Philosophy Now Forum

.






Why is This Function Universally Recognized as a Symbol of Love?


.....................................................




Philosophically, why does this function denote the emotion of love throughout the world?



Is there something universally non-verbally understood about this physical activity?


I didn't put this under the Gender Philosophy because I don't think this activity has anything to do with gender.



I don't have a philosophical thesis yet. All I have is questions.

I would like to develop My thesis statement for this thread: based upon the responses I receive here from fellow members.


So, if you feel strongly about this activity please try to verbalize your feelings and I will use your response to form a thesis for this thread.






As a philosopher, have you ever engaged in this activity?


If you did, how did you feel?


Was there a feeling of universality?






.

"A feeling of universality" what a rediculous question.

And universally is also very biased. American arrogance, thinking their hollywood movies makes out the world ^^

No. It is not universal, I'm pretty certain without being 100% of course (not like I've studied it, but from what I know of the diversity of the world it seems highly biased to think so). Some people skip first phase and just go straight to the sex. It does, however, very strongly tendencate towards a symbol of love in the developed and civilized world.

But let me rewrite the question: why does it tendencate so strongly to be a universal symbol for love?

Well, like sex it is an excessive form of physical contact and we attribute that to a meaning of something. Excessive physical contact is by large a means for people to inflict emotions upon others, the one you mention in particular is so useless for anything else that its meaning stands out almost solely as a "for the sake of inflicting emotional attachment"-function (emotional attachment grows out of intensity coupled with positive association, or, association that makes one "open oneself emotionally"), which in turn is a function we associate with metaphysical concepts such as "love".

.



I like your last paragraph. I like it a lot.


Why did you feel like you had to characterize me and then attack my original question first?


Why didn't you just go ahead answer the question of my thread?


When you did answer my question you did fine.



Regards.




.

Because the question was put dumbly. I don't answer dumb questions, so I made a question I could answer. Dumb questions makes me feel dumb answering them. The characterization was correct and in its own way necessary, and a possible important realization on culture-bias (which is not rare, so basically I'm giving mankind a help)

Your animation there gave me some macabre associations, btw. You could've made it, literally, more "fleshly".

.




...............................................................................



macabre associations?



Wait a minute...so, this function between two humans...a function that is widely considered a Universal Symbol of Love may also invoke, in you, macabre associations?


Hey, if I kicked this thread into Philosophical Counseling could we take a look inside your bean-bag for a while?







.

no, just looking at the "inside" of any human being in that kind of style brings up macabre associations, you did note my "more fleshy"-comment did you? I prefer the aesthetics of looking at it from the outside. In that animation it looks like you've cut open half their faces ^^

Voice of Time, you must be a glutton for punishment, engaging in stultifying conversations with Wiltrack.

.



Look, over a year ago I suggested that you take your philosophy and run for a political office with it.

I don't care if it's city council. RUN FOR SOMETHING!

There are many local & state offices coming up for election this next year -2014, if you live in America.


We can't help you here anymore.


I'm all for your philosophy - now go and institute it.


Your philosophy is political.




Ya know - something just came to my mind. A while back, when I told you to run for something. Get involved with your community - there was silence.


All you had was silence.







...........................................................................






What's up with that?


Sup dog?





....................................................................................................Put-up, Shut-up or GROW-UP!








.

I don't think that any question is a stupid one, and that in fact one that characterizes one as such, is the ignorant one, or maybe stupid, that all depends on their ability to finally comprehend, that there is in fact no necessary accounting for any particular entities knowledge, of any particular bit of potential knowledge. It would seem some people, have come to worry more about their stature, as perceived by the people here, than trying to be informative, in the sharing of their particular understanding, that may or may not in fact contain real knowledge.

I for one, see that there is no real love, and that it is only a label/concept used to elevate a purely physical response to a plane, that most somehow find more appealing. The attraction between people, sexuality, is purely biological, dating back millions of years, when life on earth decided it was advantageous, yielding stronger life, to procreate sexually.

I see that we are biologically compelled to procreate, however we may distort the facts, to sooth our emotional attachment to such activity, in our, as well as others, minds eyes.

.


Well stated.


Thank you for responding.




.

http://www.ainat-e.com/2011/11/kiss-uni ... -love.html


Now this, should be the perfect example for banning kissing between same sex.

reasonvemotion wrote:http://www.ainat-e.com/2011/11/kiss-uni ... -love.html


Now this, should be the perfect example for banning kissing between same sex.

I'm sure you're playing devils advocate here, right? A bit of sarcasm??

I have no problem with anyone kissing anyone, after all it's their thing, not mine. So why do you think everyone feels like it's their job to mind everyone else's business, as if they actually KNOW the truth of the universe, and they are it's, one and only, spoke person?

You mean, like, what your doing now?

reasonvemotion wrote:You mean, like, what your doing now?

No, you got me all wrong, I'm currently shooting straight from the hip, no sarcasm, no playing devils advocate, I meant exactly what I said. I pride myself on not judging others personal preference's, because I can only know what's right for me and mine.

Sure, I may stare at something that I have never seen before, but it's only to analyze it, so as to understand it, such that I can become familiar with it, so as to add it to the list of things that some people do. Future observations then tend to go unnoticed, like so much ambient light, blending into the sea of diversity.

No, you got me all wrong, I'm currently shooting straight from the hip, no sarcasm, no playing devils advocate, I meant exactly what I said.

Me too.