I wish I knew.

>what is love?

Baby don't hurt me~!♪

Love is, in my opinion, the respect, understanding, and overall acceptance of an object.

At least in it's most basic way or something.

If a person makes me wish that i could spend all of my life and beyond on that persons side, i´d go as far to call it love.

The word love is not enough to describe what i feel for my waifu

I can't find the DQN posts.

Schopenhauer, based on his reading of Calderon De La Barca (and as an answer to him), though of love as the human version of the most important instict/pulsion on living creatures: the one of reproduction (different from mere replication), or prevailing trough breeding. For him, love would be inseparable from (heterosexual) sexuality, as the strongest drive we came set with: to become one with someone else, that gets fullfilled partially on the coitus, but becomes fully effective only in the act of breeding, by which two beings literally merge into (a new) one. In that sense, love would be the most important affair for any given person and any given society at any given time; the choice of the partner is the moment when the most personal problem meets the most public of all, concerning the entire species: it's what may or not allow us to extend ourselves beyond death and into the future; the canon of "lovely" held by a given generation, gives nothing less than the formula for the next one [NOTE: even today, indeed, occidental marriage is conceived as a contract not to "love each other" and shit, but to legally assume shared responsabilities on the upbringing of infants]. In a way, the first movie of GITS and Saya no Uta kind of echo this notion of love...

However, Rimbaud, who though as well of love as the most significant bond between two souls, find it always inexistent within domestic (heterosexual) relationships, since they respond to material needs rather than a true demostration of a person inner drive or will (with volition as the very mark of what truly constitutes a psyché, anima or soul). So, and in consonance with his own homosexuality and life lasting admiration towards the classics, he aimed to "Re-invent Love" with fellow poet Paul Verlaine, returning to their primal state of "children of the sun" (refernce to Apollo) by following the ancient greek ideal of homosexual love (existent between an eromenos and an erastés as complementary beings). Needless to say, just like his entire aesthetic viewing, this project failled pathetically: he eventually became fully aware that they were merely emulating the very same gender roles, with Veraline as the needy woman (or "vierge folle" -crazy virgin- as Rimbaud called him in his opus magna Une Saison en efer). So, if he was right about the current inexistence of love and the need to re-invent it, neither homosexuality seemed to help pulling it on...

In the realms of literature, in Wuthering Heights, Emily Brontë offered us a very interesting perspective on the problem. When Cathy (who is about to marry what can be easily seen as an ideal man and husband) is asked about her feelings for Heathcliff (the brute, the worst possible match), she answers not that he is the one she loves but, rather, her very own love and self... in her own words: "I am Heathcliff!... So don't talk of our separation again: it is impracticable"; on the other hand, in a latter chapter, Heathcliff prays to dead Catherine to never rest, to never live him, because she is his own life fuel as well... as he says: "I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul!". So, as we can see, althought the nuclear meaning of love as merging/becoming one is still present, it is now explicitely stated the incompatibility of this with not just social/conventional so-called "love", but also with even one's own desires: that love isn't necessarily about breeding, finding the best match for one, or even about one's good and happiness; rather, it is often a very destructive force (Like Hideaki Anno would say). Hence: why is it so important? If, when authentic, it apparently gives nothing but misery, why we keep on striving for it? Is it a mistake? The answer, althought complex, can start to be grasped within the same novel and examples. You see: Catherine and Heathcliff didn't always know each other; their meeting wasn't really fate, but merely a (disastrous) coincidence; but the thing is, since it ever happened, they were always animically together, troughout absolutely everything; in a way, we could say that is not even that they made each other's heart happy (or miserable or anything), but, rather, they were each other's heart...

Finally, Villiers de L'Isle Adam has A HELL OF A LOT to say about this as well in L'Eve Future; so I'll only leave a few quotations for you to search upon:

"Does the body exist at all? Does one ever resemble oneself? [...] To resemble! Such prejudice belongs to the lakeside days, or troglodytes!"
[...]
"You said it yourself (continued Edison): the being that you love in the living one and who, for you, is the only REAL one, it's not the one that appears as a walking human, but the one of your desire. The one that does not exist and, moreover, that you know as non-existent! since you aren't fooled by that woman, nor by yourself. [...] It's only this shadow what you love: it's only her what you're now willing to die for [...] and wich is nothing else but your own soul unfolded on her. Yes, there you've got it, your love."
[...]
"My being in this low world depends, for you at least, only on your free will [said Hadaly]. Attribute a being to me, affirm that I am! Reinforce me with your self. […] If you question my being, I am lost.
-Villiers de L'Isle Adam

In any case, it all converges around love being something that some contemporary psychologists apparently identify with a pathological state of mind... And so, here would come my idea of it:

In abstract, love would be a process of splitting/depersonalization, by which one's identity is translated/merged/turned into one's own concept of someone/something else, that thus becomes the object of one's love. In other words: love is a phenomenon by wich one comes to re-organize and re-understand oneself entirely, by the means of an alleged otherness that is, ultimately, nothing but one's own invention.

About the relation of this with the waifu (or the love between parents-children, a hobbie, or a Deity), that's for you -and only you- to think about.

Post edited on 3rd Jun 2012, 3:10am

I usually don't want to compare love to something other than itself.

But for this purpose, I'll compare love to tanasinn. It is a weird and silly social phenomenon; it does not make sense; it will never make sense; people can't explain it properly yet will try explaining it anyway; people make a lot of bullshit from trying to understand or explain it; it has some surrealistic undertones from it; it his associated with a laughable symbol (The geometric drawing of a heart is to love as a badly-drawn ASCII art of Doraemon is to tanasinn.); it is scary yet interesting at the same time and most of all, they usually say "it does not have a meaning and not something to think about, but something to be felt".

>>9296
>I usually don't want to compare love to something other than itself.
How so? Cause it sounds like saying the tautology a=a, wich is useless (i.e. doesn't clarify anything)...

>>9297

Tautology, semantics, logic or even philosophy is useless when talking about why love exists. Why do humans feel or experience it? Because were humans, right? A=A. It does not clarify anything. Circular fucking logic. That's what love is, it does not make sense, and maybe, just maybe, that's the reason why it is beautiful. Or even ugly.

>>9298
>Why do humans feel or experience it? Because were humans, right? A=A. It does not clarify anything.
Certainly not... I wouldn't say anything of the sort.

>Circular fucking logic. That's what love is, it does not make sense, and maybe, just maybe, that's the reason why it is beautiful. Or even ugly.
>that's the reason why
>reason
It doesn't really need to be bounded by (some form of what we could call) logic: the very world, human mind or even language, are rather proven not to be bounded by it. But I think you'd really have to make a decision; If you want to offer a reason for things to be some way (and thus profit from episteme), or talk about them at all, you're gonna have to provide some rethorical elaboration about them (linguistical or semiotical; aesthetical, mythical, plastic or narratological); cause if you insist that it belongs to pure sensation (even though it was comunicated to you linguistically and culturally), the only fair thing to do is to remain silent about the subject... which, IMO, would be a great mistake/loss, since you'd render yourself (and your so called love) indistinguishable from the ways of an aphasic animal/beast.

However: if you're going to call bullshit others' intellectual efforts, I could be tempted to state (and discuss) that the "Don't think, just feel" common place is the actual cheap dogmatic crap... though that'd be too much derail.

Post edited on 3rd Jun 2012, 4:13am

>>9300

>But I think you'd really have to make a decision; If you want to offer a reason for things to be some way, or talk about them at all, you're gonna have to provide some rethorical elaboration about them; cause if you insist that it belongs to pure sensation, the only fair thing to do is to remain silent about the subject... which, IMO, would be a great mistake/loss, since you'd render yourself indistinguishable from the ways of an aphasic animal/beast.

Okay. So you want me to make a justified philosophical statement about it even if I refused to be bound by discursive reason, else I should just stay silent on the subject because what I said was based on my intuition, which, in your opinion, is animalistic. I'm sorry, but I can't do that. Intuition is still on the realm of reason, the other half of rationality, the one logic or philosophy usually ignores as savage, which is ironic because it is innately human as rationality itself.

>If you're going to call bullshit others' intellectual efforts, I could be tempted to state (and discuss) that the "Don't think, just feel" common place is the actual cheap dogmatic crap... though that'd be too much derail.

Ah, don't worry about that. I am not calling bullshit on others' intellectualism, it's just that I don't want to over-intellectualize something which, in my opinion, is unjustifiable by rationality, even if so-called "actual cheap dogmatic crap" is all there is to love itself and trying to elaborate it is unnecessary and, in some people, just bordering on pretentiousness, just to impress others or even oneself.

Thanks guys, now how am I supposed to follow up after that exchange?

Love is different things to different people. In general, though, love to me is what causes a person to yearn to be with another throughout either of their lives. Love unites people through good and bad. Also, less romantically, love makes you ready and willing to punch anyone who treats your beloved like a lesser being.

I find one thing that all love has in common is compassion.
Most people only look out for themselves. If they could be damned to look out for you time after time without any ulterior motive, I would say that it's something pretty special.

  Love cannot be understood. Just felt. Love isn't rational: it's sensorial, emotional, spiritual: welcome to the republic of cosmic love.

Come in, try this raspberry smart drink...

This is the beautiful thing about the english language. I've hear some stupid bullshit about how western society as a whole does not feel love as well as it could. The claim is that it is evidenced by our language. English supposedly only has one word for love (I cant even imagine why someone would think this is the case, its 100% false) and that the Inuit peoples have over 100 of them. What they don't understand all this does is show a failing of the Inuit language. All the words for love in Inuit have extra meanings behind them. They give the word a subject, a tone, among other modifiers that constrict the potential uses for the word. This includes the most important modifier.

Situational connotation.

Getting back to my main point, in english when you say "I love you" that has a different meaning depending on your context. When a mother says it to her son, it means something different than when the son says it back, or when a father says it to his son. It changes in meaning when its said to a partner or to a friend. Despite all of this, all scenarios share one common thing between them. An inexplicable attraction for another being. Where it goes from there entirely depends on how its said, where its said, when its said, and to whom its said. There are plenty of "others words" for love. Affection, friendship, fondness, worship, allegiance, fetish, amity, infatuation, lust. All of these words mean the same thing as love in the most basic way.

My point is is that love is easy to describe, its easy to define, but you can not capture the word. The same goes for any other descriptor of stimuli. I can tell you exactly as much about my love as the taste of a tomato. Its nothing callous, its just you must find the deeper meaning of every use of the word love on your own, even when its you using it.

Love.
You could say that without love it cannot be seen, like magic.

Now do you want an answer with love, without love or would you rather find your own answer?

Simply put, to me, she IS love. Before I accepted my true feelings for her, I never believed that I was capable of loving anyone who wasn't in my family. I didn't think the concept of romantic love actually existed. When I started bonding with my beloved and getting to know her, I started feeling things in a part of my heart that I never thought existed. She either unlocked or became that part of me. Either way, to me, love is the feeling of never being lonely as long they're there with with you. Love is the feeling of such dedication and closeness that any other feelings don't even come close. It's like anything else you like is in a whole separate dimension from your feelings for the one you love. That's how she makes me feel.

>>9295
This post was very good. Thank you.

Seems my opinion doesn't really differ much from yours, but I think there are still many mysteries left. Thanks for sharing your views. Lately I've been very interested in love and I borrowed some love philosophy books from library. I think this research is going to take a while but I hope I find my answers.

Love is a lot of things. It's a life-giver, a necessity among social beings in a civil society, a way of interacting - it's more than one emotion or one concept, it's something that educated minds have mulled over and created art about for centuries. It's undefinable yet we will always seek to define it - that is it's nature.

We could go into the physiological parts of love & lust, but that will just make it sound very clinical, especially when there are still things we really don't understand.

Of course, the biggest and saddest truth is that sometimes, love is not enough.

>>9478
enough for what?

>>9482
Enough for happiness, maybe?

>>9482

I assume he means love isn't enough to be happy. You need your love reciprocated, you need a good life, you need so much more than a simple one-directional 'feeling'.

>>9539
I'm pretty happy with my one-sided love. I didn't think this was uncommon.

>>9539
Well, you don't really need those: most (if not all) people survive OK without them. What you do need to live (that is, to have a fair animical existence: to stay on your own feet, without loosing your will/mind) is some means to give (artificial) sense and direction to your actions. Love provides you with that, be the results favorable or not to you at all, for whatever given criteria...

Love is enough to keep you alive.

To me it's a combination of things. When you look at her it feels like your heart is twisting into knots, but in a good way; combined with an intense desire to make her happy, and to never, ever see or make her sad. Just physical attraction is never enough, you need to feel an intense attraction to her personality as well, whether it's because her personality reminds you of yourself, like in my case, or the opposites attract thing, or maybe you just plain love her personality and you can't explain why.
After those things combined if you feel like you want to hold her forever, be with her forever, and always protect her happiness, that, to me, is love.