Actually I meant to say it's not egoistic.

Also it's not really ad hominem since there is a pattern among those who decry love the way you do. It's not really rooted in logic but more negative personal experience with it.

If that was true, you wouldn't need to defend yourself as much as you did. — Gus Lamarch

This is sort of false reasoning. I am explaining myself in regards to your claim about such a love not existing but all you seem to do is assume my feelings and what they mean. I never said it to be accepted by myself, you are reading into things that aren't there. I am merely qualifying the love I have for my dogs. You are making a claim about love but I am giving evidence on why that claim is false. There are also plenty of other people who also exhibit unconditional love or love that isn't egoic. I think you have a narrow conception on the matter.

I'm just saying that this love is not as deep as you think it is. — Gus Lamarch

I would have to disagree with this.

Either way, I wouldn't go by your argument on love.

Either way, I wouldn't go by your argument on love. — Darkneos

We agree to disagree!

We agree to disagree! — Gus Lamarch

If you say that unconditional love doesn't exist and you're able to reach an agreement as to how you're defining "unconditional love," then you've not submitted as much a philosophical inquiry as an empirical one. So, if someone says that they have experienced the unconditional love you've asserted does not exist, then in order to maintain your thesis that such does not exist, then you're left telling them that they're confused as to their feelings, despite you're having no access to their feelings. What this can only mean is that you yourself lack such feelings and you don't find it possible that someone else should have the feelings that elude you.

So what we know is that you've never experienced unconditional love. I know this because you told me. Would it not be as absurd for me to tell you that you have in fact experienced unconditional love even though you told me otherwise as it is for you to tell a poster he hasn't experienced unconditional love when he says he has? What are you accessing that allows you to know he's not telling the truth?

I used to believe in unconditional love, thinking that Carl Rogers philosophy on the subject was a wonderful basis for psychotherapy interventions and as a way for living.

That was until I discovered that the people I knew who had introduced it to me were extremely opportunistic themselves. I do think that the individuals really believed that they were practising unconditional love because they saw it as a theoretical underpinning for working with others professionaly but had not stopped to consider the difference between therapeutic work and daily life.

I believe that Carl Rogers was a very important writer but while he wrote very well on the subject it is too easy to romanticize that one can achieve such high ideals. I would love to say that I can l can give unconditional love, but I am too aware of the shadow as Jung described. Dark motives can smuggle in through the back door unexpectedly.

If you say that unconditional love doesn't exist and you're able to reach an agreement as to how you're defining "unconditional love," then you've not submitted as much a philosophical inquiry as an empirical one. So, if someone says that they have experienced the unconditional love you've asserted does not exist, then in order to maintain your thesis that such does not exist, then you're left telling them that they're confused as to their feelings, despite you're having no access to their feelings. What this can only mean is that you yourself lack such feelings and you don't find it possible that someone else should have the feelings that elude you. — Hanover

The same context can be applied to love. No one can ever have "access" to love, as it is an abstract concept of how we perceive the relationships between individuals - I use "Egos", but you can go with whatever you want -. Even without having access to the OP's feelings or emotions, through the use of egoism it can be said that this "unconditional" feeling of love is simply a masquerade of who he really is - this is not only focused on the OP but to Man as a whole -. This "confusion of feelings" that you claim I'm focusing on is real. Just simply question or deny anyone's absolute truths, which in most cases, they collapse into denial and eventually anger - it's really horrible when we look at ourselves in the mirror and see what we truly are -.

Again, I am not saying that love is a bad thing or that it should be abolished, on the contrary, it must continue to be used as purpose. However, to say that something can be "unconditional", that is, that there are no adverse conditions that can change the conception of such a concept by the human individual, is something that human nature itself already debunks in itself. The fact that we are Beings - as in existence - already makes absolute concepts unattainable, and therefore, if affirmed by an existing being, false.

So what we know is that you've never experienced unconditional love. I know this because you told me. — Hanover

I don't remember talking to you about my personal life. In fact, I don't even know why I would do that.

However, to say that something can be "unconditional", that is, that there are no adverse conditions that can change the conception of such a concept by the human individual, is something that human nature itself already debunks in itself. — Gus Lamarch

If we can arrive at a suitable definition of unconditional love, then we can then search the world for its existence. If you're saying that it's an impossibility by logical operation in terms of what a person is, then we needn't search the world for it. I'd submit that if we use the term "unconditional love," we could probably find out how we're using it and what we're referencing, which would likely allow for some allowances of some conditions. I would imagine that even in the most extreme examples of acceptance of others where the love seemed entirely unconditional, you could hypothesize a situation arising involving such malice and injury where the person might rethink their love.

So, if I love my child throughout his life regardless of the ups and downs we might experience, that would entail unconditional love as far as I'm concerned, even if we could hypothesize a situation where I might have questioned my love had it occurred at some point.

I don't remember talking to you about my personal life. In fact, I don't even know why I would do that. — Gus Lamarch

You said unconditional love didn't exist, so you did in fact tell me that within your personal life you have never experienced unconditional love.

So, if I love my child throughout his life regardless of the ups and downs we might experience — Hanover

The point that you consider in your argument "ups and downs" in relation to your relationship with your hypothetical child already proves my view that unconditional love does not exist, because if it were absolute, you would not even consider the existence of such periods.

You said unconditional love didn't exist, so you did in fact tell me that within your personal life you have never experienced unconditional love. — Hanover

This is not philosophy but opiniative speculation based on your view that unconditional love exists, even though you have no proof that such an emotion may exist.