# What is Love?



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

Love. There are many interpretations of what love is. We all at some point in our lives come to believe we are in love. But, what is it? Call me what you like, but I am skeptical of those who use the term freely and do not clarify what they believe it to be.

For the sake of statement rather than debate.
How do you qualify love?

I qualify love as something that manifests itself through the following:
1. Loyalty; who I love is the one who I can respect and ally myself with
2. Commitment; the one (or few) whom have my love, I will support.
3. Selfless; When I can place my own regards as irrelevant or unnecessary and defend to the death the person who I love. Although it would be nice for this to be reciprocal, if I love them, it would not be needed.
4. Security; When I feel free to expose myself in entirety to that person, regardless of the situation
5. Consistency; when I am assured of the stability and reciprocity of these conditions.

What about you?


----------



## εmptε (Nov 20, 2008)

*I'll let a fellow NT tell you. (Ahmm, ENTP)





*


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

If I don't, I know someone else will.





And on a more serious note:


> 1 Corinthians 13
> 
> 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, it profits me nothing.
> 4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
> ...


I plan to consider Nephy's definition more carefully later, but at the moment, nothing about it immediately jumps out at me as wrong.


----------



## de l'eau salée (Nov 10, 2008)

I agree with all your aspects of love, but I also have to add one more aspect: harmony.

There may be more, but that is all I can think of for now.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

That is great Lykos. What about saying how you qualify love, in your own words though?


----------



## Ninja Nem (Oct 19, 2008)

snail said:


> YouTube - Night at the roxbury-What is love? original gif
> 
> If I don't, I know someone else will.


Damn, you beat me to it because my browser went down for a second.


----------



## DayLightSun (Oct 30, 2008)

HAha Lykos! You are smart.
Yes! Love is one of those things that you have to fight for and work at. 
One of my professors told me that the long term relationships she worked with she asked them. 
How did you guys stay together so long? 
Answer their was always one person fighting for that relationship. 
One person always made the other realize the benefits of the relationship and why they should stay together.
This of course works when there is chemistry. 
Most relationships aren't worth fighting for. 
But you know it's special when you know it is worth fighting for.roud:
edit: As for me it's security. As in are you going to be there for me if I break my leg? 
Are you going to still love me when I'm 60 and not looking so good anymore?
Are you going to stand up for me when I can't?
Because I sure would! (Being the person I was in love with)


----------



## εmptε (Nov 20, 2008)

NephilimAzrael said:


> That is great Lykos. What about saying how you qualify love, in your own words though?


*Love is about Compromise. Each person trying to do for the other person, or as doctor cox said "Pushing Chocolates". Feelings? Sure, maybe, but love is, in my mind, more a thing of life. It adds to the excitement. I don't need commitment, like marriage because I think that concept is truly idiotic, because if you love someone you shouldn't really have to go through something to prove it. They should already know. (This is where compromise comes in.) I also value loyalty.*


----------



## Spooky (Oct 30, 2008)




----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

LOL, Beloved, you have it there.


----------



## Dr. Metallic (Nov 15, 2008)

Neph, that's an extremely good textual description of love. It's soooo rational--something like I would write.

Friendship Love:
1. Same sex or different sex
2. Mutual loyalty
3. Mutual insulting
4. Call the other to do few or many things together
5. Someone to whom you can actually listen to gain wisdom from their experience, and Sensing/iNtuition.
6. Someone for whom you would kill

Romantic Love:
1. Someone for whom you would die


----------



## Shai Gar (Jan 4, 2009)

YouTube - HK-47's Definition of...


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

That's insane, but since I can assume that it was intended to be humorous and shocking, I will react accordingly. *shakes head and mutters "what the...?"*


----------



## Shai Gar (Jan 4, 2009)

It's about statistically long odds, and making things work. Both of you being very comfortable with each other.


----------



## Jrquinlisk (Jan 17, 2009)

Shai Gar said:


> It's about statistically long odds, and making things work. Both of you being very comfortable with each other.


...Brilliant! How the hell did I miss that conversation path?


----------



## Zulban (Nov 11, 2008)

Neph I noticed that there is a common element in all your points, security. Almost all of your points stemmed from this, and I would hate to poke where I should not, but I feel this might have come from an interesting childhood.

Love is when you think of someone all the time. You develop a sort of fixation on that person, and the mind gets occupied with silly little things they might do. People all have their basic needs to see someone in this light. The person might emanate security, respect, interest, comfort or joy.

I would like to see people put these requirements in order of how important they are, personally. If you can!
I would probably say:
Respect, security, comfort, interest and joy. Funny that joy came last but these were hard to put in order. Maybe I just don't know what I want.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

> Neph I noticed that there is a common element in all your points, security. Almost all of your points stemmed from this, and I would hate to poke where I should not, but I feel this might have come from an interesting childhood.


That was rather inappropriate Zulban. I understand what you are implying, it is inaccurate nonetheless.

The list was organized in terms of priority. Security is part of Love Zulban. Hence it was listed. Then again, it is a matter of personal qualification.


----------



## Shai Gar (Jan 4, 2009)

might be a J thing. I don't think consistency or security are things to worry about.


----------



## Zulban (Nov 11, 2008)

Well OK then Neph, sorry, just trying to get a deeper understanding of things.



Shai Gar said:


> might be a J thing. I don't think consistency or security are things to worry about.


Shai Gar, would you simply not mind if your partner cheated or left you..? I do not understand.


----------



## Shai Gar (Jan 4, 2009)

that's a loyalty thing, not a consistency or security thing.

also, i've got a fantasy where a woman cuckolds me, and i cuckold her in turn... a sort of turnabout voyeur thing.


----------



## Zulban (Nov 11, 2008)

Shai Gar said:


> that's a loyalty thing, not a consistency or security thing.
> 
> also, i've got a fantasy where a woman cuckolds me, and i cuckold her in turn... a sort of turnabout voyeur thing.


Well I got my answer. I also think our basic vocabularies on loyalty, consistency and security differ.


----------



## Shai Gar (Jan 4, 2009)

I'm in love with an INTJ who is in Ohio, who has admitted to me that she has made out with guys recently, and she knows I won't cease my affections with girls here. Until she gets here. It doesn't affect my love for her in the slightest.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

I think what ought to be revisited is the view of what it is which constitues the loving relationship. When I made my references, I listed a group of criterion. Some do indeed prefer that the qualities of love take a more preferential or expansive route. 

So in terms of your main points Zulban, your ideas of love may seem relevant to how you yourself think, and under these conditions, feel in regard to how you are with your partner. I am aware that personally, I will be aware of how I am with my partner also. Perhaps it can be considered under attachment styles, what signifies my personal concept of love. That even in the state I find myself, my priorities are in making the relationship more structured. The randomness of how I would be would be wonderful. With that in mind, how I would feel for the person would be based on how well things could continue to improve. 

Shai Gar, what you describe is what I (and perhaps others) would qualify as fleeting or infatuation. I will not say it is any less for it, yet, I am asking for what you have discovered about love from your experiences and how you would say qualifies a relationship. All though your anecdotes are rather intriguing, what is being requested here is a description, explanation and/or expression of what love is for you. Not fantasies, but claims that take a solid place in a realistic interpersonal relationship (preferably IRL and certainly in person).


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

Lykos said:


> *Love is about Compromise. Each person trying to do for the other person, or as doctor cox said "Pushing Chocolates". Feelings? Sure, maybe, but love is, in my mind, more a thing of life. It adds to the excitement. I don't need commitment, like marriage because I think that concept is truly idiotic, because if you love someone you shouldn't really have to go through something to prove it. They should already know. (This is where compromise comes in.) I also value loyalty.*


I like this post! 
I remember I thought about marriage the way you mentioned it: that if two people really love each other and feel compatible, they shouldn't marry to prove so. In that case marriage is just another thing to do for fun or benefits or something..u know..(?)  or to not do at all ...

I always believe if there's true love in the air the compromise will feel almost natural instead of obliged. 
And I think the more you bond with the one you love the more loyalty you'll have towards them...
[And I could only wish for someone to treat me equally. I wouldn't like to expect dedication from someone who takes me from granted..]

You also mentioned excitement, which is such a big part for me about it. That's one thing I 'd really cherish in a relationship, and it should indeed fit into my life and into the other persons life, generally.

Hehe, this makes me dreamy ^^
Glad I could share my thoughts. 

Well, there is another thing:
I think love is a verb, too. I mean... Compatibility should match up the feeling of the love being natural. But I do think love's still a verb.

..................I wonder: do any of you believe in "forbidden love" ?


----------



## livanay (Nov 17, 2008)

- Compromising in a relationship but not self-sacrificing.
- Growing together
- Loyalty and security
- Open to correctness
Most importantly, the ego not being there because we're comfortable with and accepting of each other as we are. Being willing to really listen to the other party as well as being able to communicate openly. Seeing them happy makes you happy. Being there for the one(s) you love no matter what, and doing the best you can to take care of them regardless of how difficult it may be.


----------



## CJay3113 (Dec 31, 2008)

It feels a little like indigestion. That's all I have to say.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

CJay3113 said:


> It feels a little like indigestion. That's all I have to say.


That is going on my "What makes you smile list" :crazy:


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

it's a drug

nyum yum 

and it's like food and casual tastings and once you've found a favorite recipe you can't get enough of it until it may make your stomache sore at times. 

:crazy:


----------



## Xeraii (Feb 12, 2009)

It's dangerous, that's what it is. It's also the single greatest thing a man or a woman can ever feel. For a person who is in love, it is the source of their greatest strengths and their greatest weaknesses. Love can make people do incredible things, insane things, but at the same time it makes them exposed and vulnerable.

The trick is loving someone who will love you back. That way, your weaknesses are covered by their strengths, and your strengths cover their weaknesses. Unfortunately, in its very nature, love does not seek to be reciprocated. Almost always it is unconditional and will carry on even in the face of pain and rejection. I do believe there is an upper limit to this however, a point where a person's love will stagnate if it is not given the nurturing it needs, although the height at which this bar is set entirely depends on the individual's situation.

A quick diagram I made:










Before love a person is to a large extent impenetrable emotionally (at least with respect to the vulnerabilities love creates). When in love both persons are made completely transparent and exposed, but in their love they create an "aura" of protection as such, through the strength of the bond they share (shown here as the red area). This allows them to become so much more stronger than they ever could be individually, as they are joined together as a single entity.

After being separated from love or forced to end a relationship, both leave a little bit of themselves with the other. This can consist of anything. Memories, experiences, advice, knowledge - both good and bad. Either way, neither of them are quite the person they started out as. The faint green line represents the bond two people will continue to share even after breaking up or severing contact/whatever. I'm pretty sure once you've loved someone once, you might not always feel the same way about them, but you sure as hell have a small part of your heart which will forever belong to them.

The above description does take for granted that the two people are at first in *true* love. I'm not prepared to provide a definition as to what that may be, as that's a separate debate in itself.

Furthermore, as the diagram would suggest, feeling true love for multiple people quickly makes things very complicated (picture the circles surrounding each other and the auras overlapping). I believe a person can only feel proper and unconditional love for a very select group of people. Generally if at all this will be limited to their close family (in rare cases a friend). Those who attempt to show unconditional love to everyone will ultimately drive themselves insane. The main example of this that springs to mind is the age-old story of Jesus and how he attempted to carry the sins of the world upon his shoulders.

It takes tremendous strength of will and a heart of steel to show unrequited love to multiple people, and the effort required to show this to the entire world? Catastrophically huge. I guess that's why the Catholic Church qualifies what Jesus apparently did by saying he was capable since he was the son of God.

The idea of loving absolutely everyone is so amazingly perfect and pure, but alas, it is impossible to implement a perfect idea within the infrastructure of an imperfect world. *cough* communism *cough*


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

But you failed to answer what it is to you.. As your experience has formed it to be.. And what you seek from it.
Love as a subjective. Not the cliché form presented there. Good graph though.


----------



## Xeraii (Feb 12, 2009)

Indeed, what I just wrote was more of a general description of what I consider to be the *nature* of love, as opposed to the *definition* of love and the critera for its existance.

Unfortunately, I'm not quite in the position to describe the latter clearly at this point in time. As everyone knows, you can't see clearly while in the eye of the storm.

Although I will for now be a pedantic and escapist bastard by concluding with "love is whatever you want it to be, go figure". :wink:


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

NephilimAzrael said:


> *How do you qualify love?*


The premise was wholly subjective, not about the nature, or definition.. So what you have posted remains superfluous.. But hey, you are in love at the moment, so you must have a more pragmatic insight - at the moment. Yet, what you posted doesn't exactly answer that question.


----------



## Xeraii (Feb 12, 2009)

I could easily sit and write a block of text on what I consider love to be, but at this point in time my concept of it is changing too much for my words to carry any weight or conviction (as far as I'm concerned). Granted, you asked for a subjective opinion, but I wouldn't like the idea of writing down what I "believe" when I am suspicious of it being based on false feeling and ultimately superficiality. 

At this point I'd describe it more as "misinformed" as opposed to pragmatic. I don't think a person can give an *entirely* balanced opinion on how they qualify love unless they have also lost that love. As always, you never know what you have until you lose it, and losing something/someone you love dearly is the last step in creating a fair view on what you consider love to be.

My diagram and description probably belonged in another thread, but it came to me as a spur of the moment thing and made perfect sense (to me). :laughing:


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

Xeraii said:


> I could easily sit and write a block of text on what I consider love to be, but at this point in time my concept of it is changing too much for my words to carry any weight or conviction (as far as I'm concerned). Granted, you asked for a subjective opinion, but I wouldn't like the idea of writing down what I "believe" when I am suspicious of it being based on false feeling and ultimately superficiality.
> 
> At this point I'd describe it more as "misinformed" as opposed to pragmatic. I don't think a person can give an *entirely* balanced opinion on how they qualify love unless they have also lost that love. As always, you never know what you have until you lose it, and losing something/someone you love dearly is the last step in creating a fair view on what you consider love to be.
> 
> My diagram and description probably belonged in another thread, but it came to me as a spur of the moment thing and made perfect sense (to me). :laughing:


Very good response.. Delectable in fact.. 
Is this your first love Xeraii?


----------



## Viktoria2 (Feb 15, 2009)

If i was to ever fall in love, it would have to be unconditional. I really try to avoid relationships. 

Love, from my point of view: 
-when someone would go to any stretch to make the other person happy. 
-Accepting of the other person, no matter how many flaws they have. 
-It's the sick feeling you get that makes you want to run away, but can't do that because you'd just keep going back to them.


----------



## Xeraii (Feb 12, 2009)

NephilimAzrael said:


> Very good response.. Delectable in fact..
> Is this your first love Xeraii?


Assuming it is in fact love, then yes. I haven't felt the same way previously, so I'm leaning towards it being genuine.


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

Xeraii said:


> Assuming it is in fact love, then yes. I haven't felt the same way previously, so I'm leaning towards it being genuine.


Good Man.. A frank and clear answer.. 
Congrats too, by the way. :laughing:


----------



## Xeraii (Feb 12, 2009)

NephilimAzrael said:


> Good Man.. A frank and clear answer..
> Congrats too, by the way. :laughing:


Say that again six months from now and if I still smile I'll consider it well-said. :crazy:


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

Ingrate :tongue:


----------



## Xeraii (Feb 12, 2009)

NephilimAzrael said:


> Ingrate :tongue:


I'll stick with pessimist thank you very much. :tongue:

In fact, I'll go with "realist". 

Hmm...

I appear to have highlighted my pessimism by claiming that it is realism.  Oh dear...


----------

