I recently heard a friend of mine say that she was asked if she had ever been "in love." Her respectable answer to this question was no. I am glad she said that. It was an honest answer. It also made me begin to apply that question to myself. Is it possible to love someone but not be in love? Ok, sounds complicated. Here is my general definition of being "in love."
To be in love (the most misunderstood word in the English language): An action between two people. Genuine. Authentic. Mature. To be willing to give up a part of yourself for the other person and to do it even if the other person doesn't know you have done it. To be selfless. To expect nothing in return. To sacrifice your desires (not to be confused with beliefs or standards...that's a whole different topic) for the benefit of the other person. To be willing to give your life for the other person.
Looking solely at this definition I can honestly agree with my friend that, no, I have never been in love.
However, I have loved.
7 comments:
okay, so what's the difference between being in love and loving someone? and while you're at it, what's the difference between saying you're going to send someone something and actually sending it? say...like a movie script...
My Dear Rachael,
I'm afraid on this rare occaision I must disagree with you. While love itself, in the biblical definition, is a wondrous and good thing; being "in love" may or may not be the same. I'm not sure you are using the phrase "in love" correctly.
Many people have used the phrase wrongly, but even amongst those whose diction is correct, the meaning of being "in love" has been sadly perverted. Love is genuine, the real McCoy, and complete. "In love" can be fleeting, a hormonal flash in the pan, or real itself. One person can be "in love" as well as two. You don't need a pair to tango in this case. Real love only needs one person.
Being "in love" does not mean you are selfless. Someone who is "in love" can be as selfish and petulant as a tyrant, and be blind to it. Love sees faults, and forgives them; but "in love" often refuses to acknowledge them and simply glosses them over.
"In love" often DOES expect something in return, usually a reflection of similar feeling from the object of affection. Love, real love, does not.
"In love" can be fleeting, when not backed by real, true love. It can be false, shallow, and corrupt.
Love, real love, however, I think is something different. Yes, you WILL give your life for that person. You trust them, see them warts and all and accept them. You know their desires and dreams; and while you may not understand or even approve, you support them.
True love. The Godly, biblical kind. Not "in love"
I think(and hope) that is what you meant when you gave you definition of "in love". I hope you typed "in love", but really ment, love. I'm sure I sound quite bitter about love and romance and all that, but I'm not.
I really hope to find that real love(and no I'm not looking for it on this blog!), and I wish the same for all of you.
Alright, that's enough. Time to break it up. I've got early work tommorrow. Goodnight, God bless, and may love find you all.
Mephistopheles
Ok, To All:
I knew that this would come up. When I define "in love" I define it for myself. What I believe "in love" to be. I am very aware that the phrase has been completely slayed over the years and I am attempting to rectify the situation. I have about had it with people just throwing around the phrase and having no idea what they are saying. They need to say something like "I'm in like." That would be fine. I'm ok with that.
To simply love someone doesn't involve two people. Only one.
And I'll try to send you the script this weekend. So there.
Upon spotting a semantic argument in your blog, I was forced to throw in my two cents. The trouble with semantics is that word meanings are so often determined by culture and environment, making it nearly impossible to accurately exegete a certain phrase without the ability to communicate with the author in an interactive way. I think, given the fact that our dear Rachael has stated that by "in love" she refers to a phrase oft misused to define romantic relationships, that we should give her credit for attempting to redefine it properly for herself. At the risk of teetering toward the postmodern abyss, I would agree that her definition can be whatever she wants it to be. However, I would tend to agree with Mr. Methamphetamine and dd (by the way, she's never going to get you the script) that the phrases are one and the same. As someone who is genuinely "in love," (with my wonderful wife), I can say that I encountered a strange characteristic within myself when I got to know her. Instead of the way I had felt toward all my previous "crushes" (which Rachael would say I was "in like with"), with her, I truly wanted what was best for her. With other infatuations, my desire for the girl was only because she made me feel good about my self, or made me look good, etc. With Bobbie, I realized that I wanted good for her, even if no one ever knew about it (even her). I still gladly serve her, and hope that no one knows but me. When I realized that that's how I felt about her, I was practically forced to marry her. That, to me, is when I learned what it really is to love. I hope and pray, Rachael, that you'll find a man that you delight in serving. You truly are one of my favorite women in the world, and you're right to fight against the dilution of the word "love." God bless!
I love my fiancee!
I both love her and am in love with her.
Man, it's getting thick around here.
You certainly don't look better than me and my retainers in the morning.
Love is washing your husbands underwear.
Post a Comment