True or false: The notion of love at first sight is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Why?
Edit: I'm not sure I used the fallacy correctly. Here's what I think. I was washing the dishes the other day and thinking about an old friend. I went to boarding school in tenth grade. I was kid of a shy kid when I got there. My very first morning I was sitting at a window in the dining hall eating my breakfast and looking out over the green hills of Vermont, utterly blown away. So this girl comes and sits down next to me, right, and I'm really not that used to that kind of thing. You know, getting attention from girls. Anyway, she's staring down at this sketchbook the whole time we eat our breakfasts, but we manage to have a cutely awkward conversation. The only thing I can remember about it now is that her granddad ate bacon and eggs for breakfast every single day for 50 years. Anyway, I was pretty instantly attracted to her, and she was pretty attracted to me too, unless I'm very mistaken. We never ended up dating because we were young and insecure and proud and afraid of each other. I ended up in a very long term relationship with I girl I didn't like half as much, and she ended up in several mid-length relationships with some pretty fantastic guys who all ended up driving her crazy. All that was 12 years ago, but the two of us have always stayed in touch, and I think we've pretty much always stayed in love, but it's a friendly type love not a romantical love.
So here's what I was thinking as I was washing the dishes the other day: I'm in love with this girl, who is now a woman, and it was definitely all fireworks from that first meeting. But I don't think it's really fair to call it love at first sight. I didn't love her when I first saw her. I thought she was really cute. The loving came much later after I got to know her a heck of a lot better. I think it kind of sells love short to think that it can happen in a second. So by post hoc ergo propter hoc I meant, the notion of love at first sight seems to imply that you fell in love because of the first sight, whereas I think you probably just fall in love after the first sight. It kind of falls apart when you consider that you really couldn't have fallen in love if it weren't for the first sight, but I don't think you fall in love at that first sight. I think you just know love is a possibility.
Edit: I'm not sure I used the fallacy correctly. Here's what I think. I was washing the dishes the other day and thinking about an old friend. I went to boarding school in tenth grade. I was kid of a shy kid when I got there. My very first morning I was sitting at a window in the dining hall eating my breakfast and looking out over the green hills of Vermont, utterly blown away. So this girl comes and sits down next to me, right, and I'm really not that used to that kind of thing. You know, getting attention from girls. Anyway, she's staring down at this sketchbook the whole time we eat our breakfasts, but we manage to have a cutely awkward conversation. The only thing I can remember about it now is that her granddad ate bacon and eggs for breakfast every single day for 50 years. Anyway, I was pretty instantly attracted to her, and she was pretty attracted to me too, unless I'm very mistaken. We never ended up dating because we were young and insecure and proud and afraid of each other. I ended up in a very long term relationship with I girl I didn't like half as much, and she ended up in several mid-length relationships with some pretty fantastic guys who all ended up driving her crazy. All that was 12 years ago, but the two of us have always stayed in touch, and I think we've pretty much always stayed in love, but it's a friendly type love not a romantical love.
So here's what I was thinking as I was washing the dishes the other day: I'm in love with this girl, who is now a woman, and it was definitely all fireworks from that first meeting. But I don't think it's really fair to call it love at first sight. I didn't love her when I first saw her. I thought she was really cute. The loving came much later after I got to know her a heck of a lot better. I think it kind of sells love short to think that it can happen in a second. So by post hoc ergo propter hoc I meant, the notion of love at first sight seems to imply that you fell in love because of the first sight, whereas I think you probably just fall in love after the first sight. It kind of falls apart when you consider that you really couldn't have fallen in love if it weren't for the first sight, but I don't think you fall in love at that first sight. I think you just know love is a possibility.
sockpuppet:
I wouldn't know about the Latin, but the logic seems good to me.