Quotations and Literature Forum

As an offshoot to another thread about commitment, may i ask .


Assume that commitment is not an idea of love, friendship, companionship, family, responsibility, honesty and equality, is there any other concept that will hold and bond two people in love? Because if none, how logical is relationships without it?

Thanks.

_________________
Life is a lesson. Learn from it.

An act of will when you have to make it so - ie I really do NOT love my neighbours ( recognising that this means other people in general) but I LJKE many, will make an effort to actually like more and try to TOLERATE the rest.

To me love is a completely spontaneous emotion, those I truly LOVE - it has just happened, sometimes straightaway, sometimes over time, but no will required.

_________________
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.
e e cummings (1894 - 1962)

Tommy, your hypothesis is that we choose who we fall in love with and who we will not love? Or are you separating spiritual love from that between individuals?

_________________
السلام عليكم

I do not fully understand what you're asking in your second. Clarify, if you would. To answer your first question:

What are we talking about here? What is "falling in love"? Are we talking about attraction? Butterflies? Spark? These are matters of brain chemistry and evolution and biology and the natural order of things.

If you have not done so already, I would recommend clicking on the link I provided above about love's Greek roots. All of these express this notion that love, in the four senses, are not merely about feeling but rather intention.

All it suggested to me was the Greeks had opinions as to what love was and words to express those opinions.

My 2nd was to say, Do you believe you can see a person and make a concious decision as to whether to love them or not?

I suppose the next question would be, What evidence is there of this?

_________________
السلام عليكم

All those definitions are explaining the different ways of feeling love and the types of love - the only one I can see requiriing intention or an act of will is the strange meaning re loving a tyrant.

Brain chemistry, evolution, order of things, biology on their own don't add up to love. Without other facets such as respect, affection, the sheer joy of being together etc they could just as well result in lust.

Tommy, I would appreciate if you could explain how you see it as an act of will, or something you have to make some effort to achieve or have to have an intention to love. Or which of those definitions you apply this to, or whether you see it as applying to all?

_________________
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.
e e cummings (1894 - 1962)

The argument that love is not a feeling but an act of will is a deliberate emotional response.

_________________
Life is a lesson. Learn from it.

Dang, I'm on my way to work... I would SO love to discuss this! This is wonderful! But before I go off to the salt mines, perhaps it would be worth answering DSW's second question - and my answer is YES (which I think is the main point of contention.)

Love is patient; love is kind
and envies no one.
Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude;
never selfish, not quick to take offense.
There is nothing love cannot face;
there is no limit to its faith,
its hope, and endurance.
In a word, there are three things
that last forever: faith, hope, and love;
but the greatest of them all is love.

I completely agree. Love, lust, infatuation, attraction, etc. Any of these are possible. In fact, you proved my point, insofar as love is MORE than these things, i.e. brain chemistry, evolution, order of things, biology. Furthermore, respect and affection are conscious decisions; we SHOW and GIVE respect and affection.

The most simple and concrete example I can give is a marriage. A good, strong, working, healthy marriage. Or any other relationship for that matter... siblings, or friendship, or whatever. It's not all ups, there are most definitely downs. In fact, I think the divorce rate is a testimony to the fact that love takes work and that over half who marry are not willing to give it their all. Whatever the case may be, we know that feelings change and that love is not easy. It is difficult to work for the good of the other, without condition or expecting anything in return. But it's the commitment we're choosing to make, and the second we back down and break the commitment, then what is left?

Now, am I saying that love is completely absent of feeling and emotion? Of course not. By making relationships work, there is a great deal of joy and happiness in being with that person - in marriage, or friendship. If someone is patient with me and kind to me; if s/he is not boastful or conceited or rude or selfish or quick to take offense, then I would feel pretty joyful and happy. If s/he could face all of my weaknesses and have limitless faith and hope and endurance for my sake, then I would feel pretty happy and joyful. And, hey - it lasts forever.

I agree Tommy, this has the makings of a great discussion. I think part of our problem is the various different definitions of love. For example, in your link agape includes love of a great meal and love for one's children as well as being the basis for the translation of the Corinthians chapter, and other types of love. Then we get the other four definitions, each with their connotations.

The Corinthians quote is beautiful, but it seems to me it is basically defining the rules for "love thy neighbour" which I find a stumbling block as I use "love" when applied to other people sparingly.

So, by us using the one word in so many contexts, we can be arguing at cross purposes and may need to redefine exactly what we're all talking about. We may need to look at other words such as like, appreciate, enjoy etc rather than using the word love to cover so much.

You cited a good strong healthy working relationship as one needing effort and acts of will in varying degrees to maintain and I couldn't agree with you more. The actual practicalities and further understanding of that relationship may need work to maintain it, but even through difficulties the original basic love will still be present and acknowledged without need to force it.

My argument is that the INITIAL "spark", "butterflies", attraction etc that brought that relationship about was a spontaneous emotion. Maybe you could define that as eros love, again not necessarily with any physical or sexual connotation.

My example for you - when your last little nephew was born I remember the joy you shared with us - did you have to make an effort of will to love him at that particular time?

_________________
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.
e e cummings (1894 - 1962)

Gumtree, totally. This is a semantics issue. The English word "love" does the word itself no justice because of the many ways love is manifested. Am I mistaken in citing the Greek etymology of "love"?

Nothing is forced. When it ceases to be free, it ceases to be love.

I agree that spark is a spontaneous emotion. But, "although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself." It is an "intentional response to promote overall well-being by enhancing or appreciating what is valuable or good."

Love in this abstract sense is simply the recognition and appreciation of a perceived good.

(By the way, I would LOVE to discuss the nature of love, and let's continue doing so. But, arrow, has your question been answered? Relationships, love, commitment?)

Will enjoy continuing discussion, but it is the long holidays here, as well as the Christmas season so my computer time will be spasmodic and my concentration sparse for a while

_________________
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.
e e cummings (1894 - 1962)