TLWR: Explored what love is for a bit, and concluded that it’s complicated. The writing is all over the place, so it’s not going to be an easy read 😬 (Even AI told me to improve my structure coherence to make it more reader-friendly, oh well… LOL.)
What is love? Is it specific or general? What makes people fall in and out of love? Is it arranged through a specific combination of events? Does it precede actions, or are actions the catalyst for its emergence? Consider the unique bond between a mother and child – does love evolve before or during and after pregnancy, and why are there exceptions where a mother may not love her child? Furthermore, if an individual develops love for someone after a period of time and specific conditions, is it conceivable that the same combination of circumstances with a third individual would yield a similar affection?
I made several attempts to tackle this topic, facing the challenges due to its complexity. Despite feeling a bit inadequate in terms of knowledge, I decide to take a shot at writing about love, especially with Valentine’s Day coming up soon. While my discussion predominantly revolves around human-to-human love, it’s worth noting that many of these reflections can be extended to encompass the human-non-human connections, be it an affection for a pet or a fervor for a hobby.
To dig a bit deeper into what love is, the English concept of “love” can be understood to some extent through the lens of the Greek terms—eros, philia, and agape. (skip the gray box if don’t need the background info and credits to IEP and SEP.)
The Platonic idea of eros revolves around the pursuit of ideal beauty. It suggests that the concept of beauty can be universally applied to various entities, such as individuals, objects, concepts, and art. In this context, love is about embracing the Platonic form of beauty itself rather than focusing on a specific person. Plato’s perspective doesn’t necessitate mutual feelings, as the emphasis lies on the pursuit of the inherent ideal beauty in the object, rather than seeking companionship or shared values with another individual.
In contrast to the passionate desire of eros, philia entails having a liking and appreciation for the other person. According to Aristotle, philia can be motivated either for the sake of the person expressing love or for the sake of the other person. The reasons for this distinction can include forming a friendship for utility, appreciating the other person’s character and values (with the understanding that changes may affect the friendship), or simply loving the other person for who they are, irrespective of personal interests. Aristotle’s idea of philia aligns somewhat with the concept of friendship, emphasizing acts of kindness, doing them without being asked, and not boasting about them as things that foster friendship.
Agape represents a kind of love involving God’s affection for humanity and vice versa, including a brotherly love for everyone. It incorporates elements from both eros and philia, aiming for a perfect love that is affectionate, transcends specific individuals, and is passionate without expecting reciprocal love. Loving God means being completely devoted, similar to Plato’s love for Beauty. This kind of love involves passionate feelings, awe, and a desire that goes beyond worldly concerns. Aquinas, inspired by Aristotle, sees God as the most rational being, deserving our love, respect, and thoughts.
To sum it up, love encompasses various forms beyond the three mentioned. The ongoing debates about the superiority of one form over another are not a path I choose to tread, recognizing the subjective nature of this emotion.
Definition and nature of love
Distinguishing love from other personal attitudes, such as liking, poses a question that often involves considering factors like constancy and commitment. While these criteria offer valuable insights, it remains a challenge to categorize every case neatly within a singular set of standards. Consider this illustration: an individual may find themselves entwined in a perpetual and committed relationship, yet the essence of love remains absent from their experience. Conversely, the inverse holds true as well — one might encounter the fleeting and transient embrace of love, escaping its grasp as swiftly as it arrived.
Many assert that love inherently embodies selflessness and empathy, yet uncovering the relationship between love and these attitudes is crucial. The key lies in discerning the direction of selflessness and empathy within the context of love. Take empathy, for instance; its manifestation can vary significantly between the one expressing it and the recipient. The perceptual differences between individuals can lead to diverse understandings of love. What one perceives as an act of love may be interpreted differently by another. Furthermore, attempting to standardize these attitudes from an observer’s perspective becomes nearly impossible. While someone may declare their empathy based on commonly accepted standards, true empathy is inherently personal to the giver. Similarly, defining selflessness proves elusive and is subject to individual interpretation. One can claim their selflessness while being perceived as an act of selfishness by another individual. The critical question arises: are selflessness and empathy sufficient for the creation of love? Can love still exist in the absence of these two components? This complexity challenges the notion of a one-size-fits-all definition of love, encouraging a more diverse exploration.
Love is comparable to a double-edged sword, embodying a duality. On one side of this emotional spectrum lie the realms of happiness, excitement, and contentment — positive emotions that elevate the human experience. These emotions create a heightened expectation, an anticipation that love, in its various forms, will bring about a perpetual state of joy and fulfillment. These expectations are intertwined with positive experiences, whether acquired through real-world interactions or mediated representations in various forms of media. However, on the flip side, when these expectations encounter the stark reality of unmet desires or the unfortunate loss of a loved entity, love transforms into a source of profound sadness, disappointment, and grief. The dissonance between the idealized expectation and the often imperfect reality gives love its paradoxical nature, where its potential for joy is entwined with the possibility of heartbreak. This dual nature underscores the sensitivity of love to external circumstances, emphasizing its vulnerability to the fulfillment or denial of expectations, thereby shaping the positive or negative emotional outcomes.
Like many other feelings, rather than existing as a static and unchanging emotion, love reveals itself as a dynamic force that intricately weaves through the human existence in various cyclical patterns. One prominent manifestation is observed in familial love, an intergenerational transmission of affection that forms a continuous cycle within families. Moreover, individuals may cultivate a profound sense of self-affection as a response to the perceived lack or insufficiency of it. This self-love, however, is not immune to the intrusion of doubts, which may emerge as individuals grapple with internal conflicts or insecurities. These doubts, acting as subtle disruptors, contribute to a gradual weakening of the positive feelings associated with self-love. The cyclic nature of love, depicted through familial and self-oriented contexts, underscores its adaptability and responsiveness to the ever-changing circumstances of life. Love’s ability to evolve and transform based on experiences emphasizes its profound impact on human emotions, as individuals navigate the interplay of fulfillment and deprivation in the realms of affection and self-regard.
The question of whether love is innate or shaped involves an examination of emotional responses and individual perceptions. Love’s complexity becomes evident as it is not universally defined, with individuals varying in their emotional reactions to specific stimuli. The subjective nature of love is further emphasized by the role of perception and interpretation. While certain emotional responses may have biological roots, the reciprocal aspect of love, often fostered by the belief in mutual affection, introduces a relational dimension. Another external scenario involves the recipient’s role in shaping the process of love. A notable example is in developmental studies that explore how the parent-child relationship influences a child’s future capacity to maintain relationships. This interplay between innate predispositions and external influences highlights the uniquely evolving nature of love in each individual’s life journey.
In contemporary society, the pursuit of love reflects an inherent longing for emotional connection. The dynamics of falling in and out of love are influenced by various factors: 1) the fulfillment of fundamental needs such as reproduction and intimacy, and 2) the pursuit of higher needs like companionship and self-fulfillment. Notably, when these needs go unmet, the likelihood of falling out of love increases, emphasizing the relationship between individual expectations and the multifaceted nature of love, as previously noted. Is falling out of love equivalent to being selfish? Maybe a little. It’s like a defense mechanism provided by our mind and body to protect us from further dissatisfaction or pain, which isn’t a bad thing under some situations (not including immoral behaviors here). Morality is another super topic that I’m scared to step into, so I will skip it for now. While the reasons for experiencing love seem apparent, the underlying causes of establishing loving relationships remain somewhat elusive. It could be rooted in a biological imperative for increased security, or it may represent a psychological yearning, transcending physical love and embodying a more profound form of emotional connection.
Finally, the question arises: is love a universal experience? There is no one particular definition works for every case. But in terms of the feeling itself, I argue in favor of its universality, much like many other human emotions. Despite the environmental influences and innate factors, the essence of love remains constant. It may manifest differently from person to person or in relation to various subjects, yet its core essence remains unaltered. This mirrors the universality of suffering; though categorized into different forms and degrees, subjectively, the pain an individual feels from losing a cherished teddy bear can equate to the anguish of losing a loved one. Hence, the elusive nature of love defies measurement or strict definition, allowing each person to experience a unique type of love that may not be universally acknowledged.
Let me succinctly summarize the key points in this messy passage. Love exhibits a dual nature, yielding both happiness and sadness, a duality rooted in our expectations, which are shaped by environmental influences, whether actively or passively acquired. Moreover, love operates in a cyclical manner, displaying both conservative and fluid dynamics, influenced by both innate interpretations and external factors. Finally, the universal craving for love, driven by both biological and psychological factors, hinges on various elements, including the fulfillment of needs, shifts in personal perception, and the dynamic nature of love itself.
At the very end, I can hardly conclude or answer anything. In essence, the questions about love prompt an exploration of the dynamics at play, urging me to move beyond rigid classifications and embrace the fluidity inherent in the human emotions. It beckons me to appreciate the uniqueness of each expression of love, acknowledging the diverse ways individuals perceive and experience this profound emotion.
Anyway, I’m simply an observer and a pattern-finder, trying to make conclusions based on some social phenomena and personal experiences, aaand maybe a tiny bit of research. After this long-ass not-so-bs passage, I’m just going to click submit and rest for another month LOL. Thank y’all for stopping by and making it this far to the end. Happy Valentine’s!
Love,
Lin <33
19til29 