[cannotseethe]

One often sees the phrase "love is irrational." Do you believe it, and if so what does it mean when you say love is irrational?

If not, what would a rational love look like to you?

[Bluesea]

I guess as the mind-emotion connections are capable of influencing each other, if the mind's reasons are strong enough they could affect how or whether the person falls in love or believes they love another person?

Rational love - maybe like arranged marriages. Or deciding to love someone for specific reasons - because he is rich, because he is a doctor, because she is a model, because her family are well connected in the career I am in, etc?

Where the feelings of love have been connected to rational considerations through socialisation in families and their values, or society, or from previous bad experiences where the mind decides it will not allow love to occur unless the relationship is safe from xyz.

Irrational love I guess is where it makes no good sense why two people are drawn to each other and fall in love but they experience love together regardless. Guess romantic love highlights this kind of thing whereas people more interested in the longevity of marriage could be avocating for some rational considerations to be included.

[Uriel]

I think being In-Love is when your actions concerning the other person are solely based on emotion, and that this is where the 'love is irrational' phrase comes from. This is fleeting.

I think Rational Love is when two people stay with each other because they have accepted the other's shortcomings and acknowledged the fact that the other person has qualities that complement the other. This is more stable.

These two events are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Two people can be in-love and eventually rationally love each other, or they could fall out of love and move on. On the other hand, two people who rationally love each other can fall in-love with each other during the course of their relationship.

[Nikonman]

I see "love is irrational" as meaning that our romantic love relationships often seem to stray from logic or reason when we fall for people who are simply not good for us. Usually the signs are there, but we ignore the signs and see what we want to see. To me, that is irrational. For example, I have a friend who falls for men who seem exciting and a bit on the edge at first, but her guys almost always turn out to have huge tempers that she overlooks until they direct it at her and it becomes frightening.

Rational love, to me, is a love based on a reasonably accurate assessment (not "blinded by love") of the good and the bad of your partner, and engaging in a relationship that is healthy for both the people involved.

[Samueza]

I think the phrase should be "love is nonrational", unless love by definition leads to applied faux logic. Personally, I think love and rationality are simply two different categories and I find speculations on a positive connection between love and rationality to be farfetched.

However, there may be something about love which flies in the face of rationality. I think it was most aptly expressed by Marvin Minsky in The Emotion Machine (pp. 9-10):

"Hear our friend Charles describe his latest infatuation:

"I've just fallen in love with a wonderful person. I scarcely can think about anything else. My sweetheart is unbelievably perfect - of indescribable beauty, flawless character, and incredible intelligence. There is nothing I would not do for her."

On the surface such statements seem positive; they're all composed of superlatives. But not that there's something strange about this: most of those phrases of positive praise use syllables like "un", "less", and "in" - which show that they really are negative statements describing the person who's saying them!

Wonderful. Indescribable.
(I can't figure out what attracts me to her.)
I scarcely can think of anything else.
(Most of my mind has stopped working.)
Unbelievably perfect. Incredible.
(No sensible person believes such things.)
She has a flawless character.
(I've abandoned my critical faculties.)
There's nothing I would not do for her.
(I've forsaken most of my usual goals.)

Our friend sees this all as positive. It makes him feel happy and more productive, and relieves his dejection and loneliness."

Maybe this - a gross denial of what is usually seen as the self - is called irrational, because no rational being would believe such behavior to be good and productive in itself?

[psykhe]

Rational love is knowing when to hold on and when to let go. It centers on the welfare of both and not just of one person.

People who says love is irrational are just caught with the delusion that love has to be taken with impulses and senses. People who are too proud to accept that love is real and is a feeling we all can't escape. People who were hurt in the past and who were not able to overcome their insecurities. People who believe that love is irrational are people who also believe that love is like a fairytale. Where boy meets girl, they fell in love, and they live happily ever after.

[Ilara]

I don't think that love is irrational at all. I think that love (actual love, not limerence, which is actually pretty damned irrational) is a perfectly natural progression of attachment and affection based on one's interaction with another human being whom one esteems and cares for highly.

I also think that a sensible and mature person won't blame 'being in love' for doing stupid, crazy, irrational things--which is often the purpose of using the phrase "love is irrational". Love does not render a person incapable of sensible thought. It might change their priorities, but that doesn't mean they've stopped thinking rationally and reasonably.

Rational love is, to me, pretty closely linked with active love. I think that choosing to love and be loving is a major part of healthy love. Choosing to set solid boundaries is also a part of healthy love. And these are perfectly rational actions. My love for my SO hasn't made me any less capable of thinking rationally and sensibly. My priorities are somewhat adjusted to accommodate him in my life, but that, too, is rational when viewed from the perspective of my wanting to perpetuate our enjoyable interaction.

[ZerroDefex]

	Originally Posted by Ilara To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think that love is irrational at all. I think that love (actual love, not limerence, which is actually pretty damned irrational) is a perfectly natural progression of attachment and affection based on one's interaction with another human being whom one esteems and cares for highly.

I have to agree with this, it took me a while to distinguish "love" from "limerence." I only came to that realization after for the Nth time I had "fallen in love" with a girl who would have been a terrible match for me and would have put me through hell if I had not caught myself in time. Actual love can be quite rational, limerance almost never is.

[Samueza]

Is it rational to breathe? It most certainly is in our best interest to breathe, as it is our method for oxygen intake and we wouldn't live long without it, but does that make it rational? Is it rational to be alive? I see no reason why it would be so, and my refusal to eliminate one of the competitors for this world's limited resources may run counter to humanity's best interest as well. So, is there a reason for me to act in my best self-interest? Frankly, I don't see any, but I do not require a reason to do such. I take my best self-interest as an inherent value and try to act in accord with it, not because of rationality, but because of my value system.

I think the same is true for love. If it is called irrational because love in one form or another causes us to go against our best self-interest, then the reason why it is or could be perceived as rational would be that to love does not go against our best self-interest. To me, in that situation it would still be a matter of values, as the question why it would be rational to act in our best self-interest beckons again. That's why I said I believe it is better to call love nonrational, in the same way I would call breathing nonrational.

Now it is of course possible that, in the expression "love is irrational", the word 'irrational' is not the only word used in an arbitrary manner, and the word 'love' refers to behavior which technically isn't to be considered love as well. Although obviously (romantic) love is not the same as limerence, I do not know if the two are altogether separate from each other. It seems at least possible to me. In that case, it appears to be even more nonsensical to say "love is irrational", as both predicates are used in a way that makes technically no sense.

[cannotseethe]

The distinction I'm curious about is between the extra-logical source of premises outside our control that eventually enter into a logical/rational process, vs. truly contra-rational reasoning and behavior. I tend to think folks who say "love is irrational" are suggesting the latter, when the former is more to the point.

Consider wine tasting, or any mostly-aesthetic activity for that matter. An unarticulated appreciation of wine would amount to a binary distinction "yes, I like this," or "no, I don't like this." It seems plain to me that appreciation or lack thereof in this case is not rational. It's about qualitative sense perception, and is mostly physical.

However, it is possible to ramify this sense perception. You might start to examine the sense reaction to tasting a particular wine and differentiate various flavors at different points in time. This wine has a strong nose with chocolatey undertones on the finish. You may begin to notice, once you've started paying attention to these finer distinctions, that you tend to like chocolatey undertones in your wines. You may start to seek them out both to increase your enjoyment of wine but also to test the idea that chocolatey undertones are something you like. It seems to me that though the basic sense of the wine on your palette is not a logical or rational process, and is not entirely under your control, this analysis of the flavors produced and comparison against your appreciation of them is quite the systematic, rational process. That is, the sense perception is an extra-logical source of ideas and premises that feed into a systematic process.

Contrast the above against the alcoholic who seeks out wine not for the flavor but for the drunk. They may have an equally articulated, even totally rational, appreciation of wine. However, their behavior, to the extent it is self-destructive, might reasonably be called irrational. For example, their appreciation of wine might be such that it eventually destroys their ability to consume the wine they enjoy: they'll run out of money, they'll ruin their liver, they'll end up in jail, etc. As the drug grips them they may resort to all manner of unreasonable thought patterns to justify their self-destructive behavior.

I don't see why a similar distinction could not be drawn between a rational love and an irrational one. While who we love may be outside our control, and while the feelings surrounding love may even trigger self-destructive urges at times, it seems quite possible to me to examine these in a rational manner. Note I don't mean examine in a destructive or suppressing way; believing "love is irrational; therefore I'll ignore it" is just as irrational as succumbing to limerance, and makes no more sense than believing you're not tasting something you enjoy as you chew it. Rather, as with the wine tasting analogy, I mean examine in a way that both acknowledges what's being experienced and aims to articulate it.

In short, the fact that the origin of a feeling is outside our control and does not result from a reasoning process does not, by necessity, mean the feeling and how we react to it is irrational.

[zibber]

What they mean to say is nonrational. That is, not specifically antirational.

(Like cst said, I now see.)

[Zsych]

Rational love sounds unlikely for most people. They would need to have been raised with suitable standards and the right experiences.

Otherwise, it takes experience to understand your emotions, where they are going wrong, and effort to change it.

[Muse]

If your taking into consideration human behavior, i would say a majority of love, and even a majority of human conflict and suffering, is rational.

The difference is that its rational in a subjective way, not an objective way. All of these things are an attempt at self actualization, which of course is only valued by the individual because they are the ones pursuing it.

The bottom line is that people do things because they want to. Even when someone says they have no control over something they do, or feel like they are out of control, it is because, consciously or otherwise, that is what they wish to pursue.

Rational means reason. Action is the result of intent, which is the product of reason. Things only appear irrational from an objective viewpoint. Subjectively, anything is fair game.

[Hollyhock]

I'd like to take the term irrational out of its general dictionary context and put it to more value neutral stance plus move it just so that it is meant to equal beyond known = unknown.

I think the life itself has both irrational & rational factors mixed in.
The very fact that a person drives a car down the road trusting that one will arrive safely to the destination involves trust in the unknown/risk. We roll the dice in everyday life in varying degrees of risks( small or big). There is no way to completely eradicate irrational as life, by default, coexists in irrational & rational.

I see love as also replicating that pattern as life, it coexists in rational and irrational.

Irrational love: what gives the love "heat", attraction, afffinity for & inexplicable desire to be with the other.

What Jungians talk about one's own unconscious anima, animus projections and invokes desire.

Rational love: what gives relationship conscious direction and volition for action.
In combining the irrational knowledge that came to light, now made conscious, and put them to integration both within one and both parties collectively.

I think the above two mixes at varying degrees and at different progression for each unique relationships.

Irrational and Rational
Eros and Logos
Aesthetics and Ethics ( in Kierkegaardian way, anyway)

[Feral]

	Originally Posted by Uriel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think Rational Love is when two people stay with each other because they have accepted the other's shortcomings and acknowledged the fact that the other person has qualities that complement the other. This is more stable.

This.

Also, I don't remember which documentary I seen this on... was years ago, but was very intriguing, about human mating and all that entails... apparently the biological part of 'love' that we go through actually reduces our ability to be rational. It's all about baby making at first, so the rational parts get turned off. Seeing the object of our affection early in the relationship triggers the 'reward' center of your brain, so they make you feel good. It also turns off the part of your brain that makes critical judgments about others, so you overlook their shortcomings. "Sure, maybe he gets drunk and robs convenience stores sometimes, but he's just so misunderstood and complex... he's really such a nice guy!" That's the 'IN love' rationality.

This supposedly stops happening around year 2 or 3... enough time for a baby to be made, and the mother to be self sufficient again... also around the time that most 'serious' relationships break up. You fall 'out' of the 'in love' feeling, and you start seeing what's really wrong with this person. You don't have your brain telling you to shut up and just breed with him anymore, and their simple presence doesn't make you feel quite the same.

If you can make it past that fleeting kind of love, and can maintain a real love after you already know that both of you are all fucked up, and your fuckupedness (that's a word now) complements each other, and you still love each other after going through lots of bad shit, you've got a pretty good chance of 'rational' love- which is the 'real' thing.

[catzmeow]

	Originally Posted by cannotseethe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If not, what would a rational love look like to you?

Rational love is looking at the person and the relationship and seeing that it is mutually beneficial and objectively positive.

[Haumea]

Love is irrational because is it at the mercy of factors beyond reason.

You're running on a genetic program which prefers certain sets of other genetic programs to mate with, on a completely unconscious level. You do not know why you are attracted to certain people. You can rationalize it and hypothesize as to why, but ultimately it's not conscious and hence irrational. The "accepting others' shortcomings" is evaluation of relative sexual value of you and your partner. If there's too big a gap, you aren't going to accept any such shortcomings and walk.

Let's stop BSing around -- there is no "rational" love, there's only a "rationalized" love.

[cannotseethe]

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's stop BSing around -- there is no "rational" love, there's only a "rationalized" love.

So there's no rational approach to art or literary criticism, or cuisine? Why are we not still squishing berry juice in the form of bison on cave walls while grunting and eating balls of sugar and lard?

[peppersasen]

Every time I fall in love, it makes me feel like I don't deserve to be an INTJ because none of them made any sense. I know I have genderqueer/sexual orientation issues, but still I always fall for the unattainable. I think my ego and super-ego are not functioning properly.

[EventHorizont]

The reason why 'love is irrational' in my opinion: when you met someone you really like, some other forces starts to act. Like instincts. And they beat rational thinking sometimes. That's irrationality in 'love'.

Rational love: two people like each other, they're interesting to each other, both benefit from each other and not (only) physical way, but mental. They could talk for hours and both be happy and find something interesting together, they understand each other.

p.s. rememberd a quote: 'love is egoism in two' Antoine De La Salle

[LizzyGirl]

Rational love is not throwing my life away for someone just because I have feelings for them. It also means trying to refrain from becoming attached in the first place to a person that does not deserve my affections.

[Looksupordown]

Rational love, to me, is being practical about everyone's feelings and intent. Understanding but not to the point of self-sacrifice. Knowing when you're in a space of optimal functioning, and defending it, gently.

[DarkExcalibur42]

I find my own love interests to be very rational, but I fall in love with people based on continual interaction with their personality. It helps that certain intellectual characteristics are stronger turn-ons to me than physical ones.

I find that I become in love with people who have a desirable mixture of personality traits coupled with an at least marginally attractive physical appearance. The more in love with the individual I find myself, the more attractive they appear so long as there was something to work with from the start.

[vedera]

Irrational love is an impulse-driven, passionate form of love that "burns bright and fades fast." What comes next could be a catastrophic falling-out, or rational love: a mutual appreciation for one another and a companionate/symbiotic relationship that (ideally) is nothing short of miraculous. Two people who can mesh into one: two people who have formed a foundation of trust so strong, they go against their own cynical tendencies to blindly invest their faith in this person. To say that "love is irrational" is describing decision-making that is doesn't make sense given the standing of the relationship—decisions that shouldn't have been driven by impulse, that could really prove to be detrimental on the individual level.