Writer's Block: Really, Truly
I'm going to hold off on the true love question and address the love at first sight first.
Love, so far as I understand it, is something that takes time. The online dictionary defines it in a variety of ways, there being over fifteen descriptions of the word. The first few, I feel, are the most generally accepted definition of the word. They are; "1. A profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person,2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend, 3. sexual passion or desire". This demonstrates the clear fact that there are different kinds of love involved in everyday human interaction. For the sake of this discussion I will be dealing strictly with romantic and passionate love (either sexual or non-sexual as there are romantic attachments that are deeply loving but are non-sexual).
Now this brings us to the issue of what is love. A warm personal attachment or deep affection and profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person only describes so much. Romantic love is a multi layered concept.
First there is the classic romantic love. Two people who are inclined to each others company and feel a deep connection that causes them to want to spend a majority of their time together. They often hold a majority of interests in common and have a compatible outlook on life, universe etc. There is also, often, a physical attraction as well. This physical attraction can, at times, lead to physical intimacies that deepen the relationship. In today's world there is the rising conflict of what is commonly known as "friends with benefits" (FWBs) which blurs this line. But for the sake of ease of discussion we will leave that concept on the wayside.
Next we have what the Victorian's labeled "romantic friendship". This is when many of the familiar feelings that you often find in classic love applied to a friendship but without the sexual aspect. Again, this line has been blurred by the appearance of FWBs. This romantic friendship falls under the second definition offered "a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection for a parent, child, or friend".
I personally feel that sexual desire or passion on its own does not constitute love, but rather lust. When combined with the strong personal attachment and affection it can improve a love already felt but, for some, it is not necessary.
This leads me to the second question: does love at first sight exist?
In short, no. Love requires knowledge of a person and their habits, likes and dislikes, interests etc. Simple physical attraction, which is what people feel immediatly upon looking at someone, does not constitute the compatibility that is required with love. Love at first sight, as has been recorded before I am sure, should be changed to lust at first sight. Now, I am not saying that people do not feel connections when first meeting a person but that connection is just that, a connection. It is not love. And in truth, with the progress of a relationship there are different stages people often experience before reaching a full understanding of loving. There is attraction, both physical and emotional, which intitally attracts to people together. This leads to admiraton or infatuation which is a continuation of the first stage, with a "high" feeling and where everything the person does is good. This is part of the stage of butterflies in the stomach and the general will to do everything possible to impress the person. there is more to it but I don't feel like describing it, I am assuming that most have experienced this pont. Then, after a while, you begin to see the faults of the person, both small and large. Love is the ability to overlook/work through those faults while still seeing the good in the person that initially attracted you to them. This often only happens after a couple have been together for a good while.
This last stage, I personally view as love. Everything before it is infatuation or just a basic attraction to a person thus love at first sight is not possible because you do not know everything about a person (not that knowing everything about a person is possible). Essentially, Romeo and Juliet does not happen.
Now for true love. I believe that this depends on the person. Some people deeply love more than one person in their life, others only love once or twice. So no, true love, as the concept of finding the one and only person you will ever love, is nonsense. There is no way to verify its existence, when, in fact, everything seems to point in contradiction to it. Humans are inherenty capable of loving, deeply, more than one person. Thus making the concept a rather useless one.
My mind in wandering and I'm losing my train of thought so I'll end it now.
No, I don't believe in either true love or love at first sight. Bam.
Love, so far as I understand it, is something that takes time. The online dictionary defines it in a variety of ways, there being over fifteen descriptions of the word. The first few, I feel, are the most generally accepted definition of the word. They are; "1. A profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person,2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend, 3. sexual passion or desire". This demonstrates the clear fact that there are different kinds of love involved in everyday human interaction. For the sake of this discussion I will be dealing strictly with romantic and passionate love (either sexual or non-sexual as there are romantic attachments that are deeply loving but are non-sexual).
Now this brings us to the issue of what is love. A warm personal attachment or deep affection and profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person only describes so much. Romantic love is a multi layered concept.
First there is the classic romantic love. Two people who are inclined to each others company and feel a deep connection that causes them to want to spend a majority of their time together. They often hold a majority of interests in common and have a compatible outlook on life, universe etc. There is also, often, a physical attraction as well. This physical attraction can, at times, lead to physical intimacies that deepen the relationship. In today's world there is the rising conflict of what is commonly known as "friends with benefits" (FWBs) which blurs this line. But for the sake of ease of discussion we will leave that concept on the wayside.
Next we have what the Victorian's labeled "romantic friendship". This is when many of the familiar feelings that you often find in classic love applied to a friendship but without the sexual aspect. Again, this line has been blurred by the appearance of FWBs. This romantic friendship falls under the second definition offered "a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection for a parent, child, or friend".
I personally feel that sexual desire or passion on its own does not constitute love, but rather lust. When combined with the strong personal attachment and affection it can improve a love already felt but, for some, it is not necessary.
This leads me to the second question: does love at first sight exist?
In short, no. Love requires knowledge of a person and their habits, likes and dislikes, interests etc. Simple physical attraction, which is what people feel immediatly upon looking at someone, does not constitute the compatibility that is required with love. Love at first sight, as has been recorded before I am sure, should be changed to lust at first sight. Now, I am not saying that people do not feel connections when first meeting a person but that connection is just that, a connection. It is not love. And in truth, with the progress of a relationship there are different stages people often experience before reaching a full understanding of loving. There is attraction, both physical and emotional, which intitally attracts to people together. This leads to admiraton or infatuation which is a continuation of the first stage, with a "high" feeling and where everything the person does is good. This is part of the stage of butterflies in the stomach and the general will to do everything possible to impress the person. there is more to it but I don't feel like describing it, I am assuming that most have experienced this pont. Then, after a while, you begin to see the faults of the person, both small and large. Love is the ability to overlook/work through those faults while still seeing the good in the person that initially attracted you to them. This often only happens after a couple have been together for a good while.
This last stage, I personally view as love. Everything before it is infatuation or just a basic attraction to a person thus love at first sight is not possible because you do not know everything about a person (not that knowing everything about a person is possible). Essentially, Romeo and Juliet does not happen.
Now for true love. I believe that this depends on the person. Some people deeply love more than one person in their life, others only love once or twice. So no, true love, as the concept of finding the one and only person you will ever love, is nonsense. There is no way to verify its existence, when, in fact, everything seems to point in contradiction to it. Humans are inherenty capable of loving, deeply, more than one person. Thus making the concept a rather useless one.
My mind in wandering and I'm losing my train of thought so I'll end it now.
No, I don't believe in either true love or love at first sight. Bam.