On the philosophy of love…

Irresistiblement

I was reading a book for my World Religions class called "Siddhartha". In it, the main character is constantly looking for a type of spiritual fulfillment, but is caught up and distracted by "worldly pleasures" after casting away his spiritual followings.

Something interesting was said by a woman, who just so happens to be a mistress of sorts, to the main character Siddhartha-

"You are the best lover that I have had. You are stronger than others, more supple, more willing. You have learned my art well, Siddhartha. Some day, when I am older, I will have a child by you. And yet, my dear, you have remained a Samana (note: a type of wandering priest). You do not really love me- you love nobody. Is that not true?"

He responds with-

"Maybe. I am like you. You cannot love either, otherwise how could you practice love as an art? Perhaps people like us cannot love. Ordinary people can - that is their secret".

It really made me think, are some people really incapable of a true sort of love? Do they just wrap themselves up in superficial relationships for a sort of momentary gratification? Or is it true that there really are some who cannot feel love, for whatever reason, whether is be something they choose or something that they cannot help. This is a strange thought to me, as I am a very emotionally-based person. So I'd like to hear what other people's opinions are on the matter. Maybe this can spark up a bit of a debate on something that is usually taken lightly in our society.

taboo

Hmmm… that's pretty deep~

I suppose I think that everybody is capable of loving, but some just choose otherwise. Having sex and being in love are two different things; Everyone can have sex when they please, but nobody can love on command. Love, defined by my little black book, is putting the needs and wants of the other person ahead of your own. Like, if you got paid to have sex, or you got paid to do somthing nice for someone, would it be considered love? I think not. Love is somthing you choose to do of your own free will, specifically for someone else. It's like art, for example. Art is nothing but ink on paper or oil on canvas if there isn't an idea behind it. You have to want the other person to be happy.

So YES, I think everybody is capable of loving and being loved, no matter how messed up in the head you are.

Starlight

To an extend, I agree with taboo. Though, they are some very, very sick people who can't feel love.

Goodness gracious! When I'm in love, I can't think/look at anybody else, besides, my true love.

e1n

i've come to a conclusion that the highest form of true love is when no physical contact is needed. what i mean by that is if the following conditions apply:

1. you live in different continents
2. you live in opposite timezone
3. you don't talk to each other more than once a week
4. you have been separated for a couple of years

and yet you both are still in love with each other. now that's what i would call true love.

some say "that's stupidity, move on, pal."

i say whoever said something like that is just the type of person who gives up easily, and have obviously never felt such a strong bond of love.

in other words, true love needs no physical contact: a form of love that's DEVOID OF LUST. and i think CLAMP depicted that really well in cardcaptor sakura. did you notice that with all kinds crazy love shit that's going on, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE KISSING SCENE in CCS? or at least, none that i've found.

eDIT:
and then there are the type of people who love EVERYONE so much, they refuse to devote their lives on one single person. these people then become church missionaries, third-world volunteers, catholic pastors, etc.

KatanaJon1.1

e1n, that's pretty cool.
You're awesome.

e1n

well, with that said, i think i should make myself clear that if the highest form of love were to be devoid of lust, then i think i'll not get anywhere near that. XD

keep in mind that all men are created horny, and e1n is just one of them. =P

Starlight

i've come to a conclusion that the highest form of true love is when no physical contact is needed. what i mean by that is if the following conditions apply:

1. you live in different continents
2. you live in opposite timezone
3. you don't talk to each other more than once a week
4. you have been separated for a couple of years

i say whoever said something like that is just the type of person who gives up easily, and have obviously never felt such a strong bond of love.

Sugoi! Didn't know people still believed in that concept (truly, well spoken. It's exactly what I believe in too).

think CLAMP depicted that really well in cardcaptor sakura. did you notice that with all kinds crazy love shit that's going on, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE KISSING SCENE in CCS? or at least, none that i've found.

Cool you love CCS too! Gotta agree with you on that one. Sakura and Syaoran pulled it off real good, without even a kiss! Watching them together, makes be wish more people would be like them (As hopeless as it may sound). :laugh:

wintergt

Here I come with my sober opinion again =). Love is just a chemical reaction in your brain, signifying that your genes have decided that you wanna have babies with this person. Ofcourse there are so many factors involved, so that your feeling of "love" never really will be pure or eternal or anything like that.. the subconscious processes that make you fall in love will always have some reserves with their choices.. they might change their mind, find someone better, etc. Not very romantic? I know..

normyk

First, pardon my cynicism. I've been thinking about love a bit more than usual of late and am a little negative on the subject about now. And pardon any wandering off topic I do. I tend to…. ramble.

So...
I do believe that there are people who are emotionally and/or mentally broken beyond repair and are incapable of truly loving another person. I don't like that I think that (one more black mark on my heart), but I do. I'd like to think that every person has the capacity for love and I think that normally that holds true. I just think that life leaves some people incapable. Can they be fixed? Maybe. Maybe not. Receiving love can go a long way toward teaching a person to love. Or so I think.

I do take issue with this: "You cannot love either, otherwise how could you practice love as an art?" I haven't read Siddhartha but to my eye she is practicing sex as an art, not love. Confusing the two happens to people all too often. I personally don't believe in sex without love but that is just my way of doing things and I know that the two are completely unrelated as far as some people are concerned. Stating that one who has sex for money is incapable of love seems false to me. It changes the nature of sex for that personn but the nature of love - so long as they don't confuse sex and love - remains the same.

I think that the biggest problem is that people confuse all sorts of things with love. I think it's kind of funny that in a society where love is forced down our throats by the media so many people have no clue what it really is. Funny and sad. And it doesn't help that the media keep telling us that we need romantic love to be happy. Crock of shit, that. I believe that the love of a good friend is all the more love that a person needs to be happy no matter how much people tell themselves otherwise. It doesn't stop me from wanting more (we are selfish little monkeys or at least I'm one), but these days I'd be happy for one good solid real friend.

And of couse there is the line between loving a person and being 'in love' with a person. I love a lot of people but I don't think that I can honestly say that I have ever been truly 'in love' with anybody no matter what I might have thought at the time. I've been in two relationships which were both mistakes. Both were cases where we tried to force love for a friend to be something else and both failed. I loved them both very much but it was just love and we should have been just friends.

So, really, I think that our society has lost its focus. Hollywood love is the expectation and that candy-coated fantasy doesn't fly very often in the real world. I think that people should focus more on loving the people around them (though this can be difficult) than on searching for perfect love.

My two cents on the subject (for now).

Silpheed

I liked your 2 cents normyk. XD

I agree, we do kind of expect a scene from a movie that will find our true love just running into our arms on the street somewhere or something.

I've had cases where I would think I'm in love but have it be in the form of lust, and thinking that lust=love or that love=lust or something on those lines. Its just not something experienced too often.

I think we can both safely say that love is hard to come by. I too have been thru two hellish relationships. One was just an overflow of love all too quickly; and the seconded was just use asking "are we in love?" "should we continue this?". I found that I couldn't be their friends, because I would get this feeling of jeliousy after the break up.

So now here I am trying to find my "true love", but I've learned that its just something that you can't just go and find. If "true love" exist then its just bound to find its way to you someday.

Faith can have an impact on love also. It gives most people hope.

taboo

@jackvance:

Here I come with my sober opinion again =). Love is just a chemical reaction in your brain, signifying that your genes have decided that you wanna have babies with this person. Ofcourse there are so many factors involved, so that your feeling of "love" never really will be pure or eternal or anything like that.. the subconscious processes that make you fall in love will always have some reserves with their choices.. they might change their mind, find someone better, etc. Not very romantic? I know..

I love my mom, but that doesn't mean I want to have babies with her. XD

Silpheed

@taboo:

I love my mom, but that doesn't mean I want to have babies with her. XD

Well logically speaking…. XD j/k

I know where he's comming from on this, its putting love in a logical point of view. It really explains a lot, and it gives us an answer for maybe why it happens.

Love can have a lot of control over someones body, but there just has to be something more then just Glutose B (not a real chemical :P) being shot into your brain that makes you want to die for someone you care about or "love". :rolleyes:

Ranier

@Irresistiblement:

"Maybe. I am like you. You cannot love either, otherwise how could you practice love as an art? Perhaps people like us cannot love. Ordinary people can - that is their secret".

I re-read Siddhartha's response again. To practice love as an art signifies that there is an underlying purpose in the act of loving someone. If one is an artist, one trains and sharpens the skill needed to perform. Art is an embodiment of beauty, so it follows that practicing love as an art is to perform a recreation of beauty. But most of us, when asked "Why do you love?" will not answer: "Because I want to create beauty."

We love because we just do.

Perhaps when he said that they are unlike ordinary people, that they cannot love, he meant that they cannot love other people because they are drawn to something else, a thing that no physical creature can fulfill. I think the ordinary people's secret is that they are able to find beauty in other people, while those two are constantly searching for their own beauty.

Gadus

It just my opinion that love is defined by each person individually, whether it's some traditional sense of the word, the strongest emotion you have ever felt, or just an unconscious knowledge. In this sense, any definition could be correct.

I guess sometimes we look back on the past and say that we didn't actually love this person/thing/etc. But I wonder if that is really true. At that time, because you knew of nothing else, because you experienced nothing greater isn't it possible to say that you, in fact, did love? Blind or not - if you honestly believed that you were in love at the time, I would think that counts as love.

So it's my opinion that someone who resolutely believes they are incapable of love and indiscriminately turns away from any feeling or reciprocation is not able to love and that they, mostly, have themselves to blame.

But that's just my opinion. Oh yeah, I really liked the book Siddhartha. If only I could remember it…

wintergt

@taboo:

I love my mom, but that doesn't mean I want to have babies with her. XD

That's semantics, because on the chemical level this is a different kind of love, even though we use one word for it.

The love for a life partner is to have babies with them. This is why men are easier to get but harder to keep, while women are harder to get but easier to keep, to put it bluntly. If a man has been with a woman, she might be pregnant, but for the man he can just as easily go out and find another woman since he 'did his thing', while the woman now has to carry the child, so she needs to ensure the man stays with her to protect her and the baby. That's the evolutionary gimmick behind the man/woman dynamic.

The love between family or friends, like you and your mom, on the other hand is to ensure kinship and mutual aid and those kinds of things. I'll give you results of extensive scientific research on this topic to put things in perspective. Basically, your parents love you the most as soon as you become fertile, so around 16 years of age. It's a reverse "U" shape. So your parents love you a certain amount at age 12, it peaks at 16, and when you're 20 they'll love you as much as when you were 12 again.. Note ofcourse that these are averages over a population, with individual differences.

There, I should have shattered a few dreams now

Akeisha

okay jackvance, that's just from phisical point of view… what about feelings? On love I must agree with e1n. But I also belive that love is eternal (yes, I know that sound stupid and naive, but I don't care...XD ). We carry the feelings from our past lives with ourselves and we usually love the people we loved before...

And about the people that are incapable of loving - well, everyone is born with ability to love, is your choice how to use that... some people hide their emotions and can't share them with others or express them!

Well, that's my point of view...=)

wintergt

@Akeisha:

okay jackvance, that's just from phisical point of view…what about feelings?

Eh.. what? The physical things, ie the chemical reactions in your brain are exactly what makes you feel things, ie it causes your feelings. If I put your brain under one of those magnetoscopes that can activate isolated parts of your brain, I can make you feel anything I want. A depression, a visual illusion, a great spiritual experience, or, in the words of someone who experiences it, "the pleasure of 100 orgasms".

taboo

@jackvance:

There, I should have shattered a few dreams now

Not so much.

On topic, does that mean that people who's brains blocked or couldn't send out certain chemicals mean that they couldn't love? Thinking about all the types of love there is: romantic, family, friends, hobbies, etc. Is is possible for someone to not like anything at all? OR even if a person couldn't "feel" love in their brain, they could still love by commiting acts of love and be loved. So I still stand by my earlier statement that yes, everyone can love and be loved, because love is more about the acts not the chemicals.

normyk

I like to think that all those chemicals flow because of the love.

wintergt

@taboo:

Not so much.

Thank god then

On topic, does that mean that people who's brains blocked or couldn't send out certain chemicals mean that they couldn't love? Thinking about all the types of love there is: romantic, family, friends, hobbies, etc. Is is possible for someone to not like anything at all?

Yeah, but ofcourse such a thing is extremely rare. In his book "emotional intelligence" Daniel Goleman describes a young man who suffered brain damage from a car accident, which apparently severed the emotional connection in his brain. Afterward he didn't feel much of anything anymore. He lost his wife, his job, his money everything, because he also couldn't make decisions anymore. (as it turns out we do them mostly on "feel")

OR even if a person couldn't "feel" love in their brain, they could still love by commiting acts of love and be loved. So I still stand by my earlier statement that yes, everyone can love and be loved, because love is more about the acts not the chemicals.

I'm sorry but I don't really understand the point of this statement. Then again, I'm a "rational thinker" which is about 5% of the population so I probably see things a bit different from most other people.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't wanna play high and mighty here, it's just that the philosophical implications are beyond the scope of what I'm trying to say.

The physical explanation is the "how" and the evolutionary explanation is the "why". And there I kinda stop, that's the whole story for me. Ofcourse other people can derive different meanings from these things, and I respect that, I just don't meddle in those kinds of discussions.

Silpheed

Hmmm interesting….

So what causes a person to treat sex like art? Is this lack of emotion? Could this have been caused by something in there life that would affect the chemical imbalance? And can you as a person love another person who thinks of sex as an art?

wintergt

@Silpheed:

So what causes a person to treat sex like art? Is this lack of emotion? Could this have been caused by something in there life that would affect the chemical imbalance?

Not sure what you mean 'as an art'. Are you referring to porn stars? Or artists who use sex in their works maybe? Regardless, these people will have the same urges like everyone else.

But that sex can also be simply 'recreation' is indeed a fact. The reason is probably the 'hidden fertility' of human women. With certain monkeys for example, the females visibly show when they're in their fertile period, so the males only have sex with them in that time. You however can't see this with human women, so a lot of the time you might be having sex with no effect. This dynamic, together with the evolutionary mechanism that makes something that has evolved for one reason, usefull for another (like wings that evolved for protection against water and were later used for flight) explains why sex is also possible as mere recreation. (ie it evolved to be fun so we would make babies, but since it was fun it could also be done simply for fun)

And can you as a person love another person who thinks of sex as an art?

I don't see how that wouldn't be possible.. if your brain thinks 'wow this some grade A genetic material', then it'll make you fall in love..

Why do you think musicians are so hot for women? The brain is the human's "peacock's feathers". Ie a good working brain is the way we show our excellent genetic contents. So someone who can make great music = he has a good functioning brain = he got good genes = teh sexy.

taboo

@Silpheed:

Hmmm interesting….

So what causes a person to treat sex like art? Is this lack of emotion?

I think the guy was talking about prostitutes.

I'm sorry but I don't really understand the point of this statement. Then again, I'm a "rational thinker" which is about 5% of the population so I probably see things a bit different from most other people.

I ment that, yeah your brain makes chemicals that make you want to love. Just like you brain makes chemicals telling you when to use the toilet. You can get those chemicals all day, but you can't be considered 'going potty' until you actually go pee. Like love, your brain can tell you that you love someone, but you have to act upon it. If you couldn't get those chemicals in your brain, you could still commit acts of love. You see, you look at love as a noun, while I look at it as a verb. :laugh:

Silpheed

@jackvance:

Why do you think musicians are so hot for women? The brain is the human's "peacock's feathers". Ie a good working brain is the way we show our excellent genetic contents. So someone who can make great music = he has a good functioning brain = he got good genes = teh sexy.

Thats some good logic, it explains why I always have ex-girlfriends that fall in love with men who play gutar. I must ask where do you get your information?

@taboo:

I think the guy was talking about prostitutes.

Yeah I ment prostitutes and women who just like to have sex and feel no emotion afterwards.

wintergt

@taboo:

I ment that, yeah your brain makes chemicals that make you want to love. Just like you brain makes chemicals telling you when to use the toilet. You can get those chemicals all day, but you can't be considered 'going potty' until you actually go pee. Like love, your brain can tell you that you love someone, but you have to act upon it. If you couldn't get those chemicals in your brain, you could still commit acts of love. You see, you look at love as a noun, while I look at it as a verb. :laugh:

Isn't that like going to pee when nothing comes out? I mean, if you feel nothing but you 'fake' a love act, would you call that love? But like I said this is kind of a philosophical interpretation, so whatever you say is fine
@Silpheed:

Thats some good logic, it explains why I always have ex-girlfriends that fall in love with men who play gutar. I must ask where do you get your information?

I can't quite direct you to one source, it's a culmination of all the things I've read about evolutionary theory, psychology and neurology. I've had a "phase" where I read tons of that stuff a few years back. But like I said, no clue where this particular tidbit of information came from. But if you're really interested I can give you some titles..

Silpheed

sure that would be fine.

I'm really interested from both points of view now.

Can love be defined as "chemical reactions", or can there be some sort of force guiding people to their "soul mate" a sort of fate that drives people to love.

Now I want to hear taboo's side of it.

taboo

@jackvance:

Isn't that like going to pee when nothing comes out? I mean, if you feel nothing but you 'fake' a love act, would you call that love? But like I said this is kind of a philosophical interpretation, so whatever you say is fine

Going to pee when nothing comes out doesn't make sense. xD If you feel the urge to pee (or to love) then you act upon it. If your brain can't chemically tell you you need to pee, you can still pee because you have the capability.

And how would you 'fake' an act of love? XD

See? I just put that 'xD' smiley there and you think I'm happy and that I'm trying to make it seem like I enjoy the conversations and what not. It gave the impression that I like you, right? That we're friends? For all you know, I could hate your guts but did that as not to make enemies. There is no such thing as a 'false' act of love. If I had no emotions what so ever, I could still make acts of love and it would affect those that had the chemical capability (I do it all the time, the internet makes it real easy). Think about girls who's boyfriends pretend to love them. They commit the same acts of love that real loving boyfriends do, no matter how skewed their motives may be. It has the same effect on their girlfriends. When they stop "loving" them is when feelings get hurt.

I dunno. It's kind of one of those "if a tree falls in the woods" sorts of things. Does it even make sense?

Can love be defined as "chemical reactions", or can there be some sort of force guiding people to their "soul mate" a sort of fate that drives people to love.

XD That would dig into my religious side, which I've been trying to avoid…

wintergt

@taboo:

And how would you 'fake' an act of love? XD

You perform the actions without feeling it. Like faking an orgasm.

See? I just put that 'xD' smiley there and you think I'm happy and that I'm trying to make it seem like I enjoy the conversations and what not. It gave the impression that I like you, right? That we're friends?

Actually I got quite the opposite impression..

I dunno. It's kind of one of those "if a tree falls in the woods" sorts of things. Does it even make sense?

Always hated that one. The answer is simply "it still produces the pressure waves that our ears would interpret as sounds".. but I'm probably missing the deeper meaning.

taboo

@jackvance:

You perform the actions without feeling it.

Does that make it any less an act of love, as long as it effects one of the two people involved? I think you're thinking about somthing like a robot, who can produce acts of love because it's programmed to, but not actually 'love'. People have the option to love, that's what makes it so effective. Just by talking to or being considerate of someone, that's love. You choose to take into account their feelings and put them ahead of yours, no chemical required. Love is free will.

Actually I got quite the opposite impression..

=( I seriously do think of you as a friend though….

wintergt

@taboo:

Does that make it any less an act of love, as long as it effects one of the two people involved? I think you're thinking about somthing like a robot, who can produce acts of love because it's programmed to, but not actually 'love'. People have the option to love, that's what makes it so effective. Just by talking to or being considerate of someone, that's love. You choose to take into account their feelings and put them ahead of yours, no chemical required. Love is free will.

Well to be really honest I was kinda just throwing out ideas to the exact things you said without knowing what the point of the discussion was. I posted the "physical" or "neurological" interpretation for those who wanted a more scientific approach, and you replied with something like "I still stand by my point".. but I never tried to disprove anything of the sorts. I actually didn't read much of the discussion after the first post. So I'm just going to gracefully back out now.. because while I do understand all the words you are saying I have no clue what to respond cuz I dunno what we are talking about XD

=( I seriously do think of you as a friend though….

cool

taboo

@jackvance:

Well to be really honest I was kinda just throwing out ideas to the exact things you said without knowing what the point of the discussion was. I posted the "physical" or "neurological" interpretation for those who wanted a more scientific approach, and you replied with something like "I still stand by my point".. but I never tried to disprove anything of the sorts.

xD I wasn't really responding to you specifically, I was just restating my opinion after thinking about it more in depth.

So I'm just going to gracefully back out now.. because while I do understand all the words you are saying I have no clue what to respond cuz I dunno what we are talking about XD

Sounds good to me, I think I'll drop it too. I hate debating believe it or not.:laugh: I think it was … somthing.

Slipheed, I honestly do have a more romantic stance on what love is (the past few posts of mine make me seem kinda cold I guess). I DO think that there is a special someone for everyone, and I DO think love is more than chemicals. However that does get into my religion, and that's not somthing I'm willing to debate with here or anywhere. Call it naiive, but so what. ^^ If science is true, then it doesn't really matter what I believe anyway.

wintergt

@Silpheed:

sure that would be fine.

I'm really interested from both points of view now.

From the top of my head:
"Emotional Intelligence" - Daniel Goleman
"The Lucifer Principle" - Howard Bloom
"Phantom of the brain" - Vilayanur Ramachandran

These should get you started

Can love be defined as "chemical reactions", or can there be some sort of force guiding people to their "soul mate" a sort of fate that drives people to love.

To be really honest I can't even comprehend why anyone would think there's a "force" or "something more" when there's zero proof and all the scientific research presents a framework that explains everything.. but yeah, that's why I tend to stay out of these kinds of discussions in real life. To each his own opinion.

Silpheed

No you guys were terrific! I really enjoyed both sides of it. You both brought up very good points. And I don't want to get into any "taboo" subjects (pun intended ^^) .

And I have to go with what you said Taboo, I also believe that there is a person for everybody, a special someone. And what with Jack said was good too, I mean we need answers to things we don't understand, and with that we are hoping to get closer to the truth of all things!

Sorry if I just seemed like the spectator in all of this (god I feel guilty now =( ).

Because we are all talking about love I really feel like quoting Forest Gump

"I may be stupid, but I sure as hell know what love is".

Irresistiblement

Wow… this has gotten quite interesting. As I read through both sides of this mini-debate, it really illustrated the wide opinions people can have on the subject and showed both sides of the spectrum.

I've always just felt that there was more than just a chemical reaction that guides people to each other... while undoubtably the process has a significant role as well. As normyk said a little bit ago, "I like to think that all those chemicals flow because of the love."

I would agree with that to some degree… that the emotions do take place partially because of neurological processes. But I also believe that there is an important role from something greater, perhaps something that science can't completely explain. A sort of timeless Absolute or Divinity that comes into play. But then again, that is diving into a more sort of religious discussion... which can get a bit touchy. Maybe its just the power of the human spirit or will... I'm not sure. Just things that go through my mind that I am typing out, so forgive me if my point is completely missed here.

Yoska

@Silpheed:

Because we are all talking about love I really feel like quoting Forest Gump

"I may be stupid, but I sure as hell know what love is".

And I sure love Gump.

Love, amour. I do not know nothing about the subject - I'm such an immature punk - but chemical reaction… nah, I don't believe on what I haven't felt or seen, or something.

wintergt

@Yoska:

Love, amour. I do not know nothing about the subject - I'm such an immature punk - but chemical reaction… nah, I don't believe on what I haven't felt or seen, or something.

So when you watch television, you think the images appear on your screen 'by magic' too? I mean, it's a simple proven fact that emotions are chemical reactions and neurons firing in your brain..

Yoska

@jackvance:

So when you watch television, you think the images appear on your screen 'by magic' too?

Yeah, something like that - my science teachers loved me. But yes, emotions are chemicals, althought it's just something others had said to me but I don't bother to doubt them.