Is a person in love with you if they want you to do something you aren’t comfortable with? You can use your imagination, but I am not talking things like eating Indian food cause it is too spicy. I am talking about things relating to your most basic values.
I don’t know what that says about “being in love” but it certainly seems like a more selfish thing to do. One should never force someone else to give up their values. The best you could do is tell them what your values are, and what you need from the other person in terms of their values, in order to make the relationship a happy one. But beyond that, you should really leave it as choice for the other person to make. The worst case scenario, therefore, is that the relationship breaks up because of incompatible values - this is still way better than forcing someone to give up their values.
Sure that person can be in love with you. Being in love can make someone want all sorts of crazy stuff. I’ve seen persons in love get pretty obsessive and violate all sorts of values of the persons they love.
So you call violating all sorts of things and becoming obsessive true love? Does being in love include ownership or isn’t a better definition of loving one who allows the other to be themselves completely. I didn’t say it couldn’t happen. But, wouldn’t that be your first clue to leave even if you didn’t want to? It would surely me mine.
Yep, I’d have to say that they can still be in love with you. A person can want absolutely anything, up to and including wanting to kill you, and still be in love with you. Just means that love might not be good for you, or something you want.
And I disagree about the ‘being yourself completely’ part, too. It has seemed to me that if true love lasts, both people involved give up certain aspects of themselves for the other. I mean, completely strangers let each other ‘be themselves completely’. Association means sacrifice.
You are right. As I think of my own marriage - this is totally true. Love is never ideal, that is for sure. All these platitudes get thrown around in the name of love, don’t they.
Love is a funny thing. I am surprised so many people go after it… It ain’t easy.
I just wanted to quote that again, Ucci. (btw, I am halfway through your book by Lewis and will give a full report)
I would caution against sanctifying anything that goes on in a relationship in the name of “true love”. Just because someone is genuinely in love with you doesn’t give him/her the green light to do/say whatever they want to you. It just means its going to be that much more tragic when you finally stand up for yourself or leave the relationship.
Sometimes it’s about the journey.
Love.
Incredibly simple: Pleasure.
Pleasure: Reaction to what is systemically believed to be good.
The reasons for love, can become vast, or a form of infinite reason, but the simple sensation is always the same: “Yes!”
It is the golden prize of the process of selection, and selection is conscious life on earth, always selecting and processing.
If I may interlude…
“True” is that which is believed in most.
Belief, comes fast towards that which is popular, trustworthy, understood and pleasing.
“True love” – is, love, of any degree, which can be fully understood, and at the same time, agreed with.
Just curious Dan~, do you equate all forms of pleasure with belief? That is, do you agree with cognition=sensation or cognition=emotion?
Dan(…squiggle here) makes a valid point that love is an antecedent of pleasure, or belief of pleasure creation circumstances.
From my perspective though there is another corollary element not mentioned:
Expectation.
I agree with this for the most part.
However, I think that it’s important to know just what the task is that’s being requested. It’s a case by case kind of thing, but some things shouldn’t be asked.
Perhaps I should have said: “sensed”.
But, the instincts have their own set of beliefs.
The body believes, for example, that it must shiver, when it believes that it is cold.
I was talking about all forms of estimation.
I already said that trust was part of it. 
Expectation is a sort of trust.
The aftermath of pleasure without pain… trust?
I must add, that there are many forms of pleasure, also.
I believe the idea of love to be greatly exaggerated.
It seems that whenever it isn’t stated fantastically or mystically by anyone, they are pronounced to be devoid of its understanding - yet, others cannot themselves bring to light to what it is other then to fundamentally say ‘you don’t have any idea and nor do I’ or to pull out the ‘you have to experience it yourself, but I cannot and will not explain it,’ which brings no one any closer to the meaning, but rather, creates a shroud on the subject blocking it from any possible coherent meaning thats even slightly understandable.
Can love not simply be the caring of one member of a species for others? Indisputably there are various levels depending on ones subjectivity; one might be more inclined to care for one whom they are more attracted to then others, or one might be more inclined to care for someone they know almost nothing about, save for the fact they need help, excetera. I believe that love then, is only found where you create it.
[size=75]For clarifications sake:
When I use the word ‘care’ or ‘caring’ in this post, I mean the willingness to sacrifice one or more of your own resources to attempt and make another being happier.[/size]
Amazing how we become confused when we begin with an erroneous understanding and then try to explain circumstances using it.
Love: A social necessity for creature that have evolved to rely on others, due to their own inadequacies.
Love: A relationship based on give/take – economics.
Love: A chemical reaction meant to suppress ego, cloud reason and enable tolerance, interaction and sacrifice.
Aaaah…love.
There are forms of love but, Lust is mistaken for love more often then not.
If it is a love relationship then one will never force or ask the other to do things against their beliefs. If it is more lust then love then that is where it is possible to coerce such things.
Lust is greed in a relationship, it is desire to have that person, to change that person to fit your wants desires and needs.
Love is sharing sacrifice, acceptance and giving.
True love is just about as close to unconditional love as any human can ever get.
Satyr is right, I think. Before we go on to say whether love is or is not limited by the expectations of the other person, we need to properly define love.
Now, the context so far has been ‘romantic love’…and that in itself is hard enough to define, so I suggest we stay with that for now.
Perhaps, for an opening, we could use this definition:
“Love is an emotion that allows for the need and wanting of another, either for their happiness, or for sating ones own desires.”
Its not a perfect definition, but it allows for both selfish and ‘selfless’ love. Anyone have a better one to work off of?
That’s pretty good Gwyllgi. I was about to say the same thing - love is an emotion. Let’s not stray too far from that.
You can say that it correlates or is caused by neurochemical activity in the brain, or that it evolved as a survival tactique in a socially dependent species, or that it usually leads to altruistic behavior or even selfish behavior that can only be satisfied when the loved one is satisfied first. But these should not be confused with love itself. These are simply corroborations and adjuncts of love.
Ultimately, I think one can argue a good case that love, in a sense, is always selfish. If it’s an emotion, it drives the beholder to self-gratifying ends. But it is a unique emotion in that these ends can only be met if the loved one is gratified first. Therefore, even though it is “selfish” in a sense, in quite another sense it is necessarily altruistic.