Concern, certainly.
with love,
sanjay
Oh Zinnat!
Fathers, brothers, sisters, … and so on - what do you think about them then? 
Why are you not even saying: “That is why true love is possible in only two relations - mother-daughter and lesbian(wife)-wife.”? 
With “true love”,
Sonja
Glad we agree 
Does true love make you horny? Honestly… is it something with the effect of making your dickhard, and making her drip? Or is true love something completely isolatable from hot lovin.
true love makes one horny. It also makes one able to die for the other person. If that person asked a significant other, if he/she was willing to donate a kidney, to him/her, if love was true, the answer would be, without hesitation, a resounding yes.
I dunno, some women, I might be willing to agree to donate a kidney when I’m real close, or inside, but once… you know, Mount Vesuvius erupts, Ill be alot less sympathetic.
Besides, quadruple kidneys run in my family, Id be willing to give up a pair to most anyone asking. Same goes for bone marrow (via the pelvis, nothing surgical), platelets, blood, perhaps half my liver. … the half the liver person better be someone really worthwhile, like they need to cure cancer or impeach Obama or stop a war… something for the greater good of mankind.
But that isnt true love, that isnt even altruism. Its a calculation that I can… and I much rather people live. I just never been put in that situation, beyond the DMV asking me if I want to be a organ donor.
DMV didnt get my dick hard… and I think the old chubby lady processing me wasnt dripping wet… but there was the agreement to giving up my organs. So… is that true love?
Yes, it might be, if you believe in life after death, as a diassemblage. Your various donated organs would then, live another day, Inside, regardless of what, and then the vesuvian explosion would have been justified as a foreshadowing, of things to come. Man, and please do not counter this with i don't get this, since i don't either. It just flowed out of me like semen.
Contra-Nietzsche
It isn’t necessarily the true love which does this but the wonderful chemical cocktail within the brain and probably the circumstances/situations at the moment - well, I suppose they come before the mix of the cocktail.
I daresay that many get horny and want sex, whether or not there actually is true love, intelligence, intimate sharing, mutual respect and understanding, compromise, etcetera - but true love can do the same and it may be a far better experience. And it is the icing on the cake when you also find your partner hot. 
That would depend on the individuals, the couples.
It is and it isn’t at the same time - depending on the people involved.
Are you an organ donor?
zinnat1
That sounds more like romantic love to me - but it may lead to true love eventually. I think that people who really deeply love one another and are committed to one another (committment being a strong requisite for it) recognize that each - that the other - is an individual. Becoming one is kind of a romantic notion unless you meant it figuratively speaking.
Can you give examples of that?
Really now? I’ve seen snow monkeys (and I was so moved by them) who are more committed, loving and vigilant toward their young than are many mothers and fathers out there unfortunately.
“True” love can also be agape love. One can say that Mother Teresa loved “truly”. “True” is simply another word for “real”.
I might be concerned about someone but I might not necessary love them or feel love for them - it’s part of being human.
Perhaps when you sign “with love” you mean affection but I might be wrong. I can’t assume what you mean.
What the Hell is, ‘True love?’
Is this opposed to a love that is nor true? How can something specific be referred to as a specific word and not be that word? Is there a difference between a ‘Fox,’ and a ‘True fox?’
Truth is a Universal, and for it to be Universal, it must be constant. If the love was not constant (i.e. fleeting) then there was nothing Universal about it, thus it was not true, thus it was not, ‘true love.’
In the end, ‘Love,’ is nothing more than a descriptive adjective that we use to summarize an attitude or outlook on a particular occurrence that is both more complex and more specific than the descriptor. Does that mean that, ‘True love,’ doesn’t exist in my view? Maybe, but I’m good with that. I just don’t particularly buy into the notion that love can be some immutable force for which there are no exceptions that will cause it to fall apart.
In that event, would I suggest that, ‘Love,’ doesn’t exist. No. Again, to the extent that we ascribe meaning to the word and use the word to summarize whatever the fuck it is supposed to be summarizing at the time, the thing being summarized certainly exists, but the thing being summarized is different things to different people.
It’s simply a word for which the definition and usage is not a constant, and as such, does not describe any one state of being.
Or love may be defined two ways, one denoting a feeling state, like a near to bursting bubble , veering toward progressing feeling states toward the absolutely, Devine and indescribable ecstatic feeling of overflow; or, connoting the shared concern of nurturing that little flower, with a genetic adherence to complying with the continuation and progression of the species. The third may be seen as the mystical union with an enigmatic figure encompassing both, connecting both by the use of symbols like the rose.
A thing is never its sign or symbol, it’s eludication or expression on a ante res level of neurological structuralism… in universalizing and connecting facts, you can well say ‘In the beginning, there was the word’ but such a beginning preceeds differation, before what is. It’s a founding paradox of philosophy, always present… so much the stuggle in philosophy is figuring out not the intention and motives of a idea, but where this root is still quite evident, and rebuilding non-algerbraically from there to functionally interdependent thought patterns used in similar philosophical discussions.
A definition is never a thing, and what is most real dodges a short sighted empiricism of third party observation. Our mind searches out its own deficits and learned recurrences, it has a knowledge of past pain and suffering, our intuition taken from these experiences, rippling across our instinctual attractions… attractions to making up our deficiets, reaffirming oud strengths, and giving a more secure future… a hormone driven flush in the cheek and beautiful hair can be enough for a man in a instant… but will it hold the samd positive effect on his psyche later, when he is laid off? Unlikely.
The mind always seeks increasingly solid feedback loops in the mind, where thoughts can travel from genesis to end consciously. Usually, its half way… can take a lifetime to accomplish, even then. Our other halves complement this process, in better scenerios. Its why when a beloved spouse dies, the individual feels lost and cant function… literally a part has been wrenched.
Under a ante rem structuralism of cognition, I dont think a true lover can be a good philosopher in the sense they can ever comprehend a ideal as good as a self sufficient, self realized thinker… their dependence in love causes by necessity certain insights to be locked away in the sense of the other. To grasp it is to overcome, and to loose need, and disregard the other. Such is not tru e love.
The only alternate, to become a good philosopher and explore the ultimate depths of the soul, is to be like Rumi, embracing everything as one, loving with the upmost devotion. Such men make good poets, every word yearns with multivolumnious meanings through emotions, as wandering bards singing estatic songs are known for. It reaches past modern concerns of the subjectivity of assumed shared outlook of the loved other.
But it comes with a cost… once they focus on the nature of focusing, concentrate on the nature of concentration and the observation of it… it falls apart, a naked confused man before God, long past the insecurities of love and trials of enduring commitment, yet unwilling to take such motivations as primordially valid any more.
True love… its the perpetuation of this ecstasy, its best not to explore too deep the depths of the soul with a true love. They do exist, and it requires exploration, but there is a certain sense of self that moves well beyond it, and it becomes fhe farce of all farces.
with love,
sanjay
Given man’s perpetual curiosity to explore, the resulting farce may hide a deep and tragic misgiving, or flaw, and his search for the ideal transforms into a machina perpetuum.
I agree with that.
One can be in real love once or twice in whole life, not more.
Yet, it is not complete love. Complete love entails physical relations because feeling of complete oneness cannot manifest without that.
with love,
sanjay
Sanjay. I think one can be in love their whole life, even with many, it is the many, who have difficulty in being in love with the one.
with love,
sanjay
It is not the case that there may be false love also.
True love simply means maximum love, beyond that is not possible.
It is the same quality of love, but at the maximum in the quantity.
with love,
sanjay
You agree with me, Sanjay, but we don’t come to the same conclusions.
I have a problem with the term ‘true love’, because it implies - as Pav wrote as well - that there must also be a ‘false love’. The first term is a tautology to me, the latter a contradiction or an oxymoron. If it’s not true, it’s not love. If it’s false, it’s not love.
To me, love is a value/quality by itself. It has a lot to do with affection ( or: ‘there’s a special way this person affects me that I can not explain, but it’s there’). This happens by chance, I can even feel that very strongly towards somebody I don’t know personally.
All the other attributes which you relate to love - that what you and others define as ‘true’ love - are additions which can go parallel with love, but not necessarily. They might have their own values, but have nothing to do with the quality of love, nor with the quantity.
I agree on that with Pav… If you ask 100 people, you will get 100 different definitions.
The topic of this thread is: “True Love?”. According to my understanding I couldn’t ask this question. I would merely ask: “Love?”