Thu 25 Aug 2005
I remember in early grade 11 attending a debating tournament. For those who are not informed of my past activities, I was fairly active on the OSDU debating circuit in the Thunder Bay region from grade 10 through 12. At this particular debating tournament, there was one impromptu, and two prepared debates (on the same topic, sides just reversed. I can’t remember the prepared one (though I’m sure it was quite boring, as most were) but I remember the impromptu one. BIRT Love cannot exist without laughter.
This is known as a philosophical debate, as opposed to a policy debate. It was a resolution as opposed to a bill (we were doing parliamentary style). I never liked resolutions because you didn’t have the opportunity to bring in plans of implementation and couldn’t discuss the impact of the result of the debate, because you aren’t really solving any issue that is really tangible. Unfortunately I landed on the government side of this, and taking on my usual role of Prime Minister, I set forth in my usual capacity during my short prep time to think of definitions (always my favourite part of prep). I had to define 3 phrases, “Love”, “exist”, and “laughter”. The latter two are quite easy to define, but the former…nearly impossible.
Of course, taking my usual route I went to define things as I usually do in these cases, to pull out my Canadian Oxford English Dictionary and copy the definition that seemed simplest to say. (If I had had access to the Internet I may have looked up “Love” on Wikipedia, as I did today) As with most every philosophical debate I’ve ever done, I failed miserably. I just am not a philosopher. You can’t define “Love” out of a dictionary, nor can you truly vocalize it in language (many have tried and some agree that they actually have done such a thing through classifications, like a common example ofAgape, though I don’t think you truly can) As humans we try to intellectualize irrationality, and emotion, into something we can convey in our highly developed communications like language. But does that really work?
Frequently it is quoted that 50% of marriages fail in the end. What does that say about how we express “Love”? Is marriage not supposed to be one of the most solid expressions of love and commitment? As my closest friends know, I follow politics and current events closely. Most recently we had the historic opportunity to watch the progression of the same sex marriage bill come into existence here in Canada. I am on the pro side, because I believe that people have fundamental rights of equality, but while still understanding that people also have choice. Just because you have the opportunity to act on something doesn’t mean you should. The same thing happens with this legislation. Just because gays have the opportunity doesn’t mean they will all jump on the marriage wagon. Extend this to Abortion. Would I have a women who conceived my child have an abortion? No, but the option is there.
Marriage, with it’s claims of love and commitment, in our modern society, fails at it’s intention. I believe this is partly because of our lack of ability to interpret love in it’s many forms AND communicate it. We don’t have the ability to do so, because it is impossible to express it in the way our society believes is acceptable to do. Infatuation is much shallower than love, and unfortunately for Love, Infatuation is vocalizable, and masquerades as love, confusing people. It takes time for people to realize this false love and act accordingly. This results in a few things, the dissolution of the connection (i.e. divorce) or the continuation due to social decorum. Many couples have very unhappy relationships yet fight (often literally) them out for the rest of their lives. I believe that some people though may continue to be ignorant of the fact that it is just a masquerade and just believe they still have “love”. Which begs to differ is love even exists.
I believe it does, and for the readers who were thinking in their heads that I’ve never been in love, hence the reason I am writing this, you are mistaken. I am in love at this time and will continue to be for a very long time. I just can’t see a mutual love existing for the rest of any ones lives in any case, as time changes things. This may seem cynical, but I am a pragmatist, and believe it to be true. While I believe that I cannot define love, my current working answer (the closest I’ve been able to define it as) is “When you care for one person more than anyone else in the world, even yourself”. I’d be interested to see other people’s opinions, but that is as close to intellectualizing it as I can produce.
I’ve noticed that I have not been making my “Random” Wikipedia links very random. I’m not sure I really care…heh. I’ll continue to call them that because it adds a sense of interest to them. This one is on a specific type of love. One many people have heard mentioned in English class while studying Shakespeare. I think it is a horrible type of love. Such a thing can really cause alot of psychological damage and make someone insane (in all the senses it can mean). It can also bring guilt on the recipient party. While for this type of love to exist, the one party must not reciprocate it, there (in my belief) can be some kind of display of acknowledgement of the imbalance by the non-reciprocating (NP) party. This leads to the NP to induce further insult to injury with their “sympathy case” attitude. I believe that this is the worst possible situation as it adds a further level of pain to the party expressing the strong feelings. In any analogous situation to this where one party acknowledges the pain of the other while not doing anything to really alleve the pain of the other party, it is often considered tortuous and diabolical. The same is true in this case.
Is this obsessive behavior really a type of love, or is it just a obsessive in individual who just really doesn’t understand the concept of love and cannot get over the non reciprocation from the NP? I believe it is a type of love and that such individuals really do believe that it is genuine. They are not someone who can’t get over the rejection of another (note that there doesn’t always have to be rejection in this type of love). I don’t know how such a thing could be alleviated for both parties but my perception is that if the NP wishes the obsession to subside (or at least diminish) that they may have to “humour” the other party. I believe for this type of love to actually be true, that it will not go away and that most of the time there is a level of acceptance in the other party that they consciously know that it will never work. My proposal is that by “humouring” them that may just be all that is needed to diminish the behaviour. I may be wrong and it may backfire, resulting in even more obsessive behavior, but I believe that if it is openly discussed with both individuals and some small alleviating action is taken, it may help the situation.
I have gone off track I believe from my original intention to discuss love and my definitions of it. I apologize, but I believe the last specific type of love is fascinating from a philosophical viewpoint. While I never liked formally debating it (because you can never win in this kind of discussion, as the definition is fluid) I do enjoy talking about it informally. I encourage discussion on topic that I post on my site, and am glad that I am seeing so many different people (some I know, some I don’t) who visit my site. These last few paragraphs have been added to my original post (as was originally intended) and I see “Milldawg” (I know the identity of, but as he prefers to use his alias, I will not identify him) has commented that he agrees with my definition of love. I hope that a few more people are willing to post their comments. (Particularly I would like to hear from Lyle, Kas, Christine, and Mike, but everyone is welcome). I have another topic to write about, but I’ll save it for another day. Bye 
Currently Listening to: Lady in Red - Chris De Burgh
Random Wikipedia Article: Unrequited Love
August 26th, 2005 at 12:27 am
I think you are totally correct in your definition of love. I personally believe there are many different kinds of love in the sense you love is a connection with someone that brings the relationship that you share to a totally different level. There are many types of love from the kinds you have share with your family, your friends, and that special someone that even may not even know it. But I do agree that love is caring for someone so much that even yourself becomes second to them. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
August 26th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Well it would appear that my response here has been requested, despite my belief that we’d gone over most of these topics before. I pretty much agree with your defination of love. Although mine is different, I suspect that’s largely because for rather obvious reasons my experiences of love are different. I tend to just borrow from Heinlen and say that love is when another’s happiness is essential to your own. I also add that the other person’s happiness can cause your own.
I find what you said about unrequited love interesting. Specifically what you said about what the NP party ought to do. You say that they ought to humour the one who is in love. What did you mean by that? If one knows that someone is in love with oneself, and does not recriprocate, what more can be done? While I feel that love is much much more than a giddy rush of feelings, it’s still not quite something that one can decide “I’m going to fall in love with this person” so as to help out a friend. And I think that definitely holds true in your case.
As for your statement that unrequited love is true, I think that I would agree with that, except to qualify it in a way which I’m fairly sure you agree with: it CAN be real love. There are as many, if not more, ways that someone can delude themselves into thinking that they’re really in love when it’s unrequited as when it’s a mutual infatuation.
I’m not sure that everything I said made sense, but you know how to get ahold of me to harangue me for clarification.
August 26th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Having read what Christine said, I would have to say that it was well-put. To borrow a phrase she used, “it’s still not quite something that one can decide “I’m going to fall in love with this person” so as to help out a friend.” You can’t just tell someone that you are in love with them, and expect reciprocation. Not even humoring - it is as though one person gets to experience love, while the other would have to act as though they enjoy it, while it’s not pleasant.
I must agree with Christine in that love is the necessity of another’s happiness for one’s own. I feel that way towards the most valued (and loved) people in my life. There is nothing I want more than their happiness. In fact, there are two people in particular, whose happiness has become my priority lately, even though they seem to be feuding - I’m pretty sure you know who I’m talking about, Jeff. Love is wanting everything for someone else, no matter how it affects you. You need that person to be happy, and everything else is secondary. Love doesn’t always have to be for someone you’re attracted to, either. It can be for a friend, a neighbour - anyone. Love isn’t something you can control - you can’t make it come, and you can’t make it go away. It is an entity. It causes irational actions, and makes people think something is wrong with you.
As for the topic of unrquited love . . . it seems like a painful scenario. You have intense feelings for someone, but they don’t have the same feelings for you. It isn’t reciprocated. I agree that takling to this person is a better option than just keeping them in the dark. If this person doesn’t know about it, then it could develop into an unhealthy relationship - stalking, perhaps. Talking about it openly could help ease any pain imposed on the person in love, and possibly help him/her get over these feelings, in time.
This is a very touchy subject, so I think I should probably clam up, and wait to see if anyone responds to what I had to say. Jeff, you’ve given me a lot to think about.
August 29th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
If you don’t love someone back, it definitely isn’t doing them a favour to pretend/force it.
I only had two brief “relationships” in high-school– in one case she wasn’t feeling it and eventually broke it off, and in the other case, I wasn’t feeling it and eventually broke it off.
And both were misery.
I’m not saying that love doesn’t require a lot of sacrifice and compromise to genuinely work out, just that it’s stupid and cruel to pretend something’s there that isn’t “just to be nice.”
August 30th, 2005 at 9:33 am
I would have to say that I agree with Mike. It’s like purposely leading someone on, no one is going to end up happy that way.
September 1st, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Well, it seems that I may be mistaken then. I also believe that you can love more than one person now, so my original definition is wrong. Whoops :S
September 4th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
so as i have been asked to comment here, i will (albeit late…).
I think that the definition of “love” in your entery is to specific. I mean, i love my cat, i love ice cream, i love buffy (the show, i hate the character), i love my friends. but i do not want to spend the rest of my life with the above (though i wouldn’t mind the occasional visit). I think that what you are calling “love” is really being “in love”. I define being “in love” as wanting to be with someone the rest of your life, wanting them to be happy and, most importantly, THEY FEEL THE SAME WAY. I do not believe that you can be “in love” with someone if they are not “in love” with you.
I might add that you can love someone while still being in love with them.
As for when one person does not have feelings for you, and you do for them, then you are not “in love” with them. You may love them, and think that you could be happy with them, but until they reciprocate in any way you are not “in love” with them, nor are they “in love” with you.
And as for how someone ought to react when another person has strong feelings for them, perhaps we all ought to look at it from that person’s point of view. If there were an individual that seemed really interested in you, would you not owe it to yourself to look into it? This is not a bad thing, if you want to be nice or flirt with someone then go ahead-so long as it is not malicious in intent. Which i think in most cases it is not. If a person claims to love you, then wouldn’t you be at least interested and persue the possibility? you know, think about it before dismissing the person- i know that if i were not in a relationship i would do just that.
And for the other side, the one who has feelings for the NP, should the NP decide that they don’t have feelings for you then they are obviously not good enough for you - if they aren’t in love with you then why should you delude yourself to think that you are with them? when it is supposed to happen then it will, and until that time don’t force the issue.
Oh, and i will leave out the rant about abortion, as i assume that it is just a misunderstanding… if it isn’t you will see another comment here shortly.
September 4th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
I think Jeff is dead on with the definition of being “in love”… almost. The biggest problem with it (in my personal view) is that even when you do these things for the other party, you are undoubtably looking for a response; something in return. I’m not talking about a million dollars here, but instead a simple “Thank You” or a smile (all of those things that incite you to do the same thing again). But really, this isn’t what interests me most, it’s what is the cause of everlasting love in today’s society.
In today’s society there are many break ups that happen after a very short time and many break ups that happen even after 10-15+ years of marriage. But why? Well it’s easy to answer the short term question because it’s simply a matter of incompatibility and noticing it. But the tougher question why do these long relationships fail?
In my mind, relationships and love fail due to a lack of reciprocation. As much as it can joy you to do something for someone else, if it doesn’t make them happy or they don’t try and do things to make you happy then the love will eventually fail. While you can be “in love” with a NP, the love will not last. Eventually you will see the futility and it’ll burn.
“Love” in itself is a completely different animal. For me, the definition of love (in regards to people) is “the inability to visualize your life without a person without extreme pain or emptiness.” Even when you don’t want the thing you love at an exact moment, you still don’t want them to be gone forever.
I think the saying “I want to be with you ever waking moment of my life” (or something similar) is what we always hear in the movies, and couldn’t be more wrong. We all need personal time - alone - to reflect. It’s just the way of life. I know I feel this way sometimes and even though I don’t want to be with my significant other/mother/father/whatever at that time, I still think of them and want them to never leave me for good.
I have more thoughts (esp. on the topic of love in death and how love seems to have an easier time carrying on after death than after something like a break-up.) but I’ll save them for another day.