Tristan Scott

Oxymoron said:

I said love is no more logical than it is tangible. It can be logical and I suppose it can be tangible, in an abstract way, but it isn't necessarily either.

I think the love Christians speak of is similar to what any other love is. By the way, I'm not so sure I would define love as an "emotion".

Again, I think you are making a mistake in defining love as an emotion. It has similar attributes to emotions, it is an affection for sure, but as my shrink used to pound into me session after session: emotions are mad, sad, glad and scared. Love is not an emotion.

I think that is a pretty tired statement. You can define it any way you want, but since this is a discussion in the Philosophy folder, calling someone's philosophy fluffy feel good or airy-fairy seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Oxymoron

Will somebody p-lease then define what the feck they are talking about when they say "love". The implication so far is that it is so atomic to human existence that there is no need to define it because all humans will understand what is meant by it.

Well here is one human being who is saying "no, I really don't understand what you mean". It is far from a fundamental thing that we all agree on.

Yes, this is the philosophy forum. I don't think it's a "what is your personal philosophy forum", I think it is more in line with

Definition:
Philosophy. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

In order to reason logically you must define your terms. I appreciate that so far you have said "love is not really an emotion". That is what it is not. Now the challenge for you is to define what you mean.

Just for the record: I have many definitions of love, it exists in many forms; I agree, it is not really an emotion in any of its forms. But that's me, I'm interested in what you think.

JusticeMachine

It is wonderful! My wife told me that she is have the chemical reactions in her brain and a release of endorphins as a result of my actions toward her and that due to these chemical reactions that she would like to mate with me. She said I am her one true source of these reactions.

She is sooooo romantic.

Oxymoron

Love Bullshit Argument Phase 1: when asked to define love, come up with a bunch of fluffy nothingness as you struggle to describe something you thought you knew but on closer examination, don't.

Love Bullshit Argument Phase 2: when asked to define what love is and you can't, accuse the questioner of cynicism

You are describing lust, not love. No matter how it might seem, or what she says, you are not the only individual your wife fancies. By elective choice she chooses you, but she is human and if she doesn't want to exchange bodily fluids with George Clooney or Brad Pitt then she's frankly a bit odd

Love Bullshit Argument Phase 3: refuse to define it because to do so will undermine it. Read Richard Dawkins' "Unweaving the Rainbow" for a robust rebuttal of that sort of nonsense.

Love,

Oxymoron

Tristan Scott

My philosophy about love would pretty much fall in line with those of Gibran and Plato. That was the reason I recommended Symposium and linked to Gibran in my earlier post. But I'm open to other philosophies as well.

JusticeMachine

Coincidentally, homosexuals use the same three bullshit arguements when asked to define homosexuality. Or the love of the same sex. (stated this way to make a vain attempt of staying on string)

galiel

Love is feckless.

galiel

It's "thread", not "string". "String" is what homophobes pull out of their....


Nevermind.

Sr. Zonules

Greetings, Earthlings!
God maybe love, but love is blind. (therefore, God is blind) He he.

But seriously forks (-The Far Side):
"Better" is a rather subjective term. What may be 'better' for one person may be a tragedy for the next. The origional phrase in question does not really say anything. It is quite a fluffy sentence when you think about it. It is much to the effect of: "All unicorns are lovely." Hmm, well, that's nice, but this kind of thing does not make unicorns actually exist.

Just because unicorns really are lovely, and it really is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, that does not mean that unicorns or love even exist (or exist as we know/think of them). (There is no Existential Import).

I think the more appropriate phrase should be:

galiel

Love is a four letter word.