Reply
Mon 12 Jul, 2010 03:52 pm
We have a notion of romantic love, but what is that? What is the evolutionary purpose of it? According to one view, "love" is an evolutionary design to bond a couple together long enough for the offspring to mature. If this theory is true, then if the offspring moves out of the house at age 18, there would be no longer any need for the couple to stay together. Is this the case? I saw studies some where that said that couples loses love on average in 18-22 years after being together, or maybe even less. What can we say? The romantic notion of "love", and the heavy culture perception we placed on it is something that is an illusion.
@TuringEquivalent,
Read about the LIMBIC system in the human body. It would provide some insight into human feelings and avoid all kinds of crazy philosophical musings.
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
Read about the LIMBIC system in the human body. It would provide some insight into human feelings and avoid all kinds of crazy philosophical musings.
Go **** yourself. I love philosophy, and it is much more sophisticated than ******* biology.
Also, there is a distinction between "love", and " lust". The latter is uncontroversial, but the former is culturally based, and that is what i question.
@TuringEquivalent,
Your ignorance shows you are incapable of true analysis. Philosophy includes all learning and to just focus on sematics means you are just playing with words without any understanding.
Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, yours is the pursuit of words. Maybe working with word puzzles suits you better.
@talk72000,
Wow! I almost adopted that as a signature line.
@talk72000,
Yeah, but on reflection, it sounded kind of mean spirited. I also gave a brief consideration to:
Quote:Go **** yourself. I love philosophy, and it is much more sophisticated than ******* biology.
You gotta watch what you say around here. Somebody would surely misunderstand the depth of thought.
@roger,
I do get mean once in a while especially when a guy keeps on posting things that are rather juvenile.
@talk72000,
well, my
is original attraction and the stimulus it provides is misleading. I don't think many, not all, people know what
LOVE is. For me love is patient, kind, compassionate, generous, empathetic, forgiving, and long suffering.
@Philis,
Philis wrote:
well, my
is original attraction and the stimulus it provides is misleading. I don't think many, not all, people know what
LOVE is. For me love is patient, kind, compassionate, generous, empathetic, forgiving, and long suffering.
How about caring, because that quality attends all sexual and non sexual love???
I would class love as a moral form, and as all forms, a form of relationship.... But that is all by way of verbalizing what is beyond words, and what will always be beyond understanding... The reductionists have it wrong when they say: Love is only... In fact; love is everything...
@Philis,
I was going thru the Discovery Channel program on Prehistoric America and what struck me was that even the sabre-toothed lion cared for each other. The scientists found skeleton bones with healing marks on them indicating that the injured lion was fed by another lion proably a family member.
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
Your ignorance shows you are incapable of true analysis. Philosophy includes all learning and to just focus on sematics means you are just playing with words without any understanding.
Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, yours is the pursuit of words. Maybe working with word puzzles suits you better.
Retard. If someone is ignorant, then he does not know much. It does not following that he is bad at analysis. Also, what the hell is this got to do with my post?
@TuringEquivalent,
You belong in the lower strata of society.
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
You belong in the lower strata of society.
Nice comeback, moron. Do you know what i do for a living?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace