Apparent wisdom is often a mask for pure cynicism, and there is nothing more satisfying than recognising a piece of dismal folk-philosophy as such. Not only is there the thrill of dispelling the myth, but you have the added joy of creating optimism along the way.
Perhaps the most common failed-truism currently plaguing the collective mindset is that human emotions, and most notably love, are simply selfish brain settings designed to aid the procreation of our genes. It is a claim against the existence of our very emotions. There are countless references from popular culture in which we are told that love is nothing more than an egocentric tool for bribing sex from another hapless gene-drone and with each one I encounter I lose some faith in the intelligence of humanity.
The uplifting truth is that no scientific explanation of our action can remove its personal meaning. Yes, it is the case that in evolutionary terms one good reason that we posses such amorous sentiments is that they can lead to procreation, along with a statistically safe environment for offspring. However, this scientific fact passes no judgement on, and causes no conflict with, the way we genuinely feel these feelings.
Perhaps it is an attempt to deny the existence of love in order to remove the risk of never finding it - cynicism does also bring safety – but whatever the reason, the use of loosely Darwinian ideas to refuse the existence of erotic love is particularly fashionable. Anyone who tried to claim that mothers do not ‘really’ love their children, but just want their genetic code to survive would be branded a monster. Yet in the social realm of sexual relationships, without any recognition of their ignorant anti-humanism, love-doubters abound.
If you ever meet a pessimist, who tells you that “deep down” no man “really” loves any woman (or visa versa) but that they are just after sex, lock him in a room with a starving lion. Not only would it be fun to rid the world of so negative a person, but you could also whisper calmly through the keyhole, “Don’t worry, you aren’t really afraid; it is just your genes telling you to be scared in order to keep their host alive until they can spawn.” The look on his face would undoubtedly warrant the intricate planning that would be needed for such an elaborate, expensive and might I add hilarious hoax.
Ed Thornton
Ponderlust (ˈpɒndəˌlʌst) ponderlust-ed, ponderlust-ing –noun a strong, innate desire to contemplate and meditate, esp. concerning the attempt to solve problems. –verb any thought process caused by the possession of said desire. Etymology: i) 1300–50; ME pondren < MF ponderer < L ponderāre to ponder, weigh; akin to pendēre to be suspended, hang ( see pend)- + ii) bef. 900; ME luste, OE lust; c. D, G lust pleasure, desire; akin to ON lyst desire; see list4
I received this reply in an email and it deserves posting:
ReplyDeleteI liked this blog…but I didn’t love it.
I’m afraid I may well be one of these quasi-philosophers that impose their scrooge-like cynicism upon the rest of the kind-hearted souls of the world, but this isn’t because I don’t want people to be happy. We all know that the world may appear a better place through rose-tinted glasses, but that doesn’t mean that it is so.
I think that the reason that ‘romantic’ love is targeted so much is because of the ideologies that society places on it. People frequently talk about love in the same breathe as ‘destiny’ and ‘fate’ and coin the phrases ‘meant to be’ and ‘the one’, speaking as if the magical forces of the universe have united their souls with another. It has become a form of religion, where this mystic force is the saviour of the modern world; it can perform miracles.
But a religion needs a god. For us tiresome atheists there must be a source for this ultimate power. Unless the likes of Cheryl Cole and her contemporary counterparts have been brought to Earth from another planet, preaching their gift of love through the medium of song, then who else is there to fight, fight, fight, fight, fight for this love? Without a benevolent god beaming his love rays upon us surely the evolution of love can be explained pretty neatly through said Darwinism and the analysis of the human psyche.
As you suggest, this does of course suggest that one must analyse all emotions in such a way, and although this is never an easy train of thought, it does follow a line of logic. It is not the fact that we feel an emotion that is in dispute here, but what causes it. I’m sure I would shit many a brick if locked in a cell with a lion, but as you snidely comment from the safe side of the bars “don’t worry, you aren’t really afraid; it is just your genes telling you to be scared in order to keep their host alive until they can spawn”, I’d frantically rebuttal “actually, I am terrified, but you’re right as to why…now get me out of here before I get eaten alive!” There must be complex psychological reasons behind our emotions for we are indeed complex psychological monsters; love is neither more nor less important than the others, it just gets trounced on a little more as people put in on a pedestal.
So of course love exists in some form. The word has definition and rings clear in our head when we hear it uttered, but it is the dependence and reliance upon finding salvation in the romantic form that seems to shield people from the wider world. This is now the love of rom-coms and trashy chick-lit that people seem to find great pleasure in escaping to. These are teaching us how to feel the emotion in a false light. Whilst they may promote a world of happiness on the surface, it seems that in the long run people strive for a life that is unachievable and unrealistic. But there I go being all pessimistic again.
Lots of love
R/C, the cynic.