Well presumeably couples have been around long enough (couples are an old idea, though I vaguely recall human society being thought to have gone through a period of non-coupleness) for evolutionary adaptation.Quote:
you really think so? I'm not great in anthropology, but isn't the "couple" unit a relatively young idea [note the relatively). Also how does your argument account for homosexuality?
Homosexuality is unaffected, just because love may have evolved to help rear offspring (in a sense _everything_ evolves to help rear offspring) does not mean that once developed the machinary enabling love could not be pointed in another direction.
It (love evolving to keep couples together for the sake of the children) might turn out to be false but it seems a plausable explanation.
I don't really have a definition of love in a subjective sense, just like i don't have definition of "red", it's simply something i experience.Quote:
see, clyde, you're getting exactly at my point - your definiton of love is not inherent, is it? you had to learn it from somewhere - that emotion (which we define as love) had to be "coached" somehow, in order for you to obtain that deeper definition of the emotion itself.
In a more objective sense i can look at other humans/animals observe that they display certain behaviour and then attempt to derive an evolutionary explanation.