Everyone talks about it, few can define it, and god knows how many of us have really experienced it.

So, what exactly do people think love is? I'll give my muddled thoughts, and I encourage you to have your say after.

We all probably know family love, but specifically I'm interested in romantic love, the stuff of countless movies and pulp novels. The concept permeates society, it is what drives us on many levels, and I'd warrant that most of us don't feel complete until we have it, or at least think we have it, within our grasp.

What is love not? IMHO, love is not 'Romeo and Juliet'. Shakespeare's play is held up as the most romantic and lauded celebrations of what it means to be truely, madly, deeply in love. It has set the precedent for entire genres of media and most people believe that the love between the two protagonists is how love should really be. But of course, Romeo and Juliet is complete trash, both as an elucidation of love and as a play. Sorry Shakespeare, but you hit your high point with MacBeth or Othello.

So why do I have a gripe about possibly the most beloved play in history? Why is it so bad to view 'true' love like it is displayed here?

For me, the most glaring problem is the promotion of 'love at first sight,' one of the most 'romantic' and cherished ideals surrounding love. The idea that it is possible to see someone and straight away fall in love with them is appealing to many. But can it really happen?

You see, love is a powerful word. It counjures up a myriad of feelings and ideas. It's correct usage can confuse us. Certainly you can see someone beautiful across a room and feel attracted to them (just as Romeo does with Juliet). But this is lust - not love. We are judging simply by appearance, and often by sexual urges. You can of course love beautiful things, like art, music, or even possibly people. But surely this is a mockery of what it is like to really be 'in love' with someone? You can love a Van Gough painting, but you can't be in love with it.

Likewise, you can go on to meet this person and talk to them. You can find yourself liking what they're saying; a process that only more firmly cements your feelings towards them. But at this early stage, are you really talking to the real person? All too often we wind up in a fantasy world: ascribing perfection to a human being. We become caught up in an idea, rather than the mundane human before us. This is a form of infatuation, and it is both unfair upon the object of our attention and ourselves. Take note young'uns; you're not going out with an angel. We owe it to each other to realise that we are all flawed and human.

When Romeo meets Juliet, he succumbs to love at first sight. Immediately he is infatuated with her, and her with him. They engage in a passionate, whirlwind romance that ends unfortunately. But, in this time, did they really know each other? Between their clandestine meetings and the trauma that engulfed their lives, were they in love with an ideal, or the real person? If they had lasted for 3 months, a year, 3 years ,would they still have felt the same? Would Juliet have eloped with Mercutio, or Romeo with Tybalt :p? Of course we can't say, but I get the impression that so passionate and intense were their feelings for each other that it would have fizzled out. Observation in real life seems to back me up.

Think about this: in this life, all the major choices we make are done with a level head (hopefully.) We think deeply about where we go to school or college. We decide on what career path to take, wrestle with our own private philosophies and outlooks on life, we even debate furiously with ourselves what laptop or car to buy. But yet, Shakespeare (and most modern love stories) teach us that when it comes to possibly the most important choice in our meagre existence: whom to share our lives with, the rational, decision making part of our brain should be short-circuited. We should succumb to our emotions and fall madly in love, even without knowing who exactly we are loving. Which brings me to our next point...

I think that to love someone, you have to know them. Not just the good points, but their bad points too. Their flaws and insecurities, their annoying habits and their imperfections. Lust and infatuation only last so long before they fade, perhaps irretrievably. And then you are left with the real person, flawed and humble. If you can know these problems, forgive their failings and stand by them through life's troubles, when even the spark has died, then I think you have found what real love is.

It is not romantic or spectacular. It is frayed, warm, cozy, mundane. It is caring about someone enough to never leave their side, to be their friend, and to accept them for who and what they are without trying to mould them into a more pleasing shape. Hollywood glorifies the transient, TV the superficial, books and novellas the empty and the ephemeral. We yearn for the excitment and the novelty of the new, yet can easily become addicted, never happy, hopping from one relationship to the next.

Love is the old couple on the park bench, not the beautiful young people having sex on the beach. I don't know if this makes me happy or sad. It just makes me feel different.

CG

its just chemistry

can you tell im not a romantic?

It was written very fluently. I enjoyed reading it

And someone could completely disagree with it all and back up their argument as well as you have. We'll never have answers that we want on love. But congratulations, well written.

KittensKill wrote:

can you tell im not a romantic?

i'm worse, =P

love is just emotions, there is no love at first sight, its just attraction
there is no TRUE LOVE, love can't be true, till both people are true to each other.
meaning no lying
no cheating
and i this no cheat stuff hardly happens in any relationship

girls, your dudes are looking at other women be cautious (not litterly)

Great read as always, CG!

I've tried reflecting on the true nature of love, but I don't feel like I'm getting anywhere: I can't attain anything solid and concrete. Anything that could possibly make me go "That's it!", and be able to rest in contentment. And maybe that's a good thing; maybe it would lose that "oomph!" it has has to it, would someone ever be able to truly define it. I'll give it a shot though and try to summarize some thoughts of mine on what love could possibly be.

Okay, we know there are a lot of different opinions on what love is and is not. CG here has even covered them for me in his original post. But I'm not so sure I completely agree with what he said about lust and infatuation not having anything to do with love. Perhaps love could be divided into three separate entities: lust, romantic love (infatuation, if you so will) and a deep sense of attachment.

We all know what lust is as we have all felt it at some point: a craving for sexual gratification. It is the most simple and primitive form of love. The second, and undoubtedly more complex and powerful form is romantic love. Those who've been smitten with romantic love tend to focus most, if not all of their attention on the object of their affection. It is when you crave someone; when you want them to be yours, and yours alone. It is not just about sex anymore, but something more.

Lastly there is the deep sense of attachment - that feeling of serenity and security you feel for someone close to your heart. It is when you accept the person for who they are: flawed and human, and hold no desire to change that. I think it's when your feelings for said person are unconditional; when there are no conditions he/she has live up to in order to maintain your affection.

I don't think love is an emotion. It's more a drive, than anything. After all, we don't have any facial expression in which to express it with and it's not something we can control.

I also think that true love is mutual.

So basically, this is what CG wrote - the main difference being that he put it far more eloquently than I could ever hope to do. Whatever. At least I'm better at tennis than you are.

- Janne

Squire wrote: I don't think love is an emotion. It's more a drive, than anything. After all, we don't have any facial expression in which to express it with and it's not something we can control.

Thats a good way of looking at it.

Love is instinct.
A mother instinctively loves her child.
Lust is instinct (or, as you put it, drive), its a basic need to breed. Attraction is based on lust, its how you find a mate to give you strong offspring.

Love isn't just one emotion, its a combination of many.

Romantic love is what makes us different to other animals.
Or does it? who's to say that animals don't fall in love?

Take this situation:

You're in love with Susie. Absolutely, 100% in love. No doubt in your mind. You'd step in front of a bus for her if she would only be by your side as you died. There is nothing you wouldn't do for her.

Now some scientists go into your brain. They cut your skull open and poke some electrodes in. They find the part of your brain that controls your love for Susie, and poke around so that you only see her as a good friend. You're no longer attracted to her in a "true love" sense anymore.

Was it love or just chemicals in your brain?

I'd be of the opinion that it was just chemicals in your brain: that's all everything we perceive is anyway. Does it invalidate the feelings? Probably not, no more than it invalidates our sense of vision, our memories, everything.

Not to sound cynical, but I hope I never feel that way about anyone. Wanting to kill yourself just so that she could be with you as you died, that doesn't float my boat. I sounds too much like idolatry for my liking. People are people, not seraphim.

Stop it, George, you're making me feel emotive hardcore.

right this is my sought of thread we will be here ages so sit tight: the person i want or need as kk puts it is proper love for her she too disagrees that there can be true love, although mine is Unrequited love (not recieved back) but there is, having just one argument makes my stomach lurch, that wouldnt happen if you had lust cos you would be in it just for one thing and you wouldnt care as much if you were lustful.
also "It is caring about someone enough to never leave their side, to be their friend, and to accept them for who and what they are without trying to mould them into a more pleasing shape" i do that. i care enough and yes i would probaly agree that if the one i loved was about to die i would sacrifice myself to spare her life cos then she could have her life, live on knowing that i loved her that much that i would be prepared to give my life love is like: if you had a sister and one of you had to die you would pick yourself its the same. enving someone who has the one you love thats unexplainable you cant voice that situation with words.
if something is wrong im there or i ask and wont drop it till i get the answer my love is.. ok everyone wins yes its hard to explain but itsnt the not being able to explain your love even more stronger because then you cant say how you feel (if you could you would be going on for ages.hence this post) also "there is no TRUE LOVE, love can't be true, till both people are true to each other.
meaning no lying
no cheating
and i this no cheat stuff hardly happens in any relationship" so you have contradicted yourself. there is such thing as love i given every secret i possibly could to the one i love, i have some of her secrets though as i sed shes taken and i dont think she has that feeling as i do maybe over time she could develop it if we were together like old people people that have been together for ages would definitely have this true love. i havent been with this girl for nearly 2 months and i havent looked at another girl since i dont know whether its because i have yet to get over her (doubt i will) who waits for someone like that? for that long its got to be my love for her i dont have any other explaination for the feelings but i tel you now they are not lust. i know that much i have had that feeling once and its not as good as this feeling. also why have a word e.g love and say it doesnt exist it obvisously does as we wouldnt need the word to name that feeling? love is the feeling i believe were you could do something so wrong that you would heave at the thought, but stay with them no matter what actions they did and that you would have no one else to share your love with . *huffs and puffs out of breath**collapses on the floor*

your turn to speak lol

I absolutely think that the idea of love is simply chemicals. As for animals loving, there are many species of animals that do a far better job of partnering up for life than we humans.

George, I agree whole heartedly with your opinion of Romeo and Juliet. Never been my favorite, and I think Othello was his true master work.