@ Ryan S, if humour can be explained under the umbrella of self and egotism, why do we laugh far more around others than when we are by ourselves? Clearly there is a strong social component.
I really wish you would stick to the topic without feeling the need to "enlighten" me with your convoluted philosophical musings. I feel I can't have a useful discussion with you if you intend on going off on such tangents. I see this is a habit of yours.
A piece of advice: If you wish to effectively get your point across, conciseness is key. Remember the medium by which you are communicating - a comment section of a blog post. This is not an effective or appropriate platform for such essays.
I apologise if this sounds patronising but know that I truly don't intend for it to be. You are clearly an intellegent person but if you want to really get your point across, you are going to have to work on your communication skills and learn to adapt your message to the medium and audience that you are communicating with. Otherwise you are truly wasting your time.
@Ryan S, I think you made an unintentional strawman argument. The topic was what causes people to engage in an intimate/romantic relationship, not what causes/is love. While the two concepts are closely related they are not interchangable.
What causes us to enter romantic relationships is well within the scope of science to investigate, and has been extensively investigated. so I would argue that while you can speculate philosophically about such causes, you can't just ignore all the scientific evidence that has already been put forward.
And you still didn't answer my question - if there is only one cause, how do you know that that one cause is that "we want to be loved". Why is the one cause not our social learning, or our evolutionary psychological influences, or the big bang for that matter. If there is one cause, how can you be so confident that the one you selected is it?
"Don't fall for the fallacious belief that science has all the answers or could provide all the answers, or that there is no certainty outside of the lab." If that's how you think scientists think, you don't know science. One of the most fundamental principles of science is the knowledge that we don't know everything - hence the scientific endevour to answer questions. There are some things that can't be measured, but in this case the scientific thing to do is to say "we don't know". Sure we can speculate, but until and if we ever find a way to measure such abstract constructs, we cannot know.
That isn't to say that abstract constructs can't be measured indirectly. Psychologists have excelled at developing indirect, scientific measures such as memory, intelligence, and yes - various manifestations relating to the concept of the self (personality, self esteem, and many more).
"The scientific method was derived by Christians, Muslims and Jews for the purposes of studying "God's works". Because only the works of God can be studied empirically, whereas the "hidden truths" must be inferred rationally." So the archaic way that religious folk once viewed what you are implying are the roots of science way-back-when can be used to make conclusions about science today? The scientific method may have vague roots in ancient history (including sources entirely independent of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and for purposes other than studying god's works), however the scientific method as we know it is a relatively modern phenomenon. It didn't even begin to resemble what it does today until the age of enlightenment, with many of the fundamental principles established as late as the 20th century.
Also I would argue that your reasoning from "All things are interdependent for their identity." to "All things are One" is another non sequitur. The first statement does not imply the second.
@Ryan S, it could very well be one cause, but psychosis is another obvious cause that does not involve trauma or congenital neurological factors. Individuals with psychosis (caused by schizophrenia, bipolar, or depression for example) experience auditory and visual hallucinations that could certainly explain a case of "possession".
You say the argument depends on how convoluted you want it to be. Judging by your long, inconcise answer filled with non-sequiters, I can only assume you prefer your arguments to be as convoluted as possible.
your argument makes multiple assumptions than cannot be proven scientifically e.g. the existence of the ego (as you interpret it), that determinism can be deduced to "one universal cause to all things". If this were the case, how can you say that you can isolate with such confidence exactly what that one cause is? What came before and therfore influences the ego? Evolution? The formation of the Earth? The big bang?
If you intend your conclusion to be a philosphical argument then that's fine, but you cannot use philosophical reasoning to come to a scientific conclusion.
@lulu, thanks for the strawman but I don't hate priests. I do however disagree with the act of exorcism being performed on individuals, encouraging their and their familys' delusions rather than getting them the real medical/psychological help they need.
I really wish you would stick to the topic without feeling the need to "enlighten" me with your convoluted philosophical musings. I feel I can't have a useful discussion with you if you intend on going off on such tangents. I see this is a habit of yours.
A piece of advice: If you wish to effectively get your point across, conciseness is key. Remember the medium by which you are communicating - a comment section of a blog post. This is not an effective or appropriate platform for such essays.
I apologise if this sounds patronising but know that I truly don't intend for it to be. You are clearly an intellegent person but if you want to really get your point across, you are going to have to work on your communication skills and learn to adapt your message to the medium and audience that you are communicating with. Otherwise you are truly wasting your time.
And you still didn't answer my question - if there is only one cause, how do you know that that one cause is that "we want to be loved". Why is the one cause not our social learning, or our evolutionary psychological influences, or the big bang for that matter. If there is one cause, how can you be so confident that the one you selected is it?
"Don't fall for the fallacious belief that science has all the answers or could provide all the answers, or that there is no certainty outside of the lab."
If that's how you think scientists think, you don't know science. One of the most fundamental principles of science is the knowledge that we don't know everything - hence the scientific endevour to answer questions. There are some things that can't be measured, but in this case the scientific thing to do is to say "we don't know". Sure we can speculate, but until and if we ever find a way to measure such abstract constructs, we cannot know.
That isn't to say that abstract constructs can't be measured indirectly. Psychologists have excelled at developing indirect, scientific measures such as memory, intelligence, and yes - various manifestations relating to the concept of the self (personality, self esteem, and many more).
"The scientific method was derived by Christians, Muslims and Jews for the purposes of studying "God's works". Because only the works of God can be studied empirically, whereas the "hidden truths" must be inferred rationally."
So the archaic way that religious folk once viewed what you are implying are the roots of science way-back-when can be used to make conclusions about science today? The scientific method may have vague roots in ancient history (including sources entirely independent of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and for purposes other than studying god's works), however the scientific method as we know it is a relatively modern phenomenon. It didn't even begin to resemble what it does today until the age of enlightenment, with many of the fundamental principles established as late as the 20th century.
Also I would argue that your reasoning from
"All things are interdependent for their identity."
to
"All things are One"
is another non sequitur. The first statement does not imply the second.
You say the argument depends on how convoluted you want it to be. Judging by your long, inconcise answer filled with non-sequiters, I can only assume you prefer your arguments to be as convoluted as possible.
your argument makes multiple assumptions than cannot be proven scientifically e.g. the existence of the ego (as you interpret it), that determinism can be deduced to "one universal cause to all things". If this were the case, how can you say that you can isolate with such confidence exactly what that one cause is? What came before and therfore influences the ego? Evolution? The formation of the Earth? The big bang?
If you intend your conclusion to be a philosphical argument then that's fine, but you cannot use philosophical reasoning to come to a scientific conclusion.