Most people aren't confused, because they're not trying to be clear and rational. They are definitely confusing to people who prefer specificity and operationally useful descriptions of experiences.
It is used to mean a very wide range of positive feelings, and should generally be taken as poetry rather than communication. Another framing is that the ambiguity makes it very useful for signaling affection and value, without being particularly binding in specific promises.
Which is NOT to say it isn't "real". Affection, caring, enjoyment, and willingness-to-sacrifice-for someone are all things that many individuals experience for other individuals. The exact thresholds and mix of qualia that gets described as "love" varies widely, but the underlying feelings seem near-universal.
Most people aren't confused, because they're not trying to be clear and rational.
It is used to mean a very wide range of positive feelings, and should generally be taken as poetry rather than communication.
Are you saying that most people only use term love as "poetry" and never when they are trying to be clear? I think this is a strong over-generalization.
Of course people are not always trying to be clear, but the concept of love also appears often when people are doing their best to be clear. In my experience, people will often say things li...
You are right, most people are confused.
I've spent quite a lot of time on relationship theory. It seems pretty clear that "love" means very different things in different contexts, and that different people interpret it differently. It also seems clear that this causes a lot of problems for people. I'd say that means they are confused. I am neurotypical, to at least a first approximation, and I'm pretty sure that most neurotypical people would benefit by understanding their emotions a good bit better than they do on average.
Yes, context does a lot of work. But when you're trying to talk or think about your relationships, it's useful to understand and communicate what type of love you're talking about with more accuracy than intuition usually provides.
Your breakdown of types of love is a pretty good start. The Greeks had at least their four words for love, but the important subtypes seem more numerous and nuanced than four words account for.
This is also the case with other emotions; it's hard to understand them, there's a lot of variety and nuance, but understanding them is pretty worthwhile.
I can't comment on whether people are confused about what "love" means as I'm not sufficiently deep in love discourse to say. But one thing I'm noticing about your characterizations of love is that they are missing an indexical element to the point of approaching sollipsism.
Romance and sexuality makes for a good example. Consider the following scenarios:
In all of these cases, one could say that there is a disconnect between what people think about their object of attraction, versus what that object of attraction really is like.
A Bayesian of parsing this is that their feelings of attraction represents an estimate of how well they fit together, but that this estimate differs from how well they really fit together. The actual fit seems important to think and talk about, and one should probably coin a short word for it - or at least for the coincidence between actual and estimated fit. This could be called "true love".
“Love” is just a broad category of feelings. In English, if you need to be specific, there are specifiers, but most of the time context is enough. For instance, if I say, “I love my nephew,” you’re probably not thinking that I have romantic feelings towards him, but you might think that his presence makes me happy or that I’d be willing to sacrifice more for his benefit than typical for humans in general.
Are you going to have a perfect model of my feelings? No. You can never be specific enough for that. But you’ll likely be 9/10 right. Usually, that’s good enough.
I agree that:
I once had the experience of a roommate asking if I believe in love. I said yes, absolutely, explaining that it is a real human emotion (I said something about chemicals in the brain). He responded: it sounds like you don't believe in love!
(I think this has to do with ambiguity about believe-in as much as about love, to be fair.)
So, a question: is 'love' worth saving as a concept? The way some people use the word might be pretty terrible, but, should we try to rescue it? Is there a good way to use it which recovers many aspects of the common use, while restoring coherence?
I do personally feel that there is some emotional core to love, so I'm sympathetic to the "it's a specific emotion" definition. This accounts with people not being able to give a specific definition. Emotions are feelings, so they're tough to define. They just feel a specific way. You can try to give cognitive-behavioral definitions, and that's pretty useful; but, for example, you could show behavioral signs of being afraid without actually experiencing fear.
I'm also sympathetic to the view that "love" is a kind of ritual, with saying "I love you" being the centerpiece of the ritual, and a cluster of loving behaviors being the rest of it. "I love you" can then be interpreted as a desire or intention or commitment to participate in the rest of it.
If you are worried that nobody obsessively overanalyzes the concept of love in a desperate search for something solid at the base of the concept, worry no longer.
You seem to have arrived at the classical concept of "the four loves", referring to the four Greek words commonly translated as "love" in English:
Somewhere I have old notes that link them together in a reasonable way, but I would have to dig that up later, if you would be interested.
Worth noting that English does try to get at these distinctions, but often by using phrases or context:
I basically reject the premise of the OP that there's any real confusion when "love" is read on context (except in cases of intentional ambiguity). It's only lacking context that "love" seems like it's a confused concept.
A human universal that you might be missing is the ability to understand things in their context.
Most people do not have the analytical clarity to be able to give an explanation of love isomorphic to their implementation of love; to that extent, they are "confused about love".
This though does not imply that their usage of the word "love" is amiss, the same way people are able to get through simple reasoning without learning logic, or walking without learning Physics.
So I'll assume that people are wielding "love" meaningfully, and try to infer what the word means.
It seems to indicate prolonged positive emotional involvement with an external entity. Other emotions and reactions surrounding this may be dragged in. As everything emotions, the boundaries are not clearly defined, but categories were made for man, not the reverse.
This degree of vagueness may be unnerving if you are more detail-oriented than most people. It is familiarly unnerving to me, as I am pretty detail-oriented. (To readers that are not detail-oriented, a concrete example of being so: searching for a big red thing in store shelves, you notice the big red thing, I scan sequentially the items until I hit it.)
Then the question becomes: Is the category "love" too broad?
First line of argument: if you can put 4 items in two sets of 2 items, you can also put them in a set of 4 items, even if this offends the aestethic sense of @SpectrumDT. This is not a good line of argument, as there is probably a more grounded meaning to the question; it's here just to put it out of the way.
Second line of argument: do some inner mental representations actually match such a broad category? Is this category an unnatural herding of many internal sensations, or is there actually something going on in the mind that naturally brings everything together, leading to humans spontaneously uttering a "love" token in response?
I'll attack this question from the front and from behind.
From the front, humans in general tend naturally to quash things into low-precision numbers in their head, because Von Neumann was right. I know how many favors and tricks you have played on me, and feel if you come out positive. I meet a girl, and as I get to know her, how nice she looks changes based on how intelligent she looks. So it's reasonable that the brain tends to summarize a lot of stuff into a level for "I'm emotionally attached in some positive way to that external entity".
From behind, if humans empirically insist on using this concept, it's probably there for a reason. There must be some naturalness to it.
Third line of argument: would people be better of if, by default, they outclassed their monkey brain in the degree of accuracy they use to think about love? Here I think the answer depends on the intellectual abilities of a person. If you are intelligent enough, at some point it's advantageous to make more complex categories and models. Below some level of intelligence, though, the result of trying to install into someone a more complex love model may not be worth the effort. That person may be better off with a long list of proverbs and heuristics that involve less things at a time, and more broad things, such that pattern matching is easier. Detailed discernment is reached by majority/importance vote over multiple loose patterns.
Conclusion: I overall think love is an adequate abstraction for most people, but not for a minority of detail-oriented and intelligent ones.
(Note: I have the impression the writing style I just used gives a vibe of "I know what I am saying, I'm a PhD in love analysis". I am not.)
I like your "giving / craving / euphoria" classification.
I wonder whether the debates about love are often so confused precisely because in human mind the feelings are not clearly separated. We are prone to the halo effect; for example, if someone is sexually attractive, we might instinctively assume that they are probably also good, smart, etc. (Then some people get burned, and sometimes they overcompensate by making the opposite assumptions.)
But sometimes there are genuine effects of different kind happening all at the same time. For example, I may feel good when I have some kind of (non-sexual) interaction with someone... and at the same time, I may find them sexually attractive (but perhaps I have never communicated this aspect to them, and I have no idea whether they feel the same way about me)... and at the same time, I may feel altruistic towards them. These things happening together have a different flavor than if they happened separately.
So maybe "love" points towards the complex outcome when you strongly desire someone, and simultaneously wish them well, and simultaneously feel happy with them. Some people succeed to get the whole package. Some people only get a part of it, and find the experience confusing, asking themselves whether this is or isn't "love"... and maybe try to fix the wrong part, for example by trying harder to be altruistic, when the actually missing part is that the other person's presence doesn't make them happy.
Well, that would be the whole package for romantic love. The whole package for loving your children includes wishing them well and feeling happy with them and feeling optimistic about their future. Etc.
People are kinda right when they refuse to be more specific, because "love" refers to the entire package, not any of its individual parts. But being more specific can be useful for figuring out why someone fails at love (what part exactly is missing from the package).
Another aspect of Love that's not really addressed here I tend to think of as a sense of 'being on the same team.' When I relate to people I love, I might help them or do something nice for them for the same reasons that Draymond Green passes the ball to Steph Curry - because when Steph makes a 3, the team's score increases and that's what they are trying to do. Draymond doesn't (or at least shouldn't) hold onto the ball and try to score himself unless he has a better shot (he usually doesn't) - points are points.
Whereas when interacting with someone I don't love, I might help them to the extent it advances my own goals, broadly defined (which includes things like 'being well liked', 'getting helped in the future', 'the feeling of doing a good deed').
Is the thing that you are talking about clearly distinct from this thing from my OP?
Love as giving: The drive to protect someone and do stuff for them. (Altruism is a variant of this.)
It's articles like these that make it clear that trying to extend rationalism to every aspect of the human condition is doomed to fail, and not only to fail, but to make anybody who makes the attempt seem like an alien to normal people.
There are people who have been Talking about the different types of love and what love actually means thousands of years. The Greeks talked about the difference between Eros and Agape. Today on poly forms, you can see people talking about all the different types of love they have for their partners throwing around words like "new relationship energy" and "limerance." Well known biblical quotes like "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends," makes it clear that there are different types of love.
Most people are just comfortable with context clues instead of working down a flow diagram to make sure they are using the perfect word at the moment.
For example, if someone asks me how I'm feeling and I say "bad" the fact that I have the flu vs if I just got a divorce is enough to clue most people in to the fact that the words "feel" and "bad" are referring to physically and emotionally respectively. Most people and situations don't need more clarity than that for human relationships to progress.
Most people and situations don't need more clarity than that for human relationships to progress.
As far as I can tell, a lot of romantic relationships are highly dysfunctional, and it is widely agreed that good communication is vital in a relationship. Given that, I think a lot of people would benefit from thinking more clearly about what love is supposed to be and what they expect from it.
If you mean "most people and situations don't need more clarity than that for human relationships to procreate", then I agree. But I think we can aim higher than that.
Would you be able to specify a scenario in which the general term for love would lead to dysfunction?
I think generally if people want to signal how they feel about someone they're typically able to do so.
A lot of dysfunction is caused by people being intentionally ambiguous about the extent and quality and conditions of their feelings. In that way people may hide behind the ambiguity of the word love. Communication helps but I'm not sure if the imprecise nature of the word love is a significant barrier to communication.
"I loved her so much! How dare she dump me and start ignoring me! Now I will commit violence as revenge."
In this line of reasoning we have selfish desires masquerading as a virtue. The thing I label love is a complex of desire, attachment, and (limited) altruism. If I lump them all together as love, I can more easily convince myself that my desire and attachment are actually virtuous. Thus I can convince myself that my feeling of anger is righteous rather than petty. Thus I am more likely to act upon that anger and lash out with violence, on a small or large scale.
I believe that this kind of thing happens a lot in romantic relationships. People mistake their selfish desires for virtues. And I believe that this is party because of the muddled concept of love and our cultural glorification of it.
I'm not sure - in dissecting the Frog something is lost while knowledge is gained. If you do not see how analysis of things can sometimes (not always!) diminish them, then that may be the crux. I agree with Wbrom above - some things in human experience are irreducible, and sometimes trying to get to a more atomic level means that you lose a lot in the process, in the gaps between the categories.
Could I please get you to elaborate on what you think gets lost when I replace love with more well-defined terms?
I can think of one thing. It is a kind of emotional attachment to an idea due for cultural/memetic reasons. People are brought up to think that love is something super-important and valuable, even if they do not understand what it is. In this way, the term love can have a strong emotional effect. It communicates less actual meaning than a more specific term, but it communicates more emotion.
I think I covered it in my OP when I conceded that the term can be useful when I am trying to convey emotion rather than any detailed information:
When I say "I love you" to my wife, I don't intend this as a statement of fact with any well-defined meaning, but as an emotional signal like a kiss or hug.
Is that what you have in mind?
If all that is lost could be defined, it would, by definition, not be lost once definition is expanded that much.
There is this video: https://youtu.be/OfgVQKy0lIQ on why Asian parents don't say "I love you" to their kids, and it analyzes how the same word in different languages has different meaning. I would also add - to different people as well. So whatever you classify is always missing something in the gaps. It's the issue of legibilizing (in Seeing Like a State terms) - in trying to define it, you restrict it to only those things.
A lot of the meaning of the word Love is contained within me, with my emotions, with my messy mind thinking fuzzy thoughts. If I restricted it to only defined categories I am bound to lose something. Instead, I enjoy the fullness of it by keeping it ill defined and exploring it's multitudes.
Perhaps it's simply the case that the answer is "you are missing a human universal" to the question in the topic. If you tried to define humour, analyze jokes, divide them in categories, and extract the hormones triggered in response to some stimuli caused by a certain joke, I would say you did not (on a certain level) understand humour better than a child who made a good joke and enjoy a good laugh.
Finale example I heard recently brought up again is Mary's room knowledge argument - no amount of classification of blue, understanding of light spectrum data etc replaces the experience of seeing blue. Likewise with love.
To bring it back to your original question about understanding it in order to communicate to others - this is less found in books and more in self exploration through relationships with others. (I speak from perspective of someone in a happy long term romantic relationship with 0 issues and best communication I can imagine, none of which came from books on either of our sides).
There is this video: https://youtu.be/OfgVQKy0lIQ on why Asian parents don't say "I love you" to their kids, and it analyzes how the same word in different languages has different meaning.
As I see it, the video is compatible with my claim. Aini argues that "I love you" is a useful emotional signal in many situations, which I agree with in my OP.
Aini also argues around 19-21 minutes in for clearer communication. Her example is that saying "I love you" is in some situations clearer communication than giving someone a platter of fruit. I agree, and I further argue that there are situations where it is better to be even clearer than that.
Thanks. I will get around to watching that video later.
If you tried to define humour, analyze jokes, divide them in categories, and extract the hormones triggered in response to some stimuli caused by a certain joke, I would say you did not (on a certain level) understand humour better than a child who made a good joke and enjoy a good laugh.
Finale example I heard recently brought up again is Mary's room knowledge argument - no amount of classification of blue, understanding of light spectrum data etc replaces the experience of seeing blue. Likewise with love.
These examples do not seem to support your conclusion. If I can already laugh at a joke, then analyzing the humour and its neuro-psychology does not diminish that. I can still laugh at the next joke just as well as I could before. Nothing is lost.
I can avoid the term love as much as possible, and I can still experience all the feelings of companionship, compassion, and attraction as before. The muddled thinking did not create those experiences, and cleaning up the muddled thinking does not ruin the experiences.
(I do suffer from a kind of anhedonia, but I had that long before I started to dissect concepts such as love.)
Am I missing something in your argument?
I speak from perspective of someone in a happy long term romantic relationship with 0 issues and best communication I can imagine, none of which came from books on either of our sides
I do not understand what I am supposed to do with this. I apologize for my harsh tone in the following, but to be honest, to me this comes off more like a humblebrag than an attempt to explain or advise. Maybe you are unusually talented at intimate communication and/or were lucky to find a partner who is unusually talented at intimate communication. Or maybe you did some specific non-book-based self-improvement work to learn this - in which case, why not say something about that?
This comes off as if I entered a discussion about poverty and said: "I speak from perspective of someone with a stable career and 0 financial troubles, none of which came from attempts to overcome glass ceilings or discrimination or other systemic issues."
You might enjoy Gilbert and Sullivan's satirical light opera "Patience". In it, there's a poet that all the women of a village have fallen deeply in love with, except one woman, named Patience, who doesn't like him; and unfortunately the poet seems interested in Patience and not in any of the other women, who are therefore miserable and moping about it. Patience has never been in love, doesn't understand it, naively asks questions about it, and is puzzled by the answers. It thus serves as a vehicle to poke fun at various contemporary notions of what love is supposed to be.
MAIDENS.
Twenty love-sick maidens we,
Love-sick all against our will.
Twenty years hence we shall be
Twenty love-sick maidens still!
...
ANGELA Love feeds on hope, they say, or love will die;
MAIDENS Ah, misery!
ANGELA Yet my love lives, although no hope have I!
MAIDENS Ah, misery!
...
MAIDENS All our love is all for one, Yet that love he heedeth not,
He is coy and cares for none,
Sad and sorry is our lot!
Ah, misery!
...
PATIENCE.
I cannot tell what this love may be
That cometh to all but not to me.
It cannot be kind as they'd imply,
Or why do these ladies sigh?
It cannot be joy and rapture deep,
Or why do these gentle ladies weep?
It cannot be blissful as 'tis said,
Or why are their eyes so wondrous red?
...ANGELA. Ah, Patience, if you have never loved, you have never known true happiness! (All sigh.)
PATIENCE. But the truly happy always seem to have so much on their minds. The truly happy never seem quite well.
JANE. There is a transcendentality of delirium – an acute accentuation of supremest ecstasy – which the earthy might easily mistake for indigestion. But it is not indigestion – it is æsthetic transfiguration!
...
PATIENCE.
If love is a thorn, they show no wit
Who foolishly hug and foster it.
If love is a weed, how simple they
Who gather it, day by day!
If love is a nettle that makes you smart,
Then why do you wear it next your heart?
And if it be none of these, say I,
Ah, why do you sit and sob and sigh?
(The biggest missing factor in Patience's model is probably the fact that the maidens' love is unrequited. Though this is complicated by the fact that some people do enjoy fantasizing about not-necessarily-requited love, at least some of the time.)
Later, Patience gets the idea that love must be selfless... And therefore, it's improper for her to love someone who has lots of good qualities, because that would benefit her; instead she should marry an awful person, because living with them is absolutely unselfish. So she agrees to marry that poet, Bunthorne, who is vain, posturing, moody, petty, etc. But then Bunthorne promises to reform himself into a good man. Patience is initially delighted by this, but then realizes the implications.
PATIENCE. Oh, Reginald, I’m so happy! Oh, dear, dear Reginald, I cannot express the joy I feel at this change. It will no longer be a duty to love you, but a pleasure — a rapture — an ecstasy!
BUN. My darling! [embracing her]
PATIENCE. But — oh, horror! [recoiling from him]
BUN. What’s the matter?
PATIENCE. Is it quite certain that you have absolutely reformed — that you are henceforth a perfect being — utterly free from defect of any kind?
BUN. It is quite certain. I have sworn it.
PATIENCE. Then I never can be yours! [crossing to R.C.]
BUN. Why not?
PATIENCE. Love, to be pure, must be absolutely unselfish, and there can be nothing unselfish in loving so perfect a being as you have now become!
BUN. But, stop a bit. I don’t want to change — I’ll relapse — I’ll be as I was —
I would say that there is a place, in proper love relationships, for a thing that might at first glance resemble "unselfishness". But that thing is less "assigning zero value to your own happiness / well-being / etc." and more "assigning a similar value to your partner's utility as to your own", so that e.g. if something costs yourself 10 utils and benefits her 20 utils, you'll do it (and in a healthy relationship, lots of things like this happen in both directions and it's net positive for both). But it's pretty fair to say that general cultural transmission doesn't make things like this clear.
(In the following I am talking about "love" towards human beings only, not love of other things (such as music or food or God).)
A pet topic of mine is that the term love is so ambiguous as to be nigh-useless in rational discourse. But whenever I bring up the topic, people tend to dismiss and ignore it. Let us see if Less Wrong will do likewise.
Modern western culture (and maybe also other cultures) is obsessed with the ideal of love. Love is pretty much by definition the best thing in life which everyone should strive for.
The problem is that people don't agree on what love means.
Everyone will acknowledge that love can mean different things. But my claim is that most people do not truly understand this, even though they think they do. When this is brought up, people will say "oh yes, love can mean different things", but they will go on to act and talk as though love refers to something well-defined.
I would argue that many people treat love as a semantic stop sign. Love is by definition good and beautiful and virtuous and thus needs no further analysis. I have even heard people say that love is too "big" and too ineffable to analyze or define. In my opinion this is a problem, because people do use the term in "rational" discourse.
One might try to resolve the problem by arguing that there are different "kinds" of love:
This helps a bit, but it still does not resolve the problem. Altruism is relatively well-defined, but the other two are still nebulous concepts.
I think a different approach is better. As I see it, the concept of love is garbled mishmash of at least 3 different things:
These 3 things can co-occur and correlate, but they are clearly distinct things, and it is a mistake to shoehorn them into being 3 "aspects" of the same thing.
Love is usually treated as a binary thing: Either you "love" someone or you don't. This is another misconception that gives rise to bad reasoning. The above 3 things are obviously gradual, not binary, and the same goes for pretty much all attributes that people commonly associate with love.
People will often try to distinguish between "true love" and "not true love", or between "love", "lust" and "crushes". But there is no clear consensus. Most notably, people don't agree on whether "true love" has a craving component or not.
(One could of course argue that the various "kinds" of love exist on a continuum. Sure. But all sorts of things can be arranged into continua; this does not mean that it is useful to view them as variants of the same thing.)
This appears all over the place in popular culture, old and new. For a slightly older example, look at Richard Wagner's opera Tristan and Isolde. It is generally agreed that the story of the opera revolves around love, but the love shown in the opera is obviously a destructive obsession and not at all a good thing. Yet people who describe Tristan and Isolde as being about love will - in the same breath - insist that love is something beautiful and virtuous. (I suspect that Wagner himself was a prime example of what I am complaining about. His work has a clear overarching theme of love, but it remains highly muddled and ambiguous.)
It is also worth noting that love can be used as virtue signalling. People will say things like "I love my wife, but... [complaint]". In such a context, it is not clear whether the profession of love is supposed to convey any rational meaning.
People use the term love in discussions of relationship and family matters all the time, and that causes misunderstandings and problems. As a consequence, I avoid the term in rational discourse. When I say "I love you" to my wife, I don't intend this as a statement of fact with any well-defined meaning, but as an emotional signal like a kiss or hug. If anyone asks me "do you love your wife?" I will ask them what exactly they mean by that.
Or am I wrong?
I have argued that love refers to a range of things, some of which are completely unrelated. They exist at opposite ends of a contrived and unnatural continuum.
Or am I wrong? Do all these things which people call love genuinely share something important in common? Is there some "feeling of love" that underlies them all?
From my own inner life I do not recognize a singular "feeling of love". I recognize several different feelings: Of appreciation, of protectiveness, of longing, of infatuation, of empathy-with-suffering. But not a "feeling of love".
I have reason to believe that I am a bit of a psychological outlier. I have some degree of chronic anhedonia, and I might have a mild autism spectrum disorder.
Am I the odd one out? Does there exist a clear "feeling of love" that most people recognize?
Alternatively, are people more rational than I give them credit for? Is this confusion all in my head? When people talk about love, is it actually clear to everyone what they are talking about?
Or am I right and most people are confused?