Can you prove that love exists (Without examples)?

Question

This conversation came up in the break room at my old job and I oly now decided to post it. One guy was talking about how he was going to ask his girlfriend to marry him. He was going on and one about how much he loved her.
This quickly turned to love related stories (Not really sure how). One girl in the corner just sat silent and listened to the rest of us talk. This is very unusual for her to do, so eventually someone asked her about it.
She basically told us that she didn't believe in love. Naturally, most of the people in the room told her that she was crazy, but she quickly gave us the question that I posted. The room was silent, mostly because no one could give an answer.
She went on a little bit to explain why she took out examples. For our entire lives we've been fed things to tell us that love exists, so naturally we think it must.

Ran out of space.

Any examples that we gave would only prove that others had fallen for the same lie that we had.

Please help. It's been bothering me for some time.

To the person who said that she should have to prove that it doesn't exist, she already answered that. SHe said that the burden of proof lies in the believer and the fact that none of us could come up was proof of its existance showed that it was nothing more than a construct, something that we believe that can not be proven.

By examples, she meant that anything that you have felt (Mostly because the delusion of love could bring with it physical traits, saddness when you lose someone you love, need for someone, etc..) and how people that stayed together for so long. Yet again the delusion would cloud your mind into believing in that is not real

I'm adding way too many details here. For one, most people have used examples to prove it.

Secondly, I already know that the answer to why the question bothered me so much. Two parts.

One, I dated the girl at the time (Natural irony)

Two, I think that she might actually be right. That scares me more than anything else. Is loved nothing more than trait set in the early stages of evolution in an attempt for higher procreation rates? Do animals feel love the same way that humans do? Do all humans feel the exact same thing when they refer to love? The questions just keep coming to my head and it bothers me a little.

I love the horses and earth thing, but I can prove the existance of horses and the earth without giving an example.

First, I must prove myself. I like Descartes way of doing that. I am doubting my very existance on this earth and everything that surrounds me as a result. Therefore, there is only one thing that I am certain of. I am doubting.

By doubting, I am thinking. Only my mind can cause thought, so my mind exists and by extention, so do I.

For horses.
As a human being, I am only able to travel at a certain speed. I have limits, such as any other person in this world does.When I am in a certain state/place, this speed increases. Therefore, something must be causing this increase to occur. Since something is causing this increase to occur it must be affecting my physical body. Therefore, this thing has to be coporeal.This mass of fur underneath me must be causing the increase. I call it a horse. Since the horse in affect my physical body, it must exist as well as I do

For the earth.

I have already proven that I exist. Now for the tricky part. How does the earth exist?

Being human, I have mass and weight. These can be measured using scientific findings and mathematical formulas.

What is causing this weight? Gravity.

Gravity is also pushing my down. If I jump, I eventually come back down. But only to a certain point. Something is halting my descent. What?

The only things that can hamper gravity would be solid things. So, with my earlier thought, I can assume that the thing halting my descent is solid.

This solid mass is everywhere that I go and effects everything around me(Buildings, people, etc.). This can be proven with gravity as well. Therefore, it must encompass a surface that is rather large.

I call this surface to be ground. Ground is a portion of the earth.

Answer 1

This can be done!!

First you must resolve the semantics. What is love?

For arguments sake, agree (for the sake of the argument) which elements must be present when love is present. Possibly Commitment, sacrifice, yearning, whatever. If you can't do that, you're not arguing about presence of love, but the definition of it.

Then prove those elements one at a time. Most are provable by definition. However, since the existance of those elements is objective, using examples to prove them does not become negated by the "love as a learned response" argument.

Assuming that each element can be proven, then one can assume that anytime those elements exist at the same time, then love exists.

For example - Prove that a table exists. Determine that a table is defined as a flat surface with at least three legs supporting that surface. Now prove that a flat surface can exist, then prove that three supporting legs can exist. Now one can assume that if the flat surface and the legs exist in the same object, then a table exists. And you never used a table as an example.

In a simplified example of love. Let's say we agree to define love as having the following three elements: Financial commitment to the Lovee's well being, Personal sacrifice of comfort for the lovee, and the willingess to buy purple flowers every Columbus Day. We note the willingness of the lover to give half his/her income to the lovee, That the lover puts the toilet seat down as the lovee requests, and purple flowers arrive every October. If these elements exist at the same time for the same person, by agreement, love exists.

The tricky part for a mutual love is that both the lover and the lovee agree to what the elements of love are, and agree that ALL of those elements are present before they declare it as "love". Nowadays, that step is too frequently skipped.

In this light, what your girlfriend is actually saying is that she has never had all of the elements she needs for love happen for the same person at the same time.

Answer 2

Her question is completely flawed. Love, being an emotion, has no tangible quality therefore cannot be proved without examples of personal experience.
Atheists use this argument to disprove the existence of God, but God (if he exists) is infallible, meaning any methods God would employ to prove his own existence would mean he has, for a moment at least, entertained the possibility that he does not exist. See also: the Babelfish and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
What you need to ask yourself is why this question bothers you so much - is it because you just want to prove her wrong? If so, then fair enough - I'm much the same myself.
Or are you so frustrated by the question because you think if you can't find the answer then that makes her right? Have you ever been in love? Yes? Then you know it exists and should feel sorry for this girl. It's like trying to describe the colour blue to a blind person. When she falls in love herself she won't ask such stupid questions.

Answer 3

It would be difficult for anyone to prove love exists, without giving examples.

There are different types of love. How about the love a mother or father has for their child, or the love a child has for their mother or child.

When my children gaze at me adoringly & say: "mama I love you", I feel their love coming straight for my heart. When I see my children's smiling faces, I feel like the happiest person in the world. That feeling is love. Any mother or father will understand this.

When you really love someone, their best interests are in your heart & you like to do things to please them .

Perhaps this girl hasn't felt the love of her parents or family. If that is the case, that is sad, but it doesn't mean that love doesn't exist. She can only speak from her own perspective after all.

Perhaps it's that she feels that there is no love in her own life & that she feels unloved. I assume she doesn't love anyone, if she thinks that love doesn't exist.

I don't think anyone is going to change their whole belief system about love, just because this girl doesn't believe in it.

I hope she changes her mind, by the way of love coming into her life. Perhaps you or your collegues could show her some of these answers?

Answer 4

Can you prove that the world exists (without examples)?

"yes, I'm here" is an example.

Even Hegel, that explain everything through reason, starts his Phenomenology with the knowledge of things, the sensible certainty.

The existence of something is never necessary, so in order to prove if something happens to exist, you'll always need to remit to the world, the experience, the examples.

There is no knowledge without examples. Every knowledge starts with the experience.

--------------------------------------------

Ok ok... assuming a lot of things, with your argument may be you can prove that SOMETHING exists. The brains that doubts, for example. But you can't actually prove the existence or every little and unforeseen thing in the world. You can't prove that the world, as it exist, actually exist without pointing it out. (pointing it out? it's ok to say it that way?)

In fact, we can't prove that the world exist. We decide to believe that it does because it's much more easier than thinking it doesn't. We cannot either prove that it does not exist. That do not make it a imaginary world right?

Besides, in your argument you said "Gravity is also pushing my down. If I jump, I eventually come back down", that's an example. How would you prove, with nothing more that your own thoughts, with absolutly no referece to experience, that gravity exists? not say gravity... that this cup of coffee next to me, in the other side of the world, exist? And believe me, it does. In fact it's cold.

I strongly believe that if something is not necessary, you can't prove it without pointing it out, without an example of its existence. If ponting it out may be consider a proof.

The things that exist in the world, love included, are contingent, fortuitous, accidental. If, for example, I accidently drop my coffee, and I make a proof of it without an example, would I be sayin' that the coffee MUST have been droped?... excuse my english. I think that if I can prove an accident without looking to the experience, I would be saying that it was not an accident at all, that it was necessary. So, in that case, I can eather prove that the coffee spread out and in other moment prove that it doesn't. Yes, today I drop my coffee and I make a proof of it. Tomorrow I will not drop my coffee and I'll make a proof of it also. By the next week I'll have a proof of "Caro drop the coffee" and of "Caro does not drop the coffee". Isn't that a contradiction?

You can't prove accidents. That why they are called accidents.

Answer 5

Can you prove that horses exist without examples of horses? Please prove to me that horses exist without pointing to any horses. Can't do it? So then horses don't exist, right? It is a mistake to think that things like love or horses do not exist simply because they only exist in concrete forms. The only love there is are examples of love. I do not just love abstractly, I love my family, or I love my job, or I love life. Love only exists when there is an object of love, and this means that the only evidence for love is going to be actual examples. The reason why her argument seems so strong is because she has unjustifiably insisted on love existing abstractly (not in concrete examples) and then points to your inability to prove love in triumph. What proof she would accept is a good question. Without empirical proof (pointing to examples) you are really only left with logical proof, but there are a lot of things that cannot be proved logically (love is probably one), only by going out in to the world to find examples. But we still say those things exist. The burden of proof rests on her to explain why examples of love should not count as evidence. And she cannot simply claim that these examples only show that we are brainwashed, since this is merely assuming the point she is trying to prove.

Also when she claimed that love doesn't exist, what exactly is she claiming? Is she claiming that is nothing more than a social construction that deceives? Well maybe or maybe not, but if this is her argument, then she is admitting that love exists. Just maybe it is not the perfect fairytales Hollywood tells. But nobody over the age of 15 should seriously believe that things in life follow Hollywood scripts, so her claim is not very interesting. If this is her position, she is just saying yes love exists, but it has its negative sides too.

Some people tend to have very mistaken ideas of the nature of things. There are a lot of things (such as love, reason, truth, etc.) which some people tend to think must exist in some sort of pure, disembodied form. The real examples of love and truth do not satisfy them (for whatever reason, quite possibly because it is they who have been conditioned by our culture in to thinking that the only real values cannot be dirtied by the necessity of existing in our world.) I think this is unfortunate because the only values there are are the ones in this world. The love that is experienced, the truth that is concrete, the reason that is practical.

One thing you said should also be addressed. "Is loved nothing more than trait set in the early stages of evolution in an attempt for higher procreation rates?" Yes, it may well be. So what? How does this invalidate love in the least? Would Cupid shooting people with his arrows be a more satisfactory account of love? Just because something has an evolutionary basis is no reason to devalue it. Our capacity to grasp truths has an evolutionary heritage. Should we then go around worrying that truth is not imporant because it is "nothing more than trait set in the early stages of evolution in an attempt for [better survival chances]?


I know love exists because I have experienced it before. Whether the ultimate account for this is cultural or biological doesn't affect the reality of the feeling. And, since love is a feeling, the only reality it could ever have is a felt reality - examples. I don't think she makes a good argument. I think she is either bitter about something or is trying to make a subtle jab at her old boyfriend.

Answer 6

Most never truly understand "love". Love is something that can not be described, it is something that is part of us and something we have no control over. Love is a true feeling of fulfillment and the feeling we have toward thoes we hold closest to us. You want proof? How do you feel when you tuck your child in at night? How do you feel when someone you care for dies??? What is that? It is something only the fortunate find, and only the wise hold onto. Do not believe in it if you dont... but tell me... have you never loved... with out examples??? So, say love can not be proven... but then... can you prove any human emotion with out examples? What you ask is impossible.

Answer 7

love is when anyone adds to your life, and when you lose s/he you feel apart of you gone. it is hard to explain, especial for me, i am really bad with words. but i have thought alot about this too. i do believe in love but i do not believe in diffrent types of love. some people say that the love you have for your brother is diffrent than the love you have for a girlfriend but i think it is all the same, the only thing differnt is the sexual attraction.


i will try my best to explian my ideas on love. i have gone over this idea of what love is many times and i have split the idea into two main parts (love) and (physical attraction/sexual attraction). you may think of love as the step above friendship or in other words a loose relationship. love should have no gender, when it comes to mind you should not be thinking of boy loves girl or girl loves boy. like i said before love is when anyone adds something, i will call it(energy) to your life and the subtraction of the person makes you feel at a loss and may result in depresion.love is also infinate you can love any number of people that you want, this is the reason i hate restricted relationships because it makes me feel as though love is this object that you give to some one and BAM! you now longer can love any one else.
when you love your girlfriend ther two things that you feel, love and the sexual attraction. both of these combined gives a persone an awaome, rich feeling do to the fact that they both feed of eachother. that fact you want to be close to someone pysicaly intensifies the energy you receive from love and your love for someone makes you want to be closer physicaly if you are sexualy attracted to them.

there is more to this but i do not feel like writhing it down.

Answer 8

The idea of 'love' is learned in the same way as the idea of 'good' or 'value'. The idea of Love is the ultimate tool for manipulation in order to get what you want. When you say you love someone it has no meaning other than what the recipient has learned from their family and media based modeled examples i.e. 'I am doing this because I love you', 'If you loved me you would do this.', etc. If their family's idea of love is to abuse and repent then that is what the recipient is envisioning and expecting.
Unfortunately, I can only prove that love is a cultural idea not unlike honor and chivalry.

Answer 9

Of course not, Love is something that cannot exist without there being a medium for it to exist. It's like trying to prove beauty exists without examples, or joy exists without examples. If we follow her theory, those also don't exist, we've just been told that certain things are beautiful or make us happy and we follow. So to request such a thing without examples simply ruins the question.

Answer 10

I know that love exists because I feel it in my heart. I have absolutely no doubt that I would give up my life in a heartbeat for the life of my husband or children. Period - not one bit of hesitation. And there can be nothing logical or chemical that makes that happen. It's purely love.

To me, this woman sounds like a very sad individual. Even if we're all just deluded, isn't it a GREAT DELUSION? Why would anyone WANT to live a life with no one to love and no one loving them? So they can stand grandly at the end of their life and say "yeah for me, I didn't fall for the great lie." Well, hmph is what I say! Give me the delusion anyday!!! Love is great and that girl needs to get a life.