Love is irrational

[Q]

Do you believe in love?

[Achilles]

Was that for me? If so, please be specific with what you mean by "love".

[Q]

Actually, it was meant for both you and SkinWalker.

 

Simply put, I would define love as a willingness to put another's needs and desires before your own, and acting on it.

[Achilles]

Simply put, I would define love as a willingness to put another's needs and desires before your own, and acting on it.

Do I believe that this sometimes happens and when it does, it is frequently attributed to a phenomenon we label "love"? Yes, I do.

 

May I ask your point?

[Q]

Coming up.

 

Do you support it? Do you think it is a good thing?

[Achilles]

Coming up.

 

Do you support it? Do you think it is a good thing?

Depends entirely on the context.

 

Like a co-dependent wife enabling her junkie husband, no. Like a parent who works hard so that his or her child can have their basic needs met, you betcha.

 

Please keep in mind that we're wandering hopelessly off-topic.

[Q]

We aren't; I assure you.

 

Last question: is love rational?

[Achilles]

We aren't; I assure you.

 

Last question: is love rational?

I'll have to repeat points I've already made above before I can answer your question: it depends on how you define it and what context you're asking me to use it in. In some cases yes and in some cases no. You're giving me something with a lot of moving parts and asking me to endorse it/reject it based on a very limited view with almost no context.

 

Is stabbing your neighbor in the eye with a lawn dart rational? I promise you that I can devise a scenario in which it is.

 

Pretty please back on topic now? (or start a new thread?)

[Q]

Just to make sure that we're perfectly clear, I am anti-irrationalism. If you hold a belief that is irrational, then I am against that belief.

We are on-topic.

 

I have already defined love as simply as anyone could. It is my contention that love is irrational. Wouldn't you agree that it is?

[SkinWalker]

Yes. I would agree that love is irrational. Love is a trick of DNA to get humanity to procreate. What we call "love" is a combination of biochemical reactions chiefly in the brain.

[Q]

I wouldn't call that "love", but you've described lust quite well. Lust only involves satisfying your own urges and therefore has no relation to love, which I have already defined as a willingness or even desire to put another's wants and needs ahead of your own, and acting on it. Lust is also quite rational, whereas love is not.

 

And I still contend that this was perfectly on-topic in the belief thread, but I do fully appreciate exactly why you moved it.

[Achilles]

I have already defined love as simply as anyone could.

That's entirely subjective. Your definition completely ignores huge components of romantic love, etc. Someone else could also claim to define love as simply as possible and come up with something completely different from what you have here.

 

It is my contention that love is irrational. Wouldn't you agree that it is?

I would absolutely agree that "love" can be irrational, yes. It depends entirely on how you're defining it and in which context you using it.

 

ABE: The fact is that "love" (and all emotions for that matter) are nothing more than chemical processes going on in the brain. This is quite observable. So the question I have is why are we using an observable phenomenon to draw an analogy to something that is not?

[Q]

That's entirely subjective.

Is it? I don't think it is. You either love someone or you don't. No semantics involved.

Your definition completely ignores huge components of romantic love, etc.

That's because "romantic love" is merely love mixed with lust.

Someone else could also claim to define love as simply as possible and come up with something completely different from what you have here.

They could, but then they wouldn't be describing love, now would they?

I would absolutely agree that "love" can be irrational, yes. It depends entirely on how you're defining it and in which context you using it.

OK, then how would you define it?

ABE: The fact is that "love" (and all emotions for that matter) are nothing more than chemical processes going on in the brain. This is quite observable. So the question I have is why are we using an observable phenomenon to draw an analogy to something that is not?

Because love is irrational, mainly because it is usually to the detriment of the one who loves, and yet you acknowledge it and support it. Society generally encourages it as opposed to hate, an emotion that makes far more sense to me.

 

My point is that something's being irrational doesn't automatically make it bad, or, more importantly, invalid.

[SkinWalker]

Ultimately, its all about passing DNA on.

 

If I love my wife, I've found someone with whom I can reproduce effectively. If I continue to love her, then I've found someone with whom I can share the responsibility of parenthood and raise a child to adulthood.

 

If I love my daughter, I'm going to be protective of her because I'll want the best possible partner for her when she's an adult and she can pass on my DNA. Hopefully the best parts.

 

If I love my neighbor, I'm positioning my self for favor in the future -politicking so that I'm looked upon favorably and, thus, adding another "friend" to my social network. Friends are beneficial in times of need (large needs and small needs).

 

And so on.

 

All this occurs behind the scenes, under the guise of "love," but all with the ultimate aim of reproducing and raising/protecting that reproduction; positioning that reproduction for the best possible future.

 

Or, at least, its my educated opinion.

[Achilles]

Is it? I don't think it is. You either love someone or you don't. No semantics involved.

I don't think it is.

I

think

Question: how do we distinguish between something that is subjective and something that is objective.

 

Hint: is "l" and "think" language indicative of opinion (subjective) or fact (objective)?

 

That's because "romantic love" is merely love mixed with lust.

That is your definition, sir, and you are welcome to it, as it has little bearing on my point (which is that your earlier definition is very narrow and misses much).

 

They could, but then they wouldn't be describing love, now would they?

Sure they would. And the two of you could argue until the cows come home over which of you is right and which of you is wrong, but it wouldn't change that you were both subjectively defining the term to your suit your own means.

 

OK, then how would you define it?

 

Main Entry: love

Pronunciation: \ˈləv\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lēof dear, Latin lubēre, libēre to please

Date: before 12th century

 

1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>

 

2: warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>

 

<snip>

 

4 a: unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another <snip>

 

<snip>

 

6: an amorous episode : love affair

 

7: the sexual embrace : copulation

 

<snip>

 

<snip>

 

Because love is irrational,

Thank you for sharing that opinion with us.

 

mainly because it is usually to the detriment of the one who loves,

Wow.

 

and yet you acknowledge it and support it.

I'm not sure what this means. I acknowledge the phenomenon because it is observable. Would it be rational to do otherwise?

 

Society generally encourages it as opposed to hate, an emotion that makes far more sense to me.

Opinion based on your own biases and experiences.

 

My point is that something's being irrational doesn't automatically make it bad, or, more importantly, invalid.

Well, except for the whole "unable to establish any of this as being something other than your 2 cents" thing. Your whole point is based on your opinion and while I would never begrudge you your opinion, that doesn't mean that I have to find it persuasive.

[Q]

Ultimately, its all about passing DNA on.

<snip>

Or, at least, its my educated opinion.

Well, I hope that your wife shares your opinion, or at the very least is not a member here.

Well, except for the whole "unable to establish any of this as being something other than your 2 cents" thing. Your whole point is based on your opinion and while I would never begrudge you your opinion, that doesn't mean that I have to find it persuasive.

 

Main Entry: love

Pronunciation: \ˈləv\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lēof dear, Latin lubēre, libēre to please

Date: before 12th century

 

1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>

 

2: warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>

 

<snip>

 

4 a: unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another <snip>

 

<snip>

 

6: an amorous episode : love affair

 

7: the sexual embrace : copulation

Apparently my "opinion" somehow found its way into the dictionary. Yes, it may be only one definition, but once you wash away all of the semantic BS you'll find that it's the only definition.

 

And I didn't even need to consult a dictionary to know it.

[SkinWalker]

Well, I hope that your wife shares your opinion, or at the very least is not a member here.

 

Not a chance. She's a hopeless romantic. And I'm able to suspend disbelief sufficiently that I remain faithful and a loyal friend.

 

Still, if Summer Glau ever...... sorry. Just watched Terminator. It was getting interesting.

[Q]

 

Well, at least you're honest.

[Achilles]

Apparently my "opinion" somehow found its way into the dictionary.

Your "opinion" is that your way of defining it is the only way. Just an FYI that I've just about reached my obtuse limit for the day and might need to sign off soon so my brain will stop hurting.

 

Yes, it may be only one definition, but once you wash away all of the semantic BS you'll find that it's the only definition.

In your opinion. Yes, we get it.

 

Please feel free to address my other points in your next response. Otherwise I will be forced to conclude that you are avoiding them because you realize they unmake your argument.

[Q]

What other points are you referring to? It's hard to see through all of that smoke.

 

Just an FYI that I've just about reached my obtuse limit for the day and might need to sign off soon so my brain will stop hurting.

Well, it would appear that we have one thing in common.

 

Would you prefer if I re-worded every single one of my posts to include the words "my opinion of the definition of love"? Would that satisfy you?

[Achilles]

Well, put down whatever it is that smoking over there and you might be able to see the monitor a little more clearly. My 2 cents.

[Q]

Haha, I wish sometimes.

 

Let's start over. Do you believe that my definition of love exists?

[Achilles]

Let's start over. Do you believe that my definition of love exists?

Yes, of course. It is observable. Why wouldn't I believe that it exists?

 

I'll even agree that that particular flavor of love can lead to irrational behavior. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it exists, hence why this distraction has nothing to do with the topic we were originally discussing.

 

To recap: Yes, love exists. Yes, sometimes it manifests itself via irrational behavior. The 2nd point has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st. The 1st point, being an observable phenomenon, is not a valid analogy for the existence of god, an unobservable phenomenon. I hope that helps.

[Samuel Dravis]

Don't mind me, I'm just posting an conversation about this which may be interesting:

 

So it seems that most of us have irrational beliefs of one kind or other, or delusions.

 

The second greatest perhaps being a belief in deity.

 

Which begs the question, what is the first great delusion.

 

Well I'm gonna say the belief that you are loved.

 

Now, now, hear me out, you at the back sit down for just a sec yeah.

 

I believe I am loved, by my siblings, by my spouse, my children, my parents, and the very best of my friends.

 

There is though no empirical evidence to back this up, I rely that the words, and deeds of others that lead me to this conclusion are in fact true. I must believe that when my wife says 'I love you' she is in fact telling the truth.

 

Go on admit it, I'm right, innit!

Your first mistake is considering love to be (only) a feeling. Love is put to the test, feelings are not. For example, you can say: "That wasn't real love, just infatuation." But you can't say: "That wasn't a real pain (or sound, feeling, taste etc)." There is a clear logical difference between a feeling and the concept of love. So there are ways to know that people love you - and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

 

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is - and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English. Lack of a tautological proof of love or beauty isn't even relevant here.

One could argue then that love is both: a feeling and something you can put to the test.

Sure, I don't discount that. But love, as a concept, is much more than just a feeling. Otherwise it'd just be infatuation, not love.

If I may ask, how do you define love?

I don't, although I like some (limited) descriptions of it:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

 

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

 

Love never fails....And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I'm not religious but these words are true. It's not meant to delineate the entire concept of love, but just to show: these things are part of love, and other things can be also.

That Biblical passage is, to date, the best description of love I've seen.

So there are ways to know that people love you - and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

 

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is - and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English. Lack of a tautological proof of love or beauty isn't even relevant here.

That's a little contradictory no? 'It's not a question of evidence' vs 'whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house'

 

So if a smile is evidence of love, or wind, or a deception, then it is subjective? You can take a smile as evidence of love, but even then you are choosing to believe that is what it is.

Forgive me. It's not a question of evidence for a feeling. Your previous argument was:

 

Love is a feeling.

Feelings are completely subjective.

Therefore, can't be sure if someone loves you.

 

I disagreed with the first premise.

Do you not consider infatuation to be a kind of love, perhaps a precursor even?

No, I consider it infatuation - though I won't deny that infatuation often comes before love.

What would you say the differance is?

Pretty much similar to wiki's answer on the subject. It's typically characterized by "a lack of trust, loyalty, commitment, and reciprocity." In my response to A you can see some of the ways that love would be different from that.

 

Forgive me. It's not a question of evidence for a feeling. Your previous argument was:

 

Love is a feeling.

Feelings are completely subjective.

Therefore, can't be sure if someone loves you.

 

I disagreed with the first premise.

Sorry I don't think I said that. If you are paraphrasing me, I think you have the wrong end of the stick mate.

Yes, I paraphrased for clarity. In what way did I misunderstand you?

I did not say that love is a feeling.

Nonetheless, I believe my point was valid. In your original post, it quite clearly indicates that love is taken to be subjective. In the same way we "can't know" whether someone feels pain, we "can't know" whether someone loves another. I disagreed with this idea and I gave an example for why it is not possible to coherently treat it as an exclusively subjective experience.

So there are ways to know that people love you - and whether they do is shown by a glance, a smile, or sometimes even kicking you out of the house.

 

It's not a question of evidence any more than the statement "The sunset is beautiful" is - and if someone said, "But you don't have any evidence that it's beautiful!" I'd laugh at them and maybe tell them to go learn to speak English.

To be pedantic, the belief that the sunset is beautiful is on much more steady ground than the belief that another loves you.

Logically I don't think it does rest on steadier ground, which was my point. I wanted to show that, in this situation ("the sunset is beautiful") we do not question it-- but now we question another situation ("I love you") that has a similar logical form.

 

Suppose a parent - who makes their child lunches for school, flies kites with them on weekends, reads them bedtime stories, comforts them when they're hurt and protects them when in danger - says to their child, "I love you." Why is that more doubtful than than the statement "the sunset is beautiful"? I say: there is no steadier ground than this.

Because the statement, "the sunset is beautiful", is a statement relating to the self, and I agree with you that we cannot doubt our phenomenological experiences; at least, we cannot doubt that we are having them, that we experience an aesthetically pleasing scene.

 

There is more doubt, however, in regards to statements relating to others, such as someone else saying "I love you". I can doubt that you genuinely love me in a way I cannot when considering my own state of mind; no matter the outward behavioral evidence.

 

Though, we'd live a rather poor life if we constantly did doubt as I say above. It is, as I mentioned, a rather pedantic point.

I was thinking of someone else saying that the sunset was beautiful, just as someone else would say that they love you. I don't think we really disagree here.

[Achilles]

@The Illustrious Master Dravis:

 

Thanks for posting that exchange. The problem with defining/testing love is the same problem that you have for defining/testing any emotion. You can accurately identify a range of feelings, usually associated with a corresponding set of behaviors, but you cannot point to one specific subset of either and say that it accounts for all of it.

 

As for being able to identify specific emotions in others, well, that's complicated. As social creatures, most of us are well adapted to recognize certain cues, however those cues can be faked convincingly. To that end, one would have to accept that yes, it truly is impossible to determine 100% that someone is feeling something. However that doesn't mean that we cannot accurately deduce whether someone is genuinely feeling the emotions that they say they are feeling.

 

See also: Theory of Mind