Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

C4 Diesel · 01-30-2005, 08:08 PM

I think this debate can be (and is being) skewed based upon peoples interpretation of Redjake's original statements, particularly "love is just an evolved form of enjoying someone".

I find this to be untrue from a humanistic standpoint. By taking this standpoint, one can interpret the statement to imply that love has no more significance than the enjoyment of an individual over a long period of time. I would then think this statement to be false, as I'm sure a study would find that the overwhelming majority of people would say that love is a much more complex mechanism, and has much more meaning and substance to it, which, since the belief is inherently subjective, would be pretty much taken as truth.

From a kind of neuroscientific standpoint, the statement seems to be much more true. Love, like any other positive response to a stimulus, is just a release of dopamine to specific locations in the brain. Granted, "love" may release more dopamine on average than something that would be taken as merely "enjoyable", but this still allows the comparison in this manner. I.E. something that is a pale red may be "less" red than a deep, rich red but they're still both red.

Where I think Jake is off is on marriage. I believe Jake's take on the reasons people get married to be too centered around personal immediate gratification to be accurate. People are not solely based around the persuit of enjoyment. I think the reason most people stay married is because of family structure. I would believe this to be primarily instinctual, and thus not necessarily consciousally thought out in this manner, but marriage provides the best situation for the raising of children. This instinctual desire and its conscious counterpart (which exists because it is usually obvious that marriage provides the best scenario for the child) is obviously not enough in some situations and the desire for personal gratification will win. By these conclusions I find the factors involving whether a marriage survives to be (on a very simple level):

1) the ability of the marriage to provide a positive environment for the rearing of childern (including the ability to produce the children in the first place)
2) the gratification the individuals recieve from maintaining the marriage. (which is more along Jake's original train of thought.)

Anyone like chemistry? It's kind of like a chemical reaction... There's the trouble of getting divorced which we'll label as the "activation energy" of the reaction. The negative aspects regarding 1 and 2 (a poor enviornment for children or a dissatisfaction with the relationship on a personal level) provide the "energy" for the reaction, while good aspects take away "energy". Once there's enough energy (negatives) to overcome the activation energy (trouble of getting a divorce), the reaction happens (the marriage breaks up). In other words, once it becomes worth it for an individual to get a divorce, that person will do so.

. . . that's my 2 cents.

01-30-2005, 08:08 PM	#8 (permalink)
C4 Diesel Crazy Location: Troy, NY	I think this debate can be (and is being) skewed based upon peoples interpretation of Redjake's original statements, particularly "love is just an evolved form of enjoying someone". I find this to be untrue from a humanistic standpoint. By taking this standpoint, one can interpret the statement to imply that love has no more significance than the enjoyment of an individual over a long period of time. I would then think this statement to be false, as I'm sure a study would find that the overwhelming majority of people would say that love is a much more complex mechanism, and has much more meaning and substance to it, which, since the belief is inherently subjective, would be pretty much taken as truth. From a kind of neuroscientific standpoint, the statement seems to be much more true. Love, like any other positive response to a stimulus, is just a release of dopamine to specific locations in the brain. Granted, "love" may release more dopamine on average than something that would be taken as merely "enjoyable", but this still allows the comparison in this manner. I.E. something that is a pale red may be "less" red than a deep, rich red but they're still both red. Where I think Jake is off is on marriage. I believe Jake's take on the reasons people get married to be too centered around personal immediate gratification to be accurate. People are not solely based around the persuit of enjoyment. I think the reason most people stay married is because of family structure. I would believe this to be primarily instinctual, and thus not necessarily consciousally thought out in this manner, but marriage provides the best situation for the raising of children. This instinctual desire and its conscious counterpart (which exists because it is usually obvious that marriage provides the best scenario for the child) is obviously not enough in some situations and the desire for personal gratification will win. By these conclusions I find the factors involving whether a marriage survives to be (on a very simple level): 1) the ability of the marriage to provide a positive environment for the rearing of childern (including the ability to produce the children in the first place) 2) the gratification the individuals recieve from maintaining the marriage. (which is more along Jake's original train of thought.) Anyone like chemistry? It's kind of like a chemical reaction... There's the trouble of getting divorced which we'll label as the "activation energy" of the reaction. The negative aspects regarding 1 and 2 (a poor enviornment for children or a dissatisfaction with the relationship on a personal level) provide the "energy" for the reaction, while good aspects take away "energy". Once there's enough energy (negatives) to overcome the activation energy (trouble of getting a divorce), the reaction happens (the marriage breaks up). In other words, once it becomes worth it for an individual to get a divorce, that person will do so. . . . that's my 2 cents. __________________ C4 to your door, no beef no more...