To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (35076 ) 4/17/1999 5:07:00 PM From: jbe Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
Chuzzlewit, I am not sure that you are arguing with the right person. I certainly never denied that human beings belong to the animal kingdom. And 'twas not I who brought up this issue in the first place. But since you DID bring it up, I responded. Perhaps I should have responded more pointedly to the following: I think the concept of love is a construct that we use to rationalize genetic and evolutionary determinism. IMO we need to recognize it as rationalization, not an independent physical reality. 1) Forgive me, but your first sentence is a little bollixed up. I take it to mean that our sexual behavior is determined by genetics and evolution, but we have devised the concept of love to rationalize this presumably unpleasant reality away. 2) Sentence #2 also presents a problem: Has anyone ever claimed that love is an "independent physical reality"? Wouldn't one rather consider it to be an emotional reality? Are you saying that since love is a "concept", and not a "physical entity", it is not real ? I think not. My guess is that you are saying something along the lines of the following: Love is a crock. If I read you correctly, you are committing the Fallacy of Fallacies: the reductive fallacy. But before I pass final judgment, I await clarification of your meaning. Joan P.S. I have a brother who teaches animal psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle. If you really want to argue about animal behavior, I suggest you look him up. His research interest these days is bird song. Did you know that the young male bird seeks out a mentor (NOT his father), and apprentices with him as long as is necessary to learn a full song repertory? Bet you didn't!