Mapping the world's opinions

About us Style guide Log in  |  Sign up

Opinion map

Few words in the English language convey such a range of meanings as the word "love". For many, love is the reason for being, the subject of countless books, artwork, films, and works of theatre. But what is love? Is it an animalistic urge, a deep emotional connection, the manifestation of physical and chemical reactions, the act of being entirely devoted to another individual, or nothing at all?


Arguments supporting this position



In an experiment at Stony Brook University in New York, researchers put 37 people that said they were in love into an MRI scanner. They found that being in love has a corresponding neurological pattern. Areas of the brain that are rich in dopamine experienced a surge of activity, as did the ventral tegmental area (VTA), an area of the brain associated with cravings.[1]

The Argument

This experiment, along with many others, demonstrates that love is a chemical process. The initial giddiness and racing heart attributed to falling in love is the body releasing dopamine and norepinephrine.[2] Later, when the relationship moves from the initial lust and attraction stage, our body releases "bonding hormones". The prairie vole is one of the most monogamous mammals in the animal kingdom. They form lifelong bonds almost as soon as they mate and will remain with that partner for the rest of their lives. The prairie vole is so monogamous that when one mate dies, instead of finding another mate, the surviving vole will remain alone until they also die.[3] When scientist dissected prairie vole brains, they found high levels of the hormone oxytocin. Oxytocin and vasopressin allow us to form deep bonds with our partner.[4] When researchers gave prairie voles a drug which blocked their release of oxytocin, they stopped forming monogamous bonds. They became polygamous. These hormones are also present in humans and explain how we bond with one partner. Love is a chemical procedure. Even the development of relationships can be reduced to neurochemistry. When we talk about love, we are just talking about chemical reactions in the brain in widely recognised language.

Counter arguments

Counter 1 Neurochemistry cannot explain every facet of love. It doesn't explain why these chemicals are released when we meet some people but not others. This would suggest that there is more to love than chemistry. It must depend on a set of preconditions, which could be emotional or spiritual. Counter 2 These chemicals in the brain do not only produce the feeling of love. For example, dopamine does not only produce euphoria it also heightens concentration (which is why it is in ADHD medication). People who take drugs like Adderall, which trigger a dopamine release, do not immediately fall in love with those around them. Therefore, love cannot be simply reduced to the production and presence of dopamine and norepinephrine.[5]


[P1] The feelings associated with being in love are caused by neurochemical reactions. [P2] Therefore, what we call "love" is simply a term for a specific set of chemical reactions taking place in the brain.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Those neurochemicals do not only produce the feeling of love. [Rejecting P2] This doesn't address why these chemicals are produced when we meet some people but not others.




Your take

Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Next step

Explore the next argument

This page was last edited on Tuesday, 16 Apr 2019 at 15:55 UTC