Definition of Love Debate

Response: Psychology does not define words. The dictionary does. And the definition of love is to care. So again, your point is pointless.

Psychology however studies behaviour and mental states, of which love is a part, so psychology is well within it's right to classify different types of love.

Oh, and there are multiple definitions for love which determine on the type:

(1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates>7

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love

Response: Yet psychology still has no authority over the definition of words, so the point is still pointless.

And yet psychology, which incorporates the study of love, is well placed to distinguish different types of love, which is reflected in the definitions of love (y'know - the ones in the dictionary, rather than the one you've made up)

Response: Thus proving my point, since as you can't deny, that psychology does not define words. Therefore, the definition of love is to care, and psychology only provides the different types of ways to express it. Debunked as usual.

Go back a couple of posts and note that I gave the actual definitions of love - then note that those definitions vary depending on the type of love, as set out within psychology. Psychology does not define words itself, but however the definitions are based off of psychology because psychology has done the research into love.

Finally, stop saying the definition on love is to care - it isn't, I've provided you the dictionary definitions and that claimed definition appears nowhere.

With all the crazy definitions that words can have in arabic it seems rather narrow minded and desperate for a muslim to be so adamant to push just one for a word in English. Particularly a wrong one.

'to care' is a far too simplistic definition. It means far far more.

Can you link your dictionary of choice, please?

I do know what a dictionary is. And I've looked at more than one. None of them define 'love' as narrowly as you're desperate for it to be.

Your reluctance to expose your, likely fallacious, dictionary definition for scrutiny shows just how dishonest you're being. You know you're wrong. Why are you unable to accept it? Is it because you're little catch phrase wouldn't work without sustaining the lie?

Embarrassment as usual.

x

Can you link your dictionary of choice, please?

Sorry to butt in... But to love not does not mean to just purely care. I think showing a little bit of humbleness when you know you are wrong doesn't do any harm, especially when it's a minor point just as this. I think pretty much everyone can agree that if I say I "care" for someone, it does not mean the same as loving them... For instance, I may care about my neighbour, in the way that I will be worried for them if they got injured or ill, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I love them.

So lets all just agree on that

Response: Psychology does not define words. The dictionary does. And the definition of love is to care. So again, your point is pointless.

Love often involves a feeling of care, but 'to love' is not wholly and exclusively the same as 'to care'. Can you provide a link to a reputable dictionary definition of love that states it is nothing more than (and equal to) 'to care'?

Response: I don't provide links, for I avoid the "appeal to authority" arguments. But as I stated, love, (as defined in any dictionary so you can provide a link yourself) includes care.

If you're basing your argument around dictionary definitions of words, then you should be prepared to show what dictionaries and what specific definitions you're using. I don't dispute that love can involve care (though with statements such as as "I love chocolate! Let me eat this bar of chocolate!" love is present but not care), however you dismissed the definitions of love presented by Stiff Little Fingers because it doesn't correspond to how the dictionary defines love. If you can't provide a dictionary definition that states that 'to love' is solely 'to care', then your argument is baseless. Especially when several other posters have provided you with numerous dictionary definitions of love that extend far beyond simplistic notions of care.

Response: To the contrary, everyone here is speaking English, the same of which is found in the dictionary. So everyone bases their arguments on dictionary definitions. Not just me. Secondly, no one rejected Stiffs definitions, but rather, it's being shown to him that his own definitions prove my point. That is, that love has the same definition, which can be expressed differently. That is exactly what I say, and exactly what his definition shows. So your logic fails.

Response: Yet the very definition of love is to care. So your logic that love is not based on caring for someone is your own made up language