It seems to be an isolationist's definition, as we do not share neurons and neediness is essentially selfish, not selfless.
If Love does not involve selfless sharing, I have difficulty seeing the connectedness. It seems more contractual, impersonal, 'I'll give you what you want if you give me what I want' kind of thing. Romance becomes a con and "Love" seems pale and shallow.
I'm trying to understand why "neurons and neediness" can produce a different interpretation: a fulfilling Love.
2006-09-29 06:45:15 · 9 answers · asked by bobkgin 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Neurons and brain chemistry and phermones. love is basically a feeling of safety, connectedness results from not being afraid.
2006-09-29 06:48:26 · answer #1 · answered by ZombieTrix 2012 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
both of the people before me have given really good answers. yeah,, you mustn't confuse the two definitions of love.
if you're talking about the love that YOU feel, then there's nothing selfless about it. love is a very selfish emotion. it makes YOU feel good, and it certainly doesn't connect you to others. when you feel love, you are the only one who is feeling that specific love.
now,,, when you feel this sort of love, you might be inclined to offer up some of the second definition of love,, which actually isn't even an emotion., it's a gesture. this is usually the definition that's meant when people say things like "a mother's love". what they really mean is "a mother's caring". now, this second definition of love CAN be felt by others., but that's only because it's an action. it's not a thought that's trapped inside your head.
also,,, just to counter a possible rebuttal ahead of time,, empathy and "bonding" are emotions, but during those emotions, you're not actually feeling the other person's pain or love. you're simply feeling YOUR OWN empathy and "bonding" respectively. (sorry,, i know there's probably a better word than "bonding", but i can't think of it.)
now,,,, if you're wondering how we can explain WHY emotions like empathy and "bonding" exist, it's because they're beneficial for a tribe and are favoured by natural selection. obviously, if you picture a group of people stranded on an island, it makes more sense that they'll survive better if they work together rather than eat each other. the evolution of altruism has actually taken quite a long time. it probably started about 200 million years ago, with the ancestors of the first mammals.
2006-09-29 07:03:31 · answer #2 · answered by tobykeogh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm an agnostic, but I'll try field this one.
Although people do not share neurons and have singularly unique personalities, our needs are often very similar. I think that love is basically a neurochemical process made necessary by neediness, but working together to meet common needs is the base of the fulfilling type of love that people cherish. When love is mismatched or one-sided, that's when relationships fall to irreconcilable differences and things like stalking arise. But regardless of how love is generated, the experience and effects of it are a good thing, so I don't think a scientific or psychoanalytic view of love devalues it or strips it of its meaning.
2006-09-29 06:56:15 · answer #3 · answered by Subconsciousless 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Who cares? It just does, and that works for me. I dont need to know how or why.... And if you profess to know why because of your God, then you are only fooling yourself....
There is no such thing as a selfless act. Everything anyone does on the face of this planet is nothing more than soemthing done on a selfish level. Donating to charity - makes the person donating feel good about themselves. Risking your life to save a child in a burning building - makes the rescuer feel good about themselves. Life is selfish. Get used to it.
2006-09-29 06:51:00 · answer #4 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think in the end, all emotions are only a product of chemicals in the brain.
Much of love is selfish. The feelings of reliability, compassion, trust: they are all adictive feelings, and to get them you must give them.
However there are the seemingly selfless acts of love such as putting your life in danger, or accepting punishment or sacrifice for someone else. These acts may be due to evolutionary conditions, such as defending your children's lives to ensure they can reach reproductive age, or ensuring your pregnant wife can give birth.
The wider concept of sacrifice however is difficult to understand, and I am not quite sure how it plays into human evolution.
2006-09-29 06:53:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, because that mumbo-jumbo agout soulmates explains it SO much better.
Sorry about that. I just want you to understand that "neurones and neediness" as you put it is a scientific explanation. If you can show scientifically that love is somehow "more" than just an extravagant reproductive instinct, then I will stand corrected.
2006-09-29 06:56:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Watch the movie "One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest" with Jack Nicholson. At the end of the movie, his character is lobotomized. And his behavior was similar to people who have been lobotomized.
If you were lobotomized, you would no longer be able to love, hate or feel any other emotion. Emotions are strictly a function of the brain, or "chemical reactions."
2006-09-29 06:51:13 · answer #7 · answered by Left the building 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You are confusing the CAUSE for emotion with the RESULT of that emotion. I may feel the emotion of love because of my brain chemistry (which is of course a simplification--it has to do with all sorts of things: hormones, pheromones, etc.), but that doesn't mean that that love is any less real to me. It doesn't mean that it won't lead to mutual caring, empathy, and all of the other things that you have associated with love.
All emotions work this way. They are all the results of complex reactions in the brain and body caused by (usually) external things. That does not make them any less real or any less valid.
2006-09-29 06:50:50 · answer #8 · answered by N 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Why do not you define love, then? Is "love" compassion, empathy, sympathy, and connection? Or are those only the featuring indications of a few thing else? Scientifically, love is a chemical reaction in the strategies. So are desires. So is another human emotion. saying that somebody believing "anger is a chemical reaction in the strategies" can't then sense anger is ridiculous, real? comparable is going for romance. it is place in human physiological function would not make it much less important. I do love, very lots. i admire my kinfolk and my friends and my boyfriend and my doggy...the place those thoughts come from advise little to me, be they chemical reactions or some supernatural non secular connection or found out habit by way of constructive reinforcement.
2016-10-18 05:03:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋