Can the materialist explain the origin of love?

[tonyrey]

Love is the most perfect expression of our personality because it inspires us to the most sublime acts of which we are capable. We are capable of choosing to die for others with whom we have no family ties, bonds of affection or even personal acquaintance. We can set greater value on them even if we stand to gain absolutely nothing by our sacrifice. Yet to give ourselves and everything we have for their sake without expecting anything in return is contrary to instinct and even reason. It seems impossible on rational grounds to show why we should act in this way because it goes against the principle of equality and justice.

1. The hedonist may argue that the satisfaction derived from sacrificing oneself outweighs all other pleasures but this is an unverifiable and unconvincing hypothesis.
2. The cynic may argue that it is a form of insanity but this is clearly false because people who are perfectly normal, well balanced and fully aware of the consequences choose deliberately and without coercion to give their lives so that others may live.
3. The materialist may argue that both freedom and love are man-made concepts which explain nothing and that sublime acts of self-sacrifice are due to mental aberration, indoctrination and fanaticism.

It is certainly impossible to explain how the capacity for unselfish love which goes to such extremes has emerged in the evolutionary process. Either such nobility has been overrated or there has been some break in the continuity of human development. The vital role that love plays in people’s lives makes these explanations implausible.

Psychologists have established that it is an absolute necessity for a happy, well balanced existence that a person should love and be loved. It is essential to feel wanted for one’s own sake and feel irreplaceable by any other person. This desire is based on the belief that every person has a unique and infinite value which cannot belong to a physical organism which has emerged for no reason or purpose. As Renan remarked, “the development of humanity might be is no more significance than the growth of moss or lichen.” There is obviously no place for love in such a scheme of things.

For those who believe we exist by Design every human being is significant precisely because we exist as the result of divine love. It is possible for a materialist to believe in love, of course, but it becomes an insoluble mystery. A person could conceivably be self-conscious, free, rational, morally aware and yet devoid of the capacity to love in the full sense of the term. It remains undeveloped in some individuals and reaches its highest degree of perfection in the mystic who attains ineffable union with God. The materialist would reject this suggestion but he is faced with the problem of accounting for the remarkable similarities between the experiences of mystics of widely differing beliefs and backgrounds over a period of more than 2000 years.

On a lower plane many of us feel at some time in our lives that the joy and consolation of love give existence a meaning which it would otherwise lack. It compensates for the misery and suffering we have to endure. It is a divine power which liberates us from the isolation of being unique individuals. No one can feel what we feel and share our deepest experiences but when we identify ourselves totally with others and forget ourselves we know we have fulfilled the purpose for which we are created. Love transforms even suffering and death into a means of entering a state of oneness with those we love… not in nothingness but in heaven.

 

[hatsoff]

It is not at all difficult for a materialist to accept the physical behavior of human beings. We have empathy for our fellow man, and we take that into account, sometimes consciously, sometimes not, when making decisions on how to act. I see no great mystery in that.

 

[tonyrey]

It is not at all difficult for a materialist to accept the physical behavior of human beings. We have empathy for our fellow man, and we take that into account, sometimes consciously, sometimes not, when making decisions on how to act. I see no great mystery in that.

There is no mystery at all if you equate love with physical behaviour and persons with members of the ape family…

 

[hatsoff]

There is no mystery at all if you equate love with physical behaviour and persons with members of the ape family…

I’m glad we agree. ; )

 

[AntiTheist]

It seems impossible on rational grounds to show why we should act in this way because it goes against the principle of equality and justice.

Well, there’s a curious thing about human beings: our actions are frequently not rational, driven by a host of factors not always completely controlled by the reason. We follow our emotions, instincts, gut reaction…and we often act in completely baffling ways. Take, for example, numerous accounts of battered women who choose to stay in abusive relationships when any rational evaluation of the situation would dictate that they should get out of there.

Simply put, emotions exist, and emotions drive actions in ways that reason would not. There’s nothing mysterious about it, nor is there anything that indicates the supernatural.

 

[tonyrey]

Simply put, emotions exist, and emotions drive actions in ways that reason would not. There’s nothing mysterious about it, nor is there anything that indicates the supernatural.

Do you believe in free will?

 

[AntiTheist]

Do you believe in free will?

It largely depends on what you mean by “free will.”

Generally speaking, I believe we have a will that is not free – that is, we have the experience of consciously choosing options, but those choices are determined by a host of factors that limit the will in a given situation (most especially our preferences). In essence, one’s choices always ultimately reduce down to a weighing of preferences and options, and both preferences and options – along with the value we prefer to attach to each – are typically beyond our control.

 

[tonyrey]

It largely depends on what you mean by “free will.”

Generally speaking, I believe we have a will that is not free – that is, we have the experience of consciously choosing options, but those choices are determined by a host of factors that limit the will in a given situation (most especially our preferences). In essence, one’s choices always ultimately reduce down to a weighing of preferences and options, and both preferences and options – along with the value we prefer to attach to each – are typically beyond our control.

Why “Generally speaking”? Your analysis of choices concludes that they are **always **the result of factors beyond “our” control…
Two other important questions are what you understand by the terms “we” and “the will”. If “we” are biological machines surely there is no such thing as “the will”?

 

[AntiTheist]

Why “Generally speaking”? Your analysis of choices concludes that they are **always **the result of factors beyond “our” control…
Two other important questions are what you understand by the terms “we” and “the will”. If “we” are biological machines surely there is no such thing as “the will”?

I said “generally speaking” because it depends on how you’re defining terms.

When I say that I have a will, but not a free will, I mean that I have the experience of “choosing” between options. I wake up, and I have a preference for doing X, Y, and Z, and opportunities to do them.

But that will isn’t “free” because it’s constricted – both by the preferences themselves (which I didn’t choose…I didn’t make a conscious choice to enjoy eating steak, for example – it happens to be that I am so constituted to enjoy eating it) and by the options through which I can exercise those preferences (I didn’t choose to be born into an environment where I can satisfy all of my preferences pretty easily).

Decsisions are not “free” – they are simply a weighing of factors (preferences and options) that are beyond one’s control.

Before I go on explaining further, what exactly does this have to do with the thread topic, anyway? I don’t “choose” to love people, either.

 

[tonyrey]

Why “Generally speaking”? Your analysis of choices concludes that they are always the result of factors beyond “our” control…
Two other important questions are what you understand by the terms “we” and “the will”. If “we” are biological machines surely there is no such thing as “the will”?

How would you define “we”? Does it signify particular bodies in space and time?

When I say that I have a will, but not a free will, I mean that I have the experience of “choosing” between options. I wake up, and I have a preference for doing X, Y, and Z, and opportunities to do them.

So really the will is just an impression or feeling of selecting an action which is the result of a physical cause. You are a passive observer of what is happening and cannot influence it in any way?

But that will isn’t “free” because it’s constricted – both by the preferences themselves (which I didn’t choose…I didn’t make a conscious choice to enjoy eating steak, for example – it happens to be that I am so constituted to enjoy eating it) and by the options through which I can exercise those preferences (I didn’t choose to be born into an environment where I can satisfy all of my preferences pretty easily). Decisions are not “free” – they are simply a weighing of factors (preferences and options) that are beyond one’s control.

In that case - including your thoughts, feelings - are the inevitable consequences of your genetic makeup and the experiences which have been thrust upon you? You are in effect a cog in the machine of nature… .

Before I go on explaining further, what exactly does this have to do with the thread topic, anyway? I don’t “choose” to love people, either.

You have answered your own question with your last remark. You obviously believe love is something which happens to you since you are a helpless victim of the circumstances into which you were born. It is an event just like any other which has no particular significance, meaning, value or purpose…

 

[hatsoff]

You have answered your own question with your last remark. You obviously believe love is something which happens to you since you are a helpless victim of the circumstances into which you were born. It is an event just like any other which has no particular significance, meaning, value or purpose…

Correction: it has no divine significance/meaning/purpose. But it has plenty of human significance/meaning/purpose.

 

[brandymmiller]

I don’t “choose” to love people, either.

So in your belief is love a feeling that is either there or not there?

Are you married? Are you a parent?

 

[pzona]

So in your belief is love a feeling that is either there or not there?

Are you married? Are you a parent?

Two words: child abuse. No parent (I’m guessing on this I suppose, I don’t have any children) who loves their children could do some of the things some people do to their kids.

 

[pzona]

1. The hedonist may argue that the satisfaction derived from sacrificing oneself outweighs all other pleasures but this is an unverifiable and unconvincing hypothesis.

Speaking of unverifiable and unconvincing hypotheses, do you believe love is a supernatural phenomenon?

Psychologists have established that it is an absolute necessity for a happy, well balanced existence that a person should love and be loved.

Do you have any sources on this? Not that I don’t believe you, but I’m interested in reading more on official studies. If you could share some of your sources I’d appreciate it

 

[geometer]

It largely depends on what you mean by “free will.”

Generally speaking, I believe we have a will that is not free – that is, we have the experience of consciously choosing options, but those choices are determined by a host of factors that limit the will in a given situation (most especially our preferences). In essence, one’s choices always ultimately reduce down to a weighing of preferences and options, and both preferences and options – along with the value we prefer to attach to each – are typically beyond our control.

If you have never had a vision of the future, then contemplate that. Take the time one day to contemplate seeing an event that will transpire the very next day.

You will learn a lot from that experience.

 

[tonyrey]

Speaking of unverifiable and unconvincing hypotheses, do you believe love is a supernatural phenomenon?

Both natural and supernatural…

Do you have any sources on this? Not that I don’t believe you, but I’m interested in reading more on official studies. If you could share some of your sources I’d appreciate it

The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm is a good introduction.

 

[4Horsemen]

The love that goes beyond romantic or even altruistic love has as its ends ultimate truth. It is a seeking–for that which is the eternal, the perfect, the good, the beautiful. Its end is the finding of the Beloved which is Divine Love itself. (Christians, recall the joy of Mary & Joseph finding of the Child Jesus in the temple).

All earthly love is only a mere reflection of this Divine Love. We might say that in love we discover one facet of an infinite number of facets. The more we delve the more we discover. The eternal love sought for cannot be completely realized on this earth even by the greatest of saints or mystics. The more we submit to Perfect Love (Divine Love), the greater will be our love for our earthly sojourners.

I read that G.K. Chesterton said that the young man knocking on the brothel door is looking for God. He just doesn’t know where the source of the good really is.

 

[AntiTheist]

How would you define “we”? Does it signify particular bodies in space and time?

I use “we” to signify all people.

So really the will is just an impression or feeling of selecting an action which is the result of a physical cause. You are a passive observer of what is happening and cannot influence it in any way?

Yes, it’s the feeling of selecting an action. But it’s not a feeling of being a passive observer – it feels, as my other sentences indicates, like I’m selecting actions.

In that case - including your thoughts, feelings - are the inevitable consequences of your genetic makeup and the experiences which have been thrust upon you? You are in effect a cog in the machine of nature… .

Yes.

You obviously believe love is something which happens to you since you are a helpless victim of the circumstances into which you were born. It is an event just like any other which has no particular significance, meaning, value or purpose…

…except that it has a value to me.

This thread is about how a “materialist” – and I’m only a materialist in the sense that I don’t think that the existence of anything entirely separate from the material world has been demonstrated – “explains” love.

And the answer is that he explains it very easily. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it’s incorrect.

 

[4Horsemen]

The love that goes beyond romantic or even altruistic love has as its ends ultimate truth. It is a seeking–for that which is the eternal, the perfect, the good, the beautiful. Its end is the finding of the Beloved which is Divine Love itself. (Christians, recall the joy of Mary & Joseph finding of the Child Jesus in the temple).

All earthly love is only a mere reflection of this Divine Love. We might say that in love we discover one facet of an infinite number of facets. The more we delve the more we discover. The eternal love sought for cannot be completely realized on this earth even by the greatest of saints or mystics. The more we submit to Perfect Love (Divine Love), the greater will be our love for our earthly sojourners.

I read that G.K. Chesterton said that the young man knocking on the brothel door is looking for God. He just doesn’t know where the source of the good really is.

To answer the question, which is the subject of this thread, my answer is no, the materialist does not understand the origin of love, and, therefore, cannot explain it.

 

[tonyrey]

I use “we” to signify all people.

Do you believe people are solely physical organisms?

Yes, it’s the feeling of selecting an action. But it’s not a feeling of being a passive observer – it feels, as my other sentences indicates, like I’m selecting actions.

But it is just a feeling?

In that case - including your thoughts, feelings - are the inevitable consequences of your genetic makeup and the experiences which have been thrust upon you? You are in effect a cog in the machine of nature.

. .
Yes.

In that case you are a passive observer in the sense that you cannot influence the course of events.

You obviously believe love is something which happens to you since you are a helpless victim of the circumstances into which you were born. It is an event just like any other which has no particular significance, meaning, value or purpose…

…except that it has a value to me.

Why does it have value for you?

This thread is about how a “materialist” – and I’m only a materialist in the sense that I don’t think that the existence of anything entirely separate from the material world has been demonstrated – “explains” love.

But you believe everything has emerged from matter?

And the answer is that he explains it very easily. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it’s incorrect.

So far there is nothing to dislike because you have not explained precisely what love is!