I've spent a lot of time alone, and a lot of time in (almost) every kind of relationship one can have. I've dated girls smarter than me, and girls who would lose a game of checkers to a toaster. I've had exes turn out to be gay, and others accuse me of being gay. I've seen it all honestly, and giving you the details would only frighten you.

My questions are simple. If there's this much drama involved, is it actually worth it? If I do well on my own why bother? Does love really matter, or even exist? If it does, is there really someone out there for everyone? If there is then shouldn't it be much easier to find them?

I'm not depressed right now interestingly enough. Just tired and analytical. So I wonder these kinds of things. There's a lot of debate about these things in the field of psychology. Some say that love is only a method of social selection, which is a subform of natural selection. We select for looks, and personality, and social status, etc. In this way we make sure our offspring will work well in society and survive to reproduce.

I'm actually torn right now on this subject. Some evidence suggests that love is just a short term chemical imbalance, and in the long term just a need for familiarity. However we haven't found any hormone or section of the brain which can be said to cause love, only to react to it.

And I'm totally posting this right after the Valentine's day event ended.

It exists, there are a lot of different kinds and becoming romantically involved with someone takes a lot of time and a level of compatibility. I'm not a romantic by any standards but I believe the person you spend the rest of your life with should be as much a friend and partner as a lover. Understanding and equality are important. If you and your partner don't see eye to eye on something accept it and come to an agreement but don't try to change them or their views. If their personal views bother you enough that you want to change them you probably shouldn't be involved with this person. I do not think love is something that can be defined and explained as a simple reaction of chemicals. For me love is not physical, the lust aspect always comes last when I meet a man, attraction does not occur for me until after he has found away to endear himself.

Being attached to someone can be caused by simple familiarity though. I've had old enemies who I valued more than new friends.

Can't say the same for myself. I've only had a permanent attachment to one person, although it's not romantic in anyway. I have yet to really fall in love with anyone though. I've had passing interests in men but no amount of lust or attraction made me want to stay with them, or well him. I've only had one relationship which I ended because after a year we still didn't reach a level of mutual understanding and respect. Doesn't mean I don't believe in love. Although for me love is essentially partnership built on trust and affection.

as for enemies, I've never had anyone whom I considered worthy of being my enemy.

Trust and affection can be present in any relationship. I have affection for several of my teachers and professors, and I have to trust them logically speaking since I'm allowing them to educate me. I wouldn't call that love though. Would you?

I'm wondering if there can, in modern society, be anything resembling love as we portray it in cinema, books, songs, poetry, etc. And after careful thought I don't think there can. It can't exist.

My definition of love, or the closes I can come up with would be caring more for someone else's well being, than one's own. However I've yet to meet anyone other than myself who does this consistently, so for me love does not exist. It can't, because by sheer animal nature humans tend to think of themselves first, and try to use others to keep themselves happy and safe. No relationship like that could be considered love.

Originally Posted by sarofset

I'm wondering if there can, in modern society, be anything resembling love as we portray it in cinema, books, songs, poetry, etc. And after careful thought I don't think there can. It can't exist.

My definition of love, or the closes I can come up with would be caring more for someone else's well being, than one's own. However I've yet to meet anyone other than myself who does this consistently, so for me love does not exist. It can't, because by sheer animal nature humans tend to think of themselves first, and try to use others to keep themselves happy and safe. No relationship like that could be considered love.

I have seen romantic love like the kind you find in movies, My best friend and her husband would probably die for each other, he's so devoted to her that it's almost unbelievable. I think if one of them were to die the other would die of sheer grief.

As for caring more for someone else's well being than one's own, I don't necessarily have to love someone romantically to risk my life for them. I've done as much for my dog. There are a few people that I hold dear enough to make big sacrifices for and I've even done so gladly because it is worth losing something (even your own life) to ensure that the ones you care for are safe and happy.

If one of them dying would cause the other to die of grief, then how is dying for them a sign of love, as you describe it? Wouldn't it be detrimental, and therefore unloving to die for someone, who would then spend their last days horribly broken, and die of a broken heart? It seems like a terrible idea to me.

If as you describe it, you are dying to keep them safe and happy, then in order for them to be happy after you die, they would have to either care nothing for you, or be totally oblivious to the fact that you had dies, until they could find someone else to love. It has an internal conflict.

Originally Posted by sarofset

If one of them dying would cause the other to die of grief, then how is dying for them a sign of love, as you describe it? Wouldn't it be detrimental, and therefore unloving to die for someone, who would then spend their last days horribly broken, and die of a broken heart? It seems like a terrible idea to me.

It is terrible and tragic, but it makes them very happy to know that the other would sacrifice for them although they hope it never comes to that.

Originally Posted by sarofset

If as you describe it, you are dying to keep them safe and happy, then in order for them to be happy after you die, they would have to either care nothing for you, or be totally oblivious to the fact that you had dies, until they could find someone else to love. It has an internal conflict.

Yes, but I do not have the expectation that I am loved in return by those I love. I do not require that others love me as I love them. Love is not always logical or practical but for some people it is inevitable. You seem far to pragmatic to have a romantic love as I've seen others have and perhaps that is what works for you. What applies to one person is not true of another so just because you do not personally feel that something is true or right or logical does not mean it is so for other people.

I never said that my view was right, or the only possible conclusion. I'm simply questioning what society in general understands as love. Noting that their understanding of all that love is meant to be leads to the fact that the average romantic relationship lasts about two months, and half of all marriages fail in the first two years. Also I've met many married couples who do not love each other. They treat each other terribly and don't even sleep in the same room.

Also love as a basis for marriage is a relatively new concept. It didn't exist until the last couple of centuries.

I want to know, what is love?

I have my own ideas, and I might bring them up later, but I'm going to question any view anyone brings up, even if I believe the same thing, because this is a topic worthy of examination, and worthy of questioning.

Therefore, I ask you plainly. What is love? The whole thing. Don't leave anything out.

Originally Posted by sarofset

I want to know, what is love?

I have my own ideas, and I might bring them up later, but I'm going to question any view anyone brings up, even if I believe the same thing, because this is a topic worthy of examination, and worthy of questioning.

Therefore, I ask you plainly. What is love? The whole thing. Don't leave anything out.

That is a hard question but I will try to answer...to love something is to put it or them before your own happiness or well being. It is to trust and to care and to risk and to desire and to sacrifice all at once.

Love is hard to put into words because it is not a physical thing it is a feeling, it is the thing that gives you strength and motivates you. It is a reason to live and to die.

Love is the only part of my life, outside of my spiritual beliefs, where I do not apply logic or reason because it transcends my ability to rationalize and define. It is like a state of being.

I'm not sure any of that is clear but it's the best I can do...:P

The thing is, feelings, most all of them, are simply the body's reaction to stimuli. Neural transmitters are released when you see someone attractive, or smell good pheromones, and you become attracted to them. After a while you become used to their presence, and they become an important part of your world. You become addicted to their presence, and need it for the world to seem normal. When they are gone you suffer withdrawl symptoms.

All of it is natural.

I don't mean to be rude. I just want to know what you think of things like this.

Originally Posted by sarofset

The thing is, feelings, most all of them, are simply the body's reaction to stimuli. Neural transmitters are released when you see someone attractive, or smell good pheromones, and you become attracted to them. After a while you become used to their presence, and they become an important part of your world. You become addicted to their presence, and need it for the world to seem normal. When they are gone you suffer withdrawl symptoms.

All of it is natural.

I don't mean to be rude. I just want to know what you think of things like this.

Maybe that's entirely true, partially true or not true at all, it doesn't really matter to me, how it is so and why it is so are not as important to me as the fact that it is so.

Love is real, ultimately that's all that's important to me. I have to leave for today but I'll come back and converse more later. Bye.

Thank you for your input.

I have a hard time believing that love is "a momentary chemical imbalance in the brain." Sure. Love is partially chemicals. Seeing a loved one's face forces the release of oxytocin and seratonin in the brain, both of which are "feel-good" chemicals that make it more likely a person will stay with their significant other. I would argue, however, that love cannot be just a chemical. Otherwise, why would people die for one another? Why would a friend die for another friend? Certainly not because they had chemicals in their brains telling them that they needed to mate.

Some might argue that a person would die for another person so that the surviving human can continue the species. If this is so, where then does the argument come in that a person will instinctively protect himself first before others? I would say that this "love-protection" option is explainable mostly as a choice made on the behalf of a person due to a genuine feeling of love that had nothing to do with chemicals.

On a more personal level, I've loved people without any reason whatsoever to love them. It wasn't out of a physical attraction or "need to proliferate the species," it was because they were who they were.

Also. If love is a momentary chemical imbalance, why do we continue to love those who have left us or even died? Theoretically, love should disappear the second that the person's presence does, if it's all just a need to continue humanity. There is the theory that we go through withdrawal after love because we lose the oxytocin, etc., that had been making us happy. If this is proof of "love as a chemical" then why would a person continue to love another after the chemicals have been flushed out of the system in a few months?

My whole argument boils down to the idea that there is some conscious choice in love. I'd rant on about some of the other topics brought up, but this is already an incoherent wall of text. ;)

----------

Originally Posted by Faulkner

It exists, there are a lot of different kinds and becoming romantically involved with someone takes a lot of time and a level of compatibility. I'm not a romantic by any standards but I believe the person you spend the rest of your life with should be as much a friend and partner as a lover. Understanding and equality are important. If you and your partner don't see eye to eye on something accept it and come to an agreement but don't try to change them or their views. If their personal views bother you enough that you want to change them you probably shouldn't be involved with this person. I do not think love is something that can be defined and explained as a simple reaction of chemicals. For me love is not physical, the lust aspect always comes last when I meet a man, attraction does not occur for me until after he has found away to endear himself.

More power to you, Faulkner. I'm this way too, with men. You can be Brad Pitt or Alex Pettyfer, but I will not find you attractive in any way until you've proven that you have a good heart and a kind soul.

I did actually explain long term feelings. They are simply an addiction, or something close to it.

The reason someone will die for another, due to love is quite simple. It's an evolved behavior. Those with the genes to preform such acts survived better, because one animal would sacrifice itself for its family or family group. This allowed more of the species to survive. It's evolutionary psychology.

You say people wouldn't die over chemicals, but many people each year die because they are on drugs of some kind. PCP makes people think they are invincible, Acid makes people see things, and love makes us feel some connection to another being, which in reality we may have no connection to whatsoever.

Choices, even conscious ones are made by chemicals, neurotransmitters, in your brain. When they are balanced a certain way, someone will gladly die for another, when they are balanced another way, they would throw them to the lions themselves.

Originally Posted by sarofset

I did actually explain long term feelings. They are simply an addiction, or something close to it.

The reason someone will die for another, due to love is quite simple. It's an evolved behavior. Those with the genes to preform such acts survived better, because one animal would sacrifice itself for its family or family group. This allowed more of the species to survive. It's evolutionary psychology.

You say people wouldn't die over chemicals, but many people each year die because they are on drugs of some kind. PCP makes people think they are invincible, Acid makes people see things, and love makes us feel some connection to another being, which in reality we may have no connection to whatsoever.

Choices, even conscious ones are made by chemicals, neurotransmitters, in your brain. When they are balanced a certain way, someone will gladly die for another, when they are balanced another way, they would throw them to the lions themselves.

All my romantic illusions are shattered... :cry:

Love maybe a result of the chemical shizz that goes on in the brain, but that is incredible unromantic and slightly depressing- even if it is true. So most people like to gloss over those facts and lean towards a deeper more intuitive connection with a person like a soulmate. Okay it might be a load of crock but as delusions go it is quite nice and I'm happy to delude myself on the grounds that I am a soppy sod. Which is probably why I keep chasing the drama for this fairytale relationship that has been drummed into my head ever since I was little. Bed time stories of princesses and princes, ken and barbie, disney films, so many happily ever afters. Films, books, poetry, tv ect, offer these fantasy ideology of love and most of us like to think this preordained connection is true.

Originally Posted by sarofset

I did actually explain long term feelings. They are simply an addiction, or something close to it.

The reason someone will die for another, due to love is quite simple. It's an evolved behavior. Those with the genes to preform such acts survived better, because one animal would sacrifice itself for its family or family group. This allowed more of the species to survive. It's evolutionary psychology.

You say people wouldn't die over chemicals, but many people each year die because they are on drugs of some kind. PCP makes people think they are invincible, Acid makes people see things, and love makes us feel some connection to another being, which in reality we may have no connection to whatsoever.

Choices, even conscious ones are made by chemicals, neurotransmitters, in your brain. When they are balanced a certain way, someone will gladly die for another, when they are balanced another way, they would throw them to the lions themselves.

I can't convince myself that "dying for a loved one" is an inborn trait. I've taken several psychology classes in my day and have never had it claimed to me that choosing to die is any sort of inborn thing. If instincts exist in humans, which I doubt with reasonable belief, they are there to tell you to live...to survive no matter what you have to do...none are going to tell you to sacrifice yourself. That's a choice.

The thing about saying that PCP and other artificially created chemicals cause people to kill themselves is that, indeed, they do. But they are not natural chemicals in the brain.

I would also say that the chemicals in one's brain that makes one feel lust are not to be confused with love. Oxytocin, seratonin, adrenaline...all of those chemicals are there to tell us to mate, and yes, they make you feel a momentary connection, because that is what they are supposed to do. The purpose of 'feel good' chemicals is to proliferate the species, not to form bonds of love. Lust and love are too easily confused. I'd say that love is a conscious decision, while lust is not.

Chemicals, also, are the basis of our minds. Yes. But if we were to believe that imbalanced chemicals in our brains were the cause of everything we did, then hell...everyone would get away with murder.

I have to agree, how can we be accountable for our actions and decisions if all they are all just chemical reactions? Wouldn't that imply that free will is an illusion? I think there's more to life than just science, which is why I believe in God and other things of a spiritual nature. Science is good but it's not the answer to everything.

Long term love is, and has been recognized as an addiction. The image of someone's face, causes a burst of seratonin in the brain, thus making their presence appealing, and eventually necessary for one's mental health.

People do have instincts, it's a known fact. Humans have inborn fear of insects, arachnids, and reptiles,at well as anything larger then us. We also seek sex, and food constantly. That's the definition of instinct, since no choice is involved, whatsoever.

And the way chemicals like PCP and LSD work in the brain is by attaching to neurotransmitter receivers, and mimicking natural chemicals which are present in your brain. They cause euphoria by mimicking chemicals which signal a seratonin release. People become delusional when they are in love. Some even to the point of being unbalanced. Stalkers in a lot of cases claim to be in love, and that the object of their affection is in love with them. Neither of these things would be true if the kind of love you claim exists, really did.

I know this is a bit late, but I just have to jump in. Sarofset, I apologize if any of this sounds rude, but you'll never get your answer (that is, what love is) if you keep fighting every input using science. Love can not be explained by scientific means any more than the soul can. If you boil down "love" to chemical processes, then you don't want the answer to what love is, you want to fight its very existence.

As for my own answer, I compare love to a man's soul. It just is. There's no palpable proof of it, you can't touch it, you don't know exactly what it is, you can't see it, smell it, or even prove its existence; you just have to believe it's there. By your arguments, if love is chemical, so is every aspect of the human (ergo, we don't have a soul), and I don't buy that for an instant.

And why not?

Why does life, love or anything else we experience, being a chemical reaction make it any less amazing? Fire is a chemical reaction. Stars themselves are just giant nuclear fusion explosions in space. Light is tiny particles called photons, moving in waves, and streams through space without any mass.

Your body exists because you chemically break food down into sugar, and then base energy. Why does science explaining a thing make it so much less to you?

Originally Posted by sarofset

And why not?

Why does life, love or anything else we experience, being a chemical reaction make it any less amazing?

For one such an approach is heavily guilty of reductionism. You are taking phenomena which is culturally defined, removing it from it's appropriate context and stripping it of it's meaning. The other problem is you presented a biological determinist understanding which oddly presupposes that people exist within social vacuums. Although perhaps it is just me, but I was under the impression that we are the results of dialectal relations between our social, cultural, biological and ecological forces.


As it is relevant to the angle you have been taking, here are two blog entries addressing hormonal determinism.

Part One

Part Two

To put it simply, I agree with the guy commenting on the blogs. They are rather meaningless, when examined.

And biologically speaking culture matters little. You are bringing up the nature versus nurture debate in order to change the subject.

How's this. For the most part until recently love was something people created after engaging in relationships. Modern romantic love hasn't existed in any culture until a few centuries ago.

Also the type of psychology you're citing is a pseudoscience. It's based on bad experiments, and conjecture.

Originally Posted by sarofset

Why does science explaining a thing make it so much less to you?

It doesn't. It makes it less to you. That was my whole point.

It's not less to me. I'm trying to understand it through you guys's eyes.

To me such a thing is beautiful. The fact that an outside stimulus could cause such intense feelings, without intention is incredible. To me it's proof of God to be honest.

I asked questions I've been asked by people, because I wanted to see others' answers. I'm curious.

Seeing the world through scientific eyes just shows me the grandeur of everything around me. I know that the earth beneath my feet is flowing like water toward lower ground. I know that snow was once water, which slowed down so much is formed crystals in mid air. I know just how complex and intricate the human body is on a chemical level, and how fragile. All of those things are freaking amazing, and I don't understand why understanding how they work takes away the majesty of them. They're not magic tricks.