Don't be mean 'cause you can't respond bro, but fine, I'll bow out.

I was annoyed because I admitted to being pedantic there, and then you just kept criticizing. I basically handed your argument to you, and you continued. I've been taking a break here, and then jumped back in on this thread in good faith with an idea I thought was relevant, and then within 30 minutes or so, we're here already. Good to be back! Don't bow out on my sake.

Singling out an object of love is basically defining a set of conditions. Our feeling may not depend on the object of our affection giving anything in return, but the feeling nevertheless depends on the object remaining true to our limited conception. If it didn't that would only suggest that we're in love with the conception rather than anything in the real world. The feeling also depends on our conception and values remaining relatively constant. — praxis

That makes no sense. The feeling is the enabling experience otherwise 'love' would not exist at all; empathy is the source of our moral consciousness of others in an external world and what differentiates from a sociopath. The object mirrors the authenticity of our motivation.

To me, it would make more sense to say that unconditional love has no object or focus, and would be a spiritual sense. — praxis

As I said, unconditional love is symbolic of this experience of giving love.

I was just thinking about how to respond to you and this thought came to me. The thing that makes love unconditional is compassion. — T Clark

That is what I already said, it is the enabling experience, empathy and what makes us human; it didn't just come to you.

I have also been thinking about something that happened to me several years ago. I'm getting old, thinking about death sometimes. Not really afraid, but sorry that I haven't done more with my life. It struck me then - the secret is to be ready when the time comes. If it comes three minutes from now, be ready not to hold on to life, but to let go. Have your bags packed. At the same time I was dealing with emotional issues with a good friend. Again I was struck - love is the same as life. I guess Joni Mitchell was right. With love, you have to be ready to let go now. You have to pack your bags now. I don't mean letting go of the love, I mean letting go of hopes. — T Clark

For me, it is about letting go of the lies that keep you living in a hole or a shell. I had a severe car accident and preceding that was bullied and harassed and I was forced to confront the truly disgusting side of the people around me. My vulnerable situation proved not just how vicious others can be but how much I was wasting my time with the wrong sort. It was what strengthened me, despite crying almost every day as I came to confront this unreal reality as though an existential withdrawal of an ethereal drug that I was addicted to.

Only authenticity in your perceptions of the external world matter and it compels the genuine experience of love. Whether your hopes are real in the first place, or whether it is merely a mirror for something subjectively wrong in you is questionable.

To turn your back on someone and stop hoping is what I did too only because after the long and difficult experience above, I realised he was not what I wanted him to be. He was a monster, and that's that.

That makes no sense. The feeling is the enabling experience otherwise 'love' would not exist at all — TimeLine

The feeling is part of it but there’s more to it. Any emotion could be seen as comprising of our past experience, affect, our learned or created emotion concepts (such as unconditional love), and of course whatever external stimuli inspired the emotion. So indeed there could be a feeling without ‘love’ existing at all. For example, many social animals demonstrate behavior that we might call unconditional love, yet they have no such concept.

Perhaps it's just an exaggeration. Some mothers will take a lot of sh*t before they throw in the towel.

So, let's start with love as conditional. What are the conditions in which love occurs in our experience? — Noble Dust

Good question. What separates love from something like indifference or manipulation? Several people here have already suggested that love does not demand payment for itself. In other words, if love can b bought, then it automatically becomes excluded from what love is.

Other conditions for love include a willingness to forgive, kindness, patience, and, as is the case with the concept of "tough love", it also includes justice. If we practice injustice toward one another, it cannot be said that we love them.

But surely the fact that they're your biological children only matters conceptually, and not actually. As something like 12% of fathers are raising children that they only think are biologically theirs — Wosret

I get what you mean, but whether or not the father knows for 100% that the child is his or not is beside the point. His behavior toward the child is what shows whether he loves the child or not. Lets say he takes the kid out to a theme park and buys him ice cream. Lets say, for the sake of this argument, the father is a billionaire. Still, he will not buy ice cream for every kid in the park, because they are not HIS kids. That is not to say he's wrong or unloving for only buying HIS kid the ice cream, but it does show that his love is not unconditional. If his love was unconditional, he'd be buying ice cream for everyone regardless.

As I said, unconditional love is symbolic of this experience of giving love. — TimeLine

I don't remember you saying that unconditional love is only symbolic. Can you elaborate on what you mean by symbolic? What is it a symbol of?

Unconditional love is when you love someone no matter what. The examples you gave of purported conditions that unconditional love is subject to, such as the condition that it must not be conditional, or the condition that the one loved is a son or daughter, a male or female and so on, are nothing more than red herrings.

Really no other kind of "love" is love; it is rather some form of attachment or obsession.

The fact that it is possible to love someone no matter how badly they treat you is not affected by other facts such as that you may not be able to stand having anything to with the loved one on account of the pain they cause you. There is no contradiction involved in loving someone and yet not wishing to have anything to do with them. In cases like that you will simply wish them well...from a distance.

it compels the genuine experience of love. — TimeLine

I really like the way you've worded this part of the sentence, and I believe this is exactly why adding "unconditional" into the mix actually takes away from the genuineness of love. I was talking to someone else about this earlier so I'll paste my comments here as I think it relates:

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the concept of altruistic kidney donation. It's also called good samaritan donation. It's what happens when a person volunteers to donate one of his kidneys to a complete stranger suffering from kidney failure. There is no payment involved and in fact, the donor does not even know who the recipient will be. The hospital arranges everything. Only after the donation, and only if both parties agree, will the hospital organize for the two to meet and even then they closely monitor the situation to be sure that there is no pressure from either side as a result of the procedure.

Because this kind of donation is so rare in a world where nothing is free, the donor is often praised as being a hero who behaved in a very special way unlike how other people would behave. It sounds very nice, but it's a wrong way to view the situation. This kind of altruism should not be treated as special or heroic, because doing so elevates this kind of behavior above what the average person could do.

Instead, it should just be normal, precisely because the behavior is so good. If everyone was a hero, there'd be no point in using the word hero anymore.

This is what it is like with unconditional love. You can see the way people talk about it, like this very special thing that is so rare that it is hardly ever practiced, and yet the examples people give of unconditional love is the kind of behavior all people should be practicing as just something normal.

no matter what. — Janus

Is a condition.

The examples you gave of purported conditions that unconditional love is subject to, such as the condition that it must not be conditional, or the condition that the one loved is a son or daughter, a male or female and so on, are red herrings. — Janus

EDIT: I realized that I misunderstood something you said here. The only condition in what you've listed above which I talked about was the one about a parent's love for their child is based on the condition that it is their child and not some other person's child. It is possibly that some parents can have the same kind of loving behavior toward other kids as they would their own kids, but even then it would be inappropriate to show the same kind of love to children as we would to adults (like buying diapers for adults or a bottle of nice whiskey for a kid). There are still conditions which dictate how the love should be appropriately expressed. If those conditions are not met, then the love will not be love.

no matter how badly they treat you — Janus

Is a condition. If the condition is not met (i.e. you stop loving them because they treat you badly) then the love is not love any more.

Lets say a parent has a grown child with some kind of dangerous drug addiction, and the child keeps coming back to the parent to borrow money. At some point the parent will say, "I won't give you money anymore because doing so is only hurting you" and the child responds, "don't you love me unconditionally?" and he would be right. If there really was no condition to the love, then the parent would continue giving the money.

Can you see how adding "unconditionally" just confuses the issue?

Perhaps it's just an exaggeration. — n0 0ne

This is probably the closest thing to what adding unconditionally is actually meant to achieve; exaggeration. The question is, why do people feel a need to exaggerate their feelings for one another? Why isn't love on it's own good enough?

Is a condition. — John Days

No, it's a way of expressing unconditionality. You are conflating that fact that 'no matter what' is a condition of the love being unconditional, with it being a condition of the actual love.

No, they are actual conditions — John Days

Again the same conflation.

Is a condition. If the condition is not met (i.e. you stop loving them because they treat you badly) then the love is not love any more — John Days

If you stop loving them because they treat you badly, then your love was not unconditional. Whether it was love at all is another question.

Lets say a parent has a grown child with some kind of dangerous drug addiction, and the child keeps coming back to the parent to borrow money. At some point the parent will say, "I won't give you money anymore because doing so is only hurting you" and the child responds, "don't you love me unconditionally?" and he would be right. If there really was no condition to the love, then the parent would continue giving the money. — John Days

No, the parent would do what they thought was best for the child, which may well be to refuse further money. Loving someone unconditionally does not entail that you will do whatever they ask.

Loving someone unconditionally does not entail that you will do whatever they ask. — Janus

Which is the contradiction. If there are no conditions to the love, then there would be no reason to refuse their requests.

What separates love from something like indifference or manipulation? — John Days

Love knows and acknowledges the worth of the person in question. "Worth" is actually inappropriate; this has been clear to me for a long while: Worth presupposes value, which presupposes levels of value. It's better to say that love transcends the concept of the worth of a person; love becomes a definition, rather than a measurement. Love defines the human person. How? By saying "You're a human! Love is for you!" That statement, regardless of how pithy, encompasses experience pretty nicely, regardless of how well you've experienced this idea of love.

That's the positive side to how love is different from indifference or manipulation. From there, any other distinctions seem pretty obvious from experience, but...indifference can manifest as presence without content: Being available without actually being available. Manipulation...the previous is a form of it, but more generally, manipulation tends to cut the deepest. A person who manipulates the basic desire for love is someone who can sense basic emotional instincts and plays to those instincts, without regard for the actual individuality or well-being of the person they're exploiting. Manipulation is maybe the worst offense to love of all: ironically, emotional manipulation is one of the clearest indicators of the importance of love for us humans...

Other conditions for love include a willingness to forgive, kindness, patience, and, as is the case with the concept of "tough love", it also includes justice. If we practice injustice toward one another, it cannot be said that we love them. — John Days

No complaints here. So, re: "conditions"...

you say that "a willingness to forgive, kindness, patience, [...] 'tough love'" are conditions of love? Or are you just saying that other people here said they were?

In any case, I'll respond with my own opinion. Yes, forgiveness, kindness, patience, and justice are just a few of the "conditions" of love. But these "conditions" are different than the "conditions" that define love as either "conditional" or "unconditional". The basic word "condition" here means patently different things, just by nature of the English language. Within philosophy, various given "conditions" of love, as you describe it, are conditions in the legal sense, but if you're going to post here, you need to remember that this is a philosophy forum. "Unconditional" doesn't mean the same thing; within the context of love (via Christianity) the concept means a love that doesn't waver under any circumstance. So no given condition alters the state of that love. The fact that that unalterable state might be itself a "condition" has no content as concept because it doesn't avail itself to what conditionality means with regards to love.

Of course there could be reasons to refuse a loved one's requests; for instance, you would do that if you judged that what they wanted was not in their best interests. What if your loved one asks you to shoot them, for example?

In the case of unconditional love as regardless of external circumstances, that isn't possible, as everybody dies. People get degenerative brain diseases.

If you think that you can maintain love of anyone, besides merely abstractly as saving your own feelings as a good person while you allow them to behave in ways, or hold views that are contemptuous, then you're simply a coward, and don't really practically, actually, really care for them more than wish to maintain a good opinion of yourself in your and their eyes, far more than you actually care for them.

I'm so kind, that I'll never tell you the truth, and despite having contempt for all your thoughts and actions, I still totally love you! I just hate everything about you, and don't trust you.

So, does unconditional love mean what you say it means or how people use it?

This is a simple case of you being too literal.

Normal people when they talk about unconditional love mean that they give love without expecting something in return, e.g. it's non-transactional. We can debate whether that's an accurate use of language but should we care?

I can only imagine someone wanting that, rather than wanting to do it. Relationships require negotiation, and it isn't virtuous to give everything and be repeatedly abused for it. That can only breed unhealthy relationships, and resentment.

Via example, I can well understand the following: if a parent is compassionate toward their children with the consciously pursued intention that the children will be there for the parent when he/she is old, this is a condition-based love and is not the real thing. It is closer to a willfully pursued manipulation of the other so as to influence the other to do something in one’s own self-interest. It, however, is not a genuine instance of reciprocal altruism, or of love for the other, as would be: wanting one’s children to grow up to experience greater degrees of happiness / health / wisdom / etc. than one as parent has ever experienced – something that naturally breeds non-fearful, or loving, respect in the children for the parent, including in the parent’s old age. Hence, in this sense just expressed, conditional love is fake love. (I say this though I still think the terminology of "unconditional love" is improper due to easy misinterpretation by those who desire it in their lives.)

Yet, the following sentence worries me greatly (ok, in a removed, existential sense):

"Unconditional" doesn't mean the same thing; within the context of love (via Christianity) the concept means a love that doesn't waver under any circumstance. — Noble Dust

“Any circumstance” encompasses many, potentially awful, things. One being manipulated by the other, one being maimed by the other out of a ruthless form of jealousy (which becomes itself interpreted as love), one being enslaved by the other in a basement … you can allow your imagination to complete this.

This quoted sentence contradicts your accord to other beliefs, such as a technical condition of love being just / fair. Yet it is what you conclude with.

At face value as expressed, how would such unconditional love lead to healthy things? In other words, how would it be something that is in any way good?

ps. Of course, there are more limited circumstances—such as “in sickness” and “for poorer”—in which genuine love will not in any way waiver. But that’s not what your statement states.

The thing is that we're just creatures, and morality and ethics involves oughts. If this is something that is good to do, then it is good for everyone to do, and bad not to. A person that does this is of higher moral virtue, and this in itself defeats the principle. As you ought to do it too, and if my love doesn't mean that I take you seriously, and consider your opinions and values valid, but rather hold them in contempt, then what could it possibly mean?

If it is just a taste, and it's perfectly okay to not hold it, then it is a taste for sulfuric acid.

Real relationships are equal, and I expect from others what I expect from myself, and expect from myself what I expect from others. Even when it comes to children, isn't it your job to render them as equals as quickly as possible? Not to continually, and forever treat them in ways that do not require from them what one requires from themselves, and thus holds in high regard, and expects as a respectable human being?

If I wish to feel superior to everyone, and resent everyone, then this is certainly a vehicle to that.

What if your loved one asks you to shoot them, for example? — Janus

Exactly right. If your love really was without condition, then you would do what they ask. What I am suggesting is that we stop referring to love as being unconditional. It is emotional fluff which makes no rational sense.

So, does unconditional love mean what you say it means or how people use it? — Benkei

It doesn't mean anything; well, not any rational thing. That's the point; because it is a paradox, it can mean whatever people want it to mean according to how they feel in the moment. What kind of love is this? Oh, it's the unconditional type. That unconditional could be excluded based on what it is not shows that it is based on a condition, but the name itself suggests there are not conditions.

There is A LOT of room for confusion there. How much better to reject the emotionalism of this fantasy love which makes no demands, has no requirements or expectations, and has no discernible criteria which separates it from random spurts of emotion.

Lets talk about real love rather than some fantasy love which can never be defined.

without expecting something in return — Benkei

Is a condition. If the condition is not met, you will say it is not unconditional. It makes no sense.

We can debate whether that's an accurate use of language but should we care? — Benkei

Yeah, of course we should care what the words we use mean. Otherwise, what's the point of debate?

it isn't virtuous to give everything and be repeatedly abused for it. That can only breed unhealthy relationships, and resentment. — Wosret

Good point. Unconditional love would suggest there is no such thing an an unhealthy relationship, because unhealthy is a condition which separates itself from what is healthy.

A person that does this is of higher moral virtue, and this in itself defeats the principle. — Wosret

Yes, this does seem to be what people keep trying to say about unconditional love; that it is okay to call it unconditional because unconditional is a higher kind of moral value. All those other people who only practice normal love are inferior to those who practice unconditional love.

I expect from others what I expect from myself, and expect from myself what I expect from others. — Wosret

In other words, the golden rule. :)

If I wish to feel superior to everyone, and resent everyone, then this is certainly a vehicle to that. — Wosret

Nailed it.

"Worth" is actually inappropriate; — Noble Dust

I don't think so. Worth is a concept for mature people who recognize that it is not meant to tear others down, but rather to recognize the difference between people who contribute to the good of others and those who do not.

Unconditional love is worthless. Because it claims to be without condition there is no way to measure it or to hold it accountable to any standard. It is a clever convenience that people have created to say that, no matter how they may feel at the time, it can be justified if they claim their feelings should be regarded without condition.

if a parent is compassionate toward their children with the consciously pursued intention that the children will be there for the parent when he/she is old, this is a condition-based love and is not the real thing. — javra

Nope. It is not wrong at all for parents to expect that their children will respect their good behavior toward them. The parents themselves are the most important examples of what real love is from the time the children are born. It makes sense that if the parents show love to the children, that the children will show love to the parents in their old age, because love makes sense. If they have good examples of what love is and what love isn't, then the kids will want to take care of the parents who loved them. There does not need to be this "unconditional" condition attached to love to somehow validate what it is meant to be.

That's the positive side to how love is different from indifference or manipulation. — Noble Dust

Exactly. There are conditions which differentiate between what love is and what it is not. Those conditions are important because they relay genuine information which works in practical reality. unconditional love, by definition of what the word unconditional actually means, negates any sense of distinction and all manner of terrible behavior can be justified on the basis that there should be no condition.

A person who manipulates the basic desire for love is someone who can sense basic emotional instincts and plays to those instincts, without regard for the actual individuality or well-being of the person they're exploiting. — Noble Dust

Yup, and all it takes is for them to say, "Relax, my love for you is without condition".

you say that "a willingness to forgive, kindness, patience, [...] 'tough love'" are conditions of love? Or are you just saying that other people here said they were? — Noble Dust

I am saying there are criteria for what makes love what it is. If those criteria (or conditions) are not met, then the love is not love at all, but some other thing (like the manipulation you talked about earlier).

In any case, I'll respond with my own opinion. Yes, forgiveness, kindness, patience, and justice are just a few of the "conditions" of love. — Noble Dust

No need to put condition in quotes in this case. They actually exist in the real world.

But these "conditions" are different than the "conditions" that define love as either "conditional" or "unconditional". — Noble Dust

Nope. Conditions are conditions.

The basic word "condition" here means patently different things, just by nature of the English language. — Noble Dust

But you're not saying what the difference is. Why should love have a different definition of what conditions are than any other usage of conditions?

are conditions in the legal sense, — Noble Dust

Nah, I'm talking about practical conditions. If a person abuses, hurts, and takes advantage of another, it cannot be said that they love that person, because love has conditions which make it what it is. If those conditions are not met, then the behavior is not loving. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that.

the concept means a love that doesn't waver under any circumstance — Noble Dust

Nope, that's not unconditional. That's called faithfulness and loyalty. You don't have to be a Christian to understand the validity of those concepts. But, if you really mean what you're saying, then what you've actually done is to make an argument against divorce.

So no given condition alters the state of that love. The fact that that unalterable state might be itself a "condition" has no content as concept because it doesn't avail itself to what conditionality means with regards to love. — Noble Dust

But, it does mean that we should not use "unconditional" to describe a state which clearly does have conditions. I'm not against faithful, loyal, unwavering love; rather I'm saying we should stop using "unconditional" to describe a concept which clearly is defined by conditions.

Let go of the emotional illusion and define the concept with terms which are relevant to what is actually happening.

Is a condition. If the condition is not met, you will say it is not unconditional. It makes no sense. — John Days

You're being obtuse. I've never said it isn't a condition I explained people aren't as literal as you're being when using the phrase. So rail against the world for being "illogical" or move on and accept that unconditional love means something else in the English language than its legal meaning.

By your standard a "sick joke" can't exist either.

You're arguing that in order to experience literal unconditional love that there can be no conditions or orders that are required to produce one's love for another, or even for oneself. If true unconditional love is as described, then in order to achieve it the only condition is itself, that you love unconditionally, no matter what. It not nonsensical nor is it even a good idea, in fact it's a very bad one. From it comes the abolition of all discomforting notions of truth and standards of being, subsequent cultural decline and systemic anarchy and societal collapse, ringing any bells? Why should you love unconditionally? What is the moral obligation to do so if not to preserve innocence and protect a being from suffering? Isn't that just a moralistically grotesque, unwittingly malevolent pursuit of righteousness?

When a person falls into love there is an overwhelmingly compelling desire to let go and pursue, regardless of the risk of danger or emotional vulnerability. It's quite a magnificent force. It's not something you ought to try to seek out as it'll only find you. When it does finally arrive the question of conditions becomes far more relevant.