Love is something that brings us on these type of questions....bcoz most of us are in confusion...but according to me--love is about caring anyone we want..if anything happens to those we love seems that happend to us...it may be happiness,joy,sad....etc...connection of feelings iz not only love..as an example -if a man may be a leader does something good for his peoples or country then it's not his feelings connected with people's but that's also love..love for humanity.....samething is with others...someone loves his/her family;frnds;lifepartner;sometime it starts with attraction(boyfriend,girlfriend),nation, thing .........so we should love everything that's good for good people Love iz great....it is that thing that always spread happiness...it's a passion to keep and be happy and satisfied with life......so as someone blessed by god for a good life... .....Love is great.....and people who follow love are more great..so try loving......start loving..and get love get life..bcoz love iz life
late 13c., "restorative powers of the body, bodily processes; powers of growth;" from Old French nature "nature, being, principle of life; character, essence," from Latin natura "course of things; natural character, constitution, quality; the universe," literally "birth," from natus "born," past participle of nasci "to be born," from PIE *gene- "to give birth, beget" (see genus ).
From late 14c. as "creation, the universe;" also "heredity, birth, hereditary circumstance; essential qualities, innate disposition" (. human nature ); "nature personified, Mother Nature." Specifically as "material world beyond human civilization or society" from 1660s. Nature and nurture have been contrasted since 1874. Nature should be avoided in such vague expressions as 'a lover of nature,' 'poems about nature.' Unless more specific statements follow, the reader cannot tell whether the poems have to do with natural scenery, rural life, the sunset, the untouched wilderness, or the habits of squirrels." [Strunk & White, "The Elements of Style," 3rd ed., 1979]
One notable fact about the reception of deconstruction in the United States was its relatively early acceptance by departments of literature compared to departments of philosophy. Undoubtedly , there are several reasons for this, but one may be that, as Geoffrey Hartman notes, “Deconstructive criticism does not present itself as a novel enterprise” because the ambiguity and contextuality, the interplay of the spoken and written word, that deconstruction emphasizes in philosophical texts are both more obvious and more acknowledged in literary ones. At the same time, deconstruction, by foregrounding the fact that “Everything we thought of as spirit, or meaning separable from the letter of the text, remains within an ‘intertextual’ sphere” (DC viii), opened important channels of communication between philosophy and literary studies.