Theory of love/

Great Debates
1

Theory of love/

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.

Plato wrote, “An unexamined life is not worth living”. I find this a bit hyperbolic but nevertheless agree with the general point. Plato 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 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.

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. I find verification of Plato’s theory every time I see the relationship between mother and progeny in these documentaries.

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).

I find this theory of love makes sense. Do you agree?

2

I think you have to deal first with the matter of equivocation. Love has literally dozens of definitions, and you seem to be talking about love as an emotion. If so, I don’t have anything to contribute really, and I’ll bow out gracefully. For love as the conduit of goodness, you might be interested in a couple of threads from the past: Using an incomplete Bible to formulate a consistent Gospel of Love and Love. The second one introduced us all to the venerable SentientMeat.

3

I suspect that the instinctive feeling caused by love is displayed in our self love that is also our survival instinct. We call it the survival instinct but it is probably the love instinct as focused upon the self.

Without the guidance of the parent the young cannot survive. As I watch these shows of animals in the wild on the Discovery Channel it seems so clear to me that this is the origin of the instinct we call love.

Truth for a lion cub is what is the correct manner to deal with a snake, or an elephant, or etc. All of which the cub learns from the mother.

Love is an instinct without which mammals would not have survived.

We have all kinds of ways to use the word love. If we remove all the contingencies we will find that in all cases the essence of love is an emotion, i.e. an instinct.

I love chocolate, I love mom, and I love April in Paris. Love is an instinct and love is an abstract idea. Remove all the contingencies and you are left with the emotion we call love. That feeling resulting from the emotion is really what we are speaking of. We attach that feeling to many things. Just as we attach fear to many things and these emotions help the species to survive.

We assign the same word to many things. I suspect that in many cases we are assigning the improper word. When I say I love cookies I suspect we are using the wrong word. However there is a feeling that results from emotion, which is an instinct, and that feeling like the feeling of fear can save or life. Without such an instinct the species could never have survived.

4

I don’t think so. First of all, I don’t think emotion and instinct are synonyms. But aside from that, how is charity (one meaning of love) an emotion? It is an action, or at least a moral decision.

5

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.

6

I tend to see it as an affection. Emotion is a subset of affection, but love is not strictly an emotion.

7

That’s pretty interesting. It sounds right to me on first blush and at minimum at least a reasonable possibility. I find a great deal of the “love” (for the sake of discussion I’ll use the word though I have lots of other thoughts on it that would just distract from the OP’s idea) I feel comes about as a result of just what you’ve posited. There’s a self-centered aspect to it (subjectively, for me) in that it feels like a kind of immortality to see someone else develop before your eyes and know that they’re younger than you and you’ve influenced them and they’ll live on past you (theoretically); maybe that’s related to the evolutionary aspect of what you’ve suggested as well.

As for charity, I wouldn’t consider the action to be love. I’d consider the emotion that underlies the action to perhaps have something to do with love. A guy sees a homeless person and is repulsed by them, laughs in their face, spits on a few dollar bills and throws it in the homeless guy’s face to get a laugh from his fellow asshole friends that are with him and he’s technically done charitable giving if judging only by the action but I wouldn’t consider that an example of love or a loving act so the emotion that underlies the behavior seems relevant to me.