|existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine|
|( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board|
Posted by Brathelwaite on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 at 23:55:27 :
In Reply to: Feelings and love - the intelligent version posted by Joe on Thursday, February 27, 2003 at 01:55:17 :
: Love, for those who care, is the biological reaction to the need for the human species to ensure the maximum survival of its offspring. Love is irrational. In fact, it can be defined as irrational. Like faith, once it is explained in practical terms, it ceases to be love (or faith). Why would evolution encourage an irrational feeling towards the opposite sex? So called "irrational love" ensures that one's partner won't leave once someone better comes along. If relationships were purely rational, there would be no reason to remain with your spouse when pursued by a hotter babe. The intangible but lovable characteristics we latch onto when we fall in love serve to ensure that a better genetic partner won't undo what a much longer investment of time and concern has built. When one thinks of it, the irrationality of love is easily explained from a biological perspective. People capable and desirous of deeper attachments would, over time, be more likely to reproduce because their partners would be more likely to remain despite outside temptation. Sometimes, irrationality actually serves the purpose of continuing the species better that rationality.
Love is not irrational unless the perpetuation of the species is irrational. If the perpetuation of the species is irrational, we enter the realm of the absurd. To evade the realm of the absurd (should that be desirable), we must concede that love possesses a quality rendering attributes like "irrational" subordinate to it; meaning, in a way, that labelling love irrational is irrational; love is what is left after reaching the limit of understanding. If love is irrational, life is irrational, and maybe that's what you believe. Or do you think that the universe ceases to exist meaningfully beyond your capacity to understand it?
On a different note, I read some of the posts wherein you defend your government's foreign policy. To blather on and on in defiance of your opinions is, I know from experience, futile. Only I'd like to note that often with Americans who are otherwise very intelligent there is a curious mental blindspot when it comes to their government's international belligerence (I'm being very subtle in terming it so). I believe the fault lies in your media, one that is both ubiquitous and relentless in nurturing, from birth, an absurdly isolationist understanding of the world. That you are incapable of seeing your government's aggression for what it is, that you can find defensible its actions, is testament to the media's stranglehold on your subconscious.
Post a Followup