What is love? Don’t ask science.

Written by Godinci

What is love?

Falling in love and love, plays such an important role in our life that we almost have to admit that there lays somehow a deeper underlying principle encoded within it.

What precisely is love?

Here we have entered difficult grounds, since “love” means different things to different people. Although we all know what feelings “love” and “falling in love” can bring with it, feelings are personal, hence, expressing love in such terms makes it hard to define. In addition to that, philosophers, poets, musicians and religious zealots alike have all tried to describe love in varying terms, and so, the word “love” has lost all its meaning, because when too much things are associated with a word, then the word in itself looses all its true meaning.
To avoid semantic claptrap and emotional pitfalls the gladiators of secular science have been called to the coliseum to slaughter, for once and for all,  à la Carpophorus the Bestiarius, this multi-legged fossilosaur called ‘love’.

Gladiator against beast

To decide how to kill the beast it was agreed upon that love is an emotional condition, (in this case attraction towards someone), that result from complex bio- neurochemical processes within the body and brain that are incited through environmental conditions; while “falling in love” is referred to as the process where an entity steps over from neutrality towards someone to a feeling of love.
And so, brain scanners were declared as the weapon of choice to strike this multi-legged fossilosaur straight in its heart. In this regard dr. Helen Fisher and Co – one of the so called world leading expert on the biology of love and attraction – putted 32 people (man and women) into a brain scanner.

During the experiments it was seen that:

  1. testosterone and estrogen are largely involved with lust (sex-drive)
  2. dopamine, norepinephrine and serotine with romantic love (attraction)
  3. oxytocin and vasopressin are largely involved with attachment or commitment.

According to dr. Fisher’s expertise:

  1. Lust evolved for the purpose of mating with a range of appropriate partners
  2. Romantic love evolved to allow the partners to focus their mating energy at one at the time, thereby conserving courtship time and energy
  3. Attachment evolved to allow entities to tolerate each other long enough to rise at least a single child together while they’re couple.

brain in love

After having inspected the results and motivated by secular predisposition she states, I quote:

“We believe romantic love is a developed form of one of three primary brain networks that evolved to direct mammalian reproduction.”

Seeing it from this view, love, according to secular science, is mainly a Darwinian process that triggers biological clocks within the higher mammalian entities to engage in the act of sophisticated sexual reproduction – In other words, love is a clever trick of Nature that ensures the survival of the human species; all other meanings are pure poetry or bad philosophy.

Evidently, we Godinci don’t deny the fact that on the instrumental level much electro-biochemistry is involved with the process of falling in love and love itself, nor do we reject the notion that for the perpetuation of species (be it trough self-duplication or reproduction) several work-mechanism have to be present in the animate entities to allow for the fructification of it all.

We also admit that studying the work-mechanisms that are involved with the feelings we associate with love and falling in love can give us good insights of how: (1) love-associated feelings are produced, and (2) our chemical make-up can largely influence relational preferences, as dr. fisher soundly outlines.

.

Yet, what we want to stress out is that ‘Godinci’ undeniably, on observable facts and related commonsense reasoning, came to the demonstrable conclusion that love precedes the principle of (self)-perpetuation, thus, isn’t an evolutionary by-product of it.
That’s why saying that (self)-perpetuation is beneficial for the survival of the species and then reducing love to a perpetuation-mechanism is a tactical fraud.

Unfortunately, tactical frauds are common practice in secular science.
Although love-associables, such as pair-bonding, kinship and perpetuation, can all result from love, they can all happen in the absence of “love” – e.g. through enforcement.
We therefore kindly advice to all the stallions and horny horses of the science community to be more careful in their claims because even a hardened cowboy can sometime gets his act wrong.

 

Also read: What if Dickheads were found?