2
   

The concept of love?

 
 
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.



  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 938 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 03:54 pm
@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.
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 04:42 pm
@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.

talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 05:09 pm
@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.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 05:28 pm
@talk72000,
Wow! I almost adopted that as a signature line.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 05:29 pm
@roger,
Really? Wink
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 05:42 pm
@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.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 05:59 pm
@roger,
I do get mean once in a while especially when a guy keeps on posting things that are rather juvenile.
Philis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 11:03 pm
@talk72000,
well, my 2 Cents 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.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 04:46 am
@Philis,
Philis wrote:

well, my 2 Cents 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...
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:34 pm
@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.
0 Replies
 
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 09:32 pm
@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?
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:12 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
You belong in the lower strata of society.
TuringEquivalent
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 10:29 pm
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:

You belong in the lower strata of society.


Nice comeback, moron. Do you know what i do for a living?
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 01:28 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
http://able2know.org/topic/158600-1
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What to Make of polygamy? - Discussion by hawkeye10
For How Long Have We Been Human? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
The winner takes all for the right to reproduce. - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
Why did people start farming? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
Hey, Neanderthal! - Discussion by littlek
Nodding and Shaking and India - Discussion by Craven de Kere
Koreans Don't Stink! - Discussion by TomTomBinks
Paleo Diet - Discussion by edgarblythe
The Major Importance of "Minor" Elements - Discussion by DannyBorkowski003
GETTING INTO THE HOBBIT . . . - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The concept of love?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/24/2020 at 11:47:52