• Question: Is love just a chemical reaction in a universe that does not know or does not acknowledge its existence, meaning our lives could just be a series of events displayed on a much bigger scale than the world?

    Asked by The_Legitimate_Callux to Angela, Claire, Ian, Robert, Sarah on 18 Nov 2014.
    • Photo: Sarah Harris

      Sarah Harris answered on 18 Nov 2014:

      That certainly is a philosophical question! I’m not sure I’ll be able to answer it all, but here goes:

      Love is a chemical reaction. The feeling you get is all because of the level of certain hormones (like PEA and Oxytocin) and chemicals (like serotonin and dopamine) in your body, in response to specific stimuli like hugs or kisses. But whether the universe does not acknowledge love is another matter – you could argue that love (romantic, platonic, parental – all kinds!) is what part of what drives humans to survive as a species, which means its incredibly important.

      And that’s as far as I’m willing to philosophise! I’ll leave the others to try and answer the rest, or you might want to have a look at this fab Royal Society of Chemistry special on the science of love – http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2008/LoveAndChemistry.asp

    • Photo: Angela Stokes

      Angela Stokes answered on 18 Nov 2014:

      Wow – that’s deep!
      As Sarah says, love is a chemical reaction in our body – I think you need to speak to a philosopher to answer the rest, or perhaps this is something you could study yourself?

    • Photo: Ian Cade

      Ian Cade answered on 18 Nov 2014:

      I’m afraid there just isn’t much evidence one way or the other regarding the meaningfulness of the universe (or love in particular). So, the particular viewpoint you chose to take is just that, a choice and largely a function of your own biases.

      So, my thoughts on the issue…

      (Provided you remain open to the possibility that you are incorrect, and that at some point in the future contrary evidence may be found and force you to change your position) You could choose to view the universe (and love in particular) as meaningless. But does this help you at all, does this model provide any greater insight into the problem of meaning?

      … I would say no, not really. Although it is no less biased, surely it is more pleasant to choose to consider that the universe *does* have some meaning and work from there. (Again this comes with the same provision as above, about new evidence… it is entirely possible that there is no particular meaning to anything. But until there is positive evidence to suggest this is the case, there is not point taking the more depressing point of view).

      By positive evidence I mean that ‘the present absence of evidence of meaning’ is not the same as ‘evidence of absence of meaning’ and this absence of evidence in itself does not constitute any definitive ‘proof’ of anything.

Comments