Love can be reduced to chemicals and hormones, it is rooted in human evolution, our genetics and our desire to produce healthy offspring.
Love is the sensation, feeling and emotions you feel when you find the right person.
Love is a verb. Like any other verb, it refers to an action. It is something we engage in and act upon.
Love is an artificial construct which oppresses women and reinforces the patriarchy.
There are many different types of love. Each one is something different.
The Hebrew word for love is ahavah. The word comes from the root consonants h-v meaning "to give".
By definition of the Hebrew word for love, without the action of giving, there can be no love. Giving is an essential component of loving someone. In order for it to be real, it must be expressed as an act of giving. Without this action or behaviour, there can be no love.
Just because one language defines love in this way does not make it a universally accepted definition of love. The Ilocano language in the Philippines has no word for love, does that mean we should accept love does not exist? The Japanese language had no word for love until the late nineteenth century. Does that mean before that it simply didn't exist in Japanese culture?
[P1] The Hebrew word for love includes the root consonants for the act of giving. [P2] In the Hebrew language, giving is an essential component of loving. [P3] Giving is an action. [P4] Therefore, the way we act and behave is a central part of loving someone.
[Rejecting P1] Other languages define love differently. [Rejecting P4] Who is to say the Hebrew language has the universally correct definition of love?
Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument