I don't think it's a matter of proving something to be bullshit, I think it's the alleged bullshitter's responsibility to provide some evidence to back up his claims. I don't want to take the whole leap of faith and say that I believe what you have suggested is untrue, but untill I can see any reason whatsoever to actually consider whether all this stuff about positive/negative enegry has any truth to it, i.e. until I see some evidence for the theory, rather than just the theory itself, which anyone could have made up on the spot, I think it's fair to dismiss it as bullshit. It's like saying, "well, maybe elephants are actually messengers from heaven" - that could be true, but what reason is there to even think about it?
agrote wrote:I don't think it's a matter of proving something to be bullshit, I think it's the alleged bullshitter's responsibility to provide some evidence to back up his claims. I don't want to take the whole leap of faith and say that I believe what you have suggested is untrue, but untill I can see any reason whatsoever to actually consider whether all this stuff about positive/negative enegry has any truth to it, i.e. until I see some evidence for the theory, rather than just the theory itself, which anyone could have made up on the spot, I think it's fair to dismiss it as bullshit. It's like saying, "well, maybe elephants are actually messengers from heaven" - that could be true, but what reason is there to even think about it?
I'm not claiming anything is true. Just throwing around some what-if's .
Kind of why I am in the philosopy forums and not the science forums.
This is actually what I believe however. I've made the leap of faith and and find harmony and peace in understanding the universe much more clearly in my own mind. Everyone can think what they want, thats why we each follow our own set of beliefs.
(just my 2 cents)
rebate forms available upon request.
What's love? It's a nice warm chimney.
Love, hate are merely reactions. Sex is simply hormonal programming in which resistance is futile. You could have all the charm of an iguana but if somebody's crazy about you...well that's Luv. Exempt of reason, exempt of proof, exempt period. Nature's command is the Be-All and End-all whether it be sex, science, mysticism or anything else that captures your fancy. That also includes the love of God. If you want to avoid a possible neurosis or worse a psychosis, you'll obey the order. All the positive/negative crap is nonsequitur. Also know that LOVE is seriously exempt of philosophy - unless you love philosophy. That's all ye know and ALL ye need to know!
nipok wrote:Could love be considered a positive energy?
Could anger and hate be considered a negative energy?........
i agree completely, but see it as a personal thing.
[my blood, by the way, is "B" positive! (really)]
cavfancier wrote:What is love? Just ask the boys from Haddaway, who's truly annoying song was used to great effect in the movie 'A Night at the Roxbury'.
What is love
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
no more .......
A tour de force in the mechanics of S & M.
[do we detect a slight excess of dependence here?]
All You Need is Love The Beatles
Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It's easy.
Nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It's easy.
All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.
Nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together, now!)
All you need is love. (everybody!)
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need (love is all you need).
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.
on the other hand:
Love Stinks (J. Geils Band)
You love her
But she loves him
And he loves somebody else
You just can't win
And so it goes
Till the day you die
This thing they call love
It's gonna make you cry
I've had the blues
The reds and the pinks
One thing for sure
(Love stinks)
Love stinks yeah yeah
(Love stinks)
Love stinks yeah yeah
(Love stinks)
Love stinks yeah yeah
(Love stinks)
Love stinks yeah yeah
Two by two and side by side
Love's gonna find you yes it is
You just can't hide
You'll hear it call
Your heart will fall
Then love will fly
It's gonna soar
I don't care for any casanova thing
All I can say is
Love stinks
(Love stinks)
Love stinks yeah yeah
(Love stinks)
Love stinks yeah yeah
(Love stinks)
Love stinks yeah yeah
(Love stinks)
Love stinks yeah yeah
I've been through diamonds
I've been through minks
I've been through it all
Love stinks
(Love stinks)
Love stinks yeah yeah
(Love stinks)
I still think it's a warm chimney.
Hmmm....there's a joke there JLN, but I'm not going to touch it.
I think some people are maybe reluctant to debate too much about love or bring any empiricism or science into it at all because they're afraid that it'll lose the 'magical' quality it's acquired. But I say, just because we might discover that in fact it has got nothing to do with magic or anything supernatural, that doesn't mean it should stop being a really fantistic thing that makes you go all fluttery inside.
Love can never be misplaced, ever. Without love, there would be no heartache. Without love there would be no heart inside of us capable of being broken. Without love we would be nothing.
I think love is it's own reward and we should consider ourselves lucky if we have felt it, even if we have felt it through the pain of a broken heart.
JLNobody wrote:I still think it's a warm chimney.
extra medium wrote:Hmmm....there's a joke there JLN, but I'm not going to touch it.
jlN is simply stating that "size matters!"
and, another thought about 'love' for consideration:
I see love (romantic, the definition) as simply being the word we use for the emotional responses we have to the process of procreation which the human species uses to perpetuate itself (is that cold and scientific enough for you agrote?)
I look at 'love' exactly the same way i look at the "laws of science";
they are not actually 'laws', but merely a description of how the universe works as discovered by scientific research to date.
Love, similarly, is just the word used to describe a series of sensations culminating in the (usually temporary) bonding of a pair of humans for mutual support, and sharing of life.
I don't see it as a 'thing' that exists; but as a description of an emotional reaction.
Yes, I agree with that BoGoWo, it's sufficiently cold and scientific for me
As I said before though, I don't see why there should be anything disappointing about scientific explanations for love. We all know that, whatever's behind it, love doesn't
feel just like part of the process of procreation, it feels much more special than that.
The only problem I have with scientific explanations for love, and many other things, is that they essentially miss the point. As you say, Agrote, "it feels much more special than that." Love is probably best understood through art, especially poetry. We don't want to understand the causes of love so much as we want to realize its meaning and feel its transforming and sustaining force.
I think both things are true. I had been going to comment that to me love is a process, but had not posted because I hadn't come up with words to distinguish the process that love is from any other process. Now we have JL's post and that gives a direction for the rest of the description, that is, that love is a force.
Still mulling...
I think the force of love is subject to some of the same feedback/inhibition sequences as a biochemical cycle... that the cycle is figuratively fed, or dissipates.
I think scientific explanations are suitable to some extent, but we haven't quite got the skills/technology/jargon or whatever is needed to explain emotions scientifically. So maybe we can only explain part of it. I still think the cold, unemotional explanations are probably right, or it's safe to assume that they are, but they only explain the sort of evolutionary purpose of love and the biological/physiological/psychological/whateverological aspects, not the bit that we actually care about. But hey ho and nevermind, as you say JLN, art can deal with that part.
When I referred to love as a "transforming and sustaining force," I was talking primarily about its soft expressions. It could apply to the "hard" one's as well--these would be physiological drives of concern to evolutionists. Our attractions to others clearly reflect physiochemical and psychological forces/drives. But on the soft side, there is the love we feel toward others for their uniqueness. This is a combination of affection and appreciation. It may or may not involve emotional need for the presence (or intimacy) of the other in one's life. When I first became aware of such feelings for another, it transformed me, revealing to me a side of my emotional potential that I was unaware of before. It is also sustaining. One can feel deeply lonely even though one's life is sexually gratifying, but with the "soft" love one feels socially grounded in a profound way.
