Talk:Love/Archive 2

message: ===Scientific views===
Throughout history, predominately, philosophy and religion have speculated the most into the phenomena of love.  In the last century, the science of psychology has written a great deal on the subject.  Recently, however, the sciences of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology, neuroscience, and biology have begun to take center stage in discussion as to the nature and function of love.
Biological models of sex tend to see it as a mammalian drive, just like hunger or thirst. Psychology sees love as more of a social and cultural phenomenon. There are probably elements of truth in both views — certainly love is influenced by hormones (such as oxytocin) and pheromones, and how people think and behave in love is influenced by one’s conceptions of love.  Hence, from time immortal, science, from naturalistic poetry to MRI neurochemistry, has since debated over the nature of love.
===Cultural views===
Although there exist numerous cross-cultural unified similarities as to the nature and definition of love, as in there being a thread of commitment, tenderness, and passion common to all human existence, there are differences.  For example, in India, with arranged marriages commonplace, it is believed that love is not a necessary ingredient in the initial stages of marriage – it is something that can be created during the marriage; whereas in the United States, by comparison, love is seen as a necessary prerequisite to marriage.
===Religious views===
Whether religious love can be expressed in similar terms to interpersonal love is a matter for philosophical debate. Religious 'love' might be considered a euphemistic term, more closely describing feelings of deference or acquiescence. Most religions use the term love to express the devotion the follower has to their deity, who may be a living guru or religious teacher. This love can be expressed by prayer, service, good deeds, and personal sacrifice. Reciprocally, the followers may believe that the deity loves the followers and all of creation. Some traditions encourage the development of passionate love in the believer for the deity.
*Does anyone object to this move?  Wikipedia articles are certain to grow in the future; hence, it is advisable to be proactive in this progression.  Leave your comments here, i.e. if you agree or disagree with this move.  If we all agree (predominately) I will make the move shortly:--Sadi Carnot 14:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., I've waited a day, there doesn't seem to be any objections; so I'm going to begin to move the three main parts (science, cultural, religious) of the article to their own pages.  If anyone has any major objections we can always revert.--Sadi Carnot 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move completed!  The four separate articles seem to be more workable now.--Sadi Carnot 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Edited just to capitalize the links. Good move, in my opinion. Nice work ;)--Hawkian 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split page

message: Whether religious love can be expressed in similar terms to interpersonal love is a matter for philosophical debate. Religious 'love' might be considered a euphemistic term, more closely describing feelings of deference or acquiescence. Most religions use the term love to express the devotion the follower has to their deity, who may be a living guru or religious teacher. This love can be expressed by prayer, service, good deeds, and personal sacrifice. Reciprocally, the followers may believe that the deity loves the followers and all of creation. Some traditions encourage the development of passionate love in the believer for the deity.
*Does anyone object to this move?  Wikipedia articles are certain to grow in the future; hence, it is advisable to be proactive in this progression.  Leave your comments here, i.e. if you agree or disagree with this move.  If we all agree (predominately) I will make the move shortly:--Sadi Carnot 14:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., I've waited a day, there doesn't seem to be any objections; so I'm going to begin to move the three main parts (science, cultural, religious) of the article to their own pages.  If anyone has any major objections we can always revert.--Sadi Carnot 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move completed!  The four separate articles seem to be more workable now.--Sadi Carnot 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Edited just to capitalize the links. Good move, in my opinion. Nice work ;)--Hawkian 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious views

message: No one can ever talk about love. All I can say is that it is something best described between two people. The overwhelming feeling that people can feel is beyond anything. No person can or ever will figure it out. It's the greatest feeling that one can ever have.
Your heart beats, your blood boils and all you want to do is grab the one you love and hold on to them for the rest of time.Faith to you all. - Anon [03/19/06]
* Uh, amen. --Hawkian 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Information is shared between two people to create a bond, if you will, a relationship of harmonious intertwining data.  
--Tapsell 13:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love 

message: I've removed the more or less unattributed "Ryan" quotes from the pages, as that stuff had no encyclopaedic relevance, really. This is not the best place to gush about your partner, as it happens...Snowgrouse 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That Ryan stuff 

message: The following two sentences are incorrect:
::The views that love does not exist or is indefinable may underlie the fact that approximately 13 percent of cultures have no word for love. [1] [2] The remaining 87 percent attempt to define this abstract concept and apply it to everyday life.
I have obtained and read both references; A Natural History Of Love by Diane Ackerman, and A Cross-Cultural Perspective On Romantic Love by Jankowiak, and Fischer.  Neither reference supports the above statement.  Ackerman limits her own discussion to Europe, Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, the Middle Ages, and Modern Days.  She makes no claim to speak about other cultures.
The point of the Jankowiak and Fischer paper is to falsify the hypothesis of an affectionless past, the idea that romantic love, eros, or passionate affection is a recent phenomenon, or limited to wealthy countries which support leisure.  They survey ethnographic works and find that approximately 88.5% of these do evince such a concept.  They never state that the remaining 11.5% lack the concept of romantic love, much less a word for love.  Indeed, they state:
::These cultures are coded 'romatic love not present.'  Nonetheless, we believe that these negative cases arise from ethnographic oversight rather than any set of cultural norms that prevent an individual from experiencing romantic affecttion
Because neither of the cites supports the statement that certain cultures have no word for love, I have removed the two relevant sentences.
LeoHeska 05:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultures lacking a word for love

message: May I ask why "Rape" appears in the list of close relationships to love?  It would be hard to think of something with less of a relationship to love than rape.-Sarfa 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Close Relationships project

message: The article is now 38 kilobytes. The limit is 32 (see: article size).  Studies show that online reading is straining past 10 pages (printed), after which the typical reader will stop reading or quit, because of his ADD.  I propose doing mini-articles (with links to main) for each of the three main sections of the article.  We would leave the introduction the same (with some clean-up), then do the three main sections as follows (with some clean-up of course)
:I did something similar with the Monogamy article and the Attachment theory article. The monogamy articles were all new and represented a complete revision of the old article. Many of the attachment theory articles were already written and just needed a home so readers could easily find them. (Kelly 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

message: Love then Peace, You can not have Peace without Love.--68.216.187.39 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. The Moon is a far more peaceful place than the Earth but there is no love on the Moon. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That is because there are no humans on the Moon.--68.216.187.23 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The moon peaceful?  Peace is a scentient experience; if nobody is at a place to experience peace, then it only exist in thought.  It also depends on how one defines peace.  Is it merely being in the flow of harmony?
True, peace comes from love; love for the self, love for the moment and love for others in the specific circumstances.
You don't have to love somebody to be at peace with him. You don't even have to love anybody at all to be at peace with other people. --Mr. Orange 62.168.125.219 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love 

message: I am a Wikipedia novice who doesn't know how to use the talk feature, but I'm quite certain the Old English for "love" didn't come from the Sanskrit, but rather both descended from some common ancestor. This can be looked up on the american heritage dictionary of indo-european roots. -- Wikipedia novice.
:I am sure that you are right, novice. Please feel free to make the article more accurate. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to own header section per readibility of intro.--Sadi Carnot 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: I can't find the book "soulsongs" on amazon?  Or a link to "Sevi Regis", referring to the recently added insert?  I like the insert, but we need a source.  Can anyone help find this?--Sadi Carnot 18:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. A quotation that long may be a copyright violation. Also, I don't think it belongs in an overview. FreplySpang (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soulsongs? 

message: Love has several different meanings in the English language, from something that gives a little pleasure ("I loved that meal") to something that one would die for (patriotism, pair-bonding). 
I suggest that example "I loved that meal" uses the word as metaphor and should not be given as an example of the meaning (maybe mention it later under examples). SnakeSwordWings 11:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love 

message: Not as a troll or anything like that, but this article is pretty wack.  The definition of love on this page reminds me of that Star Trek episode where Kirk asks the Enterprise's computer to define love and it shorts out.  The intro to this article is confusing, haphazard, and uninformative.  Can something be done?  Where's the love?
RiseAbove 08:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF??

message: I came back to ck on definition and also read (a bit quickly) through the discussion page.
I'm probably going to leave this alone (maybe...) but, it seems we are missing some of the fundamental definition of love.
The definition I found talked about attraction, passion, etc., but no inclusion of what one could feel for, say, a child. Come on, folks! Does it seem that we can start off with a definition of love at the top of the page that would not give a clue about the feelings of love one might have for a child, a close friend, etc.?
:(It may not be clear from our article but Sternberg's triangular model would state that normal parental love for a child consists of a strong commitment component and an intimacy (ie friendship) component which might be anything from weak to strong.) -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of love 

message: ::Friedrich Nietzsche's charge that love is merely an ideology constructed by the weak to mask "resentment" about their lack of power
-um, what? Hanshans23 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! Nice to see someone such as yourself around here! Aey 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nietzsche

message: love is what us human beings live for; it is an array of emotions all mixed up together in a large jumble; you can begin to unravel the jumble but nobody has every accoplished this, nobody has showed us the right way to interpret love but, perhaps we all have our own ideas, our own definitions of love. it cannot be described outside of ourselfs, and that is a distinct part of love that makes it so special.
-- (love) Kat McKenzie
Unconditional Love is to Infatuation as Instantanious Love is to Lust.
It's very loaded; something to be thought about.
What is it that draws one in? What is it that keeps one around? It's really case-by-case, you sort of just have to "know" you love someone. Might need to step back and examine the feelings, the bonds, the experiences. Love is an amazing thing, albeit a terribly confusing one. And I'm quite aware love is all just chemical, but I still like to believe in magic.24.159.49.7 11:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can love be described inside our heads. 

message: Someone should get rid of the sexual box. There should be paragraphs on different perceptions of love, such as Homosexual, Bisexual, etc. --66.218.18.237 03:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual 

message: With regard to the opening sentence - "Love is a profound feeling of tender affection for or intense attraction to another." - Perhaps this should be changed to "Love is a profound feeling of tender affection and an intense attraction to another" - This way it cannot be confused with limerence. Any thoughts? - SolitaryWolf 05:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Discussion 

message: Sex is lust and not love. It is humans giving in to their primitive animal urges and as long as one lusts, they can never love, assuming there even is such a thing. Masturbating, viewing pornography and sex are all lust, and are sin. Sex is ONLY for procreating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.172.220 (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed. But, someone can still be sexually attracted to the person they love without it being lustfull. UnDeRsCoRe 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...The love may not be lustful, but the sexual attraction part of it is. Maybe this could be clarified? 64.231.97.54 04:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I made a mistake with my wording, you could be in "love" (as in your both sexually attracted and emotionaly) but if you just want to have sex, that's lustfull. I'm not trying to shower my morals on things, since I'm basically open others opinions. Sorry if I didn't state that. And i know this was for discussing the article, I just wanted to set 81.159.172.220, who started the discusion, straight about it. Or were you reffering to their comment and not mine? My mistake if you were. UnDeRsCoRe 15:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex is lust, not love 

message: :Category:Freedom
:Why? That category is redundant, I'm going to request it for deleation. UnDeRsCoRe 19:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh man, is nothing sacred any more? You'd throw away our (Category) Freedom just like that - not even in the pursuit of greater security, but in the name of merely avoiding redundancy? Fie, I say! -- Oolong 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please put Love in the category: Freedom 

message: Please clarify this sentence, or at least make it less ugly: This diverse range of meanings in a single word is commonly contrasted with the plurality of Greek words for Love, reflecting the word's versatility and complexity.. Rintrah 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence

message: It's easy to happen that someone loves his or her best friend. If to choose to tell the best friend that you love him or her, maybe he or she will accept your love, your relationship from friendship to lover. But maybe he or she would refused, and you may break up even can't be friends anymore. 
How can I choose? Emilyou 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the distance between friendship and love?