Love vs Logic

[Philosophos]

Hello I was having a conversation with my friends and we ended up talking about human relationships, sex and the rest of the package. So a question occured in my mind and I asked but the answers I got did not really cover the topic.

So I ask you now (since you are more than the 4 people I was talking to) do you believe that whenever you are in love you can use your logic for the best for you or the other person e.g. I wanted a girl and she wanted me but I was too late to make a move and she made a relationship with another guy. When I finally got the courage to talk to her about my feelings I saw that she was really happy with that other guy and I didn't go to talk to her because she might not be as happy with me as she was with him (I believe this is something logicoemotional).

Also do you believe that we should use logic when we are in a relationship (for example if you have cheated on your gf and she doesn't even want to see you then should you respect her opinion (logic) or should you run behind her and talk through/ try to convince her it was nothing etc (like a cheesy movie) ). Or maybe you believe we should let this part of our lives go wild with the emotions/hormones that make us take all these stupid decisions just for the fun.

Just answer to the things I said don't turn this thread (for once again) like a battlefield.

[citizen of industry]

Regardless of how hormones influence your logic, can you avoid using logic in any thought process? I don't really understand the question. Just do what you gotta do, if you think it'll work.

[The Jay]

I have absolutely no idea. I think that the idea is to factor your emotional inclinations into your logical process in a certain proportion to that of other people and society at large. As to the ratio, that is up in the air.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Logic is dependent on its premises. It's entirely possible for a thought process to be entirely logical, yet also completely wrong, because it is based on faulty or mistaken premises. In short, "logical" is not a synonym for "correct".

In your case, I would say that if her heart isn't set on you, no amount of logic will convince her otherwise. Rhetoric or emotional appeals might sway her, but in my estimation that can come uncomfortably close to psychopath-style emotional manipulation of others, depending on how far one decides to take it.

[Rafiq]

This alone pressuposes the existence of "love". There is no state of being which can be categorized as "love", though, there are a great many people who believe they are in such a state of... Thought and therefore adjust their actions in accordance. When it comes to relationships, what do you mean "logic"? As in, "hey, stick with me, and you'll have fun" or whatever? If someone dislikes your personality and doesn't enjoy being around you, there's absolutely nothing illogical about that. It's a matter of personal preference.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This alone pressuposes the existence of "love". There is no state of being which can be categorized as "love", though, there are a great many people who believe they are in such a state of... Thought and therefore adjust their actions in accordance.

No such thing as love? Are you serious? :confused:

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Love does indeed exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love). It's composed of nerve growth factor, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin. I'm not a biologist, so excuse me if I'm missing something.

[the Left™]

I dont think love and logic are antagonistic, but sometimes we lie to ourselves about what we really want because we dont want to logically consider what we dont want. I am dating a girl but she does not want something serious, and i seriously care for her because she has been through traumatic life experiences, and i just tell myself that I care for her in some capacity outside of a relationship because I want to feel like I matter to her and I want her in my life.

God its like a plot from Oprah or something

[Commiekirby]

From what I've seen, felt, and experienced usually love and logic are never things that go well together. It's always for me been a mad balance between the emotional and logical states of mind. Regardless, going pure emotional route is never really the intelligent idea, it tends to be fun but so is arson and that usually doesn't go good places.

Really depends if you want to take the risk and go for it or try or play it safe, letting this woman just make her own decisions without any outside influence other than the person she is with.

[Rafiq]

Love does indeed exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love). It's composed of nerve growth factor, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin. I'm not a biologist, so excuse me if I'm missing something.

You are missing something. All of these neurological changes are a result of being in a state of mind in which you "think" you're in a magical state of being called "love", and you begin to obsess over another human, etc.

While, in reality, what you perceive as "love" is of complete social construction, as are gender relations and sexual relations. Of course such a thing does not exist, however, it is possible to have an extreme care for another humans existence, for whatever obscure reasons...

There is something that really pisses me off, it's something of a post-90's trend, substantiating spiritual convictions with "biology" and science.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me, no mo.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are missing something. All of these neurological changes are a result of being in a state of mind in which you "think" you're in a magical state of being called "love", and you begin to obsess over another human, etc.

Mind over matter? I wouldn't have thought that you of all people would come out with that!


While, in reality, what you perceive as "love" is of complete social construction, as are gender relations and sexual relations.

Nonsense. There are clear neurological differences between someone in love and someone who isn't. Sexual orientation isn't "all in the mind". Gender roles are entirely social constructions because unlike the previous two there are no basic neurological states associated with them.

Let me put it another way - I can't choose who I fall in love with, and I can't choose my sexual orientation. But I can choose my gender role (including rejecting the concept entirely), even if it means going against social expectations.


Of course such a thing does not exist, however, it is possible to have an extreme care for another humans existence, for whatever obscure reasons...

There is something that really pisses me off, it's something of a post-90's trend, substantiating spiritual convictions with "biology" and science.

There doesn't have to be anything "spiritual" about love. Even atheist materialists fall in love.

[Rafiq]

Mind over matter? I wouldn't have thought that you of all people would come out with that!

Not necessarily. To materialists, the neurological changes (to an extent) are heavily subject to conscious and unconscious phenomena, which of course are not a product of thought in itself, but of material and social forces which shape said phenomena. It would be foolish to assert that, our conception of love is a product of our own "creation" or imagination while in fact, it is a product of, in this regards, the Bourgeois family structure. You need not more than elementary research on "love" during, say, the proletarian revolutionary period in Russia or periods of intensified class struggle to understand that "love" is a subjective phenomena and is indeed class based. Love as we know it, does not exist, objectively devoid of any material influence.


Nonsense. There are clear neurological differences between someone in love and someone who isn't. Sexual orientation isn't "all in the mind". Gender roles are entirely social constructions because unlike the previous two there are no basic neurological states associated with them.


Sexual orientation is intristically biological and indeed, is not of social construction, neither is biological sex. "Love", however, is. Let me make this clear. There is quite a difference between wanting to fuck someone, and "love".


Let me put it another way - I can't choose who I fall in love with, and I can't choose my sexual orientation. But I can choose my gender role (including rejecting the concept entirely), even if it means going against social expectations.


Hmmm? And what does this have to do with sexual orientation? The ability to be sexually aroused or attracted to someone doesn't signify the existence of "love". I mean, what, do you mean to say that humans are pre wired to love a specific person? Will the "state of being" spontaneously activate as soon as you're aware of said person?


There doesn't have to be anything "spiritual" about love. Even atheist materialists fall in love.


Do they? Or do they just exclusively appreciate the company of a person who they're comfortable with fucking? What of the counterculture phenomena, sexual liberation (which to an extent, perhaps, is proletarian in nature, though it's foolish to declare yourself a "sexual liberationist" for reasons I can elaborate on in a different thread)? What I mean by this, is the "love" of more than one person.

[officer nugz]

You are missing something. All of these neurological changes are a result of being in a state of mind in which you "think" you're in a magical state of being called "love", and you begin to obsess over another human, etc.

While, in reality, what you perceive as "love" is of complete social construction, as are gender relations and sexual relations. Of course such a thing does not exist, however, it is possible to have an extreme care for another humans existence, for whatever obscure reasons...

There is something that really pisses me off, it's something of a post-90's trend, substantiating spiritual convictions with "biology" and science.yeah sure, love is a social construct. as is friendship. and as are all types of human relationships. there are material chemical reasons why people perceive love.


it is possible to have an extreme care for another humans existence, for whatever obscure reasons...are you some kind of robot?

[Thirsty Crow]

You are missing something. All of these neurological changes are a result of being in a state of mind in which you "think" you're in a magical state of being called "love", and you begin to obsess over another human, etc.

While, in reality, what you perceive as "love" is of complete social construction, as are gender relations and sexual relations. Of course such a thing does not exist, however, it is possible to have an extreme care for another humans existence, for whatever obscure reasons...

There is something that really pisses me off, it's something of a post-90's trend, substantiating spiritual convictions with "biology" and science.
So sexual relations are socially constructed, and therefore no such...state exists?

Better have a go at some logic courses.

Oh yeah and you must be a tremendeous bore :lol:


are you some kind of robot? Nope, he's a distinguished Marxist scientist to be, and that takes ascetism and a healthy dose of renouncing all this primitive earthly stuff.

[Rafiq]

Please, read my response to Noxion. Specifically in regards to biological sex, and sexual orientation. I made it quite clear that these are not social constructions relative to according mode (s) of production.

And for the record, I'm not a "bore". Unlike most users here, who are so keen in sharing their masterbation techniques with the community, there is, for me, a clear differentation between my personal social life, and my Theoretical composition. I do partake in phenonena, though, that doesn't mean I do not explain said phenomena without my head in my ass.