Ancient Greek Philosophy of Falling in Love

Ancient Greek provides a wide range of definition and categorization of love. There is agape (selfless, unconditional love), eros (passionate, sensor love), philia (love of friends, family, and community), storge (natural affection), nomos (love of God), xenia (hospitality, love of strangers), and epithymia (libido, desire) (Lindberg, 2008).

Moder taxonomies on the other hand, recognize dominant types of love: Fromm, as cited by Salmon (2011), identifies five types of love: brotherly, motherly, eroti, self-love, and love of God. Maslow, as cited by Salmon (2011), sees only two types of love, which includes deficit love and being love. Salmon (2011) also cited Hatfield’s two major forms of love: companionate (or affectional) and passionate (or romantic) love. These taxonomies are just of the many prevalent definitions of love, which certainly shows, the difficulty of conceptualizing love.

Psychological Perspectives of Love

Love is a universal emotion that has become the basis of marriage and family for many societies, which researchers continue to explore (Braxton-Davis, 2010). Lamanna & Reidmann (2009) sees romantic love as the norm since eighteenth-century Europe, when marriage has been connected with romance, but confluent love is on the rise in Western society as Braxton-Davis cited Giddens (2010). Romantic love refers to that which perpetuates gender stereotypes of the breadwinning father and homemaking mother; these roles remain persistent throughout the relationship. It is a love that is supposed to stand the test of time, enduring all hardship. Romantic love emphasizes being in love with a certain individual, "the one." On the other hand, there is confluent love that is more flexible with the roles that individuals play, and it emphasizes a relationship in which the growth of each person is important. In order to form a relationship, there must be some type of attraction (Braxton-Davis, 2010), which is either physically or on a personality level.

Numerous researchers have found physical trait to be a major determinant in the dating and relationship process (Luo & Zhange, 2009). There is a negative association between aging and physical attractiveness. Margolin, as cited by Braxton-Davis (2010), demonstrated that husbands actually become less attracted to their wives as their beauty fades, which negatively affects men’s sexual and overall relationship satisfaction. While physical attractiveness is a significant factor of falling in love, other factors contribute to love and attraction besides physical attraction. This includes physiology and similarity. Research has shown similarity to be an integral part of a relationship that contributes to love and attraction (Braxton-Davis, 2010). The study was conducted to 206 university students and findings showed that the hypothesis that physical attractiveness and similarity would be most influential in producing attraction, was partially supported and found out to be second to personality.

Therefore, Braxton-Davis (2010) concluded that personality was a stronger determinant of attraction that led to falling in love than physical attraction. Further in her studies, it showed that person will fit in their lives. This is where the personality becomes important. An individual contemplates how the other person makes him/her feel, which outweighs the single factor of physical attractiveness. It is not rare to hear stories of individuals becoming attracted to and growing to love someone only after they had spent much time with that person. The time spent together allows intimacy to develop, deepening the attraction the individuals share. In other words, while the personality is not necessary for initial physical attraction, it has the power to promote strong feelings of attraction, and it can only enhance the potential for a relationship.

Other researches show other psychological manifestations of falling in love. Firestone and Catlett, as cited by Kokab and Ajmal (2012) describe love as 'those behaviors that enhance emotional well-being, sense of self, and autonomy". Romantic love is a bond or connection between two people that results in trust, intimacy, and interdependence. In Rubin’s view (as cited in Cherry, 2009), romantic love is composed of three elements; attachment, care, and intimacy. Attachment includes the need to have care and approval for the other person. Care is wishing the other person to be happy, and intimacy includes sharing of thoughts, desires, and feelings. Romantic love occurs when a person with his partner feels emotionally high, elated, and passionate as cited by Sheri and Stritof (2009). Ashira (2009) sees love as a passion for another person to the extent that you can’t live without him/her. Gottschall and Marcus (2006) defines it is a desire for union with someone, to idealize him/her, to dramatically changes one’s life priorities, to care about other person’s well-being, and to feel empty and agony in his/her absence which is a universal experience. How love is perceived here is certainly restricted to positive qualities leaving flaws in their partners overlooked. Luo, as cited by Kokab and Ajmal (2012) reported that romantic attraction leads to positivity bias in which the person only sees the positive qualities in his/her partner.

It also leads to similarity bias in which the person sees his/her partner similar to him/her and idealization biases in which the partner seems to be similar to one's ideal self. Kokab and Ajmal cited Davenport’s (2012) report on obsessive thoughts about the partner to be an important component of love. Partners think about each other all the time. They fantasize being with each other, e.g., going on a long drive, going for a dinner, getting married, etc. Even while hearing a romantic song they associate it with their partners. These fantasies bring happiness to them and also help in reducing stress. Master (as cited in Bering, 2009) examined if romantic partners altered the perception of pain. Results indicated that viewing lovers’ photographs or holding their hands reduced the perception of pain though pain was stimulated more than the participants’ pain threshold.

Scientific Perspectives of Love

While love is defined to be psychological, biologists see love as a function of hormones, neurotrophins, and pheromones serving procreation and maternal attachment (Fisher, 2004). Biological anthropologist Helen Fisher’s classification system (as cited by Gibson, 2015), on the other hand, is based on evolutionary, neurological, and hormonal distinctions and includes three processes: attraction, romantic love, and attachment. As to the evolutionary basis of romantic love, it is born from a defined evolutionary basis that is not unique to human beings. The ultimate motivation of organisms of any species is to pass on unique hereditary information by reproducing viable offspring (Gibson, 2015). Romantic love may have been among the emotion-motivated systems that evolved in order to facilitate this process. Further, reciprocity also evolved in humans to facilitate romantic love.

When an individual receives flattery or positive social reinforcement, he or she is likely to respond positively (Sprecher, 2002 & Whitechurch, 2011). In addition to reciprocity and the other aforementioned factors, assessment of long-term compatibility aids in initiating romantic love. At least on the female side of the equation, one such evolved mechanism is achievement of the female orgasm. From an evolutionary perspective, males are able to easily achieve orgasm during copulation due to their natural need to pass on their genetic material, whereas females, need not climax in order for fertilization to occur. Males who are patient and attentive to their partner’s needs are more likely than self-focused males to assist their partner in achieving orgasm. Thus, some scientists believe that the fickle female orgasm has evolved to allow females determination of partner suitability and compatibility for a long-term relationship that includes romantic love and attachment. In a neurological basis of romantic love, Fisher (2006) reported that attachment is distinct in that it is primarily associated with activation of a functional region of the brain known as the ventral palladium, which is associated with vasopressin-mediated pair-bonding. Attachment if also associated with the deactivation of stress-related areas, including the right anterior insula, superior frontal gyrus, and hypothalamus (Shaver and Mikulincer, 2014).

Zeki (2007) stated that attraction, on the other hand, is distinct in that it is associated with activation of areas adjacent to primary romantic love activation areas, in addition to the hypothalamus, an area related to autonomic processing that is also activated in romantic love. On the contrary, according to functional magnetic resonance imaging studies, romantic love is distinct from attraction and attachment in that it uses subcortical reward centers to focus on the lover-in-question, and limbic centers to process emotions related to this individual (Aron et. al, 2005). Moreover, on the neurochemical and hormonal basis of romantic love, while attraction is associated primarily with the dopamine reward pathway, and attachment is related to release of the two posterior pituitary hormones, oxytocin and vasopressin, the hormonal profile of romantic love is a combination of the two. Oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin are the major neurochemicals associated with romantic love, with vasopressin and luteinizing hormone functioning to a lesser extent as mediators of social bonding and female proprioception, respectively (Nietzsche, 2009).

Thomas Insel (2003) discusses that oxytocin plays the most significant role in the hormonal profile of romantic love. This peptide hormone is formed in the hypothalamus and released from the posterior pituitary gland to reward-associated areas, including the nucleus accumbens and the prelimbic cortex (in contrast to vasopressin, which is released mainly to the reward-related ventral palladum to reinforce oxytocin in the attachment-forming process, but has the main physiological role of promoting water reabsorption in the kidney). Dopamine is also active in the neurochemical and hormonal profile of romantic love. This catecholamine neurotransmitter is known for its role in balance, problem solving, and – most importantly – reward-motivated behavior. It is released from the VTA or substantia nigra and works on areas of the brain including the midbrain (nigrostriatal/balance function), nucleus accumbens, amygdala, hippocampus (mesolimbic/rewards function) and frontal cortex (mesocortical/logic function) in a fashion similar to euphoric opioid drugs such as cocaine (Zeki, 2007). Essentially, dopamine’s most substantial role is to take an individual from "liking" to "wanting" a substance or another individual.

Sociocultural Perspectives of Love

Culture may have a powerful influence on how people link passionate love and sexual desire (Hatfield & Rapson, 2005). Many men, for example, are taught to separate sex and love, while many women are taught to connect the two. The different meanings attributed to love have caused lovers much stress (Hatfield & Rapson, 2006). Karandashev (2015) emphasize the culture collectivism and individualism affecting perception toward love. He further identifies countries manifesting these classifications. Individualistic cultures such as the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, and the countries of Northern and Western Europe focus more on self-interest and the interest of one’s immediate family, personal autonomy and making your own decisions, individual initiative, and independence. Collectivist cultures such as China, many African and Latin American nations, Greece, southern Italy, and the Pacific Islands, on the other hand, induce people to subordinate personal motivation to the group’s interests, being loyal to the group that in turn looks after their interests.

Individualism is characterized by a desire to be self-sufficient. People tend to experience any dependency, both of the person on other people and of other people on the person, with ambivalence, that resulted in the love-based marriage perceived as an ideal. However, a person’s motivation to be independent can conflict with the need for a romantic partner. So it is reasonable to assume that individualism affects love for a partner in a negative way and individualism may interfere with a loving relationship. Karandashev cited Karen and Kenneth Dion (2015) who found that people who are more individualistic exhibit less likelihood of ever having been in love. Such people also more likely endorsed a ludic love style, which involves a less intimate perspective on love.

Greater individualism was associated with a perception of their relationships as less rewarding and less deep. Generally, the more individualistic a person, the lower the quality of experience of love for his or her partner. In analysis of data from the General Social Survey for the year 1993, Dion and Dion (2005) found that people who are high in individualism tend to report less happiness in their marriages as well as lower satisfaction with their family life and friends. In collectivistic cultures, people experience the dependencies in their lives being embedded in multiple relationships with their family and close friends. Therefore, when people make decisions in their romantic relationships, they take into account both what they think is best for them as well as how this affects their other relationships. Collectivism is related to the view of love as pragmatic, based on friendship, and having altruistic goals (Dion & Dion, 2005).

Individualism and collectivism lead to differences in how people conceptualize themselves, and this has a significant impact on how they love and what they experience in love. From an individualistic view, each person is a separate entity; from a collectivistic view, the individual is a part of more extended relationships. When one perceives him/herself as an individual with boundaries and separate from other people, loving for someone else is the chance to break through those boundaries and escape the loneliness caused by being a separate individual. Love becomes the bridge that connects a person to another one.

From a collectivistic perspective, people emphasize the bonds that they already have. Since each person is a part of the relationships, people do not expect it as necessary to verbally confirm those bonds by asking if another loves them or by announcing their love to someone else. Their love is expressed more by what they do than by what they say (Dion & Dion, 2006). Same with the results concerning Filipino and Filipino American families in which verbal expressions of their love is reserved for special occasions. They do not need to explicitly share their feelings for each other because it is known and understood.

Perhaps Filipinos and Filipino Americans do not find it essential to express love in overt ways because it can be construed as excessive, showy, or too American (Nadal, 2012). Instead they show their Mahal (Tagalog word for love) in indirect ways. They express their love indirectly, through doing. Romantic partners may reveal their love by sharing a laugh or listening to each other’s problems in nonjudgmental ways, or by working through hardships and keeping their promises to remain by each other’s sides. Then for Filipino, Filipino American, Chinese families (Nadal, 2012; Moore & Wei, 2012), and other families with similar cultural values, love is rather in actions. Culture is a major factor that transforms passionate love into romantic love. Cultural values and traditional behaviors influence the expressions and experiences of love and transfer passionate love as primarily based on a sexual attraction into romantic love as an idealized and culturally affected way of loving. Culturally influenced features are ones that pertain to cultural rituals of love and mating (Karandashev, 2015).