2 ms·

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 the

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.

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.