Characteristics Of Romantic And Familial Love

The article '' love: the right chemistry'' by Anastasia Toufexis efforts to explain the concept of love from a scientific aspect in which an amateur will understand. Briefly this essay explains and describe in a scientific way how people's stimulation of the body works when you're falling in love. The new scientific researches have given the answer through human physiology how genes behave when your feelings for example get swept away. The justification for this is explained by how the brain gets flooded by chemicals. The author expresses in one point that love isn't just a nonsense behavior nor a feeling that exhibits similar properties as of a narcotic drug. This is brought about by an organized chemical chain who controls different

The human idea of love is quite possibly the most misunderstood in today’s society. Love can be between a man and woman, mother/father and their kids, or even really good friends. However, these relationships of love go through many interactions and stages to start and progress. Many psychological events must occur and be worked through in order to be successful. All relationships must endure the five perspectives of human behavior. These perspectives are biological, learning, social and cultural, cognitive, and psychodynamic influences.

The original study “The nature of love” was focused on gaining more understanding of human development (Hock, 2013). It involved a series of experiments done by Harry Harlow in 1958, in which he

Love exists in the short story “The Bear Came Over the Mountain” by Alice Munro and in the short story “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” by Raymond Carver. in Munro’s short story the plot is that of a mentally ill wife, Fiona, who falls in love with another patient while her husband still tries to hang on to their old love. Her husband eventually wants to have an affair with the wife of the man his wife is having an affair with. Their love changed because of their circumstances due to ill health. Carver’s story discusses the different definitions of love due to the type and quality of relationships; everyone has a different definition. Love also exists all over the world within different environments and cultures. The concept of love depends upon the environment in which it inhabits. Love is dependent on the life of the people in love and it also depends on their current environment. Nature and nurture are also huge factors into the development and process of love. What nature and nurture mean is whether it is due to how the person lives and acts along with their personality compared to whether it’s all in their genetics beforehand. Love is more on the nurture side instead of the nature side of human experience.

Love is the basis of our existence. It affects our every moment, dreams, and hope for the future. Love has caused wars, ended lives, toppled governments and has been expounded on by poets, musicians, philosophers, and literates throughout the centuries. Research from Syracuse University shows that it takes about a fifth of a second to fall in love and it affects almost every part of our body. Our brain releases dopamine, a natural chemical that gives us energy and optimism. Love is similar to a drug and can become an addiction because it affects our brain much like other drugs by triggering the dopamine reward part of our brain. Love even affects a persons’ heart when a person is in love their blood pressure will lower and has been

Romantic love in teens is simply a conventional mismatch of an over exaggerated emotion. To state in pure words, romantic love is a strong feeling of affection, concern, and care towards another person and relationship. It induces many feelings of deep emotional, sexual, and spiritual recognition, as well as many other influential feelings. Different people have different perspectives and thoughts as to what ‘romantic love’ truly is, and whether or not it is simply an overstated infatuation. According to scientists, the ultimate motivation of romantic love is to pass on genetic information to an offspring.

In Barbara Fredrickson’s “Love 2.0” she talks about how love is a system and has its own biology. Our bodies are constantly changing and going through different experiences and with those experiences our bodies become more attuned to love. And the more people become associated with love, the more they are able to reciprocate it.

Love is a special emotion that most individuals strives for. Part of a human’s nature is to love and long for another individual. This feeling has existed since the beginning and will continue to exist until the end. The term “love,” however, is very broad. To understand more easily what the term means, the Ancient Greeks came up with three terms to symbolize the three main types of love. The three classical types of love are very important to understand, as they will continue to exist until the world ends. The selected poems read reflect three classical types of love.

Love has been a part of life ever since the first man and woman was created. Over the period of thousands and thousands of years, love has evolved just like humans have. At one point, you found your "true" love based off who your family chose for you. As society became more modern, love has become more modern too. In today's society, you usually get to pick who your true love is based off your own preferences.

Some say, to love is to be willing to die. Others say, to love is to be willing to do whatever a loved one asks. Barbara Fredrickson says love is neither of these. In her book, Fredrickson attempts to redefine love through the biological microscope. The author compiles a variety of studies and research data to prove her claim that love is the product of neural coupling, oxytocin in the brain, and the work of the vagus nerve. Fredrickson presents a well-rounded claim, but there are some deficiencies that hinder the strength of her argument. Fredrickson’s use of vague language throughout this excerpt causes the reader to call into question the validity of said studies. In addition, Fredrickson’s use of first person point of view is a clever

In the excerpt from “Love 2.0” by Barbara Fredrickson, the feeling of love is explained to be more biological in nature. Love is often seen as an intense emotion that connects two or more people through trust and communication. It can click into place after a lengthy conversation or just a shared glance. While this may seem dramatic, Fredrickson offers her own biological perspective to explain these phenomena in a more grounded sense. These biological reasonings aide her in proving that love is not unconditional or exclusive, but rather shared with all that give off a positive resonance. It is also made possible through the synchronized flow of the two people’s brains, the release of the hormone, oxytocin, and the healthy control of the vagal. The combination of these parts enables a person to experience this feeling of love and receive it from others as well. It is important to understand these scientific reasonings because they show how people can obtain this deep love with multiple people by just listening to their bodies. The different biological processes enable people to love better by creating a deeper connection in conversation, a strong sense of trust, and providing the skills people need to acquire the love their bodies crave.

Although Fredrickson provides evidence to support her definition of what love really is, her argument is not convincing because she contradicts herself by condescendingly limiting the definition of love herself and fails to address and explai1`n the flaws of the scientific experiments due to human error. When one limits himself/herself, he/she does not see the possibility of answers that there may be. Fredrickson claims that those who limit their views of love experience more complex emotions, while those who believe in their “body’s definition of love” experience a “clear path...that leads...to a better life” (Fredrickson 108). First of all, although “complexity” itself may be seen as negative at times, such as work or in this case, the “love..and [the] bewildering thicket of emotions, expectations, and securities,” the great satisfaction that results from love with another person is also due to the fact that one’s emotions is in simple words, a crazy rollercoaster ride. If one is always happy, his/her feel of happiness will and most likely be less than one

The concept of love is a complex creature to dive into. From the dictionary to the definition produced by individuals, mainstream media, or society, love can come in many forms. Some of forms can be familial, romantic, friendly, or general love for a subject such as games, reading, etc. Over all, love is diverse in the purest form, though there is a question of what would happen if love becomes a different shape. Another shape to where it can drive people into mad obsession, abusive control, or have the effect of the onslaught of polluting the idea of what love is from a young age. From the negative extreme, love can change individuals to become the vilest creatures, often romanticized in modern society, to take it upon themselves to spill blood of living beings. In such a case, love can in fact create killers.

But the Idea of Kin selection suggests that genes guiding their altruistic behavior have been selected because they are more likely to be passed on to later generations in the bodies of an increased number of younger brothers and sisters than in the bodies of their own children. To demonstrate that this is so, it is necessary to show that

While people are often able to identify when they feel the emotion love, love itself seems to defy definition.  In her polemic “Against Love”, Laura Kipnis argues that love cannot exist as traditional expressions of love such as marriage, monogamy, and mutuality.  However, in her argument, she defines love incorrectly by equating love to expressions of love. This definition lacks a component essential to understanding the abstract concept of love: emotion. Recognizing love as emotion helps us realize that, contrary to Kipnis’ argument love by nature transcends all expressions of love. Love is subjective and exists in any and all forms. In her argument that love cannot survive as conventional expressions of love, Kipnis ignores the nature of love as emotion in favor of equating love to different expressions of love. Love is a force which exists above expressions of love; a true understanding of love can only come from an assessment of how individuals, not societies, respond to the emotion.