# Love **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2003, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135 "2003-01-07T11:18:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/21 "2003-01-08T10:21:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Great OP, **Lib**. šŸ™‚ \*\* [coding corrected] Since Poly hasnā€™t dropped in yet to let me know, Iā€™ll take your post as confirmation that I succeeding in expressing what he wanted me to. Thanks much, Diogenes. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/22 "2003-01-08T10:49:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Iamthat \* > > ā€œ\*\*And here we are,ā€ says the square. ā€œAnd did you know **love** that my corners are made of fear, hate, hopelessness, despair and dread?" > > "And will it not taint and tarnish you? Can you embrace ignorance or will you do as Jesus ā€¦ > > and send me away and say that you never knew me?" \*\* ā€œI know you as I know myself,ā€ says Love. "When I was hungry, you fed me. When I was sick, you comforted me. When I was in prison, you visited me. "Give yourself to me, for I offer peace to those who are afraid, affection to those who hate, and resurrection to those without hope. To those who despair, I offer rescue. And to those who dread, I offer courage. ā€œClose your eyes and trust me. Let me touch your corners and smother them with kisses, that I may fulfill the longings of your soul. And then open your eyes ā€” for behold, the door shall be made new.ā€ ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/23 "2003-01-08T11:09:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Emile Whites \* > \*\*I think weā€™re giving love more credit that its due, itā€™s a wonderful feeling, granted. But still, it is no more than anger or hate. I daresay even less of a driving force than anger and hate. > > Itā€™s all just few hundred thousand neural connections and neural pathways in our brain that fire, thereā€™s nothing more to it, even though we may wish. > > Therefore, why try to define what it is? Accept it and live with it. Youā€™ll get much more joy out of it then. \*\* Consulting sources, you will find many definitions for love. One of them is what you say ā€” a brain fart, a synaptic discharge, an electrochemical spasm. But that isnā€™t the love weā€™re talking about here. Weā€™re talking about [symbol]agape[/symbol], a love that is not rational at all. A love that our brains tell us might not be in the best interest of our survival. A love that we act out often in spite of our brains. A love by which we value someone else as much as we do ourselves. The love you speak of is love of yourself in someoneā€™s nearness, whom you find attracts you, and who offers you validation. Your brain fires, flooding you with chemicals that entice you to connect. The chemicals will fade in time, and your drunkeness of emotion will be replaced by emptiness and longing for new love. It is like hunger: you will eat and be filled, but you will not be satisfied. You will be hungry again. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/24 "2003-01-08T11:13:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TheLadyLion \* > \*\*Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Sure, love is a feeling, and it is a word and concept that a lot of people abuse and contort. But IMHO, love is a manner of behaving toward self and others, not merely the easily-tossed-about word or the nebulous emotion. The great majority of people in our country say they FEEL love for someoneā€¦ how many of them can honestly say they DO love for that same person? \*\* I would say that empathy has more impact than love when behaving towards self and others. Empathy is the thing that will allow you to help a person even if you hate them. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/25 "2003-01-08T11:26:05Z")
Apos wrote: > [@](#): > > I can understand that this is how you might see it from your perspective, but you also seem to add lots more to the definition of God than just what a non-believer woul understand as ā€œlove.ā€ Or is your only dispute with non-believers who love that they use the wrong terminology? I define God as love. He is the expression of His own goodness. I have no dispute with non-believers who love. Their terminology is no more wrong than mine. When one man speaks in Russian and another man in English, one is not wrong and the other right. > [@](#): > > Again, this might make sense from your perspective, but from that of a non-believer, itā€™s a little presumptive to say that their intellect is denying a truth that yourā€™s acknowledges. I can see where you might say that I am presumptuous if I hold that intellectual knowledge is something of value. But since I hold that it is a trivial thing ā€” irrelevant and worthless ā€” the confession or denial of an intellectual truth are equally significant. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/26 "2003-01-08T11:30:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\*I would say that empathy has more impact than love when behaving towards self and others. Empathy is the thing that will allow you to help a person even if you hate them. \*\* How will empathy help a man who is both ignorant and longing to commit suicide? If you empathize with him, that will merely make two of you. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/27 "2003-01-08T11:42:11Z")
Hamish wrote: > [@](#): > > Only [symbol]agape[/symbol]? Platoā€™s Socrates in The Symposium suggests that [symbol]eros[/symbol], too, can be the pursuit of the good ā€“ that ā€œlove-as-desireā€ does not necessarily mean the desire of the physical or material, but of the intellectual and spiritual as well (not trying to muddy the waters ā€“ I just like the idea of eros as a spiritual as well as a physical force). Unlike [symbol]eros[/symbol], [symbol]agape[/symbol] is not a respecter of person; that is, [symbol]agape[/symbol] will treat equally that which we desire and that which repulses us. It is fine to say that, with [symbol]eros[/symbol], you are expressing goodness to someone or something that you desire. But how, with [symbol]eros[/symbol], will you express goodness to a dying old man with running sores from leprosy? Or how, with [symbol]eros[/symbol], will you surrender that which you most treasure? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/28 "2003-01-08T12:01:14Z")
[/quote] a synaptic dischargeā€¦isnā€™t the love weā€™re talking about here. [quote] Surely the point is that \* all \* kinds of love, even agape, or indeed any possible experience (ā€œspiritualā€ or otherwise), might be solely due to synaptic discharge? Irrational feelings still manifest themselves as PET-scan activity, the well-being brought about by a selfless act can still result directly from a subtle and low-level release of serotonin. Indeed, some of the most ā€œspiritualā€ experiences of my life resulted directly from the ingestion of substances which affected said synapses. I would venture that asserting that certain experiences (no matter how subtle, high-minded or difficult to accurately describe) might require a separate source is adding a further, unecessary assumption to the explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/29 "2003-01-08T12:05:16Z")
Sentient Meat wrote: > [@](#): > > Surely the point is that \* all \* kinds of love, even agape, or indeed any possible experience (ā€œspiritualā€ or otherwise), might be solely due to synaptic discharge? Iā€™m afraid not. šŸ™‚ Before brains ever were, this Love is. > [@](#): > > Indeed, some of the most ā€œspiritualā€ experiences of my life resulted directly from the ingestion of substances which affected said synapses. But ā€œspiritualā€ experiences that are mirages and hallucinations have nothing to do with the Living Love. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/30 "2003-01-08T12:21:48Z")
Errm, youā€™re creeping me out a bit. Did your eyes just glaze and your smile widen about 3 feet? > [@](#): > > But ā€œspiritualā€ experiences that are mirages and hallucinations have nothing to do with the Living Love. I should clarify, I have also experienced being ā€œslain in the spiritā€ (as a 15 year old commited Christian with a then intimate relationship with Christ), astral projection, transcendental meditation and any number of Spiritual experiences, all of which I can look back on as solely ā€œmentalā€ processes without any need of a supernatural element. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/31 "2003-01-08T13:00:15Z")
Then youā€™ve made a classic logical blunder: Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. > [@](#): > > Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experience in any way ā€œinferiorā€ to the more mundane truth that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are ever tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence ā€” the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion ā€” to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God. V. S. Ramachandran, MD, Ph.D, _Phantoms in the Brain_, ā€œGod and the Limbic Systemā€ ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/32 "2003-01-08T13:46:40Z")
Of course, I agree that a supernatural element can never be precluded, and that since this branch of science is in its infancy it would be folly to declare conclusively that a satisfactory explanation exists. However, I made no mention of or allusion to ā€œinferiorityā€ in any way, merely observing that it _might_ constitute a further, unecessary assumption to be added and that, if there was a supernatural element to my own experiences, I would imagine I could not tell any difference were it removed. Conversely, a link between neural activity and _any_ experience might also be an unecessary assumption if _eg_ our feelings were generated directly by our immortal, invisible soul, or such like. No matter how well the Theory of Universal Gravitation works, the planets might still move because angels push them. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/33 "2003-01-08T14:57:40Z")
Oh, goody. I was going to start my own thread about this. First question: Is love voluntary? Can you wake up and decide to care for all people selflessly? Can Polycarp wake up and decide to stop? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/34 "2003-01-08T15:01:11Z")
Sentient Meat wrote: > [@](#): > > Of course, I agree that a supernatural element can never be precluded, and that since this branch of science is in its infancy it would be folly to declare conclusively that a satisfactory explanation exists. An equal folly, of course, would be to preclude that an explanation lies within the scope of science and falsification at all, no matter whether the branch is young or old. > [@](#): > > However, I made no mention of or allusion to ā€œinferiorityā€ in any way, merely observing that it might constitute a further, unecessary assumption to be added and that, if there was a supernatural element to my own experiences, I would imagine I could not tell any difference were it removed. Then you didnā€™t wonder, after all, whether I was sporting glazed eyes and a three-foot-wide smile? šŸ˜‰ > [@](#): > > Conversely, a link between neural activity and any experience might also be an unecessary assumption if eg our feelings were generated directly by our immortal, invisible soul, or such like. Indeed. > [@](#): > > No matter how well the Theory of Universal Gravitation works, the planets might still move because angels push them. There might also be an essential ontological difference between the universe and the spirit. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/35 "2003-01-08T15:02:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Oh, goody. I was going to start my own thread about this. > First question: Is love voluntary? Can you wake up and decide to care for all people selflessly? Can Polycarp wake up and decide to stop? \*\* Yes, yes, and yes. šŸ™‚ ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/36 "2003-01-08T15:30:53Z")
> [@](#): > > There might also be an essential ontological difference between the universe and the spirit. Such as what, beyond the very definition of the word ā€œontologicalā€ (in the same way that there is a ā€œbiologicalā€ difference between a plant and a computer)? I would suggest the comparison here is between the ā€œplanet-pushing angelsā€ and the spirit. Would you agree that these angels constitute an unnecessary assumption in the explanation of the observed phenomena? > [@](#): > > An equal folly, of course, would be to preclude that an explanation lies within the scope of science and falsification at all OK, but then of course we can just make up our own, so the debate would become IMO somewhat less Great, and I would probably politely excuse myself. > [@](#): > > Then you didnā€™t wonder, after all, whether I was sporting glazed eyes and a three-foot-wide smile? Heh heh, I must admit those responses did seem to consist solely of rather vacant platitudes. Donā€™t scare me like that! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/37 "2003-01-08T15:43:57Z")
Sentient Meat wrote: > [@](#): > > Such as what, beyond the very definition of the word ā€œontologicalā€ (in the same way that there is a ā€œbiologicalā€ difference between a plant and a computer)? Such as that one might be eternal and the other might not. > [@](#): > > Would you agree that these angels constitute an unnecessary assumption in the explanation of the observed phenomena? Sure. In fact, the very mention of angels seemed unnecessary when I saw it. > [@](#): > > OK, but then of course we can just make up our own, so the debate would become IMO somewhat less Great, and I would probably politely excuse myself. Surely, youā€™re not suggesting that only falsifiable empiricisms are topics for debate. Merely because something is not Popperian in nature does not mean that it is fantastical. > [@](#): > > Heh heh, I must admit those responses did seem to consist solely of rather vacant platitudes. Donā€™t scare me like that! Typically, men fear most what they do not understand. šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/38 "2003-01-08T16:14:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Surely, youā€™re not suggesting that only falsifiable empiricisms are topics for debate. Merely because something is not Popperian in nature does not mean that it is fantastical. A debate about whether or not a supernatural element to conscious experience will in future be viewed as unnecessary an assumption as planet-pushing angels in the explanation of observed phenomena is a debate I happen to be interested in. A debate about the nature of such an element is not, although I would of course never dream of labelling it ā€œNOT a topic for debateā€. Apologies if Iā€™ve joined the wrong meeting. > [@](#): > > Typically, men fear most what they do not understand Hmm, you may be right. Country music scares me witless (which, curiously, doesnā€™t help). ---
**Author:** ![TheLadyLion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d78d45/32.png) [@TheLadyLion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLadyLion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/39 "2003-01-08T16:30:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \*\*\*I would say that empathy has more impact than love when behaving towards self and others. Empathy is the thing that will allow you to help a person even if you hate them. \*\* Empathy? Perhaps sometimes. Pity? At times. Compassion? Frequently. I donā€™t throw the word ā€œloveā€ around loosely in my life. Itā€™s reserved for people who are special to me. However, I have great compassion for people, sometimes people I donā€™t particularly like. I have a co-worker who is a total pain in the ass. But she is going through a difficult time right now in her marriage. Do I love her? No. Did I express compassion for her? Yes, and in keeping her confidence and saying a prayer for her to get through this time of difficulty, I hope I am DOING love, even though I donā€™t feel it for her. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135/40 "2003-01-08T16:34:19Z")
Sentient Meat wrote: > [@](#): > > A debate about whether or not a supernatural element to conscious experience will in future be viewed as unnecessary an assumption as planet-pushing angels in the explanation of observed phenomena is a debate I happen to be interested in. A debate about the nature of such an element is not, although I would of course never dream of labelling it ā€œNOT a topic for debateā€. Apologies if Iā€™ve joined the wrong meeting. Please donā€™t misunderstand me. I am an advocate for science and reason. But I also understand the epistemological failings of both. Science is based on falsifiability; yet falsifiability is itself not falsifiable. Reason is based on the assumption that logic models reality; therefore, reason itself is petitio principii. What is under discussion here is love, in the context that Jesus spoke of it, and whether it may manifest without intellectual intent. Youā€™re welcome to participate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/love/147135.md?page=3)