6 ms·

> "there is no way to "know" whether someone "loves" you. All you see are outward displays which are highly mediated by the culture in which the display occurs.

> "there is no way to "know" whether someone "loves" you. All you see are outward displays which are highly mediated by the culture in which the display occurs." Wow. I can't think of a way to rebut this without diving into personal accusations... but it seems that you've missed out on a lot in life.

Helianthus 15y ago
Knowing that culture mediates action does not prevent you from enjoying it. You cannot understand human behavior without understanding the often artificial nature of outward displays. I think in fact it is you that have missed out on a lot in life if you do not understand that when he says there is no way to "know" whether someone "loves" you, he is referring to the fact that he chooses to believe so anyway.
zwischenzug 15y ago
The outward displays are exactly how you know someone loves you. These is no private language of love, since love is ostensitvely defined.
fleitz 15y ago
When you feel loved is it not the neurons in your own brain generating that feeling? That was my point. You may also want to consider the evolutionary pressure to love certain people in your family. Do you think it's mere coincidence that massive amounts of oxytocin are necessarily for lactation, giving birth, released after birth, released after orgasm, and that this drug also just happens to create loving emotional bonds? Seems that evolution is also manipulating our romances and the loves of our lives. On the other hand it's probably good for society that we're chemically manipulated in this fashion. My point is not that 99% of these feelings aren't "real" my point is more of a skeptical nature in that it becomes impossible to figure out how much is "real" and how much is chemical or other mechanisms of signalling.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  > "impossible to figure out how much is "real" and how much is chemical or other mechanisms of signalling." I don't see the need to make the distinction at all. So what if consciousness is just a bunch of electrical impulses, or that love is a giant dose of oxytocin - I'm not sure what would lead you think that these things are not "real" simply because they have some evolutionary/chemical basis. I can have a delicious lunch today - but does the food actually taste good? Or is it adulterated by mental conditioning? Maybe I only like broccoli because of childhood mental conditioning. Or maybe it brings back a fond memory. Or perhaps it only tastes good because of the presence of certain chemicals? ... Does it matter?
  - grkballer44 15y ago
    If you are unable to distinguish from these "feelings", you could potentially be unable to tell if you are in love (persons your soul mate/personalities go really well/want to spend the rest of your life with that person) or if you just have good sex, which can allow a bad relationship to linger for years.
  - praptak 15y ago
    Yes, it matters - both in food and in relationships. With modern chemistry unhealthy food can taste as good as what evolution has shaped us to detect as good food. With a psychopath a fake relation can feel as good as a true one. In both cases you will know the difference, just not immediately.
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      That would justify vigilance and caution, not outright dismissal of all emotion as socially-conditioned, non-real constructs. Certainly it would not justify something as cynical as this: > "Aren't most people just failed social actors who are rather poor at picking the signs in which to display their emotional communication?" which was the part that really rubbed me the wrong way.
      - wnight 15y ago
- PakG1 15y ago
  I think he's saying that if you're expressing such skepticism and cynicism about the subject because of lack of scientific objectivity, you're probably incapable of experiencing it or giving it. And I think that is what he thinks you're missing out on, the experience of really giving and receiving it. If you want to call it a fairy tale and say the emperor has no clothes... the logical conclusion would have society be unable to have real examples of trusting love, and it would subsequently break down into a series of make-believe emotional transactions. The societal and circumstantial evidence does not seem to corroborate your premises, even though there may be no scientifically tested objective data. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
- yters 15y ago
  If everything is just matter, there isn't even a category of "real." Everything is just as real as everything else.
wnight 15y ago
Not at all. You can enjoy what you feel when other people do what they call love without having to believe you know incontrovertibly what their personal experience of the world is.

Helianthus 15y ago

Knowing that culture mediates action does not prevent you from enjoying it. You cannot understand human behavior without understanding the often artificial nature of outward displays. I think in fact it is you that have missed out on a lot in life if you do not understand that when he says there is no way to "know" whether someone "loves" you, he is referring to the fact that he chooses to believe so anyway.

zwischenzug 15y ago

The outward displays are exactly how you know someone loves you. These is no private language of love, since love is ostensitvely defined.

fleitz 15y ago

When you feel loved is it not the neurons in your own brain generating that feeling? That was my point. You may also want to consider the evolutionary pressure to love certain people in your family. Do you think it's mere coincidence that massive amounts of oxytocin are necessarily for lactation, giving birth, released after birth, released after orgasm, and that this drug also just happens to create loving emotional bonds? Seems that evolution is also manipulating our romances and the loves of our lives. On the other hand it's probably good for society that we're chemically manipulated in this fashion. My point is not that 99% of these feelings aren't "real" my point is more of a skeptical nature in that it becomes impossible to figure out how much is "real" and how much is chemical or other mechanisms of signalling.

potatolicious 15y ago
> "impossible to figure out how much is "real" and how much is chemical or other mechanisms of signalling." I don't see the need to make the distinction at all. So what if consciousness is just a bunch of electrical impulses, or that love is a giant dose of oxytocin - I'm not sure what would lead you think that these things are not "real" simply because they have some evolutionary/chemical basis. I can have a delicious lunch today - but does the food actually taste good? Or is it adulterated by mental conditioning? Maybe I only like broccoli because of childhood mental conditioning. Or maybe it brings back a fond memory. Or perhaps it only tastes good because of the presence of certain chemicals? ... Does it matter?
- grkballer44 15y ago
  If you are unable to distinguish from these "feelings", you could potentially be unable to tell if you are in love (persons your soul mate/personalities go really well/want to spend the rest of your life with that person) or if you just have good sex, which can allow a bad relationship to linger for years.
- praptak 15y ago
  Yes, it matters - both in food and in relationships. With modern chemistry unhealthy food can taste as good as what evolution has shaped us to detect as good food. With a psychopath a fake relation can feel as good as a true one. In both cases you will know the difference, just not immediately.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    That would justify vigilance and caution, not outright dismissal of all emotion as socially-conditioned, non-real constructs. Certainly it would not justify something as cynical as this: > "Aren't most people just failed social actors who are rather poor at picking the signs in which to display their emotional communication?" which was the part that really rubbed me the wrong way.
    - wnight 15y ago
PakG1 15y ago
I think he's saying that if you're expressing such skepticism and cynicism about the subject because of lack of scientific objectivity, you're probably incapable of experiencing it or giving it. And I think that is what he thinks you're missing out on, the experience of really giving and receiving it. If you want to call it a fairy tale and say the emperor has no clothes... the logical conclusion would have society be unable to have real examples of trusting love, and it would subsequently break down into a series of make-believe emotional transactions. The societal and circumstantial evidence does not seem to corroborate your premises, even though there may be no scientifically tested objective data. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
yters 15y ago
If everything is just matter, there isn't even a category of "real." Everything is just as real as everything else.

wnight 15y ago

Not at all. You can enjoy what you feel when other people do what they call love without having to believe you know incontrovertibly what their personal experience of the world is.