Yeah it really sucks considering that articles on more banal things like Plastic are 10 times longer. Come on, this something we've been familiar with since the creation of man, and maybe even earlier.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but this article really, really sucks at present. I mean, if you're going to write about love, then for chrissakes, do it right!  :-) --LMS

I think someone's in luuuuv!

I'd prefer the current entry to say "Cognitive Scientists" rather than "Skeptics". We know who they are. And I'm sure it's just an evolutionary mechanism, too. *sigh* --MichaelTinkler

I, Juuitchan, want to know how a person who feels love can identify that it is, in fact, LOVE, and not just a combination of sexual attraction and a fulfillment of one's desire for companionship, or whatever.

I feel sexual attraction and a desire for companionship roughly every four or five minutes - but I am very rarely in love. - montréalais

To quote a recent UK telly comedy show: "is it mum love or rude love?"

I agree that the article sucks. I also agree that more deserves to be said about it, because, as a previous commenter said, it has existed since the beginning of time (or the beginning of human history at the very least). However, the last point is the problem: People have been trying to define love for ages, and nobody can, and nobody ever will for that matter, because love is such a multifaceted and ethereal thing, and is almost pure emotion/spirit at that. To make matters worse, every single person on Earth experiences love completely uniquely. Words can only describe traits of love, not love itself, and to try to find those traits that most people agree on is a daunting task, to put it mildly. Who is brave enough and thinks that he/she knows enough about love to put their definition in the public eye and subject it to scrutiny? It must be done sometime for the good of Wikipedia, but I'm not surprised at how little has been written about it so far.

I think I made the first comment on page, but I can't remember. It's been a while since I've visited this page to see how it has progressed.

I agree with the last comment that love is a multifaceted and ethereal thing, but I am not satisfied with the excuse that because the experience varies from person to person that we may not be able to draw underlying and common traits that hint to the nature of love.

I still think that this page deserves alot more attention than any other page out there. Love is threaded through the fabric of human existance. It is as essential and pervasive as water. It is in us and in everything we do. Our lives are carved by products of love and hate. And as impossible as it may seem to try and define it, the search for it's definition would reward us greatly towards our understanding of human nature.

Just to get to a more in depth discussion going I'm posting a list of questions that I have pondered. I'd encourage everyone to post their own.

Why is it so hard to attempt to define it?
Love is not what?
What might we mistake for love and why?
What do we need for love to exist?
What is love for?
Why do people want it?
Are we scared to understand it?

Love,
DaPonderer

P.S.
While I was writing this, I heard a female neighbor from across my backyard orgasm maybe three or four times. Correction: 4 or 5 times. The coincidence was very inspirational. :)

I'm trying to find out the 5 meanings of love in greek mythology.  Anybody have any ideas ?  Or maybe some useful websites? Sara

I removed the following sentence: <<Some describe it as a chemical reaction in the human brain.>> For the following reasons: 1. "Some" - who? Poets, physiologists? 2. "describe" is wrong word: "chemical reaction" without further specifics describes nothing 3. Any emotion may be said to be "chemical reaction".

At best, this phrase may be cited as a witticism of a famous man; as such it could be taken "as is", without critique. But not as part of "real" description.

I am sorry that the page became even poorer, but IMO the affection page explains much. In particular the latter page page may clarify distinction between love and other affections.

mikkalai

'

I refrain from engaging in edit war about link to Biophilia, due to triviality of change. I'd like to however point out that if we want to put it here, we should also put: Bibliophilia, paedophilia and many others 'philias'. One should consider separate listing for such philias in this article. Personally, however, I oppose such listing due to it's incompatibilty with link list of this article -- those links are about inter-human love, and generally due to irrelevance to the article. Personally, I think, that User:Anthere is pushing her/his agenda by inserting link to Biophilia. (Even though Biophilia seems to be legitimate entry -- more than 5000 Google hits). Przepla 21:23, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would not object to another see also listing if you feel it is best to separate human to human love, from human to something else love. Both types of love are mentionned in, and relevant to, the article. Please, rather refer to me as a woman. Anthère

@Anthere. Thank you. Sorry about too strong words in my previous statements. I shall follow you suggestion, then.

All is well Przepla :-) ant

I can see a problem here. The list of philias lists paraphilias and other things that are not kinds of love (maybe except for bibliophilia), whereas biophilia is more like love. Therefore I think it is not enough to link to that list. Instead we should list kinds of love here or in a separate article. Andres 05:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is true. One of the reasons that this article is so poor is that mentions these peripheral items and yet says next to nothing about the core subject. If people want to improve this article they should write about the fundamentals, ie passion, intimacy and commitment and how differing mixtures and strengths of these can be seen as romantic love, infatuation, friendship, platonic love, love-at-first sight, parental love, etc. before moving on to less common forms. A description of Sternberg's theory would make a good, reasonably mainstream, starting point in describing a modern psychological theory of love. -- Derek Ross