What is love?

[RobinFinderson]

Think about how your notion of 'love' has evolved in your life. The moment a person becomes verbal, and learns the word 'love,' s/he begins to attach meaning to the word based on experience. To be young and in love will typically mean something different than to be old and in love. When I was in high school I fell in love with a girl. She was my first 'romantic love,' and as such my relationship with her did much to define the 'romantic love' relationship that I have with Faith today. Having been married to Faith for three years I thought I knew something about love, but then Little Robin was born, and my whole understanding of the idea began to evolve. Specifically, I began to wonder if there was really a difference between 'romantic love' and the love that I felt for my son. Was there really just one true love, but different ways of interacting with different people? I began to think that 'romantic love' was really just 'love' with a person with whom romantic interactions are appropriate. But in contrast to the desire for physical intimacy that most people associate with 'romantic love,' I feel a similar desire for physical intimacy with my son, but not in a sexual way. I can't keep my hands off of him. I find myself running my fingers through his hair, pulling him close, and when he is asleep, I will sometimes put my hand on his chest just to feel his heart beating. There are friends that I have with whom I feel the same draw for physical intimacy. If it wasn't weird, and if it wouldn't be interpreted as sexual, I would totally hold their hand, pull them close, kiss their face, and in whatever way seemed to come natural, seek physical intimacy as an outward expression of love. That probably sounds nuts, but whatever. Human touch just seems to communicate love so much better than words.

When Christ speaks of 'love' he doesn't seem to break it down into categories. The more I think about it the less inclined I am to break it down into categories myself. It makes me wonder what the world might be like if we were to truly love the other as we do ourselves and our families. One love.

Anyhow, since folks seem to be in sort of a definition mood lately, I would be interested in hearing from others what you think this most basic and complex human experience really is. What is love?

[wuapinmon]

Baby don't hurt me/Baby don't hurt me, no more.

[Katy Lied]

Baby don't hurt me/Baby don't hurt me, no more.

Minimum requirements, no doubt.

[Babs]

Baby don't hurt me/Baby don't hurt me, no more.

ouch. Creek fielding questions about reference sources and wuapinmon on lyric duty. Next thing you know YOhio's going to be posting photos of himself macking on ex-quarterbacks and 71's going to start flirting with falafel, and poor babs will be rendered entirely redundant!

btw, robin, I'm going to have haddaway stuck in my head for a week, so thanks for that.

[Babs]

When Christ speaks of 'love' he doesn't seem to break it down into categories. The more I think about it the less inclined I am to break it down into categories myself. It makes me wonder what the world might be like if we were to truly love the other as we do ourselves and our families. One love.

On the contrary, I think one of the shortcomings of the English language is that we do not differentiate among types of affection. I don't, for example, love pizza the same way I love Flash; nor do I love my closest friends the same way I love my son.

Christ spoke primarily of a deep sacrificial agape love, which I think is what you're trying to get at here, but also spoke of a less intense phileo love; so yes, he did break it down into categories.

[RobinFinderson]

On the contrary, I think one of the shortcomings of the English language is that we do not differentiate among types of affection. I don't, for example, love pizza the same way I love Flash; nor do I love my closest friends the same way I love my son.

Christ spoke primarily of a deep sacrificial agape love, which I think is what you're trying to get at here, but also spoke of a less intense phileo love; so yes, he did break it down into categories.

While I certainly believe that love of pizza is quite different than the love one feels for another person, I'm still interested in entertaining the personal idea that love might be a single thing, and that what really distinguishes one relationship from another is the nature of that relationship. My responsibilities to Faith are different than to a friend. But I'm wondering if it isn't possible to cultivate a one-love construction of love that might bear better fruit.

That is the thing about love. It seems like it is both something deeply ingrained in us, but the social notion of love has also changed pretty dramatically over time. How malleable is it? The greek versions that you mention have served Western thinking people for a very long time, but are there other constructs that might be more natural? And if not more natural, are there constructs that might encourage more civil society?

I would think that to be a good Christian one would have to seek to be full of Christlike love. But what is that?

[UtahDan]

Think about how your notion of 'love' has evolved in your life. The moment a person becomes verbal, and learns the word 'love,' s/he begins to attach meaning to the word based on experience. To be young and in love will typically mean something different than to be old and in love. When I was in high school I fell in love with a girl. She was my first 'romantic love,' and as such my relationship with her did much to define the 'romantic love' relationship that I have with Faith today. Having been married to Faith for three years I thought I knew something about love, but then Little Robin was born, and my whole understanding of the idea began to evolve. Specifically, I began to wonder if there was really a difference between 'romantic love' and the love that I felt for my son. Was there really just one true love, but different ways of interacting with different people? I began to think that 'romantic love' was really just 'love' with a person with whom romantic interactions are appropriate. But in contrast to the desire for physical intimacy that most people associate with 'romantic love,' I feel a similar desire for physical intimacy with my son, but not in a sexual way. I can't keep my hands off of him. I find myself running my fingers through his hair, pulling him close, and when he is asleep, I will sometimes put my hand on his chest just to feel his heart beating. There are friends that I have with whom I feel the same draw for physical intimacy. If it wasn't weird, and if it wouldn't be interpreted as sexual, I would totally hold their hand, pull them close, kiss their face, and in whatever way seemed to come natural, seek physical intimacy as an outward expression of love. That probably sounds nuts, but whatever. Human touch just seems to communicate love so much better than words.

When Christ speaks of 'love' he doesn't seem to break it down into categories. The more I think about it the less inclined I am to break it down into categories myself. It makes me wonder what the world might be like if we were to truly love the other as we do ourselves and our families. One love.

Anyhow, since folks seem to be in sort of a definition mood lately, I would be interested in hearing from others what you think this most basic and complex human experience really is. What is love?

When you love someone, you mix in a few more paragraph breaks, for starters.

I think the Greek speakers are going to jump in and disagree about Jesus taking about a single kind of love. IIRC, in the Greek there are several different forms with different meanings. Now whether Jesus actually used them in the same way, who knows. But I do know that Jesus was revolutionary not in that he taught that you should love your neighbor, the lawyer (scribe) knew the answer to that one when asked as did all Jews at that time; it was in the Torah. But what he told them that blew their minds is that "neighbor" included everyone, which I think does accord with what you are suggesting.

I think love is the desire for the welfare of another (followed by action consistent with that desire) without regard for how that affects ones self. Because we have different realtionships with different people, the appropriate way that will find expression will differ considerably.

[All-American]

On the contrary, I think one of the shortcomings of the English language is that we do not differentiate among types of affection. I don't, for example, love pizza the same way I love Flash; nor do I love my closest friends the same way I love my son.

Christ spoke primarily of a deep sacrificial agape love, which I think is what you're trying to get at here, but also spoke of a less intense phileo love; so yes, he did break it down into categories.

But then you have John 5:20:

ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε.

For the father loves (philei) the son and shows to him all that he does, and will show to him greater works than these, such that you shall marvel.

[Babs]

But then you have John 5:20:

ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε.

For the father loves (philei) the son and shows to him all that he does, and will show to him greater works than these, such that you shall marvel.

Right. I looked them up before I posted. Kind of interesting to see how the different authors employed the two words.

[RobinFinderson]

When you love someone, you mix in a few more paragraph breaks, for starters.

I have a big monitor. It looks more reasonable on a big monitor.

I think the Greek speakers are going to jump in and disagree about Jesus taking about a single kind of love. IIRC, in the Greek there are several different forms with different meanings. Now whether Jesus actually used them in the same way, who knows. But I do know that Jesus was revolutionary not in that he taught that you should love your neighbor, the lawyer (scribe) knew the answer to that one when asked as did all Jews at that time; it was in the Torah. But what he told them that blew their minds is that "neighbor" included everyone, which I think does accord with what you are suggesting.

This is an example of where religion both encourages but also limits thought. The fact that the bible in Greek contains several different examples of the word 'love' seems like an invitation to reflect on the nature of the concept. The fact that the different terms already come with baggage seems to limit the possibility that someone else might have said something more profound about love since the bible was first translated into Greek. I'm more interested at fellow CUFers' personal definitions.

I think love is the desire for the welfare of another (followed by action consistent with that desire) without regard for how that affects ones self. Because we have different realtionships with different people, the appropriate way that will find expression will differ considerably.

This is a nice base definition. I was talking with Faith about a reasonable base definition when we were out shopping for groceries. I tried this: Love is a perfect respect for the other's humanity. Consider that. It isn't all that different than your definition, but mine doesn't necessarily require personal sacrifice for the other. It wouldn't preclude personal sacrifice either. While I would (theoretically) gladly give my life if that were required to save the life of my son, I'm not sure that my love would require such a sacrifice. After all, doesn't my son love me too? And yet if it came down to one of us having to sacrifice self to save the other, I would (theoretically) insist that I make the sacrifice. For me, I would want my son to have a longer lease on life, to enjoy as much as I had the chance to enjoy. While without love I might not be willing to sacrifice in the first place, maybe it is actually a sense of fairness that would inspire my personal (theoretical) sacrifice.

[Rosebud]

Maybe real love is both respecting another's humanity and caring enough to share yourself and to understand him/her in whatever way is most appropriate considering the relationship. Perhaps it's a two-way sharing process that culminates in comprehending and taking care of each other for the mutual satisfaction of both parties. Sex, then, (idealistically) could be an extreme physical expression of this love... but a similar non-sexual sharing of selves could happen between people for whom it is inappropriate or undesirable to express love sexually.

By this definition, Christlike love would have to be about learning to share yourself with and understand others even when they can't or won't return the gestures.

[Babs]

Perhaps it's a two-way sharing process that culminates in comprehending and taking care of each other for the mutual satisfaction of both parties. Sex, then, (idealistically) could be an extreme physical expression of this love... but a similar non-sexual sharing of selves could happen between people for whom it is inappropriate or undesirable to express love sexually.

That seems like an awfully ascetic rendering of sexuality.

[Rosebud]

That seems like an awfully ascetic rendering of sexuality.

Agreed... thus my use of the word "idealistically" and the necessity of understanding that it is given within the context of a discussion about love .

[Babs]

Agreed... thus my use of the word "idealistically" and the necessity of understanding that it is given within the context of a discussion about love .

Did you mean ideally or idealistically?

[Rosebud]

Did you mean ideally or idealistically?

Idealistically.... as in sex could "idealistically" be about this kind of love but "realistically" that isn't often the case. I wasn't even toying with the topic of abstaining from all sex that isn't "ideal" as this is a conversation about love -- not sex.