Is love purely emotional or is there a cognitive and rational part?
Last night we discuss this diverse topic.
In the initial stages of meeting a mate, can we rationally go down a checklist, narrow our choices, find the ideal candidate, and then develop the emotional attachment? Or is it more like "falling in love", then do a rational check (or justification!)
As a point of comparison, Mano thinks that we are different from other animals in that we are aware of the future and the past and that we also love while other animals don't.
Do animals love? RJ said that from his rancher experience, wolves are very loyal to their mates, do not have sex with wolves other than their partners, and do not switch social packs. Thus the "lone wolf" label to describe those wolves who do not join other social packs after their mates have died. Interestingly enough, RJ thinks that dogs, who came from wolves, are promiscuous because humans encouraged it to be so that the humans can breed the strains that humans want.
Gerald thinks that as a baby, we were initially only aware of the present, as we grow, we become aware of the past and the future. Together with language which allow us to describe our situation, we are able to look at ourselves and have introspection. Love becomes richer and more complex than just an attraction of the sexes and the longer relationship also deeper meaning than just being part of a social pact.
We also acknowledge the significance of first impressions on emotions and attractions. How do we form these fast first impressions? Are they accurate and can we rely on them?
Since first impressions are "intuitive", "subconscious", it is difficult to analyse. One possibility is that our past experience creates standard categories for us to make sense of life and the people we meet. When we meet someone for the first time, we "intuitively" slot this stranger to someone we know so that we can quickly assess the situation. By this explanation, first impressions will depend on our life experience, if we have been bitten by a dog before, our first impression of a dog will be quite different than someone who had experienced dogs as loving pets.
Our conceptions of the person we are trying to love may also be different than the person. We can be loving our conception of our intended mates only to find out later that they are not as we think they are. We had fallen in love with what we want, not what we had.
We also discussed "matured love" as referenced from Erich Fromm. It described a relationship that is not about the self but more about the pleasure arising from giving of the self to the other. http://www.philosophynow.org/issue85/Is_Love_An_Art
But not all giving relationships are necessarily healthy. Respect and appreciation from the receiver seems a necessary part of a mature loving relationship versus a dependent relationship where the giving is taken for granted.
Can we love everyone versus just our partner, our family, our friends, and immediate circles around us? Some said yes while others disagree. Here, it is the meaning of the word love that is in question. Do we mean love to be a giving and kind attitude that we hold or is it an intimate emotional relationship we have with some one. We cannot have both meanings in the same word.
What about love with multiple partners? Why is it that parents can have multiple children and love them all but our society frowns on multi-partner life styles such as the poly-amorous? If you love someone and want the best for them, would it not include more people that they like to be with as well?
My own thinking here is that intimacy is a time consuming and passionate issue, multiple partners simply dilutes this intimacy and time constraints stops the theoretical possibility of having everything there is to be had. There just isn't the engagement and emotional sharing in a multi partnership arrangement as there is with a monogamous one.
No comments:
Post a Comment