|
Well i tried to clarify it a bit, religion originates from the neo cortex and love originates from the limbic system.
These 2 systems function more or less independant from eachoter.
Thats why for example you can not in anny way rationalise (ratio is in the cortex) away the hurt you feel when you have lost a loved one, (while you can rationalise away the believe in a god, just try thoose things for yourself) and it is also an explanation why sometimes people love someone while all their ratio tells them it is a bad man or women to love.
I understand what you say about the "one true love" thing and i agree that might indeed be a concept and a construct popularised by movies and literature.I am talking purely about the feeling "love" wich is the origin of the literature and movies about love.
People trying to make sense of the feeling of love by using their ratio but imo this is doomed to fail because they come from 2 more or less independant parts of the brain.
It is like trying to rationalise away pain and (physical) pleasure.(wich comes from a structure of the brain even deeper and older then the limbic system). Love is something wich lies between the ratio and the physical experiences of pain and pleasure.
Can understand it might sound a bit vague, i can not realy explain it better though or i would have to go into details about how the brain is structured and how it evolved.
LaSt)ChAnCe United States. July 02 2013 08:01. Posts 2145
See now that someone basicly already said this in less words then i did lol.
And i now see you also explained in a later post where these threads come from
|
also, if one has some type of emotional impairment (ex: the lack of guilt) or some sort of psychopathy, he won't feel any of the above. he will have to learn 'love' but he'll still have bonding.
love is reasoned bonding.
religion is reasoned faith.
|
On July 02 2013 17:56 Rassy wrote:Well i tried to clarify it a bit, religion originates from the neo cortex and love originates from the limbic system. These 2 systems function more or less independant from eachoter. Thats why for example you can not in anny way rationalise (ratio is in the cortex) away the hurt you feel when you have lost a loved one, (while you can rationalise away the believe in a god, just try thoose things for yourself) and it is also an explanation why sometimes people love someone while all their ratio tells them it is a bad man or women to love. I understand what you say about the "one true love" thing and i agree that might indeed be a concept and a construct popularised by movies and literature.I am talking purely about the feeling "love" wich is the origin of the literature and movies about love. People trying to make sense of the feeling of love by using their ratio but imo this is doomed to fail because they come from 2 more or less independant parts of the brain. It is like trying to rationalise away pain and (physical) pleasure.(wich comes from a structure of the brain even deeper and older then the limbic system). Love is something wich lies between the ratio and the physical experiences of pain and pleasure. Can understand it might sound a bit vague, i can not realy explain it better though or i would have to go into details about how the brain is structured and how it evolved. LaSt)ChAnCe United States. July 02 2013 08:01. Posts 2145 See now that someone basicly already said this in less words then i did lol. And i now see you also explained in a later post where these threads come from
been watching these threads pop up every 3-4 months since 2003.. you eventually start to see trends 
|
Religion, as a general concept, is not arbitrary. Specific religions are. Love is not arbitrary. My reasoning:
If everyone in the world forgot about love, the concept would spring up again. It's biological, you don't need to be taught about love to know it.
If everyone forgot all religions, religions would probably spring up again, it's part of the human psyche. However, the exact religions probably would not, because there's no reason to believe in one religion over another unless you're affected by your upbringing, your culture etc.
|
On July 02 2013 22:30 Tobberoth wrote:
Religion, as a general concept, is not arbitrary. Specific religions are. Love is not arbitrary. My reasoning:
If everyone in the world forgot about love, the concept would spring up again. It's biological, you don't need to be taught about love to know it.
If everyone forgot all religions, religions would probably spring up again, it's part of the human psyche. However, the exact religions probably would not, because there's no reason to believe in one religion over another unless you're affected by your upbringing, your culture etc.
Keep in mind religion was founded on the unknown and at the times it was founded, people were fascinated by lightnings and other natural phenomena because they could not explain them.
Your idea brought up an interesting point, what kind of religion would today's world come up with?
|
On July 02 2013 08:19 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:06 ElvisWayCool wrote:On July 02 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:57 politik wrote:On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a hallucination and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth. Do you have proof that it's a hallucination? Remember, the argument is that religion is an arbitrary construct--if people believe it because they believed the ramblings of some guy, whether its true or not has not bearing on the fact that it stops being arbitrary if people believe what he is saying anyway. An arbitrary construct suggests that people conceive of an abstract idea and follow it. Religion is hearing someone say something is supposedly true, and believing them. That's the opposite of arbitrary. That's literally taking evidence and structuring your viewpoint on that evidence. You not finding the evidence valid does not mean the believer finds the evidence invalid. It's taking an argument and structuring your viewpoint on it. There's no evidence... People can feel love, they can't feel religion. So I say love isn't arbitrary, it's an actual phenomenon. Holy texts are there evidence. Holy texts are not just holy because "god said so" they're holy because they were written a long time ago by the people god supposedly talked to. Believers see it as a historical artifact whose writings are real. Some believers read them literally, some try to read it within a historical context, others simply read it to look for what's relevant to them. But they all read it believing someone who saw it actually happen wrote it or told someone to write it. To them, its a witness testimony. Sure *you* don't believe the evidence is valid; but its not arbitrarily chosen if the people believe that the evidence is legit. Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:09 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On July 02 2013 08:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:01 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? i think you misunderstand love is a word we use to describe a set of emotions and feelings (hormonal,chemical, and electrical things) religion is a word used to describe a set of (mostly) fictional beliefs (imaginary things) edit - i can't say for certain that all religious beliefs are fictional, regardless of what i personally think, so i will say "mostly" fictional Even if they were all fictional--believers of a religion see them as historical fact and true witnessing of events. The opposite of arbitrary constructs. For it to be an arbitrary construct it has to be made up from scratch. i don't care to argue the semantics of it (though i agree with you) i just think OP's examples are bad (or he just is trying to find a way to hate on the idea of love due to teenage angst {my guess}) On July 02 2013 08:08 Maxhster wrote:On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:
All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a truth and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth.
At its core, its the least arbitrary of your supposed arbitrary constructs. Being that the center of all religions is the passing down of history, and the sharing of a documented event.
You thinking the witness or the media as being invalid does not change that its simply the sharing of (usually) old information. the truth? do you know anything about what the truth is? There is no truth. the truth is only a concept that is available in relation to something else. One universal truth can only be a Dogma, and that is what religion is based upon. somebody's in philosophy 101! Yeah, they're pretty bad examples. I'll definitely agree on that. Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:06 ElvisWayCool wrote:On July 02 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:57 politik wrote:On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a hallucination and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth. Do you have proof that it's a hallucination? Remember, the argument is that religion is an arbitrary construct--if people believe it because they believed the ramblings of some guy, whether its true or not has not bearing on the fact that it stops being arbitrary if people believe what he is saying anyway. An arbitrary construct suggests that people conceive of an abstract idea and follow it. Religion is hearing someone say something is supposedly true, and believing them. That's the opposite of arbitrary. That's literally taking evidence and structuring your viewpoint on that evidence. You not finding the evidence valid does not mean the believer finds the evidence invalid. It's taking an argument and structuring your viewpoint on it. There's no evidence... EDIT: That's like me saying a lollypop is my god, which is arbitrary, and then someone believing me and it all of a sudden not being arbitrary. People can feel love, they can't feel religion. So I say love isn't arbitrary, it's an actual phenomenon. Do you really think that people believing your lie makes their belief on said lie arbitrary? If they believe your lie they treat it as truth--heck, you even point to them who god is (the lollipop) so not only do they have a witness telling them who god is, they actually "saw" god himself with their own two eyes. They then live their lives *knowing* that God is a lollipop. That's not arbitrary. i recommend "edit"
Take each quote out of context and it'll seem that way won't it?
I recommend "reread"
Edit: being honest and leaving what I originally said. I did what I preached and saw that I should do what you preached :facepalm:
|
On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs?
"tyranny of love"?
Really?
First off, "arbitrary construct" is such a loaded term. You can do the philosophical waltz and throw almost everything into that category.
Second, what "tyranny"? All of those concepts you mentioned (dating/marriage/relationships) have legitimate societal and evolutionary purposes that are useful not only for how our society currently works, but how our brain works. Love is an actual emotion that we feel. Trying to label it an "arbitrary construct" sounds kind of childish and spiteful.
|
I have a question... What's wrong with arbitrary constructs?
In my opinion, the OP seems to contradict itself a little. It starts off saying that it's a good thing that human continue to progress intellectually by adopting new models and rejecting older, partially or totally incorrect ones. Then it says that religion is an arbitrary construct that has a great influence on humans and that we should question its value. I think that first of all, religion itself is not the issue. It's the people that use religion, or the institutions (i.e. the Church) that "abuse" and "influence" human relations by acting in the name of the religion. Religion itself, at the very core, is more philosophical than practical, just imagine any religion without any rituals or ceremonies or rules or some other superstition.
Now, the reason I find this is contradictory is because I feel that the OP fails to see the good side of religion. Humans have built great monuments, such as the gigantic pyramids and extremely tall cathedrals in the name of religion; that in itself is great progress in terms of architectural design skill (that shit has to stand up!), which implies mathematical knowledge, and in some cases (Stonehenge, Mesoamerican pyramids, and much more examples), astronomical knowledge. This is the progress the OP is talking about and that the OP is promoting, yet the OP is saying that we should question the very means of reaching that progress.
The third paragraph about love is just as contradictory. The OP even explicitly says that people have done extreme things just for love. That includes invent machines, build great buildings, etc... What the OP calls the "tyranny of love" is sometimes a good thing as it pushes humans to their limits, sometimes scientific and/or philosophical, and contributes to the progress the OP was talking about in the opening paragraph!
I'd just like to note that religion and love are not the same thing and that there are many other arbitrary constructs that can sometimes bring progress to humankind as well, I'm just staying in context. Actually, I'm not even sure that love can be considered arbitrary, it's really the paradigms and the relationship "protocols" that are arbitrary.
Now for my opinion. I'll assume that I only read the last 2 questions of the OP and assume no contradiction. Arbitrary construction is inescapable. Everything humans do is arbitrary to some extent. Try to find "empirical" behaviour in a person; there's literally always some arbitrary factor to a person's being. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being arbitrary because as I illustrated in the few paragraphs above, arbitrary behaviour can lead to progress (and in fact, to continue with my logic, since arbitrary construct is inescapable, I can say that all progress is thanks to one form of arbitrary construct or another). It's just really ironic that the OP perceives the arbitrary constructs that brought humans to the progress level that they are at today as hindering progress.
My 2 cents 
|
On July 02 2013 22:44 Abominous wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 22:30 Tobberoth wrote:
Religion, as a general concept, is not arbitrary. Specific religions are. Love is not arbitrary. My reasoning:
If everyone in the world forgot about love, the concept would spring up again. It's biological, you don't need to be taught about love to know it.
If everyone forgot all religions, religions would probably spring up again, it's part of the human psyche. However, the exact religions probably would not, because there's no reason to believe in one religion over another unless you're affected by your upbringing, your culture etc. Keep in mind religion was founded on the unknown and at the times it was founded, people were fascinated by lightnings and other natural phenomena because they could not explain them. Your idea brought up an interesting point, what kind of religion would today's world come up with?
Am also not so sure that religion would spring up again seeing the advances we made in science, i am kinda convinced it wont besides in cultures wich have limited scientific knowledge.
In europe religion seems to be deminishing, less and less people go to churches and the younger people do not seem to be interested in religion at all besides for the social aspects.
I know religion is still quiet strong in other parts of the world like america, the muslim world and also the eastern world but i do wonder if the believe in a god is still as strong there as it used to be, and if religion is not used as a way to give yourself a place and identity in society instead, rather then truly believing in what the religion preaches.
People will probably still make groups and organisations who have similar livestyles and phylosophys, but i truly doubt that the believe in an almighty god and godly laws would spring up again on a similar scale as it is now, at least not in europe.
|
On July 02 2013 22:48 Alakaslam wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:19 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On July 02 2013 08:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:06 ElvisWayCool wrote:On July 02 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:57 politik wrote:On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a hallucination and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth. Do you have proof that it's a hallucination? Remember, the argument is that religion is an arbitrary construct--if people believe it because they believed the ramblings of some guy, whether its true or not has not bearing on the fact that it stops being arbitrary if people believe what he is saying anyway. An arbitrary construct suggests that people conceive of an abstract idea and follow it. Religion is hearing someone say something is supposedly true, and believing them. That's the opposite of arbitrary. That's literally taking evidence and structuring your viewpoint on that evidence. You not finding the evidence valid does not mean the believer finds the evidence invalid. It's taking an argument and structuring your viewpoint on it. There's no evidence... People can feel love, they can't feel religion. So I say love isn't arbitrary, it's an actual phenomenon. Holy texts are there evidence. Holy texts are not just holy because "god said so" they're holy because they were written a long time ago by the people god supposedly talked to. Believers see it as a historical artifact whose writings are real. Some believers read them literally, some try to read it within a historical context, others simply read it to look for what's relevant to them. But they all read it believing someone who saw it actually happen wrote it or told someone to write it. To them, its a witness testimony. Sure *you* don't believe the evidence is valid; but its not arbitrarily chosen if the people believe that the evidence is legit. On July 02 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:09 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On July 02 2013 08:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:01 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? i think you misunderstand love is a word we use to describe a set of emotions and feelings (hormonal,chemical, and electrical things) religion is a word used to describe a set of (mostly) fictional beliefs (imaginary things) edit - i can't say for certain that all religious beliefs are fictional, regardless of what i personally think, so i will say "mostly" fictional Even if they were all fictional--believers of a religion see them as historical fact and true witnessing of events. The opposite of arbitrary constructs. For it to be an arbitrary construct it has to be made up from scratch. i don't care to argue the semantics of it (though i agree with you) i just think OP's examples are bad (or he just is trying to find a way to hate on the idea of love due to teenage angst {my guess}) On July 02 2013 08:08 Maxhster wrote:On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:
All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a truth and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth.
At its core, its the least arbitrary of your supposed arbitrary constructs. Being that the center of all religions is the passing down of history, and the sharing of a documented event.
You thinking the witness or the media as being invalid does not change that its simply the sharing of (usually) old information. the truth? do you know anything about what the truth is? There is no truth. the truth is only a concept that is available in relation to something else. One universal truth can only be a Dogma, and that is what religion is based upon. somebody's in philosophy 101! Yeah, they're pretty bad examples. I'll definitely agree on that. On July 02 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:06 ElvisWayCool wrote:On July 02 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:57 politik wrote:On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a hallucination and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth. Do you have proof that it's a hallucination? Remember, the argument is that religion is an arbitrary construct--if people believe it because they believed the ramblings of some guy, whether its true or not has not bearing on the fact that it stops being arbitrary if people believe what he is saying anyway. An arbitrary construct suggests that people conceive of an abstract idea and follow it. Religion is hearing someone say something is supposedly true, and believing them. That's the opposite of arbitrary. That's literally taking evidence and structuring your viewpoint on that evidence. You not finding the evidence valid does not mean the believer finds the evidence invalid. It's taking an argument and structuring your viewpoint on it. There's no evidence... EDIT: That's like me saying a lollypop is my god, which is arbitrary, and then someone believing me and it all of a sudden not being arbitrary. People can feel love, they can't feel religion. So I say love isn't arbitrary, it's an actual phenomenon. Do you really think that people believing your lie makes their belief on said lie arbitrary? If they believe your lie they treat it as truth--heck, you even point to them who god is (the lollipop) so not only do they have a witness telling them who god is, they actually "saw" god himself with their own two eyes. They then live their lives *knowing* that God is a lollipop. That's not arbitrary. i recommend "edit" Take each quote out of context and it'll seem that way won't it? I recommend "reread" Edit: being honest and leaving what I originally said. I did what I preached and saw that I should do what you preached :facepalm:
haha it's alright.. i could have put a little more clarification in there
|
United States15275 Posts
You haven't described the concept of an 'arbitrary human concept'.
|
My personal bible is Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, and GEB.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs?
With the exception of maybe communication, the rest are all arbitrary constructs. Whats to say they are better than love?
More importantly, I think you have the chain of causality flipped around. Love, from a cynical(I would argue realistic, but thats me) perspective is an emergent behaviour, from the interactions of various other behaviours that arise as evolutionary adaptations to procreation, child rearing, group dynamics, and other behaviours associated with a social animals.
We didn't arbitrarily invent love, we just gave an emergent behaviour(or a collection of emergent behaviours) an arbitrary name.
|
the part about love reminds me of Huxley's Brave New World.
what does arbitrary human construct even mean? please conceptualize.
|
I value most of these arbitrary thoughts, traditions, beliefs etc... (if they aren't too retarded like religions) because if I don't I'm basically excluding myself from everyone but also because it's a part of me / my personality.
Just think about it. What's the point of wearing clothes except protection against the harsh weather?
None it's just morality based on retarded / belief / religions / traditions.
Why do girls don't play with little soldiers and only dolls?
Will I give to my daughter little soldiers? No. Will I become a nudist? No.
Our societies have values that come out of nowhere but it's part of our identities now so if they don't do any harms there is no reason to refute them.
edit : On the love part, i believe love isn't something that was created by our societies.
Willing to be with one and only one person all the time is perfectly normal, we can see that with first love at an early age (but there are no scientific proof of that, just like for the majority of our feelings ).
|
These "arbitary human constructs" are what makes us humans. Without them we would view ourselves as just another specie, and the value of human life would be degraded. Life would lose all its purpose. Interesting topic for discussion though.
|
I don't think love is an arbitrary concept. It has predictable patterns of behavior, emotion, and cognition. It is unlearned and universal to everybody. It was created through evolution.
What I believe you are talking about is how cultures do love. This is mostly arbitrary. But I think a key thing is that though cultural representations may be arbitrary, every culture has a pair bonding process.
|
On July 03 2013 03:31 PVJ wrote:
My personal bible is Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, and GEB.
Just recently read Kahneman, and it was really awesome book, though I disagree with him about some conclusions in the later part of the book. What is GEB ?
|
On July 03 2013 11:21 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 03:31 PVJ wrote:
My personal bible is Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, and GEB. Just recently read Kahneman, and it was really awesome book, though I disagree with him about some conclusions in the later part of the book. What is GEB ?
GEB, I presume, is Godel Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach
Its semi-interactive series of puzzles, amphorisms and methaphors themetised along the lines of complexity, incompleteness (the formal logical theorum), and referentiality and recursion.
A neat journey through mathematics and formal logic that opens up to address questions to do with emergent consciousness and cognition from complex systems.
Long though.
|
On July 03 2013 03:52 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? With the exception of maybe communication, the rest are all arbitrary constructs. Whats to say they are better than love? More importantly, I think you have the chain of causality flipped around. Love, from a cynical(I would argue realistic, but thats me) perspective is an emergent behaviour, from the interactions of various other behaviours that arise as evolutionary adaptations to procreation, child rearing, group dynamics, and other behaviours associated with a social animals. We didn't arbitrarily invent love, we just gave an emergent behaviour(or a collection of emergent behaviours) an arbitrary name.
If i understand you correctly then you say that love is an emergent property that comes from the evolutionary adaptation to proceration.
Then what about love without the evolutionary aim to procerate? where does that love come from?
There are manny examples of this:
People love their car and their pets,people love god and poetry and art, people love their parents other family members and friends
For some of these you could argue that love in this situation is more "liking", people like their car and not some other car, people like this piece of classical music but not the other piece. Still the love for family members and friends is verry real and more then simply "liking" it is verry simlar to the love you can feel for the person you aim to procerate with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
