Hi Dragon, .....My problem with reductionism (I hope this is the right tag) is that below a certain level it seems to loose any resemblance to the original. I don't doubt that, on some level, you're right. It's just that I'm not sure what practical application it has to the original question, i.e. what is love? It's like trying to define a screwdriver in terms of its atomic, or chemical composition. Does this make any sense to you? John
you are correct there. Its just that saying that love is a: passion and tenderness, emotions and exhibilirating unity and closeness to each other....well it is just not practical as noone really knows what love really is all about...yeah its sex...yeah reproduction...yes emotions...but its just so much more than that. So Im just making life simple...love is a set of neuro-biochemical reactions...because I as an atheist do not believe in God, and I do not believe in any heaven or hell, just this life, and humans. I believe in everything that has proof...love is so complex and random...that finding much proof for what it really is about is impossible. As for the time being, until I find my love...I classify love as: set of neuro-biochemical reactions...but thats me.
Hi Dragon, .....Yes, of course everything you say is true. For me - love as 'uncondtional acceptance' is as close as I can come. John
Hi, I've been thinking of late that love has to have an element of vulnerability, you must be able to be hurt by the person you love. John
