The Science and Philosophy of Love

Passionate love is neither good, nor bad, nor anything in between. Love is the term that is used to describe the process and sensation that happens between two or more individuals, however the description of this process is created simply off of one’s experiences, biases, and level of knowledge and understanding. All in all, in the argument of if love is good or if love is bad, love is neither. It contains both benefits and risks, and the value placed on love and those risks is subjective, however, caution of these risks should always be primarily present when dealing with matters of the heart.

There are two terms usually used to separate the subcategories of love: Compassionate and passionate. Compassion means “sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others” and compassionate love usually is said to require trust, understanding, respect, and affection. Whereas passion means “any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling, as love or hate”, and passionate love is said to be containing and involving intense feelings of sexual desire. Pausanias in The Symposium by Plato talks about this, compares, and describes these two, but uses other terms. What he describes as the love that is “Heavenly” and dealing more with the mind, is comparable to that of compassionate love. What he describes as “Common” love on the other hand, that of being more connected to one’s body, is comparable to that of passionately love.

Looking at the terms both compassion and passion, compassion is derived from the Latin term “compati” which means “suffer with” and passion comes from the Latin word “pati” which just means “suffer”. Therefore, even from simply looking at etymology, it is understandable to perceive a potential negative tone associated with both compassionate and passionate love. Taking a look at love as a whole, and the science behind it, love is like a drug, and withdrawal from addiction is disruptive, damaging, and even physically painful. Love, unlike just sex or lust, is a deeper and more subjective attraction and bonding we associate with romance, things more often sought and found with long-term relationships. When you lust for someone, the major hormones involved are testosterone and oestrogen. When you are in love, it is adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin. When you are attached to someone, it is oxytocin and vasopressin. And when you heart breaks, it is like drug withdrawal, causing complete and utter chaos and pain. When you see someone you love, there is an increase in activity the brain regions including the medial insula, anterior cingulate cortex, caudate nucleus and putamen along with lower activity in the posterior cingulate gyrus and in the amygdala (which is the part of the brain that deals with anger and fear). Being in love elevates dopamine activity in the reward pathway, making us experience pleasure being around our partner, almost like a drug. And oxytocin is often referred to as the “love hormone”. Due to neuroplasticity, in response to all this deep and intense stuff, the brain begins to expect these chemicals. And then when the relationship ends, after everything the brain has invested in it, all the positive sensations it has grown to expect suddenly cease, which is incredibly distressing. Addiction and withdrawal can be very damaging to the brain, whether it is with alcohol, tobacco, or love. Cocaine addiction and withdrawal is actually the most compared and similar process of that of love and heartbreak. Neuroimaging studies have shown that parts of the brain that deal with social anguish, also deal with physical pain. The damages and pain of this withdrawal, can be so severe, that one in both the emotional, mental, and physical senses can in fact lose their will and ability to live as we see at the end of The Romance of Tristan. And it is not just in heartbreak that pain is experienced, but also in the avoidance of heartbreak, while even still in the midst of love as discussed by Plato. However, as studies or even hints of these discoveries, specifically the one looking at how sections of the brain dealing with emotional pain overlap with sections dealing with physical pain, did not start showing up until the late 1970s, it is impossible for the philosophers such as Plato or Socrates to have even taken that into account.

In Plato’s Phaedrus, Lysias argues that physical love without emotional attachment is preferable to physical love with emotional attachment, "That is the clever thing about it; he makes out that an admirer who is not in love is to be preferred to one who is" (Plato Phaedrus 22). The reason this idea can be so pleasingly permissible is that one would still get the release of testosterone and oestrogen, however, they would not have to worry about adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin. The disadvantage to this that makes it arguable, is that you would not get the pleasurable release of adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin, but, overall, that loss is deemed more bearable than the addiction symptoms that take place because of it as Phaedrus puts it "Lovers repent the kindnesses they have shown when their passion abates, but to men not in love there never comes a time for such regret…Those who are not in love, on the other hand, cannot use as a pretext for coolness the excuse that love has made them neglect their own interests, or put into the reckoning the hardships they have endured, or hold the loved one responsible…and since they are relieved from all these disadvantages nothing remains for them but to do cheerfully whatever they think will give their partners pleasure" (Plato Phaedrus 27). The disadvantages, being that of the “divine madness” that is later discussed.

Whether or not love is good or bad, can be argued to come down simply to one’s beliefs, understanding, experiences, and willingness or unwillingness to give themselves over to the chemical changes in the body. To someone who believes in and follows a religion, the opinions of love are laid out."It is for us to prove the opposite, and to show that this type of madness is the greatest benefit that heaven can confer on us" (Plato Phaedrus 48). If you look at Christianity, they are given a clear distinctive path as to what to believe. It is, after all, listed as the second greatest commandment. “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40). However, the bible recognizes the bad and even dangers that emotions, not just love, can have as well. “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). Connecting this to modern science, when one may need to worry about such a thing is when they experience the attraction that comes from the release of oxytocin and vasopressin (the "peptides of love and fear"). The most important thing to recognize about this, is that emotions and matters of the heart, due to all the chemical changes and dependencies that occur in us, can lead to “madness” as Plato discusses and as can be seen in Proverbs 4:23 “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it”. The chemicals released from love, lust, attraction, and heartbreak, are controlling. “Well, love is insanity. The ancient Greeks knew that. It is the taking over of a rational and lucid mind by delusion and self-destruction. You lose yourself, you have no power over yourself, you can't even think straight.” -Marilyn French. It is only whether you perceive being controlled as a good thing or a bad thing that distinguishes the difference of philosophies and opinions.

The philosophers too understood the potential and subjective option to view love as good as well as bad. While it is often still discussed and suggested that one stay aware of how love will negatively affect the mind and body, so long as one proceeds with caution, there can be great benefits as well. As Plato discusses, love can cause people to want to improve and be better versions of themselves for their partners. They also discussed the benefits in reference and correspondence to that of religion. "If Love is a god, or at any rate a being with something divine about him, as he certainly is, he cannot be evil, but both our recent speeches represented him as being so" (Plato Phaedrus 44). Socrates later goes on to illustrate exactly how it is that love is a great benefit from the Gods: "It is for us to prove the opposite, and to show that this type of madness is the greatest benefit that heaven can confer on us" (Plato Phaedrus 48). They do however later subject and point out how benefits that do not rely solely on devine matters can be found in both platonic relationship and in sexual relationship with those that abstain from adding love into the mix. Lysias even tries to use this argument to win over Socrates "Moreover, you have a better chance of improving yourself by yielding to me than by yielding to a lover" (Plato Phaedrus 29). Socrates implies, and Epicurus agrees, that indeed it is much safer to have a sexual relationship when love is absent. If you look at the scripture “Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires” (Song of Songs 3:5), Solomon warns against the rushing of love. Not because it itself is bad, and most of Song of Songs paints love as good, but because to protect oneself and the actions and potential negativities that may come out due to rushing it. As discussed earlier, when a person experiences a loss, the brain's blood flow starts to change causing the anterior cingulate cortex (responsible for regulating physical pain distress) to become more active. The opposite of this can be said as well, however it is usually talked about in a more spiritual manor: When you are in love, you feel limitless, weightless, or even heading towards the divine. The “happy” causing chemicals can almost be felt physically. This more modernly can be compared to a “high”. Essentially, even the good that comes out of love, is only at the cost of and because of the risk and loss of stuff like safety, logos, and self-control. But even then, are those three things more valuable than the “rush” and benefits that are capable of coming from love? “What could lie behind this claim? Perhaps something like this: There are some truths about love that can be learned only through the experience of a particular passion of one’s own. If one is asked to teach those truths, one’s only recourse is to recreate that experience for the hearer: to tell a story, to appeal to hoois or her imagination and feelings by the use of a vivid narrative. Images are valuable in this attempt to make the audience share the experience, to feel, from the inside, what it is like to be that” (Nussbaum 1986, p. 185).

While the good vs bad debate still remains subjective, the cost overall outweighs the gain as the benefits and growth that come with love can be gotten elsewhere, for a much lower risk, and for much less pain. The subjectivity can be seen in those with religious values who claim it is good, but warn of extreme caution in protection of the heart, soul, and body. To scientists, it is neither good nor bad, it is chemicals. And those that will say love is bad, are those who most value logos, self control, safety, and want to avoid pain. Love, whether passionate or compassionate, contains both benefits and risks, and the value placed on love and what you are willing to sacrifice remains subjective, however, caution of these risks should always be primarily present when dealing with matters of the heart.