Where did love come from?

Where did love come from?

Plato judged that the basis of love is centered upon the mutual struggle for truth. I claim that the emotion of love in humans is evolved from the mother infant relationship in early mammals.

Occasionally when reading I run across a phrase or sentence or paragraph, which really rings a bell for me. The bell may be recognition of the compatibility of the point to my own conclusions or perhaps the point caused an epiphany, or other reasons. When I encounter such a point I often copy it and store it in a file for later analysis. One such point is as follows: 'Platonic idea that the giving and receiving of knowledge, the active formation of another's character, or the more passive growth under another's guidance, is the truest and strongest foundation of love'.

My analysis of this sentence led me down a long trail over an extended period of time to an understanding of the meaning of the statement and to an agreement with the meaning of that statement.

When studying philosophy I had read some of Plato's work and had a slight remembrance of one of his Dialogues in which he dealt with the subject of love. After some study of the particular Dialogue in question and some further study of Plato's general philosophy I realized what was meant by the point made in the sentence I had saved.

Quickie from Wiki: 'Plato constructed the Symposium as a story within a story within a story. This architecture creates the space for Plato to build his philosophy of knowledge. The speech of Socrates points out that the highest purpose of Love is to become a Philosopher, or Lover of Wisdom.'

I often watch the Discovery Channel on TV. As you probably know this channel often has a great documentary on animal life. Their audio/visual presentations give the viewer wonderful insights into the life of animals. Often the animals in question are large mammals such as lions, gorillas, monkeys, etc.

Plato wrote, 'An unexamined life is not worth living'. I find this a bit hyperbolic but nevertheless agree with the general point. Socrates also argued that the giving and receiving of knowledge, the active formation of another's character, or the more passive growth under another's guidance, is the truest and strongest foundation of love. Plato/Socrates judged that the basis of love is centered upon the mutual struggle for truth.

I would not attempt to explain why Plato's Idealistic philosophy leads to this conclusion but I think one can find justification for this point of view by considering the nature of the parent to progeny relationship. Considering the nature of evolution one might easily discover that the origin of love could be observed in the obvious relationship of present day mammals. The educational relationship between the animal mother and their progeny are evident to the most casual observer.

Evolutionary Psychology is based on the theory that all human psychological traits, such as love, must be traceable to our evolutionary ancestors. The source of love in humans is evolved from the mother infant relationship in early mammals (perhaps).

What do you judge to be the primordial animal source (assuming an acceptance of the validity of Darwin's theory of natural selection) for the emotion of love in humans?

I think Socrates -- not Plato -- gets the credit for the comment about an "unexamined life". But, whoever said it, it still raises a question. The comment implies that the author of the comment lived an "examined" life. So, if the author of the comment lived an "examined" life, then on what grounds can he assert that an unexamined life is not worth living -- since he didn't live one?

**************************

There doesn't appear to be a God or an intelligent designer. If this is the case, then "love" has no other choice but to be a product of evolution -- nothing more, nothing less. I think love has become a highly abstract concept through all the intellectualizations that humans attach to it. I think the underlying drive to all those intellectualizations is not necessarily a single thing, but a relatively complex (but finite) mixture of interacting and counter-influencing considerations -- attachment, connection, loss, security, stability, our reaction to authority figures (both the stern and compassionate aspects), hormones, meaning, hope, happiness. Our conclusion about what "love" is is based on our own life experience. Since our "life experience" includes all the emotional/reactive and intellectual/analytical aspects, and the context in which we perceive and evaluate the experiences changes over the course of our lives (that is, we develop at least some ideas of what life is all about very early in life, years before we have any real ability to analyze those experiences), then there's a whole bunch of stuff that gets thrown into the mix, all of which gets included under the umbrella of the word "love" -- making it a difficult thing to analyze.

But, sheesh, love is also one of humanity's most beautiful mysteries -- and one of the things that makes it beautiful is the mystery itself, which allows us to hide pretty much whatever we want inside of it, and no one can really prove us wrong. Few of us really want some of these beautiful mysteries to be solved -- for fear of taking some of the beauty out of life itself.

Nonetheless, hard-headed, loveless soul that I am, I do think that, ultimately, love can be "reduced" or "de-synergized" to something a bit less mysterious, yet another product of what is ultimately another relatively mechanistic, cause/effect process.

The source of love you are searching for is love/hate.
This type of love is a product of the mind,because the mind can only function in the extremities. It has a cause and an effect built into it, it is related to an outside object. It is dependent on the other, there is a bondage involved.If love could be caused by doing, we would have ended wars long ago, but love cannot be manufactured in a factory.

Love is a means and end unto itself-found within yourself.
How can the mind understand something which has no opposite to which it can make a comparison?
The mind needs to make a conclusion about things,but how to make a conclusion about something that has no beginning and no end?As long as the knower thinks itself to be the known, it will forever be stuck inside the mind!
Only when you have dropped out of your mind and into the heart can love be understood(how can you be standing under when your head is above your heart!), because the heart knows only singularity-no comparisons are needed to reach a conclusion here.The river of love is eternal, but in order to drink from a river you must first learn how to bend over and bow your head down, or else your thirst will never be quenched--how can looking at a river from the outside ever have any satisfaction?

love as in the conception of unexplained "feelings". Things we feel without understanding towards anything, as in objects or people.

if we think of ourselves as divine, then love is our divinity.

if we think of ourselves as machines, then love is our target.

if we think of ourselves as alive, then love is the essense of living.

if we think of ourselves as mortals, then love is our mortality.

if we think of ourselves as humans, then love is the only human aspect we claim.

if we think of ourselves as skeptics, then love is the only certainty.

if we think of ourselves as animals, then to love is to breed.

if we think of ourselves as thinkers, then love is the only thought worth mentionning.

if we think of ourselves as logical, then love is the one illogical thought we ever have.

it is the thing that we are born to reject and adore. It all circles down to our senses in the end. It is what satisfies our senses (whichever we may posess).

It was the apple, it is contradictory to our mind, simply because we are never perfect or intact when trying to understand it.

It came from the imperfection of Man, and our ego does not let us explain it for that one reason that is right in front of us.

it is the one thing we never were ment to understand. Simply because we are not conscious of every little thing we feel. We see senses already explained by our mind. The construct of beauty and it's opposite is within the things that our mind will never be able to be "aware" of, maybe because we take them as granted "truth", or maybe because we are incapable of being "aware" of all what our senses dictate to us.

But in the end, certain things as love and hate were a product of the incompletion of our being. It is a sense we gain, and will forever be a step ahead of our conception.

If i was to explain my feelings, they would wither, but my mind will create a brand new construct from which i would feel again, the same way i did before. It is the never ending constant of our being.

and in the end it's the one thing i refuse to explain, and leave it as it should be left. Felt not thought of.

if we think of ourselves as unknown, love is our mystery

It is our nature to doubt but we are taught to have faith and believe. Then we by and by think we know ourselves.What is a belief-nothing more than a subtle form of doubt!
Why put this limit on yourself?put a ? to yourself--who am I?