PDA

View Full Version : Theory of love


coberst
12-14-2007, 12:32 PM
Theory of love



Occasionally when reading I run across a phrase or sentence or paragraph, which really rings a bell for me. The bell may be recognition of the compatibility of the point to my own conclusions or perhaps the point caused an epiphany, or other reasons. When I encounter such a point I often copy it and store it in a file for later analysis. One such point is as follows: “Platonic idea that the giving and receiving of knowledge, the active formation of another’s character, or the more passive growth under another’s guidance, is the truest and strongest foundation of love”.
My analysis of this sentence led me down a long trail over an extended period of time to an understanding of the meaning of the statement and to an agreement with the meaning of that statement.

When studying philosophy I had read some of Plato’s work and had a slight remembrance of one of his Dialogues in which he dealt with the subject of love. After some study of the particular Dialogue in question and some further study of Plato’s general philosophy I realized what was meant by the point made in the sentence I had saved.

Plato wrote, “An unexamined life is not worth living”. I find this a bit hyperbolic but nevertheless agree with the general point. Plato also argued that the giving and receiving of knowledge, the active formation of another’s character, or the more passive growth under another’s guidance, is the truest and strongest foundation of love.Plato judged that the basis of love is centered upon the mutual struggle for truth.

I would not attempt to explain why Plato’s Idealistic philosophy leads to this conclusion but I think one can find justification for this point of view by considering the nature of the parent to progeny relationship. Considering the nature of evolution one might easily discover that the origin of love could be observed in the obvious relationship of present day mammals. The educational relationship between the animal mother and their progeny are evident to the most casual observer.



I often watch the Discovery Channel on TV. As you probably know this channel often has a great documentary on animal life. Their audio/visual presentations give the viewer wonderful insights into the life of animals. Often the animals in question are large mammals such as lions, gorillas, monkeys, etc. I find verification of Plato’s theory every time I see the relationship between mother and progeny in these documentaries.

Evolutionary Psychology is based on the theory that all human psychological traits, such as love, must be traceable to our evolutionary ancestors. The source of love in humans is evolved from the mother infant relationship in early mammals (perhaps).



I find this theory of love makes sense. Do you agree?

xexon
12-14-2007, 03:40 PM
Just mammals?

Ever seen how tender crocodile moms are with their young? Or birds?

Love comes about when you sense similar qualities in another person or thing that you yourself possess. Attraction occurs.

Its not really individual love, but a love of all creation expressed through an individual.



x

coberst
12-14-2007, 06:28 PM
xexon

I focus on mammals because they have long periods in which the mother must care for the young. The croc just picks them up and dumps them into the water where they are on their own.

BlackBillBlake
12-14-2007, 10:18 PM
Love is something to feel and to live - no need for theories. It is the most practical thing in the universe.

stonedmonkiwana
12-14-2007, 10:38 PM
I loved reading your post coberst :o)

coberst
12-15-2007, 12:26 PM
Love is something to feel and to live - no need for theories. It is the most practical thing in the universe.
Love is an instinct without which mammals would not have survived.



We have all kinds of ways to use the word love. If we remove all the contingencies we will find that in all cases the essence of love is an emotion, i.e. an instinct.



I love chocolate, I love mom, and I love April in Paris. Love is an instinct and love is an abstract idea. Remove all the contingencies and you are left with the emotion we call love. That feeling resulting from the emotion is really what we are speaking of. We attach that feeling to many things. Just as we attach fear to many things and these emotions help the species to survive.



We assign the same word to many things. I suspect that in many cases we are assigning the improper word. When I say I love cookies I suspect we are using the wrong word. However there is a feeling that results from emotion, which is an instinct, and that feeling like the feeling of fear can save or life. Without such an instinct the species could never have survived.

coberst
12-15-2007, 12:27 PM
I loved reading your post coberst :o)



Thank you. I appreciate that!

def zeppelin
12-15-2007, 01:01 PM
I often times think that love isn't abstract, but objective. I sometimes sense that love is the balance, and patterns, of the universe.

An insect can embody love, and so does everything in the universe.

Love is the harmony of the universe. You become aware and experience love, whenever you explore your world, without subjection. So an unexamined life is not worth living, because you would distance yourself from love.

sexylilunicornbutt
12-15-2007, 06:08 PM
I think you have to go back farther than mammals, to atoms and molecules, to the beginning of time. One thing causes another, so the source of everything is also the source of love.

yyyesiam2
12-16-2007, 02:01 PM
perhaps love is a subconscious (fully conscious with some individuals) understanding of unity with all. the whole is expanding and we connect to this process when we work on ourselves and try to help those around us.

BlackBillBlake
12-16-2007, 10:51 PM
Love is an instinct without which mammals would not have survived.



We have all kinds of ways to use the word love. If we remove all the contingencies we will find that in all cases the essence of love is an emotion, i.e. an instinct.



I love chocolate, I love mom, and I love April in Paris. Love is an instinct and love is an abstract idea. Remove all the contingencies and you are left with the emotion we call love. That feeling resulting from the emotion is really what we are speaking of. We attach that feeling to many things. Just as we attach fear to many things and these emotions help the species to survive.



We assign the same word to many things. I suspect that in many cases we are assigning the improper word. When I say I love cookies I suspect we are using the wrong word. However there is a feeling that results from emotion, which is an instinct, and that feeling like the feeling of fear can save or life. Without such an instinct the species could never have survived.
Maybe we just think too much about all the wrong things rather than experiencing love, which is the greatest experience open to us humans. How it comes about, whether it is simply a modification of our instinctual nature, or something deeper than that, the point is that without love, we cannot live happily or satisfactorily.

Agree there is one word 'love' for many things. In Sanskrit there are over 20 words for different meanings and shades of the thing.

When I say 'I love choc' it isn't accurate - it isn't really love. It's just an example of our sloppy use of language.

coberst
12-17-2007, 11:43 AM
What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

“Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

xexon
12-18-2007, 03:42 AM
There is only one emotion, love. It is understood by the mind, but it cannot see the source.

All else is a dilution caused by the way the mind operates.

x

xexon
12-18-2007, 03:43 AM
And for people like me who are not duelistic, good and evil are the same.

What then?


x

yyyesiam2
12-18-2007, 06:07 AM
then, we perceive people according to where they are at in their development and how we can help them, as it should be.