cady75
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 0
Ah. I see. Your definition of love is as "undefined" but it serves the purpose, as per your weak triangle analogy? Yet, you are askingg me to define what a successful marriage is... Not an important point, but an amusing one.
You are using the scientific intepretation of what love is. You refer to the biochemical processes occur when we are in love. You are speaking of a physical event that happens when we experience an emotion. I suppose that if you define love in such a manner, your arguement that love lends itself to revenge is sound.
However, a biochemical process is not necessarily love. The sam process occur when we are in lust. They also occur when we are on the Wolf Mountain ride in an amusement park.
Is this biochemical process love? Is a physical process and an emotion the same thing? Is it not possiblee to feel love without initating a physical process? Hence, my agape arguement.
Which leads me to a thought - otp - is spiritual love necessarily christian? Is it not possible for things to exist unseen on a higher plane, disconnected from any observable physical process? You only need to take a quick look at quantum physics to realize that this is not only possible, but real. Reducing my agape arguement to yet another christian belief would be ineffective in this case.
Back to the arguement, You have conflated an emotion and a process to mean the same thing. To use your analogy, the biochemical process is analogus to the chalk used to create the triangle, love. The triangle, it can be argued, exists with or without the chalk. That is another arguement, however, but lets just accept that the triangle is existing. This analogy leads back too my original arguemeent that revenge dooes not spring from love. It comes from somewhere else, strongly linked to passion, which you migght call the bastard cousin of love and hate.
Isn't it possible that this biochemical process, in fact, is only a side effect of love? If you wanted to argue that passion leads to revenge, you would have more of a valid arguement, as passion is more strongly linked with this biochemical process. Passion occurs from love. It also occurs from hate.
What fuels our passions? What are we passionate about? Do not fall in the trap of rejecting a perfectly valid freudian viewpoint simply because it is considered passe. Freud was sorta nuts and a little messed up when it came to sex, but he had a point when he said that we are pleasure seeking creatures, that our id(as part of our ego) play a role the ACTS we perform in our lives. Acts, such as, say, revenge?
You said that revenge fulfills a purpose, so that the sufferer will feel what we felt. Absolutely so. What is it, other than our wounded selves seeking absolution from the wrongs we have suffered. Laugh at the primal soul analogy all you want - our id(ego) has always been there, right in our primal, reptilian brains. Anyone who owns a pet can testify that animals are id (ego) driven. And that includes ourselves, homo sapiens, even with our overgrown cerebellums.
You want to engage in a dialectic arguemrent, but you forgot something very important, that our existencer is completely subjective. How can we argue of love annd revenge in dialectic ters when we can only experience it subjectively?
For instance, you spoke of people who fell madly in love, who are you to say they are experiencing love? We exist subjectively only, remember. They may believe they are in love. But are they? I, however, do agree with you thhat when certain biochemical processes are involved, things happen. But those biochemical processes alone are not evidence of love. Neither does the lack of them indicate the nonexistence of love.
Fairy tales aside, there are desires and passions that reside inside ourselves. Fairy tales do not happen in real life (and do not make the mistake of thinking I belive it does). it however, does not mean when that our subjective selves indulging in those diversions, it brings harm to us, creating false impressions of the reality we are in. After all, reality is only what we create it to be. Cognitive psychology as well as quantum physics have shown that our reality literally is what we make it to be. How, then, can it be false? Why, then, should we not be glad to experince the emotion of love, to try to spreaad it around a bit, to perhaps infect someone else's reality with love?
Oh, and by the way, give me some credit. I don't watch soap operas or read romance novel. Just because I occasionally cry over a b movie does not mean I've bought entirely in the damsel romance paradigm! Tsk tsk. Generalizing on the basis of gender is neither an attractive or valid philosophical arguement. Neither is reducing a transcendental, non physical experience such as love to biochemical processes nor assigning a vallid point about the so-called spiritual aspect of love the valur of a simple christian belief.
He he. This is fun. Hit me with the next hand. baby!
You are using the scientific intepretation of what love is. You refer to the biochemical processes occur when we are in love. You are speaking of a physical event that happens when we experience an emotion. I suppose that if you define love in such a manner, your arguement that love lends itself to revenge is sound.
However, a biochemical process is not necessarily love. The sam process occur when we are in lust. They also occur when we are on the Wolf Mountain ride in an amusement park.
Is this biochemical process love? Is a physical process and an emotion the same thing? Is it not possiblee to feel love without initating a physical process? Hence, my agape arguement.
Which leads me to a thought - otp - is spiritual love necessarily christian? Is it not possible for things to exist unseen on a higher plane, disconnected from any observable physical process? You only need to take a quick look at quantum physics to realize that this is not only possible, but real. Reducing my agape arguement to yet another christian belief would be ineffective in this case.
Back to the arguement, You have conflated an emotion and a process to mean the same thing. To use your analogy, the biochemical process is analogus to the chalk used to create the triangle, love. The triangle, it can be argued, exists with or without the chalk. That is another arguement, however, but lets just accept that the triangle is existing. This analogy leads back too my original arguemeent that revenge dooes not spring from love. It comes from somewhere else, strongly linked to passion, which you migght call the bastard cousin of love and hate.
Isn't it possible that this biochemical process, in fact, is only a side effect of love? If you wanted to argue that passion leads to revenge, you would have more of a valid arguement, as passion is more strongly linked with this biochemical process. Passion occurs from love. It also occurs from hate.
What fuels our passions? What are we passionate about? Do not fall in the trap of rejecting a perfectly valid freudian viewpoint simply because it is considered passe. Freud was sorta nuts and a little messed up when it came to sex, but he had a point when he said that we are pleasure seeking creatures, that our id(as part of our ego) play a role the ACTS we perform in our lives. Acts, such as, say, revenge?
You said that revenge fulfills a purpose, so that the sufferer will feel what we felt. Absolutely so. What is it, other than our wounded selves seeking absolution from the wrongs we have suffered. Laugh at the primal soul analogy all you want - our id(ego) has always been there, right in our primal, reptilian brains. Anyone who owns a pet can testify that animals are id (ego) driven. And that includes ourselves, homo sapiens, even with our overgrown cerebellums.
You want to engage in a dialectic arguemrent, but you forgot something very important, that our existencer is completely subjective. How can we argue of love annd revenge in dialectic ters when we can only experience it subjectively?
For instance, you spoke of people who fell madly in love, who are you to say they are experiencing love? We exist subjectively only, remember. They may believe they are in love. But are they? I, however, do agree with you thhat when certain biochemical processes are involved, things happen. But those biochemical processes alone are not evidence of love. Neither does the lack of them indicate the nonexistence of love.
Fairy tales aside, there are desires and passions that reside inside ourselves. Fairy tales do not happen in real life (and do not make the mistake of thinking I belive it does). it however, does not mean when that our subjective selves indulging in those diversions, it brings harm to us, creating false impressions of the reality we are in. After all, reality is only what we create it to be. Cognitive psychology as well as quantum physics have shown that our reality literally is what we make it to be. How, then, can it be false? Why, then, should we not be glad to experince the emotion of love, to try to spreaad it around a bit, to perhaps infect someone else's reality with love?
Oh, and by the way, give me some credit. I don't watch soap operas or read romance novel. Just because I occasionally cry over a b movie does not mean I've bought entirely in the damsel romance paradigm! Tsk tsk. Generalizing on the basis of gender is neither an attractive or valid philosophical arguement. Neither is reducing a transcendental, non physical experience such as love to biochemical processes nor assigning a vallid point about the so-called spiritual aspect of love the valur of a simple christian belief.
He he. This is fun. Hit me with the next hand. baby!
