Hi guys I am new here and I have Schzoid Im sure

one can understant the cocept of love. one doesnt know how love is supose to feel


iv translated it into loyality.

loyilty is sort of my contruct for love. Not perfect. but it has some of the same stuff in it

Love isn't always accompanied by a feeling. Anytime you place the common good (or good of another) ahead of yourself you've engage in an act of love. Parents often sacrifice for their kids, even though the kids may be ungrateful brats. This is an act of love because it is giving without the expectation of a return.

Love isn't always accompanied by a feeling. Anytime you place the common good (or good of another) ahead of yourself you've engage in an act of love. Parents often sacrifice for their kids, even though the kids may be ungrateful brats. This is an act of love because it is giving without the expectation of a return.

ok then in that case .. i do love. parents think kids are allways ungratefull. why is the. iv heard this term a lot. can you explain it

Its the nature of kids to be ungrateful due to their lack of insight and limited life experiences. Parents on the other hand have forgotten what its like to be young and insecure, filled with questions and seeking identity.
It all comes down to a generation gap, with each side battling for control.

Parents on the other hand have forgotten what its like to be young and insecure

adults are extreemly insecure and childish, in my experience, expecially men.

Layered wrote:Love isn't always accompanied by a feeling. Anytime you place the common good (or good of another) ahead of yourself you've engage in an act of love..

but i'm a socialist and i still don't believe that love exists or can exist in my world.

Layered wrote:There are many definitions of love. Not all of them are correct. The one truest test of true love is self-sacrifice. Love is what drives someone to run into a burning building to save a trapped loved-one. Or, donating a kidney to a friend or relative.
Of course, love doesn't have to be that dramatic. It could be something as simple as sharing your lunch. The point is, if you are not willing to give of yourself, you don't truly love that person.

That's probably a reasonable definition. But along the lines of what I was saying above, how can one be sure that such an act is built into our biology and is not just the product of social conditioning? A lot of people would run into a burning building to save someone simply because they believe (or have been brainwashed into believing) that such an act is the "right" thing to do. Perhaps even if they didn't know the person.

AC

If one rules out telepathy (although from what very little i've read there are actual scientific experiments that support its existence) then one can not feel anything about other people themselves, but is instead again feeling something about himself, through the idols he has created of those other people.

However imo if someone is organised in such a way that he feels what to him is love, about another person, and is acting lovingly, then there is no reason to belittle that. Im more interested in observing my own self, but i would always prefer to be with people who are loving, rather than coldhearted selfish/problematic etc.

Acid Crystal wrote:
That's probably a reasonable definition. But along the lines of what I was saying above, how can one be sure that such an act is built into our biology and is not just the product of social conditioning? A lot of people would run into a burning building to save someone simply because they believe (or have been brainwashed into believing) that such an act is the "right" thing to do. Perhaps even if they didn't know the person.

AC

i agree. i think a lot of what we are constantly told is love is actually a social construct to make us behave in certain ways. i'm quite glad i don't fall for it.

anotherworld wrote:If one rules out telepathy (although from what very little i've read there are actual scientific experiments that support its existence) then one can not feel anything about other people themselves, but is instead again feeling something about himself, through the idols he has created of those other people.

However imo if someone is organised in such a way that he feels what to him is love, about another person, and is acting lovingly, then there is no reason to belittle that.

I agree - if someone can improve the quality of their life by loving another person, that's great, more power to them. But I feel it is important to see it for what it is. What you wrote above is a big component to that which most people don't seem to understand. If the pleasure from love is based on glorifying it and/or deluding ourselves, I could never accept it. For the same reason that I cannot accept believing in God.

AC