Originally posted by PalynkaThat its something which is beyond words in terms of defining on an emotional level, yet it's something no one can do without.
How does my argument prove your point?
For all the joy or pain it brings, for all the attachment and nostalgia... its madness.
You will defend it valiantly because you have it, or you will spurn and reject it as foolishness if you've been hurt.
At the end of the day it is no one thing which anyone can point to and say "this is love".
Originally posted by uzlessIf you understood my post, you'd realize that's not it and that my point is that it is irrelevant whether if it's just a chemical reaction or a design to get us to procreate successfully.
If by "much more" you mean "ultimately designed just to get us to procreate successfully" (ie raise kids) then i'll agree with that.
Originally posted by NatsiaApply that argument to any other emotion and you'll find its flaw.
That its something which is beyond words in terms of defining on an emotional level, yet it's something no one can do without.
For all the joy or pain it brings, for all the attachment and nostalgia... its madness.
You will defend it valiantly because you have it, or you will spurn and reject it as foolishness if you've been hurt.
At the end of the day it is no one thing which anyone can point to and say "this is love".
It's an emotion, by definition it is hard to pin down because emotions are abstract concepts. Love as defined by me is probably different from love as defined by you. That doesn't mean that we cannot have an idea of what we mean by the word "love".
Take the abstract concept of optimism. Is it a good thing? A bad thing? It can bring you peace of mind but you may also be hurt by it. In the end, it's a personal choice if you choose to embrace it or attempt to shut it down. It's all about your preferences, even if our control over our emotions is very limited.
Originally posted by uzlessi remember going to see that film. from it, i got that "quantum physics exists, therefore God does not". one of my friends understood its point as "quantum physics exists, therefore God exists".
Check out the movie, "What the &$^% Do we Know Anyway" for a better explanation...
it was, well, confusing.
although when a film has a high-pristess alongside numerous phds as experts, you can but wonder...
1 edit
Originally posted by geniushey, no doubt, that movie had its wacko moments, but the animations explaining the chemical reactions were bang on
i remember going to see that film. from it, i got that "quantum physics exists, therefore God does not". one of my friends understood its point as "quantum physics exists, therefore God exists".
it was, well, confusing.
although when a film has a high-pristess alongside numerous phds as experts, you can but wonder...
Originally posted by PalynkaNo Palynka, I got your post....not seeing the forest for the trees etc...
Oh dear. To my post it is irrelevant whether its design is to procreate or not. Hence your post reveals a deep misunderstanding of my post and you're disagreeing with something that is not there.
Got it?
Well, sometimes a bunch of trees are just that; a bunch of trees. You're trying to anthropomorphize a chemical reaction. You're looking at outcomes of a chemical reaction and defining that reaction by its outcomes rather than defining it by what it is.
And what it is, on a very high level, is nothing more than an evolutionary add-on given to humans in order to propogate the species. Passing on our genes and ensuring the survival of the species is our number 1 priority from a biological standpoint.
Love simply facilitates this goal. Any attempt to deconstruct it further deviates from its intended purpose.
Originally posted by uzlessA bunch of trees are an ecosystem. 😉
No Palynka, I got your post....not seeing the forest for the trees etc...
Well, sometimes a bunch of trees are just that; a bunch of trees. You're trying to anthropomorphize a chemical reaction. You're looking at outcomes of a chemical reaction and defining that reaction by its outcomes rather than defining it by what it is.
And what it is, on a very ...[text shortened]... ilitates this goal. Any attempt to deconstruct it further deviates from its intended purpose.
Like art, the anthropomorphization is what gives love value. Playing a guitar is just waving some strings, communication is just a bunch of sounds made with your throat.
Give me a concept and I can reduce it to its most basic element and render it meaningless. Those type of arguments are simply not valid.
Originally posted by NatsiaI've just finished a book called "How The Mind Works" by Steven Pinker. He's an evolutionary psychologist, which sounds a little weird at first, but really means that he views the brain as an organ that has evolved to improve human sustainability in our chosen niche (i.e. survival of the fittest).
Palynka, darvlay: In a way your rebuttals are my point.
Something so completely scientifically definable vs the logic and emotion we feel when incurred by them, it makes no sense!
The argument I'm having at the moment is with a friend who's recently had their heart broken... He's in physical pain (yes we've all been there) and while swearing women off in on ...[text shortened]... ve him!
Its like being shot in the arse then asking for more. Clearly I just don't get it.
He discusses emotions in general in one of the chapters, and I found it to be one of the more enlightening passages I've ever read. He supports the viewpoint that emotions operate by basically making your body an offer it can't refuse, the purpose being to ensure people actually act on their promises, desires, etc... without faking. The mechanism is chemical, but the purpose is evolutionary.
Fakers degrade the fitness of a group as a whole. They use resources without providing any in return, and hence rarefy the abundance of resources available to everyone. To combat this, people have developed techniques to spot fakers and deny them access to resources better spent on true allies. In response, the fakers have developed better faking techniques, and in response, people have developed better faker-detecting techniques, etc... Emotions short-circuit the brain's decision making processes by placing the emotional imperative ahead of everything else, like the Doomsday machine from Dr. Strangelove (the machine that ensures nuclear retaliation, and can't be shut off once initiated). This ensures that the original course of action will be carried out (a promise is a promise) as intended/promised without a double-cross (just kidding!). Of course, this will only make you more attractive to a group of like-minded "nose to the grindstone" people if you advertise! (Of course, the Russians in Dr. Strangelove put off that part of their plan a little too late, and as a result their Doomsday device didn't have the required deterent effect.)
What does this have to do with love? Well, when you fall in love with someone, and advertise it appropriately to your intended mate, you are in essence signing an emotional contract which you can't break, even if you wanted to. This provides a reason to trust on the part of the pursue-ee and ensures that the relationship will last long enough to rear surviving offspring. When you try to break the contract (or your intended mate tries to break it for you), you encounter another emotional Doomsday machine - grief - which serves as the deterrent. The horrible feelings of sadness, nausea, lack of appetite, lethargy, etc... are the inevitable punishment you receive from denying your emotional imperative. That seems to explain a lot, including this quote from your post:
"He's in physical pain (yes we've all been there) and while swearing women off in one breath is vowing to continue seeking out that one person who he believes will love him!
Its like being shot in the arse then asking for more."
This doesn't address the actual feeling of love, which is much harder to define, but tries to explain all the seemingly paradoxical reactions one has when falling in love and after being bucked.
Try thinking about this analogy in terms of other emotions too, like anger, jealousy, grief...it's a surprisingly coherent idea!
Here's a related article about what i'm saying about anthropomorphizing.
It makes it interesting, but detracts from the point.
Lyric Writing: Giving Human Qualities to Inanimate Objects (and vice versa)
By Dan Palladino
The songwriter's greatest enemy is the cliché or predictable line. What is your reaction when you hear a song and the first line is "I woke up this morning"? Right. Starting a song this way doesn't make you want to hear what happens next, does it? One of the most effective ways to get yourself out of this rut is to give inanimate objects a human quality.
Let's take a look at some lines from the Tom Waits song "The Piano Has Been Drinking (Not Me)":
The piano has been drinking
My necktie's asleep
The combo went back to New York, and left me all alone
The jukebox has to take a leak
The carpet needs a haircut
And the spotlight looks just like a prison break
And the telephone's out of cigarettes
The balcony is on the make
© 1976 Fifth Floor Music, Inc. (ASCAP)
The above lines push the listener further into the tune. It's kind of like a good film: you really want to see what happens next. Tom Waits could have written lines like "I've been drinking tonight", or "I can barely see because I'm drunk", but it wouldn't have nearly the same impact.
The band Alice in Chains had a song called "Angry Chair" on the album Dirt. Let's look at a couple of lines:
Sitting on an angry chair
Angry walls that steal the air
Stomach hurts and I don't care
© 1992 Jack Lord Music (ASCAP)
Can you see how making the chair angry brings the lyric to life? Would the song be as effective if the lyric was "I'm sitting here and I'm angry"? Not even close. Between the angry chair and the angry walls that steal the air, you really get a sense of anger filling the room.
Compelling lyrics don't happen on their own–it takes a lot of work and editing. The best songwriters are never satisfied with clichés and throw-away lines. They re-write until each line is a little masterpiece on its own. I hope that by using the ideas presented here, you will take another step toward creating your own masterpieces
http://www.riddleworks.com/inanimate_lyrics.html
Originally posted by uzlessYou're actually proving my point.
Here's a related article about what i'm saying about anthropomorphizing.
It makes it interesting, but detracts from the point.
Lyric Writing: Giving Human Qualities to Inanimate Objects (and vice versa)
By Dan Palladino
The songwriter's greatest enemy is the cliché or predictable line. What is your reaction when you hear a song and the first ...[text shortened]... n masterpieces
http://www.riddleworks.com/inanimate_lyrics.html
Without anthropomorphization, art would be meaningless. Does this render art meaningless? Obviously not.
Same argument for love.