Is love the distraction from a dying world?
Yes, it is
Side Score: 3
|
 |
No, It isn't
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of things are not "necessary" to survival, but increase its likelihood and/or the odds of reproduction; this is arguably the case with love. I doubt that love developed as a denial coping mechanism for personal and/or cosmic impermanence. There is another plausible explanation for its origin, for starters, which seems more plausible (see above). Affection also exists in numerous other species which likely to do not grasp their impermanence or that of the world. There are also already denial coping mechanisms to meet this end (e.g. and esp. religion) so it would not be necessary nor confer any particular distinct advantage towards that end. Side: No, It isn't
|
Love as defined as affection, interest, pleasure is the glue that holds human animals together and binds us to the things we do. It is not a distraction but an essential component of our existence and is one among many other attributes that gives us purpose and direction Side: No, It isn't
1
point
love is not a distraction from a dying world. everyone already knows this world is dying... there's not much distraction from it. also love isn't even a distraction as it is what is stopping this world from dying faster. without love it would just be hatred. and hatred would just destroy the world further. Side: No, It isn't
1
point
im not saying love stops the world dying. im saying love stops hatred and hatred makes the world die quicker (war being an example, that's not started with love is it?) war is a big factor to the world dying quicker (since nuclear war will just destroy so much of the earth) Side: No, It isn't
1
point
|
