I've never said it isn't a condition — Benkei

Then there is no point in saying it is unconditional.

people aren't as literal as you're being when using the phrase. — Benkei

Some people want words to mean what they mean.

unconditional love means something else in the English language than its legal meaning. — Benkei

You call it a legality. I call it progress that you're willing to even go that far. :)

You're arguing that in order to experience literal unconditional love that there can be no conditions or orders that are required — earthlycohort

Yes, exactly. Doesn't that make sense? If you say it is unconditional, and then use conditions to define what is it, then where's the problem in my argument?

If true unconditional love is as described — earthlycohort

Actually, there have been several descriptions on this thread of what unconditional love supposedly is. Can you be more specific?

BTW, are we now talking about something that is even better than unconditional love? True unconditional love? Because, apparently, unconditional was meant to one-up love, so I guess it makes sense that at some point unconditional would need to be one-up'd as well.

Poor plain love just can't compete anymore.

people aren't as literal as you're being when using the phrase — Benkei

So when people speak of unconditional love they're just expressing an intention to tollerate a wide range of conditions? That doesn't sound so romantic. No wonder they go all unconditional. O:)

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. — earthlycohort

I talked to a guy who said he was ready to marry his soul-mate, whom he never met in person, but they sure could talk for hours on the phone without getting bored. When I asked him about things like life goals, spending habits, political/religious views, lifestyle choices, he said they'd not gotten around to talking about issues like that, but he was sure that the power of their feelings would overcome any obstacle.

Falling in love is 90% Disney fantasy. It love can be great. Those feelings should be enjoyed for what they are. But those initial fantastic feelings are a small part of what makes for a loving relationship. Unconditional love is part of the Disney fantasy. Real relationships take a lot of work, effort, and compromise. Why use a word which inherently suggests these things do not matter? You say it shouldn't be taken so literally, like it's no big deal, but then why the insistence on defending it?

I'm new so forgive the poor formatting.

No problem with your argument. True unconditional love doesn't exist as to love unconditional is a condition in itself. I merely pointed out the common sentiment. It's gross.

So how do we love unconditionally? I'm really not sure, and to be honest I don't care for I have no desire to forgo my standards. I seem to have a mental block about it though. A bit like the first time you wonder what lies beyond the fringes of existence and find a great dark void.

I believe the notion of unconditional love stems from a being's need for acceptance, though this form comes without the individual needing to take the responsibility of one's life in order to achieve the desired standards required for a person to achieve being loved, which are most efficiently the standards a person seeks in a partner. These standards and conditions are of course varied and are determined by individual taste, hence why it's best to find yourself and just be that. It'll find you. This kind of love is my absolute definition of love.

Nope. It is not wrong at all for parents to expect that their children will respect their good behavior toward them. — John Days

There can be a subtle, but important, different between “expect” and “hope / anticipate”.

I can’t currently discern whether your reply is the result of an actual disagreement between us or is due to, maybe, a hasty interpretation of a sentence taken out of context, given the full paragraph (admittedly, maybe poorly worded).

If a disagreement, there are some people, some parents included, that will demand respect for that which they give. I don’t like the pejorative racial semantics to this saying, but the cultural term for it where I live is that of being an “Indian giver”. The mindset of “I gave you that so you must respect me in return or else” is one of authoritarianism—not, from where I stand, one of genuine love. And yes, it’s a sentiment that is explicitly conceptualized to be founded on conditions. When successful—and often times it is not--it leads to a certain type of respect: one resulting from fear of what the authoritarian power will do if their will is not fully complied with. I, however, do maintain that this respect is at a crossroads with a different type of respect which results out of genuine love existing between different people.

Parenting is a complex topic. Still as a loosely given generality, a parent with a healthy love, to me, doesn’t seek to be liked/respected via the act of reprimanding their child, yet via good parenting, the child will come to internally recognize the good intentions of the parent – and, yes, thereby find non-fear-driven, love-based respect for the parents.

So when people speak of unconditional love they're just expressing an intention to tollerate a wide range of conditions? That doesn't sound so romantic. No wonder they go all unconditional. O:) — praxis

Yes, except the intention is hidden behind the contradiction of the word. They want to appear tolerant, but deep down they still judge and apply conditions. It's not that the concept of applying judgment or conditions is wrong. Those two concepts are neutral; they can be used rightly or wrongly.

The problem is that they pretend they are not judging or applying conditions, which is the point of using a word like unconditional. It gives the impression of being above judging others in favor of a more loving approach. But justice is impossible without judgment, and love is impossible without justice.

There can be a subtle, but important, different between “expect” and “hope / anticipate”. — javra

Sure, but unconditional is hardly subtle; it's pretty easy to disprove. All you have to do is try to define what unconditional love is and conditions will appear.

The mindset of “I gave you that so you must respect me in return or else” is one of authoritarianism-- not, from where I stand, one of genuine love. — javra

Sure, not love. "It is not love because..."

Unconditional has nothing to do with it.

And yes, it’s a sentiment that is explicitly conceptualized to be founded on conditions. — javra

Finally...

When successful—and often times it is not--it leads to a certain type of respect — javra

The reason unconditional love is not successful is because it is not a real thing. Instead of just trying to love one another, people are convinced that they must strive toward this special kind of love which is nigh impossible to achieve. Why make a distinction between love and special love? Isn't ordinary love worthy enough to strive for?

Parenting is a complex topic — javra

True, but it's only a subtopic. The same principles could be applied to teacher/student, Boss/employee, or politicians and constituents.

Still as a loosely given generality, a parent with a healthy love, to me, doesn’t seek to be liked/respected via the act of reprimanding their child, yet via good parenting, the child will come to internally recognize the good intentions of the parent – and, yes, thereby find non-fear-driven, love-based respect for the parents. — javra

I think there is pleeeeenty of room for discussion and some gray area in what you've raised. It would make a good topic in itself. But all of what you've said necessarily exclude unconditional. That's actually a good thing. Having conditions, even for something like love, is good, because we can use those conditions to accurately define what is and what isn't love. Without conditions there will only be abuse and hypocrisy even if they have a slick veneer of good feeling glazed over the top.

I'm new so forgive the poor formatting. — earthlycohort

I don't see any problem with your formatting. And, welcome to the forum. I'm fairly new, myself.

A bit like the first time you wonder what lies beyond the fringes of existence and find a great dark void. — earthlycohort

Or some illumination. :)

I believe the notion of unconditional love stems from a being's need for acceptance, — earthlycohort

I was thinking along the same lines earlier, when n0 0ne talked about it being an exaggeration. It seemed like it could also be a kind of insecurity. An exaggeration. A need for acceptance. An insecurity. They all seem rather similar in this context.

You seem to be arguing against the wrong guy here. Or maybe you haven’t read a single one of my previous posts on this thread. Befuddling, but what's new? I’m not pro the terminology of unconditional love. As to categorizing love, all the better to do so. Greeks did it, other cultures do it, and it has its advantages over a single term being used to declare both that “I love ice-cream” and “I love my kids”. Would one risk one’s life for both? Would one not risk one’s life for either?

You have offered no argument as to why we should think that loving someone unconditionally entails that you do anything they ask, even if it would harm them. You just keep repeating the same confused nonsense. :-}

I don't think you have shown that unconditional love DOES NOT EXIST, let alone that it CAN NOT EXIST.

Any object of love is a particular set of qualities or conditions. To love unconditionally would be to love all conditions or qualities. As I mentioned earlier, that might be possible in a spiritual transcendent experience. I don't imagine it's possible for people in ordinary life however.

I wouldn't expect unconditional love to occur in a 3 month (or 30 minute) romance begun in a bar unless, of course, I happened to pick up Jesus. Would he be simply divine? Don't know. However, people who live in ordinary life may, on occasion, express and experience unconditional love. And even if one doesn't achieve Agape in combination with other kinds of love (like eros or storge) one can move toward unconditional love--dismissing one's own conditions, one by one.

Agape stands apart from eros, filio, and storge, but if one can not love at those depths, one certainly will not be able to experience the deep, deep love which characterizes unconditional love, either.

Then beside ourselves, for those who believe there is the unconditional love of God. They who believe in God believe that God loves them unconditionally. Unconditionally, because that is the only way God can love creation, of which were are a part. We can love unconditionally if God gives us that capacity.

(I think that is an accurate reflection the theology of believers, whatever I may happen to believe.)

I wouldn't expect unconditional love to occur in a 3 month (or 30 minute) romance begun in a bar unless, of course, I happened to pick up Jesus. — Bitter Crank

Why not? I would find unconditional love more credible if it were born in a brothel or other seemingly unlikely conditions for true love to bloom. Indeed Jesus didn’t mind hanging out with a whore.

However, people who live in ordinary life may, on occasion, express and experience unconditional love. — Bitter Crank

So on occasion, when the conditions are just right, people in normal life express and experience unconditional love.

How does one express unconditional love?

Try this; think of it as a 12 step program. These will put you well on your way to unconditional love. I Corinthians, 13:

• Love is patient
• love is kind and is not jealous
• love does not brag and is not arrogant
• does not act unbecomingly
• it does not seek its own
• is not provoked
• does not take into account a wrong suffered
• bears all things
• believes all things
• hopes all things
• endures all things.
• Love never fails

(Y)

Then beside ourselves, for those who believe there is the unconditional love of God. They who believe in God believe that God loves them unconditionally. — Bitter Crank

This is probably the worst (and most popular) abuse of the unconditional love doctrine, where God becomes the bad guy if he places conditions and expectations on what it means to love him, and that he himself would be wrong to punish those who refuse to listen to him, because his love is supposedly without condition.

Love is patient
love is kind and is not jealous
love does not brag and is not arrogant
does not act unbecomingly
it does not seek its own
is not provoked
does not take into account a wrong suffered
bears all things
believes all things
hopes all things
endures all things.
Love never fails — Bitter Crank

All of which are conditions on what love is. If these conditions are not met, then the behavior is not love. It's so simple. The only reason anyone would have to want to dismiss the conditions which define what love is, is to justify their own unloving behavior.

when it is the meaning of your life. — Pollywalls

Is the condition you're using to define what this love is. If this condition is not met, then the love is not unconditional. You will run into this contradiction every time you try to define what unconditional is. Somehow people have been tricked into thinking conditions are wrong, but in what other area of life do we apply this same principle?

Unconditional science? Unconditional employment? Unconditional education? Unconditional driving? Unconditional entertainment?

it means you can't have any other purpose. — Pollywalls

So, if you do have some other purpose, then the love is no longer unconditional? Can't you see how you're using conditional statements to define something which supposedly should have no conditions?

unconditional love is possible in my opinion, but certainly no human has loved unconditionally. — Pollywalls

I believe this is the crux of the problem with the concept of unconditional love. It's like criticizing someone and instead of acknowledging any truth in the criticism, they say, "Hey, no one's perfect". It's a non-answer that doesn't deal with the problem at all.

you can't measure the amount of affection you have. — Pollywalls

Which is exactly the point of unconditional love; a means of avoiding accountability for how we behave. No conditions means no accountability.

You have offered no argument as to why we should think that loving someone unconditionally entails that you do anything they ask, even if it would harm them. — Janus

This is a weird argument. Unconditional literally means without condition. All you have to do is look at what the words actually mean.

I’m not pro the terminology of unconditional love. — javra

I'm not sure what you mean here. Would you mind clarifying?

As to categorizing love, all the better to do so. — javra

Agreed.

Would one risk one’s life for both? Would one not risk one’s life for either? — javra

It's a strange world. People risk their lives for materialism every day. It's often referred to as the rat race or "earning a living" (as though one does not have the right to live if they are not working for money). Several people have defined unconditional love as a willingness to help others without the expectation of payment or reward in return. I supported those definitions, but I also said that in the context, there's no reason to attach the unconditional part; it just becomes a distraction to real love.

This is one of the reasons why unconditional love is so popular. Practically the entire world operates on demanding payment for services to one another. It's difficult for the majority of the world to think of themselves as being unloving for what seems like normal, ordinary economic behavior, which is where unconditional love comes in so handy. It goes like this, "Okay I don't have this special unconditional love, but at least I still have normal love as I continue demanding payment for my service to others".

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. — John Days

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. — John Days

I don't see the connection here. Are you saying that we should view unconditional love as just a normal practice of giving love?

Some people want words to mean what they mean. — John Days

Words mean how people use them. They're not static. Radical, for instance, used to mean going back to the root. Now it means extreme. So what you want isn't there and it will never be there. Move on.

And the "legal" was supposed to be logical, autocorrect. You know how it is.

Religious dogma defines conditions for those that need their conditions defined.

All of which are conditions on what love is. — John Days

A description isn't a condition, in the sense that "if you don't pay the overdue rent, you will be evicted". A description isn't an "if/then" statement. A description is just a description. "The house is painted a light gray" isn't a conditional statement. It either is gray, or it is not gray.

Do you consider erotic love to be conditional? Is "You turn me on - I want to have sex with you" a conditional statement? It's conditional.

Do you expect erotic love to be 100% in order to qualify as erotic? If you are 80% turned on by somebody, you are still experiencing erotic love, even if it isn't 100%.

Further, "unconditional" is perhaps not the best term. When agapē was imported into English in the 17th century, it was used in the sense of 'selfless love". Erotic love isn't normally thought of as "selfless" because the physical self is so intimately involved in erotic love--it's really physical and selfie.

agapē is about the other person, not the self.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Would you mind clarifying? — John Days

You’ve already quoted a post of mine where, I think, I was relatively harsh against the terminology of “unconditional love”, with my reasons for this there given. (your reply: )

I disagree with the terminology due to its easy misinterpretation by some – but not with the intended referent.

I see BC has given a damn good account of it in his latest post (and in his previous posts as well).

As for my own example:

From a materialist point of view, the referent to a perfect, unconditional love would be of itself considered spiritual (I would think by most materialists, at least). Instead of focusing on Christian doctrine, I’ll address as example the Eastern doctrine of Buddha nature/consciousness, in specific, that of universal compassion. There’s this goal in Buddhism most often know as Nirvana – a state of being wherein all suffering for all life ceases. Then, from the point of this Buddhist notion of universal compassion, there are those who are aware of this goal (with many not being aware of it yet still, in overall thought and deed, moving toward it) and there are those that are ignorant of this goal’s being. The latter will often seek to minimize their suffering via pursuit of other goals (subjugation; maximized supremacy over other; vis-a-visi the pleasure of lying, cheating, and stealing; other such things). To the Buddha consciousness of universal compassion, regardless of how vile their deeds, they will yet be empathized with as those who are yet ignorant / unenlightened / etc. of a truth which, were they to gain awareness of it, would naturally make them virtuous beings. Hence, this form of Buddha consciousness does not view those ignorant of Nirvana as evil sinners that need to be destroyed, tortured, enslaved, or any other such thing; but, instead, as fellow beings that require, in Eastern terminology, “enlightenment” via compassion, empathy with their plight, etc. This form of Buddha consciousness is then, for me, an example of the referent to what is termed unconditional love. In BC’s formulation, this Buddha consciousness is far closer to 100% unconditional love than what all of us regular folk can ever experience.

Having tried to illustrate the referent to the terminology of “unconditional love” via this example, we earth bound folk shouldn’t then think that conflict in self-defense should then be off the table. It’s part and parcel of what maintained justice in this world consists of. Were a thug on the streets to rush toward me for my wallet with a knife in his hands, me trying to emulate the Buddha by saying “dear fellow equal being, do you not realize that you are uninformed as to the best means for you to alleviate your life’s suffering … thereby helping me to alleviate my suffering, in turn helping you?” will not here help my situation out an iota. Actually, we people often get pissed at being told we're ignorant - gives off this stench of superiority – regardless of whether it might to be true or not.

Still, when not in active conflict, minimizing our hatred of other and doing our best to sincerely “understand/empathize with our foes” – this so as to figure out a way of getting them to a) be cordial and b) find deep, sincerely felt happiness within themselves in this cordiality - would, then, be a step toward our enactively holding this referent to the term “unconditional love” (such as in the example of universal compassion previously made).

[To the finger pointing crowd hereabout, I’m not there yet. Not trying to insinuate otherwise. But I acknowledge it would be a nice place to be.]

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

I didn't claim it's an uncommon thought. Anyway, compassion is not the same as empathy.

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. — TimeLine

That's not what I meant by "letting go of hopes." There was no turning my back. My friend and I are better friends than we were before. Long ago she told me that love cannot include expectations or obligations. I understood what she meant, but it took me a long time to put it into practice. Lao Tzu said "hope is as hollow as fear."

agapē is about the other person, not the self. — Bitter Crank

There can’t be an other person without a self-concept.

Words mean how people use them. — Benkei

Yeah...

[edit: Pardon, there is some strong language. Please start at the 30 second mark for the relevant part of the video dealing with how we use words.]