We are not talking about justice or righteousness. — TimeLine

Actually, I strongly believe that love cannot be love without justice or righteousness, so it may be that our disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of what you think "we" are talking about.

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

That's not a condition, it's a definition. Unconditional love has no conditions. You're being obtuse, probably intentionally, in order to get a rise out of those romantics among us.

The closest I have come to unconditional love is with my children. The thing I want most in the world is for them to be happy and safe. I like it when they show their love for me and show that they see me, but I don't really care what they think of me or whether they think I'm a good father. I don't want anything from them and I don't want them to change or live their lives the way I think they should.

I've never had an unconditional love with a romantic partner, although I've come close with a former lover, but not till long after we were together.

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. — John Days

According to who? Some cultures would think it is righteous to honour kill their own children.

Actually, I strongly believe that love cannot be love without justice or righteousness, so it may be that our disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of what you think "we" are talking about. — John Days

Preceding justice and righteousness is love (morality); justice itself is an expression of righteousness and morality and one cannot be just or righteousness if they are unable to... *drum - roll* give love. It is the ability to be able to give love to others without expecting anything in return, including emotionally. The conditions come where the emotions leave-off, when it is solely about reason. But we, as humans, require both - love and emotions - in order to express this sentiment. That is all that unconditional love is referent to, an expression, a symbol.

You are making the mistake of emphasising conditions by creating conditions yourself, saying "this is what love is" and indeed, when justice and righteousness are in question, this is certainly the case. But unconditional love is the act, what compels, the very motivation. When you are thinking of justice, you should think about the concept of intent.

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. — T Clark

I hope not too far a distance; emotions are a part of our humanity, it is about finding that balance between reason and our feelings.

The closest I have come to unconditional love is with my children. — T Clark

The first condition is that they must be YOUR children.

I like it when they show their love for me — T Clark

Which is a condition defining what you like.

don't want anything from them — T Clark

A statement which makes no sense in terms of love. How could a loving father have no expectations for his children? The expectations may not be perfect, but they will still be there as a result of the love you feel for them. Like, if your kid decides, "I don't want to school anymore", you will probably say, "Too bad, I'm your parent and I know what's good for you, so you WILL go to school" or something along those lines. If your kid says, "I don't want to brush my teeth or shower" you will probably MAKE him do those things because you have a better understanding of why those things are important. To say you don't want your kid love you or at least listen to you makes no sense.

If you read a story about a parent who does NOT make his kids get an education or brush their teeth or shower, you will probably think, "what terrible parents". You will probably not be thinking, "Ok, they are terrible parents, but at least they have unconditional love for their kids" because the conditions for what it means to be loving are not met.

You will probably not be thinking, "Ok, they are terrible parents, but at least they have unconditional love for their kids" because the conditions for what it means to be loving are not met. — John Days

Somehow I feel that I could have a more fruitful conversation with a log. Conditions according to who?

I'm going to bed. :-d

Conditions according to who? — TimeLine

I actually listed a few example conditions in the same post from which you quoted me. Maybe tomorrow, when you feel more rested, you'll feel more agreeable. :p

I guess I was not clear. Unconditional love is unobtainable in the sense of a realized state.

I think there may be moments, but these moments are rare and they can not be maintained, they are like a brilliant burst in a firework display.

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. — John Days

When it comes to linguistic expressions of this issue, I tend to prefer you’re overall approach.

[To others here about, I grant it can be a bit harsh sounding. It’s like saying, “No, you’re not selfless. You’re only more selfless than others by comparison; and this, to be even more explicit, in your self-ish strivings/yearnings/intentions to become even more selfless (a striving of the ego which paradoxically entails that one becomes ever-more devoid of ego).”]

Yet, while I agree with you that pure/absolute/untarnished/etc. unconditional love does not exist in space and time, I’ll first ask this: Can one approach the ideal of a perfectly unconditional love (and, conversely, further oneself in mood and action from such an ideal)?

I admit to having a presumption that most would answer “yes”.

The next step, then, is for me metaphysical: Does this ideal of a perfectly unconditional love—which we can be either closer to or further from—in and of itself exist?

Here we may part ways. To me this goal, or endstate, is real; is a teleological cause/reason/motivation which awaits to be discovered (felt, experienced, lived, etc.). To others it may not be.

But, then, my next question would be: If we are to any extent governed by this ideal of unconditional love—be it by desiring closer proximity to this state of being or by aversion to it—then how can this ideal not be real (to further clarify, as real as we ourselves are as conscious agents)?

It exists, it is just rare. Such feelings might be felt between parents and children, between siblings, between partners, and surely other situations. Some feel it with their pets. It's a feeling that simply survives all challenges.

Is a non-condition a condition?

It exists, it is just rare. Such feelings might be felt between parents and children, between siblings, between partners, and surely other situations. Some feel it with their pets. It's a feeling that simply survives all challenges. — Rich

Hey, we agree on something, almost at least. I don't think it's as rare as you say. Actually, all love is unconditional. If what you feel isn't, then it is either 1) not love or 2) love mixed, contaminated, with desire and expectations.

I'm responding to the OP's primary idea. Yes, there are times when we love but then it goes, but other types of love just v survives no matter what. It is just a special feeling and bond.

I hope not too far a distance; emotions are a part of our humanity, it is about finding that balance between reason and our feelings. — TimeLine

I wasn't endorsing it as a strategy, I was describing it as a phenomenon.

I'm responding to the OP's primary idea. Yes, there are times when we love but then it goes, but other types of love just v survives no matter what. It is just a special feeling and bond. — Rich

As a partisan of physics, I've developed Clark's law of conservation of love.

If it's not love now, it never was.

The first condition is that they must be YOUR children. — John Days

Silly.

I like it when they show their love for me — T Clark
Which is a condition defining what you like. — John Days

Not a condition at all. I don't expect or require their love, but I enjoy it.

How could a loving father have no expectations for his children? The expectations may not be perfect, but they will still be there as a result of the love you feel for them. Like, if your kid decides, "I don't want to school anymore", you will probably say, "Too bad, I'm your parent and I know what's good for you, so you WILL go to school" or something along those lines. If your kid says, "I don't want to brush my teeth or shower" you will probably MAKE him do those things because you have a better understanding of why those things are important. To say you don't want your kid love you or at least listen to you makes no sense. — John Days

When my children were younger, I enforced, tried to enforce, rules. Young children need to be protected until they can take care of themselves. That's a parent's job. Now my youngest is 27 and all three can take care of themselves. I still want them to be happy and safe, but I don't expect them to live their lives the way I think they should. I don't have any expectations except I wish the 27 year old, who still lives at home, would wash his !@#$% dishes.

It exists, it is just rare. Such feelings might be felt between parents and children, between siblings, between partners, and surely other situations. Some feel it with their pets. It's a feeling that simply survives all challenges. — Rich

@Rich
@John Days

OK, my previous wording was imperfect.

On the one hand I agree with Rich. We get a taste of it—of perfectly unconditional love—at times. We dwell within its bounds for the given timespan (sometimes a lifetime); we feel/experience and act out an unconditional love in the perfect absence of all aspects of hate.

Yet, on the other hand, there’s the other reality of others’ in the world unjustly suffering while we, at these junctures, don’t. From this more metaphysical—or global—vantage, all our tastes/experiences of unconditional love are yet imperfect, this in being conditionally limited to “us” and not applicable to “all” … hence is yet, to some degree, self-centric—and, therefore, is not yet that of a perfectly unconditional love. It’s why I mentioned this state of being as the ideal—one not realizable while within a world of separation, a world of quantity and ratios of which we are ourselves a part.

Hope this better clarifies my previous post.

Love is a bond between two. To love every one and everything is probably not plausible in a universe of opposites. I love some and I dislike others and that is the nature of nature - at least that is how it appears.

You are tripping up on the semantics. Unconditional is the condition needed to call it unconditional, and not a condition of how that love is expressed. If you are unable to see that then clearly it would unconditional save that condition.

To be honest you are making a trivial point which does not disprove that unconditional love exist. Although I agree it likely does not exist but for different reasons.

Although I agree it likely does not exist but for different reasons. — Jeremiah

I'm practically begging for reasons.

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. — John Days

So far I agree, these kinds of conditions exist for everything. In order to love something unconditionally, the conditions of you existing, loving that something and that love being unconditional, for example, must be met. However, those are not the kind of conditions that the word unconditional means in the context.

You can neither prove or disprove unfalsiable claims.

I think you are playing word games--the delight of getting people to agree that something unconditional must have conditions. It's an empty exercise.

We know what conditional love is: I will love you IF you obey -- otherwise, not. I will love you IF you make me proud of you -- otherwise, not. and so on. Some people have quite conditional love for their own children, spouses, parents, etc.

Unconditional love is possible: It means that someone loves you--period. God's love is said to be unconditional--Agape. Other kinds of love - storge, eros, filio - could be, but probably are not often unconditional because they arise from fraught motivation -- getting turned on sexually, being related to somebody by blood, and so on.

Practitioners of Carl Rogers' therapy try to offer their clients "unconditional positive regard", which means they ALWAYS have the client's self-definition of their own good as their goal. They don't have a view of their own about what is good for the client.

Difficult to deliver? Absolutely. Unconditional love is the bread of heaven, not our run of the mill product. We are bid to try.

I think you are playing word games--the delight of getting people to agree that something unconditional must have conditions. It's an empty exercise. — Bitter Crank

I disagree. Realizing that all things, including love, are conditional, we might better respect those conditions.

I disagree. Realizing that all things, including love, are conditional, we might better respect those conditions. — praxis

Exactly. We say the love is unconditional, yet we define it with conditions. Maybe it is just semantics, but if that's so, why the insistence on the contradiction? I believe it's because there's a whole lot of room for hiding in contradictions.

I think you are playing word games--the delight of getting people to agree that something unconditional must have conditions. — Bitter Crank

Not must have. Does actually have. Look at your own words.

I will love you IF you obey -- otherwise, not. I will love you IF you make me proud of you -- otherwise, not. and so on. Some people have quite conditional love for their own children, spouses, parents, etc. — Bitter Crank

You yourself are using "if, then" statements. If the love requires payment of some kind, then it is not unconditional love. That's a conditional statement you're using to define what supposedly should not have any conditions attached to it.

God's love is said to be unconditional--Agape. — Bitter Crank

But it's not. God definitely has requirements and standards for human behavior. Jesus himself said, "If you love me, you will obey me". Love is contingent on how we behave. The teachings of Jesus tell us HOW to love God and our neighbor. Yes, God loves his creations even as he destroys them for their disobedience, because love cannot be love without the condition of justice.

Christians LOVE the unconditional love argument because it's so convenient. They can lie, cheat, steal (yes, I've ironically quoted the band tool) and any number of other sins and then point to the cross saying, "Jesus loves me unconditionally" and all responsibility for their actions magically disappears. In religious terms, this is called the false grace teaching.

Unconditional love is the bread of heaven — Bitter Crank

No, it is not. It is the exact opposite. It is a convenient doctrine which allows the excuse of any bad behavior, and it is justified by extremely powerful emotions.

Think about it, BC. Think about it from a purely logical point of view, rather than the emotional. This is not semantics, but rather a honest examination of a legitimate loophole. How can something which claims to be unconditional still be governed by conditions? It makes no sense.

It's like Christians who say, "you can't judge me". What balderdash. Of course we can judge. Life without judgment is impossible. What we need is FAIR judgment, which is why Jesus said, "Judge yourself first, so that you will see clearly on how to judge others".

When people say, "you can't judge me" what they are really doing is using a pseudo religious argument to avoid accountability or their bad behavior. Righteous indignation is like blind rage; for the one experiencing it, it is like an invincibility cloak. That is exactly what happens when people say, "there should be no conditions to the way I love". What they really mean is, "My behavior should be above examination on the basis of my very strong emotional feelings".

You can neither prove or disprove unfalsiable claims. — Jeremiah

But we can prove contradictions. Unconditional love cannot possibly exist, because any attempt to define what it is will be based on conditions.

However, those are not the kind of conditions that the word unconditional means in the context. — BlueBanana

Even IF those are not the kind of conditions unconditional love means in the context, the point is that there is SOME condition which is used to define unconditional love. Otherwise there would be no way to separate unconditional love from hypocrisy, greed, or fear. Why insist on using the word "unconditional" when conditions are clearly present?

Something wrong is happening with that reasoning. Something is hiding in that gap of logic. When people attempt to remove conditions which define what is right or wrong, and then attempt to justify that removal on the basis of goodness, only hypocrisy will result.

If we want to talk about unconditional love in terms of a love which is shared with others regardless of payment, then that is not unconditional love. The condition is that the person sharing the love does so regardless of personal benefit. That is not unconditional love. That is just love itself. Adding the "unconditional" part is an attempt to qualify that there is a kind of love which cannot be limited to standards or criteria, and anytime people try to argue that their behavior should be above standards, only abuses will result.

Unconditional love sounds so appealing, but it is an illusion. It is like addicts who think drugs will make their life more bearable. The drugs can make them forget, make them space out, make them unaware, and give a temporary sense of pleasantness, but it is not real.

How much better to forsake these emotionally appealing illusions and instead grab the bull by the horns, where we acknowledge that love requires standards, and then we get busy working out what are fair or unfair standards for love.

I wasn't endorsing it as a strategy, I was describing it as a phenomenon. — T Clark

I never said you were.

Exactly. We say the love is unconditional, yet we define it with conditions. Maybe it is just semantics, but if that's so, why the insistence on the contradiction? I believe it's because there's a whole lot of room for hiding in contradictions. — John Days

No, we don't say that love is unconditional. We say that unconditional love is unconditional. It is an expression of love, as is romantic love, brotherly love etc &c., and does not define a constant state. Brotherly love - my favourite kind of love - which is really just genuine friendship, contains conditions. Heck, romantic or erotic love needs conditions. Familial love and so on, they are all ways in which we can express this subjective sentiment or feeling, but to say that 'love' is just one of them is mistaken.

Mens Rea is a comparative example that explains how intention plays a role in criminal behaviour vis-a-vis justice. You can be charitable, for instance, but if the act of giving is only because you know that in doing so people will acknowledge you for being wonderful, the intent or motivation behind the act is false and the condition has been set, namely that you are only giving love to receive appreciation for it.

Unconditional love denotes a purity of this motivation to give love to another or others without a moments thought about receiving anything in return. The other or others' welfare or happiness or immediate concerns are the only concern for you and not your own. But you cannot give love without the right frame of mind and so it is only possible when one transcends or basically has an authentic understanding of themselves, their feelings or sentiments; to become morally conscious.

True love is not 'hollywood' but when two people are capable of giving love rather than solely wanting it, so the only condition here is that to genuinely love someone - with the right frame of mind and a genuine understanding of your own feelings - one must learn how to give love unconditionally.

You can be charitable, for instance, but if the act of giving is only because you know that in doing so people will acknowledge you for being wonderful, the intent or motivation behind the act is false and the condition has been set, namely that you are only giving love to receive appreciation for it. — TimeLine

Exactly. There is an "if, then" statement which separates unconditional love from non-unconditional love, therefore rendering the concept of unconditional a contradiction. Why continue to defend the contradiction as though it is legitimate? Isn't it just an emotional response? We like the idea of a love which is so powerful and pure and true that there are no conditions which can define it, but that is the illusion. Love without some kind of qualifying condition which defines what it is and what it is not is a breeding ground for hypocrisy. Why insist that there are no conditions when clearly there are?