Love and Skepticism
September 5th, 2009I’m a member of a certain dating web site (because I am a sad and desperate man), and I’ve always been horribly offended that the web site rates my personality as being highly unromantic. Several women I’ve dated have told me the same. Of course, I don’t think I am not romantic; I think of myself as a realistic romancer. The modern conception of romance is so twisted and unrealistic that it has become a joke. The problem, I’ve come to realize, is my skepticism of romance.
For most people skepticism isn’t conducive to romance. I don’t believe in love at first sight; I believe in dopamine. I believe we’ve evolved behavior like serial monogamy to accord with the lengthy immature period of human offspring. But why should such realism be so devastating to romance? Why should romantic feelings necessarily be treated as mystical and mysterious, so fraught with idealism and the unrealistic?
The connection of romance with the mystical is so prevalent that it is even used as a sort of rejoinder to atheistic arguments. “Why would you disbelieve in God? Love is also mysterious. Love isn’t material. Love can’t be measured in a lab. Do you disbelieve in love, too?” Of course, even the most ardent philosophical naturalist and reductionist can believe in love. To them, love is not mysterious in any mystical sense—it is simply a matter of working out how the various neurochemicals interact to produce such feelings. Likewise, love can even be measured and assessed by science. As with any emotion, we can judge its effects on behavior and other physical manifestations. We can note increased pulse rates during sexual arousal. We can examine brain scans to determine which areas are involved in feelings of love and companionship. And we can watch for behavior like wistful staring, hand-holding, sex, the whispering of sweet nothings, and so on, as indicators of love. Simply because skeptics deny that immaterial entities like ghosts, spirits, and gods exist doesn’t entail that we disbelieve in love. Nor does it imply that we can’t be romantic and loving.
Imagine if believers in the mystical element of emotions tried this argument with the emotion of anger. Would they argue that because skeptics disbelieve in God and ghosts and spirits, we would therefore never be capable of being angry? Anyone who doubts that skeptics feel anger need only observe my behavior while I’m reading creationist literature. Unless they view my actions of ripping the book to shreds, pissing on it, screaming in rage at it, and setting it on fire as merely the random mechanical acts of an automaton devoid of thoughts and feelings and understanding, such a reaction is quite difficult to explain.
Skeptics need to reclaim the emotions from the believers. Romance is associated with trivial acts like purchasing flowers or chocolates, with talk of souls and undying, infinite passion, but these are false associations. My love won’t last forever because I won’t last forever. You are not my soulmate because neither of us has a soul. And flowers are so cliched and silly that I will not even consider giving them to someone I love. (The symbolism of flowers is also rather nutty; in effect you are giving your lover the severed genitals of plants, only to watch them slowly decay.)
But love for skeptics doesn’t end there. It isn’t only denials of the nonsensical claims for romance. For me, love makes life worth living. Love for family and friends gives meaning and purpose to my life. When I find myself loving someone, I understand that it is the result of neurochemistry, but this doesn’t detract from the powerful, driving sensation of love.
I suppose if we define romanticism as the cliched purchasing of a small subset of gifts or as some undying mystical nonsense, then in that case skeptics are not romantic. Instead of buying flowers and chocolates and jewelry, I prefer to give gifts of science textbooks, video games, and crude pornographic drawings. Instead of whispering sweet nothings about an immortal, transcendant love, I whisper softly to my lover, “When photons reflect off of you and into my pupils, and the inverted image projected onto my retina is righted by my brain, dopamine and oxytocin surge through me, causing blood to rush to my engorged genitals.” But none of this changes how I actually feel on a subjective, phenomonological level. I feel the same emotions as the most starry-eyed, idealistic spiritualist. The only difference is that I recognize their true origin. Perhaps the only other difference is that I mention my engorged genitals a lot more.
The universe is a vast, cold, empty, heartless place, and we are but insignificant specks. To the universe, we are nothing. But to me, the love I feel is everything. And though my romantic love may only last for a mere five or six years, after which the neurochemistry of love begins to decline for evolutionary reasons, causing me to seek out a new partner in the traditional pattern of serial monogamy common to most humans, this should not be seen as a perversion or detraction from the emotion of love. Love need not be eternal, or even longer than six years, to be meaningful. Life itself only spans a mere eight decades, and it is the most meaningful thing in the world. We must accept that romantic love is real and powerful…and short-lived. In that sense, I am a romantic, because I accept love for what it truly is, and I don’t pretend it is something else. It is still a beautiful, meaningful emotion, and it is still important to us all, even given the less than ideal truth.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 5th, 2009 at 6:00 PM
solemate? but that doesn’t seem right either.
September 5th, 2009 at 6:31 PM
they probaby gave you that award because you give science textbooks, video games, and porno; but if you were a chick they’d flip that award to incredably romantic lol
September 6th, 2009 at 12:04 AM
I believe in love at first sight. As long as both people are really shallow.
September 6th, 2009 at 12:16 AM
My skepticism has had a detrimental effect on my love life as well. My first girlfriend dumped me because she said i was “too realistic”. My second got upset with me after i explained to her that you can balance an egg upright at any time of year not just during the equinox.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:02 AM
When I first got together with my wife, she wanted me to “woo”* her. I showed her my genitals. I think we know who won that game.
*That’s “woo” in the romantic sense, not the pseudoscientific sense.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Now I can see why you are so succesful with the ladies, Flavin. I shall have to try your techniques, and maybe one day I, too, can finally enter a long-term relationship!
September 6th, 2009 at 1:08 PM
“Instead of buying flowers and chocolates and jewelry, I prefer to give gifts of science textbooks, video games, and crude pornographic drawings.”
I find that incredibly romantic.
But really, I hate it when people think that understanding the mechanisms of how “love” works detracts from the actual emotion itself.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:48 PM
I think that may, indeed, be the most unromantic explanation of love that I’ve ever heard.
Love doesn’t have to be romantic - I’m certain you feel the same things that all the rest of us feel; however, that feeling’s expression is the very essence of romance, so you shouldn’t be disappointed when that mediocre infant disses your romantic skills.
I think you have misinterpreted romance. It is a cultural phenomenon that is associated with love, but not necessary to it. In fact, romance without love is equally possible.
Romance is an attitude, and a bit of mystery, and an atmosphere, and yes, occasionally, silly gifts, though most sane people prefer something more thoughtful and meaningful then a pile of dead plants. Your neurons may fire with their dopamine, but if it is a flare for romance that you’re seeking, then your focus is all wrong. Romance isn’t about what you’re feeling, but how you’re expressing that feeling.
Romance is about… wait for it… are you sure you’re ready for this one???… I don’t think you can handle the truth… it’s about the OTHER person. Duh duh duh. Romance isn’t about your feelings at all. It is about the other person’s feelings and your attempt to make them positive, which often has a very similar effect on yourself simply because most of us enjoy making other people happy - especially people we love.
So the only way to improve your romantic standing on your “certain dating web site” is to go back in and retake a bunch of love quizzes and claim that you enjoy doing sweet things for your partner (even if it doesn’t involve candles and flowers - sometimes it is just about effort.) Basically, lie - you’ll do much better.
Or, you could just be yourself and not care what a stupid dating website deems as your major characteristics. There are women out there who don’t care for such things. I’m sure I’ve met one… I think… well, burden of proof is on you to prove they don’t exist - isn’t that how this game works?
September 7th, 2009 at 8:55 PM
P.S. Love at first sight is a bunch of hooey - but that doesn’t stop it from seeming like a nice easy way out from all the trouble of getting to know someone and deciding if you’re compatible.
And lust at first sight… that, I understand.
And relative length of love based on evolutionary necessity makes me want to vomit in your ear.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:40 AM
bravo, Lizz
September 8th, 2009 at 11:04 AM
but what if I like flowers….. just cuz you don’t see the point is the point.
If people like it then you do it for them.. that is romance! sacrifice and love go hand in hand.
on the other hand, I am sure I could Love many men & Lust after more but never will flowers, sweet words or any of that crap make up my mind as to which man is which of if he makes the cut at all. That requires chemisty…. not emotion.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Lizz, I think you may have missed the point of my post a bit. Basically, people assume that those who are skeptical of romance aren’t capable of “real” love. Hence I focused on the subjective, biological state of feeling in love as it relates to romance. I thoroughly agree with you that “romance” is really just a cultural set of actions, which is why I think it is quite silly and distorts love into some crazy sense of giving flowers and jewelery. There is no reason why giving someone an MP3 player shouldn’t be seen as romantic as giving someone flowers. As I said in the post, if you choose to define romance in that manner, then skeptics aren’t romantic. But I think a more congenial view of romance would see it as an expression of deep love that could take a number of less cliched forms. It doesn’t have to be about talk of undying love and silly gifts. And it shouldn’t be, because this only conditions people to have unrealistic expectations and to see actions that are motivated by a deep love to be “unromantic”, as if people who don’t respond in the culturally defined ways cannot feel real love and so on.
And you may want to vomit in my ear for my talk of the short longevity of romantic love, but note that I said “romantic” love (i.e., “sexual” loving feelings). It is possible to have feelings of good will and companionship for much longer. Thus, the cliche about marriage ultimately leading to a sort of celibate relationship is often spot on, but that doesn’t mean such a partnership has to end. For my own part, I thoroughly divorce sex from love.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Your genes were speaking through you in that last sentence. Men may be predisposed through evolution to separate love from sex, because there are two ways men can ensure that their genes are passed on:
One, a monogamous strategy with high male parental investment to ensure carriers of their genes survive to reproduction-hood, and two, a polygamous strategy of impregnating as many women as possible to ensure at least some gene carriers survive to pass on their genes.
It is adaptive for human males to use a mixed strategy depending on the environment thus giving rise to the Madonna-whore dichotomy whereas the male choosing a Madonna-like woman (one who is likely to remain faithful to him) to bestow monogamous love upon, while having sex with other women if the chance to do so arises.
And ultimately love is just a mechanism that evolved to maximize human reproductive success… but that doesn’t mean the emotion of love is any less real or valuable. And I do agree that romantic love is a product of Western culture.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Sex isn’t love - and I think that is where we disagree. I, too, am capable of sex without emotion. Hell, sometimes it’s the easiest kind. That isn’t the point. You whined about OkCupid calling you unRomantic, so I explained to you what it means.
You enjoy your dopamine and your engorged weinie all you like, just don’t confuse it with the emotions you bestow on a partner in an actual committed relationship.
I also think you entirely missed MY point - which is that whether or not you appreciate romance (and no, I am not referring to pleas of undying love where you don’t FEEL undying love - or really any such blatant lie) - romance isn’t about you. It isn’t about your biology. It isn’t about your capability of feeling. It is, quite simply, what you do to show that feeling to another person. What you do to SHOW love, not what you feel when you’re in love.
You may feel love. I don’t doubt that you do. It is the trivialization of the feelings of your partner that I find obnoxious. Romance involves effort to please - and yes, if a woman wants flowers, does it really hurt you to go and buy a bunch of flowers? No. But does it make her little heart beat like crazy and fill HER up with dopamine? If she’s into that, then yes.
Women have the same obligation to men they love - they have to show it. Granted, most men would rather have a blow job than flowers, but it is the same concept. We do things that don’t necessarily give us pleasure because we ENJOY doing things that make our partner happy.
And I don’t believe in an evolutionary explanation for personal beliefs and behaviors. People are in control of their own mind and body, and evolution as an excuse to avoid emotional commitment is escapist fantasy.
I’m fucked up emotionally because I behave that way, not because some evolutionary instict is fucking up my ability to hold down long term relationships. I take full responsibility for my own neurosis.
Of course, hideous rants and blatant bitchiness don’t tend to attract potential mates any better than Flavin’s penis showing technique. One in a million - my dear - you better cling to that one.
September 9th, 2009 at 9:00 PM
“You enjoy your dopamine and your engorged weinie all you like, just don’t confuse it with the emotions you bestow on a partner in an actual committed relationship.”
I’m not saying that the one IS the other, only that neurochemistry CAUSES the emotions we feel, ultimately. If I drive a spike through the area of your brain responsible for feelings of love and attachment, for instance, you’ll find yourself no longer capable of such feelings.
“[Romance] is, quite simply, what you do to show that feeling to another person. What you do to SHOW love, not what you feel when you’re in love.”
I don’t think that’s entirely true. If I were dating a woman who liked computers, and I bought her a new external hard drive, most would not consider that a romantic act. If I bought her flowers, on the other hand, it would be considered so—even if she did not like flowers. I’m talking about romance as a cultural phenomenon in the sense that it has certain social prescriptions and restrictions attached to the concept.
“We do things that don’t necessarily give us pleasure because we ENJOY doing things that make our partner happy.”
Yes, but I for one refuse to say blatant untruths to someone, even if it will make them happy. I won’t say, for instance, that we’ll be together forever or stuff like that, because it simply isn’t true. This is not to say I won’t do things to make another person happy.
“And I don’t believe in an evolutionary explanation for personal beliefs and behaviors.”
Why not? Most people have no problem attributing evolutionary explanations to the behaviors of, say, insects. Why does a spider spin webs? It doesn’t do so because it wants to, but because doing so has proved advantageous to survival. Now, there are of course problems with testing evolutionary explanations of behavior, but that doesn’t make it all nonsense. I think that entrenched desires and behaviors, such as those involved with mating, are quite easily explained in an evolutionary fashion, as we can observe similar behavior in nonhuman animals and there is good reason to think our own behavior in such a realm would have adaptive consequences.
“People are in control of their own mind and body, and evolution as an excuse to avoid emotional commitment is escapist fantasy.”
Evolution is not an excuse to avoid emotional commitment. Evolution is merely an explanation for WHY that emotional commitment so often falters after a few years. Whether this is good or bad is not being discussed. We’ve also evolved appendixes that can burst and wisdom teeth that can become infected and windpipes placed such that it is easy to choke, but you wouldn’t suggest that because I believe these are evolved features that therefore I use this as an excuse to advocate death from burst appendixex, infection from wisdom teeth, and choking! At the same time, it is unhealthy to deny these evolutionary features. Can you imagine living in a time when divorce was not allowed? Imagine being trapped in a marriage with a man you are no longer attracted to and no longer love. This is what happens when you ignore biology in favor of idealistic fantasy!
In short, I’m not advocating evolution to excuse behavior like infidelity and divorce, but to explain why such behavior happens quite prevalently with human beings. I’m not engaging in any sort of moralism or ethical judgment here.
Basically, I think the concept of “romance” has to be rebranded into something more realistic, so that we may show others we care for them in ways that aren’t boiled down to pre-set, cliched behaviors that may be unrealistic and far-fetched.
September 10th, 2009 at 10:41 AM
I don’t think that “romantic” means “capable of love.” I think “romance” describes a kind of starry-eyed elevation of a particular set of values. By that definition, you are not romantic. By that definition, you don’t WANT to be romantic. So the question of whether or not you are capable of the same feelings of love as a romantic is irrelevant. What makes someone a romantic is not the love he feels, but his attitude towards love.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:17 PM
“And I don’t believe in an evolutionary explanation for personal beliefs and behaviors. People are in control of their own mind and body, and evolution as an excuse to avoid emotional commitment is escapist fantasy.”
The idea that people are in control of their own mind and body is escapist fantasy. Evolution is a fact. If our bodies have been shaped through evolution then it makes sense that our behaviors have been too, since the ultimate source of human behavior is the brain, which is, of course, part of the body. Our behaviors are wholly determined by biological and environmental factors and the interaction thereof, of which evolution is naturally a part. Free will is purely an illusion.
And you can’t use evolution as an excuse for anything. It’s like saying I excuse that dog from peeing on my lawn because evolution shaped him to pee to mark his territory. Or saying that we should excuse that serial killer whose killed and raped twelve innocent children because his father raped him as a child.
“I’m fucked up emotionally because I behave that way, not because some evolutionary instict is fucking up my ability to hold down long term relationships. I take full responsibility for my own neurosis.”
Oh god, the biological reductionism. No, no, no, human behavior is NOT affected by any single isolated factor, but an interaction of a myriad of factors. You are fucked up emotionally because of a myriad of factors. Your genes, the environmental conditioning you’ve been through since birth, and so on. Evolutionary instinct is expressed differently in different environments. These are facts. These are descriptive facts. These are not to be used as excuses for your emotional fucked-up-ness but explanations for it.
“In short, I’m not advocating evolution to excuse behavior like infidelity and divorce, but to explain why such behavior happens quite prevalently with human beings. I’m not engaging in any sort of moralism or ethical judgment here.”
To Lizz: You were committing the naturalistic fallacy. What “is” does not equate to what “should”. Evolutionary theory is descriptive, not prescriptive, of human behavior.
“I think that entrenched desires and behaviors, such as those involved with mating, are quite easily explained in an evolutionary fashion, as we can observe similar behavior in nonhuman animals and there is good reason to think our own behavior in such a realm would have adaptive consequences.”
See “The Moral Animal” for related theories and empirical studies.