Originally Posted by
kallieb
I think love grew out of a biological necessity. Survival of the species and all that. Once the quality of our life improved, and relationships were more than just procreation of the species and basic survival, those *softer* sides of our needs and wants were allowed to flourish.
I suppose the notion of love has evolved over time (consider the Victorian's very sickly-sweet view), and always will. I think love is more than a physiological reaction, although it is how we mostly describe it because of the physical sensations that it creates within us. Your reference to the parallel argument over 'is there a God' is a good one.
Love is a leap of faith and a matter of belief. You cannot understand it externally or abstractly. One either feels it or they don't. Both experiences are real. If one feels no love, and doubts its existence, then from their experience that is true; but to suggest that it doesn't exist in others is a step out of bounds. It is not up to us to question the experiences of others. If they feel it, so it is.
Reminds of Descarte: I think therefore I am.
Bookmarks