Except and unless the definition you use is love that encompasses every single human being on earth, without any exceptions.
Because anything else, by definition, includes conditions. Even if the condition is as simple as being personally acquainted with the object of love.
Considering it casually, I don’t think that unconditional love exists in anyone. The only person who comes to mind is the Dalai Lama, and even him…maybe he comes close.
And maybe this isn’t a great debate, or maybe it’s no debate at all. Because about the only people who would argue the premise aren’t likely to be into arguing at all…we’ll soon see.
There is quite possibly someone, somewhere with just the right type of brain damage to love everyone unconditionally. And I’m sure someone will be in to say that God/Jesus/whatever has unconditional love.
But then, so what? Of what value is unconditional love? Why is it admirable or desirable?
I have usually heard the term “unconditional love” in reference to specifically targeted love, where the “unconditional” part means that you don’t exact any conditions from the specific person/place/thing being loved. So, if I unconditionally loved chocolate ice cream, I would still love it if it tasted like fecal matter. (I don’t unconditionally love chocolate ice cream.) I wouldn’t have to love strawberry ice cream to unconditionally love chocolate ice cream, though.
I have never heard that the “unconditional” part of “unconditional love” means “undirected”, so I reject your thesis.
I appreciate the attempt, but I don’t think it holds. Why would you love chocolate ice cream, but not love strawberry? Isn’t it because you love the taste/appearance/idea of chocolate, rather than strawberry? Then doesn’t it mean that if the aspects of chocolate that arouse love in your changed, you would stop loving it? In other words, is it in any way possible or likely that you WOULD continue to love chocolate ice cream if it tasted like feces?
Whatever it is that causes you to feel love is a “condition” required for you to keep loving. Unconditional love of a particular human being must mean unconditional love of all human beings, otherwise there is a condition present in some human beings and not others that makes some “lovable”.
But it’s a colloquialism; not meant to be taken literally. It has a meaning in that it is used to describe something.
Just like so many other colloquialisms in life. When you say “I’m starving” it doesn’t usually mean that you’re actually starving; it means that you feel quite hungry.
There shouldn’t be unconditional love. Any animal that feels unconditional love would refuse to retaliate against threats to protect itself or its kin. And it would not punish those who undermined the social order by cheating or abnormal behavior. And imagine an animal that felt unconditional love being asked to go hunting. Any animal that felt true unconditional love would be exploited and killed by animals that didn’t.
The only people who feel true unconditional love probably either have brain damage or are high on drugs. Its not our natural state.
I think that the OP is arguing that you have put a condition on your love: that is, the condition that the recipient of said love be your daughter. Therefore, not ‘unconditional’.
Personally, I don’t buy that argument, but I *think *that’s the position of the OP. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
Is there any substantive difference between your claim “There’s no such thing as unconditional love” and an alternative formulation, “The thing people call ‘unconditional love’ should actually be called ‘love that is unconditional except for the condition that it is directed toward some specific entity’”?
:rolleyes: Apparently then we have a gold contender in the next Pedantic Rhetorical Equivocation time trials. I have a friend like this, but it takes a at least a six pack before we argue whether or not Iraqis ‘participated’ in Operation Desert Storm.
I try to as the Lord has commanded me to love all people but in practice that’s quite hard I must admit with the existence of Osama Bin Laden and other evil men in this world.
Dude. I just found another one. How can someone say they’ll love another person “forever”. I mean, forever is, like, infinite time. There is no such thing as infinite time. And even if there were… No one lives an infinite life. Dude, how stupid is that phrase?
I am not a child psychologist, but I understand that conditional love, when directed at small children, can be fairly toxic. Those who use the expression or retraction of love to manipulate can be pretty loathsome, or so I imagine.
Perhaps “Unconditional love” means !(conditional) love.
This does not substantiate my argument, but might help anyway: Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
I suppose somebody could love another unconditionally, to the extent that the beloved was wise enough not to test certain unstated or even unconceived boundaries. To say that no conditions are placed on one’s love doesn’t necessarily imply that such love could survive any circumstance or behavior.
Unconditional love, as defined by the OP, is impossible. But that’s why it’s not defined in that manner. The closest you can get is agape love, which really is more about respecting human beings as such.
If you’d actually read his post, you’d notice he actually, for once, did not do the same trick. Yeah, he mentioned God and Jesus, but for once did not disparage anyone who believes in them/Him/Her/whatever.
Or, if he did, he actually was a bit subtle. Which is still slightly different.
This is just a meaningless argument over semantics. “Unconditional Love” means what begbert2 said in post #3. I, too, reject the OP’s thesis, as excessively nitpicky, fussily pedantic, and dumb.