Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
That's entirely subjective.
|
Is it? I don't think it is. You either love someone or you don't. No semantics involved.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Achilles
Your definition completely ignores huge components of romantic love, etc.
|
That's because "romantic love" is merely love mixed with lust.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Achilles
Someone else could also claim to define love as simply as possible and come up with something completely different from what you have here.
|
They could, but then they wouldn't be describing love, now would they?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Achilles
I would absolutely agree that "love" can be irrational, yes. It depends entirely on how you're defining it and in which context you using it.
|
OK, then how would
you define it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Achilles
ABE: The fact is that "love" (and all emotions for that matter) are nothing more than chemical processes going on in the brain. This is quite observable. So the question I have is why are we using an observable phenomenon to draw an analogy to something that is not?
|
Because love
is irrational, mainly because it is usually to the detriment of the one who loves, and yet you acknowledge it and support it. Society generally encourages it as opposed to hate, an emotion that makes far more sense to me.
My point is that something's being irrational doesn't automatically make it bad, or, more importantly, invalid.