Beast Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 Sorry' date=' but whether it's intended or not, she will want to change you. And some changes are definitely for the best. Others are taken as orders, and some are thinly veiled as 'compromise'. But you say "love is ... someone who loves you no matter what" but that's begging the question! Love is someone who loves you, so they love you because you love them? No. What [i']is[/i] love? :P Of course she'll probably change me since I'd love her but don't tell me I need to change, whether it's personality or something physical like your hair or whatever. I wouldn't try to change her since that's what I fell in love with in the first place so why would she want to change me if she loved me for me? I think he's emphasising the "no matter what" bit and claiming it needs consistent affection even in bleak circumstances. That's right. "Love is someone who loves you no matter what" means no matter what. Any situation that you need someone there for whether it be for help or support, they're there for you. Whatever problem it is, they don't judge and they're there for you. That's what I meant. Yeah' date=' I get that. It's still important to see what these [i']expectations[/i] are that people have. Just the expectation to understand more than anything, really. The expectation to understand each other's needs and weaknesses as well as each other's strengths. Of course, you can say this for a best friend or something but for some people, their partners are their best friends.
MoogleViper Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 Love is where two people, by chance or by intention, are good and kind hearted enough to give each other a chance. It's where the word vicarious loses all meaning because your feelings are so intimately intertwined together, and when you start to do shit that you wouldn't even do for yourself, just because someone else's sense of pride and happiness hangs on your shoulders. There's also no such thing as the "right" person, or the "perfect" partner. I write this fully aware that the 13 year old me would have called me a massive gaylord. On behalf of 13 year old Bard:
ipaul Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 "What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons. You're born alone and you die alone and this world just drops a bunch of rules on top of you to make you forget those facts. But I never forget. I'm living like there's no tomorrow, because there isn't one. "
Coolness Bears Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 Love is that one person you'd punching a hippo in the nads for.
Frank Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 In my mind, Love is when all questions stop asking themselves. It can be both conditional or unconditional. It is an uncontrollable mass of goo.
nightwolf Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 How romantic. Haha! I know, I am sorry, but it is! I still know and understand the trust/friendship, but it was mostly a joke that is particularly true. I'm not really romantic, not because I don't like it, some of it is very sweet, but I just don't see the need to do it. That whole 'you should bloody well know I love you' line. I'm awful. Just sayin'.
bob Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I love my girlfriend. She is THE BEST. I'm not sure what love means though, although i'm pretty sure me and her are perfect for each other. In seven years of us knowing each other, we've never had an argument. I'm not very good at expressing myself, but i'm fairly certain that if she was gone, i would be sad.
Aimless Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Will anybody read this title and not sing, "baby don't hurt me" in their head? My mind jumped to instead, which I suppose is quite telling. I find the "chemical imbalance" stance to be rather short-sighted. Not to say that I disagree with the science or consider the feeling mystical, but everything can be reduced to brain chemistry. If you're going to discount love on the grounds of neuroscience you're setting yourself up for a pretty nihilistic existence, and ultimately do the mechanics of it really matter? Presumably we all play games here and they're pure fakery, yet you valued them enough to sign up here to talk about them. I'm not advocating "one true love" sappiness, but I think a common mistake is swinging hard in the other direction, which frankly tends to come off as posturing.
Diageo Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 What's wrong with reducing it down to neuroscience? It is just giving the biological explanation of how it occurs. The same thing happens for happiness and every other emotion, doesn't mean you'll shrug off winning the lottery because you know it's just brain chemistry at work.
The Bard Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Because scientific reductionism is great for understanding the mechanism of something, just not the actual, subjective experience of it.
EddieColeslaw Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 In my mind, Love is when all questions stop asking themselves. It can be both conditional or unconditional. It is an uncontrollable mass of goo. Love is total unconscious (I don't think this is the right word; what I mean is that you don't decide or question it, you just know and it just is) acceptance, which transcends appearance and gender. I think. Or maybe that's just loving someone's mind. idk.
Nolan Posted August 11, 2012 Posted August 11, 2012 My mind jumped to instead, which I suppose is quite telling. I find the "chemical imbalance" stance to be rather short-sighted. Not to say that I disagree with the science or consider the feeling mystical, but everything can be reduced to brain chemistry. If you're going to discount love on the grounds of neuroscience you're setting yourself up for a pretty nihilistic existence, and ultimately do the mechanics of it really matter? Presumably we all play games here and they're pure fakery, yet you valued them enough to sign up here to talk about them. I'm not advocating "one true love" sappiness, but I think a common mistake is swinging hard in the other direction, which frankly tends to come off as posturing. What's wrong with reducing it down to neuroscience? It is just giving the biological explanation of how it occurs. The same thing happens for happiness and every other emotion, doesn't mean you'll shrug off winning the lottery because you know it's just brain chemistry at work. Because scientific reductionism is great for understanding the mechanism of something, just not the actual, subjective experience of it.[/QUOTe] Personally I feel this chemical imbalance in my chest. Literally, my chest tightens when I think of a certain someone. Maybe not love perse, but irreverent.
Recommended Posts