LOVE, ALTRUISM & EVOLUTION

by Dansk 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Dansk

  I'm an evolutionist. One cannot argue that evolution isn't a fact. However, I'd be interested in the better informed amongst us here explaining in simple terms how the feeling of love evolved. It is a fact that animals can display altruism. Some dogs, for example, have laid down their lives for their masters. Animals have also been seen to show examples of compassion, fidelity, grief, unselfishness, affection, gratitude and acting the Good Samaritan.

  For some time now, I have been pondering human relationships, i.e. how some are based purely on sex and others on love (there are also other reasons, such as companionship, etc.). After 28 years I am still passionately in love with my wife. Claire is my rock and my reason for living. Where does this love come from? If it is an evolutionary aspect how did it come about? Humans alone "seem" to be the only species capable of such feelings. You know what I mean, we seem to connect with that special someone and it seems lightening runs through our veins. Can any other creature feel this?

  Ian
• 

  garybuss

  I think love is action, not emotion. Survival only came from cooperation. So, cooperation came from necessity. Later, prosperity allowed for cooperation outside of necessity. Cooperation, or doing something for somebody else outside of necessity, became known as love.
  
  To understand love, watch it work in adversity like illness or injury, then in extreme adversity like war and among refugees. With the absence of prosperity, love again shows it's true colors of action, serving others, cooperation.
  
  I think it was somebody like the guy who decided to market Valentine's day cards who decided to sell the idea that love is a feeling. Loyalty, fondness, and liking, are feelings. Love is action.
  
  
• 

  A Paduan

  Levels of intelligence - our ability to imagine what someone else thinks - we can see and find happiness in the happiness of another

  We can think in degrees of depth unlike other animals eg: we can think that someone else thinks that we think something - we can even project in writing such that an audience will think that someone else thinks that another is thinking something

  - people who don't love are also said to "not be wise"
• 

  Terry

  I'm an evolutionist. One cannot argue that evolution isn't a fact. However, I'd be interested in the better informed amongst us here explaining in simple terms how the feeling of love evolved. It is a fact that animals can display altruism.

  To answer bluntly, altruism is the irrational side of man. Man's mind can override what is best for personal survival under certain circumstances.

  I don't see altruism as a benefit at all!

  So many things humans do because they think (and often don't do it skillfully!) illogically and form values based on misperceptions.

  Human emotions stem from the value-setting that goes on as experiences pass through the mind. As I've stated elsewhere: what we don't "consciously" accept as a well-reasoned evaluation and considered opinion causes a default. The default is value-setting that is ill-considered and illogical. It takes many forms, but chiefly; rumor, innuendo, superstition, fable, hearsay, family prejudice, etc.

  Humanity in groups can be quite irrational in behavior. Poor thinking can infect insular groups.

  An excellent example of wrong-headed and illogical thinking comes in martyrdom where the higher faculties are disabled by a religious indoctrination. A young, healthy, vital person with a future ahead of them can strap a bomb to their chest and explode it in a crowd of strangers! This is the other side of the Altruism coin and is just as neurotic and sadistic. But, mostly illogical!

  Only one or two instances of logical altruism (and I still would not use that term) are imaginable. A grenade lands in a foxhole and one person throws their body over it to absorb the damage rather than everybody dying. This is logical and demonstrates how the attrition redounds to the benefit of one's fellows (valued by friendship and comraderie.)

  Secondly, a parent who must give up something precious to enable their offspring to benefit can be logical too. Parents attach considerable value to their children because the next generation carries on the values of the previous one.

  Aside from that; Altruism has infected society like a disease and plagued the philosophical underpinning of impressionable minds for some time now. Hitler's Germany was altruistic at its core. The individual ceased to have significance and duty to the group: Fatherland, was considered the highest value.

  Altruism is mostly a neurosis.
• 

  proplog2

  Terry:

  "Altruism is mostly neurosis".

  Sweeping generalization that you can't prove or even argue successfully.
• 

  trevor

  Altruism and love are the same thing to me but altruism has disguised itself better than love. It is less obvious.

  We will say that we ‘love’ some one or some thing if that person or thing provides us with something that is at the top of our value list. If our values change than we fall out of love. Altruism appears to go beyond such logical behaviour, but I am incline to think that it is just an extension of the same principle. For example, gaining approval of people we value can be a very powerful motivation. Animals will show what appears to be altruism but are simply demonstrating their dependency.

  Someone who is prepared to die for something, usually values an ideal or concept more than their own life. This tends to happen with people who believe that their present life is not their whole existence but part of a bigger picture which death will not stop them from participating in. This is not always the case.

  If someone is angry enough they will take incredible risks with their life to protect their pride or honour, which is really their ego - which to them can be more real than life itself.

  To die a hero and be remember well by friends can be a way of surrendering our life on our terms rather than just wasting away with the passage of time. There is a saying that a good death is better than a poor life. Also ‘there is more happiness in giving than receiving’. Often altruism has an unseen benefit for the person who concerned.

  Do I sound cynical?
• 

  bernadette

  There is a feelgood, wellbeing aspect to being loving and altruistic imo that perpetuates those qualities - both for the giver and receiver - a sort of cycle
• 

  AK - Jeff

  Dansk

  I don't share your premise, but I am glad love is a part of human existence one way or the other. Wifey and I have been in love for 33 years now. Ain't it great?

  Jeff
• 

  kid-A

  "To answer bluntly, altruism is the irrational side of man. Man's mind can override what is best for personal survival under certain circumstances."

  > No its not. Altruism evolved for a purpose and was genetically selected for because it benefits THE INDIVIDUAL. You need to read up on game theory, particularly evolutionary game theory. If I am part of a social structure, and ALL hominids have evolved within highly complex social structures, I display altruism towards my conspecifics simply because this altruism will be reciprocated and hence ultimately promote my OWN survival and the passing on of my DNA. Virtually all anthropological studies have confirmed that within primate social structures, "selfish" behaviour invariably leads to expulsion from the group. What is "best" for personal survival is being accepted and PROTECTED by your conspecifics within a social group. Excessive altruism can of course be maladaptive, if there is no reciprocation. However, given the common evolutionary history shared by hominids, some form of reciprocity is virtually guaranteed. Those incapable of altruism are usually weeded out as "sociopaths".

  "I don't see altruism as a benefit at all!"

  >See above, and read Dawkins "The Selfish Gene".

  "So many things humans do because they think (and often don't do it skillfully!) illogically and form values based on misperceptions."

  Yup, and this is just as likely to lead to maladaptive "selfish" behaviours as to maladaptive "altruistic" behaviours.

  "Human emotions stem from the value-setting that goes on as experiences pass through the mind. As I've stated elsewhere: what we don't "consciously" accept as a well-reasoned evaluation and considered opinion causes a default. The default is value-setting that is ill-considered and illogical. It takes many forms, but chiefly; rumor, innuendo, superstition, fable, hearsay, family prejudice, etc."

  > A gross over-generalization of humanity. You've been reading too much Ayn Rand, apparently, LOL...Obviously some people are susceptible to this, but you are using far too broad a brush. In addition, "human emotions" do not "stem" from "value-setting". Values stem from emotional conditioning.

  "Humanity in groups can be quite irrational in behavior. Poor thinking can infect insular groups."

  > Yes of course. However, social isolation is equally unhealthy. Have you heard stories of prisoners in solitary confinement ? Insanity and irrationality quickly develops in the absence of other individuals to serve as psychological and emotional "sounding boards".

  " A grenade lands in a foxhole and one person throws their body over it to absorb the damage rather than everybody dying. This is logical and demonstrates how the attrition redounds to the benefit of one's fellows (valued by friendship and comraderie.)"

  Yes, OK. But how is this altruism "logical" while others are not? What exactly is the "type" of altruism you find to be irrational? (cue drum roll for Ayn Rand cut & paste....lol )

  "Secondly, a parent who must give up something precious to enable their offspring to benefit can be logical too. Parents attach considerable value to their children because the next generation carries on the values of the previous one."

  > Well, not really. Parents attach considerable value to their children because they carry their DNA and genetic heritage forward to further generations, but I did enjoy your sentimentality in that statement!
• 

  Dansk

  Kid-A:

  Parents attach considerable value to their children because they carry their DNA and genetic heritage

  Isn't that an over generalisation? It never enters my head that I am attaching value to my children due to their carrying my DNA! Rather, I attach value to them because I love them, which brings me back to how love evolved. Did it evolve? I'm not so sure!!

  Ian