Author Topic: The $%*! frustration thread  (Read 472935 times)

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #975 on: January 09, 2009, 05:25:17 am »
This thread is taking an interesting philosophical turn from simple joking around :D.

Daniel Krispin, that definition of love based on actions is fine, but I would argue that the altruistic actions of love derive directly from the emotion of love.

What do I mean by that? Well, it is firmly established that the hormone oxytocin facilitates the sensations of "closeness", "bonding", "compassion", and "attachment" between people (and animals, for that matter). It is released during lovemaking, during breastfeeding and birth (facilitating mother-offspring bonding here), and during times of close companionship with a significant other. The hormone itself in turn regulates levels of dopamine and serotonin, the "pleasure" and "happiness" hormones in a type of positive feedback mechanism, and dopamine in particular is responsible for the "addictive" sensation of being in love with someone. Of particular note is that certain SSRI's (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) also release oxytocin as a side effect, which is why many of them are useful in psychotherapy with people that have suffered traumatic events.

Experiments have shown that when a mouse is bred with a genetic deficiency in the gene that codes for the Oxytocin hormone, the mother mice will reject her offspring and show them no affection or motherly-instinct whatsoever, whereas normally a mother mouse would die to protect her young.

So I believe this is pretty straightforward evidence that the actions we attribute with love like altruism towards the ones we love are the result of the emotion of love and attachment itself. I would die to protect the ones I love. In fact that is the only real example I can think of in which I would have a legitimate reason for dying. I trust them and care about them unconditionally.

But if I did not feel the emotion of love or attachment towards them, would I still be willing to perform these altruistic acts? Would I still trust them unconditionally? Of course not.

So in short, I don't disagree with you or your definition of love at all, but I think I make a pretty solid case that your position on what love is follows directly from the biological nature of love.

So the question is - "What can be considered true love?" is it the emotion of love that one experiences, or the actions that one takes on behalf of that emotion of love? My position is that they are inseparable. They are one and the same. Two sides of the same coin.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2009, 05:28:17 am by chrono eric »

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #976 on: January 09, 2009, 02:44:15 pm »
Quite the contrary, I don't think your case is in the least solid. I don't think you understood me.

I'm not talking altruism here. You're assuming I'm taking some altruistic idea of love that it is some selfless feeling, and saying 'well, that too is only biological.' Fair enough, but all along it was not the feelings I am talking about. Personally, I would only consider myself truly capable of loving if I could perform as you say altruistic acts if I don't feel it. As for the unconditional trust, well, that's not advisable under any circumstances - no matter if it's based on feeling or on anything else. But all your points here really are really beside the point.

The one line that hits the nail on the head, so to speak, is when you say that you if you did not feel the emotion, you could not perform such acts. Well, in that case, what I am saying is you cannot truly love. True love holds even when you feel bitterly angry at someone. There there is no emotion of love in the least, yet you still care for them... much more if they are your enemy, I must add.

Anyway, my argument was never that emotions have no part, but that they are never to guide actions. The feelings should be the product of love, not the cause of it. That's the thing I think most people tend to invert. I simply do not think that those people who say they have 'fallen in love' and can't help themselves and all that really have any glimpse of what love truly is. They are letting their own selfish desires get in the way.

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. That is what I disagree with. Yes, fine, there are those emotions. But I for one will not measure my love for someone in how much I feel those emotions for them. At times I don't feel terribly close to some of my siblings, yet would die for them in a heartbeat, not because of an emotion, but because I know who they are to me. 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. There might be feelings too, yes, but if that is all there is, you're in a sorry state. 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?

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. 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. Of course, this is vastly more complex, but all the same, it is a judgment of similar nature. Now, again, I have not entirely ruled out emotions. But... they proceed afterward.

I probably haven't expressed myself all too clearly, but all the same, I think I can say that not all love is biologically based, and can be reason based as well. And that is the more uniquely human love, the more selfless, and if one can manage to make that first, and have the emotions follow in concord after... then you have true love. Otherwise you're only ever going to have made a judgement based upon feelings which, as their nature is, wax and wane and fade.

PS
It might be interesting to note that something that my father once told me. He once told me that he doesn't love his children because he has some great feeling for them, but because they are an intrinsic part of his life. Now, he might have been talking a bit too strongly (after all, to be able to hold that so firmly is rather difficult), but was an interesting commentary which I found quite compelling. Quite ironically I later heard the same thing said by, of all people, a Vulcan on Star Trek... that he did not 'love' his children, per say, but that they were important in his life. That sort of cool judgement, I think, is the barest and truest form of love. Now, I think it is a good thing when emotions arise around it (after all, we don't want to be so stoically Vulcan!); but oftentimes people take those trappings to be the matter itself. Or, rather, the matter disappears entirely, and all you have are those trappings. The feelings alone, which when they fade leave nothing left but dismay.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2009, 02:48:25 pm by Daniel Krispin »

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #977 on: January 09, 2009, 04:19:15 pm »
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  :D. Good show, chap. Although I anticipate these posts will be moved into another thread soon.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2009, 05:22:08 pm by chrono eric »

Zergplex

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • Zergplex ~ Not all those who wander are lost
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #978 on: January 09, 2009, 11:59:49 pm »
I think you two have some great points, but are missing the crux of the matter.

Love isn't one extreme or the other, love is everything in the middle. Biological factors certainly apply and change the situation, but so do the thoughts and musings of our higher brain (I don't mean higher as in superior, just using the term to seperate it from the basic instincts).

Love can't be easily defined, and indeed shouldn't be easily defined. The meaning of love have had philosophers devoting their lives to it. I'm thankful I don't need to understand love to experience it, and to add to it. And though I may add in this debate in some way, I'm glad regardless of what one person's definition of love may be is that won't change the love I share with those close to me.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #979 on: January 10, 2009, 04:32:24 am »
...

Love should be easily defined. "What is love?" means the speaker is inexperienced or hasn't given the subject much thought. And a reply of "I just don't feel that way towards you; I don't know why" means the speaker is tragically ignorant of...(okay, singular they) themself. There is no good reason to regard love as a superstitious, mysterious Sword of Damocles hanging over everyone's heads, creating irrational behavior at random and causing heartbreak left and right for no apparent reason. Even the irrationality can be explained. Don't cede to that "things work in mysterious ways" crap. "True" love by nature is understood.

teaflower

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
  • Dreams are the gateway to reality.
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #980 on: January 10, 2009, 09:49:08 am »
I agree with ZeaLitY. Even if I didn't read it all.

Current gripe is that I'm falling ill. Post nasal drip, cough, stuffy nose... that sounds like the beginnings of a cold to me.

utunnels

  • Guru of Reason Emeritus
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2797
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #981 on: January 10, 2009, 09:59:19 am »
Hehe, this topic is becoming thoughtful these days.

*Jump out from hide.
*And vanish again.

Zergplex

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • Zergplex ~ Not all those who wander are lost
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #982 on: January 10, 2009, 10:39:57 am »
...

Love should be easily defined. "What is love?" means the speaker is inexperienced or hasn't given the subject much thought. And a reply of "I just don't feel that way towards you; I don't know why" means the speaker is tragically ignorant of...(okay, singular they) themself. There is no good reason to regard love as a superstitious, mysterious Sword of Damocles hanging over everyone's heads, creating irrational behavior at random and causing heartbreak left and right for no apparent reason. Even the irrationality can be explained. Don't cede to that "things work in mysterious ways" crap. "True" love by nature is understood.

My point was to experience love you don't have to study the biological and philosophical meaning behind it. Understanding your emotions and actions and the love you feel is indeed part of understanding and knowing yourself. I didn't mean to make it seem as if love couldn't be understood, but that you don't have to have a degree in psychology OR biology to understand what love means to you. My post was more a response to their debate about the nature of love (and how I feel you don't need to have codified the basis of love to experience it) and not a thesis on how love is ultimately unknowable (which I don't believe). I believe love is one of those words that everyone views differently and it's something that you have to find your own definition for.

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #983 on: January 10, 2009, 07:11:09 pm »
Current gripe is that I'm falling ill. Post nasal drip, cough, stuffy nose... that sounds like the beginnings of a cold to me.

Me too. Mix your medication with a crapload of grapefruit juice to save money by taking less  :D.

...just kidding. That's actually a very dangerous thing to do. Although I admit I've done it before for just that purpose, but I knew what I was doing.

My point was to experience love you don't have to study the biological and philosophical meaning behind it.

Yes, but it sure makes for an interesting debate. And experiencing love was not the purpose of our debate anyways, it was what the nature of love can be defined as. Daniel Krispin's position is that it is the knowledge of what a person means to you that qualifies as love and not the emotion itself. It was my position that this is a rather high and mighty viewpoint and reeks of human superiority, and that often we separate logic/reason/knowledge and emotion as two separate things when in reality it is emotion which drives reasoning.

I thought about posting a very interesting study in which a person with pre-frontal lobe damage behaved completely normally but it was evident that he had some sort of handicap. No one could figure out what handicap it was though. He was going bankrupt and his life was falling apart. Finally someone realized that he lacked the emotion of gut instinct now, or a qualitative analysis of "fairness". They had him play cards and gamble and he was horrible at it. When one deck of cards started disproportionately making him lose, he didn't feel bad about it, so he didn't make the logical decision to switch decks. Whereas normal people switched decks right away as soon as they felt the first one was "unfair".

So we often think that logic is high and mighty and emotions are bad and animalistic a la Vulcan philosophy or something. But in reality logic and emotions are linked, we just have the illusion that they aren't. So too is the type of logical love and knowledge that Daniel Krispin considers true love and the emotion of love itself.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 07:13:05 pm by chrono eric »

teaflower

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
  • Dreams are the gateway to reality.
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #984 on: January 10, 2009, 07:18:21 pm »
I just tought out colds, you see. The way I see it is that every time I get the sniffles I pop decongestant, when I'm puking my brains out and I need medication or else I'll die, my particular virus will be resistant to all medication I've taken. That's why I'm so opposed to disinfecting everything.

Oh! My kid is going to touch the phone after my husband got home, and he went OUT in the world and there are germs out there! GERMS! Quick! Disinfectant! Ah, now my kid won't get sick. Keep in mind, though, that I want my kid to not live in a bubble.

There was this one horrible little thing my mother told me about. She works at a church with a lot of kids involved, right? One of the moms is walking out with her kids and one of them trips and falls. Immediately, she rushes into the office and gets the first aid kit. Note that there is no blood, no broken skin, not even a tear! Gah!

I hate overprotective parents, in short.

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #985 on: January 10, 2009, 07:26:30 pm »
That's actually a fairly good philosophy to have when it comes to bacterial infections, as bacteria readily adapt to disinfectants and antibiotics. But the common cold is a viral infection usually caused by rhino (lit: nose) virus. There are no antiviral drugs that the common cold virus could adapt to, and a virus will not adapt to disinfectants because of the nature of their biology and the nature of their transmission between people.

And as far as decongestants go, a virus will not evolve a "resistance" to decongestants because the purpose of a decongestant is not to kill the virus but to alleviate the symptoms of the infection. The decongestant targets tissue cells of the host body, not the virus. So you don't have to "tough out" the common cold. Pop those decongestants free of worry and save yourself from annoying cold symptoms.

If you need to take medication "or else you'll die", I guarantee to you 100% that you will not be infected with an antiviral resistant virus because you had been excessively using cold medication. It doesn't work that way. Even if you happen to get infected with an antibiotic resistant bacterial strain someday, it will be because of someone else's fault in abusing antibiotics, not yours.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 07:37:39 pm by chrono eric »

teaflower

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
  • Dreams are the gateway to reality.
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #986 on: January 10, 2009, 07:28:39 pm »
True, true... but it's not all that bad. I mean, my nose is a little stuffy and my throat hurts a touch, but other than that, it's fine.

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #987 on: January 10, 2009, 07:30:19 pm »
I suppose I'm a wuss then when it comes to colds.  :D Nothing irritates me more than a runny nose and sneezing every 3 minutes.

HyperNerd

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1185
  • In Guardia we trust
    • View Profile
    • Surreal Squad homepage
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #988 on: January 10, 2009, 09:08:55 pm »
Try Santa Ana winds, guys. I HATES THEM SO!!!!

teaflower

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
  • Dreams are the gateway to reality.
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #989 on: January 10, 2009, 09:13:38 pm »
Oh, really?

We have a storm coming here. Our city is supposed to get anywhere from five to nine inches of snow and quite powerful winds. The highs for my area, later in the weak, is supposed to be 10 degrees. Not taking into account the wind chill.