First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
A freedom of choice over who we love?
Posted 5/15/11
When the reality of how human sexual orientation is not a choice, within the context of evolutionary biology. While our sexual preference can be both culturally modeled and neurologically/biochemically manipulated, within the context of humans as social animals. This human concept of romantic love, as a part of our freedom of choice, is thereby an unrealistic and oversimplified subjective perception. About what sexuality means, as an act being made as just another commodity. Furthermore, our own choice/decision was the result of manufactured consent through impersonal socialization, from cradle to grave. In other words, our conceptual model known as the freedom of choice is but an illusion, a security mirage that's preventing ourselves from realizing the real process of sexual objectification, both young and not so young alike.

And before some of you deny this argument, please keep in mind of your own human cognitive bias known as loss aversion. While your arrogance is causing more recklessness in your personal relationship with others, yet here you are denying the fact of your psychosocial loss over your predisposed copy of delusion on choice.

You may love sex, but sex itself doesn't care squat about your feeling. When it actually manipulates your decision making process, through the neurology of human sexual biochemistry. And it's quite literally making us highly addictive on just about anything.

So what can we do about it? Well personally speaking, I would say just settle down and actually fall in love with someone. Then hope for the best that the eventual breakup won't resulting you ended up killing yourself, assuming that both yourself and your partner really understand what's at risk in an intimate relationship. But that's really just me being superstitious at myself hoping for a miracle, aka a leap of faith.

In the end, we're only human, just be glad that some of us aren't the worst kind. When there are corporate psychopaths who don't care about how they've hurt others either physically, socially, or mentally.
Posted 5/27/11
Love is like oxygen, you get too much , you get to high
Don't get enough, seems like you're gonna die...

there is a song like that..an old one...

that is all I can say,
the subject
hurts
me/
Posted 5/27/11

RainyDayWoman wrote:

Love is like oxygen, you get too much , you get to high
Don't get enough, seems like you're gonna die...

there is a song like that..an old one...

that is all I can say,
the subject
hurts
me/


It's not quite that way for everyone. The wise might come to find how love often suffocates you rather than allowing you to breath. I've long wondered if I'd ever find the right person. If that ever happens, it would be when I least expect it, but I won't count on it.

I can continue on without love if I find there is anything justifying my existence.

As for there being freedom over who we love, sometimes that idea gets tossed out the window. Especially when two people are forced to be together. How can there be freedom in a situation such as that?
Posted 5/30/11
A difficult question to answer, and from what i've read i'm inclined to agree on the side of "no, we don't get a choice"
Of course, this ties in the long standing argument of free will as well, but that's a different debate
As mammals, we still have natural urge to find a mate, and rear offspring to further the species
Love could just be a mechanism designed by evolution to help encourage this, as the firing of chemicals generated from feelings of love and affection to someone is certainly pleasant

As for who we choose, I don't think we get too much of a choice. Our natural instinct drives to find a mate who looks healthy and young, hence why we find healthy looking people of the opposite (or same in some cases, again a different debate) so attractive.
Due to the way social interaction works in our modern society, I think we do get some control over it, but generally I believe we as humans fall in love with whoever makes us feel good the most

Although if I'm honest, I'd suggest as you said DomFortress, just strap and enjoy the rollercoaster of a ride that is falling in love
Posted 5/30/11

The_Roy_42 wrote:

A difficult question to answer, and from what i've read i'm inclined to agree on the side of "no, we don't get a choice"
Of course, this ties in the long standing argument of free will as well, but that's a different debate
As mammals, we still have natural urge to find a mate, and rear offspring to further the species
Love could just be a mechanism designed by evolution to help encourage this, as the firing of chemicals generated from feelings of love and affection to someone is certainly pleasant

As for who we choose, I don't think we get too much of a choice. Our natural instinct drives to find a mate who looks healthy and young, hence why we find healthy looking people of the opposite (or same in some cases, again a different debate) so attractive.
Due to the way social interaction works in our modern society, I think we do get some control over it, but generally I believe we as humans fall in love with whoever makes us feel good the most

Although if I'm honest, I'd suggest as you said DomFortress, just strap and enjoy the rollercoaster of a ride that is falling in love


People can make a choice, but that choice requires dedication to cause the growth of affection. As for the reliance on the weaknesses in people for our species to survive, that is one of our fatal flaws. I doubt the human race will ever be fully educated concerning matters with relationships and procreation, and for those fortunate enough to have had a real clue on the subject, they likely experienced much fuller lives than those shackled to a ball and chain of their unfortunate lack of insight.

May say that the only true love is love that requires time. With this, I agree. Sudden puppy love doesn't last and ends with pain.
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 6/5/11
Dom, I am disappointed in your deteriorating English. And here I am gone for ages to come back and read this.

Uncalled for lambasting aside, that's a pretty fatalistic view of romance you have their. Quite frankly, I agree with you to a certain extent. TL;DR would be "who gives a damn, you're pretty - let's date". Love is pretty much chemicals and myopia anyway, so we're banking on a 50/50 chance of success. Keep it up and someday you'll find it is the credo, but do you really need it?

Let's ask the fathers and nuns to enlighten us on that one. Platonic love be my sweet biatch.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/5/11
We do have the freedom to choose who we want to love, but our choices are limited by our preferences. Just because we have limited options doesn't mean we don't have the freedom to choose between those options.
Posted 6/7/11
Things like currency, stations, and job can very easily narrow down the choices of who you get to love-- otherwise, it wouldn't be practical. We have a eprsonal freedom to choose who and what we love, but that freedom doesn't mean much unless you are decently well off. I'm assuming this is beyond the 'boyfriend/girlfriend' trifle.

8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 6/7/11
As with all things, I am inclined to say, it is predetermined. It can be reduced to physics, like everything that exists in the natural world.
7430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / New York
Offline
Posted 6/7/11 , edited 6/7/11
You cannot choose who you love, but you do have the choice whether or not to pursue that love.
Posted 6/8/11

Cuddlebuns wrote:

We do have the freedom to choose who we want to love, but our choices are limited by our preferences. Just because we have limited options doesn't mean we don't have the freedom to choose between those options.

Lauriet wrote:

Things like currency, stations, and job can very easily narrow down the choices of who you get to love-- otherwise, it wouldn't be practical. We have a personal freedom to choose who and what we love, but that freedom doesn't mean much unless you are decently well off. I'm assuming this is beyond the 'boyfriend/girlfriend' trifle.
However, when the fact is you obtained your so-called "personal preferences" through socialization, while your decision-making process can be dictated by the cultural psychology of your host society, the reality is you never had a choice to authenticate your own preference that's original and unique only to you.

Moreover, social status based on currency alone is also a false representation of self-worth. When the reality is the human monetary institution is an unsustainable trade of perpetuating debt exchange.
Posted 6/8/11

DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:

We do have the freedom to choose who we want to love, but our choices are limited by our preferences. Just because we have limited options doesn't mean we don't have the freedom to choose between those options.

Lauriet wrote:

Things like currency, stations, and job can very easily narrow down the choices of who you get to love-- otherwise, it wouldn't be practical. We have a personal freedom to choose who and what we love, but that freedom doesn't mean much unless you are decently well off. I'm assuming this is beyond the 'boyfriend/girlfriend' trifle.
However, when the fact is you obtained your so-called "personal preferences" through socialization, while your decision-making process can be dictated by the cultural psychology of your host society, the reality is you never had a choice to authenticate your own preference that's original and unique only to you.

Moreover, social status based on currency alone is also a false representation of self-worth. When the reality is the human monetary institution is an unsustainable trade of perpetuating debt exchange.


I'd love to debate, but I'm currently angsting over the fact you're unbanned.
Posted 6/8/11 , edited 6/9/11

edsamac wrote:

Dom, I am disappointed in your deteriorating English. And here I am gone for ages to come back and read this.

Uncalled for lambasting aside, that's a pretty fatalistic view of romance you have their. Quite frankly, I agree with you to a certain extent. TL;DR would be "who gives a damn, you're pretty - let's date". Love is pretty much chemicals and myopia anyway, so we're banking on a 50/50 chance of success. Keep it up and someday you'll find it is the credo, but do you really need it?

Let's ask the fathers and nuns to enlighten us on that one. Platonic love be my sweet biatch.
The only thing that's "fatalistic" is your superficial and shallow mindset on mate selection. When image enhancement procedures are possible, while the definition of beauty keeps changing by advertisement, you'll be as flaky and weak-willed as the next attention-seeking narcissist that's only focusing on their looks.

Moreover, you're ready to default to, IMHO, the most self-righteous and narcissistic bunch of collective ever existed in human history: the church. Well then if that's not you being fatalistic I wouldn't know what is.[/sarcasm]


Lauriet wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:

We do have the freedom to choose who we want to love, but our choices are limited by our preferences. Just because we have limited options doesn't mean we don't have the freedom to choose between those options.

Lauriet wrote:

Things like currency, stations, and job can very easily narrow down the choices of who you get to love-- otherwise, it wouldn't be practical. We have a personal freedom to choose who and what we love, but that freedom doesn't mean much unless you are decently well off. I'm assuming this is beyond the 'boyfriend/girlfriend' trifle.
However, when the fact is you obtained your so-called "personal preferences" through socialization, while your decision-making process can be dictated by the cultural psychology of your host society, the reality is you never had a choice to authenticate your own preference that's original and unique only to you.

Moreover, social status based on currency alone is also a false representation of self-worth. When the reality is the human monetary institution is an unsustainable trade of perpetuating debt exchange.


I'd love to debate, but I'm currently angsting over the fact you're unbanned.
Doesn't change the fact of what I've said. So what's your point?
672 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / England, UK
Offline
Posted 6/13/11 , edited 6/13/11
Love is a frightening thing. It can can be not only all consuming but, extremely possesive. Not just romantic love but, love in general.
It is true that we are told who we ought to love or who we ought to be attracted to. However, it is up to us to decide whether to commit to another person or not. I think it depends on how you choose your partner. Whether it be on interlect, looks, wealth, personality or, moral values. Even if we are raised to have the same values as our parents/guardians, they often differ slightly from what we are taught.
39209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/13/11
As a Romantic, I deny the validity of the use of the scientific method as an epistemology suitable for beliefs and attitudes that are inherently subjective. Not all things in life require objective validation, or the scientific rigor of independent analyses. Personally, I believe epistemology to be second to ethics.

In the end, nothing appears to have objective value. I fail to see why, therefor, we should choose to assign subjective value to the sort of reductionist, cynical thinking that leads one to devalue those cultural practices which best separate humans from other animals (i.e., materially illogical practices based on ritual that is not directly related to observations of causal effect). Without an objective backing, it is no more logical to prefer science to feeling in the first place.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.