- Dec 20, 2003
- 13,615
- 2,671
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Before people shift this into the philosophy or theology forums please hear me out.
The Reductionist Materialist view of reality will attempt to explain this in one way while Christians and many normal people definitely think of it practically in an entirely different way. I wish to explore this discrepancy between usage and scientific analysis as a way of exploring the limits of the scientific methods, as an example of its misuse and as a platform to discuss the questions raised by its inadequacy.
It seems to me there are 3 distinct ways to describe the state of "being in love".
1) Reductionist Materialism: Will describe the biological systems involved , heightened levels of specific chemicals in specific areas etc
2) Humanism: This label may not be the best to apply and maybe the discussions related to this OP will provide me with a better one. The point of this perspective is that while it possesses a broader of view of what love is than 1) it cannot be regarded as a specifically religious answer to the understanding of love. This approach to describing the love state recognises that the software of our humanity is just as important as the hardware and that having all the biological conditions being in place may not necessarily result in love in all individuals in precisely the same circumstances. It explains this in terms of the internal logic of subjective systems that interact with these biological systems to produce different results in different cases. In this model science can inform the discussion setting limits and capabilities of what love is but it cannot give a complete account of causation as much of that causation is unobservable or individually unique.
3) Spiritual: A Spiritual explanation for love cites an otherworldly source for the capacity to love in the worst of circumstances e.g. Christ on the cross. Many Iraqi Christians have exhibited this kind of love. Forgiving those who burnt their houses and killed their friends and relatives and praying for their enemies for instance. There are others who have been selfless examples of love ministering to the suffering e.g. Mother Theresa or victims of cruel tyrannies e.g. Corrie Ten Boom who have continued to exhibit the qualities of loving when biological and even subjective reasoning would appear to give no cause for that to continue to be the case.
Reductionist Materialism would in my view reduce love to some kind of animal state. Humanism would make it a merely human phenomena describable in human terms and the Spiritual explanation would require a supernatural source for love.
The object of love varies considerably but I wish in the main to consider love as a personal phenomena in this OP rather than of ideas or systems for example. So love of a human person or a god or God would qualify in that respect.
So the questions:
The Reductionist Materialist view of reality will attempt to explain this in one way while Christians and many normal people definitely think of it practically in an entirely different way. I wish to explore this discrepancy between usage and scientific analysis as a way of exploring the limits of the scientific methods, as an example of its misuse and as a platform to discuss the questions raised by its inadequacy.
It seems to me there are 3 distinct ways to describe the state of "being in love".
1) Reductionist Materialism: Will describe the biological systems involved , heightened levels of specific chemicals in specific areas etc
2) Humanism: This label may not be the best to apply and maybe the discussions related to this OP will provide me with a better one. The point of this perspective is that while it possesses a broader of view of what love is than 1) it cannot be regarded as a specifically religious answer to the understanding of love. This approach to describing the love state recognises that the software of our humanity is just as important as the hardware and that having all the biological conditions being in place may not necessarily result in love in all individuals in precisely the same circumstances. It explains this in terms of the internal logic of subjective systems that interact with these biological systems to produce different results in different cases. In this model science can inform the discussion setting limits and capabilities of what love is but it cannot give a complete account of causation as much of that causation is unobservable or individually unique.
3) Spiritual: A Spiritual explanation for love cites an otherworldly source for the capacity to love in the worst of circumstances e.g. Christ on the cross. Many Iraqi Christians have exhibited this kind of love. Forgiving those who burnt their houses and killed their friends and relatives and praying for their enemies for instance. There are others who have been selfless examples of love ministering to the suffering e.g. Mother Theresa or victims of cruel tyrannies e.g. Corrie Ten Boom who have continued to exhibit the qualities of loving when biological and even subjective reasoning would appear to give no cause for that to continue to be the case.
Reductionist Materialism would in my view reduce love to some kind of animal state. Humanism would make it a merely human phenomena describable in human terms and the Spiritual explanation would require a supernatural source for love.
The object of love varies considerably but I wish in the main to consider love as a personal phenomena in this OP rather than of ideas or systems for example. So love of a human person or a god or God would qualify in that respect.
So the questions:
- What is love?
- Which perspective do you take and why?
- Why would you consider the other perspectives incomplete or untenable?
Last edited: