What is Love?

So you're saying that you don't love your family and friends of the same sex?

I agree with you on this. The feeling of love is just a chemical reaction in our brains. Less romantic than we'd hope it would be but true none the less. That is why it "fades" in romantic/intimate relationships. There doesn't need to be that intense inital feeling once you've established security within a relationship.

We feel it for attachment purposes. Humans are pack animals, if you will.

No.

I am saying that the "love" I have toward family and friends makes me more successful at reproducing. Remember this is how we evolved, over tens of thousands of years. But think about how useful these bonds are.

First, having social bonds is very important for me to defend my wife and children. (In modern society we don't realize this as much). Being part of a group with emotional ties means I am more secure and can spend more time providing my kids what they need to thrive.

This love of family and friends, like the love one has for a mate, evolved for the larger purpose of "reproduction", i.e. raising viable offspring that itself can reproduce.. As you pointed out, this is much more than sex.

Having a caring group of family and friends make it more likely that my children stay alive and healthy and reach the point that they can have children.

Thalion is right. Lust = luv, not love.

Love may well be simply part of reproduction, it does seem to make sense, I can't really see what the problem is with what ebrown suggests - can someone please explain what's wrong with his/her theory?

I'm sure that love is not merely caring about the well being of certain people - romantic love certainly isn't focused on that - caring about the other's well-being certainly comes into it in most cases, but it isn't the only aspect of it, otherwise love poetry would be something like this,

I hope you are well,
I'm feeling just swell.

har har har

From where do you draw the conclusion that wishing for someone's wellfare makes you want to reproduce with them? Or where do you draw the conclusion that you will care for the wellfare of those who are the result of your act of reproduction? Love as I have been defining it, as caring for someone's wellfare, ensures that the human race will continue to exist as it now exists. However, this does not translate into a desire to continue the race. Reproduction is actually contrary to a person's well being, not in favor or it, so sex does not come from a desire for others' wellfare. Love ensures that those who are alive will stay well. Lust ensures that the next generation will come. That is why I argue that sex is not necessarily a result of love, although it can be an expression of it in some ways. The logic of concluding that caring for your friends/family makes you want to reproduce doesn't make sense to me.

Thalion,

You are not understanding the point I am trying to make.

Reproduction, as I am using the word, is much more than just creating babies. I can have a hundred babies, but, if they aren't cared for it does nothing at all for the propagation of the species.

To "reproduce" in a meaningful way, you need to ensure that your offspring survive and even thrive so that they can have their own babies and keep the cycle going.

In this sense, friends and family and caring are absolutely a part of the process.

I feed my kids because I care for them deeply. I am wired to love my kids-- it is a strong feeling that is a deep part of who I am. It is a good thing we are wired this way, because if we didn't have the urge to care for our kids, the human race would not last very long.

I am not saying the "caring for your friends/ family makes you want to reproduce". I am saying that the human trait that makes you care for your friends and family is a crucial part of the process of reproduction. Without it, the human race would not survive no matter how much sex we had.

All I am saying is that the many aspects of "love", including sex, lust, passion, family, friends and "caring for someone's welfare" are biological traits. We have them because they help ensure our survival as a species.

I agree that is possible, but I cannot prove it and I concern myself with what things are rather than why they are. You are argueing that "love" is biological and evolutionary. The origins of love don't matter to me. I agree that love is connected to caring for your family and survival of children. However, the act of sex is still primarily based on something other than love. I have understood your point from the start, but you are argueing for why love is, and I am argueing what it is.

I guess we agree then.

Who, me? I'm not drawing that conclusion. If you're not talking about me then just ignore this, but I was saying that love can't be defined merely as wishing for the well-being of others - I didn't say anything about caring about a person's well being leading to sex, that was exactly what I wasn't saying.



We probably have instincts which make us protect our children, don't you think? It makes evolutionary sense - the genes of those who don't care about the welfare of their offspring won't survive because they won't feel inclined to protect their children and their children will die without reproducing. But those who care about the welfare of their children are likely to protect their children's welfare and increase their chances of survival, thus increasing the likelihood of their genes passing on to further generations. So maybe we've evolved an instinct or something which makes us care about the welfare of our offspring.



I'm not sure that anyone has suggested that caring for your friends/family makes you want to reproduce, but rather that it makes you more able to reproduce.

How about this: Your parents care about your well-being for the reasons I suggested above. You then care for your parents because they care for you, same as you like people who like you, and you eat things which make you feel good, and all that. You look out for each other and protect each other - you protect your parents so that they can live longer to protect you so that you can survive long enough to have children and pass on their genes. Your caring for your family increases the chances of survival for you and your family - and the longer you or your children survive, the more likely you or they are to reproduce. Caring for friends increases their chances for survival and gives them a reason to care for you, which again increases your chances of survival. Does that make any sense?

Thalion,

Do you agree that both sex and lust are pretty important to our survival?

Whoops, took too long writing that post.

One problem we have here is that we are using the same word, for different phenomena. The Greeks had at least three terms: eros (sensual love or desire for another), agape (non-sensual love for another), philo (a Greek root, implying "loving", as in philosophy: loving wisdom).

I don't quite get the 'philo' one - how is that distinguished fro mthe other two?

Agape is a "saintly" love for all of humankind. Agape will make you help the homeless or give money to orphans that you don't personally know. Agape distinctly falls outside of my evolutionary model of reproduction.

Philo love is the love you have for a brother or friend. It will make you lend money to your brother or visit a close friend in the hospital. Philo love is a benefit for reproducation as it provides for common defense and builds a community. The philo love that motivates you to feed your own children is quite different from the agape love that would make you send money to a charity.

Theologically, at least in the christian Bible, agape love is considered more important and more divine than philo love.

I think everyone understands Eros.

Yes, I have been saying that lust is important to the race's survival, but I do not think that it comes from simply caring for a person's wellfare. Lust is certainly not important to my own survival.

Thanks, EBrown. That is helpful.

Thank, All my theological training I went through in my very religious youth... I am glad it can occasionally be helpful in my secular agnostic middle-agedness.

For sure.

In theory, I believe I know what Eros is, and I've experienced it.

Understand it? Hardly. Why you tink I asked this question?