Anish+Vora+RP+Post+3


 * 1) media type="custom" key="26074060"In scientific, emotional, and ideological terms: what is love?
 * 2) //The Four Loves//
 * 3) C.S. Lewis
 * 4) https://www.calvin.edu/~pribeiro/DCM-Lewis-2009/Lewis/the-four-loves.pdf
 * 5) Accessed with website above, found by searching "Types of Love" on Google
 * 6) SOAPSTone
 * Subject: The different natures of love
 * Occasion: 1958 Radio Talks criticized for frankness on sex
 * Audience: Christians, people interested in philosophy, lovers
 * Purpose: To explore the different natures of love through a Christian and philosophical lens
 * Speaker: C.S. Lewis
 * Tone: Analytical
 * 1) C.S. Lewis' novel attempts to analyze love through its multiple forms. He looks at the four loves of affection, friendship, romance, and charity, and evaluates each in its strengths and weaknesses.
 * 2) Affection accounts for most of human happiness, but is greatly vulnerable; friendship is a deeply appreciative love, and while it is "a lost art", it can result in separation as well; romance is a neutral force, a profound but dangerous experience; charity is the greatest, and most Christian, of loves.
 * 3) I agree with Lewis' analyses of loves; certain types of love are clearly distinct from others, and though they may have often blend together, each has its own pros and cons.
 * 4) “To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.”

> > > The mutual understanding and shared emotions, especially in that third category of listener, generated a micro-moment of love, which "is a single act, performed by two brains," as Fredrickson writes in her book" > >
 * 1)  In scientific, emotional, and ideological terms: what is love?
 * 1) "There's No Such Thing As Everlasting Love (According to Science)"
 * 2) Emily Esfahani Smith
 * 3) http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/theres-no-such-thing-as-everlasting-love-according-to-science/267199/
 * 1) Accessed with website above, found by searching "Scientific Definition of Love" on Google
 * 2) SOAPSTone
 * Subject: The new ideas on love
 * Occasion: An ongoing attempt to understand love
 * Audience: Scientists, anyone interested in love
 * Purpose: To illustrate a new definition of love
 * Speaker: Emily Esfahani Smith, Barbara Fredrickson
 * Tone: Informative
 * 1) Smith's article discusses the new theory that love is more of an ephemeral feeling. Mirror neurons, oxytocin, and vagal tone, the main parts of the "biological love system", contribute to and support this idea.
 * 2) Love is not everlasting, but instead simply made up of micro-moments of positivity resonance; this means that love can be found in even the smallest moments of connection.
 * 3) I somewhat agree with the argument that the author makes, especially due to the scientific backing, but I don't believe that the "love myth" should be completely abandoned. I still believe that love can truly be everlasting, but now am simply more convinced that other, powerful forms of it are found in everyday life.
 * 4)  "Micro-moments of positivity resonance", "...love cannot be kindled individually - it only exists in the physical connection between two people", "But if true love is defined as eternal passion, it is biologically impossible", "