Is Love Truly Real? Perspectives from Science and Society

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carly
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Love
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the question of whether love is real, with participants expressing diverse viewpoints. Some argue that love is a genuine and evolving emotion, shaped by individual experiences and relationships, suggesting that each new love redefines the concept. Others contend that love is merely a chemical reaction in the brain, equating it to other biological urges and questioning its significance beyond a hormonal response. The conversation also touches on the distinction between love and lust, with some participants emphasizing that while both are real, they serve different purposes and elicit different behaviors. The idea that love can be defined as a strong affection that encompasses care, commitment, and mutual respect is presented, contrasting with views that dismiss romantic love as a societal construct or illusion. Ultimately, the debate reflects a complex interplay of emotional, biological, and philosophical perspectives on the nature of love.
  • #91
Of course love is real, love is a chemical reaction to hormones in the brain, how is it not real? What nonsense is this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
loseyourname said:
...arseholes like yourself tend to attract weak-minded women that crave abuse. I'd be wary of anyone that was attracted to me if I were you. It would be better if you found someone that you were actually attracted to (and not just physically, as there is an obvious mental component that sounds important to you).

Insightful stuff (the whole post), and suggests a knotty pattern:

Pattern 1:
A/ Weak-minded masochistic women are attracted to Arseholes.
B/ Arseholes are not attracted to weak-minded masochistic women.
C/ They start dating and it ends in tears.

Pattern 2:
A/ Arseholes are attracted to women who are: an equal, a challenge, very patient, excellent debating skills, attractive. These women are very scarce if they exist as a species at all. Let's call them Penthouse Amazons.
B/ Missing data: Are these women attracted to Arseholes? If we can generalise from Pattern 1 to Pattern 2, then we would predict that Penthouse Amazons are not attracted to Arseholes. (It could be that they are attracted to some other species that exists only in their superb imaginations).
C/ Missing data: If Arseholes and Penthouse Amazons start dating, does it work out well? Again, extrapolating from Pattern 1, they soon realize that they are not getting what they need from each other, and it ends in tears.

I'd like to end this post with some words of wisdom, but... uh... I can't think of anything. How about a few words of wizdumb instead? This is from William James (on drugs):
"Women are monogamous
Men are polygamous.
Higgamous Hoggamous
Hoggamous Higgamous".
 
  • #93
I have some answers to 2B and C, but it'll have to wait.

Along the lines of the Golden Rule - Do unto others as one would have done unto onself. (This does not apply to masochists).

Back later.
 
  • #94
Astronuc said:
I have some answers to 2B and C, but it'll have to wait.

Along the lines of the Golden Rule - Do unto others as one would have done unto onself. (This does not apply to masochists).

Back later.

Back later? What are you doing, cruising the bars for Penthouse Amazons? I hope you don't expect a grant for this 'field research'.
 
  • #95
the number 42 said:
Back later? What are you doing, cruising the bars for Penthouse Amazons? I hope you don't expect a grant for this 'field research'.


Its a special kind of "grant" he's looking for. Besides its friday, that's what friday's are for.
 
  • #96
Astronuc said:
I have some answers to 2B and C, but it'll have to wait.

Along the lines of the Golden Rule - Do unto others as one would have done unto onself. (This does not apply to masochists).

Back later.

I've always lived by the rule "Do unto oneself as you would have others do unto you." I've never thought it a good idea to rely on other people to treat you well. Treat yourself well and be happy with that.
 
  • #97
franznietzsche said:
Its a special kind of "grant" he's looking for. Besides its friday, that's what friday's are for.

franz...I think you missed a day somewhere! :eek: It's Saturday!
 
  • #98
Moonbear said:
franz...I think you missed a day somewhere! :eek: It's Saturday!


Hmmm...well i thought it was odd that a party that wild happened on a thursday. THis explains so much.
 
  • #99
the number 42 said:
Back later? What are you doing, cruising the bars for Penthouse Amazons? I hope you don't expect a grant for this 'field research'.
No, I spent time with my son today - kind of a father-son day. He had to get a hair cut, and I took him to a local festival. Then to a music store. Came home.

I don't cruise bars. I never have, and I never will.

As for Penthouse Amazons - interesting. But my response will have to wait.
 
  • #100
the number 42 said:
Pattern 2:
A/ A******s are attracted to women who are: an equal, a challenge, very patient, excellent debating skills, attractive. These women are very scarce if they exist as a species at all. Let's call them Penthouse Amazons.
B/ Missing data: Are these women attracted to A******s? If we can generalise from Pattern 1 to Pattern 2, then we would predict that Penthouse Amazons are not attracted to A******s. (It could be that they are attracted to some other species that exists only in their superb imaginations).
C/ Missing data: If A******s and Penthouse Amazons start dating, does it work out well? Again, extrapolating from Pattern 1, they soon realize that they are not getting what they need from each other, and it ends in tears.
I have known quite several attractive women who would qualify as Penthouse Amazons, and all of them seem to have attracted the 'wrong' kind of men. Most have married and divorced at least once. Several now live alone.

One of the women I dated during my early years in university went on to pose for Playboy, after she and I had gone separate ways. She was feeling 'rebellious' and just did it. She then married one of the 'popular' guys from the university. I and others thought it was a big mistake.

Down the road, I ran into her at a university function after both of us had been married about one year. She was carrying her months old son with her, while her husband was off somewhere with his buddies. When I mentioned how great it was to be married, she responded "well for some people". After further brief disucssion, it was clear she was miserable. When I had dated her, she was studying Italian (already fluent in English and German), economics and international relations. She had planned a career in international business and finance. When I saw her years later, she had sacrificed all of her dreams for a man who didn't care or had no clue.

I have known several women with similar experiences. So the answer to Pattern 2 B and C, is quite often yes -

2B - Attractive woman falls for the 'wrong' man.
2C - More often however, it is the woman who does not get what she really wants, and the man is clueless (IMO).

I didn't realize that 'franznietzsche' is not quite 18 years of age, until loseyourname pointed it out.

FN, IMO, you're still too young to know whether Love is real or not. Young people think infatuation (desire or lust) is Love. It isn't.

Love is based on mutual respect, honesty/truthfulness, loyalty. Without those attributes, Love does not exist. Also, mutual respect is only possible when a person has self-respect. From self-respect arises "do unto others, as you would others do unto you."

BTW - lose the egotism.

=============================
And the rest of the gentlemen, consider:

Do right by your woman, she'll do right by you. (Bad Company) :cool:
 
Last edited:
  • #101
Astronuc said:
One of the women I dated during my early years in university went on to pose for Playboy, after she and I had gone separate ways. She was feeling 'rebellious' and just did it. She then married one of the 'popular' guys from the university. I and others thought it was a big mistake.

Down the road, I ran into her at a university function after both of us had been married about one year. She was carrying her months old son with her, while her husband was off somewhere with his buddies. When I mentioned how great it was to be married, she responded "well for some people". After further brief disucssion, it was clear she was miserable. When I had dated her, she was studying Italian (already fluent in English and German), economics and international relations. She had planned a career in international business and finance. When I saw her years later, she had sacrificed all of her dreams for a man who didn't care or had no clue.

This is exactly what i don't want. What's the point of a "penthouse amazon" if she loses her independence? She then ceases to be who she is. I've never met a woman for whom this hasn't been a problem though--its one of the classical problems in feminist literature--how does a woman define herself? As a mother, a wife, a girlfriend, but does a woman ever define herself simply as 'Me'?

Any woman who does not define herself simply as 'me' and isntead defines herself in terms of her realtion to others fails to be a 'penthouse amazon', and is patently unattractive, IMO.


Love is based on mutual respect, honesty/truthfulness, loyalty. Without those attributes, Love does not exist.

By definition.

Also, mutual respect is only possible when a person has self-respect. From self-respect arises "do unto others, as you would others do unto you."

I disagree. In fact, i don't see any of the logic behind that.

I can't respect a person who isn't independent, who doesn't exist on her own. It just doesn't work.

A person who does not define themselves independent of those around them, particularly independent of myself, cannot be challenging or interesting. It just doesn't work. That woman you mentioned that you knew, she failed to define herself independently, and isntead defined herself in terms of her realtionship to her husband--her husband defined himself as independent of her--so of course she was going to be miserable.

BTW- lose the egotism

Again, i define myself as independent of others. I exist, whether or not people recognize it, i am who i am regardless of them. If everyone else died tomorrow, and i was the last human being, i would still be exactly who i am today.

To lose the egotism would be to lose that fundamental independence.
 
Last edited:
  • #102
Astronuc said:
I have known quite several attractive women who would qualify as Penthouse Amazons, and all of them seem to have attracted the 'wrong' kind of men. Most have married and divorced at least once. Several now live alone.

Because most of these genetic celebrities have low self-esteem. And depending on how she was raise and her relationship with her dad, being involve with a bad boy is an unconscious way of giving the finger to her father.
 
Last edited:
  • #103
franznietzsche said:
To lose the egotism would be to lose that fundamental independence.
Actually, I am wondering whether or not you mean 'egoism' or 'egocentrism' as opposed to 'egotism'. The former being more self-centered as opposed to simply conceited.

Actually, in either case, the egoistic and egotistic persons are by definition 'dependent' on others to 'feed' their egos, i.e. egoists/egotists 'need' an audience.

To lose 'egoism' or 'egotism' is the true path to independence. :biggrin:

As for independence - successful relationships are based on "inter-dependence". My career is quite independent of my wife and family, however, my career enables me to support my family. My wife's work is independent of the family, but she uses her job to enhance the standard of living of the family. In other words, we both contribute to something in which we both share (example of mutuality).

As for "Penthouse amazons", I really dislike that term. The attractive women I knew did not go as far as exposing their most intimate anatomy to the world as do the women in magazines like Penthouse and Playboy. In fact, all the women I dated or new as friends were, and probably still are, quite modest. They just seem to have met the wrong men.
 
  • #104
Astronuc said:
In fact, all the women I dated or new as friends were, and probably still are, quite modest. They just seem to have met the wrong men.

So you admit to being one of the "wrong men"?
 
  • #105
JasonRox said:
So you admit to being one of the "wrong men"?
Actually, no.

I am on good terms with all the women I dated or knew as friends. I was honest and respectful, and perhaps too reserved.

As I was a university student, then graduate student, my future was uncertain, especially when I changed academic paths from physics to nuclear engineering. Accordingly, my relationships with my girlfriends were all on a friendly (platonic) basis.

In a couple of cases, I declined a level of intimacy for which I was simply not ready, because there was no commitment of marriage. What can I say, I am simply 'old-fashioned'. The women then broke the relationships at that point.
 
  • #106
Astronuc said:
In a couple of cases, I declined a level of intimacy for which I was simply not ready, because there was no commitment of marriage. What can I say, I am simply 'old-fashioned'. The women then broke the relationships at that point.

This is a first in the history of mankind: A guy turning down playboy playmates! my hats off to you

Girls just want to have fun :biggrin:
 
  • #107
Astronuc said:
Actually, in either case, the egoistic and egotistic persons are by definition 'dependent' on others to 'feed' their egos, i.e. egoists/egotists 'need' an audience.

Thats narcissism. I don't need any one's approval to fuel my ego, i do that just fine on my own. I could be the only one left alive, i would still have the same mount everest sized ego.

As for independence - successful relationships are based on "inter-dependence".

I disagree. Interdependenc will tend towards co-dependence, especially with weak-willed people, and i ahve absolutely no interest in anyone who becomes co-dependent in a relationship, it kills any sort of attraction. If the relationship were to end right there, and who she is would change, because she chooses to define herself by her relationships to others, that is too dependent. It is a very fine line between inter-dependent and co-dependent, and one i would prefer to stay away from.

I thought of a better way to describe my opinion, and situation in this matter. Seen the movie Intolerable Cruelty?

Let's just say i feel like miles massey.
 
Last edited:
  • #108
franznietzsche said:
i define myself as independent of others. I exist, whether or not people recognize it, i am who i am regardless of them. If everyone else died tomorrow, and i was the last human being, i would still be exactly who i am today.

To lose the egotism would be to lose that fundamental independence.

Keep the egotism/egoism/ergoschism or whatever, dude. If I was half as cool as you at 17 years old, I'd be several times the geezer I am today. Just keep being yourself.
 
  • #109
Franz I'd clap my hands for everything you say on this post, but I can also cry for you for thinking that way, you will be a misfit and you will find that life and people can be very hard to anyone not willing to conform. Some people will try to crush you for the sheer reason that you by trying to be youself, makes them look bad. I know for I have been there. It's a sad sad world and I can cry a river. Nonetheless, we must have courage to do what we believe in and the wisdom to review and adjust. I'd say also, keep being you.
 
  • #110
the number 42 said:
Keep the egotism/egoism/ergoschism or whatever, dude. If I was half as cool as you at 17 years old, I'd be several times the geezer I am today. Just keep being yourself.


Why do i sense thinly veiled sarcasm?
 
  • #111
I think that at the age of 17 one is hardly in a position to talk about love: these are feelings that develop over time and depend on other things besides infatuation. I do believe that some people will never experience true love, you've got to meet the right person and invest the right kind of energy.

franznietzsche said:
Stress is stress, love is nothing special.
franznietzsche said:
My conclusion? "Love" is cheap, and nothing special. It is as easily gotten as it is lost.
The fact that you've never experienced love, says that in fact love is hard to acquire. You're confusing love with infatuation. In my book, caring about someone is not cheap, truly bonding with someone is not easily gotten and won't be easily lost.
 
  • #112
Monique said:
The fact that you've never experienced love, says that in fact love is hard to acquire. You're confusing love with infatuation. In my book, caring about someone is not cheap, truly bonding with someone is not easily gotten and won't be easily lost.


Yes my statements are based on what i see in everyone else. The only way to make objective observations. I'm not going to base my understanding of an emotion on how i feel that emotion--that is subjective. I'm only interested in objective understandings of anything--the obvious universal that an outsider can see by watching someone else experience that emotion. And i know what i have seen.

Since all of you insist on bringing in whether or not I've ever felt love, i will say that once i felt what i would have qualified as love. It certainly wasn't lust, and you can call it infatuation, but i don't think so. Let's just say she was the only girl that ever met my criteria of being an equal and a challenge. Things just didn't work out unfortunately, despite my best efforts.
 
  • #113
franznietzsche said:
Yes my statements are based on what i see in everyone else. The only way to make objective observations.
Well, how do you evaluate the emotions of other people, and which group of people did you observe? True love is not ubiquitous.
 
  • #114
franznietzsche said:
Why do i sense thinly veiled sarcasm?

Because you are a dipstick.
 
  • #115
the number 42 said:
Because you are a dipstick.
I <3 you too?
 
  • #116
franznietzsche said:
I <3 you too?

Well it is Valentine's Day :rolleyes:
 
  • #117
the number 42 said:
Well it is Valentine's Day :rolleyes:

Will you be my valentine?
 
  • #118
Only if you have good taste in blokes :blushing:
 
  • #119
Is it too late to rephrase that?
 
  • #120
franznietzsche said:
Since all of you insist on bringing in whether or not I've ever felt love, i will say that once i felt what i would have qualified as love. It certainly wasn't lust, and you can call it infatuation, but i don't think so. Let's just say she was the only girl that ever met my criteria of being an equal and a challenge. Things just didn't work out unfortunately, despite my best efforts.

So which bit of love isn't real then? The bit where you don't both live happily ever after together, & have 2.4 kids? Love may not work out, but it doesn't mean its not real. It can be a real pain.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 340 ·
12
Replies
340
Views
31K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
7K