Does love cure people of anger management issues?

[acd]

Yes




Haha yeah

Well maybe we should go from the ides that if the person says that they loves the person that they hurt it's possible that they really do.



LOL

Seriously?
In what way can a person who makes of habit of harming another person really love them?

So, what is your idea of love?

 

[Cuddle Donor]

Sorry if I brought up any old wounds. I wanted to focus specifically on romantic relationships to avoid things where people might have been victimised by their parents as children. But I suppose merry is right in that it shouldn't be kept quiet.

 

[Lucifer]

Seriously?
In what way can a person who makes of habit of harming another person really love them?

It's not that people who make a habit a harming others don't love them, it's that they hate themselves. And it's of course possible that there are people incapable of loving (or who don't love the ones that they hurt) others but I think it is altogether more rare.

So, what is your idea of love?

My ideas about love are tentative, but I'll give it a shot.

I say there are two kinds of love, love and true love.

In short love is a pure emotion that can only be identified by the person who holds it. It has no requirement no explanation, it just is.

True love is more difficult to define.

It is love and more, it is when you've found your soulmate; but it is also when you and that other person are mature enough to carry on a stable happy relationship. I think both members of the relationship have to be truly actualized in that sense, both people must understand the other and what leads to a happy relationship.

And then there is everything in between.

et vu?

 

[acd]

It's not that people who make a habit a harming others don't love them, it's that they hate themselves. And it's of course possible that there are people incapable of loving (or who don't love the ones that they hurt) others but I think it is altogether more rare.

My ideas about love are tentative, but I'll give it a shot.

I say there are two kinds of love, love and true love.

In short love is a pure emotion that can only be identified by the person who holds it. It has no requirement no explanation, it just is.

True love is more difficult to define.

It is love and more, it is when you've found your soulmate; but it is also when you and that other person are mature enough to carry on a stable happy relationship. I think both members of the relationship have to be truly actualized in that sense, both people must understand the other and what leads to a happy relationship.

And then there is everything in between.

et vu?

I take a pretty rational approach to love. I don't believe love is purely emotional, because emotions cannot always be trusted, they aren't stable and long-standing. Besides, if we all did exactly what we felt it would be utter madness. I don't accept the fairy tale view of love. It's not etheral and ineffable.

I think love is more an action word. I said it in another thread already, but love can be known by the way one acts towards one another regardless of their emotions..

For example, you've had a shitty day or life--and you work hard at being self-disciplined enough not to take it out on other people.

 

[Lucifer]

I don't believe love is purely emotional, because emotions cannot always be trusted, they aren't stable and long-standing.

I am a tad confused, why does love have to be stable and long standing for it to be love? So what your saying that if love is fleeting it is not real? Why is that?

Besides, if we all did exactly what we felt it would be utter madness.

I am not suggesting that we do what we feel. I am suggesting that what we feel may be real no matter what actions we take. Of course you knew that I think.

I think love is more an action word. I said it in another thread already, but love can be known by the way one acts towards one another regardless of their emotions..

Well why? You can hate someone and not betray it in your actions. Why is love different? Why is it that you need some external proof of love?

This is thought provoking YAY!

 

[acd]

I am a tad confused, why does love have to be stable and long standing for it to be love? So what your saying that if love is fleeting it is not real? Why is that?

Yeah, that's precisely what I'm saying. If 'love' ends due to one of the partner's fickleness, I'd say it was never love to begin with--just an infatuation.

I am not suggesting that we do what we feel. I am suggesting that what we feel may be real no matter what actions we take. Of course you knew that I think.

What we feel should be questioned and evaluated before acting upon it. (Dang. Who's the NT and who's the NF here, I'm beginning to forget. lol.)
I'm not saying feelings are completely invalid and only rationality surmises.. But they must both be balanced. Plenty of co-dependent people stay in abusive relationships because they 'feel' they are loved. If they were able to step away from their feelings and question and evaluate the root of their behavior, they might heal and move on with their lives and form healthy relationships in the future.

Well why? You can hate someone and not betray it in your actions. Why is love different? Why is it that you need some external proof of love

Seems to me sacrifice and compromise (reasonable ones, not self-destructive ones.) are the fruits of love.

Prancing around holding hands in a park together feeding one another chocolate covered strawberries while the angels in heaven perform a rendition of The Carpenter's "Why Do Birds Suddenly Appear?" isn't an indicator of how reliable and trustworthy a partner is.

 

[Lucifer]

Yeah, that's precisely what I'm saying. If 'love' ends due to one of the partner's fickleness, I'd say it was never love to begin with--just an infatuation.

Yeah but why? Why is it love needs all these identifiers for it to be love?

What we feel should be questioned and evaluated before acting upon it. (Dang. Who's the NT and whose the NF here, I'm beginning to forget. lol.)

I was about to say the same thing lol.

I'm not saying feelings are completely invalid and only rationality surmises.. But they must both be balanced. .

I agree that rationality needs to be in play to create a healthy relationship. But rationality doesn't need to be in play for the feeling to exist.

Plenty of co-dependent people stay in abusive relationships because they 'feel' they are loved. If they were able to step away from their feelings and question and evaluate the root of their behavior, they might heal and move on with their lives and form healthy relationships in the future.

I am not sure the state of a relationship is indicitative of the feelings involved. Love is a feeling, and like every feeling it can manifest itself in thousands of different ways. Everybody manifests it in a diff. way, I feel as though that if you discount the feelings in a relationship because of some objective guideline you made, up you are discounting who the person is in a way. Subtly implying that there mode of expression is not worthy of the human emotion called love. And in a way then denying people even the insufferubley foolish ones there humanity, I don't see that as fair.

Seems to me sacrifice and compromise (reasonable ones, not self-destructive ones.) are the fruits of love.

I'd say that's the fruit of true love. So we do agree sort of.

Prancing around holding hands in a park together feeding one another chocolate covered strawberries while the angels in heaven perform a rendition of The Carpenter's "Why Do Birds Suddenly Appear?" isn't an indicator of how reliable and trustworthy a partner is.

But were not talking about trustworthiness were talking about being in love.

Anyway I hope your not POd I think this is an intersting convo.

 

[acd]

Yeah but why? Why is it love needs all these identifiers for it to be love?

Ok, why does it not need identifiers?
I don't buy that "it's a feeling; it just is."

I agree that rationality needs to be in play to create a healthy relationship. But rationality doesn't need to be in play for the feeling to exist.

Yeah, feelings will exist all on their own. I just mean they need to be checked with reason. There needs to be a balance between the two.

I am not sure the state of a relationship is indicitative of the feelings involved. Love is a feeling, and like every feeling it can manifest itself in thousands of different ways. Everybody manifests it in a diff. way, I feel as though that if you discount the feelings in a relationship because of some objective guideline you made, up you are discounting who the person is in a way. Subtly implying that there mode of expression is not worthy of the human emotion called love. And in a way then denying people even the insufferubley foolish ones there humanity, I don't see that as fair.

So long as it's manifested in a way that is healthy. Which brings us back to the point of abuse. If one were to 'love' their partner so much that they became a jealous insecure wreck, and acted like a tyrant on a regular basis, I'd say that's a negative manifestation of their feelings that needs to be checked. Not just accepted because it's 'love'. Sure, anyone's free to manifest their love all over whether it be in the form of creative expression, consentual physical intimacy, or cleaning the toilet. Whatever.

But were not talking about trustworthiness were talking about being in love.

I see.
My mind doesn't differentiate between the two.

And, no. I am not POed.

 

[Julia]

My mind doesn't differentiate between the two.

Love is an indistinct term, but I agree there is a kind of affection that is equivalent to trust which is something important and distinct from affections that are fleeting. A person can place the label of love on either concept, but it is important to make a distinction between the concepts.

Edit: I will add that the "feeling" of love is most often associated with a sense of personal attachment. This is based on desire to have one's needs filled. It is based on self interest. Even a strong desire to give to someone can be a way to satisfy self interest. There is greater meaning in constancy that transcends the fleeting pleasures of physiology.

 

[acd]

Edit: I will add that the "feeling" of love is most often associated with a sense of personal attachment. This is based on desire to have one's needs filled. It is based on self interest. Even a strong desire to give to someone can be a way to satisfy self interest. There is greater meaning in constancy that transcends the fleeting pleasures of physiology.

Right!! ^^What she said!!^^

 

[Lucifer]

Love is an indistinct term, but I agree there is a kind of affection that is equivalent to trust which is something important and distinct from affections that are fleeting. A person can place the label of love on either concept, but it is important to make a distinction between the concepts.

Edit: I will add that the "feeling" of love is most often associated with a sense of personal attachment. This is based on desire to have one's needs filled. It is based on self interest. Even a strong desire to give to someone can be a way to satisfy self interest. There is greater meaning in constancy that transcends the fleeting pleasures of physiology.

Right!! ^^What she said!!^^

I agree actually.

Which is why I make a distinction between love and true love.

 

[acd]

I agree actually.

Which is why I make a distinction between love and true love.

Why not just make the distinction between 'like' and 'love'?

 

[Lucifer]

Ok, why does it not need identifiers?
I don't buy that "it's a feeling; it just is."

Well I do, feelings exist independently of action. You can hate with out acting on it, you can be jealous with out acting on it, and you can be in love with out acting on it.

Yeah, feelings will exist all on their own. I just mean they need to be checked with reason. There needs to be a balance between the two.

Okay, so we seems to be agreeing that love is a feeling that can exist on its own. So it can exist without the balance of reason, which is all I am saying.

People use this feeling to justify all sorts of self destructive things, but that does not mean it does not exist.

So long as it's manifested in a way that is healthy. Which brings us back to the point of abuse. If one were to 'love' their partner so much that they became a jealous insecure wreck, and acted like a tyrant on a regular basis, I'd say that's a negative manifestation of their feelings that needs to be checked.

Again we seem to be agreeing that the feeling does exist without external quantifiers.

Not just accepted because it's 'love'. Sure, anyone's free to manifest their love all over whether it be in the form of creative expression, consentual physical intimacy, or cleaning the toilet. Whatever.

So there are acceptable and unacceptable ways of proving a feeling exists?
See I don't think that is fair to people, who for whatever reason have a maladaptive mode of self expression. We've already agreed that feelings can exist on there own, so they can exist in a person what ever there method of expressing them is. It needs a measure if reason to be healthy but not to exist.

I see.
My mind doesn't differentiate between the two.

Gah your making my Ti all nervous!

And, no. I am not POed.

Cool just checking

 

[Lucifer]

Why not just make the distinction between 'like' and 'love'?

If I were to tell someone that they were not in love I'd kind of being make the decision for them, which is not my place. It's not fair of me to judge other peoples feeling as true or untrue, it can be untrue and it can needlessly hurt. So I try to make my definition permissive of human folly.

Not that being in love justifies destructive actions.

 

[acd]

To everything you just said, Lucifer-- I stand by the edited part of Julia's last post. I couldn't have said it better myself.

But now I'm really thinking about the definition of love. And I can only say that right now--I'm stamping my feet childishly on the ground because
I want to be the enlightened dictator who gets to decide on a definition for love...

because I have a hard time accepting that love is a subjective term.. When it is a subjective term it's easy to throw it around and manipulate people with the word... and do horrible things to people in the name of 'love.'

And I think everyone knows that I know best anyway so what better person for the job???? (I kid!!) I'm just being a jerk.

But yes. I will be thinking myself into a corner on this for the next few days.

 

[Lucifer]

because I have a hard time accepting that love is a subjective term.. When it is a subjective term it's easy to throw it around and manipulate people with the word... and do horrible things to people in the name of 'love.'

Its really unfortunate when that happens. But I attribute that to people being retarded, love is pure people aren't

But yes. I will be thinking myself into a corner on this for the next few days.

Aaah to be intuitive, those fun filled moments of intellectual frustration, aren't they fun?

 

[acd]

Well, Cuddle Donor? Whatya say?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Love may be a subjective term, but I think it is about an objective reality. In other words, I think the term 'love' can be used objectively, but it requires wisdom.

 

[lostintranslation]

We all have a unique definition of love. IMO, physically abusing someone and loving them is two completely separate issues. Scarring someone emotionally by abusing them and still proclaiming your love for that person is just not right. I personally knew a friend whose boyfriend hit her occasionally, but she still couldn't get out of that relationship because she 'loved' him. Maybe it's some sort of Stockholm syndrome but once the abuse starts, it will only evolve into a vicious cycle. Is love a cure for aggressiveness? imo it is not the solution, as it could only make things worse if not addressed properly. Abusers should find a more productive and healthy way to deal with their emotions since they are seriously not considering the harmful effect this has to other people, let alone themselves.

 

[Cuddle Donor]

Well, Cuddle Donor? Whatya say?

I say my experience in this realm (or lack thereof) is not something to be proud of, and perhaps my interpretation would reflect that.

My definition of love is simple. Love exists as a biological incentive for humans to actually give a damn about each other, in spite of their selfish ambitions. Maybe I'm cynical here but I believe sticking to a monogmous relationship long enough to conceive and raise children is not immediately beneficial to the individual. Rather, love exists to be beneficial to the species as a whole, making it's worth greater than the sum of each individual. It gives us the drive to overcome the difficulties associtated with such a nessesary task as the propagation of the human race. There is also love for fellow man that gives us the capacitiy for family, community and society and all the subsequent support networks that make our lives that much more successful than they ever would be on our own.

I think this is partitially in line with your interpretation in that, for love to work as intended, then it would need to transcend those pesky rudimentary emotions that so often get in the way of making rational judgment calls like not beating people's faces in. The question I then ask myself is does it always work as intended? I do not know.