PDA

View Full Version : Amour!



KneeLess
July 22nd, 2004, 05:10 PM
Well my opinion on love is as follows. We can safety assume that one of our biological goals is propegation of the species. We can also surmise that the reason many animal couples stay together for life, for reasons of forwarding the species, loneliness and others. On a conscious level, love is the intense desire to be with someone for the rest of their own life. So, we can say on a subconscious level that love (the desire to be with someone for the rest of your mortal life), is a simple desire to propegate the species. But there's more to it than that...right?

Many people say you have no control over love, and I also affirm this phenomenon. We also have no control over our subconscious, and almost complete control over our conscious mind. Ergo, it holds to reason that the majority of the feeling 'love' must take place where we cannot control it, our subconscious. Why? I believe I've already disgressed this point, propegation of the species. But, why such intense desire? This is actually quite easy to explain. The more intense the desire, the less everything else matters. If forwarding of the species is your top priority, then the species might get a new child.

Okay, so what about heartbreak? Je pense que...it's because of the loneliness factor. This mate was perfect for you in every way, and now that you might never find another one so perfect to mate with, you become lonely.

It's quite easy once you get past the feelings. :)

tinkerbell
July 22nd, 2004, 05:20 PM
SOOO sad....

AuspiciousFist
July 22nd, 2004, 10:46 PM
What I don't understand is, biologically, why there is such an intense desire to propegate the species. A fly isn't going to care if its kids live or die, all it cares about is its own survival, so how did that need to propegate the species come about?

maybe there's an easy answer, I don't know, I generally shun science.


Another thing I want to learn more about it animal consciousness (I've read theories (there are no definite answers that I have found) about it, some saying a dog is conscious but inverterbrates are not, etc, it's actually pretty interesting), but that is for another time and/or place.

Fyshhed
July 22nd, 2004, 10:51 PM
maybe there's an easy answer, I don't know, I generally shun science.


Religion in a can.
:evil:

AuspiciousFist
July 22nd, 2004, 10:59 PM
well then, what's the answer?

HappyLady
July 23rd, 2004, 01:30 AM
Emotions are about so much more than only ensuring reproduction. If that is the ONLY reason that we love, then why do we love our pets? Why do we love our cars? Yes, I have seem a man cry over selling his car. If love was only a feeling that we ultimately feel to make sure we dont die out, then the only thing we would ever feel love for are the things that would ensure our survival. And there's not a darn thing my cat can do to keep me breathing.

Another reason that love is not only instinctual is because there is no reason for us to "love" someone of the opposite sex in order to reproduce. The only necessary feeling is to be..well..aroused by the opposite sex.

If it were truly all about survival, people would just be having as much sex as possible from the time they are physically capable of making babies until the time they are no longer capable. But being monogomous serves no real purpose for survival.

Love is necessary for survival in that we need to love our children in order to feel compelled to take care of them after birth. But it does not make logical sense to continue to love that child past adulthood, because they can take care of themselves. Most animals do not stay with their young once they have achieved adulthood, and they're surviving just fine. So, love doesn't really aide us in caring for our children, because we would likely feel an instinctual responsibility to care for them anyway like other animals do.

FruitandNut
July 23rd, 2004, 03:38 AM
To me, love transcends what can merely be dissected on a laboratory table. Love is not about mating, reproduction and the next generation. It is not bound up in the 'Selfish Gene'. The two of them are often found together, bed mates as it were, but they are two good friends rather than a solo act.

If I was an atheist, I would be struggling with this one and probably justify my stance by saying that they must be part of a solo act and subject to the cold rules of science. A case of romance reduced to the coroner's slab or bottled on a lab. shelf. Quelle horreur!!!!!!!!

tinkerbell
July 23rd, 2004, 06:33 AM
Love IMO is the only real magic in this world..

Have to use a quote here
Don Juan: There are only four questions of value in life, Don Octavio. What is sacred? Of what is the spirit made? What is worth living for, and what is worth dying for? The answer to each is the same: only love

There is no way to simplify love, to break it down as a function of the brain or chemical reaction.Love is poetry of the human spirit.

Atticus
July 23rd, 2004, 06:55 AM
On a conscious level, love is the intense desire to be with someone for the rest of their own life.


Since when? Are you saying that one person is only capable of being in love with one person in there entire lifetime?

KneeLess
July 23rd, 2004, 09:02 AM
Emotions are about so much more than only ensuring reproduction. They are, you are right. I never claimed such things.

If that is the ONLY reason that we love, then why do we love our pets? Why do we love our cars? Yes, I have seem a man cry over selling his car. Well, of course I was talking about romantic love. You seem to be talking about every single kind of love, if you can even call it that.

Another reason that love is not only instinctual is because there is no reason for us to "love" someone of the opposite sex in order to reproduce. The only necessary feeling is to be..well..aroused by the opposite sex. You're right, another good rebuttle to my arguement would've been, what about homosexuals? And again, I never claimed that it was only instinctual. Remember me talking about the conscious side of love?

If it were truly all about survival, people would just be having as much sex as possible from the time they are physically capable of making babies until the time they are no longer capable. But being monogomous serves no real purpose for survival. I'm starting to think that you haven't read my post. I never said it was only about survival. Man is a social creature, drawing from various peoples around him. Love knocks out two birds with one stone, sexual desire and the desire to not be alone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you love a man, don't you want to be with him for the rest of your life? The question is why do you have these desires?

Love is necessary for survival in that we need to love our children in order to feel compelled to take care of them after birth. Love is not nessesary. What about celebate people who have never loved, nor have any children?

Since when? Are you saying that one person is only capable of being in love with one person in there entire lifetime? I never claimed such things. Reread my arguement.

If I was an atheist, I would be struggling with this one and probably justify my stance by saying that they must be part of a solo act and subject to the cold rules of science. Psychology, which pretty much is what we're talking about here, has no "cold rules". It is just a judgement by criteria. And of course, you can add to psycological criteria at any time.

It seems that every single one of you commited your own Straw Man. I want everyone to reread my arguement and maybe make yourself familar with consciousness of the mind. Reread it, try and see what I meant, and come back. None of you have correctly understood it. And tink, I never said that love wasn't beautiful or magical. In the conscious mind, you see the beauty that it has. I am only saying that it holds to reason, because you cannot control love, and you also cannot control your subconscious mind, that love occurs for the most part, there.

FruitandNut
July 24th, 2004, 10:19 AM
Love transcends that which is utilitarian and functional, love transcends nature which is also utilitarian and functional.

KneeLess
July 24th, 2004, 08:11 PM
Love transcends that which is utilitarian and functional, love transcends nature which is also utilitarian and functional. Do you have any reasoning why love is the only exception, as you claim, to psychology? Or are you just throwing this out there....

AuspiciousFist
July 25th, 2004, 12:55 AM
the majority of married couples lived within 5 miles of each other when they first met.
(this is from my psychology class)


fate? or convenience?

Anywien
July 25th, 2004, 02:23 AM
Convenience. How many people nowadays will travel outside their own state just to find a partner? Most people look for a lover who is within a comfortable distance to them.

FruitandNut
July 25th, 2004, 02:39 AM
Wait until the modern way of life isolates enough of us and speed dating sessions and contact bureaus and web sites become the norm, 5 miles will be the exception and not the rule - few theories last for all time.

Kneeless, to a natural scientist my earlier statement would seem self explanitory. I am saying that if love is not on nature's functional remit, then ergo sum, it must be extra natural, perhaps even, dare I say it, 'supernatural'?

ps. Everything else in psychology, it may be argued, is part of cause and effect. The human brain appears facinating and enigmatic to those of us who have studied the interface between the brain and the mind. There are times when the mind appears to have a function and control 'independent' of simple neuronal networking. There appears to be 'another layer'.

KneeLess
July 25th, 2004, 09:09 AM
Kneeless, to a natural scientist my earlier statement would seem self explanitory. I am saying that if love is not on nature's functional remit, then ergo sum, it must be extra natural, perhaps even, dare I say it, 'supernatural'? Who says it transcends nature? I don't think we know if animals "love" or not, but you'd be hard pressed to prove that.

FruitandNut
July 25th, 2004, 09:37 AM
Nature is functional. Love is not needed for nature to perform its trick.

HappyLady
July 29th, 2004, 08:28 AM
Kneeless,

Could you restate your thesis in more concrete terms. You said that you think I misunderstood your argument. You lay heavily on "propogation of the species" and that is what I addressed in my argument.

What IS your argument? Is it that love is mostly subconscious and uncontrollable? Because if that is your argument, I will argue against that, as well. I will argue against the inability to control your subconscious, too. I just need some clarity on what it is that you are arguing. :?: