# How do you define love? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 24, 2018, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508 "2018-07-24T15:20:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/61 "2018-07-25T18:14:25Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > People get told to have emotions all the time. “Don’t be mad.” “Cheer up!” “Don’t worry, be happy now (Ooh, ooh ooh ooh oo-ooh ooh oo-ooh)” IMHO, such commands are to some extent exhortations to _act_ a certain way. (e.g. “Cheer up” = “Stop acting so grumpy.”) And to the extent that they actually are exhortations to feel a certain way, they verge on being nonsense. Although [studies have suggested](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201010/action-creates-emotion) that action precedes emotion, and if you want to create or reinforce a certain feeling, you should act as if you felt it. > [@begbert2](#): > > Right. I disagree with your definition. I don’t think it matches how the word is used, outside of obvious euphemism. People use the word in lots of different ways, some of them perhaps mutually exclusive. And, after all, this thread is asking “How do _you_ define love?” I think if you want to match how the word is used, you have to include a feeling component and an action component. “Love” refers to something you _do_, in addition to being something you have or experience or feel. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/62 "2018-07-25T18:35:13Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > IMHO, such commands are to some extent exhortations to _act_ a certain way. (e.g. “Cheer up” = “Stop acting so grumpy.”) And to the extent that they actually are exhortations to feel a certain way, they verge on being nonsense. > > Although [studies have suggested](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201010/action-creates-emotion) that action precedes emotion, and if you want to create or reinforce a certain feeling, you should act as if you felt it. I disagree - such commands are commands to change the emotions. The desired end result is, among other things, to change behavior, but the order is to change the emotion itself. (It’s often a very unreasonable request.) > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > People use the word in lots of different ways, some of them perhaps mutually exclusive. And, after all, this thread is asking “How do _you_ define love?” > > I think if you want to match how the word is used, you have to include a feeling component and an action component. “Love” refers to something you _do_, in addition to being something you have or experience or feel. Only when you’re using it as a euphemism for ‘having sex’. In my experience in pretty much every other context love is described as an emotion or emotive opinion, not an action. In everything _I’ve_ heard or read, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/63 "2018-07-26T02:58:19Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Yes, and we can witness here the failing of Christian education in the West. 🙂 The Greeks had lots of words for love, but Christendom boils it down to four because those are the four words used in the Septuagint and New Testament for love. These are not concepts of love though that originated in Christianity and were widely used throughout the Greek speaking world and particularly among the ancient philosophers (with the exception of perhaps agape which had an ancient component, but has strong Christian overtones particularly post-Aquinas.) > > They are: > > storge - this is familial love and the least used of the love words. It is most often used as the kind of love you feel despite your children being screw-ups. It’s a patient love and the love you feel even when you want to punch your kid in the face for quitting his fifth job this year to go smoke pot with his friends. It’s love despite not like. > > Philia - affection. This is the love you have between people who enjoy the same things and you genuinely like to be around. This is BFF love or maybe the love you have for your dog. You appreciate the other for who they are. > > Eros - romantic, intimate or sexual love. This is the love that is combined with lust that you get when you see that special someone and you need to be with them. The Ancient Philosophers thought very highly of this type of love and thought it the greatest love. (A more nuanced view might be that they were trying to get into someone’s pants during the time of their writing, but we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.) They felt that Eros is what connected you to the gods and was a way to reach another plane of existence. > > Agape - the love that God has for us and the love Christians are supposed to show others (but so rarely do). This love is also used by pre-Christians to refer to the love a mother has for her child. It’s a completely selfless love that only wants what is best for the individual. It is not dependent upon the actions of the object of affection like Philia. It doesn’t have a sexual component like Eros and it doesn’t have the exasperation that is common with Storge. Agape is completely selfless and persists in spite of the actions of the loved or in spite of the hurt they may do to the lover. A lot of words for something that doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/64 "2018-07-26T03:11:02Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > A lot of words for something that doesn’t exist. I beg to differ. ‘My’ love is a real thing. I feel it. I nurture it. I lament about it. I enjoy it. I dream about it. I feed it. Sometimes I get mad at it. So it is a real thing. You can never convince me it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/65 "2018-07-26T05:05:01Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Love is an emotion. Emotions exist only in your head. It’s literally impossible for an emotion to be anything but a self-oriented experience. That doesn’t follow. The thing about the things in our heads—the ‘mark of the mental’, as some consider it—is exactly that they can be about, or directed at, something beyond our heads—what philosophers call ‘intentionality’. In particular, the love I feel (which I agree with others isn’t all there is to love, but is a major part) is about the person I love; so it’s not self-, but explicitly other-oriented. > [@](#): > > So while love (by this definition) is an emotion that exists entirely in your own head, the end result of it is anything _but_ self-serving. No, the end result is directed at increasing your own happiness; the happiness of the other is just a means to do that. Say I wire our brains together such that whenever mine produces the particular cocktail of chemicals that makes me feel happiness, yours may do, too—and only then. My happiness is now in your interest, but it’s entirely in your _self_-interest; my own state of mind plays only an incidental role, it’s merely a means to achieve a state of mind you desire. You probably wouldn’t come to love me in that situation—you might not even like me, but instead, resent me for being a burden on your happiness. In another post, you claim that love is wanting to sacrifice one’s desires for another; but in the case above, it’s actually about _fulfilling_ your desire, namely, that you want to be happy. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/66 "2018-07-26T12:59:13Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > I beg to differ. ‘My’ love is a real thing. I feel it. I nurture it. I lament about it. I enjoy it. I dream about it. I feed it. Sometimes I get mad at it. So it is a real thing. You can never convince me it’s not. Materialists suck, just ignore them. 🙂 You need to come up with a better explanation than ‘chemicals’ if you want me to start denying my own observations and experiences. After all, if we start doing that, then we simply end up as Academic Skeptics and what fun is that? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/67 "2018-07-26T18:20:26Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > That doesn’t follow. The thing about the things in our heads—the ‘mark of the mental’, as some consider it—is exactly that they can be about, or directed at, something beyond our heads—what philosophers call ‘intentionality’. In particular, the love I feel (which I agree with others isn’t all there is to love, but is a major part) is about the person I love; so it’s not self-, but explicitly other-oriented. I’m not seeing anything in here that says love isn’t entirely contained within the head of the person feeling it. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > No, the end result is directed at increasing your own happiness; the happiness of the other is just a means to do that. Say I wire our brains together such that whenever mine produces the particular cocktail of chemicals that makes me feel happiness, yours may do, too—and only then. My happiness is now in your interest, but it’s entirely in your _self_-interest; my own state of mind plays only an incidental role, it’s merely a means to achieve a state of mind you desire. You probably wouldn’t come to love me in that situation—you might not even like me, but instead, resent me for being a burden on your happiness. > > In another post, you claim that love is wanting to sacrifice one’s desires for another; but in the case above, it’s actually about _fulfilling_ your desire, namely, that you want to be happy. Everything everyone does is done for ‘selfish’ reasons, at some level - nobody ever does something if they have no interest in the result in some way, shape, or form. The most charitable person in the world is only charitable because they personally think that being charitable is a good thing, and thus have a personal investment in more charity occurring. The thing is though, while “everything everyone does is done for selfish reasons” is a true statement, the statement “and thus everything anyone might do is equally bad” most certainly isn’t. It just means that “Does a person have selfish motivations for their actions?” is a useless question because the answer’s always the same, so you should be instead more worried about outcomes and likely future behavior. Bringing this back to love, my personal definition of love is “when another person’s happiness is essential to your own”. You’ll astutely notice that this is indeed framed pretty much in an entirely selfish way: If person A is in love with person B, then that says something about A’s emotions, not B’s emotions. (B may not even know that A exists.) And yes, A is selfishly motivated to act unselfishly towards B for selfish reasons. But that’s okay, because that’s how motivations work. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/68 "2018-07-26T19:29:06Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’m not seeing anything in here that says love isn’t entirely contained within the head of the person feeling it. That’s a good thing, cause that’s not what I was trying to say. Rather, I argued that your inference from ‘all in the head’ to ‘self-oriented’ doesn’t follow. > [@](#): > > Everything everyone does is done for ‘selfish’ reasons, at some level - nobody ever does something if they have no interest in the result in some way, shape, or form. But that’s trivial: it just says that we do what we do because we want to do it, in some way. Some desire is satisfied thereby; but that’s just what ‘wanting to do something’ means. But we can want to do things for different reasons; and there’s a difference between whether these reasons are entirely self-directed, or not. I’m not gonna hijack the thread with belabouring the point, though. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/69 "2018-07-27T23:19:20Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > I beg to differ. ‘My’ love is a real thing. I feel it. I nurture it. I lament about it. I enjoy it. I dream about it. I feed it. Sometimes I get mad at it. So it is a real thing. You can never convince me it’s not. And yet it is all the result of chemicals, from the feeling to the bonding. It could be made that those chemicals don’t get released and therefor so goes the love you claim to be real. It is little more than chemicals that we make to be more than they are. Love is not so much a force as it is a cocktail. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/70 "2018-07-27T23:35:17Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > And yet it is all the result of chemicals, from the feeling to the bonding. It could be made that those chemicals don’t get released and therefor so goes the love you claim to be real. > > It is little more than chemicals that we make to be more than they are. Love is not so much a force as it is a cocktail. Speaking as a materialist, this sort of talk is annoying to me. It’s like saying that because food is made of atoms it can’t possibly taste good, or that because computers store 1s and 0s you can’t possibly store text with alphabetic letters in them. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/71 "2018-07-28T17:50:24Z")
I love history … I love finding the truth in history and then sharing that truth with others that had not yet received the truth of history. That love is in my heart not my head the feeling I get from helping someone to see the truth is not in my head either. Goose bumps don’t come from the head. Some people love little kittens and puppies … where does that love come from? The head? I don’t think so … 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508/72 "2018-07-28T19:54:48Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Speaking as a materialist, this sort of talk is annoying to me. It’s like saying that because food is made of atoms it can’t possibly taste good, or that because computers store 1s and 0s you can’t possibly store text with alphabetic letters in them. It is useful to know these things, because knowing them can help to explain when things go wrong, or when things go right, even. They are much less useful in describing the emergent phenomena that they create. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-define-love/818508.md?page=3)