Posted by aramaic (198.81.16.37) on May 20, 2002 at 00:42:05:
In several different tangents, the subject of love has been brought up a couple different times. Is there a such thing as true love? Is love just a chemical response? On a technical level, yeah, all love really is is a conglomeration of chemical signals in the brain that are triggered by things like olfactory cues (yes, how someone smells greatly affects how you feel about them) and visual stimulation (ie; big tits for bokeem and filmy bow panties for Jim). But why are we singling out love? Happiness, sadness, agression, hunger.. all things that we as humans experience are the result of chemical and electrical impulses. Do we invalidate love over all the other emotions because it seems to be the most elusive? Maybe its the cynical part of people's nature that makes love the subject of much attack. Just because it's chemically based doesn't mean that it isn't a valid "thing" and it doesn't mean that love can be replaced as easily as used-up tube of SuperLube. If you've found someone that you can trust, have fun with, and have great sex with, shouldn't that be validating enough? Pursuing "the one" you're "supposed" to be with is a useless pasttime, but does the chemical nature of love mean it is useless in its entirety? Dismissing love simply because of its chemical nature doesn't really make sense, unless you're going to boycott hunger and happiness too, and it completely cheapens the concept.