Debate and Discussion

does love exists?
subcultured at 12:46PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
is it just chemicals going off as nature's way of propogating the future of the species? like how (normal) sex feels good. does lust develop into love?
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
ozoneocean at 1:00PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
Well I don't know about you sub, but I've never felt lust for my parents, or my pets… :)
Not for caramel and ice cream either, or my country. So maybe love is something more.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
subcultured at 1:29PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
love between a man and a woman
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
ozoneocean at 1:41PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
But if we feel love and affection for all those other things, wouldn't that be directly related to the love we feel for a sexual partner? And therefore perhaps it has more to do with learning to feel the love of a parent (since that is our first experience of it), than anything to do with lust.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Black_Kitty at 1:49PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,481
joined: 1-1-2006
I'm not sure about love as being something to encourage reproduction. By that argument, senior citizens and children would be incapable of love.
  
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:24AM
kyupol at 1:52PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
love is just a mixture of chemicals in the brain. I dont wanna go into the hardcore details of it because theres a ton of sites and scientific stuff out there that talks about chemicals in the brain being related to “love”.



The chemicals in the brain are like a computer program. Its a code in humanity that is like a computer program filled with if-else, for loops, while statements, etc… Programmers here can relate to this, as I have some basic knowledge of computer programming.

Love is nothing so magical. Religion, movies, tv, peer pressure, etc… are mostly lying about this shit. Love is just a form of lust and infatuation. Love is caused by reactions in the brain and stimulii to trigger that effect. Its the same thing that says… if you cut yourself you bleed. If you eat your food, your food gets digested and turns to shit. Love is just a bunch of if-then-else statements.

Other forms of so-called “love” are just ulterior motives. Its all about people riding on your back because you happen to have a common goal… and once the goal is completed, they get off your back and say see ya! This kind of “love” is all about working for someone's personal GAIN. People will claim they love you because a relationship with you is for THEIR benefit. Once you no longer have any use, you will be destroyed faster than a piece of meat surrounded by vultures.

Personal gain could be the natural high experienced by religious fanatics as they are willing to hurt themselves and/or others for the sake of their god. The brain releases chemicals that give you the natural high.

Its a drug. A fucking drug.



Uh… ok ok… its all kyupol's negative experiences with life thats why he's so fucking cynical about this shit. Ok ok… I'm just showin the view from my eyes. lol

NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
Mazoo at 3:45PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 601
joined: 1-2-2006
There is a difference between lust, infatuation and love.

Lust is the sexual desire between two people. Or something that gives a person sexual pleasure, to emcompass most, if not all, desires. Although, now that I think about it, there can be a difference between “lust” and “desire” as well. If two people who say they “are in love” have sexual intercourse, I'm willing to bet there is a difference between the action than someone going to a prostitute for sex. The two people “in love” could have “desire” for one another, while the other person going to the prostitute for sex could just be indulging in “lust.” It all depends on how you define the terms. With me, “lust” has a rather negative connotation to it. “Desire” does not have the same definition. By your definitions of “chemicals in the brain,” I would say “lust” or “desire” best fits, rather than the term “love.”

Infatuation is another difference from love. I believe infatuation to be a warped view of “love” or unreciprocated love. Infatuation is when someone believes they are in love, when really, they are not. Such is true when someone “falls in love” with say, a celebrity, without ever having met them before. It is a development of innocent desire to be with another being, gone to the extreme. I also know “infatuation” as “crushes.” I think they are imperative to growing up and learning to recognize the beginning of the feelings of “love,” but infatuation itself is NOT love.

The term “love,” for one thing, is thrown around too much. It has lost all deep and meaningful definition. Since it is used so casually in conversation and texts, people have forgotten of what Love truly is. Love encompasses many things, like the platonic love for your family and friends, the love for you significant other, and the love for your “passion” in life. There are degrees to how much you can love any of these things, but I don't believe Love is determined by “chemicals in the brain” or anything like that. Love is a deeper connection to something else, in which you see yourself. You have to first know who you are to give Love and be Loved in return.

Sadly though, not everyone will feel true Love in their life. Love is taking that big risk of displaying who you are to the world, and the reaction can make or break you. Sometimes people never take that chance, and thus never feel love. I believe this to be the reason why there is such a high divorce rate lately, or to why many relationships are dysfunctional. People feed on their feelings of “infatuation” and confuse it with “love.”

To Love is to be selfless–because you cannot only take Love, you have to give it in return as well.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:56PM
Eviltwinpixie at 5:03PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 426
joined: 3-6-2006
Sure, it's probably just chemicals in the brain. But that doesn't mean it's not real. If it wasn't real, those chemicals wouldn't be doing anything. ;)
It's nothing magical, but that doesn't make it feel any less special. It still FEELS wonderful, and to me that's what's important, not where it comes from. :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:23PM
Mashed at 5:14PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 27
joined: 11-26-2006
at my opinion, love exists.
altough, it's really difficult to find.
because most of the times, if there are two people together, they are too focused on the little things
“i don't like him ‘cause his hair is brown”
to see the big things.
He gave her his trust and his heart.
Most people are more… looking for just the perfect looks, the perfect gifts, they always have to be doing something, they never have time to hold each other.. because they are too occupied trying to get some “fun” out of it. But they are forgetting that the greatest thing when you’re in love, is that even if you run out of things to say, you can still hold each other, for an ENTIRE day, without even saying a word, and it will feel like you've just had the most interesting conversation of your life.
No one should hate you because you've ran out of things to say, the color of your hair, the ammount of money you have…
if someone truly loves you, sex wouldn't be the only thing on their mind. And right after a fight, even if they are the guilty ones, will call you right back.

they are hard to find. but they do exist.
you just have to search in the less material part of the world.
there are very few of them, but keep searching, they exist.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:54PM
Phantom Penguin at 7:12PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
I can honestly say i've felt this ‘love’ once. maybe.
then she cheated on me.

Which brings up another question, wouldn't life be easier without this feeling?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
MagickLorelai at 8:03PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
Love is a combination of chemicals in our brain mixed with memories associated with various people and an association of “This person makes me happy”. That's the scientific reasoning, I guess, for all the people in our lives that we love. But that's not how we FEEL.

The actual feeling, whether manufactured by chemicals or not, is out of this world. HOW it happens, even if it can be scientifically explained, is still amazing and even spiritual. The science is just the practical, material-world explaination for the spiritual side of it, in my opinion.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
Peipei at 8:36PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 450
joined: 7-18-2006
Love exhists. Sometimes, we're just better off without it though, as meantioned in previous comments :o. That is, when it comes to a relationship between a man and a woman etc. Most of the time, sex and looks is what keeps this so called ‘love’ together, or if that's what you want to call it :s. True love has no boundaries. Meaning if you are truely in love, you can do without the sex (an expression of love) and you can look past the appearences. :3
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:41PM
kyupol at 9:59PM, Feb. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Phantom Penguin
Which brings up another question, wouldn't life be easier without this feeling?


I think life would be easier and less of a burden. I broke up with this girl who I wanna marry and really loved and cared for… and it took me at least 6 months to get back on my feet and move on as it was really painful… the most painful experience I had in my life. Like a soul destruction thing. But my soul is like a fuckin virus. If you fail to destroy it, it will only develop more resistance. The irony of it. I feel more complete now. I feel 100x smarter, stronger, and more mature than before. I dont feel the need for any woman to enter my life. Strange isnt it?


The key tho is the elimination of the desire. Elimination may be a bit too extreme but there is another thing called reduction.

Reduction of desire… can be achieved by pre-occupation with one's hobbies or work or other things. IMO, there are more important things in life than a “relationship”… like hobbies and all that… and reading your daily dose of propaganda literature such as motivational books and websites… and certain websites I am not allowed to post in this thread since they might be considered hate-literature by some.

A hint tho: In those websites, there are extremists and there are the wise. An extremist preaches hate… while the wise preach inspiration (sometimes borrowing doctrine from buddhism, islam, christianity, and quotes from aristotle, plato, cato the elder, virgil, etc…).


That is the path to freedom. The path to enlightenment. The path to a higher form of existence on this shit-faced earth.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
Black_Kitty at 8:55AM, Feb. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,481
joined: 1-1-2006
Phantom Penguin
I can honestly say i've felt this ‘love’ once. maybe.
then she cheated on me.

Which brings up another question, wouldn't life be easier without this feeling?


I am always a bit…uneasy when talking about my own personal life too much…
But I would never give up the feeling of being in love just because the heartache becomes painful. I would much rather feel then feel nothing at all just because I'm afraid of getting hurt. Or even worse, feel such utter despair and loss of faith that I myself cannot love anymore.

There are very few things in life that are sure-fire, risk-free things. It doesn't mean they're bad or things you should never ever engage in them…but at some point, you're going to have to put yourself out on a limb for it.

But that's just my take on it. I'm perfectly okay with loving people, even if they can be hurtful at times. I myself can be hurtful at times too. It's just all part of human relationships and being human.
  
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:24AM
Kristen Gudsnuk at 10:24AM, Feb. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,340
joined: 10-4-2006
I think that saying “love is just a chemical reaction, it's pheromones and brain waves and candlelit dinners” is a bit of an easy way out.
I personally don't believe in stuff like “soulmates” or whatever, but I think (whoa get this) that some people are just compatible. They think similarly, but have different perspectives. They're attracted to each other physically. Is that love? No, it's just getting along.
It probably comes down to your definition of “love”. Is love like in Moulin Rouge, where they're standing on top of the elephant singing a medley of Elton John/Paul McCartney/David Bowie songs? In that case, naah, it probably doesn't exist. But if in your opinion love is just wanting to be around someone a lot and have lots of sex, then well, maybe love does exist!
However, my sister (who's a bio major/premeddish?) said that women develop a chemical dependency on their male counterparts? I don't remember the exact wording… but yeah, that's what she told me.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:22PM
Phantom Penguin at 1:09PM, Feb. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Now that i think of it, i probably didn't ‘love’ that girl. I attached onto her in a sad attempt to validate my humanity after coming back from Iraq.

But i agree with what said above, I would rather feel ‘love’ for a week, then nothing at all.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ccs1989 at 3:10PM, Feb. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
When it really comes down to it, everything that humans or any other living thing is is a collection of atoms which send electrical impulses to one another by exchanging electons and linking up to create new chemicals and so on, so that underneath it all it probably is all chemicals, and my thought process right now is just being motivated by which electical signals are being fired through my synapses as we speak. Did you hear that scientists recently discovered a part of the brain that controls addiction? That's off topic, but it just shows how the much the chemical stuff in one's brain controls an individual.

So taking into the fact that it's chemical, we might consider how many chemicals we're dealing with here. Maybe certain kinds of chemical reactions stimulate lust towards another person, while another kind of chemical reaction results in love. I'm sure epigenetics has something to do with this. It's all how we're programmed and what kinds of things light up the pathways in our brains and stimulate certain things and so on and so forth.

But we shouldn't treat it as a bad thing. That's just how the world works.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
ozoneocean at 7:36AM, Feb. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
Get off of the chemical route, that's gross oversimplification. You could look at any comic on the DD site and say “oh those are just a bunch of 1's and 0's arranged a particular way and nothing more. That's just how computers work…” lol!
Come on, be sensible here, we're talking about emotions and human motivation. Evolutionary Psychology is about as far as you need to go if you want to look deeper. Why do we love? Hmm, the easiest way to look at it is to see it as a species survival mechanism: Parents love their children and children love their parent, this ensures the children are raised until they can take care of themselves. Partners love each other, this ensures compatible couples stay together and raise children.

See, it's not hard is it?

Now expand upon it! Hmm, “love” type friendship bonds would be helpful in tribal cohesion and this would then extend to whole communities in various ways… Perhaps that's somehow related to the “love” of one's country? Love of pets is an obvious adaptation of the parent/child relationship… and so on.

Analogues of the Love bond can be seen in many other animal species too, and in examining those you can see how we as humans benefit from it.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Kristen Gudsnuk at 8:31AM, Feb. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,340
joined: 10-4-2006
wow ozoneocean, as usual very eloquent.
But it's hard to think of the feelings one has for one's family and friends as being an evoolutionary adaptation– it may be fundamentally true, that the bonds between parent and child are a survival mechanism, but… I don't know, that theory strikes me as a little bit cold and distant.
Kind of like how maybe you'll go to a restaurant and have an orgasmically amazing dinner… well, sure, the reason why you liked it so much is because for survival reasons you have to eat. But aren't there more subtleties to it? Isn't it also because you just LOVE macaroni and cheese (sorry I'm in the mood for some mac n cheese right now) and it HAPPENED to be cooked extremely well?
the same thing, I think, is applicable to relationships. Maybe at the base is a need to survive, but also, part of love is a way to fight loneliness, and to socialize, and… er… other stuff. It's an emotion, and it's as unpredictable and and tempestuous and inexplicable as any other emotion.

The question itself is unanswerable, kind of like, “do souls exist” “does death exist” (like, ‘there’s an afterlife! you live forever in the eternity of heaven!“ ) ”does God exist“. It depends on your definition of the thing in question. If love is just that inexplicable warmth you feel towards those who are dear to you, then yeah. If the original poster meant it in a ”Titanic“ kind of way, or even an ”Inu Yasha" way, then… well, probably not.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:22PM
Crazy Dutchman at 10:35AM, Feb. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 558
joined: 2-6-2006
Ever felt like you adored the whole world and everyone and everything on it? That everyone's your friend no matter what kind of thing they've done? That every tiny little piece of nature is just beautiful? That the air tastes wonderful? That you want to walk straight up to the sky and give all the clouds a big high five? And that there is this one person who seems to combine all this goodness together in her wich is why you admire her just a little more special? I have, so yes love exists.
Yeah I know, I'm probably some sort of post-modern hippie, but I want to love all living creatures and want everyone to love me to, just so we can be one big love-society. Well, if there's a person that simply already makes you feel that way (even tough you know that will never happen) than that's the best thing in the world. I don't have this special kind of person at the moment what makes everything taste a little more dull and weird.

If love is actually a form of lust, than for me it's just the lust for love.
Wich is lust again. Wich is love again. Wichis lust again for love for lust for love for…
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:48AM
suzi at 12:26PM, Feb. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 571
joined: 3-12-2006
I agree with a lot of points already brought up, especially Mazoo's post. It is very important to make distinctions between lust, infatuation, and love, because they are all very differently, physically, mentally, emotionally…even though they -can- all exist at the same time.

Lust is, to me, the sexual aspect.

Infatuation is the soaring feeling in your heart, the untamed wildness; the “romantic love”, the “rapture” of a crush or a new romance, the poetic surges.

Love is the conscious mental decision to commit oneself to another person, in my personal opinion. I realize, both from experience, intuition, and this thread, that people have legitimately different definitions of love, different ways of feeling and expressing love. But for me, love is the decision to commit to a driving force whose goal is to live life as one person in two. There is nothing to be that makes me feel more “in love” with my boyfriend than envisioning a future together, and we often have spasms of wishing we could meld. It's about feeling completely in tune with someone, being more yourself than you ever have been before, being comfortable and wanting to show that person every aspect of yourself and accepting and wanting their entirety in return. It's not about getting along 100% of the time, but it is about mutual values, mutual or complementary ways of thinking, passions that coincide. Becoming a full entity by uniting with another. Again…this is all just to me. This is how I feel, for my own life. In a way, I suppose another part of compatibility is how you view love!

I also believe that the most fruitful relationships stem from friendships, not crushes or dating services (though I'm sure it's very possible for those relationships to work, too). To me, the process of “courting” puts up walls meant to trick your potential mate, so as to not scare them away with parts of you you may consider negative or unattractive. While it may work in the long term, because they may adapt to whatever quirks you were hiding in order to woo them, wouldn't it be better to find someone that you had become close to, seen and learned to accept the faults in, and ultimately discovered that you were in love based on a fair evaluation of that person? It worked for me. In fact, all of my “crushes” started as solid friendships; I'm relatively foreign to what I like to call “unattached lust”.

Hm. Now I miss my Alex ;-;

As for the chemicals thing, someone else said it – what does it matter? EVERYTHING is chemicals and electricity, so there's no reason to make that claim. Love is just as real as -anything else- when you look at it that way. It's pointless to base an argument of disagreement on a system that literally -everything- fits to; there's nothing different about it, ergo, we can ignore that factor. It's as if we're all at a beach, and building sandcastles, and someone pointed out one of them wasn't as good just because it's made of sand.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:05PM
isukun at 9:42AM, Feb. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I don't view love as something as simple as a physical reaction. It can be enhanced by a physical attraction or reactions to outside chemicals, but love can exist without either. Love does not help propogate our species as it actually hinders the reproductive cycle. Love is not something that exists within our genes or is instinctive in our minds. Love is a social construct that we live by. It gives our lives meaning and order. It makes life more bearable. Yet, it is something we all have to learn. It doesn't come naturally to any human being.

Love is the ultimate form of communication which makes all other aspect of human society possible, good and bad. Without it, we would all be self-centered animals with no science, no structure, no society. Love is the realization that you are part of something outside of yourself. It allows us to show concern for others the way we would ourselves.

There are varying degrees of love. Most people don't consider the love they show towards a starving child in Africa to be as great as the love they show their friends and family. The love between two people isn't any different, really. It's just a stronger bond.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
ozoneocean at 11:43AM, Feb. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
isukun
\Without it, we would all be self-centered animals with no science, no structure, no society.
I take issue with this and your points about the social construct, as well as love hindering propagation. As I've explained there are many analogues with animals, especially the parent child bond, which is obviously the root of the whole “love” idea, and I'd think that would be obvious to anyone. There are enough studies done on this aspect.
“Love” between two sexual partners is the aspect that has social constructs heaped upon it -witness arbitrary celebrations like Valentines day, and fantasy concepts like “Romance”, these things are artificial. “love” helps propagation of the species by ensuring that parents take care of their children, it is instinctual- this aspect is far more important than procreation since it raises the odds or survival as well as allowing time for the transferral of knowledge and useful skills- a key aspect in the development and continuation of culture! Secondary love; between partners, makes sure that a hopefully compatible couple or group stay together and help raise the children and/or produce more of the same.

How could anyone say this is all a social construct? Especially when such behaviour is so widely observed in our environment and so logically beneficial for survival of a species. I feel that most of you are attacking the question from entirely the wrong direction: working backwards from the “love poem” idea, looking at sexual love bonds and all the societal, hormonal, idealistic, emotional cultural baggage that surrounds it! How can you hope to fathom the idea when you only view the superficial?

It reminds me of the proverbial blind men coming upon an elephant and each of them stumbling upon separate parts of it, one grabbing the trunk and declaring “It's a snake!” etc.

-sorry If I come on too strong here, that's just how I like to aproach these debates sometimes. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
isukun at 2:17PM, Feb. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I take issue with this and your points about the social construct, as well as love hindering propagation.

I don't see why it should be a point of contention. If you thought about it rationally, you'd see that limiting one's partners creates less babies, not more. It is because we create these social bonds that men don't just take whoever they please, whenever they please. We have less sex and fewer pregnancies because of limitations placed on society due to our general concern for our fellow humans.

it is instinctual

Sorry, but that's been proven false. Children who do not learn to bond socially from their parents are incapable of making those connections later in life (it's called Reactive Attachment Disorder, and more often than not, advanced cases are untreatable). In essence, if a child is not taught to love, they are never capable of seeing beyond their own self-contained little world, even with their own children (in rare cases where that even happens). This is a fairly common problem with children in orphanages and why it is so important to have parental figures in your life at an early age.

Especially when such behaviour is so widely observed in our environment and so logically beneficial for survival of a species.

I never said it wasn't a necessity. Just because something is beneficial to a species doesn't mean all species manifest it the same way. Does learning something through your environment really make it less important than knowledge you are born with? There are a lot of things humans have to learn that animals instincively know how to do. Just because humanity has evolved to the point where we rely more on habit than instinct, that doesn't make the habit superficial.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
ozoneocean at 4:39PM, Feb. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
What? That's nonsense Iskun! Women can only have so many children you crazy man! If men are running around having sex all the time it doesn't make childbirth increase unless there are less men or fertility problems. My point stands.

I didn't say Love was instinctual, I said the parent bonding to the child was, that is instinctual, as can be see in animals. Ho Hum. That is where love comes from, this is where the children “learn” it.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
isukun at 7:29PM, Feb. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
What? That's nonsense Iskun! Women can only have so many children you crazy man!

Women do not spend the entirety of their fertile years pregnant. This is because people love their spouses and their children and wish to care for them in a responsible way. Animals taking life mates is not a common thing in nature. In nature, when the time to make babies comes, animals do just that, and in most cases, it doesn't matter who or how many mates a male takes.

I didn't say Love was instinctual, I said the parent bonding to the child was, that is instinctual, as can be see in animals.

Except that it isn't. It is a learned response. As we grow up that emotion is reinforced through social triggers like toys, stories, and even our own relationships with our parents. It isn't uncommon for an abusive or neglectful parent to have children who treat their own kids the same way. Their “bond” is to view their children with the same scorn their parents visited upon them.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
suzi at 7:34PM, Feb. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 571
joined: 3-12-2006
My parents didn't and don't exactly show me the kind of love I consider love, considering they're parents; I have trouble saying I “love” them because we rarely talk, it's more of a dependency thing. I think it will be a chore for me to keep in touch with my family when I move away to college because I feel so emotionally distanced and detached from them.

But I love, in general, much more intensely than most of the people whose minds I've gotten a good chance to probe. I don't really think I learned that from them.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:05PM
ozoneocean at 7:51PM, Feb. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
isukun
Women do not spend the entirety of their fertile years pregnant.
This is because our culture has changed, this didn't use to be the case and still isn't the case everywhere. You're using a culture specific argument and generalising too broadly.
I'm afraid you cannot make that generalisation about other animal mates either ;)
I can make on about parent child bonding because that is very common. While the behaviour of animal mating partners varies widely form species to species, depending on many factors. There may be life couples, couples that mate exclusively only for a single season, A male with a harem, a female with a harem, a small family group with a dominant male or female, males and females that randomly court etc. This is highly species specific behaviour.
Except that it isn't. It is a learned response.
No, it is very much instinctual. What YOU and Suzi are talking about are extra-psychological factors. You are talking about learned changes that veer away from the instinctual norm due to outside cultural influences (among other things). While the natural sate as we can easily observe time and time again in so called “primitive” societies and the behaviour of most complex non human animal species is one where a parent naturally cares for a child.

This isn't opinion, rocket science, or voodoo here… You're still working backwards.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
isukun at 9:25PM, Feb. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
This is because our culture has changed, this didn't use to be the case and still isn't the case everywhere.

In the places and times where it was not the case, marriage was viewed as a method for gaining offspring and the relationships were not close between spouses.

While the behaviour of animal mating partners varies widely form species to species, depending on many factors.

There are various different kinds of mating habits among animals, but that doesn't mean their mating habits vary widely. There is some variety, but most of it occurs on the higher end of the food chain with the majority of animals taking a more conventional approach of “pop out babies faster than they can be eaten.” Humanity took a similar approach, but disguised it with religion, politics, and sexism. Marriage was about having children. Women were just vessels for creating sons. God told us to “go forth and multiply.” It was more ordered than in the animal kingdom, but had very little to do with love. As such, our population boomed. As we start to see our population getting a bit too big, our society has started to focus more on the relationship between the spouses and less on the prospect of having children. Love is the device we use to limit the reproductive cycle.

What YOU and Suzi are talking about are extra-psychological factors.

Actually they aren't. The bond between parent and child is something the parent has to work at. Humans are born selfish. Their only instinct is to cry when they need something and suck on whatever goes in their mouth. Beyond that, the child has no social instincts whatsoever. Through constant positive reinforcement from the parent, a bond is formed. If the parent does nothing, that bond isn't formed and the child will remain in a state where they are incapable of social contact, most likely for the rest of their life. This process occurs in the first six months of a person's life.

So to recap, it is the natural state of people to be antisocial. It is only through outside forces that a person is able to recognize another person as anything beyond an object in their environment.

The bonding process early in life is the first step towards developing deeper social bonds later in life. Also, if the bond were instinctive, why do so many women abandon their children without a second thought (divorce, adoption, or just plain old fashioned abandonment) and so few are willing to take in other people's children, even when seeking one of their own? The “maternal instinct” doesn't seem to effect every woman out there and that just further leads me to believe it isn't an instinct at all.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
ozoneocean at 9:11AM, Feb. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
Ha! Well I see we simply aren't going to converge on any of our view Iskun, no matter what either of us says. I'm afraid I see your points as illogical from what is known of reality; my the perspective of all I know, have read, and learned. But I respect you for having them and having thought and felt about the issue enough to argue them with me.
-I won't continue debating it with you because we simply each hold to our own positions. Good debating with you Iskun. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved