LOVE, ALTRUISM & EVOLUTION (page 7)

SPAZnik

I love this thread, it's contributors and their perspectives.

Where did this feeling or force come from?
Why do I feel this compulsion to act upon it?
(to stick around and open myself to the wide
variety of perspectives herein and actually contribute to it rendering myself "vulnerable", "risking" the ire of some who are crouched elsewhere in their own "evolutionary process" (life)?
How does altruism factor in? (and does feeling smug/content about being "altruistic" factor in?)
How does e-v-o-l-ution (a fancy word for change, perhaps even a synonym for "life") factor in?
How does change factor in?
How does confusing theories of "origin" with theories of "life" factor in?
How does sex factor in?
How does survival factor in?
How do 33 year long relationships factor in?
How do 3.3 minute relationships factor in?
How does biology factor in?
How does language factor in?
How does action factor in?
How does an egoistic attachment to or relationship with "thought" or to "emotion" or to "action" or to "evolution" or to "being loving" or to "your story" or to any number of variables factor in? (aka How does ego factor in?)
How about confidence and what about fatigue?
Timing?
Morals, Ethics, Values, etc?
How does inaction factor in?
Are love and life the same thing?
Is god love? Is love god? Is life love? Is love life?
Has god been merely a form of "baby talk" our early ancestors imaginatively and creatively used to communicate, elaborate on or describe a powerful force like love in order to "pass it on" verbally, resulting in dissociative fixation on evolutionary degenerate divisive "entities" known to us as "religion" or worse yet, "cult"?
How does altruistic action or inaction factor in?
Where do dollar signs, astrological signs, waist/hip/bust ratio, sense of smell and visions of ovaries factor in?
Where does taking ourselves too seriously or not seriously enough factor in?
How does loving one's own life factor in?
How does ability factor in?
What about balding and sagging?
How about politics?
How does a nervous breakdown and no desire to subject another to it factor in?
How does a societal trend toward compulsive critiquing/ labeling/ describing/ defining/ compartmentalizing concepts and behaviors factor in?
How does loving your own children more than another's children factor in?
How does not wanting children factor in?
How does wanting children but not wanting to raise them alone factor in?
How does group dynamics/politics/societal/CULTural pressures factor in?
What about narrowing focus to "loving" one person or group of people more than all others factor in?
Is love even measurable, definable?
How does responding a comment with numerous questions factor in?
How does saying as little as possible, or nothing factor in?
How does imagination factor in?
How does harm factor in?
Where did love come from? Where is it going? How did it surprise me? How did I get so good at deflecting it, and why?
What about missing the forest for the trees or vice versa?
Is it possible to love too much or not enough?
How does domination of or submission to others agenda factor in?
What about fear, anger, and any other feeling/emotion?
How about willpower, self-control, self-discipline, sense of humour, "education", CULTural conditioning, aging, societal myths/legends/illustrations/analogies?
Is our tendering of love a powerplay?

And what about grover? I mean,
"Neeeeeeaaar, (stomp, stomp, stomp), faaaaaaaaaaar, (scuffle scuffle scuffle), Neeeeaaaaar, (skip, skip, skip), faaaaaaaaaaar."
(What does love look/feel/taste/smell/behaaaaaave like from various distances/ situations/ perspectives?) and do size or colour matter?

What is the big picture regarding love and even then, is it really "the" big picture or more accurately "a" big picture, wholly un"scientific" in process, imprisoned in Time and in Current Perspective and in Subjective Experience, with some denominators common to other big pictures; essentially, an art?

;)

love life.

love,
SPAZ

Terry

But the problem I see with your objections to altruistic behavior is that the underlying assumption seems to be that in a given situation, one can know for sure whether or not sacrificing oneself is a rational choice or not.
For instance, let's say that I see a young boy in a life-threatening circumstance where I have the ability to help but only at a significant risk to myself.
First of all, how can I know for certain that if I try to help that I will surely die?
Second, if the boy is a stranger to me, how do I judge that my life is more worthy than his? For all I know, he could be a genius that, if he were to live to become and adult, will come up with some invention or cure for a disease that will be tremendously beneficial for future generations, including my own descendants and therefore aid in preserving my own genes.

We act according to our values.

Our judgement is only as good as our values. Our values are only as good as the rational process (accuracy) that selected them.

This discussion is about the philosophy of ALTRUISM which REQUIRES that you sacrifice your life for others as the GREATEST moral act possible. This "duty" over-rides any Q & A about the amount of danger involved or the "worthiness" of whom you save.

See the difference?

Altruism removes the volitional debate because you are acting out of automatic DUTY.

Rational people have an internal Q&A which weighs all the values involved (this is instantaneous in an emergency) before committing one's life into the balance.

Our discussion hinges on seeing the difference between these two processes.

misocup

animals, mammals, mostly need each other for survival. they huddled together and developed "emotions" as part of that instinct for survival. Humans, with our great brains, attach more meaning to emotions than probably belong there. Combine that with pop culture and viola! Crazy making!

SPAZnik

I very much agree that we can become overly attached to our "emotions".
It also would appear that the same thing can happen with "rationalization".
It's as though some see these as the thesis/antithesis of one another.
I imagine the synthesis of this conflict as a healthy balance between these two human facets which seem to time and again be pitted against each other in some sort of auto-immune battle as if one or the other of these phenomenal (imo) human capacities/tools/components is generally superior or inferior to the other.

Twitch

Love your post, Spaz

:-)

tetrapod.sapien

great post spaz!

tetra

trevor

We act according to our values.

This is the whole truth of the matter.

I would not risk my life for a president or a bishop because I place little value on them. What did they ever do for me!

But a good friend who I care for? Well that would be different.

Terry

I very much agree that we can become overly attached to our "emotions".
It also would appear that the same thing can happen with "rationalization".
It's as though some see these as the thesis/antithesis of one another.

Seeking answers from our emotions is not unlike poking our fecal matter for insight into what our table manners should be.

Emotions are descriptive and not prescriptive.

Rational thought helps us make sense of puzzles. Solving the puzzle of how we should live our life, overcoming obstacles and creating the most optimum environment for our future is done consciously. A rational man is not puzzled by his own emotions.

The mystics like to put the rational against the emotional and point to the emotional as the secret tunnel to Truth.

I call it falling asleep on your textbook in class and hoping to ace the exam by having a good dream.

DanTheMan

Rational people have an internal Q&A which weighs all the values involved (this is instantaneous in an emergency) before committing one's life into the balance.

But it's not possible to know the future, so how can you be sure that you're acting upon your values if you have no way of knowing whether your actions will result in the outcome you desire? In the case of the young boy from my previous post, if I place a high value on my progeny enjoying health and peace or a better life then what I've had in some way or another, how can I know whether or not saving the boy would be acting in harmony with that value or not?

What would the "rational" decision be here?

dark angle

i think love altruism evolve from our need to organize. our world is all an example of organization, i.e atoms congregate to form molecules, cell congregate to for tissues, to organs, to complete human body, etc. the better it is organize the better the change for survival, to protect and defend ourselves, to harness energy and a hell lot more advantages. love & altruism i think evolve around this need to cooperate for the collective whole. on human point of view, the ones that could see the bigger picture of the organization and act on contributing to it, is usually appreciated by the group. and therefore altruism and love towards other fellow became more and encourage through the passage of time. now its being praise by many and is becoming also a devotion for some. i strongly felt that altruism and love is essential for the human survival because without it no civilization could be organized for the benefit of the many. of course, there are dangers to it if left uncheck. as Terry argued, some acts of altruism is illogical. but i strongly felt that there are also justifiable altruistic acts. giving doesn't always make the giver in need. for example, there are people who posses many cars, more than what they need. by giving a car to others, he has help them but without making himself in need. i'm sure others here could make better examples other than that. love & altruism is a logical & necessary step for our survival.

LOVE, ALTRUISM & EVOLUTION

Share this