Loving others

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, while I don't want children myself I feel protective towards children and animals and people with learning disabilities -
anyone vulnerable and at risk of harm

There is more to love than the OP seems to think. I have not experienced true love but I know it exists even in nature. Some animals including humans will love their children or mate enough that in a life or death situation they will die protecting their loved ones rather than do nothing or escape to save their own skin. Unless you think that the person or animal is being egotistical by saving themselves from the emotional pain of losing their mate or offspring then you would have to admit that love is something that can overcome one’s own survival instinct which is usually high on the scale of importance for individuals. Unconditional, selfless love that overcomes self preservation is probably at the extreme end of a spectrum of types of love: but it does exist.

If you choose to die for your children or mate...it's likely you ultimately do it because you want to ensure the survival of your own genes (through your children's genes or through that your mate will be able to take care of your children). Would it happen that someone sacrificed their life for someone else's mate or child they did not know?





True love does exist - true love is nothing more than two people being extremely good at fulfilling each others needs. Need it be more than that? No. True love is often the simplest kind of love...when it gets complicated it's often not true...that's true love

I think this is an excessively reductionist view.

There are all sorts of capacities that exist because of some selective pressure (facilitation predation or evasion, say) but afford experiences and modes of being that are much more complicated than the sum of their parts.

Animals play. They may be serving some need to develop hunting strategies and teamwork, but what they do is play (see, for example, dolphins surfing)

Altruism may serve a genetic agenda, but that does not mean that the person making the ultimate sacrifice is not feeling something immensely powerful as they do it.

Love is an overloaded word--people mean all sorts of things by it. But you have an imaginary ideal that you are saying does not exist. How do you know what it is? How have you come to imagine it? Doesn't it exist in you in some way? So that you can compare lesser emotions to it and find them wanting?

There is no way to prove any of this, but you will find that many people believe that there is such a thing--not simple, not just a collection of satisfied needs. Many people believe that they experience it.

People really do experience love as being more than a simple collection of satisfied needs...fortunately! That's what makes love and life so beautiful!!

But ultimately, people only feel their life is so important because it probably is the best survival technique ever "invented". If people didn't think their life was important, they would not feel love so strongly and they would not fight for their survival the way they do it now. In the end we would all die. That would contradict the "purpose" of life...that is to exist and ensure continual existence. If we don't have life, we have nothing. In that sense, love really is true.

It can sometimes be difficult to feel it as true when having autism, however.

I understand the logic, but I still think it's too reductionist.

The purpose of tasting sweetness may be about survival, but this is not an adequate explanation for or summary of the true purpose of pastry chefs, the candy industry, or home baked brownies.

Hearing may convey various survival advantages and this could also be said of speech, but neither of these offer an exhaustive assessment of the true meaning of music or choruses.

The universe is full of emergent phenomena. The interactions of the elements listed in the periodic table are endlessly complex and interesting.

Love is anything but simple. It's an emergent phenomenon sitting atop emergent phenomena sitting atop molecular complexity. The genes may have their selfish needs, but so does the mind of the lover, and minds are just not simple. Intention, emotion, imagination, experience, memory, scent, taste, touch--it's all rolled in. Platonic, romantic, fraternal, maternal, paternal, unrequited, self-sacrificing, tragic, romantic, sexual, mutual, neurotic, joyous... love is all of this.

Of course, there are needs in there, but that's like saying there are carbon atoms in the curry I made last night. It is true, but it is far from a sufficient or meaningful explanation.

Your use of the word "likely" suggests to me that a small part of you is convinced that the contrary is also a possibility.

What if someone dies for their love and they do not yet have children?
What if someone dies for their adopted child and so there are no genes in the equation?
If it was only about genes, then why do people adopt children in the first place?

Yes, some people can be willing to save other people's children:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-4 ... x-year-old

Hi JeepGuy,

In general, I'd really wish I could agree with you. I just cannot. Life teaches you otherwise, unfortunately.

It is a possibility. But in that case it is due to a "mental defect" of that individual. Don't get me wrong - I think it is sad that it is that way, but that is the way it is. Nature simply teaches you that. There are some nasty aspects to survival.



People might very well act in affect and do it for that reason. But according to the laws of nature, it is not a sensible action. It indicates some kind of mental deficit doing it (unfortunately!). You should always love yourself more than you love anyone else. This doesn't mean you cannot love others extremely much, but you have to love yourself even more.




Emotionally, people convince themselves that adopted children are actually their own. I doubt anyone would rather raise other people's children instead of their own if they had both options. Often it's because they don't have both options they choose to adopt (or don't want to go through pregnancy etc.). Many people would rather raise some kids than no kids, even if they aren't their own. They subconsciously convince themselves their genes are passed on even when they are not. That's why they feel so great (unconditional) love for them. Another survival technique.




All respect and honour to that policeman! No other person deserves more to live on and have a happy life than him...

But you cannot convince me he'd done it if he knew on beforehand he was going to die. It was a calculated risk he took, he hoped he could save the six-year old boy and stay alive at the same time. It was not a "if you save his life you can take mine" action... Doing that is against healthy human nature. It's an unavoidable side-effect to life.

Sohail Ahmed saw Hameedullah, Rest In Peace

It's because you believe life fundamentally has a purpose. It really hasn't. Not objectively.

Life is just existing and tries to keep existing. That's what life is. There is no more to it.

In order to ensure continual existence people have to be convinced their lives really do have a purpose, even when they don't. So they become very convinced their lives have a higher meaning and a grander purpose.

The opinion I'm stating is challenging you on your desire to survive. I'm indirectly telling you that you should not fight that hard for your life (since life has no purpose), but your desire to survive keeps telling you that there is a higher purpose, which makes you think that you should fight for your life.

The only reason why it's difficult for me to be completely convinced about this myself is because of my own desire to survive. But I know intellectually that that's the only reason why I have a difficult time completely accepting it. It really is the objective truth. Our desire to survive just forces us to be convinced about the subjective truth (which is that life has a grander purpose).

I know life fundamentally has no purpose at all, but I'm completely convinced my life has all kinds of purpose.

Well, while it's true that love has a egotistical compenent (the why), and people might love another because that person gives something else in return (warmth, friendship, food, emotional support, shelter, happiness, anything) I think loving also has a component directed at the person loved (as a result af) If I love someone, I care for that person. I want that person to be happy, I try not to hurt them, show empathy, listen to them. If our needs/importances are conflicting at one point in time, I might choose theirs over mine. I'll put myself aside in a way, because I care for them.
So in that sense loving someone is not (only) egotistical.

That's a good point. Conflicting needs. Sometimes choosing a loved one's needs over your own. That's what I consider true love.

The 'problem' is that the only time it's "right" choosing someone's needs over your own is when you benefit from the relationship some way yourself. If you didn't, you shouldn't choose the other person's needs over your own. In that sense your own needs do come before the needs of your loved one even when you choose their needs over your own.

But that's a matter of accepting that you should love yourself most of anyone.

Really a good point. That's probably the closest you come to true love that is still healthy in a survival-perspective.

The answer to my original question is really to accept that true love is based on survival, not on something "otherworldly".

"It's really sad, I think. But then again, it's likely because of autism I think that it's sad."

A suggestion: Just completely feel the sorrow for a moment or two without thinking about it. One of the best ways to NOT feel the sorrow when it comes up is by thinking about it.

The person who has the best chance to survive trusts his instincts and knows what to do without thinking about it. How does he learn to trust his instincts? By trial and error. This means he makes a mistake and accepts it, learns and moves on. If a person was not accepted as a child in some way and so does not have confidence, the brain will need to rewire. Can it rewire? Yes it can. If a person begins to think differently the brain will begin to create new circuits. There is a saying something to the effect of "mind is outside of brain." This does not mean that the mind exists literally outside of brain, but that the mind regulates the way the brain functions.

I think the main part of growing up is separating psychologically from the primary care taker. Others such as a romantic partner can symbolically represent the primary caretaker..In order to be able to consciously love, speaking here of adult love, it is necessary to know oneself first.

Re inquiry-- It can set you free. Thinking can be the actual way out of a maze. After all one has thought oneself into it. However, the thinking needs to be pristine and the endeavor dedicated. It cannot just be hit and miss and then go on to the next topic so that the thinking becomes an escape.

The way to survive is by paying attention. The unconscious person may seem to be surviving, but he is actually what has been called "the living dead." The aspie-NT distinction does not really apply. Two different people with two different kinds of brains can be the living dead. Re love, One loves a person because he is himself. In order to see another person it is necessary to listen. Then one will find the other person is very precious. In many ways he is like you or me. He turns toward the light like a flower, he breathes, he eats, he can speak, though often his tongue is tied, he makes mistakes, he is scared, he is vulnerable, he has issues, someone he loves deeply is going to die, his boss is persecuting him, he is struggling to survive, he can touch; he can discover, he has questions, and it is possible to discover oneself as one is listening to ones brother. There is a quality of inner speech where the ongoing comprehension is a form of poetry which can interconnect oneself with the outside world..

Knowing that one has a different kind of brain (and I surely know I do) is interesting and a primary part of knowing oneself,, but then constantly referring back to it as a reference point does not validate being alive but is just another way of self-cherishing. That is kind of obvious, isn't it? I do not know why so many people do not see it. (Taking care of oneself is different than self-cherishing).

For anyone who has a child or just loves children, we want to put the world in order not only for ourselves but for these precious children and also for future generations, don't we? Someone told me her friend who is an airline stewardess told her that she learned in training that the most important thing to remember in a crisis is to put on ones own oxygen mask first.

So... You think that life doesn't actually have purpose, but the idea of it is what inspires survival? Is the whole purpose of this post to convince others that there is no real "otherworldly" cause for anything? Well, I disagree with this completely. I also don't see how believing in the otherworldly thing could really be the root cause of the desire to survive. Wouldn't the belief that life is a meaningless, random fling make you want to hold onto it as long as possible? (Since the belief of life after death would no longer be applicable) Maybe I misunderstand you somehow?

Hi Siblac. Here's how I see it:

Life has no deeper purpose in itself. Life is just existing and trying to keep existing by surviving.

It's difficult to think of this as a real "purpose", because it doesn't lead anywhere. There is no goal with this continual existence. Where is the finish line? When is the process "done"?

There are only two possible outcomes from this process: (1) Either the human species keeps existing or (2) it doesn't (it becomes extinct). If it keeps existing, we are just at status quo, still looking for a goal with the existence. If it becomes extinct we are no longer here. In that case, all discussion about purpose becomes absurd.

Hence, the only goal there can possibly be with this process of continual human existence is to ensure continual human existence. In other words: we reach the goal/purpose of our life every second we are alive. Because that proves continual existence for now.

I just would not consider this purpose deep. For instance, the deeper purpose with handing in an exam assignment could be to pass a course. But if all you got out of handing in an exam assignment was the opportunity to make it again and hand it in again, then make it again and hand it in again...etc. Then I would not say there was any deeper purpose with handing in the assignment in the first place. Similarly with life. Life exists and ensures continual existence only to have the opportunity to keep trying to ensure continual existence only to have the opportunity to keep trying to ensure continual existence etc. etc.

But because this process without deeper purpose "should" continue, humans have to be convinced their life has a deeper purpose. So they get very convinced about this and think of their life as really deep and meaningful. So the "art" of life is to forget that it doesn't have a deeper purpose.

If there was such a thing as a deeper purpose it would be to forget that there are no such deeper purpose.

Last edited by qawer on 22 Mar 2013, 3:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.

No, not really. Patterns, yes. Purpose, no.


That's what life does.
What it IS is rather more complicated. It is microbes and fungi and dolphins etc. and their behavior.

And human behavior, including things like art, design, music and poetry.

These may have no meaning in a cosmic sense, but they have meaning among human beings.



I am not sure where you get the idea that the instinct for self preservation should properly be rooted in some higher purpose. That seems profoundly irrational.

On the other hand, you seem to be making the argument that the absence of some kind of cosmic purpose logically negates powerful emotions like love, or the meaning of human activity. This is not rational and does not follow.

I think you are right and I don't think there is any contradiction in these ideas.

Have you ever played with a dog?

I have. But I'm more into cats