Jareena Faye Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 maybe it's not a counter, but adding to what you already said, Jareena. I see your point. I still hold that giving up your life is the biggest thing, though... I mean, giving your life is giving *everything*. By staying alive, you get something out of it, too. Yours is much better when it comes to suicide, however. Suicide is really just selfish, if you ask me, and that's not what I was referring to. So in a sense we're both right. It depends on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peredhil Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Ducks in and sees all the responses. Wow, if Random is a Troll, they're a very effective one. Let me see if I'm gonna have time to amplify my previous response. Like Elvina, I tend to break "love" into subcategories. In programming terms, "love" would be considered an overloaded operator. It has multiple values and meanings depending on context. I kinda view "love" like what I've been told of the Eskimo's view of "snow". I'm told they have twenty-two words for "snow" where we in English have one. Love is like that. Primary categories are pretty well represented in various words throughout the thread, so I basically agree with all of you. Yes, you're all right. The traditional Greek words from the Hebrew/Christian Bible(HCB) work for me as primary category labels, just to start. I use them as an acronym when signing off to close friends, to wit: AP-E, which means, Agapeo, Phileo, but no Eros. In English, that would be, "I love you, I love you, but I don't love you." Agape is the unconditional love, like an FM radio tower. It goes out to all, and the receipt pretty much depends on the receiver. Some may be turned on, some may not be quite tuned in, some may get the entire signal at times and not receive at all at other times. But the love is there. I'll note that this type of love tends to manifest in people as an intellectual choice to act in a "loving" manner. It seeks what is best for all in the situation, present and future. That definition precludes the "Christian Doormat" syndrome, because being a doormat isn't best for the doormat, or the person acting as shoe - it rewards selfishness. As an intellectual choice, a decision, it isn't based on selfishness, situation, or feeling at the time - and it isn't based on the "worthiness" of the receiver. The thought word or deed is thought spoken or done because it is the right thing to do, regardless of the good/bad status of either party. Doing best for someone. I'll note that having someone lovingly tell you the truth, or lovingly cutting off supplies and resources to force a decision of money for drugs or children, sometimes doesn't feel good to the receiver. But this type of love takes the long view, and seeks to give the choice for growth and consequences. Consequences, feedback for life - now there's a whole other conversation. I may love someone who jumped off the bridge, I may forgive them for jumping with my teddy bear, but they and my teddy are still going to have consequences of the choice, regardless of my love or forgiveness. Plunging into another primary category, Philos. The love of one person for another based on experience and perceived value. As a transactional love, it seeks some type of equality over time - you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It manages resources - don't give to that person, they'll just misuse or waste it. It has memory - they took advantage of me the last two times, so I'll modify my responses. The payoffs can be bartered - someone may give money and be paid off with the response of respect or gratitude, but there is always a value exchanged. If you follow the HCB, this is the highest love available without some sort of spiritual interaction - which makes it more impressive in a way. A mother may give her life for the value of a child's potential future. A friend might die for another, knowing their memory would be held and cherished for the action. In the exchange of Jesus and Peter, we see both Agape and Philos referenced. For those who need a reminder, Jesus asks Peter, "Do you agapeo me?". Peter responds with the best a body-and-soul man has to offer, "Lord, you know I phileo you." This repeats. On the third go around, Jesus switches and asks, "Do you phileo me?" and Peter weeps as he responds for the third time with the third answer - Jesus has come down to his level. Without the translation, it just looks silly - Do you love me? Yup I love you. Do you love me? Yup I love you. Do you love me? and he cries in frustration at the pointless repetition. The third broad category, Eros, is desire. The focus is on having a desire met. Whether sexual (pardon my joke in my first post), pride, monetary, hunger of any type - there is a desire. It can be worked out transactionally where both parties meet each other's desires (the socially correct form of this "love", seen in movies, on TV, or heard in songs of burning passion), or it can be a "use" where one party takes to get their own desire met, and the other has no choice (rape - which I've been told by the Educated usually isn't about sex at all, but a warp of self-identity manifesting through dominance, and hatred). While I'm putting rape into the technical definition of this love here, I realize that many will emotionally reject that the word could be shared between an expression of violence and hatred, and an expression of merging and passion. But I'm dealing in this thread with the request for definition. Morality is another thread. Speaking of morality, as to sex and sin, I'll repeat my caveat of Eros stated earlier - it's perfectly fine in its place and priority. "Marriage is honorable in all, and the marriage bed undefiled." It's amazing to me that Satan is so successful, since God made everything of benefit and sin is so often based on misuse or incorrect priortization. But that's a different topic. Have to get back to work. I guess I'll check back in another week or so. Be Polite, debate words and ideas, not people and their worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaeha Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Do you love me? Yup I love you. Do you love me? Yup I love you. Do you love me? and he cries in frustration at the pointless repetition. Reminds me of the Belgariad... but it is funny to watch a couple of people writing out my views on something without any prompt from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solivagus Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 giving your life is giving *everything*.Doesn't that rather depend on whether you consider your life to be of any value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenproletariat Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Love is when you are by someone, no matter what. Be it a barfight, an (important to them) argument where you know the person you love is wrong, etc etc. If you're with them through "thich and thin" or however its said. Same definition for comradery(sp?) and true friendship....though both those two are forms of love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regel Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 Is it so complicated? It's a very powerful emotion. Love is something you feel. What does it feel like? Well there is the difficult part. I have loved many people but I haven't had sex with many. How sex always gets involved with these discussions is always difficult for me to understand. For even in romantic love the having is never as urgent or as powerful as the wanting. Love is something that defines strict rules. Do I have to respect you to love you? No I can cite examples where I love a person I no longer respect. Can you love a person that doesn't love you back? Absolutely! Love is usually something you associated with joy and happiness but not always. There are many examples of love sick men and women who aren't happy. Love has been decribed as many things. Love is blind. Love is a drug. Love is a battlefield. Love is a burnig ring of fire. It can be all of those things and yet different for everyone. What the object of your love is what ultimately defines a person. A child, your wife, your brother, your dog or cat they all are pieces of a large puzzle. Do I have to deserve a persons love for them to give it? I thank God that the answer to that question is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareena Faye Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 Doesn't that rather depend on whether you consider your life to be of any value? Yep, which is why I said it kind of depends. We both have points, speaking about different situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaeha Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 Heh... my inner cynic comes out: Love is a drug. More of a poison. Sort of like arsenic. It tends to drive you insane before it kills you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenproletariat Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 I love Pizza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Portrait of Zool Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius. --Mozart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts