# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Does love exist?

## cl154576

What exactly is love, and does it exist?

----------


## JuniperWoolf

You'll get cynical psychology/neurology/philosophy students saying that it doesn't, but I think it does. The answer to that question is subjective, because you can never know what other people are feeling or thinking so if you yourself have never experienced romantic love you can't prove it's existance (I don't hear many people arguing against the existance of, for example, parental love because it's almost universal).

----------


## G L Wilson

I think that we can know love.

----------


## cl154576

> I don't hear many people arguing against the existance of, for example, parental love because it's almost universal.


My parents never loved me. At most they felt responsible for me, and maybe when I was little they thought I was "cute."
Do other parents love? Or do they all just use the word "love" because they feel like they should? I know what affection, respect, admiration, and so on, are, but what is love?

"Respect was invented to cover the empty place where love should be" (Anna Karenina) ...

----------


## G L Wilson

"To love is to suffer."

----------


## cl154576

I suffer, but I don't love. Sometimes I wonder if love was another falsehood the idealists invented. It is a tempting thing to believe in.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I suffer, but I don't love. Sometimes I wonder if love was another falsehood the idealists invented. It is a tempting thing to believe in.


You mean that you never loved your parents?

----------


## cl154576

When I was too little and vulnerable to take care of myself I trusted them. I imagine all babies need someone to trust, whether or not they really love that person.

----------


## G L Wilson

> When I was too little and vulnerable to take care of myself I trusted them. I imagine all babies need someone to trust, whether or not they really love that person.


Trust is nine-tenths from love, the other tenth from honesty.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

Love is something that you do.

----------


## S.Daedalus

whether it exists or not is entirely up to you my friend

----------


## Buh4Bee

One sign of love is when you are very angry at someone and willing to put your anger aside and compromise, meet them half way, or whatever, to move on from the conflict. It's like a natural process that occurs because there is love present and its reciprocated. It's a very frustrating process, but you do this because you want to be with the one you love.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

Well, since the answer _is_ subjective all we can do is speak for ourselves. For my part, if you're curious, I feel certain that I love my mother and father. For me, subjectively, love exists. Of course, if you've decided that love doesn't exist you might chalk my conviction up to self-deluding guilt. That's what's meant by "subjective," and that's why this question is impossible to answer.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Love is something that you do.


It can't be helped.

----------


## The Atheist

> What exactly is love, and does it exist?


Like all human constructs, it certainly exists. Most people just mistake lust for love.

----------


## Panglossian

Maybe love is what's _there_ when everything superficial has been stripped away.

----------


## Buh4Bee

I'm not so sure if it is subjective, if it is the type of love that is shared between two people or a family.

----------


## Alexander III

I will say insouciantly that people who have fallen in love know what it is and that it exists and that people who have not fallen in love are the people who don't believe that love exists. Of course people who have known love can try and explain it to those who have not, but it will never be explainable, much like an individuals relationship with the stars - and the people who don't believe it exists can only ever find out that it exists by falling in love - there is no other way.

----------


## Ecurb

> I will say insouciantly that people who have fallen in love know what it is and that it exists and that people who have not fallen in love are the people who don't believe that love exists. Of course people who have known love can try and explain it to those who have not, but it will never be explainable, much like an individuals relationship with the stars - and the people who don't believe it exists can only ever find out that it exists by falling in love - there is no other way.


Of course "eros" is only one kind of love. The Greeks (and C.S. Lewis) also identified storge, philia, and agape (loosely translated as friendship, family love, and charity). 

I think most of those of us who are parents would agree that philia is at least as powerful as eros. Read Alexander Hemon's recent New Yorker story about his daughter who died, for example.

----------


## caddy_caddy

I think the word love is so vague and general. In Arabic language we have more than 20 words to describe love according to its level and symptoms.
Here's a very special book written 1000 years ago on love . The translator says it's on Arab love! So if u think love is love since the dawn of history u can have a look at it. 
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hazm/dove/ringdove.html

----------


## Alexander III

> Of course "eros" is only one kind of love. The Greeks (and C.S. Lewis) also identified storge, philia, and agape (loosely translated as friendship, family love, and charity). 
> 
> I think most of those of us who are parents would agree that philia is at least as powerful as eros. Read Alexander Hemon's recent New Yorker story about his daughter who died, for example.


Right you are, as a son, I would also say that Philia is the strongest, but the Philia is very different to Eros - if anything Eros is like burning Magnesioum and Philia is burning coal.

----------


## G L Wilson

Love is love, lust is another thing.

----------


## cl154576

What if the universe was created by a God who hated? Although I do not believe in any sort of Creator.

----------


## G L Wilson

> What if the universe was created by a God who hated? Although I do not believe in any sort of Creator.


He can't have hated to create the Universe.

----------


## Delta40

> Of course "eros" is only one kind of love. The Greeks (and C.S. Lewis) also identified storge, philia, and agape (loosely translated as friendship, family love, and charity). 
> 
> I think most of those of us who are parents would agree that philia is at least as powerful as eros. Read Alexander Hemon's recent New Yorker story about his daughter who died, for example.


I know the power of philia! The strongest of forces!

----------


## G L Wilson

> I know the power of philia! The strongest of forces!


Mateship is a kind of love.

----------


## Delta40

> Mateship is a kind of love.


The 'good on ya mate' type? Cameraderie definitely contains an element of affection.

----------


## G L Wilson

> The 'good on ya mate' type? Cameraderie definitely contains an element of affection.


I was thinking more about mateship in war.

----------


## cl154576

> He can't have hated to create the Universe.


No, there could be some perverted God who created the Universe to better inflict pain. Happiness also proceeds from that naturally, since someone who has nothing to compare pain to cannot identify pain as pain.

----------


## G L Wilson

> No, there could be some perverted God who created the Universe to better inflict pain. Happiness also proceeds from that naturally, since someone who has nothing to compare pain to cannot identify pain as pain.


Where is the pleasure in pain without joy?

----------


## Arrowni

Love is animal. Some animals are wired to love as others are wired to float in the sea.

----------


## The Atheist

> Love is animal. Some animals are wired to love as others are wired to float in the sea.


Beautifully put.

----------


## Ecurb

> Love is animal. Some animals are wired to love as others are wired to float in the sea.


I disagree. Love is human. In other words, it's culturally constituted rather than hard-wired. That's why notions of romanitc love, familial love and charity vary from culture to culture. Since this is a literary board, it should be obvious that our notions of romance are influenced by literary archetypes, poetic and mythic traditions, and culturally constituted goals and ambitions. 

This is not to say, of course, that there is not a biological component to love. Obviously, all mammals have sexual urges, and all female mammals must take care of their babies in order to reproduce (in general). Nonetheless, like many othe reductionist explanations for complex, culturally constituted behaviors, the idea that love is "hard-wired" is insufficient to explain the richness and diversity of our beliefs and traditions.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I disagree. Love is human. In other words, it's culturally constituted rather than hard-wired. That's why notions of romanitc love, familial love and charity vary from culture to culture. Since this is a literary board, it should be obvious that our notions of romance are influenced by literary archetypes, poetic and mythic traditions, and culturally constituted goals and ambitions. 
> 
> This is not to say, of course, that there is not a biological component to love. Obviously, all mammals have sexual urges, and all female mammals must take care of their babies in order to reproduce (in general). Nonetheless, like many othe reductionist explanations for complex, culturally constituted behaviors, the idea that love is "hard-wired" is insufficient to explain the richness and diversity of our beliefs and traditions.


The love of freedom is certainly animal.

----------


## The Atheist

> I disagree. Love is human. In other words, it's culturally constituted rather than hard-wired.


Except that without the biological imprinting of behaviours which allow the construct of "love" to flourish, it wouldn't exist.

Unless you're saying that love is not material in origin. 

Have you watched many mammals with their babies?

----------


## G L Wilson

> Except that without the biological imprinting of behaviours which allow the construct of "love" to flourish, it wouldn't exist.
> 
> Unless you're saying that love is not material in origin. 
> 
> Have you watched many mammals with their babies?


The chemistry of love is fascinating. But it is not everything in mammals.

----------


## The Atheist

> The chemistry of love is fascinating.


It is indeed.




> But it is not everything in mammals.


Correct. I never suggested otherwise.

----------


## Ecurb

> Except that without the biological imprinting of behaviours which allow the construct of "love" to flourish, it wouldn't exist.
> 
> Unless you're saying that love is not material in origin. 
> 
> Have you watched many mammals with their babies?


I specifically mentioned mammalian behavior. No doubt we can "explain" love in biological, reductionist terms. However, such an "explanation" is trivial and superficial. The romantic ideals of one culture differ from those of another. Those of one person differ from those of another. Can we reduce the stories of Romeo and Juliet, or Lancelot and Gueneviere to some biological "explanation" of love? Can we determine why some cultures have arranged marriages, and others have marriages based on a romantic ideal? 

Obviously, without "biological imprinting" none of us would be alive to feel love, hate, or anything else. So what? The question is: which theories of love have depth and profundity in terms of explanatory value? Isn't the human approach to love sometimes different from that of dogs, or pigs, or rats? Aren't love poems and love songs only possible given culture (i.e. language)? Don't they influence how individuals see love, and the hopes they invest in it?

Reductionist explanations of complicated, culturally constituted human behaviors and experiences are not necessarily "wrong". Instead, they tend to by trivial. Anna Karennina had a biologically determined sex drive -- much like other women -- but that offers no explanation of why she had her affair with Vronsky and Kitty did not; of what hopes and dreams she invested in her affair; etc., etc.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I specifically mentioned mammalian behavior. No doubt we can "explain" love in biological, reductionist terms. However, such an "explanation" is trivial and superficial. The romantic ideals of one culture differ from those of another. Those of one person differ from those of another. Can we reduce the stories of Romeo and Juliet, or Lancelot and Gueneviere to some biological "explanation" of love? Can we determine why some cultures have arranged marriages, and others have marriages based on a romantic ideal? 
> 
> Obviously, without "biological imprinting" none of us would be alive to feel love, hate, or anything else. So what? The question is: which theories of love have depth and profundity in terms of explanatory value? Isn't the human approach to love sometimes different from that of dogs, or pigs, or rats? Aren't love poems and love songs only possible given culture (i.e. language)? Don't they influence how individuals see love, and the hopes they invest in it?
> 
> Reductionist explanations of complicated, culturally constituted human behaviors and experiences are not necessarily "wrong". Instead, they tend to by trivial. Anna Karennina had a biologically determined sex drive -- much like other women -- but that offers no explanation of why she had her affair with Vronsky and Kitty did not; of what hopes and dreams she invested in her affair; etc., etc.


Anna Karennina was a slut, that explains everything. Love in books is as longlasting as their paper.

----------


## The Atheist

> However, such an "explanation" is trivial and superficial....
> 
> 
> Obviously, without "biological imprinting" none of us would be alive to feel love, hate, or anything else.


You say "trivial and superficial", but admit that without the genetic imperative it wouldn't exist.

That makes no sense to me - it's like saying that the supports of the Golden Gate Bridge are trivial. Aesthetically, they certainly are, but without 'em, it'd be rubble in the bay.

----------


## Ecurb

> Anna Karennina was a slut, that explains everything. Love in books is as longlasting as their paper.


Anna certainly wasn't as promiscuous sexually as you are in terms of posting on Literature Forum.

----------


## G L Wilson

> You say "trivial and superficial", but admit that without the genetic imperative it wouldn't exist.
> 
> That makes no sense to me - it's like saying that the supports of the Golden Gate Bridge are trivial. Aesthetically, they certainly are, but without 'em, it'd be rubble in the bay.


I give more to nurture than nature; what is taken from one strengthens the other.

----------


## Ecurb

> You say "trivial and superficial", but admit that without the genetic imperative it wouldn't exist.
> 
> That makes no sense to me - it's like saying that the supports of the Golden Gate Bridge are trivial. Aesthetically, they certainly are, but without 'em, it'd be rubble in the bay.


In science, a theory is non-trivial if it has significant explanatory or predictive powers. Reductionist, biological theories about love can only predict what is already obvious. That's why they are "trivial". They can predict that Romeo will be attracted to a woman -- but not why he becomes infatuated with Juliet.

Love is culturally constituted (largely, at least). To "explain" it biologically is like explaining language biologically. It is certainly true that humans have a biological capacity for and tendency toward the development of language -- but if we want to learn about writing, we don't study the biological capacity, we study grammar, and vocabulary, and story construction. Just as the Golden Gate Bridge couldn't exist without its supports, language couldn't exist without our innate biological capacities. Nonetheless, in order to differentiate between French, Arabic and English we must move on from biology, which can only explain things in very general terms, and study language as a cultural artifact rather than a biological one.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Love is human.


You've obviously never had a dog.

----------


## G L Wilson

> In science, a theory is non-trivial if it has significant explanatory or predictive powers. Reductionist, biological theories about love can only predict what is already obvious. That's why they are "trivial". They can predict that Romeo will be attracted to a woman -- but not why he becomes infatuated with Juliet.
> 
> Love is culturally constituted (largely, at least). To "explain" it biologically is like explaining language biologically. It is certainly true that humans have a biological capacity for and tendency toward the development of language -- but if we want to learn about writing, we don't study the biological capacity, we study grammar, and vocabulary, and story construction. Just as the Golden Gate Bridge couldn't exist without its supports, language couldn't exist without our innate biological capacities. Nonetheless, in order to differentiate between French, Arabic and English we must move on from biology, which can only explain things in very general terms, and study language as a cultural artifact rather than a biological one.


Quite right.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

There is love in life, and also great sorrow and failure. Inevitably there is loss of life. Therefore, life is forever unkind. If there is a god, he must hate, to have us feel love and then die, or watch our loved ones die. So love exists, but is it important? It may sustain us through our short lives, but why should we be sustained?

----------


## Alexander III

> There is love in life, and also great sorrow and failure. Inevitably there is loss of life. Therefore, life is forever unkind. If there is a god, he must hate, to have us feel love and then die, or watch our loved ones die. So love exists, but is it important? It may sustain us through our short lives, but why should we be sustained?


But then again without death how could we ever love as we do - we only feel such a strong sense of love because there is the inevitability of death. A mother knows that she will die leaving her son alone, and that fuels the love. Much like a man whose wife dies, his love for her is so strong only because of death. If there was no suffering there could be no pleasure or joy, if there was no pain existence would be an endless stretch of ennui, like an endless poppy dream.

If there is a god (which I don't believe there is) and he gave us a life without suffering and pain and sorrow and death - he would have been the crulest of gods. There is no crueler sensation than constant happiness and knowing that you have everything you could want in life...

----------


## Red-Headed

> If there is a god, he must hate, to have us feel love and then die, or watch our loved ones die.


If there is a god, this is exactly what makes us superior to god; because we can feel love.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> But then again without death how could we ever love as we do - we only feel such a strong sense of love because there is the inevitability of death. A mother knows that she will die leaving her son alone, and that fuels the love. Much like a man whose wife dies, his love for her is so strong only because of death. If there was no suffering there could be no pleasure or joy, if there was no pain existence would be an endless stretch of ennui, like an endless poppy dream.
> 
> If there is a god (which I don't believe there is) and he gave us a life without suffering and pain and sorrow and death - he would have been the crulest of gods. There is no crueler sensation than constant happiness and knowing that you have everything you could want in life...


I used to feel as you do, Alexander, and in many ways you are right. I could have done without the phonecalls letting me know people I deeply loved were dead. I was blissfully happy. I could have enjoyed being so forever. It does emphasize the strength of the love, but that strength was there the whole time. In a hug, in a smile. Boredom would have been enough to counterbalance the excitement of love. I don't know why we have to disappear and/or lose ourselves.




> If there is a god, this is exactly what makes us superior to god; because we can feel love.


Thank you, Red. That is perfect.

I've taken this thread off topic. Love is real.

----------


## Red-Headed

> Love is real.


Yes it is.

----------


## RosyRosalind

I believe love is real, as well. I will admit, it is difficult to describe something so abstract as "love". But, since we ARE discussing this on Online Literature, my main argument to the fact that it exists is based on literature; that the idea of "love" is expressed in numerous poems, novels, religious texts, and plays. People have been trying to truly define what "love" is for centuries. Love for family, love for another man or woman, love for a child, love for a stranger....

But the main reason I BELIEVE in love is a perfectly personal one. For me to live without love would be no life at all. To live is to love, and to live is to lose. There is no perfect world, but would I be happy in one? Would I know joy without sadness? Would I know light without darkness? Would I know LOVE without indifference? (For, in my opinion, the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.) 

Argue all you like (For what else are these forums for?), but... I like to think it exists. To imagine that love isn't real and that it cannot exist is too hopeless for me. I like to think better of the world. Perhaps it's selfish. But I'd rather see the world as not a place of perfection (for that isn't possible), but a place where love can exist. You can accept or reject that love, seek it or hide from it, and sometimes, it is taken away from you. But that doesn't mean it's not real.

----------


## cl154576

> I like to think it exists. To imagine that love isn't real and that it cannot exist is too hopeless for me. I like to think better of the world. Perhaps it's selfish. But I'd rather see the world as not a place of perfection (for that isn't possible), but a place where love can exist. You can accept or reject that love, seek it or hide from it, and sometimes, it is taken away from you. But that doesn't mean it's not real.


I used to feel that way. I think I don't want to believe in love anymore partially as a defense mechanism. In some twisted and selfish way, if I allow myself to believe in love then I am unable to justify the deep loneliness, worthlessness, and emptiness I've felt all my life, and once more I will feel obligated to destroy myself.

----------


## The Atheist

> I give more to nurture than nature; what is taken from one strengthens the other.


It's unquestionably both, but I still think all humankind is a lot more DNA than culture.




> In science, a theory is non-trivial if it has significant explanatory or predictive powers. Reductionist, biological theories about love can only predict what is already obvious. That's why they are "trivial". They can predict that Romeo will be attracted to a woman -- but not why he becomes infatuated with Juliet.


I have to hand it to you, mentioning science, then posting something utterly unscientific. I really do suggest you stop trying to combine science with your philosophy, because it just ain't working.


We can entirely predict what attracts Romeo to Juliet & vice-versa. It is extraordinarily well know that even in culturally-altered 2011, people are still largely attracted to phenotype above all. How on earth do you think the idea of "love at first sight" persists?

Please; try to at least embrace realism a little when posting.




> Love is culturally constituted (largely, at least).


I will just state again that you really do need to watch some mammalian interaction. Avian, even.




> To "explain" it biologically is like explaining language biologically.


Maybe understanding is more to do with whether you've researched the subject properly and are able to have a grasp of the complexities involved. Nobody's suggesting it's an easy subject, since it's entirely subjective, but it's remarkably obvious what love really is. Why do you think a human heartbeat starts racing at that love at first sight business?




> ....For me to live without love would be no life at all....


And this is a classic example of why over-endowing love as a cultural construct can be bad.




> In some twisted and selfish way, if I allow myself to believe in love then I am unable to justify the deep loneliness, worthlessness, and emptiness I've felt all my life, and once more I will feel obligated to destroy myself.


Can I mention here that "love" - or the losing of it - caused a 21-year old friend of my son's to kill himself yesterday? No, I am not kidding. 

I wish most people would realise that this love business is not the beginning and end of life. If it were such a wondrous, everlasting thing, why do so many couples get divorced? As often happens, an old tale often tells it best - how love fades, which pretty much shows that it's just lust dressed up in a Santa suit.

For the first year of your marriage, put a pea in a jar every time you have sex.

For the rest of your marriage, take one out every time you have sex.

The jar never empties.

I know people who live alone and have highly fulfilled lives. Love is not alpha and omega any more than there is a dead Jew's ghost in the sky watching sparrows.

----------


## cl154576

> I know people who live alone and have highly fulfilled lives. Love is not alpha and omega any more than there is a dead Jew's ghost in the sky watching sparrows.


I don't believe it is. I put more value in self-acceptance, of which I am equally lacking and skeptical.

I think in order to have a highly fulfilled life, at the least one must love oneself.

----------


## PoeticPassions

Love is alive and well. 

But only tragic, unfulfilled love (in the romantic sense) is everlasting or eternal.

----------


## Red-Headed

> It's unquestionably both, but I still think all humankind is a lot more DNA than culture.


It could be argued that 'race' is cultural, at least a cultural construct. Obviously there is some biological determinism, but human beings are so similar genetically most ''racial' definitions & perceptions are actually based on culture rather than biology.




> We can entirely predict what attracts Romeo to Juliet & vice-versa. It is extraordinarily well know that even in culturally-altered 2011, people are still largely attracted to phenotype above all.


Surely you jest? After all, behaviour can be viewed as belonging to the concept of phenotype, & much behaviour can be a social construct.




> but it's remarkably obvious what love really is. Why do you think a human heartbeat starts racing at that love at first sight business?


I think that there is a huge distinction between 'love' & physical attraction. There is certainly _attraction_ at first sight, love, often has nothing to do with it.





> I wish most people would realise that this love business is not the beginning and end of life. If it were such a wondrous, everlasting thing, why do so many couples get divorced? As often happens, an old tale often tells it best - how love fades, which pretty much shows that it's just lust dressed up in a Santa suit.


It depends on what you mean by 'love' I suppose. I don't think dressing up as Santa can help LOL. 




> Love is not alpha and omega any more than there is a dead Jew's ghost in the sky watching sparrows.


What's happened to all of the sparrows anyway?

----------


## Ecurb

> We can entirely predict what attracts Romeo to Juliet & vice-versa. It is extraordinarily well know that even in culturally-altered 2011, people are still largely attracted to phenotype above all....
> 
> .


Thanks for making my point for me. I said that reductionist explanations of love are simplistic (even simple-minded). And now you offer simplistic (even simple-minded) explanations in rebuttal. Doubtless The Atheist falls in love based on phenotype, but most of us do not. Culturally constructed archetypes and ideals affect how most of us see others. 




> If it (love) were such a wondrous, everlasting thing, why do so many couples get divorced?


And yet divorce rates vary from culture to culture and century to century. Which theory of love is more consistant with this fact? The biological theory? Or the cultural one? Perhaps, however, we should not let facts stand in the way of our preconceived notions. The Atheist ignored my comparison of love with language. Maybe he thinks that knowing how to speak French is embedded in our DNA, just like falling in love is.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

A better topic title would probably have been "Does unconditional love exist?". 

To me, the answer is no.

----------


## cl154576

> A better topic title would probably have been "Does unconditional love exist?". 
> 
> To me, the answer is no.


Thank you.
But to me, unconditional love alone is true love.




> And yet divorce rates vary from culture to culture and century to century. Which theory of love is more consistant with this fact? The biological theory? Or the cultural one? Perhaps, however, we should not let facts stand in the way of our preconceived notions. The Atheist ignored my comparison of love with language. Maybe he thinks that knowing how to speak French is embedded in our DNA, just like falling in love is.


I agree ... Although societies where arranged marriages have dominated for centuries can't extinguish emotion, it can suppress emotion and make it less identifiable.

As for the whole mammal-with-babies discussion, I would say animals have cultures and influences of their own. Many animals move in groups that are their own "societies."

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> For the first year of your marriage, put a pea in a jar every time you have sex.
> 
> For the rest of your marriage, take one out every time you have sex.
> 
> The jar never empties.


Haha. That's not true. I agree with the other stuff you said, to an extent, but most people marry people they don't have enough in common with. I don't know what the general problem is for couples and sex. There are couples who have sex all the time, from young age to old age.

----------


## Delta40

> For the first year of your marriage, put a pea in a jar every time you have sex.
> 
> For the rest of your marriage, take one out every time you have sex.
> 
> The jar never empties.


Ha Ha That's a beauty! Does the same principle apply to masturbation?

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> Thank you.
> But to me, unconditional love alone is true love.


Do you know an example of an unconditional love? Because I sure don't.




> I disagree. Love is human. In other words, it's culturally constituted rather than hard-wired. That's why notions of romanitc love, familial love and charity vary from culture to culture. Since this is a literary board, it should be obvious that our notions of romance are influenced by literary archetypes, poetic and mythic traditions, and culturally constituted goals and ambitions. 
> 
> This is not to say, of course, that there is not a biological component to love. Obviously, all mammals have sexual urges, and all female mammals must take care of their babies in order to reproduce (in general). Nonetheless, like many othe reductionist explanations for complex, culturally constituted behaviors, the idea that love is "hard-wired" is insufficient to explain the richness and diversity of our beliefs and traditions.


Culture is by definition "everything that human beings do". And why do we human beings do what we do? To survive and to prosper - and to pass on our genes, as Dawkins keeps telling us.

Therefore, the idea that love is a product of culture and that this realization makes it's functionality somehow different from that of a "hard-wired" instinct, is a flawed one. The fact that different cultures have different customs for expressing love doesn't affect the core purpose behind those customs - to create security, stability and generally a better chance for survival.

----------


## cl154576

> Do you know an example of an unconditional love? Because I sure don't.


It's the thing that exists in unrealistic books.

----------


## Arrowni

> Do you know an example of an unconditional love? Because I sure don't.


Domestic dogs when they get new owners.




> Love is human.


When you say, love is human, I hear "love is animal"; when you say its a cultural construct, I say animals have cultural constructs. I understand the ambition not to transform the thing we call love in something that's purely instinct, this in not the goal of my argument; my choice to make love animal is not to make animals incapable of love, because _that_ would be false and reductionist. I've read enough arguments about things that are reserved to humans to soberly disagree with most of them. The reason we feel love is a animal reason, it cannot be reduced to argumentative and communicative factors, it has to include the body.

This all comes down to the fact that love exists without humans. So answering love exists must forcibly pass through all nature and not just cultural references. Now if you define love as something exclusively human -and you're not unlike the many authors I've come to dislike for such racial obsession with their own body (or the lack of it)-, then we are simply coming from different definitions of love. And you cannot engage a competent discussion if we're all nitpicking definitions.

----------


## Ecurb

> Culture is by definition "everything that human beings do". And why do we human beings do what we do? To survive and to prosper - and to pass on our genes, as Dawkins keeps telling us.
> 
> Therefore, the idea that love is a product of culture and that this realization makes it's functionality somehow different from that of a "hard-wired" instinct, is a flawed one. The fact that different cultures have different customs for expressing love doesn't affect the core purpose behind those customs - to create security, stability and generally a better chance for survival.


Culture is not "everything humans do." In anthropology, one standard definition would be: "The system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviours, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning." Notice the mode of transmission.

In addition, I never said that there is no biological "core purpose" to love -- instead, I said that theories of love based on the "core purpose" lack explanatory value, predictive value, depth and subtlety. The "core purpose" of love explains some things - but can (for example) the great love poetry be "reduced" to this core purpose? Of course not.

In addition, the notion that we can explain "why humans do what we do" by theorizing about how it helps "pass on our genes" is ridiculous. Dawkins' theories in this regard are naive and simplistic (although, of course, he is right that the gene, not the individual, is the significant unit to look at in evolution).

Humans have complex motives for many behaviors, very few of which involve thinking, "Will this help me pass on my genes?" Anna Karennina can hardly have felt that suicide would help pass on her genes more effectively, nor did it. 

Finally, Dawkins (and a great many othe naive evolutionary theorists) practice circular reasoning. If a trait (genetic or cultural) exists (they theorize) it must have developed by helping people improve their descendent-leaving success. But this is ridiculous. Plenty of traits exist that are neutral, or that actually inhibit descendent-leaving success. Species (and individual bloodlines) go extinct. Do our Western notions of romantic love improve our genetic "success"? Not as well as notions of love in the Third World, if we can believe population growth statistics. 

Finally, love (or at least marriage) has been studied by anthropologists ad nauseum. Marriage rules differ dramatically from culture to culture: some societies practice monogamy, some polygamy, some serial monogamy (like ours). Why all these differences, if love can be "explained" by the same biological model for all humans? Why does one man fall in love with a particular woman, and another with a different woman? Why is love like a red, red rose? When simplistic genetic explanations can answer these questions, they may begin to have explanatory value. Until then, I prefer a less reductionist approach.




> When you say, love is human, I hear "love is animal"; when you say its a cultural construct, I say animals have cultural constructs. I understand the ambition not to transform the thing we call love in something that's purely instinct, this in not the goal of my argument; my choice to make love animal is not to make animals incapable of love, because _that_ would be false and reductionist. I've read enough arguments about things that are reserved to humans to soberly disagree with most of them. The reason we feel love is a animal reason, it cannot be reduced to argumentative and communicative factors, it has to include the body.
> 
> This all comes down to the fact that love exists without humans. So answering love exists must forcibly pass through all nature and not just cultural references. Now if you define love as something exclusively human -and you're not unlike the many authors I've come to dislike for such racial obsession with their own body (or the lack of it)-, then we are simply coming from different definitions of love. And you cannot engage a competent discussion if we're all nitpicking definitions.


I'll grant that animals love. So what? That doesn't negate (as I wrote in the last post) that a sophisitcated understanding of human love must look at how it has been influenced by art, literature, religion, cultural customs, etc., etc. If we want to understand human motivations in general, we must understand culture -- and understanding love (despite its association with sex) is no different. Man makes himself -- not merely genetically, but culturally. If we had no languages, we would not even think like we do now. We would be very different creatures.

----------


## The Atheist

> Haha. That's not true. I agree with the other stuff you said, to an extent, but most people marry people they don't have enough in common with. I don't know what the general problem is for couples and sex. There are couples who have sex all the time, from young age to old age.


It isn't always true, and I do speak from personal experience!

But more times than not, it is.




> Ha Ha That's a beauty! Does the same principle apply to masturbation?


I think that's the other way round.

 :Biggrin:

----------


## Arrowni

> I'll grant that animals love. So what? That doesn't negate (as I wrote in the last post) that a sophisitcated understanding of human love must look at how it has been influenced by art, literature, religion, cultural customs, etc., etc. If we want to understand human motivations in general, we must understand culture -- and understanding love (despite its association with sex) is no different. Man makes himself -- not merely genetically, but culturally. If we had no languages, we would not even think like we do now. We would be very different creatures.


We're not in disagreement. I mentioned the animals because it answers the first question of the thread: Love exists. A savage man surely feels affection without needing our complex languages and abstractions.

The question in this thread may as well be: Can we love? But we often work with many humanist assumptions which center each question in a certain culture, time etc. etc. I did all this clarifying to imply that we're obviously, capable of love. As much love as any beast is capable of feeling. Whether love is affected and distilled by the many features you have -correctly- listed, it's an interesting subject of discussion.

I'd argue that it isn't about language and culture as much as about traumas and insensibility, the main things hindering our ability to love.

----------


## cl154576

> I'd argue that it isn't about language and culture as much as about traumas and insensibility, the main things hindering our ability to love.


Traumas also give us greater capacity for love.

----------


## G L Wilson

Love is a battlefield, friends.

----------


## Drkshadow03

Love is when you want to be with the person even when you aren't going to get laid.

----------


## Buh4Bee

:FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol: 

who knew you had such a sense of humor?

----------


## Freudian Monkey

> Culture is not "everything humans do." In anthropology, one standard definition would be: "The system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviours, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning." Notice the mode of transmission.


"What is Culture?

The word culture has many different meanings. For some it refers to an appreciation of good literature, music, art, and food. For a biologist, it is likely to be a colony of bacteria or other microorganisms growing in a nutrient medium in a laboratory Petri dish. However, for anthropologists and other behavioral scientists, culture is the full range of learned human *behavior patterns*. [In other words, "what people do".] The term was first used in this way by the pioneer English Anthropologist Edward B. Tylor in his book, Primitive Culture, published in 1871. "

In the twentieth century, "culture" emerged as a concept central to anthropology, encompassing all human phenomena that are not purely results of human genetics. Specifically, the term "culture" in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively.



The term culture has literally hundreds of definitions and no one can say which one is the best or the most accurate one. However there's one common element to all the definitions of culture: every single on of them stresses that culture is something that human beings produce through their actions. Another thing to keep in mind is that we all are in a way products and slaves of our own culture(s) and language, and most of the time we act according to the way our culture(s) has taught us to act through socialization.

I don't necessarily agree with your most respective definition because, although culture can be something that is transmitted between people and through generations, culture cannot be reduced to just something as simple as what your definition suggested. People cannot think without culture (Lacan). People cannot speak without culture (Saussure, Locke, or if you prefer, Lacan). Culture(s) and language define our actions in a way nothing else does. So, in heideggerian sense (dasein), we ourselves ARE culture; our entire being IS culture. Therefore to say, that culture is limited to our actions that transmit behavior patterns to the next generation, is not adequate. I will have to stick with my earlier definition; there is no being without culture and everything that we do is culture.

When we inspect any cultural phenomena, we cannot really see all the cultural evolution that have lead to a particular phenomenon. Many of them might appear neutral or even harmful to the concept of gene transference. For instance, totemism can be seen as a rather harmful social system in tribal societies because it often contained a code of restrictions for hunting a totem animal, which could have otherwise been used as a food source. On the other hand, these restrictions helped the society to achieve a more coherent tribal identity. The same can be said about human sacrifices. So in many cases there seems to be a conflict between needs in a cultural structure. Why then species go extinct? Because other species adapt better than they do.

It seems only logical that people always act to satisfy a certain need, or a variety of needs - I don't see any reason why for instance love poetry would be an exception. According to psychologists like Abraham Maslow, human beings always act to deal with their most pressing and urgent needs; some argue against the structure Marlow's hierarchy of needs but almost all scholars approve that such hierarchy does exist. The need to construct a certain kind of poem might not be on the very top of Marlow's hierarchy but most likely there is a need or a set of needs that leads a person to write one. What might these needs be, I wonder?

Again, the complex mosaic of cultures does not hint in any way that love should be a phenomenon that would be something other than a primal instinct. In different areas people have adapted different methods to deal with their needs. Mythologies and primitive societies concepts of magic are prime examples of this. For instance, most every mythological system in history has had some kind of a story about both the beginning and the end of existence (or a time period, as in primitive societies time was not a linear but a circular concept). People have need to make sense of the world that surrounds them; mythological figures like gods, spirits, demons and such exist as tools for this sense-making. The concept of magic, on the other hand, was probably constructed to meet with people's egoistic urges and to prevent the feeling of helplessness in times of famine and disease (at least according to early anthropologists like James Frazer as well as mythology scholars such as Nothrop Frye and Joseph Campbell). Whether a society adapted monogamy, polygamy and which kind of taboo systems were used to enforce these social agendas can purely vary depending on geological and other environmental factors.




> Why all these differences, if love can be "explained" by the same biological model for all humans? Why does one man fall in love with a particular woman, and another with a different woman?


Why does a male swan fall in love with a particular female and another with a different one? You don't need cultural variation to explain that.

I apologize that I didn't post this reply earlier  I had other matters that kept me busy.

----------


## Ecurb

As you (and I) point out, culture refers to LEARNED behavior patterns (which, based on standard definitions, differ from "instintual" behavior. I disagree with almost everything else you've written, too, Mr. Monkey. Here are some examples:




> It seems only logical that people always act to satisfy a certain need, or a variety of needs


Why does this "seem logical"? It is only logical if we define "needs" as "anything that drives people to do what they do." In that case, however, the entire theory is circular and lacks all explanatory value. In fact, people routinely give up things they would appear to "need" (scarce resources for example). Not only people, but all mammals give up things they "need" (at least all female mammals who reproduce). 

People can "think" without culture -- but their thinking (lacking language) would probably be very different. 

I'll grant your point about Totemism having some functional value -- but so what? That doesn't invalidate the notion that not all cultural traits are beneficial in evolutionary terms. Why would it? Again, the notion that cultural traits (or genetic traits, for that matter) must be beneficial or they would not exist is fallacious, ex post facto reasoning. Although it is true that evolutionary theory suggests that a (genetic) trait that improves descendant leaving success will tend to spread, we cannot properly infer the reverse -- that a trait that has spread must have improved descendant leaving success. That would be a logical error. If A, then B does NOT imply if B, then A. Humans, for example, have tail bones. This trait has spread, as human population has increased. Can we infer that tail bones are beneficial?

As for your explanations of magic and myth, they are simplistic. Diverse and complex systems of magic are "constructed to meet with people's egoistic urges and to prevent the feeling of helplessness in times of famine and disease"? Huh? How do you know that? You're must making it up. I could equally say, "science is constructed to meet people's egoistic urges and to prevent feelings of helplessness."




> "People have need to make sense of the world that surrounds them; mythological figures like gods, spirits, demons and such exist as tools for this sense-making"?


Again, even if this is true, it lacks any explanatory value. Many different mythologies can "make sense" of the world -- why do some persist, and others vanish away? There are no easy answers to this question -- the environmental and ecological answers you propose are, like many reductionist explanations, unsatisfying and lacking in explanatory or predictive value. I'll grant that scholars like Frazer were brilliant men and seminal thinkers -- but anthropological thinking has moved on since its infancy, and simplistic explanations for magic and mythology are no longer standard. 

As for the male swan, we don't know why he mates for life, or whether he "falls in love" (in the human sense). It's one of the mysteries of nature (although, perhaps, we can guess at "reasons"). We do know, however, that when Leda was raped by Zeus in swan's form, that particular swan had no intention of mating for life. Instead, he planned to engender Helen, and set off a chain of events that "burnt the topless towers of Ilium."

----------


## chipper

it exists. we just aren't capable of giving it. 

love is unconditional and eternal. humans will always have conditions when giving love. since it has conditions, that is not love.

----------


## blazeofglory

Culture is a very intricate topic and all of you are arguing futilely about culture as to what it is and what it is not. It is all what you said and it is more than something your words can contain. Culture is a way of living, and though it is mostly learned it runs through our veins and artilleries. It is saturated with our blood and is the sap of life.

No matter what philosophical inferences you make to it it goes beyond that. Culture is very complex and culture is as complex human evolution. Only thru culture you can study evolution

----------


## G L Wilson

> it exists. we just aren't capable of giving it. 
> 
> love is unconditional and eternal. humans will always have conditions when giving love. since it has conditions, that is not love.


Love is never pure.

----------


## Alexander III

> Love is never pure.


Yes it can be - I hope you and chipper experience unconditional love someday, as it only makes sense when it is felt.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Yes it can be - I hope you and chipper experience unconditional love someday, as it only makes sense when it is felt.


Name one love which is pure?

----------


## Buh4Bee

I'll tell you, one- between a parent and a child- usually. A dog and an owner. A respectful loving relationship, best friends, God and the worshiper.

Unconditional love does exist, people can testify to this idea everyday universally.

----------


## Alexander III

> Name one love which is pure?


Jersea did it for me

----------


## G L Wilson

> I'll tell you, one between a parent and a child- usually. A dog and an owner. A respectful loving relationship, best friends, God and the worshiper.
> 
> Unconditional love does exist, people can testify to this idea everyday universally.


You have just described a series of power relationships. I see nothing unconditional about any of them. As I said, Love is never pure.

----------


## Alexander III

> You have just described a series of power relationships. I see nothing unconditional about any of them. As I said, Love is never pure.


Most likely you don't see why they are unconditional because you have not experienced them, when one experiences unconditional love one knows it.

----------


## Hawkman

I thought the question was, Does love exist? The answer is yes, it does. There are, however, many kinds of love. They all require their own definitions though. If you are thinking specifically of the chemical imbalance and hormonal firestorm which is romantic love, then this too exisits. It just doesn't last. It doesn't even have to be mutual. Just because a power relationship is what it is, it doesn't mean it can't incorporate someone's definition of love. If someone gets off on dominating a relationship, and someone else gets off on being subordinate, or dependent, if it works and they want to call it love, that's up to them. What you see it as is ultimately irrelevent.

----------


## Heteronym

Love exists. I don't think there's anything mysterious about it: it's a useful trait to perserve our species. I'm not just talking about passing on the genes to another generation, as some biological interpretations narrowly define it. Love is also what drives parents to raise and protect their children; it's what leads people to organise themselves in communities; it's what allows people to cooperate and to find solutions together for problems, to defend themselves against enemies, and to overcome hardships. Love is present in all stages of our life, disguised under many masks.

The modern cynicism that doubts the existence of love can't really explain how come we're all here discussing love if it doesn't exist. Without love, our species would be extinct a long time ago.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Most likely you don't see why they are unconditional because you have not experienced them, when one experiences unconditional love one knows it.


Love is never pure. Love is blind. Love is a prickled herring if you want it to be.

----------


## Nightshade

I don't believe love exists in any form. Not the idealised Love we read about and hear about. 
I believe that if you spend enough time with a person are connected to a person enough, like them share experiences etc with theme eventually you both change and that person become apart of who you are. You identify yourself to an extent with how you relate to them. You Love your family because your family is part of you, and you love yourself. 

Then again I may just be describing love and not know it. But all these flowers and sunsets mushy business? Sorry I can't believe that.

----------


## Buh4Bee

Wilson- I'm not sure if you are talking about romantic love or familial love. I think that may help clarify what you are talking about in terms of pure love. I think many people have tried to describe the difference between romantic love and other forms of love. I received unconditional love from my grandfather, but my parents were unable to provide that kind of support role. I am married and have an attachment with both my husband and child. So I can say that for me the unconditional attachment was necessary when I had nothing else to anchor me. I trusted that he would always be there for me, because he always was. I think that searching for the ideal love and finding it is a very rare and difficult thing. I know a married couple that might fit this category you describe. He waited for her for six years and they were virgins. So I believe in unconditional love in a romantic relationship, but I think it happens more often between a parent and child- given the "power" dynamics.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Wilson- I'm not sure if you are talking about romantic love or familial love. I think that may help clarify what you are talking about in terms of pure love. I think many people have tried to describe the difference between romantic love and other forms of love. I received unconditional love from my grandfather, but my parents were unable to provide that kind of support role. I am married and have an attachment with both my husband and child. So I can say that for me the unconditional attachment was necessary when I had nothing else to anchor me. I trusted that he would always be there for me, because he always was. I think that searching for the ideal love and finding it is a very rare and difficult thing. I know a married couple that might fit this category you describe. He waited for her for six years and they were virgins. So I believe in unconditional love in a romantic relationship, but I think it happens more often between a parent and child- given the "power" dynamics.



All forms of love are essentially struggles for love.

To deny that love exists would be foolish. To deny the truth about love would be pathetic.

----------


## Buh4Bee

What truth are you implying?

----------


## G L Wilson

> What truth are you implying?


I have a problem with the reduction of love to mere chemistry. Human beings are complex, they are capable of great love and great hate

----------


## Darcy88

Love exists. Want proof? Go fall in love.

Neuroscientists will reduce it to brain chemistry, to the actions of chemicals like oxytocin. To me that's like reducing a work of art to its physical and chemical composition, calling a painting just an amalgamation of molecules. That's all a painting is, in the scientific sense. But that says nothing of its true reality, of how its experienced, felt - of what it truly is.

----------


## G L Wilson

As the Devil said, Love is like eating large quantities of chocolate.

----------


## Buh4Bee

:Reddevil: 

That makes sense, any good relationship will have a good intellectual life as well as a good sex life, and even better yet, a good spiritual life.

----------


## cl154576

> Love exists. I don't think there's anything mysterious about it: it's a useful trait to perserve our species.


A lot of marriages are made without love, a lot of children are raised out of responsibility and in hate, a lot of communities are built out of convenience, and people defend themselves against enemies due to instincts of self-preservation, not love.




> Love exists. Want proof? Go fall in love.


Does falling in love, then hating yourself for loving, then hating the other person for making you love him/her, then hating yourself for daring to hate him/her, then hating him/her for hurting you, then hating yourself for not enjoying the pain you deserve, then trying to become one person, then trying to cut the other person off to stop the pain, then becoming frustrated and confused, then wanting to kill the other person and yourself all together, count?

----------


## Darcy88

> A lot of marriages are made without love, a lot of children are raised out of responsibility and in hate, a lot of communities are built out of convenience, and people defend themselves against enemies due to instincts of self-preservation, not love.
> 
> 
> 
> Does falling in love, then hating yourself for loving, then hating the other person for making you love him/her, then hating yourself for daring to hate him/her, then hating him/her for hurting you, then hating yourself for not enjoying the pain you deserve, then trying to become one person, then trying to cut the other person off to stop the pain, then becoming frustrated and confused, then wanting to kill the other person and yourself all together, count?


Sounds like love yes. lol.

----------


## The Atheist

> Love exists. Want proof? Go fall in love.


Strange that so many people fall out of love then.

----------


## Buh4Bee

or they thought they were, but really weren't.

----------


## Darcy88

> Strange that so many people fall out of love then.


To fall out of love you first have to fall in love. Love therefore exists.

----------


## cl154576

> To fall out of love you first have to fall in love. Love therefore exists.


Could "falling out of love" be disillusionment?

----------


## G L Wilson

> Could "falling out of love" be disillusionment?


Through a glass darkly, we all move in shadows around and around. Who is to know?

----------


## Darcy88

> Could "falling out of love" be disillusionment?


I don't know. To me for it to be genuine love it can't be illusioned. There's a difference between love and infatuation. When you're infatuated you perceive the person as being perfect, airbrushed in a way. When you're in love you know your beloved's imperfections and love them all the same. I supposed you could be fooled, as so many of us often are. But then you were loving the act, the lie, not the person.

Really I don't know how anyone could deny the reality of love unless that person has been rather extremely deprived. Love for me has always ended in misery and pain, but I still know its feeling, its power, its truth. Its real, oh yeah, its real. For better or for worse.

----------


## G L Wilson

Love is a drug to silly people with empty heads. - I am a fool like them.

----------


## osho

This love stuff is mindboggling. This nauseates us and we will start behaving irrationally and idiotically. Love does exist indeed when it comes to regeneration or else we would not have been here had our ancient parents had never loved.

Nobody wants to live unloved.

That is why love exists here but malignly

----------


## Panglossian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE61Bz7IHKg

----------


## cl154576

> Love does exist indeed when it comes to regeneration or else we would not have been here had our ancient parents had never loved.


What about lust?



> Nobody wants to live unloved.


And nobody gets what they want.
Isn't everyone lonely, on a deeper level? Aren't we all deprived?

----------


## G L Wilson

> What about lust?


Lust is fire, passion; love is cooler.




> And nobody gets what they want.
> Isn't everyone lonely, on a deeper level? Aren't we all deprived?


Sure, but human beings are social animals.

----------


## The Atheist

> To fall out of love you first have to fall in love. Love therefore exists.


Yet almost all people that think they're "falling in love" are just lusting for a genetically-desirable phenotype and don't realise it.

I'm not arguing that love doesn't exist anyway - just that it's a human construct and highly overrated. Most people have no concept of what it actually is. If someone has been partnered to the same person for more than 20 years and can honestly say they're still madly in love with their spouse, I'll accept they know what they're talking about, but less than that, possibly not.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Yet almost all people that think they're "falling in love" are just lusting for a genetically-desirable phenotype and don't realise it.
> 
> I'm not arguing that love doesn't exist anyway - just that it's a human construct and highly overrated. Most people have no concept of what it actually is. If someone has been partnered to the same person for more than 20 years and can honestly say they're still madly in love with their spouse, I'll accept they know what they're talking about, but less than that, possibly not.


The longevity of a relationship is no proof of its authenticity. There is no way of proving love which makes song writers happy and poets miserable.

----------


## osho

> What about lust?
> 
> And nobody gets what they want.
> Isn't everyone lonely, on a deeper level? Aren't we all deprived?


No you are wrong. Everybody is not lonely on a deeper or outer level. Do not judge things by what you experienced or read about. There are other domains of reality you have yet to experience

----------


## G L Wilson

> No you are wrong. Everybody is not lonely on a deeper or outer level. Do not judge things by what you experienced or read about. There are other domains of reality you have yet to experience


Like outer space, man.

----------


## osho

> Like outer space, man.


Down here on this planet you can have love, trust. Every human is capable of loving and hating and it lies in us too ignite the flame in the other. 

Nobody is completely insensitive, though moderately or greatly he or she is but under certain circumstances the flame of love might have been extinguished, and if you have it, the capacity to love you can reignite that spark

----------


## The Atheist

> The longevity of a relationship is no proof of its authenticity.


I beg to differ, but maybe I'm just luckier than most.




> There is no way of proving love which makes song writers happy and poets miserable.


What's to prove? That emotions exist? We know that already; we know where they occur in the brain, what chemicals they release and what actions they produce, such as why your heart beats faster when with the one you lust after.

----------


## osho

> I beg to differ, but maybe I'm just luckier than most.
> 
> 
> 
> What's to prove? That emotions exist? We know that already; we know where they occur in the brain, what chemicals they release and what actions they produce, such as why your heart beats faster when with the one you lust after.


Love is not just the chemical reaction when catalyzed, my friend.

----------


## Arrowni

Random struggles to define love so it doesn't exist are misleading not to say pointless. Love is not just lust, otherwise you cannot love the ugly. If you're just discussing "couple love" then you're probably stretching the concept too thin -which you can do ad infinitum until it ceases to exist-.

Is love overrated? Probably. Is pain underrated? Definitively. The real question is: Can you blame them?

----------


## The Atheist

> Love is not just the chemical reaction when catalyzed, my friend.


I haven't said it is. Most of it is human construct: learned behaviour.

----------


## cyberbob

Love is an evolutionary adaptation.

You love your family because they share your genes and you love your lover because it increases your chances of reproduction.

----------


## OrphanPip

There are parts of our brain involved in forming long lasting attachments to other individuals. We can see this activity in the brain structure of monogamous mole rats. Part of us simply can't help forming emotional dependencies on contact with other human beings, love certainly exist in that sense.

As a social construct, when we seek to say X is love and Y is not love. We are playing a game of social exclusion, trying to legitimize the emotional experiences of others because we disapprove. Who's to say that the loose woman with a different lover every week does not love. And I'm no stranger to the kind of rhetoric used against lesbians and gays to suggest their emotional relationships are less legitimate than heterosexual ones.

----------


## Ecurb

> Love is an evolutionary adaptation.
> 
> You love your family because they share your genes and you love your lover because it increases your chances of reproduction.


Hmmm. Love involving sexual fidelity increases a man's "chances of reproduction". I wouldn't have guessed that, but I'm glad cyberbob has educated me.

Everything is an "evolutionary adaptation", I suppose, but so what? How does that help us understand love? Or is it simply a facile truism that has little or not explanatory value?

----------


## OrphanPip

Monogamy is adaptive to a point, mostly as a way to sequester females from potential mating conflict. In that way, an emotional connection to sexual partners helps drive the prevention of being cuckolded, and also acts as an incentive to stick around and improve one's fitness through improving offspring survival. 

Of course, it's also adaptive to sleep around if you can get away with it and cuckold other males. Conflicting selective pressures are common in evolutionary biology.

----------


## Ecurb

I doubt OrphanPip knows whether monogamy or polygamy is 'adaptive'. That's one (of the many) problems with evolutionary explanations for complex, culutrally constituted behaviors. People simply assume that if a trait exists, it must have adaptive value. This is a logical error. Evolutionary theory states that if a (inheritable) trait has adaptive value, it will tend to spread.

Simple logic tells us that we cannot infer from our acceptance of this postulate that if a trait has spread, it has adaptive value. If A, then B does NOT imply: If B, then A. We're simply guessing as to whether monogamy or polygamy have adaptive value -- I'll grant that it makes sense that they probably do (in particular situations) but to "explain" the traits based on a wild guess seems a little silly, especially when the guess offers no predictive or explanatory value.

----------


## The Atheist

> ... based on a wild guess seems a little silly...


Which "wild guess" are you talking about?

----------


## cyberbob

> I doubt OrphanPip knows whether monogamy or polygamy is 'adaptive'. That's one (of the many) problems with evolutionary explanations for complex, culutrally constituted behaviors. People simply assume that if a trait exists, it must have adaptive value. This is a logical error. Evolutionary theory states that if a (inheritable) trait has adaptive value, it will tend to spread.
> 
> Simple logic tells us that we cannot infer from our acceptance of this postulate that if a trait has spread, it has adaptive value. If A, then B does NOT imply: If B, then A. We're simply guessing as to whether monogamy or polygamy have adaptive value -- I'll grant that it makes sense that they probably do (in particular situations) but to "explain" the traits based on a wild guess seems a little silly, especially when the guess offers no predictive or explanatory value.


Except that monogamy is not a complex, culturally instituted behavior. All humans practice it. This alone tells us that it is not only a social/cultural construct. 

What exactly are you arguing in your rambling post? That love is a byproduct of some other adaptation? That's the only sensible argument you could make, and it is possible. That's what I assume you mean by questioning whether monogamy has adaptive value. 

And yes, you sarcastic ***, monogamy _can_ increase chances of sexual reproduction. We are not talking about individual men here. We're talking about what behavior natural selection would favor.

----------


## Buh4Bee

Any woman would laugh at any of you for having this conversation (excuse me ladies who have posted- insert foot). Even if the conversation is between me, myself, and I-diot.

----------


## Ecurb

> Except that monogamy is not a complex, culturally instituted behavior. All humans practice it. This alone tells us that it is not only a social/cultural construct. 
> 
> What exactly are you arguing in your rambling post? That love is a byproduct of some other adaptation? That's the only sensible argument you could make, and it is possible. That's what I assume you mean by questioning whether monogamy has adaptive value. 
> 
> And yes, you sarcastic ***, monogamy _can_ increase chances of sexual reproduction. We are not talking about individual men here. We're talking about what behavior natural selection would favor.


You appear to have no understanding whatsoever of natural selection, cyberbob. Individual genes (carried by individual humans) are the unit of natural selection. The "good of the species" theory one occasionally hears about on TV is bunk.

Not "all humans" practice monogamy. Acceptance of polygamy is very common in human societies (although, of course, not all members of those societies practice it). More traditional socities accept polygamy than not (and, given our divorce rates, even modern Western societies practice a form of serial monogamy, which is a kind of polygamy). 

I suppose, since divorce is so widespread, it must have "adaptive value", too (according to cyberbob). Hmmm. Which is it? Does monogamy have adaptive value? If so, why is it becoming increasingly rare? Does serial polygamy have adaptive value? How about watching TV? That's becoming common, these days. Does it have "adaptive value"? If so, watching "Seinfeld" had, at one time, more adaptive value than watching any other TV show.

----------


## cyberbob

> You appear to have no understanding whatsoever of natural selection, cyberbob. Individual genes (carried by individual humans) are the unit of natural selection. The "good of the species" theory one occasionally hears about on TV is bunk.
> 
> Not "all humans" practice monogamy. Acceptance of polygamy is very common in human societies (although, of course, not all members of those societies practice it). More traditional socities accept polygamy than not (and, given our divorce rates, even modern Western societies practice a form of serial monogamy, which is a kind of polygamy). 
> 
> I suppose, since divorce is so widespread, it must have "adaptive value", too (according to cyberbob). Hmmm. Which is it? Does monogamy have adaptive value? If so, why is it becoming increasingly rare? Does serial polygamy have adaptive value? How about watching TV? That's becoming common, these days. Does it have "adaptive value"? If so, watching "Seinfeld" had, at one time, more adaptive value than watching any other TV show.


I know that genes are the units of natural selection. I've read The Selfish Gene too. And I never said anything about the good of the species.

By all humans I mean people all over the world, not every individual human. Just like sexuality in general is a trait that all humans possess, but not every individual libido is identical. 

Once again you're confusing what _individuals_ do versus what a species does. Most species of insect, for example are not monogamous. Lions are not monogamous. We're talking about monogamy in a _species_. 

Monogamy evolved in humans because it increased their chances of reproductive success (I'm NOT talking about an individual man, who would certainly benefit from having sex with a lot of women).

I'm not even going to dignify your argument about divorce with a response. It's as stupid as asking why, if sexual reproduction came about as an adaptive trait, do humans use condoms?

----------


## The Atheist

Nice series of posts, cyber.

----------


## OrphanPip

> I doubt OrphanPip knows whether monogamy or polygamy is 'adaptive'. That's one (of the many) problems with evolutionary explanations for complex, culutrally constituted behaviors. People simply assume that if a trait exists, it must have adaptive value. This is a logical error. Evolutionary theory states that if a (inheritable) trait has adaptive value, it will tend to spread.


I have assumed no such thing, I am a biologist by training. There is ample research on the evolutionary and physiological causes of monogamous behavior. It can be correlated in animals with the vulnerability of offspring, and high commitment to offspring. Moreover, for humans specifically, our low seminal production relative to other primates is suggestive of a strategy of mate exclusion, rather than a strategy employed by polyamorous chimps, which is to overwhelm the seminal fluids of other males by producing loads and loads of your own. Monogamy is not complicated, we can study it in animals. Looking at the monogamous behavior of mole rats, we find that the part of the brain when ablated that removes monogamous behavior (and this has to be evolutionary because it is the sole mating strategy employed by mole rats, unless you think there are constructed religious practices causing this behavior amongst them) is the same part of the brain stimulated during sexual relations between humans.

If a trait is neutral or maladaptive we would not expect widespread distribution of these traits in our population. Evolution provides us a framework in which humans function, social behaviors can complicate the issue, but it is just ridiculous to act as if evolution can not be used to explain human behavior. 




> Simple logic tells us that we cannot infer from our acceptance of this postulate that if a trait has spread, it has adaptive value. If A, then B does NOT imply: If B, then A. We're simply guessing as to whether monogamy or polygamy have adaptive value -- I'll grant that it makes sense that they probably do (in particular situations) but to "explain" the traits based on a wild guess seems a little silly, especially when the guess offers no predictive or explanatory value.


Well I never used that reasoning, so this is irrelevant.

I also said that there are competing selective pressures favoring both polygamous and monogamous behavior in humans. They are both adaptive under the right circumstances. If you have few resources and need to exclude mates, then a harem will not work for you. If you have the ability to sequester more females, you will be polygamous.

Moreover, sexual dimorphism in humans, which is much more pronounced than in other primates, seems connected to heavily to a strong importance of sexual selection (which we also see in serially monogamous birds).

----------


## Ecurb

OrphanPip writes, "If you have the ability to sequester more females, you will be polygamous." Really? I'll bet some people who "have the ability to sequester more females" are polygamous, and some are monogamous, and some are serially monogamous. Once again, OrphanPip, you're just making this stuff up. 

You say you are aware of the logical error I pointed out earlier (" I have assumed no such thing")-- but so many people fall into that error that it's an easy mistake to make. What is the evidence that monogamy or polygamy or serial monogamy have "adaptive benefits"? Apparently (based on your post) the evidence is that they exist. Humans (according to Orphan, and I have no reason to doubt it) produce less semen than apes. But why does this suggest that monogamy has adaptive value? How could it possibly suggest that? Isn't it likely, instead, that either monogamy or polygamy (cultural constructs) developed first -- and then it was advantageous to produce less semen (because males weren’t wasting scarce resources on unnecessary semen production)? Under what possible scenario does the production of less semen suggest that monogamy has adaptive advantages?

I'll grant that the human reproductive strategy (even to a greater extent than most mammals) is to produce fewer offspring, and spend more resources caring for them. Even here, though, simply stating this fact is insufficient to suggest that this strategy is adaptively advantageous. Surely, in order to demonstrate the adaptive value of a behavior we have to compare it to another behavior and measure the results. 

OrphanPio further states, "There is ample research on the evolutionary and physiological causes of monogamous behavior. It can be correlated in animals with the vulnerability of offspring, and high commitment to offspring." Really? Then why have most human societies (historically, although not today), in which offspring are vulnerable and parents committed, allowed polygamy? 

OrphanPip goes on to say, “If a trait is neutral or maladaptive we would not expect widespread distribution of these traits in our population. Evolution provides us a framework in which humans function, social behaviors can complicate the issue, but it is just ridiculous to act as if evolution can not be used to explain human behavior.” Of course it is true that humans (like other animals) are affected by evolutionary pressures. No reasonable person would deny that. However, the extent to which evolution can “explain human behavior” is unclear. It would be ridiculous to assert that the difference between two people -- living in the same community and having the same resources – one of whom is monogamous and the other polygamous – can be “explained” by evolutionary pressures. How could it? 

In addition, although OrphanPip “would not expect widespread distribution (of neutral or maladaptive traits) in our population”, his expectations are likely to be disappointed. For example, both atheism and theism are widespread in modern America. Is one adaptive and the other maladaptive? Are both neutral? Good grief, this position is so ludicrous it hardly bears refutation. Of course neutral and even maladaptive traits often become widespread (especially when these “traits” are cultural instead of biological)! Here OrphanPip, despite claiming to understand the logical error I pointed out earlier, is making the EXACT MISTAKE I was inveighing against. If A, then B does NOT suggest if B, then A. How hard is that to understand?

I have some other minor quibbles with Pip’s post. For example, I don’t believe that sexual dimorphism is more pronounced in humans than in other primates. I’ve seen baboons, for example, where the males are more than twice the size of the females, and look very different. Sexual dimorphism in baboons is more pronounced than in humans, and the same is true in many other primates. Among our closer relatives, I know that Orangutans and Gorillas exhibit at least as much sexual dimorphism (in terms of size, at least) as humans. Male Orangutans are twice the weight, on average, of females, for example.

Just to clarify my position: if a behavior (rather than a gene) enhances descendant leaving success, and if the behavior is passed down from parents to children (whether genetically or culturally – like language, for example, is passed from parents to children), then the prevalence of that behavior will tend to increase. This is the fundamental postulate of Darwinian Evolution (biologically, if not culturally), and I fully grant that it is correct.

However, if the frequency of a behavior has increased, we cannot assume that the behavior has adaptive value (i.e. has increased because of it’s tendency to increase descendant-leaving success). Making that assumption would be a horrendous logical error, as anyone versed in logic will be well aware. In addition, it’s obvious -- based on common sense. The behavior of watching TV has increased dramatically in America in the last 60 years, and it would be silly to assume that TV-watching has adaptive value. Monogamy, polygamy and serial monogamy are, of course, specifically involved in reproduction and child rearing – so it makes sense that they would be affected by their adaptive benefits or failings more than watching TV is. Nonetheless, the same logical principles apply.

----------


## OrphanPip

> OrphanPip writes, "If you have the ability to sequester more females, you will be polygamous." Really? I'll bet some people who "have the ability to sequester more females" are polygamous, and some are monogamous, and some are serially monogamous. Once again, OrphanPip, you're just making this stuff up.


No, I am not. I am pointing out that different reproductive strategies do not need to be mutually exclusive. They can be adaptive under different conditions. We have physiological processes that contribute to promoting monogamous behavior, and competing ones that contribute to polyamorous behavior. Our brain physiology has not appeared over night due to cultural trends. It took millions of years and generations of hominids prior to the emergence of humans and after. Cultural conditions are part of what makes a gene adaptive or maladaptive. It all depends on the context. 




> What is the evidence that monogamy or polygamy or serial monogamy have "adaptive benefits"? Apparently (based on your post) the evidence is that they exist. Humans (according to Orphan, and I have no reason to doubt it) produce less semen than apes. But why does this suggest that monogamy has adaptive value? How could it possibly suggest that? Isn't it likely, instead, that either monogamy or polygamy (cultural constructs) developed first -- and then it was advantageous to produce less semen (because males weren’t wasting scarce resources on unnecessary semen production)? Under what possible scenario does the production of less semen suggest that monogamy has adaptive advantages?


I did not say lower semen levels are suggestive of adaptive benefits of monogamy. We begin with the hypothesis that humans have undergone selection to favour monogamous behavior. We can then formulate predictions from that hypothesis off the basis of human physiology and observations of other monogamous animals. A low semen production is evidence of a monogamous lifestyle, and supports the fact that hominids have been using sequestering of females as a mating strategy for a long time. Kinds of sexual dimorphism is another prediction, as we see decorative features associated with monogamous birds. We can predict that we would share physiological traits, like brain activity associated with pair bonding, with other monogamous animals. These predictions are all satisfied. They suggest a long period of monogamy long before the development of complex cultural notions could have occurred, prior to the development of language.




> I'll grant that the human reproductive strategy (even to a greater extent than most mammals) is to produce fewer offspring, and spend more resources caring for them. Even here, though, simply stating this fact is insufficient to suggest that this strategy is adaptively advantageous. Surely, in order to demonstrate the adaptive value of a behavior we have to compare it to another behavior and measure the results.


No that is not what adaptive means. Adaptive or maladaptive are context specific. Sickle cell trait is adaptive in places where malaria is endemic, it is maladaptive in Sweden. For an organism already committed to low birth rates and high commitment to offspring, monogamy has clearly adaptive advantages. Moreover, as I have said, monogamy being adaptive does not mean that conditional mating strategies can not be adaptive as well, which is why we see wide ranging behaviors. Hell, if we look MHC gene differences correlate with degrees of infidelity, we are more likely to cheat on those more genetically similar to us. The point to which our mating behavior is biologically determined is far greater than people want to admit. Natural selection is more complicated than X gene being more adaptive than Y gene, so X gene will become dominant. In reality it never quite works that cleanly. 




> OrphanPio further states, "There is ample research on the evolutionary and physiological causes of monogamous behavior. It can be correlated in animals with the vulnerability of offspring, and high commitment to offspring." Really? Then why have most human societies (historically, although not today), in which offspring are vulnerable and parents committed, allowed polygamy?


Like I have said, the behaviors are not mutually exclusive. It pays to be monogamous under certain circumstances, it pays to be polygamous under certain circumstances. We also have to take into consideration the sexual dimorphic issues of selection. Males and females carry mostly the same genes, but certain genes can be highly maladaptive in one sex in comparison to the other. For example, female fecundity, which is pretty adaptive for females, has been connected with male homosexuality, which may be neutral or slightly maladaptive depending on the social forces. Possibly, the maladaptive aspects of male homosexuality are not significant enough to offset the benefits of the female fecundity genes.




> OrphanPip goes on to say, “If a trait is neutral or maladaptive we would not expect widespread distribution of these traits in our population. Evolution provides us a framework in which humans function, social behaviors can complicate the issue, but it is just ridiculous to act as if evolution can not be used to explain human behavior.” Of course it is true that humans (like other animals) are affected by evolutionary pressures. No reasonable person would deny that. However, the extent to which evolution can “explain human behavior” is unclear. It would be ridiculous to assert that the difference between two people -- living in the same community and having the same resources – one of whom is monogamous and the other polygamous – can be “explained” by evolutionary pressures. How could it?


Why couldn't it? Ranges of behavior exist amongst even simple organisms, we are not all clones of each other. Culture effects evolution, and evolution effects culture. Monogamy can be explained as adaptive, which explains why we see it amongst other animals and in human populations. A long history of monogamy explains several physiological features of human beings. It is possible that one of our hominid ancestors was more strictly monogamous than current humans.




> In addition, although OrphanPip “would not expect widespread distribution (of neutral or maladaptive traits) in our population”, his expectations are likely to be disappointed. For example, both atheism and theism are widespread in modern America. Is one adaptive and the other maladaptive? Are both neutral? Good grief, this position is so ludicrous it hardly bears refutation. Of course neutral and even maladaptive traits often become widespread (especially when these “traits” are cultural instead of biological)! Here OrphanPip, despite claiming to understand the logical error I pointed out earlier, is making the EXACT MISTAKE I was inveighing against. If A, then B does NOT suggest if B, then A. How hard is that to understand?


Oh please, this is a strawman. Our brain physiology, sexual dimorphism, and mating strategies are closely intertwined with our genetics. Our sexual urges are biological realities, and not ideas. An idea can hardly be referred to as a trait anyway. It is entirely possible that there are genes that predispose people to certain belief patterns which can be adaptive or maladaptive under certain context. Maladaptive traits, even when cultural, will not persist over several generations, when competing adaptive traits exist. Of course, it is more complex than that, because these things take time, and genes that are consistently maladaptive can take several hundred generations to be bred out of a population, or even more in significantly large breeding populations like the current human one. 




> I have some other minor quibbles with Pip’s post. For example, I don’t believe that sexual dimorphism is more pronounced in humans than in other primates. I’ve seen baboons, for example, where the males are more than twice the size of the females, and look very different. Sexual dimorphism in baboons is more pronounced than in humans, and the same is true in many other primates. Among our closer relatives, I know that Orangutans and Gorillas exhibit at least as much sexual dimorphism (in terms of size, at least) as humans. Male Orangutans are twice the weight, on average, of females, for example.


We have to take into account the immediate evolutionary history, without looking too far distant. Several hominid fossils show little sexual dimorphism, our close relatives the chimps and bonobo show little sexual dimorphism. Something happened along the way in hominid development that started to push the development of sexual dimorphism. We have two ways to explain sexual dimorphism, intrasexual and intersexual. Intrasexual examples can be large horns in rams, used for contest over mates. The strength of male gorillas probably derives from male intrasexual competition. The other aspect is the sexual selection, or intersexual aspects. This can be as radical as some kinds of moths that produces paralytic toxins for the sole purpose of raping females, to the bright feathers of male peacocks. The form of female sexual dimorphism in humans suggest a strong role of mate selection, like what we see in a lot of monogamous birds. We do not expect this much in polygamous animals, because the male would just mate will not be choosy with his women. However, when you are only going to mate with one woman, you are gonna be far more choosy.

----------


## Ecurb

I don't think we're ever going to agree, OrphanPip, mainly because you appear not to understand what I've written. I agree with almost everything you wrote in your last post -- however, where I disagree (and the crux of the disagreement) is as follows:

Pip writes: 


> We begin with the hypothesis that humans have undergone selection to favour monogamous behavior. We can then formulate predictions from that hypothesis off the basis of human physiology and observations of other monogamous animals. A low semen production is evidence of a monogamous lifestyle, and supports the fact that hominids have been using sequestering of females as a mating strategy for a long time.


 First, if humans have undergones selection to favour monogamous behavior wouldn't the single thing that we SHOULD be able to predict from that fact (by far more than any other thing) is that humans PRACTICE monogamous behavior. But they don't! We don't! Our ancestors didn't! Monogamy to the exclusion of other marriage systems is very rare in human societies. 

Less significant, low semen production might reasonably be correlated to sequestering females -- but NOT TO MALE MONOGAMY! So I'll grant that low semen production might be correlated to FEMALE monogamy, but not to male. 

Of course OrphanPip is correct that environments change, that culture constitutes part of the environment, and that traits can be adaptive in some environments and not in others. In fact, he gave a very informative lecture about that, and I agree with it all. 

I'll grant that our mating behavior is probably partially determined by evolutionary pressures. Are these pressures biological or cultural? Let's look at one example: the so-called human "universal law" is an incest taboo (which OrphanPip mentions as possibly genetically influenced). Yet, in many simpler societies, a person was required to marry his or her cross-cousin, and prohibited from marrying his or her parallel cousin. (Cross cousins are father's sisters children, or mother's brother's children.) How (one wonders) does this well established, common, and well-known fact square with the biological explanation (which is that close relatives are more likely to have less healthy children)? Isn't a cultural explanation (also evolutionary) more consistent with these facts? Indeed, the cross and parallel cousins are identically close genetically to their potential spouse. The difference is economic and political -- the cross cousins are in different clans (whether the society is patrilineal or matrilineal); the parallel cousins are in the same clan. The family creates more allies through exogamous marriages. Here is just one example of how a cultural explanation, specifically applied to marriage customs and rules, is more consistent with the facts than a biological or genetic one. (By the way -- I'm not arguing with OrphanPip here -- he's said nothing to make me think he would disagree -- I'm just giving my own little lecture as a trained anthropologist.)

Since I was a cultural anthropologist, I don't know if Orphan's discussion of diminished sexual dimorphism in ancestral humans is accurate -- but he seems pretty knowledgable and I'll take his word for it (although I don't buy that it's related to monogamy). Obviously, continual sexual receptivity in women (which is different from most mammals) is the biological trait most commonly cited as being a female tactic to keep fathers around to help rear the kids. 

As for cultural or biological traits being selected against within "several generations" -- I'd suggest that's only the case when the traits are extremely deleterious to descendant leaving success. Most cultural traits are relatively neutral (like the "watching TV" example I gave earlier) and the impact -- if any -- is slow.

----------


## soniat

yes actually love exist......we most of the time its invisible  :Smile:

----------


## G L Wilson

> yes actually love exist......we most of the time its invisible


Love shows itself to exist.

----------


## Buh4Bee

That must be a relief to know.

----------


## G L Wilson

> That must be a relief to know.


Love is a sorrow.

----------


## Buh4Bee

For some, but not most.

----------


## G L Wilson

> For some, but not most.


Love is never happy. Don't you read books?

----------


## Maryd.

> Love is never happy. Don't you read books?


Ah, yes... Let's see the famous Romeo and Juliet... I agree GLW

----------


## TheChilly

Love is a complex animal. No matter how hard we try to understand and decipher it, it will never compare to feeling it through internal emotion over the physical body.

----------


## Maryd.

> Love is a complex animal. No matter how hard we try to understand and decipher it, it will never compare to feeling it through internal emotion over the physical body.


Spoken by a true believe of such a complex animal!

----------


## Buh4Bee

Read books? What about Jane Eyre? 

You're right in the sense that life is not a fairy tale. But plenty of couples are happy or even better yet, content. But I think I have said enough on this point.

I'll keep reading...

----------


## Crass the head

Love is the fuel of happiness. But why, dear friends, does it burn so quick...

----------


## cbj719

> My parents never loved me. At most they felt responsible for me, and maybe when I was little they thought I was "cute."
> Do other parents love? Or do they all just use the word "love" because they feel like they should? I know what affection, respect, admiration, and so on, are, but what is love?
> 
> "Respect was invented to cover the empty place where love should be" (Anna Karenina) ...


sometimes I guess love is compound.

----------

