"Stillness is the antithesis of life. Any movement is better than no movement. Even movement that results in a negative outcome is, at least, living.
(We don't get to choose our emotions. We do get to choose whether or not and how we act on them.)
Shakespeare's quote "better to have loved and lost..." is incorrect. It should read, "Better to have lived and lost than never lived at all.""
-From my post at xanga.com/sirbradford117
Love, having experienced the concept and after examining it through a rational lens, makes sense (at least on a psychological level). Bringing the concept of love to a level of empirical examination, one might argue, diminishes the nature of the concept. "BS," I reply. Love must have an empirical nature otherwise humans could not experience it. Examining this aspect is essential to understanding the concept and rationalizing it, an important process if one ever expects to live.
Loving someone, in a sense of the word that is anything but normative, requires a certain attitude that most who claim love lack, an attitude of incomparable understanding. To love someone, in a sense of the word that best reflects its definition, one must accept the fact that reciprocation is not a right. The expectation of reciprocation amounts to a misunderstanding of one's feelings. Anyone that expects their beloved to love in return, especially having no prior knowledge of one's feelings, is not in love. A state of "adoration" better describes the situation of expected reciprocation.
Knowing this definition, one should never be afraid to express true love. For even if one is rejected outright, asked never to see the beloved again, the mere fact that one is truly in love negates any possible response. Even if the beloved reciprocates, one's love should be exactly the same: true. Love that changes based on the beloved's reaction is, I contend, false.
That being said, I do not mean to suggest an elimiation of emotion from the acceptance/denial of one's expression of love to the beloved. By rationalizing the situation, one is better apt to accept either decision. One can be happy/upset as long as one knows and understands the reason's for the beloved's decision. When one accepts irrationality, i.e. being happy/upset and not accepting/understanding the beloved's decision, one accepts a false reality where truth and morality are second to illusion. End.