What's the most irritating answer

a word

from Ev. Parish Bottrop

Science is divided into 11 disciplines.
There are the humanities, humanities and engineering sciences that
Natural, agricultural and legal sciences, the social, structural and
Economics, Philosophy and Theology. And it
There are endless scientific subdivisions down to the molecule of
Life. There is no proven science just for love.
Why not?


Sciences are academic. You have to research, determine, prove and refute in order to get to the bottom of a problem, a task, a challenge. Sometimes there are only a few specialists in a part-part-subdiscipline in the world, in love there are billions of professionals. Anyone who has loved before knows what love feels like. That makes him a connoisseur. The fact that love is maximally subjective does not change that. Everyone is his love connoisseur. However, this competence is not universal. No one can really and truly empathize with another's feeling. This brings the feeling of language close, which in turn is just an attempt to formulate thoughts / feelings.

Barriers to understanding

The psychologist Karl Bühler tried in his Organon model (1934) to capture our speaking togetherness and quickly reached its limits. Accordingly, the abstractive relevance allows us to have complete clarity when we naturally say: “Look, there's a fire truck driving.” We know exactly what is meant. The other person sees nothing, only hears this sentence and falls back on their own experiences - it is the opposite procedure of apperceptive supplementation. One says very little and means a lot, the other hears very little and thinks his part. The images created in both heads want to be congruent and yet never are.

Eternal ignorance

It's the same with love. So when two people are talking and one of them replies: “Oh yes, I know exactly what you mean!”, Then that is the most common and most irritating answer to almost everything. Nobody can ever know what another thinks! You can guess it and / or formulate your experiences, but there is no trace of knowledge. It is almost a dramatic dilemma because we are inevitably terribly - or gloriously - alone in our thoughts. Even partners who fell asleep next to each other for 50 years and woke up peacefully do not know what the other is thinking. At best, however, an honest harmony of known and unknown tones has developed. Meanwhile, the soul life of the individual remains inviolable.

Art of loving

Perhaps that is one of the reasons why love does not have or make explicit science possible. Conversely, this does not mean that love has not been and is not being extensively researched. Nobody needs to fear that love would be disenchanted or trivialized in a scientific definition. The German-American psychoanalyst, philosopher and social psychologist Erich Fromm declared in his book “Art of Loving” in 1956: “There is hardly an undertaking that is started with such enormous hopes and expectations and that fails with such regularity as that Love. If that were the case in any other area, every effort would be made to find out the reasons for the failure and how to do better - or give up. Since the latter is impossible in the case of love, there seems to be only one right way to avoid failure: to find out the causes of this failure and also to investigate what love actually means. "

At the beginning of love it is mainly the hormones dopamine and serotonin that go crazy, later oxytocin and vasopressin turn the intoxicating love into a quiet love that is suitable for everyday use. Researchers measured our brain waves while flirting, x-rayed us while we were kissing, and cut into digital slices in a computer tomograph during sex. Science ceaselessly searches for the secret of love. Maybe everyone is even looking for it. Well, a civil engineer is far from the feeling of the interpretation of love and only needs to take one step of thought to transfer the fragility of a bridge structure to the sensitive world of love. And mathematician John Gottman put the principle of love into numbers. His result: 5: 1. If couples had five times more positive moments than negative, they were happy. Basta. Similarly, one can include all disciplines in love research. Well, some more, some less.

Eternal mainspring

41,000 years ago, Neanderthals buried a deceased two-year-old child in La Ferrassie (now southern France). Anthropologists have long assumed that early humans also achieved such cultural achievements. It has now been proven. It is reasonable to assume that the parents of the Neanderthal toddler mourned, otherwise they might just have left it behind. Grief is a downside of love. So love is older than modern man. And it's just a small step to include sex now. No life without sex - and vice versa. And suddenly love actually becomes scientific, can be condensed into numbers, data and facts and at the same time does not lose a bit of fascination. Because this very special feeling of being loved and being loved is mysteriously strong. It fills volumes of poetry and novels, is a hot topic in the cinema, on television and in music, it is the mainspring for almost everything. And yet no one can explain what love is. “I love you!” Is a single assumption. It could really be Larifari if love weren't so irrevocably great. Vivat, amore! Long live ignorance!

To the news overview