Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Philosophy of Love

  1. Jul 15, 2003 #1

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 15, 2003 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :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:
     
  4. Jul 15, 2003 #3

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  5. Jul 16, 2003 #4
    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: Jul 16, 2003
  6. Jul 17, 2003 #5
    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.
     
  7. Jul 17, 2003 #6
    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.
     
  8. Jul 17, 2003 #7
    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.
     
  9. Jul 17, 2003 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do you believe in pain?
     
  10. Jul 17, 2003 #9
    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.
     
  11. Jul 17, 2003 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So is love.
     
  12. Jul 17, 2003 #11

    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.
     
  13. Jul 17, 2003 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Love is just as real as pain.
     
  14. Jul 17, 2003 #13
    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.
     
  15. Jul 17, 2003 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  16. Jul 17, 2003 #15
    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)

    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.

    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: Jul 17, 2003
  17. Jul 17, 2003 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So you have proposed a new theory to support your hypothesis? :wink:

    Edit for poetry
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2003
  18. Jul 19, 2003 #17

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  19. Jul 19, 2003 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  20. Jul 19, 2003 #19

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I agree... I was responding to maximus's posts. Sorry for the confusion.
     
  21. Jul 19, 2003 #20
    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Philosophy of Love
  1. Love? (Replies: 5)

  2. Love (Replies: 33)

  3. Love (Replies: 3)

  4. Love (Replies: 40)

  5. For the love of! (Replies: 4)

Loading...