There was someone on here that mentioned there are four different types of love I think that I agree with them from what they described.

I think you are referring to romantic love.
I really like this lady on that subject.

“If you love a flower, don’t pick it up.
Because if you pick it up it dies and it ceases to be what you love.
So if you love a flower, let it be.
Love is not about possession.
Love is about appreciation.”


― Osho

The need to say this by Osho indicates that one's impulse when feeling love is to possess.. so what is love about? Is it a desire to possess? is it a desire to appreciate, and cherish and elevate? is it both? (which many times can't actualize).

Is the type of love that leads one to want to possess different to that which leads one to want to commit subservience for the sake of the beloved? If so, why do we still refer to these different types with the same word: "love"?? — DP Brah

Love is merely a means of fooling the human brain into reproducing.

Once a nervous system develops to a certain degree of complexity, so too has to the means by which reproduction becomes established between those brains. So instead of just fucking each other senseless, you got strong emotional ties that make brains stick together for the safety of new brains.

That is a nice quote from an otherwise horrible man who fooled many people and stole a lot of money. Google Raj Neesh (his previous name) and you will see how much of a spiritual deceiver he is.

I - and others - have mentioned them. They are

Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē means "love: esp. charity; the love of God for man and of man for God. unconditional love. This type of love was further explained by Thomas Aquinas as "to will the good of another."

Éros (ἔρως érōs) means "love, mostly of the sexual passion."

Philia (φιλία philía) means "affectionate regard, friendship," usually "between equals."

Storge (στοργή storgē) means "love, affection" and "especially of parents and children" It's the common or natural empathy, like that felt by parents for offspring.

There are other Greek words for love and affection, and there are other (modern) interpretations of these types of love. Naturally, there is a good deal more to say about the ancient Greek meaning of these words. Search Wikipedia.

Why do we use just one word for love? Well, that's just English for you. There are many other words and phrases in English that describe nuanced understandings of love. The precise meaning that is intended for "love" has to be judged by context. The difference between "I love popcorn" and "I love my dog" is pretty clear. The difference between "I love my dog" and "I love my wife" might not be all that clear cut, given the possible state of relationships between people. Partners sometimes wonder where they stand Vis-à-vis the dog.

Emotions are generally a mix. There are a variety of kinds of love, and we feel more than one at a time. We mix other feelings with love, too. That's just the nature of the beast (i.e., us).

Love is merely a means of fooling the human brain into reproducing. — intrapersona

Too narrow a definition. What of parental love? Fraternal? These too can lean toward possession/dominion or not.

Besides, in the sexual type, there’s the proverbial whamo-over-the-head-with-a-club of cavemen verses the mutual-this-and-that version; both types of guy can utter the words of love to partners. Furthermore, both versions can result in reproduction; and both can result in the father sticking around for the new brain (though the new brain’s mother typically gets treated differently by each). Then there the whamo-over-the-head guy that mimics the mutual-this-and-that guy but isn’t (players I think these guys are called; fakes to be more clear about it). So there’s something to be said about the difference between possessiveness in relations—replete with emotions that lead to offspring—and what is intended by the term love, which sometimes leads to no offspring at all.

Which isn’t to say that I can’t emphasize with the given quote.

Too narrow a definition. What of parental love? Fraternal? These too can lean toward possession/dominion or not. — javra

the same thing. Love is merely a means of fooling the human brain into reproducing. Parental love (as i already said) exists to create strong emotional ties that make brains stick together for the safety of new brains. Fraternal is for survival, much like compassion or empathy. I don't believe in love other than in male/female romantic/sexual relationships, if it isn't that then it is just called "friendship".

Besides, in the sexual type, there’s the proverbial whamo-over-the-head-with-a-club of cavemen verses the mutual-this-and-that version; both types of guy can utter the words of love to partners. Furthermore, both versions can result in reproduction; and both can result in the father sticking around for the new brain (though the new brain’s mother typically gets treated differently by each). Then there the whamo-over-the-head guy that mimics the mutual-this-and-that guy but isn’t (players I think these guys are called; fakes to be more clear about it). So there’s something to be said about the difference between possessiveness in relations—replete with emotions that lead to offspring—and what is intended by the term love, which sometimes leads to no offspring at all.

Which isn’t to say that I can’t emphasize with the given quote. — javra

Be careful not to confuse ego with love. attachment, possessiveness, domination... they are not love

when a women pines for her man, that is not love, that is attachment.

Have to ask. How then do you explain children’s love for aging parents?

Spewing off random thoughts, never got that whole detachment doctrine of Buddhism, which is a belief that upholds love to be a good thing. Love is a form of attachment, regardless of what one loves—even if we’re only talking in abstract terms. Must be something lost in translation between East and West.

Always liked Sting’s, “If you love someone, set them free” (I forget the song title). Which I bring up to try to illustrate that love, to me, is nevertheless a form of attachment different than that of ego (possession, etc.).

Spewing off random thoughts, never got that whole detachment doctrine of Buddhism, which is a belief that upholds love to be a good thing. Love is a form of attachment, regardless of what one loves—even if we’re only talking in abstract terms. Must be something lost in translation between East and West. — javra

Indeed, detachment from the world in that sense is a nonsense. Rather the ending of detachment is the goal of Buddhism. I wonder if it is clear that possession is founded on and an increment of detachment? Myself detached from the world and mine attached to me and me to mine.

Instead of talking about attachment and detachment, I like to talk about caring. Not caring is indifference; but again the word can be misleading - not indifference in the sense that one is simply a part of the world like any other part, but indifference in the sense that one does not care one way or the other.

To care is to be concerned, to be passionately involved, to take pains. This is love, isn't it, to take pains? Not to seek pains, that's silly, but to accept them. To pay willingly the price of existence.

To care is to be concerned, to be passionately involved, to take pains. This is love, isn't it, to take pains? Not to seek pains, that's silly, but to accept them. To pay willingly the price of existence. — unenlightened

This is love. I have seen it in the dimly lit halls of the hospital, soft words spoken, followed by an embrace of tears between loved ones, that love the person in the room, alone. Love is not just joy but also sorrow. It incorporates the whole range of emotions not just the positive alone. Love is expressing honesty without threat of injury. Love is rarely seen at the Alter in the house of God but rather will be seen much later, when the one you love is actively losing a parent to death. Love is the acceptance of other's faults knowing that the good in them out weighs the bad. Most of all, love is what you feel for yourself first and then share with others.

Love is a paradox...the one time where native selfishness is subdued for the good of another.

And where there are paradoxes there are things poorly understood or worse, something entirely misunderstood

I wonder if it is clear that possession is founded on and an increment of detachment? — unenlightened

Didn’t at the time have anything significant to add to this. But I don’t want it to slip by without complementing it some.

There’s a vast difference in belongingness (yes, it’s a word) between that which is owned and that which one adheres into. Pets make for an easy example: “my pet” can be something owned like any other disposable commodity with no intrinsic value to yourself (a possession; something you are sovereign over while detached from) or can be a being that one in some psychological way adheres into as a fellow being: something far harder to philosophically describe but typically addressed in terms of “love”. Less comfortable is human romantic relations; but the same dynamics always apply: e.g., degrees of having the other as a trophy-prizes one is detached from and flaunts to others for social capital (a possession), for example, verse degrees of having the other person as someone you adhere into as a self (a wholly different kind of belonging than that of possession; here, when the other suffers, you suffer). Both are still addressed by “my girlfriend/boyfriend” or “my wife/husband”. (And yes, for us more aged folk, sometimes as “my pet”.)

I’m very much in agreement with you that possession results due to detachment from the other … and that detachment results in a lack of caring.