real love does not exist essay

The Concept of True Love Definition Essay

Introduction, understanding the unrealistic notion of true love, the concept of love itself is an illusion, works cited.

The concept of true love is based on the belief that to truly love someone you have to accept them for who they are (including their shortcoming and faults), put their happiness above your own (even if your heart is broken in the process) and that you will always love them even if they are not by your side.

In essence it is a self-sacrificing act wherein a person puts another person’s happiness and well-being above their own. For example in the poem “To my Dear and Loving Husband” by Anne Bradstreet she compares her love for her spouse as “more than whole mines of gold or all the riches that the East doth hold” (Bradstreet, 1). While such an example is archaic it does present itself as an excellent example of the value of true love for other people.

What must be understood though is that in recent years the concept of true has been adopted by popular culture as a needed facet in a person’s life. Various romantic comedies produced by Hollywood all portray characters that at one point or another exhibit tendencies akin to the realization that their life is incomplete without true love and that they should seek it out in the form of female or male character that has been provided as an embodiment of what true love should be.

Due to the influences of popular culture on modern day society this has resulted in more people believing in the concept of true love and actively seeking it out as a result. The inherent problem with this is that true love is an ideal that can be considered the embodiment of every single positive thing that can happen actually happening. In that a person that fits your idea of the perfect partner suddenly appears, that events lead the two of you to be together and that the end result is a classic happily ever after ending.

Unfortunately it must be noted that the concept of the “ideal” is based on the best possible action, event and circumstance actually happening. The fact remains that the real world, unlike in the movies, does not revolve around fortuitous circumstances and the supposed ideal is nothing more than a fanciful notion created by the movie industry.

For example in the story “Rose for Emily” it can be seen that the main character, Emily Grierson, goes to such lengths of retaining love that she murders Homer Barron in order to keep him by her side (Faulkner, 1). The reason behind this action is simple, by the time Homer Barron came into her life she couldn’t experience true love as we know it in the movies due to the effect of reality.

Due to this she creates the illusion of love which she wraps around herself. While most people don’t go to the lengths Emily had done it must be noted that they often follow the same pattern of developing the illusion of true love and retaining its idea. Since the concept of finding true love revolves around finding the ideal partner and that the ideal partner is nothing more than a fanciful creation it can be said that the reality of true love does not exist since it revolves around a fictitious notion and principle.

In the story of Araby readers are introduced to the concept of an unrealistic idea of the embodiment of love wherein the narrator (in the form of a young boy) falls in apparent rapture at the sight of Mangan’s sister. Though she is never mentioned by name the line “I pressed the palms of my hands together until they trembled, murmuring: ‘O love! O love!’ many times”, shows that the boy indeed developed substantial feelings for her (Joyce, 1).

It fact it is suggested numerous times in the story that the boy thinks that what he feels is true love and this is exemplified by his action of offering to buy the girl some souvenir from the Araby fair. Yet once he gets there he encounters a full grown woman at a stand idly chatting with men on various nonsensical topics.

It is then that he comes to the realization that he had crafted for himself a false ideal and that what lay before him was an example of what he could gain in the future. It must be noted that in essence this particular encounter shows what happens when an “ideal” meets reality in that the boy had been so presumptuous in crafting an “ideal” for himself that he neglected to take into account the possibility of better things in the future.

The line “I saw myself as a creature driven and derided by vanity; and my eyes burned with anguish and anger” is an indication of the point in the story when the boy comes to the realization that his ideal was false and that he only though that way because of his isolated world (Joyce, 1).

The story itself could be considered a microcosm of reality with Mangan’s sister acting as the concept of true love. The isolated nature of the idea of love developed by the boy in the story could be compared to the propagated concept of true love in movie industry wherein concepts related to the ideal partner as exemplified by various movies are in effect false when compared to the realities people face.

All too often people think of a person as their true love in an isolated fashion, conceptualizing in them in a world devoid of the interference of reality wherein their every move is considered lovely and perfect.

While such a concept is seen in numerous films it can be seen though that this particular point of view is usually false since when the outside world of reality is introduced people tend to see their “ideals” for what they really are and as a result their behaviors towards such loves usually change.

In essence it can be boiled down to true love being a fantasy created through the isolation of an individual from reality and as such can never be truly attained since once reality is introduced the fantasies diminish resulting in reality taking over banishing the illusion and subjecting people to the harsh truths that they neglected to see.

In the story bitch by Roald Dahl readers are introduced to the notion that passion incited through the creation of a simple chemical compound. This notion is actually symbolic of an ongoing thought that feelings of love are nothing more than illusion created by chemicals and hormones in the body that induce such feelings in order to propagate the species.

In fact various studies have do indeed show that love is a chemical reaction in the brain and as such if properly triggered through an outside source it can be assumed that this can in effect create the same feelings of love.

In fact the poem “Love is not all” by Edna St Vinven Millay says its best when she states that “Love is not all, is not meat or drink nor slumber nor roof against the rain”; from this it can be said that love is immaterial, nothing more than an illusion created by man (Millay, 1). For example in the story it can be seen that once males are affected by the chemical they all of sudden give into to primal urgings for procreation and don’t remember their actions afterwards (Dahl, 1).

Such an effect is suggestive of the fact that in essence people only consider love as love when there is a thought that tries to explain it. The loss of memory of events in the story is symbolic of the loss of thought and as a result the loss of the ability to associate a particular action with love.

In effect the story suggests that love itself is nothing more than a chemical reaction and that as logical individuals we try to justify it through other means that what it actually is. If this is so, the concept of true love itself is again proven to be nothing more than an illusion since it can be considered nothing more than a chemical and hormonal reaction rather than originating from some arbitrary and yet to be defined origin.

Faulkner, William. “Rose for Emily”.

Dahl, Roald. “Bitch”- Switch bitch”.

Joyce, James.”Araby”.

Bradstreet, Anne.“To My Dear and Loving Husband”

Millay, Edna.“Love Is Not All”

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, November 2). The Concept of True Love. https://ivypanda.com/essays/true-love/

"The Concept of True Love." IvyPanda , 2 Nov. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/true-love/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'The Concept of True Love'. 2 November.

IvyPanda . 2019. "The Concept of True Love." November 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/true-love/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Concept of True Love." November 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/true-love/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Concept of True Love." November 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/true-love/.

Emily Grierson in “A Rose for Emily” by William Faulkner
A Rose for Emily
Miss Emily Grierson’s Character in “A Rose for Emily”
“A Rose for Emily” by Faulkner
Embodiment and Everyday Relationship with the Body
Miss Emily Grierson’s Character Analysis: “A Rose for Emily” by William Faulkner
William Faulkner's “A Rose for Emily” Reaction Paper
The Use of Symbolic Meaning in "A Rose for Emily" by Faulkner
Critique for ‘A Rose for Emily’
Iago’s Character as Embodiment of the Darker Side Which All the People Have
Franz Kafka’s ‘The Metamorphosis’ and Joseph Conrad’s ‘The Heart of Darkness’. Theme Analysis
Coming-of-Age Fiction: "The Bell Jar" by Sylvia Plath
Langston Hughes’ I, Too, Sing America and Nikki Giovanni’s Ego Tripping: Analysis of Two Poems
“The Lesson” and “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?”
“Out, Out” by Robert Frost

Relationships

Is There Really True Love?

To find true love, focus on giving, not receiving..

Posted December 23, 2017 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

Why Relationships Matter
Find a therapist to strengthen relationships

Is there an emotional bond that deserves to be called true love? Is true love possible? In their 1986 hit song, the Judds sang: “Grandpa, take me back to yesterday ... Did lovers really fall in love to stay and stand beside each other come what may?”

The lyrics reflect the declining stability of marital relationships over four decades. Although the U.S. divorce rate declined slightly three years in a row from 2013 to 2016, typical marriages still have only about a 50% chance of lasting. For years, marriage rates declined, in part because young adults have waited longer to get married. Many say that they don’t intend to ever get married.

The belief that love is true when it lasts is not an outdated concept. In her 2015 song, True Love , Ariana Grande describes how her relationship grew into true love from kisses to a commitment to last forever. But how can a person know that a relationship will last forever? Lovers don’t expect that even a genuine relationship will consist only of passionate positive emotions. In 1960, Buddy Holly’s song, True Love Ways , was released posthumously. Written as a wedding gift for his wife, Holly’s song predicted: “Sometimes we’ll sigh; sometimes we’ll cry ... Throughout the days our true love ways will bring us joys to share with those who really care.”

Looking back on his marriage in his song, Remember When , Alan Jackson recounts the ups and downs over the years: “There was joy, there was hurt ... We came together, fell apart and broke each other’s hearts.” Despite it all, Jackson anticipated: “We won’t be sad, we’ll be glad for all the life we’ve had.”

Do conflicting emotions characterize or define true love? In her 2012 song, True Love , pop artist Pink expresses the mixed emotions of her relationship: “Sometimes I hate every single stupid word you say ... At the same time, I wanna hug you.” In fact, Pink explains: “I really hate you so much, I think it must be true love,” because “nothing else can break my heart like true love ... And no one else can break my heart like you.” Despite hurt and heartbreak, Pink identifies her feelings as true love because “without you I’m incomplete.”

In his song, All of Me , dedicated to his fiancée, John Legend also admits to complex emotions: “You’re my downfall, you’re my muse. My worst distraction, my rhythm and blues.” But ultimately completeness is the core of his relationship: “You’re my end and my beginning. Even when I lose I’m winning, ‘cause I give you all of me and you give me all of you.” Do we know a love is true when we don’t feel complete without our lover?

Research suggests that people share a common image of what it means to be loved. Key characteristics of knowing someone loves you include: support without expectation of anything in return, compassion in difficult times, quality time together, being told you are loved, feeling special and appreciated, and being forgiven for something you did wrong. By contrast, people agree that we don’t feel loved when someone is possessive or tries to control us.

But what does it mean to love with a pure or true love? Research has documented a number of different types of love: eros or romantic, ludus or game-playing, storge or friendship , pragma or logical, mania or possessive, and agape or altruistic . Physical attraction and intimacy are central to eros, permissiveness and variety of partners characterize ludus, companionship and stability are the foundation of storge, and compatibility in social and personal characteristics is the core of pragma. Mania is obsessive, dependent, jealous and intensely emotional, whereas agape is altruistic, all-giving, and selfless with no expectation of love in return.

How we love others can vary for different relationships and in various situations. But does one style of loving represent what we envision as true love? While each style illustrates our yearning to find the right person who will satisfy our need to be loved, one—agape—reveals our capacity for what might come closest to pure love. Rather than being concerned with how a relationship benefits us, agape is focused on the best interests of the one we love. It is the love that puts the other first. Researchers identify this style as one in which a person tries to always help their lover through difficult times, sacrifice their own wishes to let their lover achieve theirs, endure all for the sake of their lover, and suffer in place of their lover.

This love is expressed in Freddy Fender’s hit recording of Before the Next Teardrop Falls : “If he brings you happiness , then I wish you all the best. It’s your happiness that matters most of all.” Beyond the emotional, the essence of this selfless love is behavioral commitment: “But if he ever breaks your heart, if the teardrops ever start, I’ll be there before the next teardrop falls.”

The benefits of agape have been highlighted by research. Selfless caring is associated with deep love, intimate communication, relationship satisfaction, loyalty and commitment. Couples in agape relationships are likely to deal more effectively with stress by supporting each other and by dealing with problems jointly, promoting their sense of “ we-ness .” Employing healthy coping strategies can deepen commitment and strengthen satisfaction with the relationship.

But are there costs to loving in such a selfless way? What are the psychological consequences of altruistic love? One would anticipate that the strong commitment and deep bond would mean great emotional pain if the relationship fails. As expected, research suggests that the end of such a rich committed relationship can result in feelings of profound loss and sadness. The more rewarding the love, the greater loss. Taking the risk of one day having to pay such a price is inherent in the essential nature of agape as all-giving and selfless.

Is it realistic to think that we can love in such an all-giving, non-demanding way? Research suggests that this style is rarely, if ever, fully actualized. It might well be the ideal we can hope for and strive toward. In searching for true love, we need to redirect our focus and energy from receiving to giving. Research shows that those who practice other-directed love are less likely to ever have to pay the hefty price. Perhaps there is such a thing as true love, and perhaps it can last.

Cooper, L. R., & Kurstin, G. (2012). True love [Recorded by Pink (Lily Rose Cooper)]. On The Truth About Love [CD]. New York, NY: RCA Records.

Galinha, I. C., Oishi, S., Pereira, C. R., Wirtz, D., & Esteves, F. (2014). Adult attachment, love styles, relationship experiences and subjective well-being: Cross-cultural and gender comparison between Americans, Portuguese, and Mozambicans. Social Indicators Research , 119 , 823-852.

Grande, A. (2015). True Love. On Christmas & Chill [Digital Release on iTunes]. Republic Records.

Hammock, G., & Richardson, D. S. (2011). Love attitudes and relationship experience. The Journal of Social Psychology , 151 , 608-624.

Heaven, P. C. L., Da Silva, T., Carey, C., & Holen, J. (2004). Loving styles: Relationships with personality and attachment styles. European Journal of Personality , 18 , 103-113.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 50 , 392-402.

Holly, B., & Petty, N. (1960). True love ways [Recorded by B. Holly]. On The Buddy Holly Story , Volume 2 [Vinyl]. New York, NY: Coral Records.

Jackson, A. (2003). Remember when. On Greatest Hits Volume II [CD]. New York, NY: Arista Records.

Keith, V., & Peters, B. (1974). Before the next teardrop falls [Recorded by F. Fender]. On Before the Next Teardrop Falls [Vinyl]. Nashville, TN: Dot Records.

Legend, J. (2013). All of me. On Love in the Future [CD]. New York, NY: GOOD Music.

O’Hara, J. (1986). Grandpa, tell me ‘bout the good ol’ days [Recorded by The Judds]. On Rockin’ with the Rhythm [CD]. New York, NY: RCA Records.

Oravecz, Z., Muth, C., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2016). Do people agree on what makes one feel loved? A cognitive psychometric approach to the consensus on felt love. PLOS ONE . DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0152803

Sharma, S., & Ahuja, K. K. (2014). Does love last forever? Understanding an elusive phenomenon among dating and married couples. Journal of Psychosocial Research , 9 , 153-162.

Vedes, A., Hilpert, P., Nussbeck, F. W., Randall, A. K., Bodenmann, G., & Lind, W. R. (2016). Love styles, coping, and relationship satisfaction: A dyadic approach. Personal Relationships , 23 , 84-97.

Krystine Batcho, Ph.D. , is a professor at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, New York.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Love Story — Arguments Why There Isn’t a True Love

Arguments Why There Isn't a True Love

Categories: Love Love Story Personal Statement

About this sample

Words: 825 |

Published: Aug 30, 2022

Words: 825 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Works Cited:

Ducksters. (n.d.). Child labor during the Industrial Revolution. Educational site. https://www.ducksters.com/history/us_1800s/child_labor_during_the_industrial_revolution.php
Fass, P. S. (1977). Children and work in America. University of Illinois Press.
History.com editors. (2019, October 10). Industrial Revolution. History. https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/industrial-revolution
Industrial Revolution. (n.d.). Study. https://study.com/academy/lesson/industrial-revolution-definition-facts-causes-effects.html
Lindert, P. H., & Williamson, J. G. (2016). American incomes 1774-1860. University of Chicago Press.
Lubove, R. A. (1965). The professional child: The trend toward economic exploitation of children. Atheneum.
Montgomery, D. (1995). Workers' control in America: Studies in the history of work, technology, and labor struggles. Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, R. (2019). Child labor in America: A history. McFarland.
United States Department of Labor. (n.d.). A history of child labor.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 1585 words

3 pages / 1466 words

2 pages / 830 words

3 pages / 1485 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Love Story

Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Polity Press.Brown, B. (2010). The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are. Hazelden Publishing.Gottman, J. M., [...]

The tale of Orpheus and Eurydice is one of the most poignant and enduring love stories in Greek mythology. This tragic narrative, filled with themes of love, loss, and the power of music, has captured the imagination of [...]

Life has a curious way of bringing people together at the most unexpected moments. This is the story of two strangers whose paths crossed in the unlikeliest of places, and in doing so, they discovered a profound connection that [...]

Kitty and Mack: A Love Story is so good because the reader is so invested in the characters. From the beginning, we get a backstory and contextual clues into the thoughts of Mack and Kitty, and begin to get attached to them. [...]

The famous novella, Love in a Fallen City is one of Eileen Chang’s most profound pieces of work. It doesn’t do justice to not state a brief history of Eileen Chang. Chang was a Chinese writer whose life was significantly [...]

During the twenty years of Napoleonic Wars, Europe was torn asunder. Great armies crisscrossed Europe from Spain to Russia. Hundreds of thousands lost their lives and fortunes fighting for or against Napoleon. Economically [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

5 Reasons To Rethink Your Belief That Love Doesn’t Exist

Disclosure: this page may contain affiliate links to select partners. We receive a commission should you choose to make a purchase after clicking on them. Read our affiliate disclosure.

love doesn't exist - young woman with thinking pose under neon light

If you’re one of the many people who believe that love doesn’t exist, chances are it’s for a good reason.

After all, we often have aversions to things if we associate them with negativity, and trauma certainly falls into that category.

A visit to Reddit or Quora to determine whether or not love exists will yield many arguments for or against it. Folks who have had unpleasant experiences with love are usually in the “against” camp and will cite all manner of reasons to justify why “love” is just a combination of hormonal fluctuations and self-preservation techniques.

In contrast, many who have experienced love will swear that it’s real, and beautiful, and worth fighting and dying for.

So, if you’re having trouble believing in love, how can you get over that?

Speak to an accredited and experienced therapist to help you change your belief that love doesn’t exist. You may want to try speaking to one via BetterHelp.com for quality care at its most convenient.

Does love really exist?

Absolutely yes, and that’s not an idealistic response. Love exists in countless forms, felt by humans and animals alike. We see love manifest between friends, family members, pets and their people, and wild creatures great and small.

So why hesitate to believe in it?

Maybe you grew up surrounded by people who didn’t know how to treat one another lovingly. Or perhaps you were betrayed by someone you loved and who claimed to love you in turn. These experiences can make anyone believe that love isn’t real. After all, if it were, then you wouldn’t have been hurt that badly.

Furthermore, it hurts far less to believe that it isn’t real, rather than thinking that it is and you just haven’t felt it.

But love does exist, and it’s worth experiencing – despite the potential hurts that may go along with it. And here’s why:

1. Your experiences with love thus far are only part of the greater picture.

When I first started dating my last partner, I asked him whether he liked seafood. He replied that he didn’t eat fish because he grew up eating it and couldn’t stand it. He’d been forced to eat breaded frozen fish sticks and “Filet-o-Fish” burgers from McDonald’s, and hated fish forever after.

That was it. That was the extent of his experience with eating any kind of seafood.

He was hesitant to try it ever again, so I started to offer things to him clandestinely. When he huffed a bunch of appetizers I had made, I commented on how he had just eaten Cajun fish cakes and apparently adored them. I added tuna to pasta puttanesca, put extra fish sauce in padh Thai, and added clams to potato and corn chowder.

Why am I talking about fish here? Because this guy who was dead-set against eating it, who had decided that seafood was disgusting and he didn’t want anything to do with it, ended up enraptured with the stuff. It may be weird to compare this experience with love, but the baseline is the same.

If your only experiences with love so far have been as bland, tasteless, and uninspiring as warmed-up breaded fish sticks, it’s no wonder you don’t have a high opinion of it.

2. The exposure you had to unhealthy relationships was not an accurate picture.

If you grew up in a family where “love” was associated with abuse, manipulation, or neglect, then it’s not surprising that you have skepticism or reluctance to allow love into your life.

Many of us grew up experiencing love that was conditional or used as a weapon. Parents only loved us when we were behaving the way they wanted us to, and then that love was withheld if and when we dared to step out of line.

Others grew up with parents who claimed to love each other, but were physically violent towards one another, or communicated with screams and threats rather than compassionate loving kindness.

When these are the only examples that one has experienced, how can one be expected to have blind faith that love can be different?

If the word “hello” was always accompanied by a kick in the ribs, it’s only natural that one would flinch in expectation of pain every time they heard that word. Similarly, they would feel like they had to suspend their disbelief if and when they watched a film or read a book in which that word was used joyfully.

If you grew up in a situation where love was associated with pain and abuse, it can take a long time and a lot of effort to shift your perspective. Furthermore, a lot of damage can be done on all sides if you try to have romantic relationships before trying to heal those wounds within yourself.

People who sincerely want to love you may come into your life, but you might push them away because you’re afraid of getting hurt again. Or you may find yourself perpetuating unhealthy cycles because you’re just going by what you know.

Therapy is often put forward as a solution to many of a person’s issues, and there’s a good reason for that. Therapists who have experience with helping people heal from poisonous family dynamics have tools and techniques under their belts that can be immensely helpful.

Trying to muddle through and heal oneself might take a lot longer and hurt a lot more than is necessary, as opposed to allowing a counsellor to offer advice and methods to work through these challenges.

See it kind of like allowing a medical professional to set a broken leg properly and offer some physiotherapy exercises to help it heal. You could of course sort it out yourself, but the healing process would take a lot longer and you might end up with a life-long limp rather than a strong limb that can support you properly.

3. ‘Love Actually’ is not how love actually is.

Ideas of what love is supposed to look like can be unrealistic. That two-hour film about an “epic” love story is unlikely to show you how all aspects of love can unfold between people.

After all, entertainment and social media posts are nice to look at, but they’re curated to give off a certain feeling or aesthetic.

Love can be kind, beautiful, and exciting, but it can also be difficult and messy. When people love one another, the ideal is to love each other because of everything that goes in with them, not despite the mess.

It’s wonderful to walk with a loved one during the first snowfall, and excruciating to stay by their side during painful medical treatments to try to keep them alive. It’s gorgeous having breakfast in bed together, and awful yelling at one another about orange juice because you’re both hideously sleep deprived because of a screamy newborn.

But when people truly love each other, they’re willing to sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of the other’s health and happiness.

Real love can also be quite boring at times. For example, it might involve sitting at a table together for hours to work out a family budget with a newly reduced income.

Love can also be immensely comfortable. It’s beautiful knowing someone so intimately that you understand how their minds and bodies work, and to be known that well in turn.

Sometimes love means standing by the other person’s side through thick and thin. Other times, it means letting go of them so they can follow a dream or live in a way that’s more authentic to their own soul’s longing.

4. Romantic connection is merely one form that love can take.

Many cultures have both acknowledged and categorized different types of love . In English, we use the word “love” to describe many different forms, but just because love can manifest differently doesn’t mean that these various forms are any greater or lesser than any other.

You may not have experienced romantic love before, or you might have grown up in a home environment where you didn’t receive much loving kindness from your caregivers. But chances are you’ve experienced love in different forms before.

Do you have close friendships with people you care about, and who are eager to help you during difficult times? Or perhaps you have an animal companion whom you dote upon and fuss over. These are very powerful examples of love, and are just a couple of the ways that love can manifest.

Healthcare workers show love to their patients when they tend to their wounds and try to alleviate their suffering. Gardeners who dearly love their plants will water them diligently and spend hours removing insect pests from brittle leaves. A person who works in a religious capacity may show love to members of their congregation by making home visits to the sick, or volunteering to stay with someone in hospice so they don’t die alone, if they have no family to sit with them.

If you open your eyes – and your heart – to some of the many, wonderful ways that love can unfold, you’ll realize just how many opportunities there are to experience it. Once you see the care and devotion that people are capable of, you’ll start to get an idea of how that can manifest in just about everyone’s life.

5. Hurt and miscommunication can occur when we don’t speak the same language.

Have you already read our article on the five different love languages ? If you haven’t yet, please start there.

Countless people have been hurt and disappointed in various relationships because of miscommunication between love languages. Many of us express and understand love in different ways, and if those around us quite literally speak a different language than us, then we won’t feel seen or cared for, and neither will they.

I’ll give you an example of this: recently, I helped to counsel some friends who were going through a rough patch in their relationship. He didn’t feel cared for or loved by her, and she felt like he was being both too needy and insincere towards her. When we broke down why both of them were feeling this way, we found the crux of the matter was their opposing “love languages” (LL).

His primary LL is verbal expression, and his secondary one is gift-giving. In contrast, her primary LL is physical affection, and her secondary one is acts of service. In essence, what’s been happening with them is that they’ve both been trying to show love in the way that they understand, and that they would want to receive. But since their languages oppose one another, the messages are being misconstrued and lost on both sides.

When he let her know that she didn’t tell him often enough that she loves him, she got upset about the fact that she shows him a million times a day but he doesn’t seem to see it. Meanwhile, she was getting annoyed by his constant compliments, and simply buying her “random crap,” like he was trying too hard.

It was only by digging into these issues that they were able to “get” that they were saying the same things to one another, in the only ways that they knew how.

If you’re of the mindset that love doesn’t exist, consider the possibility that the way you give and receive love might be the opposite from those around you. Try to pull back and see various situations from other perspectives, and you might glean something new about past experiences.

Quite often, experiencing the kind of love we’ve wanted but never received can be remedied by connecting with others who actually speak our language.

5 Ways To Rekindle Your Faith That Love Exists

There are many sources out there to help spark your faith in love. The key is to make sure that what’s helping to kindle love in your heart is something sincere, rather than a form of escapism or martyrdom.

1. Turn to real life examples, rather than fantasy.

One of the best things you can do is immerse yourself in real-life love stories. Romance novels and films are lovely and all, and if they help to start melting your heart a little bit, that’s great! Just make sure that you counterbalance the fantasy with reality too.

For example, delve into the story of Isidor and Ida Straus . Their names might not be familiar to you right now, but if you’ve ever seen the film Titanic, they’re the elderly couple that chose to die together rather than be separated. Yes, that scene was based on real life.

When the first-class passengers were being ushered into lifeboats, Ida refused to get in unless her husband was allowed with her. When he wasn’t, she stepped back out, gave her fur coat to her maid, and walked with Isidor to the prow of the ship to die by his side.

Although that story might be over a century old at this point, there are many other stories out there that are just like it. In fact, you may come across many of them on social media. Instagram is full of accounts of couples who fought all manner of hardships to be together, or who weathered great difficulties as a devoted team.

Like Stephanie and Christian Nielson , who survived a terrible plane crash together. Stephanie got third-degree burns over 80% of her body, and Christian had severe burns as well. Their shared experience brought them even closer together and inspired them to become motivational speakers, and to help other burn victims.

Or Shane and Hannah Burcaw , who have an incredibly loving relationship that transcends Shane’s physical limitations due to his Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

2. Throw out your wishlist.

As mentioned earlier, many people have unrealistic ideas of what love really looks like. We’ll expand upon that a bit by saying that many people have ideas of what they want love to look or be like. When love doesn’t unfold (or look) the way they want it to, they get jaded and disappointed and figure that it doesn’t exist at all.

This is rather like being at a gourmet, international buffet luncheon and saying there’s nothing to eat, simply because they’re not serving the dish that you were expecting to see.

When you relax into the journey that life is taking you on, you make room for the unexpected. Things tend to fall into place when they’re ready to unfold naturally, and forcing them will prevent them from thriving.

You may have a clear picture in your mind about what love “should” look like. Furthermore, you might have envisioned scenarios playing out a specific way. Then, when they don’t, you think that’s proof that love doesn’t exist, rather than acknowledging that other people aren’t actors on our life’s film set, and that situations never unfold the way we want them to.

Instead of actively pursuing something that you think you want, focus on your own interests and let what’s meant for you come to you. Like befriending a wild animal, love will make its way to you when you’re not trying to claw after it, cling to it, or force it to be with you.

3. Be willing to love unconditionally: without the intention to receive in turn.

One of the best ways to experience love is to give it to others. The key here is to ensure that it’s a gift freely given – not done with the expectation that you’ll be loved back.

This kind of love often manifests in parenting, if the parents are kind, compassionate people. They’ll pour love into their children, making sure they feel safe, wanted, encouraged, and accepted unconditionally. Some people foster or adopt children in order to ensure that they have the best possible start in life, and don’t expect anything in return.

Although it might sting a bit when we give love to others that they don’t give back to us in kind, love inevitably shows up in a different form. In fact, sometimes our love can be the catalyst for immense change in someone else’s life, but their life isn’t going to include you.

And that’s okay. Do you know why? Because your life is going to take a different direction than expected as well.

Quite often, we’ll pursue things (or people) we think we want with every fiber of our being, and are then devastated when things don’t turn out the way we wanted. In reality, that very situation is often a blessing in disguise, even if we don’t see it as such until years later.

You might have been badly hurt – even abandoned – by someone you loved dearly, and it may have shattered you to the core in the moment. But by doing so, they saved you from a life that would have caused you abject misery. They have their own path to follow now, with valuable lessons that they learned through the experience. And more importantly, they have given you the most precious gift of all: freedom from them.

If you were stuck with this person, you wouldn’t have the opportunity to meet and love the others who will come into your life. In fact, these wonderful other folks might have already made an appearance, and are patiently waiting for you to truly see them.

4. Take the initiative to work through the reasons why you believe that love doesn’t exist.

Whether you choose to do your own shadow work, or you do so with the help of a therapist is up to you. The key is to address all the reasons why you’ve come to conclude that love doesn’t exist.

This may involve looking into the shadowy corners that you’ve been avoiding for a long time. It means being brutally honest with yourself and dealing with all kinds of emotions and wounds that have been festering and eating away at you.

You’ll need to ask yourself some intense questions that pertain specifically to the situations that led you to lose your belief in love.

See if you’re perpetuating unhealthy cycles in the hope of changing the past. One common example of this would be dating someone whose personality is similar to what you’ve experienced from an abusive parent or ex-partner. Many people unconsciously gravitate towards people who exhibit similar behaviors towards them, in the hope that this time things will work out differently. That this time, the neglectful person will wake up and acknowledge and appreciate them. Or the abusive person will become loving and kind instead.

Additionally, check in with yourself to see whether you’re still holding on to unpleasant experiences from your past far longer than you need to.

Most of us have had traumatic experiences – that’s part of human existence. The key is whether we’ve learned from those situations and tried to heal past them, or if we’ve held onto them and made them part of our existence.

Are you purposely keeping old wounds open so you can benefit from the victimhood associated with them? Or are you making a point of understanding why those things happened so as not to experience them again in future?

If you’re hung up on crappy experiences with former lovers or awful family members, then take real action to heal from them. Do severance rituals that can help cut lingering ties. Or do something more drastic and move across the country. Make some big changes in your life that define a clear shift from the person you were before to the one you are now.

5. Spend time with those who are truly loving.

One of the best ways to make you rethink your belief that love doesn’t exist is to immerse yourself in the company of those who are sincerely loving.

Think of all the people you know and have spent time with. There’s a good chance you’ve noticed that some of them are far more kind and loving than others. Being in their company might have pulled at your heartstrings because of how sweetly they behaved, or how others thrived in their presence.

These are the people you’ll want to spend more time with.

Limit your exposure to those who spout bitterness and anger, and immerse yourself in the company of those who love and give of themselves generously. Maybe they’re parents who dote on their children, or partners who openly adore one another. Perhaps they’re local elders who do volunteer work for the community.

We are all influenced by those around us, even on a subconscious level. As such, be very discerning with the company you keep. Spending time with bitter, angry people will sow bitter seeds within you, and will attract other spiky weeds in turn. In contrast, being around others who are loving and kind will brighten your spirits and help to open your heart.

Like calls to like, and when you exude love and joy, that’s exactly what you’ll attract in kind.

Work on yourself, be the kind of person you would want to have in your own life, and see what unfolds. There’s a very high probability that it’ll be far more beautiful than you ever expected.

Would you like to believe in love but currently don’t? Talking to someone can really help. It’s a great way to get your thoughts and your worries out of your head so you can work through them.

A therapist is often the best person you can talk to. Why? Because they are trained to help people in situations like yours. They can help you to identify the root causes of your current disbelief in love and be a helping hand as you work through those things.

BetterHelp.com is a website where you can connect with a therapist via phone, video, or instant message.

You might not think your problems are big enough to warrant professional therapy but please don’t do yourself that disservice. Nothing is insignificant if it is affecting your mental well-being.

Too many people try to muddle through and do their best to overcome issues that they never really get to grips with. If it’s at all possible in your circumstances, therapy is 100% the best way forward.

Here’s that link again if you’d like to learn more about the service BetterHelp.com provide and the process of getting started.

About The Author

Catherine Winter is an herbalist, INTJ empath, narcissistic abuse survivor, and PTSD warrior currently based in Quebec's Laurentian mountains. In an informal role as confidant and guide, Catherine has helped countless people work through difficult times in their lives and relationships, including divorce, ageing and death journeys, grief, abuse, and trauma recovery, as they navigate their individual paths towards healing and personal peace.

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Best Family Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2023 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

Why Some People Believe Love Is an Illusion

And Why It's Important to Know That It's Not

Barbara is a writer and speaker who is passionate about mental health, overall wellness, and women's issues.

Tim Robberts/Stone/Getty

Some people believe that love is an illusion. It’s understandable if they were in a relationship that they thought was a long-lasting one based on true love, but the reality ended up not aligning with their perception. Or if they’ve witnessed friends and family members get hurt when it came to love, so they come to believe love does not exist.

This article explores why love seems like an illusion, why love can hurt, how this belief negatively impacts your mental health, how love is not an illusion, and the positive effects of love.

Why Love Seems Like an Illusion

When we watch romances unfold in the movies, people seem to know quickly they just met “the one” or they overcome obstacles in the span of an hour or two and live happily ever after. That is often an illusion.

At the beginning, we are excited about our new relationships. We believe we’re falling in love. Some of us get lovesick and lust for our new partner. Sometimes we are in the throes of infatuation.

Then, we may begin to struggle. We are figuring out our partner’s habits and learning their imperfections. We begin to argue and feel the effects of conflict and stress. We try to manage the line between being independent and spending time as a couple. We are at the same time learning about this person’s past relationships, current interests and what they want for their future.

As relationships progress, conflicts over politics, finances or values may arise. Frequently there are differences based on two different people’s cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. Then conflicts appear about how much sex each person desires.

Over time, one person may deal with the other’s betrayal and disappointment may set in. Or one person feels like their partner doesn’t appreciate them. Sadly, it is not uncommon for one member of the couple to feel lonely even while being in a relationship .

How This Belief Impacts Your Mental Health

Believing that romantic love isn’t real and that it’s a deception can be quite depressing. While it’s unsettling and upsetting to be let down when a relationship ends, that doesn’t mean love is an illusion.

With a closed or fixed mindset , you don’t expect things to change. Becoming bitter and believing that love is not real will lower your motivation in seeking and maintaining another romantic relationship. It can lead to your losing confidence and to a variety of feelings arising like:

fear of rejection

Becoming pessimistic means you’ve adapted a negative outlook when it comes to the romance department. Pessimistic thinking can be unhealthy. Positive thinking, however, can help you live longer, become more resilient, improve your immunity, and decrease your risk for heart disease. If you are cynical and expecting the worst to happen in your newest relationship, know that you can actually reduce pessimism and learn how to have a positive outlook.

Instead of clinging to the idea that love is a negative illusion, for example, why not replace that idea with a positive illusion which can actually improve your relationship? A 2019 scientific study found that a positive illusion, namely perceiving your romantic partner and relationship in a positive light and having a positive bias, has great long-term effects.

The study showed that elevating this type of positive illusion resulted in higher relationship satisfaction, fewer doubts and less conflict within the relationship. Thus, it enhanced the longevity of these romantic relationships.

Here’s Why Love Is Not An Illusion

People require social interaction, friendship and community. While romantic love isn’t a necessity, if you look around you, you’ll find romantic love truly exists. It’s far from a fantasy. You’ll see couples who have been together for years and married couples who still love one another after celebrating 50 th year anniversaries.

Love and affection are essential for human development. People need to love and be loved. Oxytocin , often called the love hormone or cuddle hormone, is released when a mother bonds with her baby and in romantic relationships. It is connected to social bonding. Oxytocin is important for sexual arousal, recognition, trust and human connection.

If you believe romantic love is merely an illusion, then it’s important to find out more about real romantic love—a love that is healthy and long-lasting. Hallmarks of healthy romantic relationships include commitment, trust, intimacy and passion.

According to John Gottman , a leading psychologist on marital stability and relationship endurance, sound relationships are defined as having shared meaning, managed conflict, positive outlook, turns toward one another instead of away from one another, and a sense of shared fondness and admiration.

One study analyzed the protective factors in long-term marriages globally through a systematic review. Scientists wanted to learn more about what makes marriages stable and prevents dissolution. Findings showed that commitment acted to preserve the pillar of marriage in tough situations while intimacy helped a couple build identity and satisfaction.

By identifying specific aspects of marriages that contributed to their steadfastness, scientists hoped to better understand how to improve happiness in marriages and lower the rate for divorce.

The Positive Effects of Love

Love greatly influences our quality of life. It’s not only an emotional thing either. Love impacts both our physical and mental health . Links have been found between love and lower levels of stress and depression. Our risk for heart disease and diabetes decreases and at the same time our longevity increases. Love increases our happiness, self-esteem and resilience. It also encourages healthy habits and lifestyle choices.

While you might have been hurt in past relationships, it’s important to recognize the benefits of love. Relationships and marriages aren’t for everyone. But it might not be too late to find a loving relationship if that’s what you want. Look for one that is marked by sharing, caring, respect, empathy , open communication, trust, and kindness.

Journal, meditate or talk with friends as you delve deeper into deciding for yourself whether love is illusory or real. If you’re still struggling about the issue, reach out to a trusted psychologist or mental health counselor.

Lee, L. O., James, P., Zevon, E. S., Kim, E. S., Trudel-Fitzgerald, C., Spiro, A. 3rd, et al. (2019). Optimism is associated with exceptional longevity in 2 epidemiologic cohorts of men and women . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 116, 18357–18362. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1900712116

Song H, Zhang Y, Zuo L, et al. Improving Relationships by Elevating Positive Illusion and the Underlying Psychological and Neural Mechanisms. Front Hum Neurosci . 2019;12:526. Published 2019 Jan 11. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00526

Karimi R, Bakhtiyari M, Masjedi Arani A. Protective factors of marital stability in long-term marriage globally: a systematic review . Epidemiol Health . 2019;41:e2019023. doi:10.4178/epih.e2019023

By Barbara Field Barbara is a writer and speaker who is passionate about mental health, overall wellness, and women's issues.

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

This essay focuses on personal love, or the love of particular persons as such. Part of the philosophical task in understanding personal love is to distinguish the various kinds of personal love. For example, the way in which I love my wife is seemingly very different from the way I love my mother, my child, and my friend. This task has typically proceeded hand-in-hand with philosophical analyses of these kinds of personal love, analyses that in part respond to various puzzles about love. Can love be justified? If so, how? What is the value of personal love? What impact does love have on the autonomy of both the lover and the beloved?

1. Preliminary Distinctions

2. love as union, 3. love as robust concern, 4.1 love as appraisal of value, 4.2 love as bestowal of value, 4.3 an intermediate position, 5.1 love as emotion proper, 5.2 love as emotion complex, 6. the value and justification of love, other internet resources, related entries.

In ordinary conversations, we often say things like the following:

I love chocolate (or skiing).
I love doing philosophy (or being a father).
I love my dog (or cat).
I love my wife (or mother or child or friend).

However, what is meant by ‘love’ differs from case to case. (1) may be understood as meaning merely that I like this thing or activity very much. In (2) the implication is typically that I find engaging in a certain activity or being a certain kind of person to be a part of my identity and so what makes my life worth living; I might just as well say that I value these. By contrast, (3) and (4) seem to indicate a mode of concern that cannot be neatly assimilated to anything else. Thus, we might understand the sort of love at issue in (4) to be, roughly, a matter of caring about another person as the person she is, for her own sake. (Accordingly, (3) may be understood as a kind of deficient mode of the sort of love we typically reserve for persons.) Philosophical accounts of love have focused primarily on the sort of personal love at issue in (4); such personal love will be the focus here (though see Frankfurt (1999) and Jaworska & Wonderly (2017) for attempts to provide a more general account that applies to non-persons as well).

Even within personal love, philosophers from the ancient Greeks on have traditionally distinguished three notions that can properly be called “love”: eros , agape , and philia . It will be useful to distinguish these three and say something about how contemporary discussions typically blur these distinctions (sometimes intentionally so) or use them for other purposes.

‘ Eros ’ originally meant love in the sense of a kind of passionate desire for an object, typically sexual passion (Liddell et al., 1940). Nygren (1953a,b) describes eros as the “‘love of desire,’ or acquisitive love” and therefore as egocentric (1953b, p. 89). Soble (1989b, 1990) similarly describes eros as “selfish” and as a response to the merits of the beloved—especially the beloved’s goodness or beauty. What is evident in Soble’s description of eros is a shift away from the sexual: to love something in the “erosic” sense (to use the term Soble coins) is to love it in a way that, by being responsive to its merits, is dependent on reasons. Such an understanding of eros is encouraged by Plato’s discussion in the Symposium , in which Socrates understands sexual desire to be a deficient response to physical beauty in particular, a response which ought to be developed into a response to the beauty of a person’s soul and, ultimately, into a response to the form, Beauty.

Soble’s intent in understanding eros to be a reason-dependent sort of love is to articulate a sharp contrast with agape , a sort of love that does not respond to the value of its object. ‘ Agape ’ has come, primarily through the Christian tradition, to mean the sort of love God has for us persons, as well as our love for God and, by extension, of our love for each other—a kind of brotherly love. In the paradigm case of God’s love for us, agape is “spontaneous and unmotivated,” revealing not that we merit that love but that God’s nature is love (Nygren 1953b, p. 85). Rather than responding to antecedent value in its object, agape instead is supposed to create value in its object and therefore to initiate our fellowship with God (pp. 87–88). Consequently, Badhwar (2003, p. 58) characterizes agape as “independent of the loved individual’s fundamental characteristics as the particular person she is”; and Soble (1990, p. 5) infers that agape , in contrast to eros , is therefore not reason dependent but is rationally “incomprehensible,” admitting at best of causal or historical explanations. [ 1 ]

Finally, ‘ philia ’ originally meant a kind of affectionate regard or friendly feeling towards not just one’s friends but also possibly towards family members, business partners, and one’s country at large (Liddell et al., 1940; Cooper, 1977). Like eros , philia is generally (but not universally) understood to be responsive to (good) qualities in one’s beloved. This similarity between eros and philia has led Thomas (1987) to wonder whether the only difference between romantic love and friendship is the sexual involvement of the former—and whether that is adequate to account for the real differences we experience. The distinction between eros and philia becomes harder to draw with Soble’s attempt to diminish the importance of the sexual in eros (1990).

Maintaining the distinctions among eros , agape , and philia becomes even more difficult when faced with contemporary theories of love (including romantic love) and friendship. For, as discussed below, some theories of romantic love understand it along the lines of the agape tradition as creating value in the beloved (cf. Section 4.2 ), and other accounts of romantic love treat sexual activity as merely the expression of what otherwise looks very much like friendship.

Given the focus here on personal love, Christian conceptions of God’s love for persons (and vice versa ) will be omitted, and the distinction between eros and philia will be blurred—as it typically is in contemporary accounts. Instead, the focus here will be on these contemporary understandings of love, including romantic love, understood as an attitude we take towards other persons. [ 2 ]

In providing an account of love, philosophical analyses must be careful to distinguish love from other positive attitudes we take towards persons, such as liking. Intuitively, love differs from such attitudes as liking in terms of its “depth,” and the problem is to elucidate the kind of “depth” we intuitively find love to have. Some analyses do this in part by providing thin conceptions of what liking amounts to. Thus, Singer (1991) and Brown (1987) understand liking to be a matter of desiring, an attitude that at best involves its object having only instrumental (and not intrinsic) value. Yet this seems inadequate: surely there are attitudes towards persons intermediate between having a desire with a person as its object and loving the person. I can care about a person for her own sake and not merely instrumentally, and yet such caring does not on its own amount to (non-deficiently) loving her, for it seems I can care about my dog in exactly the same way, a kind of caring which is insufficiently personal for love.

It is more common to distinguish loving from liking via the intuition that the “depth” of love is to be explained in terms of a notion of identification: to love someone is somehow to identify yourself with him, whereas no such notion of identification is involved in liking. As Nussbaum puts it, “The choice between one potential love and another can feel, and be, like a choice of a way of life, a decision to dedicate oneself to these values rather than these” (1990, p. 328); liking clearly does not have this sort of “depth” (see also Helm 2010; Bagley 2015). Whether love involves some kind of identification, and if so exactly how to understand such identification, is a central bone of contention among the various analyses of love. In particular, Whiting (2013) argues that the appeal to a notion of identification distorts our understanding of the sort of motivation love can provide, for taken literally it implies that love motivates through self -interest rather than through the beloved’s interests. Thus, Whiting argues, central to love is the possibility that love takes the lover “outside herself”, potentially forgetting herself in being moved directly by the interests of the beloved. (Of course, we need not take the notion of identification literally in this way: in identifying with one’s beloved, one might have a concern for one’s beloved that is analogous to one’s concern for oneself; see Helm 2010.)

Another common way to distinguish love from other personal attitudes is in terms of a distinctive kind of evaluation, which itself can account for love’s “depth.” Again, whether love essentially involves a distinctive kind of evaluation, and if so how to make sense of that evaluation, is hotly disputed. Closely related to questions of evaluation are questions of justification: can we justify loving or continuing to love a particular person, and if so, how? For those who think the justification of love is possible, it is common to understand such justification in terms of evaluation, and the answers here affect various accounts’ attempts to make sense of the kind of constancy or commitment love seems to involve, as well as the sense in which love is directed at particular individuals.

In what follows, theories of love are tentatively and hesitantly classified into four types: love as union, love as robust concern, love as valuing, and love as an emotion. It should be clear, however, that particular theories classified under one type sometimes also include, without contradiction, ideas central to other types. The types identified here overlap to some extent, and in some cases classifying particular theories may involve excessive pigeonholing. (Such cases are noted below.) Part of the classificatory problem is that many accounts of love are quasi-reductionistic, understanding love in terms of notions like affection, evaluation, attachment, etc., which themselves never get analyzed. Even when these accounts eschew explicitly reductionistic language, very often little attempt is made to show how one such “aspect” of love is conceptually connected to others. As a result, there is no clear and obvious way to classify particular theories, let alone identify what the relevant classes should be.

The union view claims that love consists in the formation of (or the desire to form) some significant kind of union, a “we.” A central task for union theorists, therefore, is to spell out just what such a “we” comes to—whether it is literally a new entity in the world somehow composed of the lover and the beloved, or whether it is merely metaphorical. Variants of this view perhaps go back to Aristotle (cf. Sherman 1993) and can also be found in Montaigne ([E]) and Hegel (1997); contemporary proponents include Solomon (1981, 1988), Scruton (1986), Nozick (1989), Fisher (1990), and Delaney (1996).

Scruton, writing in particular about romantic love, claims that love exists “just so soon as reciprocity becomes community: that is, just so soon as all distinction between my interests and your interests is overcome” (1986, p. 230). The idea is that the union is a union of concern, so that when I act out of that concern it is not for my sake alone or for your sake alone but for our sake. Fisher (1990) holds a similar, but somewhat more moderate view, claiming that love is a partial fusion of the lovers’ cares, concerns, emotional responses, and actions. What is striking about both Scruton and Fisher is the claim that love requires the actual union of the lovers’ concerns, for it thus becomes clear that they conceive of love not so much as an attitude we take towards another but as a relationship: the distinction between your interests and mine genuinely disappears only when we together come to have shared cares, concerns, etc., and my merely having a certain attitude towards you is not enough for love. This provides content to the notion of a “we” as the (metaphorical?) subject of these shared cares and concerns, and as that for whose sake we act.

Solomon (1988) offers a union view as well, though one that tries “to make new sense out of ‘love’ through a literal rather than metaphoric sense of the ‘fusion’ of two souls” (p. 24, cf. Solomon 1981; however, it is unclear exactly what he means by a “soul” here and so how love can be a “literal” fusion of two souls). What Solomon has in mind is the way in which, through love, the lovers redefine their identities as persons in terms of the relationship: “Love is the concentration and the intensive focus of mutual definition on a single individual, subjecting virtually every personal aspect of one’s self to this process” (1988, p. 197). The result is that lovers come to share the interests, roles, virtues, and so on that constitute what formerly was two individual identities but now has become a shared identity, and they do so in part by each allowing the other to play an important role in defining his own identity.

Nozick (1989) offers a union view that differs from those of Scruton, Fisher, and Solomon in that Nozick thinks that what is necessary for love is merely the desire to form a “we,” together with the desire that your beloved reciprocates. Nonetheless, he claims that this “we” is “a new entity in the world…created by a new web of relationships between [the lovers] which makes them no longer separate” (p. 70). In spelling out this web of relationships, Nozick appeals to the lovers “pooling” not only their well-beings, in the sense that the well-being of each is tied up with that of the other, but also their autonomy, in that “each transfers some previous rights to make certain decisions unilaterally into a joint pool” (p. 71). In addition, Nozick claims, the lovers each acquire a new identity as a part of the “we,” a new identity constituted by their (a) wanting to be perceived publicly as a couple, (b) their attending to their pooled well-being, and (c) their accepting a “certain kind of division of labor” (p. 72):

A person in a we might find himself coming across something interesting to read yet leaving it for the other person, not because he himself would not be interested in it but because the other would be more interested, and one of them reading it is sufficient for it to be registered by the wider identity now shared, the we . [ 3 ]

Opponents of the union view have seized on claims like this as excessive: union theorists, they claim, take too literally the ontological commitments of this notion of a “we.” This leads to two specific criticisms of the union view. The first is that union views do away with individual autonomy. Autonomy, it seems, involves a kind of independence on the part of the autonomous agent, such that she is in control over not only what she does but also who she is, as this is constituted by her interests, values, concerns, etc. However, union views, by doing away with a clear distinction between your interests and mine, thereby undermine this sort of independence and so undermine the autonomy of the lovers. If autonomy is a part of the individual’s good, then, on the union view, love is to this extent bad; so much the worse for the union view (Singer 1994; Soble 1997). Moreover, Singer (1994) argues that a necessary part of having your beloved be the object of your love is respect for your beloved as the particular person she is, and this requires respecting her autonomy.

Union theorists have responded to this objection in several ways. Nozick (1989) seems to think of a loss of autonomy in love as a desirable feature of the sort of union lovers can achieve. Fisher (1990), somewhat more reluctantly, claims that the loss of autonomy in love is an acceptable consequence of love. Yet without further argument these claims seem like mere bullet biting. Solomon (1988, pp. 64ff) describes this “tension” between union and autonomy as “the paradox of love.” However, this a view that Soble (1997) derides: merely to call it a paradox, as Solomon does, is not to face up to the problem.

The second criticism involves a substantive view concerning love. Part of what it is to love someone, these opponents say, is to have concern for him for his sake. However, union views make such concern unintelligible and eliminate the possibility of both selfishness and self-sacrifice, for by doing away with the distinction between my interests and your interests they have in effect turned your interests into mine and vice versa (Soble 1997; see also Blum 1980, 1993). Some advocates of union views see this as a point in their favor: we need to explain how it is I can have concern for people other than myself, and the union view apparently does this by understanding your interests to be part of my own. And Delaney, responding to an apparent tension between our desire to be loved unselfishly (for fear of otherwise being exploited) and our desire to be loved for reasons (which presumably are attractive to our lover and hence have a kind of selfish basis), says (1996, p. 346):

Given my view that the romantic ideal is primarily characterized by a desire to achieve a profound consolidation of needs and interests through the formation of a we , I do not think a little selfishness of the sort described should pose a worry to either party.

The objection, however, lies precisely in this attempt to explain my concern for my beloved egoistically. As Whiting (1991, p. 10) puts it, such an attempt “strikes me as unnecessary and potentially objectionable colonization”: in love, I ought to be concerned with my beloved for her sake, and not because I somehow get something out of it. (This can be true whether my concern with my beloved is merely instrumental to my good or whether it is partly constitutive of my good.)

Although Whiting’s and Soble’s criticisms here succeed against the more radical advocates of the union view, they in part fail to acknowledge the kernel of truth to be gleaned from the idea of union. Whiting’s way of formulating the second objection in terms of an unnecessary egoism in part points to a way out: we persons are in part social creatures, and love is one profound mode of that sociality. Indeed, part of the point of union accounts is to make sense of this social dimension: to make sense of a way in which we can sometimes identify ourselves with others not merely in becoming interdependent with them (as Singer 1994, p. 165, suggests, understanding ‘interdependence’ to be a kind of reciprocal benevolence and respect) but rather in making who we are as persons be constituted in part by those we love (cf., e.g., Rorty 1986/1993; Nussbaum 1990).

Along these lines, Friedman (1998), taking her inspiration in part from Delaney (1996), argues that we should understand the sort of union at issue in love to be a kind of federation of selves:

On the federation model, a third unified entity is constituted by the interaction of the lovers, one which involves the lovers acting in concert across a range of conditions and for a range of purposes. This concerted action, however, does not erase the existence of the two lovers as separable and separate agents with continuing possibilities for the exercise of their own respective agencies. [p. 165]

Given that on this view the lovers do not give up their individual identities, there is no principled reason why the union view cannot make sense of the lover’s concern for her beloved for his sake. [ 4 ] Moreover, Friedman argues, once we construe union as federation, we can see that autonomy is not a zero-sum game; rather, love can both directly enhance the autonomy of each and promote the growth of various skills, like realistic and critical self-evaluation, that foster autonomy.

Nonetheless, this federation model is not without its problems—problems that affect other versions of the union view as well. For if the federation (or the “we”, as on Nozick’s view) is understood as a third entity, we need a clearer account than has been given of its ontological status and how it comes to be. Relevant here is the literature on shared intention and plural subjects. Gilbert (1989, 1996, 2000) has argued that we should take quite seriously the existence of a plural subject as an entity over and above its constituent members. Others, such as Tuomela (1984, 1995), Searle (1990), and Bratman (1999) are more cautious, treating such talk of “us” having an intention as metaphorical.

As this criticism of the union view indicates, many find caring about your beloved for her sake to be a part of what it is to love her. The robust concern view of love takes this to be the central and defining feature of love (cf. Taylor 1976; Newton-Smith 1989; Soble 1990, 1997; LaFollette 1996; Frankfurt 1999; White 2001). As Taylor puts it:

To summarize: if x loves y then x wants to benefit and be with y etc., and he has these wants (or at least some of them) because he believes y has some determinate characteristics ψ in virtue of which he thinks it worth while to benefit and be with y . He regards satisfaction of these wants as an end and not as a means towards some other end. [p. 157]

In conceiving of my love for you as constituted by my concern for you for your sake, the robust concern view rejects the idea, central to the union view, that love is to be understood in terms of the (literal or metaphorical) creation of a “we”: I am the one who has this concern for you, though it is nonetheless disinterested and so not egoistic insofar as it is for your sake rather than for my own. [ 5 ]

At the heart of the robust concern view is the idea that love “is neither affective nor cognitive. It is volitional” (Frankfurt 1999, p. 129; see also Martin 2015). Frankfurt continues:

That a person cares about or that he loves something has less to do with how things make him feel, or with his opinions about them, than with the more or less stable motivational structures that shape his preferences and that guide and limit his conduct.

This account analyzes caring about someone for her sake as a matter of being motivated in certain ways, in part as a response to what happens to one’s beloved. Of course, to understand love in terms of desires is not to leave other emotional responses out in the cold, for these emotions should be understood as consequences of desires. Thus, just as I can be emotionally crushed when one of my strong desires is disappointed, so too I can be emotionally crushed when things similarly go badly for my beloved. In this way Frankfurt (1999) tacitly, and White (2001) more explicitly, acknowledge the way in which my caring for my beloved for her sake results in my identity being transformed through her influence insofar as I become vulnerable to things that happen to her.

Not all robust concern theorists seem to accept this line, however; in particular, Taylor (1976) and Soble (1990) seem to have a strongly individualistic conception of persons that prevents my identity being bound up with my beloved in this sort of way, a kind of view that may seem to undermine the intuitive “depth” that love seems to have. (For more on this point, see Rorty 1986/1993.) In the middle is Stump (2006), who follows Aquinas in understanding love to involve not only the desire for your beloved’s well-being but also a desire for a certain kind of relationship with your beloved—as a parent or spouse or sibling or priest or friend, for example—a relationship within which you share yourself with and connect yourself to your beloved. [ 6 ]

One source of worry about the robust concern view is that it involves too passive an understanding of one’s beloved (Ebels-Duggan 2008). The thought is that on the robust concern view the lover merely tries to discover what the beloved’s well-being consists in and then acts to promote that, potentially by thwarting the beloved’s own efforts when the lover thinks those efforts would harm her well-being. This, however, would be disrespectful and demeaning, not the sort of attitude that love is. What robust concern views seem to miss, Ebels-Duggan suggests, is the way love involves interacting agents, each with a capacity for autonomy the recognition and engagement with which is an essential part of love. In response, advocates of the robust concern view might point out that promoting someone’s well-being normally requires promoting her autonomy (though they may maintain that this need not always be true: that paternalism towards a beloved can sometimes be justified and appropriate as an expression of one’s love). Moreover, we might plausibly think, it is only through the exercise of one’s autonomy that one can define one’s own well-being as a person, so that a lover’s failure to respect the beloved’s autonomy would be a failure to promote her well-being and therefore not an expression of love, contrary to what Ebels-Duggan suggests. Consequently, it might seem, robust concern views can counter this objection by offering an enriched conception of what it is to be a person and so of the well-being of persons.

Another source of worry is that the robust concern view offers too thin a conception of love. By emphasizing robust concern, this view understands other features we think characteristic of love, such as one’s emotional responsiveness to one’s beloved, to be the effects of that concern rather than constituents of it. Thus Velleman (1999) argues that robust concern views, by understanding love merely as a matter of aiming at a particular end (viz., the welfare of one’s beloved), understand love to be merely conative. However, he claims, love can have nothing to do with desires, offering as a counterexample the possibility of loving a troublemaking relation whom you do not want to be with, whose well being you do not want to promote, etc. Similarly, Badhwar (2003) argues that such a “teleological” view of love makes it mysterious how “we can continue to love someone long after death has taken him beyond harm or benefit” (p. 46). Moreover Badhwar argues, if love is essentially a desire, then it implies that we lack something; yet love does not imply this and, indeed, can be felt most strongly at times when we feel our lives most complete and lacking in nothing. Consequently, Velleman and Badhwar conclude, love need not involve any desire or concern for the well-being of one’s beloved.

This conclusion, however, seems too hasty, for such examples can be accommodated within the robust concern view. Thus, the concern for your relative in Velleman’s example can be understood to be present but swamped by other, more powerful desires to avoid him. Indeed, keeping the idea that you want to some degree to benefit him, an idea Velleman rejects, seems to be essential to understanding the conceptual tension between loving someone and not wanting to help him, a tension Velleman does not fully acknowledge. Similarly, continued love for someone who has died can be understood on the robust concern view as parasitic on the former love you had for him when he was still alive: your desires to benefit him get transformed, through your subsequent understanding of the impossibility of doing so, into wishes. [ 7 ] Finally, the idea of concern for your beloved’s well-being need not imply the idea that you lack something, for such concern can be understood in terms of the disposition to be vigilant for occasions when you can come to his aid and consequently to have the relevant occurrent desires. All of this seems fully compatible with the robust concern view.

One might also question whether Velleman and Badhwar make proper use of their examples of loving your meddlesome relation or someone who has died. For although we can understand these as genuine cases of love, they are nonetheless deficient cases and ought therefore be understood as parasitic on the standard cases. Readily to accommodate such deficient cases of love into a philosophical analysis as being on a par with paradigm cases, and to do so without some special justification, is dubious.

Nonetheless, the robust concern view as it stands does not seem properly able to account for the intuitive “depth” of love and so does not seem properly to distinguish loving from liking. Although, as noted above, the robust concern view can begin to make some sense of the way in which the lover’s identity is altered by the beloved, it understands this only an effect of love, and not as a central part of what love consists in.

This vague thought is nicely developed by Wonderly (2017), who emphasizes that in addition to the sort of disinterested concern for another that is central to robust-concern accounts of love, an essential part of at least romantic love is the idea that in loving someone I must find them to be not merely important for their own sake but also important to me . Wonderly (2017) fleshes out what this “importance to me” involves in terms of the idea of attachment (developed in Wonderly 2016) that she argues can make sense of the intimacy and depth of love from within what remains fundamentally a robust-concern account. [ 8 ]

4. Love as Valuing

A third kind of view of love understands love to be a distinctive mode of valuing a person. As the distinction between eros and agape in Section 1 indicates, there are at least two ways to construe this in terms of whether the lover values the beloved because she is valuable, or whether the beloved comes to be valuable to the lover as a result of her loving him. The former view, which understands the lover as appraising the value of the beloved in loving him, is the topic of Section 4.1 , whereas the latter view, which understands her as bestowing value on him, will be discussed in Section 4.2 .

Velleman (1999, 2008) offers an appraisal view of love, understanding love to be fundamentally a matter of acknowledging and responding in a distinctive way to the value of the beloved. (For a very different appraisal view of love, see Kolodny 2003.) Understanding this more fully requires understanding both the kind of value of the beloved to which one responds and the distinctive kind of response to such value that love is. Nonetheless, it should be clear that what makes an account be an appraisal view of love is not the mere fact that love is understood to involve appraisal; many other accounts do so, and it is typical of robust concern accounts, for example (cf. the quote from Taylor above , Section 3 ). Rather, appraisal views are distinctive in understanding love to consist in that appraisal.

In articulating the kind of value love involves, Velleman, following Kant, distinguishes dignity from price. To have a price , as the economic metaphor suggests, is to have a value that can be compared to the value of other things with prices, such that it is intelligible to exchange without loss items of the same value. By contrast, to have dignity is to have a value such that comparisons of relative value become meaningless. Material goods are normally understood to have prices, but we persons have dignity: no substitution of one person for another can preserve exactly the same value, for something of incomparable worth would be lost (and gained) in such a substitution.

On this Kantian view, our dignity as persons consists in our rational nature: our capacity both to be actuated by reasons that we autonomously provide ourselves in setting our own ends and to respond appropriately to the intrinsic values we discover in the world. Consequently, one important way in which we exercise our rational natures is to respond with respect to the dignity of other persons (a dignity that consists in part in their capacity for respect): respect just is the required minimal response to the dignity of persons. What makes a response to a person be that of respect, Velleman claims, still following Kant, is that it “arrests our self-love” and thereby prevents us from treating him as a means to our ends (p. 360).

Given this, Velleman claims that love is similarly a response to the dignity of persons, and as such it is the dignity of the object of our love that justifies that love. However, love and respect are different kinds of responses to the same value. For love arrests not our self-love but rather

our tendencies toward emotional self-protection from another person, tendencies to draw ourselves in and close ourselves off from being affected by him. Love disarms our emotional defenses; it makes us vulnerable to the other. [1999, p. 361]

This means that the concern, attraction, sympathy, etc. that we normally associate with love are not constituents of love but are rather its normal effects, and love can remain without them (as in the case of the love for a meddlesome relative one cannot stand being around). Moreover, this provides Velleman with a clear account of the intuitive “depth” of love: it is essentially a response to persons as such, and to say that you love your dog is therefore to be confused.

Of course, we do not respond with love to the dignity of every person we meet, nor are we somehow required to: love, as the disarming of our emotional defenses in a way that makes us especially vulnerable to another, is the optional maximal response to others’ dignity. What, then, explains the selectivity of love—why I love some people and not others? The answer lies in the contingent fit between the way some people behaviorally express their dignity as persons and the way I happen to respond to those expressions by becoming emotionally vulnerable to them. The right sort of fit makes someone “lovable” by me (1999, p. 372), and my responding with love in these cases is a matter of my “really seeing” this person in a way that I fail to do with others who do not fit with me in this way. By ‘lovable’ here Velleman seems to mean able to be loved, not worthy of being loved, for nothing Velleman says here speaks to a question about the justification of my loving this person rather than that. Rather, what he offers is an explanation of the selectivity of my love, an explanation that as a matter of fact makes my response be that of love rather than mere respect.

This understanding of the selectivity of love as something that can be explained but not justified is potentially troubling. For we ordinarily think we can justify not only my loving you rather than someone else but also and more importantly the constancy of my love: my continuing to love you even as you change in certain fundamental ways (but not others). As Delaney (1996, p. 347) puts the worry about constancy:

while you seem to want it to be true that, were you to become a schmuck, your lover would continue to love you,…you also want it to be the case that your lover would never love a schmuck.

The issue here is not merely that we can offer explanations of the selectivity of my love, of why I do not love schmucks; rather, at issue is the discernment of love, of loving and continuing to love for good reasons as well as of ceasing to love for good reasons. To have these good reasons seems to involve attributing different values to you now rather than formerly or rather than to someone else, yet this is precisely what Velleman denies is the case in making the distinction between love and respect the way he does.

It is also questionable whether Velleman can even explain the selectivity of love in terms of the “fit” between your expressions and my sensitivities. For the relevant sensitivities on my part are emotional sensitivities: the lowering of my emotional defenses and so becoming emotionally vulnerable to you. Thus, I become vulnerable to the harms (or goods) that befall you and so sympathetically feel your pain (or joy). Such emotions are themselves assessable for warrant, and now we can ask why my disappointment that you lost the race is warranted, but my being disappointed that a mere stranger lost would not be warranted. The intuitive answer is that I love you but not him. However, this answer is unavailable to Velleman, because he thinks that what makes my response to your dignity that of love rather than respect is precisely that I feel such emotions, and to appeal to my love in explaining the emotions therefore seems viciously circular.

Although these problems are specific to Velleman’s account, the difficulty can be generalized to any appraisal account of love (such as that offered in Kolodny 2003). For if love is an appraisal, it needs to be distinguished from other forms of appraisal, including our evaluative judgments. On the one hand, to try to distinguish love as an appraisal from other appraisals in terms of love’s having certain effects on our emotional and motivational life (as on Velleman’s account) is unsatisfying because it ignores part of what needs to be explained: why the appraisal of love has these effects and yet judgments with the same evaluative content do not. Indeed, this question is crucial if we are to understand the intuitive “depth” of love, for without an answer to this question we do not understand why love should have the kind of centrality in our lives it manifestly does. [ 9 ] On the other hand, to bundle this emotional component into the appraisal itself would be to turn the view into either the robust concern view ( Section 3 ) or a variant of the emotion view ( Section 5.1 ).

In contrast to Velleman, Singer (1991, 1994, 2009) understands love to be fundamentally a matter of bestowing value on the beloved. To bestow value on another is to project a kind of intrinsic value onto him. Indeed, this fact about love is supposed to distinguish love from liking: “Love is an attitude with no clear objective,” whereas liking is inherently teleological (1991, p. 272). As such, there are no standards of correctness for bestowing such value, and this is how love differs from other personal attitudes like gratitude, generosity, and condescension: “love…confers importance no matter what the object is worth” (p. 273). Consequently, Singer thinks, love is not an attitude that can be justified in any way.

What is it, exactly, to bestow this kind of value on someone? It is, Singer says, a kind of attachment and commitment to the beloved, in which one comes to treat him as an end in himself and so to respond to his ends, interests, concerns, etc. as having value for their own sake. This means in part that the bestowal of value reveals itself “by caring about the needs and interests of the beloved, by wishing to benefit or protect her, by delighting in her achievements,” etc. (p. 270). This sounds very much like the robust concern view, yet the bestowal view differs in understanding such robust concern to be the effect of the bestowal of value that is love rather than itself what constitutes love: in bestowing value on my beloved, I make him be valuable in such a way that I ought to respond with robust concern.

For it to be intelligible that I have bestowed value on someone, I must therefore respond appropriately to him as valuable, and this requires having some sense of what his well-being is and of what affects that well-being positively or negatively. Yet having this sense requires in turn knowing what his strengths and deficiencies are, and this is a matter of appraising him in various ways. Bestowal thus presupposes a kind of appraisal, as a way of “really seeing” the beloved and attending to him. Nonetheless, Singer claims, it is the bestowal that is primary for understanding what love consists in: the appraisal is required only so that the commitment to one’s beloved and his value as thus bestowed has practical import and is not “a blind submission to some unknown being” (1991, p. 272; see also Singer 1994, pp. 139ff).

Singer is walking a tightrope in trying to make room for appraisal in his account of love. Insofar as the account is fundamentally a bestowal account, Singer claims that love cannot be justified, that we bestow the relevant kind of value “gratuitously.” This suggests that love is blind, that it does not matter what our beloved is like, which seems patently false. Singer tries to avoid this conclusion by appealing to the role of appraisal: it is only because we appraise another as having certain virtues and vices that we come to bestow value on him. Yet the “because” here, since it cannot justify the bestowal, is at best a kind of contingent causal explanation. [ 10 ] In this respect, Singer’s account of the selectivity of love is much the same as Velleman’s, and it is liable to the same criticism: it makes unintelligible the way in which our love can be discerning for better or worse reasons. Indeed, this failure to make sense of the idea that love can be justified is a problem for any bestowal view. For either (a) a bestowal itself cannot be justified (as on Singer’s account), in which case the justification of love is impossible, or (b) a bestowal can be justified, in which case it is hard to make sense of value as being bestowed rather than there antecedently in the object as the grounds of that “bestowal.”

More generally, a proponent of the bestowal view needs to be much clearer than Singer is in articulating precisely what a bestowal is. What is the value that I create in a bestowal, and how can my bestowal create it? On a crude Humean view, the answer might be that the value is something projected onto the world through my pro-attitudes, like desire. Yet such a view would be inadequate, since the projected value, being relative to a particular individual, would do no theoretical work, and the account would essentially be a variant of the robust concern view. Moreover, in providing a bestowal account of love, care is needed to distinguish love from other personal attitudes such as admiration and respect: do these other attitudes involve bestowal? If so, how does the bestowal in these cases differ from the bestowal of love? If not, why not, and what is so special about love that requires a fundamentally different evaluative attitude than admiration and respect?

Nonetheless, there is a kernel of truth in the bestowal view: there is surely something right about the idea that love is creative and not merely a response to antecedent value, and accounts of love that understand the kind of evaluation implicit in love merely in terms of appraisal seem to be missing something. Precisely what may be missed will be discussed below in Section 6 .

Perhaps there is room for an understanding of love and its relation to value that is intermediate between appraisal and bestowal accounts. After all, if we think of appraisal as something like perception, a matter of responding to what is out there in the world, and of bestowal as something like action, a matter of doing something and creating something, we should recognize that the responsiveness central to appraisal may itself depend on our active, creative choices. Thus, just as we must recognize that ordinary perception depends on our actively directing our attention and deploying concepts, interpretations, and even arguments in order to perceive things accurately, so too we might think our vision of our beloved’s valuable properties that is love also depends on our actively attending to and interpreting him. Something like this is Jollimore’s view (2011). According to Jollimore, in loving someone we actively attend to his valuable properties in a way that we take to provide us with reasons to treat him preferentially. Although we may acknowledge that others might have such properties even to a greater degree than our beloved does, we do not attend to and appreciate such properties in others in the same way we do those in our beloveds; indeed, we find our appreciation of our beloved’s valuable properties to “silence” our similar appreciation of those in others. (In this way, Jollimore thinks, we can solve the problem of fungibility, discussed below in Section 6 .) Likewise, in perceiving our beloved’s actions and character, we do so through the lens of such an appreciation, which will tend as to “silence” interpretations inconsistent with that appreciation. In this way, love involves finding one’s beloved to be valuable in a way that involves elements of both appraisal (insofar as one must thereby be responsive to valuable properties one’s beloved really has) and bestowal (insofar as through one’s attention and committed appreciation of these properties they come to have special significance for one).

One might object that this conception of love as silencing the special value of others or to negative interpretations of our beloveds is irrational in a way that love is not. For, it might seem, such “silencing” is merely a matter of our blinding ourselves to how things really are. Yet Jollimore claims that this sense in which love is blind is not objectionable, for (a) we can still intellectually recognize the things that love’s vision silences, and (b) there really is no impartial perspective we can take on the values things have, and love is one appropriate sort of partial perspective from which the value of persons can be manifest. Nonetheless, one might wonder about whether that perspective of love itself can be distorted and what the norms are in terms of which such distortions are intelligible. Furthermore, it may seem that Jollimore’s attempt to reconcile appraisal and bestowal fails to appreciate the underlying metaphysical difficulty: appraisal is a response to value that is antecedently there, whereas bestowal is the creation of value that was not antecedently there. Consequently, it might seem, appraisal and bestowal are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled in the way Jollimore hopes.

Whereas Jollimore tries to combine separate elements of appraisal and of bestowal in a single account, Helm (2010) and Bagley (2015) offer accounts that reject the metaphysical presupposition that values must be either prior to love (as with appraisal) or posterior to love (as with bestowal), instead understanding the love and the values to emerge simultaneously. Thus, Helm presents a detailed account of valuing in terms of the emotions, arguing that while we can understand individual emotions as appraisals , responding to values already their in their objects, these values are bestowed on those objects via broad, holistic patterns of emotions. How this amounts to an account of love will be discussed in Section 5.2 , below. Bagley (2015) instead appeals to a metaphor of improvisation, arguing that just as jazz musicians jointly make determinate the content of their musical ideas through on-going processes of their expression, so too lovers jointly engage in “deep improvisation”, thereby working out of their values and identities through the on-going process of living their lives together. These values are thus something the lovers jointly construct through the process of recognizing and responding to those very values. To love someone is thus to engage with them as partners in such “deep improvisation”. (This account is similar to Helm (2008, 2010)’s account of plural agency, which he uses to provide an account of friendship and other loving relationships; see the discussion of shared activity in the entry on friendship .)

5. Emotion Views

Given these problems with the accounts of love as valuing, perhaps we should turn to the emotions. For emotions just are responses to objects that combine evaluation, motivation, and a kind of phenomenology, all central features of the attitude of love.

Many accounts of love claim that it is an emotion; these include: Wollheim 1984, Rorty 1986/1993, Brown 1987, Hamlyn 1989, Baier 1991, and Badhwar 2003. [ 11 ] Thus, Hamlyn (1989, p. 219) says:

It would not be a plausible move to defend any theory of the emotions to which love and hate seemed exceptions by saying that love and hate are after all not emotions. I have heard this said, but it does seem to me a desperate move to make. If love and hate are not emotions what is?

The difficulty with this claim, as Rorty (1980) argues, is that the word, ‘emotion,’ does not seem to pick out a homogeneous collection of mental states, and so various theories claiming that love is an emotion mean very different things. Consequently, what are here labeled “emotion views” are divided into those that understand love to be a particular kind of evaluative-cum-motivational response to an object, whether that response is merely occurrent or dispositional (‘emotions proper,’ see Section 5.1 , below), and those that understand love to involve a collection of related and interconnected emotions proper (‘emotion complexes,’ see Section 5.2 , below).

An emotion proper is a kind of “evaluative-cum-motivational response to an object”; what does this mean? Emotions are generally understood to have several objects. The target of an emotion is that at which the emotion is directed: if I am afraid or angry at you, then you are the target. In responding to you with fear or anger, I am implicitly evaluating you in a particular way, and this evaluation—called the formal object —is the kind of evaluation of the target that is distinctive of a particular emotion type. Thus, in fearing you, I implicitly evaluate you as somehow dangerous, whereas in being angry at you I implicitly evaluate you as somehow offensive. Yet emotions are not merely evaluations of their targets; they in part motivate us to behave in certain ways, both rationally (by motivating action to avoid the danger) and arationally (via certain characteristic expressions, such as slamming a door out of anger). Moreover, emotions are generally understood to involve a phenomenological component, though just how to understand the characteristic “feel” of an emotion and its relation to the evaluation and motivation is hotly disputed. Finally, emotions are typically understood to be passions: responses that we feel imposed on us as if from the outside, rather than anything we actively do. (For more on the philosophy of emotions, see entry on emotion .)

What then are we saying when we say that love is an emotion proper? According to Brown (1987, p. 14), emotions as occurrent mental states are “abnormal bodily changes caused by the agent’s evaluation or appraisal of some object or situation that the agent believes to be of concern to him or her.” He spells this out by saying that in love, we “cherish” the person for having “a particular complex of instantiated qualities” that is “open-ended” so that we can continue to love the person even as she changes over time (pp. 106–7). These qualities, which include historical and relational qualities, are evaluated in love as worthwhile. [ 12 ] All of this seems aimed at spelling out what love’s formal object is, a task that is fundamental to understanding love as an emotion proper. Thus, Brown seems to say that love’s formal object is just being worthwhile (or, given his examples, perhaps: worthwhile as a person), and he resists being any more specific than this in order to preserve the open-endedness of love. Hamlyn (1989) offers a similar account, saying (p. 228):

With love the difficulty is to find anything of this kind [i.e., a formal object] which is uniquely appropriate to love. My thesis is that there is nothing of this kind that must be so, and that this differentiates it and hate from the other emotions.

Hamlyn goes on to suggest that love and hate might be primordial emotions, a kind of positive or negative “feeling towards,” presupposed by all other emotions. [ 13 ]

The trouble with these accounts of love as an emotion proper is that they provide too thin a conception of love. In Hamlyn’s case, love is conceived as a fairly generic pro-attitude, rather than as the specific kind of distinctively personal attitude discussed here. In Brown’s case, spelling out the formal object of love as simply being worthwhile (as a person) fails to distinguish love from other evaluative responses like admiration and respect. Part of the problem seems to be the rather simple account of what an emotion is that Brown and Hamlyn use as their starting point: if love is an emotion, then the understanding of what an emotion is must be enriched considerably to accommodate love. Yet it is not at all clear whether the idea of an “emotion proper” can be adequately enriched so as to do so. As Pismenny & Prinz (2017) point out, love seems to be too varied both in its ground and in the sort of experience it involves to be capturable by a single emotion.

The emotion complex view, which understands love to be a complex emotional attitude towards another person, may initially seem to hold out great promise to overcome the problems of alternative types of views. By articulating the emotional interconnections between persons, it could offer a satisfying account of the “depth” of love without the excesses of the union view and without the overly narrow teleological focus of the robust concern view; and because these emotional interconnections are themselves evaluations, it could offer an understanding of love as simultaneously evaluative, without needing to specify a single formal object of love. However, the devil is in the details.

Rorty (1986/1993) does not try to present a complete account of love; rather, she focuses on the idea that “relational psychological attitudes” which, like love, essentially involve emotional and desiderative responses, exhibit historicity : “they arise from, and are shaped by, dynamic interactions between a subject and an object” (p. 73). In part this means that what makes an attitude be one of love is not the presence of a state that we can point to at a particular time within the lover; rather, love is to be “identified by a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75). Moreover, Rorty argues, the historicity of love involves the lover’s being permanently transformed by loving who he does.

Baier (1991), seeming to pick up on this understanding of love as exhibiting historicity, says (p. 444):

Love is not just an emotion people feel toward other people, but also a complex tying together of the emotions that two or a few more people have; it is a special form of emotional interdependence.

To a certain extent, such emotional interdependence involves feeling sympathetic emotions, so that, for example, I feel disappointed and frustrated on behalf of my beloved when she fails, and joyful when she succeeds. However, Baier insists, love is “more than just the duplication of the emotion of each in a sympathetic echo in the other” (p. 442); the emotional interdependence of the lovers involves also appropriate follow-up responses to the emotional predicaments of your beloved. Two examples Baier gives (pp. 443–44) are a feeling of “mischievous delight” at your beloved’s temporary bafflement, and amusement at her embarrassment. The idea is that in a loving relationship your beloved gives you permission to feel such emotions when no one else is permitted to do so, and a condition of her granting you that permission is that you feel these emotions “tenderly.” Moreover, you ought to respond emotionally to your beloved’s emotional responses to you: by feeling hurt when she is indifferent to you, for example. All of these foster the sort of emotional interdependence Baier is after—a kind of intimacy you have with your beloved.

Badhwar (2003, p. 46) similarly understands love to be a matter of “one’s overall emotional orientation towards a person—the complex of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings”; as such, love is a matter of having a certain “character structure.” Central to this complex emotional orientation, Badhwar thinks, is what she calls the “look of love”: “an ongoing [emotional] affirmation of the loved object as worthy of existence…for her own sake” (p. 44), an affirmation that involves taking pleasure in your beloved’s well-being. Moreover, Badhwar claims, the look of love also provides to the beloved reliable testimony concerning the quality of the beloved’s character and actions (p. 57).

There is surely something very right about the idea that love, as an attitude central to deeply personal relationships, should not be understood as a state that can simply come and go. Rather, as the emotion complex view insists, the complexity of love is to be found in the historical patterns of one’s emotional responsiveness to one’s beloved—a pattern that also projects into the future. Indeed, as suggested above, the kind of emotional interdependence that results from this complex pattern can seem to account for the intuitive “depth” of love as fully interwoven into one’s emotional sense of oneself. And it seems to make some headway in understanding the complex phenomenology of love: love can at times be a matter of intense pleasure in the presence of one’s beloved, yet it can at other times involve frustration, exasperation, anger, and hurt as a manifestation of the complexities and depth of the relationships it fosters.

This understanding of love as constituted by a history of emotional interdependence enables emotion complex views to say something interesting about the impact love has on the lover’s identity. This is partly Rorty’s point (1986/1993) in her discussion of the historicity of love ( above ). Thus, she argues, one important feature of such historicity is that love is “ dynamically permeable ” in that the lover is continually “changed by loving” such that these changes “tend to ramify through a person’s character” (p. 77). Through such dynamic permeability, love transforms the identity of the lover in a way that can sometimes foster the continuity of the love, as each lover continually changes in response to the changes in the other. [ 14 ] Indeed, Rorty concludes, love should be understood in terms of “a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75) that results from such dynamic permeability. It should be clear, however, that the mere fact of dynamic permeability need not result in the love’s continuing: nothing about the dynamics of a relationship requires that the characteristic narrative history project into the future, and such permeability can therefore lead to the dissolution of the love. Love is therefore risky—indeed, all the more risky because of the way the identity of the lover is defined in part through the love. The loss of a love can therefore make one feel no longer oneself in ways poignantly described by Nussbaum (1990).

By focusing on such emotionally complex histories, emotion complex views differ from most alternative accounts of love. For alternative accounts tend to view love as a kind of attitude we take toward our beloveds, something we can analyze simply in terms of our mental state at the moment. [ 15 ] By ignoring this historical dimension of love in providing an account of what love is, alternative accounts have a hard time providing either satisfying accounts of the sense in which our identities as person are at stake in loving another or satisfactory solutions to problems concerning how love is to be justified (cf. Section 6 , especially the discussion of fungibility ).

Nonetheless, some questions remain. If love is to be understood as an emotion complex, we need a much more explicit account of the pattern at issue here: what ties all of these emotional responses together into a single thing, namely love? Baier and Badhwar seem content to provide interesting and insightful examples of this pattern, but that does not seem to be enough. For example, what connects my amusement at my beloved’s embarrassment to other emotions like my joy on his behalf when he succeeds? Why shouldn’t my amusement at his embarrassment be understood instead as a somewhat cruel case of schadenfreude and so as antithetical to, and disconnected from, love? Moreover, as Naar (2013) notes, we need a principled account of when such historical patterns are disrupted in such a way as to end the love and when they are not. Do I stop loving when, in the midst of clinical depression, I lose my normal pattern of emotional concern?

Presumably the answer requires returning to the historicity of love: it all depends on the historical details of the relationship my beloved and I have forged. Some loves develop so that the intimacy within the relationship is such as to allow for tender, teasing responses to each other, whereas other loves may not. The historical details, together with the lovers’ understanding of their relationship, presumably determine which emotional responses belong to the pattern constitutive of love and which do not. However, this answer so far is inadequate: not just any historical relationship involving emotional interdependence is a loving relationship, and we need a principled way of distinguishing loving relationships from other relational evaluative attitudes: precisely what is the characteristic narrative history that is characteristic of love?

Helm (2009, 2010) tries to answer some of these questions in presenting an account of love as intimate identification. To love another, Helm claims, is to care about him as the particular person he is and so, other things being equal, to value the things he values. Insofar as a person’s (structured) set of values—his sense of the kind of life worth his living—constitutes his identity as a person, such sharing of values amounts to sharing his identity, which sounds very much like union accounts of love. However, Helm is careful to understand such sharing of values as for the sake of the beloved (as robust concern accounts insist), and he spells this all out in terms of patterns of emotions. Thus, Helm claims, all emotions have not only a target and a formal object (as indicated above), but also a focus : a background object the subject cares about in terms of which the implicit evaluation of the target is made intelligible. (For example, if I am afraid of the approaching hailstorm, I thereby evaluate it as dangerous, and what explains this evaluation is the way that hailstorm bears on my vegetable garden, which I care about; my garden, therefore, is the focus of my fear.) Moreover, emotions normally come in patterns with a common focus: fearing the hailstorm is normally connected to other emotions as being relieved when it passes by harmlessly (or disappointed or sad when it does not), being angry at the rabbits for killing the spinach, delighted at the productivity of the tomato plants, etc. Helm argues that a projectible pattern of such emotions with a common focus constitute caring about that focus. Consequently, we might say along the lines of Section 4.3 , while particular emotions appraise events in the world as having certain evaluative properties, their having these properties is partly bestowed on them by the overall patterns of emotions.

Helm identifies some emotions as person-focused emotions : emotions like pride and shame that essentially take persons as their focuses, for these emotions implicitly evaluate in terms of the target’s bearing on the quality of life of the person that is their focus. To exhibit a pattern of such emotions focused on oneself and subfocused on being a mother, for example, is to care about the place being a mother has in the kind of life you find worth living—in your identity as a person; to care in this way is to value being a mother as a part of your concern for your own identity. Likewise, to exhibit a projectible pattern of such emotions focused on someone else and subfocused on his being a father is to value this as a part of your concern for his identity—to value it for his sake. Such sharing of another’s values for his sake, which, Helm argues, essentially involves trust, respect, and affection, amounts to intimate identification with him, and such intimate identification just is love. Thus, Helm tries to provide an account of love that is grounded in an explicit account of caring (and caring about something for the sake of someone else) that makes room for the intuitive “depth” of love through intimate identification.

Jaworska & Wonderly (2017) argue that Helm’s construal of intimacy as intimate identification is too demanding. Rather, they argue, the sort of intimacy that distinguishes love from mere caring is one that involves a kind of emotional vulnerability in which things going well or poorly for one’s beloved are directly connected not merely to one’s well-being, but to one’s ability to flourish. This connection, they argue, runs through the lover’s self-understanding and the place the beloved has in the lover’s sense of a meaningful life.

Why do we love? It has been suggested above that any account of love needs to be able to answer some such justificatory question. Although the issue of the justification of love is important on its own, it is also important for the implications it has for understanding more clearly the precise object of love: how can we make sense of the intuitions not only that we love the individuals themselves rather than their properties, but also that my beloved is not fungible—that no one could simply take her place without loss. Different theories approach these questions in different ways, but, as will become clear below, the question of justification is primary.

One way to understand the question of why we love is as asking for what the value of love is: what do we get out of it? One kind of answer, which has its roots in Aristotle, is that having loving relationships promotes self-knowledge insofar as your beloved acts as a kind of mirror, reflecting your character back to you (Badhwar, 2003, p. 58). Of course, this answer presupposes that we cannot accurately know ourselves in other ways: that left alone, our sense of ourselves will be too imperfect, too biased, to help us grow and mature as persons. The metaphor of a mirror also suggests that our beloveds will be in the relevant respects similar to us, so that merely by observing them, we can come to know ourselves better in a way that is, if not free from bias, at least more objective than otherwise.

Brink (1999, pp. 264–65) argues that there are serious limits to the value of such mirroring of one’s self in a beloved. For if the aim is not just to know yourself better but to improve yourself, you ought also to interact with others who are not just like yourself: interacting with such diverse others can help you recognize alternative possibilities for how to live and so better assess the relative merits of these possibilities. Whiting (2013) also emphasizes the importance of our beloveds’ having an independent voice capable of reflecting not who one now is but an ideal for who one is to be. Nonetheless, we need not take the metaphor of the mirror quite so literally; rather, our beloveds can reflect our selves not through their inherent similarity to us but rather through the interpretations they offer of us, both explicitly and implicitly in their responses to us. This is what Badhwar calls the “epistemic significance” of love. [ 16 ]

In addition to this epistemic significance of love, LaFollette (1996, Chapter 5) offers several other reasons why it is good to love, reasons derived in part from the psychological literature on love: love increases our sense of well-being, it elevates our sense of self-worth, and it serves to develop our character. It also, we might add, tends to lower stress and blood pressure and to increase health and longevity. Friedman (1993) argues that the kind of partiality towards our beloveds that love involves is itself morally valuable because it supports relationships—loving relationships—that contribute “to human well-being, integrity, and fulfillment in life” (p. 61). And Solomon (1988, p. 155) claims:

Ultimately, there is only one reason for love. That one grand reason…is “because we bring out the best in each other.” What counts as “the best,” of course, is subject to much individual variation.

This is because, Solomon suggests, in loving someone, I want myself to be better so as to be worthy of his love for me.

Each of these answers to the question of why we love understands it to be asking about love quite generally, abstracted away from details of particular relationships. It is also possible to understand the question as asking about particular loves. Here, there are several questions that are relevant:

What, if anything, justifies my loving rather than not loving this particular person?
What, if anything, justifies my coming to love this particular person rather than someone else?
What, if anything, justifies my continuing to love this particular person given the changes—both in him and me and in the overall circumstances—that have occurred since I began loving him?

These are importantly different questions. Velleman (1999), for example, thinks we can answer (1) by appealing to the fact that my beloved is a person and so has a rational nature, yet he thinks (2) and (3) have no answers: the best we can do is offer causal explanations for our loving particular people, a position echoed by Han (2021). Setiya (2014) similarly thinks (1) has an answer, but points not to the rational nature of persons but rather to the other’s humanity , where such humanity differs from personhood in that not all humans need have the requisite rational nature for personhood, and not all persons need be humans. And, as will become clear below , the distinction between (2) and (3) will become important in resolving puzzles concerning whether our beloveds are fungible, though it should be clear that (3) potentially raises questions concerning personal identity (which will not be addressed here).

It is important not to misconstrue these justificatory questions. Thomas (1991) , for example, rejects the idea that love can be justified: “there are no rational considerations whereby anyone can lay claim to another’s love or insist that an individual’s love for another is irrational” (p. 474). This is because, Thomas claims (p. 471):

no matter how wonderful and lovely an individual might be, on any and all accounts, it is simply false that a romantically unencumbered person must love that individual on pain of being irrational. Or, there is no irrationality involved in ceasing to love a person whom one once loved immensely, although the person has not changed.

However, as LaFollette (1996, p. 63) correctly points out,

reason is not some external power which dictates how we should behave, but an internal power, integral to who we are.… Reason does not command that we love anyone. Nonetheless, reason is vital in determining whom we love and why we love them.

That is, reasons for love are pro tanto : they are a part of the overall reasons we have for acting, and it is up to us in exercising our capacity for agency to decide what on balance we have reason to do or even whether we shall act contrary to our reasons. To construe the notion of a reason for love as compelling us to love, as Thomas does, is to misconstrue the place such reasons have within our agency. [ 17 ]

Most philosophical discussions of the justification of love focus on question (1) , thinking that answering this question will also, to the extent that we can, answer question (2) , which is typically not distinguished from (3) . The answers given to these questions vary in a way that turns on how the kind of evaluation implicit in love is construed. On the one hand, those who understand the evaluation implicit in love to be a matter of the bestowal of value (such as Telfer 1970–71; Friedman 1993; Singer 1994) typically claim that no justification can be given (cf. Section 4.2 ). As indicated above, this seems problematic, especially given the importance love can have both in our lives and, especially, in shaping our identities as persons. To reject the idea that we can love for reasons may reduce the impact our agency can have in defining who we are.

On the other hand, those who understand the evaluation implicit in love to be a matter of appraisal tend to answer the justificatory question by appeal to these valuable properties of the beloved. This acceptance of the idea that love can be justified leads to two further, related worries about the object of love.

The first worry is raised by Vlastos (1981) in a discussion Plato’s and Aristotle’s accounts of love. Vlastos notes that these accounts focus on the properties of our beloveds: we are to love people, they say, only because and insofar as they are objectifications of the excellences. Consequently, he argues, in doing so they fail to distinguish “ disinterested affection for the person we love” from “ appreciation of the excellences instantiated by that person ” (p. 33). That is, Vlastos thinks that Plato and Aristotle provide an account of love that is really a love of properties rather than a love of persons—love of a type of person, rather than love of a particular person—thereby losing what is distinctive about love as an essentially personal attitude. This worry about Plato and Aristotle might seem to apply just as well to other accounts that justify love in terms of the properties of the person: insofar as we love the person for the sake of her properties, it might seem that what we love is those properties and not the person. Here it is surely insufficient to say, as Solomon (1988, p. 154) does, “if love has its reasons, then it is not the whole person that one loves but certain aspects of that person—though the rest of the person comes along too, of course”: that final tagline fails to address the central difficulty about what the object of love is and so about love as a distinctly personal attitude. (Clausen 2019 might seem to address this worry by arguing that we love people not as having certain properties but rather as having “ organic unities ”: a holistic set of properties the value of each of which must be understood in essential part in terms of its place within that whole. Nonetheless, while this is an interesting and plausible way to think about the value of the properties of persons, that organic unity itself will be a (holistic) property held by the person, and it seems that the fundamental problem reemerges at the level of this holistic property: do we love the holistic unity rather than the person?)

The second worry concerns the fungibility of the object of love. To be fungible is to be replaceable by another relevantly similar object without any loss of value. Thus, money is fungible: I can give you two $5 bills in exchange for a $10 bill, and neither of us has lost anything. Is the object of love fungible? That is, can I simply switch from loving one person to loving another relevantly similar person without any loss? The worry about fungibility is commonly put this way: if we accept that love can be justified by appealing to properties of the beloved, then it may seem that in loving someone for certain reasons, I love him not simply as the individual he is, but as instantiating those properties. And this may imply that any other person instantiating those same properties would do just as well: my beloved would be fungible. Indeed, it may be that another person exhibits the properties that ground my love to a greater degree than my current beloved does, and so it may seem that in such a case I have reason to “trade up”—to switch my love to the new, better person. However, it seems clear that the objects of our loves are not fungible: love seems to involve a deeply personal commitment to a particular person, a commitment that is antithetical to the idea that our beloveds are fungible or to the idea that we ought to be willing to trade up when possible. [ 18 ]

In responding to these worries, Nozick (1989) appeals to the union view of love he endorses (see the section on Love as Union ):

The intention in love is to form a we and to identify with it as an extended self, to identify one’s fortunes in large part with its fortunes. A willingness to trade up, to destroy the very we you largely identify with, would then be a willingness to destroy your self in the form of your own extended self. [p. 78]

So it is because love involves forming a “we” that we must understand other persons and not properties to be the objects of love, and it is because my very identity as a person depends essentially on that “we” that it is not possible to substitute without loss one object of my love for another. However, Badhwar (2003) criticizes Nozick, saying that his response implies that once I love someone, I cannot abandon that love no matter who that person becomes; this, she says, “cannot be understood as love at all rather than addiction” (p. 61). [ 19 ]

Instead, Badhwar (1987) turns to her robust-concern account of love as a concern for the beloved for his sake rather than one’s own. Insofar as my love is disinterested — not a means to antecedent ends of my own—it would be senseless to think that my beloved could be replaced by someone who is able to satisfy my ends equally well or better. Consequently, my beloved is in this way irreplaceable. However, this is only a partial response to the worry about fungibility, as Badhwar herself seems to acknowledge. For the concern over fungibility arises not merely for those cases in which we think of love as justified instrumentally, but also for those cases in which the love is justified by the intrinsic value of the properties of my beloved. Confronted with cases like this, Badhwar (2003) concludes that the object of love is fungible after all (though she insists that it is very unlikely in practice). (Soble (1990, Chapter 13) draws similar conclusions.)

Nonetheless, Badhwar thinks that the object of love is “phenomenologically non-fungible” (2003, p. 63; see also 1987, p. 14). By this she means that we experience our beloveds to be irreplaceable: “loving and delighting in [one person] are not completely commensurate with loving and delighting in another” (1987, p. 14). Love can be such that we sometimes desire to be with this particular person whom we love, not another whom we also love, for our loves are qualitatively different. But why is this? It seems as though the typical reason I now want to spend time with Amy rather than Bob is, for example, that Amy is funny but Bob is not. I love Amy in part for her humor, and I love Bob for other reasons, and these qualitative differences between them is what makes them not fungible. However, this reply does not address the worry about the possibility of trading up: if Bob were to be at least as funny (charming, kind, etc.) as Amy, why shouldn’t I dump her and spend all my time with him?

A somewhat different approach is taken by Whiting (1991). In response to the first worry concerning the object of love, Whiting argues that Vlastos offers a false dichotomy: having affection for someone that is disinterested —for her sake rather than my own—essentially involves an appreciation of her excellences as such. Indeed, Whiting says, my appreciation of these as excellences, and so the underlying commitment I have to their value, just is a disinterested commitment to her because these excellences constitute her identity as the person she is. The person, therefore, really is the object of love. Delaney (1996) takes the complementary tack of distinguishing between the object of one’s love, which of course is the person, and the grounds of the love, which are her properties: to say, as Solomon does, that we love someone for reasons is not at all to say that we only love certain aspects of the person. In these terms, we might say that Whiting’s rejection of Vlastos’ dichotomy can be read as saying that what makes my attitude be one of disinterested affection—one of love—for the person is precisely that I am thereby responding to her excellences as the reasons for that affection. [ 20 ]

Of course, more needs to be said about what it is that makes a particular person be the object of love. Implicit in Whiting’s account is an understanding of the way in which the object of my love is determined in part by the history of interactions I have with her: it is she, and not merely her properties (which might be instantiated in many different people), that I want to be with; it is she, and not merely her properties, on whose behalf I am concerned when she suffers and whom I seek to comfort; etc. This addresses the first worry, but not the second worry about fungibility, for the question still remains whether she is the object of my love only as instantiating certain properties, and so whether or not I have reason to “trade up.”

To respond to the fungibility worry, Whiting and Delaney appeal explicitly to the historical relationship. [ 21 ] Thus, Whiting claims, although there may be a relatively large pool of people who have the kind of excellences of character that would justify my loving them, and so although there can be no answer to question (2) about why I come to love this rather than that person within this pool, once I have come to love this person and so have developed a historical relation with her, this history of concern justifies my continuing to love this person rather than someone else (1991, p. 7). Similarly, Delaney claims that love is grounded in “historical-relational properties” (1996, p. 346), so that I have reasons for continuing to love this person rather than switching allegiances and loving someone else. In each case, the appeal to both such historical relations and the excellences of character of my beloved is intended to provide an answer to question (3) , and this explains why the objects of love are not fungible.

There seems to be something very much right with this response. Relationships grounded in love are essentially personal, and it would be odd to think of what justifies that love to be merely non-relational properties of the beloved. Nonetheless, it is still unclear how the historical-relational propreties can provide any additional justification for subsequent concern beyond that which is already provided (as an answer to question (1) ) by appeal to the excellences of the beloved’s character (cf. Brink 1999). The mere fact that I have loved someone in the past does not seem to justify my continuing to love him in the future. When we imagine that he is going through a rough time and begins to lose the virtues justifying my initial love for him, why shouldn’t I dump him and instead come to love someone new having all of those virtues more fully? Intuitively (unless the change she undergoes makes her in some important sense no longer the same person he was), we think I should not dump him, but the appeal to the mere fact that I loved him in the past is surely not enough. Yet what historical-relational properties could do the trick? (For an interesting attempt at an answer, see Kolodny 2003 and also Howard 2019.)

If we think that love can be justified, then it may seem that the appeal to particular historical facts about a loving relationship to justify that love is inadequate, for such idiosyncratic and subjective properties might explain but cannot justify love. Rather, it may seem, justification in general requires appealing to universal, objective properties. But such properties are ones that others might share, which leads to the problem of fungibility. Consequently it may seem that love cannot be justified. In the face of this predicament, accounts of love that understand love to be an attitude towards value that is intermediate between appraisal and bestowal, between recognizing already existing value and creating that value (see Section 4.3 ) might seem to offer a way out. For once we reject the thought that the value of our beloveds must be either the precondition or the consequence of our love, we have room to acknowledge that the deeply personal, historically grounded, creative nature of love (central to bestowal accounts) and the understanding of love as responsive to valuable properties of the beloved that can justify that love (central to appraisal accounts) are not mutually exclusive (Helm 2010; Bagley 2015).

Annas, J., 1977, “Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism”, Mind , 86: 532–54.
Badhwar, N. K., 1987, “Friends as Ends in Themselves”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research , 48: 1–23.
–––, 2003, “Love”, in H. LaFollette (ed.), Practical Ethics , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42–69.
Badhwar, N. K. (ed.), 1993, Friendship: A Philosophical Reader , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bagley, B., 2015, “Loving Someone in Particular”, Ethics , 125: 477–507.
–––, 2018. “(The Varieties of) Love in Contemporary Anglophone Philosophy”, in Adrienne M. Martin (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Love in Philosophy , New York, NY: Routledge, 453–64.
Baier, A. C., 1991, “Unsafe Loves”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 433–50.
Blum, L. A., 1980, Friendship, Altruism, and Morality , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
–––, 1993, “Friendship as a Moral Phenomenon”, in Badhwar (1993), 192–210.
Bransen, J., 2006, “Selfless Self-Love”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 9: 3–25.
Bratman, M. E., 1999, “Shared Intention”, in Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–29.
Brentlinger, J., 1970/1989, “The Nature of Love”, in Soble (1989a), 136–48.
Brink, D. O., 1999, “Eudaimonism, Love and Friendship, and Political Community”, Social Philosophy & Policy , 16: 252–289.
Brown, R., 1987, Analyzing Love , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clausen, G., 2019, “Love of Whole Persons”, The Journal of Ethics , 23 (4): 347–67.
Cocking, D. & Kennett, J., 1998, “Friendship and the Self”, Ethics , 108: 502–27.
Cooper, J. M., 1977, “Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship”, Review of Metaphysics , 30: 619–48.
Delaney, N., 1996, “Romantic Love and Loving Commitment: Articulating a Modern Ideal”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 33: 375–405.
Ebels-Duggan, K., 2008, “Against Beneficence: A Normative Account of Love”, Ethics , 119: 142–70.
Fisher, M., 1990, Personal Love , London: Duckworth.
Frankfurt, H., 1999, “Autonomy, Necessity, and Love”, in Necessity, Volition, and Love , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–41.
Friedman, M. A., 1993, What Are Friends For? Feminist Perspectives on Personal Relationships and Moral Theory , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 1998, “Romantic Love and Personal Autonomy”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 22: 162–81.
Gilbert, M., 1989, On Social Facts , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
–––, 1996, Living Together: Rationality, Sociality, and Obligation , Rowman & Littlefield.
–––, 2000, Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Grau, C. & Smuts, A., 2017, Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Love , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hamlyn, D. W., 1989, “The Phenomena of Love and Hate”, in Soble (1989a), 218–234.
Han, Y., 2021, “Do We Love for Reasons?”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research , 102: 106–126.
Hegel, G. W. F., 1997, “A Fragment on Love”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 117–20.
Helm, B. W., 2008, “Plural Agents”, Noûs , 42: 17–49.
–––, 2009, “Love, Identification, and the Emotions”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 46: 39–59.
–––, 2010, Love, Friendship, and the Self: Intimacy, Identification, and the Social Nature of Persons , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howard, C., 2019, “Fitting Love and Reasons for Loving” in M. Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (Volume 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198846253.001.0001
Jaworska, A. & Wonderly, M., 2017, “Love and Caring”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2020). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.15
Jollimore, T, 2011, Love’s Vision , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kolodny, N., 2003, “Love as Valuing a Relationship”, The Philosophical Review , 112: 135–89.
Kraut, Robert, 1986 “Love De Re ”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 10: 413–30.
LaFollette, H., 1996, Personal Relationships: Love, Identity, and Morality , Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Press.
Lamb, R. E., (ed.), 1997, Love Analyzed , Westview Press.
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R., 1940, A Greek-English Lexicon , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edition.
Martin, A., 2015, “Love, Incorporated”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 18: 691–702.
Montaigne, M., [E], Essays , in The Complete Essays of Montaigne , Donald Frame (trans.), Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958.
Naar, H., 2013, “A Dispositional Theory of Love”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 94(3): 342–357.
Newton-Smith, W., 1989, “A Conceptual Investigation of Love”, in Soble (1989a), 199–217.
Nozick, R., 1989, “Love’s Bond”, in The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations , New York: Simon & Schuster, 68–86.
Nussbaum, M., 1990, “Love and the Individual: Romantic Rightness and Platonic Aspiration”, in Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 314–34.
Nygren, A., 1953a, Agape and Eros , Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
–––, 1953b, “ Agape and Eros ”, in Soble (1989a), 85–95.
Ortiz-Millán, G., 2007, “Love and Rationality: On Some Possible Rational Effects of Love”, Kriterion , 48: 127–44.
Pismenny, A. & Prinz, J., 2017, “Is Love an Emotion?”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2017). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.10
Price, A. W., 1989, Love and Friendship in Plato and Arisotle , New York: Clarendon Press.
Rorty, A. O., 1980, “Introduction”, in A. O. Rorty (ed.), Explaining Emotions , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1–8.
–––, 1986/1993, “The Historicity of Psychological Attitudes: Love is Not Love Which Alters Not When It Alteration Finds”, in Badhwar (1993), 73–88.
Scruton, R., 1986, Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic , New York: Free Press.
Searle, J. R., 1990, “Collective Intentions and Actions”, in P. R. Cohen, M. E. Pollack, & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Intentions in Communication , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 401–15.
Setiya, K., 2014, “Love and the Value of a Life”, Philosophical Review , 123: 251–80.
Sherman, N., 1993, “Aristotle on the Shared Life”, in Badhwar (1993), 91–107.
Singer, I., 1984a, The Nature of Love, Volume 1: Plato to Luther , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition.
–––, 1984b, The Nature of Love, Volume 2: Courtly and Romantic , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1989, The Nature of Love, Volume 3: The Modern World , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn.
–––, 1991, “From The Nature of Love ”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 259–78.
–––, 1994, The Pursuit of Love , Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
–––, 2009, Philosophy of Love: A Partial Summing-up , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Soble, A. (ed.), 1989a, Eros, Agape, and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love , New York, NY: Paragon House.
–––, 1989b, “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Love”, in Soble (1989a), xi-xxv.
–––, 1990, The Structure of Love , New Haven: Yale University Press.
–––, 1997, “Union, Autonomy, and Concern”, in Lamb (1997), 65–92.
Solomon, R. C., 1976, The Passions , New York: Anchor Press.
–––, 1981, Love: Emotion, Myth, and Metaphor , New York: Anchor Press.
–––, 1988, About Love: Reinventing Romance for Our Times , New York: Simon & Schuster.
Solomon, R. C. & Higgins, K. M. (eds.), 1991, The Philosophy of (Erotic) Love , Lawrence: Kansas University Press.
Stump, E., 2006, “Love by All Accounts”, Presidential Address to the Central APA, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association , 80: 25–43.
Taylor, G., 1976, “Love”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 76: 147–64.
Telfer, E., 1970–71, “Friendship”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 71: 223–41.
Thomas, L., 1987, “Friendship”, Synthese , 72: 217–36.
–––, 1989, “Friends and Lovers”, in G. Graham & H. La Follette (eds.), Person to Person , Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 182–98.
–––, 1991, “Reasons for Loving”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 467–476.
–––, 1993, “Friendship and Other Loves”, in Badhwar (1993), 48–64.
Tuomela, R., 1984, A Theory of Social Action , Dordrecht: Reidel.
–––, 1995, The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Velleman, J. D., 1999, “Love as a Moral Emotion”, Ethics , 109: 338–74.
–––, 2008, “Beyond Price”, Ethics , 118: 191–212.
Vlastos, G., 1981, “The Individual as Object of Love in Plato”, in Platonic Studies , 2nd edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3–42.
White, R. J., 2001, Love’s Philosophy , Rowman & Littlefield.
Whiting, J. E., 1991, “Impersonal Friends”, Monist , 74: 3–29.
–––, 2013, “Love: Self-Propagation, Self-Preservation, or Ekstasis?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 43: 403–29.
Willigenburg, T. Van, 2005, “Reason and Love: A Non-Reductive Analysis of the Normativity of Agent-Relative Reasons”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 8: 45–62.
Wollheim, R., 1984, The Thread of Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wonderly, M., 2016, “On Being Attached”, Philosophical Studies , 173: 223–42.
–––, 2017, “Love and Attachment”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 54: 235–50.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Aristotle , Nicomachean Ethics , translated by W.D. Ross.
Moseley, A., “ Philosophy of Love ,” in J. Fieser (ed.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

May 1, 2010

The Illusion of Love

How do we fool thee? Let us count the ways that illusions play with our hearts and minds

By Stephen L. Macknik & Susana Martinez-Conde

On Valentine's Day, everywhere you look there are heart-shaped balloons, pink greeting cards and candy boxes filled with chocolate. But what is true love? Does it exist? Or is it simply a cognitive illusion, a trick of the mind?

Contrary to the anatomy referenced in all our favorite love songs, love (as with every other emotion we feel) is not rooted in the heart, but in the brain. (Unfortunately, Hallmark has no plans to mass-produce arrow-pierced chocolate brains in the near future.) By better understanding how the brain falls in love, we can learn about why the brain can get so obsessed with this powerful emotion. In fact, some scientists even see love as a kind of addiction. For instance, neuroscientist Thomas Insel and his colleagues at Emory University discovered that monogamous pair bonding has its basis in the same brain reward circuits that are responsible for addiction to drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Their study was conducted in the prairie vole, a small rodent that mates for life. But the conclusions are probably true for humans, too, which may explain why it is so hard to break up a long-term romantic relationship. Losing someone you love is like going through withdrawal.

In this article, we feature a number of visual illusions with a romantic motif. We hope that you and your special one will enjoy them. And remember, even if love is an illusion, that doesn't mean it's not meaningful and real (to our brains, anyway).

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

POP! GOES MY HEART Nothing is more romantic than curling up in front of a fire with your loved one on Valentine's Day as you lovingly whisper “chromostereopsis.” Okay, maybe it's not as passionate as a sonnet—unless you are a vision scientist. Look at the red and blue hearts and examine their depth with respect to the background. Most people find that the red heart pops in front of the blue background, whereas the blue heart sinks beneath the red background.

This illusion comes about because the lenses in our eyes refract blue light more than red. This phenomenon is called chromatic aberration; another example of this effect is seeing a rainbow when you shine white light through a prism. When both eyes view the red and blue images simultaneously, the cornea and lens of the eyes refract different amounts of the colors. The brain deals with this sensory aberration by imagining depth—the red heart is in front of the blue background, and vice versa—even though none actually exists.

ILLUSIONS THAT MOVE THE HEART Your wandering eyes pull at your lover's heartstrings. In this illusion, the heart appears to move and even pulsate as you look around the image. When your eyes move, they shift the retinal images of the black-and-white edges in the pattern, activating the motion-sensitive neurons in your visual cortex. This neural activation leads to the perception of illusory motion. Notice that if you focus your gaze on a single point, the illusory motion slows or stops.

ILLUSORY NEON HEART Notice that the yellow fields inside the heart seem paler than the fields forming the contour of the heart, which appear to be a darker shade of yellow-orange. Right? Wrong. Actually all the yellow fields in the figure are identical. Any differences that you see are all in your mind. This effect is called neon color spreading, because it resembles the effect of the light spreading from a neon lamp. The neural underpinnings of this effect are not yet understood.

IS LOVE AN ILLUSION? Spanish essayist Miguel de Unamuno said, “Love is the child of illusion and the parent of disillusion.” Is this view cynical or biologically based? Illusions are, by definition, mismatches between physical reality and perception. Love, as with all emotions, has no external physical reality: it may be driven by neural events, but it is nonetheless a purely subjective experience. So, too, is the wounded heart we have drawn here. Where the arrow enters and exits the heart, there is no heart whatsoever, only an imaginary edge defined by the arrow.

This effect is called an illusory contour. We perceive the shape of the heart only because our brains impose a shape on a very sparse field of data. Neuroscientist Rüdiger von der Heydt and his colleagues, then at University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland, have shown that illusory contours are processed in neurons within an area of the brain called V2, which is devoted to vision. The illusory heart even looks slightly whiter than the background, although it is actually the same shade. Much of our day-to-day experience is made up of analogous feats of filling in the blanks, as we take what we know about the world and use it to imagine what we do not know.

A MATCHED SET Is it a broken heart or two people kissing? Both, in the case of this two-piece Newman digital audio player. One for him and one for her.

LOVE AND AMOR Here we see that love and amor are two sides of the same ambiguous object. This sculpture is an ambigram—an artwork or typographical design that can be read from two different viewpoints. Judith Bagai, editor of The Enigma , the official journal of the National Puzzlers' League, coined the term by contracting the words “ambiguous” and “anagram” (many ambigrams feature the same word seen from different directions).

AMBIGUOUS EMBRACES Ambiguity is affected by our frame of mind. In the image on the left, Message of Love from the Dolphins, adult observers see two nude lovers embracing, whereas young children see only dolphins. If you still can't see the dolphins (we promise you they are there), look for more than two. In the image on the right, a Valentine's Day rose predicts the outcome of the evening's festivities.

HIDDEN ROMANCE Ambiguity and camouflage both make it difficult to understand what you are seeing. In this painting by Jim Warren, Seven Hearts , the hearts are hidden in the romantic scenery (upper left). Warren also painted Romantic Day (upper right) and Last Embrace (left).

FOR COFFEE AND TEA LOVERS Yuan yang is a typical Hong Kong beverage mix of tea and coffee and also a symbol of marriage and love. Sculptor Tsang Cheung-shing has united both concepts in a beautiful ceramic work, in which tea and coffee poured from two stylish cups meet in a kiss.

THE SHADOW OF LOVE Almost any object can cast a heart-shaped shadow. For example, love can be seen through rose-colored glasses (left) or writ large (right).

LOVE IS ALL AROUND Romance is not just for humans and prairie voles. Elephants and other animals also embrace the concept.

What Is True Love? Figuring Out If You’ve Found The One

The concept of true love has intrigued poets, philosophers, and everyday individuals for centuries. It’s a term that evokes deep emotion and brings images of fairy tales, romantic movies, and eternal commitment. But what does it really mean? How do you know if you’ve found “the one”? True love is often more complex and multifaceted than the romanticized portrayals in pop culture.

This article will explore the concept of true love, providing insights to help you determine if you’ve found that special connection and offer guidance to nurture and grow that love in your relationship.

Characteristics of true love

While each relationship and connection will vary, some key characteristics of true love often include the following.

Mutual respect

In true love, both partners recognize and value each other’s individuality, opinions, and feelings. They listen without judgment and show consideration for each other’s needs and wishes. Respect in true love means treating each other with kindness and honor, even in disagreements.

Deep connection

True love fosters a connection that goes beyond the superficial. It’s a bond that often involves understanding each other’s core values, beliefs, and life goals. This connection creates a sense of companionship, where both partners feel they’re on the same team, working towards common dreams.

Trust and honesty

Trust is the bedrock of true love. It means believing in each other’s integrity and having faith in each other’s intentions. Honesty, in turn, nurtures this trust. Being truthful with each other strengthens the bond, even if the truth is difficult to face at times.

Empathy is the ability to deeply understand each other’s feelings. In true love, partners try to understand each other’s perspectives, feelings, and needs, providing support and compassion. Empathy helps partners to be more patient and tolerant with each other.

Unconditional support

True love means standing by each other’s side. Whether in success or failure, happiness or distress, partners in true love support each other’s highs and lows without conditions or reservations.

Commitment is a conscious choice to stay together and make the relationship work, even during challenging times. It’s not just about loyalty; it’s about actively investing in the relationship and nurturing it.

Common growth

True love often encourages personal growth and self-improvement. Partners in a loving relationship motivate each other to become better individuals, supporting each other’s ambitions and helping each other reach their full potential.

Acceptance means embracing each other’s flaws and imperfections. True love doesn’t seek to change the other person but accepts them for who they are, acknowledging that nobody is perfect.

How to know if you’ve found “the one”

Recognizing that you’ve found “the one” can seem like a profound realization, yet it might be elusive or challenging to put into words. Let’s explore some signs that may indicate you’ve found that special person with whom you have a deep, meaningful connection.

Comfort and safety

When you’re with “the one,” you might feel a sense of ease, comfort, and safety. You can be your authentic self without fear of judgment or criticism. There’s generally a feeling of home, a place where you’re understood and accepted.

Research suggests that feelings of love reduce stress and provide various health benefits, including lower blood pressure, better sleep, and more .

Healthy communication

Communication with “the one” often feels natural and effortless. Even in disagreements, you find ways to understand each other and reach compromises. Your conversations are meaningful, and you’re not afraid to discuss your feelings, fears, or dreams. If you are not seeing eye-to-eye, you want to make an effort to reach a mutual understanding while remaining respectful during the conversation.

Same goals and dreams

You and “the one” likely have aligned life goals and a vision for the future. Whether it’s career paths, family planning, or personal growth, you work together towards these goals, supporting each other along the way.

You overcome challenges together

Life is not without its challenges, but with “the one,” you face them together. Instead of tearing you apart, hardships tend to strengthen your bond. You become a team that can weather any storm, learning and growing from each experience.

Mutual admiration and inspiration

You admire each other’s qualities and find inspiration in each other’s strengths. There’s usually mutual respect and encouragement that pushes both of you to be better individuals.

Intuition and gut feeling

Sometimes, knowing you’ve found “the one” is an intuitive feeling, a deep inner knowing that this person is right for you. It’s a connection that feels different, more profound than other relationships.

Your happiness is their happiness

You find joy in each other’s happiness and strive to make each other’s lives more fulfilling. Your partner’s successes feel like your own, and you celebrate them together.

They make you want to be a better person

Being with “the one” encourages you to grow and improve yourself. You feel motivated to be the best version of yourself, not out of pressure but because of their positive influence on you.

You think long-term

When envisioning your future, your partner is an integral part of it. You make plans together, considering each other’s needs and desires, and see a lasting future together.

How can you tell if you’ve found your true love? Navigate relationships with therapy

The difference between infatuation and true love.

Love is a complex and multifaceted emotion that can take various forms. Two of the most commonly confused types are infatuation and true love. While they might seem similar at first glance, especially during the early stages of a relationship, they are fundamentally different in many ways.

When determining whether you are experiencing infatuation or true love, keep a lookout for these differences.

Characteristics of infatuation:

Duration - Infatuation is often a short-lived, intense emotion. It can feel overwhelming and all-consuming but typically fades over time.
Focus - The focus of infatuation is often more on the self and how the other person makes you feel. It’s about the pleasure, excitement, and gratification the relationship brings you.
Idealization - Infatuation often involves placing the other person on a pedestal, ignoring their flaws, and creating an idealized image of them. This can lead to unrealistic expectations.
Emotional Roller Coaster - Infatuation can bring intense highs but also significant lows. The mood of the relationship can change dramatically and unpredictably.
Physical Attraction - Infatuation often centers around physical attraction and desire. While these elements can be present in true love, they are typically more pronounced and prioritized in infatuation.

Characteristics of true love:

Duration - True love grows over time, deepening and becoming more profound. It’s a lasting connection that continues to thrive as you grow together.
Focus - The focus of true love extends beyond self-gratification. It’s about mutual growth, support, respect, and understanding. Both partners are invested in each other’s happiness and well-being.
Acceptance - True love means accepting each other’s imperfections and loving the whole person, flaws and all. It’s a more grounded and realistic view of each other.
Stability - True love brings stability and consistency to the relationship. While there may be ups and downs, they are typically navigated with mutual respect and communication, avoiding extreme emotional swings.
Emotional and Intellectual Connection - True love involves a deep emotional and intellectual connection that goes beyond physical attraction. It’s about common values, goals, and a genuine understanding of each other.

Nurturing true love in your relationship

Even if you consider your partner your true love, keeping a relationship takes time, effort, and commitment. Making sure you keep communicating with regular, open, and honest communication can be important to understanding each other’s needs as you grow together.

Spending quality time together can also help foster closeness in a relationship over time. You can do this by engaging in the same activities and hobbies or simply enjoying each other’s company.

In addition to this, regularly expressing gratitude and appreciation can help keep the love fresh and vibrant and each partner feeling valued in the relationship.

As you progress in your relationship, therapists or relationship coaches can offer professional insights and guidance tailored to your unique relationship.

Benefits of online therapy in relationships

Online therapy for relationships offers increased availability and flexibility for individuals and couples, allowing you to seek professional guidance regardless of location and schedule. The convenience of being in your own home can create a relaxed environment conducive to open communication while also potentially reducing costs. Online platforms, like Betterhelp and Regain, often provide additional tools and resources to supplement therapy sessions.

The benefits extend to long-distance relationships, providing joint sessions and ongoing support even when partners are in different locations. From addressing daily challenges to deeper relationship concerns, online therapy’s location independence, affordability, comfort, and specialized help make it a valuable resource in the modern, connected world. It breaks down barriers to entry and ensures that more individuals and couples have the therapeutic support they need.

The efficacy of online therapy has been an area of growing interest and study in mental health care, particularly as technology continues to advance. Research suggests that online therapy, also known as teletherapy, can be just as effective as traditional in-person therapy for relationship counseling .

Efficacy of online therapy

“As someone who had sought counseling/therapy for the first time, I had serious doubts about the effectiveness of online therapy, but my first meeting with Susan took out those doubts immediately. Over the last six months, Susan has not only given me tools to help me establish boundaries but has given me a new perspective on relationships and life in general. After a few sessions, I was able to turn a corner and have a new outlook on my interactions with others. I wholeheartedly recommend Susan and hope to work with her again in the future.”

“I am so happy I got paired with Ruthie Brooks. My sessions with her have been a positive and insightful experience. As a result, I can see my relationships improving and I have a better understanding of myself. She is very professional, kind, and great at what she does.”

What are the signs of true love?

True love is felt differently from person to person. Research suggests that a person’s culture, upbringing, and personal beliefs can significantly influence what they consider to be signs of love. However, evidence suggests some common themes regarding how love is perceived. Most people consider receiving compliments, feeling appreciated, receiving a gift, or being granted an act of kindness as signs of love. Depending on who is witnessing them, many other loving acts may also be perceived as signs of true love.

How rare is true love?

It is likely not possible to quantify how often true love happens in the world. The definition of “true love” is highly subjective, varying considerably from person to person. Some might equate love with preservation, feeling most loved when their partner provides safety. Others might consider love to mean acceptance, feeling the strongest connection to those who understand and accept them as they are. Regardless of how true love is defined, it is likely possible, even if its rarity is uncertain.

How do you tell if a man loves you?

Ultimately, the best way to know if a man loves you is to have a conversation about how both of you feel. While there are certain signs that a man may be into you , like wanting to spend more time with you, trying to make you smile, and being vulnerable, there is no way to be sure of his feelings without an honest discussion. If you feel like you are his priority and that communicating with him is easy, it is more likely that he has feelings for you. You may wish to consider inquiring about his feelings as long as you are ready to express yours.

How do you tell if a girl loves you?

Arguably, the best way to tell if a girl loves you is to discuss your feelings openly and inquire about hers. There may be signs, like if she tries to support you, allows you to be vulnerable, and seeks time with you, but likely the only way to be certain is with an honest conversation. Don’t be afraid to broach the subject if you think she might have strong feelings for you. If you don’t want the relationship to continue, it’s important to address her feelings respectfully and kindly. On the other hand, if you hope she has feelings for you, discussing your thoughts might bring renewed relief and understanding to you both.

What kind of love is real love?

“Real love” is likely different for everybody, but for most healthy adults with secure attachment styles , love often has the following components:

Long-lasting. True love, which is separate from infatuation or a “crush,” tends to grow over time as partners get to know each other's positive and negative qualities.
Focus. True love tends to be focused on both partners’ mutual growth rather than what one person can get from the other.
Acceptance. Real love tends to be based on acceptance, wherein both partners know, understand, and accept each other, flaws and all.
Stability. Up and downs occur in every relationship, but healthy relationships based on true love have downs that are navigated with respect, empathy, and kindness.
Deep Connection. Real love likely involves a deep emotional and intellectual connection based on more than physical attraction. Mutual core values, goals, and mutual understanding are all a part of true love.

What makes you fall in love with someone?

Love is a complex neurochemical process that involves several biological and psychological factors. Lust, or infatuation, tends to be mediated by the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen before moving on to more stable attraction, which is promoted through dopamine and norepinephrine. Long-term attachment is often attributed to hormones like oxytocin and vasopressin.

Although love is chemically mediated, psychological and personality factors also play a role. In addition, social factors like proximity, or how much time two people spend together, are likely also important. Researchers are still determining the exact formula for love, but two people with similar interests who spend a lot of time together are potential candidates.

For The Girl That You Love: Lyrics And Songs To Send Her Medically reviewed by Karen Foster , LPC
What Does Unconditional Love Mean? Medically reviewed by Dr. April Brewer , DBH, LPC
Relationships and Relations

Does Love Really Exist, or Is It Only a Fantasy?

Ashley Rose

Every human heart longs to find love, to live in love, and to die having felt loved. As much as we may denigrate love or deny its existence, we always seem to dream about that place where we can find it.

Man cannot live without believing in love, and our constant search for it has led us to seek evidence of its existence and to ask others to give us irrefutable evidence of its reality. Love not an illusion, nor a fleeting intestinal emotion that time knows how to finish. But unfortunately, we often search in others that which we should be nourishing within ourselves.

That’s the first big mistake: looking for love in others but not inside oneself or in one’s own conviction. We believe that it is up to others to convince us that this is not a fantasy, and only when they make this tangible do we come to the conclusion that we are not just living in some wonderful fairy tale. We often deny a very simple truth: love exists in everyone who believes in it, because that in itself a sign of its presence. Formation, guidance, and the onset of emotional maturity are needed in order to turn an exaltation of the senses and emotions into a conscious decision to seek the good of another – a decision which nothing or nobody can change in one’s heart. When you truly love, and when that love is the product of conviction, there is no human power that can make us regress into seeking only what we want for ourselves. In that sense, love cannot be conditional (“If you’ll love me, I’ll love you” or “I’ll treat you as you treat me”). Regardless of the sorrow that exists to some extent within each person, when true love blossoms, it is able to remain in spite of adversity; he who loves does not allow external factors to affect the quality of that which he offers.

But what of those who, in their desire to test the power of a love given to them, demand “evidence” of it? A few points:

2. Any requested “test” of love is nothing more than a veiled form of manipulation.

3. “If you give a mouse a cookie, he’s going to ask for a glass of milk.” There will always be more and more demands for shows of love. It’s never enough.

4. When the requested test is sexual in nature, women should remember that ease of her response comes at the expense of becoming an “easy girl.” The same “test of love” becomes a test of your integrity.

5. Even within the context of true love, one can say “yes or no” and not feel obliged to acquiesce to immoral or unreasonable demands. In this, sincerity and a desire for the good of the other is what counts.

To love is the vocation of every human being, and it is for love that we are created; it is our beginning, our middle, and our end, but because of that endless desire to experience love, we can fall into the trap of believing that anything is valid in order to attain it, including trampling on others. One does not build a life on the ashes of another. Whoever denies others the right to love denies himself, for love does not exist in a vacuum.

It is essential to understand that love consists of the mutual buildup of one person to another, and each becomes a means to reach the purpose of their existence (the other half is not mine; I am a medium for him). It is no longer just about not doing to others what we would not want them to do to us, but rather, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In order to exist, love must go beyond pure sentiment and emotion; it must rise above the challenges and upsets we face each day.

Only love can give orientation to our lives, spare us from a sterile existence, fulfill our inmost being, and eternalize us in time. Whoever wishes to be must love, for he who loves becomes a reflection of God.

Articles like these are sponsored free for every Catholic through the support of generous readers just like you.

Help us continue to bring the Gospel to people everywhere through uplifting Catholic news, stories, spirituality, and more.

What Is True Love? (17 Things That Define True Love)

True love is very hard to describe in words, it's one of those experiences that are better had than read about or explained. So what is true love? True love isn't just a feeling but it involves deep feelings of passion, warmth, tenderness, sentiment, and desire for your partner, unconditionally.

These feelings often confuse people since you can still have them for someone you're infatuated with and it's hard to tell the difference especially when the feelings towards this person are very strong. Regardless, true love is very wildly sought out. Everyone wants to find their 'one true love' and remain in love till death does them part.

However, true love is not only about longevity and it may not be limited to just one person per lifetime. In fact, there are a truckload of things people don't know about true love, so if you're currently in a hot, spicy relationship and you're wondering, “what is true love, really?” then stick around and I'll point out 17 characteristics of true love.

Table of Contents

17 Things That Define True Love

1. true love is unconditional.

One definition of true love is unconditional love. If your feelings towards your partner come with no strings attached, that's a tell-tale sign that you've found true love. It doesn't just end there, however, these feelings have to be reciprocated. This means that, no matter what the circumstance may be, your feelings don't change towards each other.

For example, if you and your partner happened to go into debt or if you found out he had a drug or alcohol addiction, would you still care about him? Would you stand by him till the problem was solved or managed? If you can honestly say you would, then you may just have found true love.

2. Complete acceptance

Another thing that defines true love is complete and total acceptance. True love isn't just about loving your partner's best qualities, it also means accepting them for exactly who they are. This means that you need to fall in love , care for and accept them even if they hate some of the things you love.

Or they don't agree with certain things you believe in, or there are some things about themselves that they still need to work on.

Acceptance is all about understanding that your partner may never be 'perfect' but you love them just the way they are. This is also where understanding comes in, you fully understand that they're who they are and you're not trying to change them into who you think they should be.

3. You're comfortable sharing anything with them

It's not worth being with someone who you can't be open and honest or who isn't open and honest with you. When you've found true love, you should be able to honestly and openly discuss anything with the person you love.

For example, you aren't hiding an issue from your past, you aren't hiding certain experiences you may have gone through and you're not afraid to share even your challenges with this person. If it's true love, it means that when you're in a difficult situation , they're one of the first people you go to for advice or the first shoulder you go to cry on.

Healthy communication fuels intimacy and true love should be intimate both emotionally and physically, without fear of being vulnerable with each other.

4. You're comfortable being yourself around your partner

True love should bring out your authentic self and not silence it. Your partner should be able to induce the best version of your true self and vice versa. If you're not comfortable being yourself around your partner, that is probably not true love.

You should never feel the need to play into what you feel the other person expects you to be just because you're afraid to lose them. Or, try to impress them by feigning interest in the things they're interested in, true love means that you're not afraid to be yourself around your partner.

It means that you're able to act and talk in a way that reflects your true and authentic self, allowing your partner to experience you in your entirety and allowing you to experience all of him too.

5. True love means mutual respect

True love can also be defined by due regard between both parties. Being able and willing to respect each other's space, pet peeves, likes & dislikes, wishes, decisions, and beliefs, is a core part of finding true love.

True love can also be a choice; you can decide that you want to truly love a partner and that you won't accept anything less than true, authentic love. This way, you can also decide that you choose to value your partner and everything about them and also decide not to tolerate disrespect from your partner.

However, if you both truly love each other, valuing each other will not be an issue; you won’t have problems giving or receiving kindness. Regard includes care, kindness, thoughtfulness, and compassion. You'd notice that you often empathize with each other, solve problems fairly, you’d be willing to see things from each other's perspectives and sort out issues mindfully.

6. You share similar values

It's not impossible for two people with completely different values and principles to end up together and actually make things work. However, it may prove to be very strenuous and mentally stressful for both parties.

In most cases, it ends up very badly. True love usually involves two people with the same or similar views, principles, values, and boundaries, coming together to build on those things together.

Our values and morals are what make us what we are, so compromising them could make you lose your true personality. This is why true love involves being on the same page with your partner in terms of distinguishing right from wrong, despite your different family or religious backgrounds.

7. You feed each other's energies

Have you ever been in a relationship where it felt like your partner’s personality was draining you? It's the worst feeling ever! It's healthy to be around people whose happiness levels feed yours and the other way round. With true love, partners feed off each other's happy feelings; pay attention to your emotions, ask yourself if making your partner happy also makes you happy.

Does doing thoughtful deeds, surprising them, and spending quality time with them give you a good feeling? True love is when you and your spouse actually want to bring joy and happiness to each other, not out of duty or necessity but because these actions bring you pure joy.

8. True love is a partnership

True love is commitment, devotion, and complete dedication to each other. It's both partners taking action together as a team to make each other's lives better. True love isn't born from a selfish feeling, it looks out for the good of both parties as a unit.

So if you're in a relationship to fulfill only your own desires or achieve only your own goals then this is not true love. If you're both truly in love, you'd each factor each other in when you're making a choice, or when you're doing or saying anything at all.

Use this tool to check whether he actually is who he says he is Whether you're married or have just started seeing someone, infidelity rates are on the rise and have increased over 40% in the last 20 years, so you have all the right to be worried.

Perhaps you want to know if he's texting other women behind your back? Or whether he has active Tinder or dating profile? Or worse yet, whether he has a criminal record or is cheating on you?

This tool will do just that and pull up any hidden social media and dating profiles, photos, criminal records, and much more to hopefully help put your doubts to rest.

Also, with true love, there's no pride or ego. Instead of thinking 'me' you'd think 'we', your aim would not be to prove how good you're at things or how right you are, but your aim would be to promote the image of the other person as well as yourself. To make your relationship work, you’d need to think of your partner as your teammate.

9. There are no bad intentions involved

True love always wants the best for the other party, partners always tend to support and root for each other, unconditionally. There's no envy or jealousy when something great happens for the other partner.

Instead, they keep encouraging and supporting their partner. If for some reason you've noticed that your partner gets jealous when you achieve things or they keep fighting for the spotlight, this isn't true love.

When a person truly loves you, they're rooting for your success and they take actions to make sure that you get ahead. The same goes for you too, you'd know you've found true love if you notice you're happy when your significant other is making it; just make sure the feelings are reciprocated.

10. It's not demanding

True love does not have unrealistic expectations, it does not require heaven and earth from the other party, rather it is accepting. Trying to change your partner or expecting him to morph into the prince charming you have in your head is not true love.

The reason you made the choice to be in a relationship with him is probably that you loved him. If this is the case, then you ought to accept him just the way he is. True love does not make selfish and impossible demands nor does it demand perfection, instead it is understanding and accepting of a loved one.

11. True love is giving

Most people get into a relationship with the aim of getting things; either material things, attention, or public admiration. These are very faulty foundations to build a relationship on. No one who truly loves you would turn you into a tool to be used, they won't see you as an object but will view you and treat you like a complete, multi-dimensional human being.

It's also not a loving relationship if either party is afraid of committing to love the other party completely, there should be no fear and no holding back.

Also, true love cannot be used as a bargaining chip; showing care and affection only when the other party fulfills a need. This type of love is very conditional and is nothing close to genuine.

Doing things like giving him the cold shoulder when you aren't pleased with him or telling him you love him only when he gets the house chores done won't do at all. You need to love him at all times, whether you're pleased with him or not.

12. True love is built on friendship

People sometimes take this fact too far, yes it's true that every most meaningful relationship began as a long-lasting friendship. However, this does not mean that you have to be friends with each other since nursery school before you end up with a person. Also, it's not all friendships that blossom into relationships.

However, true love does involve being friends, you should be able to relate with your spouse as a friend. You need to still be able to hang out together, have heart-to-heart talks, dream together, plan together, joke about stuff, and play like kids.

Most older couples have confessed that sexual passions fade out at some point, but what keeps a relationship going is friendliness. True friends stick together forever.

13. True love starts with you

Self-love is something that everyone has probably heard of, or read about in this era. Lately, there has been a new wave of realization by the general public that you can't give what you don't have. If you don't have money, you can't give out money, if you don't have food you can't give that out either and if you don’t love yourself, you can't possibly love anyone else.

Most people view self-love as means to an end, in the sense that they strive to achieve self-love so they can find true love, then they throw out everything they built and learned about loving themselves. This is not the way forward, you need to learn to love yourself forever, not just for a limited amount of time.

Don't neglect the quality time you spend with yourself, don't forget to pamper yourself from time to time, don't forget to invest in yourself, and don't forget to appreciate yourself. This is the only way you will attract and allow true and honest love into your life. It will give you higher personal standards and will make you see yourself in a better light.

14. True love is committed

When we talk of commitment most people's minds go straight to marriage. Marriage is one of the biggest commitments but it's not all that defines commitment in a relationship. Commitment involves putting all your eggs in one basket, being completely in on something.

Lots of people get into relationships with a double mind, whenever things aren't going their way they just focus their attention on someone else or allow themselves to get distracted by multiple other people.

People who have commitment issues have no business being in relationships, they should work on themselves first. You can't be one leg in and one leg out of a relationship, you need to decide to commit to knowing and experiencing your partner in their entirety. It's hard work, but it does pay off, and it yields true and lasting love.

15. True love is certain

You can't and probably won't commit to something you don't believe in. You can't commit to a person if you aren't sure they're worth your time, your love, and your affection. If for some reason you have a bad feeling, before or during the relationship then it's probably not true love.

This is where your intuition comes in, if questions about your partner, relationship, present, and future keep popping up in your head, then it would be wise to pump the breaks on that one first, while you calm down and figure out why your heart is so troubled about these things.

It may even be a 'you' problem, you may need to figure out where you're headed, what exactly are your life goals and where you'd like to be in five years. True love feels natural and brings you peace. It doesn't feel uncertain, painful, or difficult. When you do find your one true love, you will feel at peace and comfortable enough to build a future and fulfill your dreams with him.

16. True love is open

When you've found true love, you don't feel the need to keep secrets, you're comfortable enough to share everything with your partner. When you have real feelings for a person, you're not only about sharing a home and your body with that person, you're also sharing your ups and downs, your everyday experiences, and all the other mundane details in between.

If for some reason, you aren't free enough to share your secrets with your spouse, there's definitely something wrong. Perhaps, you're afraid to seem imperfect to him or you're afraid that he may not like the real you. If you can't trust him to know both your good side, the bad side, the awkward side, and the embarrassing side, then this is not true love.

17. True love is not dramatic

Playing games with people's hearts has no place in a relationship; it's immature and completely unnecessary. Relationships, where they keep playing games, are mostly relationships built on lust, infatuation, or false admiration. If a person truly loves you, they won't want to hurt you by any means, so they won't risk playing any games or stirring up drama.

Playing emotional games is a selfish act, it's only when you're only thinking only of yourself and your personal desire that you will stoop to emotionally neglecting a person for fun. Playing games is also an indicator that you do not regard your partner, you can't use a person you value for your own amusement.

For example, if a person fakes a pregnancy or fakes a suicide attempt just to keep their partner committed in the relationship, this is a form of drama. This is very far from true love, if you find yourself in this type of situation, whether as the offender or the victim, then you need to end things as soon as you can.

True love is a lasting and deep connection between two lovers who are in a committed, happy and healthy relationship. True love does not just involve passion and affection but also involves mutual regard and understanding between both couples. An example of this is a couple who've been together for 40 years and still deeply love and care for each other.

You'd know you're experiencing true love when your relationship is a give and take. It becomes tiring when only one person carries all the weight in the relationship. Also, if you can honestly tell yourself that you're both happy being with each other then you can say that it's true love.

Most people think that true love takes shape immediately. They picture this whole, " love at first sight" scenario and imagine that things will shape up from there. However, most times this is not the case, true love blooms gradually, it takes time to mature. Sometimes it starts with an infatuation then grows into something deeper.

There's a saying that goes, "true love never dies", however, this is not entirely accurate. Even the best couples sometimes end up separating because the love has faded out or because it has evolved into something else. People change, circumstances change and emotions follow suit.

Yes, true love exists, but like every real, good, and valuable thing, it may not come easy and it's rare to find. A lot of people mistake love for compatibility or feel that love should be with just one person per lifetime. This isn't true for everyone, some people are fortunate to find multiple 'true loves' in one lifetime.

I hope you enjoyed this article, remember true love comes naturally. Don't try to force it or morph not into what it's not, be patient and love yourself first and you'll attract someone who will love you just as much. Please let us know what you think about this topic in the comment section and be sure to share it.

Utilize this tool to verify if he's truly who he claims to be Whether you're married or just started dating someone, infidelity rates have risen by over 40% in the past 20 years, so your concerns are justified.

Do you want to find out if he's texting other women behind your back? Or if he has an active Tinder or dating profile? Or even worse, if he has a criminal record or is cheating on you?

This tool can help by uncovering hidden social media and dating profiles, photos, criminal records, and much more, potentially putting your doubts to rest.

Olivia Surtees

How to Validate Yourself? Finding Self-Acceptance and Love

Wanting to Be Loved: 11 Ways to Cultivate a Sense of Love

Why Am I So Hard on Myself? 9 Tips to Improve Self-Esteem

Join our newsletter, relationships.

David M Masters

Transfiguration Specialist, author, public speaker, coach, consultant, master trainer

The Top 40 Reasons Love Does Not Exist

Many people don’t believe in love and believe that love doesn’t exist.

Prior to attending our Awakening to True Love Workshop , here are the top 40 reasons love does not exist:

1. If you fall in love with someone it is only based on your perception of that person at the time. It is unrealistic to think they could be like that in real life. When you find out, the love you had fades away.

2. Love is lust’s wanting to own and control someone else for regular source of sex supply.

3. Being in love is the same chemical reaction in humans as eating a volume of chocolate.

4. Love is a repackaging of a system that justifies manipulation and control to get what you want from someone else.

5. Love victimizes the person in a relationship that is weaker.

6. Love is an excuse used to encourage someone to play the martyr in the name of love.

7. People are selfish, so they use love to get what they need.

8. People who are in long-term relationships only survive because one of them gives up and gives in to make it last.

9. Love brings nothing but pain and disappointment.

10. Love can bring happiness but only for a while, then it fades and disappears altogether.

11. If you deeply love someone else, they will disrespect you and always be looking for someone else to make them feel good, no matter how hard you try.

12. If people could commit and keep their word, love could be possible, because they cannot, it is not.

13. My parents said they loved each other, got married, had us, were never happy and are divorced. There is no such thing as love.

14. Scientists have proven there is no such thing as love. It is a chemical reaction in the brain associated with the hormone called Oxytocin.

15. Since there is no concrete definition of love, what it is, what it means, two different people could not plausibly share the so called, “love.”

16. The feeling of love may last for a moment, but not for long, then it’s time to move on to the next one.

17. Long-lasting love isn’t anything more than a fairy tale told by fantasizing mothers to their daughters.

18. One’s ability to love changes with their moods, so there is no such thing as true love. You love when you feel good, not so much when you’re not feeling good.

19. Love requires trust. Since you cannot ever really trust anyone else, you can’t have love.

20. Look at the rate of divorce, it tells you love is not real.

21. People who are married for a long time fake it to make it.

22. I won’t ever love somebody, because I am honest. No one can love an honest person. If you want love, you must be a liar.

23. Back in the day they came up with the idea of love an marriage as a way to survive on the farm. Now, we know better.

24. If anyone could have loved me, I would believe. Since no one could do it, I don’t believe in it.

25. I believe I can love someone but cannot believe anyone can love me, like I can love them, so there is no love it if it is one-sided.

26. If you fall in love with someone, get ready to have your heart broken, lose everything and never believe in love again.

27. Being in love with someone is foolish and dangerous. Only an idiot would fall in love, and I’ve been an idiot more than once. Not doing it again.

28. Love is an outdated dream, that cannot be realized in modern times.

29. Men do not have a capacity or capability to love, so cross-sexual love is not possible.

30. The idea of love is inside your head and cannot be realized in real life. Love is an illusion.

31. You can love everyone, or no one, but you will never find “the one” you can love forever. That is ridiculous.

32. Love is not love, it is an addiction. You can’t help looking for love because you’re addicted to it, and you will never find enough of it to satisfy once an for all.

33. People fall in love with things that fade with the time and end up being in love with what doesn’t exist (or may have existed earlier).

34. If you’re saving your love for the perfect person, forget it no one is perfect.

35. Why does everyone even talk about love? It’s just a word you say, when you want to get laid.

36. Love implies commitment. No one can commit to anything in our disposable society today.

37. In humans, love is polyamorous. To expect monogamy from a species designed to enjoy multiple partners is just wrong.

38. True love is really only lust that morphs into friendship and may be survivable in the long run, if you’re willing to lower your expectations.

39. Love is a government imposed scam to create more taxpayers and consumers.

40. There is no such thing as love. If true love were possible, you wouldn’t be asking me that question, would you?

Why do you think love doesn’t exist?

See you at the Soulmate Wizardry event.

48 thoughts on “The Top 40 Reasons Love Does Not Exist”

29 is the usual anti male drivel always spewed out from the mouths of women…it goes both ways…women cannot love either as love does not exist in reality it is a big commercial lie to perpetuate vast profits. Cherish..care for someone if you like and be with them for ever like some other species do…but like most apes…we live to mate…survival of the fittest..not line the pockets of commercial con artists who use the word cynically. Read Sperm Wars by Robin Baker. Only one can and should be loved..GOD THE POWER.

Thanks! It’s a kind of misunderstanding!

Indeed couldn’t agree more

I would kindly disagree. How can you ever love anything outside of you, if you don’t try and love yourself first? Love is really just about wanting the best for something. To see that something for what it really is, not for all of the illusions we wrap up around it. If we can’t strive to do something so simple for ourselves, I am not sure we would ever know how to truly extend outside of our own being. We all have a huge blindspot when it comes to ourselves, just like we do in our physical eye. Our mind is always trying to fill it in just like it does physically. But those who love us can have a different perspective. They can see around that spot we can’t see around ourselves.

Just my two cents..

loving yourself means absolutely squat… doesnt matter how much you do, you still wont find true love…

IS THIS A GROUP OF IDIOTS! THIS IS ALL I THINK AND WHAT HAPPENED TO ME (replace i and me to the page writers name) HALF OF THIS SHIT IS FALSE

And you are not a correct man. How can you say that dear?

I do love myself, but that doesn’t mean I’m a lovable person. A wise women once told me, love is just lust in disguise

I completely agree with this.

Songs of experience.

Yah! Absolutely correct!! LOVE IS JUST AN ILLUSION!.

agree ! true love only gained when we die! death is a true answer ! we get powerful when we die !

can i die now why the fuck do i still live

You live to achieve your own life goals. I’m only starting to realize that now. I was stupid to let myself fall in love with someone.

Ya I realized it now…need to love myself there is no such thing as love we come alone go alone…do something that makes us best so when we die we die in peace.

Yes, i agree, there is no true love etc just peoples come together for accomplish some selfish purpose, if purpose accomplish their love vanish.so we see more than90 per love marriages finally ended in divorce.10 per continue because they make compromise,

I want to die too.

Once you know that love is not real and death is not to feared you can truly live. Celebrate, be, and do to fullness of your being.

I wanna die too pal. Your not alone

Thank you for this article. I think you’re a genius. It makes sense to me. If love does exist, it’s probably quite rare. I agree with numbers 8 and 21 because I’ve become aware of marriages like that. It’s not because anyone admitted it, but because I’ve noticed it by chance and was surprised. It’s better to be practical and realistic regarding relationships to avoid disappointments and not assume it’s real, special or guaranteed. I feel better after reading this article because it’s opened my eyes.

It’s an illusion on planet earth. In heaven in exists except for the thousands of angels who gave it up and got kicked out for ruining love. Then they came to earth and ruined us. When the earth is restored it will exist again because those who believe in love will live in it and have it in their hearts. But it doesn’t exist anymore in this God-forsaken hole. Satan ruined it with his sick devices like television which destroyed unity and corrupted people’s minds.

kosher monotheism doesn’t make any sense either

Agreed. It’s just a word used to sell things.

Great article!!! I do appreciate this. Always hated the optimists :))

Wow, someone’s hurt. Jesus.

Lolol.. okay.. this comment made my day

Oh shut the fuck up! Nobody’s hurt, idiot! This Artical is genius And U are Not!

Look, if love was real why woould you abandon them? Love is appearantly a feeling where you want to be with them forever. Someone can say they’re in love but then they cut the person they “love” off. It’s a very empty word with no meaning other than strong sexual attraction. Or emotional. Its simply just yet another empty ohrase people use to make others happy. Its manipulative and it doesn’t matter how many times one says it, in the end theyre just going to move on to the next person to be with. People claim I’m a pessimist about it, bit honestly thisnis just realistic facts no one likes to think about because they cannot deny it. I’m sorry, but try and prove me wrong.

If someone does that to you, it isn’t love :l

So wrong. Our creator Yahuah actually is pure love. You are just evil.

HELLO DEAR, SORRY TO SAY! But, You are misunderstanding. They are not wrong. Actually Love doesn’t exist in this world. The love which you truly received is from heaven not Here! That’s why it’s say only pure Heart see God!

I agree that God is love. And it exists in the world, but not in its purest form. What does exist comes from God. Only he can exercise true love because he is LOVE.

I came to this page because I am feeling the pain so brutally and the illusion. But yes.. I guess that this frustration is supposed to lead us to the fact that there is One who does love.. Yhwh.. our God.. oh my goodness.. there would be no other reason to live but this.. and yes.. goals.. learning to love is the ultimate goal.. but it does seem so true that the more honest we get.. people absolutely hate to love honest people.. real people.. emotional people.. caring people.. this world has become cold and cruel.. “Because of the increase of lawlessness.. the love of most will grow cold.. but those who endure to the end will be saved!” Before you want to die.. find yourself a 24/7 house of prayer.. international house of prayer.. any house of prayer for that matter.. you might find a few awesome people trying to love honestly.. very good choice for a gathering place.. still messed up people.. just trying people.. a few are still trying.. I know that it is hard to believe.. just very badly wired brains these days.. only the bravest souls to seek their God to unwind it :).

I “love” this!

TOTALLY AGREE Especially the addiction aspect. With “love” you loose your identity, burn holes in your wallet, you are in a constant obsessive thinking space. And you push your old friends away. Just like drug addiction It makes a lot to sense. And every old married couple act more like they hate each other but feel that it’s too late to divisive haha. It’s sad really. I pity people who believe in “love”

True love is a big scam

We, adult human beings, MOSTLY need sex. The moment something is wrong in the sex department, GOODBYE Honey!!! And the person doesn’t matter anymore!!! Very sad but VERY TRUE!!!

I agree. I hate how Disney/ fairytale have controlled women to think true love exist when in reality it doesn’t exist. Love is only powerful because we give power to it by constantly saying it and thinking it. Yes you can love your children but the whole “the one” no… it’s just an illusion people tell themselves to be comfortable.

Love or the occurences some people associate with it at least exist in theory/fantasy. The practical part seems to fail completely.

However after reading the comments, as a rational thinker i come to the assumption, that honest and rational people have the highest chance to have a good friend- or relationsship, as long as they stay honest and rational. Don’t confuse this with “love”.

I also don’t care much about my life, as it will end anyways, but maybe some people commenting here should contact each other or make a WhatsApp group, because people, who consider life rationally, start and proceed on a complete other basis regarding friend- and relationsship. I think, that most of you just need a similar minded character to find more pleasure in social interactions, because most sheep out there are following the common illusions including the so called love to fail over and over again. If you left this illusional “desert”, your mind is “back” to reality, hence you just need an exchange of “information”, that is capable of being “real”, especially the understanding that we are responsible for our “hapiness” ourselves.

Just ironic, how similar thinking people drop the same thoughts here without even thinking about to proceed exchanging more thoughts. Unthinkable a “few” years ago and now just equivalently ignored like the person from number 11 in the article, that is uninteresting, because of the permanent availability…

Love exist… actually true love exists but it comes with it’s own seeds like trust, patience, honesty well even though rust is their after sexs men their is that one woman you feel like, and now that’s love you like and love her at heart

Wow I actually enjoyed reading about this page and comments people are making.. am in a dilemma here it does not make sense indeed if someone claim to love a person and think cant exist without that person. The next thing they leave that one person who meant the whole world to them. But then the thought of being alone at the end because of not believing in love is also scary.

I couldn’t disagree with this article more, but I respect your opinions and what you feel.

The cigar theorem: “a woman is just a woman but a good cigar is a smoke” thus I love a good cigar thus love exists. QED

Lust is a biological thing Love is an emotional thing, Humans are emotional beings; we love to “love” others ( not necessarily romantic) When it comes to love that based on romantic relationship or what we generally call love relationship, we consider it something different.. when it’s not, you cannot love someone if u think u and ur partner are sex objects to each other, if u have enough respect & faith in someone and ur person does the same to u, love is possible there.Unfortunately most relationship & marriage have no proper bondings what builds upon respect… It’s difficult to respect someone with whom u r having sex for most people, for others the need & ego come firsr in every aspect of their life, for few it’s impossible to control the sexual urge with multiple person, on the other hand few couple have zero similarly still try to be together or act they’re happy …thus love is gone from this planet long time ago..it makes me sad

I believe love does exist and doesn’t at the same time. It seems like all of you have been hurt, especially the person who wrote this. Throughout life you can’t help to think about finding “the one”, but that does not make you a fool because everyone has this dream but that dream does not make you delusional. What you all need is self love and that my friend is real, trust in the process for time heals all and that exists.

Facts. It’s nothing more than a feeling of possession. We operate better when we don’t have feelings for one another. Our “love” is rarely mutual. Ppl also forget that a person that can make you feel absolutely INCREDIBLE has the power to make you feel absolutely MISERABLE! So screw all of the love stuff because it’s nothing but emotional codependency and with CONDITIONS. Usually it’s only within the conditions that you restrict love to them and a few others, whereas when you’re single, you’re not concerned with love and nobody has emotional control over you.

Does Unconditional Love Really Exist?

IMAGES

Elegant True Love Does Exist Quotes
The Top 40 Reasons Love Does Not Exist
47+ Impressive Love Doesn't Exist Quotes That Will Unlock Your True
Leo Tolstoy Quotes: Love does not exist. There exists the physical need
"True love cannot be found where it does not truly exist, nor can it be
The science of love (TRUE LOVE DOES NOT EXIST!)

COMMENTS

The Concept of True Love
Introduction. The concept of true love is based on the belief that to truly love someone you have to accept them for who they are (including their shortcoming and faults), put their happiness above your own (even if your heart is broken in the process) and that you will always love them even if they are not by your side. We will write a custom ...
True Love: What Love Is and What It Is Not
You either have one shot or infinite opportunities. True love is a sacrifice in many ways—whether that's your freedom, or the ability to put their needs above your own, and even when you're angry you still adore them and have their best interest at heart. As the bible states, love is not boastful. It does not envy.
True Love doesn't bring Sadness, Disappointment, Pain or Problems
Real love means to stay together and never give up. You don't give up on the people you love A person that really loves you wouldn't give up on you no matter how hard the situation is — when ...
Is There Really True Love?
For years, marriage rates declined, in part because young adults have waited longer to get married. Many say that they don't intend to ever get married. The belief that love is true when it ...
Arguments Why There Isn't a True Love
So, love does not exist". Respect the word love. Stop saying I love you, seriously, it is the most misused phrase on Earth, I feel most people of our generation do not know the real meaning of love when they see beautiful, smart, educated person and attract toward the person, they say I love you but tell me, do you mean it.
5 Reasons To Rethink Your Belief That Love Doesn't Exist
4. Romantic connection is merely one form that love can take. Many cultures have both acknowledged and categorized different types of love.In English, we use the word "love" to describe many different forms, but just because love can manifest differently doesn't mean that these various forms are any greater or lesser than any other.
Why Some People Believe Love Is an Illusion
Barbara Field. Published on March 29, 2023. Tim Robberts/Stone/Getty. Some people believe that love is an illusion. It's understandable if they were in a relationship that they thought was a long-lasting one based on true love, but the reality ended up not aligning with their perception.
Is Love Real?- An Essay for the Heartbroken Existentialist
An Essay for the Heartbroken Existentialist. You pass hours of adolescence in tiresome fantasy, vividly materializing every feature on the boy of your dreams: the lively wisps of deep auburn hair ...
Love
Love. First published Fri Apr 8, 2005; substantive revision Wed Sep 1, 2021. This essay focuses on personal love, or the love of particular persons as such. Part of the philosophical task in understanding personal love is to distinguish the various kinds of personal love. For example, the way in which I love my wife is seemingly very different ...
True Love Does Exist Essay
Edna St. Vincent Millay, author of "Love Is Not All," makes this clear in her poem. She states that love "…is not meat nor drink/ Nor slumber nor a roof against the. Free Essay: Does True Love Exist? "I love you.". These three little words might possibly be the most powerful statement one can make to another person.
The Illusion of Love
Illusions are, by definition, mismatches between physical reality and perception. Love, as with all emotions, has no external physical reality: it may be driven by neural events, but it is ...
Can philosophy say that "love" doesn't exist?
There are said to be different forms of love: agape (universal love), philautia (self-love), storge (familial love), philia (platonic love), eros (romantic love) and their respective verb forms. On occasion, some are interchangeable, but they are not seen as strong synonyms. The image of love is an ascent motivated by a hierarchy of increasing ...
What Is True Love? Figuring Out If You've Found The One
Focus - The focus of true love extends beyond self-gratification. It's about mutual growth, support, respect, and understanding. Both partners are invested in each other's happiness and well-being. Acceptance - True love means accepting each other's imperfections and loving the whole person, flaws and all.
Love, Actually: The science behind lust, attraction, and companionship
According to a team of scientists led by Dr. Helen Fisher at Rutgers, romantic love can be broken down into three categories: lust, attraction, and attachment. Each category is characterized by its own set of hormones stemming from the brain (Table 1). Table 1: Love can be distilled into three categories: lust, attraction, and attachment.
Does Love Really Exist, or Is It Only a Fantasy?
The same "test of love" becomes a test of your integrity. 5. Even within the context of true love, one can say "yes or no" and not feel obliged to acquiesce to immoral or unreasonable demands.
Does True Love Exist? 8 Reasons It May or May Not
14. True love is committed. When we talk of commitment most people's minds go straight to marriage. Marriage is one of the biggest commitments but it's not all that defines commitment in a relationship. Commitment involves putting all your eggs in one basket, being completely in on something.
The Top 40 Reasons Love Does Not Exist
29. Men do not have a capacity or capability to love, so cross-sexual love is not possible. 30. The idea of love is inside your head and cannot be realized in real life. Love is an illusion. 31. You can love everyone, or no one, but you will never find "the one" you can love forever. That is ridiculous.
Love does not exist, and that is a FACT. : r/unpopularopinion
Love is a false emotion that does not exist. What you mean is that you like something. And then, 'love' as in 'fall in love' is a bunch of bullshit - you will not magically like someone and be infatuated with them. You'll just be obsessed with them, like a creep. 'Love' in that sense is just two creepy people who are obsessed with things easily ...
What Is Real Love Philosophy Essay
Essay Writing Service. Real love refers to as an act of faith, which means you commit yourself without any guarantees of the other person loving you back. The bible tells us that, Love is patient, kind, it does not envy or boast, it is not proud or rude, it is not self seeking or easily angered, and it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not ...
Does Unconditional Love Really Exist?
Let's delve a little deeper into these ideas. "Unconditional love really exists in each of us. It's part of our deep inner being. It's not so much an active emotion as a state of being. It's not "I love you" for this or that reason, not "I love you if you love me.". It's love for no reason, love without an object.
Real love does not exist
94. Real love does not exist. You may have heard the phrase in fairy tales or romantic movies, "And they lived happily ever after.". Let me tell you one thing: Real Love Does Not Exist. There was once a girl called Amanda. She was beautiful, intelligent, shy but very cheerful. And, she was voluptuous.
7 Reasons Why Unconditional Love Doesn't Exist Anymore
3. A strong desire for casual hookups. Sex drives the majority of interactions between men and women after they turn 21. The popular dating apps of today understand this desire and are, hence, all ...

The Concept of True Love Definition Essay

Is There Really True Love?

Arguments Why There Isn't a True Love

Works Cited:

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Love Story

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

5 Reasons To Rethink Your Belief That Love Doesn’t Exist

Does love really exist?

1. Your experiences with love thus far are only part of the greater picture.

2. The exposure you had to unhealthy relationships was not an accurate picture.

3. ‘Love Actually’ is not how love actually is.

4. Romantic connection is merely one form that love can take.

5. Hurt and miscommunication can occur when we don’t speak the same language.

5 Ways To Rekindle Your Faith That Love Exists

1. Turn to real life examples, rather than fantasy.

2. Throw out your wishlist.

3. Be willing to love unconditionally: without the intention to receive in turn.

4. Take the initiative to work through the reasons why you believe that love doesn’t exist.

5. Spend time with those who are truly loving.

About The Author

Why Some People Believe Love Is an Illusion

Why Love Seems Like an Illusion

How This Belief Impacts Your Mental Health

Here’s Why Love Is Not An Illusion

The Positive Effects of Love

Bibliography

1. Preliminary Distinctions

4. Love as Valuing

5. Emotion Views

Support SEP

The Illusion of Love

On supporting science journalism

What Is True Love? Figuring Out If You’ve Found The One

Characteristics of true love

Mutual respect

Deep connection

Trust and honesty

Unconditional support

Common growth

How to know if you’ve found “the one”

Comfort and safety

Healthy communication

Same goals and dreams

You overcome challenges together

Mutual admiration and inspiration

Intuition and gut feeling

Your happiness is their happiness

They make you want to be a better person

You think long-term

How can you tell if you’ve found your true love? Navigate relationships with therapy

Nurturing true love in your relationship

Benefits of online therapy in relationships

Efficacy of online therapy

What are the signs of true love?

How rare is true love?

How do you tell if a man loves you?

How do you tell if a girl loves you?

What kind of love is real love?

What makes you fall in love with someone?

Does Love Really Exist, or Is It Only a Fantasy?

What Is True Love? (17 Things That Define True Love)

17 Things That Define True Love

2. Complete acceptance

3. You're comfortable sharing anything with them

4. You're comfortable being yourself around your partner

5. True love means mutual respect

6. You share similar values

7. You feed each other's energies

8. True love is a partnership

9. There are no bad intentions involved

10. It's not demanding

11. True love is giving

12. True love is built on friendship

13. True love starts with you

14. True love is committed

15. True love is certain