Hopefully only people with a brain will respond to the discussion. It's just a pity I had to waste time in the other threads, continually having to leave the discussion to intellectual whip the torpid likes of (edited by admin)

when and if people with an idea post, we'll be able to proceed in a mature, truth-seeking discussion; devoid of people who don't like others holding up mirrors to reveal things in human nature that they recognise in themselves, and would rather pretend do not exist.

Okay, let me renew the conversation by posting my original thesis; in case there are thinkers here who can think deep thoughts, and can engage the intellect, and perhaps the heart too :wink:
__________________________________________ _________

i have realised that 'love' (as we like to idealize it between humans) doesn't exist. My assertion is that 'romanticized love' is not possible between humans, since the underlying incentive behind every human action is 'self-interest'. Even in the case of an altruistic act, one derives a certain measure of personal satisfaction as an ulterior motive; which lends itself to the 'self-interest' theory (personal satisfaction is in one's interest).


Parental love
___________

take for instance, parents who disown their children because their children are gay. Where is the parents love there? They will actually proclaim their wish never to see their own flesh and blood again, simply because of their child's sexual preferences?

That parent's religio-cultural influences have shaped their moral choices, ethical values, and perspectives on the world. These influences have moulded that parent's character, personality, how they approach life, and the expectations they have of themselves and others; especially their children, who are looked on as the newest link in a chain of cultural/moral continuity.

This becomes the very essence of that parents object of self-interest; a wish to see that continuity remained unbroken. So in the interests of 'self-interest', they turn their back on their own flesh and blood, rather than face the fact that their child has indeed broken the chain, and chosen another path. Outwardly, this takes on the appearance of hatred, but it is merely self-interest.


What about other kinds of familial love?
_________________________________

similarly, you cry if your 'loved ones' die for the same reason; whether you're speaking about biological relations, or your partner. You have lost something you desired in your life at that point in time. The operative word here is 'you'. Again, when speaking of yourself (or as you would say, 'i'), that is the very essence of self-interest.

Family greatly influences a child's attitudes, values and learning, their development, and who they will become; their ability to make sense of the world, and to make their way in it. You have become reliant on them to guide you, or at least support you. It is therefore in your interest that they remain in your life. Therefore you experience sorrow when they are gone. This time 'self-interest' takes on the outward appearance of grief.


What about romantic love?
______________________

well, self-interest also involves the pursuit of pleasure. Your (potential)partner makes you happy, makes you feel good; he or she enriches your life in some way, and is (for various reasons) what you want for yourself in your life. Therefore when their partners are gone, humans experience the same resulting emotions, because they have suffered loss; but its antecedent driving factor is once again 'self-interest'.

In short, humans grieve for themselves, not for the loss of their lost mates; whether that loss occurs as a result of death, or a breakdown in the relationship. Human grieve out of 'self-interest'; and out of that springs 'ulterior motive'. What's wrong with ulterior motive or looking out for yourself?

Nothing but when you realise that self-interest is the basis for all human interaction, then you have to consider that while 'love could never hurt you', 'ulterior motive' most certainly can and most likely will. But who knows what it will do in the context of a given situation? Therein lies my hinge on which my assertion rests. I mean, 'ulterior motive' can be good and bad.

Sometimes 'ulterior motive' may drive someone to give their own life to save the life of their partner. They want their partner to live so badly that their level of self-interest pushes them to heroic acts. Sometimes, it may drive someone to kill their own mother. Same motive, different actions and results.

What about one's love of the abstract ('nature' or 'art' for instance)?
__________________________________________ ____________

i do 'love' nature myself. I love the mountains, the sea and the sky. Nature make me feel good. So once again, it isn't really 'love', just my inclination for things that bring me pleasure. In other words my love for nature is not devoid of ulterior motive. My love for nature is based on (yes you guessed it) self-interest.

Okay, I welcome well-reasoned mature responses only. The others have decided to bow out. Let's hope it remains that way. But I have a feeling that these idiots are so pathetic that they will follow me to this thread.