i think of love as a verb primarily. yes, just like the dc talk song. but really, love is, to me, shown through actions. not just words, but words followed through. maybe words never even come into the picture, maybe it is a silent love, shown through acts of kindness. in essence, selflessness. maybe it's shown through restraint, the lack of words. i think that the term "lust at first first" is more true than "love at first sight" for this reason: one can be loving TO someone from the moment they meet them, and in that way "love them at first sight," but more often than not, there is no actual loving happening. it's *just* lust.
i think the term "in love" is bizarre, useless, and nonsensical. if you care to explain it to me, i will listen.
2 comments:
I didn't see this post until now! I agree with everything you said concerning love. I had never considered the "lust at first sight" argument, but I will say that while your point may be valid, I think it might be a bit overboard to say that that translates into lust. It can be a mild attraction--it doesn't have to go THAT far. And of course, it depends on your definition of first sight...literal first sight or first meeting (within 5 min). :)
The term "in love" is useful to me only in that one can use it to specify the "type" of love one feels for another. To love someone is one thing, but to love them with the very basic fundamentals of love (everything you mentioned) and a romantic husband/wife love are two very different things.
I love YOU very much but I will never be IN love WITH you. There is a difference. Notice the use of the word "with"--that implies a double effort on the part of each person. It is more of a mutually shared love then (or should be, in most cases) and the love doesn't have to be one-sided.
That's my description. Going to eat dinner. LOVE YOU. :D
Scuze me, meant to make it clear (in the 2nd paragraph) that you can love someone, and then you can love them with the basic fundamentals of love PLUS a romantic love.
Post a Comment