Love Doesn’t Exist

Discussion in 'Consciousness & Science' started by TheRaven, Apr 3, 2018.

  1. TheRaven

    TheRaven Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    88
    I’m mainly talking about love within a monogamous relationship. We have love for our children because it benefits the survival of the species. Would you take care of something that you had no attachment to? We love our siblings and parents because we are mostly around them for the first part of our lives. I have two half sisters that I have never met and I don’t feel any love towards them. I’m not sure how you can hold any love for strangers?
     
    tarantulanebula likes this.
  2. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    It's very easy. Just see everyone as part of your extended family. In a way it is easier with strangers, we don't have the baggage of previous expectations to get in the way.
     
    hypermagda, TheRaven, Larry and 3 others like this.
  3. TheRaven

    TheRaven Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    88
    I’m very misanthropic and overall distrusting of people, so it would be hard for me to do this.
     
    Typoz likes this.
  4. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    We all have our own take on things, so it's understandable that you see things differently.

    Sometimes I just look at it as a form of self-interest. When I extend either a helping or hostile hand towards someone else, I am planting seeds which in the fullness of time will find their way back to me. I try to plant warmth (though I don't always succeed!) - even if none of it finds its way back to me, making the world a slightly better place for others seems a valid enough goal to me.

    I see it as perhaps an extension of other views I have. If one wants to live a happy life, focus on having a happy day. Whatever hopes or worries we may have for the future can unfold in their own good time, focus on the present instead. In a similar way, I cannot change the entire world, the very thought is absurd. But I can try to make the small corner of it where I exist a more benevolent place for others. Who knows what the consequences may be? A kind word, a small act here or there may shift someone else's path, perhaps having effects which ripple outwards. Who can say. I'm pretty sure I don't want to live in a world where we all mistrust and mistreat one another, and rather than dreaming dreams, one can act - even, as I said, in the smallest ways. I'm not talking about grand and magnificent gestures, it's more the sort of small and mundane interactions which is where these things take place.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
  5. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,408
    I think people mix mechanistic explanations for phenomena with evolutionary explanations, far too glibly. Evolution may (I am doubtful of Darwin's theory) explain the question why something exists, but that is not the same as explaining what that thing is, or how it works. Think for example of consciousness - sure an animal can stay alive and reproduce better if it is conscious, but in no way does that explain what consciousness is!

    What I think you do demonstrate, is the way that materialistic ideas can soak into people, and do immense damage.

    As regards sexual love, yes it does not last for ever - or maybe it goes through rocky periods - but that doesn't really prove that it was somehow phoney.

    David
     
    hypermagda, nbtruthman and TheRaven like this.
  6. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,408
    Well earthly love clearly doesn't last for ever - if nothing else, death intervenes, but does that invalidate it? People sometimes get bored with each other and agree to split up and pair off with others. Sometimes they even remain friends after that process!

    I think your argument is that unless love is absolutely perfect and selfless, it doesn't exist at all!

    BTW, men don't always behave as you say - think of Prince Charles, who left Diana and ultimately returned to Camilla!

    David
     
    hypermagda, Laird and TheRaven like this.
  7. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,408
    Yes, but this sort of research is deceptive, because it suggests that a feeling - in this case love - has been explained in some scientific way. The point is, as we have seen over and over again, is that no such explanation is possible. A scientist can observe that the longer people spend together, the more they care for each other, or love each other, but that is just an observation - it contains no explanation of love within it.

    David
     
    nbtruthman, hypermagda and TheRaven like this.
  8. TheRaven

    TheRaven Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    88
    I wasn’t trying to specifically “call out” men. Women cheat almost as much as men do, so neither side is sacred. If it isn’t perfect, then what is the point? Would you eat a mediocre cake after being told how magnificent it would taste? People get depressed and even suicidal because they cannot find romantic love. People treat love as the holy grail of life when in fact some people will never find it. When couples can just simply get bored of each other, it suggests that romantic love isn’t all that important in life.
     
    hypermagda likes this.
  9. LetsEat

    LetsEat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    360
    Your mileage may vary, doesn't mean it isn't important.

    https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/man-single-handedly-carved-road-mountain/
     
  10. LetsEat

    LetsEat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    360
    This article blows, its written so lazily as to mean nothing at all.
    It starts with:
    Science Says Love Doesn't Exist
    (Okay so the premise is that love doesn't exist..)

    While there's not an open debate about the existence of romantic love
    (Wait we're now talking about Romantic love?)

    According to science, love doesn't exist, so there's nothing to get worked up about. Scientific study into mating and pair bonding behaviors leaves little alternative.
    (Wait now Romantic love is just Pair bonding? This is massively ignorant of the philosophic discussions on this topic)

    This is an animal that, if its mate dies, won't choose another mate. Instead it'll just die alone. Imagine how this vole thinks about its little partner vole. Imagine that love feeling. Are you imagining it?

    (Imagine it all you want, a vole is in no way equivalent to a human being, as an example a vole could never imagine the reverse. In addition most animals lack the ability to think in abstractions. Love for this Vole could very well only mean the act of sex and reproduction but in humans love is a complex array of abstract concepts. This is just logical positivism, that these things can only have meaning if they can be shown empirically but ironically making empiricism contingent for deriving meaning you lose any capacity at deriving meaning from this event because empiricism is merely a collection of data and not their interpretation)

    For the past few decades, scientists and philosophers armed with pop sensibilities and book deals have done a lot of work compiling arguments in layman's terms that each explain away some socially toxic aspect of love
    : heteronormativity (you have to be a man and a woman to be in love), gender binary (you have to be either a man or a woman to be in love), along with patriarchy, monogamy, and exclusivity—all the tattered legacy of our superstitious ancestors.
    (But by the same logic, these socially toxic aspects of love don't really exist either if love doesn't exist. This whole argument is a creepy non-sequitur. This looks like completely unnecessary politicizing of the topic either to play to the audience on this site or to somehow make an argument that its social progress to completely deconstruct love so that when its completely stripped of meaning and value then everyone can have it ((Why would they want it then?))

    But science doesn't just hold that we're a non-monogamous species. We're also fickle. Rutgers University psychology professor Helen Fisher, who spends most of her public speaking time talking about the science of attraction, theorizes that there's a four-year cycle on passion for couples.

    (I keep wondering who this Science fellow is who can make such broad sweeping statements without qualifying? Oh its just the authors interpretation of another persons research... Anyways human behavior is very diverse, because you can find general trends among some populations doesn't indicate genetic causation and even then this would only be applicable to some people. Regardless, if humans are genetically predisposed in ALL cases to be averse to Pair bonding for longer than 4 years isn't it still desirable to enculture people otherwise?)

    And finally, the conclusion:
    Love is just a behavior acted out by choice, because of forces within society. It means something to us not because it's a tangible thing that exists but because we've agreed to pretend it exists, like money, or Christmas.
    (Does he also think math doesn't exist?)
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2018
    nbtruthman likes this.
  11. nbtruthman

    nbtruthman New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    284

    Not interesting to me, nothing new here. These are very shallow, merely the shades of long-discredited Skinnerian behaviorism and logical positivism, and evolutionary psychology. "Science" (meaning closed-minded reductionist materialist naturalism) started by claiming that consciousness itself is an illusion (per Daniel Dennett). That claim is ridiculous on many theoretical/philosophical and especially evidential grounds.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2018
    Wormwood and Typoz like this.
  12. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,377
    Home Page:
    “What was mistaken for closeness was just a... case for mitosis.” -Andrew Bird



    (Not agreeing with the article... I just love this song)
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2018
    Laird likes this.
  13. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    386
    I love my dogs to no end. I assure you it has nothing to do with procreation.....

    Ive also helped an old lady across the street, but it wasn't so I could procreate with her. I soothed my mother during her dying days, nothing to do with procreation.

    Youre latching onto to ONE of the types of love. Romantic love. But there are many other types which do not involve anything to do with procreation. And even with regards to romantic love, I dont think you can argue that it all has to do with sex. Lots of people want somebody to love just to have somebody to love. Somebody to hold, somebody to be romantic with. In tons of cases, sex is low in the list of desirables. Many people seek relationships simply for the love itself, in its own right. If anything, sex is side consequence of a hormonal impulse, that's not the same thing as love. Saying they are the same is widly simple minded.

    Also, NDE accounts etc are totally ridden with accounts that love is the basis for all. I don't see anything remotely compelling about the thought that "love exists for procreation." I think its a totally bankrupt, boring, and unimaginative thought.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
    dpdownsouth, Laird, TheRaven and 2 others like this.
  14. Number 22

    Number 22 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    83
    This kind of science is the one that make me want to live on a mountain
     
  15. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Number 22 likes this.
  16. Number 22

    Number 22 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    83
  17. materialism is bad

    materialism is bad New

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    72
    I'm sick of the arrogant self obsessed "science proves this and that" articles, but this is something I very much agree on. To vast majority of people, love is simply lust in disguise. It only exists for a small minority, the rest don't even know the difference between love and lust.

    You gotta respect Dennett for his persistence on insisting the emperor is wearing clothe. I used to dislike him a lot but now I'm just having a laugh at his expense.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2018
    hypermagda likes this.
  18. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,408
    Although I agree with you, the problem is deeper - one might as well argue that lust doesn't exist - simply no emotion exists from the materialist perspective - everything is the working out of particle dynamics - no different in principle than the 'lust' an electron feels for a proton!

    David
     
  19. nbtruthman

    nbtruthman New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    284

    Only three "likes". I find it discouraging that by implication the majority of the Skeptiko members paying attention to this thread subscribe to the sadly impoverished view of love expressed by TheRaven : "This gave me a good laugh:D I have trouble understanding how love could exists within the human race when it comes to relationships.It all seems like it is only about procreating and making the species survive.", and by "materialism is bad": "To (the) vast majority of people, love is simply lust in disguise. It only exists for a small minority, the rest don't even know the difference between love and lust."

    In my observation, the actual statistics of this are probably reversed. However, it probably is true that only a minority are able to abstractly analyze this issue.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2018
    Wormwood likes this.
  20. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,355
    Four now...
     

Share This Page