Zhou 1Peng Zho.docx

Zhou 1
Peng Zhou
Prof. Macias
Eng 106B
Feb 27, 2017
Love
Love is an eternal topic, but what is love? As far as I am
concerned, love is the most mystical emotion in our heart which
makes us feel happy, satisfied or sad. Love is also the sincere
emotion springing from heart as the boiled water spilling out of
the kettle. Without love, our life will be gloomy and
insignificant; without love, the world is wilderness. Love is as
necessary in our life just as the thread in the quilt. Of course,
there are a lot of kinds of love, such as parental love, fraternal
love, romantic love, and so on. Parental love is the most
unselfish and greatest love in the world. We never know the
love of parents until we become parents ourselves. I still
remember one story about a squab and a hunting dog. While the
hunting dog was attacking the squab, the mother bird flew down
from the tree without hesitation to protect her baby and the
parental love made the dog gave in eventually. Animals can do
this, not to speak of us human beings. Our parents gave us life
and brought us up; they taught us to be good men and took care
of us without any complaint. This is parental love which will
protect and support us forever. A true friend is the one who
overlooks our failures and tolerates our successes. When we
meet difficulties, our friends will never look on with folded
arms. This is friendship which is a golden blossom between true
friends. It is said that the love story itself is not important; the
importance is that one is capable of love. For instance, Jack
promised Rose that he would never give her up. Another

Zhou 2
example is that Wale tried hard to protect Eve with clumsy
behaviors but genuine heart. This is romantic love which is like
a rose, bringing us happiness and sorrow. Above all, if life is a
quilt, love should be a thread. It can hardly be seen, but it really
exists. Without it, life becomes meaningless.
First of all, love is put one's heart and soul into her shoes. If
you love someone, you will do everything for her; you will
think on her side. You will reject all the temptations that can
make you live better, just because you don’t want to hurt her.
Secondly, love is forgiveness. No matter what the other one do
to you, you will forgive her at last. You won’t treat her eye for
eye. Although what she has done hurts you so much, you won’t
do the same thing to, because you love her. Thirdly, love is
growing old together. The outside word is so colorful, but what
you want is to grow old with her together and treasure every
minute with her. What’s more, you will leave a place for her
forever in your deep heart, even she has passed away.
Love is a kind of emotion that everyone has. It is around us. If
we pay attention, we will find it. So, do not lose the faith to
believe the existence of love. It is the feeling that every can feel
by heart.
For love, each person's definition is different, or it can be said
that every age group of people, different understanding of love.
In his teens, love is like a floating cloud in the sky, pure,
beautiful, gestures. That’s eager to love. When we are in
twenties, love like a flower cactus, bright, colorful, but from
time to time were injured. That’s accepted love. Thirty years
old, love like a roadside grass, it’s small, fragile and
inconspicuous. Suspicion of love; forty years old, love like
overdue bread, dark, rancid, nobody cares. That’s refused to
love. After the age of 50, love like a cup of boiled water, it is
colorless, tasteless, but pure and transparent. That’s experience
love.
Zhou 3
Love is actually just a synonym, its existence or does not exist,

beautiful or not beautiful, completely depends on everyone's
thinking. Not because of love has been hurt, then do not believe
in love. Is the sky floating in the rain, you no longer believed
that there will be sunshine later? I remember in an article to see
such a sentence: in love, who first moved the situation, which
lost. I think it is not perfect, the real love from beginning to end
are two things, not to say that a person to pay, another person is
to accept love. That kind of situation can only be said to pursue
the stage, or is unrequited love. Until the other side to accept
you, and willing to pay for you, can be regarded as love.
True love, like snow in the plum, proudly branches, colorful!
Regarding the term about love, I am in a strange and familiar
between, and did not use a hand to touch it. I do not like those
in the TV series who have gave up everything for love. Of
course, there are too many people in reality. In August last year,
I saw in the <Afternoon Tea> that a girl about twenty years old,
because her boyfriend fell in love with her friends and could not
bear to finally chose to jump from a high building, then die. She
was painful when she was dedicated to herself as an endless
desert, and she was also part of my sympathy. I saw her photos
and learned that the girl was so beautiful. But, but have you
ever thought that when you jumped from the building on the
second floor after your parents your loved ones your friends all
care about the people you love you, they will lose you because
you are more painful than you, sad.
I am sympathetic to her, but helpless. While her other feelings
also continue to be more intense, she was really silly. If you try
to die with their own boyfriend for their love, then she is really
wrong. If you love him, you will want him happy and happy, not
to force him to stay with his side. Can you see that you really
love him? I am sad for her, for her sad.
Zhou 4
In college life, such a thing is a lot of. I do not agree with the
practice of falling in love with middle school students. Some
students may think that as long as do not affect the study like,

the other does not matter. But this classmate, after all, only a
very small number, I believe how many will affect the mood.
And some students clearly understand puppy love for a healthy
body of mind, long learning long knowledge of their own is
wrong, but still cannot control their feelings, resulting in the
end of regret the end of the end. Unripe apples have bitter
astringent, to be mature and then picked down to taste and why
not?
Love is a constant ancient constant topic, because the
injured people are too many. It is true. For the existence of
eternal and long-term love, I am speechless. Are those stories of
Liang Shanbo and Zhu Yingtai, Romeo and Juliet really true or
just a beautiful and ancient legend? Those who died for the so-
called love in their mouths, and to be a lifetime of people,
probably only the middle of the students who do not dry milk
Mature middle-aged people, as long as they have a trace of faith
in love, love and the courage to pay, never favoritism, will
never leave all love their own people. They really understand
the meaning of love.
However, I still like to see the novel in the story of love
and twists and turns, like to listen to the ancient legend. After
listening and watching, I ever have to fantasy. I believe that the
reality of love is far less than the dream of a good dream of
romance, eternal. Perhaps, like me a born to break the curse of
the people, there are a few of the good?
All in all, love cannot eat. In the real society, romantic and
beautiful love only in the bread under the conditions of
sufficient to be achieved. Among the ten thousand people, can
be turned into a butterfly only one or no, and the other is to
Moth, cicada or other insects. It gives people too much regret,
pain, it does not rule out the happy. It is part of life, it will be
in their own hands, maybe one day that ten thousand of the pair
of butterflies you and your love is the most beautiful
incarnation.
Zhou 5
According to Hull, Gary. To love a person is selfish because it

means that you value that particular person, that he or she
makes your life better, that he or she is an intense source of joy-
-to you. A "disinterested" love is a contradiction in terms. One
cannot be neutral to that which one values. The time, effort and
money you spend on behalf of someone you love are not
sacrifices, but actions taken because his or her happiness is
crucially important to your own. Such actions would constitute
sacrifices only if they were done for a stranger--or for an
enemy. Those who argue that love demands self-denial must
hold the bizarre belief that it makes no personal difference
whether your loved one is healthy or sick, feels pleasure or
pain, is alive or dead.
All related to you are related to her, love means trusting the
person I love. If I love you, I trust that you will accept my
caring and my love and that you won’t deliberately hurt me. I
trust that you will find me attractive, and that you won’t
abandon me, I trust the mutual nature of our love. If we trust
each other, we are willing to be open to each other and reveal
our true selves.
Gray, Paul says that biologists and anthropologists assumed that
it would be fruitless, even frivolous, to study love's
evolutionary origins, the way it was encoded in our genes or
imprinted in our brains. Serious scientists simply assumed that
love -- and especially Romantic Love -- was really all in the
head, put there five or six centuries ago when civilized societies
first found enough spare time to indulge in flowery prose. The
task of writing the book of love was ceded to playwrights, poets
and pulp novelists.
To sum it up, love is union under the condition of preserving
one’s individuality. In love, two beings become one and yet
remain two.
Zhou 6
Work cited
Gray, Paul. "What is Love?." Time, 141.7 (1993): 46.

Hull, Gary. "LOVE & SELFISHNESS; the False View of Love
as Selfless and Unconditional Destroys Its Sublime Value." The
Jacksonville Free Press, 18.4 (2004): 4.
First article
Gray, Paul. "What is Love?." Time, 141.7 (1993): 46.
What is this thing called love? What? Is this thing called love?
What is this thing called? Love.
HOWEVER PUNCTUATED, COLE Porter's simple question
begs an answer. Love's symptoms are familiar enough: a
drifting mooniness in thought and behavior, the mad conceit
that the entire universe has rolled itself up into the person of the
beloved, a conviction that no one on earth has ever felt so
torrentially about a fellow creature before. Love is ecstasy and
torment, freedom and slavery. Poets and songwriters would be
in a fine mess without it. Plus, it makes the world go round.
Until recently, scientists wanted no part of it.
The reason for this avoidance, this reluctance to study what is
probably life's most intense emotion, is not difficult to track
down. Love is mushy; science is hard. Anger and fear, feelings
that have been considerably researched in the field and the lab,
can be quantified through measurements: pulse and breathing
rates, muscle contractions, a whole spider web of involuntary
responses. Love does not register as definitively on the
instruments; it leaves a blurred fingerprint that could be
mistaken for anything from indigestion to a manic attack. Anger
and fear have direct roles -- fighting or running -- in the
survival of the species. Since it is possible (a cynic would say
commonplace) for humans to mate and reproduce without love,
all the attendant sighing and swooning and sonnet writing have
struck many pragmatic investigators as beside the evolutionary
point.
So biologists and anthropologists assumed that it would be

fruitless, even frivolous, to study love's evolutionary origins,
the way it was encoded in our genes or imprinted in our brains.
Serious scientists simply assumed that love -- and especially
Romantic Love -- was really all in the head, put there five or six
centuries ago when civilized societies first found enough spare
time to indulge in flowery prose. The task of writing the book
of love was ceded to playwrights, poets and pulp novelists.
But during the past decade, scientists across a broad range of
disciplines have had a change of heart about love. The amount
of research expended on the tender passion has never been more
intense. Explanations for this rise in interest vary. Some cite the
spreading threat of AIDS; with casual sex carrying mortal risks,
it seems important to know more about a force that binds
couples faithfully together. Others point to the growing number
of women scientists and suggest that they may be more willing
than their male colleagues to take love seriously. Says Elaine
Hatfield, the author of Love, Sex, and Intimacy: Their
Psychology, Biology, and History: ``When I was back at
Stanford in the 1960s, they said studying love and human
relationships was a quick way to ruin my career. Why not go
where the real work was being done: on how fast rats could
run?'' Whatever the reasons, science seems to have come around
to a view that nearly everyone else has always taken for
granted: romance is real. It is not merely a conceit; it is bred
into our biology.
Getting to this point logically is harder than it sounds. The
love-as-cultural-delusion argument has long seemed
unassailable. What actually accounts for the emotion, according
to this scenario, is that people long ago made the mistake of
taking fanciful literary tropes seriously. Ovid's Ars Amatoria is
often cited as a major source of misreadings, its instructions
followed, its ironies ignored. Other prime suspects include the
12th century troubadours in Provence who more or less invented
the Art of Courtly Love, an elaborate, etiolated ritual for idle
noblewomen and aspiring swains that would have been broken
to bits by any hint of physical consummation.

Ever since then, the injunction to love and to be loved has
hummed nonstop through popular culture; it is a dominant
theme in music, films, novels, magazines and nearly everything
shown on TV. Love is a formidable and thoroughly proved
commercial engine; people will buy and do almost anything that
promises them a chance at the bliss of romance.
But does all this mean that love is merely a phony emotion that
we picked up because our culture celebrates it? Psychologist
Lawrence Casler, author of Is Marriage Necessary?, forcefully
thinks so, at least at first: ``I don't believe love is part of human
nature, not for a minute. There are social pressures at work.''
Then falls a shadow over this certainty. ``Even if it is a part of
human nature, like crime or violence, it's not necessarily
desirable.''
Well, love either is or is not intrinsic to our species; having it
both ways leads nowhere. And the contention that romance is an
entirely acquired trait -- overly imaginative troubadours'
revenge on muddled literalists -- has always rested on some
teetery premises.
For one thing, there is the chicken/egg dilemma. Which came
first, sex or love? If the reproductive imperative was as
dominant as Darwinians maintain, sex probably led the way. But
why was love hatched in the process, since it was presumably
unnecessary to get things started in the first place? Furthermore,
what has sustained romance -- that odd collection of tics and
impulses -- over the centuries? Most mass hallucinations, such
as the 17th century tulip mania in Holland, flame out fairly
rapidly when people realize the absurdity of what they have
been doing and, as the common saying goes, come to their
senses. When people in love come to their senses, they tend to
orbit with added energy around each other and look more
helplessly loopy and self-besotted. If romance were purely a
figment, unsupported by any rational or sensible evidence, then
surely most folks would be immune to it by now. Look around.
It hasn't happened. Love is still in the air.
And it may be far more widespread than even romantics

imagined. Those who argue that love is a cultural fantasy have
tended to do so from a Eurocentric and class-driven point of
view. Romance, they say, arose thanks to amenities peculiar to
the West: leisure time, a modicum of creature comforts, a
certain level of refinement in the arts and letters. When these
trappings are absent, so is romance. Peasants mated; aristocrats
fell in love.
But last year a study conducted by anthropologists William
Jankowiak of the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and Edward
Fischer of Tulane University found evidence of romantic love in
at least 147 of the 166 cultures they studied. This discovery, if
borne out, should pretty well wipe out the idea that love is an
invention of the Western mind rather than a biological fact.
Says Jankowiak: `Ìt is, instead, a universal phenomenon, a
panhuman characteristic that stretches across cultures. Societies
like ours have the resources to show love through candy and
flowers, but that does not mean that the lack of resources in
other cultures indicates the absence of love.''
Some scientists are not startled by this contention. One of them
is anthropologist Helen Fisher, a research associate at the
American Museum of Natural History and the author of
Anatomy of Love: The Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery
and Divorce, a recent book that is making waves among
scientists and the general reading public. Says Fisher: `Ì've
never not thought that love was a very primitive, basic human
emotion, as basic as fear, anger or joy. It is so evident. I guess
anthropologists have just been busy doing other things.''
Among the things anthropologists -- often knobby-kneed gents
in safari shorts -- tended to do in the past was ask questions
about courtship and marriage rituals. This now seems a classic
example, as the old song has it, of looking for love in all the
wrong places. In many cultures, love and marriage do not go
together. Weddings can have all the romance of corporate
mergers, signed and sealed for family or territorial interests.
This does not mean, Jankowiak insists, that love does not exist
in such cultures; it erupts in clandestine forms, `à phenomenon

to be dealt with.''
Somewhere about this point, the specter of determinism begins
once again to flap and cackle. If science is going to probe and
prod and then announce that we are all scientifically fated to
love -- and to love preprogrammed types -- by our genes and
chemicals, then a lot of people would just as soon not know. If
there truly is a biological predisposition to love, as more and
more scientists are coming to believe, what follows is a
recognition of the amazing diversity in the ways humans have
chosen to express the feeling. The cartoon images of cavemen
bopping cavewomen over the head and dragging them home by
their hair? Love. Helen of Troy, subjecting her adopted city to
10 years of ruinous siege? Love. Romeo and Juliet? Ditto. Joe
in Accounting making a fool of himself around the water cooler
over Susan in Sales? Love. Like the universe, the more we learn
about love, the more preposterous and mysterious it is likely to
appear.
PHOTO: UNITED STATES: Valentine's Day: Romantic rituals
in the West have evolved into the bestowal of flowers, candy
and other sweet nothings. But the absence of such gift giving in
poorer cultures does not, anthropologists are learning, mean the
absence of romance. (SANDI FELLMAN)
PHOTO: Cupid on valentine (1993 THE GIFTED LINE--JOHN
GROSSMAN INC.)
PHOTO: MEXICO: Shawls in the Marketplace: In the highlands
of Chiapas, weaving skills are treasured, and a colorful, well-
made shawl advises potential husbands of its wearer's dexterity.
(LAUREN GREENFIELD)
PHOTO: CHINA: Courtship on Horseback: On the plains of
Xinjiang, mounted Kazakh suitors play Catch the Maiden. He
chases her in pursuit of a kiss. If he succeeds, she goes after
him with a riding crop. (JAY DICKMAN)
PHOTO: INDIA: A Bed of Roses: Many hotels offer newlyweds
lavishly flowered honeymoon suites. In Bombay a couple on
their wedding night relax amid and upon a floral panoply.
(LOUIS PSIHOYOS--MATRIX)

~~~~~~~~
By PAUL GRAY
Reported by Hannah Bloch and Sally B. Donnelly
Section:
PEOPLE
A DIAMOND MAY LAST FOREVER, but nothing says eternal
devotion like 31 lbs. of fish and an ample supply of stiff drink.
In a three-minute ceremony held in her parents' Tokyo home,
Japan's high-powered future Princess MASAKO OWADA
slipped into a traditional silk kimono to receive the two sea
bream (a male and a female), six bottles of sake and five bolts
of silk that served as a formal marriage pledge from Crown
Prince Naruhito. Following the offering, the Prince visited
ancient shrines to inform the gods of his engagement.
PHOTO: Masako Owada (JIJI PRESS)
~~~~~~~~
By GINIA BELLAFANTE
Second Article
Hull, Gary. "LOVE & SELFISHNESS; the False View of Love
as Selfless and Unconditional Destroys Its Sublime Value." The
Jacksonville Free Press, 18.4 (2004): 4.
Every Valentine's Day a certain philosophic crime is
perpetrated. Actually, it is committed year-round, but its
destructiveness is magnified on this holiday. The crime is the
propagation of a widely accepted falsehood: the idea that love is
selfless.
Love, we are repeatedly taught, consists of self-sacrifice. Love
based on self-interest, we are admonished, is cheap and sordid.
True love, we are told, is altruistic. But is it?
Imagine a Valentine's Day card which takes this premise
seriously. Imagine receiving a card with the following message:

"I get no pleasure from your existence. I obtain no personal
enjoyment from the way you look, dress, move, act or think.
Our relationship profits me not. You satisfy no sexual,
emotional or intellectual needs of mine. You're a charity case,
and I'm with you only out of pity. Love, XXX."
Needless to say, you would be indignant to learn that you are
being "loved," not for anything positive you offer your lover,
but--like any recipient of alms--for what you lack. Yet that is
the perverse view of love entailed in the belief that it is self-
sacrificial.
Genuine love is the exact opposite. It is the most selfish
experience possible, in the true sense of the term: it benefits
your life in a way that involves no sacrifice of others to
yourself or of yourself to others.
To love a person is selfish because it means that you value that
particular person, that he or she makes your life better, that he
or she is an intense source of joy--to you. A "disinterested" love
is a contradiction in terms. One cannot be neutral to that which
one values. The time, effort and money you spend on behalf of
someone you love are not sacrifices, but actions taken because
his or her happiness is crucially important to your own. Such
actions would constitute sacrifices only if they were done for a
stranger--or for an enemy. Those who argue that love demands
self-denial must hold the bizarre belief that it makes no
personal difference whether your loved one is healthy or sick,
feels pleasure or pain, is alive or dead.
Love is far too precious to be offered indiscriminately. It is
above all in the area of love that egalitarianism ought to be
repudiated. Love represents an exalted exchange--a spiritual
exchange--between two people, for the purpose of mutual
benefit.

You love someone because he or she is a value--a selfish value
to you, as determined by your standards--just as you are a value
to him or her.
Valentine's Day--with its colorful cards, mouth-watering
chocolates and silky lingerie--gives material form to this
spiritual value. It is a moment for you to pause, to ignore the
trivialities of life--and to celebrate the selfish pleasure of being
worthy of someone's love and of having found someone worthy
of yours.
Article copyright The Jacksonville Free Press.

Zhou 1Peng Zho.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from hallettfaustina

More from hallettfaustina (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Zhou 1Peng Zho.docx