No love at Ist sight!

[nidy]

I really dont understand how people fall in love at first sight.It may be a liking but nt love. Love happens but for that one needs to know that person.When we meet someone for few moments , we all try to be sweet like honey. and its not real. ONly when You meet again and again the real u comes out. Suppose,if im a short tempered person you would never know, until you meet me again and again.

Its only looks that v get to see at first meeting. and falling in love just becoz of good looks is not true. Two people should respect and understand each other.
Think about it!

nidy.

[Michael Chui]

Love at first sight makes perfect sense. To continue loving is what takes work. The presumption that what comes in the middle of the process of loving is different from what comes at the beginning of the process is wrong; a cake doesn't look like a cake when it's a mess of eggs and flour.

[Scott H Young]

I think it depends on your definition of "love"

Love at first sight makes sense if:

a) You consider love to be equated with interest/infatuation. I personally don't, but this is what a lot of people use to describe it.

b) You consider love to be an unconditional love that you have with all people even before meeting them.

I like to stick with the classical definition of love as the feeling manifested from an extremely deep, intimate and emotional connection. In this case, "love at first sight" doesn't make a whole lot of sense because a deep and intimate emotional connection takes the time of getting to really know the person and understand them as they understand you.

But that is just my definition.

[Michael Chui]

My definition is here: Aqualgidus.org > The Definition of Love

[TechnoGuyRob]

Originally Posted by Scott H Young

b) You consider love to be an unconditional love that you have with all people even before meeting them.

Love cannot be unconditional. Unless it is something that applies to truly everything, regardless of any criteria, that is. In that case, it is pointless to define it, as it is absolutely universal.

Hence, love has to be conditional.

EDIT: In fact, calling love unconditional is a logical fallacy. Obviously, the property of being "unconditional" is a condition (that makes it "unconditional love"). Of course, then by definition, it isn't unconditional (since it requires a condition).

[Dating Specialist]

Originally Posted by TechnoGuyRob

Love cannot be unconditional. Unless it is something that applies to truly everything, regardless of any criteria, that is. In that case, it is pointless to define it, as it is absolutely universal.

Hence, love has to be conditional.

EDIT: In fact, calling love unconditional is a logical fallacy. Obviously, the property of being "unconditional" is a condition (that makes it "love"). Of course, then by definition, it isn't unconditional (since it requires a condition).

Hi TechnoGuyRob, why can't love be unconditional? Have you ever seen real life couples who displayed such selfless love for one another? I have..and that is for romantic love.

For non-romantic love, there is Mother Teresa whose love for all is absolutely unconditional. Regardless how sick or infectious the person is, in her eyes, the person is lovely and flawless.

How about parental love? Even though I'm not a parent myself yet but Ive spoken to many who told me if they were to die for anyone, they would seriously ponder first. But for their child, anytime.

Well, just my point of view that's all

[TechnoGuyRob]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

My definition is here: Aqualgidus.org > The Definition of Love

Commendable. There are a few unaddressed issues, contradictions (perhaps more aptly, recursive definition), and unclear statements, but it offered me some new insights. Notably, I like your assertion that the "self" is definable in that it is what I perceive my "self" to be, regardless of what it is. It is formidable to provide a rigorous (not merely intuitive) and non self-referencing definition. Nevertheless, by defining the "self" as a projection (or mapping, if you wish), it is easily observed that the "self" is liable to (in an absolute context) change; that is, cutting off my finger does not change me as being "self". The particularly favorable component is a fairly concrete condition for when a "self" fails to be such (i.e., when a "self" cannot project itself as such, it does not satisfy the definition of "self", presumably as in death).

Like I said, there were issues, but my biggest problem (so significant I take the initiative to explicate it here) is your use of the word sentience (a potato can be "sentient" for all we know). I believe the word you were looking for is sapience.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Originally Posted by Dating Specialist

Hi TechnoGuyRob, why can't love be unconditional? Have you ever seen real life couples who displayed such selfless love for one another? I have..and that is for romantic love.

For non-romantic love, there is Mother Teresa whose love for all is absolutely unconditional. Regardless how sick or infectious the person is, in her eyes, the person is lovely and flawless.

How about parental love? Even though I'm not a parent myself yet but Ive spoken to many who told me if they were to die for anyone, they would seriously ponder first. But for their child, anytime.

Well, just my point of view that's all

It is so, because Mother Teresa assumed the "person" is just that. For example, if you would remove an atom by atom, there would eventually be a point where that "person" would not be "loved", perhaps as small as one atom or no atoms. Hence, there does exist a condition. Other examples can be provided.

Also, once again, read my "EDIT" carefully. As you see, the state of anything being "unconditional" is a logical contradiction, and hence, cannot be enacted.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by TechnoGuyRob

Nevertheless, by defining the "self" as a projection (or mapping, if you wish), it is easily observed that the "self" is liable to (in an absolute context) change; that is, cutting off my finger does not change me as being "self". The particularly favorable component is a fairly concrete condition for when a "self" fails to be such (i.e., when a "self" cannot project itself as such, it does not satisfy the definition of "self", presumably as in death).

I'm not really sure how to respond to this, except that it doesn't seem circular in context. The point of that section was to segue into Inclusion, which points out that the Self can change. To love, therefore, is to expand the Self such that it includes more than just yourself, such that when you make a beneficial and selfish action, it benefits more than just yourself.

I guess it does sound paradoxical, but I don't think it is. Re-reading that entire chapter, I wonder if I didn't spend enough time describing this.

Originally Posted by TechnoGuyRob

Like I said, there were issues, but my biggest problem (so significant I take the initiative to explicate it here) is your use of the word sentience (a potato can be "sentient" for all we know). I believe the word you were looking for is sapience.

That's odd; I remember having checked that over, when I first learned of the difference, and I seem to remember confirming that I'd used the correct term. But looking it up, you're right: it is mistaken. I'm going to mull it over a bit before making the change, but I'll probably do so. Thanks.

Originally Posted by TechnoGuyRob

There are a few unaddressed issues, contradictions (perhaps more aptly, recursive definition), and unclear statements

I am, naturally, willing to consider anything you've got.

[zpivat]

Agree with nidy.........
To me, there's only infatuation at first sight