Philosophy of Love

  • Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date
  • #1
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
827
14

Main Question or Discussion Point

Is there such a thing as true love at first sight, or does true love take time? I personally feel that love is something that grows and is not instant, although others would disagree because of their own experiences...love is on my mind as I have officially become engaged to the love of my life this past week
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
175
Originally posted by Kerrie
I have officially become engaged to the love of my life this past week
:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:

CONGRATULATIONS!

:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #3
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
Congrats to you.
I always thought of love as something whic occurs over a long time etc. It makes most sense. How can you be expected to love something which you don't even know?

But I have recently changed my philosophy somewhat. I now believe that there is 'Recognition of Love at first sight.' As in, you can tell straight away whether you would be able to fall in love with someone or not. Of course, you can't BE in love with someone at first sight...you don't even know what you are in love with, but after several moments of conversation, you quickyl get that feeling which says to you "Yep...this person is awesome" or not... And from there, its only a matter of time.
 
  • #4
755
0
Originally posted by Kerrie
Is there such a thing as true love at first sight, or does true love take time? I personally feel that love is something that grows and is not instant, although others would disagree because of their own experiences...love is on my mind as I have officially become engaged to the love of my life this past week
I think what happens is learning. Learning must happen first. One must learn what they love before they can love something or someone.

Over time one becomes experienced in what turns their crank. Say its dark hair or blonde or curly red hair. Next say its a high forehead or shiney skin or low cheekbones with a stone imbedded in the lip.

Now say those preferences have deep seated roots in the person who is looking for love or willing to experience it.

They look for those features... but they also look for the attributes that come with a person who fulfills their physical ideas of something to love.

Say those attributes are social engagement or introvertedness or a good hearty laugh... etc... these will play a part in the first moments of meeting a person to love.

Say you love the Yang Se river. Say the mountains and the mist really turn you on. Say you go there because you intitially fell in love with the documentary you saw about the river. Say you go there to continue exploring your love for the place and the draw it has on you. Now say you get there and there are 18 trillion mosquitos, SARS victims and a flood because of non-stop rain.

Do you still love the Yang Se river? Or do you love the documentary you saw of it?

Some one who really commited to loving the Yang Se would take all the adversities with it and love it and continue to explore it to make sure this was their love.

They'd go up the river and a wind would blow and the sun would come out and it would get better. Then it might get dark and spooky, bandits might rob you or worse... all on the Yang Se river. Would you still love the river?

(edit)PS: I'm not too sure but I think what happens is that we love the experience of love... probably more than the stimulus that evokes the "love" response.

Kerry, please define "love" as it is used in your opening post. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
57
0
Originally posted by Another God
Congrats to you.
I always thought of love as something whic occurs over a long time etc. It makes most sense. How can you be expected to love something which you don't even know?

But I have recently changed my philosophy somewhat. I now believe that there is 'Recognition of Love at first sight.' As in, you can tell straight away whether you would be able to fall in love with someone or not. Of course, you can't BE in love with someone at first sight...you don't even know what you are in love with, but after several moments of conversation, you quickyl get that feeling which says to you "Yep...this person is awesome" or not... And from there, its only a matter of time.
FIRST OFF...............congrats!!!!! That is just awesome!!!!

I have to agree in that there may not be such a thing where you know the first time you lock eyes on the person but I do believe that within a short amount of time.... a couple of minutes or a couple of days you have either subconsciously made up your mind as to weather this is someone that has potential or someone who does not have a snowballs chance..... I think that men sometimes take longer to admit then woman but I really hate to generalize.
 
  • #6
740
3
Love at first sight? cmon people

There is LUST at first sight not love. You can be attracted to someone, but without actually talking to them, it's all physical, and that's called lust.

I'm currently engaged, and I can say for sure that it wasn't love at first sight. I mean maybe it was lust:wink: But definitely not love. That's something that happens gradually over time.
 
  • #7
477
4
as i have said before, i don't "believe" in love. i recognize that it exist, of course, but i find it can be described in different terms. i would catogorize all feelings of love to being ways of getting that which we all need as biological entities: sex (primarily this), social acceptance, and freedom from loneliness.
 
  • #8
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
175
Originally posted by maximus
as i have said before, i don't "believe" in love. i recognize that it exist, of course, but i find it can be described in different terms. i would catogorize all feelings of love to being ways of getting that which we all need as biological entities: sex (primarily this), social acceptance, and freedom from loneliness.
Do you believe in pain?
 
  • #9
477
4
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Do you believe in pain?
do i believe in pain? what is that supposed to mean? of course i do, it can be observed in the brain and is felt daily. what are you trying to get out of this? pain is not as abstract idea as love.

note to my previous post: i maily covered romantic love, but as for brotherly love, or love of parents, i'd say it is evolutionarily favorable that we develope bonds between our parents, and also socially favorable if we are able to make freinds from aquantainces.
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
175
Originally posted by maximus
is felt daily
So is love.
 
  • #11
477
4
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So is love.

as i said before, i don't disbelieve that the emotion of love exists, but that it is merely biological and pschological, and not the mystical experience we have made it out to be.
 
  • #12
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
175
Originally posted by maximus
as i said before, i don't disbelieve that the emotion of love exists, but that it is merely biological and pschological, and not the mystical experience we have made it out to be.
Love is just as real as pain.
 
  • #13
477
4
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Love is just as real as pain.
okay. that's not being disputed here. can you deny that my points in my earlier posts are invalid? pain is physical and tangible, and so is love.
 
  • #14
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
175
Originally posted by maximus
okay. that's not being disputed here. can you deny that my points in my earlier posts are invalid? pain is physical and tangible, and so is love.
I don't think that evolution can account for the scope of the concept. Can you prove how I feel when I'm in pain, or are your observations limited to certain measurable quantities that hardly represent the scope of the experience?
 
  • #15
477
4
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't think that evolution can account for the scope of the concept.
evolution is but one factor that can explain some factors of the "love" experience. as i have said before, there are also pschological reasons, along with sexual reasons. (most of which are subconcious)

Can you prove how I feel when I'm in pain?
to a degree, yes. observation of the brain can show whether you are actually experiencing pain. along with other biological factors, such as histamine levels.

or are your observations limited to certain measurable quantities that hardly represent the scope of the experience?
they are limited, but that is primarily technological limitations. theoretically, upon observing the brain we could know all feelings, and also their severity. but we're getting off topic.

----------

i shall repeat my previous post and claim that love is a physical and tangible emotion. can you disagree?
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
175
Originally posted by maximus
theoretically
So you have proposed a new theory to support your hypothesis? :wink:

Edit for poetry
 
Last edited:
  • #17
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
I'm not sure I follow arguments that run along this line: 'I don't believe in love (or emotion X) because it is simply reducible to the product of evolutionary/societal/etc pressures.'
Certainly, love fulfills a function in the ongoing survival of our species. But does that degrade the personal, subjective experience of love?
Birds have developed the capability of flight 'merely' as a means of survival, whereas we humans have invented hang gliders just for the hell of it. Is our flight any better than the birds'?
The way I look at it is that natural selection works to keep a species alive. In our case, evolution has just happened to stumble upon this wonderful emotion called love and has harnessed it as a means for directing behavior in a manner beneficial for the species. But there is no philosophically necessary link between the subjective experience and the way nature has happened to associate it with certain behaviors. Maybe for people in Bizzaro World, sitting down and looking at the sky a certain way activates the same chemical/neural triggers that are correlated with the subjective experience of love, even though it serves no real purpose toward survival of the species. Nonetheless, the people of Bizzaro World sit down and look at the sky a lot because it just feels so nice. To them, the evolutionary causes and effects are irrelevant before the actual FEELING of being in love.
Analagously, it's just silly to say that the inquisitive mind that looks at nature in awe or the sympathetic mind that sees a piece of itself in a poem is nothing special just because these functions of the brain have developed for so-and-so reason, or just because these emotions are reducible to chemical reactions. It's missing the point. Science tells us that if we want to describe the objective world well, then the subjective is taboo; the inverse also holds.
 
  • #18
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
175
Originally posted by hypnagogue
I'm not sure I follow arguments that run along this line:
I want to respond more later, but for now... I was really just trying to argue that one cannot reduce life to chemistry and equations based on logic. This requires a leap of faith as do all philosophies of such things.
 
  • #19
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
I agree... I was responding to maximus's posts. Sorry for the confusion.
 
  • #20
477
4
Originally posted by hypnagogue
I'm not sure I follow arguments that run along this line: 'I don't believe in love (or emotion X) because it is simply reducible to the product of evolutionary/societal/etc pressures.'
Certainly, love fulfills a function in the ongoing survival of our species. But does that degrade the personal, subjective experience of love?
you, also, have mistaken my point. i am simply stating that there is no reason to reduce love to a mysical experience that is beyond the reach of science or logic. there is no magic,and love is no exception. it is highly purposeful (and beautiful) but it is simply, imo, very rational.
 
  • #21
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
175
Originally posted by maximus
you, also, have mistaken my point. i am simply stating that there is no reason to reduce love to a mysical experience that is beyond the reach of science or logic. there is no magic,and love is no exception. it is highly purposeful (and beautiful) but it is simply, imo, very rational.
I understand this point, but do you argue that you arrive at this conclusion through logic, or by a leap of faith? My point is that just as are more romantic or mystical explanations, your position is a faith argument; not one of pure logic.
 
  • #22
477
4
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I understand this point, but do you argue that you arrive at this conclusion through logic, or by a leap of faith? My point is that just as are more romantic or mystical explanations, your position is a faith argument; not one of pure logic.

your point is well taken,but i think "leap of faith" is a little strong. i have formulated a theory, and it is, imo, more scientifically sound of an idea than mytical magic. it is also a logical process (perhaps rational is a better word). it makes sense that evolutionary and psychological (along with a strong influence from a society) events could produce a misinterpretted feeling of love.
 
  • #23
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
175
Originally posted by maximus
your point is well taken,but i think "leap of faith" is a little strong.
Perhaps, but this could easily be a matter of perspective also.
You know, the old observer dependence problem.

i have formulated a theory, and it is, imo, more scientifically sound of an idea than mytical magic.
Magic is sometimes just a word used to describe that which we don't understand. And of course, nothing mystical would be scientific by nature. But, perhaps one day what is now mystical will be understood as physical.

it is also a logical process (perhaps rational is a better word). it makes sense that evolutionary and psychological (along with a strong influence from a society) events could produce a misinterpretted feeling of love.
Well, now that I have all of that off of my chest, I am interested in hearing more.
 
  • #24
740
3
Only here could something like love be reduced to an equation (I fully expect one to be put forth shortly). Love is not an equation, it is not logical, and it's not meant to make sense. You can no more understand love fully than you can predict the weather. It's not meant to be analyzed like that. to say that it's nothing but a chemical process is like saying chocolate fudge is just nourishment, or that beer is just an intoxicant. And I suspect those who are trying to reduce it to an equation have never been in love. You cannot and should not trivialize it as such. It's like saying God is just "some guy" (if you believe in him).
 
  • #25
477
4
Originally posted by Zantra
Only here could something like love be reduced to an equation (I fully expect one to be put forth shortly). Love is not an equation, it is not logical, and it's not meant to make sense. You can no more understand love fully than you can predict the weather. It's not meant to be analyzed like that. to say that it's nothing but a chemical process is like saying chocolate fudge is just nourishment, or that beer is just an intoxicant. And I suspect those who are trying to reduce it to an equation have never been in love. You cannot and should not trivialize it as such. It's like saying God is just "some guy" (if you believe in him).
and i completely, 100%, disageee with everything you said (:wink:). i believe it is this sentiment that makes it impossible to understand. we can (and do) predict the weather. and we can explain the reasons behind our love for fudge or beer. you are correct however, in your assumtion that i have never been in "romantic love", but it takes an outside obsever to accurately describe something, does it not? i haven't been corrupted by it!
 

Related Threads on Philosophy of Love

  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
678
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Top