You could say that about any charitable act though. I like to do the Angel Tree every Christmas because it gives me the warm fuzzies on the inside.
Does that make me selfish?
Love is the special, coveted way that certain people make us feel when we are with them.
ETA: yes, its inherently a selfish thing, how could it be anything else?
Wasn’t it the ancient Greeks who identified like a half dozen different types of ‘love’? You know, like eros, pragma, and storge
And phyllios (sp?).
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.
Illogical! Illogical! Please explain.
I do like the idea that there are multiple types of love. We’ve talked to out kids before about how mom and dad love each other a bit differently than we love the kids. :eek:
Please, don’t start that again.
Well, it depends, do you get the warm fuzzy feeling only if you post about it on facebook, or do you get it even if nobody knows anything about it, and you don’t receive any other benefits?
Whether something is selfish or not is, I think, defined by where the ultimate end of an action lies: by yourself, or by another. So if you’re charitable for the sake of receiving facebook likes, then it’s a selfish act; but if you’re charitable so somebody gets a warm meal, it’s not. Likewise, if you care about somebody’s happiness only as a means to increase your own, and not as an end itself, it strikes me as selfish.
One of the best/funniest personal ads I ever saw was by a young lady whose profile included the statement “I love animals. I mean, I don’t love animals like that. But I love animals, if you know what I mean.”
She clearly had a sense of humor. But yes, that single word has multiple connotations and may sometimes fall short in communicating what we really intend.
Love is a rose, but you never can pick it.
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.
However, calling it self-serving is kind of missing the point, given the definition “when someone else’s happiness is essential to your own.” At the most literal read, this means that if they’re unhappy, you become unhappy. (Somewhat significantly it doesn’t necessarily go the other way: them being happy doesn’t stop you from being sad.) Essentially it’s an extreme form of unavoidable sympathy that makes you very interested in their well-being, and gives you motivation to do what you can to make the other person happy.
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.
Love has an emotional component, but I think love is more than just an emotion.
First, because emotions are transitory. You might feel more love toward a person at some times than at others, but I don’t think that means that you actually love them only sometimes.
And second, because of admonitions such as “Love your neighbor as yourself,” which make no sense if love is just an emotion.
This seems like an odd hill to make a stand on, but supposing I conceded that love was not an emotion but instead a persistent opinion you hold of a person that modifies your emotions on an ongoing basis…so what? It’s still entirely contained in your head and influences only yourself, at least in any direct way.
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)”
I am not programmed to respond in that area.
That’s true. I understand it only grows when it’s on the vine.
Love is the drug I am thinking of
Love = Sacrificing your own desires/best interest for the good of another
Nitpick - love is wanting to do that. The actual acts are just a symptom.
You’re viewing “love” as more of an emotion or state of mind, while I am viewing it more as an act.
By my definition, you can love someone regardless of how you feel about them, even if you can’t stand them.
charity (ˈtʃærɪtɪ)
n, pl -ties
- (Social Welfare)
a. the giving of help, money, food, etc, to those in need
b. (as modifier): a charity show. - (Social Welfare)
a. an institution or organization set up to provide help, money, etc, to those in need
b. (as modifier): charity funds. - (Social Welfare) the help, money, etc, given to the needy; alms
- a kindly and lenient attitude towards people
- love of one’s fellow men
Charity is also suppose to mean love for your fellow man …
True charity however is when you don’t want anything in return for your self
Right. I disagree with your definition. I don’t think it matches how the word is used, outside of obvious euphemism.