Monday 20 May 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Source(Google.com.pk)
Genuine love, in the sense it is defined here, is seldom found in pop love lyrics. Like current usage, these songs define love only vaguely, and very broadly.
One of the central ideas in this book is the massive individualism that is taken for granted in Western societies. Our “commonsense,” the shared understandings we have in these societies, tells us that individuals are good, they are connected to freedom, and relationships are bad, they are associated with restraint. A less celebrated set of assumptions concerns which emotions are good and which are bad.
In this chapter, I suggest that the emotion of love is seen as good, and is used, therefore, as often as possible. This assumption is groundless, of course, since love in itself is neither good nor bad, or better yet, both good and bad. Love can be experienced in different modes, some very painful. Increasing our understanding of love, step by step, challenges the major institutions in our society.
Current Usage
One obvious cause for confusion is the many ways this word is used in Western societies. According to Harold Bloom (1998 p. 549), Aldous Huxley suggested “we use the word love for the most amazing variety of relationships, ranging from what we feel for our mothers to what we feel for someone we beat up in a bordello, or its many equivalents. [1]"
The comment about beating someone up because we love them is probably not an exaggeration. A recent set of experiments suggests that subjects’ condemnation of murder is softened if they are told that it was committed out of jealousy (Peunte and Cohen  2003). These subjects seem to entertain the idea that one can love someone so much that one murders them.
Solomon (1981, pp. 3-4) elaborates on the vagueness and broadness of the vernacular word:
Consider… the wealth of meticulous and fine distinctions we make in describing our feelings of hostil¬ity: hatred, loathing, scorn, anger, revulsion, resentment, envy, abhorrence, malice, aversion, vexation, irritation, annoyance, disgust, spite and contempt, or worse, "beneath" contempt. And yet we sort out our positive affections for the most part between the two limp categories, "liking" and "loving." We distinguish our friends from mere acquaintances and make a ready distinction between lovers and friends whom we love "but not that way." Still, one and the same word serves to describe our enthusiasm for apple strudel, respect for a dis¬tant father, the anguish of an uncertain romantic affair and nostalgic affection for an old pair of slippers…
Solomon (1981, p. 7) goes on to quote Voltaire: “There are so many sorts of love that one does not know where to seek a definition of it.” In modern societies, the careless use of the word love tends to defend us against the primitive pain of separation and alienation. The broad use of the word love may defend against the excruciatingly painful loss of true intimacy and community in modern societies.
What does Love Mean?
One place to seek definitions is the dictionary. In the English language unabridged dictionaries provide some two dozen meanings for love, most of them applicable to romantic or close relationships. These are the first two meanings in the American Heritage Dictionary (1992):
    1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
    2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
    These two definitions are of great interest, because they touch upon several complexities. Particularly daunting is the idea that love is ineffable (indescribable). I can sympathize with this idea because genuine love seems to be quite complex. Both popular and scholarly accounts flirt with the idea that one of the crowning qualities of love is that it is mysterious and therefore indescribable. Nevertheless, in this chapter I will proceed along the lines that “love” as it is often perceived, may feel like a mystery, especially to the person obsessed with it, but it can be described. I propose a concept of love to reduce the extraordinary ambiguity of the meaning of what may be the most important of the emotions.
The first dictionary definition (above) is very broad, covering both romantic and other kinds of love, such as love of kin. The second is narrower, involving only romantic love, and emphasizing sexual attraction. Of the twenty or so remaining definitions, a few are unrelated to interpersonal relationships (such as the use of the word love in scoring a tennis match.)  Most of them, however, involve various shadings and gradations of love, and especially, of romantic love. Given the many possible meanings of the word, it is no wonder that scholars and, more recently, social scientists, seem so divided on its significance.
Of all the basic emotions, love is the least clearly defined. Our conceptions of anger, fear, shame, grief, contempt, disgust, and joy may be fuzzy around the edges, but they are clear enough so that we can communicate about them. At the most elementary level, we feel we are able at least to distinguish between painful emotions, such as fear, grief and shame, and pleasurable ones, like interest, excitement, and joy.
But about love, particularly romantic love, there is nothing but disagreement. Even on so basic an issue about whether love is painful or pleasurable, experts are divided. Indeed, reading the scholarly literature, it often seems that they are not talking about the same emotion. Some experts, both classical and modern, consider love not only pleasurable, but in many ways the most important thing in life. Nevertheless, this view represents only a minority. The dominant view has long been that love, especially romantic love, is a painful affliction or madness, a view widely held by the ancient Greeks (De Rougement 1940). Over 2500 years ago, Sappho described the pain and impairment of love:The majority of secular scholars have also taken the position that romantic love is an affliction or madness. The most elaborate description of romantic love is found in Stendhal's Love (1975). Although he denies that passionate love is pathological, he inconsistently acknowledges that it is a disease. Certainly his description emphasizes the painful rather than the pleasurable aspects. At the beginning, one is lost in obsession:
The most surprising thing of all about love is the first step, the violence of the change that takes place in the mind…  A person in love in unremittingly and uninterruptedly occupied with the image of the beloved.
In the later stages, Stendahl notes, many other surprises await, most of them unpleasant: "Then you reach the final torment: utter despair poisoned still further by a shred of hope"
Although Stendahl included positive aspects of love, the philosopher Ortega y Gasset saw only the negative (On Love 1957), calling romantic love an abnormality. This passage suggests the flavor of his critique:
The soul of a man in love smells of the closed-up room of a sick man--its confined atmosphere is filled with stale breath.

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

Funny Love Poems Photos Pictures Pics Images 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment