There’s a similar thread that I think connects at least three of the readings together. Love: You’re Doing It Wrong, What Makes Us Happy, and The Epistle of Paul share this counterintuitive concept: that love, happiness, and life are not about all of the gains or the great moments that come from these, but is rather about the acceptance, the embracing of the really crappy parts. Love: You’re Doing It Wrong defines Love as being tenderness or the acceptance of weakness. In the interview from What Makes Us Happy, Vaillant describes The Good Life as not the pride of your accomplishments, but as the contentment of the summation of the experiences you’ve gathered through out your life. The Epistle of Paul also has this idea of a well lived life as being the embracing of the mysteriousness that life so often brings to the table. The reading that seems to stick out the most of all of these is Love Hurts. I also really enjoyed the title of this reading because one of my favorite bands, Incubus, has a song entitled Love Hurts. This reading sticks out to me because whereas the other readings define things such as The Good Life or Happiness or Love, this reading seems to not define any of the terms or add any knowledge to the topic at hand (love). Instead it just tells us how that term affects our behavior and actions. The other readings answer the question, “What?” where this reading answers the question, “How?” Which is not that big of a surprise to me. I find myself in a strange position because typically I am the biggest proponent of science and I generally believe that science is the best tool to help us understand our external reality. But now I am beginning to see how science may not have a place in the discussion of “What is The Good Life, Love, and Happiness?” These questions belong to the Humanities which help us to understand, as opposed to science, our internal reality. The Humanities have a stronger grasp on that which cannot be measured.
I agree that most scientific methods are not capable of fully understanding everything there is about love and that it is better left to philosophical thought, however even that isn't enough for most of it. For example, the grant study, as hard as it tried with all of its different case studies, was never able to produce any sort of reasonable answer as to the source of happiness and success whereas methods such as those Rita Dove mentioned were discussed by St. Paul in the bible have found success in many people's lives. Yann Dall'Agilo even touches on some of these points unaware whenever he explains that he believes that love and happiness will come whenever one humbles themselves and lives their life from the mindset of "I am worthless". The article "Love Hurts" was also fairly unsuccessful at scientifically describing love. Instead of love it explored a vice known as "jealousy" which is completely unrelated to love. Jealousy can happen between individuals who care about each other, individuals who hate each other and even individuals who are complete strangers. Whereas one of St. Paul's most memorable quotes (1 Corinthians 13:4) states "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous..." Jealousy comes from envying the capabilities or actions of others whereas love comes from caring about the person and not what they can do nor what they have done, because that isn't apart of them.
ReplyDeleteYes science cannot always depict every aspect of what love and affection really is. It is such a complexity of multiple emotions that no neurological test could ever concieve. So in a sense its the emotions you percieve to be the ones you cherish, to others they may appear as something negative but it all depends on the individual and theyre relationship with the person they so "love".
ReplyDelete