This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Ethics B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Psychology B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

"...something one would die for (patriotism..." I find this quite POV. Willingness to die for patriotism isn't objective at all. Unless you can find some good sources that say that a majority of the people in the world would die for patriotism, I think that the mention of patriotism should be removed in that first sentence. To me, dying for patriotism sounds extremely dreamy-USA-oriented.Ran4 17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Philosophy of Love

As far as I can tell, there is no proper definition of love presented here (in a philosophical (theoretical sense) here. I will all for the following, poorly written theory devotion that I wrote in undergraduate school to aid (probably will not be helpful): In this essay, an examination of Aristotle’s definition of virtue is given. Then, devotion is considered as a virtue. Devotion is found to be concerned primarily with belief. Belief has rational and irrational elements. Reason guides the irrational element of belief to a mean which seeks the greatest good. Objections to devotion as a virtue are considered and refuted. A virtue is a stable, self-reinforcing, active condition which seeks the mean between some deficiency and excess of the movements of the irrational parts of the soul through right reason. This right reason leads to a choice of the right where right is the greatest good, happiness. One who does not possess virtue aims for a good, but only an apparent good. The virtuous individual also aims for a good, but his good is the greatest good. Virtue is born of habit, so the more experienced one is at acting virtuously, the more likely he is to act virtuously and the better he is at doing so (28). Virtue, when developed, guides the irrational part of the soul to the aforementioned mean. The mean is sought out through right reason and is, according to Aristotle, the opposite of the excess as well as the deficiency. The excess and deficiency, however, lie on a continuum together and are each others’ opposites (the geometry of this is a little hard to imagine). This mean actively seeks the greatest good. So, because a virtue seeks the mean, and the mean seeks the good, virtue seeks the good (30). Devotion is concerned with belief in a cause. Belief in a cause is a product of the elements, faith and reason. Define cause as anything warranting any amount of devotion, meaning not only abstract ideas or goals, but individuals and institutions as well. The amount of devotion given to a cause is positively related to how much belief one has in a cause. Belief in a cause ought to be proportionate to the amount of devotion that the cause warrants. When one has excessive belief in a cause, he is said to be attached to it. When he has a deficiency in belief to a cause, he is said to be neglecting it. Belief is an element of the irrational part of the soul inasmuch as it is governed by faith. Faith, at least regarding its elements with which this reasoning is concerned, is an element of the irrational part of the soul. There are two possible ways in which one comes to believe any statement to be true or false. If one comes to such a conclusion hypothetically, through examination of all concerned elements, then he has come to the conclusion rationally; hence, reasoning is the basis for his belief in the truth value of the statement. This belief is thus a product of the rational part of the soul. The other way one may come to believe a statement to be true is through faith. Any belief on faith is not deduced hypothetically, so it is not come to through reason. Any part of a belief that is accepted under some lack of knowledge of the elements in question is accepted under faith. Because faith is apart from reason, and is clearly not an element of the appetitive part of the soul, it must be an element of the irrational part of the soul. Faith is a product of the irrational soul inasmuch as intuition and is the means for belief in any axiomatic principle, because such belief can not be deduced rationally. An axiomatic principle should be thought of as any principle that cannot be proved through reason, either because it is truly a first principle which exists beyond provability, or that, because of a lack of knowledge, it cannot be proved to be true or false.* Devotion seeks the mean between the vices of negligence and attachment. Negligence should be defined as the vice of under devotion to a cause. Attachment should be defined as the vice of over devotion to a cause. Because a virtue seeks the greatest good, or happiness, it seeks to allocate the appropriate amount of belief to a cause, and because the appropriate amount of belief is proportionate to how much devotion the cause warrants, and devotion is directly related to belief in a cause, then having the appropriate amount belief should seek the greatest good. If devotion is a virtue, then it actively seeks the greatest good through choice of right reason. In this case, reason serves to increase the likelihood that an appropriate amount of belief is allocated to a cause. This can occur in two ways and in combination. When one has knowledge about elements with which the cause is concerned, one can correct his belief in the cause because he uses reason to make hypothetical determinations about the elements of which he has knowledge. This way decreases the amount of faith needed to have an equal belief value by replacing it with reason. The second way would use reason to guide faith. One might use reason to justify faith (just as Mill and Kant attempt to justify their improvable first principles) where, although principles that must be taken on faith cannot be proved with knowledge at hand, determinations might be made more accurate by using reason as a guide. This improvement in accurate allocation of belief seeks the greatest good by preventing excess and deficiency in belief in a cause. If an attachment or negligence exists, the greatest good is not attained because it is not “living well and doing good” to have excess belief in a lost cause, or give up on a cause that warrants belief. An objection to this model of devotion might be that faith alone, in the long run, might seek the greatest good without the need for reason if belief based on faith were randomly distributed over all causes concerning devotion. If this were the case, no virtue would exists in the long run, or either the virtue would be an innate part of the irrational part of the soul, meaning it would be an innate inclination. Assuming a random distribution of belief based on faith, completely aside from reason, faith would seek the mean in the long run alone. This can only occur if either there is no predisposition of the irrational soul or if the predisposition is centered on the mean, the latter meaning that the virtue has already been perfectly implemented. Either of these could be said for any of Aristotle’s virtues, but, as with the virtues Aristotle mentioned, the predisposition likely does exists. Devotion seems closer to attachment, which means that people likely have a predisposition to negligence. So in the case of devotion, faith alone will likely cause negligence. In some cases, however, the opposite will occur. The predisposition is completely dependent on the circumstance because of how generally cause is defined. Another objection might be that the second way reason guides the rational soul, where reason aids in the justification of first principles without proof, but allowing a better allocation of faith to them, would be too complex or inaccurate to truly guide the irrational part of the soul to the mean. If justification through reason of first principles is too complex or not accurate enough to truly guide belief to the mean, then the greatest good might not be reached by this method alone. In these cases, reliance reason based on knowledge should be primary. However, with adequate reasoning, such a circumstance should never exists where justification of axiomatic principles could not be relatively effective. Devotion is concerned with belief. Because belief is determined by an irrational element, so is devotion. This justifies that devotion guides a part of the irrational soul. The virtue of devotion, through reason, actively seeks out the mean between the excess of attachment, and the deficiency of negligence. This mean seeks the greatest good. Because of the likelihood of a predisposition of faith which is different from the mean, a virtue is necessary to guide the irrational part of the soul. Also, although axiomatic principles are not provable, they can be made plausible, so the guiding of faith by reason can only lead towards the greatest good. Devotion is also clearly active because of the pains and pleasures the soul experiences from having excesses and deficiencies to causes. These qualifications justify devotion as a virtue according to the guidelines in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

The first and greatest commandment is this: "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. And the second commandment, like it is this: You shall love your neighbor as your self. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.76.137 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loving someone is stepping out of your own box, and into theirs.

Love from the center of who you are, don't fake it. Make friends with nobodies; don't be the great somebody.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.76.137 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think somewhere in there it should mention pheromones, the smell given off that like makes people feel attracted.
I would put it in myself but for some reason I can't because the "edit" button just doesnt show up for me. ??Hating someone is love not the other way around!!!

I think something about pheromones should be mentioned. There has got to be some research on this topic. The question is: Where do we find it? (Patricia Op 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If love is such a contraversial issue, how in the world can there be a "...leading expert in the topic of love..." ??? I think that should be changed to something like, "an anylist specializing in love" or something wierd like that68.98.201.19 04:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Aaron.[reply]

I believe love is magical and when you find that person who can fill that whole in you then you know that he/she is the one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rilez-Risso (talk • contribs) 08:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, love evolved from our need to proceate, our intelligence molded our need into love. When someone willingly talks to the opposite sex, they, in at least some very small way, even one they may not be aware of, is looking for proceation. The dates, gifts, etc., are to encourage companionship, but ultimately proceation.24.118.227.213 07:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, love is not an emotion at all, and did not evolve. Sexual desire did arise through evolution, and impels adults of many species to procreate, but that ain't love. It is not the case that men who talk to women (or vice versa) invariably have some sexual desire, even small and unnoticed, as a motive. It is often there, indeed, and should be watched for. (In the logical sense) is a sufficient but not a necessary condition. IMHO, love is actually a driving force of evolution, and a concept lying deep at the heart of the mechanisms of creation and order. Oliver Low 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that love is not really an emotion, but rather the combination of several emotions that conflict as well as concentrate together to form what we call love. It is difficult, (sometimes impossible) to describe an emotion to someone that has not experienced it themselves. I also realize the desire to proceate is a part of love, and in many cases is a starting point to a relationship that ultimately becomes love. The desires of companionship, family etc. also contribute to this effect. I suppose that love can be a driving force for evolution unto itself, but I also believe that evolution had a hand in creating love; this, of course, creates a cycle of sorts.24.118.227.213 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any definition for "loveless" people or unability to "fall in love"? And what to do about people who don't know how is it to "fall in love"?

Loveless people are people who have never experiences God's love. you can't be loveless if you've felt His prescence! :)

^^^That's way too subjective to take into account. And it's just not true - There are obviously some people out there who may be very pious and god-loving, who still feel lonely due to a lack of physical companionship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.121.189 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC) i love sandeep very much tonei —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.121.187 (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love is a constellation? How about range or variety, or something else so long as it's not constellation. Unusual Cheese 14:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a few more ideas. (Patricia Op 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

>>>Love is when you feel surrounded by that person all the time, even if they're not anywhere near you. You notice that the smallest things, such as a song or ring, remind you of your 'love' with that person. It's NOT some wordly, one-night stand sort of thing that people now claim is 'love.' Love is pure, Godly, and wonderful. It's not something to be destroyed.<<< **StEf**

"Love is a constellation of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection or profound oneness"? I thought this was vandalism and I was about to revert it. A.Z. 04:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like constellation, it makes sense as a metaphor for the meaning of love, there experiences are like stars that create only together create. I can perfectly understand that someone does not agree with this, what I would not understand is a definition of love without at least some basic use of universal poetry.Elmedio 05:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But... we're not a poem, we're an encyclopedia. What is universal poetry? A.Z. 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Unless someone can give a good reason to keep it as it is, which may or may not be appropriate, I'll change it to something that everyone can understand. The problem with using constellation is that we want to keep Wikipedia as accessible to everyone as is possible, and using the words constellation may confuse any non-English readers, who may or may not appreciate the metaphor. Also, I think that using the word constellation falls into WP:POV.----JamesSugrono^U|C 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this "see also" was deleted too hastily by Icarus3. I looked it up and it looked legitimate to me. Taquito1 01:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guys: I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia, I was going through this article which opens with such a beautiful line. Based upon what I understand of karma, I could not make sense of the use of this term in the following sentence which is in first paragraph: "Though often linked to personal relations, love is often given a broader signification, a love of humanity, of nature, with life itself, or a oneness with the Universe, a universal love or karma." Does anyone has any idea? I think "or karma" should be taken out of this sentence.

After reading up the entire article, I never knew there were so many types of love :). My understanding of this word has been changing or evolving as well. I would like to put those here if its ok, but perhaps at a different time, as its way too late now. Duty2love 05:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Love” Is Overworked And Needs Help

English, with more words than any other language, is a treasure beyond measure but the word “love” is used for concepts that are seemingly related but can be very different. This shortcoming leads many to confuse what some consider the loftiest of concepts, with some of our most mundane feeling and actions. “Love” is used to express both pleasurable feelings and conscious, thoughtful rational decision-based acceptance.

It is a truism to say that we are never, as humans, without feeling some emotion and equally true that we seldom function with out the use of our intellect. This “Love” word can express our mood when we are have a passion for a person, cause or thing, or when we are charmed, amused or simply enjoying. However this type of “Love” is far from consciously thinking about, deciding and adopting a personal policy or worldview that we understand, appreciate, laud and honor. “Love” of God, country, a philosophy, a worldview, or of beauty, order, science or art, can, and I think should, be based on rational thought.

Compare the kind of love felt for a potential spouse during courtship and the kind of love one feels after fifty years of marriage. I suspect that in most cases the former is highly emotionally charged and the latter devotion is more likely to be based on appreciation and commitment. Another example might be the found in the recently published personal papers of Mother Teresa where she described her lifetime relationship with God. She tells of her passion when first becoming a bride of Christ and then how she felt abandoned by God during her lifetime of doing charitable works. The point is she kept on doing what she was committed to do despite the loss of emotional joy. Both are based on “love” but one is more emotion and the other more a decision of the will.

Other languages may have different words for our different uses of “Love.” I don’t know. I do know that the ancient Greeks made a distinction between Eros (sexual desires and passion), Philia (friendship) and Agape (general attraction). Early Christian writers used agape to mean self sacrificing, Christ-like love. I suppose if we all used “I like” and “I love” to make the distinction in question, it might solve the problem of the overworked “love” word. However, considering the widespread practice of using “I love” for everything from a new hairstyle to an acceptance of a religious or political creed makes this a hard sell. My suggestion would be to continue using ”love” for positive emotion induced views and adopt a new word such as “crace” (an anagram representing conscious, rational, acceptance, commitment and ethics, that flow from the viewpoint) for one’s religion, philosophy, belief system, or ideology.

What is your opinion on this matter? If you agree that we need a new word, what do you suggest?

Dantagliere 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Dan Tagliere September 24, 2007 dantagliere@aol.com[reply]

Was all of this necessary? I will tackle each of your issues, one by one, if at all possible. Upon closer inspection, I don't beleive I will. But I don't believe that the word love is overworked - the meaning can be inferred from the context in which it is used. When someone says that they love my new hair, I realise that its either sarcastic, or simply a compliment. I don't think that anyone would confuse it with actual passion for my hair. And also, in response to your indication of those Greek terms, do we not have words for "friendship", "attraction", and "sexual desires"? To reiterate - we have words for different types of love, and the verb 'love' must always be taken within the context in which it is said. By the way, Wikipedia, is not a soapbox! This extends to talk pages.----JamesSugrono^U|C 02:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have some trimming on autopilot. I may agree with some of the deletions from the list as less relevant. However, only very few of them. I notice reverence makes it, but romanticism doesn't. So I think we need to re-evaluate here! It's only the "see also" section so it's not very important to do trimming there. It is understood that these articles may be relevant enough to be of interest, but not enough to be mentioned in the article. However, some of these "see also" deletions are perfectly suitable for future inclusion in the article if good context can be drafted. Greg Bard 07:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no response on this question about removing the words "or karma". I assuming no one has any objection taking it out. I will give a day or two and then take it out. Duty2love 00:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the {{talkheader}} template from the top of the page. This article talk page has the potential to, and has in the past, veered off-topic, or into non-contributing rants about how people feel about love. I accept that people will have strong feelings about this topic, however, this is not the place to talk about them. This is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article, not general talk about the article's subject. This talkheader template is the first step to improving this high-importance article.----JamesSugrono^U|C 07:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to make a bot that scans just this article for revisions that add text of the format "<surname> loves <surname>," and then automatically reverts it. Seriously, I think it might actually work! Now if only I knew anything about writing Wiki bots... --21:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But doing that is so cute (if it is meant as a declaration of love, I mean). a.z. 04:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recently requested protection - apparently, it had been un-protected on the 2nd, by Royalguard11 (apparently, this protection needs to stay), so it was really re-protection. This was granted, as on the request for protection, because in the few days following, over 50 vandalism-related edits were made, which really is unacceptable. I would very much like it, therefore, that any discussion related to unprotection be started here first. This is not for my personal satisfaction, but rather to centralise any discussion. In addition, it would be best for people actually editing the article to reach a consensus on any unprotection action that would be taken. I probably wouldn't support unprotection, just from the heavy vandalism that occurred in the brief unprotected period of time. But if circumstances change, we can discuss unprotection. It's completely fine if you don't wish to discuss it here first, you can go straight to the requests for page protection if you want to. Thank you in advance.James Sugrono_{Contributions} 11:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

societyoflove

I agree that semi-protection should remain indefinitely. This is perhaps one of the most important articles in relation to it's potential effect on people's lives and thought. Precisley because love is such a central matter to pretty much all religions, this article is not the place for soap-box preaching. It's of great importance that the article present the various understandings of 'love' from various religious and philosophical traditions in as clear and scholarly manner as possible. Oliver Low 17:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that all requests made by practitioners of these religions have the love and universal principle are rediredionados to enhance the society of love. Largest religions or belief systems by number of adherents This listing[a] includes both organized religions, which have unified belief codes and religious hierarchies, and informal religions, such as Chinese folk religions. For completeness, it also contains a category for the non-religious, although their views would not ordinarily be considered a religion. 1. Christianity: 2.1 billion (Began: ca. 27 AD/CE), with major branches as follows: • See also the List of Christian denominations by number of members and List of Christian denominations pages (Non-denominational statistics are not shown.) 2. Roman Catholic Church: 1.05 billion 3. Eastern Orthodox Church: 240 million 4. African Initiated Church: 110 million 5. Pentecostalism: 105 million 6. Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United: 75 million 7. Anglicanism/Episcopal Church: 73 million 8. Baptist: 70 million 9. Methodism: 70 million 10. Lutheran: 64 million 11. Jehovah's Witnesses: 14.8 million 12. Latter-day Saints: 13.5 million 13. Adventists: 12 million 14. Apostolic/New Apostolic: 10 million 15. Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement: 5.4 million 16. New Thought (Unity, Christian Science, etc.): 1.5 million 17. Brethren (incl. Plymouth): 1.5 million 18. Mennonite: 1.25 million 19. Friends/Quakers: 300,000 20. Islam: 1.5 billion (Began: ca. 610 AD/CE), with major branches as follows:[d] • Sunni: 940 million 21. Shia: 120 million 22. Ahmadi: 10 million 23. Druze: 450,000 24. Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist/antitheistic/antireligious: 1.1 billion (Began: Prehistory) • Category includes a wide range of beliefs, without specifically adhering to a religion or sometimes specifically against dogmatic religions. The category includes humanism, deism, pantheism, rationalism, freethought, agnosticism, and atheism. Broadly labeled humanism, this group of non religious people are third largest in the world. For more information, see the Adherents.com discussion of this category and the note below. [c] 25. Hinduism: 900 million (Began: approximately 1500 BC/BCE or 15th century BC/BCE however some aspects of it trace its history to 2600 BC/BCE or 26th century BC/BCE), with major branches as follows: • Vaishnavism: 580 million 26. Shaivism: 220 million 27. Neo-Hindus and Reform Hindus: 22 million 28. Veerashaivas/Lingayats: 10 million 29. Chinese folk religion: 394 million • Not a single organized religion, includes elements of Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and traditional nonscriptural religious observance (also called "Chinese traditional religion"). 30. Buddhism: 376 million (Began: 6th century BC/BCE), with major branches as follows: • Mahayana: 185 million 31. Theravada: 124 million 32. Vajrayana/Tibetan: 20 million 33. Primal indigenous (tribal religions): 300 million • Not a single organized religion, includes a wide range of traditional or tribal religions, including animism, shamanism and paganism. Since African traditional and diasporic religions are counted separately in this list, most of the remaining people counted in this group are in Asia. 34. African traditional and diasporic: 100 million • Not a single organized religion, this includes several traditional African beliefs and philosophies such as those of the Yoruba, Ewe (vodun) and the Bakongo. These three religious traditions (especially that of the Yoruba) have been very influential to the diasporic beliefs of the Americas such as condomble, santeria and voodoo. The religious capital of the Yoruba religion is at Ile Ife. 35. Sikhism: 23 million (Began: 1500s AD/CE) 36. Spiritism: 15 million (Began: mid-19th century AD/CE) • Not a single organized religion, includes a variety of beliefs including some forms of Umbanda. 37. Judaism: 14 million (Began: 13th century BC/BCE), with major branches as follows: • Conservative: 4.5 million 38. Unaffiliated and Secular: 4.5 million 39. Reform: 3.75 million 40. Orthodox: 2 million 41. Reconstructionist: 150,000 42. Bahá'í Faith: 7 million (Began: 19th century AD/CE) 43. Jainism: 4.2 million (Began: 6th century BC/BCE), with major branches as follows: • Svetambara: 4 million 44. Sthanakvasi: 750,000 45. Digambar: 155,000 46. Shinto: 4 million (Began: 300 BC/BCE) • This number states the number of actual self-identifying practising primary followers of Shinto; if everyone were included who is considered Shinto by some people due to ethnic or historical categorizations, the number would be considerably higher — as high as 100 million (according to the adherents.com source used for the statistics in this section). 47. Cao Dai: 4 million (Began: 1926 AD/CE) 48. Falun Gong: official post-crackdown figure as stated by Chinese Communist Party: 2.1 million; Chinese government pre-crackdown figure as reported by New York Times: 70-100 million; practitioners and founder of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, often refer to 100 million[b] (Founded: 1992 AD/CE) • Not necessarily considered a religion by adherents or outside observers. No membership or rosters, thus the actual figure of practitioners is impossible to confirm. 49. Tenrikyo: 2 million (Began: 1838 AD/CE) 50. Neopaganism: 1 million (Began: 20th century AD/CE) • A blanket term for several religions like Wicca, Asatru, Neo-druidism, and polytheistic reconstructionist religions 51. Unitarian Universalism: 800,000 (Began: 1961 AD/CE, however, prior to the merger the separate doctrines of Unitarianism and Universalism trace their roots to the 16th and 1st centuries AD/CE respectively) 52. Rastafari: 600,000 (Began: early 1930s AD/CE) 53. Scientology: 500,000 (Began: 1952 AD/CE) 54. Zoroastrianism: "at most 200,000"[9][10][e] with major communities as follows: • In India (the Parsis): est. 65,000 (2001 India Census: 69,601); Estimate of Zoroastrians of Indian origin: 100,000-110,000. 55. In Iran: est. 20,000 (1974 Iran Census: 21,400) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.92.88 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I excised this:

Whether religious love can be expressed in similar terms to interpersonal love is a matter for philosophical debate. Religious 'love' may be considered a euphemistic term, more closely describing feelings of deference or acquiescence. Most religions use the term love to express the devotion the follower has to their deity, who may be a living guru or religious teacher. This love can be expressed by prayer, service, good deeds, and personal sacrifice. Reciprocally, the followers may believe that the deity loves the followers and all of creation. Some traditions encourage the development of passionate love in the believer for the deity.

The reason is because I thought it liable to give the wrong impression to the student.

"Whether religious love can be expressed in similar terms to interpersonal love" is not a matter of philosophical debate. IT has been done, and that it can be is not in doubt. How it may been done rightly, is a matter of debate.

"Most religions use the term love to express the devotion the follower has to their deity" is simply false, since it's not true at least of Christianity and Islam.

The paragpraph all in all is vague and non-committal and doesn't say much, so I thought it better to leave the heading as a reminder to the casual student of the imporatance of love to religion, but leave the details to the section dealing with them.

My own belief is that love is love, whether we're talking about my love for my wife, or my country, or my friends, or God, it's the same thing, with various other emotions variously involved, however wikipedia is not a soap box for personal views (except talk pages) :-) Oliver Low 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be one of the more worked articles! It lacks pictures, possibly a painting or two might help? And is there a section on love for a family? I didn't read all of it, but I only saw "Love for a friend". Maybe someone should put in a few more internal links, too.

The image at the top is too hard to understand. You have to click on it even to see the couple kissing. Somebody should find a better one. Lou Sander 15:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, that's a good painting. Maybe it needs resizing. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"According to philosophers, the only goal of life is to be happy. And there is only one happiness in life: to love and be loved. Love is essentially an abstract concept, much easier to experience than to explain."

Which philosophers? What authority are they on life? And finally who says that love is the only happiness in life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.215.114.140 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this sentence that expresses a minority POV from the lede, intending to reinsert it somewhere else in the article:

• Some parapsychologists have claimed that love is the true basis of all existence, originating time, space and matter.<ref>[[Diagnostics of Karma]]</ref>

However, I couldn't find anywhere appropriate to put it, so I'm leaving it here for now.  —SMALLJIM  16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a righthand sidebar labeled "EMOTIONS" Under the "BASIC" category is "DISGUST", but lacking the opposite emotion. I suggest using "DESIRE" as basic term. Then under the "OTHER" category, perhaps "LUST"? 60.234.240.242 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in the opening paragraph read: "One definition attempting to be universally applicable is Thomas Jay Oord's: to love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic response to others(including God), to promote overall well-being. This definition applies to the positive connotations of love."

I don't think it's necessary for the opening paragraph of this article to say that people are attempting to make loving God universally applicable. It really has no business being in the article, as it seems to be vandalism.

Also, the opening sentence read:

"The word love has many different meanings in English, from something that gives a little pleasure ("I loved that meal") to something one would die for (patriotism, family)."

I changed the word patriotism to ideals, because I feel it's more appropriate/neutral. I suspect it was probably the same vandal who put in the "God" remarks. Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHy TAKE MY STUFF OFF GOD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackoneal (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love is something that can't be put in a microscope. It is purely a spiritual thing. It is the thing God is made of, and God is something that is beyond the understanding of science.

It's like the human soul, like angels and Heaven and God Himself: something purely spiritual, that can't be undesrtood with scientific means.

When my mom sees birds tweeting in a garden full of flowers, she fells the hand of God. She feels love. THAT cannot be explained in a scientific manner.

In fact, trying to rationalize the ways of the Lord drives you away from Him. You should be thinking less about how good the internet page looks, and more about what will happen to your soul once you die and you pass judgement in front of Saint Peter and/or God.

God is judging you, and he cars about how much love you profess to others, NOT how neat or "accurate" a webpage looks.

~~agustinaldo~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um.

ok? 72.236.173.22 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see something similar to the following added to the last paragraph of the Buddhist section.

In Tibetan Buddhism the terms love and compassion are often used together but are distinct. Compassion is defined as the wish to relieve another of suffering, while love is the wish for another to be happy.

Pestopasta (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (Valentine's Day!)

Do you have a reference of Buddhist literature that supports this? If so, then I don't think it would be a problem. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here's one. Lama Thubten Yeshe, Ego, Attachment and Liberation 2006, Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive, 119 (compassion), 121 (love).

Excerpts from the text:

compassion - The sincere wish that others be separated from their mental and physical suffering and the feeling that their freedom from suffering is more important than one's own.

and

love - The sincere wish that others be happy and the feeling that their happiness is more important than one's own; the opposite in nature from attachment. Pestopasta (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about metta?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.78.104 (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Gustav Klimt's The Kiss is questionable here, as when examined further, the woman in the painting is clearly trying to pull away from the man. She has turned her head, and her hands are clearly grasping him as a means to wriggle free. In fact, the only thing stopping her from making a dash in the opposite direction, is that she is kneeling with her back to a cliff. This is not love, in any of the definitions explored in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.44.200 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good this is isabella gg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.205.238 (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the picture is real bad for this article, also is kinda hard to see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.45.72 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

amanda utopa\ia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.31.57 (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the picture is unsuitable for this topic. Truly it represents a very narrow and superficial aspect of the sacred thing called "Love", which has a much wider and deeper scope, which is more to be felt than understood. --Duty2love (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love is our true essence. Love has no limitations of caste, religion, race or nationality. We are all beads strung together on the same thread of love. Amritanandamayi Where to add?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.95.140 (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add - not a notable enough quote ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd want to add that to Wikiquotes - it's not that it isn't notable, really, it's that we don't load up articles with quotes when there's a better place for them which is linked on the page. Tvoz/talk 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main aspect of love should be mutual trust.

It is possible to have a love relationship without sex, but a sex relationship is advised on basis of love & trust. To me is love monogamous affection, a form of intimate communication which shouldn't be generalised.

"Respect" is family, friendship & communication orientated.

Enthusiasm (optimism, passion) is generally related to all aspects of life which fascinate us, such as music, good food, holidays, birthdays etc. .

Phalanx Pursos 01:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unconditional friendship is based on forgiveness.

In order to become a friend, must one be trusted. Once someone is your friend, they receive unconditional friendship. Unconditional friendship means there are no conditions to friendship, unconditional love means there are no conditions to love.

Unconditional love towards everyone is an overwhelming exception.

Phalanx Pursos 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted in the article that Jesus said in John 15:13 of the Holy Bible, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.74.126 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]