Scientifically Discrediting 'Love'

Science differs from philosophy in many ways, one of which is through the need of hard evidence to support a claim. Philosophy on the other hand is.. philosophy. Theories deduced from observation or experience. "But philosophy is a science, too". Mmkay.

My theory is that love between potential partners is irrelevant prior to life in the marriage paradigm, en sa7 il ta3beer. Note that I do say potential partners, as well as prior to life as a married couple. That means, for all of you dying to tell me all about how you cannot imagine living with someone you know nothing about, that what you have to say is irrelevant too. Simply because that is NOT what I am saying.

For all I know, I could marry one of the readers right now. For all you know, you could end up marrying the person who commented on one of your posts; had a fight with his sister when you were 3 years old; or even sat next to her cousin on a plane. Point being, you could end up marrying anyone, or you could end up choosing not to marry, or you can end up fortunate enough to not marry.

Up to this point, all the above is silly nonsense, a philosophizing of something that needs not philosophy; rather, it needs concrete evidence. This is how theories are proven, falsified, or nullified. If you don't know this already, "………".


Say in an instance of either the presence, or absence of a value, V, the consequence is unaffected; we can establish that V does not account for the consequence if present.

That is to say,

1 + 1 = 2

And also, 1 + 1 + 0 = 2

The 0 here, therefore, can be V.

Put into words in regard to marriage, the mere fact that some marriages work without a prior love relationship, LR, between the potential partners; one has the right to conclude that LR is of irrelevance to the success of marriage, M.

That is to say, that the following is true no matter how you look at it.

Boy + Girl = M

However, given that we agree on: 1+1+0 = 2, just as 1+1 = 2; we have no reason to doubt the validity of:

M = Boy + Girl + LR

Notice, still, that LR = Boy + Girl is not 'free'. It is, in certain contexts, inescapably bound by, and is not limited to: Risk, Society, Reputation, amongst many others.

With that, we have refuted any instance of accusation, and falsified any assumption that, M = Boy + Girl, does not stand.

We know it to be enough, because LR can surely have a value of 0, and M will stand regardless.

It is not to be disregarded completely; but it must be noted that it includes many variables (mentioned above, e.g. reputation of both potential partners) and in the end will never, alone, evolve into M unless Boy+Girl decide to change Title.

Therefore, indeed, LR = 0


edit: was looking at mbh's space and he had something about a desktop shot, here we go.


  • duuude, why?! its difficult, i feel stupid now!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12.12.05  

  • anonymous dont let the language put u off (terribly sorry, been doing nothing but read silly scientific journals and studies and then writing bloody essays)

    im pretty sure that, if u read it again a tad slower, itll make perfect sense

    personally i see it as glorified language talking about common sense.. :/

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 12.12.05  

  • yeah still feelin stupid, i think u should use pictures, i like pictures, every body likes picture, we demand more pictures, less equations

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12.12.05  

  • Your hypothesis indicates that LR is irrelevant, which is easy to deduce/prove when the value is nil. Here's my question though:

    While I agree that when LR = 0, the equation still stands true (M = B + G), how does a value of > 0 affect it?

    By Blogger MSB, at 12.12.05  

  • anonymous pics just dont work here

    MSB u do this for a living dont u :p
    anyway, i think ur looking at it from the wrong way.. here we go:
    if LR is present, M stands .. no worries there - althu i do mention the variables that affect it and make it UNSTABLE and therefore an unwise choice.. or lets say unwise investment in ur terms heh -

    now.. if LR is NOT present .. it would naturally be substituted with 0, just as the case with 1+1+0 = 2

    that said, from REAL-LIFE examples, we know that for M to stand, it does NOT require LR..
    it is NOT the other way round <- this is the main concern of the post, it is a response to those who dismiss marriage without "premarital love" ..

    of course, that ONLY concerns a stage before the potential B&G have not been officially-accustomed to one another

    finally, u present what if LR has a value of "above nil" .. how could it? if we agreed and showed that M = B+G and the possibility of M = B+G+LR <- in the 'potential spouse stage', then surely LR is NOT a factor that affects the outcome, M

    let me know if that makes/doesnt make sense

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 12.12.05  

  • i like to stir the pot!!

    i know ur main point was with reference to marriage WITHOUT the need for love to preceed it.. (which i totally agree with!) bs since we agree there, i had to find another angle to question! :)

    yes, LR is not required for M to stand (i.e. value of 0 still gives M). BUT, i am not sure that i agree that a > 0 value does not affect it.

    going back to ur original equation:

    1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 + 0 = 2
    B + G = M and B + G + LR = M

    THEN, if:
    1 + 1 + 2 = 4

    the not equal zero value of LR did affect the outcome because it changed it from 2 to 4!

    so when LR does not equal zero, it WILL affect M.. i'm just not sure whether it will affect it positively or negatively! guess it all depends on whether u consider love to be a "+" or a "-" :)

    it's late.. i should've gone to sleep hours ago! let me know if this makes sense!

    By Blogger MSB, at 12.12.05  

  • msb okay let us expand.. if we're supposing that LR has a value of > 0, we would need an idea of how to abstract its value in the first place

    BUT since M = B+G+LR

    is no different from

    M = B+G

    LR will always have a value of nil, since it does not taint the outcome

    sure, if for argument's sake u wanted to stick a value to it which is > 0, then (mathematically atleast) it'll affect the outcome of M .. HOWEVER, assigning LR a value which it does not substantiate, would only lead us back to it as being nil

    unless we can establish a basis on which LR can indeed be assigned value, then we can expand some more

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 12.12.05  

  • you lost me at hello

    i thought V=0 then LR=0

    Hypothetically speaking I agree with you. love relationship has nothing to do with the equation of M = Boy + Girl but Attraction might

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12.12.05  

  • laialy
    in the hypothesis of something's presence or absence NOT affecting the outcome, then yes.. V=0
    and therefore, LR=0 because M=B+G regardless of LR stands perfectly fine

    u mention attraction, ofcourse B+G + A = pM (potential marriage)

    so ur absolutely right, A can spark M :)

    *im loving this, sayreen 'menhom' tara :p

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 12.12.05  

  • Temetwir, Oi!

    I just like to state that you're building a scientific proof upon "social observations", and such scientific proofs aren't valid.

    Although I can't see your argument with MSB anything constructive, I'll add the following ::
    The correct term is B*G, not B+G. Will be clear why at the end.
    If you take the limit to the relationship(B*G) when (B*G) goes to infinity, it will eventually equal to (B*G).
    Now, if you add LR, Love Relationship, to the equation and take the limit again.
    The limit's result will depend on how big (B*G) is, thus ::
    If (B*G) is big enough, LR will not affect the equation, and if (B*G) isn't big enough, LR will have an impact upon the result.
    Big enough here means understanding and the will to compromise.

    One may argue that LR is a function of time and taking the limit would definitly increase it to infinity. That is incorrect, because our original equation is (B*G), thus, if (B*G) is too small, it will be equal to zero, and the LR value will make no sense.
    To elaborate on the final outcome :: Love will exist, without marriage+understanding+compromise+...etc.
    You can say it can without marriage, but it can never without understanding.
    Thus, LR, as Temetwir suggested, has no significance to the equation.

    From The Dep. Of Geeks.

    By Blogger MBH, at 12.12.05  

  • agool, we're all nerds! who needs science to prove anything? i agree that love (pre-marrital love) has nothing to do with the likelihood of success of said relationship. end of story! :)

    zain, mo kafee? then let's tackle the issue in another way: us being alive today is proof for me. our ancestors didn't go through this whole 'love/relationship' phase and honestly, i think they had healthier marriages than we do today!

    bs khalas, kafi. elly 3ajbeh 3ajbeh willi mo 3ajbeh eroo7 o falls in love.. and when they wake up from that 'pink dream', they can drop us a comment on our blogs! :D

    By Blogger MSB, at 12.12.05  

  • MBH u mean a scientific observation for social phenomena..
    what MSB was asking was "what if love DID mean anything", i was telling her how could it be of value when there r many instances where instances of marriage rnt affected whether LR was there or not

    the equation and all that BS isnt to be taken seriously, as i said to anonymous its just common sense - btw in case u missed it its just kinda like making fun of those who think that LR is important and w/o theres no way of marriage

    PS: it really is a way of dis/proving something, i adopted it from papers

    thats the diff, unless some1 can come now and "prove" that LR is essential for marriage .. ur conclusion of:
    "i agree that love (pre-marrital love) has nothing to do with the likelihood of success of said relationship. end of story!"
    is supported by evidence, while theyre just blabbing abt philosophy and what LR means and that BS

    and ur examples r exactly what the "hypothesis" is suggesting.. and honestly (humbly) i dont see it being affected anytime soon, if ever

    the ball, as they say, is in their field :)

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 13.12.05  

  • just to add one other comment:

    sometimes when ppl enter into marriage after 'being in love', they have certain 'expectations' of what they think marital life will be like.

    however, when reality sets in and the probs start, they go into a state of 'shock', disbelief, even denial.. & the problems get worse.

    if ppl enter into marriage, RATIONALLY, they see things clearer and they wouldnt be distorted as a result of mixed emotions. Thus, when probs occur, they're more prepared to handle it than their "loving" counterparts.

    just my opinion!

    By Blogger MSB, at 13.12.05  

  • I beg to differ that you turn love into a scientific equation...scientists have yet to conclude what love is or conclude how one feels "chemistry" with someone...in addition...mere observation on your facts that without LR marriages have succeeded..does not a science paper make! In both cases there have been successes and failures...i.e. couples got married without LR have both failed and succeeded...and vice versa...in the end it's a ba6ee7'a...but I won't have you say that you guarantee M to be successful without LR...the whole thing is based on fate...and not fact...

    And you're right...who's to say what happens...my bet is that you out of all people will end up falling in love and getting married for it...just 'coz fate wants to defy all your scientific equations...now aint ya lucky!..:)

    By Blogger MissCosmoKuwait, at 13.12.05  

  • msb
    i think expectations are essential, if and only if u r guided by them .. i.e. u do something abt ur expectations, u make them happen

    but ur right, ppl have this 'dreamy wonderland' perception of marriage so i guess it makes sense

    misscosmo, a.k.a THE DEFENSE heh..
    a- i am not turning LR into a scientific equation
    b- philosophers have plagued us with definitions of love .. it basically is a "collection of emotions" .. theres nothing poetic about it.. love is love
    c- how can a succession of M without LR, be not a fact that LR is not vital for M ?
    d- from (c), i must reinsist on saying: LR, if present, will also result in succesful marriages .. the only difference being there is an amount of risk that both potential partners take and go thru BEFORE marrying <- i urge u to read this again
    e- u wont have me say that i guarantee M to be succesful without LR, simply becoz i never predicted nor thought that is the case (again, ur looking at it from the other way round)
    f- fate.. elgadar maktoob o allah 3aalem el ghaib, laken hal shay ma ya3ni that u give in and do whatever and then say "oh but its my fate, i couldnt help myself" .. but ur right, gisma o niseeb

    finally, what u say abt me falling in luv is something i wish to not respond to.. but plz read what laialy_q8 said when it comes to attraction .. if u MUST insist, that would be 'chemistry'

    if u would be willing, id like to see u prove a LR prior to M is something essential for M to be succesful ..

    *everybody: i think ur taking the "equation" a bit too seriously .. dont .. it is true, and id like to see some1 prove otherwise.. but just dont take it 'seriously'

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 13.12.05  

  • I second Anonymous' request: use pictures, please.

    N, who failed College Algebra four semesters in a row.


    By Blogger SheWrites, at 13.12.05  

  • A bit off topic-- but I remembered this when I read your title..

    I just read the other day-- courtesy of my free Time magazine subscription from uncle Sam-- that a "broken" heart exhibits characteristics of a minor heart attacks..
    Don't know how that fits in your equations.. but I'll keep my heart intact heh..

    By Blogger Trevelyana, at 13.12.05  

  • Tha math - it hurts us!! <--- (this is me being dramatic.)

    By Blogger McArabian, at 13.12.05  

  • leeno heh madri, probably counts as one of the risks i mention with LR.. a waste of time actually but what can u do

    mcarabian 1+1=2 .. 1+1+0=2
    thats ALL there is to it..
    and dont blame me, its those silly with-a-lot-of-time-on-their-hands-PhDs
    that came up with this shit heh (ironically, i can discredit phds and MAs.. DAMN thatd be fun to do)

    sure does tells ya sumin, don' it?

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 13.12.05  

  • Ohooooo temmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaay.
    Y3ny its either one of two. I either post or comment on blogs. I can't do both. Why did you have to post and with such a good title. I can't read it now. Ana im3a9ba, baro7 anam! Hmph!

    *DR leaves ur blog t7il6im-ing wayid*

    By Blogger Delicately Realistic, at 13.12.05  

  • dc, bas hatha eli 7az b kha6rech? afa 3alaich bas hatha 7achee.. khalas no new post lain tegrain o etsharshe7eeny in ur comments

    kelshay 3ad wala bent-mort-oboy

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 13.12.05  

  • thats sick man, totally sick, keep it up temetwir style :D

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 13.12.05  

  • the defense rests...

    By Blogger MissCosmoKuwait, at 14.12.05  

  • zorath temetwir style bayyybeeee ;)

    misscosmo "HIP .. HIP .. HURAAAY" touchdown,
    welcome to the dark side

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 14.12.05  

  • hahahahahahahhaa
    la walllaaaw.....ma asharshi7 wild mort oboy in a million years...
    i dont think u should wait for me :) ill come back later on when all the mess is over..

    By Blogger Delicately Realistic, at 14.12.05  

  • dc heh ok khalas.. no matter how many new posts come after this.. a6aalbich an honest comment on this particular topic

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 14.12.05  

  • did somebody say touchdown?! GO COLTS!

    By Blogger MSB, at 14.12.05  

  • hot chick + loaded guy = babieees

    By Blogger mishari26, at 14.12.05  

  • I love Mishari26.


    By Blogger SheWrites, at 14.12.05  

  • Howdy, interesting blog you have.
    Liked the desktop, noticed a folder named La6meyat that grabed my attention. Do you mind it if I ask what that is?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 14.12.05  

  • msb Hoo-Yaa or whatever they say heh, its a touchdown coz THE DEFENSE, namly misscosmo, has rested their case.. therefore: hypothesis stays intact, and until further studies undermine it with empirical evidence we aint goin' nowhere .. yupyup-aha-aha

    hot chick + loaded, unserious guy = divorce

    aint that somethin

    thanks ! :) im guessing ur not from kuwait?
    "la6meyat" are basically poems that talk about certain events or individuals that are related to the Shi'a sect of muslims (sometimes they throw in some political topics too)

    im not sure what the word is in english, but i can only think of describing it as "they sing these poems".. usually there aren't any instrunments (but sometimes they use them, like drums or something to represent warfare) .. the ppl actually there while recording would strike their chests to represent sorrow (u know how it is when in church, ppl clap? kinda the same thing) and becoz they would be a large group.. u would hear an echoing strike :)

    a lot of controvery sorrounds the striking-of-the-chest (which is in arabic the verb La6m, hence the noun La6meyat) and i do agree that some ppl take it a bit too far

    lemme know if that makes it any simpler (or more complicated for that matter heh)

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 14.12.05  

  • Temi, I am resisting the urge to pray that you fall madly in love one day and then talk equations :-)
    (nonetheless, I agree with you on the no LR before M, except my reason, as a girl, is because mabi a77ad yigu9 3alai oo il chithaba ktharaw)

    By Blogger ZinZinQ8, at 14.12.05  

  • la6meyat sorry, forgot to mention that some of these poems can be in Classical Arabic (real complicated language, real DEEP meanings) while some are in the Iraqi dialect (reallllly sad tone and words) and some are more 'colloquial'

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 14.12.05  

  • zinzin i have fallen in ur so-called love

    so deep did i infact that i found nothing all the way thru 'the fall'

    its just a hollow hole that represents nothing and has no value

    u know what, let me think abt it maybe i can prove 'scientifically' that love cant exist unbound .. u, ma'am, are an inspiration

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 14.12.05  


    By Blogger MissCosmoKuwait, at 14.12.05  

    under no explicitness did the Prosecution ever claim, nor suggest, in any given manner, that "he was hurt", the Defense is misleading the jury by employing unsustainable grounds evoking sympathy, either the defense admits to fornicating evidence or i demand the register to dismiss the previous remark


    misscosmo dont hate the playaaaah ;)

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 14.12.05  

  • Thankyou that actually cleared out my curiousity. It so happens that Ihave been reading on the different sects of Islam and find it beyond fascinating.

    Interesting that you are a "shi'ite" If i'm not mistaken they tend to be the more conservative and some practice a controversial type of marriage called 'muttah'. Do you have any idea where I can read up on that for my knowledge on the subject is limited. A post perhaps?

    Thanks for taking the time to reply , best of luck in your studies.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 14.12.05  

  • Great thinking. And how would you compute the entity of an ill-marriage then regardless of totality of genders? In other words, what are the individual forms that sum up how marriage is a failed institution? :^)

    By Blogger TANTALIZE, at 14.12.05  

  • anonymous great, and i agree.. the history behind the diff sects of islam is truly fascinating, yet very much dismissed by most unfortunately.. just taken at face value

    the Mut'ah IS a controversial marriage, one that even the shi'a within themselves have certain rules to adhere to .. but i will say this.. there is a huuuuge misconception, so much in fact that its been called 'legalized prostitution' .. that, ofcourse, is not true

    hmm am not sure abt a post, as myself i am not qualified.. and thats the thing, ppl just talk talk and talk more shit w/o knowing anything!

    real sorry i couldnt help u either where to look to read abt it BUT i will say this, steer away from the internet and steer away from any one who writes abt it who isnt a shi`ite .. 95% sure it'll all be BS :)
    and thanks again for passin by

    tantalize i dont follow

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 14.12.05  

  • what is this a f&*!!#$ physics class?

    man u confused the living hell outta me right now.. i dont even understand what love means anymore!!

    By Blogger Dr.Lost, at 14.12.05  

  • dr lost
    some did, some didnt .. tells u somethin!

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 14.12.05  

  • The defense calls upon evidence (a) whereby during a typed conversation between the Prosecution and a potential witness named zinzin he admitted and I quote "so deep did i infact that i found nothing all the way thru 'the fall'...its just a hollow hole that represents nothing and has no value" such a proclamation can only be interpreted as a sad experience that's left the prosecutor in bitter disarray! Unless the Prosecutor's intentions were to lead the potential witness on for his own personal reasons...the sentence in and of it self is self explanatory...

    I could never hate the playaah even if I wanted to..;)...flirt...flirt..

    By Blogger MissCosmoKuwait, at 14.12.05  

  • man you wright too long blogs, just wanted to say hello, and have a safe flight back home.

    By Blogger Hattorihanzo, at 15.12.05  

  • Love and Lust
    (note. I typed Love vs. Lust 1st, then corrected, and for good reason)

    Ok, lets get one thing straight. There's no such thing as romantic love. let me repeat. There's no such thing as romantic love. what goes on between a man and a woman in [insert type of relationship here] is all lust with some cultural conditioning sprinkled on top. That does NOT mean that Love is good, while Lust is bad. Nope. Love is great, and Lust is also GREAT!

    Love is compassion and kindness. be it towards your mom, your child, or your wife/hubby. there are no different kinds of love. love is one kind. And it is good.

    Lust on the other hand is also good, and the two of those things are totally unrelated to each other. Men and women can and do lust for other men and women simply because they're "attractive". To a man "attractive" might mean a dozen things but many would agree a good portion of it is visual. To a woman "attractive" may be more about "ability to provide and foster a healthy home for her offspring" in addition to the visuals ofcourse!

    Lust is ofcourse not simply Sex. Its the whole "prelude" to the Sex. The yearning and the longing of desire alone can be addictive to some people. The feeling itself reminds us that we still can be passionate about SOMEthing goddamit! so its all good!

    Lust wears off however, and can return. Love nurtures Lust, as its hard to stay "in-lust" with someone who is unkind to you. Also, Lust nurtures Love because showing lust to someone and making them feel desirable is an act of kindness in itself, and that is an act of Love.

    So, love everyone you can, and lust for the one that is yours, and be thankful :)

    By Blogger mishari26, at 15.12.05  

  • misscosmo, overruled.. u will be seated, counceller, and will not mock this court of law

    bo fay hahah lo feni khair chan sawait shay mn ely 3alay belderasa.. a6ale3 7arety ehni

    mishari, an excellent distinction..
    as always

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 15.12.05  

  • Dude! ya3ni ma3qool lai hal daraja 3ayzan t7e6 new post for the desktop thingy! lol!

    Regarding that post about unbounded love, I think it exists and I'm ready to argue =8D

    By Blogger MBH, at 15.12.05  

  • On what grounds your honor? The Defense has the right to show such crucial evidence..if the prosecutor refers to love as being a "hollow hole"...it's vital within this case to raise the issue...the jury has the right to know...

    By Blogger MissCosmoKuwait, at 15.12.05  

  • Shewrites: 7abetech il3afiya yaw'7aiti

    By Blogger mishari26, at 15.12.05  

  • mbh i think it was the same day babes, thats why..
    o tara elyom i was thinking abt that thing abt love and unbound and all that (bel moa7athara 6ab3an 7adi metmalel)

    i can explain it on a piece of paper, but i doubt i can on my space

    MISS COSMO, THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING, u WILL be seated.. the prosecution has forwarded an explanation that a 'hollow hole' was a description of love and the court adheres to that ... now sit down or u WILL be escorted out of the court room
    *crowd cheering and clapping*

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 15.12.05  

  • Ok....I read it
    I'm not happy.
    I need to read it again to comment.
    I'm going to study now!

    On a different note, mino hal 3asooooolaaaaaa? Tyanin mashAllah, Allah ykhaleeha likom inshAllah.
    3asal 3asaaaal.

    By Blogger Delicately Realistic, at 15.12.05  

  • dc will be waiting, mako i3faa'

    emwafiga inshalla bel derasa
    el bnaya bent-weld KHALTICH :p

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 15.12.05  

  • Rules, formulas... when I`m reading anything like that, it remembers to me myself. Yes, I always try to see all the ways, which can be. I even have a formula of happiness. But you know, when you have all variants in your head (it seems to you so), all 100 scientifically variants... there is always also 1 not scientific you don`t wait for. And thanks God, that it`s so in our life. Or it would be enough boring to live.

    But anyway it`s a very interesting post, Temetwir. I like it, I like such scientific investigations :)

    By Blogger Sever, at 17.12.05  

Post a Comment

<< Home