What is love? (1101 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.71 on 35 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Tinactin (View user info) at 2005-08-26 14:14:44 EDT
Baby don't hurt me...(Don't act like you weren't thinking the same thing. And I'm not above going for the obvious joke.)
Seriously, though. What the hell is it? I bet if I asked fifty of you, I would get fifty different answers. I respect all of you and your ideas very much. To choose one of your responses over another would be tantamount to picking between your children.
To where can I turn? Nobody knows more about any subject than Ubersite users. Perhaps I can find salvation in the words of the philosophers? No. While I appreciate their insight into the human condition, philosophers know nothing about love. Trust me, I've done plenty of research into their personal lives, and I have found that every significant intellectual in recorded history has had a tragic tale. Ok, so I see that you're skeptical. I'll just have to relate a few of these in detail. I imagine you may be too lazy to look them up yourself.
Karl Marx
Marx married at a young age, and for several years was relatively content. But as his beard began to grow, Marx felt complacency set in.
Soon enough, he found himself picking up transients from the streets in order that they might fuck his bourgeois wife. Camilla was perfectly willing to submit to this proposition, and all was going according to plan until she was impregnated.
Marx, an avowed racist, only brought foreign men to his wife, under the assumption that their sperm would be too lazy to find its way into her ovaries. That assumption proved correct. However, Marx had made a miscalculation. It seems that the immigrant semen relied on the goodwill of Marx's own liquid residue to ensure safe passage across the borders of her womb. The resulting bastard-child scandalized the bourgeois Marxes, and soon their marriage dissolved at the hands of the angry masses.
Jean-Paul Sartre
Famously known for his droopy, cross-eyed look, Sartre never married, or even had a single date in his lifetime. Not for a lack of effort, however. As it turns out, each and every time Mr. Sartre propositioned a woman, she assumed he was talking to somebody else.
Personal aside: I can actually kind of understand Sartre's plight. I once had a neighbor who suffered from a condition I refer to as "cross-sighted." When we first met, I noticed that she would never look at me directly during conversation. At first, I chalked it up to rudeness. That was ruled out when she made several perceptive comments about my clothes, without looking directly at my outfit. Soon, I determined that, although her eyes seemed perfectly normal, she could only see things at about a 45 degree angle. After that, I tried to accommodate her by remaining in her field of vision, but it wasn't always possible. The worst place to be was a 20-30 degree angle from her face. In such cases, I was never sure whether she was looking at me or checking the freshness seal on the jar of pickles on the counter behind my left shoulder. They never were quite crunchy enough for her.
(I had Chinese food for lunch today. My fortune: You have a reputation for being straightforward and honest. Lucky numbers 35, 11, 44, 37, 2, 12)
Immanuel Kant
An Ardent fan of equestrian sports, and skilled horseman in his own right, Kant was naturally drawn to his chosen profession as an executive at the local glue factory. It was here that he met the love of his life, uh, Cabilla.
She resisted his advances at first, but his flowery prose could rent any heart asunder. He finally broke hers with the now famous line, "If you were glue, I would so be peeling you off of my hands right now."
Her response is less famous, but just as important in a historical context:
"Yeah, well if you were rubber, I would be wiping me off of my hands right now."
They were married within a few weeks. Thus began a blissful, if short-lived union. Tragically, she died of ruptured bowels a few years later, soon after rubber cement was developed.
David Hume
Cursed with hideous looks and completely lacking in financial portfolio, Hume's chances with women were doomed from the start. He focused the resulting abundance of energy on his career instead, which happened to be journalism. Hume quickly worked his way up the corporate ladder, and is currently the television anchor for Fox News Sunday.
(By the way, am I the only one who is aware of the ridiculous circumference of the face of fellow Fox News employee Greta Van Susteren? Now, there is a big fucking face. If Jame Gumb ever got ahold of that thing, he could stick his legs in her nostrils and wear her face like a kulak. If we walked on our hands, people in the Pacific Northwest would be scouring their forests for traces of Bigface.)
Soren Kirkegaard-
Best known for his role as the least recognizeable member of Elliot Ness's "Untouchables". (In the movie, his character was that nerd who wasn't Kevin Costner, Andy Garcia, or Sean Connery) Among the influential circles of his day, he was renowned for his tenacity in defending Chicago's prohibition laws against hard liquor importers. He quickly earned the moniker, "Scotchgaard".
His life's work did not come without a price, however. An existence without alcohol ensured Kirkegaard would never have access to drunk chicks. Soren Kirkegaard died a virgin.
I think that my point has been illustrated well enough. But if you would like to learn more about the miserable lives of philosophers, you may seek out that information yourself. Remember, the internet is not only the home of porn and gambling, but a valuable learning resource.
Ultimately, the research I have done has driven home the idea that the only philosophy that should matter is my own. So, what exactly do I believe?
In the past, I have often maintained that nearly all motivations are selfish. One person "loves" another because the other person can provide goods and services to make him happy. Have you ever felt underappreciated? That's because you're a selfish whore.
Don't feel too bad about it. I am just as selfish as you are. Even worse, in fact. I cant wait for somebody to invent tiny, waterproof amplifiers so everyone has to hear the sound I make every time I crack my jaw. I would show up at minority pride parades and watch bystanders look around for police brutality every time my mouth moved in a new direction. Of course, they would have to have a pleasant taste. (This actually sounds like a great business opportunity for someone. I need to get Wonka on this. I forsee a commercial in which a kid asks a smarmy owl how many candy harmonicas it might take to make John Popper's stomach staples explode.)
Love, then, as I always defined it, meant selflessness, actually valuing the happiness of another over your own. I'm not sure I can hold on to that belief anymore, because it tends to be an impossibly high standard. I would like to be able to say I love my girlfriend. Do I actually love her? I have no idea. But I am happy, and that's good enough for me.
Oh, God damn it! I was lying. Could you tell?
I need to know what love is...
I cant live without it...
User Reviews
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-10-19 09:53:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Love is about being able to live with the same person day in and day out and still hold a conversation, it's about not filling in gaps in conversation for the sake of it.
It's getting on with a person regardless of whether they have anything in common with you.
It's a willingness to compromise when you desperately don't want to.
Love is coming home and being happy that person is still there.
Love is something that starts off desperate and needy and grows into something much calmer.
It's a whole bunch of other stuff too and it's never exactly the same when you experience it with someone else.
Submitted by Rawrg (user info) at 2005-08-28 22:14:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's what I feel for you.
Submitted by LadyPlural (user info) at 2005-08-28 22:07:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:15:49 (#)
Ranking: 2
my rating was going to be:
"baby don't hurt me"
2 steps ahead, my friend
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2005-08-27 10:37:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Not well received? Are you ghey or something?
Anyhow, yeah, I agree that love is hard to define and hard to recognize. But, I think if it feels like love to you, then it IS love to you. You'll know for sure later on down the road, either after the relationship has failed or when you know the person you'd die for isn't going anywhere.
Submitted by ArtificialInsanity (user info) at 2005-08-27 01:36:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The pickles can NEVER be crunchy enough.
Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2005-08-26 21:18:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-08-26 19:01:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
super post.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-08-26 18:17:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yep, this is funny.
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2005-08-26 17:44:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
the first line secured your +2.
Submitted by tinactin (user info) at 2005-08-26 17:32:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You people took this post far too seriously. It's 90% bullshit comedy.
Submitted by DanielH (user info) at 2005-08-26 17:04:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
For some reason this struck me as funny: But as his beard began to grow, Marx felt complacency set in.
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2005-08-26 17:00:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Jinky! Man... talk about responding to something.
I agree with you (Jinky) though. I paraphrase it thusly (Oh yeah.. I said THUSLY!): "Love is a decision, continually acted on, and maintained"
and yeah, I really did read all of that, and I really do agree with all of that...
Submitted by sideshow (user info) at 2005-08-26 16:23:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Love is caring more about someone than you do about yourself. Wanted them to succeed, even if it means you have to fail.
Submitted by Confuzitron (user info) at 2005-08-26 15:53:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You know you love a woman if you're having sex with her, and mid-coitus she says "I used to be a man" and you keep going at it. That or it's the booze imparing your judgement. One of the two. Not sure which. That only happened once. I think.
Submitted by Confuzitron (user info) at 2005-08-26 15:43:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/73384#1531998
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2005-08-26 15:11:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Love is recognizing the divine in another. It's a window through which you can touch compassion in its purest form. It's looking into the eyes of another and wanting to cry. It's wiping up their feces without a second thought when they're in their eighties and can no longer control their bowel movements.
THAT is love.
Submitted by Fartman (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:52:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"But I am happy, and that's good enough for me."
I think you answered your own question, Tough-actin!
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:52:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
//PART 2
When you experience the feelings socially described as "love", you will do things for your signifigant other that you may not otherwise do. In school, you may have waited for her at her classroom and have been there when she got out. You'd send her flowers, hide a note in her locker, and dismiss the company of your friends at lunch just to be in her company. False expectations are created and understood as things to be expected by the receiver of said actions. Soon afterwards, however, the flowers stop. You start hanging out with your friends again. Not as many notes in the locker, and you just don't have the time to wait by her door any more. What happened? Sounds like you don't *feel* like going out of your way for her like you used to. Sounds like you don't *feel* like making a sacrifice for her any more. Sounds to me like you fell out of love, apparently. Guess this relationship didn't work out. Guess you weren't made for each other. Guess y'all may have to try again. Better luck next time. And so it goes, society telling you "don't worry, she wasn't the right one for you. You'll find that special someone some day, and you'll really be in love." And so on it goes, up through adulthood, and then you find someone, and the same type of things happen there. You call her whenever you can. You take time out of your day every day to have lunch with her, even if she's across town. You spend all your time, when you aren't working, with her. "Could this be love? Must be. I feel like I can love her forever." But no more than a few months later, something familiar takes place: You don't call her as much any more. Not enough time. You need your space, so you don't keep her company as much as you used to. No more flowers, definitely. You make all the excuses as to why you aren't doing these things any more, and try to explain that you are really, truly, cross-your-heart still in love. But it's not true. You just plain don't feel like doing it any more. Again, you don't feel like going out of her way, making sacrifices for her.
I propose that love is an action first, emotion second. Without works, love is dead. It means nothing, and cannot amount to anything more than fireworks and sizzle. I am going to take a quote from a book many of you know of.
"Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right."
"Ohhh yay, it's the Bible. /rolls eyes. Why did you quote that? I don't believe in it." The reason I quoted this passage here is because it is relevant, and because it *works*. Regardless of who you think wrote the Bible, or of how many errors you believe it to contain, there are many parts in there that are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for greater understanding of humanity. In this case, the Bible sheds very applicable light on a socially skewed and misunderstood subject. Love, using the quoted definiton, is perfect for a relationship, yes? And a relationship of any kind, not just a romantic one. Love can be used without any hint of romantic or emotional attraction. This is why I believe it to be action first, emotion second. Love is the genuine caring of the welfare of another. It is looking to the good and well-being of others or another. Love acts. It displays itself.
To delve even further, let's look abroad. In the Greek language, there are very clear definitions for different kinds of love:
Agape (ah-gah-pay) - This love is unilateral and unconditional. It is desiring that which is best for the other person being willing to go to whatever length is necessary in order to achieve that well-being with no expectation of return. Here, words mean nothing, and actions are necessary for the communication of this kind of love. This love cannot be based on emotion.
Phileos (fi-lay-ohs) - This is the word for love from which we get the word Philadelphia: the city of Brotherly Love. There are some people we say that we love like we love a brother or a sister. It describes the relationship between two people which implies a commitment. It says, "there are a select group of people who are so important to me that even though they are not my family, I would be willing to make a sacrifice if it would help to make their life better." Again, this kind of love is displayed totally by action. Words mean nothing here, and again, cannot be based on emotion.
Storge (stor-jay) - This is the Greek word for love which is used when describing the kind of love a parent has for a child or a child for a parent. It is the love which someone feels toward another when they are responsible for their well being. It is instinctive and it is protective, but it is not universal. It is reserved for those for whom we feel responsible. Here, again, it is not emotion that drives this kind of love, but a sense of responsibility.
Eros - (eh-rhos) This includes physical attraction and the "puppy love" between two people. It is a love which feels wonderful, but it is fleeting and unconstant. It does not last and needs to be constantly reinforced to be the basis of a relationship. This is the most commonly-used definition of love, especially in America. This is what is glamourized in the media. And the applying of this definition to the yardstick of how our society considers love to be is the largest reason marriages, and relationships in general, do not stay solvent. The understand of love stops here for so many people, and they grow up believing that this is what should be able to be sustained in a romantic relationship, and if it disappears, then they have obviously nothing left, and depart from each other's presence. Using this definition, it is indeed possible to "fall out of love" by no decision of your own. It is an emotion, and the human body is not created to have an emotion "equipped" for extended periods of time.
These definitions have the pedigree of a nation's language behind them. I believe them to be very informative as to what love meant, and how it was used, and how, today, in our life, it should be applied.
I hope this can shed light on a totally convoluted subject. As I think about this more I am sure I'll embellish, delete, or otherwise alter the contents. But these are the extent of my thoughts for the time being.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by Barnymeinhoff (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:52:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
genius
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:52:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
//PART 1--entire text is too long
I think in order to define the word "love", many social connotations need to be viewed and dissected, and ideas of what "love" can and cannot be need to be seriously looked at and questioned. "Love", as the vast amount of society defines it, boils down to little more than gumdrops and warm fuzzies. Notice I said "vast amount", as there are definitely people who feel differently. But, as a whole, the meaning of the word "love" has been so diluted that is hardly recognizable for what it should be.
It can be used so many different ways. "I love Butterfingers!" and "I love you" are just two examples of the vast amount of degrees with which "love" is used. Society at large, I feel, understands "love" to be just a stronger version of "like". Given the context in which most of us use "like" and "love" in everyday vernacular, this conclusion is not surprising. If you think Butterfingers are pretty good, then "yeah, I like Butterfingers" works just fine. But if they are, by far, your preferred mass-manufactured confection, then "I love Butterfingers!" may be more appropriate. It is also supposed that "love" is only emotion; That it is no more than a feeling. It is something you can be in, or something that you feel toward someone else. However, with love being merely emotion, there is no way one could stay "in love" with anyone indefinitely. It is therefore easy to break up on the grounds of "falling out of love". Humans aren't made to sustain feelings or emotions, especially in heightened levels, for long periods of time. It would then be an inhuman feat to be able to fulfill your wedding vow "...to love and to cherish as long as you both shall live." And if "love" is merely an extension of "like", we are also in trouble. "Liking" something depends solely on what it can do for you. You don't like a candy bar because it has saved your life. You like it because it tastes good. If it worked that way, you would be saying, in essence "I love you as I love my Butterfinger I had today for lunch... only more so." Hardly romantic, and hardly functional. It is possible to "fall out of like" quite easily when the object of that affection no longer does what you want it to do, or when you find something in that object that you don't like, or otherwise doesn't meet your requirements.
Another thing that I've discovered through my discussions with different people about love is the fact that the vast majority of them believe that defining love is only necessary/relevant in the realm of romantic relationships. Using this confine, it is a most unfortunate circumstance we are confronted with. As has been observed by probably everyone here, emotions can't just be "turned on" or "turned off". Things can be done to make them happen more frequently, and there can be Pavlovian circumstances resultant in those feelings; but emotion, in general, is flighty and inconsistent.
Part of the traditional marriage vow goes something like "...to love...as long as you both shall live." Now, if love is an emotion, how are we to uphold our vow as we promised? We are stating that we will always feel love for that person, consistently, 24/7, without a hitch. No matter what the circumstance, we are to experience (and exhibit) that feeling of love and never let up. How feasible is that? It can be viewed via society at large that people cannot/will not do this.
Apparently, when that "honeymoon" feeling is gone, and the fuzzies of "love" are gone, it means the two people weren't meant to be married. "I don't love my spouse any more. The fire died. I guess we didn't really love each other after all." People often get married solely on the basis of *feelings*. This view stops the progression and proliferation of healthy marriages cold. They get married on the basis of physical attraction coupled with the feelings they experience when they are around their significant other. They may find each other on a cruise, or a dance, have a drink, go home, have sex, and decide that "this must be love" and, after a few short weeks of getting the specifics nailed down, they tie the knot, only to run into the problem that plagues any relationship, healthy or not: Someone doesn't feel like loving. If our definition of love is limited to understanding it as a mere feeling, how can we expect to fulfill any promise of undying love? And, if you are aware of this going into a relationship, why state such a blatant lie?
Submitted by GodLovesALittleLovin (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:47:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My comments aren't geared towards anyone in specific, i'm just weird like that.
Submitted by GodLovesALittleLovin (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:46:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Baby don't hurt me....
Submitted by GodLovesALittleLovin (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:45:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Love, then, as I always defined it, meant selflessness, actually valuing the happiness of another over your own.
------------------------------------
Uh, technically, this is impossible. There are no true moments of selflessness in the first place, because usually we are doing nothing more than stroking our own conscience and making us feel better about ourselves.
"But I help cancer patients chew their food! I am completely selfless and in love with them!"
Don't think so. You're doing this out of an episode of guilt and shitty morale on your part. You initially did this because you felt like you weren't doing enough to be selfless and would be looked down upon by your peers/social circle in the first place.
Same applies to love indirectly. Love has been pushed onto us for so many fucking years as the solution to happiness, but it's not. It's nothing more than a term to generalize something that feels like more than sexual attraction. Many would say that it is, but actually, love is a prism that reflects our true inner ugliness. It is the ultimate source of vanity, and it is one of the only "emotions" people are willing to kill for. Love is evil, simply put. It's black and white. Love is everything and nothing just like everything else.
So basically, using the word "love" to define one's feelings and general attitude towards a person is too simplistic.
Submitted by Yes (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:44:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
love is her letting you put it in her pooper.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:40:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Too "deep" for Uber.
Too "long" for Shlongy.
Submitted by FallenZer0 (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:38:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:15:49 (#)
Ranking: 2
my rating was going to be:
"baby don't hurt me"
2 steps ahead, my friend
Submitted by Beer_bong (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:37:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Love is making the perfect shot from 2 hundred meters away with an aratech sniper rifle, that brings you target to his knees.
Or something like that. I can't always remember qoutes from crazy video game assassin droids.
Submitted by GodLovesALittleLovin (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:30:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Love is a ham and cheese sandwich. Myster solved cocksucker, now get back to stuffing paper into shoes that haven't been purchased yet.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:22:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2004-06-19 00:37:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
Love is nothing more than a word we say to ourselves to make the unbearable loneliness of being forever separate from everything around us a little easier. It's nature's cruel joke - we have evolved enough to want something more than instinct, but we are still, and always will be, animals. Everything we feel is instinct - the love for a child is just nature's way of making sure we protect it. We're designed to seek our people whose genes will complement our own, and our brains make chemicals that tell us we really want this person, so that we'll breed with them. It's all just animal instinct, survival of the species.
======================
Love is what sets us apart from the animals. It is what makes us unique. It is what makes us beautiful. How can anyone doubt that, who's seen the way a couple will look at each other sometimes; that look that says 'You are my world'? Or the way a mother will hold her child, tight and close, as if trying to protect it from everything that could possibly do it harm? Love is real. It's our peace, our solace, our pain and our poetry.
======================
I think what I'm trying to say is this: I don't know, either.
That said, I love my children, and my family. I love my partner and my friends. Or.. I think I do. I feel like I do. My world is a better place because I believe that I do.
That's enough for me.
http://ubersite.com/m/36067#601020
FUCK I'M GOOD!!!!
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:20:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
One step further. My brain is doing all the "whoa-oh-oh-ohohoh-oh" right now.
Love is that thing that, when you find it, makes you think it's that thing you didn't find before and now the thing you have a thing for is the thing.
I have no idea.
Shit, wait, I wrote a perfect answer months ago. I'm going googling.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:18:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
FUCK YOU FOR MAKING ME SIT HERE AND BOB MY HEAD BACK AND FORTH!
AAAAAaaaaarrrrRRRRRRRgggggGGGGGGhhhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:16:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by sg11588 (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:15:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
Baby don't hurt me...(Don't act like you weren't thinking the same thing. And I'm not above going for the obvious joke.)
You got me.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:16:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Dude, you had the PERFECT opportunity to post a 'Night at The Roxbury' pic, and you failed.
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:15:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
my rating was going to be:
"baby don't hurt me"
2 steps ahead, my friend
Submitted by sg11588 (user info) at 2005-08-26 14:15:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Baby don't hurt me...(Don't act like you weren't thinking the same thing. And I'm not above going for the obvious joke.)
You got me.