Where did love come from?

[ajblaise]

It probably came from serotonin.

 

[Synarch]

It probably came from serotonin.

I made serotonin all over your mom my brain.

 

[Grayscale]

That is interesting. Seems like a concept of love must exist first before it can be created or arise materialistically. Platonic duality.

Considering this, it seems to make more sense:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen. 1:27)

 

[ajblaise]

I made serotonin all over your mom my brain.

No that was estrogen, for some reason.

 

[juggernaut]

You're so romantic. Everything may be reducible ultimately to some basic chemical process, but this is not what makes things interesting.

I try.

They're the only thing that is interesting about the subject to me. Love ya babe!

 

[Synarch]

I try.

They're the only thing that is interesting about the subject to me. Love ya babe!

That's cos your heart is as dry and empty as your womb.

 

[Winds of Thor]

In answer to your question (it's not the one you wanted) the answer has to be:

1 John 4:19
We love because He [God] first loved us.
NIV

It may not be politically correct at this time to voice such things, but it is true nonetheless.

This is the truth^

I don't care about political correctness either...Join me! Anyone can fall for anything by having chosen....

Who wants to stand strong? Doing so is something of worth in having humility.

 

[Nonsensical]

I don't think it came from any philosophical enigma or from certain bodily reactions (though both may add to it), but I think love transcends all of this.

It's not something you can define, not something you can control, nor discover its origin. It's apart of us. We're born and built to love, though many people turn away from deep passionate love that we're all capable of.

Sure, go ahead..tear that up, but at the end of the day, love is probably the only thing that matters. It's what makes us do what we do and makes us who we are, in a sense.

It's far greater than I can put it, and in my opinion, it's pretty lame to try to pinpoint the epicenter in concrete terms..it's so much greater..practically a mystery to us, though we're filled with it.

 

[juggernaut]

That's cos your heart is as dry and empty as your womb.

Oh how I wish it were so! If only my womb had been as dry and empty.

Fortunately my own oxytocin levels have been high enough to ensure that the fruit(s) of my not-so-dry womb are much loved.

 

[AOA]

Love occurs with laxity.

... You know how they derive statements as in "what you love destroys you, etc" or in life "you hate the people you love, etc".

What I'm saying is, those are just a petty excuses - when a person starts to love someone or something, it's a sign that he/she is being negligent of a particular belief/value system, or duty. Therefore (presumably), he/she is already in that state of negligence, which can be used as an excuse to 'self-destruct' having not gone higher for a purpose, or something. To sum it up, love is and always will be something 'personal' to a person - not going beyond a universal meaning for it, and it can neither be subjected as being 'innocent' nor 'guilty'... it's entirely how the individual 'sees' it.

... And that can happen at any time, has no particular 'origin' because as we've come to know - we are (naturally) quite selfish and arrogant creatures. Should love exist, I'd think it would exist in the context that I've given - it's around being self-centered.

 

[Aleph-One]

Love is a soup of phenethylamines. If you find any place other than your brain with as many trace and biogenic amines, the DEA will jump up your ass.

Love is probably a schedule III substance.

 

[coberst]

I'm not quite sure why you posted this lengthy response to my tongue-in-cheek post. Can you clarify?

You said that you thought that love came from the ego.

 

[coberst]

I suspect that like all of natural selection that the better the bond between the nurturing mother and the infant the more likely the survival of the infant and thus those mutations that helped this bonding became part of the gene pool.

 

[juggernaut]

I suspect that like all of natural selection that the better the bond between the nurturing mother and the infant the more likely the survival of the infant and thus those mutations that helped this bonding became part of the gene pool.

Errrrm, not so much. Natural selection applies to all living things but maternal bonding is necessary only in cases where the juvenile period is fairly long, such as in case of large-brained mammals. Sharks, bacteria, snakes, plants, etc. (you get the general picture) don't require a maternal bond for survival. Any mutation that gives a creature an advantage in its environment will persist. Maternal bonding would be bad news for many living things.

Also, I'm not sure that all love is reducible to maternal bonding. Pair bonding is just as important in humans, and it generally needs to occur prior to reproduction. I think that's why there are different kinds of love relationships, and different chemical processes involved in them. The maternal/infant bond is built, first and foremost, on oxytocin (this is one of the reasons breast-feeding is so important...it creates a tsunami of oxytocin) while pair bond-bonding relies on the crack-like chemicals Jenocyde and Aleph mentioned.