B) You have given me half an excuse to talk about some things I've been pondering.
People say a lot of things about love, and there are three in particular that exist in tension with one another: 1) love is "unconditional" 2) love exists in action 3) leaving someone who mistreats one does not mean one never loved them
These three things cannot all be true:
If love exists in action, one cannot love someone they've cut out of their life. I've heard the idea that keeping someone in your thoughts is enough, but when people are talking about love existing in action, that's not really what they say.
If love is "unconditional" it cannot end or it wasn't real. But if we've established that love exists in action, then one can't love someone one's cut out of one's life, and therefore cannot ever have loved them. So the love can't have been real.
I can't reconcile these three concepts. I tend to take the view that it is good and healthy for love to be conditional. Not on minor things or even major life choices, but stuff like not abusing someone. But the idea that real love is unconditional is fucking everywhere. And, like, I get it, the desire for someone who'd stick by you even if you were being awful makes perfect sense, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
I'm fairly certain we're lumping too many concepts into the word "love", but that isn't making it possible for me to sort them out.
I additionally hear that one doesn't have to like someone to love them, that it's not about feelings so much as doing right by someone, but I can't understand how that differs from the concept of duty.
What Even is Love, Anyway?
B) You have given me half an excuse to talk about some things I've been pondering.
People say a lot of things about love, and there are three in particular that exist in tension with one another:
1) love is "unconditional"
2) love exists in action
3) leaving someone who mistreats one does not mean one never loved them
These three things cannot all be true:
If love exists in action, one cannot love someone they've cut out of their life. I've heard the idea that keeping someone in your thoughts is enough, but when people are talking about love existing in action, that's not really what they say.
If love is "unconditional" it cannot end or it wasn't real. But if we've established that love exists in action, then one can't love someone one's cut out of one's life, and therefore cannot ever have loved them. So the love can't have been real.
I can't reconcile these three concepts. I tend to take the view that it is good and healthy for love to be conditional. Not on minor things or even major life choices, but stuff like not abusing someone. But the idea that real love is unconditional is fucking everywhere. And, like, I get it, the desire for someone who'd stick by you even if you were being awful makes perfect sense, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
I'm fairly certain we're lumping too many concepts into the word "love", but that isn't making it possible for me to sort them out.
I additionally hear that one doesn't have to like someone to love them, that it's not about feelings so much as doing right by someone, but I can't understand how that differs from the concept of duty.