Essentially it's our primitive counterpart. — Fruitless

??

Was it our primitive counterpart ways that cause us to fight against slavery?

Or was it our more altruistic and empathic and equality seeking modern thinking?

Regards
DL

no longer relevant to the discussion

Where do you come up with this kind of thing? — uncanni

Science. Try it. If your swollen head and ego will let you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LIb22-5Lwg

Regards
DL

Science. Try it. If your swollen head and ego will let you. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yes, my swollen head allowed me to watch the video, which was very interesting. But I don't see anything about hating versus loving. And this was the issue that I brought up by quoting you.

But I don't see anything about hating versus loving — uncanni

Then watch it again for the first time to see that a negative bias is created at the same time as a positive bias. That is love creating hate against all that would threaten what is loved.

If you don't agree then show what creates our hate biases.

Regards
DL

I don't see any hatred in the babies' choices. I see a clear choice in the object, but nothing indicates any kind of reaction towards the other dolls--no punching, biting, screaming in anger, or anything that would suggest highly negative infantile emotions.

If you don't agree then show what creates our hate biases. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Agree with what? You don't show in that example a hate bias--only a clear preference. You conclude that the opposite is hate, but I don't conclude the same thing at all. You are aware that others see things differently from you, right? But there's still the problem of you demonstrating absolutely no hate bias in those babies.

You conclude that because you hate, ergo everyone hates? This is an absurd conclusion. It's true that lots of folks hate, but you could never demonstrate that everyone does.

So you can see yourself saving your neighbor's child instead of your own.

Wow.

Don't tell your wife why or she, if smart, will drop you like a hot potato. Your a pathetic human — Gnostic Christian Bishop

There are many reasons why I believe that I would choose to save my own child before my neighbour’s child - and my husband’s feelings as well as my own would factor strongly, for sure - but I’m not going to rule out the possibility of circumstances at the time that might lead me to go the other way, even if I can’t describe them in detail right now. I know that I would have to live with my decision as well as everyone else’s opinion of it, but I’m still not going to rule it out. If you think that makes me ‘pathetic’, I’m okay with that. I’m at least being honest with myself.

What we base our decisions on in situations like these are complex and cannot be predicted with any certainty. There are too many instances of actions that defy logic, social expectations and other ‘normal’ value structures for me to be certain of my own response, and I won’t try to assure myself of possessing any ‘inherent values’ to which I may struggle to reconcile my behaviour after the event.

But in a similar hypothetical fire situation if both the children were YOURS, would your decision to choose one child over the other be ‘proof’ that you LOVE one of your two children less? And if so, how do you explain that to your wife?

I understand that we look at these actions as ‘proof’ of love, but to me they simply demonstrate our feelings of preference, desire or value attributed to events or objects in time. They prove where love is at work in that moment, but not where love ISN’T.

It’s a bit like potential energy. We can calculate and predict where and even how much will be at work in certain situations, but that’s not ‘proof’ that only a certain quantity of potential energy is ever available for that object or event. And there is no term defining a lack of potential energy...

but I’m not going to rule out the possibility of circumstances at the time that might lead me to go the other way, even if I can’t describe them in detail right now. — Possibility

It seems likely that with most parents, those factors would have to do with things like physical obstacles, not with valuing the life of someone else's child over our own.

But in a similar hypothetical fire situation if both the children were YOURS, would your decision to choose one child over the other be ‘proof’ that you LOVE one of your two children less? — Possibility

Probably it would. Unless, say, physical differences were involved. IOW your gut reactions was saving JImmy has a lower chance of succeeding and/of killing you both so you saved Joe. Or you had to choose to save one childr first and grabbed the nearest one. But if you chose to save one and you, as you word it, chose to save one child over the other, than either you loved on of them more or you felt guilty about that and went against your own desires. And a lot of parents feel guilty for preferring one child over others.

Though my goodness, we've gotten into a morbid corner of love, somehow.

I understand that we look at these actions as ‘proof’ of love, but to me they simply demonstrate our feelings of preference, desire or value attributed to events or objects in time. They prove where love is at work in that moment, but not where love ISN’T. — Possibility

Real life events are a mess. It would often be very hard to work out, in a fire for example, all the factors. But I think parents can feel each other's preferences and if the child one parent was closer too was chosen and it seemed like all factors were equal, it would be very hard on all three survivors, because it would remind all three that we often do love one child more than the other (s) and in this case it probably led to that child not surviving. An honest spouse - to the one in that horrible situation - would realize they might have done the same thing. If you have to choose one, one has to be chosen. But it might break the relationship anyway, especially if the other parent would have made a different choice.

The other parent would likely find it nearly impossible to accept choosing someone else's child over their own. Unless they could be shown there was no way to save their child. Unless they came to believe that was the case. I don't think any marital relationship would survive one parent choosing to save someone else's child. Relationships often have trouble surviving the death of a child by disease or accident. If the other parent could have saved the child but decided not to, I think very few make it past that juncture.

And it seems to me mentioning logic as you did....

There are too many instances of actions that defy logic, — Possibility

It's not logic that makes one choose one's own child first. It's outside of logic, it is feeling. And even the other parents, if they knew you had to choose one child, would understand you chose your own, because they know what they would have done. They might not want to be friends, because the feelings go so deep, but they would understand the choice.

I agree with you on pretty much all of what you’ve said here. Apart from this:

because it would remind all three that we often do love one child more than the other (s) and in this case it probably led to that child not surviving. — Coben

I don’t deny that, at any point in time or set of circumstances, we would prefer one child over another. What I’m arguing is that while this appears to be an indication of where love is at work at any point in time, it is by no means an indication of a lesser quantity of love being available.

And it seems to me mentioning logic as you did....
There are too many instances of actions that defy logic,
— Possibility
It's not logic that makes one choose one's own child first. It's outside of logic, it is feeling. And even the other parents, if they knew you had to choose one child, would understand you chose your own, because they know what they would have done. They might not want to be friends, because the feelings go so deep, but they would understand the choice. — Coben

The reason I mentioned logic here is because in the aftermath of intense situations, many people tend to apply either a purely logical or purely emotional appraisal of the situation to evaluate or justify the actions of those involved. In my opinion it isn’t that cut and dried, and what initiates action - even in these situations - is a complex, subjective and amorphous ‘structure’ of mind that determines how logic, feeling, memory, knowledge and sensory information interact in relation to value and meaning. You suggested so yourself when you described the physical obstacles and ‘chances’ of success. So it’s inaccurate to assume that the parent made a choice based only on their feelings, even though it may seem that simple to everyone, including the parent themselves. When we start to look at how someone with autism might act in this situation, for instance, the complexity becomes irreducible.

Real life events are ‘a mess’ only because we’d prefer them to be simple enough to get our head around. They’re not. There’s always more going on than we’re aware of, and our mind has the capacity to process much more information than we can consciously pay attention to at any point in time.

But getting back to the original topic, perhaps you and I can at least agree that there is no hate necessary in these examples - that saving one child instead of another does not require one to hate the child we don’t save.

I don’t deny that, at any point in time or set of circumstances, we would prefer one child over another. What I’m arguing is that while this appears to be an indication of where love is at work at any point in time, it is by no means an indication of a lesser quantity of love being available. — Possibility

Not qutie sure what that means, but it's likely my fault for joining an ongoing discussion. I would add that often in parenting it is not just at a particular time, but even for a whole lifetime of the relationship. This does not meanthe parent does not love his or her other children. But some simply love one more than the others, long term. This isn't evil, it's often just down to who can connect and understand each other given some tempermental resonance.

But getting back to the original topic, perhaps you and I can at least agree that there is no hate necessary in these examples - that saving one child instead of another does not require one to hate the child we don’t save. — Possibility

Oh, sure. If that was what you were arguing against, I am on your side. Did someone really say that if you save one child, when you can only save one child it means you love one and hate the other? Jeez.

Not qutie sure what that means, but it's likely my fault for joining an ongoing discussion. I would add that often in parenting it is not just at a particular time, but even for a whole lifetime of the relationship. This does not meanthe parent does not love his or her other children. But some simply love one more than the others, long term. This isn't evil, it's often just down to who can connect and understand each other given some tempermental resonance. — Coben

But I disagree that it means we love one child more than another. That we connect more with one child does not mean that we have less love for the others. I think love exists as a potential - we may perceive less opportunities to demonstrate love in comfortable or mutually enjoyable ways with one child than with another, but I think we limit ourselves if we figure that as less love. My two children are remarkably different - one I understand much more readily, and we gravitate towards one another through similar interests. With the other I need to consciously look for opportunities to demonstrate the love I know is there - both for his benefit and as a reminder to myself.

The way I see it, our feelings of love (value, preference, desire) certainly influence but do not determine our capacity to act with love. They also influence but again do not determine our capacity to hate. The same with feelings of fear, anger and frustration. Our feelings can contribute, sure - but we aren’t ruled by them in any situation.

But I disagree that it means we love one child more than another. That we connect more with one child does not mean that we have less love for the others. — Possibility

I am not saying it must be the case. I think it is often the case.

The way I see it, our feelings of love (value, preference, desire) certainly influence but do not determine our capacity to act with love. — Possibility

Sure, I almost think romantic love can be stronger based on difference.

But still I think a lot of parents love one of their children more than others and often there are, to varying degrees, black sheep children in families. I know this through confidences and confessions from many parents, nearly all of whom felt quite guilty about it. This does not mean it is true in your case. I assume there is quite a lot of unreported cases of this, and by unreported I mean: the parent tells no one. It's taboo. Given how many have told me I suspect it is widespread. I think also it is often hard for the person to admit even to themselves. There have been cognitive studies that strongly indicate that many peope who dislike racism, are antiracist and would even speak out about racism, nevertheless are more likely to make negative judgments about other races. IOW people can not know their own feelings, when those feelings are ego-dystonic. Not loving one's children the same is extremely ego-dystonic.Again, this does not mean you love yours to different degrees.

The way I see it, our feelings of love (value, preference, desire) certainly influence but do not determine our capacity to act with love. — Possibility

I got a little lost in this part. One can act lovingly but feel something else, or feel not so much love, though acting the same with another person...sure. And some nice people can be quite hateful inside - not that this is the same, just showing that acting and feeling can be quite separate, in degree and even in quality.

In any case, I certainly wouldn't tell you or someone else that you necessarily love one child more than another. I don't believe it is universal. But I don't think it is pathological either. In fact I think it is quite common.

or anything that would suggest highly negative infantile emotions. — uncanni

He chose the good which shows his positive bias which rejected the other due to his negative bias.
No one said that hate necessarily created violence.

You conclude that because you hate, ergo everyone hates? This is an absurd conclusion. It's true that lots of folks hate, but you could never demonstrate that everyone does. — uncanni

That clip used the terms good and evil. I chose to use love and hate as analogies.

You seem to think that people can have a good bias but not an evil bias. You would be wrong.

Regards
DL

And if so, how do you explain that to your wife? — Possibility

First. I am pleased that you could not come up with a scenario where you would put a stranger ahead of your child, even as you say that you could under the right conditions.

As to how I would explain it to my wife. I would say I chose the one whose life I had a better chance of saving.

I saw a clip which I did not keep of a woman in a tsunami having her two children on a float with her.

The younger toddler fell of and she let go of the older sibling 6 or 7 year old to save the younger.
She got lucky as the older manage to save himself. That was quick and instinctive but I don't know if we would all react the same way.

I don't know how she would explain her choice as I have forgotten if she did or not.

Regards
DL

As to how I would explain it to my wife. I would say I chose the one whose life I had a better chance of saving. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

...even though your decision to act was also influenced by your feelings of preference towards one child over another...ok

That was quick and instinctive but I don't know if we would all react the same way. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I find it interesting what we label as ‘instinctive’ - suggesting that a split second decision can only be based on an organism’s inherent behaviour patterns, and yet we cannot say that we would all react the same way. Why not? Is this woman inherently different, or is there something we can adjust so that we would behave in this way that we admire?

I get that there is no time for conscious thought in the moment, but I think it’s the kinds of discussions and thinking we’re doing now that enable us to evaluate our ‘instinctive’ behaviour patterns and make adjustments according to a broader perspective of the world: to recognise that we’re not ‘locked in’ to certain behaviour patterns; that we can not only map the mental conditions that initiate certain actions, but also structure or even create the right conditions in our own minds.

You seem to think that people can have a good bias but not an evil bias. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Now you have changed your wording, from love and hate to good and evil. These categories are not the same thing.

...even though your decision to act was also influenced by your feelings of preference towards one child over another...ok — Possibility

That is your assumption. Not mine.

I don't know, so you are showing your own thinking.

Why not? — Possibility

Genetic mutations which effect thinking.

even create the right conditions in our own minds. — Possibility

Yes. Some can create their own delusions.

Regards
DL

Now you have changed your wording, from love and hate to good and evil. These categories are not the same thing. — uncanni

Analogical thinking says they are. I changed the wording so that you would understand that baby link better than you do.

Regards
DL

Wait are you now saying that hate is evil?

Coben

950

↪Gnostic Christian Bishop Wait are you now saying that hate is evil? — Coben

I am saying that analogically thinking says that love and hate can be replaced with good and evil.

We must compete and cooperate in our evolutionary journey.

I see the evils of competition and the creation of losers to those competitions as a small evil within a greater good. It selects the fittest, which is evolutions inadvertent goal.

Regards
DL

I guess I'd avoid using that analogy. Loving something or someone abusive can be bad. Hating something evil can be good. It's a bit too apples and bicycles to me, and can easily lead to all the kinds of judgments both of us have been arguing against in this thread.

and can easily lead to all the kinds of judgments both of us have been arguing against in this thread. — Coben

??

I am all in for judgements.
We judge hundreds of things daily and I follow this good advice religiously.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

What did I put that made you think I was against judging?

Regards
DL

I judge too. I said nothing against judgments per se. But judging hate as like evil, is, as we both seemed to have argued here, off.

But judging hate as like evil, is, as we both seemed to have argued here, off. — Coben

I absolutely agree: they are not the same thing; I see no argument demonstrating in the least way that they are interchangeable terms.

He called them analogous, which isn't interchangeable.

adjective: analogous

comparable in certain respects, typically in a way which makes clearer the nature of the things compared.

But given how he has been saying hate is not bad or wrong per se and that he feels it seems a fair conclusion, it is odd for him to be saying it is analogous to evil.

↪uncanni He called them analogous, which isn't interchangeable.

adjective: analogous

comparable in certain respects, typically in a way which makes clearer the nature of the things compared.
But given how he has been saying hate is not bad or wrong per se and that he feels it seems a fair conclusion, it is odd for him to be saying it is analogous to evil. — Coben

This is the reason I have been using the terms ‘justifiable’ and ‘necessary’ to clarify the argument. GCB accepts that hate can be seen as ‘evil’ but argues that this doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. His argument seems to be that - given the way we understand evolution as ‘survival of the fittest’ - there are necessary ‘evils’ we must perform in order to survive and ensure the survival of our preferred way of life, those we love, etc. Kill or be killed, an eye for an eye, hating hate, etc - these are ways we attempt to justify actions in society that would otherwise be condemned as ‘evil’.

The argument may sound reasonable on the surface - as long as we don’t look too closely at why we hate and why we love. As long as we maintain that ‘love’ and ‘hate’ refer to mutually dependent value scales - that the degree to which we love someone corresponds necessarily to the degree to which we hate its opposite - then the argument can be said to hold.

My argument is not only that these value scales are independent, but that they refer only to the feelings that influence but don’t necessarily initiate love or hate. As humans, we are not slaves to our feelings - we initiate thoughts, words and actions according to the atemporal, value structured interaction of sensory information with the memories, feelings, logic and knowledge of our experiences. Mostly this happens without our conscious attention to the process, and it’s only after we act that we consciously select the value structures that appear to satisfactorily explain our past action in the simplest way.

But that doesn’t mean we’re unable to pay conscious attention to and evaluate the way our value structures interact. This is what self-consciousness and self-evaluation is for. This is what imagination and thought is for. We can evaluate our feelings in relation to imagined experiences, and be honest with ourselves about the degree to which they might influence our actions. We can map our own value structures, be critical of them and even change them.

But too often we don’t, because to acknowledge our capacity in this respect is to acknowledge responsibility. If we admit that we don’t have to hate, then we are responsible for when we do hate. It’s much easier for us to deny our capacity to choose love in the face of oppression, than to try and understand why we choose to hate instead.

I think my trying to understand the context between you two is beyond me. Though i do understand that you were also trying to help me understand the context in general which I appreciate.

But too often we don’t, because to acknowledge our capacity in this respect is to acknowledge responsibility. If we admit that we don’t have to hate, then we are responsible for when we do hate. It’s much easier for us to deny our capacity to choose love in the face of oppression, than to try and understand why we choose to hate instead. — Possibility

Hate is complicated, so what we mean by hate can mean something like a bitter grudge-like hate which we feed over time, remind ourselves of what they did, etc. And then there is a hate that arises in reaction to mistreatment say or hate itself. I definitely want to interfere with patterns where I am getting stuck in hate (and fear, and heck, even love ((more on that later))). But I want to actually even be more free to react to mistreatment with the full range of angry feelings, including hate. I don't want to act out on this - unless I am physically attacked - but to accept these feelings as natural and not problematic. And I can actually feel rather tremendously strong reactions of hate without coming near to acting out physically or even practically- like firing someone or sending an angry letter. There are so many judgments out there about how strong feelings always lead to actions, but this is because people tend to suppress their fears, so if they feel a lot of rage, they have no balance and can act out, especially with alcohol, for example, since this suppresses fear (and cognitive processes also). So for me it depends what we mean by hate. I don't want to have as some rule that I need to suppress my emotional reactions to hateful treatment. I may not show the other person, for a variety of reasons, but I want no more judgment in me that I should be more understanding or anger is ok, but not hate. When someone dehumanizes us, I see nothing wrong with the emotion of hate. Hatred might become for some people part of patterns that are destructive, but that's for reasons having little to do with the emotion itself.

I mentioned love above. Even so called positive emotions can be held to long, bouyed along with excuses for the other person, rationalizations, fantasy and more. But where there is love as an in the moment reaction, I also want to be able to feel that of course. And of course I am much happier when situations bring up the so called positive emotions, but I will not longer agree to contorting myself and telling my emotions (metaphorically) to be like X even if they feel like Y. I do want to stop focusing on one emotion when really I am feeling another. Or focusing on one because it makes me more comfortable. Hatred is often easier from some people to feel than fear. I am always looking underneath to see if something is being avoided. It is a process. But hate is not a problem for me per se, and honestly I think it would be problematic if most of us, who are not so wealthy we can pay our way out of everything we think is unjust or spiteful or dehumanizing, did not react with hatred now and then and in relation to, for example, some bosses. That doesn't mean we don't have responsibility to try to get away from destructive personalities, for example, but this is not always so easy to do or do quickly. I'm not going to judge my reactions to mistreatment,whatever the emotion is that arises. I may judge what I do in response to the problem - I want to learn, of course - practically. And I may judge the patterns of holding onto emotions.

But even that gets tricky. To someone else it can seem like holding on to emotions, but the person in question my simply be consistantly meeting dehumanization. African americans were often judged, when I was young, for being so angry. Like they were reacting to the air.

Hate is complicated, so what we mean by hate can mean something like a bitter grudge-like hate which we feed over time, remind ourselves of what they did, etc. And then there is a hate that arises in reaction to mistreatment say or hate itself. I definitely want to interfere with patterns where I am getting stuck in hate (and fear, and heck, even love ((more on that later))). But I want to actually even be more free to react to mistreatment with the full range of angry feelings, including hate. I don't want to act out on this - unless I am physically attacked - but to accept these feelings as natural and not problematic. And I can actually feel rather tremendously strong reactions of hate without coming near to acting out physically or even practically- like firing someone or sending an angry letter. There are so many judgments out there about how strong feelings always lead to actions, but this is because people tend to suppress their fears, so if they feel a lot of rage, they have no balance and can act out, especially with alcohol, for example, since this suppresses fear (and cognitive processes also). So for me it depends what we mean by hate. I don't want to have as some rule that I need to suppress my emotional reactions to hateful treatment. I may not show the other person, for a variety of reasons, but I want no more judgment in me that I should be more understanding or anger is ok, but not hate. When someone dehumanizes us, I see nothing wrong with the emotion of hate. Hatred might become for some people part of patterns that are destructive, but that's for reasons having little to do with the emotion itself. — Coben

The way I see it, the ‘full range of angry feelings’ can be felt and even expressed without hate. In fact I would argue that they should be expressed without hate. And I agree with you that people tend to suppress their fears, which can lead to hate. Hate, as I see it, is denying the reality of our experience. That we feel anger, frustration or fear is natural and not problematic. These feelings draw our attention to experiences in the world that we wish to change. I see nothing wrong with sharing our feelings about these experiences. But feeling is not the same as emotion. How often do we admit our feelings of fear, anger or frustration without reacting to them emotionally?

We can respond to a wish for change in one of two ways: either we deny the reality of the experience and want to attack any evidence of it (hate), or we accept the reality and open ourselves to awareness, connection and collaboration in order to effect real change to that reality in time (love). When we have an emotional reaction of hate, whether we suppress that reaction or not, we already deny the reality of the experience. When we ‘refuse to accept’ hateful treatment, we deny the reality of the experience.

This is the confusing part: We can’t change something that we refuse to accept. In order to change the hateful treatment we first need to accept the reality that it occurs, and that we have a strong desire to change it. We need to be prepared to acknowledge that we are hurt by this hateful treatment. We need to share our feelings of frustration, anger and fear (with those who support us, but also with those who hurt us) - and to do so without hate, without reacting emotionally. Only then can we gain the necessary awareness, connection and collaboration to effect real change.

You may interpret what I’ve just described as showing weakness or permitting dehumanisation, but I disagree. When we can share how we feel about hateful treatment without reacting emotionally, I see that as show of strength and courage. I think that Rosa Parks and MLK showed us this, and also showed us how effective it can be.

I’m in no position to judge anyone who chooses to hate. I’m only disagreeing with anyone who attempts to justify it, celebrate it or argue that it’s necessary.

When we have an emotional reaction of hate, whether we suppress that reaction or not, we already deny the reality of the experience. — Possibility

I disagree. And I have a guess we have reached an impasse in our positions. Of course it would help if I could feel your feeling of hate, to know if we are talking about the same thing. But then that's an impasse also. I think hate very much includes an awareness of reality and is a natural reaction to what hates us, dehumanizes us, etc. If one is comfortable with emotions, it can recede quickly and one can notice even that one has misunderstood or there is a change. And if it is necessary it can mobilize tremendous energy.

I’m in no position to judge anyone who chooses to hate. — Possibility

I don't choose to hate. Though I could choose to try to stuff it down. I think there were times in my life when I chose to keep triggering my own hate at someone or something or some pattern. But the hate comes in response to what actively hates and dehumanizes me. I wouldn't say I celebrate it and I see no need to justify it really. I would see a need to justify shoving it down. Extreme examples make this clear I think. That a rape victim would hate the man raping her just seems like a given. It is. It is a response to hate and violation. To me judging it as something that should not be there is like judging someone's immune system for imflamatory response around a wound or for violently struggling to get to the surface of water when running out of air.

We can’t change something that we refuse to accept. In order to change the hateful treatment we first need to accept the reality that it occurs — Possibility

I associate moments of hate with very clearly accepting the reality of what is happening.

And I guess part of my reaction to what you are saying is...it sure seems like you are not accepting the reality of hate in us. It is part of how we react. It is real. So often we are told to accept the reality of what is outside us, when we have strong emotional reactions,

but what this comes down to is telling us not to accept the reality of what is inside us. To try to get rid of reaction X.

If I cannot love all of my emotional reactions, I will never fully love others.

I have made it clear that certain kinds of patterns of cognitively retriggering myself can be damaging and also that sometimes we feel one thing instead of others. and use one emotion to cover and avoid one we would rather not feel. Hate can certainly become a habit this way. But so can other feellings. And other feelings can cover up hate and be habitual and this too can lead to damaging patterns.

And I will just add that many dictionary definitions define hate as, amongst other things, extreme dislike. I would use the word for a stronger emotion, but I find it a bit sad that people have less acceptance for such a basic human reaction.

I am going to leave this here. For the reason I mentioned first: it is hard to know exactly what you mean by hate and for you to know what I mean. And then in these kinds of extremely emotional issues, I think there can come a point where nothing will change the other person's mind. At root it is an intuitive choice, though rationality may be being brought in, by both of us, to make it make sense to us. So, bow out of the discussion, at least for a while.

Hate seems to be a quale that accompanies a behavior where we resist something (it is also closely related to qualia like pain and fear). On the other hand, love seems to be a quale that accompanies a behavior where we accept something (and is closely related to qualia like happiness and trust). Evolution by random mutations and natural selection tends to cause that we hate (resist) and love (accept) the "right" things, that is such things our hate or love of which improves our chances of survival and/or reproduction. The unfortunate organisms that happen to hate things that are beneficial to them or love things that are detrimental to them tend to fall out of the gene pool in the long run. Evolution by random mutations and natural selection is of course a crude and long-term mechanism but it does seem to cause in the long run that organisms hate at least the most important things that are detrimental to their survival and/or reproduction and love at least the most important things that are beneficial to their survival and/or reproduction. In more complex organisms this basic hate and love are transferred also to more sophisticated things that may not be directly related to survival and/or reproduction, for example love of biologically important information may transfer to love of science or philosophy (that is, love of science or philosophy is driven, through complex cognitive structures, by the more primitive love of seeking and understanding biologically important information). On the other hand, hate of information overload may transfer to hate of science or philosophy.