Love is irrational

[Darth Avlectus]

Do you believe in love?

 

Basically, yes.

 

<snip>

 

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

 

One definition, perhaps the truest. Least it works out that way when one looks for a lasting example.

 

Now: Is the thesis an explorative one or a definitive one?

 

 

Last question: is love rational?

 

It depends on the type of love, which could be messy to sort out. It could be either one, but not both at the same time. All logic is truth, but not all truth is logical...

 

For those with no spirituality, I guess you could substitute that last one with:

All logic is truth, but not all truth necessarily makes sense.

 

In all seriousness, there are many cases in which the word love could be (and is) used. Context, situation, meanings, mindsets...we really could get technical I suppose.

 

 

*brevity*

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

 

 

Hmm, we turn to the dictionary. We could learn a lot from what is said by it. And even stuff from what isn't said.

 

Still, to be fair, we do need a rational compass. It certainly neatens things up and puts order and rationality to a subject which could become irrational all too easily.

 

 

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.

 

You don't believe in god? What a surprise.

 

@ thread

 

I guess I can endeavor to talk on the point of lasting love vs one night stand.

 

In a simple manner it is the continuum of one extreme to another. Could it be whatever you believe it to be? That's hard to answer. I could say no, but the infatuated would then disagree with me--perhaps even to gunpoint. I could say yes, but then those like Jae, and even my own parents would probably lecture me into the ground.

 

FTR I have my own position on this, but for the sake of debate and discourse (however you prefer, Q) I am going to play 's advocate.

 

I mean, who is to say what you think and feel at the moment isn't real; isn't true?

 

Who could truly say what the "truth" of such matters are? Whether or not it is true?

 

How objective is it? How subjective is it?

 

Over time, how can one tell it's true and not just some...circumstance or special phenomena?

 

What is it if it's static and long lasting? What is it if it's dynamic and short?

 

 

See what I mean? Love can be of limited time or timeless. Can be full or empty. Can be dull or dynamic. Long or short.

 

I guess my general answer is "It depends." There are many unknowns which would first need to be...known.

[Achilles]

You don't believe in god? What a surprise.

You must be new.

[Q]

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.

The point that I was trying to make through this lengthy exercise is that irrationality does not automatically disqualify validity. That's all.

 

I wasn't trying to use the existence of love as analogy for the existence of God. I was only trying to make the above point.

[Rake]

 

The point that I was trying to make through this lengthy exercise is that irrationality does not automatically disqualify validity. That's all.

 

I wasn't trying to use the existence of love as analogy for the existence of God. I was only trying to make the above point.

 

I think the main difference is that love is observable where as God is not.

[RoxStar]

They don't call it "falling" in love for nothing.

 

Falling in love is completely irrational, but completely amazing.

[Q]

I wouldn't know, myself. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

But then again, I'm a jaded, selfish, evil bastard who thinks that dogs are more capable of love than humans.

 

I'm inclined to agree with SkinWalker that love does not exist in reality, and that it's a pretty facade that we put on our emotional codependency.

[Achilles]

The point that I was trying to make through this lengthy exercise is that irrationality does not automatically disqualify validity. That's all.

But you haven't done that.

 

Even if I were to accept that love was irrational (which I do not), that doesn't even begin to address the problem of validity. The real argument you're presenting is whether or not love itself is rational (which is debatable). What you aren't addressing is whether or not love exists. Love can be observed, so no rational person would question its existence. The "validity" of love never even comes up, therefore your argument can't possibly do what you think it does.

 

I wasn't trying to use the existence of love as analogy for the existence of God. I was only trying to make the above point.

With all due respect, you've failed miserably.

 

If you truly want to show that irrationality doesn't preclude validity, don't use something that can be empirically observed as a basis for your analogy. Furthermore, you're also dragging your personal bias that love is inherently irrational into your argument which seems to be preventing you from viewing the problem objectively. My 2 cents.

 

P.S. at the risk of putting my foot in my mouth by speaking for someone else, I don't think Skinwalker was arguing that love doesn't exist. I think he was simply pointing out that it's the product of a chemical reaction in the brain. Not the same thing.

[Q]

What you aren't addressing is whether or not love exists.

Do you believe that my definition of love exists?

[Achilles]

And what did I reply to that question:

 

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

 

Did you answer my question? Did you make any attempt to follow up your argument in any way?

 

Asking a question and addressing a point are not the same thing. Offering up multiple premises and thinking that acknowledgment of one validates the others or somehow makes your point is not forming an argument.

 

Nothing you've offered shows that love existing supports your point (aside from saying that it does). What you have offered are a number of false premises leading to a flawed conclusion which is supposed to act as some sort of false analogy which I think was supposed to validate theism...or something.

 

P.S. You've wormed your way around every attempt I've made to nail you down to a position in this topic. If you don't intend on actually debating your topic, then please excuse yourself from this thread. Thanks in advance.

[Q]

You claim that it is observable. How do you know that what you are observing is indeed love? Is it provable?

 

And, as I stated above, my position is that love does not exist:

I'm inclined to agree with SkinWalker that love does not exist in reality

[Rake]

You claim that it is observable. How do you know that what you are observing is indeed love? Is it provable?

 

And, as I stated above, my position is that love does not exist:

 

So your asserting that love, by this definition: 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>

 

Does not exist? Can you elaborate on how you came to your conclusion?

[Achilles]

And, as I stated above, my position is that love does not exist:

Help me understand:

 

You don't believe that love exists...

Therefore that means that I should believe that god does...

 

???

[Q]

God wasn't part of the point i was trying to make in the other thread. I was glad when SkinWalker split it off, as it was appropriate to do so. As I stated before:

The point that I was trying to make through this lengthy exercise is that irrationality does not automatically disqualify validity. That's all.

 

I wasn't trying to use the existence of love as analogy for the existence of God. I was only trying to make the above point.

[Achilles]

Sir, you may have forgotten that you pleaded with me to for the opportunity to show that point was directly related, but I have not.

 

You could have picked another example. You could have opted not to participate in the thread at all. Yet neither of those things happened and now you're asking me to accept that your argument has nothing to do with the thread you raised it in? Sir, how stupid do you think I am?

 

I have already pointed out that your argument fails. I invite you again to address the points I raised in post #32 if you hope to convince me otherwise.

[Q]

Does not exist? Can you elaborate on how you came to your conclusion?

Easy enough. People are full of ****. They'll say anything to get what they want from each other and to rationalize their motives and actions. I've never observed any evidence of the real thing; only lies.

Sir, you may have forgotten that you pleaded with me to for the opportunity to show that point was directly related, but I have not.

I did no such thing. I was only responding to this statement:

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.

Perhaps I could/should have been more clear, but I wanted to see if you acknowledged the existence of something I thought to be irrational, and the first thing that popped into my head was love. I was curious. That is all I was addressing. I apologize for the confusion.

[Rake]

Easy enough. People are full of ****. They'll say anything to get what they want from each other and to rationalize their motives and actions. I've never observed any evidence of the real thing; only lies.

 

That seems sort of awkward to me. Isn't that like someone claiming they are mentally ill, but in reality they are full of ****. So because some people falsely claim mental insanity, mental disorders do not exist? I think love does genuinely exist at times, especially with physical attractions.

[Achilles]

Perhaps I could/should have been more clear, but I wanted to see if you acknowledged the existence of something I thought to be irrational, and the first thing that popped into my head was love. I was curious. That is all I was addressing.

People are full of ****.

They'll say anything to rationalize their motives and actions.

Your point has been well made, sir. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

[Darth Avlectus]

@ thread:

 

There is significant difference between lasting love (many call it the truest form of it), and lust (urge to have unbridled sex to satisfy the baser instincts). Is love irrational: yes. Is it always? NO.

 

Though it can be irrational, it is also truth of sorts. Problem is how best to express it. One thing about such a powerful emotion is that it is difficult to control. Difficult but still possible. It is also used in a variety of ways. Unaffectionate ways. Ultimately it is intended for the good of others and of oneself.

 

An example of rational, unconditional love:

 

An episode of Dr. House. A girl tried to commit suicide. She was rescued.

House asked her why she did it. She couldn't reply anything except that she made a horrible mistake. Then there was the question of if he was going to notify her parents. He did, with great reservation, tell her technically that he couldn't do anything if she promised not to attempt suicide again. She promised. House got a rather cynical half-disgusted look on his face and muttered "Yeah right."

 

A sort of tough love tactic, but in all honesty, probably would have had a profound effect on a patient in real life. For the better.

 

That is not to say, though, that irrational acts end up badly. Someone jumps in front of certain danger (perhaps death) in order to save another. Irrational, but it was for the same reason: love.

 

You must be new.

Maybe.

 

They don't call it "falling" in love for nothing.

 

Falling in love is completely irrational, but completely amazing.

 

The best is ultimately whether or not it lasts, in my opinion. Something I haven't yet achieved. However, I think most would generally tend to agree with that assertion. I do.

 

True they don't call it falling for no reason. The fall can be very hard--which is probably an understatement. It's much the same way as ending up putting craters in the floor of your electronics lab, or accidentally destroying equipment: if you are not risking something, you're not trying hard enough. It can be great in freefall, but the landing is rough. It hurts badly too. I wonder if it is truly possible to feel the good and joy without also the hardships, the pain, and the sorrow. Maybe it is, but I'd think it would not be appreciated without sometihng to contrast it. At the very least it defines purpose. Feel free to disagree, though.

 

If you're going to accuse me of lying, Achilles, I would suggest that you either prove it or retract it.

 

I care not which.

 

Ooh, vicious.

[Ray Jones]

Is love irrational? No. How could it be? It's merely an evolutionary concept. Can it cause behaviour, which is seemingly irrational? Yes. Does this mean this behaviour actually is irrational? No.

[EnderWiggin]

They don't call it "falling" in love for nothing.

 

Falling in love is completely irrational, but completely amazing.

 

 

I'm inclined to agree with SkinWalker that love does not exist in reality, and that it's a pretty facade that we put on our emotional codependency.

What do you mean? Without defining "love" it is impossible to claim this.

 

Perhaps the "emotional codependency" is what love is?

 

Hopefully you see my point

 

_EW_

[Ray Jones]

Love is a stainless steel eagle inscribed with hellish utterances, jet black, bristling with missiles and chain guns under a forty-foot wingspan that comes screeching down upon you on a moonless, stormy night. Its only purpose can be to destroy.

 

Everyone who was ever in love knows this.