| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Psychology Forum » love, what is it
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Vero |
 Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 9:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Is there a correct scientific definition on it?If not, why can't science
put a definition up on something that so clearly exists? Is it because
love continues to mean different things to both lovers and scientists?
Vero |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vero |
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 9:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vero" <veronisc@frisurf.no> skrev i melding
news:KgOqb.37097$os2.542879@news2.e.nsc.no...
Quote: Is there a correct scientific definition on it?If not, why can't science
put a definition up on something that so clearly exists? Is it because
love continues to mean different things to both lovers and scientists?
Vero
Ok, I'll try one myself:
Love: The ability and willingness to allow those that you care for
to be what they choose for themselves, without any insistence that they
satisfy you..(workable definiton,anyway)
Other thoughts:
how can you love. Answer: by loving yourself? Being selfish is
not the same, as being selfish is a try to compensate for the failure
to care for and respect themselves. Theory behind it:
If the you is someone unworthy, or unloved by you, then giving
becomes impossible. How can you give love if you're worthless?
What would your love be worth? And if you can't give love,
neither can you receive it.
The entire business of being in love, giving and receiving, starts with
a self that is totally loved.
Vero |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Is there a correct scientific definition on it?
No.
Quote: If not, why can't science
put a definition up on something that so clearly exists?
Does it exist ? Can you prove this ?
Quote: Is it because
love continues to mean different things to both lovers and scientists?
The question never mattered to anyone in psychology, because psychology and
psychiatry are all about "control", and not "knowledge", certainly not
"science".
Quote:
Ok, I'll try one myself:
Love: The ability and willingness to allow those that you care for
to be what they choose for themselves, without any insistence that they
satisfy you..(workable definiton,anyway)
Other thoughts:
how can you love. Answer: by loving yourself? Being selfish is
not the same, as being selfish is a try to compensate for the failure
to care for and respect themselves. Theory behind it:
If the you is someone unworthy, or unloved by you, then giving
becomes impossible. How can you give love if you're worthless?
What would your love be worth? And if you can't give love,
neither can you receive it.
The entire business of being in love, giving and receiving, starts with
a self that is totally loved.
Nice try. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vero |
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 10:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Critter" <Barking@The.Moon> skrev i melding
news:61Yqb.139780$HS4.1118718@attbi_s01...
Quote: Is there a correct scientific definition on it?
No.
If not, why can't science
put a definition up on something that so clearly exists?
Does it exist ? Can you prove this ?
Can you prove feelings?
Quote:
Is it because
love continues to mean different things to both lovers and scientists?
The question never mattered to anyone in psychology, because psychology
and
psychiatry are all about "control", and not "knowledge", certainly not
"science".
isn't knowing feelings and mechanisms of them (like love) the core way to
control things? I should think so. Psychology is about behavior change for
behaviorists, but for me and most modern psychologists it's much more.
It's about personal growth and happiness too, which makes it philosophical
as well. One day perhaps being able to control each molecule and transmitter
as well as genes, maybe we can construct the perfect 'meaning of life' for
each and every one. Just a thought. Psychology follows scientific rules,
though
has more problem than other sciences. It's in need of very accurate
definitions,
which is hard when talking about the mind. It's about narrowing it down.But
it can and is done. Read psychological research and judge it for yourself.
Quote:
Ok, I'll try one myself:
Love: The ability and willingness to allow those that you care for
to be what they choose for themselves, without any insistence that they
satisfy you..(workable definiton,anyway)
Other thoughts:
how can you love. Answer: by loving yourself? Being selfish is
not the same, as being selfish is a try to compensate for the failure
to care for and respect themselves. Theory behind it:
If the you is someone unworthy, or unloved by you, then giving
becomes impossible. How can you give love if you're worthless?
What would your love be worth? And if you can't give love,
neither can you receive it.
The entire business of being in love, giving and receiving, starts with
a self that is totally loved.
Nice try.
Nice try of what?
Vero
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Critter |
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 12:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vero" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:OO7rb.37301$os2.546168@news2.e.nsc.no...
Quote:
"Critter" <Barking@The.Moon> skrev i melding
news:61Yqb.139780$HS4.1118718@attbi_s01...
Is there a correct scientific definition on it?
No.
If not, why can't science
put a definition up on something that so clearly exists?
Does it exist ? Can you prove this ?
Can you prove feelings?
You say it exists. Prove it. I'm not disagreeing with you, but in science
things are proved. You can't prove this anymore than the astrology kook in
the other thread can prove any of his horoscope babble.
Quote: Is it because
love continues to mean different things to both lovers and
scientists?
The question never mattered to anyone in psychology, because psychology
and
psychiatry are all about "control", and not "knowledge", certainly not
"science".
isn't knowing feelings and mechanisms of them (like love) the core way to
control things? I should think so. Psychology is about behavior change for
behaviorists, but for me and most modern psychologists it's much more.
It's about personal growth and happiness too, which makes it philosophical
as well. One day perhaps being able to control each molecule and
transmitter
You hit the nail on the head - key word - "control". The problem is that you
have no control, and cannot attain it. You cannot attain it because a
comprehensive scientific understanding of the mind is impossible, which is
required if you wish to use engineering type controls.
God made it impossible for you. You'll have to settle for delusions of
control.
Quote: as well as genes, maybe we can construct the perfect 'meaning of life' for
each and every one. Just a thought. Psychology follows scientific rules,
though
has more problem than other sciences. It's in need of very accurate
definitions,
Psychology follows scientific rules ? Have I been dreaming all these years ?
I think that you need to rethink that statement. Psychology is nothing more
than "Micro-Poli-Sci". It's nonsense, and responsible for many of the
problems in the US.
Quote: which is hard when talking about the mind. It's about narrowing it
down.But
it can and is done. Read psychological research and judge it for yourself.
Ok, I'll try one myself:
Love: The ability and willingness to allow those that you care for
to be what they choose for themselves, without any insistence that
they
satisfy you..(workable definiton,anyway)
Other thoughts:
how can you love. Answer: by loving yourself? Being selfish is
not the same, as being selfish is a try to compensate for the failure
to care for and respect themselves. Theory behind it:
If the you is someone unworthy, or unloved by you, then giving
becomes impossible. How can you give love if you're worthless?
What would your love be worth? And if you can't give love,
neither can you receive it.
The entire business of being in love, giving and receiving, starts
with
a self that is totally loved.
Nice try.
Nice try of what?
Nice try, trying to make something scientific which cannot be made so.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:41 am
|
|