Unconditional Love

[Da Blob]

An infant is not aware of the concept of 'self' (as demonstrated by the mirror test and rouge test experiments). Maybe you are using 'self' in a different way than I am. I'd roughly define 'self' as the sum of ones being.

The rouge test is the first indication of a "Self as Object" POV (actually quite a milestone of cognitive growth). However, prior to that "realization (@~ 12 months)" there is an awareness of self as Subject. It is this Subjective POV of the universe and its sole inhabitant that generates the concept of body image...

 

[Felan]

There isn't one thing that exists that isn't conditional. That's not stretching a word to it's extreme, that's just using it correctly without exaggerating. You love someone under the conditions required to sustain love. You may not be consciously aware that you have conditions, but they are there nonetheless.

I'd be interested in the hard facts for your statement in another thread then, "Almost all of the great 'features' are directly stolen from open source (linux) software. " It seems an exaggeration to me, but given that you are so anti-exaggeration I have to assume you have some very solid evidence for such claims.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

I'm starting to agree with munkey here.

His statement needs no empirical evidence, it is a logical deduction.

Even the definitions are conditions, separating one concept from another. However, this definition of condition makes the word useless for these circumstances. Surely there's a better word to express the concept. Selfless love?

 

[Felan]

Not really necessary to change the word.

It is easier to say unconditional love represents a worthy ideal. At times I think people can be in that ideal but I do think that its hard to imagine always being that ideal. Ergo transitory.

I have never consciously or unconsciously set an expiration date. That I am unable to be eternally in unconditional love is more a reflection of being an imperfect human. I can say however there were moments when I loved unconditionally.

The lynchpin of his argument is anything short of eternal unconditional is an exaggeration and an exaggeration is unacceptable. It doesn't seem he has an objection to exaggeration when it suits him though, so his dislike of exaggeration is itself an exaggeration.

Also I think he is exaggerating the exaggeration of the definition of unconditional as it pertains to unconditional love.

But I am a shade of crazy and feel an alien even among the INTP aliens :P

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Hmm... I changed my mind.

Not limited by or subject to conditions or stipulations; absolute, unlimited, complete.

Actually, I think this can be accurately applied to love of (for example) one specific person and not everything.

"I love you, as a person, in particular. This love is not limited by or subject to conditions or stipulations; absolute, unlimited, complete." (I can imagine an INTP actually saying this... )

That statement seems semantically correct.

 

[KazeCraven]

Hmm... I changed my mind.



Actually, I think this can be accurately applied to love of (for example) one specific person and not everything.

"I love you, as a person, in particular. This love is not limited by or subject to conditions or stipulations; absolute, unlimited, complete." (I can imagine an INTP actually saying this... )

That statement seems semantically correct.

That doesn't sound like something I'd ever say, but I wouldn't be surprised if that rolls off my tongue when love makes me lose my marbles.

 

[Zero]

I don't want to love, it sounds like the most absurd mind controlling thing in the world. I love being free, not lonely, but maybe that's the price for freedom.

If someone told me they loved me I'd probably reject them or ask "in what way". I just want to be clear that I don't want to deal with all the crap that comes with infatuation.

I'm not listening for "I like/want to spend time with you." I'm listening for, "I think we could stand each other (if we lived together)."

My notion on unconditional love remains what I mentioned previously.

 

[Logician]

@ Zero: The want to be completely individual and free from all emotions that might be a obstacle to your clarity of thought is, as I've noticed, very common among thinkers, but eventually you will come to the conclusion that you are human, as much as you may want to believe that you are so different from most others that you barely even the same species you are still human, and as a human you are a social creature, your going to be very depressed if you try to always deprive yourself of emotions and/or always guard your self perceived "clarity of thought", and in the end it gains you absolutely nothing.

^ i feel a strong bottleneck between my mind and my words, i hope i communicated myself accurately, and i don't mean to single you out, I am just pointing out a form of thought which aggravates me.

On unconditional love, this may be slightly off topic but if love is careing for a person more than you care for yourself, and if two people both love eachother, isnt that a bit paradoxical?

 

[Da Blob]

On unconditional love, this may be slightly off topic but if love is careing for a person more than you care for yourself, and if two people both love eachother, isnt that a bit paradoxical?
No, not really (unfortunately?) We are built so that We can take better care of Others than we can 'care' for our own selves. Two people in love can care better for each other so that the relationship results in two well cared for individuals...

 

[Logician]

but if each wants what is best for the other than they would have to instead take care of themselves as best they can in order to please the other, as is their desire, no?

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

This actually came up in a conversation I had a while ago, and we reached the conclusion that conflict as actually not inherently a bad thing. Loving conflict is when two people each want the best for the other. Of course, one of them has to give in in order to not waste the other's time.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Unconditional love doesn't sound like a healthy way to conduct oneself. When we love someone, we love an ideal or construct of them that we have in our head, without knowing for sure exactly what they are thinking. I don't think it's a question so much of can we love someone unconditionally but should we?

If we love someone unconditionally, are we not just loving them as more of an object (the continuity of their self) rather than the subject (their mind and actions)? If someone despises you and truly wishes ill of you, why should you continue to love them just because they are the same 'self' that you may have loved before the conditions changed? To me, it's rather like loving a book even if you don't like what's written in it.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Unconditional trust doesn't sound like a healthy way to conduct oneself. When we trust someone, we trust an ideal or construct of them that we have in our head, without knowing for sure exactly what they are thinking. I don't think it's a question so much of can we trust someone unconditionally but should we?

I replaced every instance of "love" with "trust." Perhaps this gets more to your fundamental question? I don't know. Love in general does not require trust, but romantic love, I'm pretty sure, does require trust. Can you think of a counterexample?

If we love someone unconditionally, are we not just loving them as more of an object (the continuity of their self) rather than the subject (their mind and actions)? If someone despises you and truly wishes ill of you, why should you continue to love them just because they are the same 'self' that you may have loved before the conditions changed? To me, it's rather like loving a book even if you don't like what's written in it.

I'm not sure I understand. If you love someone, you are the subject and someone is the object. I haven't heard "object" and "subject" used in the sense you've got there.

But either way, the point of loving someone is, at core, willing his benefit. If he hates you, the loving response continues to be willing his benefit. This is not so alien a situation as might be imagined. For example, I've been in a situation where a friend ended up saying she despised me and didn't want to talk to me any more (unfortunately still an unresolved situation), while I still loved her, though not in a romantic sense. (If you're wondering, it's because she had emotional issues and I couldn't in good conscience take her side against this other guy, because I knew she was wrong and agreeing with her would have done her no good at all.)

 

[Da Blob]

but if each wants what is best for the other than they would have to instead take care of themselves as best they can in order to please the other, as is their desire, no?

No, not really if another can take care of their own selves adequately, what need is there for a lover? I have found that my Love has been magnified by the knowledge that my Lover needed me, personally, in a very real way, in a way she could not care for herself. If one is not needed as an individual, then i think relationships can become superficial. Also, while receiving Love/Care is a wonderful thing, it pales in comparison to giving Love/Care and having that Love/Care accepted for what it is... I think that some Lovers find great Joy in caring for Others...

 

[Da Blob]

Re: Subject and Object relationships In Love. The subject in Love is described by the word, "We" the plural subjective. There are no objects involved- just subjects. It is also a matter of identity, people who are in love tend to use the word We, a lot, it indicates a state of mind.
Alas that can be a test, if a lover rarely uses the word We, but just maintains the usage of the words I or Me - Then it is most likely that We (the relationship) are not very important...

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Re: Subject and Object relationships In Love. The subject in Love is described by the word, "We" the plural subjective. There are no objects involved- just subjects. It is also a matter of identity, people who are in love tend to use the word We, a lot, it indicates a state of mind.
Alas that can be a test, if a lover rarely uses the word We, but just maintains the usage of the words I or Me - Then it is most likely that We (the relationship) are not very important...

That assumes the object loves you back. What if he doesn't? Love does not require reciprocation.

Love is a transitive verb, so it has subject and object. If I love you and you love me, then each of us is subject of one action and object of the other action. Or, by alternate formulation, "we love each other," each person is (part of the) subject and (part of the) object of the same action. When is either formulation more semantically appropriate than the other formulation? That would take more consideration.

But I agree that in a romantic relationship, using "we" too rarely isn't always a great sign of things to come.

 

[Da Blob]

Bah! Humbug! The word, love, has almost become a meaningless symbol. It is used too often to describe too many experiences. I think I should have qualified my statement. "The creation of We is an act of Love"

 

[420MuNkEy]

I'd be interested in the hard facts for your statement in another thread then, "Almost all of the great 'features' are directly stolen from open source (linux) software. " It seems an exaggeration to me, but given that you are so anti-exaggeration I have to assume you have some very solid evidence for such claims.

I cited a very good example of software that came into development before it was spotted on any retail OS (that example was many of the window managing features of Beryl). I make such claims out of experience, but regardless it's not relevant in this thread. If you think I am exaggerating in a thread, call me on it there so I will actually be able to respond with relevant examples and not derail an unrelated thread.

Not really necessary to change the word.

It is easier to say unconditional love represents a worthy ideal. At times I think people can be in that ideal but I do think that its hard to imagine always being that ideal. Ergo transitory.

I have never consciously or unconsciously set an expiration date. That I am unable to be eternally in unconditional love is more a reflection of being an imperfect human. I can say however there were moments when I loved unconditionally.

The lynchpin of his argument is anything short of eternal unconditional is an exaggeration and an exaggeration is unacceptable. It doesn't seem he has an objection to exaggeration when it suits him though, so his dislike of exaggeration is itself an exaggeration.

Also I think he is exaggerating the exaggeration of the definition of unconditional as it pertains to unconditional love.

But I am a shade of crazy and feel an alien even among the INTP aliens :P

You seem to be under the delusion that meaning of the word 'unconditional' is changed by what word it's followed by. It's not. If you don't mean unconditional love, then find a new phrase that's actually correct. If I called a Stapler 'Sausage' and then asked someone to get me a 'Sausage' I wouldn't try to argue that 'Sausage' means stapler, I'd just say what I really meant.

Also, If something was once, and is no more, there was an expiration date, no matter how much you don't want to believe this.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I suppose I should clarify. When I say subject I mean who the person is - their beliefs, principles, values, aspirations, feelings, mind - when I say object, I mean the body or 'vessel' in which this mind resides. I used the book as an analogy, where the book itself (the cover, the pages it's written on) is the object and the story written in it is the subject (the persons mind). Loving someone unconditionally seems like it would be similar to loving a book, even if someone came and made changes to the story written in it, just because it's still written in the same book. If someones mind, feelings (particularly towards you) or values change, why shouldn't the way you feel about them change as well? If someone made the book unenjoyable, I'm not going to continue liking it just because it used to be enjoyable, or because it's written in the same book that was once enjoyable to me.

And, as for my first paragraph, to use the book example again, it's almost certain that there are parts of that book one would not know about - just like with someones mind. We can only love what we know about someone, to which we construct a mental image of the person with (which is not always the real person) so when we love someone, do we not simply love who we think they are? If we suddenly open up a part of that book and find that it's not anything like what we had thought, should that not change how we think about it?

It reminds me of the thread in the human relations thread about why people start relationships with lies. What if all we know about someone is a lie, and we love who we believe that person to be, but later find out that who we thought they are is untrue - can we have unconditional love for them, when it's not actually them that we loved? Do we continue loving them just because it was the same object, or human body, that we thought we had loved before?

 

[Felan]

You seem to be under the delusion that meaning of the word 'unconditional' is changed by what word it's followed by. It's not. If you don't mean unconditional love, then find a new phrase that's actually correct. If I called a Stapler 'Sausage' and then asked someone to get me a 'Sausage' I wouldn't try to argue that 'Sausage' means stapler, I'd just say what I really meant.

Also, If something was once, and is no more, there was an expiration date, no matter how much you don't want to believe this.

Negatively characterizing your false impression of my position (as if it were my position) to make your point is pretty poor form. I get that you want to take an exaggerated definition of the word unconditional, which has no dependency what word follows.

Unconditional surrender does not mean a country surrenders for all time in any conflict. It means at the time of surrender in that particular conflict, they hold no conditions on the terms of their surrender. To say that country could not go to war again is an exaggeration.

Unconditional love means at the time of its expression there are no conditions on it. To say that if it is no longer, thus after the fact it was not unconditional love seems to me to place and exaggerated importance on your interpretation of the unconditional part of that idea.

 

[Felan]

Also, If something was once, and is no more, there was an expiration date, no matter how much you don't want to believe this.

Within the framework of your definition of unconditional this would be true. The problem with your assertion and perhaps I have expressed myself poorly in this regard is that from my perspective the framework of your definition of unconditional (and eternal) is flawed.

Unlimited means there are no limits. Unlimited warfare does not mean that one can't or won't surrender. It just means you are not putting limits on what you will do to win that war. Even so its rare that unlimited warfare is truly unlimited.

You talk of sausages and I am talking of real uses of words. If you are correct then these phrases have no meaning for you, but arguably for the majority of people they do have meaning.

When you push your definition to extreme you lose meaning and value. It is also true that you lose meaning if you use a word too loosely.

 

[snowqueen]

Unconditional surrender does not mean a country surrenders for all time in any conflict. It means at the time of surrender in that particular conflict, they hold no conditions on the terms of their surrender. To say that country could not go to war again is an exaggeration.

Unconditional love means at the time of its expression there are no conditions on it. To say that if it is no longer, thus after the fact it was not unconditional love seems to me to place and exaggerated importance on your interpretation of the unconditional part of that idea.

I agree with Felan here - having said that, I think it is possible to move from conditional love to unconditional but if one then moves back to conditional, it would seem impossible to move to unconditional again.

I still think it is easier and more logical to separate out love and relationships as I did above.

 

[Da Blob]

I suppose I should clarify. When I say subject I mean who the person is - their beliefs, principles, values, aspirations, feelings, mind - when I say object, I mean the body or 'vessel' in which this mind resides. I used the book as an analogy, where the book itself (the cover, the pages it's written on) is the object and the story written in it is the subject (the persons mind). Loving someone unconditionally seems like it would be similar to loving a book, even if someone came and made changes to the story written in it, just because it's still written in the same book. If someones mind, feelings (particularly towards you) or values change, why shouldn't the way you feel about them change as well? If someone made the book unenjoyable, I'm not going to continue liking it just because it used to be enjoyable, or because it's written in the same book that was once enjoyable to me.

And, as for my first paragraph, to use the book example again, it's almost certain that there are parts of that book one would not know about - just like with someones mind. We can only love what we know about someone, to which we construct a mental image of the person with (which is not always the real person) so when we love someone, do we not simply love who we think they are? If we suddenly open up a part of that book and find that it's not anything like what we had thought, should that not change how we think about it?

It reminds me of the thread in the human relations thread about why people start relationships with lies. What if all we know about someone is a lie, and we love who we believe that person to be, but later find out that who we thought they are is untrue - can we have unconditional love for them, when it's not actually them that we loved? Do we continue loving them just because it was the same object, or human body, that we thought we had loved before?

These are good observations. However, I would suggest that the target and beneficiary of Love is always one's own Self. I think that it a primitive and powerful drive to enlarge one's self into a plural or social context. Even those who 'love' liars derive emotional benefit from the act of giving gifts of value to such. I think part of the pain of the discovery of falsehood, the feeling of being cheated somehow, is derived from the deflation of one's own Self. That is to say if he or she is a lie, then any sense of We or Us, as a 'greater' self, is also a lie...

It would seem logical to discuss the two commandments of Christ "To love God and Neighbor as Self" at this point... However, that would be viewed by many as the derailment of this thread... I would suggest in closing, though, that only a deity is worthy of unconditional love - and that it is the essence of heartbreak to discover that the Other humans we place on that pedestal of LOVE in our hearts are not really deities... after all... just ordinary fallible humans...

 

[420MuNkEy]

Negatively characterizing your false impression of my position (as if it were my position) to make your point is pretty poor form. I get that you want to take an exaggerated definition of the word unconditional, which has no dependency what word follows.

Unconditional surrender does not mean a country surrenders for all time in any conflict. It means at the time of surrender in that particular conflict, they hold no conditions on the terms of their surrender. To say that country could not go to war again is an exaggeration.

Unconditional love means at the time of its expression there are no conditions on it. To say that if it is no longer, thus after the fact it was not unconditional love seems to me to place and exaggerated importance on your interpretation of the unconditional part of that idea.

Go get a dictionary and look it up. Maybe they have omitted the definition you claim there is in my dictionary, but everywhere I've looked there's only 1 definition and it's very clear.

If something had no conditions whatsoever, how could it come to an end? Explain this. It doesn't make any sense to me.


An 'unconditional surrender', as you have said, refers to a specific conflict. If one surrenders from a conflict, it's over. If a new or similar conflict were to arise after the original surrender, it would be a wholly different conflict. Your example would work if going into (or even during) the war it was declared an 'unconditional war', but that is not the case.

Within the framework of your definition of unconditional this would be true. The problem with your assertion and perhaps I have expressed myself poorly in this regard is that from my perspective the framework of your definition of unconditional (and eternal) is flawed.

Unlimited means there are no limits. Unlimited warfare does not mean that one can't or won't surrender. It just means you are not putting limits on what you will do to win that war. Even so its rare that unlimited warfare is truly unlimited.

You talk of sausages and I am talking of real uses of words. If you are correct then these phrases have no meaning for you, but arguably for the majority of people they do have meaning.

When you push your definition to extreme you lose meaning and value. It is also true that you lose meaning if you use a word too loosely.

Unlimited means without limits.
Unconditional means without conditions.
These two things are not interchangeable.

My hypothetical 'Sausage' example was intentionally extreme, so as to clearly illustrate my disagreement. I say again, I'm not pushing the definition to the extreme, I'm merely using it as it's defined. Definitions are what give us a common base of language, it's the core of what makes us able to understand each others ideas, and if you just disregard them, then the word looses it's meaning.

 

[Felan]

Go get a dictionary and look it up. Maybe they have omitted the definition you claim there is in my dictionary, but everywhere I've looked there's only 1 definition and it's very clear.

If something had no conditions whatsoever, how could it come to an end? Explain this. It doesn't make any sense to me.


An 'unconditional surrender', as you have said, refers to a specific conflict. If one surrenders from a conflict, it's over. If a new or similar conflict were to arise after the original surrender, it would be a wholly different conflict. Your example would work if going into (or even during) the war it was declared an 'unconditional war', but that is not the case.


Unlimited means without limits.
Unconditional means without conditions.
These two things are not interchangeable.

My hypothetical 'Sausage' example was intentionally extreme, so as to clearly illustrate my disagreement. I say again, I'm not pushing the definition to the extreme, I'm merely using it as it's defined. Definitions are what give us a common base of language, it's the core of what makes us able to understand each others ideas, and if you just disregard them, then the word looses it's meaning.

Clearly there are limits to unlimited warfare. The heuristic you apply to unconditional can be applied equally well to unlimited.

un⋅con⋅di⋅tion⋅al  /ˌʌn

kənˈdɪʃ

ə

nl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uhn-kuh

n-dish-uh-nl] Show IPA
–adjective 1.not limited by conditions; absolute: an unconditional promise.


Main Entry: un·con·di·tion·al
Pronunciation: \ˌən-kən-ˈdish-nəl, -ˈdi-shə-nəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1666
1 : not conditional or limited : absolute, unqualified <unconditional surrender> <unconditional love>
2 : unconditioned 2


Both definitions I find include limit in their definition.

con⋅di⋅tion  /kənˈdɪʃ

ən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuh

n-dish-uh

n] –noun 1.a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state; situation with respect to circumstances.2.state of health: He was reported to be in critical condition. 3.fit or requisite state: to be out of condition; to be in no condition to run. 4.social position: in a lowly condition. 5.a restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance: It can happen only under certain conditions. 6.a circumstance indispensable to some result; prerequisite; that on which something else is contingent: conditions of acceptance. 7.Usually, conditions. existing circumstances: poor living conditions. 8.something demanded as an essential part of an agreement; provision; stipulation: He accepted on one condition. 9.Law. a.a stipulation in an agreement or instrument transferring property that provides for a change consequent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a stated event.b.the event upon which this stipulation depends.10.Informal. an abnormal or diseased state of part of the body: heart condition; skin condition. 11.U.S. Education. a.a requirement imposed on a college student who fails to reach the prescribed standard in a course at the end of the regular period of instruction, permitting credit to be established by later performance.b.the course or subject to which the requirement is attached.12.Grammar. protasis. 13.Logic. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.

If we look at the definition for condition it talks of existing circumstances, or things that must be true for something to happen. Being true at one moment can still satisfy the conditions even the next it doesn't.

 

[420MuNkEy]

If we look at the definition for condition it talks of existing circumstances, or things that must be true for something to happen. Being true at one moment can still satisfy the conditions even the next it doesn't.

THERE! You have answered it yourself. In order to satisfy conditions, conditions must first exist, therefore unconditional does not apply.

 

[Felan]

I agree with Felan here - having said that, I think it is possible to move from conditional love to unconditional but if one then moves back to conditional, it would seem impossible to move to unconditional again.

I still think it is easier and more logical to separate out love and relationships as I did above.

I do agree that if unconditional love falls back to conditional love it is unlikely to move back to unconditional. Particularly if the cause of the fall is a greivous injury.

I think that unconditional love takes quite a lot of work to maintain. Either work involved in maintaining such with the recipient of unconditional love or in justifying away faults and affirming that they are still worthy of such love.

 

[snowqueen]

If something had no conditions whatsoever, how could it come to an end? Explain this. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Something which doesn't come to an end is 'endless' or 'unlimited', surely?

Something which is offered or felt towards another person which does not require any conditions for giving or receiving it, is 'unconditional'. I don't see why that is by definition 'limitless' in terms of passage of time.

Unlimited means without limits.
Unconditional means without conditions.
These two things are not interchangeable.

quite - so your use of unconditional seems to be conflated with 'unlimited', 'limitless' and 'unchangeable' or 'unchanging'.

 

[Felan]

THERE! You have answered it yourself. In order to satisfy conditions, conditions must first exist, therefore unconditional does not apply.

Lost me on that one. Conditions are a present tense type of thing. A person with a medical condition has something wrong with them, if later they are cured it doesn't negate that they had a medical condition. If you have unconditional love and it is lost it doesn't negate that at that time and set of circumstances you had such.

 

[snowqueen]

The most obnoxious use of the term 'unconditional' is by therapists when they talk of 'unconditional regard'. Notice how their 'regard' might falter if you stopped paying them. Big lie.

 

[Felan]

The most obnoxious use of the term 'unconditional' is by therapists when they talk of 'unconditional regard'. Notice how their 'regard' might falter if you stopped paying them. Big lie.

LOL

 

[420MuNkEy]

Lost me on that one. Conditions are a present tense type of thing. A person with a medical condition has something wrong with them, if later they are cured it doesn't negate that they had a medical condition. If you have unconditional love and it is lost it doesn't negate that at that time and set of circumstances you had such.

Yes, I agree. Conditions can change, but that doesn't alter the fact that they exist for love. A certain set of conditions must be met in order to love someone, thus making it conditional rather than unconditional.

 

[Felan]

Fair enough I understand but disagree with your position.

 

[Zero]

@ Zero: The want to be completely individual and free from all emotions that might be a obstacle to your clarity of thought is, as I've noticed, very common among thinkers, but eventually you will come to the conclusion that you are human, as much as you may want to believe that you are so different from most others that you barely even the same species you are still human, and as a human you are a social creature, your going to be very depressed if you try to always deprive yourself of emotions and/or always guard your self perceived "clarity of thought", and in the end it gains you absolutely nothing.

^ i feel a strong bottleneck between my mind and my words, i hope i communicated myself accurately, and i don't mean to single you out, I am just pointing out a form of thought which aggravates me.

On unconditional love, this may be slightly off topic but if love is careing for a person more than you care for yourself, and if two people both love eachother, isnt that a bit paradoxical?

It's not that I don't have emotions (or don't want them), I just don't want to have painful or difficult ones. I want to have fun and be content, not insane or obsessed. Nothing about that sounds like a good thing to me. It's not appealing.

I don't like being controlled mentally or emotionally (I certainly wouldn't like feelings as if I were controlled). That doesn't mean I want to be lonely, but if being alone means being free and love means being controlled in some way or the other, I'll pass on love.

I'm going to assume the unconditional love thing wasn't aimed at me, since I already stated that I think the only unconditional love has to do with a feeling of responsibility.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

I'd encourage thinking of love not as a tethering-down (this I'm not sure I understand), and more as a benevolence which improves you personally. I, at least, think love is the purpose and meaning of man.

 

[echoplex]

I tend to see the idea of unconditional love as more of a matter of the one who loves, rather than his/her love object. Someone who loves unconditonally does so probably as a product of his/her personal philosophy of love, and not so much as a product of what conditions the object has met. (in other words, you can't say it's unconditional if conditons had to be met before it could become unconditional.)#

Of course, this depends on one's definition of love. I'm using the term in a broad, general sense; not in the sense of "romantic" love, which requires conditions of attractiveness and compatibility, among other things.

But yeah, I think if one chooses to love people unconditionally, this is possible, but only in certain contexts*. What it normally means, I think, is that they will love the people close to them, the people they know well, even if those people do terrible things. This, I think, is due to their philosophy of love, in which they see love objects as being worthy of love regardless of whether they "earn" it. They are worthy because the lover likely sees love as a universal "good" that is worth giving no matter what the object does. This is probably based partially on the belief that giving love to others will ultimately make them better people, thus making it an appropriate response to "bad" behavior, rather than hate, which may exacerbate the situation. *The main one being they know the person well. It's hard to love people you've barely met.

Of course, there's always indifference. But maybe some don't wish to give up on those who may need love the most?

See, I think this topic touches on a key distinction of how people view "love". Which is, do you love others on the basis that they deserve it (and thus deny love to those who don't)? or do you love others as a matter of principle, without regard to specific conditions?

I think the last POV is more generous, although I can't blame anyone for not being so generous. Hell, it's hard enough loving myself. Loving others is tough. Ideally though, I don't think love is something anyone should have to earn. It should be a state of mind, a quality of thought, you might say, that the lover approaches the world with. Not a scarce token of appreciation reserved only for those deemed worthy.

But, alas, there's a big difference between should and is. Maybe a little love is better than none at all. *shrug*

#AFTER THOUGHT: Oh yeah, what if they're not human? That's a condition too.
/blog

 

[walfin]

Something which is offered or felt towards another person

Hell, it's hard enough loving myself.

But for it to be felt towards another person is itself a condition.

Therefore unconditional love must include the self. Everything must be loved in every possible way. If I find out one day that I am not actually human but something else altogether, I must still love myself.

I think this is what the Greeks mean when they say agape (or maybe the Chinese "jian ai", but that's more to do with utilitarian philosophy than love).

Just to clarify, a condition for calling it unconditional love is different from a condition of the love itself (sorry, I couldn't think of a good way to put it).

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

I still disagree that specifying an object of the love counts as a condition. Not sure how to explain it though. :/ I should just stop talking.

 

[Zero]

Nicholas- I guess, at this point, I cannot understand it.
Love is a vague and strange notion.
Of all words, it's probably the one that makes me the most nervous.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Well, what is most important in my opinion is that you not give up in your attempts to understand.