I like that way of seeing it. Cool about your last sentence. The feed back part was taking it further to when there is action going on. Someone can be kind (positive) or mean (negative) in a relationship. Yet love might only exist in thought and never get expressed in any way, though I admit that isn't common. That was a good example to pick. One might say by ignoring her he is acting, and I tend to agree. More like what I mean is being unable to decide how to or being without any chance to show love. That can be how it is for people who are always or almost always isolated. Then love would only ever be in the thoughts.
I understand your point. Also, forgive me if I might sound too bash (verbally). So we both agree that feelings are necessary for love. Though, i also believe that actions are also necessary (you probably already know, just for re-clarification i guess haha). I think my idea works both ways (as for loving yourself and others). Actions are necessary to love yourself and others. Let's say you were the only person on this planet. You're probably very lonely, lacking other human contact etc. But the main point of this little situation is that in order to love yourself you must do actions for yourself. Does that make sense? If you just sit there and think of ways to love yourself and never do it (just like the couple example), it isn't love (or true love. In reality it's just words with definitions but overall it's just love. I guess i was just trying to be poetic with my idea). To make all this even more clear. The only way other people can identify a person as a loving person is through their actions. There is no other way. Since it is very common for us humans to love others and not just ourselves, it is necessary for actions to take place. Therefore, actions overall are necessary for love.
Kevin Lomax: What about love? John Milton: Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate.
Now you're just being picky. Lets stick with the little chocolate situation. Which has more meaning? To love chocolate or to love another human?
The diction of my response was correct. I don't think this conversation of ours will progress. It seems that you are sticking with love being chemicals interacting. It is true but if you stick with that definition, then my idea is not for you. So there is not point in talking about the subject any longer.
No conversation will progress when one participant refuses to respond. You are correct, there is no point in carrying on. You are unable to refute an underlying biochemical reason for the fundamental instantiation of "love". I get it.
The fact is.....I did respond.... I agreed with you that love is is chemical interaction. But if you're going to stick with that and only that, there is no point to move on. You can't debate or challenge something that is already "true". My idea is about human interaction and not brain/chemical activity.
How do you separate human interaction from "brain/chemical activity"? Are you positing some "higher" level abstraction? If so, what is it based on? How do you measure it? How do you "sense" it? How do you even know it exists?
You can't seperate them. Let me re-quote myself: "My idea is about human interaction and not brain/chemical activity." By that, i mean not just specific towards chemical activity. My idea talks about the result of that chemical activity.
And what are those results? How do you quantify them? Hell, how do you even qualify them? According to which set of arbitrary standards? Or, do you subscribe to some sort of absolute / objective scale that I'm not aware of? Can you define the metrics?
Well one result would be love and my idea defines what love is. Re-read my idea. It might clarify things.
One result of the chemical interaction that we are talking about is love. I do not define love with love. My idea is simple and broad. I don't know how you can misconstrue it.
