Debate Q3: In your opinion, what is love?

Index said:
What you say Maciamo, sounds like and argument which suggests that we have no free will and that our behavior is predetermined genetically and environmentally. Surely though we have some semblance of free will? Despite chemical reactions often affecting behavior and emotions, it is well documented that it is possible to adjust your body temperature by using your mind, which would imply that in this case thought determines chemistry. Is this not a form of free will?

Free will is something that exist from a human point of view. However, from an absolute point of view (the universe), all our actions, thoughts or decisions are the consequence of our interaction with our environment, which we cannot escape from. So looking at the big picture (the universe), everything is like a chain-reaction, and in that way everything is determined, although we humans cannot predict it as we cannot know all the universe.

It does not explain, for example, the later stages of relationships where people make assesements based on mutual experiences together, resulting in decisions pertaining to whether the relationship/love should continue.

Do you mean when "true biochemical love" with one's partner becomes like "family love" ? It is just that the hormonal effects has worn off, and remain the mutual experiences, which create a sentimental bond (i.e. common memory, and peace-of-mind/comfort acquired from knowing the other person very well).

It does not seem to explain concepts such as self sacrifice either, which can be evolutionarily unwise, such as breaking off a relationship where your partner is unhappy with what you can give them, or forgiving infidelity (where you risk spending your resources and energy on bringing up and caring for progeny that is unrelated to you genetically).

That is not evolutionary unwise. Humans are social beings. Not all members of the society have to reproduce. Nature usually select only the fittest, whatever the species. But individual survival is also important, regardless of reproduction. Humans are intelligent and emotional beings. They need to socialise and have someone to share their experiences, thoughts or emotions with. That is why some people decide that it is more advantageous for them to stay in a relationship with no love, or no trust regarding faithfulness, than to be alone, and eventually get depressed and die quicker.

As for "up and caring for progeny that is unrelated to you genetically", it is because we are social beings and what matters is the survival of the species (the group), not one's individual genes (which could be partly passed through a sibling or distant relative anyway). We only share 50% of our genes with our offspring, and there is no guarantee (and probably no necessity) to give 100% of them even having 20 children (they could all lack some particular genes of either parents).
 
lexico said:
It is through the art of mid wifery of irony that old ideas are put into question and the knowledge of not knowing is brought into this world, says Plato quoting Socrates. From the wound emerges blood, and pain tickles you. OMG, I'm alive!

15 billion yrs of cosmic evolution, 3 billion yrs of life, 4 million yrs of primate evolution, 8 thousand yrs of farming, and Abraham sees that all is not well. OMG, I'm alive!
So the killing begins; or is it love ? :p

You're a big fan of philosophy aren't you? :cool: So am I. ^____^ BTW I prefer violence. As a the famous Postal Dude once said (or maybe it was Charleton Heston ^____^), "Videogames don't kill people, I do.":D

Doc:ramen:
 
I agree with Maciamo. Why do people have to romantacize things and make love appear like this suberb divine feeling that is out of this world? Some people make it seem like when you're in love you get reborn again or smth. From my experience I think love is just that, hormones reacting to chemical and visual stimuli from another person. These stimuli and hormones fool our brain as to makes up procreate, our bodies have million of ways to trick us as to get us to mate for the continuance of our specie.
 
I know this is going to sound hypocritical, but after reading Maciamo?fs statement on what he believes love is, I now feel more comfortable with speaking out my mind about. To be honest, I what I posted earlier was just a nicer version of how I feel. I whole heartily agree with Maciamo?fs statement on love. To me love is nothing more than a mere chemical, stimulating the brain in ways so man can just reproduce to carry on his species. Human?fs feel that love is an emotion all by itself. Personally, love is just sex tied with sentimental feelings. Even plutonic love is nothing more than sentimental attachment; a fancying of people, places, and things.

Love is rather useless in the end. It is nothing but biology at work; biology that man can live without. Besides love cannot be explained through romantic feelings because love is not a feeling. Hate is a feeling. Hate is based more on just pure emotion, not sentimental attachments with a chemical. You can hate anything before you can ever try to love it. It stands to reason. Love is nothing more than chemical, a biological factor, that humans in essence feel the need that it must be tagged as a special emotion all on its own. Love is worthless in my opinion. You can have sentimental attachments without the need of the chemical, and you can have the chemical without the need of the sentimental attachments. Love is nothing more than a trick feeling invented by man to explain why man feels the way he does when in the need to procreate. It?fs as simple as that.

Doc:ramen:
 
Duo said:
These stimuli and hormones fool our brain as to makes up procreate.
Doc said:
Love is nothing more than a trick feeling invented by man to explain why man feels the way he does when in the need to procreate.
In a flowchart format the idea could be could be expressed as follows.

Other being---visual perception---cadidate for mating !---Q: To mate or not to mate ?---dating ritual---If Answer==Yes: Mate !---mating ritual---Q: To be accepted or rejetecd ?---If Answer==Yes: copulate thereby exchanging genetic material---foster thru pregnancy---birth, childraising---A new being carries genes from You and Another; is ready for iterating mating routine till end of universe or end of humanity, whichever comes first

In this schmatics of mating, love is highly conditional and dependent on judgement. Since the threshold of mating judgements should not be set too high or too low, inhibition and encouragement are provided to maintain an adequate level of mating activity. We have the hypersexualizing indoctrination starting from early childhood extending into adulthood. Fairytales of mating themes, oral literature with sexual content, pornographic art forms all fall in this class of indoctrination. There is also the desexualizing indoctrination by debasing sex, encouragment for homosexuality or non-procreative relationships, and the touting of the vitures of independent, celibate ways of life.

The arbitrariness of sex and love could be found in the following.
"Without the possibility to procreate, sex will certainly lose its evocative powers."
"What is considered sexy is fundamentally related to biological and developmental strengths that are 'understood' as beneficial to procreation and child reading."
"Without the strong sexualizing culture and indoctrination, it is doubtful how many people would make the fatal leap into the dangerous realm of dating, mating, and long-term sexual institutions such as cohabitation or marriage."
"Love is all in the head of the beholder; sight is only a catalyst of the idea."
In that sense, the plural subject and verb in the Torah is to be taken seriously without the monotheist, male supremacist filter.
Bereshit (Book of Genesis) Chapter 1 said:
1:26 G-d said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...1:27 male and female created...them.
According to this reading, there were two who procreated the man and woman in their image, after a father and a mother so to speak. Although the idea of divine sexuality being a projection of the knowledge of human procreation may be subject to a non-religious debate, there is little reason to doubt that such knowledge was tightly related to the principles of agriculture and animal husbandry which lies at the beginning of civilization.
 
Last edited:
I still say that love is a useless thing, at least for me anyway.

Doc:ramen:
 
i am (quite honestly) surprised by the cyncism in this thread.
i think (in a non scientific way maciamo :cool: ) that love is something near impossble to explain.
Personally, i don't believe love has any thing to do with procreation but i do think it is a term used far too loosely in society, and i believe the term 'i love you' can be used in a way to, basically, get sex. however, as cynical a person that i am, i still don't believe that love doesn't exist.
an interesting point raised was: "I don't know what love is, but i know when i feel it." I think that love for somebody/something changes over time. the love between myself and my partner hase changed over the years. at first it was something, unquestionable...the feeling is something that i am not able to explain. it simply, felt right. and after the years, although there is not the same level of obsession i would still lay down infront of a bus for her (depending on the mood i was in!). i think when the obsession fades it is replaced with a slight complacency, which in itself isn't neccesarily a bad thing...it's a comfortable thing. i think as a relationship goes on more 'breathing room' is required. initially you don't want to be out of each others sight but independency returns after time, it works because it becomes a mutual understanding.
i think to appreciate love you have to be hurt by it, which i have. it also helps you define what love is (to you as an individual) and i don't think anyone will know if they have experienced 'true' love...it is something that gets confused with obsession.

Mr White. You raised an interesting point about love for an animal (in a non beastial way). you mentioned how there is no logic for it...maybe that, in itself, is a definition of love.

"Love is like a bow and string. Who is to say whether the bow tightens the string or the string bends the bow."
 
Maciamo said:
The question is "can god make love to us ?"
Can meaning will, ability, or possibility ? How many parents would/could/might choose to sodomize (practice incest with) their children ?
Maciamo said:
Didn't it happen to a certain Mary about 2000 years ago ? :D
Only orthodox Christians believed that actually happened, while the Jewish and Muslims deny that as a historical reality.
Maciamo said:
Let's see if this relationship with god is not another case of unrequited love, or "impossible love". It is unrequited if god loves us but we don't. or vice-versa. It is impossible if there is no way for us to "materialise" love (meet, touch, etc.)
One reports of going blind by a string source of light. One says it is the realization of the logos, or the word itself. The Evangelion of John is said to be under heavy gnostic influence which can be the source of controversy or challenge to the traditional ideas of the collective Christian church.
Maciamo said:
Or did I misunderstand ? Does god love us in the meaning of "sentimental love", like a family bond ? Do we make god feel a sentiment of gratitude or "comfort" (reassurance, peace-of-mind, well-being...) ? If so, I am a bit worried for god, as he/she/it may not be that strong (emotionally speaking).
The traditional view is that G-d is personal, and has human emotions; anthropomormhism is a commonly found trait of many old cultures. But to people susbscribing to certain schools of philosophies or theologies, personal or human emotions may appear rather limiting. Let's say it is an excercise of human imagination. Since we are so much more knowledgeable in this year of 2005, what is a better way of picturing divinity ? And as one noted, imagination is only limited by one's knowledge. I don't know whether that also becomes a limiting idea for you. But your concern can also be taken genuine, which makes me doubt the seriousness of your irony.
 
Love is a cannibal.

Doc:ramen::happy::dance::singer::music::music2:
 
Duo said:
I agree with Maciamo. Why do people have to romantacize things and make love appear like this suberb divine feeling that is out of this world? Some people make it seem like when you're in love you get reborn again or smth. From my experience I think love is just that, hormones reacting to chemical and visual stimuli from another person. These stimuli and hormones fool our brain as to makes up procreate, our bodies have million of ways to trick us as to get us to mate for the continuance of our specie.

The fact that there are so many different ideas regarding what love is implies that it would be next to impossible to define if as a set of chemical reactions. There is no phenomenon called love that could be identified and measured against chemical reactions in the body.

In any case, despite whatever the things one calls love may be, in a chemical sense, it is one of the abilities of humans to be able to take (or make) a concept like love and expand it's definition philosophically. In fact, I would suggest that it is the very philosophical aspect of the definition that distinguishes this concept (love) from things like procreation and attraction. Love is by definition a philosophical construct.

The so called "scientific", or "cynical" arguments that have come up in this thread sound to me like a type of reductionism. I propose then, taking a concept like honor or duty and defining it in terms of chemistry, environment, or hormones.

Whilst I agree with Maciamo that everything is a product of the universal environment, I think this is a moot point and does nothing to enlighten us in this instance. Whilst the environment has helped form people who are (for example) unable to resist their instincts and function purely in an emotional or instinctive way, it has also produced people who are entirely different and can think, philosophize, and (at least) make an attempt to change their thinking and reactions to 'external stimuli'. It has created people like Doc, who reject the notion, and others who embrace it, but the point is that they have reasons for their choice, based on differing conceptions of life's experiences.

More than anything I think that it is important to differentiate between emotions and instincts on the one hand (such as sexual desire, attraction, anger) with philosophical constructs on the other (love, honor, duty).
 
smoke said:
Personally, i don't believe love has any thing to do with procreation but i do think it is a term used far too loosely in society, and i believe the term 'i love you' can be used in a way to, basically, get sex.

It is very difficult for me to say "I love you", even when I feel it. I think this phrase should not be used too often. I dislike when my wife repeat it like 5 times one after the other, as it makes me feel as it reduces the importance of the meaning (so much that I would doubt her real feelings). I generally don't like things being repeated in a short time span (as I had to explain to her).

however, as cynical a person that i am, i still don't believe that love doesn't exist.

I think nobody has said that love doesn't exist in this thread. It's not because you know that it is a biochemical thing that it doesn't exist.

an interesting point raised was: "I don't know what love is, but i know when i feel it."

This is due to a lack of introspection, or lack of rational analysis of one's feelings (at best a lack of experience).

i think to appreciate love you have to be hurt by it, which i have. it also helps you define what love is (to you as an individual) and i don't think anyone will know if they have experienced 'true' love...

That's also a matter of experience of knowing oneself. Love is a strong emotion based on such feelings as self-esteem, and it is therefore very easy to get hurt by it, when the object of one's love is rejected (before or after a relationship) or the loved one says something to hurt us, because we had less self-protection (=more receptive to their opinion) with that person than with others.

Mr White. You raised an interesting point about love for an animal (in a non beastial way). you mentioned how there is no logic for it...maybe that, in itself, is a definition of love.

I think it is stupid first to see all animals as equals, as each species has very different brain sizes and shapes, and some animals have bigger brains than humans (elephants, dolphins, cows...), which gives them an exceptional memory. We could argue that some mamals do feel love as a "family bond", as many animals saty in couples all their lives. It is absolutely undeniable than most if not all animals feel the hormonal aspect of love, otherwise their would be no procreation. Just an example of how dogs, for rexample, can create very strong emotional bonds is the story of Hachiko. But I guess that if you have had dogs, you know how much they recognise you and can get attached to you. Is that any different from "family love" ?
 
lexico said:
Can meaning will, ability, or possibility ? How many parents would/could/might choose to sodomize (practice incest with) their children ?

Good point. But when you create a website or make some pottery, can yo really claim these are your children ?

Only orthodox Christians believed that actually happened, while the Jewish and Muslims deny that as a historical reality.

Watch out the meaning of "orthodox Christians", as Orthodox Christians are one of the 3 main branches of Christianity, mostly in Russia and Greece. I think that some varieties of Protestant Christians do not believe in Mary at all.

...I don't know whether that also becomes a limiting idea for you. But your concern can also be taken genuine, which makes me doubt the seriousness of your irony.

I hope you didn't take me seriously. By now I suppose you have realised that I am totally atheistic. But that's always fun to try thinking as a Christian who first wonders at the hows and whys of his supreme deity. :p
 
Doc said:
Love is a cannibal.

Why, do you bite while making love ? :sorry:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc
Maciamo said:
This is due to a lack of introspection, or lack of rational analysis of one's feelings (at best a lack of experience).

Quite the contrary, Mr. Maciamo. It was merely a simple statement that I made highlighting the importance of being able to recognize love as such. The ablity to do this requires a great deal of introspection, sometimes rational and sometimes not, and it gets better with experience.

Maciamo said:
Why, do you bite while making love ? :sorry:

LOL -- That reminds me of a former girlfriend !!! :blush:
 
Index said:
The fact that there are so many different ideas regarding what love is implies that it would be next to impossible to define if as a set of chemical reactions. There is no phenomenon called love that could be identified and measured against chemical reactions in the body.

In any case, despite whatever the things one calls love may be, in a chemical sense, it is one of the abilities of humans to be able to take (or make) a concept like love and expand it's definition philosophically. In fact, I would suggest that it is the very philosophical aspect of the definition that distinguishes this concept (love) from things like procreation and attraction. Love is by definition a philosophical construct.

The so called "scientific", or "cynical" arguments that have come up in this thread sound to me like a type of reductionism. I propose then, taking a concept like honor or duty and defining it in terms of chemistry, environment, or hormones.

Whilst I agree with Maciamo that everything is a product of the universal environment, I think this is a moot point and does nothing to enlighten us in this instance. Whilst the environment has helped form people who are (for example) unable to resist their instincts and function purely in an emotional or instinctive way, it has also produced people who are entirely different and can think, philosophize, and (at least) make an attempt to change their thinking and reactions to 'external stimuli'. It has created people like Doc, who reject the notion, and others who embrace it, but the point is that they have reasons for their choice, based on differing conceptions of life's experiences.

More than anything I think that it is important to differentiate between emotions and instincts on the one hand (such as sexual desire, attraction, anger) with philosophical constructs on the other (love, honor, duty).

Are you mocking me? :eek:kashii: (Just kidding. :cool: ) You're right, I do have my reasons why love is a useless emotion. However, they are very personal and are not to be dwelled upon. I would like to point out that I'm a pragmatist in nature, but I cannot stand those who think that "the heart" rules over all. I'm sorry, but God didn't give you people a brain just to let your emotions rule you. God gave you the brain to use, and make sensible judgements. Too bad too many humans are irrational to grasp that concept.

Doc:ramen::happy:

"I want to know why everyone I know has gone Flip City.":dance::singer::music::music2:
 
Maciamo said:
Why, do you bite while making love ? :sorry:

You mean when I make love to myself?:D Just messing with you.:) To be honest, love is just one of those things I really don't want to play around with. I think I'll live my life out in my study writing novels rather than mess with human relationships. I'm more happy that way. :wave::happy:

Doc:ramen::happy:
 
Index said:
The so called "scientific", or "cynical" arguments that have come up in this thread sound to me like a type of reductionism. I propose then, taking a concept like honor or duty and defining it in terms of chemistry, environment, or hormones.

Whatever you want. However we also have to consider the human body from a neurpsycholgical point of view to understand most human behaviours.

Honour is an emotion based on self-esteem and acceptance with a social group with determined values. Behave in an honourable way depends on this set of (moral) values, and people do it to "look good" within the group. It is a form of self-reassurance that we do not "break the rules of the group, and therefore will always be welcome as a good member".

Duty is similar, except that it is not so much based on high moral values but on everyday social expectations. Duty is more often associated with a particular function/job within the society, while honour is more general.

The way it works in terms of biochemical process is too complicated to describe here, but you should know that each lobe of the brain becomes specialised in some activities (language, rlogical reasoning. primal emotions, complex emotions, values, self-esteem, imagination, etc.) and that each of these communicate with each others via electrical impulse between neurons.


Whilst the environment has helped form people who are (for example) unable to resist their instincts and function purely in an emotional or instinctive way,

I think you haven't understood yet that the mechanism in our brain that allow us to control our primal emotions (fear, anger, excitement...) are as scientifically demonstrable as the basic emotions themselves. I defy you to control your own emotions under the influence of electrical impulse coming from a diode placed on your head in a laboratory. It is very easy, knowing the right part of the brain, to force you to move your left arm, close one eye, make you think about something (difficult to know what, though, as we don't know what you have learnt since birth), make you feel happy then sad, then relaxed, etc. I have seen a Tv programme yesterday on Japanese TV about a French guy who had become tetraplegic in an accident, and the doctors managed to implant some remote controlled chip near his spine to replaced the damaged nerves, and he could walk again ! (I found an article about this story here)This is just an example of how mechanistic our body really is.
 
Hmmm....

A one shot definition: Love is the willingness to sacrifice everything for something. People love their country, people love their kids, people love themselves, people love money, and people love heroin.
 

This thread has been viewed 19322 times.

Back
Top