It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It is correct to call love an action and as actions go it is a powerful force, but that action is not an emotion. Emotions are base and subsets to forces like love. I have not equated lust with love but have deigned to differentiate between the two. We do not stay with a mate for 40, 50, or 60 years out of lust but do so, many times, out of love. When we love our mate even long after the lust has gone we will do what we can to make that mate happy, even if it means duplicating the lust we no longer feel.
Feelings are fickle and come and go as easily as a breeze will wane on warm summers day. We can feel joy for as long as we feel it but long after it is gone we can remain happy and we do so by choice. We can feel sad and long after that sadness is gone we can remain depressed and we do so by choice. Conversely, we can feel joy even when we have chosen to be depressed and feel sadness even when we have chosen to be happy. Being happy is not predicated on a feeling but is a state of mind we have chosen to live our lives in. The same goes with love. We can love a person and still feel genuine disgust for that person based on their actions.
We postulate love and act on that postulate but it is rare that one of us actually makes the postulate to be disgusted with someone. We don't decide to be disgusted we react to a certain action in the same way we react to a foul odor that would give rise to the same sort of disgust. Disgust is not a state of mind but is a reaction. Love is not reactive but is proactive. As you have said it is a force and a very powerful one well worth utilizing throughout our lives. The choice of love tends to go hand in hand with the choice of happiness.
Analysis of love does not weaken it and never could, it may weaken the irrational soul who has attempted to analyze love without the proper mental discipline to handle the outcome of such analysis but then the problem doesn't lie in the analysis of love but rather in the weakness of mind of the person who dared analyze such complexity with out first preparing for such an effort. The irony of your own remarks is that you have dismissed rationalization of love as meaningless while attempting to rationalize love. So, in the end, all you could do is plead the case that it was the failure of the lexicon instead of your own failure to describe love.