Unconditional Love

[Dotini]

Danoff, I am not articulate enough to even try and go against you in any debate, I am not good at putting what is in my head into words, so I will give up here. My veiw of unconditional love is not the same as yours and that doesn't make it wrong or yours right. This would probably cover the way I see it and feel it.

Without being disrespectful to your current situation - when you have a child of your own flesh and blood you can then debate it out with me as to whether my love for my children in unconditional.

This is the Wikipedia entry on unconditional love:

"Unconditional love is a term that means to love someone regardless of one's actions or beliefs. It is a concept comparable to true love, a term which is more frequently used to describe love between lovers. By contrast, unconditional love is frequently used to describe love between family members, comrades in arms and between others in highly committed relationships. It has also been used in a Christian context to describe the belief in God's love for humankind through the forgiveness of Christ.

Studies and research by Harold W. Becker, author and founder of The Love Foundation, Inc., led to a practical contemporary definition which states that "unconditional love is an unlimited way of being." Experienced within the individual, this universal awareness of love operates on every level of life through the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual bodies and is expressed when one becomes conscious of its presence."

It now becomes clear why Dan so hotly denies its existence or desirability. He who can never know such love must be a poor soulless cretin forever condemned to callously denying such folks as the loving mother Wenders so much as their patch of ground to stand upon.

Even if that were possible, I think somehow my gender would prevent the discussion.

But thanks for the discussion anyway - I think you know that I value the discourse.

Dan accepts no personal accountability but leaps to condemn his gender. All loving fathers should be outraged. His gratuitous parting shot at Wenders is disingenuous. He does not value discourse, but seeks to control and dominate it.

Maybe someone is mistakenly assuming that something that is unconditional has to be eternal.
Just because you put no conditions on your love for someone it doesn’t mean you’ll love that person forever.
And if you “condition” your love for someone maybe you don’t really love that person.
Not that I think there's anything wrong in basing a "romantic" relationship on other feelings; real friendship and compatibility are far more important for a lasting relationship.

This is an intelligent and sensitive statement.

If your love does not last forever, some condition caused it to stop - this condition renders the use of the term "unconditional" incorrect.

Dan is exactly stating that unconditional means eternal. Most 8th graders know better

We can't have this discussion if you guys are unwilling to be precise with your language. If there's anything I've taken away from this conversation, it's that when someone says they have unconditional love they're simply being sloppy with the term unconditional and what they really mean is that they love someone for now and don't think it will change soon.

It's clear Dan regrets opening this thread, as he lacks any ability to come to terms with any basic notion of love. His unremitting hostility to the loving mothers and fathers who would be honest interlocutors is quite appalling. I can't imagine anyone allowing him to babysit a child, or to go into a combat situation with him supposedly on your side.

 

[Famine]

It's clear Dan regrets opening this thread, as he lacks any ability to come to terms with any basic notion of love.

Except that he's married - and having met them both, you can clearly see they love each other.


Any chance of sticking to discussing the topic, rather than a bilious character assassination?

I'll start you off:
I love my wife tremendously. I suspect that if I found out she was lacing my coffee with Polonium-210, I might go off the idea somewhat. I have no reason to think that would ever happen but it is, after all, a condition. If x, then y.

I love my daughter tremendously. However, if it turned out she was another Beverley Allitt, I imagine I might be less inclined to do so. Again, I have no reason to think that would ever happen - and she is only eight - but it is, after all, a condition. If x, then y.


However, part of love is trust. Not only do I have little reason to think my wife or daughter will ever be murderers, I implicitly trust that they won't be - that is to say that the hypothetical situations above don't even factor in my love for them. The concept that, one day, they may betray my trust doesn't even enter my scope of consciousness - or I wouldn't love them.

To that end I'd say that all love is unconditional because we can't even conceive the conditions. But also that all lost love was conditional because the conditions happened. As a side note, I can say with total confidence that, even 13 years after she died, my dad still loved my mum - time wasn't a condition for them.

 

[Public'sTwin]

It now becomes clear why Dan so hotly denies its existence or desirability. He who can never know such love must be a poor soulless cretin forever condemned to callously denying such folks as the loving mother Wenders so much as their patch of ground to stand upon.

Dotini,

This is not a discussion point; your propagandist diction to rally the troops against Danoff is not welcome, either. It's clear that he's been sticking to the finely defined term "unconditional", one that has become too romanticized, apparently, to respect being critiqued.

Dan is exactly stating that unconditional means eternal. Most 8th graders know better.

Apart from most 8th graders not even knowing what love is, you are misinterpreting danoff. I'm rarely one to agree with him—and in fact, I don't, in this case either—but it's clear that his understood definition, as there have been two legitimate ones proposed, is correct: Following that a condition—a caveat, a catch, an exemption of sorts—is met, love can and frequently does end.

My mother's love for my father was unconditional, until violence and alcoholism met those unforeseen conditions. In contrast, it was unconditional in that he didn't have to meet any conditions to attain it—just for it to be broken.

It's clear Dan regrets opening this thread, as he lacks any ability to come to terms with any basic notion of love. His unremitting hostility to the loving mothers and fathers who would be honest interlocutors is quite appalling. I can't imagine anyone allowing him to babysit a child, or to go into a combat situation with him supposedly on your side.

Defamatory and irresponsible.

And. . .

Dan accepts no personal accountability but leaps to condemn his gender.

All loving fathers should be outraged. His gratuitous parting shot at Wenders is disingenuous. He does not value discourse, but seeks to control and dominate it.

With all due respect, nobody here asked for a psychiatric evaluation.

-Greg

 

[Dotini]

Any chance of sticking to discussing the topic?

Famine, thank you for your remarks. Remarkably even-handed, considering you have a dog in this fight.

The topic is love. Unconditional love is a subset of that.

If the universe can be conceived of as a struggle between light and dark, good and bad, love and hate, then this thread touches on universal themes.

It seems to me, as I think it might any disinterested observer, that one side of this debate is for light, for love and for the good in humanity. That is the side where I choose to stand.

It seems to me that another side in this debate seeks to drive a steel wedge into love and its practitioners by tearing down and destroying a vital component of the great meaning of love. I associate this side with anarchy, destruction, and madness. This side constantly emphasizes violence, murder, drunkenness and pederasty in its standard argument; a low position from which to make any positive stand. Invidious attempts at redefinition of English terms are regularly invoked. These problems form a consistent pattern over the long term, far beyond that of this thread.

If I am asked to adhere to Marquis of Queensbury rules in this contest. then so should the other side. It's also wise that any nominal referees who are also partisans should yield to those who have no such obvious conflict-of-interest.

 

[Famine]

Famine, thank you for your remarks. Remarkably even-handed, considering you have a dog in this fight.

[...]

If I am asked to adhere to Marquis of Queensbury rules in this contest. then so should the other side. It's also wise that any nominal referees who are also partisans should yield to those who have no such obvious conflict-of-interest.

Everyone's asked to adhere to them on GTPlanet as a whole. The referees are generally chosen for their ability to remain non-partisan and you will find that, in matters of moderation, where one speaks, all agree (another reason behind why we are chosen).

The topic is love. Unconditional love is a subset of that.

I don't agree. The topic is clearly unconditional love alone. If Dan sought to deny the possibility of love, would he be married?

If the universe can be conceived of as a struggle between light and dark, good and bad, love and hate, then this thread touches on universal themes.

It seems to me, as I think it might any disinterested observer, that one side of this debate is for light, for love and for the good in humanity. That is the side where I choose to stand.

Again, I don't agree. The thread is more about the difference between superlative and reality, without delving into the murky depths of darkness, evil and hatred.

Dan's first post even states that he is merely sceptical that the hyperbole of "unconditional love" can exist in reality - not of all love.

It seems to me that another side in this debate seeks to drive a steel wedge into love and its practitioners by tearing down and destroying a vital component of the great meaning of love. I associate this side with anarchy, destruction, and madness. This side constantly emphasizes violence, murder, drunkenness and pederasty in its standard argument; a low position from which to make any positive stand. Invidious attempts at redefinition of English terms are regularly invoked. These problems form a consistent pattern over the long term, far beyond that of this thread.

I'm sure I'll surprise you by disagreeing again, but a man who disbelieves the concept of love wouldn't be married (and wouldn't have come to my own wedding).


As you can see from my post I don't necessarily agree with my "dog", though I can see exactly what his point is - and I don't agree that it's what you're making it out to be.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

It now becomes clear why Dan so hotly denies its existence or desirability. He who can never know such love must be a poor soulless cretin forever condemned to callously denying such folks as the loving mother Wenders so much as their patch of ground to stand upon.

No, not really. Let's say you have a son who tries to cause you pain at every chance he gets. He stabs you and leaves you bleeding until the ambulance arrives. Your love for him stops, no matter the period of time, so it is conditional.

 

[Keef]

You dodged his point, dude.

The point I ended that post on was that I think Danoff is wrong to assume that unconditional love does not exist. I think it's only possible to know when a situation arises that puts the theory to the test. Whether it does or doesn't, I don't know and am not bothered, I'm just saying nobody knows until they find out.

On another note, the risking your life thing. You would risk your life to save your wife? That's fantastic that you love her that much, that you would do something to utterly stupid for somebody who isn't you. If you're so bloody logical then in a situation like that you'd clearly realize you should not risk your life because you've still got more left, whereas her's is most certainly about to end. People to meet, places to be, money to make. What's logical about giving that up? A piece of paper that says you're married? It's just like lines on the road, or laws. Not a solid boundary. You can do anything, but you might have to pay the consequences. The only thing marriage does is make sure you get in trouble if you mess it up.

Now, if she disrespected your relationship and your love for her by violating whatever condition, would you then sit idly by as she got run over by a train?

 

[Mrs. Famine]

Here's a flip side. When my daughter was born, I felt no love for her. It's a very hard thing to admit - I even got to a point where I didn't even want her and secretly hoped something horrible would happen so my life could be back to the way it was.

I had to learn to love her, the instant mother daughter bond was not there. I feel utterly ashamed to admit to any of this, but it's true. However, several months later I began to realise I couldn't imagine my life without her and thus, I love her unconditionally. If she became a murderer, a rapist, a paedophile, whatever - I would still love her, I just wouldn't like her as a person. She may well be my flesh and blood, but I equate those early months to how it might feel when a parent takes on an adopted child and has to learn to love them. You don't love them any less, and there are no conditions attached.

(I would just like to point out that although I convinced myself that I was utterly callous and I hate myself for the way I felt in those months after my daughter's birth, I realised later that I had PND and in a way, it wasn't my fault)

 

[Dotini]

If Dan sought to deny the possibility of love, would he be married?

Benefit of clergy. All men are animals.

 

[Exorcet]

Doing something illogical doesn't imply a lack of conditions. Unconditional love cannot realistically be proven, as an infinite number of conditions must be tested. Conditional love can be identified though. Further, I can't agree with anyone who thinks unconditional love is superior. It seems as though those who support it came in believing it to be inherently good and necessary. This seems like a misunderstanding to me.

 

[Duke]

Benefit of clergy. All men are animals.

WHAT?! Benefit of clergy in Dan's life?

Dan has never said love doesn't exist. He's clearly stated he feels it. I disagree that logic dictates that Dan could never give his life to save his wife's. On the contrary, Dan might well logically think that his contribution to life in general would be smaller than his wife's and therefore he should die in her place, should the situation arise. He can also logically decide that he would prefer death knowing he had saved her to life knowing he had not.

All of that can be logically derived and does not deny the existence of love.

He's also stated that it is clearly possible that unconditional love may exist; he just thinks it is not a healthy thing if it does. I tend to agree.

Those that say love is unconditional but can end when situations change are misunderstanding the word "unconditional".

 

[Dotini]

WHAT?! Benefit of clergy in Dan's life?

It's gratifying to see there is some degree of sanity here.

Wikipedia has stated, "unconditional love is frequently used to describe love between family members, comrades in arms and between others in highly committed relationships."

"Comrades in arms" is understood to be soldiers in combat. Would you then assert that unconditional love is unhealthy among our soldiers in combat?

Ever yours
Dotini

 

[Exorcet]

"Comrades in arms" is understood to be soldiers in combat. Would you then assert that unconditional love is unhealthy among our soldiers in combat?

Not to speak for others, but it would extremely unhealthy.

 

[Danoff]

Dan accepts no personal accountability but leaps to condemn his gender. All loving fathers should be outraged. His gratuitous parting shot at Wenders is disingenuous. He does not value discourse, but seeks to control and dominate it.

Heh... here is what I was getting at:

This may be something that only a mother can feel,...

Dan is exactly stating that unconditional means eternal. Most 8th graders know better

Explain to me how time does not qualify as a condition.

It's clear Dan regrets opening this thread, as he lacks any ability to come to terms with any basic notion of love.

Hah! You do not know me at all. Why is the characteristic response here to think that I am attacking the notion of love. I'm totally head-over-heels in love myself. Stay on topic - this is about "unconditional" love, not love itself. This is about loving someone no matter how undeserving they may turn out to be. Something that I find remarkably unhealthy and almost theoretically impossible.

If she became a murderer, a rapist, a paedophile, whatever - I would still love her, I just wouldn't like her as a person.

How does that work? You wouldn't like her but you'd lover her? Isn't "like" a prerequisite of "love"? You can care about someone you don't like, but I'm not sure how you can love someone you don't like.

"Comrades in arms" is understood to be soldiers in combat. Would you then assert that unconditional love is unhealthy among our soldiers in combat?

Did you try to think of how it might be? It's no different than any other scenario really. I think I gave a detailed description of why unconditional love is unhealthy earlier.

More insidious, unconditional love is the ultimate lack of self esteem. It requires devaluing yourself to the point where there is nothing that someone can do to you, or to the others that you love, that makes them unworthy of your love. And if such a person can be worthy of your love - what is it worth? Nothing.

^ Refute that.

 

[Dotini]

Dan said,
" Unconditional love is the ultimate lack of self esteem. It requires devaluing yourself to the point where there is nothing that someone can do to you, or to the others that you love, that makes them unworthy of your love. And if such a person can be worthy of your love - what is it worth? Nothing."



Dotini sez,
Hatred is the ultimate lack of self-esteem. It requires devaluing yourself to the point where there is nothing someone can do for you, or for others, that makes them worthy of your love. And if such a person can be unworthy of your love, what are you worth? Nothing.

I win!
Dotini

 

[Danoff]

Dotini sez,
Hatred is the ultimate lack of self-esteem. It requires devaluing yourself to the point where there is nothing someone can do for you, or for others, that makes them worthy of your love. And if such a person can be unworthy of your love, what are you worth? Nothing.

I win!
Dotini

I don't understand what you wrote. Hating someone does not require devaluing yourself. Unconditional hatred, if we're to be parallel here, would require devaluing SOMEONE ELSE. It is the ultimate lack of regard for someone else.

Unconditional hatred makes about as much sense as unconditional love. But both love and hate can be healthy.

 

[Exorcet]

both love and hate can be healthy.

Very true. It's unfortunate, but I have been driven to hate people closely related to me. It doesn't mean I'm actively trying to kill them, I don't even try to make their lives difficult. It just means that all the trust and interaction normally associated with family is not granted to them. If this was not done, I'd be a fool and much worse off than I am now.

 

[Duke]

Very true. It's unfortunate, but I have been driven to hate people closely related to me. It doesn't mean I'm actively trying to kill them, I don't even try to make their lives difficult. It just means that all the trust and interaction normally associated with family is not granted to them. If this was not done, I'd be a fool and much worse off than I am now.

In other words, unconditional love for those close relations would have been unhealthy for you, just as Danoff has been proposing.

 

[Mrs. Famine]

How does that work? You wouldn't like her but you'd love her? Isn't "like" a prerequisite of "love"? You can care about someone you don't like, but I'm not sure how you can love someone you don't like

Nup, I believe that if you're bonded to someone (even if something they've done makes you feel sad, disappointed and not want to spend time with them), then it's wholly possible to dislike them, but still hold love for them deep down. Like, if they came to you and declared they were sorry, that they'd changed as a person and they'd never do the horrible thing again, then that love for them would mean you'd let them back into your life and be willing to forgive them.

But, as it hasn't and hopefully won't happen then I can't give a first person account of how it feels. I do know someone though who has been treated very badly by her son and although she never wants to see him ever again, because he's her flesh and blood then deep down she still loves him.

 

[Danoff]

I do know someone though who has been treated very badly by her son and although she never wants to see him ever again, because he's her flesh and blood then deep down she still loves him.

First, I doubt that "flesh and blood" makes a difference. I would hope that an adopted child would receive no different treatment. Likewise, I can tell you that I have family members (flesh and blood) who I do not love.

I wonder whether what you're describing is love or compassion. If someone mistreats you, and then comes back later seeming sincerely contrite, I think many people would forgive. In fact, I think usually in the process of hating someone for what they've done to you is something in the back of your mind hoping that the person will apologize so that you no longer have to harbor that hatred.

There are people who I no longer love, who I dislike, but who I still care about. These people are deserving of my disdain, and yet if they came to me for help I would help them. If they apologized sincerely, I would forgive them. If they made amends, I might even love them again someday. I am related to these people by "flesh and blood", and loved them once. But until they meet certain conditions which I think they will never achieve, I will not love them again.

It is an interesting question, whether you can truly love someone that you dislike. I'm not sure love is the right word. Certainly you can feel something for them - and I suppose that has to be acknowledged. Still, it's a tall order to even have that little bit of compassion regardless of what the person does. I can't imagine having even the slightest bit of regard for someone who does some of the horrible things I can imagine.

Should Hitler's mother have loved her son in any way shape or form (after his crimes)? No, not at all. She should have wanted her son dead, and simultaneously wanted to kill herself for having inflicted him upon the world. If she did love him after his genocidal rampage (though somehow I'm assuming she died before he really got going), then I would call that unhealthy.

 

[Mrs. Famine]

Define love?

 

[Exorcet]

Nup, I believe that if you're bonded to someone (even if something they've done makes you feel sad, disappointed and not want to spend time with them), then it's wholly possible to dislike them, but still hold love for them deep down. Like, if they came to you and declared they were sorry, that they'd changed as a person and they'd never do the horrible thing again, then that love for them would mean you'd let them back into your life and be willing to forgive them.

Those who I mentioned hating in my previous post, I hate them, but I've already forgiven them, or at the very least, I'm over what was done. I will still continue to hate them unless they change, however.

I don't think love is required for your example. However, a concrete definition of love, as what you're asking for would certainly help.

I think this is a good definition:

"a strong positive emotion of regard and affection"