???? physical?

[Libaax-Sankataabte]

Sophist, Lakkad is actually on the joking mode. Take it easy.

 

Sophist, you considered love from a "dry" perception point of view. I should approach it from a chemistry point of view

 

 

First attraction: is dominated by phenylethylamine, dopamine and norepinephrine chemicals in the brain. This type of chemical is found in chocolate.

 

Attachment: is invoked by the endorphins in our brain.

 

Playfulness: oxytocin is the chemical that helps us be more playful and sensitive to each other's feeling.

 

Faithfulness: staying with one partner is helped by the vasopressin chemical

[Sophist]

Salams

 

Libaax, i was on the joke trip myself. how have you been? send me a private msg.

[Avenging_Angel]

..I FIRMLY BELIEVE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOVE.LOVE IS AN IDEALOGICAL TERM WHEN INFACT IT'S CHEMISTRY/ANIMAL ATTRACTION SOMEONE WE FIND PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE WHOM WE CAN BREED WITH.IT'S ALL ABOUT THE HORMONES WE SEND OUT AND OUR FUTURE MATES PICK UP.THAT'S WHY MOST DIVORCE'S CASE'S ARE AND I QUOTE "WE FELL IN LOVE AND OUT OF LOVE JUST AS QUICK".

 

...LIFES A ***** THEN WE DIE

[honest girl]

God this guy can write. r u a writer or what's up with u. i haven't read anything u posted so far but the first two three sentences blew me off. u could be a great writer bro. keep it up and hey god bless u.

[Sophist]

?

[Sophist]

perhap not

[Sophist]

Since this post things had altered hugely

[NGONGE]

Just as I was about to comment on this topic, eh?

 

I just finished reading this whole thread, like reading a short story it was. I get the impression different people interpret the word LOVE in different ways. Some put the emphasis on the love of the creator, others think of the love between a husband and wife (or courting couples), while a third group look at it as anything that provides them with enjoyment which they would “love” to repeat (easy way out here, since this definition seems to encompass most things). I suppose it depends on what stage in their lives each group is.

 

 

I’ll stick with the second definition for a minute, the love of a partner/husband/wife. The idea of having a soul mate, your other half, the permanent object of all your desires! The Indian movie scenario, the skipping heartbeats and the sweeping of the feet! I’m sure by now you’ve realised that I’m ridiculing the whole concept, if you haven’t, erm, well I am.

 

Those who support the existence of this notion (the permanent type of course – fleeting LOVE is not worth talking about here, it’ll probably be gone before I’ve finished typing this piece) will argue that you need to experience it before you can make a judgment. They’ll bring to the fore the stories of Qays, Leila, Cantar, Cabla, Celmi and Hodon! When asked what’s the natural conclusion of this “love” many will understandably say marriage. Some will even consider it an imprudent question. I’m yet to see evidence of such love that ended up in marriage. The heroes and heroines of this “religion” have all died without fulfilling their mission (if a mission it was). In my mind’s eye, I always wonder what their lives would have been like had they got married and lived “happily” ever after? Would they still have that urgent, steamy, unstoppable need to love and be loved or would they become like any normal couple? Would they argue over little things, fall out, wish that they’ve never gotten married and then calm down and rebuke themselves for daring to have those wicked thoughts. Would the cultural aspects governing the relationships between husbands and wives break up their love or enhance it?

 

 

If man is a social animal it must also follow that man needs to belong! People express feelings of pride in their family’s’, children, possessions and even the exact geographical position they were born in! Humans are needy creatures and they “love” nothing better than to fulfil that need by falling in love, getting married and having children. It’s true, LOVE, does make the world go round but rather than being the love of others it’s really the love of oneself that keeps us going and inventing all these different concepts.

 

 

This was my belatedly late contribution to this discussion, it’s nothing more than my usual stream of consciences and I hope that my cynical take on this idea of love isn’t going to stop any of you from loving yourselves. Heh.

[Sophist]

Alas Thus Spake the ill-defined sage ! just kidding dude.

 

"If man is a social animal it must also follow that man needs to belong" where have I read this from?

[NGONGE]

It’s a term favoured by psychologists, scientists and many others (Charles Darwin is an example). I’m not sure I’ve used the exact expression and it’s not certain that such a phrase can be ascribed to anyone. So, lower that cynical eyebrow and halt your suspicion. :mad:

 

As for being a vague or ill-defined sage, rest assured that I pride myself on that small fact (ill-defined being the operative word here of course). :cool:

[postman]

Sophist, like always, out to exaggerate everything into a simple notion that is defined by his own priori definition. He is like a man who knows of a certain life, his own boring life. Who then comes to the conclusion that life is dull and meaningless, and that there is no point in thinking about it; nothing great ever happens, there are no heroes or villains—no point. Surely, such a man has no choice but to define life in such a way. However, if it the fact is pressed to him that every day someone wakes up, gets dressed and has breakfast, just to go and consciously take away life; to murder, to cause evil and terror to people who would otherwise may have happy and fulfilling lives. Or that someone else does the complete opposite: consciously sacrifices his own life for strangers. Willingly gives his own to the needy at his own expense. What would such a man say to such reality? How would he respond? Surely, if he is reasonable, he will swallow back his mischievous conclusions and change the very premises, his own life, which he used to arrive as such absurd conclusions.

 

The point I’m trying to make is: who are you to question love. Honestly, how can you be so ungrateful as to judge the very thing which makes life possible? You were born, and bred, and have grown up, because somebody loved you. And you the work of its hands, its foster child, the pupil of its thoughts, its own proof, have the nerve to say itself has no meaning or that its all a mistake—and that person did not actually love you, but thought they did; there must be something wrong with you, you have made a mistake. And I think your mistake is that you have too narrowly defined love, although you claim it cannot be defined (like Allah, by the way I’m still trying to get over the bad taste it has left in my thoughts).

 

It sounds like a women has broken your heart, and you came to a popular conclusion. The sad thing is, however, you actually believe this, this random jottings of immoral thoughts founded on nothing, aspire to something original; original enough to render a well established Truth such as love into nothing!

 

Shame.

[Sophist]

A true man never insults, it is not sentiment that drives but indeed reason Alas, i shall not dare to even intertain the idea of kicking the ball in your direction.

[postman]

Sorry I was high on caffeine. I have just read over it, I think I was tad too aggressive.

 

Anyway, please do comment.

[Mutakalim]

Sophist:

 

I am indeed greatly influenced by Ghazali. He was great man, a man who encouraged thinking and contemplation not a blind following consequently I am following his methods and assuredly he will be elated to have heard my theories in life.

 

A most dedicated Ghazelian desciple I am, notwithstanding Ibn Taymiyyah's critical castigation of our mystic teacher. I am most confident that Al-Ghazali would be elated by your methodological adherence. Ghazali a martyr of Islamic thought, ought to be studied in all schools. Most delighted I am to find a philosophical and ideological ally in thee.

 

Nothing exists independently of our minds is a statement only audacious men of reason would pronounce. An Idealist I became as I read Berkley's Principles of Human Knowledge.

 

Love is a mere concept and thusly it's existence independently of our minds is nonsenical; and lo! so too the existence of anything, be it physical or psychal, independent of any Mind is inconcievable. "To Be is to be percieved" said the old philosopher; how puissantly penetrating an idea he so concieved.

 

[QOUTE] Real beauty (independent from our minds) does not exist in our physical world.

 

Ah! you are invoking the ancient doctrine of Ideas and Forms, the Platonic Forms. Plato must have been a mystic of some sort, else how would he formulate this most ingenious thesis of reality.

 

Thus you Spake my freind. Thus you spake indeed.

 

P.S. Intaan ciyaalada meeshan yaacaya la gurtamilahaa , waxaa lay qaati inaan odayaasha la munaaqasho.... Mase anigaa oday keliya meesha ka jooga (Oday being anyone who has passed the "dreaded" age of thirty)

 

With Salaams

PK

[JustCause]

Guys, I would be happy if you just spoke (as opposed to ‘spake’ all the time) or wrote simple English! In this day and age, no one writes or speaks in the following manner; “Thus you Spake my friend. Thus you spake indeed.”

 

This type of writing can only be found in ancient literatures such as, The Iliad, War and Peace and so on. The point of my post is, if you lot keep writing and talking like this, we (the commoners) would not be able to follow or pay any attention in what you say/write. I thus hope you will keep it simple for our sake!