Phoenix Network Forums

jjrohal wrote:A dog will not stand beside you during the worst of times simply because it cannot fathom the situation.

It won't?
You wouldn't believe the stories.

Even if a dog stands by someone in the worst of times, what does it prove?

I'm sure there are situations, but my dog must not be the most caring :p

Dogs are either happy or mad. They do not feel human emotion and have no souls, so how can they feel love. They have an instinct to breed, but with other dogs. Also, it may not even be what happyness or sadness dogs feel, it may be something we don't know of yet.

Jelousy, love, sneakiness and protective are traits I have seen in dogs.

They come to us for affection becouse they have feelings. Im not sure about the word love though. What is love in humans? Its all to do with chemicals and electrical impulses.

Im sure dogs feel affection though which is the closest thing to what we call love.

Absolutely, they feel love.

What is love to us? Nothing but a feeling of appreciation and acknowledgement of someone who is a major part of our life. Is that not what we are to our pets?

nderdog wrote:Absolutely, they feel love.

What is love to us? Nothing but a feeling of appreciation and acknowledgement of someone who is a major part of our life. Is that not what we are to our pets?

Is that really what love is? Nothing more than a feeling of appreciation and acknowledgement?
From this it would follow that one feels "love" toward the people who are valueable to him and who he recognizes. However, there are people who I appreciate, acknowledge, and who play a large part in my life- but I don't love them.

Again, dogs are hardwired for this behavior because it ensures their survival(there may not even be a feeling accompanying these lesser acts that signal appreciation and acknowledgement).


Also- Do you think self-awareness is a prerequisite for the capacity love? Because I doubt that dogs are even self-aware.

vermillion wrote:

nderdog wrote:Absolutely, they feel love.

What is love to us? Nothing but a feeling of appreciation and acknowledgement of someone who is a major part of our life. Is that not what we are to our pets?

Is that really what love is? Nothing more than a feeling of appreciation and acknowledgement?
From this it would follow that one feels "love" toward the people who are valueable to him and who he recognizes. However, there are people who I appreciate, acknowledge, and who play a large part in my life- but I don't love them.

Again, dogs are hardwired for this behavior because it ensures their survival(there may not even be a feeling accompanying these lesser acts that signal appreciation and acknowledgement).


Also- Do you think self-awareness is a prerequisite for the capacity love? Because I doubt that dogs are even self-aware.

I would challenge your definition of love. To me, there are many levels, from romantic love for a spouse to family love of our parents, children and such, to friendly love for those who are just simply part of our life and that we care about.

Definitely no self-awareness needed. Do young children not have the capacity to love? The bond between an infant and it's mother is clearly one of love, yet that infant is no more self-aware than a dog.

nderdog wrote:I would challenge your definition of love. To me, there are many levels, from romantic love for a spouse to family love of our parents, children and such, to friendly love for those who are just simply part of our life and that we care about.

Definitely no self-awareness needed. Do young children not have the capacity to love? The bond between an infant and it's mother is clearly one of love, yet that infant is no more self-aware than a dog.

Challenge my definition of love? I never attempted to define it.

Anyways, how is this bond between an infant and its mother "clearly" one of love?

I don't think it is love. I think its possible to see this "bond" and personify it as a bond motivated by love. I believe the infant's clingy actions are instinctual and serve the purpose of ensuring its own survival. I think the capacity for the baby to love is not a necessary condition to help the baby's survival.

vermillion wrote:

nderdog wrote:I would challenge your definition of love. To me, there are many levels, from romantic love for a spouse to family love of our parents, children and such, to friendly love for those who are just simply part of our life and that we care about.

Definitely no self-awareness needed. Do young children not have the capacity to love? The bond between an infant and it's mother is clearly one of love, yet that infant is no more self-aware than a dog.

Challenge my definition of love? I never attempted to define it.

Anyways, how is this bond between an infant and its mother "clearly" one of love?

I don't think it is love. I think its possible to see this "bond" and personify it as a bond motivated by love. I believe the infant's clingy actions are instinctual and serve the purpose of ensuring its own survival. I think the capacity for the baby to love is not a necessary condition to help the baby's survival.

You may not have explicitly attempted to define it, but by saying what it's not, that's also making a definition.

If it was survival, why does an infant cling to the mother and father and others close to it much more than others? There's a definite attachment there. To say otherwise is just being argumentative and obtuse. That attachment is what amounts to love. Love isn't the idealized notion that some people act like romantic love is. It's the forming of a bond, an attachment...

nderdog wrote:You may not have explicitly attempted to define it, but by saying what it's not, that's also making a definition.

If it was survival, why does an infant cling to the mother and father and others close to it much more than others? There's a definite attachment there. To say otherwise is just being argumentative and obtuse. That attachment is what amounts to love. Love isn't the idealized notion that some people act like romantic love is. It's the forming of a bond, an attachment...

I actually didn't "say what it's not." I didn't even define it at all; I merely asked questions, then stated what would logically follow from YOUR definition.

Your question: Why does it cling to the mother/father more than other figures?
My opinion: The infant can recognize the smell of its mother and father and learns that he can trust being handled by these people. The infant usually won't trust being handled by someone unfamiliar(which is a common trait with many animals). Probably survival-based

I am not disagreeing that there is an "attachment" here, it seems obvious.
--Unless I misinterpreted you, and you are actually saying that by denying the existence of love in this attachment I am being argumentative and obtuse. Argumentative yes, as I am trying to argue several points. Obtuse no, because I am offering valid arguments which nobody here has proved wrong.

Also I disagree with your new definition of love. Is love merely a bond and/or attachment as you say? If it is, then it would follow that I love all of the people whom I have a bond with and/or feel some sort of attachment to. But there are people who I have a bond+attachment of some sort with, but I don't feel like I love them.[/i]

People here are arguing about whether dogs can feel love but are unable to define it amongst themselves..

Pie, anyone?

everytime i come home to visit family and say hi to my mother and father, the dog comes out of nowhere to demand attention. he hates when we don't include him and keeps whining if he's not included when we're all having a good time.