|
|
Post by Jo on Oct 28, 2011 18:18:54 GMT -5
It's called compassion. It is not the same as love. ^^^ Agreed. That's really just sympathy and compassion. Actually, I agree with Sae. Obviously I don't love this family like I love my family or friends, but I feel for them agape love- love for all other human beings. If I didn't 'love' them, why would I care? But usually the word love isn't used to describe this kind of feeling, which I suppose is why it could be argued that it's not love. I also disagree with the word love not applying to inanimate objects. I love reading. It's something I really enjoy, it gives me hope, it makes me think, it's a crucial part of my life. My feeling towards reading cannot be expressed by just 'like', love is the more accurate term. Love is not a term exclusively for relationships with people. |
|
|
|
Post by ♥ Bre on Oct 29, 2011 3:46:16 GMT -5
Gah, now I feel bad for overusing the word love. =/ Yes, love has lost some of its meaning--in the word-sense. Just because it's common and overused, doesn't mean that the feelings aren't the same.
Even if I say the word love a lot, often I do mean it. I'm quick to form emotional attachments and it's just the way I express myself. But that being said, a lot of people don't mean it. Fake people on Facebook write, "ily" and "love you xoxoxoxoxoxoxo" to people they've only talked to once because they said their picture was nice. Of course, that's not love. It's merely just a way of sucking up to someone rather than writing a real, true-from-the-heart message.
I think hate it also overused. I will often say, I "hate" a song, or homework or food or whatever, when really I don't, it's just easier than expressing my feelings to people that really don't care that much.
Okay, from now on I will try and restrict my usage of the words "love" and "hate." But please, if I do say I love you, then believe it! ^_^
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Oct 29, 2011 4:36:43 GMT -5
I do think the word love can have very powerful strength. Depending on its context.
I often tell my parents I love them, and they often tell me the same. We all sincerely mean it.
If I tell my Mum I love chocolate or a piece of music or something, she doesn't get jealous or imagine that I might love those things more than I love her. It's obvious from the context that this is an exaggerated word for "like".
I would probably have a heartattack of shock if any of the boys I know from uni said out of the blue he loved me. >_>
If I gave my friend a big tray of cupcakes, and she loudly said, "I LOVE YOU MARRY ME," of course I'd know that it's an exaggerated reaction to the cupcakes.
If a friend pulled me aside and started to cry and say "I love you," I'd know that it was something different.
And if someone I barely knew replied to a brief text message with "ily" at the bottom, I wouldn't think about it at all except wonder why the person didn't just type "thx" instead.
If a little boy I was babysitting said "love you" in a forced tone before going to bed or saying goodbye or something, I'd get the point that his parents just taught him to say that.
I think "love" is a word that can support extremely different meanings depending on the context it is spoken in. No one can prescribe when the word can only be used. As listeners we all have to be mindful of the context in which the word has been said, and use that to work out the meaning. I don't think the word "love" is being degraded by being applied to mundane things like chocolate. It still means something special when it's used with intended force.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 4:57:57 GMT -5
To me, it depends on the context.
"I love you", is something I -only- say if it's coming directly from the heart and is very emotional to me. In some cases it can be applied to platonic love as well, but then it's only towards the people I feel deeply connected to.
If I need to use a more platonic or non-romantic version, I simply exclude the 'I' in the sentence.
So if I ever say "Love you guys", it doesn't mean I'm being shallow, it just means that I care, adore and platonically love you guys xD
The one thing I've always felt was a misconception when it comes to 'love', is that a lot of people say that they 'love' someone who is unaware of this and thus unable to return the affection.
Such a thing is called a 'crush'.
Like Sarn said, one cannot truly love inanimate objects. For that matter, one cannot truly love without receiving love. Love is a united feeling by two or more sentient beings.
Which is why the old saying, "You cannot possibly truly love another before you learn to love yourself" is only really true if you add the factor of outside love, such as friends and family.
The reason I always say that I -love- chocolate is because of the powerful feeling behind the word. Liking something is not as powerful as loving, IMO.
A word I think has lost a lot of meaning and power, though... is the word 'sorry'.
|
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Oct 29, 2011 5:47:31 GMT -5
The one thing I've always felt was a misconception when it comes to 'love', is that a lot of people say that they 'love' someone who is unaware of this and thus unable to return the affection. Such a thing is called a 'crush'. I strongly disagree with the idea that love has to be reciprocated to truly be love. "Love is a united feeling by two or more sentient beings." That's a very specific definition of love, and I don't think it's a misconception on other people's part if they don't share it. If someone loves a partner that has fallen out of love with them, I don't think the love they have in their heart is diminished. It's just as strong as it ever was, and just as meaningful. Or, for example, when you read the diary of Anne Frank. You spend so much time with her, learning about her so personally and you feel such strong emotion for her. Sympathy doesn't even begin to describe the feeling. I feel sympathy for all of the victims of the holocaust. But Anne I hold in my heart and I do believe that I can call what I feel for her love. We can love the dead, though they can never return it. I think that you can love an inanimate object. I mean, it's not going to be the same kind of love. It's not going to be as strong. But I still think that it's a real type of love. It would have to be a thing with really powerful emotions tied to it, like a stuffed animal that you cried into whenever your heart was broken. I mean, that's what love is for me. An incredibly deep emotional response. If Sae loves her toy, if she truly believes she does, who am I to say she doesn't? Who am I to say that the strong and wonderful feelings she has for her favorite stuffed animal aren't love? It doesn't lessen anyone else's love if she feels that way. Heck, I have an old wrinkle dog that was with me through my parent's divorce and all sorts of sadness. If I were to lose it I would seriously cry. It's not romantic love, but I think it's still a kind of love. Love doesn't seem to me like the sort of thing that is diminished by sharing it with many, many people. As long as you mean it and back it up with your actions, not just paying it lip service. Also I think that a crush is generally one-sided limerence rather than actual love. :3 Anyway, I don't think it's a word that is losing or has lost it's meaning because, like Pac says, human beings understand intent and context. I know when you say you love oysters that you just mean "oh man, oysters are delicious and it makes me really happy to eat them". Just like I know my sister or my boyfriend don't just love me like they would a favorite movie: because their actions enforce the strength of their words. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 6:16:03 GMT -5
The one thing I've always felt was a misconception when it comes to 'love', is that a lot of people say that they 'love' someone who is unaware of this and thus unable to return the affection. Such a thing is called a 'crush'. I strongly disagree with the idea that love has to be reciprocated to truly be love. "Love is a united feeling by two or more sentient beings." That's a very specific definition of love, and I don't think it's a misconception on other people's part if they don't share it. If someone loves a partner that has fallen out of love with them, I don't think the love they have in their heart is diminished. It's just as strong as it ever was, and just as meaningful. Or, for example, when you read the diary of Anne Frank. You spend so much time with her, learning about her so personally and you feel such strong emotion for her. Sympathy doesn't even begin to describe the feeling. I feel sympathy for all of the victims of the holocaust. But Anne I hold in my heart and I do believe that I can call what I feel for her love. We can love the dead, though they can never return it. I think that you can love an inanimate object. I mean, it's not going to be the same kind of love. It's not going to be as strong. But I still think that it's a real type of love. It would have to be a thing with really powerful emotions tied to it, like a stuffed animal that you cried into whenever your heart was broken. I mean, that's what love is for me. An incredibly deep emotional response. If Sae loves her toy, if she truly believes she does, who am I to say she doesn't? Who am I to say that the strong and wonderful feelings she has for her favorite stuffed animal aren't love? It doesn't lessen anyone else's love if she feels that way. Heck, I have an old wrinkle dog that was with me through my parent's divorce and all sorts of sadness. If I were to lose it I would seriously cry. It's not romantic love, but I think it's still a kind of love. Love doesn't seem to me like the sort of thing that is diminished by sharing it with many, many people. As long as you mean it and back it up with your actions, not just paying it lip service. Also I think that a crush is generally one-sided limerence rather than actual love. :3 Anyway, I don't think it's a word that is losing or has lost it's meaning because, like Pac says, human beings understand intent and context. I know when you say you love oysters that you just mean "oh man, oysters are delicious and it makes me really happy to eat them". Just like I know my sister or my boyfriend don't just love me like they would a favorite movie: because their actions enforce the strength of their words. *nod* I hear you. But I still believe that true love needs more than one part to be true. If not, then it's just platonic love, or a crush... to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Enn on Oct 29, 2011 6:29:10 GMT -5
There are lots of definitions of love.
'True' love is a silly term, because it seems to just be another way of saying romantic love, but trying to make other kinds (love for family, love for friends, love for activities or objects) lesser in some way.
To many people the love of friends would be a huge deal more important than the love of a romantic partner- some people don't ever want a romantic partner, after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 6:35:51 GMT -5
There are lots of definitions of love. 'True' love is a silly term, because it seems to just be another way of saying romantic love, but trying to make other kinds (love for family, love for friends, love for activities or objects) lesser in some way. To many people the love of friends would be a huge deal more important than the love of a romantic partner- some people don't ever want a romantic partner, after all. I actually agree with that, Nick. I've never been a fan of the word 'platonic' love. But I'm just so used to people using that term and 'true love' to define the two, that I used those in my attempt to not get misunderstood xD But yeah. The love of a friend can be just as true as the love of a partner. I just can't say 'I love you' to a friend unless it's really really close friend. And even so, I think I would probably only say it in writing. ... and I would never say it in Danish. Because... well... in Danish it's just... I dunnow. Personal? Emotional? What Ginz said xD |
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Oct 29, 2011 9:22:15 GMT -5
Well, it's kind of like... there's family love. Which is not always recipocrated, unfortunately.  A man might do heinous things and might be a terribly misanthrophobic person who hates society, but he can still be loved by his mother. A person might have a falling out with a friend which was a huge misunderstanding on his end, never speaking to that person again, but the friend who might be completely selfless and perhaps even orchestrated the misunderstanding to prevent the person from finding out the awful horrible truth (too much soap operas for me methinks) can still have platonic love. There's a reason the term unrequisited love exists, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Oct 29, 2011 11:03:26 GMT -5
I do think the word love can have very powerful strength. Depending on its context. I often tell my parents I love them, and they often tell me the same. We all sincerely mean it. If I tell my Mum I love chocolate or a piece of music or something, she doesn't get jealous or imagine that I might love those things more than I love her. It's obvious from the context that this is an exaggerated word for "like". I would probably have a heartattack of shock if any of the boys I know from uni said out of the blue he loved me. >_> If I gave my friend a big tray of cupcakes, and she loudly said, "I LOVE YOU MARRY ME," of course I'd know that it's an exaggerated reaction to the cupcakes. If a friend pulled me aside and started to cry and say "I love you," I'd know that it was something different. And if someone I barely knew replied to a brief text message with "ily" at the bottom, I wouldn't think about it at all except wonder why the person didn't just type "thx" instead. If a little boy I was babysitting said "love you" in a forced tone before going to bed or saying goodbye or something, I'd get the point that his parents just taught him to say that. I think "love" is a word that can support extremely different meanings depending on the context it is spoken in. No one can prescribe when the word can only be used. As listeners we all have to be mindful of the context in which the word has been said, and use that to work out the meaning. I don't think the word "love" is being degraded by being applied to mundane things like chocolate. It still means something special when it's used with intended force. I am very much with you here. <3 Thank you for saying everything I had to say (so that I didn't have to type it all out and probably not have it come out as wonderfully anyway.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Zylaa on Oct 29, 2011 12:23:17 GMT -5
I second Crystal in thanking Pacmanite for saying everything I wanted to say. <3
Love can be used in any number of situations, with any degree of meaning, sometimes casually sometimes not. I'd heard it innumerable times and places in my life before a guy said "I love you" in the traditional way. And that was (is still) the best feeling in the world, and hearing my friends say "I loved that song" in no way diminishes the deepest use of "love."
I do personally try and limit my use of "love" with friends-- I reserve it for family and the guy I love. I'll respond "love you too" when one of my friends says they love me, in the usual manner friends have, but I'm not one to tell a friend "Love you!" out of the blue.
There's lots of different gradients of love, in short, and I don't think that fact diminishes the most profound use. ^_^
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2011 17:59:39 GMT -5
The one thing I've always felt was a misconception when it comes to 'love', is that a lot of people say that they 'love' someone who is unaware of this and thus unable to return the affection. Such a thing is called a 'crush'. I strongly disagree with the idea that love has to be reciprocated to truly be love. "Love is a united feeling by two or more sentient beings." That's a very specific definition of love, and I don't think it's a misconception on other people's part if they don't share it. If someone loves a partner that has fallen out of love with them, I don't think the love they have in their heart is diminished. It's just as strong as it ever was, and just as meaningful. Or, for example, when you read the diary of Anne Frank. You spend so much time with her, learning about her so personally and you feel such strong emotion for her. Sympathy doesn't even begin to describe the feeling. I feel sympathy for all of the victims of the holocaust. But Anne I hold in my heart and I do believe that I can call what I feel for her love. We can love the dead, though they can never return it. I think that you can love an inanimate object. I mean, it's not going to be the same kind of love. It's not going to be as strong. But I still think that it's a real type of love. It would have to be a thing with really powerful emotions tied to it, like a stuffed animal that you cried into whenever your heart was broken. I mean, that's what love is for me. An incredibly deep emotional response. If Sae loves her toy, if she truly believes she does, who am I to say she doesn't? Who am I to say that the strong and wonderful feelings she has for her favorite stuffed animal aren't love? It doesn't lessen anyone else's love if she feels that way. Heck, I have an old wrinkle dog that was with me through my parent's divorce and all sorts of sadness. If I were to lose it I would seriously cry. It's not romantic love, but I think it's still a kind of love. Love doesn't seem to me like the sort of thing that is diminished by sharing it with many, many people. As long as you mean it and back it up with your actions, not just paying it lip service. Also I think that a crush is generally one-sided limerence rather than actual love. :3 Anyway, I don't think it's a word that is losing or has lost it's meaning because, like Pac says, human beings understand intent and context. I know when you say you love oysters that you just mean "oh man, oysters are delicious and it makes me really happy to eat them". Just like I know my sister or my boyfriend don't just love me like they would a favorite movie: because their actions enforce the strength of their words. You make really good points, actually. And you're right. I guess I always think of love as reserved for special people. I'm not a very sentimental person - I have a few inanimate objects I prize very highly, but not nearly as highly as I prize any of my friends or family members, and so I guess I kind of feel uncomfortable using the same word to describe my feelings for those objects as I use to describe my feelings for my boyfriend or my mother. I suppose people's personal definitions will also be shaped by what and who they're able to love, too. Jo made a really good point about reading that I hadn't really thought of, and Pac said wonderfully that love is understood in different ways. S'long as we understand what kind of love is being talked about, I suppose the word can be used as widely as people want. I still would prefer for me not to use it so freely, though, but that's my personal choice. Kind of makes me wish I spoke one of those languages with multiple words for the one English 'love'.  |
|
A man might do heinous things and might be a terribly misanthrophobic person who hates society, but he can still be loved by his mother. A person might have a falling out with a friend which was a huge misunderstanding on his end, never speaking to that person again, but the friend who might be completely selfless and perhaps even orchestrated the misunderstanding to prevent the person from finding out the awful horrible truth (too much soap operas for me methinks) can still have platonic love.
Furgo 
Michael. 
)
