I really, really got into it with
@saia2@datingish (aka
@saia1@xanga) the other day concerning the existence of love. To put it plainly,
I just no longer can believe it exists. Granted, the fact that I can't/don't feel love myself is absolutely not proof of the non-existence thereof (as there are a lot of other "normal" human emotions I can't/don't feel) and I would never claim that to be the case.
Rather,
my case against the existence of love goes back to who we are as animals, because that's all we really are in the grand scheme of things. We are an animal species, and more specifically, mammals.
If you look at wild mammals in particular, they all exhibit the same qualities of caring for their young, mating, sex, and other things that parallel the actions of so-called "love" in humans, yet they have absolutely no concept of what love is. The nurturing of their young, their sex drive, and their courting practices can all go back to basic primal instincts of reproduction and continuing their respective species. They don't have any concept of love whatsoever, rather, they just follow their biological programming.
Humans, being mammals, are the exact same way: sex, courtship, and reproduction are all part of a basic-level biological programming that humans are, by nature, programmed to carry out.
The only difference is we actually have the ability to consciously override our biological programming and choose our own way (take childfree-as-ever me, for example, and also consider monogamy, which is totally unnatural to human beings and all other mammals).
Well, maybe other animal species do, as well. In fact, I'm almost positive they probably do, even though we haven't observed such a phenomenon as of yet.
We as human beings have a tendency to glorify ourselves, claim that we're "above" other animal species. Most humans I've seen even go so far as to claim that humans are not animals! Well, to be painfully honest, we are nothing more than animals ourselves, and we are no better than, or superior to, any other animal species on the face of this planet. The erroneous belief that we are is called "speciesism" and it's no better than any other -ism out there.
In simple terms: humans are animals, and animals will do like animals do. Therefore humans will do like animals do and court, reproduce, and nurture offspring out of primal, biological instinct and not because of some bogus concept like love, which no other animal species even has a term for.
There is no scientific proof for the existence of love. Period. And until science can prove the existence thereof, I will not believe in it, as that's not an emotion I experience. That's the bottom line.
Thoughts? Disagree? Agree? Let me know.
Recommend
Comments (52)
"In simple terms: humans are animals, and animals will do like animals do."
No, animals will do while humans rationalize excuses for behaving like them.
We're supposed to lead the rest, dumbass with a 160+ I.Q., not mimic them.
If love doesn't exist it is because we did not create it.
No.
our species is programmed to reproduce more than people want to admit. why do you think people cheat so much? and why do you think a small selection of guys get to bang the majority of chicks? in fact, i think it's a great application of the indian buffet process. who said math doesn't have real world applications?
whether love exists is irrelevant to me--i am still not convinced that people do relationships for any reason other than to bang someone without feeling slutty, but i also am not foolish enough to think i'm going to change anyone's mind. and as a good liberal, i can't judge others for what they think when it doesn't affect me.
i've gotten more than my fair share of messages on here, in addition to remarks in real life by people, that i "will meet some girl who will change your mind" bla bla bla. i'm not saying i'll never change my mind, but i can't exactly say i'm holding my breath either.
my point: to each his (her) own.
@TheNotoriousGOD@xanga - Maybe much like the childfree people have come up with a game called "Breeder Bingo" (a card with all the common breeder-isms that the breeder brigade hurls at childfree people), maybe we should come up with a "Monogamist Bingo" card that lists all of the monogamy-isms that monogamists like to hurl toward singles/polyamorous people.
Here's a breeder bingo card, for reference: http://7deadlysinners.typepad.com/sinners/images/breeder_bingo.jpg. For the record, every time I hear one of these, I just want to knock that person's teeth out. Makes me so fucking mad.
what is your definition of love?
if you're defining it as an emotion, then what kind of scientific proof are you expecting? just as you said, just because you can't/don't feel it doesn't mean it does not exist.
"The only difference is we actually have the ability to consciously override our biological programming and choose our own way"
-
yes. we can do this. why do you think we do it? emotions are powerful.
i guess i don't really understand what it is you don't believe exists. if love is defined as an emotion and people are claiming to feel this emotion, then what's the argument? maybe this emotion (and all others we experience) are a part of our biological programming? not all mammals mate and raise young the same. some mammals tend to stick with their mates longer than others. perhaps the way we have evolved, this emotion helps our kind raise stronger young. i mean, our babies are dumb when they're born. hardly any instincts. they need a lot of help. isn't it ideal to have both parents involved rather than the father going off and mating with someone else? this is why women usually search for a man she can trust to stay, and perhaps why people "fall in love" - they share interests, they have compatible personalities, and they enjoy each others' company. they are more likely to stick together for a long period of time.
i dunno. that's what i think.
love is an emotion and like many other emotions there are certain chemicals in the bloodstream associated with it...like there are with other emotions such as fear, anger, etc.
Whether you believe in it's existence is up to you, but it would appear that evolution has led us to a place where the majority of humans feel something they refer to as love that IS associated with particular chemicals in the body.
Emotions aren't something that popped up from someone's fanciful imagination, they are chemical driven reactions to stimuli.
It would appear that some mammals other than humans experience something akin to what we call love. There is some serious bonding going on in some (usually social) species.
BUT, and this is a really important BUT...evolution has also endowed the human species with a very very wide diversity in interests, talents, emotional range, personality types etc etc etc. Also a very useful survival tactic in a complex social species. So while some people are, chemically "romantic", others are less so. Not all of us experience the same range or intensity of emotions, bonding, etc. That doesn't invalidate the experience of others.
I would posit that "specieism" is also an evolved trait that plays a role in survival, as is the superiority some people claim due to their being more or less emotional than others, or more or less religious than others etc. It's a tendency to justify, protect and promote one's own agenda, or that of one's species.
@secretbeerreporter@xanga - ha i have never heard of breeder bingo. as for a monogamist bingo, i don't hear such comments *that* frequently from people, at least not enough for it to be annoying--i think it's usually just people who are curious about why i roll the way i do, and i have no problem chatting with them.
lol, that reminds me. a long time ago i got a message from some chick (who i don't think i've ever seen comment since) saying "i bet some girl is hopelessly in love with you". i was like...yep, you keep thinking that, and i will keep living in reality.
i mean hey, if i change my mind, then so be it. but in the mean time, i really enjoy dipping my wick, and intend to have my fun till i can't get it up anymore.
I agree with your conclusions that humans are animals, and that our behavior is closer to other animals behavior than some would like to admit. However, I do believe love exists. Do species need to have a concept/term for understanding love for it to exist? You could say the same thing about animals for concepts like gravity.
"...wild mammals in particular... don't have any concept of love whatsoever, rather, they
just follow their biological programming."
How do you know that? Because they can't talk? I would not doubt that animals can love, though I think along with higher levels of intellect and consciousness is probably also higher capability for love in humans versus other animals. Closely related primates show great inclinations towards love, and I wouldn't doubt that many species less closely-related to us also experience it. I'd also argue that love is a natural byproduct of the biological programming you spoke of, in that it is evolutionarily useful for continuing our species by encouraging healthy environments for offspring and increasing individual health.
Someone here said: "No, animals will do while humans rationalize excuses for behaving like them." Exactly.
@secretbeerreporter: You agree with this as an animal rights enthusiast. If we recognize our capacity to do better than other animals regarding the "food chain" by eliminating their suffering, isn't it also logically consistent to not base the beginning and end of all our behaviors by other animals'?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppublBujhPU&feature=plcp
just because we can't hear what fish are saying doesn't mean that they aren't talking and sending telepathic messages to their friends while mouthing the words:O how do we know that they don't have the power of telepathy
we don't have the technology to hear them because we're still using what they deem as flimsy and outdated texting devices compared to their fish powers
GO FISH!
I didn't believe in love when I was younger, but I kind of do now. As for animals, how do we truly know that they can't feel the same kind of emotions we do? There are lots of examples of animals who would take a mate and if that mate happens to die, choose not to take on a new mate. I'm not just talking about the animals that mate for life either. These animals have displayed obvious signs of sadness and mourning and some never move past this stage.
While I don't think animals are as capable as humans to override their natural instincts, they are still able to. I'm going to use wolves since I'm more familiar with them, but there have been cases in history of wolves who attack stock animals like sheep and cows not because they're hungry, but purely for sport or spite. There have been wolves who specifically seek out farm animals belonging to people who hunt wolves and killed those animals. This goes farther than the usual reaction of attacking humans to protect themselves; this is an obvious act of revenge. Normal instincts don't call for animals to seek out their attackers, usually only defend or to retreat to safety.
Wow.
You don't experience love at all? Not even self love? Self love is important too, and valid IMO.
You make a point about the whole animal vs human animal thing, and I agree with some of the similarities you pointed out. Although I will throw this comparison out there- there are some animals who sometimes abandon or eat their young, as well as there are some humans who choose to abandon their young, kill their young, or abuse their young. I'd argue that animals and humans who choose to kill and abuse their young do not practice love at all. Abandonment can have positive facets depending on how responsible it's done i.e. adoption.
Everyone experiences love differently, and it's not necessarily a bad thing that you don't experience love. Being a good person matters more than love.
Being conscious is a wonderful thing isn't it?
@maybmaybnot@xanga - "You don't experience love at all? Not even self love?"
About the closest thing I come to it is the bond between Zephyrus (my Doberman Pinscher) and myself. I hesitate to call it love because it's cross-species. That said, I don't form bonds with other human beings in any capacity.
@secretbeerreporter@xanga - Very interesting. Random Side note- I heard of a well off guy who died and gave his all of his $$ to his dog, his DOG!! He had family but he didn't feel they were worthy of the $, so whoever took care of the dog recieved the $ for the dogs wellbeing. I'm not anti-dogs, but for some reason that irks me.
@maybmaybnot@xanga - Sounds like something I would do. I don't talk to any of my family, and I don't really have any human friends either. My family can go piss up a rope. I hate all of their sorry asses.
@secretbeerreporter@xanga -
I agree. The abstract concept of romantic "love" is just a blend of selfish gratification, lust, and affection. These also exist in the animal kingdom but since humans have the capability of forming language and cognition, we decided to create a fancy term for this idealistic notion as an attempt to explain the phenomenon of the intersection between lust and familial intimacy. We then call this Romance. It mostly likely doesn't exist in and of itself, but if we as a (Western) society have made it such a prevalent topic that's been contested, sang about, wax poetry over, etc, for centuries, then it certainly does exist in that way. We made it happen, and that is a beautiful thing I think. It gives life more meaning and separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
(Unless you really want to be a non sentient being, then that's cool too.)
Yes, I think love is all biology, but I don't think that makes it less real. Try telling a parent who has just lost their child that there is no such thing as love. I'm sorry that you are unable to experience it in any form. That's extremely sad.
@AuCinema@xanga - I actually see it as a blessing in disguise. If I can't form attachments with others, I can't get hurt.
@maybmaybnot@xanga - i *just* figured out what your picture is. you a big fan of heels? cause i
@DrummingMediocrity@xanga - Don't quote me if you are going to do the same fucking thing you're arguing against.
I will admit to being a hypocrite, but I will not be a hypocrite by proxy for someone else who refuses to admit to it.
(e.g. initially tagging @ my name then removing it and replacing it with "someone here" because you know you're a fucking hypocrite)
You might think you've been "transparent" to others, but thanks to my inability to just let things go, I see you like a fucking 4-dimensional MRI... everything.
http://youtu.be/t45i8cjHzko
"If only you saw what I can see..."
(
, ultimately)
@nepenthium@xanga - Isn't "non-sentient being" an oxymoron of sorts?