to someone you should love them and no one else (even if there's someone you love more).

[Vanit]

As I see it, a lot of people are in love with the idea of being in love which leads them to being with partners they don't really get along with.

[CKemu]

Actually, most people I dare say 'settle' for what they can get, and never find 'true' love, out of fear of being alone, un-'loved', or knowing that they will never have what they truly want.

You know when you are in love, and the real thing, how? simple you can't explain it, you can't define what it is you love about them specifically, you just know it, it's utterly illogical, they are constantly in the back of your mind, they drive you crazy, they make you shake when you have an arguement, they make you cry when you miss them, it is an utterly over whelming experience, and the greatest part is knowing that you have the exact same effect on them, I could spend all year trying to sum up why I love my girl friend, and I'd never complete it.

I agree people love (heh) the idea of being in love, and naively go about looking for it, the simple truth is that it happens regardless of what you do, and it happens frankly when it wants to, love is not a social convention, but I think alot of it is lost due to convenience, people settling for second best, or really lacking the social skills to go meet someone..

Alot of people I'd say below their early twenties confuse lust with love, whilst sexual chemistry is important it's certainly not love, but at the same time don't wait for love to have sex, sure make sure you don't just randomly sleep with anyone, but a stong sexual chemistry, experience and a healthy 'appetite' certainly helps bond the physical nature of a relationship, and as tender as you may think waiting is, sexual dissappointment, frustration, or a lack of chemistry when you do actually marry can severly damage a relationship...anyhow I am rambling, and I have to travel soon to suprise my GF with a pressie....

PS: It's an expensive

[Demigod]

Well, the real question is what makes that person you love so unique? If another person were to have same or similar qualities would you love that person as well? If so, then what is the sense in marriage and dedicating yourself to loving just one person? Is it just done for the sake of society and family (a social convention)?

The passage I quoted is not asking what love is, but what is it about someone that you love. What defines your love for that person, and that person only. What qualities about them do you love, and are those qualities transient (do they pass with time and could another person also have them)?

Note that this is just philosophical. I'm not trying to break the tradition of marriage and it has nothing to do with my current relationship.

[MiretanK]

oh man, you're confusing my head so much
People in love gets tired of his/her companion through the years... his/her qualities will get so routinist that the love's enchantment starts to fade... and they'll be together (yet) just for comodism.
but you made me think: I like girls with green eyes. so, if someday I start a relationship with a green-eyed girl that I (suppose to) love, but then I know a girl with beautier eyes, will I start to like her more than my GF? lain:
oh boy, this is scary =|

[Cid Highwind]

Don't think so much, just feel and enjoy

If we start thinking that love is just some game your mind is playing with you, what'll be left of all the fun?

[Grv]

What will be left of all the fun, you ask?

As someone who's so analytically dominant that he autonomically surpresses any chemical reaction that could lead to losing analytically-desired control (although I prefer the term "superior" ), this is my answer:

All you need is lust
Ta- ta dah dah dah

[Cid Highwind]

Reminds me of that song 'all I want.... BANG BANG BANG'

Sure all that's left is lust, but what's left of the fun of being in love, the good feeling when you are together, the nervosity whenever she's knocking on your door?

[Grv]

I wouldn't know Cid, I've only known lust. It's been quite satisfying when mutual, though.

I don't know whether I should consider myself "lucky" or "unlucky". Afterall, there's a trade-off that would most likely be a severe punishment to the preferred brain's dominance. Which is why I think it has never occurred for me.

[Cid Highwind]

Whether you should consider yourself lucky or unlucky depends on how you feel about your life and what you do with it Or what life's been giving you.

[Grv]

Originally Posted by Cid Highwind

Whether you should consider yourself lucky or unlucky depends on how you feel about your life and what you do with it Or what life's been giving you.

*shakes fists at my assumed inexperience in this field*

I meant, whether I should feel myself lucky or unlucky in this respect! Seeing how I've never tasted both sides of the matter. But in reply to your comment: Generally, I prefer to consider myself skilled.. then lucky!


Now, to make my posts more useful to the thread, I'll pick something from Demigod to answer to as well.

Originally Posted by Demigod

I also wonder if love is synonymous with committment. If you're committed to someone you should love them and no one else (even if there's someone you love more).

As with many cases, you should be careful not to generalize. Different people are able to have different values and desires, and with that, different ideas or impulses on whether love and commitment are inseperable. There are plenty of people who cheat on someone they love terribly much, yet when asked, they would never give up the woman that they committed themselves to for the other.

With my high regards to honesty, I would appreciate it more if couples went and made agreements on what is tolerable and what is desired. But human desires get in the way most of the time to uphold anything of the likes, I suppose. I swear, where's the desire for honesty and respect?!



Also..

So, do we tend to love people on dangerously restricted evidence? Can we therefore never know that we love someone?

Philosophy books are in a serious need for a fix nowadays, I tell you. ;P Why do they pretend evidence has anything to do with something that's supposed to rely entirely on the emotional chemistry of the human mind?

[CKemu]

The attributes of any one person change throughout life, people often share very similiar attributes, but it's the sum of those attributes that you love, and a certain level of un-seen low level chemistry - afterall a person is unique (just like everyone else heh!). Can you love someone else, yes, my parents are divorced, and have new partners, who make them happy and they love dearly, love certainly exists, and it 'can' be everlasting, doesn't mean however that it is set in stone for all eternity.

With regards to all these 'life' threads, stop doing your methodical analysis, and just get on with it, you can't live life and learn from it if you keep studying everything that may or may not happen....(This includes the "do we change blah thread")

[Kirby]

for me anyways, my desire has always stemmed back by previous friendships. My beloved was probably the first person I met when I moved to my current town 12 years ago. I played t-ball with her....pretty much everything an 8 year old would do with their best friend.

I was never able to fall in love with what all the other schoolkids considered "hot" (which was big racks, big racks, and more big racks...and maybe big ass if they weren't overweight ) Nope...I was only able to fall in love with girls who don't draw attention to themselves (and coicidentally, they were all as flat as a road)....girls who just look "cute" by only being themselves. No acception with my current beloved....just that I knew her more and longer than anyone else.

Everyone has a different definition of love, I suppose. But I guess all that matters if it works between the couple

[Demigod]

Originally Posted by Cid Highwind

Don't think so much, just feel and enjoy

If we start thinking that love is just some game your mind is playing with you, what'll be left of all the fun?

Heh, that's why I put the 'philosophical' part in the title. Philosophy is all about analyzing and thinking about things people normally don't analyze and think about. Moreover, philosophy is based around those things that cannot easily be defined.

Originally Posted by Gaurav

As with many cases, you should be careful not to generalize. Different people are able to have different values and desires, and with that, different ideas or impulses on whether love and commitment are inseperable. There are plenty of people who cheat on someone they love terribly much, yet when asked, they would never give up the woman that they committed themselves to for the other.

I didn't mean they're literally the same, but in a marriage committment is usually binded with love. You commit to a person out of love, and because you're committed to them you should love them. With the above example, is it because they love that person that they don't give them up, or because they're committed to them? Is it one or the other, or is it both?

Originally Posted by Gaurav

Also..Philosophy books are in a serious need for a fix nowadays, I tell you. ;P Why do they pretend evidence has anything to do with something that's supposed to rely entirely on the emotional chemistry of the human mind?

Because there's clearly a physical stimuli for love. When you ask someone why they love someone else they usually have a reason for it ('I like the way she looks', 'I like his sense of humor', 'I love the way she talks', etc.). Emotions don't just fire off for no reason. Again, the quote is not asking what love is, but what constitutes love. It asks about the cause, not the result.

Originally Posted by CKemu

The attributes of any one person change throughout life, people often share very similiar attributes, but it's the sum of those attributes that you love, and a certain level of un-seen low level chemistry - afterall a person is unique (just like everyone else heh!). Can you love someone else, yes, my parents are divorced, and have new partners, who make them happy and they love dearly, love certainly exists, and it 'can' be everlasting, doesn't mean however that it is set in stone for all eternity.

Ah, so you'd say it's natural to love more than one person at a time, as long as they have those sum of attributes that you love. That was sort of my conclusions as well. It just doesn't seem to fit too well with our current model for love relationships (when you date or marry you should commit to and love only one person).

[Grv]

Originally Posted by CKemu

With regards to all these 'life' threads, stop doing your methodical analysis, and just get on with it, you can't live life and learn from it if you keep studying everything that may or may not happen....(This includes the "do we change blah thread")

Right, now what happened to considering people to be unique?

Originally Posted by Demigod

I didn't mean they're literally the same, but in a marriage committment is usually binded with love. You commit to a person out of love, and because you're committed to them you should love them. With the above example, is it because they love that person that they don't give them up, or because they're committed to them? Is it one or the other, or is it both?

The example stated the clear presence of love. Cheating would prove a certain lack of commitment, at least temporarily. Does that answer your question? Because that's all the information the example gives us.

Originally Posted by Demigod

Because there's clearly a physical stimuli for love. When you ask someone why they love someone else they usually have a reason for it ('I like the way she looks', 'I like his sense of humor', 'I love the way she talks', etc.).

You're describing physical attraction here, but you also give other examples. Ofcourse it is a stimulus for love, but they're not mutually exclusive, as its supposedly not a necessity. I personally know physical attraction, but I don't know love (in this context). I know (pardon the expression) fat ugly horses who each have a boyfriend that's crazy about them, which are couples that claim mental attraction is the only thing that matters. Que your other two examples. "For every girl, there's a man", the saying is (roughly translated), and I tend to believe that seeing how having not one attractive physical feature doesn't seem to hold some people back from engaging in a relationship of mutual love. Which totally eludes my feelings about any sort of attraction.

No, I don't think physical attraction is a requirement for love for all people. Otherwise, what's the difference between liking someone you also feel physically attracted to, or loving someone? Couples/Individuals that speak of true love reject the comparison immediately, when asked about.

Originally Posted by Demigod

Emotions don't just fire off for no reason.

You will never find such an appauling statement coming from this cause/effect whore that is me. It's well known that emotions are feelings that result from chemical reactions triggered by your brain upon review of sensory input, but that doesn't mean remarkable visual input is always the direct cause as it would be with lust. What you see might remind your brain of something pleasant but too long ago to remember consciously. The same goes for what you smell, and what you hear. Or how you're triggered to reflect upon things by the sensory input. The point is that a person is not necessarily able to consciously relate his/her feelings to what (s)he sees or hears. The "evidence" we're aware of is but a fraction of the importance of the roles our subconscious likings play.

Originally Posted by Demigod

Again, the quote is not asking what love is, but what constitutes love. It asks about the cause, not the result.

I'm not claiming it does. My point was that, while it asks "how we know for sure we love someone if it is dependant of 'evidence' that might be subject to change any minute", it assumes the only emotional trigger is the sensory data that is to our conscious liking, yet our chemistry is so autonomic, you can't possibly say that it is only triggered from conscious likings, and thus the only things we are able to call evidence, ourselves.



EDIT: Upon reviewing my previous post, I suppose calling the evidence .. conscious would have helped. I assumed it was not necessary since anything contemplated as evidence by us requires us to be entirely aware of it.

[Demigod]

Originally Posted by Gaurav

The example stated the clear presence of love. Cheating would prove a certain lack of commitment, at least temporarily. Does that answer your question? Because that's all the information the example gives us.

So it's love, not committment? Let's say there was no committment between the couple. Then what?

Originally Posted by Gaurav

You're describing physical attraction here, but you also give other examples. Ofcourse it is a stimulus for love, but they're not mutually exclusive, as its supposedly not a necessity. I personally know physical attraction, but I don't know love (in this context). I know (pardon the expression) fat ugly horses who each have a boyfriend that's crazy about them, which are couples that claim mental attraction is the only thing that matters. Que your other two examples. "For every girl, there's a man", the saying is (roughly translated), and I tend to believe that seeing how having not one attractive physical feature doesn't seem to hold some people back from engaging in a relationship of mutual love. Which totally eludes my feelings about any sort of attraction.

No, I don't think physical attraction is a requirement for love for all people. Otherwise, what's the difference between liking someone you also feel physically attracted to, or loving someone? Couples/Individuals that speak of true love reject the comparison immediately, when asked about.

Let's take an a priori example with this. Let's say that from birth you lacked certain physical senses such as sight, touch, and sound. Would you be able to love without those features? Is love an innate feature that doesn't require any physical stimuli? If so, how would you love someone? (note that we're primarily talking about 'Aros' love here)

[Grv]

Originally Posted by Demigod

So it's love, not committment? Let's say there was no committment between the couple. Then what?

You mean primarily from him, I suppose? .. I see what you're getting at, but we don't know how the man in the example would act (we don't know his reasons), and so on, so it's hard to draw any conclusion from the example other than those given. Another similar question would be whether the man really loved his wife at the exact moment when engaged in activities with his mistress. Who knows! Another problem is that I can't relate for reasons elaborated in my previous posts.

Perhaps this question is also to your liking, Demigod. How much control do you have over love, and how much over commitment?

Originally Posted by Demigod

Let's take an a priori example with this. Let's say that from birth you lacked certain physical senses such as sight, touch, and sound. Would you be able to love without those features? Is love an innate feature that doesn't require any physical stimuli? If so, how would you love someone? (note that we're primarily talking about 'Aros' love here)

The problem with your example is that without senses, one is unable to take notice of anyone else to love. No, I don't think it's possible, but I don't see what this has got to do with what I said.

I have never denied the role of the senses; I merely pointed out that there happens a lot more in our head with the data our senses extract. Our feelings are a prime example. Seeing how we have no conscious control nor any conscience whatsoever over the mechanisms of our chemistry, we as individuals can never be sure what every influence for our love for another is.



Love is like a feeling, or a multitude, I'm led to believe. So if it happens, there's plenty of reason for and according to your brain. The possiblity that we tend to end up biased and blinded towards a loved one, is a side-effect that comes when your love has already been established. Tell me, do the questions the passage you quoted works towards still make sense to you? They're really short-sighted to me. Or perhaps I simply don't get it, and the writer was being too 'artistic' and floaty for me to comprehend.