Is love real or is it just infatuation and the desire to settle down
Evolution has no need for love. Well no need for love between partners at least, maybe maternal and paternal love towards offspring yes, but as for partners all that is called for is sexual attraction/ lust. The convention of marriage is very much a legal and political thing regarding possession and responsibility towards children.
What’s the difference between simply being infatuated with someone and loving them? If you subscribe to the idea of love please explain why on earth we would need it. We are animals with a high rate of infidelity I would struggle to believe we are indeed as monogamous as culture and romcoms would dictate
What’s the difference between simply being infatuated with someone and loving them? If you subscribe to the idea of love please explain why on earth we would need it. We are animals with a high rate of infidelity I would struggle to believe we are indeed as monogamous as culture and romcoms would dictate
Comments (72)
The degree of goodwill for the other person. An infatuated person has little or no goodwill for the person they are infatuated with (down to lacking the most basic empathy for them). Whereas loving someone also includes having goodwill for them, wishing them well.
The high rate of infidelity is possibly due to the high rate of infatuation, and with it, the low rate of goodwill.
There are social projects that can successfully be engaged in only when there is enough mutual goodwill. These projects can be anything from raising children to growing crops. People benefit from such projects, so we can say that they are evolutionarily advantageous.
To be honest I usually think that we tend to confuse the concept of love with respect. The admiration I have on my parents is not about love but respect. Plato warned back in the day that "love is a serious mental disease" I do not know how right he can be at all but it is true that the concept of love is not well understood at all.
Sometimes love itself can be dangerous and toxic. People can get mad over others because they "love" them.
Aspects and customs as "Valentines day" are just related to consuming. Companies need love to see products. As they need Christmas to do the same.
Love cares for the being of another even it involves being separated from them. If you are connected, then it means learning what they need with or without you. The lessons will not all be pleasant. Love is suffering without punishing somebody or something for the experience. More easily said than done.
I row the boat alongside you, pulling the oars. Welcome aboard.
Are you sure evolution has no need for love? How did you determine that it doesnt, given that we have evolved with love as part of our emotional range? Hasn’t love helped us survive as a species?
Quoting Benj96
Well its hard to say exactly but the difference between infatuation and love seems a matter of degree, no?
Monogamy and love are not the same thing, nor does one require the other. People can and do en masse, love more than one person. Monogamy is a social control, a social contract of sorts.
You could be right that we are less monogamous than we are told we are or than we would like to be. But I think life and nature itself imposes some restrictions on the number of partners we have, apart from culture.
And love is not necessarily incompatible with having more than one partner. I don't see why it should be impossible to love one partner at a time or multiple partners at the same time. Also, we may love them in different ways and to different degrees, etc.
Quoting Benj96
As you said we are animals. What kind of animal is monogamous?? We aren't monogamous at all. Nature haven't programmed us that way. Monogamy is just a social compromise we make as to feed our Ego and to feel that we "own" the other person.And not anyone else is allowed to fuck it! Of course love exists but has nothing to do with monogamy.
Quoting Benj96
I would add the "possession" of our partner too. Not just kids.
You ask at the end ".. the desire to settle down?". For me seems more like the "desire to kill our fear of being alone".
Commitment.
The OP is extraordinarily numb; anyone who seeks an evolutionary account of love is not in love.
Quoting Banno
Thank you both. It's what I'm going through. This is what I truly believe in. I cried about the reality of it all. Then I cried some more.
Take care...
People don't love others because they subscribe to the idea of it, they love because it's something they feel. You make it sound like an abstraction one either believes or doesn't.
Do you subscribe to the idea of pain? There are times when you have no choice but to feel it, same with love.
If anyone can verify the source, I'd be grateful.
edit... ah, Stranger in a strange land.
Thanks, Tom.
Love of a person means that the world has condensed into that one single point, which starts to dominate other concerns. It is the bundling of care for the world towards that other person in which we recognise our own position in the world. Love is like a mirror, it is as it were the world smiling back.
This doesn't add up. Every single trait that exists in the present was/had to be good for survival and if love is part of human relationships, it must aid in living or some aspect of procreation must depend on it. Where? how? is a mystery to me. I suggest we approach the matter from the viewpoint of someone about to be hoodwinked; after all, flowers don't actually intend to give bees a drink of nectar, it's bait to make the bees unwittingly cross-pollinate. You're a bee that has finally come to the realization that it's just a sex toy. Nothing wrong with that though, right?
If you ignore what I said in my previous post, the difference between infatuation and love is the same as the difference between thinking only about proximate gratification and taking utmost care to give remote consequences their due.
The infatuated person: I need fae.
The person in love: Does fae need me?
Intriguingly, the infatuated person believes (I need fae) but the person who's in love doubts (does fae need me?)
Mea culpa!
A big majority of bird species live monogamously. It's also displayed in monkeys and apes. Gibbons are a notable example. Many canines have a tendency towards monogamy. Beavers are another prime showcase for sticking with a partner for life.
Quoting Benj96
Evolutionary, it makes a lot of sense to band together with a mating partner and bust out one baby after another. So does settling down and raising the children together. I can at the very least imagine how and why this was genetically adopted as "love".
The idea of love that is promoted through culture is a bit of a different story though. There are some notions being "taught" about love that are pretty harmful and self-destructive for the individual. It's a small line between "real love" and the toxic infatuation with another.
Even if they are, humans aren't. These are exceptions. Humans put mental effort as to be monogamous. It doesn't come natural to them. If a married man see a naked woman he will have an erection. He will have to try to think and put hard effort as to convince himself not to fuck her. It won't come natural to him.
True that! Do you see love transcending pleasures of the flesh? Or, is it just as I think it is, two sides of the same coin?
I think also that, more or less, is two sides of the same coin. When we speak about partner's love of course.
I'm asking you whether love is a sham, a scam, a con, just an empty emotion which is meant only to sugar-coat the actual, the real, goings-on, the two-backed-beast?
Well no I believe that love is a true emotion. But we humans have made many myths and fairy tales about what is "meant to be" and its origin.
In partnership we have combined it with monogamy. Which is wrong for me. These are two different things. Can't I love someone but at the same time want to have sex with others too? I don't see any contradiction to that.
In some cases, as you mention, it is also used to sugar-coat the two-baked-beast. But it's not always the case.
Saying that more or less is two sides of the same coin meant that, if we plant a seed into a couple. That seed would also need plenty of "sex water" also as to grow up and turn into love. There are exceptions of course but in most cases it does need sex.
I think this way.
Soothing words.
That's a very crude analysis. Not all naked women are fuck-worthy; and no all naked women want to get fucked by you. You talk as if she had no say in it, and as if there were no other qualifications.
But that's part and parcel of this intellectually and emotionally numb thread.
Not crude at all. You turn the point into a matter that doesn't exist, cause you just find "fuck" word too shocking for you obviously. Who said that she would have no say? Obviously I mean that as to get naked in front of you she would want it also. And obviously you would find her attractive as to have erection. Didn't expect that I would have to clarify such a simple thing.
It could also be the same with a woman to whom Brad Pitt would be naked in front of her. Don't turn it into a race matter cause has nothing to do with that. I talk about monogamy in both sexes. Not as a privilege of men.
Quoting Banno
I care to make my point clear. Not scared at all to use "low quality" or "bad" words for that. There are no bad words at all for me, only bad meanings.
Oh, fuckety fuck, fuck off. I'm Australian. SO fucking get your fucking mind around the fucking fact that we fucking use that fucking word in every fucking thing we fucking say.
Your analysis is that of an adolescent.
You said nothing about it though. At what exactly you disagree? That humans aren't monogamous creatures or what??
You commented saying nothing about my "analysis" but only as to point a racist matter that it didn't exist. I clarified it(even if it was crystal clear from the beginning) and now you make another post as to underestimate my analysis as adolescent-ish.
Something that you actually disagree with? Or just making a show here?
What?
No, forget it. I doubt it worth the effort to understand this non sequitur.
The issue that was discussed was if humans are monogamous. I supported my opinion that aren't with a empirical example. Which I always find the strongest ones in such cases.
You responded trying to imply that it was an offending comment for women. Which was not the case. And now once again you don't say anything about the actual point of the matter and if and to what exactly you disagree (or not who knows).
Just a clever - ish line and that's it. So it's obvious that you are just making a show again.
Noticed you do that many times with others too. Writing one or two lines with no arguments at all .
Well it won't be the case with me though.First you will get the proper answers and then you are free to do as you wish. Sorry.
For better or for worse, I might be one of those people who know what to think think but still doesn't. I don't know why that is. I'm, however, pleased to know that I made sense to you.
Where's an anti-reductionist when we need one, right?
I have trouble viewing matters best described as supra-biological (altruism, love, courage, god, meaning, etc.) in terms of the biological as the two of us seem to be doing. Is, for instance, love just a biochemical reaction geared towards evolutionary success? Is the beauty and the sweetness of a flower simply meant to incite insects so that they can do the "dirty work" of cross-pollination?
I would like to, if possible that is, make a distinction between different levels of organization of matter and energy i.e. even though it's possible to reduce mind and everything it does to biology, biology to chemistry, and so on, we should still treat these various levels as unique in and of themselves, possessing their own special, level-specific, content and dynamics. Thus, something like love needs to be studied in the world it's a part of (supra-biological emotions) and what's to avoided are attempts to explain them resorting to more basic concepts such as chemistry and physics.
Well yes, imo emotion of love was developed through and for evolution purposes also. As all human emotions.
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm not sure I fully got this but seems interesting. How you mean it when you say "different levels of organization of matter and energy"?
And when you say" various levels" you mean about biology and chemistry or something else??
You also say love should be studied as "supra biological emotion". In what way this is different from "simple" biological emotions?
Take the example of life, biology; it can't really be explained or, more accurately, is only incompletely explained, by chemistry - there's something about biology that defies an explication of it in terms of chemistry. In other words, biology has its own set of features that are unique to its own level of complexity, these features having their own rules i.e. the biological world, although based on chemical reactions, is sufficiently distinct to deserve separate treatment.
A similar logic applies to consciousness; it's biological foundations is an open secret but it's not just biology as we think it is. Love, though it can be said to boil down to the act of coitus, also transcends it; love exists, as a distinct entity, at the level of human relationships and should be studied within that context.
Ok now I got what you mean. The way that these two fields are combined together though and create a "unity" is a real mystery. Don't know if it would be better as to study them separately than consider them as a constant interaction.
I don't think I m capable of proposing something since I lack of deep knowledge into these matters.
Quoting TheMadFool
I always considered the mystery of consciousness and how it works similar with emotions. I have the feeling that they function in the same inseparable way,and the day we solve the one mystery automatically will be solved the other too.
But as I wrote above, it is nothing more than a personal sensation that I have. So I would never be able to support it with sufficient arguments.
Haha! You and me both. :smile:
:smile:
Perhaps I am.
I prefer love. Do you feel the same?
I do.
When it comes to the heuristics of biological evolution there are in large two strategies that apply to most species consisting of sexes. When viewed from the vantage of males, colloquially expressed, one heuristic is to fuck anything that moves without giving a shit about the offspring. Some, even most, will die and some will live, but the greater the quantity of offspring the greater the number of offspring that survive and the greater one’s acquired biological fitness. The other is to invest in the welfare of one’s offspring so as to maximize the survival of all, thereby increasing one’s biological fitness. Here, one as male cares about what female one mates with, this so as to produce optimal offspring. And this caring about the other which one also finds attractive correlates with what we often identify as the emotion of romantic love.
Lust/sexual attraction applies to both types of males, just differently.
Needless to add, this is an (over?)simplification. And it does ignore what type of male females choose and the whys to these choices in terms of female biological fitness. But it generally holds for humans. So called players almost always fall into the characteristics of the first heuristic; whereas those who lose an important part of themselves with the loss of their partner tend to fall into the characteristics of the second. Most humans, of course, are a mix between these two biological extremes.
As was expressed by @Hermeticus, many wild animals have evolved toward the second heuristic; this, naturally, hence without there being “social constraints or contracts” in need of upholding. Wild canids all tend toward monogamy, often life long, in the form of Alpha Mates of equal value around which extended families or packs pivot. Geese are another notable, commonly known example. At any rate, there is a place in biological evolution for romantic love: again simplistically expressed, it on average results in quality of offspring - rather than quantity with lesser quality.
That aside, here taking my cue from the title, what does the phrase “real love” signify to you?
You accept the person, flaws and all. You leave him alone when he wants to be. But embrace him when he's back.
Getting racy around these parts. :blush:
Real love of the amorous kind. To trade notes, I liken it to a dance driven by a common ethos between two selves which make a well enough fit in both their techne and pathos. And, barring grave mishaps that can ruin the dance along the way, these two find increased convergence into one via the inter-path/course they partake in. All this conditional on both being there for each other when it counts. Or something along these lines.
Still curious to hear @Benj96's take on what real love would consist of.
Yes! Lovely.
Quoting javra
:halo: When you love someone.
I actually noticed that what I wrote in my previous post was .."flaws in all". 'corrected it. But I know why I wrote it incorrectly...I was thinking, he's flawed in all aspects, lol!
After I found my true love I had indeed the desire to settle down, but that desire didn't inspire my love!
I think one can stipulate that love is even more real than genitalia. Haven’t fully thought this through yet, but, as an example, in a BIV scenario the reality of one’s dick would be illusory whereas the reality of one’s love would remain unscathed. Would take some unpacking but an, “I [s]think[/s] love, therefore I am” kind of thing. (From some degree of self-love that keeps us kicking, to love of truth or of reality that gets us to question things in the first place, etc., if not love for another.) Cheeky, but I think it might work.
I get you but don't know what a BIV-scenario is. Sounds kinda naughty...
:lol: Ay, that it is.
If I'm to take you seriously, BIV is short for "brain in a vat" hypothesis. Hence the naughtiness factor.
I really didn't know! I looked it up but got a return in my language. I could see it wasn't what you meant. Brain in vat. Mmmmmm.... :smile:
fear, hatred, and peace
Love is the feeling of fear being soothed, either in a childish way because the parent figure(whoever the child is attached to, which could be a lover as well) is given what it wants,
Or the parental love, in which one is the parent and one views the other as their child, in which case on fears for them instead of for oneself, and feels soothed when the other is behaving as one wishes, which means in a way that they will be safe long term.
The childish form of "love" is turned to hatred when the child is not being given what it wants. Hatred is a way to fight the fear, whereas before the fear was dealt with by being placated.
Peace is when the emptiness within is not ran away from in fear, or fought and resisted with hatred.
That's my half baked stream of consciousness inspired by some of the psychology stuff I've read. Sorry if im spreading disinformation as I think it needs tinkering.
Beautiful!
:100:
Infatuation is an intense reaction that can quickly turn to hate at any mild displeasure
Love is the opposite I suppose.
Still, my love infatuates me.
Me too
Edit: I mean I am infatuated with the idea of romantic love.
Are you more drawn to their eyes or to their lower body?
Which would you rather stare into / at?
It goes beyond the physical, or rather, despite the physical, it is real. There'd be a moment of dread sometimes -- the feeling of wanting to protect your love. From what? I don't know. Silly notions. But I get that way. You also tend to "spoil" the brattiness in him. When he's being petulant -- you just...smile at it. Allow it. Like, ah, he's having his moments.
Yeah, let things fall where they may. After all, we're not dealing with a lifeless object that you may do what you want with it. As they say, some things, like a malfunctioning toaster, "have a mind of their own."
[quote=SYT]Live/love and let live/love.[/quote]
For some folks that's something beyond their ken.
:smile: Funny comparison.
Random thoughts. No particular point to it.
Even funnier -- out-of-the-blue funny.
Not really. Perhaps my analogy was inappropriate. All I meant was that people are autonomous agents, they have a mind of their own and we must both respect that and factor that into our calculations. Interestingly, is free will, if present, like the misbehaving toaster, a malfunction i.e. are we breaking the so-called laws of nature? That explains a lot, doesn't it?
Could be. lol.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Does evolution "need" anything? What does evolution "need"?
Quoting Benj96
Sometimes people who don't love each other have sex. Sometimes people who love each other have sex.
Surely loving a person (in the relevant sense) is not required for having sex. That doesn't mean that sex and love are incompatible, nor does it indicate that sex and love don't go often hand in hand.
I'm not sure what you're driving at.
Quoting Benj96
Now you've thrown another term into the mix -- sex, love, marriage. Again, it seems quite clear to me these things come sometimes together, sometimes apart.
I'll agree that marriage is a social convention. What does that have to do with your remarks about sex and love?