Originally Posted by
Vradomor
I would think that would make love that much more important. Natural disasters are important, be them bad.
Natural disasters are not important per se, but rather, the consequences of their occurrence are important. To compare love to a natural disaster would be to state that love itself is merely a natural, uncontrollable event which is brought about by the causal chain of determinism. That view may be closer to my view than what you may have tried to express.
The word "important" is meant to signify that it is a necessity for the survival and functioning of a sentient, sapient being. I am of the opinion that love is not a necessity, and that it can be thought of as a side effect of biological impulses which influence our will to procreate. Lust is a more fundamental form of romantic love.
I would also argue that our concept of love is defined (at least in part) by our usage of the word itself. If you are familiar with more than one language (particularly, a language that does not originate from "the western world"), take a moment to consider the word "love" in those languages, and how the different connotations present in different languages influence your perception of the idea designated by those different words.
Addendum:
Originally Posted by
Vradomor
Love, for me, should bring you the utmost happiness and emotion.
Obligatory reference to my favourite counter-argument:
Certain drugs can produce an experience of "the utmost happiness and emotion" in the user. Would you say then, that these drugs are important in life (important here, meaning objectively necessary for the survival and functioning of all sentient, sapient beings)? You may respond that these feelings are not "genuine", but that would require you to ignore the fact that "love" is caused by a series of chemical interactions in the brain.
Last edited by Wight; Oct 21, 2013 at 08:18 PM.