um...i don't feel lust for any of my family members....>>
He meant between lovers -_-
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
um...i don't feel lust for any of my family members....>>
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.
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 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.
This is an excellent question to consider more fully; it is certainly open-ended for any number of arguments.Square Ninja said: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.
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.
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?
Love to me is just a mammalian drive coming from the human genes that urges one to reproduce and create offspring.
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?There's a difference. In civilized countries, men today are forced to resort to romance to get the girl.
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.Phoenix said: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?
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 said: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?
\
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?
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.
.....holy shit, I think I just had a revelation =/