DAVID(under "Theistic evolution"): We are back to how do you know that you love your wife, or she loves you?
> 
> TONY: Fortunately I do not suffer with this. In my world view, love is an action word, completely demonstrable. If that action is accompanied by a feeling, so much the better, but feelings are flighty things which often waver in their strength, while action can be resolute. Which is better, to demonstrate love even when you are emotionally wiped out and numb, or to demonstrate it when you are happy and feeling good?
> 
>DHW: I would suggest that actions are motivated by feelings: if I love someone, I am likely to act more sympathetically than if I can't stand them. People can "demonstrate" love in order to deceive... I believe my family feel what I feel, though I can only judge by their actions. "Feelings are flighty things": yeah, well everything human is flighty, but actions in my experience are generally short-term, and DEPEND on feelings! So I'm afraid I take the opposite view to yours: just as grief is the emotion that makes you cry (action), fear the emotion that makes you scream (action), love is a feeling which expresses itself when you say (action) or do (action) things that will help, comfort, bring happiness to those you love.-I think the differences come from the assumption that my view depended upon an outside observer. What I mean is, it is obvious that the man in the example you gave does NOT love his wife, because his actions demonstrate that he does not. If his wife is unaware of his actions, or his mistress for that matter, it does not change the fact that he has demonstrated a lack of love for either one through his actions. The truth of a thing is independent from the observation of it. If all things were perceivable and the observer possessed perfect knowledge, it would be self-evident that the man did not love his wife. In short, we are talking about two different things. You are talking about the perception of love, as it is observed by the recipients or other outsiders, and I am talking about the thing itself. -As to whether it is motivated by feelings, let me give you an illustration. A few days ago I had a layover in Amsterdam, and took the opportunity to wonder around the city a bit and see what all the fuss was about. At one point during the evening, a very interesting and animated homeless man took it upon himself to give me a guided tour. He was such a likable fellow that I went along with it(though I was keeping a mindful watch on my personal affects and safety). Throughout the tour I witnessed him giving good, practical safety advice to at least a dozen different naive tourist without asking for anything in exchange or even waiting around long enough for them to say thank you. -This man is a wonderful example of what I am talking about. Though he did not know any of them, and thus could not have had any warm feelings towards them as individuals, he demonstrated loving kindness to them by the simple act of giving them warnings of possible dangers without asking or expecting anything in return. Likewise, he gave me a very enjoyable thirty minute tour of the down town area, without once asking or begging for anything. Why? As he said himself, he loved the town, and loved the people in it. -If he said he loved them, but failed to act, then he did not love. If he felt the emotion, but did not act, then he did not love. This is ultimately my point. While your emotions may in fact be the catalyst for your actions, and they do not have to be, if you do not ACT upon them, then the emotions themselves are meaningless. The man in your example may have indeed flown away regardless, but if he loved his wife, he would have been faithful to her. The emotion might be the catalyst for the ACT, but the ACT would DEMONSTRATE the emotion in a concrete way.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.