Philosophy of Love

Royce

AG, The reason for the confusion is that I think love is both subjective and objective. I don't believe that we can seperate it into exclusively one or the other. IMO love is also spiritual, but thats my bag and I won't impose it here.

Another point is which came first. Is love a result of chemistry or is chemistry the result of love? I don't think that we can really tell at this point. It's the old chicken and egg delema.

As far as soul mates are concerned, I was using the term in strictly common usage. I have no idea what it really means. I know that it happens reguardless of sex or species.

While we cannot directly measure love we can measure its effects in an objective way. What I have postulated here is a well known well observed and measured phenomenon. I don't think that that is in question. I, however, don't think that we can put love under a microscope and study it scientifically because it is both objective and subjective and like an egg it can not be seperated without losing its essential integrity. To try to do so destroys and renders useless or at least meaningless the very thing we are trying to study.

There are some things in life and the universe that simply defy the scientific method. They cannot be disected, measured, analyzed or quantumized. They must be accepted on their terms alone. Love in my opinion it one of those things and probably at the head of the list.

Science is a tool with limited applicability and scope. It is not the universal method of knowledge that we would like it to be. We cannot measure everything and simply because we can not measure it does not mean that it does not exist objectively and well as subjectively. There is no, and can never be one real theory of everything.

Another God

What makes you think that?

I disagree [:))]

Royce

The fact that I believe that there is more than physical matter and energy in and to life and the universe, that there are things that are both subjective and objective and are real, that the subjective can and does effect the objective. That is what make me think that.
"There are more things under the stars, Horatio, than are drempt of by your philosophers." (or something like that.)

Zantra

I'll answer that- Because subjective influences skew logistics of objectivity. Our perception is how we objectively define things along with logistics. That perception is altered by subjective things. Follow me?

Royce

Gee, I wish I'd said that, Zantra! Thanks.[:)]

Another God

Oh sure, so the scientific method will never make us know the objective. Fine, I'll admit to that. I am compelled to by my understanding of the objective.

But as such, since I believe the scientific method (and any other method) simply CANNOT ever allow a subjective point of view to be able to know the objective, all the sci method could possibly strive for, is to align their subjective view with the objective reality.

And I belive that is what science tries to, and does do. It takes time, and revision, and alterations of previous beliefs, but it happens.

Royce

Is'nt all knowledge subjective whether it be knowledge of objective reality or abstract subjective thought? We can only know in our minds or brains if you prefer. Even the measurements of the pure objective are subjective perceptions of what we believe our intruments are measuring and telling us.
This is why, inpart, I say that we can not seperate the two. One of the other reasons I believe as I do is that I am convinced that there is more to reality than objective materialism. Knowledge, logic, thought, reason, emotion, love, mind vs brain and heart,soul, spirit, whatever you prefer to call it is real but not objective. It can and does effect the real material world and thus can be indirectly measured. This IMO make it every bit *** real as the pure objective material rock we all allude to.