Does love exist?

The Mad Hatter

Emotion+?

Enkidu

raah! wrote: »

My point was that not only was it not a single emotion, but there were aspects of it which were more than emotions.

True, there are aspects of it that are not just emotion. To take a simpler example this would be similar to opinions. My opinion of some book for example, is not just an emotion, but a complex web of ideas, memories and emotions. Of course it is still stored and conveyed in the physical processes of my brain.

CerebralCortex

raah! wrote: »

My point was that not only was it not a single emotion, but there were aspects of it which were more than emotions.

What are 'more than emotions'? Thoughts? Thoughts with/out emotions?

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Anyway, you haven't actually addressed a single argument I've made. I gave reasons why love can be seens more than an emotion, or some sort of extra, transcendent, platonic, etc. You have asserted the truth of your position and followed it up with a "AD HOMINEM".

You are the one who didn't address a single point in my post. Love can seem more than other emotions, and there can be different types of love, and love can be combined with other emotions and result in different desires, but this doesn't stop love being an emotion.

yawha

raah! wrote: »

For the purposes these can be emotions which are "base" in comparison to love, and love can be "beyond base emotions" in that these emotions seem base in comparision to it. I don't have definitions for them. The word 'base' was something I had in there as a part of my own understanding of the situation, and I can't pretend that's a part of how love is commonly used.

As to it being 'beyond' them, this just means it's 'more' than emotions, and this is in the obvious way, examples have been given already "love is not lust" etc. As well as other cases showing how it's not just one emotion, or one collection, or one constant thing, etc.

See, I'm pretty sure I disagree with you, but since you're not really defining anything that you're saying, I'm not sure I can form an argument against you...

Could you maybe go into more depth as to what you mean when you put "more" in quotation marks or italics?

There are certainly emotions which are more simple to understand than others. I'm not sure that this makes more complex emotions "not emotions" or "'more' than emotions" though.

Logical Fallacy

raah! wrote: »

Haven't quoted this particular one for any reason, but since the rest were just jokes: This is a terrible piece of reasoning. The emotions might be real, but if they are just emotions then the term love is no longer suitable to describe them and love therefore does not exist.

A similar example you see happening is when atheists try to say that they have spiritual experiences, and come up with similar gems of reasoning like: "there are spiritual experiences, they just have nothing to do with spirits".

So from a materialistic perspective, the term love is no longer suitable to describe "a cocktail of emotions" OP understands this, as well as anyone else who ever uses the term, though people might like to continue to use it to describe something in an attempt to keep a sense of the former 'whatever' which was attached to the original meaning.

This makes minus sense.

You have actually created an incidence of negative sense in this thread.

raah!

yawha wrote: »

See, I'm pretty sure I disagree with you, but since you're not really defining anything that you're saying, I'm not sure I can form an argument against you...

Could you maybe go into more depth as to what you mean when you put "more" in quotation marks or italics?

There are certainly emotions which are more simple to understand than others. I'm not sure that this makes more complex emotions "not emotions" or "'more' than emotions" though.

The "more" in quotation marks is the "more" that people appeal to when they use the term love. For example, it is the "more" that the op has in mind when he/she says "apart from a cocktail of emotions". It is the more that people have in mind when they describe love using words like "transcendent" etc. It is the same more that is captured in the platonic sense, and the same more when people describe it as inherently good, or as somethign "above" emotions.

The whole point of the word is that it applies to this "more". So when if you say that "the situation described by love formerly is just emotions minus th e more", then it's as incorrect to continue to use love to describe this as it is to continue to use the term "spiritual" to describe an experience which you think has nothing to do with spirits.

Now, you can say that you think the phenomenon is "just emotions", which is probably the disagreement you would like to make, but if you'd liek to say the the word love refers to "just emotions", then you'll have to give some examples. As it stands I've given many which support my interpretation of the word. Indeed the OP supports this interpretation when he/she says "apart...". There are also inumerable examples from literature history/etc.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

This makes minus sense.

You have actually created an incidence of negative sense in this thread.

Several examples and extended versions of this argument have been given in the thread if you don't see what the point of that statement is. It hinges basically on the fact that the word love specifically refers to the "apart from the cocktail", and that if there is just the cocktail, then the word is no longer suitable, except in a figurative case, and in the context of the question, that still means that "love" doesn't exist.

raah!

Enkidu wrote: »

True, there are aspects of it that are not just emotion. To take a simpler example this would be similar to opinions. My opinion of some book for example, is not just an emotion, but a complex web of ideas, memories and emotions. Of course it is still stored and conveyed in the physical processes of my brain.

These are not the aspects that I was refering to, I do not mean that it is just a complex kind of emotion, I am not attempting to define the phenomena described by love. I am referencing the wishy washy mystical connotations which have always been associated with the term.

The Mad Hatter

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Too subtle?

Don't worry, I got it :cool:

Enkidu

raah! wrote: »

Several examples and extended versions of this argument have been given in the thread if you don't see what the point of that statement is. It hinges basically on the fact that the word love specifically refers to the "apart from the cocktail", and that if there is just the cocktail, then the word is no longer suitable, except in a figurative case, and in the context of the question, that still means that "love" doesn't exist.

I'm having a hard time as seeing this as anything but the typical reasoning one gets from religious quarters. That is, if something (love/morality/e.t.c.) doesn't exist in some atemporal sense that transcends physical reality then it's crap/pointless/non-existent.

I mean people throughout history have always said that the feelings music evokes, i.e. musical appreciation, is deeper and something more. You would conclude that since this something "more" doesn't exist then musical appreciation doesn't exist.

Also, not all cultures viewed love as having some transcendental "more" to it, even if they valued it highly.

raah!

Enkidu wrote: »

I'm having a hard time as seeing this as anything but the typical reasoning one gets from religious quarters. That is, if something (love/morality/e.t.c.) doesn't exist in some atemporal sense that transcends physical reality then it's crap/pointless/non-existent.

The point is that if these words mean something which is "atemporal etc." then saying "oh that thing formerly describe by the word which has atemporal etc. connotations doesn't have those atemporal connotations at all" , is silly, because it's not the same thing. This is why I made the comparison with the word spirit. People can still feel what was formerly described as love, and people can still have what were formerly described as spiritual experiences, but if there is no wish washy transcendence, then it's not love, and if there are no spirits, then it's not spiritual.

I mean people throughout history have always said that the feelings music evokes, i.e. musical appreciation, is deeper and something more. You would conclude that since this something "more" doesn't exist then musical appreciation doesn't exist.

I think you should pay closer attention to my posts. If there was a word which explicitly refered to the "more" in musical appreciation, and that "more" was found to be nonexistent, then the word, if it were a noun would also be "non-existent". Love not existing doesn't mean emotions don't exist, but those emotions aren't love.

Also, not all cultures viewed love as having some transcendental "more" to it, even if they valued it highly.

Well perhaps you could give some examples to counter the many I have given. An instantaneous one form history is that the french 'coeur' (or whatever it is) for heart is also the french for spirit/soul, and you love with your heart, so there is instant mystical connections there.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

I am referencing the wishy washy mystical connotations which have always been associated with the term.

Just because something is commonly explained in wishy washy mystical terms doesn't mean that those terms are accurate.
Its bizarre that you think undefinable wishy-washy mystical terms can somehow define love as something besides an emotion. If they are wishy washy and mystical, then they are not defined, and if they are not defined, then you cannot explain how they define love as not an emotion. How do you know that you are not mistaking the very complex and interlinked, but very grounded in emotion, aspects of love that many other emotions don't have because we dont dwell on them like we do on love?

Its also ironic, in a way, that you are essentially using calls-to-emotion in order to say that love isn't an emotion.

sponsoredwalk

raah! wrote: »

Actually, I'm saying it's wrong to take spiritual without the spiritual connotations. Just as it's wrong to take love without the connotations associated with it.

If you read the link I gave you you'll see there are numerous interpretations of the word "spirituality", using both the words " spirituality" & "spiritual" interchangeably. Furthermore this fluidity in usage stems from the fact that the word "spirit" has numerous interpretations:

In metaphysical terms, "spirit" has acquired a number of meanings:


...


The metaphorical use of the term likewise groups several related meanings:
...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit

Check the link if you don't believe me. Now your argument is that one & only one of these interpretations of the word is correct (you've just said "if there are no spirits, then it's not spiritual"). I've given you evidence that the root word, spirit, has numerous interpretations & given you evidence of the words "spiritual" & "spirituality" being used in numerous contexts, not all of which involve spirits. In other words here is irrefutable evidence that your conception of the words "spiritual & "spirituality" is far too restrictive, you basically either haven't learned that they apply in broader contexts or are just flat-out denying reality because the antiquated conception of the term was associated with religion:

Traditionally, many religions have regarded spirituality as an integral aspect of religious experience. Among other factors, declining membership of organized religions and the growth of secularism in the western world have given rise to a broader view of spirituality.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

The article itself even mentions how the conception of the word has shifted.

raah! wrote: »

Anyway, if you'd like to show explicitly where I have restricted love to the platonic interpretation, or also explicityl show where I have not been consistent in my methodologies of interpreting them then that would be good. As it stands you seem to have confused my post somewhat. You realise the platonic/profoundness/transcendent one are all part of the same interpretation? These things pretty much irrefutably demonstrate that you haven't actually read my posts.

I don't think we can go into this if you continue to deny the wide applicability of the word.

raah! wrote: »

The only strictness of interpretation I have shown I have very clearly detailed as being obvious ones like "any interpetation of spiritual must rightly include spirits, particularly when used to describe those experiences", and with love the same thing was there, that it must include the platonic etc.

This strict interpretation of the word spirit is simply incorrect. If we're going to continue then you need to refute the sources justifying the numerous interpretations of the word spiritual.

raah! wrote: »

Well you don't seem to have fully understood the restrictions I've placed on the interpretations. The answer is contained in the arguments above, as to why using hte word spiritual to describe figuratively somethign you don't want to describe as "spiritual" is inappropriate.

Claims of inappropriateness with regard to language are laughable, language is one of the most malleable constructs humans deal with - just think of the word malleable for example, how many contexts does it apply in? I might as well argue that the word only apply to chemistry because that's where I first learned the word, while another person should argue it only applies to personalities because that's where they'd heard it, etc...

sponsoredwalk

Jernal wrote: »

I can't be the only one who thought of the following when I read this :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm_-sW4Vktw

Oh yeah!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvmuVvb_zO4

Logical Fallacy

raah! wrote: »

Several examples and extended versions of this argument have been given in the thread if you don't see what the point of that statement is. It hinges basically on the fact that the word love specifically refers to the "apart from the cocktail", and that if there is just the cocktail, then the word is no longer suitable, except in a figurative case, and in the context of the question, that still means that "love" doesn't exist.

Wrong in many ways. The word "love" means the feeling a person experiences. The expression, concept and naming of "love", in any language regardless of what it is called...stemmed from the feeling of the cocktail. The two are completely interlinked in the formation of the concept.

The question, and your argument and indeed the other posters argument earlier is completely flawed...as love clearly and completely exists. You and others are not saying it does not exist, you are saying "love is x, not y".

The question you are answering is "What is love?", by seeking to offer a definition, even one that suits your own odd concept of love not existing, you are clearly admitting that yes love does exist, the only argument you can put forth is that love as a spiritual concept and connection does not exist and it is merely a mechanic. Well, love has always been a mechanic, it is simply a name for the result of that mechanic...a further understanding of a biological mechanism does not dispute the existence or result of said mechanism.

You are making the mistake of arguing one definition against the other in an argument where no original base definition was offered by the OP.

shootermacg

A child can love a friend, there are no hormones involved. Don't mix up love with sexual attraction.

Gregor Samsa

shootermacg wrote: »

A child can love a friend, there are no hormones involved. Don't mix up love with sexual attraction.

Don't think that hormones are only involved in sex.

Recent studies have begun to investigate oxytocin's role in various behaviors, including orgasm, social recognition, pair bonding, anxiety, and maternal behaviors. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "love hormone". The inability to secrete oxytocin and feel empathy is linked to sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissism and general manipulativeness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

iguana

shootermacg wrote: »

A child can love a friend, there are no hormones involved. Don't mix up love with sexual attraction.

You seem to be the one mixing up love with sexual attraction. Love can mean the feeling you have for the person you are also sexually attracted to (and you can also have sexual attraction without love). Love can also mean how a parent feels about their child, how a child feels about their parent, how siblings feel for each other, how a dog owner loves their dog, how the dog loves their owner (neurological studies show that when a dog is being stroked the brain of both the owner and the dog have an extremely similar hormonal reaction of that between a nursing mother and baby, so dogs do in fact love any owner who regularly pets them), how friends feel for each other, and many other familial relationships.

I'm not sure what evidence there is for loving things but I would say I love cake, Babylon 5, strawberries, the Pixies, lazy lie ins, fresh clean sheets, roast chicken sandwiches from Queen of Tarts, good burritos, dancing and long hot baths. I am not sexually attracted to any of those things, except Bruce Boxlietner in certain episodes of Babylon 5.

magicbastarder

there is no 'love', lads; baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

Sarky

This, tbh

raah!

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Wrong in many ways. The word "love" means the feeling a person experiences. The expression, concept and naming of "love", in any language regardless of what it is called...stemmed from the feeling of the cocktail. The two are completely interlinked in the formation of the concept.

I'm afraid you can't just say that that is wha the word means. I have given many examples to support my interpretation, you have given none. Yours right now is rather ridiculous, if what you were saying is true then people would never say things like "is this feeling love?". Probably 90% of my posts have given examples of this. 0% of anyone's posts on this thread have given any examples of love as being "not more than the cocktail", but merely asserted as much. Now, everyone is also making the mistake between the word love, and "that which is described as love", this is why I brought up the case of the word spiritual. And despite correcting people almost a million times, the error persists.

The question, and your argument and indeed the other posters argument earlier is completely flawed...as love clearly and completely exists. You and others are not saying it does not exist, you are saying "love is x, not y".

If love is x and not y, and y exists but x doesn't, then love doesn't existence. This is the way in which the question of what the word love means applies to whether or not it exists...

The question you are answering is "What is love?", by seeking to offer a definition, even one that suits your own odd concept of love not existing, you are clearly admitting that yes love does exist, the only argument you can put forth is that love as a spiritual concept and connection does not exist and it is merely a mechanic. Well, love has always been a mechanic, it is simply a name for the result of that mechanic...a further understanding of a biological mechanism does not dispute the existence or result of said mechanism.

You are making the mistake of arguing one definition against the other in an argument where no original base definition was offered by the OP.

Actually, i answer "what is love", and then say "what it is does not exist". I've pointed out how those are obviously interlinked above. As to the definition int he OP, one was implicitly given. He says "is there such a thing as love, apart from the cocktail", what this means is "is there such a thing as love as used in the literal mystical sense that it has been used for centuaries, and not the new watered down "love is liking people".

Sarky

Jesus man, go get laid. You'll feel better.

raah!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If you read the link I gave you you'll see there are numerous interpretations of the word "spirituality", using both the words " spirituality" & "spiritual" interchangeably. Furthermore this fluidity in usage stems from the fact that the word "spirit" has numerous interpretations:


Check the link if you don't believe me. Now your argument is that one & only one of these interpretations of the word is correct (you've just said "if there are no spirits, then it's not spiritual").

Please don't quote sections of my post outof context. You'll notice the first time you quoted me I was talking about what the word means according to the majority of people. I even explicitly reference the fact that it can be used in other ways.

My argument is not that it's grammatically illegal to use words figuratively.

When I said "if there are no spirits, then it's not spiritual", I was referencing specifically "spiritual experiences", and in particular, "spiritual experiences" in the context of a question similar to that posed by the Op, such as "are there spiritual experiences". And I was using the word in the literal sense, meaning, to do with spirits.

And also, read past the first line of the wiki on spirit that you just "quotemined like an evil creationist", and you'll see that it's not a very appropriate choice of source if you mean to argue against what i actually said.

Now, people can use the word figuratively, yes. If you had read my posts more attentively I did actually address this figurative use of the word, and whether or not there were figurative uses are pretty much completely irrelevent to the overall thrust of the argument I was making.

I've given you evidence that the root word, spirit, has numerous interpretations

Actually, literally, it's interpretations are very limited. And even when metaphorically or figuratively used in standard ways, it still can't really be used to mean what sam harris wants it to mean. You should read past the first line of what you quoted which says "it has numerous interpretations".

Here is the full paragraph "
The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus "breath") has many differing meanings and connotations, most of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body. The spirit of a living thing usually refers to or explains its consciousness. The notions of a person's "spirit" and "soul" often also overlap, as both contrast with body and both are understood as surviving the bodily death in religion and occultism,[1] and "spirit" can also have the sense of "ghost", i.e. a manifestation of the spirit of a deceased person.
The term may also refer to any incorporeal or immaterial being, such as demons or deities, in Christianity specifically the Holy Spirit experienced by the disciples at Pentecost.
"

& given you evidence of the words "spiritual" & "spirituality" being used in numerous contexts, not all of which involve spirits. In other words here is irrefutable evidence that your conception of the words "spiritual & "spirituality" is far too restrictive, you basically either haven't learned that they apply in broader contexts or are just flat-out denying reality because the antiquated conception of the term was associated with religion:

How many times did I reference the word being used by people liek sam harris? There is a difference between using a word metaphorically and using it literally and this will relate to the meaning of that word

A junior cert example of a metaphor is that street lights are called oranges. This doesn't make street lights oranges. They are orange in colour, they have that property of oranges, they are "like oranges". Likewise, sam harris calling something which he conceives as completely non (literally) spiritual as spiritual does not make those experiences literally spiritual. He is trying to for some reason attach the properties of spiritual experiences to these arbitrary experiences. I've given reasons why this was inappropriate, and I'll do so again below.

So, oranges can be used to mean "streetlight" depending on the context, this doesn't change what the word orange means. It can be used to mean lots of things. I hope you can understand that difference.

The article itself even mentions how the conception of the word has shifted.



I don't think we can go into this if you continue to deny the wide applicability of the word.

If you don't think you can interpret the earlier parts of my post in the light of the later parts, which may provide interpretive insights into the earlier parts by continued use or clarification, then yes, there is no point in interacting. The article metions the same use of the word mentioned by me when i talked about sam harris. I know people use it like that.

This strict interpretation of the word spirit is simply incorrect. If we're going to continue then you need to refute the sources justifying the numerous interpretations of the word spiritual.

I can use the word hat figuratively to mean sit. "I'm going to hat on the floor", if you don't understand why my use of the word like that is irrelevent to what the word literally means then the rest of my argument won't make sense either.

If you looked at zillah's post, he mentioend words like "deadly" when used by children to describe things as good. The use of spiritual in a materialistic context is the same as this. (Note I've referenced the use of it there too, meaning that I would understnad what they mean, meaning that I would interpret their use of the word in a way other than the literal).

We have now that words like awesome, or anyword which transfers to repeated figurative use has mostly lost it's former meaning, and it's former usefulness.

Ironically, the same will happen for spiritual, if it is used predominantly in this figurative sense (and it's not used predominantly in this was, and I can give arguments why it's use in this manner is rather stupid). In attempting to borrow the former significance and meaning of the word to describe whatever nonsense it is they get up to, they strip the word of its actual meaning, and thus end up losing the descriptive significance they sought to lend to their "spiritual practices".

Claims of inappropriateness with regard to language are laughable, language is one of the most malleable constructs humans deal with - just think of the word malleable for example, how many contexts does it apply in? I might as well argue that the word only apply to chemistry because that's where I first learned the word, while another person should argue it only applies to personalities because that's where they'd heard it, etc...

Whether or not a word is appropriate to describe somethign depends on your intentions in description. The word spiritual is an inappropriate use if you wish to use it in a way which is strictly materialistic (as same harris would use it). Likewise, it's inappropriate to use two adjectives which mean the same thing when describing something.

So in summary, please do not remove parts of my post form their context in the whole post in order to aid certain interpretations of them. Also bear in mind the context of the OP. Does love exist. This is quite obviously not a reference to the figurative use of the term. Likewise, when I say "there is no spiritual without spirits", I am making a literal description of an set of experiences, using the standard, literal, meaning of the word spiritual, which is, and always will be, to do with spirits.

raah!

Sarky wrote: »

Jesus man, go get laid. You'll feel better.

I've noticed, Sarky, that you make remarks like this almost everytime I post in a thread with arguments contrary to those which you would like to see unquestioningly accepted by all involved. And it's unfortunate for you that my outlining of the implications of your position gets in the way of your fun times, but as I've said, this forum is also here for the discussion and debate of issues related to A&A.

It really doesn't reflect well on the posters of this forum when their only response to arguments are things like "dats stoopid-thakthnakthankthankthank".

robindch

Gentlefolk -- please be, er, a bit more gentle.

ta.

Logical Fallacy

raah! wrote: »

I'm afraid you can't just say that that is wha the word means. I have given many examples to support my interpretation, you have given none. Yours right now is rather ridiculous, if what you were saying is true then people would never say things like "is this feeling love?". Probably 90% of my posts have given examples of this. 0% of anyone's posts on this thread have given any examples of love as being "not more than the cocktail", but merely asserted as much. Now, everyone is also making the mistake between the word love, and "that which is described as love", this is why I brought up the case of the word spiritual. And despite correcting people almost a million times, the error persists.

Why do i need to give an example of love being more than the cocktail, when I have been saying all along that love IS the cocktail?

I am not sure you have been reading my posts correctly, so I don't put too much weight in your understanding of my interpretation tbh.

You just keep coming up with ridiculous assertions - prime example "if what you were saying is true then people would never say things like "is this feeling love?".

It is as flawed and pointless an argument as me sitting here saying "Surely the fact that there is a word "love" means that love MUST exist". Job done, end thread...use word "God" to prove existence of god and close the whole forum.

Turtwig

Is this "common sense" desk before me any more or less real than the one which physics tells me it is? The latter is apparently mostly empty space (whatever that is) and the former contains colour and textures. To my mind both this is ultimately what this discussion is getting at.
Blatantly inspired by Sir Arthur Eddington's essay.

Yiz are all arguing, but the OP has fecked off and is nowhere to be seen.

stevejazzx

I just read this whole thread and all I can say is that Raah is the most fitting username I've ever come across.

yawha

raah!, you're being ridiculous.

If by "love", you mean a transcendent or divine connection between two people, then no, it doesn't exist.

If by "love", you mean the attachment and intense feelings which often manifest between two people, then yes, it does exist.

Your argument appears to be that "love" always, absolutely, unquestionably and obviously means the former, thus it doesn't exist if a divinity or supernatural element is not accepted.

Can you not see how silly this argument is? You're basically just being stubborn about a word definition.

Enkidu

raah!,

I really don't understand your argument. The way I see it is as follows:

1. People fall in love and feel love, obviously. I am not going to attempt to prove this as I detest these stupid philosophical games where we wonder if everyday things "really" exist. As Jernal has said we could wonder if our desks or tables are real.

2. All feelings, thoughts and opinions occur in our brains.

3. The brain operates via electro-chemical signals.

So love exists and its physical basis is electro-chemical information, just like all mental operations.

Your argument seems to be:
"No, people used transcendental imagery to describe love, hence the existence of love is incompatible with materialism"

This is nonsensical to me as people have used transcendental imagery to describe virtually everything. The pleasure we get from eating and nature itself have been described in such a way. We don't therefore conclude that taste and nature don't exist in a naturalistic world view.

raah!

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Why do i need to give an example of love being more than the cocktail, when I have been saying all along that love IS the cocktail?

I mean that you should give examples to support your interpretation.

You just keep coming up with ridiculous assertions - prime example "if what you were saying is true then people would never say things like "is this feeling love?".

I gave reasons as to why people wouldn't say ask questions like that, that makes it different from an assertion.

The rest of your post just ignores the clarifications I gave you as to how to interpret my other posts so I guess that is that.

yawha wrote: »

raah!, you're being ridiculous.

If by "love", you mean a transcendent or divine connection between two people, then no, it doesn't exist.

Yes indeed, and it was precisely this that the op had in mind.

If by "love", you mean the attachment and intense feelings which often manifest between two people, then yes, it does exist.

And while I agree you can use love to describe this lesser concept, you would be using the word figuratively

Your argument appears to be that "love" always, absolutely, unquestionably and obviously means the former, thus it doesn't exist if a divinity or supernatural element is not accepted.

Can you not see how silly this argument is? You're basically just being stubborn about a word definition.

Well I'm saying the word has a literal meaning yes. I'm not saying people cannot use it to describe things which do not correlate perfectly with the literal meaning. I think you are saying alot of what enkidu is saying too. So I think I'll respiond to ye both together in his response below. A general summary of it is that it is important to see what sense of the word a person is appealing to when they as a question like "does love exist". It is not the figurative.

A quick example already given. Oranges can be used metaphorically to refer to streetlights. If somebody asks "do oranges exist". We can be fairly certain they are not talking about streetlights or anything like that. If a word is used on it's own in a question form like that, and not as referring to something, then the proper interpretation is that they are referring to the literal etymological root of the word.

Enkidu wrote: »

raah!,

I really don't understand your argument. The way I see it is as follows:

1. People fall in love and feel love, obviously. I am not going to attempt to prove this as I detest these stupid philosophical games where we wonder if everyday things "really" exist. As Jernal has said we could wonder if our desks or tables are real.

2. All feelings, thoughts and opinions occur in our brains.

3. The brain operates via electro-chemical signals.

So love exists and its physical basis is electro-chemical information, just like all mental operations.

Ok, I'll leave this here and just make clearer what my argument was from your quote below.

Your argument seems to be:
"No, people used transcendental imagery to describe love, hence the existence of love is incompatible with materialism"

My argument was, that from a materialistic perspective, the word love can be nothing more than that transcendental imagery. It's not that love is figuratively described using transcendental imagery, it's that love would be a form of transcendental imagery used to describe human relationships in a nice manner.

This is nonsensical to me as people have used transcendental imagery to describe virtually everything. The pleasure we get from eating and nature itself have been described in such a way. We don't therefore conclude that taste and nature don't exist in a naturalistic world view.

It is not nonsensical to recognise that terms which are used to figuratively describe things have no literal reality themselves.

In the context of the question "does love exist", nobody is asking "does something which can be described figuratively as love exist". That would be ridiculous. Likewise with the word spiritual, the figurative use of the word has persisted in people who have rejected the concept which the word formerly appealed to. The irony in doing so is that instead of lending the 'transcendental specialness' to the things they seek to describe with the word, they have only robbed the word of any significant meaning.

An example given already in the thread was how the word awesome has become to be used figuratively. The word means practially nothing now. "This shoe is awesome", and likewise, using the word love figuratively in the way here used to describe normal relationships, will eventually put the word on a level where saying "I love you" is no different to saying "I love shoes".

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

This, tbh

yawha

raah! wrote: »

Well I'm saying the word has a literal meaning yes.

But "love" doesn't have a strictly literal meaning...

raah! wrote: »

Oranges can be used metaphorically to refer to streetlights. If somebody asks "do oranges exist". We can be fairly certain they are not talking about streetlights or anything like that. If a word is used on it's own in a question form like that, and not as referring to something, then the proper interpretation is that they are referring to the literal etymological root of the word.

And if in the future, we discover that oranges are in fact something different from what we previously thought they were, would we be allowed to say "Oranges are a brightly coloured fungus which grow on the ends of certain trees"*, or would that be incorrect, as originally people used the word "orange" to refer to a fruit that grew on trees and thus this statement is violating the literal etymological root of the word?


*lol

Turtwig

Don't think we've had this one yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQQ6SfPZggw