<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Apr 4 2004, 09:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Apr 4 2004, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 'Love' in an emotional sense is a genetic abnormality, and a mental defect in <i>homo sapiens sapiens</i>.
(Oh boy I feel smart) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd like to point out in basic concept that statement is flawed. Various animals on earth mate for life and show no signs of the will to change mates, and obtain the same chemical reaction types we do with our being with our partner. I think it pretty much occurs in all monogamous relationships.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I go with a chemical reaction in your brain that stimulates hormones and causes strong attractions/bonds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is also flawed, as it does not give a direct reason why we pick who we pick. Example conversation: "Love is the interaction of chemicals in your brain." "What determines who causes you to pick the person who sets off this reaction?" "The person your brain decides is the most attractive." "How does it determine who it finds the most attractive?" "Through complex analysis of your past experiances and genetics." "How is each one of these experiances picked?" "Whatever your brain remembers subconciously first." (feel free to throw in other questions now, since personally I can think of numerous responses) "Why can we not love someone at first, but then love them later?" "We recall information we missed before, or see an action performed by them we like (that causes us enjoyment - to avoid using the definition in the definition)." "What if we had witnessed this action before, in other people, why would we not love them instead?" "Everyone's brain is different and defines who they do or do not enjoy being with."
And there comes the fundamental flaw. If who we love is defined by our brain - and everyones brain is unique - in some aspect, Love is unique and similar in everyone. Everyone experiances the 'high' of love, but the effects and reasons differ, and therefore, love is not just "a chemical reaction in the brain." Which is far to simplified. I'm all for the science of it and I'll believe thats why we'll stay with someone we 'fall' in love with, but I don't see that as a defining creation of a bond with someone.
So, if you want my answer, "Love is the response I (specific indiviudal, not necessarily UltimaGecko) have when I'm with someone; the reasons I enjoy being with that person, the causes that made me enjoy being with that person, and the chemicals that my brain links with that person [above responses about chemicals and hormones]."
Maybe my definition needs more...definition, heh. Well, this topic was probably dead anyway, time to get my dinner <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
In keeping with my sceptic's view of the world, I don't see why love is particularly special. Just an evolutionary device of chemicals in the brain to help in the drive for sex. Nothing special here.
That is my coldly rational view. (I like to think of my mind in two parts; a logical part that laughs at the other half, and the "other half", the part that actually enjoys being human and living, the part that just smiles knowingly in the face of my "logical mind"). My other view is that, whatever it is, as a human mind, I enjoy it. Whatever it may be, however it may be explained, it always feels good regardless of whatever degrading explanations may be attached to it.
<!--QuoteBegin-john_sheu+Apr 8 2004, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (john_sheu @ Apr 8 2004, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In keeping with my sceptic's view of the world, I don't see why love is particularly special. Just an evolutionary device of chemicals in the brain to help in the drive for sex. Nothing special here.
That is my coldly rational view. (I like to think of my mind in two parts; a logical part that laughs at the other half, and the "other half", the part that actually enjoys being human and living, the part that just smiles knowingly in the face of my "logical mind"). My other view is that, whatever it is, as a human mind, I enjoy it. Whatever it may be, however it may be explained, it always feels good regardless of whatever degrading explanations may be attached to it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you experienced love?
If not then your view of it was the farthest thing from an skeptical viewpoint possible.
<!--QuoteBegin-john_sheu+Apr 8 2004, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (john_sheu @ Apr 8 2004, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I like to think of my mind in two parts; a logical part that laughs at the other half, and the "other half", the part that actually enjoys being human and living, the part that just smiles knowingly in the face of my "logical mind". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> sounds alot like what goes on in my screwed head <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well, this is my idea of love. My friends hate it cause it's a bit pessimisitc. They say I'm going through a depression state, but I say I'm just being more of an analyst.
There is no such thing as love. What we think is love is actually the needs of the body.
Say you love a girl. Why? Because you need to stimulate yourself, as that is basic instinct. But why some people love "ugly" girls? Because they are gentle and nice with the individual, which thus, is presumably easier to "have fun".
You love your parents. Why? It's a debt which you feel you have to repay. They put you in this world, and so, you have to repay somehow. By "loving" them.
You love your friends. Why? Because human is a socail animal. It needs to socialise. So you "love" your friends. The people you socialise with.
<!--QuoteBegin-UltimaGecko+Apr 7 2004, 09:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UltimaGecko @ Apr 7 2004, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Apr 4 2004, 09:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Apr 4 2004, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 'Love' in an emotional sense is a genetic abnormality, and a mental defect in <i>homo sapiens sapiens</i>.
(Oh boy I feel smart) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd like to point out in basic concept that statement is flawed. Various animals on earth mate for life and show no signs of the will to change mates, and obtain the same chemical reaction types we do with our being with our partner. I think it pretty much occurs in all monogamous relationships. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your understanding of what I said is wrong. The whole idea of love, for the purpose of, well, loving, is a genetic abnormality. No other species on this planet will simply chose a mate, do nothing, just for 'love'.
Even wolves, who mate for life, mate with the strongest / most prosperous wolf in the pack. The Alpha Male choses the mate, they'll fight for it. Beavers mate for life. Again, they don't mate with sickly, fat, ugly, wheezing, acne-ridden beavers because they love them. No, they chose healthy, strong mates. Mating for life is an entirely different concept.
If I were to chose a mate right now based on love, and let's pretend we were trying to survive in some hostile wilderness, 'love' might mean I chose some half-blind parapalegic that suffered from MS. Sure she's going to be pretty much doomed if something attacks, and our kids will have a high chance of genetic imperfection, but I did it out of love! If I were to chose a mate based on SURVIVAL, I'd chose a woman who was strong, hearty, agile, and smart. Our kids would be healthy, strong, and smart as well. I wouldn't chose a mate who has asthma, that's just asking for my bloodline to be cut short.
Sure, humans don't have natural predators, so the whole concept there doesn't totally work, but still, preceiving 'love' to chose a mate is pretty flawed from a genetic standpoint.
Society today, if it were teleported back a few million years, would be absolutely doomed, just because the 'healthy stock bloodlines' are so diluted (if that made any sense at all)
<!--QuoteBegin-Beast+Apr 2 2004, 05:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Beast @ Apr 2 2004, 05:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe love to be one of the strongest forces in existance, and that it also happens, in my opinion, to be more than a simple interaction of chemicals in the brain.. far more... most, if not all, who have truely been in love will agree with me here. I believe love is a force which comes form the soul... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree. Love is a holy mystery that balances the forces of chi from evil. Something has a soul when I is loved and/or can love.
There are amny slang definitions for love but typically I like to mesh the words humanity and compassion (caring) into the definition of "real" love. (instead of just sexual passion and attaction)
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Apr 12 2004, 01:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Apr 12 2004, 01:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UltimaGecko+Apr 7 2004, 09:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UltimaGecko @ Apr 7 2004, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Apr 4 2004, 09:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Apr 4 2004, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 'Love' in an emotional sense is a genetic abnormality, and a mental defect in <i>homo sapiens sapiens</i>.
(Oh boy I feel smart) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd like to point out in basic concept that statement is flawed. Various animals on earth mate for life and show no signs of the will to change mates, and obtain the same chemical reaction types we do with our being with our partner. I think it pretty much occurs in all monogamous relationships. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your understanding of what I said is wrong. The whole idea of love, for the purpose of, well, loving, is a genetic abnormality. No other species on this planet will simply chose a mate, do nothing, just for 'love'.
Even wolves, who mate for life, mate with the strongest / most prosperous wolf in the pack. The Alpha Male choses the mate, they'll fight for it. Beavers mate for life. Again, they don't mate with sickly, fat, ugly, wheezing, acne-ridden beavers because they love them. No, they chose healthy, strong mates. Mating for life is an entirely different concept.
If I were to chose a mate right now based on love, and let's pretend we were trying to survive in some hostile wilderness, 'love' might mean I chose some half-blind parapalegic that suffered from MS. Sure she's going to be pretty much doomed if something attacks, and our kids will have a high chance of genetic imperfection, but I did it out of love! If I were to chose a mate based on SURVIVAL, I'd chose a woman who was strong, hearty, agile, and smart. Our kids would be healthy, strong, and smart as well. I wouldn't chose a mate who has asthma, that's just asking for my bloodline to be cut short.
Sure, humans don't have natural predators, so the whole concept there doesn't totally work, but still, preceiving 'love' to chose a mate is pretty flawed from a genetic standpoint.
Society today, if it were teleported back a few million years, would be absolutely doomed, just because the 'healthy stock bloodlines' are so diluted (if that made any sense at all) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...aside from x5's blatant resurrection of this thread based on some unknown, but obviously poorly thought out premise...I've got to comment on EEK's response here.
Evolution has blatantly forced our species into a requirement of societal structure. Whereas other mammals with long maternity periods have the time because of the size required to grow the embryo, people have a generally shorter pregnancy period. The babies are born at 9 months because their brain would not pass through the birth canal if they stayed in the womb longer.
As a consequence of this: the only instincts babies have is grasping and crying [and then you get some more hormones around puberty whose effect depends on numerous things, but usually results in a desire to mate]. This leads us to develop our concepts of mating and love based on society. Whereas some societies in the Amazon focus on a whole tribal aspect, where everyone is mates, most industrialized (if not all) focus on monogamous relationships. Here, I'd assume (but have no information specifically) that the brain develops based on the society around the person. And since animals are born with their basic instincts of 'love' (while some of them may require learning to hunt - none I know of require learning how to mate) they don't develop this way.
And so, your 'flaw' in humanity is a flaw in society, not specifically the species in general. Also on the same lines, if the alpha male gets injured out in the wilderness, the female wolf wont just go off and abandon him, so it's still an attractiveness thing and then a relationship. While the alpha male may be killed and then a new leader may take the female, she wont just abandon him.
<span style='font-size:2pt;line-height:100%'>[Thread necromancy by x5 for the win, I suppose...]</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--=[Drake]=-+Apr 3 2004, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-=[Drake]=- @ Apr 3 2004, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Love is a wastefull emotion responsible for war and death . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perfect. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Like you've said love is a mixture of many different emotions. Being in love with someone is very different to loving someone but must include the same kind of love as well as a passionate/lusting love for that person. And like other people have noted lusting for someone and being in love with them can sometimes be confused.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...And now I will show you the most excellent way.
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom al mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophecy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...And now I will show you the most excellent way.
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom al mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophecy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1 Corinthians 12:31-13:13 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll just point out that that is a description not a 'definition'... That being said, me describing love sounds the same way.
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Apr 3 2004, 03:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Apr 3 2004, 03:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Does this mean that love is just another bunch of worthlesschenicals, like a puddle of mud? If yes, what makes it such a life changing experience. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just my 2 (cent sign): puberty is just a bunch of chemicals. It can safely be called a life-changing experience, no? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Funnily enough, I was just reading Plotinus yesterday. He's the Neoplatonic philosopher most usually considered one of the foundations of Christian philosophy (although he was pagan Roman). Here's his quote on love:
<!--QuoteBegin-Plotinus+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Plotinus)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider, even, the case of pictures: Those seeing by the bodily sense the productions of the art of painting do not see the one thing in the one only way; they are deeply stirred by recognizing in the objects depicted to the eyes the presentation of what lies in the idea, and so are called to recollection of the truth - the very experience out of which Love rises.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is a really useful description of what love is. Part of what separates man from animal is the ability to connect what he senses around him to an abstract representation in his own mind - the associative ability. I think that love, although it comes in many different flavors, has a lot to do with some sort of appreciation of that connection (between external and abstract).
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr_133t+Oct 15 2004, 07:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr_133t @ Oct 15 2004, 07:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I watch "The Man Show", and "Howard Stern" so love doesn't mean squat to me!!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Enjoy your empty life. And please don't, reproduce. Thank you.
Comments
(Oh boy I feel smart)
(Oh boy I feel smart) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to point out in basic concept that statement is flawed. Various animals on earth mate for life and show no signs of the will to change mates, and obtain the same chemical reaction types we do with our being with our partner. I think it pretty much occurs in all monogamous relationships.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I go with a chemical reaction in your brain that stimulates hormones and causes strong attractions/bonds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is also flawed, as it does not give a direct reason why we pick who we pick. Example conversation:
"Love is the interaction of chemicals in your brain."
"What determines who causes you to pick the person who sets off this reaction?"
"The person your brain decides is the most attractive."
"How does it determine who it finds the most attractive?"
"Through complex analysis of your past experiances and genetics."
"How is each one of these experiances picked?"
"Whatever your brain remembers subconciously first." (feel free to throw in other questions now, since personally I can think of numerous responses)
"Why can we not love someone at first, but then love them later?"
"We recall information we missed before, or see an action performed by them we like (that causes us enjoyment - to avoid using the definition in the definition)."
"What if we had witnessed this action before, in other people, why would we not love them instead?"
"Everyone's brain is different and defines who they do or do not enjoy being with."
And there comes the fundamental flaw. If who we love is defined by our brain - and everyones brain is unique - in some aspect, Love is unique and similar in everyone. Everyone experiances the 'high' of love, but the effects and reasons differ, and therefore, love is not just "a chemical reaction in the brain." Which is far to simplified. I'm all for the science of it and I'll believe thats why we'll stay with someone we 'fall' in love with, but I don't see that as a defining creation of a bond with someone.
So, if you want my answer, "Love is the response I (specific indiviudal, not necessarily UltimaGecko) have when I'm with someone; the reasons I enjoy being with that person, the causes that made me enjoy being with that person, and the chemicals that my brain links with that person [above responses about chemicals and hormones]."
Maybe my definition needs more...definition, heh. Well, this topic was probably dead anyway, time to get my dinner <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
That is my coldly rational view. (I like to think of my mind in two parts; a logical part that laughs at the other half, and the "other half", the part that actually enjoys being human and living, the part that just smiles knowingly in the face of my "logical mind"). My other view is that, whatever it is, as a human mind, I enjoy it. Whatever it may be, however it may be explained, it always feels good regardless of whatever degrading explanations may be attached to it.
That is my coldly rational view. (I like to think of my mind in two parts; a logical part that laughs at the other half, and the "other half", the part that actually enjoys being human and living, the part that just smiles knowingly in the face of my "logical mind"). My other view is that, whatever it is, as a human mind, I enjoy it. Whatever it may be, however it may be explained, it always feels good regardless of whatever degrading explanations may be attached to it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you experienced love?
If not then your view of it was the farthest thing from an skeptical viewpoint possible.
sounds alot like what goes on in my screwed head <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There is no such thing as love. What we think is love is actually the needs of the body.
Say you love a girl. Why? Because you need to stimulate yourself, as that is basic instinct. But why some people love "ugly" girls? Because they are gentle and nice with the individual, which thus, is presumably easier to "have fun".
You love your parents. Why? It's a debt which you feel you have to repay. They put you in this world, and so, you have to repay somehow. By "loving" them.
You love your friends. Why? Because human is a socail animal. It needs to socialise. So you "love" your friends. The people you socialise with.
(Oh boy I feel smart) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to point out in basic concept that statement is flawed. Various animals on earth mate for life and show no signs of the will to change mates, and obtain the same chemical reaction types we do with our being with our partner. I think it pretty much occurs in all monogamous relationships. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your understanding of what I said is wrong. The whole idea of love, for the purpose of, well, loving, is a genetic abnormality. No other species on this planet will simply chose a mate, do nothing, just for 'love'.
Even wolves, who mate for life, mate with the strongest / most prosperous wolf in the pack. The Alpha Male choses the mate, they'll fight for it. Beavers mate for life. Again, they don't mate with sickly, fat, ugly, wheezing, acne-ridden beavers because they love them. No, they chose healthy, strong mates. Mating for life is an entirely different concept.
If I were to chose a mate right now based on love, and let's pretend we were trying to survive in some hostile wilderness, 'love' might mean I chose some half-blind parapalegic that suffered from MS. Sure she's going to be pretty much doomed if something attacks, and our kids will have a high chance of genetic imperfection, but I did it out of love! If I were to chose a mate based on SURVIVAL, I'd chose a woman who was strong, hearty, agile, and smart. Our kids would be healthy, strong, and smart as well. I wouldn't chose a mate who has asthma, that's just asking for my bloodline to be cut short.
Sure, humans don't have natural predators, so the whole concept there doesn't totally work, but still, preceiving 'love' to chose a mate is pretty flawed from a genetic standpoint.
Society today, if it were teleported back a few million years, would be absolutely doomed, just because the 'healthy stock bloodlines' are so diluted (if that made any sense at all)
I agree. Love is a holy mystery that balances the forces of chi from evil. Something has a soul when I is loved and/or can love.
There are amny slang definitions for love but typically I like to mesh the words humanity and compassion (caring) into the definition of "real" love. (instead of just sexual passion and attaction)
(Oh boy I feel smart) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to point out in basic concept that statement is flawed. Various animals on earth mate for life and show no signs of the will to change mates, and obtain the same chemical reaction types we do with our being with our partner. I think it pretty much occurs in all monogamous relationships. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your understanding of what I said is wrong. The whole idea of love, for the purpose of, well, loving, is a genetic abnormality. No other species on this planet will simply chose a mate, do nothing, just for 'love'.
Even wolves, who mate for life, mate with the strongest / most prosperous wolf in the pack. The Alpha Male choses the mate, they'll fight for it. Beavers mate for life. Again, they don't mate with sickly, fat, ugly, wheezing, acne-ridden beavers because they love them. No, they chose healthy, strong mates. Mating for life is an entirely different concept.
If I were to chose a mate right now based on love, and let's pretend we were trying to survive in some hostile wilderness, 'love' might mean I chose some half-blind parapalegic that suffered from MS. Sure she's going to be pretty much doomed if something attacks, and our kids will have a high chance of genetic imperfection, but I did it out of love! If I were to chose a mate based on SURVIVAL, I'd chose a woman who was strong, hearty, agile, and smart. Our kids would be healthy, strong, and smart as well. I wouldn't chose a mate who has asthma, that's just asking for my bloodline to be cut short.
Sure, humans don't have natural predators, so the whole concept there doesn't totally work, but still, preceiving 'love' to chose a mate is pretty flawed from a genetic standpoint.
Society today, if it were teleported back a few million years, would be absolutely doomed, just because the 'healthy stock bloodlines' are so diluted (if that made any sense at all) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
...aside from x5's blatant resurrection of this thread based on some unknown, but obviously poorly thought out premise...I've got to comment on EEK's response here.
Evolution has blatantly forced our species into a requirement of societal structure. Whereas other mammals with long maternity periods have the time because of the size required to grow the embryo, people have a generally shorter pregnancy period. The babies are born at 9 months because their brain would not pass through the birth canal if they stayed in the womb longer.
As a consequence of this: the only instincts babies have is grasping and crying [and then you get some more hormones around puberty whose effect depends on numerous things, but usually results in a desire to mate]. This leads us to develop our concepts of mating and love based on society. Whereas some societies in the Amazon focus on a whole tribal aspect, where everyone is mates, most industrialized (if not all) focus on monogamous relationships. Here, I'd assume (but have no information specifically) that the brain develops based on the society around the person. And since animals are born with their basic instincts of 'love' (while some of them may require learning to hunt - none I know of require learning how to mate) they don't develop this way.
And so, your 'flaw' in humanity is a flaw in society, not specifically the species in general. Also on the same lines, if the alpha male gets injured out in the wilderness, the female wolf wont just go off and abandon him, so it's still an attractiveness thing and then a relationship. While the alpha male may be killed and then a new leader may take the female, she wont just abandon him.
<span style='font-size:2pt;line-height:100%'>[Thread necromancy by x5 for the win, I suppose...]</span>
Or Sex as the case may be
Baby don't hurt me...
don't hurt me...
no more...
and, to all who posted "baby don't hurt me,"
nice.
Never post agian.
Perfect.
Perfect. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like you've said love is a mixture of many different emotions. Being in love with someone is very different to loving someone but must include the same kind of love as well as a passionate/lusting love for that person. And like other people have noted lusting for someone and being in love with them can sometimes be confused.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
...And now I will show you the most excellent way.
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom al mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophecy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1 Corinthians 12:31-13:13
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
...And now I will show you the most excellent way.
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom al mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophecy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1 Corinthians 12:31-13:13 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll just point out that that is a description not a 'definition'... That being said, me describing love sounds the same way.
Just my 2 (cent sign): puberty is just a bunch of chemicals. It can safely be called a life-changing experience, no? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Plotinus+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Plotinus)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consider, even, the case of pictures: Those seeing by the bodily sense the productions of the art of painting do not see the one thing in the one only way; they are deeply stirred by recognizing in the objects depicted to the eyes the presentation of what lies in the idea, and so are called to recollection of the truth - the very experience out of which Love rises.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is a really useful description of what love is. Part of what separates man from animal is the ability to connect what he senses around him to an abstract representation in his own mind - the associative ability. I think that love, although it comes in many different flavors, has a lot to do with some sort of appreciation of that connection (between external and abstract).
Enjoy your empty life. And please don't, reproduce. Thank you.