MysterionMuffles Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 What are your thoughts on love and do you think it's conditional or unconditional? 1
DaVinci Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 I would say it starts as unconditional and then through the horrible blender of a neglectful childhood we learn to apply conditions, requirements, and rules to our love. 1
Seansoup Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 Love is based upon conditions, but most obscure the conditions necessary in order to love someone because of their unresolved childhood trauma. The conditions include virtuous aspects of the individual kindness, honesty, empathy, integrity, and so on. Why does a battered wife profess to 'love' the person that constantly torments her daily? She loves him because this is the way she was treated during her initial stages of development. She does not know what a loving relationship truly is. In order for her to discover actual love that is based upon fundamental conditions she must subject herself to a massive amount of pain involving her own trauma which most cannot bear to face. The reality of those who dissociate themselves from their childhood selves is a constant struggle of balancing on a never ending tight rope suspended over an ocean of horror that is far too deep and obfuscated for many individuals to delve into in order to uncover the truth. 1
Pepin Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 This question is impossible to address without defining the measurements through which the concept can be identified in reality. As the song asks, what is love? To theorize on the fly, I would argue that love pertains to conscious action and conscious motive. To same you love someone is not a comment about their body, about positive natural traits which they had no choice in developing, yet rather the aspects of a person which are consciously generated. Love is a connection from one ego to another, as opposed to the more untethered ends of unconscious attraction. Love is connected to happiness, at least how I define happiness, which is the correlation of the psychological self and the person's actions. Someone who wishes to act a particular way, but is unable to attain such a state in reality, is likely to not be happy as they have no ability to manifest into the real world. The self in such a context is like someone in a committee who makes suggestions, but has no influence over the body. To quote a post I made in the past: To be happy is to perceive a relation between the self and reality. The values may be subjective, yet the relation between the value and reality must be objective. This is to say that if your will is to be in two places at once, that this is incapable of causing happiness because the will has no capacity to be translated into reality. Reason is needed for happiness because reason is the means of knowing reality and of establishing values and action that can be translated into reality. Without reason, choices can have no relation to reality. Virtues are non-contradictory values that are easily translated into reality. They must be consciously chosen and valued by the self. Happiness is a concept that focuses on the self as opposed the rest. It isn't that rest isn't important, for instance being healthy is likely to have an indirect affect on happiness through limiting the capacity to act, but it is like any other specialized field dealing with the human body. To connect this idea more fully to the initial claim in regard to love, since love pertains to the relation of a person's self to their actions, love essentially is the admirement of a person's happiness, ie: the ability for a person to choose their actions. To put another way, you cannot love the self that has no relation to reality. To continue on with this, those who consciously have little to no control over their life can be dangerous or wastes of time as there is little to suggest that their word and their desire will hold and precedent over the momentum of the past. You cannot trust someone if they cannot trust themselves. To measure if two people love each other, you would essentially measure each person's virtue in conjunction with their relationship. What this means in real terms is measuring the relation of their reason and values in a general context, and in a context specific to the relationship. I can go on or expand if anyone desires it. Not sure if I am over explaining or under explaining certain ideas. If anyone is confused about the whole part about "self" or "ego", I wrote up a post about it here. 1
LanceD Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Depends. I would separate love into two distinct categories. 1. The love for others, friends, romantic relationships, parents etc 2. The love for your children, very self explanatory #2 is entirely unconditional. I love my kids no matter what forever. Anything they do that could make me "stop loving them" is either the fault of me or the person I decided to have them with. Any time my son has ever done anything that I didn't feel was good or virtuous I've been able to track that behavior back to some mistake we've made, he is exonerated from all fault. #1 Of course there are conditions! This is all on regard to relationships between adults making decisions. I have standards for how I expect to be treated and standards for how I expect those I love to behave. If those standards are not met then the love will never grow or will cease to be. The entire concept of unconditional love is a concept created by people who do not want to be held accountable for their actions. It is the same mind set as socialism applied to love. Everyone deserves their own ration of love because after all it's unconditional! So ignore their behavior, ignore how they treat you. Ignore the fact your parents abused you as a child and are unrepentant, ignore the fact that your spouse is breaking their vows. Ignore how much pain those you "love" cause you and just keep loving them. Because love is unconditional, even if you'd rather be dead then love those around you. 1
Wesley Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Love can become unconditional. I am imagining a situation where a parent or friend or spouse is in declining health and shitting themselves and not mentally there anymore, but that they have earned love and respect through years of virtuous behavior to where I may still want to spend time with them or take care of them. Love is earned in this situation from past behavior which is very distinct from the immature love that is unearned and unconditional. What others are referring to is that kind, rather than love that might be earned and still unconditional. However, especially when people come out of a situation of enforced unconditional love that is unearned, it is wise to place some conditions and boundaries and standards and then work from there as you become experienced with finding people who are worth loving.
Carl Green Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 ...but that they have earned love and respect through years of virtuous behavior... Isn't that the condition of love in that situation? Without the condition of the previous years of devotion, there would be no current love
Wesley Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Isn't that the condition of love in that situation? Without the condition of the previous years of devotion, there would be no current love Everything is conditional. For instance, in order to even call something love, some sort of relationship must exist as a conditional. The unconditional part is that nothing could be done by someone in order for the love to stop.
Slavik Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 What are your thoughts on love and do you think it's conditional or unconditional? Unconditional love usually refers to parents loving their children (at least this is how it suppose to be) No matter what you as a child do, they the parents should still love you. If you get angry at them and act out.... The same can not be applied to adult love, it is conditional on the bases that you are acting in the loving manner towards the other person. You dont swear at them, you do not aggress, you do not yell etc.
Raquel Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 I think only when we feel unconditional love for ourselves first (it can only be found through the path of self knowledge), we can really experience true love. You are going to be attracted to somebody who feels the same about himself (or herself) and the relationship will be very healthy and beautiful. You will love that person unconditionally; the same applies when you have children, only when you truly love yourself, accept and respect yourself you can love, accept, respect, and truly CARE about your children.
NGardner Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Stef said " Love is an unvoluntary response to virtue" and I happen to agree. This would suggest love is conditional upon a person having virtues that can be loved. It is conditional upon a person continuing those virtues from which the love arose. 2
MysterionMuffles Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 I would agree that if love is an involuntary response to virtue, love is conditional in that you can not love a non-virtuous person. However, would it really be called unconditional love for a parent to raise a child? I mean they can still provide the essential basics for kids without really loving them, as is the tragic case for most of the world as it is.
Sashajade Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 The only unconditionally accepting, undertanding love i've ever experienced was from animals. However, I believe people are capable of it also. I've just had too many low empathy people in my life. 1
NGardner Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Unconditional love seems very dangerous. Taken to extremes you fall in love, then once in love you can no longer withhold despite what the other person does. Seems like a great place for abuse to slide in and people say "well you can't choose who you love" 1
MysterionMuffles Posted July 31, 2014 Author Posted July 31, 2014 Yeah I find that dangerous to believe. Of course you can choose. When you up your standards you don't fall for just about anyone in a miniskirt or tons of make up. Hell I've learn to appreciate the women without make up more. Still, that's falling in lust. I read this study (and my numbers may be wrong) that said love is only 6-9 months. In that time period, pheremones shooting through your brain see through the glaring flaws of the person because your body just wants to prime you and them for procreation. Then after that, love is a choice, a commitment. Though I think those pheremones could be left in check with a bit of self-knowledge. I'm finding that the women I've dated that past couple of years were the kind of women I would get stuck with had I not figured out that they were in one way or another re-fooing me with some of the red flags that prompted me to dump them. Love is totally conditional, I would say. Between parent and child, they have no choice but to love the child unconditionally or tolerate them in order to raise them, but for the most part you certainly can pick who you love. Err I dunno...it makes more sense with voluntary adult relationships. But when it comes to unconditionally loving children I guess that comes natural since they are naturally virtuous until raised otherwise? Does that make sense?
Hannibal Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 Unconditional love is meaningless. It's a euphemism for unearned obligation, and other negative things of the kind. Tell you wife you'd love her even if she was a complete loser - if she is happy with that then she is a loser and you'd deserve each other. Tell her you lover her for the woman that she is, and she'll love you for the man that you are. Any other kind of love is an evasion. 1
WasatchMan Posted August 3, 2014 Posted August 3, 2014 "Do you love everything and everyone?" "No." "Why not?" Question answered. 1
Psychophant Posted August 3, 2014 Posted August 3, 2014 "Do you love everything and everyone?" "No." "Why not?" Question answered. Oh bro, first you have to define love to know whether or not it is unconditional. 2
WasatchMan Posted August 3, 2014 Posted August 3, 2014 Oh bro, first you have to define love to know whether or not it is unconditional. Are you serious? 1
William Wyatt Posted August 4, 2014 Posted August 4, 2014 I would say love in a holistic, collective sense is unconditional. Love and Empathy are essential. However on an individual Level it is one of the most conditional things their is In my mind this is a simple answer to quite a complex question and I hope it helps. 1 1
MysterionMuffles Posted August 4, 2014 Author Posted August 4, 2014 Can you elaborate on what you mean, Wyatt? What do you mean by collective and holistic sense being unconditional?
Psychophant Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 Are you serious? I am serious, homeboy. Love as a feeling based on a hormonal exposure between humans. If condition two isn't present anymore, it is not love. During the time of love there are no other requirements mandatory. The arising of love is subject to conditions but it is about the relationship between the entities in love which is unconditional.
WasatchMan Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 I am serious, homeboy. Love as a feeling based on a hormonal exposure between humans. If condition two isn't present anymore, it is not love. During the time of love there are no other requirements mandatory. The arising of love is subject to conditions but it is about the relationship between the entities in love which is unconditional. You could de-rail almost anything by boiling it down to "hormones". Seriously man, IMO, these thoughts of yours are not very constructive.
DrTruthiness Posted August 9, 2014 Posted August 9, 2014 Love is the manifestation of harmony between individuals, and therefore requires conditions. The reasons why we love someone are those conditions. This is one of those things I agree whole heartedly with Ayn Rand on: love SHOULD be selfish. Your happiness depends on it. If a mother's child kills a bunch of nuns, and she continues to love him on the grounds that her love us "unconditional", why is that so? It's because that person is her child. There are certain conditions that her son meets in order for her to reach that "unconditional" state of love.
MysterionMuffles Posted August 23, 2014 Author Posted August 23, 2014 Wait what can you elaborate further on why love should be selfish?
Hannibal Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 Wait what can you elaborate further on why love should be selfish? Any other kind of love would be a contradiction in terms.
MysterionMuffles Posted August 31, 2014 Author Posted August 31, 2014 So how is love a selfish virtue?
Hannibal Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 So how is love a selfish virtue? A virtue?
MysterionMuffles Posted September 1, 2014 Author Posted September 1, 2014 Are all virtues selfish? I'm asking how is love a selfish virtue. Is it meant to be self serving when you find someone who does embody virtue?
Hannibal Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Are all virtues selfish? I'm asking how is love a selfish virtue. Is it meant to be self serving when you find someone who does embody virtue? Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person’s virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one’s own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut. and I am referring here to romantic love, in the serious meaning of that term—as distinguished from the superficial infatuations of those whose sense of life is devoid of any consistent values, i.e., of any lasting emotions other than fear. Love is a response to values. It is with a person’s sense of life that one falls in love—with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality. One falls in love with the embodiment of the values that formed a person’s character, which are reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the style of his soul—the individual style of a unique, unrepeatable, irreplaceable consciousness. It is one’s own sense of life that acts as the selector, and responds to what it recognizes as one’s own basic values in the person of another. It is not a matter of professed convictions (though these are not irrelevant); it is a matter of much more profound, conscious and subconscious harmony. Many errors and tragic disillusionments are possible in this process of emotional recognition, since a sense of life, by itself, is not a reliable cognitive guide. And if there are degrees of evil, then one of the most evil consequences of mysticism—in terms of human suffering—is the belief that love is a matter of “the heart,” not the mind, that love is an emotion independent of reason, that love is blind and impervious to the power of philosophy. Love is the expression of philosophy—of a subconscious philosophical sum—and, perhaps, no other aspect of human existence needs the conscious power of philosophy quite so desperately. When that power is called upon to verify and support an emotional appraisal, when love is a conscious integration of reason and emotion, of mind and values, then—and only then—it is the greatest reward of man’s life. -- Ayn Rand I'm not posting those as arguments from her authority - It's just that I agree with her whole-heartedly. She does, elsewhere, bind love & sexual desire as being intimately linked - which I disagree with as I prefer to keep them strictly separate. Of course, for all I know, that may hold true in general though. 2
MysterionMuffles Posted September 2, 2014 Author Posted September 2, 2014 ah I see. Love is selfish because even admiration of another's virtue is still self serving because to admire these qualities is to give yourself the pleasure of being in their presence. Everything is essentially selfish because we all inherently have needs and desires and derive pleasure from attaining them. Removing the stigma that selfishness is a vice can vastly help improve this perspective. 2
Hannibal Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 Removing the stigma that selfishness is a vice can vastly help improve this perspective. yes. It's like some kind of legacy of christianity (hardly anyone here in the UK is really religious, apart from muslim community - may be different where you are) where life is all about sacrifice and service. A kind of death worship. Worth noting Rand's more sensible (imo) definition of 'selfishness' and 'selflessness' too. What many people currently call 'selfish' she would call 'self-destructive' - the opposite of selfishness which she holds as a virtue. Real love is selfish because we choose a partner to love who is worthy of ourselves, for our own joy. Selfless love is a self-delusion and a corruption of virtue, where vice is held as a value equal to virtue in the blindness of such a so called 'love'. Hope that makes sense.
MysterionMuffles Posted September 3, 2014 Author Posted September 3, 2014 yeah totally my brother said almost the same thing when I discussed this topic with him
luxfelix Posted September 4, 2014 Posted September 4, 2014 Maybe love is a stronger form of empathy, just as fury is angry to a greater degree? Or perhaps love is like a feedback loop between two (or more?) people empathizing with one another for their shared virtues and mutual attraction? (If we have the ability to choose whom we love, does that make it conditional love?)
Moose Posted September 7, 2014 Posted September 7, 2014 I had a discussion last week on this topic. My conclusion on it is (I have no proof of this, it is merrily my opinion) unconditional love was first introduced by the church as a way to control the masses. Or better said, to keep the masses from killing each other (and ultimately the clergy), rendering their exploitation and subjugation impossible. Love thy neighbor as Thy self (this statement is flawed as a stand alone statement, but it works for it's intended purpose here), judge not for you shall be judged (the ever present state of coercion-if you can't love unconditionally then you will go to hell if you don't). This philosophy keeps the masses in a state of constant self deprecating and false humility, throwing a cloak of forgiveness over all. This in turn enables the sociopaths and allows them the freedom to work there evil deeds. This is seen through out the ranks in a church, but the worst of them all will be at the top. Unconditional love is irrational and evil in my opinion. I agree with Ayn Rand and Hannibal's take. Love is not to be thought of as a ransom if not seen as unconditional. It is an involuntary response.... If there is no virtue one can not force an involuntary response.... To try would be unethical, false and ultimately self destructive. Love is one of the most beautiful experiences in life and it is no wonder that it would be corrupted for the use of evil. Hold true to virtue. Love has no choice but to follow.
Recommended Posts