Unconditional love is limited

Intended paradox in the title.

Ignorant of whether it is my realism or my new-found tendency to be theoretically pessimistic, but I believe unconditional love is either destructive or non-existent in the context of romantic relationships.

According to Wikipedia, the resource all academics urge us to avoid, unconditional love is known as affection without any limitations; it is that kind of love which has no bounds and is unchanging. It is important to distinguish between conditional and unconditional love. In conditional love, you are constantly fighting to earn someone’s love; in unconditional love, love is given freely – free of rules and regulations, terms and conditions.

Unconditional love means accepting the person as they are, and not wishing them to be anything else but that. It is surrealistic. It is perfection. The attainment of the highest forms of love. Platonic. The problem is that it does not stand the test of imagination. It is beyond the capacity of our minds.

I’m aware that many readers might disagree with me. I hate to break it to you, but I think unconditional love can only manifest itself in more or less two forms: maternal love and self-love – romantic love excluded.

A mother’s love for her child is arguably unconditional and eternal. The mother demands nothing from her child; a mother’s unconditional love pours for the mere fact that the child exists. There is no give and take relationship. In the first few years of life, in particular, only the mother can give, and she asks for nothing in return. Maternal love is selfless; a mother never asks what is in it for her, but what is in it for her child. This might also apply to parental love in general, but maternal love in particular has made a stronger case over the course of history.

Self-love is another form of pure love. It does not mean overlooking one’s flaws and short-comings, or loving oneself despite committing the ugliest of actions. It is about knowing that you owe yourself goodness. It is about knowing that eventually, it is only you who will be standing by your side. It is about knowing that your creation has a purpose and that you are ought to honor that purpose. Loving oneself is not about being arrogant or self-centered. It is about caring for oneself, taking responsibility for oneself, respecting oneself, and knowing oneself.

Think again about your capacity to love someone “romantically” unconditionally. That person standing right in front of you has imperfections. Accepting and dealing with someone else’s short-comings is one thing, but not wishing for those imperfections to just disappear is a mastered form of self-denial. Here’s why.

I think loving someone is about bringing out the best in them. Loving someone is about being a positive influence on them. It is about making them a better person. If you are being the provider of unconditional love, by definition, you must have mastered the skill of blinding yourself from every little gesture you do not like, from every act of carelessness the other person might display, and from any form of pain you might get. Absolutely no conditions. The very idea of not being okay with everything that person did, does, and might do means that you do not love them unconditionally. The very idea of wishing that that person fixes a tiny flaw, or a bad habit, means that you do not love them unconditionally – again, by definition.

In fact, when care appears, unconditional love often vanishes.

Martha Beck

Love in romantic relationships must be an action, not just an emotion. It must be something you are constantly striving to earn, and working hard to sustain. Both partners strive to bring out the best in themselves and complete one another. Unconditional love is a myth. An unlimited supply of anything is appreciated less. Think about money. If money never runs out, you are likely to appreciate it less. You will use it foolishly because there are no consequences or limits. You will respect it less.

The logic behind unconditional love is not only faulty, but also destructive. You are limiting the person you unconditionally love from growing and developing into their best self. Your inaction, i.e. not providing them with guidance and constructive criticism, takes its toll on both yourself and your loved one. Unintentionally, you are actually encouraging that person to stay the same, with all good and bad deeds. You’re undermining their capacity to be good and achieve their goals.

Now, of course, according to wikiHow, everything I said is utter nonsense; you can learn to love unconditionally following 6 easy steps.

But do me a favor and ask yourself, “what if nothing changes?” and “what if things got worse?” – you’re abusing yourself if you think you can still love unconditionally if things got worse, or never got better.

The only constant thing in life is change. Unconditional love in its purest form and divinity cannot exist in this world simply because it defies nature.

I have seen unconditional love. It ain’t pretty. It often goes awry, and some lives burn to smithereens. Don’t aspire to be something you cannot be. Unconditional love is just a fantasy that cannot break down the bounds of reality.

Throughout this post, I have concentrated on the literal, strong definition of the word “unconditional”. I have seen awful too many people use this term carelessly and pretend to be doing something good. Much of the outcomes are devastating and cause mental and physical draining. Loving someone unconditionally is not something to be proud of. We are way beyond using outlandish definitions to treat ourselves into Utopia. People, please stop sugarcoating and do the work. True, genuine love exists. It is just that it follows a different criteria, and without a doubt, one that is different from that of unconditional love.

Keep in mind that this post focused on unconditional love in romantic relationships. Altruistic behavior carries with it a form of unconditional love. But then again, further definitions and divisions are beyond the scope of this article.

For those interested, Should Love Be Unconditional? is an insightful piece. It moderates various concepts of unconditional love, and in some way, further illustrates my attack.

Much Egocentrism Behind Utopian Hopes

I tweeted the other day, “Much egocentrism behind Utopian hopes.” I don’t really know where I got these words from, but as I revisited them, I thought they beg for some explanation. And, keeping in mind the “Twitter code”, I thought I’d better do it here.

Let’s think about some “good” things we always wish are displayed in people’s behavior or adopted during social interactions. For example, you would like people to be honest and outspoken, to mean what they say and say what they mean. I think these examples are so subtle to be picked up by speech or body language (especially in the cases of those who have mastered them for the purpose of deceit). Being the good person you are, you display trust and honesty, and you mean every single word you say. You want to truly believe that others will reciprocate. You hope that you’re not “being played” or that others might be taking advantage of your goodness. You want to blindly believe that the world is good. But somehow you can’t. For some reason, probably risking too much or having been through a certain grave experience, you choose not to.

It’s a simple and sad truth. You can’t read minds nor know intentions. You cannot allow yourself to assume that other people might also have good will, relying on no substantial evidence and based solely on your damaged sixth-sense. In fact, not only that. You also believe that you’re the ONLY one with goodness, the only one who can be trusted, and the only one who won’t hurt others.

Relating back to my tweet: you are desperate for a better world, but you attribute the goodness only to yourself.

It makes sense. After all, thoughts cannot be touched or seen. You can only be sure of what goes on in your own mind, and the fact that you have one. Who knows? Others might be robots or zombies. But let’s face it, we choose to believe that they have minds like ours for ease of life, even though it’s merely an intuitive claim.

Maybe I should backspace a bit. Oh wait – I won’t. But I will thank philosophy class for, I don’t know… MAKING ME QUESTION THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER MINDS!

Anyway, you see the picture. You’re a good person, you want good things, and you behave in good ways. But. Here comes the big BUT.. You don’t believe in others believing that you’re a good person, who wants good things, and who behaves in good ways. And you don’t believe that others are good people, who want good things, and who behave in good ways. But really why should you?

I don’t know. It strikes me. Each one of us has his or her own model of the universe. And, quoting Neale D. Walsch, “nobody does anything bad according to their model of the universe.” Chances are, if you take two models and compare them together, they are probably going to be oceans apart in difference. What is “good” in someone else’s model might have disastrous effects on your life. Actually it might kill you. (I recommend reading Walsch’s book Conversations with God for some examples and clearer explanation than what I could ever write). So what.to.do.?

Should you believe that people are good? As painful and disappointing as this answer might be, I think you should. You should, because you want to go out into the world with at least some faith that you’re going to be safe and happy. You should, because indeed there are people in your life who have done you good, and there’re only very few, if any, who have done you harm. You should, because what goes around comes back around: if you’re a good person, you should attract good experiences and good people. You should, because, if you believe you create your own life, you are responsible for it. You should, because you want to know how awesome it is for others to share your Utopian attitudes. You should, because you want the world to be a better place, don’t you?

Utopia is that which is in contradiction with reality

~ Albert Camus, Between Hell and Reason.