I had this discussion on the My Space philosophy forums, and while no one would admit it, they began a fierce argument about whether philosophy is more scientific or more poetic.
The discussion started with the question, “Is love just neurological chemistry, or something to do with the heart and soul?”
From there on, the discussion dissolved to, “is philosophy of scientific origin, or poetic origin?”
I personally know my opinion on the matter, having contemplated it for weeks now. I am curious what the result of such discussion will be here. Feel free to answer either question, and I may join in the chat from time to time.
I agree, science comes from philosophy. Science is a more exact away to explain the universe than philosophy.
Chemistry tells you they how of love but not the why. The why is that so we can more closely resemble the universe. Man represents the Sun, woman represents the Earth.
Science is a language that nihilates. It is a neutral language devoid of any value or meaning. In its desire for objectivity, we educate new generations through the conceptual networks and configurations that Science suggests. When we accept science as “truth” we obscure reality’s possibilities. Science is a useful language in the sense that it is the rhetoric of progress, and helps us turn objects into tools.
However I do not think it has any more “truth” than a more poetic way of speaking. In fact poetic language is less deceptive, because it doesn’t obscure possibility and creativity.
Science: Love is a mental state when the neurotransmitter T hits synapse Y and creates a phenonal experience.
Poetry: Love is something difficult and it is more difficult than other things because in other conflicts nature herself enjoins men to collect themselves, to take themselves firmly in the hand with all their strength, while in the heightening of love the impulse is to give oneself wholly away. - Rainer Maria Rilke
One describes the cause of love, by isolating certain areas of the brain and naming neurochemicals, very useful for turning people in lab rats. The other describes the difficulty of love and the experience of love.
The scientific description might hold some aspect of truth , but it nihilates love in that it does nothing to describe an experience of it.
If you guys couldn’t tell, I take a Heideggerian stance .
No offense Philip, but reading your two posts, you seem to jump slightly. I’m sure it’s a misunderstanding on my own part.
In one breath, you agree with Imp, saying that science gives more detail, but in the very next, you’re saying it’s only half the story. Without sounding hyper-critical, half signifies 50%. More detail signifies more than 50%. It’s a slight change in stand point. If I seem to be far too concerned with detail, I apologize deeply. It’s just a small thing I noticed.
Personally, I think lust is a matter of chemistry, while love is something beyond scientific reason. I’m sure I can be proven wrong in an instant, but then again, I’m a poet more than a scientist.
.