Is Love Truly Real? Perspectives from Science and Society

[franznietzsche]

That is some superficiality on your side. They have nothing interesting to say, since you are not interested in them. When I talk to other people, I notice that they've got a lot of interesting things to say (ask the right questions and listen). Being big-headed and a know-it-all really puts off people to share their views.

Notice in your quote how you look down on women, while you just stated that you shouldn't judge.

No, i look down on people who talk about nothing except what was on TV last night(if one more person asks me if i saw the previous night's episode of The OC, i swear to god, I'm throwing them off the cliffs at pismo). And to be fair, everything is i say of women is usually also true of men, but being that i am not interested in dating men, i don't tend to bother noticing.

If you think I'm superficiaul because i'd rather have a discussion about dostoevsky than brad pitt's backside, then fine, I'm a shallow bastard. Whatever you say Monique.

When did i say i shouldn't judge? I don't recall ever saying that...

 

[Monique]

That's called small talk, social interaction. I'm saying that it is superficial to think that people who engage in small talk have nothing interesting to say. You should first find out what their true interests are.

Maybe you're interacting with people in an age group that haven't fully developed their views yet, very likely.

I've met people who were not into science, but who I've borrowed some of my books to that lead to discussions. Others were against intellectual discussions, but now take a lead in bringing up topics. Also they bring up social and economical issues, where I learn a lot from them. None of them are bookworms.

You mentioned yourself that you shouldn't judge someone on their worldview:

people having a different world view does not make them 'stupid' or 'morons'

I've met many people who have a lot to say, but you can't constantly talk only about a single topic. You're not a shallow bastard, I can't claim that I know you

 

[franznietzsche]

That's called small talk, social interaction. I'm saying that it is superficial to think that people who engage in small talk have nothing interesting to say. You should first find out what their true interests are.

Maybe you're interacting with people in an age group that haven't fully developed their views yet, very likely.

Yeah, still makes them shallow and uninteresting. Changes nothing I've said.

I've met people who were not into science, but who I've borrowed some of my books to that lead to discussions. Others were against intellectual discussions, but now take a lead in bringing up topics. Also they bring up social and economical issues, where I learn a lot from them. None of them are bookworms.

I live with the people I'm talking about, i hear what they're saying all the time--and they're all saying the same inane pointless crap. And the few times they venture into anything more intellectually challenging than their hairstyles, its something that was spoon-fed to them that they just regurgitate, without rhyme or reason. They are completely boring. No originality in anything they say. Spouting off something intelligent does not make you intelligent. Being intelligent allows you to say something intelligent that you haven't been told to say by someone else. And so very very few people have that capacity.

You mentioned yourself that you shouldn't judge someone on their worldview:

Since you seem to be neglecting the presence of the word worldview:

Worldview: 1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

Idiocy is not inculded. Repeating endlessly the opinions which other people spoon-feed you is not included. Being trite, shallow, or inane are not included. There's plenty i feel perfectly free to be judgemental about. I simply said i cannot judge people for an a priori assumption that is in no way more valid than my own a priori assumption. Thats a fairly limited field compared to the wide range of things one can be judgemental about.

I've met many people who have a lot to say, but you can't constantly talk only about a single topic.

Oh they manage to all the time. The same trite crap endlessly.

You're not a shallow bastard, I can't claim that I know you

Well which is it? If you can't claim to know me, then you really can't say I'm not a shallow bastard, you wouldn't know. Can't have it both ways.

 

[motai]

I live with the people I'm talking about, i hear what they're saying all the time--and they're all saying the same inane pointless crap. And the few times they venture into anything more intellectually challenging than their hairstyles, its something that was spoon-fed to them that they just regurgitate, without rhyme or reason. They are completely boring. No originality in anything they say. Spouting off something intelligent does not make you intelligent. Being intelligent allows you to say something intelligent that you haven't been told to say by someone else. And so very very few people have that capacity.

Yes, this is true, but they also probably see us as being incredibly boring with our intelligent conversations. "Dostoyevsky? Thats boring!" they will say as they continue to talk about their hair and what color they dyed it this morning.

"What, are you talking about calculus again?! Stop it!"
"Physics is boring. So are you."
"Why are you doing math again!"
"You do one more equation on that board and ill throw this book at you"

etcetera

We are just as boring as they are. Sure, to us, we try to find meaning and purpose, but to them, we are probably just as shallow. Nothing we can do about it, and we can't change them. We just have to find our own kind, a group that is becoming exceedingly rare.

Kinda weird how perception colors things?

 

[franznietzsche]

Yes, this is true, but they also probably see us as being incredibly boring with our intelligent conversations. "Dostoyevsky? Thats boring!" they will say as they continue to talk about their hair and what color they dyed it this morning.

"What, are you talking about calculus again?! Stop it!"
"Physics is boring. So are you."
"Why are you doing math again!"
"You do one more equation on that board and ill throw this book at you"

etcetera

I'm usually the one throwing books and chasing them off. But i can be a militant little bugger. And i always have my purely machiavellian nature to fall back on. I have no problem charming people, its just whether its worth putting up with them.

We are just as boring as they are. Sure, to us, we try to find meaning and purpose, but to them, we are probably just as shallow. Nothing we can do about it, and we can't change them. We just have to find our own kind, a group that is becoming exceedingly rare.

Kinda weird how perception colors things?

Nah, not weird. Predictable. These people are easily manipulated. They might think what i like is boring, but i rarely give up enough control of a social situation for it to matter what they think about me. The determining factor, 4 times out of 5 will be if i can tolerate what comes out of their mouth, not the other way around. I may be a geek, but I'm a slick one.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I know what your saying Franznietzsche; however, I'd like to add another variable to the equation: the annoying intellectuals. While I crave conversation with individuals on intellectual ability and insight, I encounter people who are intelligent but repetitive and boring. For example, it can be boring when an intelligent person wants to do math constantly - yes, the concept was interesting, but after a few problems you've got it comprehended - algebra isn't always that interesting. Unfortunately, sometimes I fall into the category of the "annoying intellectual."

It isn't always intellectual conversation that is needed, but insight which requires intelligence but doesn't always result from it. Small talk is generally pointless and irritating, and conversation with the average person is almost always a waste of breath. Unfortunately, I'm forced to deal with people often have to tolerate, but I cope - my strategy is talking about complete nonsense to cause laughter which, even if it's at something stupid, is usually contagious; furthermore, it's easy to get the average person to laugh.

 

[franznietzsche]

It isn't always intellectual conversation that is needed, but insight which requires intelligence but doesn't always result from it.

I consider intellectual conversation to be inseperable from said insight. But i that might be because i have a higher standard of what i would even call intelligent. Your typical honors student is still an idiot, IMO. I was surrounded by them in high school, all IB classes, which the last two years were fairly selective in terms of who could even be in them, and i could still count on my hands the number of non-morons in the whole lot of 50 or so (without using binary).

Small talk is generally pointless and irritating, and conversation with the average person is almost always a waste of breath.

Is always a waste of breath. No almost.

Unfortunately, I'm forced to deal with people often have to tolerate, but I cope - my strategy is talking about complete nonsense to cause laughter which, even if it's at something stupid, is usually contagious; furthermore, it's easy to get the average person to laugh.

I play mind games with them. I'm a real jerk sometimes to stupid people, sorry to say, but i am. I'll screw with them as much as i possibly can. If they ever figure it out, and the smarter ones do, oh well, they can take a number and get in line if they've got a problem with me. The only people who's opinions matter to me, are the ones who have anything worthwhile to say. And those are the people i usually can't screw with, even if i try.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Are you nihilist? I thought I was fairly eccentric when it came to my personal anthropologic views, but my opinions seem like silhouette of yours; however, I'd still disagree that converation with the average person is always a waste of breath, from the context of our conversation. Nevertheless, if you're looking at it from a more philosophical perspective or other viewpoint, I might agree. Also, if the subtleties in your message were intentional, they were cleverly designed. Either you or my paranoia messed with my head for a moment.

 

[franznietzsche]

Are you nihilist?

Nihilist? Well, i suppose one could use that word, but the dictionary definition is going a bit far. As my name should hint, I'm a huge fan of Nietzsche, and if you read The Will To Power (one must keep in mind that it was edited by his proto-fascist sister, not by him however) we read:

Radical nihilism is the conviction of an absolute untenability of existence when it comes to the highest values one recognizes; plus the realization that we lack the least right to posit a beyond or an in-itself of things that might be "divine" or morality incarnate.

...

The logic of pessimism down to ultimate nihilism: what is at work in it? The idea of valuelessness, meaninglessness: to what extent moral valuations hide behind all other high values.
Conculsion: Moral value judgements are ways of passing sentence, negations; morality is a way of turning one's back on the will to existence

...

Nihlism represents a pathological transitional stage(what is pathological is the tremendous generalization, the inference that there is no meaning at all): whether the productive forces are not yet strong enough, or whether decadence still hesitates and has not yet invented its remedies.
Presupposition of this hypothesis: that there is no truth, that there is no absolute nature of things nor a "thing-in-itself." This, too, is merely nihilism--even the most extreme nihilism. It places the value of things precisely in the lack of any reality corresponding to these values and in their being merely a symptom of strength on the part of the value-positers, a simplifcation for the sake of life.

I agree with the rejection of a priori values--a prejudice born of a more scientific mind--if i can't prove it, its worthless. To say good is better than evil is worthless, it cannot be proven without an assumption. Any proof is only as good as that assumption. Nietzstche goes still further to reject the idea of good and evil as opposites, and the rejection of opposite values in general, arguing rather that they are merely two different degrees. My agreement with this is not born of some liberal ideal of there being no such things as evil, quite the opposite really. Its born of my insistence on proof for every conclusion, one cannot good and evil to be truly opposites, it is an a priori.

I thought I was fairly eccentric when it came to my personal anthropologic views, but my opinions seem like silhouette of yours; however, I'd still disagree that converation with the average person is always a waste of breath, from the context of our conversation. Nevertheless, if you're looking at it from a more philosophical perspective or other viewpoint, I might agree. Also, if the subtleties in your message were intentional, they were cleverly designed. Either you or my paranoia messed with my head for a moment.

Some of the subtleties were intentional, some might have just been your paranoia.

 

[fifiki]

In answering the original question. No. Love is an illusion. A fantasy that might leave imprints.

 

[Astronuc]

morality is a way of turning one's back on the will to existence

Oh, I disagree with that statement.

And, throwing aside the euphemisms, Love is very real.

As a dear friend of mine mentioned recently, "When you love someone, you give them life." And I very much agree with that.

 

[franznietzsche]

Oh, I disagree with that statement.

I honestly doubt you know what he means when he says will to existence. Its not what it seems really. Problem with Nietzsche, its in translation, and if you read scattered quotes they can be misleading. If you read whole works, the subtleties start to come out through sheer repetition, though each instance is slightly mangled, reading it fifteen times in different contexts allows its meaning to come through.

 

[Monique]

I know what your saying Franznietzsche; however, I'd like to add another variable to the equation: the annoying intellectuals. While I crave conversation with individuals on intellectual ability and insight, I encounter people who are intelligent but repetitive and boring. For example, it can be boring when an intelligent person wants to do math constantly - yes, the concept was interesting, but after a few problems you've got it comprehended - algebra isn't always that interesting. Unfortunately, sometimes I fall into the category of the "annoying intellectual."

Yes, anyone who can talk only about a single topic is minimally developed. To really develop yourself you should do so socially and intellectually, and be knowledgeable about a wide variety of subjects. Those are the most interesting to talk to, and I've met many (that's why it concerns me that franznietzsche thinks they don't exist).

Your own worldview determines how you view the world: when you think that everyone is stupid, they'll all be stupid.

 

[motai]

Yes, anyone who can talk only about a single topic is minimally developed. To really develop yourself you should do so socially and intellectually, and be knowledgeable about a wide variety of subjects. Those are the most interesting to talk to, and I've met many (that's why it concerns me that franznietzsche thinks they don't exist).

They do exist, no doubt about it. But I have a very difficult time trying to find them. Usually my conversations involve some sort of philosophy (life and otherwise), music (theory and general listening), mathematics and sciences (in particular theoretical abstractions that involve lots of philosophy), and oftentimes just introspection that can lead to insight. I stumble in areas such as the realm of smalltalk, but I can navigate it if I need to.

Actually, the closest I came to love was when many of these values that I had were shared... I don't think that 'opposites attract' will ever work for me, perhaps personality wise, but my worldview must be shared in order for anything to happen.

Now that I look back on it, my list of topics is fairly small. I rely heavily on my own introspectiveness in many conversations, so I guess there isn't too much depth to my personality , or at least I cannot see it (others probably can but I am having a difficult time trying to define myself right now).

 

[Bladibla]

They do exist, no doubt about it. But I have a very difficult time trying to find them. Usually my conversations involve some sort of philosophy (life and otherwise), music (theory and general listening), mathematics and sciences (in particular theoretical abstractions that involve lots of philosophy), and oftentimes just introspection that can lead to insight. I stumble in areas such as the realm of smalltalk, but I can navigate it if I need to.

Actually, the closest I came to love was when many of these values that I had were shared... I don't think that 'opposites attract' will ever work for me, perhaps personality wise, but my worldview must be shared in order for anything to happen.

Now that I look back on it, my list of topics is fairly small. I rely heavily on my own introspectiveness in many conversations, so I guess there isn't too much depth to my personality , or at least I cannot see it (others probably can but I am having a difficult time trying to define myself right now).

I believe you are underestimating yourself too much, or maybe it is that you overestimate too much of other people.

Its the opposite i think. There is more depth to your personality than one would be of at your age. Maybe you just arn't intrieged the same way as your collegues are about e.g. Beautiful women. I'm not implying that you actually are uninterested in them, but you'd rather be of something else in the meantime.

Getting prepared to get slapped from people who think I'm wrong.. (most likely the case)

 

[Monique]

Ah well, the process of growing up motai It seems franznietzsche is on cloud nine.. perhaps love does exist?

 

[Alkatran]

An illusion, and a lie.

I'm tired of arguing against people who refuse to stick to a single definition of love in arguement. I didn' say love didn't exist, i said it was nothing more than a chemical state in the brain nothing important or particularly special. No more special than my desire to eat, or th input my brain receives from my eyes.

Yes, but eating doesn't give as much happiness as love.

 

[Bladibla]

Yes, but eating doesn't give as much happiness as love.

To some people it is

off topic: Nice intimidating avatar

 

[kaos]

Yes, but eating doesn't give as much happiness as love.

try saying that when ur hungry