Barbara Fredrickson challenges many of the preconceptions we have about love in “Selections from Love 2.0” of the New Humanities Reader. Love is traditionally thought of as being the connection which is shared only with the people closest to you like, your family or your wife. Fredrickson refutes this and even says that love isn’t “exclusive lasting or unconditional” and dismisses these as wishes that people have about love. She believes that in order for all of us to truly understand love, we shouldn't equate it to these preconceived ideas. Although, it is difficult to think of relationships and commitment as separate from love, this is what Fredrickson thinks is necessary in order to have a scientific discussion. The concept of “neural coupling” …show more content…
One member usually gives up their last name to take their partner’s name, finances and other resources are often shared, and each partner may sometimes even give up a loved hobby to spend more time with the other person. These sacrifices can lead to the “loss in sense of self”. In many marriages, partners may promise “unconditional love” which is simply not true according to Fredrickson. In this quote, Fredrickson illustrates what marriage actually is “Even so, that special bond and the commitments people often build around it are better taken as the products of love- the results of many smaller moments in which love infuses you- rather than as love per se” (Fredrickson 108). According to this, love is those shorter moments in which we experience it instead of the actual marriage, which occurs because of these moments. Commitments are built around the amount of times the love is infused in …show more content…
Since this love between people can be found even with a stranger.. Many marriages in America today end up in divorce and this concept of coupling may explain why. Many people divorce their partner because they believe that they no longer love their partner. According to Fredrickson, this isn’t true, “Nor is it something ‘out there’ that you can fall into or- years later- out of” (Fredrickson 108). Fredrickson says that you cannot fall out of love. Couples today may cite this as a the reason for their divorce even though it isn’t how love actually works. They just have a lack of positive resonance. Being able to reach “love” with a complete stranger in an airport is hard to accept for most people. When couples lack the moments of positive resonance, they lose the empathy they have, causing the lack in sense of
Human beings are not isolated individuals. We do not wander through a landscape of trees and dunes alone, reveling in our own thoughts. Rather, we need relationships with other human beings to give us a sense of support and guidance. We are social beings, who need talk and company almost as much as we need food and sleep. We need others so much, that we have developed a custom that will insure company: marriage. Marriage assures each of us of company and association, even if it is not always positive and helpful. Unfortunately, the great majority of marriages are not paragons of support. Instead, they hold danger and barbs for both members. Only the best marriages improve both partners. So when we look at all three of Janie’s marriages, only her marriage to Teacake shows the support, guidance, and love.
In The New Humanities Reader edited by Richard E. Miller and Kurt Spellmeyer. We read about Barbara Fredrickson the author of the book “Love 2.0” copy right (2013). Barbara Fredrickson is a psychologist who show in her research how our supreme emotion affects everything we Feel, Think, Do and become. Barbara also uses her research from her lab to describe her ideas about love. She defines love not as a romance or stable emotion between friends, partners and families, but as a micro-moment between all people even stranger (108). She went farther in her interpretation of love and how the existence of love can improve a person’s mental and physical health (107). Through reading
In today’s society, there is nothing that is seen as a perfect marriage. Love and hate are both closely intertwined in our brain, making them the two most intense emotions. It is bazar to think that one can go from loving someone to hating (disliking) that certain individual, or from hating (disliking) that individual to falling mad in love with them. Society creates a barrier that makes one believe on what a loving relationship should be. In many occasions negativity and other factors come to play in a loving relationship. Even though love can over power hate, hate and other negatives can come out at the starting point of love because of infidelity, resentment, and other disappointments in a relationship.
Robert Nozick’s Love’s Bond is a clear summary of components, goals, challenges, and limitations of romantic love. Nozick gives a description of love as having your wellbeing linked with that of someone and something you love. I agree with ideas that Nozick has explained concerning the definition of love, but individuals have their meaning of love. Every individual has a remarkable thing that will bring happiness and contentment in their lives. While sometimes it is hard to practice unconditional love, couples should love unconditionally because it is a true love that is more than infatuation and overcomes minor character flaw.
Love is defined as a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person. Faithfulness is often defined as true to one's word, promises, vows, or being loyal. In Homer’s famous story, The Odyssey, Odysseus and Penelope show their true love for one another, and how a good marriage can stay together. In “Bound by Love and Disability, and Keeping a Vow Until the End” you can take away that Edwin and Noemi love each other dearly. Marriages do not always turn out the way you want, but true love can make good things happen.
Love can influence people in mysterious ways, the underlying cause is promise, that there is hope for something greater than oneself. We also see how this can create a chasm between family members. The fact of the matter is, love can stem from various situations, memories, or personal thoughts. There are some forbidden marriages that turn out to be a good thing, there are also parents who want give a home to an unsuspecting child they never knew they wanted. Certain situations determine who a person is through the experiences they are given and the feelings that are felt from it. Most of the stories that have come along are giving to us with an example of separation, a longing for love, an outcome that may or may not be beneficial in the long
The notion behind loving someone is simply very complicated and esoteric in nature. People often describe a certain chemistry, as in a certain attraction, needed between two individuals who are in love, but Barbara Fredrickson is able to coordinate the definition of love on the basis of chemicals. Barbara Fredrickson is able to provide the definition of love on the deductive reasoning based on chemistry, biology, and neurology explained in Love 2.0: How our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything we Feel, Think, Do, and Become. As Barbara explains, “With each micro-moment of love, then, you climb another rung on the spiraling ladder that lifts you up to your higher ground, to richer and more compassionate social relationships, to greater resilience and wisdom, and to better physical health.” (121).
The concept of love is a very ambiguous, controversial, idea that is nearly impossible to come to a singular consensus on. In this essay I will be describing and comparing two philosophical views on the concepts and ideas behind love. Through the works of Todd May and Plato, different approaches to the concept of love will be illustrated as well as determining the similarities and differences between the two perspectives.
Love is a concept that has puzzled humanity for centuries. This attachment of one human being to another, not seen as intensely in other organisms, is something people just cannot wrap their heads around easily. So, in an effort to understand, people write their thoughts down. Stories of love, theories of love, memories of love; they all help us come closer to better knowing this emotional bond. One writer in particular, Sei Shōnagon, explains two types of lovers in her essay "A Lover’s Departure": the good and the bad.
As any romantic will assert, love is by far the most powerful force known to human hearts and minds. This sentiment is espoused throughout history, almost to the point of cliché. Everyone has heard the optimistic statement, “love conquers all,” and The Beatles are certain, however idyllic it may be, that “all you need is love.” Humanity is convinced that love is unique within human emotion, unequalled in its power to both lift the spirit up in throws of ecstasy, and cast it down in utter despair.
Love is arguably the most powerful emotion possessed by mankind; it is the impalpable bond that allows individuals to connect and understand one another. Pure love is directly related to divinity. Without love, happiness and prosperity become unreachable goals. An individual that possesses all the desired superficial objects in the world stands alone without the presence of love. For centuries love has been marveled by all that dare encounter it. Countless books and poems have been transcribed to explain the phenomenon of love, but love surpasses all intellectual explanations and discussions. Love is not a definition, but rather a thought, an idea. This idea, the idea of love, burns inside us all. Instinctually, every soul on Earth is
Because love and loss are parts of human nature, they are difficult to control how people respond to them; often times they can come with consequences. Love can range from a variety of different feelings; most are feelings of personal affection and pleasure. Often, love can cause a strong personal attachment, both mentally and physically. In a recent article from “Psychology Today”, Dr. Deborah Anapol stated, “Love is inherently free. It cannot be bought, sold, or traded.
A third reason why a marriage based upon love is an inadvisable decision is because it is wise for a couple to have financial stability before entering into a marriage. A solid relationship requires a sense of stability and the capacity to provide a secure future for one’s family. This need for a stable marital environment is typically brought about by ensuring one or both spouses are financially stable and can care for the family as a whole.
But what happens when love is thrown around without a second thought? Has this four letter word become an overused cliché? Has love been replaced with lust? Is there such a thing as true love? This last question has been asked throughout history, while many have argued and debated over the final answer.
In this essay, I will explain my personal definition of love, scientific standpoints, religious standpoints, and historical and cultural viewpoints on love and what it means to the human race. There is a lot of physical and not so physical evidence on the existence of love, and a lot of arguments against its existence, but hear me out as I take you on a journey of this fascinating and intriguing thing called love. Love is said to be one of the driving factors for many decisions we make in our lives, and why we do what we do. Why