As it is not possible to be "stuck" on language (which is but a tool) unless one has an emotional hold, and as you are not privy to my every thought/feeling day in and day out (other than what I convey via explicit communication), the word of the day after reading your nonsensical pithy assertions is: fatuous. Here it is, fully defined, for the sake of clarity:
silly and pointless: a fatuous comment.
> If you find yourself grabbing a dictionary because you need to establish with your "correspondent" that you're talking about the same thing when you say "love", you have a problem.
Quite the contrary; the very fact that you have vested interest in maintaining nebulous communication (via redefining words to suite one's fancy, such as my correspondent above treating such a deeper feeling of love to be an act, thereby invalidating the sensible investigations around it) indicates to me that all the problem is being projected from the other side.
One of the many benefits of paying sincere attention to one's feelings is that it makes it very easy to sift through what is one's own feeling versus what is being projected by others. You will have a hard time performing your modus-operandi with me.
I agree that appealing to the authority of Webster on the question, "what is love?" is capricious and demeaning.
To reconstruct my point, I meant that, for example, when you say, "I love you," make 'love' a verb in the present tense in your mind. Love willingness and with abandon.
Notice, by the by, that the way that we use the word "love" in casual conversation is often as a verb, not a noun. You never say, "I happiness you" <=- that syntax doesn't make sense for a feeling. And love isn't one.
I submit that the impetus to misconstrue a beautiful act as an emotion is mostly a commercial one.
Does it have this to be this complicated for you? I have been being as considerate as I can of human suffering while engaging with my fellow humans being here asking them why they are so reluctant to question an emotion/feeling that brings so much pain, as is evident from Jesse's post, all throughout human history.
Most people have no qualms with seeing love as a feeling, especially while they mourn in the death bed of their love one, or grief over the loss/rejection of their love object. These feelings are real; they are not merely "thoughts" or "acts". Suffering is a feeling experience.
When you redefine such a core emotion/feeling to be an act, it renders all conversation around it void. From here then there are only two courses of actions: cease conversing, or establish a common ground of understanding before proceeding. I find it somewhat odd that you seem to grasp that a "feeling is not the word itself" (implied from the linked YouTube video) and yet have trouble seeing a feeling as ... a feeling.
Feelings are not thoughts. Feelings are not behavioural acts.
I experienced no "sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behaviour" (which is what capricious means) or intended to demean anyone - as my responses have been no more than a simple pointing out of the above fact.
On the other hand I have random strangers on the internet making uncivil and pretentious remarks such as "You don't understand. You're actually stuck. You can't see it because you're stuck." ... all because I question a cherished feeling?
> To reconstruct my point, I meant that, for example, when you say, "I love you," make 'love' a verb in the present tense in your mind. Love willingness and with abandon. Notice, by the by, that the way that we use the word "love" in casual conversation is often as a verb, not a noun. You never say, "I happiness you" <=- that syntax doesn't make sense for a feeling. And love isn't one. I submit that the impetus to misconstrue a beautiful act as an emotion is mostly a commercial one.
Have you not ever felt, for example, affection (a gentle feeling of fondness or liking) towards someone without necessarily involving any behavioural act or thought? Have you not ever grieved over the loss of someone you loved?