Entity– connection model

An entity– relationship model (ER model for short) describes interrelated things of interest in a specific domain of knowledge. A basic ER model is composed of entity types (which classify the things of interest) and specifies relationships that can exist between instances of those entity types.

An entity– relationship diagram for an MMORPG using Chen’s notation.

In software engineering, an ER model is commonly formed to represent things that a business needs to remember in order to perform business processes. Consequently, the ER model becomes an abstract data model, that defines a data or information structure which can be implemented in a database, typically a relational database.

Entity– relationship modeling was developed for database design by Peter Chen and published in a 1976 paper.[1] However, variants of the idea existed previously.[2] Some ER models show super and subtype entities connected by generalization-specialization relationships,[3] and an ER model can be used also in the specification of domain-specific ontologies.

Contents

  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Entity– relationship modeling
    • 2.1 Mapping natural language
    • 2.2 Relationships, roles and cardinalities
    • 2.3 Role naming
    • 2.4 Cardinalities
    • 2.5 Crow’s foot notation
    • 2.6 Model usability issues
  • 3 Entity–relationships and semantic modeling
    • 3.1 Semantic model
    • 3.2 Extension model
    • 3.3 Entity– relationship origins
      • 3.3.1 Philosophical alignment
  • 4 Limitations
  • 5 See also
  • 6 References
  • 7 Further reading
  • 8 External links

Introduction[edit]

An entity– relationship model is usually the result of systematic analysis to define and describe what is important to processes in an area of a business. It does not define the business processes; it only presents a business data schema in graphical form. It is usually drawn in a graphical form as boxes (entities) that are connected by lines (relationships) which express the associations and dependencies between entities. An ER model can also be expressed in a verbal form, for example: one building may be divided into zero or more apartments, but one apartment can only be located in one building.

Entities may be characterized not only by relationships, but also by additional properties (attributes), which include identifiers called “primary keys”. Diagrams created to represent attributes as well as entities and relationships may be called entity-attribute- relationship diagrams, rather than entity– relationship models.

An ER model is typically implemented as a database. In a simple relational database implementation, each row of a table represents one instance of an entity type, and each field in a table represents an attribute type. In a relational database a relationship between entities is implemented by storing the primary key of one entity as a pointer or “foreign key” in the table of another entity

There is a tradition for ER/data models to be built at two or three levels of abstraction. Note that the conceptual-logical-physical hierarchy below is used in other kinds of specification, and is different from the three schema approach to software engineering.

Conceptual data model
This is the highest level ER model in that it contains the least granular detail but establishes the overall scope of what is to be included within the model set. The conceptual ER model normally defines master reference data entities that are commonly used by the organization. Developing an enterprise-wide conceptual ER model is useful to support documenting the data architecture for an organization.
A conceptual ER model may be used as the foundation for one or more logical data models (see below). The purpose of the conceptual ER model is then to establish structural metadata commonality for the master data entities between the set of logical ER models. The conceptual data model may be used to form commonality relationships between ER models as a basis for data model integration.
Logical data model
A logical ER model does not require a conceptual ER model, especially if the scope of the logical ER model includes only the development of a distinct information system. The logical ER model contains more detail than the conceptual ER model. In addition to master data entities, operational and transactional data entities are now defined. The details of each data entity are developed and the relationships between these data entities are established. The logical ER model is however developed independently of the specific database management system into which it can be implemented.
Physical data model
One or more physical ER models may be developed from each logical ER model. The physical ER model is normally developed to be instantiated as a database. Therefore, each physical ER model must contain enough detail to produce a database and each physical ER model is technology dependent since each database management system is somewhat different.
The physical model is normally instantiated in the structural metadata of a database management system as relational database objects such as database tables, database indexes such as unique key indexes, and database constraints such as a foreign key constraint or a commonality constraint. The ER model is also normally used to design modifications to the relational database objects and to maintain the structural metadata of the database.

The first stage of information system design uses these models during the requirements analysis to describe information needs or the type of information that is to be stored in a database. The data modeling technique can be used to describe any ontology (i.e. an overview and classifications of used terms and their relationships) for a certain area of interest. In the case of the design of an information system that is based on a database, the conceptual data model is, at a later stage (usually called logical design), mapped to a logical data model, such as the relational model; this in turn is mapped to a physical model during physical design. Note that sometimes, both of these phases are referred to as “physical design.”

Entity– relationship modeling[edit]

Two related entities

An entity with an attribute

A relationship with an attribute

Primary key

An entity may be defined as a thing capable of an independent existence that can be uniquely identified. An entity is an abstraction from the complexities of a domain. When we speak of an entity, we normally speak of some aspect of the real world that can be distinguished from other aspects of the real world.[4]

An entity is a thing that exists either physically or logically. An entity may be a physical object such as a house or a car (they exist physically), an event such as a house sale or a car service, or a concept such as a customer transaction or order (they exist logically—as a concept). Although the term entity is the one most commonly used, following Chen we should really distinguish between an entity and an entity-type. An entity-type is a category. An entity, strictly speaking, is an instance of a given entity-type. There are usually many instances of an entity-type. Because the term entity-type is somewhat cumbersome, most people tend to use the term entity as a synonym for this term

Entities can be thought of as nouns. Examples: a computer, an employee, a song, a mathematical theorem, etc.

A relationship captures how entities are related to one another. Relationships can be thought of as verbs, linking two or more nouns. Examples: an owns relationship between a company and a computer, a supervises relationship between an employee and a department, a performs relationship between an artist and a song, a proves relationship between a mathematician and a conjecture, etc.

The model’s linguistic aspect described above is utilized in the declarative database query language ERROL, which mimics natural language constructs. ERROL’s semantics and implementation are based on reshaped relational algebra (RRA), a relational algebra that is adapted to the entity– relationship model and captures its linguistic aspect.

Entities and relationships can both have attributes. Examples: an employee entity might have a Social Security Number (SSN) attribute, while a proved relationship may have a date attribute.

Every entity (unless it is a weak entity) must have a minimal set of uniquely identifying attributes, which is called the entity’s primary key.

Entity– relationship diagrams don’t show single entities or single instances of relations. Rather, they show entity sets(all entities of the same entity type) and relationship sets(all relationships of the same relationship type). Examples: a particular song is an entity; the collection of all songs in a database is an entity set; the eaten relationship between a child and her lunch is a single relationship; the set of all such child-lunch relationships in a database is a relationship set. In other words, a relationship set corresponds to a relation in mathematics, while a relationship corresponds to a member of the relation.

Certain cardinality constraints on relationship sets may be indicated as well.

Mapping natural language[edit]

Chen proposed the following “rules of thumb” for mapping natural language descriptions into ER diagrams: “English, Chinese and ER diagrams” by Peter Chen.

Physical view show how data is actually stored.

Relationships, roles and cardinalities[edit]

In Chen’s original paper he gives an example of a relationship and its roles. He describes a relationship “marriage” and its two roles “husband” and “wife”.

A person plays the role of husband in a marriage ( relationship) and another person plays the role of wife in the (same) marriage. These words are nouns. That is no surprise; naming things requires a noun.

Chen’s terminology has also been applied to earlier ideas. The lines, arrows and crow’s-feet of some diagrams owes more to the earlier Bachman diagrams than to Chen’s relationship diagrams.

Another common extension to Chen’s model is to “name” relationships and roles as verbs or phrases.

Role naming[edit]

It has also become prevalent to name roles with phrases such as is the owner of and is owned by. Correct nouns in this case are owner and possession. Thus person plays the role of owner and car plays the role of possession rather than person plays the role of, is the owner of, etc.

The use of nouns has direct benefit when generating physical implementations from semantic models. When a person has two relationships with car then it is possible to generate names such as owner_person and driver_person, which are immediately meaningful.[5]

Cardinalities[edit]

Modifications to the original specification can be beneficial. Chen described look-across cardinalities. As an aside, the Barker–Ellis notation, used in Oracle Designer, uses same-side for minimum cardinality (analogous to optionality) and role, but look-across for maximum cardinality (the crows foot).[clarification needed]

In Merise,[6] Elmasri & Navathe[7] and others[8] there is a preference for same-side for roles and both minimum and maximum cardinalities. Recent researchers (Feinerer,[9] Dullea et al.[10]) have shown that this is more coherent when applied to n-ary relationships of order greater than 2.

In Dullea et al. one reads “A ‘look across’ notation such as used in the UML does not effectively represent the semantics of participation constraints imposed on relationships where the degree is higher than binary.”

In Feinerer it says “Problems arise if we operate under the look-across semantics as used for UML associations. Hartmann[11] investigates this situation and shows how and why different transformations fail.” (Although the “reduction” mentioned is spurious as the two diagrams 3.4 and 3.5 are in fact the same) and also “As we will see on the next few pages, the look-across interpretation introduces several difficulties that prevent the extension of simple mechanisms from binary to n-ary associations.”

Various methods of representing the same one to many relationship. In each case, the diagram shows the relationship between a person and a place of birth: each person must have been born at one, and only one, location, but each location may have had zero or more people born at it.

Two related entities shown using Crow’s Foot notation. In this example, an optional relationship is shown between Artist and Song; the symbols closest to the song entity represents “zero, one, or many”, whereas a song has “one and only one” Artist. The former is therefore read as, an Artist (can) perform(s) “zero, one, or many” song(s).

Chen’s notation for entity– relationship modeling uses rectangles to represent entity sets, and diamonds to represent relationships appropriate for first-class objects: they can have attributes and relationships of their own. If an entity set participates in a relationship set, they are connected with a line.

Attributes are drawn as ovals and are connected with a line to exactly one entity or relationship set.

Cardinality constraints are expressed as follows:

  • a double line indicates a participation constraint, totality or surjectivity: all entities in the entity set must participate in at least one relationship in the relationship set;
  • an arrow from entity set to relationship set indicates a key constraint, i.e. injectivity: each entity of the entity set can participate in at most one relationship in the relationship set;
  • a thick line indicates both, i.e. bijectivity: each entity in the entity set is involved in exactly one relationship.
  • an underlined name of an attribute indicates that it is a key: two different entities or relationships with this attribute always have different values for this attribute.

Attributes are often omitted as they can clutter up a diagram; other diagram techniques often list entity attributes within the rectangles drawn for entity sets.

Related diagramming convention techniques:

  • Bachman notation
  • Barker’s notation
  • EXPRESS
  • IDEF1X
  • Martin notation
  • (min, max)-notation of Jean-Raymond Abrial in 1974
  • UML class diagrams
  • Merise
  • Object-role modeling

Crow’s foot notation[edit]

Crow’s foot notation, the beginning of which dates back to an article by Gordon Everest,[12] is used in Barker’s notation, Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM) and information engineering. Crow’s foot diagrams represent entities as boxes, and relationships as lines between the boxes. Different shapes at the ends of these lines represent the cardinality of the relationship.

Crow’s foot notation was used in the consultancy practice CACI. Many of the consultants at CACI (including Richard Barker) subsequently moved to Oracle UK, where they developed the early versions of Oracle’s CASE tools, introducing the notation to a wider audience.

With this notation, relationships cannot have attributes. Where necessary, relationships are promoted to entities in their own right: for example, if it is necessary to capture where and when an artist performed a song, a new entity “performance” is introduced (with attributes reflecting the time and place), and the relationship of an artist to a song becomes an indirect relationship via the performance (artist-performs-performance, performance-features-song).

Model usability issues[edit]

In using a modeled database, users can encounter two well known issues where the returned results mean something other than the results assumed by the query author.

The first is the ‘fan trap’. It occurs with a (master) table that links to multiple tables in a one-to-many relationship. The issue derives its name from the way the model looks when it’s drawn in an entity– relationship diagram: the linked tables ‘fan out’ from the master table. This type of model looks similar to a star schema, a type of model used in data warehouses. When trying to calculate sums over aggregates using standard SQL over the master table, unexpected (and incorrect) results . The solution is to either adjust the model or the SQL. This issue occurs mostly in databases for decision support systems, and software that queries such systems sometimes includes specific methods for handling this issue.

The second issue is a ‘chasm trap’. A chasm trap occurs when a model suggests the existence of a relationship between entity types, but the pathway does not exist between certain entity occurrences. For example, a Building has one-or-more Rooms, that hold zero-or-more Computers. One would expect to be able to query the model to see all the Computers in the Building. However, Computers not currently assigned to a Room (because they are under repair or somewhere else) are not shown on the list. Another relation between Building and Computers is needed to capture all the computers in the building. This last modelling issue is the result of a failure to capture all the relationships that exist in the real world in the model. See Entity- Relationship Modelling 2 for details.

Entity–relationships and semantic modeling[edit]

Semantic model[edit]

A semantic model is a model of concepts, it is sometimes called a “platform independent model”. It is an intensional model. At the latest since Carnap, it is well known that:[13]

“…the full meaning of a concept is constituted by two aspects, its intension and its extension. The first part comprises the embedding of a concept in the world of concepts as a whole, i.e. the totality of all relations to other concepts. The second part establishes the referential meaning of the concept, i.e. its counterpart in the real or in a possible world”.

Extension model[edit]

An extensional model is one that maps to the elements of a particular methodology or technology, and is thus a “platform specific model”. The UML specification explicitly states that associations in class models are extensional and this is in fact self-evident by considering the extensive array of additional “adornments” provided by the specification over and above those provided by any of the prior candidate “semantic modelling languages”.”UML as a Data Modeling Notation, Part 2″

Entity– relationship origins[edit]

Peter Chen, the father of ER modeling said in his seminal paper:

“The entity- relationship model adopts the more natural view that the real world consists of entities and relationships. It incorporates some of the important semantic information about the real world.” [1]

In his original 1976 article Chen explicitly contrasts entity– relationship diagrams with record modelling techniques:

“The data structure diagram is a representation of the organization of records and is not an exact representation of entities and relationships.”

Several other authors also support Chen’s program:[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Philosophical alignment[edit]

Chen is in accord with philosophic and theoretical traditions from the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (428 BC) through to modern epistemology, semiotics and logic of Peirce, Frege and Russell.

Plato himself associates knowledge with the apprehension of unchanging Forms (The forms, according to Socrates, are roughly speaking archetypes or abstract representations of the many types of things, and properties) and their relationships to one another.

Limitations[edit]

  • ER assume information content that can readily be represented in a relational database. They describe only a relational structure for this information.
  • They are inadequate for systems in which the information cannot readily be represented in relational form[citation needed], such as with semi-structured data.
  • For many systems, possible changes to information contained are nontrivial and important enough to warrant explicit specification.
  • Some[who?] authors have extended ER modeling with constructs to represent change, an approach supported by the original author;[19] an example is Anchor Modeling. An alternative is to model change separately, using a process modeling technique. Additional techniques can be used for other aspects of systems. For instance, ER models roughly correspond to just 1 of the 14 different modeling techniques offered by UML.
  • Even where it is suitable in principle, ER modeling is rarely used as a separate activity. One reason for this is today’s abundance of tools to support diagramming and other design support directly on relational database management systems. These tools can readily extract database diagrams that are very close to ER diagrams from existing databases, and they provide alternative views on the information contained in such diagrams.
  • In a survey, Brodie and Liu[20] could not find a single instance of entity– relationship modeling inside a sample of ten Fortune 100 companies. Badia and Lemire[21] blame this lack of use on the lack of guidance but also on the lack of benefits, such as lack of support for data integration.
  • The enhanced entity– relationship model (EER modeling) introduces several concepts not in ER modeling, but are closely related to object-oriented design, like is-a relationships.
  • For modelling temporal databases, numerous ER extensions have been considered.[22] Similarly, the ER model was found unsuitable for multidimensional databases (used in OLAP applications); no dominant conceptual model has emerged in this field yet, although they generally revolve around the concept of OLAP cube (also known as data cube within the field).[23]

See also[edit]

  • Associative entity
  • Concept map
  • Database design
  • Data structure diagram
  • Enhanced entity– relationship model
  • Enterprise architecture framework
  • Value range structure diagrams
  • Comparison of data modeling tools
  • Ontology
  • Object-role modeling
  • Three schema approach
  • Structured-Entity-Relationship-Model
  • Schema-agnostic Databases

References[edit]

  • ^ a b Chen, Peter (March 1976). “The Entity- Relationship Model – Toward a Unified View of Data”. ACM Transactions on Database Systems. 1 (1): 9–36. doi:10.1145/320434.320440. 
  • ^ A.P.G. Brown, “Modelling a Real-World System and Designing a Schema to Represent It”, in Douque and Nijssen (eds.), Data Base Description, North-Holland, 1975, ISBN 0-7204-2833-5.
  • ^ “Designing a Logical Database: Supertypes and Subtypes”
  • ^ Beynon-Davies, Paul (2004). Database Systems. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave: Houndmills. ISBN 1403916012. 
  • ^ Thomas Basboell: Motion and society. On meaningfulness of concepts
  • ^ Hubert Tardieu, Arnold Rochfeld and René Colletti La methode MERISE: Principes et outils (Paperback – 1983)
  • ^ Elmasri, Ramez, B. Shamkant, Navathe, Fundamentals of Database Systems, third ed., Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, USA, 2000.
  • ^ ER 2004 : 23rd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Shanghai, China, November 8-12, 2004
  • ^ A Formal Treatment of UML Class Diagrams as an Efficient Method for Configuration Management 2007
  • ^ James Dullea, Il-Yeol Song, Ioanna Lamprou – An analysis of structural validity in entity- relationship modeling 2002
  • ^ Hartmann, Sven. “Reasoning about participation constraints and Chen’s constraints”. Proceedings of the 14th Australasian database conference-Volume 17. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 2003.
  • ^ G. Everest, “BASIC DATA STRUCTURE MODELS EXPLAINED WITH A COMMON EXAMPLE”, in Computing Systems 1976, Proceedings Fifth Texas Conference on Computing Systems, Austin,TX, 1976 October 18-19, pages 39-46. (Long Beach, CA: IEEE Computer Society Publications Office).
  • ^ http://wenku.baidu.com/view/8048e7bb1a37f111f1855b22.html
  • ^ Kent in “Data and Reality” :

    “One thing we ought to have clear in our minds at the outset of a modelling endeavour is whether we are intent on describing a portion of “reality” (some human enterprise) or a data processing activity.”

  • ^ Abrial in “Data Semantics” : “… the so called “logical” definition and manipulation of data are still influenced (sometimes unconsciously) by the “physical” storage and retrieval mechanisms currently available on computer systems.”
  • ^ Stamper: “They pretend to describe entity types, but the vocabulary is from data processing: fields, data items, values. Naming rules don’t reflect the conventions we use for naming people and things; they reflect instead techniques for locating records in files.”
  • ^ In Jackson’s words: “The developer begins by creating a model of the reality with which the system is concerned, the reality that furnishes its [the system’s] subject matter …”
  • ^ Elmasri, Navathe: “The ER model concepts are designed to be closer to the user’s perception of data and are not meant to describe the way in which data will be stored in the computer.”
  • ^ P. Chen. Suggested research directions for a new frontier: Active conceptual modeling. ER 2006, volume 4215 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–4. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2006.
  • ^ The power and limits of relational technology in the age of information ecosystems. On The Move Federated Conferences, 2010.
  • ^ A. Badia and D. Lemire. A call to arms: revisiting database design. Citeseerx,
  • ^ Gregersen, Heidi; Jensen, Christian S. (1999). “Temporal Entity- Relationship models—a survey”. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 11 (3): 464–497. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1.2497 . 
  • ^ RICCARDO TORLONE (2003). “Conceptual Multidimensional Models”. In Maurizio Rafanelli. Multidimensional Databases: Problems and Solutions (PDF). Idea Group Inc (IGI). ISBN 978-1-59140-053-0. 
  • Further reading[edit]

    • Chen, Peter (2002). “Entity- Relationship Modeling: Historical Events, Future Trends, and Lessons Learned” (PDF). Software pioneers. Springer-Verlag. pp. 296–310. ISBN 3-540-43081-4. 
    • Barker, Richard (1990). CASE Method: Entity Relationship Modelling. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0201416964. 
    • Barker, Richard (1990). CASE Method: Tasks and Deliverables. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0201416972. 
    • Mannila, Heikki; Räihä, Kari-Jouko (1992). The Design of Relational Databases. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0201565234. 
    • Thalheim, Bernhard (2000). Entity- Relationship Modeling: Foundations of Database Technology. Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-65470-4. 
    • Bagui, Sikha; Earp, Richard (2011). Database Design Using Entity- Relationship Diagrams (2nd ed.). CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4398-6176-9. 

    External links[edit]

    • “The Entity Relationship Model: Toward a Unified View of Data”
    • Entity Relationship Modelling
    • Logical Data Structures (LDSs) – Getting started by Tony Drewry.
    • Crow’s Foot Notation
    • Kinds of Data Models — and How to Name Them presentation by David Hay

    Software
    engineers

    • Victor Basili
    • Kent Beck
    • Grady Booch
    • Fred Brooks
    • Barry Boehm
    • Peter Chen
    • Danese Cooper
    • Ward Cunningham
    • Tom DeMarco
    • Edsger W. Dijkstra
    • Delores M. Etter
    • Martin Fowler
    • Adele Goldstine
    • Margaret Hamilton
    • C. A. R. Hoare
    • Lois Haibt
    • Mary Jean Harrold
    • Grace Hopper
    • Watts Humphrey
    • Michael A. Jackson
    • Ivar Jacobson
    • Alan Kay
    • Nancy Leveson
    • Stephen J. Mellor
    • Bertrand Meyer
    • David Parnas
    • Trygve Reenskaug
    • Winston W. Royce
    • James Rumbaugh
    • Mary Shaw
    • Peri Tarr
    • Elaine Weyuker
    • Niklaus Wirth
    • Edward Yourdon

    Related fields

    • Computer science
    • Computer engineering
    • Project management
    • Risk management
    • Systems engineering
    • Category
    • Commons


    10 Ways to Love Better

    10 Ways to Love Better

    This year’s most-read Modern Love columns delivered unexpected kernels of wisdom.

    When Your Body Tells You What Your Brain Won’t

    A woman who had collected stories of others’ marriages and infidelities for years learns a powerful lesson that research alone could never teach.

    What I Love

    Articles in the What I Love series from The New York Times.

    Modern Love Podcast: Krysten Ritter Reads ‘R We D8ting?’

    Modern Love Podcast: Krysten Ritter Reads ‘R We D8ting?’

    This week, the “Jessica Jones” star reads Sandra Barron’s essay about how easily wires can get crossed in early- relationship texting.

    Addicted to Love

    Meet The Times’s new romance fiction columnist

    Love Calls, and So Does the Priesthood

    On a subway platform, she shared a New Year’s Eve kiss with a man planning to be a priest. Could it go any further?

    Cavaliers’ Kevin Love to Miss Game 7 vs. Celtics With a Concussion

    Cavaliers’ Kevin Love to Miss Game 7 vs. Celtics With a Concussion

    Love, who banged heads with the Celtics’ Jayson Tatum in Game 6 on Friday night, has at least two other known concussions in his career.

    My Relationship Makes Me Feel Excruciatingly Lonely. But I Love Her!

    A 22-year-old says his relationship makes him miserable. So why does he stay?

    Modern Love Podcast: Jennifer Beals Reads ‘From He to She in First Grade’

    This week, the “Taken” star tells the story of two parents who help their child find her identity.

    Love

    For other uses, see Love (disambiguation).

    Love encompasses a variety of different emotional and mental states, typically strongly and positively experienced, ranging from the most sublime virtue or good habit, the deepest interpersonal affection and to the simplest pleasure.[1][2] An example of this range of meanings is that the love of a mother differs from the love of a spouse differs from the love of food. Most commonly, love refers to a feeling of strong attraction and emotional attachment.[3] Love can also be a virtue representing human kindness, compassion, and affection, as “the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another”.[4] It may also describe compassionate and affectionate actions towards other humans, one’s self or animals.[5]

    Ancient Greek philosophers identified four forms of love: essentially, familial love (in Greek, storge), friendly love (philia), romantic love (eros), and divine love (agape). Modern authors have distinguished further varieties of love: unrequited love, infatuated love, self-love, and courtly love. Non-Western traditions have also distinguished variants or symbioses of these states.[6][7] Love has additional religious or spiritual meaning. This diversity of uses and meanings combined with the complexity of the feelings involved makes love unusually difficult to consistently define, compared to other emotional states.

    Love in its various forms acts as a major facilitator of interpersonal relationships and, owing to its central psychological importance, is one of the most common themes in the creative arts.[8]

    Love has been postulated to be a function to keep human beings together against menaces and to facilitate the continuation of the species.[9]

    Contents

    • 1 Definitions
    • 2 Impersonal love
    • 3 Interpersonal love
      • 3.1 Biological basis
      • 3.2 Psychological basis
      • 3.3 Evolutionary basis
      • 3.4 Comparison of scientific models
    • 4 Cultural views
      • 4.1 Ancient Greek
      • 4.2 Ancient Roman (Latin)
      • 4.3 Chinese and other Sinic cultures
      • 4.4 Japanese
      • 4.5 Indian
      • 4.6 Persian
    • 5 Religious views
      • 5.1 Abrahamic religions
        • 5.1.1 Christianity
        • 5.1.2 Judaism
        • 5.1.3 Islam
        • 5.1.4 Bahá’í Faith
      • 5.2 Indian religions
        • 5.2.1 Buddhism
        • 5.2.2 Hinduism
    • 6 Political views
      • 6.1 Free love
    • 7 Philosophical views
    • 8 See also
    • 9 References
    • 10 Sources
    • 11 Further reading
    • 12 External links

    Definitions

    Romeo and Juliet parting on the balcony in Act III.

    The word “love” can have a variety of related but distinct meanings in different contexts. Many other languages use multiple words to express some of the different concepts that in English are denoted as “love”; one example is the plurality of Greek words for “love” which includes agape and eros.[10] Cultural differences in conceptualizing love thus doubly impede the establishment of a universal definition.[11]

    Although the nature or essence of love is a subject of frequent debate, different aspects of the word can be clarified by determining what isn’t love (antonyms of “love”). Love as a general expression of positive sentiment (a stronger form of like) is commonly contrasted with hate (or neutral apathy). As a less sexual and more emotionally intimate form of romantic attachment, love is commonly contrasted with lust. As an interpersonal relationship with romantic overtones, love is sometimes contrasted with friendship, although the word love is often applied to close friendships. (Further possible ambiguities come with usages “girlfriend”, “boyfriend”, “just good friends”).

    Fraternal love (Prehispanic sculpture from 250–900 AD, of Huastec origin). Museum of Anthropology in Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico

    Abstractly discussed love usually refers to an experience one person feels for another. Love often involves caring for, or identifying with, a person or thing (cf. vulnerability and care theory of love), including oneself (cf. narcissism). In addition to cross-cultural differences in understanding love, ideas about love have also changed greatly over time. Some historians date modern conceptions of romantic love to courtly Europe during or after the Middle Ages, although the prior existence of romantic attachments is attested by ancient love poetry.[12]

    The complex and abstract nature of love often reduces discourse of love to a thought-terminating cliché. Several common proverbs regard love, from Virgil’s “Love conquers all” to The Beatles’ “All You Need Is Love”. St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, defines love as “to will the good of another.”[13] Bertrand Russell describes love as a condition of “absolute value,” as opposed to relative value.[14] Philosopher Gottfried Leibniz said that love is “to be delighted by the happiness of another.”[15] Meher Baba stated that in love there is a “feeling of unity” and an “active appreciation of the intrinsic worth of the object of love.”[16] Biologist Jeremy Griffith defines love as “unconditional selflessness”.[17]

    Impersonal love

    People can be said to love an object, principle, or goal to which they are deeply committed and greatly value. For example, compassionate outreach and volunteer workers’ “love” of their cause may sometimes be born not of interpersonal love but impersonal love, altruism, and strong spiritual or political convictions.[18] People can also “love” material objects, animals, or activities if they invest themselves in bonding or otherwise identifying with those things. If sexual passion is also involved, then this feeling is called paraphilia.[19] A common principle that people say they love is life itself.

    Interpersonal love

    Interpersonal love refers to love between human beings. It is a much more potent sentiment than a simple liking for a person. Unrequited love refers to those feelings of love that are not reciprocated. Interpersonal love is most closely associated with interpersonal relationships.[18] Such love might exist between family members, friends, and couples. There are also a number of psychological disorders related to love, such as erotomania.

    Pair of Lovers. 1480–1485

    Throughout history, philosophy and religion have done the most speculation on the phenomenon of love. In the 20th century, the science of psychology has written a great deal on the subject. In recent years, the sciences of psychology, anthropology, neuroscience, and biology have added to the understanding the concept of love.

    Biological basis

    Main article: Biological basis of love

    Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, much like hunger or thirst.[20] Helen Fisher, an anthropologist and human behavior researcher, divides the experience of love into three partly overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust is the feeling of sexual desire; romantic attraction determines what partners mates find attractive and pursue, conserving time and energy by choosing; and attachment involves sharing a home, parental duties, mutual defense, and in humans involves feelings of safety and security.[21] Three distinct neural circuitries, including neurotransmitters, and three behavioral patterns, are associated with these three romantic styles.[21]

    Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including the neurotransmitter hormones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, the same compounds released by amphetamine, stimulating the brain’s pleasure center and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.[22]

    Since the lust and attraction stages are both considered temporary, a third stage is needed to account for long-term relationships. Attachment is the bonding that promotes relationships lasting for many years and even decades. Attachment is generally based on commitments such as marriage and children, or on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests. It has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin to a greater degree than short-term relationships have.[22] Enzo Emanuele and coworkers reported the protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these return to previous levels after one year.[23]

    Psychological basis

    Further information: Human bonding

    Grandmother and grandchild in Sri Lanka

    Psychology depicts love as a cognitive and social phenomenon. Psychologist Robert Sternberg formulated a triangular theory of love and argued that love has three different components: intimacy, commitment, and passion. Intimacy is a form in which two people share confidences and various details of their personal lives, and is usually shown in friendships and romantic love affairs. Commitment, on the other hand, is the expectation that the relationship is permanent. The last form of love is sexual attraction and passion. Passionate love is shown in infatuation as well as romantic love. All forms of love are viewed as varying combinations of these three components. Non-love does not include any of these components. Liking only includes intimacy. Infatuated love only includes passion. Empty love only includes commitment. Romantic love includes both intimacy and passion. Companionate love includes intimacy and commitment. Fatuous love includes passion and commitment. Lastly, consummate love includes all three.[24] American psychologist Zick Rubin sought to define love by psychometrics in the 1970s. His work states that three factors constitute love: attachment, caring, and intimacy.[25][26]

    Following developments in electrical theories such as Coulomb’s law, which showed that positive and negative charges attract, analogs in human life were developed, such as “opposites attract”. Over the last century, research on the nature of human mating has generally found this not to be true when it comes to character and personality—people tend to like people similar to themselves. However, in a few unusual and specific domains, such as immune systems, it seems that humans prefer others who are unlike themselves (e.g., with an orthogonal immune system), since this will lead to a baby that has the best of both worlds.[27] In recent years, various human bonding theories have been developed, described in terms of attachments, ties, bonds, and affinities. Some Western authorities disaggregate into two main components, the altruistic and the narcissistic. This view is represented in the works of Scott Peck, whose work in the field of applied psychology explored the definitions of love and evil. Peck maintains that love is a combination of the “concern for the spiritual growth of another,” and simple narcissism.[28] In combination, love is an activity, not simply a feeling.

    Activities

    • Bonding
    • Courtship
    • Dating
    • Engagement
    • Mating
    • Meet market
    • Romance
    • Singles event
    • Wedding

    Endings

    • Breakup
    • Separation
    • Annulment
    • Divorce
    • Widowhood

    Emotions and feelings

    • Affinity
    • Attachment
    • Intimacy
    • Jealousy
    • Limerence
    • Love
      • Platonic
      • unconditional
    • Passion
    • Sexuality

    Practices

    • Bride price
      • dower
      • dowry
      • service
    • Hypergamy
    • Infidelity
    • Sexual activity
    • Transgression
    • Repression

    Abuse

    • Child
    • Dating
    • Domestic
    • Elderly
    • Narcissistic parent
    • Power and control
    • v
    • t
    • e

    Psychologist Erich Fromm maintained in his book The Art of Loving that love is not merely a feeling but is also actions, and that in fact, the “feeling” of love is superficial in comparison to one’s commitment to love via a series of loving actions over time.[18] In this sense, Fromm held that love is ultimately not a feeling at all, but rather is a commitment to, and adherence to, loving actions towards another, oneself, or many others, over a sustained duration.[18] Fromm also described love as a conscious choice that in its early stages might originate as an involuntary feeling, but which then later no longer depends on those feelings, but rather depends only on conscious commitment.[18]

    Evolutionary basis

    Wall of Love in Paris: “I love you” in 250 languages

    Evolutionary psychology has attempted to provide various reasons for love as a survival tool. Humans are dependent on parental help for a large portion of their lifespans compared to other mammals. Love has therefore been seen as a mechanism to promote parental support of children for this extended time period. Furthermore, researchers as early as Charles Darwin himself identified unique features of human love compared to other mammals and credit love as a major factor for creating social support systems that enabled the development and expansion of the human species.[29] Another factor may be that sexually transmitted diseases can cause, among other effects, permanently reduced fertility, injury to the fetus, and increase complications during childbirth. This would favor monogamous relationships over polygamy.[30]

    Comparison of scientific models

    Biological models of love tend to see it as a mammalian drive, similar to hunger or thirst.[20] Psychology sees love as more of a social and cultural phenomenon. Certainly love is influenced by hormones (such as oxytocin), neurotrophins (such as NGF), and pheromones, and how people think and behave in love is influenced by their conceptions of love. The conventional view in biology is that there are two major drives in love: sexual attraction and attachment. Attachment between adults is presumed to work on the same principles that lead an infant to become attached to its mother. The traditional psychological view sees love as being a combination of companionate love and passionate love. Passionate love is intense longing, and is often accompanied by physiological arousal (shortness of breath, rapid heart rate); companionate love is affection and a feeling of intimacy not accompanied by physiological arousal.

    Cultural views

    Ancient Greek

    See also: Greek words for love

    Roman copy of a Greek sculpture by Lysippus depicting Eros, the Greek personification of romantic love

    Greek distinguishes several different senses in which the word “love” is used. Ancient Greeks identified four forms of love: kinship or familiarity (in Greek, storge), friendship and/or platonic desire (philia), sexual and/or romantic desire (eros), and self-emptying or divine love (agape).[31][32] Modern authors have distinguished further varieties of romantic love.[33] However, with Greek (as with many other languages), it has been historically difficult to separate the meanings of these words totally. At the same time, the Ancient Greek text of the Bible has examples of the verb agapo having the same meaning as phileo.

    Agape (ἀγάπη agápē) means love in modern-day Greek. The term s’agapo means I love you in Greek. The word agapo is the verb I love. It generally refers to a “pure,” ideal type of love, rather than the physical attraction suggested by eros. However, there are some examples of agape used to mean the same as eros. It has also been translated as “love of the soul.”[34]

    Eros (ἔρως érōs) (from the Greek deity Eros) is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. The Greek word erota means in love. Plato refined his own definition. Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. Eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth by eros. Some translations list it as “love of the body”.[34]

    Philia (φιλία philía), a dispassionate virtuous love, was a concept addressed and developed by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics Book VIII.[35] It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality, and familiarity. Philia is motivated by practical reasons; one or both of the parties benefit from the relationship. It can also mean “love of the mind.”

    Storge (στοργή storgē) is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring.

    Xenia (ξενία xenía), hospitality, was an extremely important practice in ancient Greece. It was an almost ritualized friendship formed between a host and his guest, who could previously have been strangers. The host fed and provided quarters for the guest, who was expected to repay only with gratitude. The importance of this can be seen throughout Greek mythology—in particular, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey.

    Ancient Roman (Latin)

    The Latin language has several different verbs corresponding to the English word “love.” amō is the basic verb meaning I love, with the infinitive amare (“to love”) as it still is in Italian today. The Romans used it both in an affectionate sense as well as in a romantic or sexual sense. From this verb come amans—a lover, amator, “professional lover,” often with the accessory notion of lechery—and amica, “girlfriend” in the English sense, often being applied euphemistically to a prostitute. The corresponding noun is amor (the significance of this term for the Romans is well illustrated in the fact, that the name of the City, Rome—in Latin: Roma—can be viewed as an anagram for amor, which was used as the secret name of the City in wide circles in ancient times),[36] which is also used in the plural form to indicate love affairs or sexual adventures. This same root also produces amicus—”friend”—and amicitia, “friendship” (often based to mutual advantage, and corresponding sometimes more closely to “indebtedness” or “influence”). Cicero wrote a treatise called On Friendship (de Amicitia), which discusses the notion at some length. Ovid wrote a guide to dating called Ars Amatoria (The Art of Love), which addresses, in depth, everything from extramarital affairs to overprotective parents.

    Latin sometimes uses amāre where English would simply say to like. This notion, however, is much more generally expressed in Latin by the terms placere or delectāre, which are used more colloquially, the latter used frequently in the love poetry of Catullus. Diligere often has the notion “to be affectionate for,” “to esteem,” and rarely if ever is used for romantic love. This word would be appropriate to describe the friendship of two men. The corresponding noun diligentia, however, has the meaning of “diligence” or “carefulness,” and has little semantic overlap with the verb. Observare is a synonym for diligere; despite the cognate with English, this verb and its corresponding noun, observantia, often denote “esteem” or “affection.” Caritas is used in Latin translations of the Christian Bible to mean “charitable love”; this meaning, however, is not found in Classical pagan Roman literature. As it arises from a conflation with a Greek word, there is no corresponding verb.

    Chinese and other Sinic cultures

    “Ai,” the traditional Chinese character for love (愛) contains a heart (心) in the middle.

    Two philosophical underpinnings of love exist in the Chinese tradition, one from Confucianism which emphasized actions and duty while the other came from Mohism which championed a universal love. A core concept to Confucianism is Ren (“benevolent love”, 仁), which focuses on duty, action and attitude in a relationship rather than love itself. In Confucianism, one displays benevolent love by performing actions such as filial piety from children, kindness from parent, loyalty to the king and so forth.

    The concept of Ai (愛) was developed by the Chinese philosopher Mozi in the 4th century BC in reaction to Confucianism’s benevolent love. Mozi tried to replace what he considered to be the long-entrenched Chinese over-attachment to family and clan structures with the concept of “universal love” (jiān’ài, 兼愛). In this, he argued directly against Confucians who believed that it was natural and correct for people to care about different people in different degrees. Mozi, by contrast, believed people in principle should care for all people equally. Mohism stressed that rather than adopting different attitudes towards different people, love should be unconditional and offered to everyone without regard to reciprocation, not just to friends, family and other Confucian relations. Later in Chinese Buddhism, the term Ai (愛) was adopted to refer to a passionate caring love and was considered a fundamental desire. In Buddhism, Ai was seen as capable of being either selfish or selfless, the latter being a key element towards enlightenment.

    In contemporary Chinese, Ai (愛) is often used as the equivalent of the Western concept of love. Ai is used as both a verb (e.g. wo ai ni 我愛你, or “I love you”) and a noun (such as aiqing 愛情, or “romantic love”). However, due to the influence of Confucian Ren, the phrase ‘Wo ai ni’ (I love you) carries with it a very specific sense of responsibility, commitment and loyalty. Instead of frequently saying “I love you” as in some Western societies, the Chinese are more likely to express feelings of affection in a more casual way. Consequently, “I like you” (Wo xihuan ni, 我喜欢你) is a more common way of expressing affection in Chinese; it is more playful and less serious.[37] This is also true in Japanese (suki da, 好きだ). The Chinese are also more likely to say “I love you” in English or other foreign languages than they would in their mother tongue.

    Japanese

    Ohatsu and Tokubei, characters of Sonezaki Shinjū

    The Japanese language uses three words to convey the English equivalent of “love”. Because “love” covers a wide range of emotions and behavioral phenomena, there are nuances distinguishing the three terms.[38][39] The term ai (愛), which is often associated with maternal love[38] or selfless love,[39] originally referred to beauty and was often used in religious context. Following the Meiji Restoration 1868, the term became associated with “love” in order to translate Western literature. Prior to Western influence, the term koi (恋) generally represented romantic love, and was often the subject of the popular Man’yōshū Japanese poetry collection.[38] Koi describes a longing for a member of the opposite sex and is typical interpreted as selfish and wanting.[39] The term’s origins come from the concept of lonely solitude as a result of separation from a loved one. Though modern usage of koi focuses on sexual love and infatuation, the Manyō used the term to cover a wider range of situations, including tenderness, benevolence, and material desire.[38] The third term, ren’ai (恋愛), is a more modern construction that combines the kanji characters for both ai and koi, though its usage more closely resembles that of koi in the form of romantic love.[38][39]

    Indian

    Hindu god Krishna and his consort Radha making love

    Indian king enjoying Kamasutra position

    Kama in Indian literature means “desire, wish or longing”.[40] In contemporary literature, kama refers usually to sexual desire.[41] However, the term also refers to any sensory enjoyment, emotional attraction and aesthetic pleasure such as from arts, dance, music, painting, sculpture and nature.[42][43]

    The concept kama is found in some of the earliest known verses in Vedas. For example, Book 10 of Rig Veda describes the creation of the universe from nothing by the great heat. There in hymn 129, it states:

    कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः परथमं यदासीत |
    सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा ||[44]

    Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire the primal seed and germ of Spirit,
    Sages who searched with their heart’s thought discovered the existent’s kinship in the non-existent.

    — Rig Veda, ~ 15th Century BC[45]

    Persian

    The children of Adam are limbs of one body
    Having been created of one essence.
    When the calamity of time afflicts one limb
    The other limbs cannot remain at rest.
    If you have no sympathy for the troubles of others
    You are not worthy to be called by the name of “man”.

    Sa’di, Gulistan   

    Rumi, Hafiz and Sa’di are icons of the passion and love that the Persian culture and language present.[citation needed] The Persian word for love is Ishq, which is derived from Arabic language,[46] however it is considered by most to be too stalwart a term for interpersonal love and is more commonly substituted for “doost dashtan” (“liking”).[citation needed] In the Persian culture, everything is encompassed by love and all is for love, starting from loving friends and family, husbands and wives, and eventually reaching the divine love that is the ultimate goal in life.[citation needed]

    Religious views

    Main article: Religious views on love

    Abrahamic religions

    Robert Indiana’s 1977 Love sculpture spelling ahava.

    Christianity

    The Christian understanding is that love comes from God. The love of man and woman—eros in Greek—and the unselfish love of others (agape), are often contrasted as “descending” and “ascending” love, respectively, but are ultimately the same thing.[47]

    There are several Greek words for “love” that are regularly referred to in Christian circles.

    • Agape: In the New Testament, agapē is charitable, selfless, altruistic, and unconditional. It is parental love, seen as creating goodness in the world; it is the way God is seen to love humanity, and it is seen as the kind of love that Christians aspire to have for one another.[34]
    • Phileo: Also used in the New Testament, phileo is a human response to something that is found to be delightful. Also known as “brotherly love.”
    • Two other words for love in the Greek language, eros (sexual love) and storge (child-to-parent love), were never used in the New Testament.[34]

    Christians believe that to Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength and Love your neighbor as yourself are the two most important things in life (the greatest commandment of the Jewish Torah, according to Jesus; cf. Gospel of Mark chapter 12, verses 28–34). Saint Augustine summarized this when he wrote “Love God, and do as thou wilt.”

    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.[48]

    The Apostle Paul glorified love as the most important virtue of all. Describing love in the famous poetic interpretation in 1 Corinthians, he wrote, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres.” (1 Cor. 13:4–7, NIV)

    The Apostle John wrote, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:16–17, NIV) John also wrote, “Dear friends, let us love one another for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4:7–8, NIV)

    Saint Augustine says that one must be able to decipher the difference between love and lust. Lust, according to Saint Augustine, is an overindulgence, but to love and be loved is what he has sought for his entire life. He even says, “I was in love with love.” Finally, he does fall in love and is loved back, by God. Saint Augustine says the only one who can love you truly and fully is God, because love with a human only allows for flaws such as “jealousy, suspicion, fear, anger, and contention.” According to Saint Augustine, to love God is “to attain the peace which is yours.” (Saint Augustine’s Confessions)

    Augustine regards the duplex commandment of love in Matthew 22 as the heart of Christian faith and the interpretation of the Bible. After the review of Christian doctrine, Augustine treats the problem of love in terms of use and enjoyment until the end of Book I of De Doctrina Christiana (1.22.21-1.40.44;).[49]

    Christian theologians see God as the source of love, which is mirrored in humans and their own loving relationships. Influential Christian theologian C.S. Lewis wrote a book called The Four Loves. Benedict XVI wrote his first encyclical on “God is love”. He said that a human being, created in the image of God, who is love, is able to practice love; to give himself to God and others (agape) and by receiving and experiencing God’s love in contemplation (eros). This life of love, according to him, is the life of the saints such as Teresa of Calcutta and the Blessed Virgin Mary and is the direction Christians take when they believe that God loves them.[47]

    And so Pope Francis taught that “True love is both loving and letting oneself be loved..what is important in love is not our loving, but allowing ourselves to be loved by God.”[50] And so, in the analysis of a Catholic theologian, for Pope Francis, “the key to love…is not our activity. It is the activity of the greatest, and the source, of all the powers in the universe: God’s.”[51]

    In Christianity the practical definition of love is best summarised by St. Thomas Aquinas, who defined love as “to will the good of another,” or to desire for another to succeed.[13] This is the explanation of the Christian need to love others, including their enemies. As Thomas Aquinas explains, Christian love is motivated by the need to see others succeed in life, to be good people.

    Regarding love for enemies, Jesus is quoted in the Gospel of Matthew chapter five:

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” – Matthew 5: 43-48

    Tertullian wrote regarding love for enemies: “Our individual, extraordinary, and perfect goodness consists in loving our enemies. To love one’s friends is common practice, to love one’s enemies only among Christians.”[52]

    Judaism
    See also: Jewish views on love

    In Hebrew, אהבה (ahava) is the most commonly used term for both interpersonal love and love between God and God’s creations. Chesed, often translated as loving-kindness, is used to describe many forms of love between human beings.

    The commandment to love other people is given in the Torah, which states, “Love your neighbor like yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). The Torah’s commandment to love God “with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5) is taken by the Mishnah (a central text of the Jewish oral law) to refer to good deeds, willingness to sacrifice one’s life rather than commit certain serious transgressions, willingness to sacrifice all of one’s possessions, and being grateful to the Lord despite adversity (tractate Berachoth 9:5). Rabbinic literature differs as to how this love can be developed, e.g., by contemplating divine deeds or witnessing the marvels of nature. As for love between marital partners, this is deemed an essential ingredient to life: “See life with the wife you love” (Ecclesiastes 9:9). The biblical book Song of Solomon is considered a romantically phrased metaphor of love between God and his people, but in its plain reading, reads like a love song. The 20th-century Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler is frequently quoted as defining love from the Jewish point of view as “giving without expecting to take” (from his Michtav me-Eliyahu, Vol. 1).

    Islam

    Love encompasses the Islamic view of life as universal brotherhood that applies to all who hold faith. Amongst the 99 names of God (Allah), there is the name Al-Wadud, or “the Loving One,” which is found in Surah [Quran 11:90] as well as Surah [Quran 85:14]. God is also referenced at the beginning of every chapter in the Qur’an as Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim, or the “Most Compassionate” and the “Most Merciful”, indicating that nobody is more loving, compassionate and benevolent than God. The Qur’an refers to God as being “full of loving kindness.”

    The Qur’an exhorts Muslim believers to treat all people, those who have not persecuted them, with birr or “deep kindness” as stated in Surah [Quran 6:8-9]. Birr is also used by the Qur’an in describing the love and kindness that children must show to their parents.

    Ishq, or divine love, is the emphasis of Sufism in the Islamic tradition. Practitioners of Sufism believe that love is a projection of the essence of God to the universe. God desires to recognize beauty, and as if one looks at a mirror to see oneself, God “looks” at himself within the dynamics of nature. Since everything is a reflection of God, the school of Sufism practices to see the beauty inside the apparently ugly. Sufism is often referred to as the religion of love.[citation needed] God in Sufism is referred to in three main terms, which are the Lover, Loved, and Beloved, with the last of these terms being often seen in Sufi poetry. A common viewpoint of Sufism is that through love, humankind can get back to its inherent purity and grace. The saints of Sufism are infamous for being “drunk” due to their love of God; hence, the constant reference to wine in Sufi poetry and music.

    Bahá’í Faith

    In his Paris Talks, `Abdu’l-Bahá described four types of love: the love that flows from God to human beings; the love that flows from human beings to God; the love of God towards the Self or Identity of God; and the love of human beings for human beings.[53]

    Indian religions

    Buddhism

    In Buddhism, Kāma is sensuous, sexual love. It is an obstacle on the path to enlightenment, since it is selfish. Karuṇā is compassion and mercy, which reduces the suffering of others. It is complementary to wisdom and is necessary for enlightenment. Adveṣa and mettā are benevolent love. This love is unconditional and requires considerable self-acceptance. This is quite different from ordinary love, which is usually about attachment and sex and which rarely occurs without self-interest. Instead, in Buddhism it refers to detachment and unselfish interest in others’ welfare.

    The Bodhisattva ideal in Mahayana Buddhism involves the complete renunciation of oneself in order to take on the burden of a suffering world. The strongest motivation one has in order to take the path of the Bodhisattva is the idea of salvation within unselfish, altruistic love for all sentient beings.

    Hinduism
    Main articles: Kama and Kama Sutra

    Kama (left) with Rati on a temple wall of Chennakesava Temple, Belur

    In Hinduism, kāma is pleasurable, sexual love, personified by the god Kamadeva. For many Hindu schools, it is the third end (Kama) in life. Kamadeva is often pictured holding a bow of sugar cane and an arrow of flowers; he may ride upon a great parrot. He is usually accompanied by his consort Rati and his companion Vasanta, lord of the spring season. Stone images of Kamadeva and Rati can be seen on the door of the Chennakeshava temple at Belur, in Karnataka, India. Maara is another name for kāma.

    In contrast to kāma, prema – or prem – refers to elevated love. Karuna is compassion and mercy, which impels one to help reduce the suffering of others. Bhakti is a Sanskrit term, meaning “loving devotion to the supreme God.” A person who practices bhakti is called a bhakta. Hindu writers, theologians, and philosophers have distinguished nine forms of bhakti, which can be found in the Bhagavata Purana and works by Tulsidas. The philosophical work Narada Bhakti Sutras, written by an unknown author (presumed to be Narada), distinguishes eleven forms of love.

    In certain Vaishnava sects within Hinduism, attaining unadulterated, unconditional and incessant love for Godhead is considered the foremost goal of life. Gaudiya Vaishnavas who worship Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the cause of all causes consider Love for Godhead (Prema) to act in two ways: sambhoga and vipralambha (union and separation)—two opposites .[54]

    In the condition of separation, there is an acute yearning for being with the beloved and in the condition of union there is supreme happiness and nectarean. Gaudiya Vaishnavas consider that Krishna-prema (Love for Godhead) is not fire but that it still burns away one’s material desires. They consider that Kṛṣṇa-prema is not a weapon, but it still pierces the heart. It is not water, but it washes away everything—one’s pride, religious rules, and one’s shyness. Krishna-prema is considered to make one drown in the ocean of transcendental ecstasy and pleasure. The love of Radha, a cowherd girl, for Krishna is often cited as the supreme example of love for Godhead by Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Radha is considered to be the internal potency of Krishna, and is the supreme lover of Godhead. Her example of love is considered to be beyond the understanding of material realm as it surpasses any form of selfish love or lust that is visible in the material world. The reciprocal love between Radha (the supreme lover) and Krishna (God as the Supremely Loved) is the subject of many poetic compositions in India such as the Gita Govinda and Hari Bhakti Shuddhodhaya.

    In the Bhakti tradition within Hinduism, it is believed that execution of devotional service to God leads to the development of Love for God (taiche bhakti-phale krsne prema upajaya), and as love for God increases in the heart, the more one becomes free from material contamination (krishna-prema asvada haile, bhava nasa paya). Being perfectly in love with God or Krishna makes one perfectly free from material contamination. and this is the ultimate way of salvation or liberation. In this tradition, salvation or liberation is considered inferior to love, and just an incidental by-product. Being absorbed in Love for God is considered to be the perfection of life.[55]

    Political views

    Free love

    Main article: Free love

    The term free love has been used[56] to describe a social movement that rejects marriage, which is seen as a form of social bondage. The Free Love movement’s initial goal was to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery. It claimed that such issues were the concern of the people involved, and no one else.[57]

    Many people in the early 19th century believed that marriage was an important aspect of life to “fulfill earthly human happiness.” Middle-class Americans wanted the home to be a place of stability in an uncertain world. This mentality created a vision of strongly defined gender roles, which provoked the advancement of the free love movement as a contrast.[58]

    The term “sex radical” is also used interchangeably with the term “free lover”, and was the preferred term by advocates because of the negative connotations of “free love”.[citation needed] By whatever name, advocates had two strong beliefs: opposition to the idea of forceful sexual activity in a relationship and advocacy for a woman to use her body in any way that she pleases.[59] These are also beliefs of Feminism.[60]

    Philosophical views

    Main article: Philosophy of love

    Graffiti in East Timor

    The philosophy of love is a field of social philosophy and ethics that attempts to explain the nature of love.[61] The philosophical investigation of love includes the tasks of distinguishing between the various kinds of personal love, asking if and how love is or can be justified, asking what the value of love is, and what impact love has on the autonomy of both the lover and the beloved.[60]

    Many different theories attempt to explain the nature and function of love. Explaining love to a hypothetical person who had not himself or herself experienced love or being loved would be very difficult because to such a person love would appear to be quite strange if not outright irrational behavior. Among the prevailing types of theories that attempt to account for the existence of love are: psychological theories, the vast majority of which consider love to be very healthy behavior; evolutionary theories which hold that love is part of the process of natural selection; spiritual theories which may, for instance consider love to be a gift from a god; and theories that consider love to be an unexplainable mystery, very much like a mystical experience.

    There were many attempts to find the equation of love. One such attempt was by Christian Rudder, a mathematician and co-founder of online dating website OKCupid, one of the largest online dating sites. The mathematical approach was through the collection of large data from the dating site. Another interesting equation of love is found by in the philosophical blog ‘In the Quest of Truth’.[62] Love is defined as a measure of selfless give and take, and the author attempted to draw a graph that shows the equation of love. Aggregately, dating resources indicate a nascent line of variables effectively synchronising couples in naturally determined yearning.

    See also

    • Love at first sight
    • Polyamory
    • Romance (love)

    References

  • ^ “Definition of Love in English”. Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved May 1, 2018. 
  • ^ “Definition of “Love” – English Dictionary”. Cambridge English Dictionary. Retrieved May 1, 2018. 
  • ^ Oxford Illustrated American Dictionary (1998) + Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (2000)
  • ^ “Love – Definition of love by Merriam-Webster”. merriam-webster.com. 
  • ^ Fromm, Erich; The Art of Loving, Harper Perennial (1956), Original English Version, ISBN 978-0-06-095828-2
  • ^ Liddell and Scott: φιλία
  • ^ Mascaró, Juan (2003). The Bhagavad Gita. Penguin Classics. Penguin. ISBN 0-14-044918-3.  (J. Mascaró, translator)
  • ^ “Article On Love”. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 13 September 2011. 
  • ^ Helen Fisher. Why We Love: the nature and chemistry of romantic love. 2004.
  • ^ Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros.
  • ^ Kay, Paul; Kempton, Willett (March 1984). “What is the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis?”. American Anthropologist. New Series. 86 (1): 65–79. doi:10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050. 
  • ^ “Ancient Love Poetry”. Archived from the original on 30 September 2007. 
  • ^ a b “St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 26, 4, corp. art”. Newadvent.org. Retrieved 30 October 2010. 
  • ^ Love. PediaPress. 
  • ^ Leibniz, Gottfried. “Confessio philosophi”. Wikisource edition. Retrieved 25 March 2009. 
  • ^ Baba, Meher (1995). Discourses. Myrtle Beach: Sheriar Press. p. 113. ISBN 978-1880619094.
  • ^ What is love?. In The Book of Real Answers to Everything! Griffith, J. 2011. ISBN 9781741290073.
  • ^ a b c d e Fromm, Erich; The Art of Loving, Harper Perennial (5 September 2000), Original English Version, ISBN 978-0-06-095828-2
  • ^ DiscoveryHealth. “Paraphilia”. Archived from the original on 12 December 2007. Retrieved 16 December 2007. 
  • ^ a b Lewis, Thomas; Amini, F.; Lannon, R. (2000). A General Theory of Love. Random House. ISBN 0-375-70922-3. 
  • ^ a b “Archived copy” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 June 2011. Retrieved 3 October 2011.  Defining the Brain Systems of Lust, Romantic Attraction, and Attachment by Fisher et. al
  • ^ a b Winston, Robert (2004). Human. Smithsonian Institution. ISBN 0-03-093780-9. 
  • ^ Emanuele, E.; Polliti, P.; Bianchi, M.; Minoretti, P.; Bertona, M.; Geroldi, D. (2005). “Raised plasma nerve growth factor levels associated with early-stage romantic love”. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 31 (3): 288–94. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.09.002. PMID 16289361. 
  • ^ Sternberg, R. J. (1986). “A triangular theory of love”. Psychological Review. 93 (2): 119–135. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2. 
  • ^ Rubin, Zick (1970). of romantic love-Z Rubin.pdf “Measurement of Romantic Love” Check |url= value (help) (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16 (2): 265–27[clarification needed]. doi:10.1037/h0029841. PMID 5479131. [permanent dead link]
  • ^ Rubin, Zick (1973). Liking and Loving: an invitation to social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 
  • ^ Berscheid, Ellen; Walster, Elaine H. (1969). Interpersonal Attraction. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. ISBN 0-201-00560-3. CCCN 69-17443. 
  • ^ Peck, Scott (1978). The Road Less Traveled. Simon & Schuster. p. 169. ISBN 0-671-25067-1. 
  • ^ Loye, David S. (2000). Darwin’s Lost Theory of Love: A Healing Vision for the 21st Century. iUniverse. p. 332. ISBN 0595001319. 
  • ^ The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, edited by David M. Buss, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005. Chapter 14, Commitment, Love, and Mate Retention by Lorne Campbell and Bruce J. Ellis.
  • ^ C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves, 1960.
  • ^ Kristeller, Paul Oskar (1980). Renaissance Thought and the Arts: Collected Essays. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02010-8. 
  • ^ Stendhal, in his book On Love (“De l’amour”; Paris, 1822), distinguished carnal love, passionate love, a kind of uncommitted love that he called “taste-love”, and love of vanity. Denis de Rougemont in his book Love in the Western World traced the story of passionate love (l’amour-passion) from its courtly to its romantic forms. Benjamin Péret, in the introduction to his Anthology of Sublime Love (Paris, 1956), further identified “sublime love”, a state of realized idealisation perhaps equatable with the romantic form of passionate love.
  • ^ a b c d Anders Theodor Samuel Nygren, Eros and Agape (first published in Swedish, 1930-1936).
  • ^ “Philosophy of Love | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”. www.iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 24 August 2017. 
  • ^ Thomas Köves-Zulauf, Reden und Schweigen, Munich, 1972.
  • ^ JFK Miller, “Why the Chinese Don’t Say I Love You Archived 24 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine.”
  • ^ a b c d e Ryang, Sonia (2006). Love in Modern Japan: Its Estrangement from Self, Sex and Society. Routledge. pp. 13–14. 
  • ^ a b c d Abe, Namiko. “Japanese Words for “Love”: The Difference between “Ai” and “Koi””. About.com. Retrieved 5 November 2014. 
  • ^ Monier Williams, काम, kāma Monier-Williams Sanskrit English Dictionary, pp 271, see 3rd column
  • ^ James Lochtefeld (2002), The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Volume 1, Rosen Publishing, New York, ISBN 0-8239-2287-1, pp 340
  • ^ See:
    • Kate Morris (2011), The Illustrated Dictionary of History, ISBN 978-8189093372, pp 124;
    • Robert E. Van Voorst, RELG: World, Wadsworth, ISBN 978-1-111-72620-1, pp 78
  • ^ R. Prasad (2008), History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, Volume 12, Part 1, ISBN 978-8180695445, pp 249-270
  • ^ Rig Veda Book 10 Hymn 129 Verse 4
  • ^ Ralph Griffith (Translator, 1895), The Hymns of the Rig veda, Book X, Hymn CXXIX, Verse 4, pp 575
  • ^ Mohammad Najib ur Rehman, Hazrat Sakhi Sultan. Day of Alast-The start of creation. Sultan ul Faqr Publications Regd. ISBN 9789699795084. 
  • ^ a b Pope Benedict XVI. “papal encyclical, Deus Caritas Est”. 
  • ^ http://www.wga.hu/html_m/b/baglione/sacred2.html Description of Sacred and Profane Love
  • ^ Woo, B. Hoon (2013). “Augustine’s Hermeneutics and Homiletics in De doctrina christiana”. Journal of Christian Philosophy. 17: 97–117. 
  • ^ “Sri Lanka – Philippines: Meeting with the young people in the sports field of Santo Tomas University (Manila, 18 January 2015) – Francis”. w2.vatican.va. 
  • ^ Nidoy, Raul. “The key to love according to Pope Francis”. 
  • ^ Swartley, Willard M. (1992). The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, Studies in peace and scripture; (As Scapulam I) cited by Hans Haas, Idee und Ideal de Feindesliebe in der ausserchristlichen Welt (Leipzig: University of Leipzig, 1927). Westminster John Knox Press. p. 24. ISBN 9780664253547. 
  • ^ “Bahá’í Reference Library – Paris Talks, Pages 179-181”. reference.bahai.org. 
  • ^ Gour Govinda Swami. “Wonderful Characteristic of Krishna Prema, Gour Govinda Swami”. 
  • ^ A C Bhaktivedanta Swami. “Being Perfectly in Love”. 
  • ^ The Handbook Archived 13 June 2010 at the Wayback Machine. of the Oneida Community claims to have coined the term around 1850, and laments that its use was appropriated by socialists to attack marriage, an institution that they felt protected women and children from abandonment
  • ^ McElroy, Wendy. “The Free Love Movement and Radical Individualism.” Libertarian Enterprise .19 (1996): 1.
  • ^ Spurlock, John C. Free Love Marriage and Middle-Class Radicalism in America. New York, NY: New York UP, 1988.
  • ^ Passet, Joanne E. Sex Radicals and the Quest for Women’s Equality. Chicago, IL: U of Illinois P, 2003.
  • ^ a b Laurie, Timothy; Stark, Hannah (2017), “Love’s Lessons: Intimacy, Pedagogy and Political Community”, Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 22 (4): 69–79, doi:10.1080/0969725x.2017.1406048 
  • ^ Soren Kierkegaard. Works of Love.
  • ^ “In the Quest of Truth”. The Equation of Love. 
  • Sources

    • Chadwick, Henry (1998). Saint Augustine Confessions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-283372-3. 
    • Fisher, Helen. Why We Love: the Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. ISBN 0-8050-6913-5. 
    • Giles, James (1994). “A theory of love and sexual desire”. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 24 (4): 339–357. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1994.tb00259.x. 
    • Kierkegaard, Søren (2009). Works of Love. New York City: Harper Perennial Modern Classics. ISBN 978-0-06-171327-9. 
    • Oord, Thomas Jay (2010). Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos. ISBN 978-1-58743257-6. 
    • Singer, Irving (1966). The Nature of Love. (in three volumes) (v.1 reprinted and later volumes from The University of Chicago Press, 1984 ed.). Random House. ISBN 0-226-76094-4. 
    • Sternberg, R.J. (1986). “A triangular theory of love”. Psychological Review. 93 (2): 119–135. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119. 
    • Sternberg, R.J. (1987). “Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories”. Psychological Bulletin. 102 (3): 331–345. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.331. 
    • Tennov, Dorothy (1979). Love and Limerence: the Experience of Being in Love. New York: Stein and Day. ISBN 0-8128-6134-5. 
    • Wood Samuel E., Ellen Wood and Denise Boyd (2005). The World of Psychology (5th ed.). Pearson Education. pp. 402–403. ISBN 0-205-35868-3. 

    Further reading

    • Bayer, A, ed. (2008). Art and love in Renaissance Italy. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 

    External links

    Find more aboutLoveat Wikipedia’s sister projects

    • Definitions from Wiktionary
    • Media from Wikimedia Commons
    • Quotations from Wikiquote
    • Texts from Wikisource
    • Learning resources from Wikiversity
    • Data from Wikidata
    • History of Love, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    • Friendship at Curlie (based on DMOZ)
    • Philanthropy at Curlie (based on DMOZ)
    • Romance at Curlie (based on DMOZ)


    I Love

    “I Love” is a song written and recorded by American country music artist Tom T. Hall. It was released in October 1973 as the only single from the album, For the People in the Last Hard Town. The song would be Hall’s most successful single and was his fourth number one on the US country singles chart. The single spent two weeks at the top and a total of 15 weeks on the chart.[1] “I Love” was Hall’s only entry on the Top 40 peaking at number 12.[2]

    Contents

    • 1 Covers and alternate versions
    • 2 Soundtrack appearances
    • 3 Chart performance
      • 3.1 Weekly charts
      • 3.2 Year-end charts
    • 4 References
    • 5 External links

    Covers and alternate versions[edit]

    • Addressing potential censorship issues, an alternate version of Hall’s recording replaced the lyrics “bourbon in a glass and grass” with “old TV shows and snow”.
    • In 1975, the Shaggs recorded a cover of “I Love” which was intended for their never-finished second album. It was eventually released on the 1982 compilation album, Shaggs’ Own Thing.
    • “I Like”, a parody version by Heathen Dan, was released on the 1983 compilation album The Rhino Brothers Present the World’s Worst Records.
    • “I Love” was used, with altered lyrics, in a popular 2003 TV commercial for Coors Light, which prominently featured the Klimaszewski Twins.[3]
    • The band Low recorded a cover of “I Love” as a wedding present for two of their friends (Along with a falling-apart cover of Journey’s “Open Arms”); Both covers were eventually released on Low’s compilation box set, A Lifetime Of Temporary Relief.

    Soundtrack appearances[edit]

    The song was used in the film For No Good Reason.

    Chart performance[edit]

    Year-end charts[edit]

    References[edit]

  • ^ Whitburn, Joel (2004). The Billboard Book Of Top 40 Country Hits: 1944-2006, Second edition. Record Research. p. 149. 
  • ^ Whitburn, Joel (2004). The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits: Eighth Edition. Record Research. p. 272. 
  • ^ THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: 1-26-03: PROCESS; How to Write a Catchy Beer Ad, Chris Ballard, The New York Times
  • ^ “Go-Set Australian charts – 18 May 1974”. 
  • ^ http://www.flavourofnz.co.nz/index.php?qpageID=search%20listener&qartistid=929#n_view_location
  • ^ “Tom T. Hall Chart History (Hot Country Songs)”. Billboard.
  • ^ Joel Whitburn’s Top Pop Singles 1955–1990, ISBN 0-89820-089-X
  • ^ “Tom T. Hall Chart History (Adult Contemporary)”. Billboard.
  • ^ Bac-lac.gc.ca
  • ^ Musicoutfitters.com
  • External links[edit]

    • Lyrics of this song at MetroLyrics


    Review: A Long-Awaited New Opera Is a Raucous Beauty

    Review: A Long-Awaited New Opera Is a Raucous Beauty

    A brutal fable of royal hubris, George Benjamin and Martin Crimp’s “Lessons in Love and Violence” is a worthy follow-up to their “Written on Skin.”

    Review: In ‘Love After Love,’ an Unflinching Look at Extended Grief

    Russ Harbaugh’s debut feature delivers something rarely seen in American movies: a warts-and-all examination of extended grief.

    Holiday Windows, a (Sort of) Love Story

    Why are we all so bedazzled by the store vitrines of the season?