Philosophy

[SummerEliza]

Love at first sight? Hmmm, good question. I don't believe in love in first sight.

But before you call me an unfeeling monster, let me explain. I think there are people in your life that you meet randomly and feel that you really want to know them. Or you hate them for no reason at all. I've had that happen to me. I think people can have 'interest' at first sight, which is sort of like love but without understanding or really knowing the other person. So sure, you can be attracted to people the first time you see them, but you don't really love them until you know them.

[BadAssassin]

I think you're right, it's more interest than love. Like a few of my friends I liked right off the bat. The closest thing to love at first sight is, "Oh man, that looks like fun!" if you catch my drift.

[Diana]

Love at first sight is a byproduct of evolutionary baggage coded in our DNA which causes a strong chemical reaction when we are presented with a specimen with what we regard as ideal features and genes. Everyone has a standard of beauty wired somewhere in their brains, or something similar. When we are presented with something close to this standard, we react strongly because we want to pass on our DNA with the best mate possible.

I just got mah science all up in yo philosophy.

Tune in next time for why bad things happen to good people.

[Pleading Eyes]

Love at first sight is a byproduct of evolutionary baggage coded in our DNA which causes a strong chemical reaction when we are presented with a specimen with what we regard as ideal features and genes. Everyone has a standard of beauty wired somewhere in their brains, or something similar. When we are presented with something close to this standard, we react strongly because we want to pass on our DNA with the best mate possible.

Add on the influence of a culture that feels the need to romanticize our interactions with one another, in an attempt to give ourselves a sense of almost mystical self-importance. The psychological and biological factors interplay, and the rhetoric is repeated until it's believed as fact. See also: "soul mates".

Whoops, this is too sciency, Di. =(

[Diana]

Whoops, this is too sciency, Di. =(

But...SCIENCE. ;-; Science is my fave.

[Pleading Eyes]

But...SCIENCE. ;-; Science is my fave.

Next subject: Science or spirituality?

Clearly spirituality. I mean, channeling > luminol. C'MON!

[Diana]

But...SCIENCE. ;-; Science is my fave.

Next subject: Science or spirituality?

Clearly spirituality. I mean, channeling > luminol. C'MON!

Hey! Video games are not valid evidence! And everyone knows people like Maya more because Ema was just introduced as a CARBON COPY of her! SHE WAS AT A DISADVANTAGE!

Anyway, back on topic now. Love at first sight is biological.

I also move that I can take ALMOST any philosophical question and answer it scientifically. (And I welcome you all to bring it on. >D)

[Kartoon Kween]

Ooooh, we have a philosophy thread here? ~Classy!~

Does love at first sight exist? Yes. This is because everything exists. However, on what level it exists is up to the individual. At this time in my life, love at first sight resides on the fictional plane. If other people assert that they have actually experienced this in their lives, who am I to dispute them? I can argue all day that they must be mistaken, or that their definition of love is "wrong," but for me to hold the mentality that my personal experiences and beliefs are totally universal and apply to everyone would be pretty dang presumptuous.

Anyway, that's my philosophy on the matter. I like having philosophies because it means I don't have to bother reading up on the newest scientific breakthroughs. I can pretend to be intellectual without actually having to study, because let's face it: what most people call "philosophy" is actually just a bunch of cool sounding crap they pulled out of the air. It makes sense in a neat, philosophical way and it sounds smart because I use vaguely academic-sounding words, such as "assert" or "dispute." Basically what I'm trying to say here is that everything I said in the above paragraph I made up on the fly while drunk (three Michelob Ultras, ya'll).

No, seriously, you guys. I really was trying to contribute to the discussion at first, but I just can't take myself seriously when I go into pseudo-intellectual mode. That being said, I think science is a pretty cool guy, but I can't remember how the rest of that meme goes and I'm not gonna look it up. I'm just not gonna do it. Also, there is no reason why spirituality and science can't coexist (that is, both simultaneously be true), it's just that people tend to prefer one over the other. In the past I veered more towards spirituality, but that was just because of my upbringing and because science is hard. Of course, since then I have discovered Wikipedia, and I nowadays veer more toward science because any moron can copy and paste the more eloquent version of "you feel emotions because of CHEMICALS."

And now, ladies and gentlemen, I shall cleverly segue to the next proposed topic for discussion, proposed by Yours Truly, also known as God's Gift to All Threads, by means of writing a sentence explaining that I am performing a clever segue:

What is philosophy? Is it a side-effect of our innate desire to make sense of the mysteries around us, or is it a side-effect of our innate desire to be a special snowflake who is soooo deep, man? What is your personal definition, and what does it mean to you? Why do each of us feel compelled to latch onto a philosophy of some sort, or to craft one for ourselves? Is philosophy important, or is it ultimately just another useless human invention?

man i am such a cool person for incorporating the name of the thread into a question. i don't know why the guys from harvard aren't falling over themselves trying to give me scholarships

also being obnoxiously self-aware in your own post is both trendy and cool

[genodragon1]

WARNING: I wrote everything past the first paragraph quickly, and did not check it. If I'm being stupid, please say so.

The definition of "love at first sight" needs to be addressed before actually arguing it. Love at first sight tends to be a retrospective term used by married people when they want to act obnoxious. I've never heard of a couple that have just met and would say "I love you" in such a manner as the word's weight actually requires (people use the words love and hate way too often, it's diminishing their values). The deception with this term is not one of mistaking attraction for romance (though that is still a common misconception), but that of mistaking a good relationship with kismet.

Note: While I do try to explain why romanticized relationships exist currently in the following paragraphs, I am not advocating the forcing of ideals onto people, nor am I advocating harmful behavior towards anyone.

If this discussion is meant to cover sudden attractions upon meeting one another, then yes, that is entirely biological and sociological in nature. However, that is not to say that finding what one desires in a mate (and is able to maintain a happy, healthy relationship) isn't any less improbable or pleasing to those involved, if we bring the psychology of math into this. Firstly, there is one's sexual orientation. Under the assumption one is one orientation or the other, a huge chunk of the world's population has just been excluded. Then we factor in sociological factors, such as definitions of beauty, social structure for dating, and mutual acceptance. Psychological factors come in to play throughout the entire relationship, that either aid or sabotage a relationship. Add in the fact that despite the society being more connected in communication than previously dreamed thirty years ago, an individual's ability to find someone s/he likes, let alone communicating with so further courtship can occur, is also a factor. Then there is the chances of a relationship being able to maintain itself, which is a statistic that grows more grim by the day. After using said factors to narrow choices down, the chance of a happy, long-term relationship is actually quite difficult.

This, I think, is why it is romanticized. Seeing these odds, a certain mysticism is believed to have occurred, whether or not actual mysticism exists. Psychologically, I believe this is much like how a gambler sees a winning streak after winning a decent hand, or a losing streak after losing many hands. We see odds defied, and believe that we are special, not aware of the fact that odds are indifferent to everyone, and are at their heart entirely random despite any amount of trials.

Of course, there is also the psychology of a romanticized relationship. I don't know about anyone else, but I cannot simply think "Okay, adrenaline, start pumping!", nor can I decide to instantly go into REM while napping in the middle of class. Psychology working in tandem with the body is essential to the rest of our functions. When unarmed and near a bear in a forest, one would naturally start to feel nervous, even if the bear is too far away to notice the person. This is due to the fact that we know, subconsciously, that bears are very effective killers, and a sane person untrained in training bears would not want to be discovered (which would lead to a possibility of death). We also want to drink water because we know it hydrates us, which is essential to living. Likewise, we add a romantic view to love, attraction, or whatever one wants to call it. It drives one to treat one's mate in a special manner, in hopes of said treatment being reciprocated (and of course, to try to pass one's DNA). Furthermore, since one of the sources of impotence is psychological in nature, romanticizing a relationship (among other factors), allows one to be able to pass one's DNA.

Also, I have a theory as to why the romanticism of relationships is allowed, despite (at least a percentage of humans) are rational beings. If we consider Jung's Collective Unconscious, then we figure the following:
- As a society, we want to live.
- To live, we need genetic diversity, a sufficient amount of people passing their DNA, and avoiding over-population.
- So, as a society, we strive towards the aforementioned factors (and more, since I'm simplifying).

AND

- To have aforementioned factors enforced, there needs to be a way to enforce it.
- If there needs to be a way to enforce it, sociologically and psychologically methodology are the best non-violent means to maintain a healthy population.
- To have aforementioned factors enforced, sociological and psychological methodology are the best non-violent means to maintain a healthy population.

This would explain human norms such as monogamy (to prevent over population and accidental inbreeding), courtship (sexual selection is just as prevalent as natural selection), and the high psychological importance placed on these.

[SummerEliza]

Firstly, there is one's sexual orientation. Under the assumption one is one orientation or the other, a huge chunk of the world's population has just been excluded. Then we factor in sociological factors, such as definitions of beauty, social structure for dating, and mutual acceptance. Psychological factors come in to play throughout the entire relationship, that either aid or sabotage a relationship. Add in the fact that despite the society being more connected in communication than previously dreamed thirty years ago, an individual's ability to find someone s/he likes, let alone communicating with so further courtship can occur, is also a factor. Then there is the chances of a relationship being able to maintain itself, which is a statistic that grows more grim by the day. After using said factors to narrow choices down, the chance of a happy, long-term relationship is actually quite difficult.

And suddenly, finding your 'soulmate' seems grossly unrealistic. This also begs the question, "Destiny.... wishful thinking or interesting truth?" Thinking of the world in terms of it being just a giant numbers game where there is a certain probability of things happening or not depresses me. I'd rather find some deeper meaning in it, even if it doesn't really exist. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that a lot of the world has a similar mentality, even if they don't acknowledge it. But I also dislike the idea of not being in control of my own life.
Here's the world organized into three categories:

1. Mystical, destiny-believers
2. Purely scientific thinkers
3. The ones that control their own destiny.