That thing called LOVE...

Who can define what really love is? Is it just a mere emotion? Or is it a thought process? This is one difficult term to define. I always remember how this topic on love was discussed in our philosophy class. The term phenomenology is always attached to it. Yes, accordingly love is a phenomenon. It is an occurence which follows certain pattern. Yet like the chicken-chick preceedence argument, the phenomenology of love also has unfatomable issues. It is said that love came to exist with out a beginning nor can it come to an end. There is a complexity in the parties that are involved in the pheomenon. There is the lover on one side and the beloved on the other. The lover initiates the phenomenon when he expresses verbally and willfuly his love to the beloved. The beloved or the recepient acknowledges the expression or act done by the lover. This phase is said to be the onset of love yet it cannot be considered as the beginning of love since love itself is already present or felt either by the lover or the beloved long before the said initiation. Now, as I have presented the parties early on, we can probably destinguish the kinesthetic roles of both the parties in the phenomenon. We can say that the lover assumes the active role in the phenomenon as he initiates the process while the beloved has the passive role since he acknowledges the act by the lover and carries on with the phenomenon. But this puzzles me most, once this "initial stage" has already taken its course, there seems to be an interchange in the roles and parties of the phenomenon. The lover now becomes the beloved as the beloved reciprocates the act done by the lover to him causing the effect of transforming the lover into the beloved. Talking about complexities...Love is one difficult experience to comprehend. The contextual presentation of love as a phenomenon I believe is considerably inapt to provide a clear picture of what love really is. Then the discussion continues on by giving emphasis on the importance of the lover loving the beloved. Between the two parties, it is said that the lover has the greatest role compared to the beloved. It is partialy true since the lover takes on the active role in the phenomenon. He is the initiator. The beloved is given less importance since he only get to recieve what is given him implicitly saying that whithout the insinuation of the lover the phenomenon may not come to be... But I wonder how come loving can not come to cease when in fact it's a phenomenon, a process so to speak. The initial phase was already identified, I guess that a culmination phase is supposed to exist at some point. They say that the lover must continue on loving the beloved even it hurts. This is the instrinsic nature of the lover, that he loves even it hurts and is supposed to love more till it numbs the pain away...Then again I am refuting all of these assumptions. All along this time, this contextual presentation is bias in favor of the beloved. It seems to present the ideology that the lover plays the most significant role yet his is the most sacrificial. The beloved has the passive less signifant role yet his is most beneficial. Using the rule of logic, man can only comprehend to a certain extent...It is normal for him to cry foul when he is in pain. After all man is a rational being, he is endowed with the gift of judgment. It is up to him to use it. Blessed are they who are patient, kind and forgiving to their erring beloved for a monument shall be built in their honor! MABUHAY ANG MGA MARTYR!