Anna certainly wasn't as promiscuous sexually as you are in terms of posting on Literature Forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Printable View
Anna certainly wasn't as promiscuous sexually as you are in terms of posting on Literature Forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
I give more to nurture than nature; what is taken from one strengthens the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
In science, a theory is non-trivial if it has significant explanatory or predictive powers. Reductionist, biological theories about love can only predict what is already obvious. That's why they are "trivial". They can predict that Romeo will be attracted to a woman -- but not why he becomes infatuated with Juliet.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Love is culturally constituted (largely, at least). To "explain" it biologically is like explaining language biologically. It is certainly true that humans have a biological capacity for and tendency toward the development of language -- but if we want to learn about writing, we don't study the biological capacity, we study grammar, and vocabulary, and story construction. Just as the Golden Gate Bridge couldn't exist without its supports, language couldn't exist without our innate biological capacities. Nonetheless, in order to differentiate between French, Arabic and English we must move on from biology, which can only explain things in very general terms, and study language as a cultural artifact rather than a biological one.
You've obviously never had a dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Quite right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
There is love in life, and also great sorrow and failure. Inevitably there is loss of life. Therefore, life is forever unkind. If there is a god, he must hate, to have us feel love and then die, or watch our loved ones die. So love exists, but is it important? It may sustain us through our short lives, but why should we be sustained?
But then again without death how could we ever love as we do - we only feel such a strong sense of love because there is the inevitability of death. A mother knows that she will die leaving her son alone, and that fuels the love. Much like a man whose wife dies, his love for her is so strong only because of death. If there was no suffering there could be no pleasure or joy, if there was no pain existence would be an endless stretch of ennui, like an endless poppy dream.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
If there is a god (which I don't believe there is) and he gave us a life without suffering and pain and sorrow and death - he would have been the crulest of gods. There is no crueler sensation than constant happiness and knowing that you have everything you could want in life...
If there is a god, this is exactly what makes us superior to god; because we can feel love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I used to feel as you do, Alexander, and in many ways you are right. I could have done without the phonecalls letting me know people I deeply loved were dead. I was blissfully happy. I could have enjoyed being so forever. It does emphasize the strength of the love, but that strength was there the whole time. In a hug, in a smile. Boredom would have been enough to counterbalance the excitement of love. I don't know why we have to disappear and/or lose ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Thank you, Red. That is perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
I've taken this thread off topic. Love is real.
Yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I believe love is real, as well. I will admit, it is difficult to describe something so abstract as "love". But, since we ARE discussing this on Online Literature, my main argument to the fact that it exists is based on literature; that the idea of "love" is expressed in numerous poems, novels, religious texts, and plays. People have been trying to truly define what "love" is for centuries. Love for family, love for another man or woman, love for a child, love for a stranger....
But the main reason I BELIEVE in love is a perfectly personal one. For me to live without love would be no life at all. To live is to love, and to live is to lose. There is no perfect world, but would I be happy in one? Would I know joy without sadness? Would I know light without darkness? Would I know LOVE without indifference? (For, in my opinion, the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.)
Argue all you like (For what else are these forums for?), but... I like to think it exists. To imagine that love isn't real and that it cannot exist is too hopeless for me. I like to think better of the world. Perhaps it's selfish. But I'd rather see the world as not a place of perfection (for that isn't possible), but a place where love can exist. You can accept or reject that love, seek it or hide from it, and sometimes, it is taken away from you. But that doesn't mean it's not real.
I used to feel that way. I think I don't want to believe in love anymore partially as a defense mechanism. In some twisted and selfish way, if I allow myself to believe in love then I am unable to justify the deep loneliness, worthlessness, and emptiness I've felt all my life, and once more I will feel obligated to destroy myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by RosyRosalind
It's unquestionably both, but I still think all humankind is a lot more DNA than culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
I have to hand it to you, mentioning science, then posting something utterly unscientific. I really do suggest you stop trying to combine science with your philosophy, because it just ain't working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
We can entirely predict what attracts Romeo to Juliet & vice-versa. It is extraordinarily well know that even in culturally-altered 2011, people are still largely attracted to phenotype above all. How on earth do you think the idea of "love at first sight" persists?
Please; try to at least embrace realism a little when posting.
I will just state again that you really do need to watch some mammalian interaction. Avian, even.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Maybe understanding is more to do with whether you've researched the subject properly and are able to have a grasp of the complexities involved. Nobody's suggesting it's an easy subject, since it's entirely subjective, but it's remarkably obvious what love really is. Why do you think a human heartbeat starts racing at that love at first sight business?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
And this is a classic example of why over-endowing love as a cultural construct can be bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by RosyRosalind
Can I mention here that "love" - or the losing of it - caused a 21-year old friend of my son's to kill himself yesterday? No, I am not kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by cl154576
I wish most people would realise that this love business is not the beginning and end of life. If it were such a wondrous, everlasting thing, why do so many couples get divorced? As often happens, an old tale often tells it best - how love fades, which pretty much shows that it's just lust dressed up in a Santa suit.
For the first year of your marriage, put a pea in a jar every time you have sex.
For the rest of your marriage, take one out every time you have sex.
The jar never empties.
I know people who live alone and have highly fulfilled lives. Love is not alpha and omega any more than there is a dead Jew's ghost in the sky watching sparrows.
I don't believe it is. I put more value in self-acceptance, of which I am equally lacking and skeptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I think in order to have a highly fulfilled life, at the least one must love oneself.
Love is alive and well.
But only tragic, unfulfilled love (in the romantic sense) is everlasting or eternal.
It could be argued that 'race' is cultural, at least a cultural construct. Obviously there is some biological determinism, but human beings are so similar genetically most ''racial' definitions & perceptions are actually based on culture rather than biology.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Surely you jest? After all, behaviour can be viewed as belonging to the concept of phenotype, & much behaviour can be a social construct.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I think that there is a huge distinction between 'love' & physical attraction. There is certainly attraction at first sight, love, often has nothing to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
It depends on what you mean by 'love' I suppose. I don't think dressing up as Santa can help LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
What's happened to all of the sparrows anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Thanks for making my point for me. I said that reductionist explanations of love are simplistic (even simple-minded). And now you offer simplistic (even simple-minded) explanations in rebuttal. Doubtless The Atheist falls in love based on phenotype, but most of us do not. Culturally constructed archetypes and ideals affect how most of us see others.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
And yet divorce rates vary from culture to culture and century to century. Which theory of love is more consistant with this fact? The biological theory? Or the cultural one? Perhaps, however, we should not let facts stand in the way of our preconceived notions. The Atheist ignored my comparison of love with language. Maybe he thinks that knowing how to speak French is embedded in our DNA, just like falling in love is.Quote:
If it (love) were such a wondrous, everlasting thing, why do so many couples get divorced?
A better topic title would probably have been "Does unconditional love exist?".
To me, the answer is no.
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey
But to me, unconditional love alone is true love.
I agree ... Although societies where arranged marriages have dominated for centuries can't extinguish emotion, it can suppress emotion and make it less identifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
As for the whole mammal-with-babies discussion, I would say animals have cultures and influences of their own. Many animals move in groups that are their own "societies."
Haha. That's not true. I agree with the other stuff you said, to an extent, but most people marry people they don't have enough in common with. I don't know what the general problem is for couples and sex. There are couples who have sex all the time, from young age to old age.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Ha Ha That's a beauty! Does the same principle apply to masturbation?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Do you know an example of an unconditional love? Because I sure don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by cl154576
Culture is by definition "everything that human beings do". And why do we human beings do what we do? To survive and to prosper - and to pass on our genes, as Dawkins keeps telling us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Therefore, the idea that love is a product of culture and that this realization makes it's functionality somehow different from that of a "hard-wired" instinct, is a flawed one. The fact that different cultures have different customs for expressing love doesn't affect the core purpose behind those customs - to create security, stability and generally a better chance for survival.
It's the thing that exists in unrealistic books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey
Domestic dogs when they get new owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey
When you say, love is human, I hear "love is animal"; when you say its a cultural construct, I say animals have cultural constructs. I understand the ambition not to transform the thing we call love in something that's purely instinct, this in not the goal of my argument; my choice to make love animal is not to make animals incapable of love, because that would be false and reductionist. I've read enough arguments about things that are reserved to humans to soberly disagree with most of them. The reason we feel love is a animal reason, it cannot be reduced to argumentative and communicative factors, it has to include the body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
This all comes down to the fact that love exists without humans. So answering love exists must forcibly pass through all nature and not just cultural references. Now if you define love as something exclusively human -and you're not unlike the many authors I've come to dislike for such racial obsession with their own body (or the lack of it)-, then we are simply coming from different definitions of love. And you cannot engage a competent discussion if we're all nitpicking definitions.
Culture is not "everything humans do." In anthropology, one standard definition would be: "The system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviours, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning." Notice the mode of transmission.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian Monkey
In addition, I never said that there is no biological "core purpose" to love -- instead, I said that theories of love based on the "core purpose" lack explanatory value, predictive value, depth and subtlety. The "core purpose" of love explains some things - but can (for example) the great love poetry be "reduced" to this core purpose? Of course not.
In addition, the notion that we can explain "why humans do what we do" by theorizing about how it helps "pass on our genes" is ridiculous. Dawkins' theories in this regard are naive and simplistic (although, of course, he is right that the gene, not the individual, is the significant unit to look at in evolution).
Humans have complex motives for many behaviors, very few of which involve thinking, "Will this help me pass on my genes?" Anna Karennina can hardly have felt that suicide would help pass on her genes more effectively, nor did it.
Finally, Dawkins (and a great many othe naive evolutionary theorists) practice circular reasoning. If a trait (genetic or cultural) exists (they theorize) it must have developed by helping people improve their descendent-leaving success. But this is ridiculous. Plenty of traits exist that are neutral, or that actually inhibit descendent-leaving success. Species (and individual bloodlines) go extinct. Do our Western notions of romantic love improve our genetic "success"? Not as well as notions of love in the Third World, if we can believe population growth statistics.
Finally, love (or at least marriage) has been studied by anthropologists ad nauseum. Marriage rules differ dramatically from culture to culture: some societies practice monogamy, some polygamy, some serial monogamy (like ours). Why all these differences, if love can be "explained" by the same biological model for all humans? Why does one man fall in love with a particular woman, and another with a different woman? Why is love like a red, red rose? When simplistic genetic explanations can answer these questions, they may begin to have explanatory value. Until then, I prefer a less reductionist approach.
I'll grant that animals love. So what? That doesn't negate (as I wrote in the last post) that a sophisitcated understanding of human love must look at how it has been influenced by art, literature, religion, cultural customs, etc., etc. If we want to understand human motivations in general, we must understand culture -- and understanding love (despite its association with sex) is no different. Man makes himself -- not merely genetically, but culturally. If we had no languages, we would not even think like we do now. We would be very different creatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
It isn't always true, and I do speak from personal experience!Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
But more times than not, it is.
I think that's the other way round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
:D
We're not in disagreement. I mentioned the animals because it answers the first question of the thread: Love exists. A savage man surely feels affection without needing our complex languages and abstractions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
The question in this thread may as well be: Can we love? But we often work with many humanist assumptions which center each question in a certain culture, time etc. etc. I did all this clarifying to imply that we're obviously, capable of love. As much love as any beast is capable of feeling. Whether love is affected and distilled by the many features you have -correctly- listed, it's an interesting subject of discussion.
I'd argue that it isn't about language and culture as much as about traumas and insensibility, the main things hindering our ability to love.
Traumas also give us greater capacity for love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
Love is a battlefield, friends.
Love is when you want to be with the person even when you aren't going to get laid.
:lol::lol::lol:
who knew you had such a sense of humor?
"What is Culture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
The word culture has many different meanings. For some it refers to an appreciation of good literature, music, art, and food. For a biologist, it is likely to be a colony of bacteria or other microorganisms growing in a nutrient medium in a laboratory Petri dish. However, for anthropologists and other behavioral scientists, culture is the full range of learned human behavior patterns. [In other words, "what people do".] The term was first used in this way by the pioneer English Anthropologist Edward B. Tylor in his book, Primitive Culture, published in 1871. "
”In the twentieth century, "culture" emerged as a concept central to anthropology, encompassing all human phenomena that are not purely results of human genetics. Specifically, the term "culture" in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively.”
The term culture has literally hundreds of definitions and no one can say which one is the best or the most accurate one. However there's one common element to all the definitions of culture: every single on of them stresses that culture is something that human beings produce through their actions. Another thing to keep in mind is that we all are in a way products and slaves of our own culture(s) and language, and most of the time we act according to the way our culture(s) has taught us to act through socialization.
I don't necessarily agree with your most respective definition because, although culture can be something that is transmitted between people and through generations, culture cannot be reduced to just something as simple as what your definition suggested. People cannot ”think” without culture (Lacan). People cannot speak without culture (Saussure, Locke, or if you prefer, Lacan). Culture(s) and language define our actions in a way nothing else does. So, in heideggerian sense (dasein), we ourselves ARE culture; our entire being IS culture. Therefore to say, that culture is limited to our actions that transmit behavior patterns to the next generation, is not adequate. I will have to stick with my earlier definition; there is no being without culture and everything that we do is culture.
When we inspect any cultural phenomena, we cannot really see all the cultural evolution that have lead to a particular phenomenon. Many of them might appear neutral or even harmful to the concept of gene transference. For instance, totemism can be seen as a rather harmful social system in tribal societies because it often contained a code of restrictions for hunting a totem animal, which could have otherwise been used as a food source. On the other hand, these restrictions helped the society to achieve a more coherent tribal identity. The same can be said about human sacrifices. So in many cases there seems to be a conflict between needs in a cultural structure. Why then species go extinct? Because other species adapt better than they do.
It seems only logical that people always act to satisfy a certain need, or a variety of needs - I don't see any reason why for instance love poetry would be an exception. According to psychologists like Abraham Maslow, human beings always act to deal with their most pressing and urgent needs; some argue against the structure Marlow's hierarchy of needs but almost all scholars approve that such hierarchy does exist. The need to construct a certain kind of poem might not be on the very top of Marlow's hierarchy but most likely there is a need or a set of needs that leads a person to write one. What might these needs be, I wonder?
Again, the complex mosaic of cultures does not hint in any way that love should be a phenomenon that would be something other than a primal instinct. In different areas people have adapted different methods to deal with their needs. Mythologies and primitive societies concepts of magic are prime examples of this. For instance, most every mythological system in history has had some kind of a story about both the beginning and the end of existence (or a time period, as in primitive societies time was not a linear but a circular concept). People have need to make sense of the world that surrounds them; mythological figures like gods, spirits, demons and such exist as tools for this sense-making. The concept of magic, on the other hand, was probably constructed to meet with people's egoistic urges and to prevent the feeling of helplessness in times of famine and disease (at least according to early anthropologists like James Frazer as well as mythology scholars such as Nothrop Frye and Joseph Campbell). Whether a society adapted monogamy, polygamy and which kind of taboo systems were used to enforce these social agendas can purely vary depending on geological and other environmental factors.
Why does a male swan fall in love with a particular female and another with a different one? You don't need cultural variation to explain that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
I apologize that I didn't post this reply earlier – I had other matters that kept me busy.
As you (and I) point out, culture refers to LEARNED behavior patterns (which, based on standard definitions, differ from "instintual" behavior. I disagree with almost everything else you've written, too, Mr. Monkey. Here are some examples:
Why does this "seem logical"? It is only logical if we define "needs" as "anything that drives people to do what they do." In that case, however, the entire theory is circular and lacks all explanatory value. In fact, people routinely give up things they would appear to "need" (scarce resources for example). Not only people, but all mammals give up things they "need" (at least all female mammals who reproduce).Quote:
It seems only logical that people always act to satisfy a certain need, or a variety of needs
People can "think" without culture -- but their thinking (lacking language) would probably be very different.
I'll grant your point about Totemism having some functional value -- but so what? That doesn't invalidate the notion that not all cultural traits are beneficial in evolutionary terms. Why would it? Again, the notion that cultural traits (or genetic traits, for that matter) must be beneficial or they would not exist is fallacious, ex post facto reasoning. Although it is true that evolutionary theory suggests that a (genetic) trait that improves descendant leaving success will tend to spread, we cannot properly infer the reverse -- that a trait that has spread must have improved descendant leaving success. That would be a logical error. If A, then B does NOT imply if B, then A. Humans, for example, have tail bones. This trait has spread, as human population has increased. Can we infer that tail bones are beneficial?
As for your explanations of magic and myth, they are simplistic. Diverse and complex systems of magic are "constructed to meet with people's egoistic urges and to prevent the feeling of helplessness in times of famine and disease"? Huh? How do you know that? You're must making it up. I could equally say, "science is constructed to meet people's egoistic urges and to prevent feelings of helplessness."
Again, even if this is true, it lacks any explanatory value. Many different mythologies can "make sense" of the world -- why do some persist, and others vanish away? There are no easy answers to this question -- the environmental and ecological answers you propose are, like many reductionist explanations, unsatisfying and lacking in explanatory or predictive value. I'll grant that scholars like Frazer were brilliant men and seminal thinkers -- but anthropological thinking has moved on since its infancy, and simplistic explanations for magic and mythology are no longer standard.Quote:
"People have need to make sense of the world that surrounds them; mythological figures like gods, spirits, demons and such exist as tools for this sense-making"?
As for the male swan, we don't know why he mates for life, or whether he "falls in love" (in the human sense). It's one of the mysteries of nature (although, perhaps, we can guess at "reasons"). We do know, however, that when Leda was raped by Zeus in swan's form, that particular swan had no intention of mating for life. Instead, he planned to engender Helen, and set off a chain of events that "burnt the topless towers of Ilium."
it exists. we just aren't capable of giving it.
love is unconditional and eternal. humans will always have conditions when giving love. since it has conditions, that is not love.
Culture is a very intricate topic and all of you are arguing futilely about culture as to what it is and what it is not. It is all what you said and it is more than something your words can contain. Culture is a way of living, and though it is mostly learned it runs through our veins and artilleries. It is saturated with our blood and is the sap of life.
No matter what philosophical inferences you make to it it goes beyond that. Culture is very complex and culture is as complex human evolution. Only thru culture you can study evolution
Love is never pure.Quote:
Originally Posted by chipper
Yes it can be - I hope you and chipper experience unconditional love someday, as it only makes sense when it is felt.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Name one love which is pure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
I'll tell you, one- between a parent and a child- usually. A dog and an owner. A respectful loving relationship, best friends, God and the worshiper.
Unconditional love does exist, people can testify to this idea everyday universally.
Jersea did it for meQuote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson