Love?

[jonathan7]

There have been some rather interesting pieces on BBC Radio 4 recently about love. (I know that listening to this station is a sure sign I'm getting old).

 

Anyways, it had been noted that 'love songs' used to be about how *you felt* about them, and now 'love songs' are about how someone makes *you* feel.

 

What do people make of this change?

 

Another point of interest...

 

Sociologists claim there's been a threefold drop in references to love in pop songs sung by women in the past 45 years.. So does this mean it's Goodbye to Love?

 

So what is love? How important is it? And what do you think this change in love songs indicates?

 

*(I did search for an online version of the show, but haven't been able to find it).

[mur'phon]

So what is love?

 

An extremely good feeling, responsible for countless stupid actions on my part.

 

How important is it?

 

Since I don't regrett any of those actions, I'd say it's very important on an individual basis.

 

As for the love songs, I don't know. The "girls don't sing about love as much" thing might have something to do with it being more acceptable for them to sing about other things. Which again might have something to do with more equality.

 

The feel/felt thing might be due to "impossible love"/"Only one love" going out of fashion.

[El Sitherino]

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me.

 

Society has changed, so has the culture surrounding romance. Everything is more self-serving and almost contemptuous. Look at the foundations of the new generations love lives, disjointed concepts of courtesy and do's/don't's.

 

I'm not going to say it's wrong, but we all have our personal preferences of how we wish to carry out our lives. Love songs are a very different form of music, so these drastic differences aren't really too unexpected.

[adamqd]

Haddaway still begs the Question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsCXZczTQXo

[jonathan7]

Haddaway still begs the Question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsCXZczTQXo

 

I respond with this

 

[Achilles]

So what is love?

A physiological response to oxytocin (would have referenced the wiki, however some of the material there might push the PG-13 boundary).

 

How important is it?

Using Maslow's needs hierarchy, I'd say pretty important.

 

And what do you think this change in love songs indicates?

In a sentence: a change in the zeitgeist. 45 years ago would have put us in the 1960's when wide-sweeping cultural changes where taking place, specifically with regards to gender roles and the value of women in society. As someone that used to listen to quite a bit of 50's rock and roll, I can tell you that the themes were quite saccharine and from a modern perspective, rather naive about relationships (I suspect that this has more to do with marketing and values than the nature of relationships at the time though).

 

So the longer answer to your question is that women (and men) are probably more concerned with those higher tiers of Maslow's pyramid now, or at the very least, not as interested in making songs about the lower tiers.

 

My 2 cents.

[*Don*]

Anyways, it had been noted that 'love songs' used to be about how *you felt* about them, and now 'love songs' are about how someone makes *you* feel.

 

What do people make of this change?

 

Personally speaking, I would agree with Achilles and attribute this partially to the sweeping change that the 60's brought around.

 

Interestingly enough, I also noticed this change in all international music as well (not jus American and British songs). Eastern songs have also began to follow this trend and I am guessing that its catching on pretty fast.

[jonathan7]

A physiological response to oxytocin (would have referenced the wiki, however some of the material there might push the PG-13 boundary).

 

I think thats one side to it myself, I think there are others however...

 

Using Maslow's needs hierarchy, I'd say pretty important.

 

I don't think Maslow, put it high enough up on his hierachy myself, I'd say it should be top of the list.

 

In a sentence: a change in the zeitgeist. 45 years ago would have put us in the 1960's when wide-sweeping cultural changes where taking place, specifically with regards to gender roles and the value of women in society. As someone that used to listen to quite a bit of 50's rock and roll, I can tell you that the themes were quite saccharine and from a modern perspective, rather naive about relationships (I suspect that this has more to do with marketing and values than the nature of relationships at the time though).

 

I think there has been massive change in society and as such the zeitgeist has changed. However does 'true' love change?

 

In the west, I think it has just become more and more about self.

 

So the longer answer to your question is that women (and men) are probably more concerned with those higher tiers of Maslow's pyramid now, or at the very least, not as interested in making songs about the lower tiers.

 

My 2 cents.

 

lol, perhaps, though I'm not convinced people will find fullfillment in those tiers.

 

Personally speaking, I would agree with Achilles and attribute this partially to the sweeping change that the 60's brought around.

 

Interestingly enough, I also noticed this change in all international music as well (not jus American and British songs). Eastern songs have also began to follow this trend and I am guessing that its catching on pretty fast.

 

Enculturation, marketing and the fact the world is becoming a smaller and smaller place I would think are having this effect.

[Ravnas]

Love is the only thing that encompasses eternal happiness and soul-crushing depression.

[Achilles]

I think thats one side to it myself, I think there are others however...

It's possible. I'd have to know what they are in order to be able to comment further.

 

I don't think Maslow, put it high enough up on his hierachy myself, I'd say it should be top of the list.

Based on your opinion or based on a defendable, objective argument?

 

I think there has been massive change in society and as such the zeitgeist has changed. However does 'true' love change?

Since "true love" is subjective, and therefore influenced by zeitgeist/enculturation, I would say that it absolutely is. If you can objectively define what "true love" is then I would say that your argument carries more weight than mine, however I think it will be very difficult (if not impossible) for you to do so.

 

In the west, I think it has just become more and more about self.

That's possible. I would have to know how you're defining it before I could agree or disagree.

 

lol, perhaps, though I'm not convinced people will find fullfillment in those tiers.

Of course not. By definition, "fulfillment" is only possible in the top tier and you cannot satisfy the upper tiers without having satisfied the lower tiers (there's a reason Maslow's hierarchy is represented via a pyramid and not a progression).

[jonathan7]

It's possible. I'd have to know what they are in order to be able to comment further.

 

Based on your opinion or based on a defendable, objective argument?

 

Since "true love" is subjective, and therefore influenced by zeitgeist/enculturation, I would say that it absolutely is. If you can objectively define what "true love" is then I would say that your argument carries more weight than mine, however I think it will be very difficult (if not impossible) for you to do so.

 

That's possible. I would have to know how you're defining it before I could agree or disagree.

 

I'm unsure if you would define this as opinion or objective argumentation, I leave you to make your own decision.

 

I'm affraid my definition, might be a little long, I had originally posted this over in the atheism/theism thread, while reviewing it, I noticed you had said;

 

Shouldn't the topic of love be a separate thread?

 

So here we are

 

Love; it’s the most beautiful and powerful force in the world and something I think modern western civilization is forgetting; I think all the problems that are coming to light in our society are due to a generation not knowing what love is. Indeed I think all the world problems throughout all the ages is due to a deep and massive lack of love.

 

Many people today are lonely, unhappy and broken. I think it is because they are not loved; I’m not even writing about romantic love, I’m writing about friendship love. I think being lonely isn’t a sign that you need a partner, more that you don’t feel loved by friends. Tragically, I think those who offer unconditional love can be viewed with suspicion, having been hurt and used many times people can cynically assess others. It is a very difficult business finding out who are true friends.

 

I would suggest that true friends, will always do what they can to come through for you; they will do all they can in their power to help and love you. They will be there for you in the bad times to listen and love and there for you in the good times to have a laugh.

 

Suggested song to set the mood; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9OGfBGOCpk

 

So what is love? I shall use a few definitions and thoughts from those far more learned, wise and loving than I. “Love is patient; love is kind and envies no one. Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude; never selfish, not quick to take offense. There is nothing love cannot face; there is no limit to its faith,

its hope, and endurance. In a word, there are three things that last forever: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of them all is love.”*

 

The famous writer C.S. Lewis defined love in two ways; "Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but Love cannot cease to will their removal." And "Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained."Jesus (‘That’ dude from the Bible) said; “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Finally; from the wonderful poet Rabindranath Tagore “Love does not claim possession, but gives freedom.”

 

I really like the above definitions of what love is, I think what many think love is has now become a shadow of its former glory, twisted and feeble compared to what it should be. Let me give you an example of what I mean…

 

The most easy thing to do this with is romantic love, I shall use two films too differentiate between what I think romantic love is, and what many people today think love is. My good and loving friends Toby and Alex introduced me to the film Stardust; I really like this film and would recommend it, if you haven’t seen it (despite some rather lovey-dovey moments) and think it makes some great points about love. Consider this conversation between the two main protagonists;

 

“Yvaine: [in the pirate ship] Tell me about Victoria.

Tristan: Well, she... she... There's nothing else to tell you.

Yvaine: The little I know about love is that it's unconditional. It's not something you can buy.

Tristan: Hang on! This wasn't about me trying to buy her love. This was to prove to her how I felt.

Yvaine: Ah... And what's she doing to prove how she feels about you?

Tristan: Well... Look, Yvaine, you'll understand when you meet her, all right? If we don't get murdered by pirates first.

Yvaine: Mmm... Murdered by pirates, heart torn out and eaten, meet Victoria... I can't quite decide which sounds more fun...”

 

I can’t help thinking many today are Victoria’s… That is to say, their partner has to prove their love to them, without them ever having to do anything to prove their love in return. I think love is shown by loving people when they are at their most unlovable, by coming through for them when they need you (this is true for friends as well); and that both partners doing this constitute what a relationship is meant to be. Of course Tristan is at fault here too; for he allows himself to be treated badly, because he has been blinded (in my opinion by infatuation, not love).

 

A chick flick I really rate is the Notebook, (thanks goes to Jen and the other Ripon St girls for my introduction to this film) I think this film is excellent in pinpointing the different aspects of romantic love, and without the over glamorization so many chick flicks fall into.

 

What is romantic love? Call me an idealist, but I like this quote from Allie (from the Notebook); “I did too. It's just that when I'm... when I'm with Noah, I feel like one person and when I'm with you I feel like someone totally different”. However I would also quote Noah, just before the scene I took the above quote from; “So it's not gonna be easy. It's gonna be really hard. And we're gonna have to work at this every day, but I want to do that, because I want you. I want all of you, forever, you and me, every day”.

 

So, that’s what I think love is, I think that love is what would solve the world’s problems. There are of course a few problems I shall now address.

Firstly, in friendships and relationships we will inevitable hurt and fail each other.

 

The German Philosopher Schopenhauer famously imagined people as a bunch of freezing porcupines: they have to huddle together for warmth, but if they get too close, they’ll hurt each other with their quills. If they stay too far apart, they’ll die of exposure. They have to find a place in between, where they are warm enough but aren’t being hurt by one another.

 

I have often sadly found that those who are least loved, need love the most, tend not to get it for they seek comfort in places it can’t be found. If someone is viewed as not useful such individuals will not associate with such people for they have no use. Having been treated like objects their whole lives, the treat others in the same manner; reaching such people is very difficult, and unfortunately modern society seems to be creating more of them.

 

The question is how do we respond when someone hurts us? I think the answer lies in the C.S. Lewis quote I used earlier; "Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but Love cannot cease to will their removal." I think forgiveness is a big thing in relationships, it is not easy, but I think responding with anger to anger, doesn’t seem at least to me to be a solution to the problem.

 

Indeed Wars to me, would seem to be the continued inability to let things go, to forgive, instead people get angry, seek revenge and ‘justice’.

A quote of Mother Teresa’s that I shall end with and have at least for myself found to be true is; “I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love. “

 

I hope you have enjoyed that... Peace and Blessings...

 

*2: 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (That much maligned book… the Bible)

 

Of course not. By definition, "fulfillment" is only possible in the top tier and you cannot satisfy the upper tiers without having satisfied the lower tiers (there's a reason Maslow's hierarchy is represented via a pyramid and not a progression).

 

Perhaps, I do recall doing the pyramid in 6th Form, I think being loved, especially in childhood though, very important, consider the Romanian childreens auphanage studies, think they were by Piaget but it's along time since I studied it. So I would remain thinking, despite the importance of other things, that perhaps being loved and loving should be top of the pyramid.

[Bee Hoon]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend when we were listening to oldies. Remember those good old days when love songs said things like "I wanna hold your hand..."

 

Okay, who am I kidding? I definitely *don't* remember a time like that:p

 

Anyways, it had been noted that 'love songs' used to be about how *you felt* about them, and now 'love songs' are about how someone makes *you* feel.

Do you have any examples? My insatiable curiosity would thank you if you did!

 

*insert ambiguous statement about lurrrrrrrve here* Anyway, I would like to share the most romantic lines ever written; I'm sure a lot of you here know this poem:)

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

I love thee to the depth and breadth and height

My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight

For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.

I love thee to the level of everyday's

Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.

[Ray Jones]

Love is a stainless steel eagle inscribed with hellish utterances, jet black, bristling with missiles and chain guns under a forty-foot wingspan that comes screeching down upon you on a moonless, stormy night. Its only purpose can be to destroy.

 

Angst? Nope. Carry on.

 

This is the *only* truth about love.

[Achilles]

I'm unsure if you would define this as opinion or objective argumentation, I leave you to make your own decision.

It's opinion

 

I'm affraid my definition, might be a little long, I had originally posted this over in the atheism/theism thread, while reviewing it, I noticed you had said;

<snip>

So here we are

Indeed we are. Let's get to it then.

 

Love; it’s the most beautiful and powerful force in the world

Very poetic. Clearly there are some people that would argue the opposite though. How to resolve...

 

...and something I think modern western civilization is forgetting; I think all the problems that are coming to light in our society are due to a generation not knowing what love is.

All the problems? At what point did we know?

 

Indeed I think all the world problems throughout all the ages is due to a deep and massive lack of love.

Are we conflating "love" and "empathy"? (Please do not respond with Star Wars quotes here. I'll have to fly to England and toilet paper your home if you do).

 

Many people today are lonely, unhappy and broken.

Wow, this thread is quickly turning into a buzz-killer.

 

I think it is because they are not loved; I’m not even writing about romantic love, I’m writing about friendship love. I think being lonely isn’t a sign that you need a partner, more that you don’t feel loved by friends. Tragically, I think those who offer unconditional love can be viewed with suspicion, having been hurt and used many times people can cynically assess others. It is a very difficult business finding out who are true friends.

No doubt that there are a lot of dysfunctional relationships (non-specific usage here) and that this has a huge impact on how people percieve themselves, others, and their interactions.

 

I would suggest that true friends, will always do what they can to come through for you; they will do all they can in their power to help and love you. They will be there for you in the bad times to listen and love and there for you in the good times to have a laugh.

I think I can agree with this for the most part.

 

So what is love? I shall use a few definitions and thoughts from those far more learned, wise and loving than I. “Love is patient; love is kind and envies no one. Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude; never selfish, not quick to take offense. There is nothing love cannot face; there is no limit to its faith,

its hope, and endurance. In a word, there are three things that last forever: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of them all is love.”*

That's nice (but also subjective).

 

The famous writer C.S. Lewis defined love in two ways; "Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but Love cannot cease to will their removal." And "Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained."Jesus (‘That’ dude from the Bible) said; “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Finally; from the wonderful poet Rabindranath Tagore “Love does not claim possession, but gives freedom.”

This is also very nice (and still subjective).

 

I really like the above definitions of what love is, I think what many think love is has now become a shadow of its former glory, twisted and feeble compared to what it should be. Let me give you an example of what I mean…

Back to the buzz-killing. You aren't bi-polar, are you?

 

The most easy thing to do this with is romantic love, I shall use two films too differentiate between what I think romantic love is, and what many people today think love is. My good and loving friends Toby and Alex introduced me to the film Stardust; I really like this film and would recommend it, if you haven’t seen it (despite some rather lovey-dovey moments) and think it makes some great points about love. Consider this conversation between the two main protagonists;

 

<snip>

Okay, I have to stop here and point out that using movies, poems, books, stories, etc to try to define "love" really muddies things. We aren't talking about reality when we go there; we're talking about someone's contrived viewpoint about how they think things ought to be (i.e. their romantic notions).

 

Case in point: Robin Williams' monologue in Good Will Hunting

 

So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientations, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling; seen that.

 

If I ask you about women, you'd probably give me a syllabus about your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy.

 

You're a tough kid. And I'd ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right, "once more unto the breach dear friends." But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap, watch him gasp his last breath looking to you for help.

 

I'd ask you about love, you'd probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you. Who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever, through anything, through cancer. And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in the hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes, that the terms "visiting hours" don't apply to you.

 

You don't know about real loss, 'cause it only occurs when you've loved something more than you love yourself. And I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much.

Great stuff, right? I agree that some solid writing (and Mr. Williams pulls it off beautifully), but let's think about it. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon were in their mid-twenties when that movie was made and they wrote the screenplay when they were still in college at Havard. Neither one of them had been to war, been married, or sat sitting up in a hospital chair watching cancer slowly kill their spouse.

 

So what we have is their take on what that must be like. We have their romantic notions. It's entirely possible that they may have interviewed people that had, but at the end of the day we're still dealing with dramatic license.

 

I can’t help thinking many today are Victoria’s… That is to say, their partner has to prove their love to them, without them ever having to do anything to prove their love in return. I think love is shown by loving people when they are at their most unlovable, by coming through for them when they need you (this is true for friends as well); and that both partners doing this constitute what a relationship is meant to be. Of course Tristan is at fault here too; for he allows himself to be treated badly, because he has been blinded (in my opinion by infatuation, not love).

Same as above. We're dealing with fictional characters in a contrived set of circumstances. No doubt the author may have channeled some personal experiences when writing the screenplay for the movie, but to use this scenario as an objective base from which to draft a treatise on the nature of love will probably lead us down some non-productive paths.

 

A chick flick I really rate is the Notebook, (thanks goes to Jen and the other Ripon St girls for my introduction to this film) I think this film is excellent in pinpointing the different aspects of romantic love, and without the over glamorization so many chick flicks fall into.

I couldn't disagree more. The cliches may have been different (arguable), but there were still cliches.

 

What is romantic love? Call me an idealist, but I like this quote from Allie (from the Notebook); “I did too. It's just that when I'm... when I'm with Noah, I feel like one person and when I'm with you I feel like someone totally different”. However I would also quote Noah, just before the scene I took the above quote from; “So it's not gonna be easy. It's gonna be really hard. And we're gonna have to work at this every day, but I want to do that, because I want you. I want all of you, forever, you and me, every day”.

As anyone who's ever been in a long-term relationship will tell you, these things are easy to say (and mean) when you're in the infatuation stage.

 

Going backwards for just a moment, I think if you want to find the culprit for why relationships are so jacked up today (an entirely subjective assertion that I will support), I think you need to start with the media. Usual suspects include "Once upon a time", "And they lived happily ever after", any movie, song, story, or television show that only shows the "attraction/courtship" phase of relationships, and any movie, song, story, or television show that only shows the break-up/post-relationship. Enculturation has poisoned any semblance of realistic expectations and force-fed us fairy tales and cheap romance novels instead. [/rant]

 

So, that’s what I think love is, I think that love is what would solve the world’s problems. There are of course a few problems I shall now address.

Firstly, in friendships and relationships we will inevitable hurt and fail each other.

Wait. Didn't you just ask us to call you an idealist? *head hurts*

 

The German Philosopher Schopenhauer famously imagined people as a bunch of freezing porcupines: they have to huddle together for warmth, but if they get too close, they’ll hurt each other with their quills. If they stay too far apart, they’ll die of exposure. They have to find a place in between, where they are warm enough but aren’t being hurt by one another.

Not the first time porcupines have been used in a love-related analogy, IIRC.

 

I have often sadly found that those who are least loved, need love the most, tend not to get it for they seek comfort in places it can’t be found. If someone is viewed as not useful such individuals will not associate with such people for they have no use. Having been treated like objects their whole lives, the treat others in the same manner; reaching such people is very difficult, and unfortunately modern society seems to be creating more of them.

I think we're clearly talking about dysfuntional behavior stemming from some form of abuse here. Surely not a baseline for a discourse on healthy relationships, correct?

 

The question is how do we respond when someone hurts us? I think the answer lies in the C.S. Lewis quote I used earlier; "Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but Love cannot cease to will their removal." I think forgiveness is a big thing in relationships, it is not easy, but I think responding with anger to anger, doesn’t seem at least to me to be a solution to the problem.

We probably need a thread on congnitive therapy and PTSD rather than C.S. Lewis quotes.

 

Perhaps, I do recall doing the pyramid in 6th Form, I think being loved, especially in childhood though, very important, consider the Romanian childreens auphanage studies, think they were by Piaget but it's along time since I studied it. So I would remain thinking, despite the importance of other things, that perhaps being loved and loving should be top of the pyramid.

I thank you for sharing your opinions and thoughts. Good thread, my friend. Take care.

[jonathan7]

Do you have any examples? My insatiable curiosity would thank you if you did!

 

Amy Winehouse, is perhaps a very good example; http://www.metrolyrics.com/there-is-no-greater-love-lyrics-amy-winehouse.html

 

It is my opinion that the song is about how the individual makes *you* feel.

 

Compared with;

 

FgtH Power of Love; http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/frankiegoestohollywood/thepoweroflove.html

 

I've been trying to track down the Radio 4 show online for you all, but no luck (doesn't help that I can't remember when it was on in the past week).

 

It's opinion

 

Hehe, fair enough.

 

I think the point hangs on ones definition of love.

 

Very poetic. Clearly there are some people that would argue the opposite though. How to resolve...

 

Perhaps though I would argue contrarily, perhaps the question is what would the world be like if people viewed the above as the model for love?

 

All the problems? At what point did we know?

 

I dunno if I said know, I thought I had said think, for the most part, it as with most of my writing, for the reader to decide its 'wisdom'.

 

However perhaps an interesting question is what causes a man to want to be a Stalin? Love for his fellow man, isn't quite the way I would describe say Stalin.

 

Are we conflating "love" and "empathy"? (Please do not respond with Star Wars quotes here. I'll have to fly to England and toilet paper your home if you do).

 

Haha What kind of toilet paper? The nice delux stuff, or nasty cheapo brands?

 

Off-topicness asside, I personally would think empathy is part of loving someone myself.

 

Wow, this thread is quickly turning into a buzz-killer.

 

Its not meant to be, however I don;t think the world is a particuarly nice place for many people to live in.

 

No doubt that there are a lot of dysfunctional relationships (non-specific usage here) and that this has a huge impact on how people percieve themselves, others, and their interactions.

 

Agreed.

 

I think I can agree with this for the most part.

 

Cool

 

That's nice (but also subjective).

 

This is also very nice (and still subjective).

 

Does the subjectivity matter?

 

Back to the buzz-killing. You aren't bi-polar, are you?

 

lol, not to my knowledge, I try to however as accuratly as I can, relay the world as it is.

 

Okay, I have to stop here and point out that using movies, poems, books, stories, etc to try to define "love" really muddies things. We aren't talking about reality when we go there; we're talking about someone's contrived viewpoint about how they think things ought to be (i.e. their romantic notions).

 

I agree, though I picked my examples carefully, it is aimed for a wider audience, and I'm aware many of my friends, find it difficult to connect with my thinking, so I tryed to use examples they could relate to, instead of explaining things.

 

Case in point: Robin Williams' monologue in Good Will Hunting

 

Great stuff, right? I agree that some solid writing (and Mr. Williams pulls it off beautifully), but let's think about it. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon were in their mid-twenties when that movie was made and they wrote the screenplay when they were still in college at Havard. Neither one of them had been to war, been married, or sat sitting up in a hospital chair watching cancer slowly kill their spouse.

 

So what we have is their take on what that must be like. We have their romantic notions. It's entirely possible that they may have interviewed people that had, but at the end of the day we're still dealing with dramatic license.

 

Does their lack of expierance, mean they can't emphatise and understand, or have something applicable to add? Talking to wiser individuals and nothing down what they say. Older generations are a wonderful source of knowledge, and some people are 'naturally wise'. I was reading a book review on genius the other day, which concluded that 'most great cerebral work is achieved before the age of thirty'.

 

Same as above. We're dealing with fictional characters in a contrived set of circumstances. No doubt the author may have channeled some personal experiences when writing the screenplay for the movie, but to use this scenario as an objective base from which to draft a treatise on the nature of love will probably lead us down some non-productive paths.

 

Depends on the paths the treatise takes you; I think relationships are idolised too much, and I have plenty of friends, who seem to think if they get into a relationship the worlds problems would be solved. It is my personal opinion that the only time you are really ready for a relationship is when you are happy being single.

 

I couldn't disagree more. The cliches may have been different (arguable), but there were still cliches.

 

There were cliches in the Notebook, but what I like is Noah, says its going to be hard every day, and that it ends with the couple in old age; which is more than can be said for most 'romantic films'... Frankly my dear I don't give a damn...

 

As anyone who's ever been in a long-term relationship will tell you, these things are easy to say (and mean) when you're in the infatuation stage.

 

Indeed, but I would still argue love is shown when someone is at their most unloveable, and at which point I would presume they would be out of the 'infatuation stage. On this I can't comment to readily, as at uni my resistance to so called 'femme fatales' is well known.

 

Going backwards for just a moment, I think if you want to find the culprit for why relationships are so jacked up today (an entirely subjective assertion that I will support), I think you need to start with the media. Usual suspects include "Once upon a time", "And they lived happily ever after", any movie, song, story, or television show that only shows the "attraction/courtship" phase of relationships, and any movie, song, story, or television show that only shows the break-up/post-relationship. Enculturation has poisoned any semblance of realistic expectations and force-fed us fairy tales and cheap romance novels instead. [/rant]

 

I don't disagree, infact I fully concur.

 

Wait. Didn't you just ask us to call you an idealist? *head hurts*

 

Hehe It was technically a stab, at some who have labelled me a 'naive idealist'; something which causes great amusement to my friends, as I'm more known for witty cynicism and pragmatism, but c'est la vie.

 

Not the first time porcupines have been used in a love-related analogy, IIRC.

 

I can't think of anyone of the top of my head, doesn't mean there arent though.

 

I think we're clearly talking about dysfuntional behavior stemming from some form of abuse here. Surely not a baseline for a discourse on healthy relationships, correct?

 

Correct, though the form of abuse, is an interesting one. There are some very good looking girls who are friends of mine, and have all their lives been treated as objects especially by guys, and as such view everyone else in the same vein. Having never met their parents I couldn't comment on any further causes.

 

We probably need a thread on congnitive therapy and PTSD rather than C.S. Lewis quotes.

 

Therapy does and doesn't help, I know many of my friends report that speaking to councilers (sp) as not at all helpful, but after speaking to me their problem can be solved. To my knowledge I have never applied the above, and have helped friends get over a range of problems including alcholism and other drug addictions.

 

I thank you for sharing your opinions and thoughts. Good thread, my friend. Take care.

 

Pleasure as always, thanks for your interesting responce.

 

Take Care too.

[EnderWiggin]

 

As anyone who's ever been in a long-term relationship will tell you, these things are easy to say (and mean) when you're in the infatuation stage.

 

Going backwards for just a moment, I think if you want to find the culprit for why relationships are so jacked up today (an entirely subjective assertion that I will support), I think you need to start with the media. Usual suspects include "Once upon a time", "And they lived happily ever after", any movie, song, story, or television show that only shows the "attraction/courtship" phase of relationships, and any movie, song, story, or television show that only shows the break-up/post-relationship. Enculturation has poisoned any semblance of realistic expectations and force-fed us fairy tales and cheap romance novels instead. [/rant]

 

I think it's utterly impossible for me to agree more.

 

Which is a bit rare, when it comes to Achilles and I

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Perhaps though I would argue contrarily, perhaps the question is what would the world be like if people viewed the above as the model for love?

Idealism always looks great on paper. No doubt that learning to live with more empathy would make the world a better place, but I think some of what might be suggested here borders on codependency-type behavior.

 

Reality shows us that relationships go through stages and some of those stages are pretty tough to get through. I think if we wanted to improve the nature of the relationships in our lives, we'd be better off focusing on building our skill-sets to be able to get through those challenging times rather than inspire others toward unrealistic goals.

 

I dunno if I said know, I thought I had said think, for the most part, it as with most of my writing, for the reader to decide its 'wisdom'.

Quote: "I think all the problems that are coming to light in our society are due to a generation not knowing what love is."

 

Emphasis added.

 

However perhaps an interesting question is what causes a man to want to be a Stalin? Love for his fellow man, isn't quite the way I would describe say Stalin.

I don't know how much that supports your earlier argument.

 

Is the lack of potable water in Africa due to a lack of love? How about the rising death toll in China as a result of the earthquake? Burma? AIDs-related death in the U.S.?

 

Or from another perspective:

 

The father that thinks he is preparing his son for the realities of life by administering "tough love". From the father's pespective, there is no lack of love there, nor is there a problem. How does your hypothesis address a scenario such as that one?

 

Does the subjectivity matter?

The purpose of the thread would suggest that it certainly does. If we're going to try to measure an increase or decrease in something over time, we sure as heck better be able to objectively define what it is that we're measuring.

 

As I stated earlier, where you see a decrease in love, I see an increase in esteem.

 

lol, not to my knowledge, I try to however as accuratly as I can, relay the world as it is.

Well, as you see it anyway

 

I agree, though I picked my examples carefully, it is aimed for a wider audience, and I'm aware many of my friends, find it difficult to connect with my thinking, so I tryed to use examples they could relate to, instead of explaining things.

Fair enough, however I still think that we're setting ourselves up for problems if we're using something fake to try to express an argument for something real. Analogies are a great way to convey a point, but that isn't what's happening here.

 

Does their lack of expierance, mean they can't emphatise and understand, or have something applicable to add?

Not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that they are creating a fictional situation to convey a story to an audience. The reality is that the grieving process has several steps. Establishing a long term relationship has several steps. Trying to cherry-pick the most emotionally-potent aspects and then present that as "reality" serves as a distraction. As such, it makes me very nervous when I see people trying to use movies or stories to try to make relevant arguments about the nature of relationships, etc.

 

Indeed, but I would still argue love is shown when someone is at their most unloveable

Okay. I would say that's codependency, but again, we've yet to operationally define what we mean by love.

 

I'm stopping here because I think the rest is veering off-topic.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Which is a bit rare, when it comes to Achilles and I

Huh. And here I thought we got along for the most part

[Lance Monance]

Based on your opinion or based on a defendable, objective argument?

 

From Wikipedia:

While Maslow's theory was regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality and motivation, it had its detractors. For example, in their extensive review of research that is dependent on Maslow's theory, Wahba and Bridgewell [3] found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all.

 

That seems to be an argument, since, according to Wiki, they did a lot of research.

[Achilles]

Nothing here magically makes J7's opinion an objective argument (Not A does not equal B, for those of you that miss hearing it ).

 

I'm perfectly comfortable using some other model of human motivation (two-factor theory, ERG theory, etc), however I think you'll find that they all have their detractors and not all of them clearly establish a role for love as Maslow did. If J7 would like to propose a new model of his own, I'd be happy to take a look at it, but I would hope that it was based on some form of social research rather than how he'd like to see the world behave.

[Lance Monance]

I just wanted to point out that Maslow's theory isn't without criticism and that love may have a different rank in hierarchy. Wasn't trying to propose a model of my own or defend J7's statement. (I know that not A doesn't mean that it is B )

[Salzella]

Love is: painful. hah. hah. hah.

 

I dislike love songs mostly, especially the particularly sugary-sweet sentimental ones that make me want to bang my head against a wall. Hard.

 

As for what love actually is... Don't know.

[Bee Hoon]

To be fair, this first verse of the Amy Winehouse song does address her own feelings about the beloved:P And some might argue that telling the person the way he/she makes you feel might be regarded as a compliment, rather than being a narcissist who focuses solely on...the idea of being in love.

 

Heh.

[jonathan7]

The purpose of the thread would suggest that it certainly does. If we're going to try to measure an increase or decrease in something over time, we sure as heck better be able to objectively define what it is that we're measuring.

 

Love, I think is trying to achieve what is best for the other person as far as it can be obtained. My 2 cents on the definition

 

Idealism always looks great on paper. No doubt that learning to live with more empathy would make the world a better place, but I think some of what might be suggested here borders on codependency-type behavior.

 

Perhaps, I try to live out my vision of love, though most people would think me one of the most independant people they know. Though we are in many respects interconected with one another, and dependant on one another to an extent, why is codependancy so bad?

 

Reality shows us that relationships go through stages and some of those stages are pretty tough to get through. I think if we wanted to improve the nature of the relationships in our lives, we'd be better off focusing on building our skill-sets to be able to get through those challenging times rather than inspire others toward unrealistic goals.

 

I think its abit of both myself

 

Quote: "I think all the problems that are coming to light in our society are due to a generation not knowing what love is."

 

I can't speak for generations in the states, but my generation in the UK is in a poor way; not only is the education system a shambles, but enculturation is having a massively destructive impact, and no-one as far as I can see is even aware of this. I have my hypothesis as to why that is; Television, I think is a big culprit.

 

I don't know how much that supports your earlier argument.

 

I think chasing over to money, power and fame are all pointless endevours. Take for example saving up for that bigger house; will it really make you happy? I have never understood why dicators are so desperate to hold onto power; what does it get them?

 

I dunno if you consider my below responces ontopic or not.. however I do

 

Is the lack of potable water in Africa due to a lack of love?

 

Every year the UK flushes enough toilet water down its toilets to give the whole population of Africa enough drinking water for a year.

 

How about the rising death toll in China as a result of the earthquake? Burma?

 

Natural disasters are not caused by a lack of love however, the ruling Junta in Burma, because of their desperation to hang onto power are going to cause many more deaths.

 

AIDs-related death in the U.S.?

 

Aids?... Two people love each other enough to have safe sex...

 

If people loved their fellow man, drug dealers and producers would not be 'in buisness', ergo transmision of Aids via needle would go...

 

Which would only leave blood transfusions....

 

The father that thinks he is preparing his son for the realities of life by administering "tough love". From the father's pespective, there is no lack of love there, nor is there a problem. How does your hypothesis address a scenario such as that one?

 

As I said at the start; I think love is trying to achieve what is best for the other person as far as it can be obtained; that would include tough love. I don't think love is some gooey nice thing, I think it can be really hard and bloody sometimes.

 

As I stated earlier, where you see a decrease in love, I see an increase in esteem.

 

Please elaborate, I don't quite follow what you mean by esteem?

 

Well, as you see it anyway

 

 

Fair enough, however I still think that we're setting ourselves up for problems if we're using something fake to try to express an argument for something real. Analogies are a great way to convey a point, but that isn't what's happening here.

 

Fair enough.

 

Not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that they are creating a fictional situation to convey a story to an audience. The reality is that the grieving process has several steps. Establishing a long term relationship has several steps. Trying to cherry-pick the most emotionally-potent aspects and then present that as "reality" serves as a distraction. As such, it makes me very nervous when I see people trying to use movies or stories to try to make relevant arguments about the nature of relationships, etc.

 

Relationships are a hard slog, I think my generation gives up on things alot quicker than previous generations; I think in a consumer society people are consumed as well as goods. I think you misunderstand me, if you think I'm saying love is easy, or that its all 'nicey nicey'.

 

Okay. I would say that's codependency, but again, we've yet to operationally define what we mean by love.

 

I've tryed to rectify that at the start of the topic, though in some senses the thread was a debate over what people think love means anyways.

 

I'm stopping here because I think the rest is veering off-topic.

 

Fair enough

 

Nothing here magically makes J7's opinion an objective argument (Not A does not equal B, for those of you that miss hearing it ).

 

*Jedi Mind-Trick* Yes it does

 

Thanks for reading.

 

You too

 

To be fair, this first verse of the Amy Winehouse song does address her own feelings about the beloved:P And some might argue that telling the person the way he/she makes you feel might be regarded as a compliment, rather than being a narcissist who focuses solely on...the idea of being in love.

 

Heh.

 

Perhaps, I'm still hoping to track down the Radio show for y'all.

[EnderWiggin]

Aids?... Two people love each other enough to have safe sex...

 

...What? Safe sex has nothing to do with a quantification of a couple's love. Not sure what you're trying to say here.

 

_EW_

 

It's pretty interesting to see the abstract opinions clash with the concrete questions here.

[jonathan7]

...What? Safe sex has nothing to do with a quantification of a couple's love. Not sure what you're trying to say here.

 

_EW_

 

Well, I suppose the question is more, why do people have unsafe sex and risk catching or passing on HIV?

 

It's pretty interesting to see the abstract opinions clash with the concrete questions here.

 

Indeed