|
Re: do humans really need love?
Link |
by GuitarGirl
on 2007-11-03 09:35:16
|
|
Although love isn't necessary for suvival like food and shelter, I still think humans need it. I believe love is what shapes and influences a person as they develop. Love is something that's precious and definitely very powerful because it can actually change people for the better. Love also helps people find the strength to get through the toughest times. I know when I'm worried or scared about something, the affection of my family always comforts me. Overall, I think that love has the potential to make our problems seem smaller, therefore giving us the strength to overcome them. |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
|
|
Love can be defined in many ways, but most only think about the romantic type when the word comes into mind. Some people say that they could not live if they didn't have love, and that is probably what's best for them. But not everyone needs to fall in love. I've been trying to fall in love for several years. Even if I forced myself, I could never achieve that light-hearted feeling again. I had experienced love a couple of times, and I thought it was essential to a perfect life. To this day, I have not found romantic love or a lover. Yet, I'm still here. Though if we're talking about the love that connects human beings in general, then that is certainly an essential love. Without the relationships of friends and family, life would be barren. A person whose existence isn't acknowledged by anyone other than himself would probably have doubts about his life. These doubts are dispelled when there are others who appreciate him for who he is. So to wrap it up, romantic love isn't needed but human affilation is a must. |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
Link |
by
on 2007-11-04 14:25:24 (edited 2007-11-04 14:25:59)
|
|
First, ideology aside, love is a set of chemicals with the primary function of ensuring the continuation of the species. More specifically: cause and effect wise, and from an evolutionary perspective, love is various neurochemicals and hormones are released when one recognizes a trait that is benificial to survival (with regards to the species), such as - personality traits (For instance, a kind person is more likely to care for children, less likely to kill partner in fit of rage; therefor a kind person is better liked) - body attributes that suggest high survival rate (ex: angular face is sexy becuase it signifies high testostorone, leading to more muscular children with a better survival rate; likewise large bust in women is almost universally attractive becuase it signifies a mother who woould provide better nurture for children... the list of these attributes is long, and essentially defines what we find "sexy") - cultural prefrences (Doesn't seem like a survival trait unless you consider that 'cultural preferences' tend (in evolutionary history, mind, not in the current age) to favor those who are best suited to their specific environment. Becuase of this, 'cultural preference' can override the natural state of the above two traits, and also produce reactions to factors logically not accociated with instinct at all; for instance, material wealth) Of course, this is not the human perspective of love, as all we percieve is the effects of these neurochemicals, in the same way that we percieve that food is tasty based on survival concerns (sugar and fat are good becuase they are fuel, poisons are often bitter to prevent us from eating them, etc). In both cases, we do not instinctually know the REASONS for the sensations we feel, but merely the causes... i.e. sugar = tasty, kind people = love, etc... Evolution does not care WHY we think we're doing something, it just cares that we DO it. So, it follows that, from an objective perspective, individual humans do not need love (though it is, as society and the world currently function, needed by humanity as a whole if we wish to survive). That is to say, a human is physically capable of surviving without love; the lack of the neurochemicals and hormones thereby produced are not going to, in their absence, lead to a humans death. However I would add that it is (to a certain extent) equally probable that a person without love will NOT survive, especially in modern society, which (being structured somewhat around ideals of love) makes humanity acutely aware of that lack and will often drive an indivuidual without love to insanity, and therefore in some cases to acts of self-destruction, such as suicide. SO, in summation: -humans as they currently exist need love as a race; HOEWVER, -the individual does not physically require love to survive; BUT, -lack of love can, like many psychological situations, lead to death. Of course, this all assumes that "need" refers to a condition required for survival. The question of whether love is 'required' from a psychological perspecitve would, to be answer, in turn require a definition of a psychological 'requirement', which has not been posed.
Sore wa... himitsu.
|
|
Re: do humans really need love?
Link |
by
on 2007-11-07 19:29:32 |
|
@ulto- i would say that saying your definition of what we need as only refering to requisites for survival is too narrow. I would define it as not only that, but things necessary to the development and maintaining of normal, healthy, brain function/activity also your operational definition of love is pretty much exclusively eros (erotic love), and while completely correct in its own respect, sort of denies (or at least omits) the existence of amor and agape in a way when denying the necessity of love that perhaps would not hold true for love as a whole (the sum of all three concepts) and should perhaps be specified that we indeed do need a mix of the other two, especially in childhood, but throughout the rest of life as well, to be fully functional and healthy (emotionally and neurologically) individuals.  |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
|
|
Looks like people are really heating up over here. Love, huh? It's the most difficult thing to define, yet without it the world would probably stop revolving (for some people). Well, my take on it is kinda like Arthur Schopenhauer's. Love is 'a trick nature plays on us to propagate the species'. Everything else, a woman's beauty, a man's handsomeness, is mere camouflage, human versions of peacock feathers. There's a really nice thought experiment too. If Juliet was 10 years older than she was in Shakespeare, would Romeo have sung love ballads for her? He probably would've walked right past her had he met her on the street. So, in summation, love is useless and probably the only way nature can get Homo sapien to mate.  --> |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
Link |
by
on 2007-12-28 00:21:18 |
|
I just wish that more people would start thinking about non-romantic love too when posting here. Romantic love isn't the only kind of love. @Gant: What about lust? That could get humans to mate too. And I kinda disagree that love is useless, at least not to a person's psychological state.   |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
Link |
by
on 2007-12-28 00:35:31 |
|
for an instance have you all watch Equilibrium??? it's has Christian Bale as the main char, it is the best gun fight(literally) film i ever watch, those gun art (similar to martial art) are the best ever.... anyway back to topic this film (oh well) *spoiler* tell you about the world being change, the thing like feeling is being pressed down to the limit with drugs, so as you can say the feeling that is about love, like and dislike, romantic to lust, yup those feeling is being suppressed by drugs, why?? well because they thought that by those feeling we human fight over something, yet result as wars and any misbehavior act so they suppressed the feeling by drugs and what you know is human can live like that, they eat because the body need it not because they like it, they married because of reproduction, they work just so the country is moving, all but responsibility. they do stuff because it necessarily. not by liking it or say because of feeling *end* but hey then what differ us from robot then, if you take out our feeling ^^ so then that's why the main char face the government to bring those ideology down 
 |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
|
|
I'm an atheist, so without love I wouldn't be able to stop myself from killing everyone. I guess I'd survive without it, but there'd be a lot of other people who wouldn't.
10 more years!
|
|
Re: do humans really need love?
|
|
look i'm an atheist as well but i have mental problems and personally i beleive that love was something i didn't get or get enough of i've had a very hateful past and because of that i'm unstable ok but i love my dog get it see love is a tie that binds us to something that is a part of us so i believe that love is something humans need and all humans have felt love at least once in their lives so thats my point coming straight from the mouth of a mentally unstable person
I will protect you
|
|
Re: do humans really need love?
|
|
@Asd: Dude, u don't need to read into my post too much, ok? Why am i always on the defensive before u? My post reflected the opinion of Arthur Schopenhauer. Plus, didn't i say 'probably' when i was talking about the way humans could mate? P.S. What other kind of love is there? ALL love is romantic i.e. inspired by the emotional portions of the brain. P.P.S. Lust is not possible without love(I speak socially, of course). Barring rape,lust is present everywhere there is love. Lust without love is nothing.  --> |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
Link |
by
on 2008-01-01 19:19:11 |
|
love is an nessesity experiments were conducted a long time ago when monkey infants were placed into a room with toys all by themselves and they would jus curl up in a ball in the corner of the room and basically die because they had no form of reassurance or "love" love is so important that when baby moneys were placed into a room with no food and two "surrigate mothers" or fake mother monkeys, one was a made of wire and had a milk bottle and the other was covered in a soft cloth with no milk the monkey went to the cloth mother for reassurace, safty, security, love in a sense before going for the milk mother. reporst say that the baby monkeys would try to reach the milk bottle while still hanging onto the cloth mother. also if it wasn't for hormones that produce that attraction between humans known as "love", humans wouldn't reproduce and we wouldn't be here right now debating this the reason why love is the main topic of books, songs and movies is because it is such a complex and interesting subject to write about     |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
Link |
by
on 2008-01-01 23:38:15 (edited 2008-01-01 23:39:22)
|
|
@Gant: Well, my bad with wording then. (And yet looks like another person thinks I'm "dude". Not that it matters.) And since that's your definition of "romantic love", well, there's no "non-romantic love" for you. My definition is different. (I'm bad with words, won't explain right now) Lust without love... now that I think about it, you should at least "love" the appearance of the person you lust for even if not the person himself/herself, wouldn't you... |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
|
|
I believe humans can live without love, though I doubt that would lead to a satisfactory life. some don't believe in love because they are afraid to love and are afraid of getting hurt. some see it as a sign of weakness. such individuals are not to shunned from the rest of society that believes in love being a necessary aspect of life, that's just who they are or how they were raised. if i may go just tiny, tiny bit off topic (but still related) I know of some people who claim they've never been in love, or dont believe in it. suffice to say, that doesnt necessarily mean they don't desire it. I find such individuals interesting. what happens if they do find love, or fall in love? What happens next? do their views on love change? my guess is probably. most people will find themselves infatuated with another individual sooner or later in life, provided they don't die before it happens. 
wooo maplestory |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
|
|
@ASD: It's OK. I'm glad you agree with my idea of lust without love, and I would love to hear about ur idea of romantic love. P.S. Are u a "dudette"? Then, I'm sorry very much. --> |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
Link |
by
on 2008-01-05 16:33:04 |
I believe that everything's created into two completely opposite but Undeniably connected sides just like the light and darkness, day and night. They exist to maintain equilibrium between themselves, supporting each other in everyway. Love's no exception as hatred serves as its alternate side. So, in my opinion people really do need love. Concerning the issue about its role to human as a mere emotion or the essence of the life itself, I cannot say much since I do not have enough information and experience about the matter, but I could share my opinion that veryone got their own way of seeing things, on their own perspectives.  |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
|
|
To answer the question simply, you don't really need love to survive. One can live without love. But you do need love if you want to live and grow up with a normal mentality among the society. To simply live, all one needs is food :P |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
|
| Love is meaningless. A useless emotion that leads even the most intelligent of us astray. Love makes fools of all mankind It is a distraction, a curse. Needless sacrifice and ruthless acts are both committed in the name of love. The closest to a purpose love has is in perpetuating the species, both in creating new life and forcing mothers to nurture and protect their children until they are ready. Still love acts as a poison, seeping through the veins and arteries of society leading to the heart of all evil. Faith is but an offset of love, and the most explosive force known to mankind. Greed is but love taken to the material world, envy the love of what one does not have. So many attrocities, and all come back to a form of love. |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
Link |
by
on 2008-01-08 12:23:11 (edited 2008-01-09 08:11:54)
|
|
love sure is an important part of our life, but love itself is not something we need to survive. The only thing a human needs to survive is a group of people, with who he has a friendly relation, be that love or just a friendship. Without any form of social interaction most people would go insane or get suck up by their work. But apart from that, i think love is one of the most enjoyable things a human can ever have.
~ivary~ still need to make a real signature ^^
|
|
Re: do humans really need love?
|
|
@ivary: What do people who don't have social interaction go? Sane or IN-sane? Your post isn't making sense, pal! I think Jing-san is on to something there. Love IS one of the ways by which nature attempts to propagate the human race. But our society has institutionalized and romanticized love so much that we now feel incomplete without it.  --> |
|
Re: do humans really need love?
Link |
by wind-spear5
on 2008-01-09 00:37:23
|
| I had a quick skim over this thread and I noticed that a few people said something along the lines of this: "love is a luxury not a necessity". So love is a privilege rather than a right to those few people, and I would disagree with such an ideal. Human beings are social animals(yes man is an animal believe it or not), and they need social interaction with fellow human beings, and that interaction can be showcased by affection or as most would call it: love. The love and affection can be showcased in various ways depending on who is receiving the love and affection(i.e: a parent would receive a different form of love and affection than a friend). How intimate you become with a friend will be completely different from how intimate you are with brother, sister, mother, father, etc. To those who think that love is a privilege and not a right have a lot to learn. |