lizziebee Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 In love and madness - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - February 14, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinballwizard Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 A link would be nice . . . But yeah, it is. A chemical imbalance, I believe. EDIT: Found the article: link removed Interesting read. And lizziebee, you have to put link removed at the end of web addresses to turn them into hyperlinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Pumpkin Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The article didn't say that all love is a mental illness. It just said that some people who believe they are experiencing love are simply experiencing mental illness. Read the article carefully. It doesn't say that everyone in love is mentally ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantexplain Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 But yeah, it is. A chemical imbalance, I believe. link removed so what came first do you think, the feeling of love or the chemical "imbalance"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Pumpkin Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The real question being raised is whether love can sometimes be destructive. The answer to that question is yes. Loving someone can mean being hurt. But being love can also be helpful. You share income, life experience, direction, and have companionship and well as many other experiences. If you really think of it, almost anything could be defined as a mental illness. But expanding the definition of mental illness too much waters down the real meaning. I have worked with numerous truly mentally ill people before, and telling me that being in love is the same as the illness those people are suffering shows how out of touch some people are with the true meaning of "mental illness." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinballwizard Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 so what came first do you think, the feeling of love or the chemical "imbalance"? The feeling of "love" is almost always caused by having too-little serotonin. Sure, there are those times when two people actually like each other, but most of the time it's just, at a basic level, OCD focused on a person. If you really think of it, almost anything could be defined as a mental illness. But expanding the definition of mental illness too much waters down the real meaning. I have worked with numerous truly mentally ill people before, and telling me that being in love is the same as the illness those people are suffering shows how out of touch some people are with the true meaning of "mental illness." No one ever said it was a serious mental illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantexplain Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 actually, romantic love and intimacy have been shown to be factors contributing to mental and physical health - so there!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarnelianButterfly Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 That's a pretty pessimistic view. I don't particularly agree its true of all love, maybe some people are more dependent and incapable of the times away from the objects of affection. Like any thing you have to consider the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinballwizard Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 actually, romantic love and intimacy have been shown to be factors contributing to mental and physical health - so there!! And, as I stated earlier, other studies have shown thats it's comparable to OCD. Conflicting studies. You chose to believe the study that supports your optimist attitude, and I chose the one that better feeds my nihilism. Of course, I think you're completely wrong. Most of the studies that I've seen that support romantic love and intimacy base their findings on "yeah, he says that he's happier . . ." I'd like some links to these, studies. So there. And before you say it, link removed, should be quite a few studies there supporting my view, but, who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellFrost666 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 There are also a lot of simalarities between being in love and being addicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantexplain Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 You chose to believe the study that supports your optimist attitude, and I chose the one that better feeds my nihilism. In this article I find it most compelling when I read: "Some psychotherapeutic principles have existed since the 10th century. If you look at the writings of early Islamic doctors, such as Ibn Sina, [author of the 'Canons of Medicine'] who was really regarded as one of the originators of contemporary medicine, he said the obsession is based on idealization. Love causes us to enhance and elevate our beloved, Mr. Tallis says. Separating truth from reality is thereforeeee key to treating lovesickness." In this thread are we really talking about the same thing when we speak of "love"? One of my favorite definitions is that love is an insanity necessary to bring two people together. I'm thinking lately there is not that much wrong with idealizing the other in somewhat realistic ways - tantamount to believing in another and being supportive, caring, faithful, trusting. In the English language we basically have one word for love, and then we qualify that one word in many ways - like obsessive love love addiction in love true love romantic love radar love muskrat love In cases when the word love is being qualified, I would tend to focus on the qualifier as having the significant meaning, rather than the word love. I vaguely recall the Greeks had maybe a dozen words that translate to our one word for love. From Wikipedia: This diverse range of meanings in the singular word love is often contrasted with the plurality of Greek words for love, reflecting the concept's depth, versatility, and complexity. On eNotAlone what love seems to mean: We just can’t live without the other person and hold on no matter what An emotional power over which we have no control Love hurts Lifelong monogamy Vows, Saying: ‘I Do’ Sharing life’s most intimate details Not having to wear a condom Biochemical reaction designed to further the species A process to create fit and pathogen-resistant offspring A psychological illusion driven by an increase in serotonin levels A game of strategy (dating advice and books) Two twisted folks comfortable with their mutual place in the universe (so there!) A feeling of intense sexual desire and attraction toward another (American Heritage Dictionary) Preeminent kindness or devotion to another (link removed) A deep fondness for another (Oxford American Dictionary) My thinkings these days: The exchange of two idealizations The gift of ourselves to each other Revering someone for who they are in and of themselves Two people openly sharing their needs and wants and wanting what is good for the other So for me, all that really matters is that I find one person I can love and who mostly agrees with me on what is love! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now