/lit/ - Literature

What are you trying to say, OP? Besides the logical meaning of parental love, I mean.

>>4532017
OP if you don't like the way that makes you feel just stop thinking about it even if they only love you because of evolution they still genuinely love you.

If you want to take that line of thought further though everything you do is based on evolution and biology. You cannot commit a self less act inb4 some muh feels bullshit every "self less" act you do and every "self less" act others do is for themselves. You do good deeds because the feeling you get when you do them you get that feeling because biologically it evolved so you would do "good deeds" so you would get accepted into the tribe you wanted to get into the tribe because it give you a higher survival rate and a better life. You know how humans enjoy media? Only if they can see themselves in it.

>>4532046
also you may look up you may look down you can look to the sides you can slouch or sit up straight throw your hand in the air and maybe kick your feet but that is all the real free will you have on the roller coaster called life

>>4532017
>In other words, it's not really love. It's just a survival mechanism built into mothers and fathers.
How the fuck are the two mutually exclusive?

>>4532017
Uh...well unless I were friends with my parents (were I born to other parents), why should my parents love me? This is just how it works, OP. Parental love is a biological imperative. That doesn't, however, mean that parents don't love their children to varying degrees. For example, I have a wonderful relationship of great depth with my parents. When I see them, we're able to talk about various subjects at length with one another, we're all interested in each others lives, and we share a mutual respect. I can compare this to a few of my friends' relationships with their parents. They all love each other, sure, but they seldom spend time together because they can't stand each others' company.

>>4532046
>implying selfless acts aren't possible
>implying free will doesn't exist
spooky

>>4532017
If you want to think of it poetically, consider that you are literally the product of both your parents, and that that identification/connection can be a large part of their love for you.

>>4532060
>implying implying something is an argument
>implying the things you choose with your "free will" weren't mostly predetermined before you where born and the way you where raised

>>4532017

Of course it's love. The initial "romantic" phase may be a burst of chemicals but the behavior of dealing with your problems and being able to have a familial relationship creates a species of enduring love.

And genetics and phenotypical development and environment determine everything. Suck it nerd.

And emotional imprinting is done early in infancy. You also love them due to quirks in neurology and biology INITIALLY but then you develop a relationship of experiences that in stable families produces "love". Ironically, Freud's emphasis on the sexual tension between son and mom might have a partial basis on the fact that he had a wet nurse who he "might" have imprinted the biological sexual taboo of "family" onto as opposed to his mother.

>>4532068
I completely agree! I think that we are mostly at the mercy of the world- but that is not to say that we don't have some choices.

>>4532060

There is no such thing as a "selfless act". We either do acts because we have emotional connections with axiomatic reactions and guidelines we set for ourselves that we want to see repeated as actions in spacetime or we "feel good" about actions considered to be alturism or we feel bound to our sense of empathy.

It's not saying "YOLO FALL INTO DOPAMINE TRAPS", it's acknowledging the diversity of human entities.

And let me do some damage to your frontal lobe and we'll have a discussion about free will.

"But you're turning us into mechanical monsters"

No, we're trying to understand ourselves so that we can actually reproduce the behaviors of duty, autonomy, or whatever we call that excess of energy that allows to feel and live more free. As opposed to falling into idealistic illusions and systems of morality which don't take into account the difference between "thinking right, feeling right, and acting on that right". That there's actual physical systems which can be compromised and which can't be fixed with the dreariness of hyper-moralism.

>>4532017

>In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between (a) the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and (b) the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".[1] The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously. Absurdism, therefore, is a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail (and hence are absurd) because the sheer amount of information as well as the vast realm of the unknown make certainty impossible. And yet, some absurdists state that one should embrace the absurd condition of humankind while conversely continuing to explore and search for meaning.[2] As a philosophy, absurdism thus also explores the fundamental nature of the Absurd and how individuals, once becoming conscious of the Absurd, should respond to it.

>>4532076
I agree to that as well as I said in >>4532049
I do believe we can gain a larger amount of free will but it would require ignoring whatever your emotion are and whatever your natural likes and dislikes are for example if you feel angry you don't act angry but happy or sad and if you naturally like basketball you play hockey instead. I don't see why someone would but if they really wanted more free will that would be one of the only ways at least I think to do it

>>4532090
>"the Absurd" refers to the conflict between (a) the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and (b) the human inability to find any

reading that actually hit me a lot harder than I thought it would

>>4532090

To me, the "Absurd" would only be a problem to those who rely on having "Absolute" systems to process their theory of the world of mechanics.

If you have "fun" and "Joy" in the uncovering of the vast world, in its exploration , you look at such funny apes who juggle with the "Absurd" and who must find systems of "Meaning" that are absolutely total and which would strike them like wounded animals if they proved to be wrong.

I suppose it's accepting that our intentional actions are gambles and not being too harsh on ourselves if we did our best and our returns became negative or meager.

Would an inventor worry about the absurd? His inventing provides enough meaning and pleasure to keep him going. Trying to swallow infinity in a gulp gives you bad case of mental indigestion.

>>4532083
Your inability to conceive of a selfless act does not make it impossible!

>>4532094

One little girl said: “gvya.”
Another little girl said: “hphy.”
A third little girl said: “mbryu.”
And Yermakov chomped, chomped, chomped on cabbages
under the fence.
Meanwhile, evening was already setting in.
Mot’ka got tired playing in shit and went to bed.
It was drizzling rain.
The swine ate peas.
Rogozin was peeking into the women’s bathhouse.
Sen’ka sat on Man’ka in riding position.
Man’ka, meanwhile, drifted off to sleep.
The sky grew dark. The stars twinkled.
Some rats chewed up a mouse under the floorboards.
Sleep, my little boy, and don’t let silly dreams scare you.
Silly dreams come from the stomach.

>>4532109
you have not proven in any way that there is a selfless act me and others have made arguments for the nonexistence of selfless act.

Lets see what you have to say in defense of selflessness

>>4532102
I agree with this, but you're putting it in a way that will do little but make you feel better and make them feel worse.

I think that our pursuit of the absolute isn't necessary. For we are flawed, imperfect things, and we can be satisfied with imperfect things. Indeed, our very eyes are flawed, and we can see the very-close-to-perfect as perfect without damaging ourselves in any way.

Give a child a nearly round ball and ask him if it is perfectly round. He has no way of knowing if it is or if it isn't. What difference does it make? He can bounce it, he can play with it, he can share it with friends. And he can talk about it too. He can talk endlessly about whether or not it is round. But he can't tell, and he still enjoys it just as well as he would enjoy a ball that was round down to the last atom.

>>4532112
people have died to preserve the lives of others

>>4532121

They do so because they have an emotional connection to the personalities of those they preserve, the idea or image of "helping others", or are robots.

Being an evaluative and decisional agent means being "selfish" to one's codes and ethics, actions and reactions.

Most people wouldn't die for demons who would certainly commit monstrous crimes. "Selflessness" would mean caring for entities which have absolutely nothing to do with one's judgments or goals. You can be selfless and throw yourself into a tiger's mouth. Or you can be selfish for your family and society and defend yourself against the tiger.

>>4532017
>It's just a survival mechanism built into mothers and fathers.

Who says the love of non-biological parents is any different? It's still all about the tribe. It just extends the tribe to humanity as a whole rather than one's own genes.
Or non-parents, who simply work for the general betterment of people - or even animals or environment or culture.

Why does the core motive of survival and betterment lessen the impact of the emotions and outcomes it brings us?
If anything, the fact that we're so incapable of coldly calculating "keeping this thing alive would benefit me" and using that as a motivation, that we have to love the shit out of it in order to do what needs to be done - and then keep loving it, even when it doesn't benefit us or even harms us - speaks volumes of our sentimentality and irrationality.
We just don't care about measly personal benefit enough to make it work, we need to love.

family love is not love but storge
greeks have 5 words for different kind of loves, check it and learn the differences