Jump to content

Talk:Love: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=B|importance=top}}
{{core topic|class=B}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Philosophy|ethics=yes|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=top}}
}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{censored}}


{{Online source|year=2008
Archived '04-(Feb)'06 '''talk-pages''':
|section=
*[[Talk:Love/Archive1]]
|author=Caitlin Moran
----
|title=Wikipedia's limitless knowledge means unlimited fun
==Love only between 2 people?==
|org=''[[The Times]]''
I was just wondering what people thought about the possibility of love being between 3 or 4 people. Assuming romantic love is formed exclusively between a couple is problematic when thinking of functioning threesomes etc. What do people think? .-[[User:Nadiamontague|Nadiamontague]]
|date=22 December 2008
|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article5371572.ece?however they will really bring love to each other }}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/The_University_of_Alabama/Truth,_Ethics,_and_Deception_(Spring_2022) | assignments = [[User:Epalasek|Epalasek]] | start_date = 2022-01-13 | end_date = 2022-04-29 }}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
I recently saw a man give a lecture on this. What it basically came down to is that love is exclusive to one person, but sexuality, which is very much chemically seperate, is satisfiable by virtually anyone.
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-25">25 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-01">1 December 2021</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/American_University_of_Beirut/English_203_(Fall_2021)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Larissa Ismail|Larissa Ismail]].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 00:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}}
==Cultures lacking a word for love==
The following two sentences are incorrect:


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
::''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.''
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-08-27">27 August 2018</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-12-17">17 December 2018</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/NYCCT/Introduction_to_Psychology_(Fall2018)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:S.glo1|S.glo1]], [[User:Jameilla|Jameilla]].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 02:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
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.
== 'Love' doesn't exist ==


Could someone add to this article that 'love' doesn't actually exist, it's a biochemical and bioelectrical reaction in the brain, doesn't exist outside the brain, cannot be seen touched, tasted or smelled, and has no energy signature indicating actual presence, is used as a excuse to feed off of others (and when the feeder no longer experiences endophin release the 'love' disapears) and that studies that have found the above to be true? It's frustrating to come here looking for facts on the exploitive act of 'love' and find only further continuation of the lies taught to us as children (we all learn santa doesn't exist, but 'love' is utilized to manipulate and use others, they get dopamine, vasopressin etc, so no one bothers to point out to our young that they're beliving false data derived from people that weren't aware of brain chemistry or how the brain works.) I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how, and have little time. A section on the fallacy of love and the actual biochemical causes of such aberant behaviour is needed, this article is FAR too unbalanced towards the side of fallacy and deception. Thank you! [[Special:Contributions/2001:569:BC3F:FB00:44A3:157:6789:CDCC|2001:569:BC3F:FB00:44A3:157:6789:CDCC]] ([[User talk:2001:569:BC3F:FB00:44A3:157:6789:CDCC|talk]]) 09:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
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:
:"doesn't exist outside the brain". Prove that ANYTHING exists outside the brain. All that you have ever experienced is just biochemical and bioelectrical reactions in the brain. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
::Can you prove that you exist outside that doobie? [[Special:Contributions/75.80.179.156|75.80.179.156]] ([[User talk:75.80.179.156|talk]]) 08:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:This is the most Wikipedian/chronically online thing I've ever heard anyone say. - [[User:25eanglin|25eanglin]] ([[User talk:25eanglin|talk]]) 17:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020 ==
::''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''


{{edit semi-protected|Love|answered=yes}}
Because neither of the cites supports the statement that certain cultures have no word for love, I have removed the two relevant sentences.
words that can be said to people to show your love is normally 'I love you' [[User:Aannonnyymmoouuss|Aannonnyymmoouuss]] ([[User talk:Aannonnyymmoouuss|talk]]) 06:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
[[User:LeoHeska|LeoHeska]] 05:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:Not necessary to mention. – '''[[User:Þjarkur|Thjarkur]]''' [[User talk:Þjarkur|(talk)]] 10:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2020 (2) ==
==Close Relationships project==
{{Close Relationships project}}


{{edit semi-protected|Love|answered=yes}}
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.-[[User:Sarfa|Sarfa]] 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Under Persian view - second paragraph


Aziz Nasafi, a famous Muslim mystic from Central Asia and Iran, wrote the “Epistle on Love” (Risala fi’l ‘Ishq) in his work The Book of the Perfect Man (Kitab Insan al-Kamil). In the epistle he describes love as an emotion that is fostered in an individual for the beloved through four stages. These four stages are inclination (mayl), desire (iradat), affection (mahabbat) and love (‘ishq). He explains that these four stages lead the lover on a journey through which his love for his beloved progressively strengthens, until he becomes completely immersed in the beloved and the beloved becomes a part of him.
== Split proposal ==
The article is now 38 kilobytes. The limit is 32 (see: [[Wikipedia:Article size|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)


Under Islam (in Religious views) - last paragraph
: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. ([[User:Kc62301|Kelly]] 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC))


Aziz Nasafi, a famous Muslim mystic from Central Asia and Iran, wrote the “Epistle on Love” (Risala fi’l Ishq) in his work, The Book of the Perfect Man (Kitab Insan al-Kamil). In the epistle he draws parallels between love and the remembrance of God. He explains that both love and remembrance have four stages. These four stages are inclination (mayl), desire (iradat), affection (mahabbat) and love (‘ishq). He explains that these four stages lead the lover on a journey through which his love for his beloved progressively strengthens, until he becomes completely immersed in the beloved and the beloved becomes a part of him. Similarly, a ‘rememberer’ (of God) progresses through the stages until God becomes predominant in his heart.
===Scientific views===
{{main|love (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.


Reference: Virani, Shafique N. “The Dear One of Nasaf: Azīz Nasafī’s ‘Epistle on Love’.” In Iran and the Caucasus 13, no. 2 (2009): 311-317 [[User:AreebaQ|AreebaQ]] ([[User talk:AreebaQ|talk]]) 13:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
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 &mdash; certainly love is influenced by [[hormone]]s (such as [[oxytocin]]) and [[pheromone]]s, and how people think and behave in love is influenced by one’s conceptions of love. Hence, from time immortal, science, from [[nature|naturalistic]] [[poetry]] to [[MRI]] [[neurochemistry]], has since debated over the nature of love.


:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' - this is a general article about love, not for biographies of specific people - there is no Wikipedia articles on Aziz Nasafi - if he is notable ([[Wikipedia:Notability (people)]]) perhaps one could be created and his bio presented there - [[User:Epinoia|Epinoia]] ([[User talk:Epinoia|talk]]) 14:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC) - [[User:Epinoia|Epinoia]] ([[User talk:Epinoia|talk]]) 14:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
===Cultural views===
{{main|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.


== The Caravaggio image in the Christianity subsection - inappropriate ==
===Religious views===
{{main|love (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.


I was shocked to find, in the Christianity subsection, the image shown, together with this caption:
“Sacred and Profane Love (1602–03) by Giovanni Baglione. Intended as an attack on his hated enemy the artist Caravaggio, it shows a boy (hinting at Caravaggio's homosexuality) on one side, a devil with Caravaggio's face on the other, and between an angel representing pure, meaning non-erotic, love.[50]”
Questions:


1. Whyever should a painting which was apparently “intended as an attack on his hated enemy” be selected as an image to illustrate Love? This is just plain wrong.
*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:--[[User:Sadi Carnot|Sadi Carnot]] 14:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
: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.--[[User:Sadi Carnot|Sadi Carnot]] 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::Move completed! The four separate articles seem to be more workable now.--[[User:Sadi Carnot|Sadi Carnot]] 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::*Edited just to capitalize the links. Good move, in my opinion. Nice work ;)--[[User:Hawkian|Hawkian]] 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*How about a section about 'the connection between love and death'?--JJMan 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


2. “It shows a boy (hinting at Caravaggio’s homosexuality)...” Eh? Was the writer of the caption being deliberately disruptive? Why should the idea of the boy suggest homosexuality? If it’s hinting at anything sexual, then it’s pederasty. The two are not the same. The mismatch of meanings adds to confusion for any reader, as well as being misleading, and therefore contributes further to the argument that the image is inappropriate.
== Love ==


3. Christian love is all about sacred love. It is not about profane love. Therefore, the image is entirely inappropriate.
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.


Look, the image shouldn’t be there, and I’d delete it now, but so as not to ruffle feathers, I’ll wait three days.
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.<br>Faith to you all. - [[Anon]] [03/19/06]
There isn’t a necessity for me to find a much better replacement, it simply has to go. It’s insertion there is offensive. [[User:Boscaswell|<span style="color: green">Boscaswell</span>]] [[User talk:Boscaswell|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]] 00:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


::There having been no indications of any contrasting opinions, I have deleted the image. [[User:Boscaswell|<span style="color: green">Boscaswell</span>]] [[User talk:Boscaswell|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]] 23:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
* Uh, amen. --[[User:Hawkian|Hawkian]] 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021 ==
* Please take no offense, but I would kindly ask you to explain, if you realy believe that no one can ever talk about love, why do you do it? --[[User:SnakeSwordWings|SnakeSwordWings]] 11:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Love''' is the experience of a familiarity contradicted by a striking glimpse of the unknown.
:''Information'' is shared between two people to create a '''bond''', if you will, a relationship of harmonious intertwining ''data''.
--[[User:Tapsell|Tapsell]] 13:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)JEREMY 0100 nzt 26-05-06. (all my own opinion)


{{edit semi-protected|Love|answered=yes}}
What Anon said is true, Love is the greatest feeling one can ever have. It can cause both positive feelings and negative. Love is a strong urge and emotion, not as much to have something, but to give something. I believe that when your IN LOVE it is a different feeling then to love. Love in itself has many meanings, but when you are in love you find one person whom you love with your everything and who seems so perfect in your mind and heart that you have no attraction physically, mentally or emotionally to another person in a romantic sense. This means you will believe this person you are in love with is the most beautiful and most wonderful person to be around. Being in love makes us blind to inperfections and everything seems to be okay when that one person is around. People often confuse love with obsession. Obsession is a desire to have someone or something for yourself because it would make you happy, and to be in love is to desire to give someone something and often everything because you wish to make them happy. By experience, when you are in love, you can love so much that it hurts, especially when the feelings are unrequited, but still you will be thankful that you are in love with the wonderful person and somewhere, even if deep down, you will be happy this person even exists because such simplicity and small formed thoughts of them bring you the greatest joy and strongest emotions you could possibly feel. (The previous is all based upon my own bias and opinion.)
Love is a dagger. Its a weapon to be wielded far away or up close. You can see yourself in it. It's beautiful. Until it make you bleed. But ultimately, when you reach for it... It isn't real. Yeah.
--[[User:AnJole.Love|AnJole.Love]] 9:03 A.M., 24 July 2006 (UTC)


<ref> Loki </ref> [[User:Thisisnotourlasthunt|Thisisnotourlasthunt]] ([[User talk:Thisisnotourlasthunt|talk]]) 06:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
'The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy has this to say on the subject of love : Avoid if at all possible!" '
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Living Concrete|Living Concrete]] ([[User talk:Living Concrete|talk]]) 07:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
== That Ryan stuff ==


== Indian love ==
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...[[User:Snowgrouse|Snowgrouse]] 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


The first sentence of the Indian section of Cultural Views is unfinished. I’m not qualified to fix it but someone should take a look at it I think. [[User:SuperNova422|SuperNova422]] ([[User talk:SuperNova422|talk]]) 14:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
== Love ==


== Extensive Substantiation Needed ==
Love then Peace, You can not have Peace without Love.--68.216.187.39 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


There's a lot in this article that's stated rather blithely and I doubt could be objectively justified. Examples include
:Not at all. The Moon is a far more peaceful place than the Earth but there is no love on the Moon. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross|Talk]] 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive
<s>:That is because there are no humans on the Moon.--68.216.187.23 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)<s>
: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?


Why? What is the evidence for love in mammals generally? The evidence for an absence of love in non-mammals? Evidence say, that iguanas, or sparrows or cockroaches don't love each other?
True, peace comes from love; love for the self, love for the moment and love for others in the specific circumstances.


And ...
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''' [[User:62.168.125.219|62.168.125.219]] 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Interpersonal love between a male and a female is considered to provide an evolutionary adaptive benefit since it facilitates mating and sexual reproduction
I'd say that if you have love then you don't have peace, love is turbulent. -- Anon


You think? It's commonly cited as propitious in terms of caring for the [defenceless] child, but I would submit only lust is [optionally] required to facilitate mating. I submit sexual desire is altogether separate from the concept of love. A case of correlation, not causation. Love may 'cultivate' and 'facilitate' sex, but it's patently not a requirement of sexual reproduction. Not least the sexual reproduction of plants. Or do plants need love to sexually reproduce too? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/122.151.210.84|122.151.210.84]] ([[User talk:122.151.210.84#top|talk]]) 13:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I say Anon makes sense. Still, even within the turbulence love and briong a sense of "peace of mind" because you will experience joy at the person you love's mere existance. In my mind peace is a matter of opinion because we all have a different idea of what would be peaceful.(P.S. There could be humans on the moon for all we know.)--[[User:AnJole.Love|AnJole.Love]] 9:08 A.M., 24 July 2006 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022 ==
The Marquis De Sade hit it right on, you cannot have love without hate, peace without war, happiness without misery. By his thoughts, love would be the polar opposite of hate. (which could also be argued as an "abstraction".) In order to truely define "love" you need to be able to define "hate" as well. If you don't, then love is just an abstraction and nothing more. Any emotion has to be measured against it's opposite, that would be the only way I can think of to articulate it.


{{edit semi-protected|Love|answered=yes}}
==Etymology==
"Further Reading":
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. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross|Talk]] 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Claude-Hélène Mayer, Elisabeth Vanderheiden: ''International Handbook of Love''. Springer Nature Switzerland 2021; ISBN 978-3-030-45995-6. [[User:Kreativität und Intelligenz|Kreativität und Intelligenz]] ([[User talk:Kreativität und Intelligenz|talk]]) 07:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
::Moved to own header section per readibility of intro.--[[User:Sadi Carnot|Sadi Carnot]] 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> This comment doesn't explain why the addition would be suitable for the further reading section. [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 23:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023 ==
== Soulsongs? ==
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?--[[User:Sadi Carnot|Sadi Carnot]] 18:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
: I've removed it. A quotation that long may be a copyright violation. Also, I don't think it belongs in an overview. [[User:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] [[User talk:FreplySpang|(talk)]] 20:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Love|answered=yes}}
== Love ==
[[User:Thegoldengander|Thegoldengander]] ([[User talk:Thegoldengander|talk]]) 07:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


When you fall in love do not fantasise it, though it feels good in the moment if the person breaks your heart it is a lot harder to let go when you have fantasised it.
'''Love''' has several different meanings in the [[English (language)|English]] language, from something that gives a little pleasure ("I loved that meal") to something that one would die for ([[patriotism]], [[pair-bonding]]).
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Lightoil|Lightoil]] ([[User talk:Lightoil|talk]]) 09:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


== Cafuné leads to a band ==
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). [[User:SnakeSwordWings|SnakeSwordWings]] 11:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Please fix the redirect to the actual definition of the word [[Special:Contributions/99.72.221.195|99.72.221.195]] ([[User talk:99.72.221.195|talk]]) 13:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
==Online definitions of love versus this article's definition==
:{{done}} As compared to the other words, this does not have an independent article. Did find a redirect to [[:Physical intimacy]] of it, so added that as a target.--[[User:Loriendrew|<span style="color: #005000;">☾Loriendrew☽</span>]] [[User talk:Loriendrew|<span style="color: #000080;">☏''(ring-ring)''</span>]] 14:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The definition used in this article "Love is the desire for the wellness of a being" seems like a doctor's definition for health. This definition seems far from the definitions dictionaries use. I see a tightening up of this definition and the intro paragraph as they seem far from the genuine usages of love as seen below. To base a definition on colloquial polls is absurd...I suggest a glance at Esquire Magazine's NOV 05 article entitled ''Greetings from Idiot America'' to understand why.
Top Web Results for "love"
7 entries found for love.
love ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lv)
n.
A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

Sexual passion.
Sexual intercourse.
A love affair.
An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.

A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.
often Love Christianity. Charity.
Sports. A zero score in tennis.

v. loved, lov·ing, loves
v. tr.
To have a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward (a person): We love our parents. I love my friends.
To have a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward (a person).
To have an intense emotional attachment to: loves his house.

To embrace or caress.
To have sexual intercourse with.
To like or desire enthusiastically: loves swimming.
Theology. To have charity for.
To thrive on; need: The cactus loves hot, dry air.

v. intr.
To experience deep affection or intense desire for another.

Idioms:
for love
Out of compassion; with no thought for a reward: She volunteers at the hospital for love.
for love or money
Under any circumstances. Usually used in negative sentences: I would not do that for love or money.
for the love of
For the sake of; in consideration for: did it all for the love of praise.
in love
Deeply or passionately enamored: a young couple in love.
Highly or immoderately fond: in love with Japanese painting; in love with the sound of her own voice.
no love lost
No affection; animosity: There's no love lost between them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old English lufu. See leubh- in Indo-European Roots.]
Synonyms: love, affection, devotion, fondness, infatuation
These nouns denote feelings of warm personal attachment or strong attraction to another person. Love is the most intense: marrying for love. Affection is a less ardent and more unvarying feeling of tender regard: parental affection. Devotion is earnest, affectionate dedication and implies selflessness: teachers admired for their devotion to children. Fondness is strong liking or affection: a fondness for small animals. Infatuation is foolish or extravagant attraction, often of short duration: lovers blinded to their differences by their mutual infatuation.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

love

In addition to the idioms beginning with love, also see all's fair in love and war; course of true love; fall in love; for the love of; labor of love; make love; misery loves company; no love lost; not for love or money; puppy love; somebody up there loves me.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

love

n 1: a strong positive emotion of regard and affection; "his love for his work"; "children need a lot of love" [ant: hate] 2: any object of warm affection or devotion; "the theater was her first love" or "he has a passion for cock fighting"; [syn: passion] 3: a beloved person; used as terms of endearment [syn: beloved, dear, dearest, loved one, honey] 4: a deep feeling of sexual desire and attraction; "their love left them indifferent to their surroundings"; "she was his first love" 5: a score of zero in tennis or squash; "it was 40 love" 6: sexual activities (often including sexual intercourse) between two people; "his lovemaking disgusted her"; "he hadn't had any love in months"; "he has a very complicated love life" [syn: sexual love, lovemaking, making love, love life] v 1: have a great affection or liking for; "I love French food"; "She loves her boss and works hard for him" [ant: hate] 2: get pleasure from; "I love cooking" [syn: enjoy] 3: be enamored or in love with; "She loves her husband deeply" 4: have sexual intercourse with; "This student sleeps with everyone in her dorm"; "Adam knew Eve"; "Were you ever intimate with this man?" [syn: roll in the hay, make out, make love, sleep with, get laid, have sex, know, do it, be intimate, have intercourse, have it away, have it off, screw, fuck, jazz, eff, hump, lie with, bed, have a go at it, bang, get it on, bonk]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

love

What many users feel for computers.

"I don't really love computers, I just say that to get them
into bed with me". (Terry Pratchet)

[What did you expect in a computing dictionary?]

Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2005 Denis Howe

love

This word seems to require explanation only in the case of its use by our Lord
in his interview with "Simon, the son of Jonas," after his resurrection (John
21:16, 17). When our Lord says, "Lovest thou me?" he uses the Greek word
_agapas_; and when Simon answers, he uses the Greek word _philo_, i.e., "I
love." This is the usage in the first and second questions put by our Lord; but
in the third our Lord uses Simon's word. The distinction between these two Greek
words is thus fitly described by Trench:, "_Agapan_ has more of judgment and
deliberate choice; _philein_ has more of attachment and peculiar personal
affection. Thus the 'Lovest thou' (Gr. agapas) on the lips of the Lord seems to
Peter at this moment too cold a word, as though his Lord were keeping him at a
distance, or at least not inviting him to draw near, as in the passionate
yearning of his heart he desired now to do. Therefore he puts by the word and
substitutes his own stronger 'I love' (Gr. philo) in its room. A second time he
does the same. And now he has conquered; for when the Lord demands a third time
whether he loves him, he does it in the word which alone will satisfy Peter
('Lovest thou,' Gr. phileis), which alone claims from him that personal
attachment and affection with which indeed he knows that his heart is full." In
1 Cor. 13 the apostle sets forth the excellency of love, as the word "charity"
there is rendered in the Revised Version.
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

love

LOVE: in Acronym Finder

Source: Acronym Finder, © 1988-2004 Mountain Data Systems

love

love: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary

Source: On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB

==WTF??==
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?
[[User:RiseAbove|RiseAbove]] 08:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

== definition of love ==

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.) -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross|Talk]] 16:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In italian, we the main verb for love is a phrase: "volere bene a..." Translated literally it means: "to want good for someone." Ponder on the concept. leaving that concepts out has me baffled beyond expression,

So, without getting into a beef about the whole definition (at the top), for now I at least included the word "care" and left it at that.

Definitions are tricky. The point is not to sound this way or that way. The point is: how would you best describe it as if to someone who has no idea what the word means? Let's reflect.

[[User:Passaggio|Passaggio]] 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

==User Love Headlines==

I noticed that this page had been editted to say "Love. Nathan and Melinda" at the top. Some would call this vandalism, but honestly, I think it should be allowed as long as it doesn't get out of control with people changing information on the page that prevents others from learning. I changed it to say my name and my fiance's name and someone sent me a message saying "Please don't do that." I appreciate the tone in which the message was sent, and I understand why the message was sent. But honestly for the definition of love, why not allow users to post their two names on the page? Then someone else can erase it and put their name there. And so on and so forth. Is that not the most accurate definition of love anyone could ask for? Hundreds, Thousands, Millions of people every day (or minute), posting their two names on the site in a constant show of love for one another. I don't think that wikipedia could have a more perfect definition of love, personally. Just a thought.

[[User:69.135.184.135|69.135.184.135]] 14:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

:If my fiance was cheap enough to spend twenty seconds writing "Love. Nathan and Melinda" on the Wikipedia, the Taj Mahal or the Mona Lisa, I'd ditch the loser fast. Vandalism is not romantic. Just a thought. -- [[User:204.209.24.2|204.209.24.2]] 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:_Pros_and_Cons_
:*Wikipedia seeks to involve people in the effort '''vs.''' Wikipedia seeks to be a reliable source akin to the [[Britannica]]
:*This concept gives "[[Love]]" vandals an accepted outlet '''vs.''' the "[[Love]]" page has had a very bad time with vandalism, why encourage them?
:*No vandalism should be condoned in our encyclopedia '''vs.''' the above idea could be nice acceptation to the rule (even automated into Wiki)
:*This a great way to shout your love to the world wide web '''vs.''' There are better ways of doing ''just'' that!
:
:A better way to shout your love to the world wide web might be to register the domain name NathanLovesMelinda.org. Post some great graphics and love poems, and publicize the site to your hearts content. My [[two cents]]' worth. -- [[User:Charles Gaudette|Charles Gaudette]] 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

==Nietzsche==
::''Friedrich Nietzsche's charge that love is merely an ideology constructed by the weak to mask "resentment" about their lack of power''

-um, what? [[User:Hanshans23|Hanshans23]] 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

you wouldn't know, you aren't cool enough, n00b [[User:205.188.117.14|205.188.117.14]] 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The comment about Nietzsche in the first paragraph is completely wrong. As a former chairman of the Warwick Nietzsche Society, I can state that Nietzsche praised the French knighthood for spiritualising 'love'. Furthermore, 'ressentiment' did not foster love but rather self-hatred, quite the opposite (see Genealogy of Morals).

Pete Hughes MA {{unsigned|212.69.223.191}}

I have thus removed relevant paragraph. Also, self-interest is not, on a close reading, a Nietzschean belief as such (as was stated). {{unsigned|212.69.223.191}}

:Good! Nice to see someone such as yourself around here! [[User:Aey|Aey]] 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

== Love is subjective ==

So, everybody is looking for the meaning of love. I can tell you that since the beginning people are trying to define it and that's what life is all about! Keep looking for it and you'll find your own definition. What matters most is that love is giving and receiving good feelings and if that makes most people happy then the world would be a better place to live.


SPINOZA and love


In a discussion of emotions, of love and hate in particular, Spinoza's definitions are worthy of consideration. He thinks love is "pleasure attached to teh idea of an external cause" and tha hate is "pain attached to the idea of an external cause". ALthough a detailed discussion of these definitions is best done through an analysis of Spinoza, it is worth noting that these definitions explain all the ways we use the terms in languange. The different kinds of love then depend on different causes and degrees.

== Can love be described inside our heads. ==
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.<br>

It's very loaded; something to be thought about.<br>
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.[[User:24.159.49.7|24.159.49.7]] 11:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

== Sexual ==

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


== Love and sacrifice ==
Whatever the definition it seems to me that in ever case it is like air, we don’t know its there until the wind blows. And so it is with love, the true test is sacrifice, and the depth of love can only be measured by the willingness to make sacrifice. It is the willingness to make personal sacrifices for another that distinguishes love from lust.
Not that a sexual relationship cannot deepen into love, but sexual gratification is not in itself love.

Another important feature of courting and the love that is engendered by this activity is that it often involves a suspension of reality of the object of the love. The negative points of the character are often “romanticised” or rationalized by seeing these as “good” or positive points. This phase is also marked by an intense desire to be together.

== Further Discussion ==
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? - [[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 05:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In addition people differ in their attitude to how "love" is demonstrated, so it is possible that "love" shown by one is not recognized as "love" by the other - sometimes, in fact, the reverse.
Is love shown by gifts? Or is love shown by self-sacrifice of ones own comfortable position, by puting oneself into uncomfortable or perilious position for the other, or foregoing ones own desires and needs to the benefit of the other? This may raise moral issues as to a personal debt owed as a result, but this may or may not be love returned - the test is the degree of self sacrifice!

== Types, Free Love ==
'''Free love''' – sexual relations according to choice and unrestricted by marriage, '''or cultural norms and values'''.

Latest revision as of 20:27, 31 December 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Epalasek (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Larissa Ismail.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S.glo1, Jameilla.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Love' doesn't exist

[edit]

Could someone add to this article that 'love' doesn't actually exist, it's a biochemical and bioelectrical reaction in the brain, doesn't exist outside the brain, cannot be seen touched, tasted or smelled, and has no energy signature indicating actual presence, is used as a excuse to feed off of others (and when the feeder no longer experiences endophin release the 'love' disapears) and that studies that have found the above to be true? It's frustrating to come here looking for facts on the exploitive act of 'love' and find only further continuation of the lies taught to us as children (we all learn santa doesn't exist, but 'love' is utilized to manipulate and use others, they get dopamine, vasopressin etc, so no one bothers to point out to our young that they're beliving false data derived from people that weren't aware of brain chemistry or how the brain works.) I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how, and have little time. A section on the fallacy of love and the actual biochemical causes of such aberant behaviour is needed, this article is FAR too unbalanced towards the side of fallacy and deception. Thank you! 2001:569:BC3F:FB00:44A3:157:6789:CDCC (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"doesn't exist outside the brain". Prove that ANYTHING exists outside the brain. All that you have ever experienced is just biochemical and bioelectrical reactions in the brain. --Khajidha (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that you exist outside that doobie? 75.80.179.156 (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most Wikipedian/chronically online thing I've ever heard anyone say. - 25eanglin (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

[edit]

words that can be said to people to show your love is normally 'I love you' Aannonnyymmoouuss (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary to mention. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2020 (2)

[edit]

Under Persian view - second paragraph

Aziz Nasafi, a famous Muslim mystic from Central Asia and Iran, wrote the “Epistle on Love” (Risala fi’l ‘Ishq) in his work The Book of the Perfect Man (Kitab Insan al-Kamil). In the epistle he describes love as an emotion that is fostered in an individual for the beloved through four stages. These four stages are inclination (mayl), desire (iradat), affection (mahabbat) and love (‘ishq). He explains that these four stages lead the lover on a journey through which his love for his beloved progressively strengthens, until he becomes completely immersed in the beloved and the beloved becomes a part of him.

Under Islam (in Religious views) - last paragraph

Aziz Nasafi, a famous Muslim mystic from Central Asia and Iran, wrote the “Epistle on Love” (Risala fi’l Ishq) in his work, The Book of the Perfect Man (Kitab Insan al-Kamil). In the epistle he draws parallels between love and the remembrance of God. He explains that both love and remembrance have four stages. These four stages are inclination (mayl), desire (iradat), affection (mahabbat) and love (‘ishq). He explains that these four stages lead the lover on a journey through which his love for his beloved progressively strengthens, until he becomes completely immersed in the beloved and the beloved becomes a part of him. Similarly, a ‘rememberer’ (of God) progresses through the stages until God becomes predominant in his heart.

Reference: Virani, Shafique N. “The Dear One of Nasaf: Azīz Nasafī’s ‘Epistle on Love’.” In Iran and the Caucasus 13, no. 2 (2009): 311-317 AreebaQ (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: - this is a general article about love, not for biographies of specific people - there is no Wikipedia articles on Aziz Nasafi - if he is notable (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) perhaps one could be created and his bio presented there - Epinoia (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC) - Epinoia (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Caravaggio image in the Christianity subsection - inappropriate

[edit]

I was shocked to find, in the Christianity subsection, the image shown, together with this caption: “Sacred and Profane Love (1602–03) by Giovanni Baglione. Intended as an attack on his hated enemy the artist Caravaggio, it shows a boy (hinting at Caravaggio's homosexuality) on one side, a devil with Caravaggio's face on the other, and between an angel representing pure, meaning non-erotic, love.[50]” Questions:

1. Whyever should a painting which was apparently “intended as an attack on his hated enemy” be selected as an image to illustrate Love? This is just plain wrong.

2. “It shows a boy (hinting at Caravaggio’s homosexuality)...” Eh? Was the writer of the caption being deliberately disruptive? Why should the idea of the boy suggest homosexuality? If it’s hinting at anything sexual, then it’s pederasty. The two are not the same. The mismatch of meanings adds to confusion for any reader, as well as being misleading, and therefore contributes further to the argument that the image is inappropriate.

3. Christian love is all about sacred love. It is not about profane love. Therefore, the image is entirely inappropriate.

Look, the image shouldn’t be there, and I’d delete it now, but so as not to ruffle feathers, I’ll wait three days. There isn’t a necessity for me to find a much better replacement, it simply has to go. It’s insertion there is offensive. Boscaswell talk 00:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There having been no indications of any contrasting opinions, I have deleted the image. Boscaswell talk 23:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

[edit]

Love is a dagger. Its a weapon to be wielded far away or up close. You can see yourself in it. It's beautiful. Until it make you bleed. But ultimately, when you reach for it... It isn't real. Yeah.

[1] Thisisnotourlasthunt (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Living Concrete (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Loki

Indian love

[edit]

The first sentence of the Indian section of Cultural Views is unfinished. I’m not qualified to fix it but someone should take a look at it I think. SuperNova422 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive Substantiation Needed

[edit]

There's a lot in this article that's stated rather blithely and I doubt could be objectively justified. Examples include

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive

Why? What is the evidence for love in mammals generally? The evidence for an absence of love in non-mammals? Evidence say, that iguanas, or sparrows or cockroaches don't love each other?

And ...

Interpersonal love between a male and a female is considered to provide an evolutionary adaptive benefit since it facilitates mating and sexual reproduction

You think? It's commonly cited as propitious in terms of caring for the [defenceless] child, but I would submit only lust is [optionally] required to facilitate mating. I submit sexual desire is altogether separate from the concept of love. A case of correlation, not causation. Love may 'cultivate' and 'facilitate' sex, but it's patently not a requirement of sexual reproduction. Not least the sexual reproduction of plants. Or do plants need love to sexually reproduce too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

[edit]

"Further Reading":

Claude-Hélène Mayer, Elisabeth Vanderheiden: International Handbook of Love. Springer Nature Switzerland 2021; ISBN 978-3-030-45995-6. Kreativität und Intelligenz (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This comment doesn't explain why the addition would be suitable for the further reading section. Aoidh (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023

[edit]
Thegoldengander (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you fall in love do not fantasise it, though it feels good in the moment if the person breaks your heart it is a lot harder to let go when you have fantasised it.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cafuné leads to a band

[edit]

Please fix the redirect to the actual definition of the word 99.72.221.195 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done As compared to the other words, this does not have an independent article. Did find a redirect to Physical intimacy of it, so added that as a target.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love&oldid=1266475667"