Is It Better To Have Loved, And Lost? Than To Have Never Loved At All?

Howard the Duck · 04-19-2011, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipper

i can't believe i will ask this but fine...

what is love?

love is a feeling

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

There's a difference between being in love, and being Hugh Grant.

last I checked, I didn't receive a bj from a black prostitute

crash_override · 04-19-2011, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

last I checked, I didn't receive a bj from a black prostitute

Then you will never know true love.

djchameleon · 04-19-2011, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipper

This is probably the most cynical view you will hear today:

When people say they are "in love", it's actually vanity not love.

Everyone has an innate need to feel important. That’s a universal truth. That is up there in the ranks of ‘we all need to eat’ and ‘we all need to sleep’.

That is why people “fall in love” with others. When someone makes them feel important and needed, they instinctively get attracted because their need is being met. They get the attention that they want, the knowing that there is someone else that gives a f$%k that they are alive, that in the billions and billions of people in this world, there is someone that would like to spend time with them over everyone else.

No one falls in love with someone that makes them feel like a worthless piece of sh!t, right? “Love” always begins with a smile that melts hearts or a hello what was just a little softer than other hellos or glance that lasted a second too long. It is always when someone makes you feel special.

Then you stay. You stay because you need a witness to your life as it is beautifully articulated in Shall We Dance. You need someone there to make you feel things you do don’t go unnoticed.

I don’t know if it is romantic but I do know it’s still about the self and not the other person.

It is vanity… not love.

I see that you address it slightly later on but it should have been in this post. I think you want to change some words around a bit. Lust and not love. You didn't even touch the surface of what love is. There are also varying degrees of love but I also see later on that you would like a definition so I will finish that underneath.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipper

i can't believe i will ask this but fine...

what is love?

You can be in love and not want to **** the person that you are in love with. The type of love I'm talking about is platonic love. Sure, you love your mother/father but you don't want to engage in sexual relations with them unless you are from Louisiana.

There is romantic love which tends to be a bit superficial based on romantic settings it is pretty much an extended phase of puppy love.

Puppy love is the initial stage when you are completely infatuated with someone but this type of love is part love and part lust. About 75% lust 25% love because you can't really love someone fully if you don't know them that well.

This last type of love I like to call Marriage love with can also be deemed true love. This type of love is after you have known the ins and outs of the person that you are with. You will go out of your way for them and make personal sacrifices sometimes for them. You will put yourself in harms way to protect them. You are also so comfortable with the person that you are able to use the bathroom around them and not care. You are able to get into fights/arguments with them and because of your love for them not take it seriously to the point that you will NEVER talk to them again. The reason the divorce rate is so high is because some people think they have this true love when they really don't. They just have really good romantic love connection but romantic love fades and that's why they have to do things to keep the sparks alive. True love doesn't need this same type of maintenance.

ThePhanastasio · 04-19-2011, 06:20 AM

I've never really liked this question. It's something that people say constantly, yet they always say it in such a way that suggests that those are the only two options - either you love and lose, or you're never going to experience love.

I call false. There are people who fall in love, stay with their first love, and remain happily married for their entire lives.

This, to me, is just a dumb saying that doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot. If you never love at all, then you never know what you're missing anyway. So who's to say which is better, really?

djchameleon · 04-19-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio

I've never really liked this question. It's something that people say constantly, yet they always say it in such a way that suggests that those are the only two options - either you love and lose, or you're never going to experience love.

I call false. There are people who fall in love, stay with their first love, and remain happily married for their entire lives.

This, to me, is just a dumb saying that doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot. If you never love at all, then you never know what you're missing anyway. So who's to say which is better, really?

I don't think it's a dumb saying it just depends on how the person feels upon answering. Mostly the people that answer never to have loved at all. They are so hurt by a previous experience and are bitter about it that they wish they never had to feel that way ever.

chipper · 04-30-2011, 07:30 PM

"love is a feeling"? of what?

there is only one kind of love.. all the other words attached to it like "romantic" "platonic"... whatever... serves to describe another feeling but that's not what love is.

ex: you can romance without love and you can love without romance. it doesn't change what love is.

my point is... love is unconditional and eternal. when love ends, that's not love at all. it's a contradiction. when there is a condition. that's not love. again that's a contradiction. the minutere there is condition, the minute there is a time frame... that's not love.

cut off my ears, take all my money, kill everyone important to me and i love you anyway. now, I will never feel that for anyone. I don't know if there is anyone capable of feeling that. maybe a parent to a child?

there have been too many times when someone has called me "idealistic" for my definition. they said we are humans so it's natural that we respect ourselves first. that is why we stop loving when we get hurt too much. but love is supposed to be the greatest of all feeling. it's supposed to be above every feeling, emotion and value.

Paedantic Basterd · 04-30-2011, 08:41 PM

Love is obviously the emotional equivalent of bigfoot, in that case.

Astronomer · 05-01-2011, 12:14 AM

What is love?

"Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being "in love" which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident. Your mother and I had it, we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossoms had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two."

Most accurate definition of love I have ever read.

duga · 05-01-2011, 09:10 PM

^

Wow, I love that description. That's pretty much the perfect way to explain love.

duga · 05-01-2011, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I wouldn't want to wish heartbreak on anyone.

Of course not. I still stand by what I said, though. Everyone needs to experience it. It taught me a lot about myself.

View Poll Results: Is it better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all?
Yes	25	44.64%
No	10	17.86%
Who cares?	7	12.50%
anal beads	14	25.00%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

04-19-2011, 06:20 AM	#84 (permalink)
ThePhanastasio Killed Laura Palmer Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Ashland, KY Posts: 1,679	I've never really liked this question. It's something that people say constantly, yet they always say it in such a way that suggests that those are the only two options - either you love and lose, or you're never going to experience love. I call false. There are people who fall in love, stay with their first love, and remain happily married for their entire lives. This, to me, is just a dumb saying that doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot. If you never love at all, then you never know what you're missing anyway. So who's to say which is better, really? __________________ Phish: Studio Discography Reviewed 100 Albums I Heartily Recommend My last.fm It's a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken Perhaps they're better left unsung

04-30-2011, 07:30 PM	#86 (permalink)
chipper Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: LA, Ca Posts: 179	"love is a feeling"? of what? there is only one kind of love.. all the other words attached to it like "romantic" "platonic"... whatever... serves to describe another feeling but that's not what love is. ex: you can romance without love and you can love without romance. it doesn't change what love is. my point is... love is unconditional and eternal. when love ends, that's not love at all. it's a contradiction. when there is a condition. that's not love. again that's a contradiction. the minutere there is condition, the minute there is a time frame... that's not love. cut off my ears, take all my money, kill everyone important to me and i love you anyway. now, I will never feel that for anyone. I don't know if there is anyone capable of feeling that. maybe a parent to a child? there have been too many times when someone has called me "idealistic" for my definition. they said we are humans so it's natural that we respect ourselves first. that is why we stop loving when we get hurt too much. but love is supposed to be the greatest of all feeling. it's supposed to be above every feeling, emotion and value. __________________ real love letters to exes

05-01-2011, 09:10 PM	#89 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	^ Wow, I love that description. That's pretty much the perfect way to explain love. __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...

04-30-2011, 08:41 PM	#87 (permalink)
Paedantic Basterd Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,184	Love is obviously the emotional equivalent of bigfoot, in that case.

05-01-2011, 12:14 AM	#88 (permalink)
Astronomer we are stardust Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 2,894	What is love? "Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being "in love" which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident. Your mother and I had it, we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossoms had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two." Most accurate definition of love I have ever read.