Love/hate stupid ideas that don't exist

[Denny Crane!]

Deliberatley split this from another thread.

Love and hate are meaningless words bandied around as though they are a tangible physical thing. It is untrue to suggest that you can measure love or hate, they are labels placed on a state of mind arrived at by the culmination of actions and emotions (time plays a factor to). They are abstract concepts like good and evil.

In another words they are meaningless. Quite a harsh thing to say about such an all-invasive concept like love is in our society or even hate but can you fault it. What do you hate? Some people hate blacks, others hate whites or yellows or browns but it is not actually hate. It is a lack of basic education, fear, tradition and convention. You hate brussel sprouts? No you dislike the taste. You hate Hitler? No you feel abhorrence at his actions.

I have yet to see Love proved to be an emotion.

But all this is inconsequential until we hammer out what love is anyway below is the crux of the arguement.

That is a good question actually, but I find it hard to distinguish the difference between "mental state" and "emotion". If we go by the parameters of Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment that together create love, I would say that love would be a description of a level at which all three of those emotion reached. To put it more simply, since others have pointed out that love is relative, when Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment all reach X level, then the subject's combined emotion would be love.



I say "X level" because I do think that science can determine levels of intimacy, passion, and commitment, based on personal actions/reactions, observable brain scans, and yes, even psychological studies involving a questionaire in which there is a large enough sample base to produce reliable statistics.

If level x is something that is achieved after such a combination then it is not truly an emotion, by trying to say love is merely an emotion measurable in physical repsonse you are characterising love merely as a robust concern. x loves y then x wants to benefit and be with y he has wants and love is a way of satisfying these wants for emotional gratification. Using the above definition however we can see that love is a culmination of various factors not merely desires or emotional impulses. So it favours the scruton and fisher definition of love, the idea that the union is one of concern, that forms over a given time period. That love only transpires once a relationship has formed not merely our responses or actions towards one another.

The emotion view of love, one that can be measured is a shallow view of love. To feel an emotion about an object you evaluate it and respond to it, if you are angry at something you see it as offensive if you fear something you see it as dangerous. The problem with this concept of love is, it is an evaluative response and fails to take into account the changing aspects of love or the compex facets that cause love even when the evaluative process deems that person unworthy. As a logical analysis it does not distinguish love from respect or admiration so therefore leads us on to what we have talked about which is the blending of emotions a very complex idea (1. a blend of emotions which I think we both agree on) that intimates a interpersonal relationship the idea that love (again) is a relationship where your emotions are deeply dependant on intimacy and co-dependance (commitment see above definition, commitment is interpersonal not one wa).

This suggests that love is not a prescence or state that we can point to at any one time but rather a derivative of the history of the relationship, the love is created by the emotional dependance of the simultaneous evaluative state of both parties. The emotional interdependance that results from this can explain the depth of love that allows old fogeys to love each other despite certain criteria of their evaluation (ie. looks) failing because there are other factors and history.

What questions you have to ask is, why if love is an emotion (an evaluative response) or a complex emotion (multiple combined emotions) what makes the fact that you have loved the person in the past continue into the future. Why would you not find someone with the same or better values and transfer that emotion to someone else. The key seems to be interpersonal relationships.

I have drawn of two philosphical ideas of love there, the unionist and the emotionally complex form of love. I don't believe in distinguishing between the two from personal experience as I believe (a duelistic view) true love involves not only emotional interdependance and the evaluative process but also the union of two peoples concerns that makes true love, that you must care about the other persons pain, ambitions and happiness. Take pleasure in their pleasure and strive for it but also gain your own needs as well (so its a tertiary view really love as a concern).

How do you measure these factors in a scientific manner

So in conclusion they are labels that don't exist.

Peter

[Fenris]

Deliberatley split this from another thread.

Love and hate are meaningless words bandied around as though they are a tangible physical thing. It is untrue to suggest that you can measure love or hate, they are labels placed on a state of mind arrived at by the culmination of actions and emotions (time plays a factor to). They are abstract concepts like good and evil.

In another words they are meaningless. Quite a harsh thing to say about such an all-invasive concept like love is in our society or even hate but can you fault it. What do you hate? Some people hate blacks, others hate whites or yellows or browns but it is not actually hate. It is a lack of basic education, fear, tradition and convention. You hate brussel sprouts? No you dislike the taste. You hate Hitler? No you feel abhorrence at his actions.





So in conclusion they are labels that don't exist.

Peter

What word actually exist? They all are labels to abstract or physical concepts.

[Denny Crane!]

sorry that was unclear they are labels for things without a physical reality or abstract concepts

PEter

[Fenris]

sorry that was unclear they are labels for things without a physical reality or abstract concepts

PEter

Love and hate are abstract concepts wether or not they are emotions.

[Denny Crane!]

Love and hate are abstract concepts wether or not they are emotions.

It can't be an emotion if it is an abstract concept by definition, one is felt the other is percieved.

Peter

[Justinian]

It can't be an emotion if it is an abstract concept by definition, one is felt the other is percieved.

Peter

Is physical pain felt? Yes.

Is emotional pain felt? Yes.

Emotional pain can affect the physical body, thus affecting physical pain, so emotional pain is felt, yes?

Now how is hate different from emotional pain?

[Darth Wong]

Love and hate are meaningless words bandied around as though they are a tangible physical thing.

Who are these people who think that love is a tangible physical object? Please show me the posts in which this was said.

It is untrue to suggest that you can measure love or hate, they are labels placed on a state of mind arrived at by the culmination of actions and emotions (time plays a factor to). They are abstract concepts like good and evil.

In another words they are meaningless. Quite a harsh thing to say about such an all-invasive concept like love is in our society or even hate but can you fault it. What do you hate? Some people hate blacks, others hate whites or yellows or browns but it is not actually hate. It is a lack of basic education, fear, tradition and convention. You hate brussel sprouts? No you dislike the taste. You hate Hitler? No you feel abhorrence at his actions.

The fact that something is an abstract concept does not mean it is necessarily meaningless. It only means that it has a non-physical definition. In the case of hatred, it is defined as certain kinds of actions and beliefs. There is no reason why this definition is necessarily invalid; if we define hatred to be the desire to inflict pain and hardship upon others, then it is quite easy to show that hatred exists, by showing that people behave in accordance with this desire.

Similarly, if we define love to be the genuine concern for the welfare of others with no reciprocal benefit to yourself, then once again, one need only look for examples of actions which fit this definition. Pointing out that love or hate could be defined in other terms does not disprove that they can be valid concepts themselves.

[Gaidin]

Who are these people who think that love is a tangible physical object? Please show me the posts in which this was said.

I'll state right now for the record we never said they were physical objects nor truly measurable. We merely said the physical effects of emotions(hormones and in certain extreme cases, various physically visible traits) could be measured. And it was never limited to love, thats just the one that cowen threw around a lot.

The last page or three is the conversation he is referencing...I think.

[Yorkshireman]

I honestly think hatred can be an emotional and physical sense. I don't mean generally such as race or objects or people I've never met. I'm not a physchologist but I can honestly say that in my lifetime I have known or had dealings with people that I have hated. People who made my teeth grind, viens pop out and who I would have willfully done physical damage to given the chance. People who's very name would make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Surely that must be hatred.

[Denny Crane!]

[QUOTE=Darth Wong]Who are these people who think that love is a tangible physical object? Please show me the posts in which this was said.

The five are so pages in which people tried to tell me love could be measured as an emotion in "things science can't understand".

The fact that something is an abstract concept does not mean it is necessarily meaningless. It only means that it has a non-physical definition. In the case of hatred, it is defined as certain kinds of actions and beliefs. There is no reason why this definition is necessarily invalid; if we define hatred to be the desire to inflict pain and hardship upon others, then it is quite easy to show that hatred exists, by showing that people behave in accordance with this desire.

The fact that there are so many other reasons for these actions though. Give me some examples of something that is hate driven and does not have countless driving reason behind it. Meaningless is to harsh a word. I mean to say that it is a label and nothing more, a label which is loosely defined and not finite.

Is physical pain felt? Yes.

Is emotional pain felt? Yes.

Emotional pain can affect the physical body, thus affecting physical pain, so emotional pain is felt, yes?

Now how is hate different from emotional pain?

Sorry I fail to see where you are going with this. Emotional pain can effect the body granted. Explain to me where hate comes into the equation.

Similarly, if we define love to be the genuine concern for the welfare of others with no reciprocal benefit to yourself, then once again, one need only look for examples of actions which fit this definition. Pointing out that love or hate could be defined in other terms does not disprove that they can be valid concepts themselves.

Love never is in the interpersonal sense though. Love between people is a interpersonal dependancy, it is not without reciprocal benefit.

PEter

[RazorOutlaw]

The fact that there are so many other reasons for these actions though. Give me some examples of something that is hate driven and does not have countless driving reason behind it. Meaningless is to harsh a word. I mean to say that it is a label and nothing more, a label which is loosely defined and not finite.

Could you say that the definition of love being used is too broad? Many of us consider love to be caring for someone and expecting no return, while at the same time having a partner who you could spend years with through thick and thin. Love could also be considered selflessly sacrificing oneself for (ahem) a loved one. Just a thought...we never attempted to narrow the word down.

[Gaidin]

Could you say that the definition of love being used is too broad? Many of us consider love to be caring for someone and expecting no return, while at the same time having a partner who you could spend years with through thick and thin. Just a thought...we never attempted to narrow the word down.

He made a fine attempt at that himself when he posted the idea of love consisting of three basic emotions to some degree or another.

[Denny Crane!]

He made a fine attempt at that himself when he posted the idea of love consisting of three basic emotions to some degree or another.

Actually there is a five paragraph post on the various things that lead to love are you ignoring it deliberatly.

It also has if you look closely the differences between emotion and love.

In those posts in the previous thread it was posted that love is an emotion which I dispute. I also disputed the ability to measure emotion since the theories proposed have been severely disparaged and never adequatly responded to.

On the subject of emotion I will open a second thread.

Could you say that the definition of love being used is too broad? Many of us consider love to be caring for someone and expecting no return, while at the same time having a partner who you could spend years with through thick and thin. Love could also be considered selflessly sacrificing oneself for (ahem) a loved one. Just a thought...we never attempted to narrow the word down.

Once again I refer you to the first post which details implicitly the things you are talking about.


Peter

[Justinian]

Sorry I fail to see where you are going with this. Emotional pain can effect the body granted. Explain to me where hate comes into the equation.

As I said: explain to me the difference between emotional pain and love/hate as far as abstract concepts go.

[Darth Wong]

The five are so pages in which people tried to tell me love could be measured as an emotion in "things science can't understand".

Or perhaps you simply misunderstood measurement of the symptoms of love, as opposed to measuring love itself.

The fact that there are so many other reasons for these actions though. Give me some examples of something that is hate driven and does not have countless driving reason behind it. Meaningless is to harsh a word. I mean to say that it is a label and nothing more, a label which is loosely defined and not finite.

The fact that hate can be motivated by other things does not mean it is not a valid concept.

Love never is in the interpersonal sense though. Love between people is a interpersonal dependancy, it is not without reciprocal benefit.

I feel sorry for you if you truly believe that.

[Denny Crane!]

[QUOTE=Darth Wong]Or perhaps you simply misunderstood measurement of the symptoms of love, as opposed to measuring love itself.

Complete and utter speculation in other words exactly my point.

The fact that hate can be motivated by other things does not mean it is not a valid concept.

Really or is just a vague concept alluding to thousands of different reactions to thousands of stimuli

I feel sorry for you if you truly believe that.

So what you believe that love is a one way street? That you can love and not be loved back? That is infatuation not love. I struggle to believe that anything below the twelve month mark is actually love as people need to get over infatuation first and thus love cannot exist without being in a relationship and you do recieve as well as give in a relationship.

[Darth Wong]

Or perhaps you simply misunderstood measurement of the symptoms of love, as opposed to measuring love itself.

Complete and utter speculation in other words exactly my point.

Utter nonsense. Determination based on measurement of symptoms is quite logical and is in fact how much scientific inquiry is conducted. How do you know there's a such thing as an electron? Have you ever seen one? It is a hypothesis which is supported by measurement of the effects of electrons, not the electrons themselves. You can't pick up an electron and measure it the way you would a block of steel.

Really or is just a vague concept alluding to thousands of different reactions to thousands of stimuli

Irrelevant to the fact that as defined, it is a perfectly valid concept.

So what you believe that love is a one way street? That you can love and not be loved back? That is infatuation not love.

How old are you? If you had children, you would know that you're spouting nonsense.

I struggle to believe that anything below the twelve month mark is actually love as people need to get over infatuation first and thus love cannot exist without being in a relationship and you do recieve as well as give in a relationship.

Oh right, so a baby who vomits on me, eats my food, craps himself so that I have clean his ass, and barely even recognizes my existence is repaying me for my hard work and sacrifices? And someday my grand goal is that he will grow up and leave home to start his own life? That is a reciprocal give-and-take as well?

[Lee1026]

Love can be seen chemically.

[RazorOutlaw]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, we were attempting to prove that a label exists?

[John I Tzimisces]

I offer the question of: Is hate really the opposite of Love?
Wouldn't...indifference fit that role better?


(Also, it must be the sign of the apocalypse, because I find myself in complete agreement with DW)