do you believe it's possible to love another person without conditions?
if so, what would this look like to you??
Discussion
If you don't love every person then your love is conditional on them not being one of those other people. If there are non-person things that you don't love, then your love of them is at least partially conditional on them being a person at all.
I'm telling you, the only way to have truly uncoditional love is if you love absolutely everything. Otherwise you just get love that's conditional on the history you may have with them, or the image you may have of them in your head. Could you ever consider something like that to be unconditional love?
allow me to attempt to clarify if i'm following.
to you, the only way to unconditionally love anything is to love everything of its class—it's impossible to unconditionally love a specific instance?
because by choosing a specific instance you are creating a condition?
so i can't truly love my Wife unconditionally because i don't share the same love for a random person that i don't even know exists..? or maybe another person who i know exists..?
therefore the choice or preference or whatever sets the condition.
Not even that. If you only love something because it's in a specific class then wouldn't that be a condition? You would have to love every possible class of things.
If a demon took over your wife's body, would you love the demon? If not, then one of the conditions for your love is that your wife is not that demon. Would you WANT to love the demon?
Does any of what I'm saying make sense? Don't these count as conditions?
i'm sorry, i don't think i'm following then lol >_<
how do you interpret this kind of sentiment?
nostr:note1vvhcd7rjnzeec2kyu4psl2hvdn9kl6gatc0tgpn4tmnjet39np4qjt6nwx
"Lie to your kids."
Or: "tell your kids that none of their traits or decisions are relevant to your love."
I'm kidding. I have no idea how to interpret that kind of statement. It doesn't seem meaningful at all. I was hoping you would know. I was hoping that you would tell me that I was wrong. I'm disappointed that you haven't contradicted me, even when I've asked you directly about what you consider a "condition."
i do know. and i have my own interpretation.
but to be fair to myself, i can't really engage with you if i don't fully understand your point of view...
i'm just curious.
:3
I don't fully understand your point of view. Have I been failing to engage with you? Do you believe that I've been making a mistake by bothering to answer your questions?
okay, let me try and explain.
because, to me, i think you're conflating the idea of preferences with conditions. the idea that unconditional love requires loving everything misses the point of it entirely.
you seem to be focusing on physical attributes (appearance, type, actions) and not the intangible (emotions, feelings, connections). and maybe this is we're the disconnect is.
unconditional love is something that is given freely without conditions, expectations, or limitations. it doesn't imply that you have to love everything—it's not something universal—but it's love for a *specific* person that doesn't go away based on his or her actions or attributes.
unconditional love is founded in a deep connection with someone. it's essence rests in the depth of commitment and acceptance for that particular person, regardless of their imperfections or mistakes. having a preference for a specific person doesn't negate the possibility of unconditional love, it defines it.
i'm not sure what else to say without essentially repeating myself. i think you're overlooking the distinction between the conditions that affect the existence of love and the preferences that move us toward who we choose to love.
the questions like "would you still love this person if he were a demon" or "what if another different person was in place of who you love" kind of leave me at a loss because, to me, they miss the point. they reduce it to a logical experiment rather than an emotional experience.