Does love actually exist? Is it something that is actually all chemicals that cause you to be attracted to another person? Are we meant for only one person, or many? After we find a person, what will keep you from losing him/her if its all chemicals, would you really care if they were gone?
This might have fit in better in the Religion forum
I experience the feeling of love, so for me love exists. The chemicals you are talking about are a physical thing, which may be produced when we feel love, or when they are produced we may feel love, but either way they are not the same thing as the feeling.
If love is “all chemicals,” then it seems natrual to think that everything that has ever happend in your mind is reducable to chemical exhanges and nerual impules. However, no matter what mechanism you go through to understand it, I can assure you that Algebra exist outside your head.
So let me ask you a question. Do you think there is a future in which robots could love? This would indicate that love is not dependant on chemicals.
Now while these chemicals may play a role in the causal chain that makes one feel “love” (I don’t think these chemical swelled feelings are love), something causes the brian to produce those chemicals. First you must see something you like, then you get into the whole chemical thing.
Now I don’t think these chemical swelled feelings are properly called love, they are more just the initial atraction. What I perfer to call love comes only from real understanding and contemplation of another, and so long as that person doesn’t change at there core- it will last forever.
If you want my definition, your just going to have to use your search function. I don’t feel like typeing it out agian.
This help at all?
i think chemicals are not directly related to love… chemicals are a response to an attraction u feel towrds someone else, which might result in love or might just remain in a physical attraction… i think loe has to do with the amount a person makes a difference in your life, u judge how much friends are for u according to how big is their influence in ur life, up to a point where you would sacrifice your own life for theirs, and then we unconsciously call that love
Lost guy/ Interesting post. You wrote:
Why is that? People who think that subjective experience are reducible to chemicals (or maybe “statements about subjective experience are reducible to statements about chemicals”) generally don’t think that things like algebra or logical constants are reducible to chemicals. I think that some philosophers during the 19th century thought that the laws of logic and mathemathics were descriptive laws about how humans think. This theory (psychologism) may not be “reductionistic”, but it tries to translate the laws of logic into a “naturalist” scheme. It was refuted by Frege (but I think that the first to formulate these ideas was Bolzano) who claimed that the logical laws were normative laws, not descriptive laws. It sounds correct to me, but I haven’t studied Frege’s arguments.
I dont know if you’ve studied philosophy of mind. However, this is a common argument there. Materialists like Smart claimed that “pain is c-fibre stimulation”. Then people said that something (a computer, an alien etc) could have pain without having c-fibre stimulation. So, pain cant be c-fibre stimulation.
Then people came up with the idea that mental states like pain are “functions” of some physical systems, like computers and chemical systems. I think one has to say that pain can be a function of different biological systems, even biological systems that doesn’t exist on this planet. However, a more controversial issue is whether computers can have pain. This idea has been attacked by Searle - I cannot, however, give a good account of his ideas since I’ve forgotten them.
I’m not sure if this is an accurate account, since I’ve only gone through an introductory course in the philosophy of mind. Its a very lively subject in philosophy, though. A very good homepage with lots of links is this: jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/
So many have laboured long and hard to untie the knots, and yet the average person still thinks “is there such a thing as love?” is a good starting point for collaborative truth seeking. Then we have to go through the motions of deconstructing the phrase, the word, and going into our shpeel about materialism and idealism, existentialism, evolution, pragmatism, phenomenolgy, blah blah blah. Every time, every question, the same process.
I think if philosophy has ONE GOAL, it is to teach more people that most of the things they believe are bad answers to even worse questions. EVEN THOUGH WE’VE KNOWN THIS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Philosophy needs a marketing program…a new logo. Someone call Trump, or Donny Deutsch. New babies are born every day who will care less and less about the “history of thought” and forego the very real (if paltry) bi-products it does offer.
Until then, I have to say that most of us find love a useful word, and agree on most of it’s meaning. But I can’t stomach a tired polemic on whether “it” exists, or even the tired tracks on “how” “It” “exist.” I can’t stand my own post. I thank all your valiant efforts though. Sometimes I don’t “love” philosophy. if there is a concrete block on somebody, I remove it. That’s all I know about love…and even this is a fiction I choose to embrace.
And by the way…can someone please tell me if there such a thing as…(sniff)…love?
Gamer/ I think I agree with you, but I’m not quite sure I understood what you meant. I think that instead of asking for definitions of vague and ambiguous ordinary language words, one should identify interesting properties and give them a useful name - either an artificial word or an ordinary language word.
To ask for a short definition of a word like “love” is to think that human linguistic behaviour is far more simple than it actually is. That should be clear to everyone by now. If you want to give a complete definition of “love”, you have to describe all its senses. I don’t think that is a philosophically very rewarding activity. It would also be very time-consuming.
I am also somewhat surprised to see how many people think that they can do “philosophy” without having read virtually anything. If we aren’t to invent the wheel over and over again, people have to read what other people have said. For example, the search for a “real definition”, that is, the “essence” or short definition of ambiguous and vague words like “love”, an activity that many people on this site try to perform (on threads like “is a rock alive, the definition of life etc.”) , has been refuted as worthless by analytic philosophers. (Something I’ve tried to explain over and over again, but people don’t seem to listen.) This is very basic philosophical knowledge.
I also think that reading the “great philosophers” like Nietzsche, Plato, Kant etc. is very overrated. If you really do want to learn philosophy, and not just talk a lot of mumbo jumbo, start from the beginning, learning the basic teachings of analytic philosophy.
So, I think I’m with you, but would you please explain a bit more what you meant.
I’m afriad I’m takeing Mind next semster.
Hmm, I think you did find an error in my thinking concerning love and algebra. For love could be said to be the way we experiance something (or specifically someone), while algebra is something we experiance.
So then I would have to change my argument to be, that despite the chemicals that the cause of your love, the other person still exist.
So with this in mind, let me make a second attept to argue that love is something more than chemicals.
When we are taught algebra- hopefully there is a chemical reaction in our brain that gives a feeling of understanding. However, this feeling isn’t understanding. If the feeling was caused in an improper way, a misunderstanding of the algebra, then it wouldn’t be true understanding although it felt the same.
So when one has the feeling of love, the chemcial state, this is not enough. The love must be caused in a proper way. Now, “what is the proper way for love to be caused?” seems to be an ethical question. But I think only the most primitive form of hedonist would say that one should accept these feelings no matter where they come from.
This is why contemplation is so important. When we feel we are in love, we must examine the situation to be sure its truly love- just as when we feel we understand something we must check that feeling with our rational capacity.
Love is the strength to let go and still keep hold
To be a first-hand witness of modesty in bold
When the tips of trembling fingers grow so cold
A fall from aloft awakes and breaks the mold
Lostguy/ I think that the mind is “caused” by the brain. One mental state can be caused by different brains or physical systems. I also think that we shouldn’t let the fact that the mind is caused by the brain have much impact on our views of ethics.
I also think that “love” is a very vague word. So, it is hard to tell what should count as “love” and what should not. Different people use it to refer to different mental states, and maybe even to other things.
As to understanding, your way of reasoning seem to lie close to the “classical definition of knowledge” (my teacher called it that at least. Actually I think it should be called “analysis of knowledge”.) To know something is to have justified true belief. So, the mental state caused by chemicals (the “feeling of understanding”) is not enough for knowledge, it also needs to be true and justified (caused in a proper way).
Let me give a more direct response, because this topic is not approached well, and usually digresses from the point.
Love exists as an idea which is shared by many as one of the most intense of emotions which is from the larger of combinations of reasons. One person’s definition is as valid as the other because love is an idea. As far as a collective understanding of love and a definition, the more experiences we share about “love” the closer we will come to an overall understanding. It is impossible for one person to define love because it is a collective emotion in all senses of “collective.” Language will always fail to nail down love. Love transcends language as well as the individual…
Yes, chemicals are involved and so our our natural reactions, as well as our mental ruminations, interactions, etc… The list goes on and on. Humans are taught to think in limits. Our language “defines” and is not geared for open-endedness. True philosophers begin to understand this concept, but our languages carry definition without fine print telling us that the definition is subject to change without warning… If our words were geared to accomodate that never ending list of influences that cause definitions to take on new meaning, then we might be able to begin defining love, but until then, we will just have revel in our experiences and share as much of it as we can…
I think someone eluded to this…
Vulgar is not the word, it’s how you use it. Beauty is not the word, it’s why you choose it. See how it stands apart? At least make an effort to understand the art.
Your right I was useing the classical view (or an augmented version). I’ve been trying to stick to what I think the views of the original poster are plus some fairly unconversial stuff. This way I could try to show she isn’t doomed under her metaphysics.
Personally I’m not terribly sure the brain has anything more to do with the mind than the rest of the body. And if I had to fathom as guess as to the connection I’d say the mind causes changes in the body as much or more than the reverse.
But this thread isn’t about me.
Jessica,
Here, I’ll define romantic love for you. Love is really a chemical affinity for another. When we see someone we love with another in an intimate way it effects a response inside us and SO changes the chemicals or their combinations inside us. To the extent we verify that our love has been unfaithful to us clearly, it hurts us and so effects more of this chemical change to the point that the AFFINITY DISAPPEARS. Get it? That’s what I think. However, don’t look upon love as this chemical affinity thing because otherwise it is really a very beautiful thing.
she is not talking about attraction, but about the feeling… … 
Love is:
That which it is better to have and lose than never to have had at all.
Hatred is a lit match in a fireworks factory. So is love.
Anyone who has ever had a “broken heart” can tell you that love is very real and that the emotional pain that accompanies a broken heart is very real, and can be debilitating. Emotional pain can be far more severe and far harder to overcome than any physical pain. It cuts like a knife at the very core of one’s being. Only time can heal a broken heart.
Love means to feel very strong attachement or intense dedication. Unlimited and unconditional goodwill towards other people, but more specifically an attachment and dependency upon a particular person, characterized by: 1) feelings of pleasure in their presence, in the thought of them, in communion with them, and in their welfare and 2) pain in their suffering or absence or estrangement. If such absence is temporary then despondency and a strong desire to seek them out, or if permanent, then feelings of severe loss, and possible serious emotional injury may occur.
Love can be base. Merely because we can love does not mean we should. Love as a virtue is thought to depend upon the object of love being worthy, valuable, useful, pleasant and virtuous, loving and taking pleasure from what one ought to rightly love. It would be very unlikely that a man of virtue would love a person with a flawed character. States of character are attracted to similar states of character. The basis for lasting, long-term love is that the couple sees common virtue in one another.
Universal love for all mankind is thought to be completely unconditional. That all men are due love. That all men have a right to be loved. Even if they are useless, unpleasant, unworthy, and utterly lacking in any virtue, completely given over to vice, viscious, violent, lacking self-discpline, selfish, repulsive and anti-social, they are still due this unconditional universal love. But personally I do not agree with this concept. For me to love a person, I must see something in them that is worthy of love.
The love of a parent for a child is said to be unconditional. However, as a parent, I disagree. A parent derives great pleasure from their child. Your child is part of you, part of who you are. A parent has great compassion for the child and shares a feeling of oneness with the child. Their success and virtue is a source of great joy to a parent. The desire of a parent to care for and nurture the child is nearly inseperable from the parent’s own well-being. This is why the loss of a child is such traumatic event for a parent, and why it is so common for marriages to fall apart after the loss of a child. However, the fact that this feeling of intense attachment and self-love only extends to your own child and not to all children universally, I think proves that it is not unconditional. It is in fact conditional upon the child being your child. Not to say that people don’t love children universally and see great virtue in children, but not with the same intensity that they feel for their own particular child.
Finally, I would comment to anyone who questions the reality of love, that if anyone has ever experienced the lack of love, the feeling of being unloved, the sense that nobody loves you, then you also know what a powerful force love can be on influencing human behavior. The most miserable human on the planet is he who thinks he is unlovable, and cannot even love himself.
You cheating bastard!!! Seriously, this is a great thread to see love in a more objective way. Love the comments. And I agree very much. I have yet to see my boyfriend do a number on me.
I recently posted a comment on ‘Love’ but in a complete different discussion. Female ‘friends’ of mine always do the exact same thing as eachother and it makes me wonder. Whenever they break up with a boyfriend they always say that they feel so different when their not around ‘him’ to as when they are. They say that even their friends have noticed a change in their attitude ever since they broke up with their boyfriend, some even go as far as to say that they feel so much better when their around their boyfriend and now they just feel awful.
I believe this is the same kind of love that i have for Cannabis. Cannabis makes me feel good about myself when i smoke it, i wouldn’t say it makes me feel happy but that’s not what i mean, but it makes me feel good, maybe this is why my female friends feel so lost when they break up with their boyfriends? Maybe they wasn’t actually in love with the boy, but rather the way that boy made them feel about themselfs? Hence the reason they feel awful now that they broke up.
I do think that their is a different type of feeling also, the feeling where you know that your going to be scared when a loved one dies, the feeling where you know you can’t possibly accept the fact that a loved one has died. I have that feeling with my brother, it doesn’t exactly make me feel good but it remains until death. You’ve probably already noticed that people who are in love with boyfriends and girlfriends are always happy, maybe they just feel so good about themselfs?
I do think that the way life is portrayed to us that most people want to fall in love, they feel like an outsider if they do. Everybody seems to have boyfriends/girlfriends, you could almost think it was some part of meaning to life, obviously not but rather a trend in life.
Love is an illusion, a fairy story told to little children so they dont grow up thinking that the world is an inhuman place. Or am i a cynic?
I think that if love is said to be all chemicals then all emotions are therefore chemicals. Thus, the heavy heart you feel when you are sad is a result of chemical changes in your brain. Since all emotions come from the brain when you loose this person your brain has told you, you love then your brain will tell you that now you are sad. Just because you see it as chemical or spiritual will not change the effect it has. So, does love exist? Of course. You are asking how it exists.
