Where did love come from?

[coberst]

Where did love come from?

Plato judged that the basis of love is centered upon the mutual struggle for truth. I claim that the emotion of love in humans is evolved from the mother infant relationship in early mammals.

Occasionally when reading I run across a phrase or sentence or paragraph, which really rings a bell for me. The bell may be recognition of the compatibility of the point to my own conclusions or perhaps the point caused an epiphany, or other reasons. When I encounter such a point I often copy it and store it in a file for later analysis. One such point is as follows: “Platonic idea that the giving and receiving of knowledge, the active formation of another’s character, or the more passive growth under another’s guidance, is the truest and strongest foundation of love”.

My analysis of this sentence led me down a long trail over an extended period of time to an understanding of the meaning of the statement and to an agreement with the meaning of that statement.

When studying philosophy I had read some of Plato’s work and had a slight remembrance of one of his Dialogues in which he dealt with the subject of love. After some study of the particular Dialogue in question and some further study of Plato’s general philosophy I realized what was meant by the point made in the sentence I had saved.

Quickie from Wiki: “Plato constructed the Symposium as a story within a story within a story. This architecture creates the space for Plato to build his philosophy of knowledge. The speech of Socrates points out that the highest purpose of Love is to become a Philosopher, or Lover of Wisdom.”

I often watch the Discovery Channel on TV. As you probably know this channel often has a great documentary on animal life. Their audio/visual presentations give the viewer wonderful insights into the life of animals. Often the animals in question are large mammals such as lions, gorillas, monkeys, etc.

Plato wrote, “An unexamined life is not worth living”. I find this a bit hyperbolic but nevertheless agree with the general point. Socrates also argued that the giving and receiving of knowledge, the active formation of another’s character, or the more passive growth under another’s guidance, is the truest and strongest foundation of love. Plato/Socrates judged that the basis of love is centered upon the mutual struggle for truth.

I would not attempt to explain why Plato’s Idealistic philosophy leads to this conclusion but I think one can find justification for this point of view by considering the nature of the parent to progeny relationship. Considering the nature of evolution one might easily discover that the origin of love could be observed in the obvious relationship of present day mammals. The educational relationship between the animal mother and their progeny are evident to the most casual observer.

Evolutionary Psychology is based on the theory that all human psychological traits, such as love, must be traceable to our evolutionary ancestors. The source of love in humans is evolved from the mother infant relationship in early mammals (perhaps).

What do you judge to be the primordial animal source (assuming an acceptance of the validity of Darwin’s theory of natural selection) for the emotion of love in humans?

[Bruce Bradley]

Love is an emotion and is instilled in each and everything that has feelings. We are born with natural life traits that we can't control because they are essential to our survival. We must have love in order to mate and have offspring. We have many inherited traits that we have no control over. The idea of love is that when we see someone who sparks our attention we feel a need to know them better. Attraction is big part of this in the beginning. I am not a scientist but I do believe hormones have a big part in this lust for someone or something. They are released from the brain to give us burst of love feelings to mate. Beware alcohol can intensify this effect.

Thanks for the post it was a good topic, because we all love and have been loved or we wouldn't be here.

Bruce

[Uberzensch]

I completely disagree that there is any animalistic or physical need/purpose for love.

There may be a more psychoanalytic/ideological explanation for love. Romantica love is a social construct. See Rousseau's Discourse on the Origins of Inequality.

While I understand it may be observed that other mammals "love" other mammals, I don't believe that to be the case. There are many animals that eat their own young. Some that abandon them at a very young and vulnerable age. Where's the love?

Furthermore, I do not think romantic love serves an evolutionary purpose outside of some psycho-ideological need to create meaning in our lives. In that case, it's one of a number of evovled traits, like religion or science.

[Bruce Bradley]

Remember this you are untitled to your opinion on anything. I must disagree with you too. I did not say that there is no animistic or physical need/purpose for love you did. If this is true than why in the heat sex do we do the spontaneous things we do, we lose control. We have the same sexual instincts that animals do.

You cannot control love or lust, you can control whether or not you respond to the feeling your mind creates. It is there without your permission because it is just instinct. Besides who is to say what love consist of, it is differnt for everybody. I will tell you this you must lust after someone to love them, otherwise you are just settling for what you can get. The worst is to feel love for someone who does not return the feeling.

[coberst]

I suspect that like all of natural selection that the better the bond between the nurturing mother and the infant the more likely the survival of the infant and thus those mutations that helped this bonding became part of the gene pool.

[Uberzensch]

I should correct my post to mean that I am referring only to romantic love. Love/sex for reproduction are completely different. Yes, there is something instinctual about reproduction. However, the messy emotions that we attach to tthe act of sex are our own creation and has nothing to do with the physical act.

And remember, I only said that's what I believed to be the case. This is another question with no provable answer, so I can only share my beliefs.

[backline]

Where did love come from?

In my case, I believe she said Willow Glen (near San Jose, CA).




Ok, seriously: I believe the experience of love springs from the concept of value, mixed with an emotion such as surprise or delight.
As I regard it now in myself it becomes a choice intellectually, therefore a thought (until I "do" something about it like express it in some way).
Brain chemistry and pheromones certainly play a part in the experience with others.

Sometimes in a meditative state I experience the idea that I am breathing god's love in and out. As I go deeper I seem to experience that I "am" love. Acts of compassion may later eminate from this experience again, bringing it to fruition from thought to action in the world. I believe this is central to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and others who propagate similiar resonses to "Being."

[Chicopac]

The idea that we created love strikes me as a massive arrogant delusion. And I do mean romantic love. We only created this flavor of romantic love, this moving together into an apartment in Manhattan and buying a puppy together, et al. That some animals are monogamous is the basic observed proof against your claim; that we can feel brilliant blinding exhilaration enough to make us want to continue to live is proof that evolution selects for love.

My point is that romantic love is not a construct because it is based upon a frequently observed feeling which people definitely do have. It is impossible write an essay proving that the feeling of love, or that any feeling at all, is fake. Such feelings would not exist if such feelings were not a part of evolution, at least of our current stage of evolution. What you call construct is just the delusions people create around what is obviously a very real thing. But even calling this fake is a mistake; whoever cries at the end of a sappy romantic movie is merely feeling their own interpretation of love; perhaps a better description is foolish idolatry; they are idolizing love and misunderstanding what it is, putting hope so high and off-target that it cannot be found nor fulfilled.

[Mr Endon]

Coberst, I had never thought of that. I think I agree with that theory, and I'm sure Freud would agree with you, too.

As for the discussion that ensued, I think it would benefit from a consensual definition of what "romantic love" is. Whichever it might turn out to be, however, I have my doubts that it will include something that animals might feel. This not out of human arrogance, but simply because I too believe that romantic love is a social construct.

That being said, I must say I don't think that saying that love is a construct implies that it is "fake". For instance, it is commonly accepted that a psychosomatic illness is still a real illness; its causes and foundations are so to speak irrelevant to assess its existence. So my contention is that just because love is a construct that doesn't mean it isn't "real".

[coberst]

Coberst, I had never thought of that. I think I agree with that theory, and I'm sure Freud would agree with you, too.

As for the discussion that ensued, I think it would benefit from a consunsual definition of what "romantic love" is. Whichever it might turn out to be, however, I have my doubts that it will include something that animals might feel. This not out of human arrogance, but simply because I too believe that romantic love is a social construct.

That being said, I must say I don't think that saying that love is a construct implies that it is "fake". For instance, it is commonly accepted that a psychosomatic illness is still a real illness; its causes and foundations are so to speak irrelevant to assess its existence. So my contention is that just because love is a construct that doesn't mean it isn't "real".


"Love" is an abstract idea. An abstract idea is like a chemical compound. It is contructed from many "primary metaphors" and one can, in this case, find whatever part of the compound fits its need to say such things as 'I love cookies', 'I love mom', 'I love April in Paris'...

[Sweep]

When I was at college we were told in one lecture that love was invented in France in the 11th Century (or thereabouts).

What was meant was romantic love, as a knowledge of pre-11th century literature makes clear. Classical literature makes it very clear that what we would call love existed long before 11th century France.

I'm mentioning this because it's a reminder how easy it can be to be carried away by ideas.

I'm inclined to agree with Backline's formulation:


Ok, seriously: I believe the experience of love springs from the concept of value, mixed with an emotion such as surprise or delight.

It's easy to say love is an emotion, but the fact is, emotions change and fluctuate. It's perfectly possble to experience negative emotions while loving someone. Anyone who's had a row with the person they love knows that (which probably means all of us). The emotion at that point is sheer irritation, anger, even in extreme cases hatred of a sort - but deep down you still love the person. Love underlies the conflicting emotions and acts as a ground for them. I'm inclined to borrow a theological term, ground of being, and say love is a ground of being, a basis for an experience of life.

As for where it comes from, yes, I think it must be biologically instinctive. The fact that not all animals experience it doesn't disprove that. Different animals mate and live in different ways. Some don't bond except at the brief time of mating, while others stay bonded together to a degree that makes most human loves seem much weaker. Many birds would fit that category. The reason Darwin studied inherited traits in pigeons was because as well as their relatively short lifespan it's possible to keep pairs together in larger groups. You can have a coop full of mating pairs and they're remain faithful to each other. So as far as animals are concerned it depends which ones you choose to consider.

As far as Plato is concerned, of course it's characteristic that his love was for an abstract category, truth, but at the same time that's the basis for the term philosophy, love of truth, or something like that. I think it was Aristotle who said `truth is the greater friend,' which amounts to soemthing like the same thing, maybe?

But we can conceive a situation where a person we love is being untruthful, and I think that puts the love of truth, and the ground of being theory, to the test. Do we cease to love the person who tells a lie? Probably not, in an isolated case. But what when someone repeatedly does so? What when someone lives a lie? How does that affect love, the ground of our emotional responses to that person? That will differ with all of us, but the questions open up the whole subject.

[Buh4Bee]

So where do I think the basis of human love comes from? To answer this question I can only speculate, since I have very little experience with this concept.

I suppose I would like to first categorize all the different strands of arguments I am reading. I am hearing love thought about through many different lenses. First of all there are different kinds of love being discussed; romantic love, parental/ child love, teacher/ student love. The origin of these varying types of love may be understood from a biological/ evolutionary point of view, philosophical (Plato), and also from a sociological perspective.

I think Coberst asked where does the basis of human love come from regarding attachment humans have to one another. I guess if my understanding is correct there are different types of love relationships. However, I think the question may be leaning more towards a bond between a man and a woman or two partners.

To think about Plato and his idea that the greatest love is the pursuit of knowledge would fall under the category of teacher/student relationship. A teacher can transmit knowledge to a student, but can’t force him/her to learn. The shared relationship and exchange that happens between teacher and student, without doubt builds a very strong bond that can have an element of love to it, but not romantic love.

The next question that comes to mind is the relationship or bond made between the mother and the child. There is no doubt, that if a mother and child can exist in good to ideal circumstances, the bond will be very strong. This they say is one of the greatest love affairs and one of the main points to human existence. So I hear… If you want to know more about developmental psychology and human attachment theory read: The Origin of Attachment Theory by John Bowlby.

I believe the last and most confusing question when trying to understand or define love is romantic love. I don't think love is quantifiable, logical, or even rational. When you catch a whiff of this craziness, it is maddening. Why? Because it doesn’t follow any of the laws of science!

[The Atheist]

Where did love come from?

You answered your own question:


I suspect that like all of natural selection that the better the bond between the nurturing mother and the infant the more likely the survival of the infant and thus those mutations that helped this bonding became part of the gene pool.

Although I do think "love" is mostly human construct built on those evolutionary foundations.

I've enjoyed watching my kids go from saying "I love you" without knowing the meaning as they copy their mother, which then gets imprinted on the brain circuits. From there, that "love" becomes a positive emotion with the concurrent hormonal release to emphasise the positive feelings, thus becoming self-fulfilling.

Ain't it a pity we can't study humans as we do mice? We'd have all these answers by now, although human medical ethics would probably be somewhat different to the present.

[coberst]

Sweep

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling.

What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

”Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained” bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

Quotes from “The Feelings of What Happens” by Antonio Damasio

[coberst]

Ain't it a pity we can't study humans as we do mice? We'd have all these answers by now, although human medical ethics would probably be somewhat different to the present.


We know a great deal more about human nature than the citizens are aware of. Our schooling prepares us only for the job, whatever we learn about human nature comes via social osmosis. If adults do not become self-actualizing self-learners after their school daze are over they will never learn these important discoveries.

[Mutian]

The origin of love can be many. Among them, Utility be the most obvious one, though many people may deny it, for romantic love should be romanticized, and should be embraced only for the sake of itself, but not any utilitarian end, no matter biologically or psychologically. The second one, a deontological one, is one derived from pure will, and is upheld for the intrinsic values of itself. I know what I am saying sounds more like a lofty aspiration; but without such loftiness, a pure romantic love tends to be impossible provided it is more likely to be based on a teleological ground. But, somehow, by saying so, I myself have already fallen within the category of teleology. Weird..