Does love exist?

[Arrowni]

Love is animal. Some animals are wired to love as others are wired to float in the sea.

[The Atheist]

Love is animal. Some animals are wired to love as others are wired to float in the sea.

Beautifully put.

[Ecurb]

Love is animal. Some animals are wired to love as others are wired to float in the sea.

I disagree. Love is human. In other words, it's culturally constituted rather than hard-wired. That's why notions of romanitc love, familial love and charity vary from culture to culture. Since this is a literary board, it should be obvious that our notions of romance are influenced by literary archetypes, poetic and mythic traditions, and culturally constituted goals and ambitions.

This is not to say, of course, that there is not a biological component to love. Obviously, all mammals have sexual urges, and all female mammals must take care of their babies in order to reproduce (in general). Nonetheless, like many othe reductionist explanations for complex, culturally constituted behaviors, the idea that love is "hard-wired" is insufficient to explain the richness and diversity of our beliefs and traditions.

[G L Wilson]

I disagree. Love is human. In other words, it's culturally constituted rather than hard-wired. That's why notions of romanitc love, familial love and charity vary from culture to culture. Since this is a literary board, it should be obvious that our notions of romance are influenced by literary archetypes, poetic and mythic traditions, and culturally constituted goals and ambitions.

This is not to say, of course, that there is not a biological component to love. Obviously, all mammals have sexual urges, and all female mammals must take care of their babies in order to reproduce (in general). Nonetheless, like many othe reductionist explanations for complex, culturally constituted behaviors, the idea that love is "hard-wired" is insufficient to explain the richness and diversity of our beliefs and traditions.

The love of freedom is certainly animal.

[The Atheist]

I disagree. Love is human. In other words, it's culturally constituted rather than hard-wired.

Except that without the biological imprinting of behaviours which allow the construct of "love" to flourish, it wouldn't exist.

Unless you're saying that love is not material in origin.

Have you watched many mammals with their babies?

[G L Wilson]

Except that without the biological imprinting of behaviours which allow the construct of "love" to flourish, it wouldn't exist.

Unless you're saying that love is not material in origin.

Have you watched many mammals with their babies?

The chemistry of love is fascinating. But it is not everything in mammals.

[The Atheist]

The chemistry of love is fascinating.

It is indeed.

But it is not everything in mammals.

Correct. I never suggested otherwise.

[Ecurb]

Except that without the biological imprinting of behaviours which allow the construct of "love" to flourish, it wouldn't exist.

Unless you're saying that love is not material in origin.

Have you watched many mammals with their babies?

I specifically mentioned mammalian behavior. No doubt we can "explain" love in biological, reductionist terms. However, such an "explanation" is trivial and superficial. The romantic ideals of one culture differ from those of another. Those of one person differ from those of another. Can we reduce the stories of Romeo and Juliet, or Lancelot and Gueneviere to some biological "explanation" of love? Can we determine why some cultures have arranged marriages, and others have marriages based on a romantic ideal?

Obviously, without "biological imprinting" none of us would be alive to feel love, hate, or anything else. So what? The question is: which theories of love have depth and profundity in terms of explanatory value? Isn't the human approach to love sometimes different from that of dogs, or pigs, or rats? Aren't love poems and love songs only possible given culture (i.e. language)? Don't they influence how individuals see love, and the hopes they invest in it?

Reductionist explanations of complicated, culturally constituted human behaviors and experiences are not necessarily "wrong". Instead, they tend to by trivial. Anna Karennina had a biologically determined sex drive -- much like other women -- but that offers no explanation of why she had her affair with Vronsky and Kitty did not; of what hopes and dreams she invested in her affair; etc., etc.

[G L Wilson]

I specifically mentioned mammalian behavior. No doubt we can "explain" love in biological, reductionist terms. However, such an "explanation" is trivial and superficial. The romantic ideals of one culture differ from those of another. Those of one person differ from those of another. Can we reduce the stories of Romeo and Juliet, or Lancelot and Gueneviere to some biological "explanation" of love? Can we determine why some cultures have arranged marriages, and others have marriages based on a romantic ideal?

Obviously, without "biological imprinting" none of us would be alive to feel love, hate, or anything else. So what? The question is: which theories of love have depth and profundity in terms of explanatory value? Isn't the human approach to love sometimes different from that of dogs, or pigs, or rats? Aren't love poems and love songs only possible given culture (i.e. language)? Don't they influence how individuals see love, and the hopes they invest in it?

Reductionist explanations of complicated, culturally constituted human behaviors and experiences are not necessarily "wrong". Instead, they tend to by trivial. Anna Karennina had a biologically determined sex drive -- much like other women -- but that offers no explanation of why she had her affair with Vronsky and Kitty did not; of what hopes and dreams she invested in her affair; etc., etc.

Anna Karennina was a slut, that explains everything. Love in books is as longlasting as their paper.

[The Atheist]

However, such an "explanation" is trivial and superficial....


Obviously, without "biological imprinting" none of us would be alive to feel love, hate, or anything else.

You say "trivial and superficial", but admit that without the genetic imperative it wouldn't exist.

That makes no sense to me - it's like saying that the supports of the Golden Gate Bridge are trivial. Aesthetically, they certainly are, but without 'em, it'd be rubble in the bay.

[Ecurb]

Anna Karennina was a slut, that explains everything. Love in books is as longlasting as their paper.

Anna certainly wasn't as promiscuous sexually as you are in terms of posting on Literature Forum.

[G L Wilson]

You say "trivial and superficial", but admit that without the genetic imperative it wouldn't exist.

That makes no sense to me - it's like saying that the supports of the Golden Gate Bridge are trivial. Aesthetically, they certainly are, but without 'em, it'd be rubble in the bay.

I give more to nurture than nature; what is taken from one strengthens the other.

[Ecurb]

You say "trivial and superficial", but admit that without the genetic imperative it wouldn't exist.

That makes no sense to me - it's like saying that the supports of the Golden Gate Bridge are trivial. Aesthetically, they certainly are, but without 'em, it'd be rubble in the bay.

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.

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.

[JuniperWoolf]

Love is human.

You've obviously never had a dog.

[G L Wilson]

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.

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.

Quite right.