Love is an illusory emotion which obstructs coherent contemplation and surrounds one’s common sense with false feelings of euphoria.
Love isn’t a default human emotion; it would be an invalid assumption to believe so. Rather, it presents human shortfall since it strays away from beneficial individualism.
Love is addictive and transient, therefore, the “requisite” urge to revert to feel love again is inevitable.
Whether or not euphoric feelings crowd out common sense, I’m not sure you would ascribe the word “false” to an emotional state in this sense.
Hmm. Any anecdotal evidence for this one? You go on to say that it is inevitable. Wouldn’t that make it a “default” emotion if we are bound to feel it by simply existing?
In what way? It would seem that love would bring together people to accomplish something beneficial (euphoria, though I think that would be a word better descibing infatuation) that the parties, respectively, couldn’t accomplish as individuals.
Sounds like Mr. Spock needs a little Ponfar action.
Why do you refer to love as an emotion? If it is an emotion, it is a very complex one. Love involves euphoria, need, desire, responsibility (to yourself and others), sacrifice, laughter, tears, anger, grief. Love must be a chord.
Define love.
Is it a mouth?
Is a cigarette?
Is it how her sound is an orange precisely framed
in its own partially cut-away peel
on a walnut table?
Is it 30 years of 10 hour shifts and long weekends
and overtime at the steel mill looking forward
to the pension and finally time to spend
with your family? Is it the pancreatic cancer
and 8 months to a year to live that you find
you have when you retire from the mill?
Define love.
Is it the Planck Constant? the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle? is it the way a closed system creeps
towards entropy?
Is love these calluses on these palms and fingers
from shoveling asphalt in the June sun?
Is love the way I feel when my son living
8 hundred miles away with his mother tells me
“there’s a storm bigger than god coming up the coast”,
and, with his next breath, asks “is your telephone
black like thunder too?”
Is love how distance feels thirsty as water,
deeper than memory?
jm
Love…
Soft as…
an easy chair.
Love…
fresh as…
the morning air!
Esprix
Eurythmics - You Have Placed A Chill In My Heart
:: singing :: Love … exciting and new …
SMACK!!
Sorry … I’ll go sit down now …
** Love is an illusory emotion…**
Yeah, but it’s fun. Even the bad parts are fun–all part of the tapestry of life. Anyway, everything is illusory.
** …which obstructs coherent contemplation…**
Speak for yourself! I contemplate very coherently when I’m in love.
** …with false feelings of euphoria.**
So what if it’s false? Pretty much all euphoria is false. I still like it.
Transient? Yes, like everything else. But some transient things last a lifetime.
By the way, I swore off love for a while too, when I was younger and between marriages. One can live without it. But whether it’s natural or not, I think it’s good for us.
Also, I’m not sure what the debate is here. It seems like a display of cynicism intended to draw disagreement, but that isn’t really a debate. My cynicism is about as deeply rooted as anyone’s I know of, but that doesn’t mean I have to be all morose about everything.
Love, love is a verb
Love is a doing word
– Teardrop by Massive Attack
The thread title has to be the dumbest one written in the last year. No offense. 
Say what you will about love, but it’s sure as heck not inconsequential. It has a LOT of consequences. It results in marriages, divorces, births, deaths, and much spending of money. I’d say there are a lot of consequences attached to it.
Inconsequential as in unimportant.
Urge to kill … rising.
inconsequential != unimportant.
pan
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think what uber-pretentious angsty-teen twaddle this is.
A meaningless statement. What do you mean by this? Illusory? Illusory means that it doesn’t actually exist, but merely appears to exist. What the hell does that mean in the context of emotion? Is hate illusory? What about happiness? Love can be a hell of a lot less transient than those - if anything I’d say it is the least illusory “emotion”. Furthermore I’d second the questioning of love as an “emotion” anyway.
really? So when couples decide to get married and build a life together, they are incapable of deciding this in “coherent contemplation”? That’s a gross insult to the millions of couples that have done exactly this - including, I’d wager, your own parents.
Common sense? Now there’s an illusory “emotion”. And “false feelings” is another meaningless piece of twaddle. How can a feeling be “false”? It’s not as if feelings are of substance - you can’t touch them. If you feel it, it exists as an emotion. If you feel euphoria, then you are euphoric. You can’t ascribe “false” to this. And what in the name of bloody hell is wrong with euphoria?
Woah. Care to tell us what you mean by “default human emotion”? What is the default emotion? Boredom? Fear? Anxiety? Teenage angst?
Nice. Care to back that up at all?
Hold up folks, Ayn Rand’s come to town. “Beneficial individualism” indeed. There’s nothing beneficial about radical and blinkered individualism you know. No man is an island, after all. And that’s not even touching on the fact that the whole sentence is a non sequiteur - the second part follows not at all from the first.
Addictive and transient? Clever act to follow, that. And again - tell those couples who’ve been blissfully together for 50 years that it is “transient”. As pointed out at the beginning of this response, love can actually be the most enduring of feelings.
And so? This is the end of your “poem”? Is there a conclusion?
What’s the debate here anyway? If you wanted to impress us with your cleverness, you’d have been more advised to post it in MPSIMS. If you wanted to rant about love, try the pit. Are you trying to debate that love is worthless, that it is unnecessary in the 21st century? Because I’d point to the contentedness of millions of couples as counterargument. Oh - and the propogation of the species. Can you define your postulate a little better for us please?
pan
You’re right, pan. There is no debate here. And this is a MPSIMS thread. Mods?
Love…is a many splendored thing.
Love lifts us up where we belong. All you need is love!
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O, no, it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand’ring bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
sonnet 116
<thread hijack>
Let’s have an actual debate about love instead of moving the thread. (can we? can we?)
Is there a single person that one is destined to fall in love with- ie “the one”- without whom we are incomplete? Or is love a funtion of proximity- meaning that you can fall in love deeply and unrepentantly with the nearest kind person- which would negate the idea of there only being one person who is right for each person?
</thread hijack>