Love

[Alex D]

Is love real, or just a bunch of chemicals?

[Citrusponge]

Both.

[Haz]

Um... an emotion?

[Peregrinus]

Define real. Love is definitely a real experience with physical and emotional effects, but you seem to be asking whether it has some deeper metaphysical/spiritual reality. So yeah, first define "real".

[Stevehattan]

How would love being created by chemicals make it not real? We can feel it, so obviously it's real.

[bradybaker]

"Love is a chemical reaction in the brain that helps to ensure the survival of our species" -Bill Watterson (author of Calvin and Hobbes)

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by bradybaker \"Love is a chemical reaction in the brain that helps to ensure the survival of our species\" -Bill Watterson (author of Calvin and Hobbes) I would disagree somewhat. Sexual desire, physical attraction, and primal instinct help ensure the survival of our species. Yes these are chemical reactions in the brain, but they are certainly not "love" in and of themselves. Love does not need to exist between two people for them to mate. Many people who have affairs, for example, do not love the person they have an affair with. It is usually a physical attraction/sexual desire thing. Of coarse that could be a cultural thing too. If your culture defines love as needing only sexual desire & physical attraction, then that statement might speak better to you.

[Howie]

Uuhhh I love chemicals What do you actually mean by real? If realism exists then on some level love has to be real. Seriously, I think it has to do with our chemical make up. And there seems to be an obvious differance beteen men and womans. I will keep it at that.

[Stevehattan]

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream&#045;scape)</div> <!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker \"Love is a chemical reaction in the brain that helps to ensure the survival of our species\" -Bill Watterson (author of Calvin and Hobbes) I would disagree somewhat. Sexual desire, physical attraction, and primal instinct help ensure the survival of our species. Yes these are chemical reactions in the brain, but they are certainly not \"love\" in and of themselves. Love does not need to exist between two people for them to mate. Many people who have affairs, for example, do not love the person they have an affair with. It is usually a physical attraction/sexual desire thing. Of coarse that could be a cultural thing too. If your culture defines love as needing only sexual desire & physical attraction, then that statement might speak better to you.[/b] Maybe "love" in that quote was more of a reference to the natural love between parents and children, which undoubtably helps the survival of the species. If parents didn't care about the offspring, the human race would suffer immensely whether talking about primitive or modern humans.

[Gezus]

I refuse to vote because love is both. I would say love is real either way, doesn't change a damn thing. If it's chemical, it's still real. Otherwise it would be like saying "is plutonium a chemical or real?"

[The Truth]

Love is a trick nature uses to make us reproduce by releasing chemicals in our bodies. It is happening to us, and is real.. but its real by design. We no longer mate by instinct.. we have to go through the very painful proccess of love, the feeling is real, just as real as cutting youself and you synapes sending chemicals to your brain to tell you that you have an owwie

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by dream-scape I would disagree somewhat. Sexual desire, physical attraction, and primal instinct help ensure the survival of our species. Yes these are chemical reactions in the brain, but they are certainly not \"love\" in and of themselves. Love does not need to exist between two people for them to mate. Many people who have affairs, for example, do not love the person they have an affair with. It is usually a physical attraction/sexual desire thing. I assure you that all of those behaviours come from our genetic material. Which, of course, are nothing but chemicals. When it comes right down to it, your body is just a fancy system of particles interacting through the laws of chemistry and physics. As for the topic of the thread though, love is both. Chemicals are real...everything real IS chemical.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by bradybaker I assure you that all of those behaviours come from our genetic material. Which, of course, are nothing but chemicals. I don't recall saying otherwise. In fact I explicitly said that yes those things were also chemical reactions. What I said was they don't constitute what "love" is just by themselves, meaning love involves more than just those actions & feelings. Apparently though, I have written some invisible text somewhere, only viewable by you. What I would love is if you could tell me what that text says, because I really don't have any memory of writing it, and I sure can't see it

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by Stevehattan Maybe \"love\" in that quote was more of a reference to the natural love between parents and children, which undoubtably helps the survival of the species. If parents didn't care about the offspring, the human race would suffer immensely whether talking about primitive or modern humans. That may be partly true, and many parents do love their children because of the bond they share. But there is a natural instinct for parents to protect their offspring. So then is this natural instinct what love is? My point is, you can't reduce "love" down to a singular thing. Even saying it is a chemical reaction is oversimplifying, because there are a number of chemical reactions that occur in our brains and bodies that can be considered to be part of love. To me there is not a single chemical reaction, action, emotion, or feeling that by itself and itself alone is love. I guess to me, love is a referential term referring to a myriad of things that it can represent, embrace, and embody.

[Joseph_Stalin]

Love changes socially as well. Another reason the genepool's getting fucked, while the true elite of society much stand back mate-less. Today it's becoming more attraction than love, more popular than actual desire.

[AirRick101]

Chemicals play a role in emotions, but they most likely are not the source of'em. On a similar topic, does our mind necessarily equate with our physical brains? The mind is intangible, yet so far as human knowledge is concerned, is at best vehicled in the mind, but is not the same thing. So remember, chemicals is a physical substance. I believe love is transcendent, I don't like the idea of it being reduced to chemicals only. Experts say our moods are connected with chemicals, but doesn't necessarily mean chemicals create moods. It works the other way around, 2.

[irishcream]

A very mixed emotion i think, definitely real. Sometimes you wish you could stop loving (well, i do) because it does eat into your life somewhat... yes, i believe it's chemical, isn't it something to do with endorphins which causes that 'high' feeling (i've been there, it's good, but coming down makes you forget why you love someone) I think if you've loved someone for a long time, you get used to it.

[LucidDreamGod]

I never forget the reasons why I love people there are no reasons eccept that they are alive and thats enoughe for me