There are many types of love - love for a partner, a child, a pet, a family member or a friend.

There is no doubt that love is a complex emotion and does stem from a selfish need. We all want love, want affection, want respect and validation. Want being the operative word. But with that want is also giving, nuturing, loving and sacrifice.

If the source of our need for love is selfish the outcomes are positive for the most part, even if sometimes the negative emotions like possessiveness and jealousy are aroused.

Children will not thrive without love or the right type of love (non-possessive).

Overall we are better with love than not even if the root of that need is selfish. On a scientific level it makes sense from a survival point of view. Humans do better in groups where we work collectively for the good of all individuals. Love is part of that paradigm.

Pericles,

When you said "Love resists definition, being purely an emotion." did you mean that, because it is an emotion it resists definition? Yet other emotions - hate, jealousy, anxiety etc. - are quite able to be defined, aren't they?

It seems to me that the fact that it is an emotion doesn't in itself preclude it from definition: rather that it is the nature of this particular emotion that renders it resistant to definition.

People have said that it manifests itself in different ways; that its complexity or depth is a variant which depends upon personal characteristics; that it is not lust; and that we are the poorer for its lack.

But so far I see no way in which the noun 'love' is distinguishable from the noun 'need'.

Pelican, you even stated that this "need" is selfish in origin. I understand what you are saying...but also feel that that this would tend to argue that the two words, as stated above, are really synonyms. In which case, could it not be argued - purely as Devil's Advocate - that if humans function better with this validation, respect etc. that what we term 'love' is actually just the need for those things?

In which case are trees and flowers, which trials have proved also function better in a controlled environment where respect and care are lavished upon them, also capable of love?

Romany these are difficult questions for such a simple girl. :)

It certainly makes you think.

I am not sure that 'love' and 'need' are always synonomous, because love can also be unselfish and love can lead us to deny our own needs over the sake of another. The selfish aspect of love is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a bit like giving to charity. It makes us feel good to help others but that does not mean the act is any less worthy or does not have the same beneficial outcomes. For example, we have empathy for the people affected by the bushfires and we give money to help them put their lives back together. It makes us feel good to help them because we know what it would be like in their shoes. This is what gives us our humanity.

This mechanics of love and need would change in different realtionships such as the love between a parent and child than two adults. As a mother I give my love unconditionally to my children in a different way than the love to a partner or even to a parent or friend. We would not put up for long a lack of care or disrespect from a friend that we might from our own child.

I cannot comment on the nature of plants to display love even though they may thrive on care to make them grow. A plant would not, I believe, interpret that care as respect or validation unless we truly believe that plants function at the same level or the same higher order intellect as humans. The plant merely grows well because the human carer is providing the care that experience shows produces lavish flowers, fruit or veg.

Experiments that show plants do better when spoken to or played music may not mean 'love' as we know it. Perhaps it is a cosmic energy thing

Its been interesting to read what other posters have to say on the
topic. My conclusion was that since love is based on how somebody
makes YOU feel, clearly it is based on self interest, for we prefer
to feel good then bad and we are selective as to whom we love, for
various reasons.

Our emotional side seemingly prefers to see love as "magic",
but I do think that the various forms can be analysed and understood,
as much as that spoils the party for some.

I disagree that romantic love is just cultural, for in that case
there would have been no surge in confusing brain chemistry, when
people are infatuated. That can and has been measured. I think
its all part of "pairbonding" in humans, which evolved for good
evolutionary reasons. I have actually analysed myself whilst going
through the very painfull withdrawel symptoms and its chemical
alright, no matter how much we reason.

Motherly love is different again. If we look at mothers who can't
have their own kids and want them, clearly there is an evolutionary
yearning there to have and love their children. So do they have
them for the benefit of the child, or to satisfy their own
genetically induced yearnings? I suggest the latter. Once again,
self interest is the driver.

I generally try not to post lots of links, but for those interested
in the subject, here are a few:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4669104.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3261309.stm

http://www.abc.net.au/science/lovedrug/

There is such a thing as self-less love, well if you're a divine being that is (ha!). It is called Agape. Unfortunately we are all human and all self-centred by nature. Human love is called Eros. Every feeling that we have is created by ourselves on a biological level. We may link these feelings to an external source, such as a friend or lover, but it is our own thoughts that generate the feelings. Our experience of love is internal. The same as any feeling of happiness. We don't actually need any external source to create happiness within ourselves. It is a matter of changing our focus and thought patterns. Anthony Robbins has some interesting discussions on feelings and love in his Power Talk series.

Hmm...

... Hmm...

I once heard someone say that love was selflessness and sacrifice, but that's merely one aspect. Indeed, I suspect such sacrifice is done in the hope that it will be recognised and returned.

But in some rare cases people do it with the knowledge it won't be known or returned. To me, this is the most quantifiable definition of love - giving without any expectation of it being returned.

This tends more toward the love of a parent for a child - I suppose some can argue that they hope their children will care for them when they get old, but I think it's simply hardwired in to us to continue our genetic line.

From a human point of view it's still selflessness. From a scientific one, perhaps it's selfish.

Things get murkier between the love of couples. As Yabby has intimated, it can be like a drug with all-too painful withdrawal symptoms. I know that I, (and I suspect a few others here) have sworn to go cold turkey for a while, but soon enough we're lining up for our next hit.

No matter how wise or jaded people may be, if they do get that 'sweaty palms' kind of moment, there are few who would resist, unless they have good reason to.

Which means it's not something that's subject to our usual rational responses. That's the hell of it. We can be totally objective, outspoken, brilliant people in all other respects, all of these can become inverted when under the influence, or sometimes, our qualities can be boosted.

As with any other drug, it affects people a little differently.

I dunno.

Maybe we should make a drug-like name for it and prescribe different doses at different times... I'm only half kidding.