Post by Pez on Feb 6, 2009 0:06:17 GMT -6
I did a lot of thinking tonight, and I think I'm starting to get a firmer grasp on the idea of love. Romantic love, family love, friendly love, et cetera et cetera all stem from several key points that can be identified in a relationship with someone, whether that relationship be "serious" or "simple".
To put out in the open my exact thoughts on love: Love, in its rawest and purest form, is complete and unadulterated care for another human being. Whether this be between friends, between family, between significant others, between a pet and its master, love can be present. There is a line at a point in time that, when crossed, signifies the difference between enjoying a person's company and caring for that person. However, this feeling is not one commonly associated with "In Love". You see, the tricky little preposition "in" changes the entire meaning of the phrase, but that is later. In my opinion, the easiest way to firmly explain love is to explain its antonym: Apathy.
Apathy is the complete and utter lack of care. People commonly associate Hate as the antonym of love, but hate is, in my opinion, not the antonym. If Love were the protagonist in a story, Hate would be its antagonist. However, as any person with a knowledge of literature can tell you, the antagonist is not necessarily the exact opposite of the protagonist. Often that is the job of the Foil, which is a non-major character that is an opposing, contrasting force that brings out the characteristics of the protagonist that would otherwise go unnoticed or undeveloped. Apathy is, in this case, the antonym of Love. It contrasts so heavily with the idea of unadulterated caring that it shows how odd the act of love can be.
What is the difference between "In Love" and "Love", then?
Being in love with someone and loving someone are separate in one crucial way: "In Love" is often a selfish conclusion. For instance, if you are "in love" with someone, you may be infatuated to the point that you are willing to bite the bullet for them because "you couldn't bear to live a day without them." The implication is that you do not believe that you could live without that person in your life. Loving someone, however, would mean biting the bullet because you don't want that person to die. Not because you are worried that you may live a day without them, but because you are worried that they might not live for another day. This example can show the difference because dying for your S.O. while "In love" is often a selfish motive, while dying for your S.O. because you "love them" is often a non-selfish motive. Essentially, self-sacrifice and metaphorical martyrdom are a self-perpetuating aspect of love. If you love someone, you'll sacrifice some of yourself for them. As you continue to love the person, you will continue the self-sacrifice because you are caring not for yourself, but for them. This, however, is not healthy because it is self-destructive in nature.
On the other side of the coin we have "In Love", with its selfish implications. You can often pin a number of common relationship scenarios with the "In Love" label. Jealousy, protectiveness, admiration, even worship are all things that may coincide. Being "In Love" is the attraction to another person, and it nearly always comes before the act of loving a person because the infatuation draws you to the person. However, the pure idolization of someone is unhealthy in that you can become subservient and passive.
In a completely different direction we also have the sexual attraction, which if left unchecked can lead to a dominant position as opposed to a passive position. A relationship built on sexual attraction often puts the "man" in the dominant position because he cares not for the feelings of the other party, but instead on the physical release offered by sexual intercourse. It is based less on attraction to a person and more on attraction to a person's outward appearance. These are your one-night-stands and F.W.B. relationships.
In my honest opinion, Love is not any one of these things alone. The act of loving is martyrdom for a reason not deserving of ultimate sacrifice; pure attraction and idolization via "In Love" can promote unhealthy idolization and maybe even stalking under extreme cases; Sexual attraction is outright use of the partner to satisfy one's own needs. Romantic love is a healthy balance of these three, where one cares for another and may even be willing to die for them, but it does not involve over-sacrifice. It also involves admiring a person for who they are and what their positive traits are, but not in a way that becomes worship. Romantic love also demands sexual attraction for a physical relationship to be formed. If it were a recipe, I'd think of romantic love to be four cups of "The action of love", two cups of "In Love", and three tablespoons of sexual attraction. Mixed together and let brew over a period of time to let ferment and grow until it reaches its perfect form, then pulled away until it is a glorious monument of emotion.
In essence, Love is exactly as what it is often described: Willing to die for someone, feeling butterflies in your stomach, "Wanting to tap dat ass", etc. The thing is that we often overlook the big picture and focus on only one aspect. For love to prosper it needs a three-way equilibrium between different chemicals of varying potencies, and unless that balance is reached then it isn't really love at all, just a hollow charade masking something far less important or beautiful.
Love, however, is not the pyramid of negativity that I make it out to be. Sure, each section has its downfalls, but the fact of the matter is these are only in extreme cases. Love as a feeling is never the same between different people because there is always a different balance. Its like a constantly changing chemical equation where the subscript-exponents for each element never change by the coefficients never stay the same. The end result is always different, but the definition is the same. Ignoring the nerdy digression, its still plain to see that romantic love is a combination of three parts that, when combined, create a wonderful whole.
"Love" shows that you care for someone, which is unique in itself. Being "In Love", albeit pseudo-selfish, shows that you honor someone enough to cherish them. "Sexual Attraction" is just pure primal lust, but it also illustrates initial attraction as well as what nature intends. These portions are like people: They each have their appealing sides and their offputting sides.
At the same, everything I've listed above is meaningless. In the time it takes you to analyze love you open a door for doubt, which can imbalance the formula and cause second-guessings in areas where they do not belong. This has been my downfall in the past; Love is this, love is that, etc. occupied my mind well into the morning.
Instead of focusing on what Love is, I think its high time the world focuses on practicing it. Who's with me? Less analysis and more proactiveness!
To put out in the open my exact thoughts on love: Love, in its rawest and purest form, is complete and unadulterated care for another human being. Whether this be between friends, between family, between significant others, between a pet and its master, love can be present. There is a line at a point in time that, when crossed, signifies the difference between enjoying a person's company and caring for that person. However, this feeling is not one commonly associated with "In Love". You see, the tricky little preposition "in" changes the entire meaning of the phrase, but that is later. In my opinion, the easiest way to firmly explain love is to explain its antonym: Apathy.
Apathy is the complete and utter lack of care. People commonly associate Hate as the antonym of love, but hate is, in my opinion, not the antonym. If Love were the protagonist in a story, Hate would be its antagonist. However, as any person with a knowledge of literature can tell you, the antagonist is not necessarily the exact opposite of the protagonist. Often that is the job of the Foil, which is a non-major character that is an opposing, contrasting force that brings out the characteristics of the protagonist that would otherwise go unnoticed or undeveloped. Apathy is, in this case, the antonym of Love. It contrasts so heavily with the idea of unadulterated caring that it shows how odd the act of love can be.
What is the difference between "In Love" and "Love", then?
Being in love with someone and loving someone are separate in one crucial way: "In Love" is often a selfish conclusion. For instance, if you are "in love" with someone, you may be infatuated to the point that you are willing to bite the bullet for them because "you couldn't bear to live a day without them." The implication is that you do not believe that you could live without that person in your life. Loving someone, however, would mean biting the bullet because you don't want that person to die. Not because you are worried that you may live a day without them, but because you are worried that they might not live for another day. This example can show the difference because dying for your S.O. while "In love" is often a selfish motive, while dying for your S.O. because you "love them" is often a non-selfish motive. Essentially, self-sacrifice and metaphorical martyrdom are a self-perpetuating aspect of love. If you love someone, you'll sacrifice some of yourself for them. As you continue to love the person, you will continue the self-sacrifice because you are caring not for yourself, but for them. This, however, is not healthy because it is self-destructive in nature.
On the other side of the coin we have "In Love", with its selfish implications. You can often pin a number of common relationship scenarios with the "In Love" label. Jealousy, protectiveness, admiration, even worship are all things that may coincide. Being "In Love" is the attraction to another person, and it nearly always comes before the act of loving a person because the infatuation draws you to the person. However, the pure idolization of someone is unhealthy in that you can become subservient and passive.
In a completely different direction we also have the sexual attraction, which if left unchecked can lead to a dominant position as opposed to a passive position. A relationship built on sexual attraction often puts the "man" in the dominant position because he cares not for the feelings of the other party, but instead on the physical release offered by sexual intercourse. It is based less on attraction to a person and more on attraction to a person's outward appearance. These are your one-night-stands and F.W.B. relationships.
In my honest opinion, Love is not any one of these things alone. The act of loving is martyrdom for a reason not deserving of ultimate sacrifice; pure attraction and idolization via "In Love" can promote unhealthy idolization and maybe even stalking under extreme cases; Sexual attraction is outright use of the partner to satisfy one's own needs. Romantic love is a healthy balance of these three, where one cares for another and may even be willing to die for them, but it does not involve over-sacrifice. It also involves admiring a person for who they are and what their positive traits are, but not in a way that becomes worship. Romantic love also demands sexual attraction for a physical relationship to be formed. If it were a recipe, I'd think of romantic love to be four cups of "The action of love", two cups of "In Love", and three tablespoons of sexual attraction. Mixed together and let brew over a period of time to let ferment and grow until it reaches its perfect form, then pulled away until it is a glorious monument of emotion.
In essence, Love is exactly as what it is often described: Willing to die for someone, feeling butterflies in your stomach, "Wanting to tap dat ass", etc. The thing is that we often overlook the big picture and focus on only one aspect. For love to prosper it needs a three-way equilibrium between different chemicals of varying potencies, and unless that balance is reached then it isn't really love at all, just a hollow charade masking something far less important or beautiful.
Love, however, is not the pyramid of negativity that I make it out to be. Sure, each section has its downfalls, but the fact of the matter is these are only in extreme cases. Love as a feeling is never the same between different people because there is always a different balance. Its like a constantly changing chemical equation where the subscript-exponents for each element never change by the coefficients never stay the same. The end result is always different, but the definition is the same. Ignoring the nerdy digression, its still plain to see that romantic love is a combination of three parts that, when combined, create a wonderful whole.
"Love" shows that you care for someone, which is unique in itself. Being "In Love", albeit pseudo-selfish, shows that you honor someone enough to cherish them. "Sexual Attraction" is just pure primal lust, but it also illustrates initial attraction as well as what nature intends. These portions are like people: They each have their appealing sides and their offputting sides.
At the same, everything I've listed above is meaningless. In the time it takes you to analyze love you open a door for doubt, which can imbalance the formula and cause second-guessings in areas where they do not belong. This has been my downfall in the past; Love is this, love is that, etc. occupied my mind well into the morning.
Instead of focusing on what Love is, I think its high time the world focuses on practicing it. Who's with me? Less analysis and more proactiveness!