Theory of love

it isnt defeatist. it just isnt a compleye picture, im not just talking about interpretive reality. ans i disagree that a finite number of definitions exist. a line has infinite points. but so goes a line segment. just because the line segment is a defined portion which is not part of the wrest of the line doesnt mean it has a finite number of points.

also, each point among the infinite is so interesting and wonderful on the line segment that that alone is reason enough to keep defining it and moving onto another point, that is why i dont think it is defeatist. however, when even interpretively, you claim to define ALL there is to love from one perspective than, not only will u be leaving out other perspective but inevitably, wont even know all there is to love in that specific perspective, that is what i meant to say.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
a line has infinite points. but so goes a line segment. just because the line segment is a defined portion which is not part of the wrest of the line doesnt mean it has a finite number of points.

^ not true. it is all the points in between two points. a line, any line, finite or infinite in length is made up of an infinite number of points. all line segments have an infinite number of points in them. as does the line they are taken from.

*agrees with leonheart*

*for a change*

😛

^ ahh but you forget, i dont beleive in MATERILISTIC LINES! 😛

Maybe we should try to define love or emotions without refering to the bio-chemical processes involved with them. The bio-chemical processes have their importance for sustaining life, but maybe we should analyze the emotions as conscious experiences.

^ true true, that is more important

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^ true true, that is more important

Which is a value judgement, not a fact.

*back to disagreement 😉 *

I don't see how you can separate anything from the forces that cause it, without having an incomplete picture. Obviously we aren't conscious of the biological influences when we experience what we term "love," but the two are intrinsically tied to one another. An abstract analysis free from materialism might lead us toward a discussion of consciousness, which would be fine, but would (imo) be further from the truth of love than the admittedly un-romantic, but practical, assessment of love given to us via biology.

We're fortunate that our experience does seem separate from it, though, because we experience life as a conscious and spontaneous process, and can actively rebel against our biological encoding because of our sentience. It makes life fun to live, but doesn't negate the deterministic causes that create such lives.

the knowledge of biochemical processes will not enhance your ability to love. nor will it add to it. for many people, it will actually make love less significant. and love will continue to exist with or without the knowledge of the chemistry.
if you want to, by all means go into it. but to me, the fealing of love is more significant. and if you look at just the physical part, you will also, inevitably miss out on the most significant concious part of it, which makes love, love.
also, your last statemet is contradictory, a sentience can not actively rebel against deterministic causes, be it biological or more. it is one thing we have not yet reconciled.

I think we don't need to ignore the biological significance of love, but sometimes we want to understand the emotion itself, like to know why people love or want to be loved, but in a emotional context... rather than for example saying that love is needed for reproduction.

I think analyzing the physical aspect of it is not interesting if we want to understand the emotion itself, but of course it could be interesting for other reasons...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the knowledge of biochemical processes will not enhance your ability to love. nor will it add to it. for many people, it will actually make love less significant. and love will continue to exist with or without the knowledge of the chemistry.
if you want to, by all means go into it. but to me, the fealing of love is more significant. and if you look at just the physical part, you will also, inevitably miss out on the most significant concious part of it, which makes love, love.
also, your last statemet is contradictory, a sentience can not actively rebel against deterministic causes, be it biological or more. it is one thing we have not yet reconciled.

Hehe. I should've said rebel against our genetic coding, not determinism...because you're right, it is contradictory.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about knowledge of the physical processes enhancing a person's ability to love. That would be silly. I was using it to explain love, which it does exceedingly well.

And there's more to love than reproduction, even as it applies to evolutionary forces.

^ true true, but the concious expirience is significant, whether it is biochemicals causing it or whether you are a sentience in a computer. you may be able to explain the chemical processes ASSOCIATED with love, but that is not love in itself. just sumthing which gives rise to love.

and srry, ur right, we can more than choose not to follow our genes at times. infact, when part of our own genes gave us the ability to develop a thinking mind, they inevitably paved the way to non response of the organism to other part of the genes.

and yea, biologically love has more functions than just reproduction, people with loving parents develop better and more functionally, generally than those without love and hence survive better. same with societies, with lotsa love, youll have strong societies with stronger gene pools.