Reposting from elsewhere...
[...in response to the age-old love/hate dichotomy argument.]
To even begin, we have to recognize that the word 'love' is a very loose descriptor that covers a lot of nebulous ground. It goes all the way from a casual enjoyment ('I love chocolate') to the most extreme forms of devotion.
The conflation of love and hate comes, as [random guy] suggests, from the formulaic love that exists as a product of passions -- primarily through deeply emotional attachments. These are indeed brain states, but the best science I'm aware of describes competing systems, not between love and hate, but between the heavily intuitive emotional systems and the easily distracted higher reasoning systems. So it is entirely plausible that, if you define 'love' as a product of passion, you may indeed find it largely inextricable from hate -- not because it is logically so, but because it is biologically entwined with the basest forms of attraction and revulsion.
Still, to use the same word for the feelings one has toward their lover, mother, and brother (hopefully three different people) speaks toward a severe deficit of description. At some point, one might talk in terms of rational quality and virtue, and in that sense 'love' becomes at least a step removed, for it is possible to reasonably detach an appreciation, say, for friendship from the greater world of neglect or indifference. There is the other aspect, where altruism may still be a biological tit-for-tat at its core, but that is an atomic deconstruction and not necessarily the conscious purpose. Insomuch as consciousness is the narrative we make up for ourselves, we can just as easily invent selfless love as much as we invent the otherwise unintelligible concept of free-will. Regardless of whether or not it is an illusion, it is very possibly a useful one. That may be the best we can hope for.
As for the religious, I'll make no apologies, but as we are talking about the possibility of useful illusions I'll admit that this cedes some ground in the most minor way. I expect it is largely unavoidable since we are reductionistic, pattern-finding machines. Religion is simply one of the dead-end patterns; a endless loop of non-explanatory explanations from which only the relatively rare completely escape from. But we all need over-simplifications to get through a practical day. At least if we start with description (rather than prescription) we can begin to understand and accept: that that which is simply is -- and it is unlikely to change in the near future at least.
We are stuck with religions and religious people, like it or not. I think the first battle is not with religion per se but with irrationality and intellectual dishonesty. Castigate someone's irrational belief and they will simply hate you irrationally; remind them that they might actually care about what is true and what is false, and at least they might stop to think first. All people need do is determine the best, rational path to true beliefs and the rest will follow.
To even begin, we have to recognize that the word 'love' is a very loose descriptor that covers a lot of nebulous ground. It goes all the way from a casual enjoyment ('I love chocolate') to the most extreme forms of devotion.
The conflation of love and hate comes, as [random guy] suggests, from the formulaic love that exists as a product of passions -- primarily through deeply emotional attachments. These are indeed brain states, but the best science I'm aware of describes competing systems, not between love and hate, but between the heavily intuitive emotional systems and the easily distracted higher reasoning systems. So it is entirely plausible that, if you define 'love' as a product of passion, you may indeed find it largely inextricable from hate -- not because it is logically so, but because it is biologically entwined with the basest forms of attraction and revulsion.
Still, to use the same word for the feelings one has toward their lover, mother, and brother (hopefully three different people) speaks toward a severe deficit of description. At some point, one might talk in terms of rational quality and virtue, and in that sense 'love' becomes at least a step removed, for it is possible to reasonably detach an appreciation, say, for friendship from the greater world of neglect or indifference. There is the other aspect, where altruism may still be a biological tit-for-tat at its core, but that is an atomic deconstruction and not necessarily the conscious purpose. Insomuch as consciousness is the narrative we make up for ourselves, we can just as easily invent selfless love as much as we invent the otherwise unintelligible concept of free-will. Regardless of whether or not it is an illusion, it is very possibly a useful one. That may be the best we can hope for.
As for the religious, I'll make no apologies, but as we are talking about the possibility of useful illusions I'll admit that this cedes some ground in the most minor way. I expect it is largely unavoidable since we are reductionistic, pattern-finding machines. Religion is simply one of the dead-end patterns; a endless loop of non-explanatory explanations from which only the relatively rare completely escape from. But we all need over-simplifications to get through a practical day. At least if we start with description (rather than prescription) we can begin to understand and accept: that that which is simply is -- and it is unlikely to change in the near future at least.
We are stuck with religions and religious people, like it or not. I think the first battle is not with religion per se but with irrationality and intellectual dishonesty. Castigate someone's irrational belief and they will simply hate you irrationally; remind them that they might actually care about what is true and what is false, and at least they might stop to think first. All people need do is determine the best, rational path to true beliefs and the rest will follow.