Jamie asked:

This is my (somewhat cynical) view:

'There's no such thing as love, there's only hurt and selfishness, and the pain that goes along with it.'

Can this really be rationally criticised, in the face of human 'love' being reduced to a mere biological
and physiological mechanism? Or would any criticism of this view be merely an emotive (but
irrational) reaction?

Isn't the conception of 'true love' merely a myth, a 'figment of the imagination', a nice but ultimately
misleading concept? Note that the question isn't restricted to sexual love, or 'eros', love (in other
forms) has strong religious connotations ("God is love", "Love God with your whole soul, and your
neighbour as yourself").

If we can rationally say that God does not exist, can it be equally rational to say that love has no real
existence, either?

If that 'grand feeling' of love (for God, the world, and fellow humans) is nothing more than a pathetic
physiological state of arousal brought on by base chemical reactions in the brain and body, which
evolved in order to lull humans into acting in the interest of others to promote the survival of their
species, doesn't that imply that is not so grand at all, just a somewhat pleasant 'feelgood' illusion?

Can a truly rational person really avoid such a cynical conclusion, other than by succumbing to that
same emotion which is expressly designed to delude the mind by overriding reason and logic?

I'd appreciate any contributions on this issue!

============

Given that we have the concept of love which is quite contrary to hurt and selfishness and pain, then
this isn't a possible reduction. This isn't cynical but conceptually false. Love simply isn't about hurt,
selfishness and pain.

The biological and physiological descriptions are already reductive descriptions of love. They are
descriptions of the non-emotional. But love is consciously engaging with the love object.

I don't think we can consciously engage lovingly with God, but could be wrong about this. It just isn't
what I think love is.

Why are you going on about rationality? What is that? According to Kant we can logically argue for
God and against, so no-one comes out wiser. That we can argue logically for the existence of God
doesn't mean it is rational to do so, or sound and sensible. For sure, it doesn't seem sound and
sensible to say that love doesn't exist.

Surely we are more sophisticated than all that 'survival and evolution thing'.

Reason and logic figure large in philosophy, but not in ordinary life. And I don't think it is a matter of
chemical reactions in brain and body that have led me to stay with my husband for 20 years, for
instance. From my point of view (!) it is conscious experience, and not all rational at that. I have two
dogs I'm allergic to and chemical reactions and rationality (whatever that is) would lead me to get rid
of them, but I love them because of the individuals they are. That can't be reduced to anything. And
there is no larger principle.

There is no truly rational person. If you think you find one, run.

Rachel Browne