Obviously, and obviously not what was meant.

Religious dogma defines conditions for those that need conditions. — praxis

I don't think religion is relevant here. Christianity contains examples of why unconditional love is not a real thing, (and probably the best examples), but how we interact with a concept like love is a universal, human issue.

Lets say you want to buy a car, and the salesman tells you it is an unconditional car. Or, you're interviewing for a job and the employer tells you that the pay/benefits are unconditional. Or, that a scientist has made an unconditional discovery.

It would be foolish to accept these usages of unconditional, precisely because we understand the concept of "without condition" to be so vague that it is practically useless in assessing real value or fairness.

You don't have to be religious to recognize that doing so with love would be just as foolish.

Is it obvious? You wrote that it’s about the other and not the self. It’s obvious that it’s about the other AND the self.

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." — T Clark

The man I thought I loved lacked empathy and wanted me sexually alone, which I never permitted as my virtue is more important to me than anything else. It was the most horrible feeling having him hate me so much because he never attained what he wanted that I felt so worthless. I still hoped for a friendship because I could see the potential in him and my feelings were honorable and real. My hope was to inspire that empathy and compassion so that a friendship would form and he could start seeing me for more than just my body. But, he couldn't do it, he kept on lying and digging a deeper hole until I gave up because it was hurting too much.

What you have done is beautiful and you should be so proud for that. It is real love that you gave.

I still hoped for a friendship because I could see the potential in him and my feelings were honorable and real. — TimeLine

I wasn't finding fault with your post. I understood what you were saying. I just wanted to make it clear that I think letting go of hopes is a good thing. That it is at the heart of unconditional love.

Well, I just did some unconditional love yoga... so...

One of the conditions for the creation of life on Earth is sunlight. Having contributed to creating and sustaining life here-how does the light benefit from giving itself to create life? It would seem it receives no benefit. That is unconditional love.

Unconditional love does not exist; so why is it so popular

... it's popular... because... it does not exist?

A little bit like god, or unicorns that you can ride like a horse over the skies, or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Does History exist?

Does Love exist? If yes, what is it?

Great question! I'm not exactly sure, but part of it is Metaphysical. I realize you're an Atheist; do Metaphysical things exist to you?

Otherwise, say, in Christianity, Love takes on many forms: phenomenology, consciousness (Jesus), altruism, sacrifice, et al..

You forgot the L in metal physical. Metal is physical. I believe metal exists as in "physics".

From the point of view of Kierkegaard's Works of Love the matter is not about the conditions that determine what brings about one kind of connection or another but whether one has a duty to love.
If one has a duty to love, then it is happening under difficult conditions.

Duty to love? I don't get it. Can you elaborate? I thought it was attraction, compatibility and apparent availability (or imagined) that makes people fall in love.

What is this duty? To the king, to country and to god?

Kierkegaard must have been gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay, it's simply a preference. I just merely suggest that if someone considers boning a young beautiful wife a duty, then he ought not to have married her.

Well, there is a lot of talk about preference in his book.
The talk about being commanded to love is different.
It would be interesting to hear objections to that point of view.
But casting it as a matter of a reaction to a failed romance is weak beer.

The concept makes no sense. Any attempt you make to define what unconditional love is will result in conditional criteria. "Unconditional" itself if a condition. For the love to be different from conditional love, the condition is that it must be unconditional.

And yet, people will argue tooth and nail that it is a real thing. One of the most common examples is that of a mother's love for her child, but the first condition is that the child must be hers.

I believe the reason for the popularity of this concept is that it is convenient. It is akin to "the devil made me do it". It is tempting to legitimize the removal of standards and conditions on the basis of love. This kind of reasoning is not based on real love, but rather emotional appeal.

I look forward to hearing what you all think. — John Days

Any attempt you make to define what unconditional love is will result in conditional criteria. — John Days

The reasoning for the above would require as a premise the following:

1. Conditions for love are:
a. beauty = b
b. good
c. no conditions/unconditional

This means you're saying "non-conditions for love are conditions for love" which can be rephrased as "if anything is a non-condition for love then it is a condition for love" and this in logic is as follows: (x)(~Cx > Cx) where Cx = x is a condition for love. Let h = hate and we know that ~Ch = hate is not a condition for love

1. (x)(~Cx > Cx)......assume for reductio ad absurdum
2. ~Ch.....................premise
3. (x)(~~Cx v Cx)...1 MI
4. (x)(Cx v Cx).........3 DN
5. (x)(Cx).................4 Taut
6. Ch........................5 UI
7. Ch & ~Ch.............2, 6 Conj
8. ~(x)(~Cx > Cx).....1 to 7 reductio ad absurdum

Line 8 negates your premise 1c. that no conditions for love are conditions for love.

There's another way your argument fails and that's where you say "(no condition) is condition" which translates to (~c) = c if c = condition

1. (~c) = c.....premise
2. c = (~c).....commutativity
3. ~(c = c).....rephrasing of 2 (there are no rules to apply) which is a violation of the law of idenity
4. c = c identity
5. (c = c) & (~(c = c))....contradiction

Apart from that we also have to consider the scope of conditions in conditional love so that we may comprehend without tying ourselves in a knot. Conditional love, in my view, is based on some quality in the person you love - things like beauty, moral goodness, etc. Ergo, by unconditional, unconditional love simply disregards these qualities deemed by most as necessary for love and loves nevertheless.

One of the most common examples is that of a mother's love for her child, but the first condition is that the child must be hers. — John Days

I think you are moving the idea to nearly mathematical levels. Unconditional in this context means regardless of behavior, regardless of accomplishments, regardless of how the mother, for example, is treated by the child or how the child feels about her, she will love him or her. I think that is meaningful and true in many cases.

I don't know much about Jewish religion, but I know they have not much of a concept of an afterlife in Heaven. So the only reason for Jews to love, obey, and service their god is due to... what? There is no stake if they don't. No matter what they do, the Jews, according to their religion (as far as I know, and I ain't no religious Jewish guy) only serve god because they want to, because it's the only thing to do.

True, there are the covenants, the contract with god... cut off the foreskin, get protection by god... stupid thing, and look at the Holocaust. Three million foreskinless males murdered after being tortured and kept as slaves.

So god does not provide much protection for the Jews, but the (religious) Jews still love their god like the Christians. Christians have a reason, a condition to fulfil there, they believe in Pascal's wager; but the Jews don't.

Go firgure. Unconditional love.

This occurred to me just now: I read a book, an anthology. On the contents page, there was the title of a piece (the anthology consisted of many short pieces), "Unconditional Love -- Unconditional Expectations".

I guffawed.

I wish I remembered what the author was trying to say.

I think you are moving the idea to nearly mathematical levels. Unconditional in this context means regardless of behavior, regardless of accomplishments, regardless of how the mother, for example, is treated by the child or how the child feels about her, she will love him or her. I think that is meaningful and true in many cases. — Coben

That's a lack of social constraints, but there are other constraints, and you can't completely ignore the other constraints, unless you declare a certain context that you wish to arbitrarily limit your scope to. But arbitrarily limiting your scope is just yet another constraint.

I just talked to a Jewish friend of mine whose parents are Modern Orthodox. He said that those who observe the laws and live according to them, will resurrect when the Messiah comes. I said, will it be like a blissful life, or the same old grind after resurrection that we experience today? He was unsure, but he opined it will be the same old grind. I asked him if people will live forever, those who are resurrected, or will they die again eventually? Again, he was unsure.

So resurrection is not the bed of roses one might suspect it could be. Just a second chance at this shitty, fucking grind we call life.

So the Jews really love their god unconditionally, because they don't expect anything in return from him, by ways of rewards such as: candy, a new set of dishes, or rides on His back.

That's a lack of social constraints, but there are other constraints, and you can't completely ignore the other constraints, unless you declare a certain context that you wish to arbitrarily limit your scope to. But arbitrarily limiting your scope is just yet another constraint. — god must be atheist

Unconditional love is a social phrase. It's not a claim like some theologians have that God is omniscient. Or a mathematical idea of infinity. It's not like we found this term in the middle of some extremely tight logical analysis of Kant or something. We talking about people who manage to love their sons who are murderers, who turn them in to the police, but visit them in prison and never stop loving them. People who love their drug addict children who steam from them and snarl at them and sometimes never come back from this. It's not math, it may not be perfect in that way. We are using words to convey something that is extreme but not one of CAntor's categories.

It is a psychological term you calim. But isn't there a philosophy of psychology? Of family? Darwinism? Of social bonding, of family ties, of blood being thicker than water?

You may want to look at undonditional love as a psychological issue, I won't stand in your way. But I refuse to limit philosophy to limit itself by excluding this psychological issue from its scope of examination. It would be similar to excluding all religious considerations, since they are religion, a matter of fraith, not of philosophy; or excluding all scientific findings form the scrutiny of philosophy since they are science, not thoughts on metaphysical levels.

I think it's fine to look at the idea of unconditional love as a kind of new, I stress new, more ideal concept (perfect) and see if it is possible. If I go back to the OP, it seems to me there is a generalized attack on the idea as making sense. Perhaps between the OP and page 6, here, there was some formal shift, but it seems to me the context was the use of the term in a general way. I think the term has meaning and is useful.

I wouldn't even know what unconditional love would mean if we do not restrict those words. Does that mean you love everything will limitless love? That you love the same when you are sleeping?

To me it's a bit like saying unconditional surrenders do not exist, because the surrendering party cannot undo its existence in the past retroactively. Or cannot surrender the food it ate two weeks ago. or it cannot promise that everyone in the surrendering country or sieged town will stop wishing the attackers ill will.

I don't think the term, as used, is meant to be a description of perfect boundless love with no limits. We can decide to treat the term as if it had these characteristics, in the name of exploring. Fine. But I think we then need to acknowledge that we are not really talking about how the term is used normally. And then also, perhaps, acknowledge that it can be a useful concept, as generally conceived, despite not having the attributes we usually attribute, if ever, to deities or mathematical concepts.

To be candid, sometimes it seems like there is a trend, at least on philosophy forums, to put everything into two categories: Irrational or scientifically well supported. With nothing useful in between. And that our language should be this pure communication where any conclusion is absolute and can be measured.

Of course such a communication is not possible since there will be metaphors hidden even in the most anally produced language.

From the OP:

One of the most common examples is that of a mother's love for her child, but the first condition is that the child must be hers.

I think that there is meaninful use of language occuring when we refer to parental love as opposed to other kinds of love, of course dependent on individual cases. That something else is possible and occurs in the relations between parents and their children, that teenagers and even romantic adults, despite their idealisms, cannot live up to. A love that will lead to continued kind of empathetic responses from the parent where all other kinds of relationships would tend to say 'see you later'. In most relationships we look for balance, fairness, reciprocity. We have expectations that will undermine love if these expectations are not met. And then you have love where that is not the case.

Sure, analyze whether unconditional perhaps means that even if the laws of physics disappear and the person in question is dead, will their love continue. But this is a discussion of something else, not what people are talking about.