Writer's Block: Really, Truly
Mar. 13th, 2009 10:49 am[Error: unknown template qotd]
When I think about it, this is really kind of a funny question.
I do believe that love exists, of course, but I find the distinction of "true love" a bit silly. I think there are a lot of different kinds of love, and most of them are each as valid as the other. I'm not really sure what "true love" is honestly supposed to mean. "True love," as opposed to "fake love," which would be... what? When you tell yourself you love somebody but you really don't? Loving, as Aragorn put it, a shadow and a thought instead of an actual person?
Which brings us to the concept of "love at first sight," which, no, I don't believe in at all. You have to know a person at least a little bit in order to love them (romantically, anyhow, which is the generally-accepted connotation of the phrase). Attraction at first sight, sure - instant chemistry undoubedtly exists. But chemistry isn't love. More like the potential for its development. Or something.
When I think about it, this is really kind of a funny question.
I do believe that love exists, of course, but I find the distinction of "true love" a bit silly. I think there are a lot of different kinds of love, and most of them are each as valid as the other. I'm not really sure what "true love" is honestly supposed to mean. "True love," as opposed to "fake love," which would be... what? When you tell yourself you love somebody but you really don't? Loving, as Aragorn put it, a shadow and a thought instead of an actual person?
Which brings us to the concept of "love at first sight," which, no, I don't believe in at all. You have to know a person at least a little bit in order to love them (romantically, anyhow, which is the generally-accepted connotation of the phrase). Attraction at first sight, sure - instant chemistry undoubedtly exists. But chemistry isn't love. More like the potential for its development. Or something.