There is merit in trying to understand where the author is coming from (which I am choosing to do), as opposed to critiquing the piece from the framework of con

There is merit in trying to understand where the author is coming from (which I am choosing to do), as opposed to critiquing the piece from the framework of contemporary society (which is also a valid approach). > "Without free will, there can be no real love." This reveals something about the author and his possible life experiences. When it comes to love between humans, what does love actually mean? We ”fall” in love, which is largely based on chemical and physical characteristics. Correct, it is debatable how much choice there is. I am still to meet a couple that after 20 years together, still feel like they have fallen in love, in the original sense. At some stage, there comes a point where it feels like a choice is made: Do I appreciate the person for whom they are? Do I choose to get hung up on their annoying characteristics, or do I make an effort to see them for who they are? Do I give them the security to reveal their unguarded version of themselves? And so on. This applies to all human relationships, even to one’s children. We can close our minds and avoid or hate, or we can overcome and seek. That is what I think the author meant with love. “Falling in love”, is not the kind of love that is chosen.