In the new issue of Nature, the neuroscientist Larry Young offers a grand unified theory of love. After analyzing the brain chemistry of mammalian pair bonding — and, not incidentally, explaining humans’ peculiar erotic fascination with breasts — Dr. Young predicts that it won’t be long before an unscrupulous suitor could sneak a pharmaceutical love potion into your drink.I don't know what to make of this. When taken to its logical conclusion, the debate over so called "love-potions" breaches the debate over free will. For example, if I slip a love potion into Scarlett Johanson's drink at a bar, and she falls madly in love with me, and comes home and fucks my brains out, would it be considered rape? One could argue that she technically consented to it (it didn't impair her logical judgement) and probably wouldn't regret it (I'm flattering myself), so it isn't really rape. On the other hand, she didn't consent to the love potion in the first place, which in turn, altered her perception of the world through the use of horomones.
Even without a love potion, we would like to think that we are in control of our thoughts and impulses. But if one is not in control of their impulses, then it must come from somewhere outside the self. Metaphysically, this can be unsettling. Even from a cognative psychology approach, love brings up some interesting questions. What sort of mental construct can include impulsive, lustful desires? It's not that hard to account for basic desires in a mental model (just list proirities like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), but how do you throw in strong impulsive desires?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment