The greater scheme of love

What gives humans the right to love themselves this much? I understand and agree with the need to love yourself, yes, but to idolize yourself in front of God and your peers is sheer ridiculousness. Other animals have it right; They appreciate themselves and then they move on.

Why do we, then, put ourselves on pedestals half the time?

Because it is human nature to take something and expand on it.

From the beginning of the human existence, we have had this philosophy of expansion. While other animals had taken just what they needed, we have made ourselves advance because we weren't the biggest, baddest species on the block. We made ourselves into something bigger. From gathering like every other creature to farming was an unprecedented (and as yet unreplicated) feat of ingenuity. We have been dominant in that way. From there we built shelters and tools, eventually creating permanent settlements; that is to say, towns and eventually entire city states.

We developed arts and languages, systems of government and religion. We became superior because we forced ourselves to be. We created a surplus of goods that meant we never had to go back to being LIKE THE OTHERS; We ensured that we would have MORE than we needed to survive comfortably.

We see this as a good thing; It is a good thing. With out all of this we would have never developed a sentience. We are where we are because of that surplus.

But when did it give us the right to be so narcissistic?

The first true narcissists were in the form of atheists. We started out worshiping the land, for it gave us what we needed. Then we personified that land and thanked it for our bounty. After that, we chose to believe that someone/something created all of it. We thanked them as well. But the atheists of the time believed that all of our bountiful advancements, our surplus, and our very existence and evolution were all because of OUR OWN GIFTS. They believed, and still believe today, that we are where we have come to be because of our OWN greatness, and not because luck and the land have granted us these boons. They were the first to be truly conceited.

Why then do we have self-worshiping theologians who do believe that something else is the reason for our success?

This is my theory:

When we tend to worship ourselves, it's more of a defense mechanism. We see the flaws in ourselves and tend to make the good things seem greater. We make legitimate talents and greatnesses into things that are larger than life and in that way, make those other, minuscule and unimportant flaws fade away altogether. We see that we are lacking and try to make it otherwise- or at least, so that others seem to be lacking more than we.

It's all a way to hide behind our attributes.

On the other hand, there are the people who have a profound amicitia, or tender indebtedness (friendship) for their fellow human being. They are those that are unselfish and love others far more than they love themselves: Jesus, Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, the Dali Lama, Wes Cameron, and many many others had this dysfunctional love. They were/are incredible people; However, at heart they were also secreting a defense mechanism. They see flaw in themselves but not in others. This is just as bad as creating a fictional perfection as the narcissists do, and it's unhealthy.

There are several hormones responsible for love: Estrogen, Testosterone, Oxytocin, Vasopressin, Dopamine, Norepinephrine, and Serotonin. The two "sex linked" hormones (though all humans have both in varying quantities) control the fist stage of love (lust), that allows humans to notice other humans. We think of this stage as a sexual notice; however, it can apply to simple homeophilia. (love of humankind). The second stage, attraction, containes hormones that also control sleep, appetite, and pain reflexes. They are Dopamine, Norepiniephrine, and Serotonin. This stage shows up when that lust for a specific thing is achieved, and the person in question has a particular desire to know more about them. This is generally viewed in potential mating couples, but is less recognized by observing people who have just met and are becoming freinds. That attraction is a little harder to see. The third stage, Attachment, is controlled by oxytocin and vasopressin. This stage is characterized by a specific love for someone or something. An increase of these hormones make for an increased attachment, thus making an imbalanced, and sometimes unhealthy, view of this person or group that makes them seem like more than other people or groups. This is the stage that is the most dangerous and can lead to the greater disorders afore mentioned.

Attachment to a particular group is what started us up the hill to civilization as well. We were attatched to ourselves, not viewing ourselves as part of the whole. Maybe the entire human race is- and always has been- unhealthy and dysfunctional. In a prefect human, all of these hormones and stages would show up equally in response to every creature.

This would mean mating for convenience and continuity, rather than love.

What if love itself is an unhealthy and dysfunctional pastime? This makes what humans are most famous for, most recognized for, a FLAW. Does that make our imprefection bad? Is our flaw something that makes us less?

No. So called "flaws" are just differences, things that make us less like our "perfect" model. without these "flaws" we would be unable to set ourselves apart. We would all have dark skin and eyes to keep the sun from harming us, equally proportioned limbs for maximal balance, and the same homeostatic features. We would all live in the same place because we would be unable to adapt.

Flaws are nothing more than adaptations. Some adaptations are negative; Cancer is a cellular adaptation. Others allow us to diversify ourselves and better survive.

In my view, narcissism, and thus overwhelming homeophilia, are adaptations. Like I said earlier, they are nothing more than defense mechanisms. Whether they are positive or negative is your decision.

Agent McDuck: Out.