Buffy: Season 4 Review
Recently, Buffy: The Vampire Slayer has become a show that is very near and dear to my heart. The show launched the career or its creator, Joss Whedon, and served as a launch-pad of sorts for his other projects. After Buffy became successful, Whedon created its TV spin-off called Angel. Angel originally aired on the WB and went on to air for five seasons before it was cancelled by the WB (who then later asked the cast and crew to return, unsuccessfully). After Angel's cancellation, Whedon was asked to create a TV series for the Fox Network. Whedon stepped up with Firefly, a methodical "space western" about a small ship full of interstellar scavengers. Firefly didn't make it through its first season, however Whedon's fans succeeded in resurrecting the complete season on DVD. Fans followed through, bought the DVD in droves, and because of those DVD sales, Whedon was able to write and direct the show's spiritual successor, Serenity, on Universal Pictures dime. I once again lament the fact that I was too naive (or, perhaps, too proud) to watch these fantastic works on TV, but through the magic of DVD I get to enjoy these shows years after they hit their prime. In fact, just last week I finished watching Buffy: The Vampire Slayer Season 4.
Season 4 returns Buffy to something similar to its Season 1 format. Most of the episodes in Season 4 are stand alone episodes with scant few threads of continuity until the last few episodes. Stand alone episodes seem to be Buffy's greatest weakness, as I would rank this season third, in front of season 1. Considering the lackluster quality of Season 1, I'm still surprised the show made it into a second season. However, I'm glad it did.
Season 4 primarily concerns a mysterious government organization called The Initiative. The Initiative moves [under] the Sunnydale University campus, captures vampires and demons (both listed under the ambiguous heading of "Sub-Terrestrials"), imprisons or kills them, and runs exploratory experiments on them. Although they would seem like an ally to Buffy and her gang of Scoobies, it is obvious from the start that The Initiative isn't interested in controlling the Hellmouth but in exploiting the demons and vampires for use in military weapons research. Cliche but effective. After all, what else do governments do except build weapons?
Being the gang is now going to college (sans Xander, who jumps from job to job throughout the entire season), Season 4 also offers up a nice atmosphere of change. Although we have no idea what their majors are, the gang fights demons, goes to class and then parties at night. Buffy is single now and the college atmosphere offers plenty of opportunity for her to get her groove on. Eager to find a nice, normal guy, Buffy dives in with the sort of gusto you would expect from the Slayer. Unfortunately for her, she quickly finds out that not all guys are in it for the long haul. However, one particularly interesting guy is... But I'll save that revelation for later. Suffice it for now to say that Buffy finds a new BF and that he is the real deal.
Speaking of change, Spike goes through some major change this season as well. Early on, The Initiative abducts him and sticks a very special chip into his skull. The chip stops him from harming any human being. That includes biting, hitting, kicking, and pointing a live gun at anyone. This marks a huge turn for a Spike whose previous pastime involved evil plots against Buffy. It doesn't necessarily make him good, but it certainly stops him from directly doing anything bad to the beloved gang. They pretty much treat and call him a pussy cat during this season, as his most obvious vampiric traits have all but been lobotomized.
Thanks to the events at the end of Season 3, Giles is now happily unemployed. He continues his duties as Buffy's Watcher from his simple English apartment. This quickly proves to be a problem, as the entire gang congregating in one place seems to draw all kinds of nasties over to his apartment. Sans library, he seems like a weaker character. Although he's literally and figuratively at "home" in his apartment, it's quickly made apparent that he's not the same member of the gang he used to be, what with everyone spending their days at college and their nights' at Giles' plotting battle plans.
Ex-demoness Anya also returns this season to make her mark. Madly obsessed with Xander, she tries her best to please him and to learn the ins and outs of relationships as a human being. Having no respect whatsoever for common human social rules (as she would put it), Anya has a nasty habit of blurting out whatever the heck comes into her mind. Apparently not content to being Xander's lapdog forever, the character makes great strides in this season to being a fully fledged member of the gang. Her insights from a couple millennia of exacting vengeance often yield the team informative insights into the various baddies they fight.
As per usual, Buffy keeps up a light mix of soap opera drama, vamps, demons, humor, and paranormal phenomena throughout Season 4. It seems like the martial arts action Buffy usually employs has been amped up a bit this season. Buffy's obviously picked up a few new moves during the summer months and she needs 'em to combat the new college campus variety of demons and vamps.
Season 4 is definitely not the best Buffy has to offer. As far as rankings go from best to worst, I would rank season 4 as number three so far. It almost seems like its Buffy's Order of the Phoenix by laying the groundwork for the final three seasons of the show. Almost all the characters go through subtle changes that seem to affect them in profound ways. People fall in love, learn, grow and move on in this season. The easiest way to sum up Season 4 is that it's teaching the lesson of taking life's challenges as they come.
We now move to our trademark discussion portion of this Buffy review, which is inevitably proceeded by a big, red, ugly...
!!! SPOILER ALERT !!!
Giles role in the show has been scaled back considerably in this season. Not having a job and not being Buffy's Watcher anymore has seen an impact in the way he views himself and his place in Sunnydale. Although the team frequents his apartment for advice and often as a hideout or a place to chill. However, not being in the thick of things visibly takes its toll on the way Giles conducts himself and it seems that he's been left adrift.
As Whedon himself says he likes to do, he has taken Anya from a back-water character into a fully fledged one. I, for one, love his comic book writing style of taking plot points into directions you didn't think they were going to go. I personally guarantee that everyone that watched the episode "The Wish" in season 3 never imagined that this character would grow into what she has. Anya has found a place on the show and it's by Xander's side. Right now, their relationship is treated as a side-show with little seriousness being attached to it. I hope to see this approach evolve a bit and treat their relationship more seriously. I suspect Xander is a bit afraid of her but at the same time, I'm sure Anya's just as afraid of losing him. It's hard to say where this storyline will go.
My favorite episode out of this season was the final episode, "Restless." In that episode, the gang is assaulted in their dreams by the first Slayer, whom is very upset with the way Buffy chooses to use her powers. This episode involves rapidly cut, confusing and quite humorous scenes about the way the team feels about themselves. One scene in particular stands out above all the rest: In Xander's dream, he and Principal Snyder act out a scene from Apocalypse Now in Xander's life context. This is copying the scene in that movie where Charlie Sheen finds the Commander and his having an awkward conversation with him. In this scene, same as the movie, it's the dialogue itself that proves to be hugely accurate in exposing Xander's inner motivations. Never mention the fact that the scene is perfectly Xeroxed from Apocalypse Now otherwise. Absolutely hilarious.
Faith comes back in Season 4 and she's as big and bad as she ever was. I found it very interesting how, when she switched bodies with Buffy, she became more like Buffy in a way. It really goes a long way to illustrating how screwed up the mayor had poor Faith. This series of episodes shows how she hates herself. She knows she can be more than she is and hates Buffy for not being able to get there. As I've said before, I really like the Faith character. It's unfortunate that Eliza Dushku declined to take a regular part in the show and instead opted for guest appearances. I would have liked to see what they could do with this character if she had more screen time. College my ass. With a body like that, you could be in Playboy and the sky's the limit after that.
The big change this season? Willow is dumped by Oz and becomes a lesbian. This was obviously a controversial change to the character. Given Will's constant struggle with her own sexuality, it seems like a change that was a long time coming. After Oz leaves Sunnydale to solve his werewolfy problem, Willow makes friends with fellow Wicca Tara. As of the end of Season 4, it's unclear how far along they've gotten. From here, though, it definitely looks like things are starting to get physical. Overall, while I don't like the change on the simple basis that there's nothing that a lesbian Willow could do that a heterosexual Willow couldn't, I'll just have to respect that Whedon and Co. know what they're doing. Here's to Season 5. Cheers!
On the chip in Spike's head: More Spike = Good. That is all.
Buffy goes through more than her share of change this season. Getting rid of Angel and getting into college has shown an enormous effect on her character. Putting her in this position finally lets her get out of the development rut that she found herself in before. Now she gets to do more than diddle Angel after patrols: dating! Chief among the potential suitors is Initiative Agent Riley Finn, who masquerades as a teacher's aide during the day and a Special Forces dude at night. Sharing their connection with the underworld, Buffy finally gets a shot at what could be called her most "normal" relationship yet. She can bang Riley all she wants and he won't turn on her. In fact, as I write this, I have to wonder if the frequency that they had sex during Season 4 was at least somewhat attributed to Buffy's sexual frustrations (or tradgedy) with Angel. Hrmm...
It's worth mentioning that The Initiative storyline falls completely flat on its ass this season. Its only redeeming quality is that of the part-man-part-machine-part-demon villain that is Adam. Adam is your pretty standard Buffy villain: he looks invincible at first and then his weakness is eventually revealed. The secondary villain role that The Initiative plays is misplaced in that it doesn't have "a guy" that you can easily point to and say "he's the bad guy!" It's just another faceless government organization like the CIA or Area-51. Boring.
I'm really enjoying what I've seen of Season 5 so far. It looks like a perfect return to form after an admittedly lackluster intermediary season. I'll report back the second I finish it. In the meantime, look forward to a Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire later this week.
I thought season 4 was the weakest. Bad "big bad", pointlessly turning Willow into a lesbian for ratings, and losing Angel? All in all, it adds up to my least favorite Buffy season ever. On the plus side, it does mean that there's nowhere to go but up, as seasons 5, 6, and 7 are all solid.
Also, it's very telling and kind of sad that you think a normal relationship consists of "She can bang Riley all she wants and he won't turn on her." Someday, when you're ready, I will teach you of real relationships and this thing we call "love", which is entirely different from sex. For now, just know that you are kindred spirits with GOB from Arrested Development (another great show killed by Fox), evidenced by this exchange with his brother, Michael:
G.O.B.: My God, what is this feeling?
Michael: Well, you know the-the feeling that you’re... that you’re feeling is-is what many of us call “a feeling.”
G.O.B.: But it’s not like envy, or even hungry.
Michael: Could it be love?
G.O.B.: I know what an erection feels like, Michael. No, it’s the opposite. It’s... it’s like my heart is getting hard. Maybe I am ready to be a father.
Doom Gaze says
At the risk of sounding defensive, I didn't mean to suggest that all relationships automatically equal sex. Despite my inexperience in this department, I can safely say that a real relationship is much more than that. However you slice it though, the biological precursor to all relationships remain sex (or the base urge to replicate one's own genes).
That being said, it's not too big of a leap to surmise that Buffy's relationship with Riley was much better than that of her relationship with Angel on a sexually fulfilling level. The series would seem to agree with me on this point. Regardless of the quality of Season 4, the show heavily emphasizes their relationship in this regard, hence my emphasis on it in the review. This is an important distinction that I felt should be addressed.
wydren says
Well, I am speaking from a position of a person who has seen the entire series. Wait until they get to season 6 & 7. The series deals with that issue much better in those seasons. Remind me when you finish the entire show and we'll talk about it then.
However, I did want to point out that the guy who uses Buffy uses almost the exact same dialogue that Angel used after losing his soul. I did think that this was a very interesting point that the producers of the show were making: Even people with souls can be very evil and nasty. I, for one, think it's a very mean thing to tell a girl you were just interested in her for sex, which is basically what they were saying. That's perhaps the most interesting thing about season 4, even though there's not a lot to say about it. I thought it was a very creative touch to reuse that dialogue in that context.
wydren says
On an unrelated note:
"However you slice it though, the biological precursor to all relationships remain sex (or the base urge to replicate one's own genes)."
I realize that my reply did come out kind of harsh, but I present these questions: If your significant other were in an accident and could no longer have sex, would you still love her? If you were in an accident and could no longer have sex, would you continue to love?
Doom Gaze says
These are interesting questions that I'll answer in turn.
Say, for example, you see a cute woman at the grocery store. The first thing your primitive instincts scream out is "She looks hot! I want to bang her!" Then your higher intellect kicks in and brings with it the idea of love and relationships. So you walk up to her and talk to her, get to know each other, fall in love, and get married. At this point, the biological precursor I mentioned has passed, serving only as the spark to ignite the flame. If said woman were to then be crippled in a car accident and if the flame burns pure, then yes, I would still love her.
On the flip side of your question, if I were rendered physically or sexually inactive, that same basic instinct would still remain and thus the possibilty of igniting that same spark would remain as well.
wydren says
“On the flip side of your question, if I were rendered physically or sexually inactive, that same basic instinct would still remain and thus the possibilty of igniting that same spark would remain as well.”
Here it sounds like you’re saying that that spark has nothing to do with sex, as it would still be there if you’re sexually inert.
What about homosexuals? They cannot pass on their genes. They do not feel this biological need (or at least not attached to sex), as it is impossible to breed with two males or two females. What attracts them to each other?
All this comes down to my belief that there is something deeper than sex, so deep that sex is really irrelevant. It’s nice icing on the cake, but it isn’t the main part or even really necessary. Animals cannot control their sexual urges, but we as humans can. Because of this we’ve developed this deeper bond, called love. Unfortunately, many people confuse the two (certain interactions and conversations with you have led me to believe you do), but really I believe love has nothing to do with sex. One time you told me you didn’t believe me when I said that I would still love my fiancée if she weren’t as physically attractive. But the truth of the matter is that I would, because there is a feeling there that is entirely different from sex. It’s called love.
Doom Gaze says
With this question, we're venturing into hypothetical territory that is still being researched. I knew you were going to bring up homosexuals, who are a special case. Keep in mind: I'm not trying to explain the concept of love itself, as I have no buisness doing so. I do wish to explore the how and the why.
Homosexuals are a conundrum to modern science. However, recent studies I've read (but are too lazy to reference) suggest that the homosexual brain is wired differently at that same basic level. One recent study of homosexuals (highlighted in Time magazine) found that most homosexual brains sampled responded to pheremones emitted by the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex. Thus, even if it doesn't make sense in our current social context, no one can deny that these instincts still exist, including in homosexuals.
It is my hypothesis that, on a biological level, the homosexual's need to "get off" is superimposed on the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex. The human body doesn't know that it's getting off in the wrong vessel, just that it's getting off. In the same way, just as if I had become sexually inert, my genes still don't care. They go on doing what they feel they need to do without concern for the how or the why.
In the same way, love fulfills the basic need for human social interaction (or, in other words, the need for human contact). As I'm sure you're well aware, love is not limited just to your choice of mate, but also includes your family and friends. So, in reality, we're all unconciously using each other to fulfill this basic need in order to create a chemical reaction in our brain that satisfies that need.
Regardless of how it manifests itself, love is just a word, and, as a program in "The Matrix Revolutions" so adequately put it, "What matters is the connection that the word implies." While this statement is made by a machine program, it still holds up, as a program with even rudimentary emotions can tell you that "I'll do anything to keep that." This touches on the attachment one grows to our peers and family by matter of instinct rather than of reality, as we all would want to protect something that we have put so much of ourselves into, each other included.
There is lots of science to back this hypothesis up, as these topics have been the subject of heated research and debate in recent decades by people much smarter than us. For more information, I suggest you read "The Mating Mind" by Geoffrey Miller and "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley, as they offer more insight into the biological nature of love and sex than I could possibly retype here.
Your ball.
wydren says
Yeah, I had thought that you could say that homosexuals, as well as everybody else are driven by a need to reproduce and it has been altered in some way. That desire gets projected upon members of the same sex instead of the opposite. And yeah, it’s a bit predictable to bring up homosexuals. It’s just that they’re such an easy monkey wrench in the “it’s all just the need to reproduce” argument. I just wanted to see if you would think of a way around that.
Really, I was trying to explain the concept of love. I think that if you try to reduce it to sexual urges and chemicals you miss a vital part of it. If it’s just chemicals, they could make a drug that produced love (in fact, love causes your brain to produce a certain chemical, as does chocolate and methamphetamines). But even if they did make this drug, it wouldn’t be the same. It would be missing something, that metaphysical spark that makes love special. To quote John Murdoch from Dark City:
You wanted to know what it was about us that made us human. Well, you're not going to find it... [points at his head] ...in here. You were looking in the wrong place.
Now if you want to talk about the physical part of it, we can do that, although I will warn you that life science isn’t my bailiwick. I know very little about biology, other than some of the physics behind it. I will say though, that there are many different types of “love”. There’s the love of family and friends, as we put it. There’s the romantic type of love, which is the kind I’ve been talking about. Heck, we even say we love pizza. Maybe we should refine which kind we’re talking about.
Talking about romantic love, I can only say what works for me. Other people may be different. I have found happiness in a monogamist relationship, with the absence of sex. I love Christina, even though we haven’t had sex yet. The sex will be an expression of that love, but it won’t be the love. This leads me to conclude that there is something (your “connection” from the Matrix) deeper than sex that we define as love, and that it really has little if anything to do with sex. Sure, you might say it was kicked off by a sex drive, but that has little to no bearing on love as I would be attracted in that way to any woman of child-bearing age. I would say it has more to do with social interactions and expectations than anything else.
Ok, I’ve ranted enough for now. [/Robocop voice] “Your move, creep.” [/Robocop voice]
Doom Gaze says
Your argument here has one fatal flaw: In Dark City, John had no idea whether or not he actually loved his wife. All he had were the bits and pieces of his broken half-memory in which he did love her. Whether or not they were actually lovers is not the point to him. Following his instinct is. Accordingly, the first thing he unconsciously thinks about after making his changes is the same chemical reaction I referred to earlier - his love for she he thinks he has always thought of as his wife. It's all he has to go on.
On the nature of love: By no means am I suggesting that love is borne simply out of a chemical reaction. What I am suggesting is that love is not metaphysical at all. In fact, love bears a striking resemblance to another human characteristic: Addiction. The evidence backing this suggestion up is staggering. Parallels between love and addiction become blurred when you think of the idea of love and addiction as being nothing more than a complex reaction cobbled together from social conditioning and natural drives based on an underlying chemical dependency.
Social conditioning comes from a variety of sources. We're constantly bombarded throughout our lives with the ideas like finding your soul mate, Disney-esque romantic images of diamonds-in-the-rough finding love in the most unlikely places, and, of course, religion.
Religion plays a huge part in the social conditioning reinforcing in the minds of all of us of the idea of the metaphysical nature of this thing we call love by inhibiting our higher intellect for fear of divine retribution. I am not suggesting religion created the idea, but instead took it to the next level by taking love, projecting it onto an intangible authority figure and, in some denominations, threatening punishment if love was not followed up with action. Moreover, religion often enforces a rigid structure for the way that love is carried out. We are told to love our neighbor but not to covet our neighbor's wife. We are also told by the institution of marriage that we are to have one mate and one mate only, forcing us through our belief into thinking we have to find that one "One Soul Mate." As an interesting aside, I find it funny how religion takes almost everything your genes naturally want to do to survive and makes it wrong.
Moving right along, after being around one another for a long enough time, we become conditioned to being around them. Everyone gets along, is generally on the same wavelength and conflicts of interest are resolved amicably or through mental or physical dominance. It's also said that social interaction leads to a melding of cultures: in the same way two cultures interact and become one, so do people. They pick up each other's traits, favorite sayings, and tiny idiosyncrasies. As they invest in each other, they also invest in themselves. Thus it becomes natural to try to protect that investment, forming the groundwork (said “connection”) for love or, at the very least, respect. This also lends credence to the old adage that married seniors start to look the same in their old age. Human beings are creatures of habit and consequently we form the habit of being around each other. In the case of romantic love, this habit is focused on an individual.
Similarly, social conditioning is a component in addiction as well. Leaving the natural social drives aside for the moment, our culture also enforces on us the idea of being cool, being yourself, and being a beautiful and unique snowflake. We form our own identity around cultural ideas, taking bits and pieces of what we can identify with and integrating them into our persona. Society even assigns these different attributes labels: workaholics, sexaholics, gameaholics (me), the busy guy, the overt romantic, self-improvement robots, geeks, gym rats, and of course, alcoholics, smokers and pot-heads. On a subconscious level, we all choose these traits and integrate them into what we call the Self to allow ourselves a unique seat in the overall social order. The point of the whole matter is that we assign ourselves these traits subconsciously, whether they're beneficial or not, until we are forced to remove them as a result of either constant social pressure from said melding of cultures (in the case of taboo, unhealthy or socially unacceptable behaviors) or by persistent reprogramming of our persona owing to our own dissatisfaction with our chosen self. It is often painful and difficult for us to change this persona because it represents who we are.
I’ve talked a lot about how natural drives interact with the brain to create feelings, but I haven’t yet addressed its effect on social conditioning. Earlier I mentioned how our culture pushes all kinds of stimuli into our subconscious. But why is that stimuli there in the first place? As you’ve probably already guessed, the answer is, again, our natural drives. The creators of these cultural works were also affected by these drives and even sometimes intentionally emphasize them in order to connect with their intended audience on that same subconscious level. The obvious example here is the use of sexual themes in advertising (“Sex Sells”) and I don’t think I even have to expound on that since the numbers speak for themselves. These drives are driven even further into our subconscious by these stimuli, helped along yet further by our instinct for human physical or psychological contact.
In the same way, our instincts always tell us that we want to be happy. Who doesn’t want to be happy? Suicidal people, that’s who. The apparent difference between people in this regard is our persona. Our choice of persona forms our internal roadmap as to how we satisfy these drives. People bury themselves in work, find faith in the divine, go through mate after mate, marry their soul mate, become financially secure, use drugs and so on and so forth all for the simple purpose of finding this elusive happiness. For some, simply knowing their seat in the social order is reserved by their choice of persona is enough to give them happiness. Someone like this might tell you, “I’m happy where I’m at in life.” You could say we are all addicted to happiness and simultaneously seeking a higher level of happiness. Some people get their kicks on drugs, others get their rocks off. It’s all relative.
Finally, arrive at chemical dependency. We become so hopelessly dependant on the chemical prerequisite to happiness that we’ll do anything to keep those serotonin levels high. This ties in both with natural drives and social conditioning in many ways. For starters, since the existence of pheromones has been proven, it wasn’t much of a stretch for science to prove the idea of chemical dependency, or addiction, on a mate. The spectrum of pheromones a certain person emits is unique to that person only. Like a fingerprint on a bottle, our brains subconsciously pull it right out of the air, identify it, and home in on it. The end result, as you can surmise, is the satisfaction of that dependency through the instinctual drive for physical contact, understanding in a social context, and eventually sexual intercourse. Even absent of a sense of smell, our bodies can still pick up on these pheromones on some level, once again leading to that spark.
Chemical dependency also comes in the form of what we call “substance addiction” and here is where the parallels between love and addiction become painfully clear. Utilizing the same process of dependency, personal identity, and natural drives, substance addiction comes in many forms. Welcome to the jungle: pick your poison, as they’re all the same. Marijuana, cocaine, opiates, methamphetamines, ecstasy, hallucinogenics, nicotine and alcohol all serve one or more of these needs on a temporary basis in the same way being around a loved one serves them. In addition to the physical effects of these substances, many of them serve the secondary function as social activities. It’s no secret that in our society, alcohol often leads to sex. Again similarly, one of the more popular forms of the prescription drug Xanax are often called “Purple-Panty-Droppers,” owing to the color of the pill and its ability to put the user in a state of extreme relaxation.
Perhaps the most damning evidence against the metaphysical existence of love is the effects associated with withdrawal symptoms. Admittedly, withdrawal symptoms vary from poison to poison, however the reason for these effects is the same: chemical dependency. Can you think of what you would feel like if I died? If your grandmother died? Your parents? Your brother? Your fiancée? Stop reading for a moment, close your eyes, and imagine what it would feel like. Then multiply that feeling times ten: your heart seems to stop, breathing becomes difficult, you break out in a cold sweat and tears well up in your eyes. You feel like someone just removed your stomach. You fear what the future might bring without that person or without your drugs. You might wonder how you might be able to continue without this person in your life. You begin to weep as symptoms culminating in the loss of your chemical dependency. You begin to lash out at those around you for your loss and become emotionally closed off as the weight of what’s happened settles squarely on your shoulders. You vomit and collapse onto the ground. In the case of drug addiction, the physical symptoms are even more severe, sometimes culminating in the death of the effected person. The psychological effects of losing someone dear can be just as bad. Some people can’t deal with the loss of a loved one. They decide that life is no longer worth living and either shut down, turn to substance abuse, or commit suicide. The similarities are amazingly concise.
I’m done. Check.
wydren says
See, what you think of as a fatal flaw I think is the proof (or at least a very strong argument, as you cannot "prove" something): John loves his wife even though his brain has been totally changed around. All the chemical processes and instincts were shuffled around by the strangers, until they weren't even his anymore. Yet his love for his wife remained, signaling that it's something other than instinct or chemicals that caused it. Keep in mind we're discussing a work of fiction though, none of this is proven. I just used that quote to show that I think humans are more than just collections of chemical reactions and electrical processes.
I don't understand what you're saying though. You say that you're not suggesting "love is borne simply out of a chemical reaction." You then say that love and addiction are the same, "a complex reaction cobbled together from social conditioning and natural drives based on an underlying chemical dependency." It seems these two statements are contradictory, except for the addition of social conditioning. Are you saying that social conditioning is the only thing that makes love more than just a chemical reaction?
I think that when it comes to religion, you can't see the forest for the trees. Or, to put it another way, you have too much religion and not enough faith. Faith is what I think is important, as religion as I'm using it here refers to a system of control (what is The Matrix?) imposed upon the masses by the rich and powerful. I believe that's what you think of when you think of religion, faith, and the whole aspect of metaphysicality (is that a word?). I think that's a real tragedy, as it takes pure faith and twists it into something evil and totally against faith (Not what you'd expect to hear from a good ole' Catholic boy, huh? Call what I believe a form of Catholic Buddhism, or Buddhist Catholicism, with a bit of Taoism thrown in). God isn't some man with a white beard sitting up in the sky saying "Do it or I'll spank you!" But if you think He is, you'll be much more likely to do what the church tells you to. And because of this the greed of the medieval church is still felt today.
I think faith should carry with it a form of control, as I think balance is the key. Too much of anything is bad. Is it a bad thing to enjoy a bit of ice cream now and then? No. Is it bad to eat a lot of ice cream with every meal? Yes, it's unhealthy and bad for you, even though it's fun. Sex should be the same way. A little isn't bad, but too much throws the balance off. I choose to bring forth this balance in myself by not having sex until marriage, until after I've found "the one". It also helps to separate "love" from those chemical reactions we've been talking about, and I think it's a lack of control and restraint that leads so many people to confuse the two, thinking that sex=love.
People need restraint and control. But here's the difference between faith and religion (which is also the whole point of the book "A Clockwork Orange", and it's also a big point of The Matrix trilogy): This control can't be forced upon you by an outside entity, be it religion, government, or society. It has to come from within; to quote Neo, it has to be "because I choose to". In the novel "A Clockwork orange", Alex learns this lesson. His kids will have to learn it on their own, and their kids in turn like clockwork, until the earth is consumed in a big orange blast (that's where the title comes from, so you can see how much the movie dropped that ball, despite being an excellent movie in its own right).
I think one of the greatest explanations of my view of love is from the Bible; “No greater love is there than this: To lay down one's life for a friend", which totally goes against our genes. I think the use of the word "friend" is very deliberate. Not your husband, wife, or child, but friend. It involves dieing for someone who doesn't help you carry on your own genes at all. It just shows that in order to reach the next level of consciousness, you must control your instincts and become their master, instead of letting them control you. This helps form my view of sex, as animals go around having sex uncontrollably to spread their genes, but humans can control this.
Man, that was one big sidetrack.
I think your statement of love strictly being a way to protect an investment or make ourselves happy is a very selfish viewpoint and is missing a big point of love. Real love is wanting happiness for someone else regardless of your own. Dieing for someone isn't protecting an investment.
Likewise, I believe that people are more than the sum of their social interactions. "To thine own self, be true", or "Know thyself" to keep with the Matrix theme. If you're nothing more than what society tells you to be, you're not doing it because you choose to. And if you don't even know yourself, how can you begin to love another? If you bury yourself in all these other things looking for happiness, you'll never find it. You have to find it in yourself first. "Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to get the splinter in mine." (I know that doesn't really fit, but the first part does.)
It is because of this lack of personal happiness that people become addicted to things, such as drugs or another person. And I say that's not really love, merely addiction, and the two are very different things. If you think love and drug addiction are the same thing, you're missing that spark I keep talking about. However, if you take everything you're saying about love and apply it to sex, I think that comparison is very apt. I think it's more appropriate to compare a drug addiction to a sexual addiction rather than love. Real love is not an addiction, and sex coming from that love is a wonderful thing. However, sex without love is just another drug, and can be unhealthy.
And that totally pulls the rug out from under your "damning evidence" against something extra in love. Not everyone deals with the death of a loved one in the same way. Those who have an unhealthy addiction to someone else can deal with that loss as you described, leading to suicide. However, someone who has truly loved and has a healthy sense of self will deal with it differently. Yes, they will feel sorrow for the loss. But they will be able to pull through it and live on, because if someone truly loved you they wouldn't want you to become a wreck. Real love is giving of yourself and expecting nothing back in return. Unhealthy love, which is often the result of wanton sex (relating it back to the start of this debate), is a chemical addiction that boils down to selfishly wanting nothing more than your own happiness.
You can talk about any of that if you like, but I feel I should clarify my original statement here. I'm not saying that sexual urges based upon chemical reactions have nothing to do with attraction, which leads to romantic love. I'm saying that there's more to that love than just those sexual urges and chemical reactions, so much so that the sex isn't even necessary. I believe that if you think all love is made of is sex and chemicals, you're missing a vital part of this crazy little thing called love.
I submit these questions to you: Do you believe everything can be explained by science? Do you think humans are nothing more than a pile of chemical reactions and electrical processes, or is there something more?
Oh, and just so you know (I'm not trying to be an asshole, it's just a pet peeve of mine): effect = noun, affect = verb
(Even though she's gone, Mrs. Vido lives on! ;D )
Doom Gaze says
It seems I wasn't clear on a lot of that last response (it was late, so sue me).
"I don't understand what you're saying though. You say that you're not suggesting "love is borne simply out of a chemical reaction." You then say that love and addiction are the same, "a complex reaction cobbled together from social conditioning and natural drives based on an underlying chemical dependency." It seems these two statements are contradictory, except for the addition of social conditioning. Are you saying that social conditioning is the only thing that makes love more than just a chemical reaction?"
A clarification, not a contradiction, my friend. A complex (bolded for empahsis) reaction cobbled together from social conditioning and natural drives based on an underlying chemical dependency. Or, since you're a math wiz: (social conditioning * natural drives) / chemical dependency = love = addiction. All of these elements come together to form both love and addiction. My purpose in that statement was to introduce how I was going to present my evidence that love is really addiction in disguise by grounding both concepts in tangible terms. They both form in similar ways and the end results are very similar when examined on different levels. I also admit that substance addiction happens much more simply but for the same basic reasons. You could also say that love is addiction focused on a person.
For example, the loss of a loved one results in great mental pain but very little physical pain. Addiction withdrawl also produces similar results depending on your choice of poison. The most potent drugs like heroin and crack cocaine cause the subject intense physical pain and moderate mental anguish. Even stopping smoking (the low end of the speed spectrum, I grant you) makes a person more irritable and temporarily weakens their immune system far below levels they achive when they were active smokers.
Faith is merely the weapon religion uses on the unsuspecting masses to control their behavior, as I was attempting to illustrate (and failed, apparently) how deeply ingrained religious morals are in our society. It is so deeply ingrained that most of the laws that govern us conform to the general specifications laid out by religion. You can cry "you can't legislate the way people think" until you're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that, given enough time, you can legislate the way people think. This doesn't just take place through our laws, but through the morals and ideals that have been handed down from parent to child for centuries.
What I am suggesting is that this idea you have was not something you chose consiously, but was socially conditioned into you without your consent. Go to church and you'll pick up their ideas. Go to a KKK rally, even with active disinterest, and you'll pick up their ideas too. The difference is that the influence of religion is *everywhere* and the human mind is its battlefield. In the same way that the government limits our actions preserving a stable nation, religion attempts to use faith to govern the way we think with the noble-but-deceptive goal of creating a stable society.
"I think your statement of love strictly being a way to protect an investment or make ourselves happy is a very selfish viewpoint and is missing a big point of love. Real love is wanting happiness for someone else regardless of your own. Dieing for someone isn't protecting an investment."
I left an important out of this equation: love is something that rarely happens by choice. Could you choose not to love someone you would say you love currently? Conversely, could you point to someone in a crowd and say to yourself that you unconditionally love that person? I think not.
Be that as it may, the protecting of the investment and making ourselves happy both happen on a subconcious level. We don't even think about it, we just do it. But on some level, these interactions are in fact taking place. Yes, it is selfish, but it's the way the brain is wired. If you choose not to be selfish, then feel free to lock yourself into a room and not interact with anybody. I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't like that much. If you were to tell me that when two people love each other, they do it "just because," you'd be lying to yourself. Both parties derive something from the relationship, whether they intend to or not. On an again subconcious level, someone might justify their act of loving someone by chalking it up to nobility or unconditional love, owing to deeply ingrained religious and/or social ideals. In other words, we made it up.
Regardless of how people deal with death, they do deal with it. Whether it's on a physical level or a mental level, the loss of a loved one, regardless of how it was initiated, is a painful event.
I've got more to say, but it's obscenely late. Stayed up at Dan's playing Prince of Persia. More to come soon.
wydren says
Lunchtime post! BAM!
Ok, because it sounded like you said, "It's not a chemical reaction, it's a complex chemical reaction!" That just sounded stupid. I agree that all these things are present in love, but there's something else, something that makes it different than a simple addiction. All these same things are there in sex. If there wasn't something else in love, you could say that sex=love, and as any wise person can tell you, it doesn't.
Perhaps I should explain faith and religion better. To quote Serenity, "Why is it that when I talk about faith you always assume I'm talking about 'God'?" Set aside your religious biases (which I know you have) and try to look at it from a blank slate. Faith, as I define it here, is your connection to the metaphysical (I called it God for lack of a better term, and you're right in that that is due to social conditioning, but we could call it anything we want). We can't really define anything about this metaphysical entity other than it exists (This seems to be a pretty popular belief, from Buddhism to Judaism, "I am who am"). The only person who can define your connection is you. Religion is the attempt to find a common ground where this faith is concerned, as it can obviously be different for everyone. Unfortunately, some people used (and still use) religion to try to control people (this was a big problem with the catholic church during the middle ages). But you see, the beauty part is that no one can use faith to control you unless you allow it, because no one can tell you what your faith is! In this aspect, all religions are right or all religions are wrong, depending upon how strict you want to be. I personally believe that, as long as you're not hurting someone else, do whatever. That's why I love the idea of America so much; it’s this philosophy carried out in a governmental form. Unfortunately, that idea rarely gets carried out, but that's a different debate. I guess I can sum up my feelings on faith by quoting Serenity again (Damn, Joss Whedon's awesome); "It doesn't matter what you believe, just that you believe in something."
"love is something that rarely happens by choice."
But most addictions are. People usually choose to try that first step, and it becomes an addiction there. Love is different. It can go against everything you believe and hold to be true. I agree that love can appear very similar to an addiction. But to say that love and addiction are the same thing is great folly.
"Yes, it is selfish, but it's the way the brain is wired."
It's not necessarily the way the brain is wired. It's a popular school of thought, but it's not proven. In fact it's far from proven, it's just a theory. And it's not one I subscribe to.
"In other words, we made it up."
This is a very cynical and sad outlook on life. I'm not saying people don't get anything out of relationships. They obviously do. I'm saying that that's not the main reason people get involved in relationships. That would be like ordering a pizza because you wanted some cheese. There are easier ways to be happy. I still say that dieing for someone you have no investment in is as far from selfish as you can get. How can you say that dieing is all about making yourself happy?
I heard about a theory that there are 5 stages of love, usually progressing as you grow older. The first stage is love of self. It's all about making yourself happy and satisfied. Infants are in this stage. Next comes the love for a parent, as they're the first ones who provide for you and make you happy. Third is romantic love. Then comes love for a child. Last is philanthropic love, or love for humanity in general. Each stage is moving away from this selfish love you're talking about and toward the selfless love I'm talking about. You can have the mindset of one stage while in another stage. I think that people in a relationship just to make themselves happy have regressed to the first stage. I'd also say that if they think they need a relationship to be happy, they aren't comfortable with themselves, and they couldn't possibly move on to another stage, so they couldn't truly love someone.
"Regardless of how people deal with death, they do deal with it."
Yes, people do deal with death. But I think it's quite a leap to say that love is exactly like a drug addiction because some people deal with the death of a loved one the same way people deal with drug withdrawal. C'mon man, even Evel Kenivel wouldn't try to make that jump.
Oh, and isn't Prince of Persia a great game? I'm always trying to communicate to Dan what I mean by "poor or sluggish controls". So I told him "Play Prince of Persia then go back to playing Bloodrayne. It's like trying to walk while your leg's asleep."
Doom Gaze says
For the last time, I'm not saying that love is just and only a chemical reaction. What I'm saying is that it is formed by an interplay between societal forces, hard wired genetic drives, and the God-given biological template we were endowed with.
I believe in what you might call "progressive evolution." You may have heard of this as its been creating a boatload of discord in the religious community lately. Progressive evolution meets the faithful and the scientists halfway by supposing the Bible explains the why and Science describes the how. That God created the Universe and that it happened by His will, I have no doubt. I also believe that God created our biological template with the ideas of friendship and love in mind and then turned it loose to do as it evolve over time. The origin is metaphysical, not the act of love itself.
"I'm not saying people don't get anything out of relationships. They obviously do. I'm saying that that's not the main reason people get involved in relationships."
You're saying here that people go into relationships not expecting anything back and get something anyway. This is a cyclical concept. To me, the idea of love simply for love's sake is idealistic and unrealistic. Everything up to and including paternal love is genetically motivated. Unconditional love, or or love for humanity, or philanthropic love all really mean respect and understanding. This idea is completely separate from love in a romantic, paternal or closed social context. If you're telling me that you'd hop into traffic to save someone you don't know (and, for all intents and purposes, could be a complete piece of shit) then I'd like to see a demonstration (heavily armored, of course). This stems from some high minded abstract faith (having nothing to do with God, before you ask) that attempts to make us feel better about our aforementioned factors by turning them into something they're not. It's socially motivated because it's a heroic thing to do, and everybody likes a hero. Calling respect and understanding for humanity "unconditional love" is like calling a secretary an "administrative assistant": we made it up to make it sound like something it's not.
"But I think it's quite a leap to say that love is exactly like a drug addiction because some people deal with the death of a loved one the same way people deal with drug withdrawal."
I never said they were exactly the same - that's twisting my words. What I am saying is that they're very similar in most every respect and are most often fixated on a specific thing, be it a person, a state of mind, or a narcotic. Drugs, in particular, administer very specific reactions creating a chemical dependancy both in the brain and in the rest of the body.
I found an interesting article on my POV that has more scientific evidence dispelling the metaphysical nature of love. You can find it here: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2424049
I'm not sure if you're referring to Prince of Persia having sluggish controls or Bloodrayne. I've never played Bloodrayne, but I did enjoy the precision of Prince of Persia's controls.
wydren says
“For the last time, I'm not saying that love is just and only a chemical reaction.”
I know, I know. In my last comment I was trying to acknowledge that, but I guess I wasn’t clear enough. My apologies, good sir.
”You're saying here that people go into relationships not expecting anything back and get something anyway. “
I’m just saying that, for most people at least, a relationship is about giving and taking. Most people wouldn’t go into a relationship strictly to make themselves happy, but to hopefully make the other person happy as well. So it’s not entirely selfish.
“Calling respect and understanding for humanity "unconditional love" is like calling a secretary an "administrative assistant": we made it up to make it sound like something it's not.”
Well, usually that kind of love is reserved for a romantic relationship.
”I never said they were exactly the same - that's twisting my words.”
I thought you were saying that love is the same thing as a drug addiction. If all you’re saying is that they’re similar because they both make you want something really bad and cause reactions in your brain, I don’t disagree. Though I do wonder why you brought it up, as it seems to have no bearing on this debate.
”I found an interesting article on my POV that has more scientific evidence dispelling the metaphysical nature of love.”
(Quoted from website): “Despite Dr Fisher's reservations, might they also help people to fall in love, or perhaps fix broken relationships? Probably not. Dr Pfaus says that drugs may enhance portions of the “love experience” but fall short of doing the whole job because of their specificity.”
Yeah, that really proves that there’s nothing unexplainable about love.
I’m not entirely sure what we’re arguing. I started out saying that love doesn’t equal sex. I think now the argument is whether love merely a scientific reaction of chemicals, associations, and social interactions and expectations, or if there’s some unexplainable aspect. Am I correct? I still want you to answer those questions I asked earlier. Do you believe everything that takes place inside people can be explained by science, or do you think there’s something more?
And I was saying Bloodrayne has really sluggish controls compared to Prince of Persia. I think Prince of Persia has the best controls of any game I’ve ever played, and that’s saying something.
wydren says
My web browser's auto complete box is filled up with gibberish because of this stupid Word Verification thing.
ZMRYAYWF!!!!!!