What is love to you?

[Phoenix]

um...i don't feel lust for any of my family members....>>

He meant between lovers -_-

 

[Tsuki-chan]

Love is nothing, it means "nothing", and it is "nothing". Love shows nothing towards another person. All the word "love" is something you tell someone, to make someone else happy. Love isnt even really an emotion in my opinion, you tell someone you love them and but that doesnt mean anything. You may have contact with someone but that doesnt mean you "love" them. It's just a so called "emotion" that is made to confuse you. But that is just my opinion all in all.

I just add "love" to my collection of dead roses.

 

[Abel]

Wow, that post above mine is perhaps one of the most emo things I've read recently.

Love is a tree that reaches to the sky for the clouds to pour water on it, for the sun to shine light upon it.

 

[Phoenix]

And the one above mine is among the most sappy.

 

[Tsuki-chan]

Wow, that post above mine is perhaps one of the most emo things I've read recently.

Love is a tree that reaches to the sky for the clouds to pour water on it, for the sun to shine light upon it.

So, it's emo just because it's not some sappy crap like everyone elses?

 

[Hidden]

Thus far, almost all mentions of "love" could be replaced with the term "romance", which is quite interesting given the history of this entire concept.

The style of love we therefore refer to is a descendent of "courtly love"; indeed, though the modern conception seems to have taken on a decidedly more emotional/transcendent aspect from its predecessor, many traditionalists still point back to the love poetry of the Middle Ages as the golden, innocent, and chivalric form of love in its finest.

The interesting thing of it all is, this love is actually remarkably young. The concept of "love" that we hold today is not a way of thinking that has been passed down generations from our first descendents; it was not introduced by our first trappings of society, nor even by the innovative Greek philosophers; nor, as some theories hold, did it take root in Ovid's poetry, Christianity's rise, or the Germanic temperament. Our first traces of the recognizable expression of what would be considered courtly love appear quite out of the blue in 11th century Languedoc, primarily in the form of poetry.

Now, what precisely led to the rise of courtly love (and, subsequently, its later manifestations) is a fascinating study in itself, for it really was quite unprecedented in culture or recorded intellectual history prior. However, I won't go too far into that at this point- the issue I merely wished to raise was this:

The concept of love that we now discuss has not always been a part of human thought (at least not in a form we immediately recognize). How does this affect one's thoughts of "love", and what form do we necessarily speak of?


*Just to note, I am taking most of my material here from Clive Staples Lewis' fascinating book, "The Allegory of Love: A Study in Midieval Tradition". On a second note, I have had very little time to advance far into the work, and, while having gleaned quite a bit thus far, must remain open on all points to editing as I continue.

 

[Square Ninja]

What is love?

I thought the first traces of "love" were found in the Renaissance. That's generally what comes to mind when thinking of the early porptrayals of "courtly love," what with troubadours, bards, playwrites, poetry, and whatnot.

I can't help but wonder, however, if love has existed much longer than this but was never "explored" or expressed like it was in the late Middle Ages.

 

[Hidden]

I thought the first traces of "love" were found in the Renaissance. That's generally what comes to mind when thinking of the early porptrayals of "courtly love," what with troubadours, bards, playwrites, poetry, and whatnot.

You've got the whole deal with the troubadours down, but the dates are shifted slightly*--as before, I am open to error, but all sources I've found thus far have been pretty consistent on its appearance somewhere in the 11th century, particularly identified in Provence. And we mustn't forget to include the tales themselves--knights played a large role in love poetry; one simply has to look to Chretien de Troyes' "Lancelot" (12th century).

I can't help but wonder, however, if love has existed much longer than this but was never "explored" or expressed like it was in the late Middle Ages.

This is an excellent question to consider more fully; it is certainly open-ended for any number of arguments.

First, if one takes love purely on a scientific basis of hormonal reactions, it is hardly probable that such reactions simply didn't occur prior to the love poetry of the Middle Ages. Perhaps, then, the feeling that the nervous teenage boy experiences asking a girl to prom is precisely the same as it was over a thousand years ago (without, of course, that precise situation).

However, we should also consider some earlier, accepted concepts of love that predated this "courtly love", for it would seem likely our greatest clues would reside there. We find, in literature at least, a world barren of any records of the happiness found in romantic love that motivate novels to this day (it is worth noting that C.S. Lewis is writing primarily from a literary point of view--at the same time, this is one of the most revealing sources surviving that we have on culture itself in these times). One may find love "as a tragic madness [...] which plunges otherwise sane people (usually women) into crime and disgrace." (Lewis 4) We also have a love which exists on a decidedly more unnoticeable scale--Odysseus is said to love Penelope, but no distinction is drawn between this love and his love for the rest of his home and possessions; Aristotle will give it slightly greater credit in admitting, though with reluctance, that occasionally marital relations may rise to the significance and reward as the virtuous friendship between men.

We are presented with a number of interesting challenges for our consideration of "what is love?". Do we create a separate definition for each manifestation, both historical and current (for love between family members also is acknowledged in the modern world), or do we attempt to reconcile the multitude of ideas into a single entity known as love?


*unless you would be referring to the 12th century renaissance, but I would miss the connection there.

 

[Phoenix]

There's a difference. In civilized countries, men today are forced to resort to romance to get the girl. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the people who wrote poetry back then were the ones who knew how to write and read, therefore the people with money. The people with money had arranged marriages as a norm, no?

 

[Dogenzaka]

ince when are hormonal reactions nothing? Be naive if you wish. It's already proven all emotions and thoughts reside in the brain. Those butterflies and nervousness you get when you're with that "special someone"? A bunch of chemicals shooting throughout your body, one of these being adrenaline.

Yes chemicals cause it, but a lot of people think of it as nothing like that. They can't stay cemented in a relationship because they're like "OH WELL LOL HUMAN NATURE IT'S NATURAL TO **** MANY WOMEN" and they go and just have sex with many other people. A lot of people don't think of love as for what it is. Love isn't just an "emotion" or a "feeling".

 

[Phoenix]

Dogen, those fun thoughts in your post, you got them from where?

I'm talking about "love" in the brain, not "lust". Are you jumping to conclusions again?

 

[Square Ninja]

There's a difference. In civilized countries, men today are forced to resort to romance to get the girl. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the people who wrote poetry back then were the ones who knew how to write and read, therefore the people with money. The people with money had arranged marriages as a norm, no?

Sometimes it wasn't just limited to people with money.

 

[I don't know]

Love to me is just a mammalian drive coming from the human genes that urges one to reproduce and create offspring.

 

[Square Ninja]

Love to me is just a mammalian drive coming from the human genes that urges one to reproduce and create offspring.

What about the psychological aspects of it? Talking about the chemicals in the brain still only counts as physiological.

 

[Hidden]

There's a difference. In civilized countries, men today are forced to resort to romance to get the girl.

Excellent point; at the same time, would this imply that modern love is a feminine concept adopted by males purely for the purpose of getting a girl?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the people who wrote poetry back then were the ones who knew how to write and read, therefore the people with money. The people with money had arranged marriages as a norm, no?

If you would specify "back then" for me, I will attempt to provide an answer. Though your speaking of arranged marriages does certainly play a role in courtly love's development; C.S. Lewis provides a rather fascinating theory on this matter.

What about the psychological aspects of it? Talking about the chemicals in the brain still only counts as physiological.

This is also a very interesting train of thought--even assuming love's development along a purely scientific basis, at what point does the modern conception of love become so deeply ingrained in the psyche of our population that it is, in effect, a "true" factor?

 

[Square Ninja]

This is also a very interesting train of thought--even assuming love's development along a purely scientific basis, at what point does the modern conception of love become so deeply ingrained in the psyche of our population that it is, in effect, a "true" factor?

Do you really expect anyone to have any sort of answer to that?

 

[The Big Lovin']

\
This is also a very interesting train of thought--even assuming love's development along a purely scientific basis, at what point does the modern conception of love become so deeply ingrained in the psyche of our population that it is, in effect, a "true" factor?

Yeah, actually. Love is an over used expression use of emotion nowadays. I think we have nearly lost all meaning of 'love'. Well, at least the philosophical and dictionary definition(Not that the dictionary definition is actually extinct, but that less people know the text book definition). Thinking about it, wouldn't love just be a psychological attachment to a person, object, or "thing"? I doesn’t seem complicated, but with how the definition is vague, who truly does know?

 

[Square Ninja]

I doesn’t seem complicated, but with how the definition is vague, who truly does know?

A better question would be if anyone ever knew.

 

[The Big Lovin']

A better question would be if anyone ever knew.

.....holy shit, I think I just had a revelation =/

 

[Square Ninja]

.....holy shit, I think I just had a revelation =/

I'm awesome like that.

________________