Real Definition Of Love What Love Is and What Love Is Not

                   

There has been much debate about whether love is a choice, is something that is permanent or fleeting, and whether the love between family members and spouses is biologically programmed or culturally indoctrinated. Love may vary from person to person and culture to culture. Each of the debates about love may be accurate in some time and some place. For example, in some instances, love may be a choice while in others it may feel uncontrollable.

WHAT IS LOVE?

Love has been a favored topic of philosophers, poets, writers, and scientists for generations, and different people and groups have often fought about its definition. While most people agree that love implies strong feelings of affection, there are many disagreements about its precise meaning, and one person’s “I love you” might mean something quite different than another’s. Some possible definitions of love include:

• A willingness to prioritize another’s well-being or happiness above your own.
• Extreme feelings of attachment, affection, and need.
• Dramatic, sudden feelings of attraction and respect.
• A fleeting emotion of care, affection, and like.
• A choice to commit to helping, respecting, and caring for another, such as in marriage or when having a child.
• Some combination of the above emotions.

LOVE VERSUS LUST

No one really falls in love

You don’t fall in love.

You discover it.

Then it’s built.

Yes, you can meet someone and have that lightning in a bottle feeling (note: That chemistry doesn’t always come from a healthy place). You can be swept away, by someone’s mind, body, passion for life, knowledge, wisdom, humor, and the way they make you feel. You can see someone walk though a door and lose your words. But love is not about losing your words or being swept away. That’s connection, chemistry, the strong glue that’s produced by two attracted beings. And that collision gives you the feeling of falling. It’s magical. You got dopamine pumping, tingles in your body, can’t stop thinking about the person, and you feel like you’re falling backwards with your eyes closed and smile you haven’t felt in a long time. But that is not love.

I’m sorry.

Because you don’t fall in love. You fall in lust. You fall in infatuation. You fall in amazing chemistry and connection. You fall in hot sex. But you don’t fall in love.

Especially in the early stages of a relationship, it can be difficult to tell the difference between love and lust. Both are associated with physical attraction and an intoxicating rush of feel-good chemicals, coupled with an often overwhelming desire to be closer to another person, but only one is long-lasting: love.

Love is something that is cultivated between two people and grows over time, through getting to know him or her and experiencing life’s many ups and downs together. It involves commitment, time, mutual trust, and acceptance.

Lust, on the other hand, has to do with the sex-driven sensations that draw people toward one another initially and is fueled primarily by the urge to procreate. Characterized by sex hormones and idealistic infatuation, lust blurs our ability to see a person for who he or she truly is and consequently, it may or may not lead to a long-term relationship.

For instance, Lana is in a committed relationship with Steve and her sexual desire for him is waning. She loves and cares for him, but she finds herself feeling restless and dissatisfied with their physical relationship. When she meets Brendan, she experiences instant feelings of attraction and longing. The chemical messengers in her brain start sending signals to pursue this new man, even though she does not know anything about him other than how his presence makes her feel physically. Instead of working to improve intimacy with her current partner, she is overcome by lust for someone new.

The ideal intimate relationship scenario, some might say, involves a balanced combination of love and lust. After all, lusting after someone is typically an important early phase of a long-term partnership, and reigniting that initial spark is a practice worth cultivating for committed couples.

         WHAT LOVE IS

Love is a choice . You do not choose to love. You choose to set someone else's survival, needs, happiness and comfort above your own, and the CHOICE ITSELF is the love.

Emotions are fickle things. They rise and fall, ebb and flow, subject to the whims of your biochemistry, the vagaries of your hormones, and influenced even by what you had for breakfast on a particular day. And if a love like that is going to have to be the basis for something as crucial as marriage and the family unit, then our civilisation is doomed.

Yet, fortunately this is not the case. Love is a choice, and as such it is ultimately rooted in exactly the domain that people, for whatever reasons, always want to dissociate it from: Reason. Logic. Rationality.

Think about it: Our most sacred, most traditional wedding vows involve promising to love another person for the rest of your life. How can a promise be made about how one will feel (ie. emotion) in a far distant future? The answer is: It cannot. Emotion is too variable, too unpredictable. If love were an emotion, no wedding vow that includes a clause on eternal love can ever be valid or true. All these weddings are then a farce. The good news is, they're not, because love is not an emotion.

Love is discovered

There are many many parts to us. We are complicated beings. We don’t always make sense. We have feelings. Thoughts. Phases. We are confusing. Unpredictable. And of course, we hide. Becasue we are afraid. It’s impossible to really know someone in a week or over a weekend. This is why you can’t fall in love with someone on a reality show. Love is discovered and that shit takes time. There are layers to be peeled. And trust must be formed for someone to truly show themselves and we can all agree that trust is earned and takes time, correct?

Love is discovered as you get to know all the different parts of someone. The good, the bad, the ugly, the real. This is why long distance relationships that are open ended rarely work. It’s just a long honeymoon. You don’t get to peel layers because everyone’s on their best behavior when they see each other.

Love is about the day to day, not the magical weekend. That’s the highlight reel, the movie trailer, the commercial you are mistaking for falling in love.

And I’m writing this because people think when that fantasy feeling fades, they are no longer in love. The truth is when the fantasy feeling fades, that’s just the beginning. That’s when you start to see other sides to them and the relationship. But it doesn’t mean it’s not magically anymore. Magic comes in different forms. You start to discover other things about that person. Some you love. And maybe some things that challenge you. But it’s all part of the discoverying parts process. As you peel layers and see more and more sides of someone, and these sides appear as you experience the person in different situations, settings, and spaces, in all different moods, around different people, going through different challenges, etc., you get to really know them. You see the whole instead of the movie poster.

Now, discovery is on going. It never stops. Because people are always changing and growing and evolving. But once you’ve discovered enough to make a decision to love someone,

Then Love is built

And you build love by making a daily choice.

Minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day.

There is you.

There is him/her.

And there is what you guys are building together (the relationship).

              WHAT LOVE IS NOT 

1. Love is not a series of chemicals or chemical reactions in a human brain.

Many people who ascribe (either consciously or unconsciously) to a materialist view of the world (the view that physical matter is all there is) would raise this as an answer. The problem with this is that it’s truly materialistic, and the materialistic view of the world leaves out a very important part of the picture. There is more to the world than the atoms and molecules, and unfortunately, the materialist worldview does little to explain or consider the vast implications of a higher level of being. Consciousness is the higher level of being that the materialist worldview deliberately chooses to ignore. In turn, anyone with a materialist view of the world will suffer the consequences of doing so.

While it’s true that chemicals do appear in the human brain when a human feels love, and they do make humans feel the things they feel biologically when they engage in loving behavior, those chemicals are not equivalent to love. Love is more than testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin. These chemicals in the human brain do not serve as a definition of love. They could serve as a consequence of the definition of love, but by themselves, they’re only part of the picture. There’s something deeper going on in the human soul and the human consciousness when love takes place, and chemicals in your brain are only a small part of that, a consequence of deeper intentions, which are immaterial.

2. Love is not a feeling.

A feeling, by definition, is an emotional reaction to an experience. It is not grounded in a mode of being. A feeling is a thing that is ungrounded. You can’t choose it. And that is the problem: If love really is the crucial ideal that so many people hold up as a standard, then saying that love is a feeling is saying that our ideal is an emotional reaction that we cannot control, engage with, or determine. If love is a feeling, then why are we surprised that our divorce rates are so high? Feelings fade. Emotions are not stable or secure standards with which to ground ourselves or our intentions. Emotions, by nature, change. If they didn’t change, they wouldn’t be emotions.

It's ridiculous to believe love is a feeling or an emotion, and simultaneously imagine that we can pledge our love to another person. What kind of lie do you have to tell yourself to think that you can pledge a state of emotion to another person? If you really do believe that love is a feeling/emotion, then pledging your love to another person is equivalent to saying “I promise to always feel like this around you.” Which is, of course, ridiculous. Emotions change and fade. Emotions can be managed, but not controlled. You will never be able to control the gut feeling in yourself that gives rise to feelings of anger, sadness, grief, love, happiness, or guilt – Yet you will always have the ability to control your response to those feelings, and that’s the important part. Your behaviors, not your feelings, are the ultimate expression of yourself, which means that if love really is the ultimate value, then we cannot allow ourselves to say that love is simply a feeling or an emotion. It has to be more than that.

3. Love is not attraction.

Attraction – whether it’s physical, mental, sexual, emotional, or psychological – in one individual for another individual is not love. All of those things are independent of love. The reason you can know that they aren’t the same thing is this:

Imagine a person who is not attractive physically, mentally, sexually, emotionally, or psychologically. Can they be loved? Yes, of course they can. An ugly person can be loved. Yes, a person with a low IQ can be loved. Yes, a person who can’t reproduce can be loved. Yes, a person who has low emotional intelligence can still be loved. And yes, a person who has little or no psychological presence or identity can be loved. So none of these factors is necessary for love to be shown, which means they’re independent of each other. Value (or merit) in any of these dimensions is not a prerequisite for love to be shown to you.

Love can always be shown to someone who is not attractive. You can always show love to someone who you are not attracted to.

That said, when you do choose love – real love – you will most likely be attracted to that person you choose to show love to. Love and attraction are very often intertwined and difficult to separate, but that does not mean they are the same thing, or that one is even necessary in order for the other to exist.

4. Love is not the intense desire to care.

This is essentially the answer that most people give when they talk about love. They see love as an intense desire to care, a willingness to help another, a deep desire to see the other person flourish or succeed.

This definition, “an intense desire for care for another person” is almost accurate, but it’s not the whole picture. We can know this for certain, because it’s possible to care for another person, or even intensely care for another person, and not be expressing love. You can care for another person for reasons other than love. How do we know this?

We can imagine, for example, a wealthy benefactor who donates large sums of money in order to provide care for another person, or even many people. But does that mean this benefactor is showing love?

Let’s try another thought experiment: If you personally own a hundred cars, and you give one to another person, is that showing love?

My answer to these questions is no. The intense desire or act of caring is very close to the definition of love, but love is more than that. And we cannot allow ourselves to water down the true definition of love for a partial definition.

Just because you offer care for someone, or provide for them, does not mean you love them. And if we define love as (A), yet find an example of something or someone exhibiting (A) but not aligning with our intuitive understanding of what constitutes the thing we are trying to define (love), then we must assume that our definition (A) is incorrect, or incomplete. We must assume something is lacking within our definition, and that there is an element still to be included in our definition.

So then: If love is not a chemical reaction in your brain, not a feeling, not attraction, not an emotion, and not an act of care, then what is it?

Love is the choice to sacrifice for someone else because you want the best for the best parts of both of you.

There are a lot of elements to this definition, and I’m going to break them down one part at a time:

First, love is primarily a choice. Choice is a necessary prerequisite for love to exist. If love is not a choice, then it’s a form of tyranny, or slavery. Yet, the other side of that coin means that love is not a feeling. You do not need to feel anything to show love. You do not need to be attracted to the person you are showing love to. You simply need to be willing to sacrifice for them because you want the best for the best parts of both of you.

The second part of love is sacrifice. This idea maps and builds directly onto the Christian definition of love. Even if you’re not religious in any way, it’s still worth considering the definition of love held by a religion that claims their God is an embodiment of love. In the New Living Translation of John’s account of Jesus’s life, Jesus tells his followers: “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” Jesus embodies this by sacrificially dying on the cross. Whether or not this was a literal dying on the cross for the sins of mankind, or a symbolic dying on the cross for the sins of mankind is a topic for another book, but the message is clear: Sacrifice is the ultimate element of the act of love.

Many people agree with this definition of love, until they hear the element of sacrifice – but that is, quite possibly, the most crucial part. Most people feel that love should be easy. They feel love should make you feel good. They feel you should never lose anything by loving someone else. But what kind of love is that? What kind of value does an act offer you if you don’t put forward some part of yourself – some valuable part of yourself – in order for it to exist? The element of sacrifice immediately ascribes consequences to the act. Without consequences, love is empty. A concept of love without investment is a weak ideal. Without sacrifice, the thing you are describing is not love. Without sacrifice, the concept is better described as a feeling. Why would the statement “I love you” mean anything significant if it doesn’t involve some kind of investment, and therefore, sacrifice? Real love requires sacrifice. Anything without sacrifice is not love. Anyone telling you otherwise has a confused, and likely a self-centered perspective on what it means to love.

It’s also important to consider that every generative system requires some element of sacrifice: A mother must give up much of her personal desires to give birth to a child. A seed must die before it grows. No generative system exists without an element of sacrifice. And with the knowledge that love is possibly the most generative system, it follows that love must contain sacrifice as it’s highest order and most crucial element.

The third part of this definition of love is wanting the best for the best in both of you. This is important, because the idea of love without this element can lead people to make terrible decisions with their attempts at finding love. Without this concept, one’s search for love can lead into an abusive and tyrannical relationship. This part of the definition is very much in lines with the thinking of Jordan B Peterson.

I had a best friend who shared an apartment with me for several years. We also worked together, and co-founded a company together, until he started exhibiting some frightening behavior. The more attention I paid, the more apparent it became that he was exhibiting signs of sociopathy. He was a militant atheist, and abhorred the idea of a divine order, intentionality, or God. Around this same time, he became close to a mutual friend of ours, a young woman. The young woman was a strong Christian; energetic and passionate about the idea of ‘love’. But her inaccurate definition of love led her into a romantic relationship with my co-founder. When I tried to question the wisdom of her choice to be with my co-founder, she claimed she was ‘showing him love’, which was the Christian thing to do.

Showing love is the ‘Christian thing to do’, but entering into a relationship with a militant atheist exhibiting signs of sociopathy is not a loving thing to do because love necessitates that you want the best for the best parts in both of you. And being in a committed romantic relationship with someone who has a different ethic for the standard of a ‘good life’ is not the best thing for the best part of either party involved.

This raises an important fundamental aspect of committed loving relationships: they only work well if you both have a similar standard for what constitutes a good life. If two parties don’t share this, then inevitably they will both act in ‘non-loving’ ways toward one another, because each will have a different version of what they think the ‘best in both of you’ is.

As you may have gathered by now, this part of this definition of love necessitates someone to have a concept for what it means to live ‘a good life’: It’s impossible to ‘want the best for the best in both of you’ if you don’t have a concept of what that looks like. It’s nearly impossible to love someone in a committed, specific, and consistent way if your definition of ‘the best for the best in me’ is different than your definition of ‘the best in the best of you’. This is why the alignment of values are important in committed romantic (and non-romantic) relationships.

In a world where the concept of ‘the best for me’ is obscured, twisted, and highly fragmented, it’s no wonder why we can’t love each other: our society has become so fragmented that very few can agree what it means to ‘want the best for the best in you’. After all, what if I think the best in me looks like one thing, and you think the best in me looks like something else? To get more specific: what if I think ‘the best in me’ looks like working a steady 9 to 5 job, getting married, raising a family with four children, and retiring at 65; while you believe ‘the best in me’ looks like moving to New York City, staying single, starting four companies across my life, and reaching the end of my life without children. Both concepts of ‘the best in me’ may be valid for each individual in a different time and place, but make no mistake: they’re opposite ideas of what it looks like to live out ‘the best’ in oneself.

With this definition and framework, we need a shared cultural understanding of what it looks like to live out ‘the best’ in ourselves, or it will be impossible for our society to exist as a loving society. We need a more cohesive meta-narrative within our communities of what it looks like to live out ‘the best of ourselves’. This doesn’t mean everyone’s ‘best’ will be the same – it only means that our meta-definition that encompasses the diversity of what it means to live out ‘the best’ in ourselves is understood and shared amongst a common intention, and embodied in the way we speak and live.

Love is not a series of chemicals in your brain. It’s more than that. Love is not a feeling, it’s not attraction, it’s not an act of care. Love is the deepest and most fundamental value of existence. Love holds the world together. Love is the thing that allows us to look into another and see a unity.

Love is a choice. Love is a sacrifice. This is what allows the world to unify. This is what heals brokenness. This is the thing at the root of all that is good.

Love is the choice to sacrifice for someone else because you want the best for the best parts of both of you.