Philosophy in the Den

SA · September 18, 2006, 11:21:41 AM

That is possibly one of the hardest subjective questions one could ever ask.

I ain't gonna touch that one with a ten foot pole...

Xathan · September 18, 2006, 01:15:13 PM

The question itself is more interesting the answer, since defining love with words is like trying to paint a song or write a picture: the medium is wholly inaccurate for the concept it is trying to convey.

Short answer: I'm not touching it either, but because the nature of the subject makes the question inadequate, and any answer cannot cover the fullness, or even a significant part, of the nature of love. Love is really beyond human comprehension and vocalization, unless you are in it. (I never refer to love in the past tense - you don't fall out of love, and if you do, then you weren't in love in the first place OR you consciously suppressed it.)

SDragon · February 21, 2007, 11:06:17 AM

*bump*

In response to ElDo's last question, I think we can start at one of the definitions given to Lysis, by Socrates:

"Good is friends with that which is neither good nor evil, by reason of evil" (roughly paraphrased; i hope the intent shows through).

In example, the body (neutral) loves medicine (good), for the cause of ridding sickness (evil).

This can be used, for most practical purposes, as a working definition, but I think we should be able to improve upon it. thoughts, anybody?

edit- I didn't notice this last page.... anyways, i agree with Xathan, at least as far as the emotions created by the concept are concerned. Those emotions truely are beyond definition, and-- as all emotions-- are incredibly subjective. That said, I think we can work with the concept itself, and leave the emotions it creates agreed upon by unspoken collective experience.

Damn, this site really presses the use of my vocabulary....

beejazz · February 22, 2007, 12:11:22 AM

Definitions of love. Hmmm... how about "love is poorly defined because the English language sucks ass."

The Greeks had what? Five words for love? And each had a specific meaning distinct from the others. We have one and it's a catch all for sex, family, friendship, romance, and favorite foods.

You know that thing where eskimos are supposed to have so many words for "snow?" What does the ambiguity in the definition of love tell us about ourselves, regardless of the meaning of love itself?

Edit: In case you couldn't tell yet, I am to love as Rael is to elves.

Raelifin · February 22, 2007, 01:23:01 AM

Quote from: beejazzEdit: In case you couldn't tell yet, I am to love as Rael is to elves.

You have no idea how funny that is.

:ontopic: I also say that you'll need a stronger definition that that. And for lack of such, I will pose an answer to my interpretation of said question.

If we understand humans to be animals, and yes, that's a tangent in itself, then we can understand that the prime directive of our being is that of survival and reproduction. (Survival itself is an extension of reproduction, but I think it helps to see it as a concept in itself.)

As social beings, we meet prime directive through the forming of social structures and groups.

My interpretation of ElDo's mighty question is: "Why is there a unique emotion of romantic love and does it differ from other emotions in nature?"

As social beings with the goal of reproduction, it becomes absolutely important as beings to build strong bonds with the opposite gender with the intention of making babies. Our body and subconscious has a profound and clear impact on our action through various things which I call "feelings." If we need food, our body introduces the feeling of hunger so we want to eat. On this same note we often have an almost instinctual reaction to those who we perceive as potential mates. Two feelings come to mind, which I will call "horny" and "romantic." Feeling horny is a very basic feeling coupled with the baby making process but romantic feeling is a bit more complex. Once again I will emphasize the social aspect of humanity, for it is the sociological structure which makes it valuable to have a repeat-mate, or a mate that doesn't hate your guts. The feeling of romantic love, in my eyes, in then a subconscious/bodily reaction to a mate that suggests that time should be spent reinforcing bonds with the person to aid the prime directive. In this, I'd say that there is no real difference between romantic love and other feelings in nature, but there is in power. Because of how close it falls to the basic need to have children, it is a very powerful feeling and one that is very dominant because of how difficult it is to sate.

Clearly my ideas draw upon others, and thus there is plenty to debate. And honestly, I don't have that much experience discussing philosophy. Thoughts?

SDragon · February 22, 2007, 03:11:49 PM

that theory really only stand with the assumption of heterosexuality. to be honest, I'm incredibly hesitant to mention what that implies for other orientations.

I think it might be best if ElDo clarifies the question, but either way, I wouldn't mind discussing the concept itself.

Elven Doritos · February 22, 2007, 03:20:47 PM

Since the question was half a year ago...

How about this.

"Why is love?"

Take that, clarification!

Túrin · February 22, 2007, 03:24:59 PM

Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinthat theory really only stand with the assumption of heterosexuality. to be honest, I'm incredibly hesitant to mention what that implies for other orientations.

I think it might be best if ElDo clarifies the question, but either way, I wouldn't mind discussing the concept itself.

Excellent point, PenguinDragon. Based on this, we must conclude (IMHO) that a conception of love based on Darwinism is severely limited. Which is good, because such an interpretation has always seemed rather "cold" to me.

I'm withholding any further discussion of the topic for now.

Túrin

Numinous · February 22, 2007, 03:36:44 PM

Quote from: Elven Doritos"Why is love?"

Take that, clarification!

Actually ElDo, I'm pretty sure Rael hit that one more accurately than the question he was addressing.

Since it's been collectively stated that one cannot hope to state what love is in the english language, I would like to raise the question of whether or not anyone feels it is possible to properly represent love via art? Whether it be poetry, song, sculpture, paint, or a crayon drawing on a napkin.

I am of the opinion that someone who is especially skilled in an art from might be able to come close to showing their own feelings of "Love", but to form a universal idea in any corporeal (or musical) form that applies to everyone is damn near impossible.

Thoughts? I like this thread, I'd like to see some discussion. :D

SDragon · February 22, 2007, 05:38:59 PM

Quote from: Natural 20
Quote from: Elven Doritos"Why is love?"

Take that, clarification!

I think there's some confusion here. First, the answer to "Why is love?" (a frustratingly imcomplete sentence, IMHO) that was given is a theory, and it breaks apart with any form of "love" that does not lead to reproduction (same-sex romantic love being the prime example).

Ontop of that, I disagree with the concept of love not being able to be expressed in the english language. I think the confusion here is between the concept itself, and the emotions caused by the concept. While I don't care for these definitions, a good way to make the distinction is that the former is affectionate endearment, whereas the latter is the affections of the endearment.

for many reasons (aside from the obvious reasons stated by others, there's also the strong degree of subjectivity), i have absolutely no desire to discuss the emotions caused by the concept. The concept itself, however, i would find stimulating to discuss.

Interestingly enough, while I still choose not to use the definitions given for the distinction, they show a perspective on the nature of the fourth grade terms "like" nad "Like" that seems to imply the two terms aren't that much different, after all...

Raelifin · February 23, 2007, 11:54:02 AM

Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinthat theory really only stand with the assumption of heterosexuality. to be honest, I'm incredibly hesitant to mention what that implies for other orientations.

Are you sure? If I see a restaurant, I can become hungry, though it is not the restaurant that I want to eat. Human mind and subconscious mind are interconnected, clearly. As humans we have power over the subconscious through action. Being able to distort sexual desire is one of the easiest things to do, as we can see through fetishes and cultural biases. If a person, for one reason or another, finds the same sex attractive, it builds as it reaches further into the subconscious. Just because our emotional responses are tuned to provide feedback on our lives does not be they cannot be altered. A great example of this is the feeling of loneliness, which corresponds to a need for companionship. Through simple effort, one can focus on the presence of other people in life and stop feeling lonely. So, no, I think that "weird" sexual activity is to be expected in a race as diverse and conscious as ourselves.

And yes, "Why is love" is a more suitable question for my answer. To truly express an emotion, I believe the arts must be used (sorta). I took the question "What is love?" in philosophical stride as "What is [the nature of] love?" ;)

And as to Turin's comment: I feel that many things begin to feel "cold" when you look at them from a scientific perspective. The concept that our universe may, one day, collapse in upon itself obliterating all traces of our existence is not a comforting thought. However, try not to dismiss something based on unease, but rather, approach it from a "warmer" level. If science is cold, then spirituality is warm and while I'm not going to go into spirituality, I'll go one step down.

As animals we can be seen to have internal reactions to our environment that benefit survival. However, one must never forget the amazing beauty and power that we have reached as a race. We are not controlled by our emotions, but rather are taught by them and guided by them. Our conscious mind lets us feel love and be filled with the joy of it. We can express ourselves, spreading this joy like a ripple on a pond. And in the end, we can understand that what we feel is a function of who we are and allow our ecstasy to bring us to a new level of enlightenment and understanding of true happiness. It is this which sets us apart from the beasts and makes us great. To realize a flower is a collection of cells does not make it stop being beautiful, in fact it becomes more beautiful when you understand how far it has come from the primal essence of the universe.

SDragon · February 23, 2007, 02:25:56 PM

Quote from: Raelifin
Quote from: sdragon1984- the S is for penguinthat theory really only stand with the assumption of heterosexuality. to be honest, I'm incredibly hesitant to mention what that implies for other orientations.

Are you sure? If I see a restaurant, I can become hungry, though it is not the restaurant that I want to eat. Human mind and subconscious mind are interconnected, clearly. As humans we have power over the subconscious through action. Being able to distort sexual desire is one of the easiest things to do, as we can see through fetishes and cultural biases. If a person, for one reason or another, finds the same sex attractive, it builds as it reaches further into the subconscious. Just because our emotional responses are tuned to provide feedback on our lives does not be they cannot be altered. A great example of this is the feeling of loneliness, which corresponds to a need for companionship. Through simple effort, one can focus on the presence of other people in life and stop feeling lonely. So, no, I think that "weird" sexual activity is to be expected in a race as diverse and conscious as ourselves.

Yes, I am sure. Whips, chains and leather have no impact of the reproductive abilities of heterosexual fornication. Fornication within the same gender has no reproductive abilities whatsoever, so therefore you cannot use reproductive abilities of fornication as a reason for non-heterosexual Love.

beejazz · March 02, 2007, 01:45:52 AM

Love is an unneccessary need one feels. One requires companionship of a closer kind, but only to a limited extent (you can't just go about being that close with anybody), the latter part being your recognition that people suck and you can only stand so much closeness.

In other words, you crave to be validated by someone else based on your own insecurities and failure to self-validate, but this is mitigated by the degree to which you can tolerate those you crave validation from. Besides which, sex is pleasurable and already provides the basis for an interaction wholly different from that with all other people. In the specific case of sex, the evolutionary "purpose" (but keep in mind that evolution does not work with a purpose, rather favoring those whose purpose is survival and reproduction) of pleasurable sex is to encourage sex. This does not mean, however, that our personal reasons for sex are always reproduction. In fact, from a personal perspective, it would be more accurate to say that the purpose of sex is pleasure. Which should be fairly friggin' obvious to anyone who's had it, no?

beejazz · March 04, 2007, 08:56:21 PM

I'd expect more of a response to such an acrid outburst. Recent events make me more of a hypocrite than I'm letting on, though.

SDragon · March 04, 2007, 09:09:43 PM

I still think it might be good if we started with what Socrates said. to refresh:

Quote from: Socrateslove is the allegiance of that which is good and that which is neither good nor evil, against the cause of evil.

Very roughly paraprased, anyways. I think this does a decent job at explaining the sense of "opposites attract" (for the neutral isn't good, yet is attracted to good), as well as the sense of "like attracts like" (for both neutral and good work against evil).

By th way, "good", "neutral" and "evil" are not being used here as moral terms.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Philosophy in the Den

SA

Xathan

SDragon

beejazz

Raelifin

SDragon

Elven Doritos

Túrin

Numinous

SDragon

Raelifin

SDragon

beejazz

beejazz

SDragon