I do. Eating live kittens, for instance.
I think it would be more accurate to say there isn’t anything your daughter would do that would make you stop loving her.
I can’t speak for Sitnam, but if my daughter ate live kittens I’d still love her and would do my best to get her the psychiatric help she would clearly need.
But the OP is clearly using unconditional love to mean “love of everyone and everything, no matter what” . . . which is not actually how anyone uses the phrase “unconditional love”, as far as I know.
There’s a very common form of Buddhist meditation is called “Lovingkindness”, the goal of which is to cultivate the wish that all sentient beings, without exception, be happy.
I do believe it’s possible to achieve a state where you feel a boundless love for everybody. In fact, I’ve been there for brief periods of time. But to expect to maintain that kind of emotional state ceaselessly for one’s entire life is not realistic.
Oh, so you’re restricting your love to humans, are you?
::scowls with elvish hauteur::
Sure it does. It just doesn’t exist & manifest itself in anyone on a perpetual basis. Everyone (unless they are most unfortunate) has moments in which they totally love everyone; even moments when they totally love the entirety of the universe.
You can’t comport yourself in that mode all the time, any more than you can walk around fully conscious of a sense of self as That Which Is. We live most of our day to day lives quite locally focused, and necessarily so.
I believe that is the position of the OP.
I reject it also.
I consider conditions to mean things that the one being loved can control or change i.e. behaviors, appearance, etc.
Not conditions being prerequisite traits before the love is initially placed.
If someone I love did something majorly evil, crazy, or stupid, it would bother me a lot more than if some random stranger did that thing, precisely because I love the person.
I think you mean the word idiom rather than colloquialism, but yeah. The meaning of the phrase unconditional love is not precisely the concatenation of its elements.
This has already been covered, but I’ll answer anyway - the “condition” is one of identity. You have identified a particular subject which you then love without regard for anything else the subject does or how it might change. You might then say that it is a “condition” that the thing you’re talking about is the subject of your affection - but you’re not going to find anybody who thinks that that “condition” is contradictory to the term “unconditional love”. We just don’t. Deal with it.
I’m a little hard-pressed to see why unconditional love would be considered a virtue.
Because it’s considered unselfish and unfickle. Think of unconditional love as the alternative to “I’ll love you as long as I’m getting something out of it,” or “If you want me to love you, you’d better ________,” or “Don’t ever change anything about yourself, because then I might not love you any more.”
Oh, I know how it’s defined, I just don’t see it as useful. The loved object has no impetus to improve, for example.
What, the only impetus to improve is fear of losing someone’s love?
You are using the definition suggested by begbert2 in post #3, not the definition suggested by the opening post. The opening post definition implies loving every single thing in the universe without getting anything out of it, not just loving a specific individual without getting anything out of it. I don’t see loving everything in the world unconditionally as a virtue and I don’t see not doing so as selfish or fickle.
I agree with posters who say this debate is just semantics. When people say “unconditional love” 99.9% of the time it is directed towards a specific individual and should be taken to mean they will love that individual no matter what they do or how they change. The pedantic nature of the opening post makes the word “unconditional” useless for practically anything: you wouldn’t be able to talk about unconditional surrenders either, yet in reality that is a relatively well understood concept.
There’s other problems with unconditional love. For one thing, it has little to no emotional satisfaction; unconditional love by nature does not reflect on the value of the loved object. It doesn’t mean anything. You can’t deserve unconditional love; you don’t get it because you are lovable, but just because you are there. Like a rock receiving sunlight.
Another problem is that it can lead to the person doing the loving supporting stupid or outright criminal behavior; like helping hide the bodies of the victims of the serial killer you are in love with. Or staying with someone who is abusing you.
No emotion is healthy if unconditional.
I agree with the OP that it is a hard thing to unconditionally love everyone. The opposite of unconditional love is unconditional indifference and hatred.
Still I have found your this topic intriguing. I have been trying to think of how I am but that is just me. Then I think of what I am called to be.
Jesus told us that it is no big deal to love those that love you back, like your children or spouse. He said that we must love the one that hates us. If he hits us on one cheek offer up the other cheek. If he needs a cloak give him yours, because it is more noble.
Growing up I used to hear, “Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer”. This is a very hard thing to do! My immediate response is to give someone that hates me a wide berth. As I have matured and been working on myself I have actually been able to unconditionally love an enemy at times.
I had a neighbor once that did everything possible to make my life hell. I was nice to her in return even though I did not feel it inside. When I was nice to her she attacked me even more severely. I still did not retaliate in any way. I even went out of my way to be kind. She ended up being evicted for taking the landlord to court. I have no ill will against her.
This was my first big test where I did this. I have tried and failed at it before, trying to love someone that hates you. It is so much easier to give in to our lower nature and be mean back.
If you love yourself it is easier to love others. When I was down on myself I was often angry at people for no reason. “Hurt people, hurt people” as the saying goes.
Is there anyone else that is trying to love others unconditionally?
This is nonsense. People like being loved. People like loving. Whether it’s deserved is either irrelevent or inhibiting - people constantly speak of wanting to be loved for themselves, not because of their accomplishments and without regard of their flaws.
Now, I will concede that the OP’s version of unconditional love is pretty meaningless, because is seemingly dismissive of the identity of the supposedly-loved. But mine isn’t dismissive in that manner.
And in some circumstances, aspirin can kill you. This would only be a problem if one were to argue that aspirin is always good. Or that unconditional love (my definition) was always good.
Nice assertion.
By the OP’s definition? Not me.
But if people are being loved unconditionally, they are NOT being loved for themselves by definition.
And a rather obvious one; or it would be except for the warped love fetish our culture has. No one would claim that unconditional anger or unconditional hunger or unconditional lust were good things; but we have this attitude that love is intrinsically good, a “higher emotion”, so most people make an exception for love. Unconditional love is totally irrational, and dangerous. And it is not even slightly admirable.
Nope. Perhaps you overlooked the bit how I specified I was using the common definition of the term (as in, mine from post 3), which explicitly involves loving a specific person?
I admire unconditional acceptance of race.
How much love, and how many conditions?
Any loss of love automatic for certain conditions?
See, it already doesn’t sound like love to me.
The absence of any conditions is the absence of any existence. Oh, no wait, non-existence is a condition.
Ok, there cannot be unconditional love, because there cannot be unconditional.
Tris
Stupid waste of time, in my opinion.