Where did love come from?

[coberst]

Where did love come from?

 

Plato judged that the basis of love is centered upon the mutual struggle for truth. I claim that the emotion of love in humans is evolved from the mother infant relationship in early mammals.

 

Occasionally when reading I run across a phrase or sentence or paragraph, which really rings a bell for me. The bell may be recognition of the compatibility of the point to my own conclusions or perhaps the point caused an epiphany, or other reasons. When I encounter such a point I often copy it and store it in a file for later analysis. One such point is as follows: “Platonic idea that the giving and receiving of knowledge, the active formation of another’s character, or the more passive growth under another’s guidance, is the truest and strongest foundation of love”.

 

My analysis of this sentence led me down a long trail over an extended period of time to an understanding of the meaning of the statement and to an agreement with the meaning of that statement.

 

When studying philosophy I had read some of Plato’s work and had a slight remembrance of one of his Dialogues in which he dealt with the subject of love. After some study of the particular Dialogue in question and some further study of Plato’s general philosophy I realized what was meant by the point made in the sentence I had saved.

 

Quickie from Wiki: “Plato constructed the Symposium as a story within a story within a story. This architecture creates the space for Plato to build his philosophy of knowledge. The speech of Socrates points out that the highest purpose of Love is to become a Philosopher, or Lover of Wisdom.”

 

I often watch the Discovery Channel on TV. As you probably know this channel often has a great documentary on animal life. Their audio/visual presentations give the viewer wonderful insights into the life of animals. Often the animals in question are large mammals such as lions, gorillas, monkeys, etc.

 

Plato wrote, “An unexamined life is not worth living”. I find this a bit hyperbolic but nevertheless agree with the general point. Socrates also argued that the giving and receiving of knowledge, the active formation of another’s character, or the more passive growth under another’s guidance, is the truest and strongest foundation of love. Plato/Socrates judged that the basis of love is centered upon the mutual struggle for truth.

 

I would not attempt to explain why Plato’s Idealistic philosophy leads to this conclusion but I think one can find justification for this point of view by considering the nature of the parent to progeny relationship. Considering the nature of evolution one might easily discover that the origin of love could be observed in the obvious relationship of present day mammals. The educational relationship between the animal mother and their progeny are evident to the most casual observer.

 

Evolutionary Psychology is based on the theory that all human psychological traits, such as love, must be traceable to our evolutionary ancestors. The source of love in humans is evolved from the mother infant relationship in early mammals (perhaps).

 

What do you judge to be the primordial animal source (assuming an acceptance of the validity of Darwin’s theory of natural selection) for the emotion of love in humans?

[Boerseun]

What do you judge to be the primordial animal source (assuming an acceptance of the validity of Darwin’s theory of natural selection) for the emotion of love in humans?

Survival through cooperation. The antithesis, of course, being "hate", where the very same cooperation we depend on for survival is turned against each other in warfare - which is merely coordinated slaughter.

[enorbet2]

Greetings

Forgive me if I am being too literal but if we are indeed discussing the evolutionary beginnings of Love I think it predates mammalian cooperation and is instead objectively implied by Life itself as inherent. Furthermore, as distasteful as Hate is, it seems to me it may be at least a corollary of Love in that as soon as we define something as "something", as in a Venn diagram, we also define to some degree it's opposite. I'm not sure I can argue for bacteria, but at some point of complexity, Life implies that which furthers it is "Good", and therefore appreciated as survival positive, and that which threatens it as "Evil" survival negative. It may even extend to an attribute of DNA, but that's even further away from argument at this time. Perhaps the first step is that of predation, where one lifeform threatens by feeding on another, and competition for food enters the mix. The ante is upped considerably once sex entered the picture since competition for mates began.

 

By the time that social organisms evolved, at least here on Earth, possibly at first from the self-evident Law of Safety in Numbers, some form of cooperation, some requirement for harmony in order, must be necessary. Once that complexity increased, cooperative social organizations such as schools of fish (maybe even plankton Zooplankton - MarineBio.org ) and later packs of predators developed implied codes of values that begin to favor protecting one's fellows as necessary to the survival of the group. I think just as it was early assumed that dinosaurs were disinterested parents but later discovered to be caring beyond that of mere egg sitting, humans tend to underestimate "lower" lifeforms. So I contend that given that even RNA increases naturally in complexity it can be argued that Love, and it's opposite Hate, is implied by Life itself. As complexity increases, Love will likely be a result, possibly even necessitated. The extent of that love seems to increase in direct proportion to level on the food chain. The main thrust of my argument is that the evolution of Love is a smooth progression that didn't leap into being only with the advent of mammals, let alone only humans.

 

*Note - The distastefulness of Hate is harbored in how we deternine enemies. Hopefully Science will provide sufficient resources that Homo Sapiens, once freed from the perceived competition for said resources, may begin to evolve past the need for Hate once it is no longer an evolutionary advantage ie. if and when the food chain becomes irrelevant. Of course there will still remain sex. So will there still be soap operas in the 24th Century?

[Boerseun]

I think the entire concept of "love" is merely a euphemism for cooperating with those you deem most fit to assist you in carrying your genes to the next generation.

 

I don't think there's anything more to that, apart from the "touchy-feely" bull that institutions such as Hallmark will let you believe.

[enorbet2]

Too bad we may never know why Early Man took care of elders who were essentially crippled. While some tribes may have enjoyed periods of relative comfort, most early lives are thought to be "brutish and short". So why was the maintenance considered worthwhile for what would seem to be non-productive individuals (perhaps experience and knowledge?) yet somehow I keep thinking about the deep and sarcastic comedy skit from old school Sat Nite Live with Steve Martin and Bill Murray in the lead roles where Bill's character is the chief of an ostensibly neanderthal tribe who are so dumb they walk through the fire repeatedly, never learning even from pain, while Steve's character is like a Renaissance Man who shows the Chief how to be more successful at hunting beyond "being strong and running fast" and hints at many more ideas but since the Chief's mate, Lorraine Newman declares that Steve "makes her wet" the Chief has at least two reasons to murder the Renaissance Man and he does, declaring "I am strong. I can run fast. Now I am smart, too"

 

On the flipside, still thinking of how culture influences both social commitment and if long-lasting enough, possibly genes, I wonder if Spartan mothers and fathers felt loss when they threw their compromised babies off of cliffs, assuming the tribal rules were correct that they would never be a net gain for the tribe. Oh for a time machine!

[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.

[Boerseun]

Too bad we may never know why Early Man took care of elders who were essentially crippled.

Who says they did?

[Turtle]

Love came from evolution. ;)

 

Too bad we may never know why Early Man took care of elders who were essentially crippled.

 

Who says they did?

 

I know something of this, having read accounts of ancient grave occupants with such severe disabilities that they would have had to be cared for to survive. Can't find one on an "elder" just now, but here's a similar situation recently come to light involving a child. :)

 

Bad Cripple: An Ancient Skull Makes Me Think

...A newly reconstructed child's skull of a prehistoric human who lived 530,000 years ago indicates the child had a profound cognitive disability. It is estimated the child reached the age of five years. In reconstructing the skull from many pieces researchers determined the child had craniosynostosis, a debilitating genetic disorder in which pieces of the skull fuse too quickly causing pressure to build in the brain. It is impossible to know the level to which the child was cognitively disabled but it would have been significant and required "large amounts of extra care from the prehistorical human community". ...

 

While this is not to say for sure that folks kept the child alive out of love, it's a possibility. ;)

[enorbet2]

Originally Posted by enorbet2 Too bad we may never know why Early Man took care of elders who were essentially crippled.

 

Who says they did?

 

Links and excerpt follow:

 

Evolution: Humans: Origins of Humankind

 

Shanidar 1

Estimated age: 70,000 to 40,000 years

Date of discovery: 1953 to 1960

Location: Shanidar Cave, Iraq

 

This site has yielded nine Neanderthal skeletons. One of them, Shanidar 1, was partially blind, one-armed, and crippled when he died, suggesting that he was a member of a society that cared for its elderly. Shanidar 4, another specimen found here, appears to have been buried with offerings of flowers (although this interpretation has been disputed).

 

Overview

Neanderthal Code | National Geographic Channel

Archaics and Neanderthals

[enorbet2]

It may be worthwhile to interject that while "suck, squeeze, pop, phooey" may describe the essence of a 4 stroke internal combustion engine, it says little about the experience of mashing one's foot down on the accelerator with the top down listening, to dual exhausts growl.