Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 02:05 AM

Love:

Previous discussions:
http://brainden.com/...ve-conquer-all/
http://brainden.com/...st-an-illusion/

I didn't know which one to continue so I'm making a new topic.

I'm too young to have felt "love" in a way others on this forum may have but I've felt a lot of other things and I do know that our experience of the world is biological, chemical, electrical, in its base nature. You can read stuff I've written in both of those topics, I still agree with it.

However my point now, to focus on, for those that recognize the electrochemical nature of our consciousness, do you think love in humans is different from love in animals? Why or why not?

And if you don't fall in the above camp (due to religious dogma most likely) then how is your definition of love different from mine and do you think it's an infinite thing?

In other words I want to know if you're a 'love cynic' or a 'love believer' and why :P And remember that your brain can fool you. If you take MDMA and fall in love with a painting on the wall does that count as love in its special way? :wub: lol

Edited by unreality, 24 August 2010 - 02:06 AM.

  • 0

#2 Glycereine

Glycereine

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1909 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 02:16 AM

I think love is relative.

Everyone is capable of "true" love but not all "true" love takes the same form.

Some may love exclusively and completely 1 person for both of their lifes, while others may love a person but also love others.

Icidently for me love has been elusive. I have loved and still do love, but it has never been enough to conquer all...
  • 0

#3 NickFleming

NickFleming

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1233 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 02:29 AM

Well, do they have studies on love in animals? Scientifically speaking, people are just very advanced animals, right?
  • 0

#4 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 02:34 AM

Well, do they have studies on love in animals? Scientifically speaking, people are just very advanced animals, right?


yes, scientifically speaking, people are just advanced animals. But at the same time the technological and societal level of human advancement has put a whole new spin on human interpersonal relationships... I don't know how many other animals stick together for a lifelong relationship after their childbirth and childrearing jobs are done, but it seems unnatural to extend it that long. Maybe a few other species do? (Probably all of them mammals?). How many other animals have long-distance relationships? As far as I know, not many. I feel that the overlayer of human society has changed the way individuals in the society view something that was originally purely evolutionary.
  • 0

#5 phaze

phaze

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1002 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2010 - 02:35 AM

Which kind of love are you talking about?

The ancient Greeks used to have several words that expressed different types of love

Agápe (αγάπη agápē)
Éros (έρως érōs)
Philia (φιλία philía)
Storge (στοργή storgē)

and I still don't think any of this covers "Man, I'd love an ice-cream"
  • 0
Perfecting Mafia suicide since August 2008

#6 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 03:01 AM

Which kind of love are you talking about?

The ancient Greeks used to have several words that expressed different types of love


That's exactly the thing... most people can't even agree on a consistent definition.
  • 0

#7 NickFleming

NickFleming

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1233 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 03:04 AM

Now I'm hungry :(
  • 0

#8 seeksit

seeksit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 314 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 06:11 AM

We humans like to think that we possess a 'deific' sort of love that enables us to altruistically act as stewards and protectors of other species.

Cynics would argue that the 'tree huggers' just want that personal, selfish emotional reinforcement that they can claim to be 'holier than thou'. They would argue that nobody truly acts out of purely selfless love. They are right. Humans are intrinsically selfish.

But ... Mothers of many species will endanger themselves to protect their young. This comes as close to purely selfless love as anything I know. It is not the individual that true love emerges from, it is the selfless ancestral *Force* of the greater community - the social cooperation that enables the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts. That is why I look to the 'mother of the universe' as the ultimate expression of pure love.

No individual acts selflessly. The purest love is manifest in, and expressed by the greater commmunion of participating individuals. Traditionally religion has championed this cause, and many religions have established a symbolic deity to represent this ideal form of love. Unfortunately religions also get bogged down in the human frailties of their followers, and lose the plot. But do we have a better model for the true purity of love?

The Buddha was notable for his unbounded compassion. Jesus was sent and sacrificed because 'God so loved the world' (John 3:16).

Discuss.
  • 0

#9 Izzy

Izzy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3054 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 August 2010 - 10:52 AM

If you take MDMA and fall in love with a painting on the wall does that count as love in its special way? :wub: lol

Hahaha. You know it broski.

I still stick to the chemical definition. Yay dopamine and serotonin (and ketamine and norepinephrine!) ((I *think* those are song lyrics. The ketamine is questionable, but it first syllably.. :unsure:)) ..But I digress.

Love is very "real", if you want to delude yourself. Which I encourage, it's nice to have that tingly feeling and forced smile whenever you're around the person you like. I'd assume we're the same as animals, if not a little more advanced. Some animals mate for life, and this is evolutionarily stupid for the males, considering it downs there chances of reproductive success. Ergo, love!

  • 0

#10 JarZe

JarZe

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1006 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 04:40 PM

I think one of the reasons LOVE is such a hard concept to define is that we give it so many meanings, which may be alike or not. Like you might "love" ice-cream, but not in the same way you "love" your son/sibling, and I bet you don't love them as you "love" your pet.

Can't finish this post right now, but I might continue later.... Damn work :dry:
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users