• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

If not unconditional, then what is love?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joel Was Right

Joel Was Right

If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
Your parents are probably the closest thing you'll ever get to unconditional love. But should the way a person, whether they be a lover, parent, friend or sibling, treats you be a determining factor for whether or not you love them?

Let's say your brother is a fool who drives you up the wall, who doesn't care about you and hurts the people you care about. But you love him because he is your brother, because you remember when you were brothers, and because of that you will do anything you can to help and support him regardless of what he does or says. Is that love?

In another example, the person you once claimed to have loved is now nothing more than a sorrowful/bitter memory. Is that love?

Evidently there are different examples of love but how do you measure the latter against the former? Widows sometimes refuse to remarry because they still love their dead spouse. Other widows, who expressed similar love, are able to remarry. How could the two have felt similar?
 
Strange question for the majority of GAF since they seem to love stationary objects like video games, dolls and pictures of celebs or cartoons.
 
lethial said:
Strange question for the majority of GAF since they seem to love stationary objects like video games, dolls and pictures of celebs or cartoons.
Click to expand...

Unconditional love.

cat_and_dog01.jpg
 
Why are you trying so hard to define it? It's different for everyone. Figure out your priorities, how much shit you're willing to put up with and be assertive about it.
 
I think the love part comes second, the relation part is kind of irrelevant if you dislike that person. There are some things that I dislike about my mother and father, and some of my brothers, but the things that I like about them simply out weigh the things I dislike. Part of that is growing up with them, you know that person. Actually it's hard to explain.
 
"Love" is a vague label applied to a variety of emotional feelings. Asking what "love" really is is giving the word too much credit. When you love your family, really you're just programmed to want the best for them for the survival of your kind. When you love your wife or kids, you feel that way for the same reason. In fact, the survival of your genes is the only factor behind giving a shit about anyone. Love is actually quite selfish.

If you love someone, you're a selfish piece of shit.
 
Grinchy said:
"Love" is a vague label applied to a variety of emotional feelings. Asking what "love" really is is giving the word too much credit. When you love your family, really you're just programmed to want the best for them for the survival of your kind. When you love your wife or kids, you feel that way for the same reason. In fact, the survival of your genes is the only factor behind giving a shit about anyone. Love is actually quite selfish.

If you love someone, you're a selfish piece of shit.
Click to expand...

That's quite a leap. Not everyone reproduces or can.
 
lethial said:
Strange question for the majority of GAF since they seem to love stationary objects like video games, dolls and pictures of celebs or cartoons.
Click to expand...
I thought my love for Batman was unconditional but Nolan and the new 52 proved me wrong.
 
Trent Strong said:
Yeah, we may not be able to measure it now, but at some point in the future we probably will be able to measure it.
Click to expand...

How do you measure something that can't really be defined? Different people see love as different things.

I like Viktor Frankl's definition of love.

The Meaning of Love

Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is potential in him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized. Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and of what he should become, he makes these potentialities come true.
In logotherapy, love is not interpreted as a mere epiphenomenon (a phenomenon that occurs as the result of a primary phenomenon) of sexual drives and instincts in the sense of a so-called sublimation. Love is as primary a phenomenon as sex. Normally, sex is a mode of expression for love. Sex is justified, even sanctified, as soon as, but only as long as, it is a vehicle of love. Thus love is not understood as a mere side-effect of sex; rather, sex is a way of expressing the experience of that ultimate togetherness which is called love.

Don't you want somebody to love?

Somebody give me a hug!
 
Devolution said:
That's quite a leap. Not everyone reproduces or can.
Click to expand...

I know that tone is almost impossible to read on the internet, but if you thought I actually believed that, then it makes me scared that people think I believe a lot of the random shit I say here.
 
Az987 said:
How do you measure something that can't really be defined? Different people see love as different things.

I like Viktor Frankl's definition of love.

The Meaning of Love

Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is potential in him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized. Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and of what he should become, he makes these potentialities come true.
In logotherapy, love is not interpreted as a mere epiphenomenon (a phenomenon that occurs as the result of a primary phenomenon) of sexual drives and instincts in the sense of a so-called sublimation. Love is as primary a phenomenon as sex. Normally, sex is a mode of expression for love. Sex is justified, even sanctified, as soon as, but only as long as, it is a vehicle of love. Thus love is not understood as a mere side-effect of sex; rather, sex is a way of expressing the experience of that ultimate togetherness which is called love.

Don't you want somebody to love?

Somebody give me a hug!
Click to expand...

1335812446566.jpg



Grinchy said:
I know that tone is almost impossible to read on the internet, but if you thought I actually believed that, then it makes me scared that people think I believe a lot of the random shit I say here.
Click to expand...

Weirder things have been said and believed sir, anyways apologies.
 
Az987 said:
How do you measure something that can't really be defined? Different people see love as different things.

I like Viktor Frankl's definition of love.

The Meaning of Love

Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is potential in him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized. Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and of what he should become, he makes these potentialities come true.
In logotherapy, love is not interpreted as a mere epiphenomenon (a phenomenon that occurs as the result of a primary phenomenon) of sexual drives and instincts in the sense of a so-called sublimation. Love is as primary a phenomenon as sex. Normally, sex is a mode of expression for love. Sex is justified, even sanctified, as soon as, but only as long as, it is a vehicle of love. Thus love is not understood as a mere side-effect of sex; rather, sex is a way of expressing the experience of that ultimate togetherness which is called love.

Don't you want somebody to love?

Somebody give me a hug!
Click to expand...

Nonsensical, meaningless ramblings. But I'm not surprised since Frankl was an existential psychologist.
 
Ordinary love approaches unconditionality to a degree, that's probably why unconditional love is seen as the most complete or mature form of love. The issue is that our egos keep this as just an ideal. If we had no egos, all love would be unconditional and we would likely love everything. And the thing is if we were wise or had the appropriate perspective there would be no reason to consider this a problem. A lack of ego or selfish concern doesn't necessarily result in pointless self-sacrifice. Because regardless of the fact that we don't benefit from such sacrifice, no one does. So selfishness or ego can be seen as an unequivocal flaw, in that if we get rid of that we become genuinely objective and thus able to make the best decisions regardless of our particular stake in them.
 
umop_3pisdn said:
Ordinary love approaches unconditionality to a degree, that's probably why unconditional love is seen as the most complete or mature form of love. The issue is that our egos keep this as just an ideal. If we had no egos, all love would be unconditional and we would likely love everything. And the thing is if we were wise or had the appropriate perspective there would be no reason to consider this a problem. A lack of ego or selfish concern doesn't necessarily result in pointless self-sacrifice. Because regardless of the fact that we don't benefit from such sacrifice, no one does. So selfishness or ego can be seen as an unequivocal flaw, in that if we get rid of that we become genuinely objective and thus able to make the best decisions regardless of our particular stake in them.
Click to expand...

If we didn't have egos, we'd all die.
 
Jason, it feels like this is the third topic you've made about this, and while a good conversation i'm wondering if you're actually looking for an answer that doesn't really exist? or perhaps... someone?

there are many levels of love (love of material things, love of country, etc.) and human beings throw out these words carelessly sometimes. hell I tell a lot of my friends that I love them when I really only lust after them. but I still care very much about them. but that's just me. unconditional love is as varied as you or I. there is not one definition.
 
Damn, I could have sworn it said: If not unconstitutional, then what is love?

Now that would have been a discussion.
 
Trent Strong said:
If we didn't have egos, we'd all die.
Click to expand...

Not really, not the compulsive kind anyway. You don't need an ego to keep yourself fed, or to keep from setting yourself on fire, etc. We still have pain, and discomfort, etc. All that would be missing is the compulsive or desperate need to respond to these cues in a way that makes them go away, so we'd basically just have an option where at present we don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What would you do if you got this email?
Opinion  2
91
842
Peggies replied
If you could go on any game show, what would it be?
33
538
Grenseal replied
How much do you love tacos?
2
75
872
Tunned replied
How much do you love tacos?
7
290
Avid Reading Horse replied
What is your current computer/laptop?
2
55
878
computergeek replied
Top Bottom