I was inspired to open a thread dealing with this question by a statement I read here on RHP in some thread.
This is the quote:
"Love is an emotion. It has nothing to do with free will."
I was intrigued by this statement. What do you think ?
Is loving somebody the same as being in love with somebody ? Isn't love too much associated with the physical variant of love, sex ?
What is love ? Hasn't it got anything to do with free will ? Is love just an emotion or is it more ? An attitude maybe?
What are your thoughts on this issue ?
An instinct, necessary for the survival of our species.Because it is an instinct not originating through conscious thought proccess it is termed a feeling.Of course the need for sex is intervined strongly with it.Though it is not just sex ,it is caring for the other person and protecting him/her from physical, emotional issues.You can see where it fits in into the survival of species.It is hardwired into the system in such a way that your brain centre experiences pleasure when either you are 'loved 'are you 'love 'someone.The survival instinct doesnt encourage isolation from other Humans .A person deprived of love for a long time will soon become desperate for love or affection from other humans and more importantly of the opposite sex.
Loving somebody is not the same as being in an emotional state, although various emotional states tend to come along with loving somebody. When you love somebody, you thereby have an enduring state of character which, as it were, goes "all the way down"; the lover's character is transformed by virtue of loving. Loving somebody involves seeing the beloved as an end to be promoted, and many of the idiosyncratic projects of the beloved take on import because they are the beloved's projects. To the lover, the beloved becomes a source of reasons, and these reasons are essentially 'other-regarding', in that they are not purely or even mostly reasons of self-interest. The lover develops dispositions of trust, compassion, generosity, humility when it comes to dealing with the beloved. In essence, the lover and the beloved cease to operate as purely independent entities. In fact, although each retains their sense of identity, both begin to see themselves as constitutive of something greater. They form a new entity, a 'we', of which they are both parts.
Originally posted by ivanhoelove is blind
I was inspired to open a thread dealing with this question by a statement I read here on RHP in some thread.
This is the quote:
"Love is an emotion. It has nothing to do with free will."
I was intrigued by this statement. What do you think ?
Is loving somebody the same as being in love with somebody ? Isn't love too much associated with the ...[text shortened]... ove just an emotion or is it more ? An attitude maybe?
What are your thoughts on this issue ?
love is fickle
therefore three fickle mice ran after the farmers wife
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by shavixmirI disagree with you. Would you associate rape with love? I would say rape has everything to do with lust and nothing to do with love. I cannot understand your concept of love.
Are you talking to me?
If so, I'm pretty sure that I'm spot on about love. Lust is just an extremer form of love.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Here is what I believe true love to be:
"Love is very patient and kind, never jealous or envious, never boastful or proud, never hauty or selfish or rude. Love does not demand its own way. It is not irritable or touchy. It does not hold grudges and will hardly even notice when others do wrong. It is never glad obout injustice, but rejoices whenever truth wins its way. If you love somebody you will be true to the person no matter what the cost. You will always believe in the person, and always expect the best for the person, and always stand your ground to defend the person. This love endures forever."
Reality, truth, is not to be recognized. For truth to come, belief, knowledge, experiencing, virtue, pursuit of virtue - which is different from being virtuous- all this must go. The virtuous person who is conscious of pursuing virtue can never find reality. He may be a very decent person; that is entirely different from the man of truth, from the man who understands. To the man of truth, truth has come into being. A virtuous man is a righteous man, and a righteous man can never understand what is truth; because virtue to him is the covering of the self, the strengthening of the self; because he is pursuing virtue. When he says `I must be without greed', the state in which he is non-greedy and which he experiences, strengthens the self. That is why it is so important to be poor, not only in the things of the world, but also in belief and in knowledge. A man rich with worldly riches, or a man rich in knowledge and belief, will never know anything but darkness, and will be the center of all mischief and misery. But if you and I, as individuals, can see this whole working of the self, then we shall know what love is. I assure you that is the only reformation which can possibly change the world. Love is not the self. Self cannot recognize love. You say "I love," but then, in the very saying of it, in the very experiencing of it, love is not. But, when you know love, self is not. When there is love, self is not.
Jkrishnamurti
1 John 3:15-17
15 Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.
16 THIS IS HOW WE KNOW WHAT LOVE IS: JESUS CHRIST LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?