Do you believe in love?

[motai]

Perhaps love is one of those things which the sum is greater than of its parts? It could just be an evolutionary or neurological response, but could it also be something greater?

Love seems to to be extremely irrational at times (it can be found in the strangest of places) or downright paradoxical. Take for example my parents: when they got divorced, the last act of love that my mom made was to sign the divorce papers from my dad. She loved him so much that she agreed to give up that love so that my dad would be happy.

In my opinion, it seems that the greatest sign of love occurs when a person in the relationship would love the other so much that they would give love up.

 

[Kerrie]

I suppose you can view everything from a purely mechanical viewpoint, but this is a self-destructive viewpoint. To say that love is just a series of chemical reactions is pattenly absurd. It is not nature vs nurture, but nature and nurture. Some people are utterly incapable of loving, and this has been proven to be to their disadvantage and caused by a lack of nurturing.

i agree wuli...perhaps those of us who assert a nature vs nurture and forget we need one with the other have lacked nurture themselves...

The fact that the emotion of love evolved means it must have been reproductively advantageous (do you believe in Darwinian evolution?) meaning that humans have needed love for their offspring to survive long enough to reproduce and so on.

you asked if i believed in the darwinian evolution, thus you must be implying slightly that it is yet still a theory and not fact...just remember, only fools are sure of themselves

 

[Les Sleeth]

There is more scientific evidence supporting a biological origin of human behavior than a supernatural origin.

Why assume those are the only two choices?

Actually, plenty of research is available in the field of psychometrics and behavioral genetics that explains much of human behavior.

Behavior does not explain consciousness, and genetics cannot account for all human behavior. If I am driving a car, are you going to attribute all its behavior to car mechanics? Yes, a great deal of the car's behavior is due to the mechanics of the car. But when I aim it towards Yosemite, all the reasons the car is heading in that direction cannot be explained by the car's mechanical systems. Similarly, physicalists study the human looking ONLY at physiology and then concludes ONLY physiology is running the physical system. Gee, I wonder why.

Yes, pragmatists choose to have tangible and empirical explanations for everything, while others choose religious beliefs.

I see you want to reserve the label "pragmatist" for your opinions, but I am a pragmatist myself and it isn't limited to only what is approved by science (I assume that's what you mean by "empiricial" although all it really means is experieced-based investigation).

Again, why do you think the only choices are physicalist evolution and religion? You might consider broadening your reading list.

Actually, most just have a rudimentary understanding of Evolutionary Psychology.

Well, you are at a science site, so the percentage is higher. In any case, I sure hope you don't start "educating" us.

But the subject was love, and you implied it is only emotion. Would you care to define emotion? I dispute it because of my own definition which is, human sensitivity enhanced by hormones. So I recognize there is a feeling which is hormone induced, and we label it "love." But I also know about another feeling which is not like that. This love is felt inside oneself alone, and doesn't require the love "object" to be any particular way (and in one of its aspects doesn't require the love object at all!). I've been married a long time, and I can confidently report that the non-emotional love is better, even for my marriage. It is stronger, comes without strings attached, and makes me happy without needing anything in return.

Now, has genetics produced that potential in me? I don't think so but you do. From my debating experiences here, I don't believe there is anything either of us can say to change the other's mind. That's why my answer to Michelle would be to dive into and enjoy love rather than trying to figure it out in advance. After experiencing it enough, then make up your own mind about it. And if I were to make a recommendation I'd say, watch out for emotional love, but to fearlessly give the strong, non-emotional kind of love a try.

 

[pace]

First off I think we must divide true love / loving actions between people, and infatuation.
Love is something I believe in, but then it's something that correspond with something that's strictly speaking: getting better. And it's action, either 'to yourself' or others. But something that's not easily understood, something that's essential in all things you do. I consider that the more lively it is the more love it contains(or the better it is), eg. good actions between people. So only good action creates life, it creates something. If you invent something that seems really advanced to us, but it doesn't end up to good, then strictly speaking: it's not good for anything, it's not love, or it's useless. That's as simple as I manage to describe it or understand it now.
I think it's with love as with intelligence. We're not supposed to reach the bottom of it. It's endless so to speak. Maybe it's bound to feelings because feelings are the liveliest thing we know.

And that evolution only applies to physics doesn't make any sense to me either. Why shouldn't it also count for mental, loving, moral and systematic states too?
(tried to make it a little more clearer)

 

[Enos]

I'm having trouble interpeting the middle blah in your responce. But I'll take it as it is and try to understand.

Michelle S, I'd prefer not to share my words. It's quite more interesting to read others. But there are words to express and that is what I wanted to share and that is the obvious for I have great talents in observing the obvious.

 

[Les Sleeth]

And that evolution only applies to physics doesn't make any sense to me either. Why shouldn't it also count for mental, loving and systematic states too?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "evolution." My objection at least is attributing all human characteristics to having been "selected" by nature to help humans survive, and to therefore being the result of genetic programming. Some people use the term "evolution" not in a Darwinist sense, and simply to mean to develop, however that might be.

Michelle asked if love could be two souls joining. That is a common explanation, as you probably know. But to be true in some way doesn't necessarily imply supernaturalism. Consciousness, for instance, might not in essence be physical; possibly, as many have reported, there is some common basis we all share as consciousness. In that case, the term "love" might be a way we refer to how it feels when we experience that common, non-physical basis. So evolution could be applied in a non-physical way if we use it to mean the development of consciousness's ability to experience that sort of "oneness."

 

[Enos]

There is always a core answer but that doesn't make the other answers wrong. Being born is just the beginning, you still have to grow up.

 

[Loren Booda]

I believe in a love defined as a relationship with shared emotion and epiphanic experiences, but do I believe in a love that lasts through time and tribulation?

 

[Enos]

I don't know if you do.

 

[pace]

Yeah, I think you're into something interesting sleeth.

Some people use the term "evolution" not in a Darwinist sense, and simply to mean to develop, however that might be.

Yea, I develloped it in my previous post to more.
I guess then that people use the word love for three things. Either infatuation. Or as you say two souls(or beings) joining. Or the more general term as I meant in my first post: The underlying goodness in all things.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "evolution." My objection at least is attributing all human characteristics to having been "selected" by nature to help humans survive, and to therefore being the result of genetic programming.

And Yea. But emotions and love aren't just there for helping us to survive, but also for deriving great pleasure or love, for it's own sake. But to me it doesn't help if you have system if you don't have love(as I understands it in my previous post).
Generally there's too much litterature around me that defines Order as The Good thing. It's a tradition from many religions. Not that I wanna blame religions here. Maybe focusing on systems in a certain period of time was the right thing to do. But I think it's alittle sad we live in days where we've too much forgotten the understanding of love as something that's good for everyone. An undermining of our understanding and life when we use it for something that's just between two persons.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Generally there's too much litterature around me that defines Order as The Good thing.

LOL! I love that. Norway . . . heavy Germanic influence.

I think order is a Good thing unless it becomes all one focuses on, and then it becomes a Dominance thing or an Anal thing or a computer Nerdy thing. The question is, is order all there is to our existence?

Some say the flow between the ordered points have value, and in fact is what makes life for the conscious being enjoyable.

Wouldn't it be nice to find people who could appreciate both aspects? Typically one finds either someone so obsessed with order they talk like a robot, or someone so repulsed by order they are flakey.

 

[pace]

It's not just germanic though, but also with religions. It also lies in early parts of the bible where order became from chaos in the begining. And even hinduism from what I've read.

I'm aiming for a smart lady. Someone that's passionate about her studies maybe :uhh:

 

[Les Sleeth]

It's not just germanic though, but also with religions. It also lies in early parts of the bible where order became from chaos in the begining. And even hinduism from what I've read.

True. Actually, I think those ancient seers were onto something. Chaos is definitely not the general rule of creation. Order is what makes things possible along with whatever fundamental "stuff" that order is organizing. That's why I think the truth about reality lies in two aspects of the same thing. The "thing" is some basic existential "stuff" which is eternal, uncreated, indestructible. The "two sides" are, the organized thing and the unorganized thing.

I'm aiming for a smart lady. Someone that's passionate about her studies maybe :uhh:

Ahhhhhh . . . romance. :blush: Well, in addition to being smart, my wife is tolerant (of me). Now there's a great quality to find in a mate.

 

[pace]

System, either order or chaos. I think you need a balance, so I don't see either of them as more important. Some relgions define chaos as almost evil, which the way I see it is undermining chaos alot. Chaos and order is something that needs to correlate between eachother to create.
Me and Kierkegaard needs to put some sense into the world I see. If I just could get into him someday. He was danish you know. He was very antisystematic though, "Philosophers should never be put into a philosophy history".
As I see it both Love and Thought there can't be too much off. But to define thought primarely as order I can't do.

 

[Thallium]

It's not just germanic though, but also with religions. It also lies in early parts of the bible where order became from chaos in the begining. And even hinduism from what I've read.

I'm aiming for a smart lady. Someone that's passionate about her studies maybe :uhh:

You'd better aim for me then, fellow Norwegian! I'm very passionate about everything I study...

 

[olde drunk]

olde drunk, your view on the universe is quite intriguing.

you seem to be pretty spiritual, but the big question is, do you feel the spiritual world also has effects on physical world? that these two are intrisically bound together?

i believe that our physical experience springs from the spiritual. our physical experience is a reflection of our spiritual state. i do not like words like progress because it implies that there is a heriarchy within the spiritual, which i strongly reject.

we all need to pass through many phases, spiritually, and i do not think that any phase is higher or lower than another.

lastly, we are multi-dimensional and all aspect work together to create and improve our experience. they are bound together because there is no separation of self. our unconscious can not operate alone any more than our physical body can operate without our spiritual aspects. to me, the unconscious is part of the spiritual.

through the years i have found that love is a much more potent emotion than it's counterpart. it just doesn't provide instant gratification. when i reach out in a loving way, i am always amazed at how many neat, pleasant events happen. sadly, when i am angry, and interact, all i get is negative reactions.

my experiences aren't laboratory proof of anything. but, in my laboratory of life, i have proved the value of love. yes, it has caused pain, mostly because of imaturity. that pain, however, proves that i did feel love.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Thallium]

System, either order or chaos. I think you need a balance, so I don't see either of them as more important. Some relgions define chaos as almost evil, which the way I see it is undermining chaos alot. Chaos and order is something that needs to correlate between eachother to create.
Me and Kierkegaard needs to put some sense into the world I see. If I just could get into him someday. He was danish you know. He was very antisystematic though, "Philosophers should never be put into a philosophy history".
As I see it both Love and Thought there can't be too much off. But to define thought primarely as order I can't do.

That sweet Kierkegaard was NORWEGIAN, laddy. He moved to Denmark and Denish-ed his name! You may say he is a part of our cultural pride! :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2:

 

[pace]

That sweet Kierkegaard was NORWEGIAN, laddy. He moved to Denmark and Denish-ed his name! You may say he is a part of our cultural pride! :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2:

http://www.webcom.com/kierke/bio/backgr.html [Broken]
I'm afraid you're misinformed.
Danish and norwegian culture is of course very intertwined though.

 

[michelle s]

Do you believe food is tasty, or a means of sustenance ?

It is ultimately whatever you believe it to be. If you believe it to be a chemical reaction, then it will be nothing more than a biological function. If you believe it's something more, then you may find more joy in it. Since love is subjective, you only get out of it what you put into it.

To put it more plainly, it is both, and how you choose to view it determines it's true value.

Thank you this is very helpful

 

[olde drunk]

Yes, the ability for a human brain to think scientifically is the result of the actual biology of brain.

Truth of the universe found in our genes? I am discussing human emotions, such as emotional attachment. The biological makeup of our brains enable us to think, to feel hunger, thirst, sexual drive, etc. Basic emotions like thirst, hunger, sexual drive, and fear are programmed in the medulla of the brain, as well as in other animals and the medulla is what we humans have in common with lower animals. The especially unique thing about humans is that we have a much bigger cerebral cortex allowing for behavior associated with a much higher IQ.

If our emotion are not the result of programms in our brains, then the only other answer is that some outside force is controlling are brains, such as supernatural force, and I am not inclined to entertain such ideas in the context of science. I am not saying that supernatural things don't exist, but rather that they should have no place in science.

that OUTSIDE SOURCE is you, your mind! the body and brain contain the chemicals, neurons, etc but, YOU are the one that creates the action.

why can't science absorb the non physical into it's world? more and more each day researchers are finding that we have powers that are well in excess of chance measurements.

most recently on Discovery - Science channel they showed an experiment where related people were separated. the reciever was put into a big bank type vault and rigged with several sensors. the sender was asked to view a slide show. the most intriguing effect was when the view saw food, the reciever had a reaction on the abdominal sensor. a 'gut feeling'????

it is easy for philosophy to embrace science, now it may be time for science to embrace the para normal. QT may be that bridge. perhaps it exists on the macro level, we just haven't looked for it.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[TENYEARS]

Love may not be possesed, as much as pain may not be. Love frees pain purges, both work from opposite ends of the spectrum toward the same end. The result of these things is an understanding, this understanding goes beyond your skin. It is not the object that is the love, for the love resides within you around you. The person/object/etc.. that happens to free you is what you associate with the experience, but is it that object/person/etc..?

 

[Zantra]

What is love?

baby don't hurt me.. no more..

Ya I beat you all to the punch:P

Anyhow, love is about sacrifice. Love is willingess to put the needs and wants of another person ahead of your own. That to me defines love in it's simplest terms.

People want to break love down into a biological function. They want to put it into a category that it can't fit into. round hole, square peg. You could argue that things like chocolate serve no purpose as there is no (scientifically proven) evidence that they contribute any nutritional value. Things like Art and music serve no function or purpose beyond thier aesthetic value, so they should be discarded. Or at least that's what proponents of the biological standpoint are advocating. Love is an emotional response that can not, or at least should not be measure or broken down into scientific terms.

I agree with the earlier poster. Love is greater than the sum of it's parts.