Originally posted by PBE6wow, someone actually agreed with me on rhp?? 😉
I'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).
He discusses emotions in general in one of the chapters, and ...[text shortened]... emotions too, like anger, jealousy, grief...it's a surprisingly coherent idea!
Originally posted by uzlessI do agree that emotions help human genes propagate. They are such an integral part of being human that if they didn't help make more humans, the coincidence would be astronomical. However, I don't think describing the mechanism by which emotions work completely explains them. There are things philosophers call "qualia", which are the actual ineffable experiences experienced by a conscious entity, things that don't spring from the description of emotions as chemical/physical processes. It's the "feel" in "how does that feel?", or what you experience (as opposed to sense) when you see colour.
wow, someone actually agreed with me on rhp?? 😉
I have no doubt that these "qualia" will eventually be explained as having a physical basis, because that's all I think we have to work with, but to date the actual experience of consciousness has not been adequately explained.
Originally posted by PalynkaArt IS meaningless. It's only our REACTION to art that gives it meaning.
You're actually proving my point.
Without anthropomorphization, art would be meaningless. Does this render art meaningless? Obviously not.
Same argument for love.
Our REACTION to love is to get married and procreate.
Love is an evolutionary tool designed to get the intended reaction.
Nothing more.
Originally posted by uzlessYou didn't get it, did you?
Art IS meaningless. It's only our REACTION to art that gives it meaning.
Our REACTION to love is to get married and procreate.
Love is an evolutionary tool designed to get the intended reaction.
Nothing more.
NOTHING is meaningful without anthropomorphization at one level or another. Zero. Not even you.
If you believe this leaves only justification for total apathy and nihilism, then I feel sorry for you. I really do.
Originally posted by uzlessIt has a biological meaning and a personal meaning. In some cases, it doesn't work as an evolutionary tool, but that doesn't make it meaningless on an individual level.
Art IS meaningless. It's only our REACTION to art that gives it meaning.
Our REACTION to love is to get married and procreate.
Love is an evolutionary tool designed to get the intended reaction.
Nothing more.
Originally posted by NordlysFine. I hate all those guys talking about everything, like an evolutional tool, or just a combination of hormons. I do belive that there are many things, that actually , "avoid" science(with no offence, or disrespect for science). I can be a bit naive, but that is what allows me to live my life as it is, do my job, and actually I think that the true rationsalism is that which accepts something beyond reason itself.
It has a biological meaning and a personal meaning. In some cases, it doesn't work as an evolutionary tool, but that doesn't make it meaningless on an individual level.
Originally posted by ChoreantSo you have been in love?
Fine. I hate all those guys talking about everything, like an evolutional tool, or just a combination of hormons. I do belive that there are many things, that actually , "avoid" science(with no offence, or disrespect for science). I can be a bit naive, but that is what allows me to live my life as it is, do my job, and actually I think that the true rationsalism is that which accepts something beyond reason itself.
If you love someone, you love them; not in spite of their faults, but because of them. It's part of the unique element. I loved and married my first love. It didn't work out. I still am in love with her. It can never work. The pain can never go away. Oue two children are hers, not mine. Our lives are both ruined. She never remarried. I did, a few times. We are both still in love with each other, and yet we both know it is hopeless. Explain that for me.
Natsia.
Saying that love is just a chemical reaction is just citing the biological foundations of the feeling.
When you are with someone who you care deeply about for an extended period of time (ie you're possibly in love) you empathise with them & care more about their welfare than your own.
You earlier suggested that this could be applied to other things you "love" for instance food, drink or whatever.
Well, if you're empathising with your spaghetti carbonara & care more deeply about it's well-being than your own, you are one strange punter!
😛