3 ms·

As explained by therapists, unconditional love is not love which is eternal and unchanging. Mulling over the implications of a brain transplant is missing the

• blondin 4y ago
  yes author appears to be mingling eternal love and unconditional love. by adding the time element, author is taking love to the divine dimension. we, humans, can't fathom eternity.
  • kibwen 4y ago
    If love is conditional on time, then it's not unconditional, by definition.
    • RajT88 4y ago
      Congratulations! You are the poster which did not intentionally misunderstand the idea I'm representing. I want to be very clear: It's not my idea! I am just trying to help people understand what phrases mean in the proper context.
• Jensson 4y ago
  > Unconditional love does not mean a promise to love someone forever. That might be impossible: people change over time. It is a statement of "I love you now, as you are, as a person and not anything you do or have or appear to be". So how is this different from love? Why prepend "unconditional"?
  • Arainach 4y ago
    The post explicitly explains this: it is not conditional on part of their state. Unconditional love is not loving someone because they have a job or because they buy you presents or because they have red hair or whatever.
    • Jensson 4y ago
      > it is not conditional on part of their state If A loves money, that doesn't mean A love B for their money, it means A loves B's money and doesn't love B. That is how most people see it. And even when we talk about more personal state since we allow change with time then the difference isn't meaningful, state only changes if time change. Example: A loves B. B loses his job, A says A no longer loves B. Did A love B unconditionally? Yes, just that time changed! Or no, B's condition changed! What is the difference? We can see B losing their job as a part of B's condition. Or we can see it as evidence that B is now a different person. Or maybe the loss of love is totally unrelated, and it was A that changed and A now only want people with a job and money. So, would "I love you as long as I or you have money, but if we both don't have money I wont love you", be unconditional love? You would probably say yes, it is unconditional as long as the person has money, since then it doesn't depend on the other person. But that doesn't seem like a very meaningful definition, does it? Like, "I love you as long as you have enough money to pay for the stuff I want", that is unconditional love as long as the person doesn't want anything, but then they get older and now they want a large house etc, leading to a divorce. The love then didn't change, but it was no longer unconditional due to the first person changing, not the second person.
      • Arainach 4y ago
        Material possessions are not part of you. Your actions are. If you lose money, you are not a different person. If you murder someone (after not previously having done so) you are. Thus, if you stop loving someone shen their financial state changed you did not love unconditionally. If their actions indicated that they were no longer the same person it's different.
• smallnix 4y ago
  > I love you now, as you are, as a person and not anything you do or have or appear to be What is left of a "person" to me if excluding those?
  • easygenes 4y ago
    Perhaps you are ascribing a more holistic view to the idea of what someone “does”. I think OP was referring more to a person’s roles or what they are known for. Loving someone for, e.g., what they believe in, what they stand for, and how they treat people are examples of love that stems from a deeper understanding of a person’s values, habits, and personality than just loving them one-dimensionally for their wealth or a particular thing they’re well known for. I think that’s what they’re getting at.
    • green_on_black 4y ago
      So, having more conditions is apparently less conditional?
      • eurasiantiger 4y ago
        Loving someone for something and loving someone if something are two different things.
  • RajT88 4y ago
    What, indeed. Share your perspective.
    • smallnix 4y ago
      It is as easygenes put it: > Perhaps you are ascribing a more holistic view to the idea of what someone “does”. I think nothing is left for another person to love if you take away everything they do, have and how they appear. Because that is all you can ever know about another person. But I now understand what you wrote as "I love you now, as you are, as a person and not just any one particular thing you do" and to that I agree. Edit: I think I misread "anything" as "everything"