Hi John Days,
It might be that the idea exists because it is what people wish to receive, rather than are able to give.

It is an ideal, something to aspire to, which may not be within human reach, and if reachable perhaps only momentary, but still a good goal. Similar to the beatitudes of Christ from the Sermon on the Mount.

That's not what unconditional or condition means in the context. Condition for love towards something means that there is love towards something if the condition C is met, → ¬C→¬love. The love being unconditional is not a condition for love.

The concept makes no sense. Any attempt you make to define what unconditional love is will result in conditional criteria. "Unconditional" itself if a condition. For the love to be different from conditional love, the condition is that it must be unconditional.

And yet, people will argue tooth and nail that it is a real thing. One of the most common examples is that of a mother's love for her child, but the first condition is that the child must be hers.

I believe the reason for the popularity of this concept is that it is convenient. It is akin to "the devil made me do it". It is tempting to legitimize the removal of standards and conditions on the basis of love. This kind of reasoning is not based on real love, but rather emotional appeal.
— John Days

The biggest problem is that since the most defining experiencing during adulthood is the experience of romantic love, most people assume that this is what love actually is and thus compares the experience to the interpretation as a whole. Unfortunately, romantic love is merely an expression as is a number of other - familial, brotherly/friendship etc - but if you think of unconditional love as symbolic, referent to things like motherly love where, for instance, in the event that her child does some wrongdoing to her she still cannot stop loving him, it may start to make some sense.

I believe unconditional love is an expression of how a person gives love, that is, to give love without seeking anything in return. For most people, love is something that they want, they seek it from others and they behave and express themselves in a way where they can present an ideal person - beautiful woman or strong man or wealthy etc - in order to receive the love from other/s. Unconditional love works in reverse; it is a person who is not seeking this love from others, but rather giving it; being charitable is an expression of unconditional love, showing mercy is an expression of unconditional love. The act of giving without the desire for any accolades and applaud in return.

I may have been hurt by a man, for instance, but showing him unconditional love would be to hope that he improves rather than desire revenge. It is not appealing to emotion if there are reasonable grounds in this hope, because love itself is a decision and a choice and as such requires reason and intelligence in making those choices. A mother who defends tooth and nail a son who committed murder is selfish and appealing to emotion alone, there is nothing reasonable about her actions and it is conditional love for that reason, the condition being for her own benefit. But, if I have been hurt by a man and choose to not speak to the man and may even reasonably conclude that it is impossible for the man to improve, I would be showing unconditional love by having the hope that he improves and would show kindness and mercy if he does. It is unconditional because the hope is not for myself, but for him. It is still an act of giving love.

I have loved a child that was not my own, by the way, very deeply and still do. I took care of her for a long while when she was a baby because her mother couldn't and I am still heartbroken that I could not adopt her for my own.

It might be that the idea exists because it is what people wish to receive, rather than are able to give. — MikeL

Wishing to receive is still a condition.

something to aspire to — Cavacava

Still a condition.

Condition for love towards something means that there is love towards something if the condition C is met, — BlueBanana

"If the condition is met". Unconditional love is automatically excluded. If something ELSE is meant, then the "unconditional" part needs to be dropped.

No, it is unconditional when the conditions are no longer about what you want - so you do not receive anything - whereas conditional love is that you do; unconditional is about what is best for the other person. It is an act of giving love.

but if you think of unconditional love as symbolic, referent to things like motherly love where, for instance, in the event that her child does some wrongdoing to her she still cannot stop loving him, it may start to make some sense. — TimeLine

No, because the condition is that the wrong-doer is HER child; not some other person's child, and, her love may not be real love at all if it causes her to ignore injustice toward those who are not her child. If unconditional love is meant to be symbolic, then a better symbol is needed than a word which suggests that standards do not matter.

I believe unconditional love is an expression of how a person gives love, that is, to give love without seeking anything in return. — TimeLine

"Without seeking anything in return" is a condition.

in order to receive the love from other/s. Unconditional love works in reverse; it is a person who is not seeking this love from others, but rather giving it; being charitable is an expression of unconditional love, showing mercy is an expression of unconditional love. — TimeLine

No, because "showing mercy" is a condition. If mercy is not shown, the the love is not real love. Without conditions, there is nothing to distinguish between real love and fake love. Calling it "unconditional" is a misnomer which SOUNDS nice, but is not practical at all, and when people delve into concepts of love which are not practical or based on conditions, then almost always hypocrisy is the result.

I may have been hurt by a man, for instance, but showing him unconditional love would be to hope that he improves rather than desire revenge. — TimeLine

If the love really was unconditional, then whether or not you were hurt would be irrelevant.

It is not appealing to emotion if there are reasonable grounds in this hope, because love itself is a decision and a choice and as such requires reason and intelligence in making those choices. — TimeLine

Reason and hope are the conditions on which those decisions are made. There is no way you can try to define something which is unconditional, because the attempt itself to define that concept requires conditions. Therefore, unconditional love is an emotional concept which is specifically designed to overlook conditions which may contradict what real love is for the sake of satisfying emotional desire.

no longer about what you want — TimeLine

Is a condition.

What I wrote doesn't imply that such a condition necessarily always exist, so it's not excluded. The text is only definition of condition as it's a homonym in English language. I mean condition as in a condition for something to happen, which is what unconditional in the context means.

It is an act of giving love — TimeLine

"Giving" is a condition. If the giving does not happen, then the condition is not met and the love is not unconditional. the concept is a contradiction which is based purely on emotionalism. It's tempting to suspend standards when we feel strongly about an issue, but claiming that our suspension of standards is an expression of love is just hypocrisy and convenience. It is not rational to suspend conditions for the sake of love, because that would suggest that love could be unjust.

I mean condition as in a condition for something to happen, which is what unconditional in the context means. — BlueBanana

Unconditional in the context means that there must be conditions in order for something to happen? Huh?

If the giving does not happen, then the condition is not met and the love is not unconditional. — John Days

An example of what I mean: that's a condition of the love being unconditional, not a condition of love.

An example of what I mean: that's a condition of the love being unconditional, not a condition of love. Unconditional refers to the lack of conditions of love, not the lack of conditions on which we define the term unconditional. — BlueBanana

sorry, but this just sounds like word-salad now. You literally said, " that's a condition of the love being unconditional"

How can it be unconditional if it is defined by conditions?

Wishing to receive is still a condition. — John Days

But its my condition that the other side has no conditions. Even so, it's not really even my condition. It's just nice if it happens.

I'll try another phrasing of what I mean: unconditional love can't be unconditional, but love, that is unconditional, can be unconditional.

"Giving" is a condition. If the giving does not happen, then the condition is not met and the love is not unconditional. the concept is a contradiction which is based purely on emotionalism. It's tempting to suspend standards when we feel strongly about an issue, but claiming that our suspension of standards is an expression of love is just hypocrisy and convenience. It is not rational to suspend conditions for the sake of love, because that would suggest that love could be unjust. — John Days

Nope. Giving love is to give love to someone and not want anything in return. Wanting love or something in return is a condition and if it is the reason for giving love then it is no longer unconditional.

What is emotionalism, by the way? This little rant of yours against unconditional love?

It's just nice if it happens. — MikeL

Still a condition.

If the love really was unconditional, then whether or not you were hurt would be irrelevant. — John Days

It may not be irrelevant, on the contrary giving love is not always a pleasurable experience, but these feelings have no effect on my decisions to give love. That is why it is unconditional, what I feel is irrelevant because reason prevails.

Reason and hope are the conditions on which those decisions are made. There is no way you can try to define something which is unconditional, because the attempt itself to define that concept requires conditions. Therefore, unconditional love is an emotional concept which is specifically designed to overlook conditions which may contradict what real love is for the sake of satisfying emotional desire. — John Days

You are just not getting it. A "condition" is getting something in return for giving and so the decision to give is to get. You set conditions against others for yourself. Having hope that someone improves for their own sake and happiness without desiring anything in return - including awareness of the things that you do to help - would make it is unconditional. It would only satisfy your emotional desire if it had conditions, because it would imply selfish rather than a selfless act.

No, because the condition is that the wrong-doer is HER child; not some other person's child, and, her love may not be real love at all if it causes her to ignore injustice toward those who are not her child. If unconditional love is meant to be symbolic, then a better symbol is needed than a word which suggests that standards do not matter. — John Days

It is not about her child or not. A lover could do the same, defend a murderer tooth and nail. Again, the motherly love concept is symbolic.

unconditional love can't be unconditional, — BlueBanana

Which rationally contradicts anything you say afterward about how love can be unconditional.

I think this illustrates my original point; unconditional love does not exist. Any attempt to define what love is requires conditions which separate it from concepts which are not loving, like greed, fear, and pride.

But still, people want to believe that unconditional love is legitimate. Why? It makes no sense. How much better to just say, "No, it doesn't exist, so now we can move on to what are the conditions that rationally constitute real love" instead of, "I don't care about reasons; my feelings are enough to justify my behavior".

and not want anything in return. — TimeLine

Which is a condition.

and not want anything in return.
— TimeLine

Which is a condition. — John Days

No, it isn't.

and not want anything in return.
— TimeLine

Which is a condition.
— John Days

No it isn't. — TimeLine

Well, this situation is easily testable. If someone gives expecting something in return, will you say this is unconditional love? Of course you will not. Why? because the condition of "giving without expecting anything in return" is not met.

Where is the real disagreement here? I suggest it is in the emotional value of the concept. Unconditional love provides a seriously convenient method of escape from accountability. But justice is impossible without standards or conditions, and for you to say that justice is separate from love opens a whole new can of worms.

Which rationally contradicts anything you say afterward about how love can be unconditional. — John Days

No, it doesn't. Unconditional love means that the love has no conditions. Every condition you've presented in this discussion is a condition for it being unconditional, not a condition of the love itself.

What is emotionalism, by the way? This little rant of yours against unconditional love? — TimeLine

My brother is a very good uncle, but he has never had kids. Once, when my children were running around being kids - yelling, crying, making noise, he said "I have trouble with all this emotionalism," by which he meant emotion. Calling it "emotionalism" let's you put distance between yourself and feelings.

Unconditional love means that the love has no conditions. — BlueBanana

The first condition is that it has no conditions. This isn't hard.

That's not a condition of love, that's a condition of it being unconditional.

Well, this situation is easily testable. If someone gives expecting something in return, will you say this is unconditional love? Of course you will not. Why? because the condition of "giving without expecting anything in return" is not met. — John Days

I just said to you - actually, I wrote it so I am unsure of how you could have missed it - that if someone gives expecting something in return, then it is conditional love. Your "emotionalism" or what I assume to be the emotionally decisive responses that lacks reason would mean that a person compelled to defend a murderer because they apparently 'love' that person is entirely selfish and unreasonable and they have made this decision because they emotionally want the love to be returned back from the murderer. Being "emotional" can also be an attempt to avoid emotional pain or hurt as well and it is why emotions without reason is dangerous.

Unconditional love is not just being swept away by emotions, it is thinking reasonably about the welfare of others and caring enough to believe their needs and happiness - irrelevant to your own - is worth something. It is moral consciousness.

Where is the real disagreement here? I suggest it is in the emotional value of the concept. Unconditional love provides a seriously convenient method of escape from accountability. But justice is impossible without standards or conditions, and for you to say that justice is separate from love opens a whole new can of worms. — John Days

Yes, it is emotional, if it lacks reason and if love lacks reason, it would contain conditions because it is solely emotional. We are not talking about justice or righteousness. We are talking about the expression of unconditional love.

That's not a condition of love, that's a condition of it being unconditional. — BlueBanana

It may be that we are talking past one another. I'm suggesting that conditions cannot be separated from the concept of what love is. As soon as you try to define what love is, you must have conditions which separate it from other things like indifference or hate.

And you seem to be talking about some quality of love which makes it unconditional, and I'm just not getting that part. Personally, I don't know how to reconcile the two because they are contradictory concepts, but it may be that I'm just not understanding some aspect of your interpretation of love.

It may be that you are looking more deeply than what the topic suggests. I'm only saying that "unconditional" ANYTHING is irrational, because conditions are what we use to make distinctions between one concept from another. It's just that unconditional love is a much more popular concept than unconditional patience, or unconditional hate, or unconditional mechanics. Any time you try to identify what makes those concepts different from one another, you must apply conditions. If those conditions are not met, then the label does not apply.

The conditions for posting on this forum are that people should not post frivolous thoughts, or insults, or advertising etc. If those conditions are not met, then the post/poster gets deleted or banned. We see value in such conditions because they present important distinctions which work in real life.

The same is true for love. Without conditions, what reason do we have to distinguish between good behavior and bad? Just because a mother says, "I love my son unconditionally despite him bullying his class mate" doesn't mean he should be exempt from facing the consequences of his actions.. That would be UNloving to the person he bullied. Love requires that there should be SOME kind of consequence for bad behavior, even though the person being judged is still loved while being punished.

There are conditions which must be met for love to be love. If those conditions are not met, but the behavior is still pretended to be loving, then that is a perversion of what real love is.