Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: What is Love?
Thread: What is Love? This Popular Thread is 225 pages long: 1 30 60 90 120 150 180 ... 195 196 197 198 199 ... 210 225 · «PREV / NEXT»
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 01:06 AM

mvassilev said:
Love is the feeling felt by a happy couple in a stable relationship. Note that this isn't the only situation in which one may feel love, just an example of one. And there is evidence that it exists - if love didn't exist, why would people talk about it and act like they feel it? Because love causes them to do so.
Of course, being an egoist, I reject the notion that love is necessarily selfless.
Mvass, following that logic we have a lot of evidence that God exists as well - after all, why would people talk about him and act like they feel the presence of the Lord?
And how would you know it's love and not contentedness? How come, lots of seemingly happy couples in seemingly stable relationships suddenly go their separate ways? Can love "end"? That is, can you live happily in a stable relationship and 3 months later feel so bored that you can't stand the idea to continue?

The only love we have evidence for is that of the mother to her children - and even with that there are exceptions. There is a pretty solid and massive biological reason for that love, simply due to the fact that there is such an intimate relationship - but on the other hand this might also be "just" an instinct.

The idea that love would somehow develop in accordance with the information THE BRAIN collects over time has a couple of fundamental flaws, the first of which being that the brain actually isn't involved that much. It's not an intellectual decision or something, instead it's a feeling. Feelings tend to be resistent against the whisperings of the rational brain: you can tell yourself a thousand times that a certain person is an ideal match for you, if there are no sparks flying, if it's just a lukewarm affection, your brain won't be able to tell your emotions that it should be love, because everything fits so perfectly.
Conversely, you can tell yourself a thousand times that a certain person is out of reach, since he/she is married or doesn't seem to be interested - that won't change anything about something telling you that you would just LOVE to have a date with him/her.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 01:32 AM

Quote:
following that logic we have a lot of evidence that God exists as well - after all, why would people talk about him and act like they feel the presence of the Lord?
I thought you'd say something like that. It's not strong evidence for God, but it is strong evidence that people have feelings of believing in God. In the case of love, the feeling is what we're looking for - here, the analogy isn't "feeling of love"-"existence of God", but "feeling of love"-"belief in God". The fact that believers act they way they do is definitely evidence that they believe in God, that they feel like a god exists - it's evidence that they feel that way. Similarly, the way people act when they love someone is evidence for them feeling love.
Quote:
And how would you know it's love and not contentedness? How come, lots of seemingly happy couples in seemingly stable relationships suddenly go their separate ways? Can love "end"? That is, can you live happily in a stable relationship and 3 months later feel so bored that you can't stand the idea to continue?
People can feel contended about a lot of things that they can't love (in the romantic sense), and the feeling is different, so there has to be more than contentedness here. As for the second question, the key is "seemingly stable" - people can be discontented underneath the surface but act like they're satisfied with their seemingly good relationship.

As for your last point, your brain causes you to have emotions as well - emotions don't come out of nowhere, they have a cause.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 29, 2013 06:05 AM

@fred: If you read the discussion from the beginning , you will see that everybody is aware of the chemical stuff and biological roots. Whether that is love or an attraction that can later turn into love has been part of what we've been talking about. And again, if you read what's been written before talking about "pious bull**** logic", you will see that it was ME, telling Mvass, love doesn't have to be rational (it often isn't) or all happy. If you can't tell the difference between claiming we choose who we fall for is based on logic and criticizing a statement about the nature and qualities of love because you see logical contradictions in it... well...


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 06:41 AM
Edited by fred79 at 06:43, 29 Dec 2013.

artu said:
@fred: If you read the discussion from the beginning , you will see that everybody is aware of the chemical stuff and biological roots. Whether that is love or an attraction that can later turn into love has been part of what we've been talking about. And again, if you read what's been written before talking about "pious bull**** logic", you will see that it was ME, telling Mvass, love doesn't have to be rational (it often isn't) or all happy. If you can't tell the difference between claiming we choose who we fall for is based on logic and criticizing a statement about the nature and qualities of love because you see logical contradictions in it... well...


reading discussions from the beginning isn't what i do, expecially when it's been going on for years. i wouldn't waste my time reading all the nonsense that people post. i can only go on what you had just posted, and what you said prompted me to post what i posted. if what you say about any of your previous statements is true, then why would you contradict yourself like that? because now you seem to be going in the opposite direction. maybe you guys have gotten any readers so tangled up in obscurities(or the thoughts expressed are themselves tangled and obscure), that one cannot see exactly HOW anyone feels about the topic at hand.

ok, i'll weigh in on the last part. we don't choose who we fall for. an individual has no say in it whatsoever. it's not a conscious thing, it's more like the way your heart beats. your heart beats whether you want it to or not, it is involuntary(sure, you can control the frequency of the beats to an extent, but bear with me). the same way with love. people fall for who(or what) they fall for. this is why you have people who are into animals, kids, the same sex, skinny people, fat people, different races, different hair colors, dead people, s&m, food, and even objects. not saying that all or any of those things are wrong(it'll just veer off topic), but all of those things are what different people of different tastes can end up loving(and that's truly loving, not just being sexually attracted to, or merely desiring).

if you see logical inconsistencies about what people love, how they love, or why they love, it is because you truly do not understand how love works.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 29, 2013 06:48 AM

There's nothing contradictory. You miss the point.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 07:46 AM

artu said:
There's nothing contradictory. You miss the point.


sure i am, artu. sure i am.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 29, 2013 09:12 AM

There isnt.  Saying love can be irrational and love can happen in 5 seconds are different arguments. They are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. You shouldnt apply to sarcasm when you are the one not being aware of that and espcecially when you are the one who's too lazy to read through a discussion he participates in.  It leads to you not being taken seriously and then you start to imagine packs against you.  

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 09:35 AM

You may find this interesting:

Click Me

And me

Intellectual people tend to overrate the role of the conscious mind and diminish the "animal" in us, but it's there, nonetheless.

Now, some people will say, yeah, attraction at first sight, sure. But LOVE? Love has to develop and prove itself over a time, in which you really get to know each other.

I would answer, though, that, come to think of it, certainly one of, if not THE most important attributes which are asssociated with love, is TRUST. And when I say TRUST, I mean utter and complete trust, not tentative and hesitating trust. One way or another, love involves trust, and lots of it - but trust isn't something that is built over a time, as much as I see artu and others claiming that. Trust is something you have to GIVE AWAY IN ADVANCE, when you think of it, because it involves relying on someone, and whether your trust is justified or not you cannot be sure (which is why people whose trust was misplaced will such a hard time to ever again trust someone).

Now, it's clear that the vulnerability that comes with giving away your trust caan be a liability, and of course the conscious mind WANTS EVIDENCE, which means, full commitment is something the conscious mind wants something it can cling to as a solid foundation.
Difficult, though, when you think about flying, which is somehow comparable, and about all those people with flight anxiousness.
Flying, though, involves either full trust or no trust - you either fly or take a train -, while roman tic relationships in theory allow your brain to control height and speed of flight, in order to make crash landings less painful.

That definitely plays an important role.
So I'd like to think, that, with a view on biology, especially for women a factor would be a quick (and of course UNconscious) estimation of how much "trust potential" a person has.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 10:11 AM

artu said:
There isnt.  Saying love can be irrational and love can happen in 5 seconds are different arguments. They are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. You shouldnt apply to sarcasm when you are the one not being aware of that and espcecially when you are the one who's too lazy to read through a discussion he participates in.  It leads to you not being taken seriously and then you start to imagine packs against you.  


lol, are you getting upset, artu? come on, man, we're not talking about the pack mentality here, we're talking about love. you know, that special feeling? the one that is chocolate on one side and broken glass on the other?

so, i am not aware that "love can be irrational" and "love can happen in 5 seconds" aren't the same arguments? you don't get what i am addressing(or, with you at least, apparently only trying to) here, artu.

when you say things like, "love isn't this and here's why", i'm going to point out that that kind of thinking is wrong, and if you argue further along those lines, i'm going to ask for a logical explanation of why you think so, to verify your own claims. which i did.

and yes, i am lazy, but i am also smart enough to realize that there is going to be a multitude of boring-ass, repetitive, arguing-just-for-the-sake-of-arguing posts to get through, to find the points that matter. like i said, i don't waste my time, unless it is how I want it wasted. you and the others apparently enjoy "debating" without getting anywhere. thus, you like to argue. and now, i suspect you do so while knowing very little of the subject matter, because you avoided answering a simple question.

all it comes down to, is i saw something you said that didn't make sense, and felt like calling you out on it. nothing more, nothing less. it wasn't anything personal. so don't go getting all personal on me. i understand you like to be taken seriously as an arguer(*ahem*, i mean debater) on hc, you can go back to that, and think fluffy kitty thoughts.

lastly: as far as people not taking me seriously, well, artu, have you never watched dangerous animals in the act of playing to entertain themselves? you wouldn't go running up to a polar bear at the zoo because he was playing with a ball(and apparently just wanted someone to toss it to), would you?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 10:21 AM

JollyJoker said:
Intellectual people tend to overrate the role of the conscious mind and diminish the "animal" in us, but it's there, nonetheless.



this part is mostly true, because personally, i consider myself an intellectual, but i work off of my base animal instincts.

as for the "trust is absolute in love" thing, i would have to disagree. i love more than a few people that i know i can't trust, for different reasons. i love them for who they are, their flaws as well as their attributes. i think, though, that knowing that person better than they know themselves, helps. you don't have to trust someone, if you can accurately predict what they'll do, in any situation you can think of, along the lines of their morals, and their present experience, behavior, and situation.

that being said, it is still possible to love at first sight. maybe not with every living thing, but it IS possible.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 29, 2013 11:00 AM

Quote:

lol, are you getting upset, artu? come on, man, we're not talking about the pack mentality here, we're talking about love. you know, that special feeling? the one that is chocolate on one side and broken glass on the other?

Not upset but distracted from the actual discussion where people make relevant points and constantly don't mix apples and oranges in a trollish manner. I haven't ignored your question, I just didn't include personal details in my reply. And obviously by the pack thing, what I meant was, when you don't get taken seriously for the justified reasons I mentioned above, you get upset and you start to say things like "you people are all against me, the pack is on the hunt again, why are you guys ignoring my posts" etc etc. I am not the one in habit of getting upset and turning everything into internet drama.
Quote:
So, I am not aware that "love can be irrational" and "love can happen in 5 seconds" aren't the same arguments?

It seems not until recently, all the contradictions you claim to see points to that conclusion.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 11:54 AM

artu said:
Not upset but distracted from the actual discussion where people make relevant points and constantly don't mix apples and oranges in a trollish manner. I haven't ignored your question, I just didn't include personal details in my reply. And obviously by the pack thing, what I meant was, when you don't get taken seriously for the justified reasons I mentioned above, you get upset and you start to say things like "you people are all against me, the pack is on the hunt again, why are you guys ignoring my posts" etc etc. I am not the one in habit of getting upset and turning everything into internet drama.  


there you go getting upsetdistracted again, and bringing "drama" into a discussion(about love, no less. have you no decency? ). the pack mentality here(and everywhere) is an actual thing, whether you choose to think so or not. but who cares? i don't. you seem to, though. you seem to care a lot. priorities, man, priorities.

as for what i asked, you didn't have to divulge names, just what you had experienced to make you say what you did. like i said, it's no biggie on my end, but damn if it isn't a biggie on your end. for someone so prone to arguing incessantly about your take on things, and sharing photos of your friends(and maybe you?) on hc, you seem to take the word "private" differently than the rest of the world does. meaning, only when it suits you to be private. that's the impression you've been giving, anyway. the evidence is piling up, artu. i can't help but think that.

i love how people keep saying that i'm trolling... it's like they can't wrap their head around what i am saying. it's really not that hard to understand, i have faith in people(i'm trying, anyway), i'll wait... ...  .......

i didn't mix apples and oranges, artu. what i did, was nail the subject down, and simply. you arguing your stance only stops you from actually absorbing what i said. but whatever. i'll stop talking to you, as you're not getting me, and i'm not getting you. peace, man.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 29, 2013 12:13 PM

Yes, I'm sure in Fredland you nailed it down. Btw, I never shared any photos here, I might have though, it's not the same as telling private details about your love life instantly on demand.

What you don't realize is how shameless you sound when you're both so arrogant AND clueless about what's being discussed, both at the same time. And congratulations, it actually took 4-5 posts for me to regret not ignoring you.

And about your question, no, it's not a big deal to me also. But when I discuss something I try do it with decency, and if I wanna have pointless fun here, there's time and threads for that also. Unlike you, I don't start out seriously, get refuted like ever, then pretend I was only trying to troll anyway, and then constantly whine about how people treat me unfair.

Consider yourself ignored from this moment on.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 12:26 PM
Edited by fred79 at 12:27, 29 Dec 2013.

artu said:
Yes, I'm sure in Fredland you nailed it down. Btw, I never shared any photos here, I might have though, it's not the same as telling private details about your love life instantly on demand.

What you don't realize is how shameless you sound when you're both so arrogant AND clueless about what's being discussed, both at the same time. And congratulations, it actually took 4-5 posts for me to regret not ignoring you.

And about your question, no, it's not a big deal to me also. But when I discuss something I try do it with decency, and if I wanna have pointless fun here, there's time and threads for that also. Unlike you, I don't start out seriously, get refuted like ever, then pretend I was only trying to troll anyway, and then constantly whine about how people treat me unfair.

Consider yourself ignored from this moment on.


JESUS, that took a turn. allow me to clarify further? you shared a photo of your friends during some riot. i remember. i don't remember seeing any photos of you, though, so that was what the question mark was for. i am shameless, artu, because i have nothing to be shameful about. like i said, it's easy to get tangled up in what has been said, when things are all over the place, and not coming together. what you stated that i replied to, was all i was talking about, + my take on love. i don't know if congratulations are in order, for you to be so upset with me. where is this continuing anger coming from? you being INTENSELY guarded to the answer of a simple enough question? and, i was serious the whole time. the only reason i tried playing lighthearted with you is, you kept getting angry and avoiding my question. looks like you didn't get that, and you took it personally. i still don't. even when you have to keep trying to upset me with a dead past on hc, then telling me that you will ignore me.

whatever, man. you need some love in your life. maybe then you wouldn't be so uptight, and continually attack someone who just wanted an answer to a simple question. i had planned on telling of my own examples after you were done. it didn't go that way, though, did it? no, you became malicious and rude instead.

i really cannot understand why you insist on calling me a troll again.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 03:51 PM
Edited by Fauch at 17:08, 29 Dec 2013.

so love at first sight is about physical appearance, just like a crush? and what's the difference?

it makes me think, they say that in job interviews, they often take their decision in the first few seconds. though, normally, it's not about sex, so is it something different?

oh, and according to your link, shouldn't we be attracted by our sisters?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 06:11 PM

JJ:
Trust is also built up over time, as you get to know the person and decide that they're trustworthy. You may be able to trust a stranger to watch your belongings and not steal anything, but that depends on where you are - I certainly wouldn't trust any stranger in Russia to watch my things. Regardless, even if you're comfortable letting a stranger watch your belongings briefly while you're away, no one is comfortable letting a complete stranger into their lives to the degree required for love - you have to be able to rely on them, confide in them, etc.

As for flying, much fewer people would trust that planes work if they were an untested technology. Given that plane accidents are rare, planes are safe, so you can trust it - but you trust it because it's been tested, you don't trust it blindly.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 07:28 PM

Myass, my impression is, you didn't quite understand what I wrote. We are not talking about Russian cab drivers or something who you have no connection with whatsoever.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 29, 2013 10:02 PM

@mvass
mvass said:
I thought you'd say something like that. It's not strong evidence for God, but it is strong evidence that people have feelings of believing in God. In the case of love, the feeling is what we're looking for - here, the analogy isn't "feeling of love"-"existence of God", but "feeling of love"-"belief in God". The fact that believers act they way they do is definitely evidence that they believe in God, that they feel like a god exists - it's evidence that they feel that way. Similarly, the way people act when they love someone is evidence for them feeling love.

I agree that the two are not exactly analogous since one is about claiming the existence of an external entity but this line of thinking opens up a whole new can of worms. Because then the question would be about if people can be deluded about their own feelings: Is the assumption of a feeling enough to make it real for the person assuming it? It's a very classic line, "You don't really love me, you just think you do." Can that line actually mean something or if we believe we love, is it enough to turn that belief into reality when feelings are involved.

Before answering, keep in mind that you feel much more comfortable than me categorizing emotions as right or wrong, good and bad.

@JJ
Quote:
You may find this interesting: Links to study

Yes, it is interesting. Since we've already talked about attraction/love which and when stuff already, I wont repeat that. But the thing I would rather focus on would be their paradigm: The articles position themselves on the premise that love at first sight is a romantic notion, when the studies show how fast we react to facial elements, they use sentences like "So in the end, all of you hopeless romantics may be on to something in your quest for love at first sight." or "Maybe the hopeless romantics are on to something."
Now, there is a difference between claiming something is really love or not and claiming something is ideally romantic as well, the second one is also about sublimation and ideology (it is normative, not telling us if something is real or not but telling us something is good or bad). For example, I've once read a study, analyzing the transformation of the Romantic Comedy in cinema, it concluded that in the fifties and sixties, it was considered ideally romantic for the protagonist to ask the woman to stop working once they get married and become the lady of her house. It was a sign that he was willing to take care of her and he was strong enough. As women rights, feminist movements etc etc got ahead, this behavior first disappeared and then, it even turned into something the antagonist (the other guy that gets dumped in the end) does. Turning back to your links, they hesitate to bluntly classify the data as love or attraction and use a cautious language but one thing they don't hesitate is to consider love at first sight an ideally romantic notion. However, even if it is/was real, love at first sight can be considered a very anti-romantic idea as well. It can be said that an idealization of love based on such elements reduces love back into quite the biological urges it evolved from. An important thing to remember is that, in the old times, the idea was so optimistically embraced because people also believed in fate, destiny, being put together by God's masterplan. But once you take that concept out of the mix, what is left to be idealized, reacting quicker to faces that resembles ours? (Which is quite the axe on the whole selflessness thing, btw).

So, this brings the other question:
Quote:
Intellectual people tend to overrate the role of the conscious mind and diminish the "animal" in us, but it's there, nonetheless.
 
Although, there is definitely truth in that, I think the statement is incomplete. They don't just overrate it, they value it and idealize it more. One of the reasons we can not define love is, although the common elements are quite valid, there is also too much variation based on our personal differences. Does, say Kierkegaard and a truck driver fall in love the same way, do they expect and idealize the same traits? Does intellectual people just overrate getting to know each other or do they actually care about it more?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 10:18 PM

I'll answer tomorrow, since it's too late for a serious effort here.
I appreciate your effort to steer this into a new direction.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 29, 2013 11:24 PM
Edited by mvassilev at 23:24, 29 Dec 2013.

JJ:
The point is, you need information about a person to trust them enough to love them. While there is a certain degree of "trust at first sight", it's not enough trust for love.

artu:
Quote:
It's a very classic line, "You don't really love me, you just think you do." Can that line actually mean something
I do think this line is meaningful, and has one of two different meanings. The less common one can be unpacked into "You currently love me, but upon reflecting on your feelings or learning more about me, you'll stop loving me". The probably more common meaning is "You've identified a feeling you have as 'love', but are mistaken in doing so, because the feeling you have that you're labeling as 'love' isn't causing you to act in a way that would be expected from someone who has the feeling of what is usually labeled as 'love'".
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This Popular Thread is 225 pages long: 1 30 60 90 120 150 180 ... 195 196 197 198 199 ... 210 225 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.2971 seconds