How do you define "being in love" if it's an idea you believe is real?
This term has a connotation suggesting the stereotype of initial attraction commonly associated with hollywood movies or preteenagers. Not necessarilly incorrect, but a with a lack of depth more easily attributed to lust. This is because it is usually the initial appearance of love. Phase one if you will. It's physical, and suggests a sense of longing and desire.
Do you think your sense of it is the same, somewhat the same, or very different from the stereotypical emotions or feelings associated with it?
Depending on which type of love you are talking about it is both similar and different. To me there are four types of love. The above is one type which is sexual, initial, and in my opinion under-developed. I think this because you can have this form without the other person, like a crush. Having the other person there just feeds the flame and it can be viewed as somewhat selfish.
The second type is a love where the two individuals share their likes and dislikes and form a long relationship. This suggests trust, closeness, security, and acceptance. Realize that this does not necessarilly mean romantic love. It could be viewed as "brotherly love." It's a bond.
Third is practical love. Being together because it's useful, almost like a team. Probably best represented by the impersonal approach to the emotion by the above INTP who objectified it. Lastly, there is unconditional or sacrifial love. Think Jesus, or the virtue of it. Caring for another with a depth of complete selflessness.
If you could, would you use a different phrase or word to describe the feeling or would you
keep it.
Of course I would use a different phrase. "Being in love" isn't real love IMO but a crush, and "true love" suggests some fantastical ideal of which could probably never be achieved in your wildest dreams.
HERE IT IS.
The way I see it, love=joy+trust. A combination of the first two loves I defined (Joy being the first and trust being the second.) Why? Because the definition of love is "an emotion of strong affection (similar to the definition of joy though you'll have to intuit it) and personal attatchment (or trust)." Practical love is too impersonal and objective, and unconditional is too deep to be personal as it suggests an intuitive altruism.
So as I said before, the first love lacks personal attatchment as trust is unnecessary. The second, however, lacks the strong affection as it can be between friends. So the combination of the two leads to the definition of what love is to me. A sense of security and trust, with a twist of passion and desire. It's an emotion you can't feel within the first two months of a relationship as it is, in fact, a associated with a relationship. I heard somewhere in psychology circles that if you love someone for 16 months, it's real love. But then I can't say that's true.
Judging by the way logically expressed how I see love, it's very apparent I'm an ENTP. But I'm not as bad as an INTP! I used emotions and feelings. lmao Poetry just isn't my forte. So, yeah, I didn't use a word or phrase to describe it but an equation. It's interesting how the INFJ used a poem to describe the emotional roller coaster (a form of order despite the emotional chaos) and the INFP expressed the roller coaster in his/her emotional ramblings (you have to intuitvely capture the words he uses in expressing the rollercoaster and "the flow of the cart" to understand his subjective view.) So similar yet so different. Just something that caught my eye. Mine's more like a debate arguement.