One interesting response to Edge's Question of 2005 (see the preceding post) was provided by Dr. David M. Buss, a psychology professor at the University of Texas whose primary interests include the evolutionary psychology of human mating strategies; conflict between the sexes; prestige, status, and social reputation; the emotion of jealousy; homicide; anti-homicide defenses; and stalking. [Hmmm, that's an interesting mix!]
Dr. Buss' answer: True love. Read his full (albeit short) response at http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_5.html#buss
Questions & issues that could be considered:
A) Analyze and reflect on the final lines of Dr. Buss' response: "It's difficult to define, eludes modern measurement, and seems scientifically wooly. But I know true love exists. I just can't prove it."
B) Most people would call love an emotion. Emotion, in turn, is identified as a Way of Knowing in TOK. What does Dr. Buss' response seem to say or imply about the reliability of emotion as a way of knowing?
C) Dr. Buss' draws a distinction between "love" and "true love." What seems to be his basis for making that distinction? Do you agree that there is a distinction? Do you agree with the distinction he makes, or do you make a different distinction? Why? How does someone know if they are "in love," and if they are, how do they know if it is "true love?"
[Thank you to Ellen J. for bringing the source for this post and the previous post to my attention. She will receive credit for completing a journal entry as a result, because she showed me these (in a book) before I started the blog. See the comments in the Introduction post to find out how you can turn in one journal entry and have it count as two entries.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Since we were just learning about science in TOK, I think I'll use that to start my post. There are many people in the world who believe wholly in the abilities of science to prove all that needs to be proven. (I used the example of an uneducated consumer hearing about a special shampoo with special scientific properties- who wouldn't buy into that?) The problem I see with science though is made up of two parts. First, science changes all the time. when someone has made a discovery in Switzlerland, two years later scientists in England could make the exact opposite discovery. Second, there are many things which still allude science. One example of this is the brain. While a lot is known about the brain, the functions and all the "why" questions have not yet been answered. (I guess in the future when everything is scientific-as it may very well be as we start to move that direction through "modernization"-then perhaps everything will be explainable through science, but for now, hear me out.) This all connects to the topic about true love, I swear. In one of the worksheets we did earlier in the year, there was someone who stated that "I know more than I can say." With the exception of very few people, most would agree that this is true. Then, could this not be the case with the true love guy? I guess a "gut feeling" is not very scientific, but does that mean your gut feeling isn't true? If one day we do get to that place where everything can be explained through numbers of theories, then love will take on a purely chemical meaning. That, however, doesn't seem very exciting. Knowing about your body is really interesting to me, but knowing everything would make me feel just like a bundle of cells. I'm glad this guy (I dont know his name) has no proof for true love. If he did, true love wouldn't mean anything (to me, at least).
Oh no! I just wrote an entry, but it was erased so here it is again, but probably more briefly: I think perhaps that the reason Buss cannot prove the existence of True Love is because we have so much trouble defining it in the first place. How can we go about trying to prove that there is true love if we cannot list the criteria for true love? I can list some actions that I associate with true love, or some feelings, but I cannot come up with a full checklist. Also, I think true love must manifest itself differently in different people. Because true love does not appear identically amongst people, we cannot define it in one specific way.
Hmmm– this is quite an interesting investigation. And while I don't think I've experienced either, I think I know what the difference is and how Buss knows too.
Buss, a pyscologist at the Univ. of Texas, has studied the fruits of human relationships. I'm sure he's seen a fair share of abuse, divorce, adultery, and countless others. In fact, at the extreme level, I read briefly about a woman in the Oregonian who drowned her year-old child to get back at her ex-husband. Horrible.
Those instances can hardly be classified as "true" love or even much love at all. Love is about trust, commitment, sincerity, and true devotion. "True" love between a man and a woman isn't based on bodily or sensual affection; rather, it's about loving for who they REALLY are: their soul, their spirit, which inhabites the flesh.
Professor Buss differentiates "love" to "true love" based on the basis that true love has no boundaries, knows no barriers, meaning that true love is about accepting one another, and having nothing hinder one from loving the other. He describes regular love as "attraction, obsession...sexual afterglow."
I feel that what professor Buss described as "regular love" is actually a form of lust, rather than love, and his description of "true love" which he explains is rare, is the only type of "love" that exists. Many people assume that what they have between one another is "true love" which in actuality, it's lust that their experiencing. I really believe that "true love" is a rare occurance, something as similar to the concept of fate. I believe this, however I cannot proove it. I cannot prove nor judge that someone's relationship is based on lust or "true love." However I know that "true love" is rare. How do I know this? The same way Professor Buss knows that true love exists, however cannot prove it...
I find it very interesting how Buss can still believe in the concept of "true love" even while believing that that same concept "knows no fences" and "has no barriers or boundaries." Who is to say that "true love" is not just an idea that most people wish is true, or have tricked themselves into thinking actually exists? Every single one of us has grown up with the various movies and TV shows that portray countless couples with a deep, heartfelt love for one another. But this is simply fantasy and is completely fake. That is why we are all so attached to movies such as this, because "true love" is a concept that is impossible to attain. We are in love with being in love, if you will.
Even Buss seems to help my point. By stating that true love "takes its own course through uncharted territory" and is "difficult to define, eludes modern measurement and seems scientifically wooly," it seems that this concept can't even begin to be comprehended by us. He makes it seem as if "true love" is a divine concept, and perhaps this is true.
Furthermore, who is to say also that those obsessed stalkers he studied did not fall prey to true love? Perhaps true love is an idea that no one can handle sanely or rationally. ;)
Hm... Interesting debate here. Thinking off of what Emily S. posted about whether anyone can hhandle true love sanely and rationally made me think of English. We just finished reading The Great Gatsby. Is Gatsby's love for Daisy true love, or is it also just regualar love, or is it something completely different?
Also, I find it interesting that he says he "knows" true love exists, even though he can't prove it. Can this really be knowledge in the ToK sense of the term, or is it only belief?
He says he doesn't know what it is, can't define, he hasn't experienced it himself, but he knows it exists. What is he basing his knowledge claim on?
Is it perhaps that the "normal love" he has felt feels less than complete, and this incomplete love is just a shadow of "true love"?
Buss believes in "True Love" simply because he chooses to. Something as abstract and ambiguous as true love cannot be dissected and examined enough to come to a definite conclusion on its existence. True love will always be sought after because without the idea of love, life as an individual becomes worthless. Humanity needs a goal to function. True love, be it with another person or an idea or goal, drives humanity to refuse to be insignificant. That is how Buss knows it exists, because without the existence of something as pure true love, why wake up every morning. True love is not easily attained, because of its ambiguity. And that is what makes its existence debatable.
"It's difficult to define, eludes modern measurement, and seems scientifically wooly. But I know true love exists. I just can't prove it."
Going back to the last topic I think that to this man it is just another question of belief and truth. I think that he truly believes that there is true love out there but the thing is that he cant prove it so this keeps it at a belief. Though I truthful believe in true love. Although I think that love can be made between two people. His lack in proof is the thing that holds him back but once he has proof it will become knowledge.
I feel the need to disagree with nearly everything EmilySuv has to say. She says that in this society love is so glorified and so commercialized that we are only "in love with love" and that therefore, "true love" is an unattainable idea. It is interesting to me when people attempt to deny those things that others claim to know by way of faith or personal experience. I would ask EmilySuv if she had ever been in a relationship and to describe her feelings for that person. How can a person possibly dismiss the possibility of something such as true love if they have not experienced it, or atleast, does not believe they have experienced it. Simply because they have not, or perhaps will not, experience such a feeling in their lifetime does not mean it does not exist. I agree with Hye Ji. Our society often confuses many degrees of love. It is not doubtful that the media feeds our desires to pursue or even attempt to create true love for ourselves. And we have nothing with which to gauge or compare our feelings than these stereotypes that we confront daily. I know true love exists to the same extent that another may know that God exists. There is no physical, scientific proof. But neither of things are physical, nor do I believe they are scientific. Many people experience love on a variety of levels. I love my car. I love my dogs. I love my parents unconditionaly. And I love a man who I would do absolutely anything for, a man that means more to me than life itself. Yet that is impossible to explain in words, because it is a feeling to which definition could never do justice.
Perhaps the problem is that we attempt to set a standard for what love is that applies equally to all people. To me, this is the same as trying to make everyone see God in the same image, through the eyes of one religion; it is impossible. So who is to say that true love can not exist, when the definition of true love is for each person to decide for themselves.
i think alot of us like to believe and find comfort that ture love does exsist because if we believed otherwise, there would be no way we cold find it ourselvs!
i dont think ture love should have a definition or any sort of checklist or criteria. if it did and a couple who believed they were in love didnt meet all the criteria, would that mean their love isnt true?
i think love is defined differently for differnt people. some find it more physically, others emotinially and still others spiritually and many other ways.
to define love as scientific i think takes away alot of the emotions and feelings that come with love.
when i think of science i think of facts and proof and evidence but i dont think love can be put in that same category. its so abstract and way more intricate. i think puting it along with things so straight forward ruins its personal meaning.
It doesn't really make sense to categorize love and "true love" into two different areas. If "true love" is really just a much greater and expansive version of love, don't you have to have "normal" love to get to it? I believe it would make more sense to say that there are different amounts of love which can lead to greater feelings for each other that lead in different directions. I wouldn't really consider love to be an emotion, if we would say that emotion is a way of knowing. You cannot really say that love is a way of knowing. It is really one big generalization for numerous different emotions. It is like a type of certain emotions. In reality, I do not believe there is something like "true love". I think that people who are attracted to each other can be compatible enough to be very happy together, but there are many people in the world. Many people could be compatible enough and be attracted enough to be considered to be in "true love". I think that all love really is, is a word used to describe a mutual happiness between a couple who share a very high amount of mutual attraction physically and mentally.
Now, I feel I must defend against Lea's attempt at refuting my arguments... she is such a poophead.
You are assuming that my basis for being skeptical as to the existence of "true love" is simply because I have not experienced it personally. However, this had not even crossed my mind during my original argument. The reason for my not believing in its existence is because of Buss' comment on true love and how it "seems scientifically wooly" and "takes its own course through uncharted territory." It honestly seems to me that not one person has ever experienced the effects of this so-called "true love." I do not understand how he can still believe in such an absolute and (as I said before) "divine" concept even with such a lack of solid evidence. And Buss had studied it for many years, as he said.
I actually believe that others have not experienced it, despite what they claim. I just feel that they have a warped perspective on the concept of "traditional" love, mistaking their feelings for "true love." Just as you do, I believe that love exists on a variety of levels, yet it is all in the same category. We tend to put all love -- be it romantic or platonic -- in a separate and almost inferior category as "true love." I was simply saying that the concept of "true love" may be just a figment of imagination and all "love" is in the same category. This may come off as confusing... because, truthfully, it sounds a little confusing in my head.
Furthermore, I also thought it interesting how you said that you "know true love exists to the same extent that another may know that God exists." First of all, no one can know for certain that god or "true love" (or anything, for that matter!) actually exist. You said I can't "know" that "true love" does not exist since I haven't experienced it. But, just the same, how do you know true love does exist without having experienced it.
Points to Roland for having a good point.
ok I am going to comment on what emilysuv said. first of all how can you say true love dosent exist if you your self have not expierenced it and How can you compare that by saying God doesnt exist because there isnt evidence WoW , i only say this because i remember when we were in class and we just finished our presentations and we were talking about racisim and i herd a girl say "their making a big deal about racisim americans dont do that" she could not see the truth because she has never Expirienced iT .i my self remember saying that theire isnt racisim but when i expierinced it it opened my eys, just like when emilysuv said there is no true love how can she say that. I my self have found true Love that is why i wanted to comment because before i met the love of my life who i will marry after collage of course :-) i had asked my self is there true love? because i would see movies and the media portray it so sappy and dumb lol but love is diffrent you cant explai it, it just hapens and david b is right while love is common true love is rare i am one of those rare people and found ture love... ok go ahead and say there is no scientific evidence bla bla bla i also remember hering kody tell us how when he went with his church and he saw miricles happen right in front of him and since then he had such a better understanding about god and the little things and Big things he does for alll of us . there are things in life you cant explain just like Buss said "i just cant prove it"
I think Emotions have always been the most unreliable and troublesome of the Ways of Knowing. Emotions are completely subjective, so yours will not sync up with everyone elses. It's how you feel, so naturally you want to go with how you feel. Defending yourself when you feel wronged or angry during a TOK discussion seems pretty classic. You don't want to be told you're wrong right? That person can't know more than you.
Love's the same way. You're told you love your parents and family since childhood, but it's not the same love you'll feel for someone else someday. That love will be special and lead to procreation (?). Well, why are those loves different? If I love my husband, how can I love my mother too? Because it's clearly not the same, right? Who decided long long ago that everyone was in love with everyone?
Why does love have so many distinctions? I can tell a friend that I love them, but in that context it just means i have warm familial feelings for them.
Love just seems crazy.
How do you know if you can believe in it if you don't know what it is and can't even clearly define it?
The problem with the word love is that we attach it to everything...like I love those shoes or I love this movie etc. And like Hye Ji said we often refer to love as lust, we have degraded the meaning. Even though we cannot define the criteria of what true love is we know what it looks likes. Love is self-sacrifice, which is really hard for the human race to do because we are always looking out for number one. Thats what makes it so uncommon like Dr. Buss was talking about, and even though it maybe uncommon does not mean that it cannot be accomplished. I know you don't love your mom like you would your spouse but that doesn't mean that you don't have a "true" love for them. It's a selfless love that you have for them...one that you are willing to give your all for the good of the one you love.
Post a Comment