# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Philosophical Question Number 3

## smoke

*"In your opinion, what is love?"*

Before anybody else says it, I understand that there are numeroud 'forms' of love...parental love, the love between family (other than parental), love in a relationship, the love of a pet, the love of a way of life...the love of life itself. (etc, etc) But please feel free to comment on any form of love that you wish to offer your opinion on...

Peace.

----------


## Doc

Love to me is an emotion that humans cannot live without. It is something that we all need to survive. Without love, there really isn't any point in living. Whether it be parental love, friendship love, self love, sexual love, relationship love, etc humans need at least one of them to survive. Love keeps us going, whether it be for somebody, something, or yourself. Through harsh times, good times, and all the times inbetween humans need to have love. Take me for example, I need two types of love to survive for myself. I need both friendship love and love for myself to get anywhere.

Now humans don't have to exclusively have one love to survive. For example relationship/initmate/passionate/commitment type love. A lot of people think you do, but I beg to differ. I love myself for who I am, and I love my best friend and that's all I need to feel happy and have life be worthwhile. I don't need a lover, girlfriend, etc solely to survive. However, I do have love in my life, and that's what important. That's my two cents on love.

Doc :Ramen:

----------


## Ma Cherie

I think love can come in forms, for instance platonic love. Love that's free from sexual desire. That's what I believe. There's the kind of love you have for your family, the kind of love you have for spouse. But my definition of love is having a strong connection with someone that goes far deeper than any other feeling. (I think)  :Doubt:  


Or better yet, love is more intense than any other feeling.  :Bluush:

----------


## lexico

Love can be described in a roundabout way by talking about the opposite; what is hatred, or the more colloquial hate.

Hate is repulsion. If there were exact opposite qualities in everything in the universe, then it becomes interesting.

These are known to exist in opposite pairs:

1. electrical charge: + & -
2. what else????

Whether these exist in opposite pairs is unknown:

1. mass: + only
2. what else????

If hatred is the repulsive force between two objects of like polarity, and love the attrative force between two objects of opposite polarity, then I could say that grouches have the tendency to behave like electrical chages with equal polarity, and that dogs and babies like mass.

----------


## Frank D. White

there has been a study done on older people's love for animals? I am overwhelmed by my love for my cats! When I was younger, I knew many old people with pets, and thought they were a little nutty. Now I have joined their ranks and can not comprehend how strong my love is. I was much more upset when my cat died then when my parents passed away? The strength of the love is not sensible to me, but it is there? Maybe it's because your world shrinks as you get older and the things at home become more important? Anyway, my love for my cat it the strongest love I've experienced in my 55 years; matching my love for my wife, if not surpassing it? So, when you speak of love I think of "Moonshadow"!

Frank

 :Blush:   :Okashii:

----------


## Index

I think loving means DOING things for another person to enhance their life and make it better. Doing is not limited to physical actions, nor is it necessarily expressed in positive behaviour all the time. In other words, doing can mean sacrificing yourself for the sake of another person, or taking something away from yourself to give to them (cf. if you love something, set it free). It means genuinely giving of yourself. 

Loving someone is not always good for them, if what you are able to offer is not what they want or need. In this case, if you really wanted to love, then you'd find out what it is that makes them happy. Sometimes they'd be happier without you.

I think it is really love when this all happens naturally without a desire to BE loved in return

----------


## TwistedMac

I am love.

----------


## Index

> I am love.


You are TwistedMac.

----------


## TwistedMac

I am also happy, tall, straight, an atheist and a whole myriad of things. One of those is love.

----------


## Maciamo

Here is my opinion about love. I am warning you, it's scientific, rational and cynical, but can't help it. 

Real, romantic "love" is the result of biochemical reactions in our brain, mainly due to hormones, combined with the impression given by the object of our love ("the loved one") on our set of values. Somebody that fits our values (the cortex) and our biochemistry has high chances of making you fall in love if the conditions are good (you are psychologically receptive to "love", meet the potential loved one in a "positive" context, etc.).

Regarding love between family members or very good friends, this is mostly a sentimental bond based on one's (positive) common experiences and a sentiment of gratitude or "comfort" (reassurance, peace-of-mind, well-being...) we feel toward them.

----------


## Maciamo

> I am also happy, tall, straight, an atheist and a whole myriad of things. One of those is love.


Grammatically you are wrong. You might be loved, loving and/or loveable, but you cannot "be love", as love in a noun, not an adjective (in the same way you can't say "I am happiness", except if you speak Jengrish  :Poh:  ).

----------


## Doc

> Here is my opinion about love. I am warning you, it's scientific, rational and cynical, but can't help it. 
> 
> Real, romantic "love" is the result of biochemical reactions in our brain, mainly due to hormones, combined with the impression given by the object of our love ("the loved one") on our set of values. Somebody that fits our values (the cortex) and our biochemistry has high chances of making you fall in love if the conditions are good (you are psychologically receptive to "love", meet the potential loved one in a "positive" context, etc.).
> 
> Regarding love between family members or very good friends, this is mostly a sentimental bond based on one's (positive) common experiences and a sentiment of gratitude or "comfort" (reassurance, peace-of-mind, well-being...) we feel toward them.


You're the reason why I don't believe in love. 
Doc :Ramen:

----------


## lexico

> Real, romantic "love" is the result of biochemical reactions in our brain, mainly due to hormones, combined with the impression given by the object of our love ("the loved one") on our set of values. Somebody that fits our values (the cortex) and our biochemistry has high chances of making you fall in love if the conditions are good (you are psychologically receptive to "love", meet the potential loved one in a "positive" context, etc.).
> 
> Regarding love between family members or very good friends, this is mostly a sentimental bond based on one's (positive) common experiences and a sentiment of gratitude or "comfort" (reassurance, peace-of-mind, well-being...) we feel toward them.


If I might add, those two kinds of love that you defined well needs to mention the evolutionary mechanism at the heart. Whatever helps to foster the spreading of one's genes or one's genetically close blood group was the original function of love.

Beings creatures of reasoning and social organization, love became a mysterious thing by often transcending its original function, but it's still there swaying one's feelings, judgements, and actions.

Altruistic or fostering behavior for others who are totally unrelated genetically is a learned behavior pattern from observation and personal experience. I thought these biological and developmental aspects should also be mentioned in a scientific definition of love.  :Poh:

----------


## lexico

> I am love.


Why not just say it: I want to be loved.  :Laughing:  
Or try this: I am love incarnate. Worship me and I will give you love. The Greeks had Aphrodite, the Romans Venus. And you have TwistedMac to twist you love fantasies into lovely love braids to choke on.  :Love:

----------


## lexico

> You're the reason why I don't believe in love. 
> Doc


"God still loves you, and Maciamo, too"
Sorry, I just couldn't resist the temptation.  :Laughing:

----------


## Maciamo

> "God still loves you, and Maciamo, too"


The question is "can god _make_  love to us ?" Didn't it happen to a certain Mary about 2000 years ago ?  :Laughing:  

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.)

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).

----------


## Shooter452

Love is the state of human thinking where one's happiness is utterly and completely bound and intertwined with the happiness of another.

At least that is what Robert A. Heinlein inferred in his great work Stranger in a Strange Land. As a definition of what is probably undefinable goes, that one is good enough for me.

_Amor vincit omnia_

----------


## Index

> Here is my opinion about love. I am warning you, it's scientific, rational and cynical, but can't help it. 
> 
> Real, romantic "love" is the result of biochemical reactions in our brain, mainly due to hormones, combined with the impression given by the object of our love ("the loved one") on our set of values. Somebody that fits our values (the cortex) and our biochemistry has high chances of making you fall in love if the conditions are good (you are psychologically receptive to "love", meet the potential loved one in a "positive" context, etc.).
> 
> Regarding love between family members or very good friends, this is mostly a sentimental bond based on one's (positive) common experiences and a sentiment of gratitude or "comfort" (reassurance, peace-of-mind, well-being...) we feel toward them.


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?

I would say that the process you decribe, whilst certainly valid, does not entail the whole picture. To me it sounds like a mechanism that explains the process of attraction. 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. 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).

----------


## Doc

> "God still loves you, and Maciamo, too"
> Sorry, I just couldn't resist the temptation.


I know that God loves me. However, Maciamo has helped me further in the process in not wanting to believe in nonplatonic love. :Cool: 

Doc :Ramen:

----------


## lexico

> I know that God loves me. However, Maciamo has helped me further in the process in not wanting to believe in nonplatonic love.
> 
> Doc


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 ?  :Poh:

----------


## Maciamo

> 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).

----------


## Doc

> 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 ?


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." :Laughing:  

Doc :Ramen:

----------


## Duo

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.

----------


## Doc

I know this is going to sound hypocritical, but after reading Maciamofs 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 Maciamofs 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. Humanfs 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. Itfs as simple as that.

Doc :Ramen:

----------


## Bob in Iowa

I don't know what love is, but I know when I feel it.

----------


## lexico

> These stimuli and hormones fool our brain as to makes up procreate.





> 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.


> 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.

----------


## Doc

I still say that love is a useless thing, at least for me anyway.

Doc :Ramen:

----------


## smoke

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."*

----------


## lexico

> 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 ?


> Didn't it happen to a certain Mary about 2000 years ago ?


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


> 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.


> 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.

----------


## Doc

Love is a cannibal.

Doc :Ramen:  :Joyful:  :Dancing:  :Singer:  :Music:  :Music2:

----------


## Index

> 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).

----------


## TwistedMac

> I am love.


I most certainly do agree.

----------


## Maciamo

> 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" ?

----------


## Maciamo

> 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.  :Poh:

----------


## Maciamo

> Love is a cannibal.


Why, do you bite while making love ?  :Sorry:

----------


## Bob in Iowa

> 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. 




> Why, do you bite while making love ?


LOL -- That reminds me of a former girlfriend !!!  :Blush:

----------


## Doc

> 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?  :Okashii:  (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:  :Joyful: 

"I want to know why everyone I know has gone Flip City." :Dancing:  :Singer:  :Music:  :Music2:

----------


## Doc

> Why, do you bite while making love ?


You mean when I make love to myself? :Laughing:  Just messing with you. :Smiling:  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.  :Wavey:  :Joyful: 

Doc :Ramen:  :Joyful:

----------


## Maciamo

> 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.

----------


## mad pierrot

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.

----------


## Index

> Are you mocking me?  (Just kidding.  )


I wasn't mocking you at all, just using your point of view as an example.

----------


## Index

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


I agree, but it seems like you are taking _only_ that into consideration.




> 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".


Honour and duty are not emotions but ideas. Both honour and duty have different interpretations cross-culturally, whereas the basic emotions you mention are quites consistent across cultures. 




> 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.


Furthermore, despite there being localization amongst different areas of the brain, it has also been shown that there is activity in all areas of the brain when we perform any activity. I don't see your point. By anology, what you are saying is like trying to explain _how_  a carpenter uses an electrical drill by utilizing the physics of electricity. 




> 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


Basic emotions have been identifed (though I haven't heard of the primal emotions as a separate category) and they have consistencey across cultures and individuals, and furthermore some consistency between individuals when reacting to stimuli in laboratory tests. A lot of these tests were done by Eckman in relation to facial expressions. I wouldn't go so far as to say that specific areas of the brain have been identified with specific emotions, and that by zapping certain parts of the brain with electricity you can cause emotive reactions though. Going back to localization of brain function; while it exists, it is not consistent between individuals. In other words, everyone's brain has a part that deals with language, reasoning, etc., but these these areas are different across people. This does not make it likely that you would be able to concretely identify areas responsible for varying emotions.

----------


## Maciamo

> 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.


Sacrifice everything ? No way, that's my definition of hell. No more free time, no more work, no more money, no more hobbies, no more friends, no more fun, no more family... You said everything, right ?

----------


## Shooter452

> Sacrifice everything ? No way, that's my definition of hell. No more free time, no more work, no more money, no more hobbies, no more friends, no more fun, no more family... You said everything, right ?


Given MP's definition, and my own...well, yeah.

I've seen people sell everything that they have for a "pearl of great price." This is particularly true when the pearl is someone that tweaks their fancy.

The part about the chemical substance of love is not without foundation..."the same thing as eating large amounts of chocolate." I admit that I take a more romantic view of love than that, but I am incurable. *grin* I am not certain that it is a weakness.

_Amore, more, ore, re_

----------


## lexico

Love is ...



> (to) sacrifice everything for something


Sacrifice is a pretty strong word there. It is synonymous with 'offer' or 'devote' which implies transfering the goods or/and life of one to the temple. For example Abraham thought he had heard, "Kill me a son." That's kind of scary.  :Evil:  



> Sacrifice everything ? No way, that's my definition of hell.


A life without devotion can be considered empty and futile. But luckily you are passionate about the forum, travel, teaching, Japan's woes, interacting with other members of the earthly community, and a little free time. I'm not trying to pull the nominalism argument here, but you may be more devoted than you wish you picture yourself. You're just evenly devoted, that's all.  :Bikkuri: 




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


In a way yes. They are your brain-children, and often there exist a love-hate relationship between the poet and the poem. Without considering whether the poem can think on its own, the poet has certain emotional attachments to the works of art. We can make fun of it, but it's there nevertheless.


> I think that some varieties of Protestant Christians do not believe in Mary at all.


I left the o in the lower case to make it generic; so we have no problem. The majority of followers of the Roman, the Coptic, the Abyssinian, and The Nestorian Churches would be included in the class orthodox, but as for later developments, there must have been believers who were uncomfortable with the Credo.


> 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.


I was only excercising some vivid imagination which I am sure you enjoyed yourself. I'm genuinely glad you find this amusing.

----------


## Maciamo

> A life without devotion can be considered empty and futile. But luckily you are passionate about the forum, travel, teaching, Japan's woes, interacting with other members of the earthly community, and a little free time. I'm not trying to pull the nominalism argument here, but you may be more devoted than you wish you picture yourself. You're just evenly devoted, that's all.


Yes, devoted and passionated I am. That's why I wouldn't like to sacrifice (=abandon forever) all my interests for one thing or person. I am not the kind of person that can be satisfied by concetrating on one thing. That is also why I am faithful to each of the category of my interests, love or devotion.

----------


## miu

> 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?


Because atleast at first, it makes you high!  :Smiling:  Well, falling in love with someone atleast - maybe not so much when you think about your siblings, friends or family  :Relieved:  

There's always several ways of looking at something: you can look it from a scientifical or some other kind of point of view. I don't think that if you give a "scientifical definition" for love, it somehow makes love a sterile thing. When you fall head over heels for someone or cry because someone broke your heart, you really don't think which chemicals are reacting in your brain! You think about how you feel. 

If everything would be just about giving somewhat accurate, technical definitions for things would anyone ever have the need to be depressed or devastated over something? It'd be so much easier to accept a given formula for something and then not wonder why you feel the way you do but unfortunately atleast my mind doesn't quite work like that  :Bluush:  

It's so curious how you can love someone despite all kinds of obsticles (e.g. the person doesn't like you ) and not really even be able to explain _why_ you're in love - you know it won't work so why waste your time? At the same time, someone might love you but you don't love that person even though s/he's nice and you know s/he'd be so good for you.  :Sou ka:  

I don't think I could ever give love a clear definition because it always depends on the person you love - you love everyone in a different way because they're all different people... But one thing I can say: when you love someone, you automatically make compromises in situations you would never ever have budged an inch before.

----------


## Mycernius

Love is the opposite to hate. Now define hate  :Laughing:  
I find the love of something is a need, a want, almost like an addiction. You need that object, person to be near you. You like feeling good and this makes you feel good. When it isn't there you feel bad, down, but as soon as this object, person comes back you feel great. In some cases it can get to be a serious psychological problem, same as drug addiction, as the case of stalkers, or people that kill their children to prevent someone else getting in the way of their addiction. Sometimes it's a beaitiful thing, at others a dangerous feeling that can be as damaging as hate.  :Smiling:

----------


## Mycernius

> Here is my opinion about love. I am warning you, it's scientific, rational and cynical, but can't help it. 
> 
> Real, romantic "love" is the result of biochemical reactions in our brain, mainly due to hormones, combined with the impression given by the object of our love ("the loved one") on our set of values. Somebody that fits our values (the cortex) and our biochemistry has high chances of making you fall in love if the conditions are good (you are psychologically receptive to "love", meet the potential loved one in a "positive" context, etc.).
> 
> Regarding love between family members or very good friends, this is mostly a sentimental bond based on one's (positive) common experiences and a sentiment of gratitude or "comfort" (reassurance, peace-of-mind, well-being...) we feel toward them.


Who says romance isn't dead?  :Smiling:  
If chocolate make me feel good in a chemical reaction way, then I LOVE chocolate. :homer: Who says women should only love chocolate?

----------


## Mycernius

[QUOTE=Maciamo]The question is "can god _make_  love to us ?" Didn't it happen to a certain Mary about 2000 years ago ?  :Laughing:  

[QUOTE]
Trying to wind up the religious. Anyway I thought that was the Holy Spirit that filled her with Gods love. (smirk) 
Sorry for that,couldn't help it.  :Laughing:

----------


## Shooter452

> Who says romance isn't dead?  
> If chocolate make me feel good in a chemical reaction way, then I LOVE chocolate. :homer: Who says women should only love chocolate?


Not me! Chocolate is God's own sweet stuff! Despite what your Mom might've told you, it will NOT rot your teeth. Chocolate has a chemical enzyme (or somethin' like that) that prevents the growth of bacteria that harms teeth and gums! I heard that on NPR, so it must be true, right? *rolls eyes*

Actually, I have heard that from many sources, so if bossel or Maciamo or somebody has time to do the research, more power to ya!

It certainly makes me feel good!

----------


## Dutch Baka

there are sorts of form off love, yes you can love your friends and familie on a differnt way... 

the ultimated love for me:

when you think about each other.
when you can spend days together, without feeling bored.
to give up things for the other person.
being honest and open to each other.
waiting for each other
dont cheat.
life together because you want to be with each other, not because of fair of being lonely.
feel pain together.
trust.

i think this is what i feel about my girl that is on the other side of the world now, and i speak to a couple of days a week, for me its real love, and we decided to get married next year, even im still young, i feel like she is the love of my life. and i feel good with her when she is here with me, or when she is in japan thinking of her can make a smile on my face. 


please let me answer completely on this qeustion in 30-60 years when im wise and old ( at least i hope to be haha)  :Blush:  

greetings Baka dutch

----------


## mad pierrot

> Yes, devoted and passionated I am. That's why I wouldn't like to sacrifice (=abandon forever) all my interests for one thing or person. I am not the kind of person that can be satisfied by concetrating on one thing. That is also why I am faithful to each of the category of my interests, love or devotion.


Yeah, love _doesn't have to be for one person or thing, but it can be._ Like it was said, you have equal love for many different things, but there are somethings you love more than others, right? Things you'd be _willing_ to sacrifice for other things....? That's the key, "willing." Not being forced to, but the complete opposite, doing because you'd rather be with that anything else for eternity, a.k.a heaven. Heh, being forced to be with something you don't like would definately be hell.

----------


## Doc

> Love is the opposite to hate. Now define hate


Hate:

1.

a. To feel hostility or animosity toward. 
b. To detest. 

2.

To feel dislike or distaste for.

BTW you hate anything before you can ever learn to love it.

Doc :Ramen:  :Joyful:

----------


## EV13SON

Love should take precedence in all of our decisions if we want to be our best as a species, but maybe the instinct to survive whether acquiring resources for ourselves or our immediate family, that causes us to be driven by fear which as Yoda say leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to Yoda, Yoda, Yoda...

----------

