Does this definition of Love work for you?

[SmartAlx]

I define absolute perfect and pure love (all love: romantic, familial, friendship, and even compassion towards strangers) as complete and utter total selflessness*.

Do you think that this definition works for you?

[James81]

No, that definition of love does not work at all for me.

You're defining love as "perfect" and "pure" and "total selflessness." These things, at least in this life as people, are impossibilities. The interesting thing I notice is that a LOT of people define love the way you do, though, and then they sit around moaning and complaining about how they can't find love and that love is impossible to find.

Well, duh! If you define love in terms of the impossible, should you be surprised when love always seems just out of reach?

To me, love is gritty. It's a "get down in the dirt" and live kind of thing. Love isn't always kind. Love isn't always gentle. Love can be rough and tough. Love can fail. But the thing about love is that no matter how many times you go through the rough, tough, times of failure, it's that drive that says "get back up, this person is worth something to you."

I even think that love can be full of hate at times. Hate and love (while yin and yang in nature) are more closely related than they are different in that they inspire similar types of feelings, but are expressed in much different ways.

I think it would behoove a lot of people to actually get a more realistic view of love. And I also think that love requires a certain level of self respect. I've seen too many people become complete doormats in the name of "love" and it's really sad to see. Thing is, what most people don't realize is that if you can't love yourself first and foremost, then how the hell do you expect to love other people?

If you aren't filled to the brim to overflowing, then you're doing the people you love a grave disservice because by loving others and not yourself, you are depleting yourself and, in turn, have less to offer than if you were filled to the brim and overflowing.

[brendannz]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I define absolute perfect and pure love (all love: romantic, familial, friendship, and even compassion towards strangers) as complete and utter total selflessness*.

Do you think that this definition works for you?

I think it's more about having a self to give, rather than being completely selfless..

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by James81

No, that definition of love does not work at all for me.

You're defining love as "perfect" and "pure" and "total selflessness." These things, at least in this life as people, are impossibilities.

You know it's interesting that you said this as I almost posted this in the OP:

Naturally we are imperfect so we are incapable of being 100% selfless, so this means that we aren't capable of knowing pure love, but there's nothing wrong with trying and we are usually quite content with achieving the level of love that we do find. We at least understand ideal perfect love, and us never being able to achieve it makes sure that we always have something to strive for. It's the journey, not the destination, right? So as long as you understand and accept that you'll never reach the destination, you should still enjoy the journey and you are sure to travel much further than if your destination was closer.

I didn't want to confuse the discussion and get us off into all sorts of tangents though.

The interesting thing I notice is that a LOT of people define love the way you do, though, and then they sit around moaning and complaining about how they can't find love and that love is impossible to find.

You are confusing one group of people with another. How do you know that they define love the way I did? It's not something anyone teaches because I just came up with it. Did you poll them? No, all you know is that they feel like they can't find love and you IMAGINE that someone that believes in pure love will be like this so you ASSUME and label those people as believing in my definition of love.

To me, love is gritty. It's a "get down in the dirt" and live kind of thing. Love isn't always kind. Love isn't always gentle. Love can be rough and tough. Love can fail.

Then it's not love.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

Christians have been knowingly succeeding in this definition of love for almost 2000 years, and humanity loved this way 4000 years earlier too. If you don't love this way, then you don't love. This is why your brand of love fails. It's not real love.

I've seen too many people become complete doormats in the name of "love" and it's really sad to see.

Have you? Really? You have? I don't believe you. Friends? Relatives? Count the doormats for me. Give me an example. I'll bet you don't know the situations completely. I'll bet they are doormats not because they believe they should be selfless, but because someone beat down their self-respect... FIRST.

Thing is, what most people don't realize

Right, and these people haven't ever heard this mantra before. Shoot! It's always the first thing you new agers say about love!

is that if you can't love yourself first and foremost, then how the hell do you expect to love other people?

Sure, if you've been raised in this new me me me selfish world, yeah, you might feel empty when you give of yourself. But it is possible to get in touch with the old you you you world and be happy being a "doormat," although I think saying that someone is a doormat is being far too simplistic. It requires that someone FIRST be emotionally damaged enough to seek approval. A doormat doesn't give of themselves. Their selves are TAKEN.

[James81]

You know, SmartAlex, the interesting thing was that I almost posted that passage from I Corinthians 13 myself this morning as an example of what I meant by "gritty love". Interesting how it works in both of our views on love.

I'll reply to the rest of your post in a bit.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Do you think that this definition works for you?

What is the use of this definition? Do you need to define love, to know what it is?

[Strangemagik]

Definitely not a one shot answer for all. No way! Not to say its not or shouldn't be a part of it.

I don't think it can have a single definition. As it is different for all people.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

A complete definition of love cannot disregard one's self. People can be totally selfless, but then they burn out. It's like trying to go without sleep. Whatever reasons you have to stay awake and keep working, if you never stop and rest you will either collapse or you will die.

Though God is said to be love, is it ever said his love does not include himself? And he still desires to be loved. There is something we can give him. No matter what is preached using scripture, if God did not count human love as a gift why would he desire it?

"I will give you everything that I can, but I love myself too. Please treat me with the same kindness I give to you. I deserve that, and I need that. I do not demand this; it is simply my nature, and I know that if I disacknowledge my needs neither of us will be served by my efforts." If there is to be an ideal, I think that is what it should be. I know it speaks nothing of sacrifice, and I'm not saying there's no place for it for those who walk a selfless path, but I think too many are too eager to throw themselves over a cliff for the sake of others when it's neither helpful nor necessary. There can be no ideal love that isn't tempered with patience, wisdom, and reason.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

Though God is said to be love, is it ever said his love does not include himself?

Did He ever say that it does include His love for Himself? It didn't say that that it doesn't include love of the devil so are we then supposed to love satan too?

[James81]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Naturally we are imperfect so we are incapable of being 100% selfless, so this means that we aren't capable of knowing pure love, but there's nothing wrong with trying and we are usually quite content with achieving the level of love that we do find. We at least understand ideal perfect love, and us never being able to achieve it makes sure that we always have something to strive for. It's the journey, not the destination, right? So as long as you understand and accept that you'll never reach the destination, you should still enjoy the journey and you are sure to travel much further than if your destination was closer.

Striving for perfection is pretty damaging to self esteem. Striving for a goal you can never reach is always garaunteed to make you fail.

Why do people want to strive for perfection? Why can't people just be more direct about what they want? Instead of striving for perfection...pure and pristine, what would the harm be in striving to "love as fully as I can"?

One can still enjoy that journey of striving to love as fully as they can just as much (or more than) they enjoy the journey of striving for perfection.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

You are confusing one group of people with another. How do you know that they define love the way I did? It's not something anyone teaches because I just came up with it. Did you poll them? No, all you know is that they feel like they can't find love and you IMAGINE that someone that believes in pure love will be like this so you ASSUME and label those people as believing in my definition of love.
Then it's not love. Christians have been knowingly succeeding in this definition of love for almost 2000 years, and humanity loved this way 4000 years earlier too. If you don't love this way, then you don't love. This is why your brand of love fails. It's not real love.

You didn't just come up with it. Search the first couple of pages and you'll see that there are others with almost the same exact definition on this forum alone. In fact, I grew up in church and this was the brand of love that was taught all the time.

And who said my brand of love fails?

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Have you? Really? You have? I don't believe you. Friends? Relatives? Count the doormats for me. Give me an example. I'll bet you don't know the situations completely. I'll bet they are doormats not because they believe they should be selfless, but because someone beat down their self-respect... FIRST.Right, and these people haven't ever heard this mantra before. Shoot! It's always the first thing you new agers say about love! Sure, if you've been raised in this new me me me selfish world, yeah, you might feel empty when you give of yourself. But it is possible to get in touch with the old you you you world and be happy being a "doormat," although I think saying that someone is a doormat is being far too simplistic. It requires that someone FIRST be emotionally damaged enough to seek approval. A doormat doesn't give of themselves. Their selves are TAKEN.

I offer myself as an example. I don't think I could know anybody's situation as completely as my own. And during the time in my life when I strove for "selfless love," I was a miserable person with no self esteem, no self respect, etc. I don't think you truly understand what it means to be "selfless." You should probably look it up. In fact, I'll do it for you:

Main Entry: self·less
Pronunciation: \ˈsel-fləs\
Function: adjective
Date: 1821
: having no concern for self : unselfish

— self·less·ly adverb

— self·less·ness noun

Having NO (that means absolutely ZERO) concern for yourself. The minute you say "you can love selflessly and not be a doormat" you immediately contradict yourself, because you can't. Selfless love will love no matter what happens to you.

However, I am aware that the problem here is probably just a problem of semantics. People come up with catchy phrases without really thinking about what they mean. This is one of them. My thoughts? That we probably agree on what true love is, we just have different ways of describing it.

And LOL @ the new agers comment. I'll bet I was raised in a stricter, more down-to-earth church than you were. lol Recovering Holiness Pentecostal here. *raises hands* You know, the ones that wear dresses, don't believe in TV, the whole nine.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Did He ever say that it does include His love for Himself? It didn't say that that it doesn't include love of the devil so are we then supposed to love satan too?

If God loves all of creation and the ideal is to emulate God, yes. Speaking biblically, one should not love the things of satan, but the being himself is deserving of pity. What other feeling could be held toward a creature consumed by its own desire for destruction? Sure the biblical tempter is clever and deceitful, but it's the parts of ourselves which mirror him that he exploits to his ends. If we hate we are asking to be manipulated by his hatred. "Vengeance is the Lord's."

The bible speaks of being humble and generous. It never speaks of utter self-destruction except in the cases where sacrifice is necessary to save another. If the ideal is love for the rest of creation, or at least for all other beings sharing our capabilities, then we must be included in that.

And again I point to the fact that God desires love and adoration from what he has created. If he seeks nothing for himself (and thus does not love himself to a degree), it doesn't make sense that there would be a mandate to worship him. The alternative view is that the biblical god feels incomplete and thus he seeks completeness through his creation. If so, he perfectly mirrors the behavior of a co-dependent personality (at least in the old testament).

[spirit4711]

Why do I get the feeling SmartAlx is out here to convert us to christians? No problem for me, but the tactic is a bit, well, naive...

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I define absolute perfect and pure love (all love: romantic, familial, friendship, and even compassion towards strangers) as complete and utter total selflessness*.

Do you think that this definition works for you?

What's the difference between "love" and "selflessness" in this definition? Why do you bother saying you love, when you could just say you're selfless?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

Speaking biblically, one should not love the things of satan, but the being himself is deserving of pity. What other feeling could be held toward a creature consumed by its own desire for destruction?

Matthew 5:44.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Did He ever say that it does include His love for Himself?

Yes. What is it with you people? These are famous verses. Even non-Christians know them.

Matthew 22:37

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Yes. What is it with you people? These are famous verses. Even non-Christians know them.

Matthew 22:37

That's not love for Himself. It's love for Him, minus the self.

By the way, that is my favorite verse in the Bible, so you know I am aware of it.

[brendannz]

I think defining selflessness is just as hard to define as love.. IMO

[ar81]

Love is a decision, not an emotion.
Emotions could make you to destroy yourself or kill the person you supposedly love.
When you love, you want other people to be fine every day and you feel good about it. If you feel bad, that's not love, probably emotional attachment, codependency.

[AtomicAnt]

Originally Posted by ar81

Love is a decision, not an emotion.
Emotions could make you to destroy yourself or kill the person you supposedly love.
When you love, you want other people to be fine every day and you feel good about it. If you feel bad, that's not love, probably emotional attachment, codependency.

Holy toledo, AR81. I thought you were kidding when I saw this.

I'd say you almost have successfully defined the opposite of love. Love is not a construction project. It IS feeling. It IS emotion.

Even my mellow and sweet grandmother does not make me feel good "every day," so that is not love? There were times that even she made me feel bad. I choose her because she is the only person in my life among countless loving people who almost fits your definition, but fails, too.

I could go on and on about your definition of love. Nobody on earth ever has been happy all the time in the best love situations - never! I guess all of the "perfect lovers" really were just emotional attachment or codependency, by your definition.

I'm not trying to pick on you, AR81, but if you really feel that way, you are throwing away love yourself. It concerns me when I think someone could see love as a "deal." I hope you let more love into your life. Blessings to you!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by brendannz

I think defining selflessness is just as hard to define as love.. IMO

Eh, it's not that hard. Define the self (yeah, there's the rub, eh?), then negate it. Is love the absence of existence?

Originally Posted by AtomicAnt

I'd say you almost have successfully defined the opposite of love. Love is not a construction project. It IS feeling. It IS emotion.

I disagree. Love is not an emotion whatsoever. It's far deeper and wider-ranging. It takes effort, commitment, and thoughtfulness to enact it.

I think one of the major mistakes in understanding love has been tightly coupling the word with happiness. But as you have pointed out, happiness is not in fact dependent on love; nor is love dependent on happiness. They're two completely different concepts that happen to coincide a lot.

We've been slinging around Bible references a good deal in this thread, so I may as well link this analysis of 1 Corinthians 13.

Unconditional Love Revisited

[ar81]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I define absolute perfect and pure love (all love: romantic, familial, friendship, and even compassion towards strangers) as complete and utter total selflessness*.

Do you think that this definition works for you?

Nope. If you give, you will be given.

If I give good, good will return to me. Who gets the benefit? Me, of course.
So if I am selfish enough I would try to give good things if I plan to be fine and get good things in return.
So I became a selfish jerk...

[brendannz]

I think if you replaced the term selfless-ness with the egoless-ness it would resonate with me more. I think selfishness can sometimes be a good platform for great generosity and selfless-ness can be a platform for selfish manipulation..

(sorry posted that last one in the wrong place, it was just because I was already responding to the other guy in the thread)

I was just meaning that sometimes taking good care of yourself, is a good platform for taking care of others..

While selfless-ness, ie. always flattering other people, can be solely for the intention of winning their approval and getting something in return. I'd seen a guy get rejected by a girl on a date, and then he bought her flowers, afterwards, when she'd been clear she didn't want his selfless-ness..

It's not that she needed to be self-less, it's just that humans don't have time to love everybody who comes into their lives selflessly, so sometimes we have to decide ourselves how we manage our time, and not other people.

I wouldn't say I disagree with you entirely, I just think it's a matter of semantics.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by brendannz

I was just meaning that sometimes taking good care of yourself, is a good platform for taking care of others..

You have to clean your own house before you can clean someone else's, is that it? I have talked about this before. I completely reject that idea. In the wake of hurricane Ike we Houstonians worked TOGETHER to clean up EACH OTHER'S houses. Much more efficient than cleaning up our own house before we decided to help our neighbor. We humans are meant to be cooperative. It's the whole reason for society. This new take care of yourself first attitude is going to be the ruin of society.

While selfless-ness, ie. always flattering other people, can be solely for the intention of winning their approval and getting something in return.

But that's not selfless. And it's certainly not pure. It's self-full. The act of kindness ends up being about you rather than being about the other person. An act of selflessness is by definition done with absolutely no concern for your self. It contains "less self" than a selfish (of the self) act.

I'd seen a guy get rejected by a girl on a date, and then he bought her flowers, afterwards, when she'd been clear she didn't want his selfless-ness..

It wasn't his selflessness that she didn't want. It was HIM that she didn't want. You very well know that him giving her flowers was about him getting what he wanted: her. She felt that in his gift so she didn't reject his selflessness, she rejected his selfISHness.

I wouldn't say I disagree with you entirely, I just think it's a matter of semantics.

That is very possible.

[Bliss Sage]

I, for one, agree with and understand your point, SmartAlx, while some of the replies have been disconcerting, albeit not surprising. However, I want to stress the importance of wisdom in the application of love. Wisdom is what serves as the guide for love's application, and thus prevents insanities such as insisting you love someone while you indulge in sex with someone else. Wisdom prevents all the insanities that we look at on earth and cause us to say "this person cannot possibly love me, absolutely does not love me." Love without wisdom is foolishness and can be very destructive, and it leads to the situations used to argue against the notion of love as selflessness. Even the word "wisdom," however, let alone the essence of wisdom, is nearly extinct in human society. But Wisdom is the skeletal frame that is necessary to uphold love.

Because humans cannot fathom something so good can exist does not mean it is not. Just because humans mutate it and filter it through innumerable filters of psychological dysfunction does not mean love in its pure form starts out as this painful, self-consuming black thing that we live on earth and call love.

Concerning the semantics of the word "selflessness," the discrepancy is not in the semantics, but in lack of knowledge of the definition of the word itself. Brendannz: Look up the word in a dictionary. You will not find the word "manipulation" anywhere in its definition, which is what you are talking about in the examples you provided.

[brendannz]

You have to clean your own house before you can clean someone else's, is that it?

I was meaning you have to love yourself before others, but even that, I'm not 100% sure about, because I don't know if you ever reach a plateau where you say "I am perfect, now I can love others", we're always a work in progress, and always imperfect, so others are our greatest resource..

But I do think if you don't take good care of yourself, then you are nice to everyone and you give everyone your time, then you can end up with some people who are really just using you. (from my own experience) For example I may work full time voluntarily, and then I'm lovingly giving my time to a company, but I don't receive any money for it, so I'm not able to eat.. I think that's why we give and take, and not just give. But I agree with you, that our happiness and value comes from what we give, moreso than what we take..

She felt that in his gift so she didn't reject his selflessness, she rejected his selfISHness.

You're right, but I think he meant to show her he was a self-less nice guy..

That is very possible.

What I'm saying is you shouldn't detach yourself from the subject that you love, I think it's a 2 way street, that's why the bible says "love thy neighbour as thyself." Rather than just love thy neighbour. Then we should stop saying "I love you" and start saying "Love you" if love is complete selfless-ness.

That's why I didn't like the term selfless-ness, but preferred the term ego-less ness. If I lose my self, then I can't be serious, ever. But if I'm ego-less then I stop worrying too much about what other people are thinking of me, and become more willing to love others.. So for me losing my ego, is more effective than losing my self, from my perspective..

But after writing this post, I think I understand more of where you're coming from and think I agree with you more than I thought I did..

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by brendannz

I was meaning you have to love yourself before others, but even that, I'm not 100% sure about, because I don't know if you ever reach a plateau where you say "I am perfect, now I can love others", we're always a work in progress, and always imperfect, so others are our greatest resource..

The way you do it is you love yourself a little, and use the experience and knowledge that comes from that to love others. And then, based on the new experience and knowledge in loving others, see more of yourself and love yourself better. And so on and so on.

So yes, you've pretty much got it. The key is merely in making sure that they keep feeding into one another, so that neither slacks off. You can compare it to yang/yin: loving others is yin energy, while loving yourself is yang energy. They contribute to each other, eternally cycling, irreducible, in constant balance despite the constant movement.