Quite the contrary, I don't think your case is in the least solid. I don't think you understood me.
Apparently not, the subsequent paragraph you wrote below is much more clear.
I mean, you are talking about all this 'feelings of closeness, bonding' etc. etc., but in doing so you've made the assumption that I consider those feelings, and that we should consider those feelings, the measures of love.
No, I was saying that the feelings themselves as well as the actions derived from those feelings, which
you are considering a measure of love, could be considered equal.
Not a feeling, a knowledge. And that is what I say true love is, a knowledge of what one is to someone, rather than a feeling.
But this, yes
this is a much more clear position on your behalf. In this case, if this is what you believe to be the true nature of love, then I would agree with you 100%. The knowledge of what someone is to you indeed
appears to be separate from your emotions about that person (I will show that it isn't), and for practical purposes we might as well consider it to be. However, you are 100% completely wrong that that knowledge is not rooted in a biological cause. I'll get to that down below though after addressing a few things first.
As you've pointed out, these are chemicals, common to animals, too. Now, think about it, by thoughts and knowledge and reason we have come to far greater things than any of the animals ever have. And yet in love we are to be like them? All our faculties that in other places have been put to such grand use are to be put under the foot of our animilistic emotions? Isn't it more human to, even as we raised pyriamids and cathedrals, to put our reason to work on love, to love with our knowledge, and not just our feelings?
This is incredibly anthrocentric of you. I don't adhere to an anthrocentric view of the universe. I don't believe that human consciousness is inherently superior or "higher" than that of other animals. First we believed the sun was the center of the universe. Then we thought the earth was. And when both were proven thoroughly wrong we thought well we can at least take solace in the fact that
clearly human beings are the most important creatures in existence. We've just replaced one anthrocentric worldview with another.
By your definition of love based on "knowledge", I would say that yes human love is different from that of animal love because we have the ability to think very reflexively about the nature of that love and what it means to us. But
different does not equal
superior. Often in human beings (and in animals) the emotions of love are inseparable from what you call the
knowledge of it, or true love in your viewpoint. The common example of a dog dying to save his master's life comes to mind, compared with a father dying to save his child. The dogs actions are based upon emotion and the sense that his master faces impending doom, the fathers actions are based upon emotion and the sense that his child faces impending doom -
but the father also has the knowledge that his child can live a full and happy live, get married someday and have kids of his own, find happiness and true love. The father's sense of love is no doubt different from the dogs.
But not superior. Who are you to judge superiority?
And I would even raise for speculation whether or not the father's actions in that moment of saving his childs life are even based on a "knowledge" of what that child means to him, and not just on basic emotions of love and an instinct to save him. How would you separate the two?
See, this is where your argument breaks down. You're assuming all through that the only standard one could possibly have for loving someone is that feeling of something, whether it's a bond or attachment or whatever. Yet you have entirely mislaid reason.
Not at all. My reason was sound and based upon scientific evidence. You did not make it clear that your definition of love was something separate from actions - ie: knowledge of what a person means to you.
What about saying 'I am for this person because they are simply right.' That is a powerful statement. It is cold, yes, but proceeds from a biological nature no more than the judgement that a square peg fits in a square hole.
Wrong, which I will get to after saying:
I think I can say that not all love is biologically based, and can be reason based as well.
Not so. If it is your position that the true nature of love is based on knowledge of what a person means to you, then I would say that is a very noble position and I respect it, but I am skeptical as to the true separateness of that knowledge from your emotions. Just because the knowledge seems separate doesn't mean that it is.
But if your position is that that knowledge of love is somehow
not biologically based - then you are wrong. There's no two ways about it. Your knowledge of the ones you love is based on your memories of them, the joy and the sorrow and every significant moment you have shared with them is stored within your hippocampus and amygdala (among other places), and damage to those areas of the brain can completely erase that knowledge. Hence
even your definition of love is biologically based.
Here's an interesting concept that further illustrates my point: If you wake up with amnesia tomorrow, and you have no knowledge of the ones that you previously loved, do you still have the emotions of love associated with them? The answer to this question is well known to neurology - and it is
no, you don't. So even what you call "base animal emotions" are associated with the same knowledge that you call "true love". They are inseparable in reality, although you seem to adhere to the position that acting because of the knowledge itself is superior to acting because of the emotions - which is fine, I suppose. But I disagree that it is superior and there is no basis to think that it is, short of saying that it is superior because
we are superior, which is inherently flawed and wrong.
EDIT: This is fun
. Good show, chap. Although I anticipate these posts will be moved into another thread soon.