"If, then"? Love isn't logic, buddy. Just as there are those who are completely emotional without reason, you are trying to find some complete definition without emotion. You are creating the conditions all by your wee little bonny lass.

Again, and please for pity's sake read this, it is not a constant but an expression and that there are and can be those that express unconditional love.

You have yet to show a real contradiction; all you did was babble your misunderstanding of the semantics.

and that there are and can be those that express unconditional love. — TimeLine

Nah. They can express love which does not expect any kind of payment in return, but that is still a condition for what makes this love what it is. If this condition is not met, you will say it is not unconditional. It's a contradiction.

Again, and please for pity's sake read this, it is not a constant but an expression and that there are and can be those that express unconditional love. — TimeLine

Of course it's not constant, a feeling of love is fleeting and dependent on particular conditions. The difference between a feeling of love and 'unconditional love' is that the latter implies unconditional future acceptance and support, otherwise it's expressing a meaningless sentiment.

Is unconditional acceptance a good thing? Sure, why not. If the object of our love voted for Trump, for example, we could still accept them for what they are.

Is unconditional support a good thing? If the object of our love turned out to be a sociopath (they can be quite charming) and began a campaign of abuse against us it would be foolish to support them in their abuse. The best thing we could do is get away from them. And though we might be able to accept them for what they are we could in no sense support them. Our support is conditional.

I think you are playing word games--the delight of getting people to agree that something unconditional must have conditions. It's an empty exercise. — Bitter Crank

I agree, but this is an interesting conversation. Let's go on and have it among ourselves. We can be true to the OP without playing John Days' game. Let's go on on our own and avoid the bologna.

Difficult to deliver? Absolutely. Unconditional love is the bread of heaven, not our run of the mill product. We are bid to try. — Bitter Crank

It's not that difficult to deliver. It's one of those things, like enlightenment, that seems so simple once you look back on it. Not that I am enlightened.

No, it is not. It is the exact opposite. It is a convenient doctrine which allows the excuse of any bad behavior, and it is justified by extremely powerful emotions. — John Days

I've experienced it. You're wrong.

Brotherly love - my favourite kind of love - which is really just genuine friendship, contains conditions. Heck, romantic or erotic love needs conditions. Familial love and so on, they are all ways in which we can express this subjective sentiment or feeling, but to say that 'love' is just one of them is mistaken. — TimeLine

Relationships - families, spouses, lovers, friends - require conditions, love does not. You can love someone you can't be with. That's part of its unconditionality. Unconditionalness. It's still there when whatever conditions are on the relationship are violated.

Unconditional love denotes a purity of this motivation to give love to another or others without a moments thought about receiving anything in return. — TimeLine

I think your view is a bit more high falutin than it needs to be. As Laurie Lewis wrote "You don't choose who you love, love chooses you." I haven't used that quote on PF yet. I appreciate the opportunity. The rest is just not doing things. Stopping doing destructive things.

Of course it's not constant, a feeling of love is fleeting and dependent on particular conditions. The difference between a feeling of love and 'unconditional love' is that the latter implies unconditional future acceptance and support, otherwise it's expressing a meaningless sentiment. — praxis

Ok, acceptance. But not necessarily support if by support you mean encouragement of behavior.

Unconditional love sounds so appealing, but it is an illusion. It is like addicts who think drugs will make their life more bearable. The drugs can make them forget, make them space out, make them unaware, and give a temporary sense of pleasantness, but it is not real.

How much better to forsake these emotionally appealing illusions and instead grab the bull by the horns, where we acknowledge that love requires standards, and then we get busy working out what are fair or unfair standards for love. — John Days

Is unconditional support a good thing? If the object of our love turned out to be a sociopath (they can be quite charming) and began a campaign of abuse against us it would be foolish to support them in their abuse. The best thing we could do is get away from them. And though we might be able to accept them for what they are we could in no sense support them. Our support is conditional. — praxis

While I still uphold what I upheld, why not be more concrete in your arguments against the notion of unconditional love?

Here’s my reasoning against the terminology: little girls all over the world (not to exclude little boys, who can do the same in different ways) grow up fantasizing about the perfect love. The happily ever after, unconditional, romantic love that conquers all shall one day be theirs (as shall be that grand wedding with the biggest wedding cake and all the trimmings). They fall in love. Now, romantic love, as Pat Benatar once sang about, can be quite an intense dance between interests of ego. Give in to easily and the other can then presume to have you under their thumb. The now grown up young woman then thinks, “my love for the other is unconditional; I will prove it by not losing the taste of unconditional love we both once shared; and, in so doing, will eventually show the other the error in their ways when they … verbally abuse me, maybe hit me, maybe threaten me with my life (… and it can get worse). And then we will live happily ever after together: with my true unconditional love having paved the way”.

Not only does this interpretation of unconditional love not result in good/healthy things for the girls/women who hold it, it also happens to make far more ass holes in the world than there otherwise would be. From the ass holes’ point of view (be they male, female, transgendered, whatever), their partner who holds unconditional love for them only reinforces their beliefs of the way the world “really works” (scare quotes fully intended). Mildly or extensively, it teaches all too many that Marquee de Sade’s philosophy of life is a quite accurate depiction of what life and love is all about.

[edit: Since I know some will view things from as many vantages as possible, this having virtually nothing to do with Servant&Master/Bondage/Spankings/Explicitness/etc. in the bedroom … which - unlike de Sade’s philosophy - can quite readily be aspects/facades of closer proximity to unconditional love as (sometimes) practiced out in the bedroom (as fantasies). It’s a fully different issue than the one I here intended, but, in trying to be clearer about my stance …]

And then I, my family members, and others I care about in this world have to deal with these ass holes out there.

Again, I still uphold what I previously upheld in this thread: Unconditional love is real, but its perfect reality cannot be found within space and time, only closer approximations of it. That said, leaving the logics to unconditional love alone for the moment, there is still this quite, to me, pertinent reason to try to avoid the terminology of “unconditional love” … especially around children, imo.

Is unconditional acceptance a good thing? — praxis

This is a really good example, and the obvious answer is that no, unconditional acceptance is not a good thing. There's no person here who could honestly say that are willing to accept an agreement without first understanding what the conditions of that agreement are.

No, it is not. It is the exact opposite. It is a convenient doctrine which allows the excuse of any bad behavior, and it is justified by extremely powerful emotions.
— John Days

I've experienced it. You're wrong. — T Clark

The issue was never about whether someone is able to experience altruistic love (i.e. the kind which works even if there is no payment or reward). The issue was that it is irrational to call it unconditional when there are clearly conditions which define it.

I think you are confused by what unconditional actually means, and this fits with my point that people are viewing this from an emotional point of view rather than rational.

If a plumber were to say, "Yes, I can see your basement is flooded but I won't fix the problem until you pay me", then he has added a condition to his love, but then again, that kind of behavior isn't love in the first place. His demand for payment eliminates his behavior from what love is, in the same way that a prostitute demanding payment for her time automatically eliminates her behavior from what love is. No rational person will believe a prostitute loves them while she's still asking for payment.

When you add "unconditional" to the love, you only add confusion to what love is, as though there are some kinds of love which do allow demands for payment, and that unconditional love is just a better kind of love because it does not demand payment? This is delusion about what love is, and it's popular because it allows the majority of the world to continue thinking of themselves as loving despite demanding payment for their time, skills, and services.

As Laurie Lewis wrote "You don't choose who you love, love chooses you." — T Clark

You're still talking about an emotional kind of love rather than behavioral love. Of course we choose who we love. If a man tells his wife, "Sorry that I cheated on you, honey, but that gosh darned love just chose me" we'd think that is a ridiculous argument, because even if a man is tempted to cheat, he still has a responsibility to refrain for the sake of the love for his spouse.

It would be even more ridiculous if he were to say to his wife, "Don't we have unconditional love for one another? Why are you putting these conditions on our love by forbidding me from loving this other woman?"

Unconditional love sounds nice and fluffy and soft and warm and fuzzy, but it is a delusion.

Not only does this interpretation of unconditional love not result in good/healthy things for the girls/women who hold it, it also happens to make far more ass holes in the world than there otherwise would be. — javra

Excellent point. Romantic love can feel so extremely powerful, which is why it is so popular in movies, books, music etc. It sells, and it sells BIG, but the make-believe of it has become a little too real and many people believe the lie that if they can only make their feelings strong enough then their feelings will overcome everything else. I talked to a guy who said he was ready to marry his soul-mate because they could talk on the phone for hours and never get bored. He couldn't hear anything about life goals, religious/political views, spending habits, living habits or any of the other things that have a huge impact on what makes a relationship work after the strong emotional feelings taper off over time.

Powerful emotional feelings are a legitimate part of love, but only a part. Other aspects of love include a rational examination of the issues, as well as patience, kindness, forgiveness, and even hardness, as is the case with parents who discipline their children, or spouses who make a stand against their partner over some important issue. These are all conditions which make love what it is.

It would be foolish to talk about unconditional science, because science is based on conditions like observation, experiment, and evidence. If someone tried to prove a conclusion, we would expect him to do so based on these conditions. If he tried to argue that his conclusion is proved on unconditional science, we would not accept it, because that kind of method would allow anyone to prove anything without condition. There would only be chaos.

It is difficult for most of us to see the problem with unconditional love because we've been taught that it is inherently good, and because it is unconditional, it cannot be questioned. Even here on this philosophy forum, where the whole point of discussion is to be reasonable, thoughtful and to consider the evidence of various arguments in a rational, critical way, there are people who just cannot let go of the obvious contradiction in the concept. They acknowledge that there are conditions to unconditional love, but they still say it is right to call it unconditional. This is an emotional connection, like the fairy-tale fantasy romance that javra talked about.

I am suggesting that we break out of the fantasy, good-feeling cultural traditions surrounding the concept of unconditional love, and instead view love in terms of what is practical in day-to-day life.

Unconditional love sounds nice and fluffy and soft and warm and fuzzy, but it is a delusion. — John Days

As I, and others, have said before, you have lost yourself, or are intentionally hiding, in a maze of words. We're talking about an experience, your talking about talking about an experience. Talking about talking about talking.

Of course it's not constant, a feeling of love is fleeting and dependent on particular conditions. The difference between a feeling of love and 'unconditional love' is that the latter implies unconditional future acceptance and support, otherwise it's expressing a meaningless sentiment. — praxis

An expression of love is fleeting; a feeling of love is not fleeting, on the contrary is the very fabric of our humanity. It is what enables the experience, just like how empathy can cause pangs of conscience that differs entirely to a sociopath. We are enabled with authenticity or genuine love when we experience giving love to another without any return (conditions), where we thus transcend from being a mindless drone to a human being and where morality is thus born. Moral consciousness is a combination of this capacity together with reason, to be conscious or aware of ourselves and applying it to our expressions and why these expressions of love contain conditions and rightly so. Yet, without self-awareness reason itself is useless or even dangerous; it is what makes a person vote for Trump. As I said earlier, a mother defending her son tooth and nail despite him being a murderer is not showing unconditional love, on the contrary the condition of her actions is selfish and unreasonable.

Unconditional love is symbolic of this ability, a symbol of our ability to give love authentically or genuinely. It is the very ability we have to feel love, basically, before all else starts to follow.

Indeed, in our day and age people actually "love" the economics and social condition of their situation and not their partners, or they abandon their children or they say nasty things with a smile on their face and sweet lips; it is all just a show, a display and there is nothing genuine in their behaviour whether it is romantically or morally. Whenever these people end up finding something better or even worse when they start thinking that they are better, bang, out comes the disloyalty and it could even be years and years later. There is no future in inauthentic love even if they say it is unconditional.

You can love someone you can't be with. That's part of its unconditionality. — T Clark

This certainly serves some food for thought. It depends on why you cannot be with them; if you choose not to because your circumstances would be less appealing by being with the person that you love, you have set a condition or made the choice and it is entirely selfish. If they are in a relationship and though you love them, you choose to refrain from those feelings hoping that they are happy or if they have hurt you and you are reasonable enough to keep your distance but still hope that they are happy, then perhaps.

This certainly serves some food for thought. It depends on why you cannot be with them; if you choose not to because your circumstances would be less appealing by being with the person that you love, you have set a condition or made the choice and it is entirely selfish — TimeLine

Not at all. I'm not saying "be like I want or I won't be with you." I'm saying "I love you, but I can't be with you." I was just thinking about how to respond to you and this thought came to me. The thing that makes love unconditional is compassion.

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.

We are enabled with authenticity or genuine love when we experience giving love to another without any return (conditions),... — TimeLine

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.

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

So how about the opposite approach, since your main line of arguing here is pointing out various conditions through which people arrive at concepts of love, concepts of how love happens, how people experience it, etc? So, let's start with love as conditional. What are the conditions in which love occurs in our experience?

I think that love requires knowledge. Can't love something that you don't know very well, let alone don't even know exists. So there has to be some kind of intimation.

People talk about loving their children unconditionally. 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. Though studies show that step parents actually are crueler and more abusive, but I think that that has something to do with not having know them from the start. One of the things that aren't a condition, I would hope, would be that they're actually your biological progeny. Finding out that they aren't, 17 years into raising them hopefully wouldn't reduce your care for them, clearly it would be their mothers fault (lol) not theirs.

Issues of biological parents/vs not, and how that affects the care given to those children is absolutely something to be discussed, but what I was mentioning to JD is just a basic starting point; since he's just pointing out "conditions" that various people bring up in their arguments for unconditional love, why not start with the assumption of "conditional love" in order to surmise whether or not unconditional love exists? As to love requiring knowledge...it looks like your concept there is based on your remarks about parental situations? Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you have more to add about that idea?

No, the knowledge part is unrelated. Even "love at first sight" is conditional upon actually knowing that they exist at bare minimum. Though I think that is silly as well. If you think that you love someone the moment you meet them, or tell someone that you love them on the first date, I think that would be pretty red flag raising.

Just neurochemically, infatuation, a kind of obsession is what you feel immediately, which always fades. It can be kind of re-kindled by continually doing new and exciting things together forever. The novelty will drive it, as it will continue to reveal more and more things about them. Normally though, the bonding that takes place over years, which is what I would think is really the love, is both conceptually and biochemically distinct from the attraction, or infatuation.

Even "love at first sight" is conditional upon actually knowing that they exist at bar minimum. — Wosret

Is seeing an attractive person knowledge?

Seeing anything new is of course knowledge. You didn't know that they even existed before. It isn't like "seen one seen 'em all" or something... we're talking about human beings here...

My point was that seeing is perception, which isn't knowledge, but that's off topic...

? So I saw you hit someone, but I don't know that you hit them? The perceptual evidence of an event isn't how we know things about it? Then how do we?

knowl·edge
ˈnäləj/Submit
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

It clearly is knowledge. That's just dismissive hand waving.

Guess I was being pedantic; sight -> perception -> interpretation -> knowledge, or something along those lines, but it all happens quickly.

How is that at all relevant. It doesn't mean that you know them without having any experience of them at all, and the less time spent, and attention paid to them, the less you'd know them. Is that controversial to you?

How is that at all relevant. — Wosret

No idea; you responded to my question posed to someone other than you.