Is it possible to be in love with someone you don't know personally?

I have felt deep, and intense emotional feelings for someone I hadn't met in person. (though I did end up meeting him in person) Some might say it wasn't love, but I can say I've never felt like that for anyone in my life before. So I think it is possible to fall for someone you've never met in person.

 

yeah there are some cases like that

 

No. I think you can love someone you haven't met, to a certain degree. But be in love in, no. I think you'd have to meet that person, and really get to know them.

 

No -
Love is much more than a 4 letter word that is often confused with another 4 letter word = Lust!

 

I think so.

You can love the personality, love the person's mind, and just generaly they way they present themselves.

 

In third grade!

 

I used to think you have get to know somebody real well and then you would fall in love with them over time. I also thought it took a lot of work to make a relationship work. I thought that until I met this guy one day and realized that I loved my boyfriend but was not in love with him. Unfortunately "the guy" was his friend and my b/f (now ex) blocked us. Since then I have liked a few guys but it just seems so superficial...just lust and their cool or something. I feel lost.

 

yes but I must have more information to better answear.

 

I think you can love someone you've never met, so long as you've learned enough about them, gotten to kind of know them, even if not directly. But it's not possible to be in love with that person.

Oops. I forgot I already replied here. Sorry about that.

 

i am these days lost in what i believe love is.

 

No. People throw love around too much

 

they call it the spiderman.

 

Well, I'll have to disagree with you all. I think that you can. Just because you haven't met them personally doesn't mean you don't know their flaws and all. But that's my opinion.

 

You will never know someone until you've lived with them.

 

Tom Robbins brought up the limitation of the English vocabulary for love. He pointed out that the Inuit are credited for their vast vocabulary for snow with the purpose snow had on their existence. Does our own limitations when it comes to describing love mean it isn't important to our existence? Well I don't think that but I do think we have a serious problem. Perhaps one of the things I loathe most about western reason (mind you I'm a philosophy major as a whole quite in love with the subject) is its tendency to polarize issues. Actually there is a fallacy to describe this problem: an "either or" argument.

Well here's my take. I don't think its either Love or Lust. I think their is a pretty broad and over lapping spectrum of love. I think Most love contains some lust and most lust contains some love.

For me I'm only 20 and I would say I've been in love twice or three times. But here's the thing, I believe true love is many different types of love (devotion, trust, lust, friendship) that fossilize and petrify in ones soul when they are in a truly deep relationship with someone. Soul mates some call it. You know what I'm talking about I hope. So anyhow you kind of need the whole enchilada of loves for true love but that doesn't mean you can't fall in and out of lesser but meaningful forms of love throughout your life. I think its a shame these lesser loves constantly get boiled down to just lust. The people I have said I loved are people who I felt a combination of lust, friendship, admiration and other emotions for. I felt drawn to them for a feeling that in my mind superseded lust even though yeah there was some of that. Lust is a very shallow thing like raw meat or tofu it really takes some other spices to do more that do the bare minimum of curbing a hunger. That is romance the spice--the ability of the human mind to extrapolate on skin and turn it into something more meaningful and emotionally nourishing--connection, safety, protection, care.

So basically my point is you can fall in love but at all loves proceeding true love will pale in comparison. Nevertheless, that gives us little right to denounce them as simply lust. Lust is a dime a dozen. Love, we get throughout our lives in many different colors and textures. True love, to the best of my knowledge (please someone with experience surpassing my own correct me if I am wrong), we get only once.

I think the key point here is that you can't fall out of true love but other love we have great capacity to fall into and unless its true with eventually fall out of it.

 

^^^You make a good point. Lust is far too simplistic.

 

The word "love" can have a variety of related but distinct meanings in different contexts.


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. As a general expression of positive sentiment (a stronger form of like), love 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; and as an interpersonal relationship with romantic overtones, love is sometimes contrasted with friendship, although the word love is often applied to close friendships.

When discussed in the abstract, love usually refers to interpersonal love, an experience felt by a person for another person. Love often involves caring for or identifying with a person or thing. In addition to cross-cultural differences in understanding love, ideas about love have also changed greatly over time.

:love: