I think Wittgenstein would say that the question of whether unconditional love is possible is a semantic game. The critics would see from the perspective of “a

I think Wittgenstein would say that the question of whether unconditional love is possible is a semantic game. The critics would see from the perspective of “absolutely unconditional love” where the absolute aspect of this idea will provide the source of all the counter examples. For this next part of the discussion, love is defined as to give or the act of giving attention, care, protection, and other benefits for something deemed worthy of loving or love. Yes, this is a recursive/self-referential definition. Deal with it. The proponents will be those who intuitively understand the need for a phrase to describe a feeling of depersonalization or a loss of one’s sense of strict individuality when one’s sense of self begins to merge with the subject of love. In a sense, it is like a self-love but where the self has now expanded to encapsulate another individual. It is self-evident that self-love is unconditional because we have to assume a non-pathological case. Self-preservation which is a form of self-love is in all living organism. The unconditional here is used as an emphasis for the strength of the love. An example of unconditional love is a parent being willing to give their life to save their child. Will all parents have unconditional love for their children? No and no one has ever claimed that. Only the Sith said parent-child love is unconditional because he is unable to equivocate and use a qualifier. In this way both groups are using the same term to talk pass each other about different things. This is actually quite a boring discussion.