...you just find "fuck" word too shocking for you obviously. — dimosthenis9

Oh, fuckety fuck, fuck off. I'm Australian. SO fucking get your fucking mind around the fucking fact that we fucking use that fucking word in every fucking thing we fucking say.

Your analysis is that of an adolescent.

Your analysis is that of an adolescent — Banno

You said nothing about it though. At what exactly you disagree? That humans aren't monogamous creatures or what??

You commented saying nothing about my "analysis" but only as to point a racist matter that it didn't exist. I clarified it(even if it was crystal clear from the beginning) and now you make another post as to underestimate my analysis as adolescent-ish.

Something that you actually disagree with? Or just making a show here?

...racist... — dimosthenis9

What?

No, forget it. I doubt it worth the effort to understand this non sequitur.

The issue that was discussed was if humans are monogamous. I supported my opinion that aren't with a empirical example. Which I always find the strongest ones in such cases.

You responded trying to imply that it was an offending comment for women. Which was not the case. And now once again you don't say anything about the actual point of the matter and if and to what exactly you disagree (or not who knows).

Just a clever - ish line and that's it. So it's obvious that you are just making a show again.
Noticed you do that many times with others too. Writing one or two lines with no arguments at all .
Well it won't be the case with me though.First you will get the proper answers and then you are free to do as you wish. Sorry.

The person in love: Does fae need me?

... the person who's in love doubts (does fae need me?)
— TheMadFool

I think this way — Caldwell

For better or for worse, I might be one of those people who know what to think think but still doesn't. I don't know why that is. I'm, however, pleased to know that I made sense to you.

Well no I believe that love is a true emotion. But we humans have made many myths and fairy tales about what is "meant to be" and its origin.
In partnership we have combined it with monogamy. Which is wrong for me. These are two different things. Can't I love someone but at the same time want to have sex with others too? I don't see any contradiction to that.

In some cases, as you mention, it is also used to sugar-coat the two-baked-beast. But it's not always the case.
Saying that more or less is two sides of the same coin meant that, if we plant a seed into a couple. That seed would also need plenty of "sex water" also as to grow up and turn into love. There are exceptions of course but in most cases it does need sex. — dimosthenis9

Where's an anti-reductionist when we need one, right?

I have trouble viewing matters best described as supra-biological (altruism, love, courage, god, meaning, etc.) in terms of the biological as the two of us seem to be doing. Is, for instance, love just a biochemical reaction geared towards evolutionary success? Is the beauty and the sweetness of a flower simply meant to incite insects so that they can do the "dirty work" of cross-pollination?

I would like to, if possible that is, make a distinction between different levels of organization of matter and energy i.e. even though it's possible to reduce mind and everything it does to biology, biology to chemistry, and so on, we should still treat these various levels as unique in and of themselves, possessing their own special, level-specific, content and dynamics. Thus, something like love needs to be studied in the world it's a part of (supra-biological emotions) and what's to avoided are attempts to explain them resorting to more basic concepts such as chemistry and physics.

Is, for instance, love just a biochemical reaction geared towards evolutionary success? Is the beauty and the sweetness of a flower simply meant to incite insects so that they can do the "dirty work" of cross-pollination? — TheMadFool

Well yes, imo emotion of love was developed through and for evolution purposes also. As all human emotions.

I would like to, if possible that is, make a distinction between different levels of organization of matter and energy i.e. even though it's possible to reduce mind and everything it does to biology, biology to chemistry, and so on, we should still treat these various levels as unique in and of themselves, possessing their own special, level-specific, content and dynamics. Thus, something like love needs to be studied in the world it's a part of (supra-biological emotions) and what's to avoided are attempts to explain them resorting to more basic concepts such as chemistry and physics. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure I fully got this but seems interesting. How you mean it when you say "different levels of organization of matter and energy"?
And when you say" various levels" you mean about biology and chemistry or something else??
You also say love should be studied as "supra biological emotion". In what way this is different from "simple" biological emotions?

Take the example of life, biology; it can't really be explained or, more accurately, is only incompletely explained, by chemistry - there's something about biology that defies an explication of it in terms of chemistry. In other words, biology has its own set of features that are unique to its own level of complexity, these features having their own rules i.e. the biological world, although based on chemical reactions, is sufficiently distinct to deserve separate treatment.

A similar logic applies to consciousness; it's biological foundations is an open secret but it's not just biology as we think it is. Love, though it can be said to boil down to the act of coitus, also transcends it; love exists, as a distinct entity, at the level of human relationships and should be studied within that context.

there's something about biology that defies an explication of it in terms of chemistry. In other words, biology has its own set of features that are unique to its own level of complexity, these features having their own rules i.e. the biological world, although based on chemical reactions, is sufficiently distinct to deserve separate treatment. — TheMadFool

Ok now I got what you mean. The way that these two fields are combined together though and create a "unity" is a real mystery. Don't know if it would be better as to study them separately than consider them as a constant interaction.
I don't think I m capable of proposing something since I lack of deep knowledge into these matters.

A similar logic applies to consciousness; it's biological foundations is an open secret but it's not just biology as we think it is. Love, though it can be said to boil down to the act of coitus, also transcends it; love exists, as a distinct entity, at the level of human relationships and should be studied within that context — TheMadFool

I always considered the mystery of consciousness and how it works similar with emotions. I have the feeling that they function in the same inseparable way,and the day we solve the one mystery automatically will be solved the other too.
But as I wrote above, it is nothing more than a personal sensation that I have. So I would never be able to support it with sufficient arguments.

No problemo!

For better or for worse, I might be one of those people who know what to think think but still doesn't. I don't know why that is. — TheMadFool

Haha! You and me both. :smile:

For better or for worse, I might be one of those people who know what to think think but still doesn't. I don't know why that is.
— TheMadFool

Haha! You and me both. — Caldwell

:smile:

The OP is extraordinarily numb; anyone who seeks an evolutionary account of love is not in love. — Banno

Perhaps I am.

I have recently been enjoying the word ‘ought.’ I like to think of love right now as something that ought to be in my life.

I prefer love. Do you feel the same?

I prefer love. Do you feel the same? — kudos

I do.

Evolution has no need for love. Well no need for love between partners at least, maybe maternal and paternal love towards offspring yes, but as for partners all that is called for is sexual attraction/ lust. — Benj96

When it comes to the heuristics of biological evolution there are in large two strategies that apply to most species consisting of sexes. When viewed from the vantage of males, colloquially expressed, one heuristic is to fuck anything that moves without giving a shit about the offspring. Some, even most, will die and some will live, but the greater the quantity of offspring the greater the number of offspring that survive and the greater one’s acquired biological fitness. The other is to invest in the welfare of one’s offspring so as to maximize the survival of all, thereby increasing one’s biological fitness. Here, one as male cares about what female one mates with, this so as to produce optimal offspring. And this caring about the other which one also finds attractive correlates with what we often identify as the emotion of romantic love.

Lust/sexual attraction applies to both types of males, just differently.

Needless to add, this is an (over?)simplification. And it does ignore what type of male females choose and the whys to these choices in terms of female biological fitness. But it generally holds for humans. So called players almost always fall into the characteristics of the first heuristic; whereas those who lose an important part of themselves with the loss of their partner tend to fall into the characteristics of the second. Most humans, of course, are a mix between these two biological extremes.

As was expressed by @Hermeticus, many wild animals have evolved toward the second heuristic; this, naturally, hence without there being “social constraints or contracts” in need of upholding. Wild canids all tend toward monogamy, often life long, in the form of Alpha Mates of equal value around which extended families or packs pivot. Geese are another notable, commonly known example. At any rate, there is a place in biological evolution for romantic love: again simplistically expressed, it on average results in quality of offspring - rather than quantity with lesser quality.

That aside, here taking my cue from the title, what does the phrase “real love” signify to you?

That aside, here taking my cue from the title, what does the phrase “real love” signify to you? — javra

You accept the person, flaws and all. You leave him alone when he wants to be. But embrace him when he's back.

And yeah, I give him the best fuck ever!

Getting racy around these parts. :blush:

Real love of the amorous kind. To trade notes, I liken it to a dance driven by a common ethos between two selves which make a well enough fit in both their techne and pathos. And, barring grave mishaps that can ruin the dance along the way, these two find increased convergence into one via the inter-path/course they partake in. All this conditional on both being there for each other when it counts. Or something along these lines.

Still curious to hear @Benj96's take on what real love would consist of.

And, barring grave mishaps that can ruin the dance along the way, these two find increased convergence into one via the inter-path/course they partake in. All this conditional on both being there for each other when it counts. — javra

Yes! Lovely.

Getting racy around these parts. :blush: — javra

:halo: When you love someone.

I actually noticed that what I wrote in my previous post was .."flaws in all". 'corrected it. But I know why I wrote it incorrectly...I was thinking, he's flawed in all aspects, lol!

Love is as real as the dick in my pants. Sometimes they are unrelated. Sometimes they coincide. Love and my dick that is. No spawning of genes required though. Love is not meant to assure the continued existence of my selfish genes, as Dawkinskians think. My genes are very altruistic. Merely helping me to be. I need those proteins!

After I found my true love I had indeed the desire to settle down, but that desire didn't inspire my love!

Love is as real as the dick in my pants. — Thunderballs

I think one can stipulate that love is even more real than genitalia. Haven’t fully thought this through yet, but, as an example, in a BIV scenario the reality of one’s dick would be illusory whereas the reality of one’s love would remain unscathed. Would take some unpacking but an, “I think love, therefore I am” kind of thing. (From some degree of self-love that keeps us kicking, to love of truth or of reality that gets us to question things in the first place, etc., if not love for another.) Cheeky, but I think it might work.

I get you but don't know what a BIV-scenario is. Sounds kinda naughty...

I get you but don't know what a BIV-scenario is. Sounds kinda naughty... — Thunderballs

:lol: Ay, that it is.

If I'm to take you seriously, BIV is short for "brain in a vat" hypothesis. Hence the naughtiness factor.

If I'm to take you seriously, BIV is short for "brain in a vat" hypothesis. Hence the naughtiness factor. — javra

I really didn't know! I looked it up but got a return in my language. I could see it wasn't what you meant. Brain in vat. Mmmmmm.... :smile:

I consider there to be three emotions
fear, hatred, and peace
Love is the feeling of fear being soothed, either in a childish way because the parent figure(whoever the child is attached to, which could be a lover as well) is given what it wants,
Or the parental love, in which one is the parent and one views the other as their child, in which case on fears for them instead of for oneself, and feels soothed when the other is behaving as one wishes, which means in a way that they will be safe long term.

The childish form of "love" is turned to hatred when the child is not being given what it wants. Hatred is a way to fight the fear, whereas before the fear was dealt with by being placated.

Peace is when the emptiness within is not ran away from in fear, or fought and resisted with hatred.

That's my half baked stream of consciousness inspired by some of the psychology stuff I've read. Sorry if im spreading disinformation as I think it needs tinkering.

Beautiful!

:100:

delete

What’s the difference between simply being infatuated with someone and loving them? — Benj96

Infatuation is an intense reaction that can quickly turn to hate at any mild displeasure
Love is the opposite I suppose.

Infatuation is an intense reaction that can quickly turn to hate at any mild displeasure
Love is a conscious — Yohan

Still, my love infatuates me.