The artistic, the scientific, and the downright irrational

The topic on love has become an argument between the empirically minded and those of a more artstic persuasion, so I thought it might be an idea to provide an outlet for that discussion here.

The basic question is: which mode of thinking best describes/explains apparently irrational emotions like love?

I will proceed to reply to myself.

Sivakami is an all out empiricist, and her scientific view of love as a means to an end obviously derives from Darwinism. However there is no conclusive proof that natural selection operates in humans in the same way as it does in animals, so, adopting the reasoning of a scientist, this way of looking at love rests too heavily on theory/speculation to be argued as fact by any consistent empiricist.

Anyhow, I do not even think that love serves an evolutionary purpose. What about procreation!!, exasperated scientists will ask. They argue that relationships borne of sexual attraction are likely to result in healthier, stronger etc etc offspring, because sexual attraction is the human reaction to an appropriate partner. And that’s a fair point, but it makes sexual attraction the Darwinian component of human evolution, not love. The two are often interdependent, but one can exist without the other. Some people are sexually attracted to Natassja Kinski, but don’t necessarily love her as well (though there are exceptions :wink: ). So whilst you can explain sexuality as an evolutionary impulse, love cannot be explained away so easily. In fact, you could say that love gets in the way of procreation, because it ties you down to one/few partner(s). Woudn’t it be better in evolutionary terms for some system of free love whereby you impregnate everyone you are mutually sexually attracted to every spring…? That would lead to quality and quantity of offspring. So surely love ought to evolve out if we are subject to natural selection in the way so many people argue. Anyway, what I have just taken a very long time to say is that love, unlike sexuality, cannot be reduced to a pragmatic impulse; it is more than that.

I was going to write a bit about the value of art as well, but I’m afraid that this will turn into an epic post. Feel free to contribute your thoughts and extend the art/science comparison.

I thought that love, in purely biological terms, is an instinct that promotes fidelity so that the father stays with the mother in order to provide care and resources that will help to guarantee the survival of any offspring.

On the other hand, love is.

That’s a good point (and a gap in my argument - brought on by guiltatlackofrevisionsyndrome, no doubt). I will rectify that now. I think what you have said represents adequately the biologist’s viewpoint, and I would counter it in two ways. Firstly, the less compelling argument: it does not necessarily follow from the fact that a man loves some particular woman that he will care for the offspring they have together in a similar manner. Several months ago, I saw some NSPCC figures indicating the disturbing prevalence of paternal child abuse - of course it is true that in many of these cases these children may not be the product of a loving relationship, but in some cases they are, and abuse still occurs. So love for a woman is not some sort of universal love-her-kids potion.

The second argument is borne of the fact that love is not the constant that biologists take it to be. Love varies with circumstances, opportunities and experiences, and is often a fickle quantity: it is, as a certain eminent philosopher once said, ‘downright irrational.’ Whilst his love for their mother can sometimes guarantee children the support of their father, it often backfires and wrests that support away when said father meets and falls in love with another woman, and decides to support her instead. This is particularly true of the modern western world in which the ease and social acceptability of divorce and remarriage means that affairs are more likely to develop to the stage where old ties are broken and new ones forged, and hence the number of lone mothers raising children is increasing alarmingly. Why? Because of the organic, uncontrollable (downright irrational!) nature of our old friend love.

A counterargument is that enforced maintenance payments mean that men who leave their families must still support their children, but to be honest, the statutory payments are pitiful as they stand in the UK, I don’t know about anywhere else - hence this argument holds little weight (unless, of course, your dad is Donald Trump). So - at least within the framework of our society - I think that the biologist’s view, namely that love promotes long-term monogamy, holds ever-less truth. I revert to my initial statement: unlike sexual attraction, the enigma that is love cannot be reduced to the level of a pragmatic impulse. Unrequited love is a case in point…in terms of the scientific p.o.v it is of no value, yet it occurs and whilst artists can find its value and begin to tell us something about it, science would flounder, telling us about chemical reactions in the brain which occur for no real reason, contradicting the utilitarian machinization which is overtaking the scientific view of humanity. This is not, however some sort of refuatation of the worth of science - it is an invaluable method of progress - however, as regards love, little can be deduced empirically about its nature, and hence science is an inadequate means of describing and comprehending love. And this is admitted inadvertently by the fact that - whilst there is a science of sexology - there is no science of ‘loveology.’ Hell, I’m gonna throw down the gauntlet and say it: Love is outside the scope of science.

You are of course assuming that “Love” is a separate defineable and objevtive emotion and that every person who says their in love is meaning the same thing. I think you’ll agree that these are all huge assumptions. It is not true that someone who says they are in “love” is in love. Unless you wish to say that love is subjective then EVERYONE who says they are in love is in love for certain values of love.

You talk about love as an evolutionary advantage. The world is gradually becoming overpopulated and having lots of children is become less beneficial economically and geographically. If a parent has only one or two children, the likeliehood is they will survive due to lower infancy death rates. If they only have few children they can plough ALL their resources into said children increasing their chance of being successful and becoming wealthy and having more chance of raising their children. In previous times, the aim was to have as many children as possible so that some would not die of some horrid disease. These days that is not so much an issue in developed countries and so evolution has other things to consider. If having a small number of children IS advantageous then “love” seems to be the best way of promoting that.

Agreed, divorce is high but that could just mean not enough people are falling in love. Children who are brought up in a family where the parents are in love and stay together are more likely to themselves get married and fall in love and stay together which enables them to have reproduce. This could be considered an advantage of “love”

Having said that, I think an underlying issue here is “what is love?” but that is being discussed in another post. Irrationality has a lot to do with the gut emotions like jealousy, anger, guilt etc. I think I would agree that science cannot explain love purely from the reason that not even language can explain love so no wonder science cannot do it!

Jawaad,

(Romantic) Love is nothing but a combination os sexual attraction and tenderness/caring. Both are needed for the successful reproduction and caring of offspring.

The limbic system (the centre for emotions) is present only in mammals. Mammals do not hatch hundreds of eggs, wait for them to hatch and then abandon the offspring (like most other species of animals do). Instead they bear few offspring, carry the offspring within their bodies for a brief duration and also care for them after birth, usually until the offspring reach reproductive age. So, sexual attraction by itself is not at all enough for the propogation of their genes.

So you need some additional means of attachment, which remains for a while, even after sexual desires have been satisfied. It should help the biological father stay with the biological mother for a while, so as to help her get through the pregnancy and rear the offspring successfully. This includes caring for the mother, bringing her food, protecting her from predators, other hostile members of the clan etc. That is love.
A similar (and probably stronger) attachment (without the sexual attraction component) had to be present towards the offspring too. Because they were literally, the new version of the genes. They had to be taken care of and protected to the maximum extent possible. And taught to survive in the world.

So the instinct for love (and other emotions) had very important practical benefits during evolution. It is an evolutionary trait.

However that does not mean that each instance of love now results in successful procreation and nurture of offspring. Our brains are large enough to make us enjoy the pleasures of love and sex and explicitly take measures to prevent offspring. Thats us thwarting the objective of our genes while enjoying their programming.

  • Sivakami.

Language can explain love. It can explain everything. What i am about to say may seem absurd, so please bare with me.
Something can be explained if it can be experienced. The components of love are delicate, wild and irrational, and hence very difficult to know outside experience. Yet they can be conveyed through language in a way that would leave analytic philosophers feeling helpless at their weak attempts to find meaning by system. (when for a blessed few, instinct will suffice)

The most primitive-seeming emotions and feelings, like love and guilt can not only be described with language and speech, but can actually be deconstructed.
I return to Seamus Heaney as my shining example. his work, not only through what he describes on the surface, uses words which when spoken together in the right tongue, penetrate far below the conscious levels of thought and feeling, invigorating every word; sinking to the most primitive and forgotten, returning to the origin and bringing something back. It is that something brought back which I’d like to bang on about. not only is the irrational explained by his writing, causing you to join his experience, but it can also partly be understood. there are many examples of heaney doing just this. I will choose one:
I have never known someone close to die. And I do not know the grief of losing someone who is familiar. Though I do not claim to have experienced the feeling in any way sincere, having read his piece ‘Funeral Rites’, all of the clouds and active emptiness comes to light. Yet with this well-measured experience, Heaney also manages to force the reader into a state of mind which whilst allowing the experience maintains a level of lucidity (the profits of his non-pretentious prose). It is in this enforced lucidity, where love is deconstructable, its (scientific) context and physiological impact never being ignored, that something new and true is found. This is where the greatest artists of our time could indirectly become the godfathers of scientific advance.

I consider the above to be a phenomenon, and in practical terms, fairly irrelevant. However, if we are to debate “The artistic, the scientific, and the downright irrational”, it is something worthy of consideration, a firm method-as-rebuttal to those robotsmiths who claim that one day, just one day, they will be able to create me.

Before Newton came along, everyone was experiencing gravity all the time … but noone could understand or explain it. They took it for granted that things fall down by default. They never asked “Why ?” nor did they bother to find out.

Before Mendel discovered genetics, people were experiencing it all the time, but noone knew about it. Noone could explain it.

Language can only be used to describe what we already understand.

  • Sivakami.

This thread has developed predictably and I fear it may decline into a banal game of intellectual tennis.

So let me stipulate a new way of looking at the problem:

Science is a wonderful and necessary method of dealing with any object/activity/process that can be assigned - at some level - a quantitative value. Take the periodic table, for example: on the surface it groups elements which share similar qualitative attributes. However these attributes arise from an essentially mathematical order, as elements are arranged in order of increasing atomic number. Similarly, there is ‘natural’ mathematics in so much around us: genetics, geometry and the list goes on.

However, this mathematical order does not extend to absolutely everything. Whilst we can call the odds on tossing a coin and getting heads 1-1 beause we can foresee every possible outcome and hence model the problem mathematically, could we similarly call accurate odds on, say. the probability of Pangloss falling in love tomorrow? No, because there is something extra-mathematical in emotion.

Similarly, advanced computer models of the stock market often pitch way off the mark - ever heard of Long Term Capital Management? They (‘they’ being a group of legendary brokers, the likes of John Meriweather) thought they had a perfect model of the NYSE and pulled in several billion worth of investments in 1988 and were making a killing. Then, a year on, their ‘foolproof model’ got a prediction horribly wrong and LTCM went from being on top of the world to bankruptcy in 48 hrs. A consortium of top Wall Street firms had to bail them out to prevent the dissolution of the entire western stock market network. It was a big factor in the recession which swept the world in the early 90s. Why did this model go wrong? Because there is something irrational operating in the minds of the millions of people who buy and sell shares, often on a whim, which cannot be modelled satisfactorily because it cannot be represented mathematically. How would scientists account for the whimsical behaviour of human beings?

There are things which science cannot - and will never - begin to explain comprehensively; these things are the extra-mathematical. The existence of these things has been documented through time immemorial in the written word, and is the reason why so many religions talk of an additional plane of existence: karma, soul, and spirit are all ways of explaining the existence of the irrational, the non-mathematical, and by extension the non-scientific. Love is one of those things. Even the stockmarket is one of those things, because despite its figure-based operation, no transaction occurs unless somebody’s hopes and fears or optimism and pessimism come into play. And these things will never be fully understood in terms of science. In the mean time art will be the only medium we have that can begin to tackle such abstract concepts, and even art can never provide an objective understanding of them: the difference is, art knows its limits and observes them, and in doing so (good art) takes us on a wonderful voyage of discovery and self-realization.

Jawaad stated:
[There are things which science cannot - and will never - begin to explain comprehensively; these things are the extra-mathematical.]

Saying that science will never do whatever is conjecture. You can’t know that. The holy grail of physics for almost a hundred years has been to combine the four forces (Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, and Weak Nuclear Force). Physicists have alread found a way to combine two. The point here being is that if they figure out a way to combine all of them than they will hold the answer to the creation of the universe and everything in it. Well, lucky for Jawaad that either won’t happen (although an understanding will still be found for the universe - so I believe) or it’ll take atleast another five life-times. So Jawaad is free to say, “that still doesn’t mean everything will be explained”. Not trying to put words in your mouth Jawaad, just trying to use that extra plain I myself believe in - in order to predict what you may say.

The sum of the above is what many argue, and it a good argument, but it’s not what I believe in and I myself have argued against it.

In playing devils advocate one learns best about their weaknesses or of the weaknesses of the opposition. As I have shown above. Unfortunately there is merit to the opposing side. My view is that it doesn’t matter that there is or may be a transcendental side to the world, a higher consciousness that holds emotions like love in the highest rank. The reason it doesn’t matter is the same reason that philosophy isn’t held in high regards by scientists. Philosophy debates about the undiscovered or unknown, but the minute conclusions are confirmed and a foundation has been established it becomes a science. I mean that’s how all sciences started, from philosophy.

What’s your take?

Hmmm…looking at the first part of your post, it contains an assertion as sweeping as my own. I asserted that science deals with phenomena of a mathematical nature; and in my belief, everything but the intangible - ie. this elevated plane of existence we have referred to - is rooted at some level, in mathematical order. And this is why I believe that science, whilst it could theoretically provide some sort of universal physical ‘answer’ - will never adequately describe or explain the human condition. The assertion in the argument of your alter-ego is that me “saying that science will never do whatever is conjecture. You can’t know that.”

It’s true that I can’t “know that.” But only in the sense that there are many things I can’t know - ie that I can’t prove. But this doesn’t mean there is no value in working from first principles which we assume to be true and formulating ideas and theories from them. In fact, taking the aforementioned line of thinking one step further, it is possible to say that there is no value in anything at all, because nothing can be proved since we have no way of knowing that human logic and the empirical mode actually correspond to reality. But this gets us nowhere. So I think it is acceptable to table assertions such as that which I did in my last post.

Magius wrote “My view is that it doesn’t matter that there is or may be a transcendental side to the world, a higher consciousness that holds emotions like love in the highest rank.” Well perhaps this is an unchangeably subjective issue, but I disagree inasmuch as I am consumed by a desire to find this truth. Criticise that desire for being irrational if you must, but I think that there is value in fulfilling this desire, as there is value in loving someone.

It seems to me that your “good argument” attacks a conclusion without looking at the reasoning behind that conclusion, which is there for anyone to read in my previous post. And your personal view is based on a lower valuation of the worth of human desire - however irrational - than my own.

As for philosophy being the origin of science, I agree, as philosophy centres on a quest for knowledge and understanding, as does science. But I think you miss a whole dimension of philosophy when you say “the minute conclusions are confirmed and a foundation has been established it becomes a science.” Sometimes philosophy finds its way into some sort of artistic outlet. Many artists create their art to learn more about themselves and to help them to understand more about the human condition. This is as much a part of philosophy as the wonder and desire to understand aroused by looking at the motion of the stars and planets developed into the science of astronomy. I stand by what I say, and maintain my belief that science will never explain the human condition.

Jawaad,
I agree with your notion that you only don’t know that science wont solve human existance and it’s essence because you can’t know only as far as you can’t prove. I too think that I know many things but can’t prove them, but throughout my life my conjecture has proved to be correct. Just because we can’t prove something it doesn’t mean it isn’t so, quite correct. But do you truly believe that science can’t and won’t figure out the essence of human beings…ever? If so fine, I’ll agree to disagree.
It’s funny you took the thought experiment that one step further because I have thought about the very idea thoroughly throughout my life. I personally believe that nothing can be truly proven. I disagree that it get’s us nowhere, on that contrary I think this is the path to true wisdom. Those who get bogged down with believing everything they are taught is unquestionable, are the same people that can’t think outside the box, as the saying goes. Nothing is perfect, nothing is truly true, there is only going by what has worked best so far. When we created math we thought that it would solve everything, but then we learned about sub-atomic particles and math needed to be altered. The same happened when we got out into space, the majority of the predictions about the ten planets in our solar system have been wrong, despite our all powerful math.
Believe it or not everything has it’s downfall, even math. As Aristotle and Plato stated we must start from the most basic information and inquire and ask questions until we can get to the most complicated dilemmas. Most people don’t start from the basic. Math’s paradox lies in it’s most basic construct of 1+1=2. In theory it is pretty and makes sense but it can never be applied to the real world. Math works with concepts and labels best, but get’s into trouble used in the real world.
Personally, I think that saying Science will not solve whatever is pointless because it doesn’t do anything. It’s a radical statement, one which requires much explanation, could you elaborate on why science will NEVER solve whatever.

What’s your take?

I don’t mean to jump in between Magius and Jawaad, but the Order and Teutonic nature of MathS is exactly what props up Scientific claims to Knowledge, and Truth.
However, this implies a singular way of thinking which, whilst being rigid, is less prone to Wild mistakes. One of the finest of writers, observers and thinkers of the last two-hundred years is Oscar Wilde. His thinking was entirely redundant of Mathematics. Yet, he revealed far more Truth than the vast majority of empiricist intellectuals, much of which has survived 120 years of historical turmoil. A simple conclusion to be taken from the survival of his work, is that he successfully deconstructed the human condition, without undermining it. And it is worth reiterating that he was not a scientist, but an artist.
I posted his essay ‘The Soul of Man under Socialism’ on a capitalism debate a few months ago.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … t=#1458000

Although the central thesis is wrong, and his essay does actually amount to a powerful defence of Liberalism, and (believe it or not) Christianity, it is worth noting that there is not one piece of empirical data in the entire essay*. It is only a lack of knowledge on economics, and distributing resources that get in the way of it receiving a top grade.

Has anyone, by any chance, read “Chaos” by James Gleick, the amazing science of the unpredictable. "The science of chaos cuts across traditional scientific disciplines, tying together unrelated kinds of wildness and irregularity, from turbulence of weather … "
I’ll be reading it this summer, but I suspect it may be a useful extension of the general ‘science-can-be-truth’ argument.

*That may or may not be true.

Nope. Not all science is empirical.

You were talking about science. Why did you suddenly switch to mathematics ?! :slight_smile:
Not all phenomena are predictable, I agree. But given that some pehnomenon is, science has a much greater probability of an accurate prediction than any other discipline.
As for falling in love, once we understand phernomones and the brain chemistry of this emotion better, we may just be able to predict it.

  • Sivakami.