Zman Kietilipooskie

This conversation is closed.

Is love a romantic creation or a complex development of our mind

Is love a result of human evolution or is it just a created idea

  • thumb
    Feb 22 2013: Both, because there are two kinds of love I think. One is the blind one, where 'should' does not exist, the other is a highly spiritual and therefore conscious and created (or discovered rather) concept.
  • Feb 26 2013: Love is a decision. Love is trust. Love is when you decide that you will stand by someone, you will be loyal to that person, and you will try to help them for as long as you live. That goes for any kind of love. As for romantic love, yes, it's something that is felt, an actual emotion. For me it feels warm, whole, safe, and peaceful. But it's not magic. It's not luck, or animal attraction either. It's a conscious choice. For instance, I love my fiance because I decided to. I decided that she was the kind of person I wanted to spend the rest of my life with. Does she have flaws? You bet. Do I have flaws? Absolutely. Will we hurt each other? Yes. That's ok. Love is when you put someone else above yourself. It is very real. It does exist, although it is becoming more rare as people become more selfish.
  • thumb
    Feb 22 2013: I have not loved enough to know, honestly.
  • thumb

    W. Ying

    • +1
    Feb 22 2013: .
    It is a result of our evolution.
    It is one of our vital instincts ---- SYMBIOSIS.


    (For SYMBIOSIS, see the 1st article, points 4-8, at https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D&id=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D%21283&sc=documents)
  • Mar 22 2013: when we feel lonely we need someone to rely on or to share our feeling. when we get so attached to that person we call it as love.
  • Mar 3 2013: a created idea is evolution an idea has weight (atomically) it is in the brain somewhere it is a progression of sexual selective process starting back Forever! ago sorry :(

    Hey also i had an idea or theory i should say on evolution just wanted to know what you all think (don't really know where to tell it)

    All life is codependent every organism relies on upon another organism down to a cellular level (then down to a chemical level then down to atomic) so the idea is that complex organisms started from cells being codependent on the smallest of basis these cells would either acquire new cells or create them for certain tasks when there was new cells they had the same evolutionary trait or ability as the last (to survive) and to survive they would change or create new cells (adding a machine into the system to improve efficiency) effectively making more and more evolutionary potential but as long as each original cell still served a purpose to the other and the other to both they would not separate nor perish from their co existence effectively building complex life
    an interesting idea this brings up is that "you" are just another organism in a collection of organisms all working to survive but you are the input and out which is needed to comunicate with the the environment aka the macro world which is unneeded in the micro world because the processes are much simpler instinct and the machines in the system require little interaction in-between each other except traded nutrients or perhaps it's just that the environment is so small and steady for the organisms that they simply do not to be adaptable which is why all faster moving larger amount of space covering creatures need a problem solver

    and when you think about it Humans and our ancestors have Always! been the farthest expanding organisms perhaps complex brains evolve just from expansion and the need to be highly adaptable in order to find a better source of sustenance in an ever changing environment
  • thumb
    Mar 1 2013: Daniel Kahneman has said that the term "happiness" is no longer a "useful" term. The word "love" is a simliar term, it is so over used we cannot agree on a definition for it.
    This is the problem with this simple question; are we discussing "romantic love", are we considering love in the evolutionary sense, as a part of procreation and mating, or as a created concept, a human construct? Perhaps it can be all three; the evolutionary instincts overlapped by human emotions turn into a narrative.

    The author of the question has presented me with the following query: "I ask the question, being that love is an invented concept can people choose not to love, being that they have the option to love?"

    Since I have already stated that one "need(s) to look at the biological and psychological factors involved" with what we can define as the behaviors of love, I will answer this question "Yes, we can change our pattern and behaviors around who we love." in the romantic sense. Our attraction to certain others are largely a result of our attachment patterns as children. When we have dysfunctional models we may need to change with them through psychological counseling. i.e. a woman attracted to an abusive man .
    • thumb
      Mar 1 2013: But can we choose not to love those we do love?
      • thumb
        Mar 1 2013: Did I not answer this question with the example? The woman in the abusive relationship would say she is "in love." The abuser would say he "loves" the woman. Yet their "love" is dysfunctional and illusory.
  • thumb
    Mar 1 2013: Both
  • thumb
    Feb 28 2013: Discussion such as these offer little more than an opportunity for others to exercise their opinions and conjectures.
    Here is a philosophical approach for those inclined to read.

    "For the philosopher, the question “what is love?” generates a host of issues: love is an abstract noun which means for some it is a word unattached to anything real or sensible, that is all; for others, it is a means by which our being – our self and its world – are irrevocably affected once we are ‘touched by love’; some have sought to analyze it, others have preferred to leave it in the realm of the ineffable."

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/

    " Often statements or arguments concerning love, its nature and role in human life for example connect to one or all the central theories of philosophy, and is often compared with, or examined in the context of, the philosophies of sex and gender as well as body and intentionality. The task of a philosophy of love is to present the appropriate issues in a cogent manner, drawing on relevant theories of human nature, desire, ethics, and so on."
  • thumb
    Feb 28 2013: why can't it be both?

    We may have an innate tendency to love those who are dear to us but the idea and the way we express and discuss its meaning I think is a created. It is an attempt to explain the experience that we are having, which may or may not capture the true essence of how we feel.
  • thumb
    Feb 28 2013: Do other animals, besides humans "love?"
    My offer of a biological explanation of love is the base point for any discussion about this thing we call "love." We cannot ignore it. The question under consideration implies that love is a emotion that has evolved in human, so I will argue that, "Love"is just a created idea," a concept designed around a number of biological and psychological factors that humans have in common with other animals.
    • thumb
      Feb 28 2013: So your arguement implies people choose to love and have the option to not love others? And also the animals love just as much as humans do?
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2013: My argument is: Love, as it is often defined, is an invented concept.
        We need to look at the biological and psychological factors involved.

        I posed a question here that you have not answered, but managed to twist instead.
        Do other animals, besides humans "love?"
        You are seeking to quantify my statement by asking whether, "animals love just as much as humans." Let's first establish if they "love."

        Your question provide so little information on which to have a discussion. I have taken a postion in the "either/or" argue you have presented. What is your position?
        • thumb
          Feb 28 2013: No other animals do not love and according to you love a creation so it is assumed that animal do not love being that love is a human creation.

          I was questing your side I am not arguing I am questing to answer my original question, otherwise i would have made this a debate.

          Again I ask the question, being that love is an invented concept can people choose not to love, being that they have the option to love?
  • Feb 25 2013: Words often exhaust themselves....

    Love is you
    Love is me
    Love is knowing
    We can be......John Lennon

    WHY is Love VICIOUS ?

    L....leaves
    O....one
    V....viciously
    E....ENCHANTED........ (c'est moi)


    I saw a bird's wings holding the sky tonite, can you hear my 12 string guitar ?

    and all the monks heard the music with one hand clapping.......

    Peace and Love to all of you
    one for all...and all for one....;Ciao :)
  • thumb
    Feb 25 2013: that's a large word to try and define
  • thumb
    Feb 24 2013: There are chemicals in the brain that create the sensation of "love." These chemicals include: nerve growth factor,[8] testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin.

    "Romantic and maternal love are highly rewarding experiences. Both are linked to the perpetuation of the species and therefore have a closely linked biological function of crucial evolutionary importance. The newly developed ability to study the neural correlates of subjective mental states with brain imaging techniques has allowed neurobiologists to learn something about the neural bases of both romantic and maternal love. Both types of attachment activate regions specific to each, as well as overlapping regions in the brain's reward system that coincide with areas rich in oxytocin and vasopressin receptors. Both deactivate a common set of regions associated with negative emotions, social judgment and 'mentalizing' that is, the assessment of other people's intentions and emotions. Human attachment seems therefore to employ a push-pull mechanism that overcomes social distance by deactivating networks used for critical social assessment and negative emotions, while it bonds individuals through the involvement of the reward circuitry, explaining the power of love to motivate and exhilarate. Yet the biological study of love, and especially romantic love, must go beyond and look for biological insights that can be derived from studying the world literature of love, and thus bring the output of the humanities into its orbit.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17531984?dopt=Abstract
    • thumb
      Feb 24 2013: Thanks for the facts.

      I believe that equating those chemicals to love is an understatement.
      Think of the complexity of the brain, and how the brain knows to fire these "feelings". If anything these facts show that there is love more then just the chemicals, after all how does there brain know when to fire them. Doesnt that just prove that there is some precontext for love or a trigger of love to initiate the love chemicals?
      • thumb
        Feb 24 2013: Framing a discussion about neuronal activity is difficult. What is meant by "the brain knows to fire these "feelings." What part of the brain does the "knowing," the conscious or the unconscious? We might experience it to be our conscious self, but in most cases it is the unconscious. This is well examples by Daniel Kanheman. http://ttbook.org/book/daniel-kahneman-thinking-fast-and-slow

        Our "trigger of love" are not so magical as we want to believe They can be predictably measured.
        • thumb
          Feb 24 2013: So love is a complex function of the brain. But how we love and why is still a mystery. being that the un-concious is still a complex mystery.
      • thumb
        Feb 24 2013: Re: "how we love and why is still a mystery

        Allow me to repeat my point that there is really very little mystery about it.
        Mating selection instincts combined with attachment patterning accounts for a great deal. of what is commonly referred to as "love."
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Feb 23 2013: I think that "love" is a word that few agree on meaning. It can mean whatever you think love is. Some think that loving your neighbor means to treat them in ways that I would never want to be treated. I was in Kentucky when I saw a billboard that said, "If you love your child, spare not the rod, lest your child be taken by the Devil". The church that owned the billboard thought that beating your child is a loving thing to do.

    If you speak of romantic love, I think that it's just a hormonal response.

    I would like to see the word "love" removed from our vocabulary. Perhaps we could replace it with something like the word "respect". It would still cause argument about what behaviors are respectful, but they could be more easily discussed because there is no inference of God(s).

    Too many in our cultures grow up believing that they are not loveable.
    • thumb
      Feb 23 2013: I used to say in presentations that 'love is a mental state that encourages you be vulnerable to be hurt and having trust at the same time that you won't be.'
      I have since modified it with another line. 'And in it's truest form it will make you trust again, despite hurt.'
  • thumb
    Feb 23 2013: Love is life, in fact, loving is the only way to living the good life. Human beings crave for love and acceptance, even though only a few are humble enough to accept this. But consider the number of love songs in all the languages of the world, and the fact that the highest grossing films of all time (so far in our existence) are love stories.

    Even in our career, we work best when we love what we do, and the pains of love hits hard.
    The Bible says that "God is Love". Life is about love. There are so many states masquerading as love, just as there are so many things that wants to be our God; but Love is what it is.

    LOVE IS LIFE.
  • thumb
    Feb 22 2013: Not sure why those have to be distinct. Aren't the ideas we can create with our minds a result of human evolution? If the question is, is love real? then I absolutely say yes. If not, what is everyone talking about? What exists within the term "love" probably has a lot of culture and a lot of biology making it what it is, which neither could do alone. If the followup question is, will love always be real? then I don't think anyone has the answer, but I'd also be willing to posit yes.
  • thumb
    Feb 22 2013: It depends on your definition of love.
    I think we can define it like "A sense that you think about another one or thing's benefits rather than yourself, because you need to give a meaning to your life and assume that as a higher value, and you lock on it and do not think twice."
    If we define it so, it is not a romantic thing anymore, but like a serious experience or target of your life because the needs in you nature push you through this way. I believe a human first "love" and then he/she "loves somebody".
    I think it is a need in us that tells us we should have a higher value than our benefits and being busy abou them.
  • Feb 22 2013: Jedrek makes a good point. Maybe there is more to it than even that. Courtly love is associated with Elenor of Aquitain and Mort de Arthur and all that.