Talk:Love

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Larissa Ismail.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S.glo1, Jameilla.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Could someone add to this article that 'love' doesn't actually exist, it's a biochemical and bioelectrical reaction in the brain, doesn't exist outside the brain, cannot be seen touched, tasted or smelled, and has no energy signature indicating actual presence, is used as a excuse to feed off of others (and when the feeder no longer experiences endophin release the 'love' disapears) and that studies that have found the above to be true? It's frustrating to come here looking for facts on the exploitive act of 'love' and find only further continuation of the lies taught to us as children (we all learn santa doesn't exist, but 'love' is utilized to manipulate and use others, they get dopamine, vasopressin etc, so no one bothers to point out to our young that they're beliving false data derived from people that weren't aware of brain chemistry or how the brain works.) I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how, and have little time. A section on the fallacy of love and the actual biochemical causes of such aberant behaviour is needed, this article is FAR too unbalanced towards the side of fallacy and deception. Thank you! 2001:569:BC3F:FB00:44A3:157:6789:CDCC (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"doesn't exist outside the brain". Prove that ANYTHING exists outside the brain. All that you have ever experienced is just biochemical and bioelectrical reactions in the brain. --Khajidha (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you prove that you exist outside that doobie? 75.80.179.156 (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the most Wikipedian/chronically online thing I've ever heard anyone say. - 25eanglin (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@25eanglin: without a doubt. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

User from 13 September 2021. He's probably right. The brain is the control center The Brain: The Command Center of the Human Body. ... If we don't choose our genes, the country where we're born or raised, or the system implemented to educate us, where is the choice? .... Neuroscience teaches us that the brain reacts to external and chemical stimuli, and suggests that the brain sells us the "illusion" that we decide. Imagination as a programming tool. 👣 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkasutoro (talk • contribs) 04:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

words that can be said to people to show your love is normally 'I love you' Aannonnyymmoouuss (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary to mention. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Persian view - second paragraph

Aziz Nasafi, a famous Muslim mystic from Central Asia and Iran, wrote the “Epistle on Love” (Risala fi’l ‘Ishq) in his work The Book of the Perfect Man (Kitab Insan al-Kamil). In the epistle he describes love as an emotion that is fostered in an individual for the beloved through four stages. These four stages are inclination (mayl), desire (iradat), affection (mahabbat) and love (‘ishq). He explains that these four stages lead the lover on a journey through which his love for his beloved progressively strengthens, until he becomes completely immersed in the beloved and the beloved becomes a part of him.

Under Islam (in Religious views) - last paragraph

Aziz Nasafi, a famous Muslim mystic from Central Asia and Iran, wrote the “Epistle on Love” (Risala fi’l Ishq) in his work, The Book of the Perfect Man (Kitab Insan al-Kamil). In the epistle he draws parallels between love and the remembrance of God. He explains that both love and remembrance have four stages. These four stages are inclination (mayl), desire (iradat), affection (mahabbat) and love (‘ishq). He explains that these four stages lead the lover on a journey through which his love for his beloved progressively strengthens, until he becomes completely immersed in the beloved and the beloved becomes a part of him. Similarly, a ‘rememberer’ (of God) progresses through the stages until God becomes predominant in his heart.

Reference: Virani, Shafique N. “The Dear One of Nasaf: Azīz Nasafī’s ‘Epistle on Love’.” In Iran and the Caucasus 13, no. 2 (2009): 311-317 AreebaQ (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: - this is a general article about love, not for biographies of specific people - there is no Wikipedia articles on Aziz Nasafi - if he is notable (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) perhaps one could be created and his bio presented there - Epinoia (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC) - Epinoia (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I was shocked to find, in the Christianity subsection, the image shown, together with this caption: “Sacred and Profane Love (1602–03) by Giovanni Baglione. Intended as an attack on his hated enemy the artist Caravaggio, it shows a boy (hinting at Caravaggio's homosexuality) on one side, a devil with Caravaggio's face on the other, and between an angel representing pure, meaning non-erotic, love.[50]” Questions:

1. Whyever should a painting which was apparently “intended as an attack on his hated enemy” be selected as an image to illustrate Love? This is just plain wrong.

2. “It shows a boy (hinting at Caravaggio’s homosexuality)...” Eh? Was the writer of the caption being deliberately disruptive? Why should the idea of the boy suggest homosexuality? If it’s hinting at anything sexual, then it’s pederasty. The two are not the same. The mismatch of meanings adds to confusion for any reader, as well as being misleading, and therefore contributes further to the argument that the image is inappropriate.

3. Christian love is all about sacred love. It is not about profane love. Therefore, the image is entirely inappropriate.

Look, the image shouldn’t be there, and I’d delete it now, but so as not to ruffle feathers, I’ll wait three days. There isn’t a necessity for me to find a much better replacement, it simply has to go. It’s insertion there is offensive. Boscaswell talk 00:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

There having been no indications of any contrasting opinions, I have deleted the image. Boscaswell talk 23:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)