What Is Love Anyway?

Is "in love" or "love at first sight" really Love?

(Note: Unlike most of my other posts here, this is more a mental reflection than a research-based discussion, though it is in line with some theories such as that of Dr. Barbara Fredrickson’s.)

.

As familiar as love as a concept to most people, I believe it is often misunderstood.

Therefore I am sharing some of my thoughts on that, and welcome a debate.

Often, when one says “I love you” to their romantic interest, what they actually mean is more like, “I want you”, or “I want to be with you”.

So, it is “want”, not “love”.

A major difference is:

Want is self-oriented: I want something/someone, for myself.
Love, by nature, should be other-oriented: I love someone so I love for that person to be well and happy, and I am willing to invest into their well-being. That is primarily not about myself.

In my opinion, this “other-oriented” caring/investing defines the nature of love, and should be at the core of many, if not all, kinds of love.

Most prominent is the mother/parent love toward a child - It is intensely about the child, especially when the child is still under the parent’s care.

Even in romantic love, where the dynamic is quite different, this nature still should be at the core - Without that, it is not love (yet).

When someone, who has not even known you much, tells you that they love you, although we know perfectly what they mean by “love” in this context, it feels a bit “odd” to me the word “love” is used here.

If they don’t even know you well, it is hard to imagine they have developed a deep caring about you, which is the basis for love.

You might argue that, hey, there is “love at first sight”!

Or, “love happens. It doesn’t require knowing you well or for a length of time. Sometimes it just happens, no reasons needed.”

All sounds very romantic!

But that’s not love; “in love” maybe.

Yet “in love” is not love; “love at first sight” is even less so; although both are certainly related to love and could evolve into love.

They are not love because, they are very “self-oriented”, almost entirely.

It is much like, I fall “in love” with you (at first sight or otherwise) because I feel a strong attraction/want/longing/or even desperation to have you or to be with you.

So it is about "me", my wants or my longing, etc.

In fact, it may have more to do with chemicals (brain’s additive-like reactions to the surge of dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, endorphin, etc.) than emotions, especially at the early stage when mutual feelings have not deepened yet.

Nevertheless, it is a positive feeling, a very strong/intense one in fact.

.

But it is really more about “me” (my wants, my euphoric feelings, my yearning for reciprocal responses, etc.), not so much about “you” - It is heavily self-oriented.

However, as noted earlier, love by its very nature should be “other-oriented” - Should be primarily about “you”.

One has not loved you, even if they say so, when all they really mean is “I want you”.

Only when it becomes about “you” - It is “your” well-being that “I” care deeply about; what “I” want or am longing for is less important - then it becomes love.

Healthy romantic love eventually evolves into a dynamic combination of “in love’ feelings or wants (self-oriented), mutual responsiveness (two-way orientation), and love in its real sense or its nature (other-oriented).

But again, without love’s other-oriented nature at the core, it is not love.

So, through these reflection, I have come to this viewpoint:

The orientation (self-oriented or other-oriented) may be considered a yardstick for discerning whether it is love, or just “in love” or something else.

What do you think?

Rebuttals or constructive critiques are welcome!

.

(Graph generated with Craiyon).