Ciao!

i know what you feel by the whole unconditional love thing. although with my supernatural maturnal instinct i FEEL that you had a hidden meaning behind that post.
i like you miguel. i don't know what's going on with everything... but i like you ok?
if you need anything just come on over... i'm not THAT far away from you!
back to the "love" thing though, i have had a constant battle with my father. i am so happy that you have wonderful parents that taught you such strong morals. and that you listen to your heart to know they are true.
now. i didn't think that i was able to just 'love' something because it was written that i had to do so... until sebastian. it's very hard for me to break down my wall and let people in. i've grown hard over the years i think. i don't trust people the way i should. but that's a differant story...
now sebastian. i look at him and i think 'what did i ever do that was SO wonderful that he would choose me to be his mother???' but here he is. and i would love him no matter what. even when he is grumpy and screaming! and i have a migrain, i still love him.
i have patience which children far more than with adults. at least with a child you can come to grips that they may just not know any better...
sorry for such a long rambling post.
do with it what you must...
but you should come over sometime... ok?

Oh, children (especially small children) are clearly in a different category. I love children for the promise of what they might become.

Yeah, I might come over one of these days. Seeing a bright, happy Sebastian would totally cheer me up, I'm sure. You're a great mom, BTW. But I'm sure you knew that. You give Sebastian the freedom to discover himself and you also teach him to read, to be kind, to count. Stuff like that. He's gonna be a great person some day and all thanks to you.

I believe that true love is unconditional. There are perceived (and often false and immature) versions of love that come/go/fade/swell but I think that if love is true then it, by definition, is unconditional.

Love is not simply a contract or commitment. It is not simply accepting a person for their virtues and expecting them to only offer those up. When you love a person, you ought to love the whole person. It is accepting and remaining committed to a person in spite of their detriments. It is not a sunny day event.
Affection and attraction are not required elements; a person can love another person but not like them. I am not talking about something magical, but rather remaining committed to another person.

Now it does go both ways. A person is expected to develop their character in a positive and mature way and work to create of themselves a person who augments another, not brings them down. However, if we are to look at love as contract, part of the terms of agreement are that the lovers will help each other develop their characters (their own and each other’s) and help each other become better people.

Since I like analogies:
Think of love as a rope not a chain. Assume that each strand is not perfect, that there are inherent faults. The each strand in the rope makes up the faults in the other. If it were a chain each link acts independently. The strongest link can be placed next to the weakest one, but the strong one does not help the weak one at all and the whole chain can fail.

Oh, here's an excerpt I posted in my weblog back in November related to this topic. It came from a book by Ayn Rand titled "The Virtue of Selfishness" (which, paradoxically, is the highest virtue).

I don't quite agree with you on your "contract" idea of love.
It does not have to be both ways. You can truly love sopmeone who just does not give back to you anything at all. You can pour every part of yourself into loving that person, and have it all just wash away, but you still do love that person.
Living this way will kill you. It will burn you out and use up your love. At some point you have to also love yourself enough to say "I can't pour any more love that way." But i think that person still occupies a "love slot" in your mind/heart. It just isn't active.
What you are saying seems familiar to me, i think we just might have diferent ways of saying it.

I think you still love your sister and just want her to return to being a person who will not just let that love spill off into a gutter somewhere.
Question, if you thought that one more show of love could put your sister back on the path to where she needs to be, wouldn't you do it? If you had the chance, wouldn't you say to her (or let her know) "I love you and I can't stand to see what you are doing to yourself?"
I mean, isn't the reason you are turning away because watching her is causing too much pain?
Oh, by the way, I am actually talking about myself here...and a friend of mine who I lost in what I suspect is a similar way.
I woudl do anything for him, but he has shown that ther is nothing I CAN do. So, I have to save myself

What you're talking about, Josh, isn't "Love", but infatuation, a crush, or something else. Perhaps even a psychological disorder?

As for doing all you can to save a friend. There's a very real limit to that for me. I no longer consider that girl my sister, I literally have no loyalty towards her or interest in her life. It's as if my sister died in a car crash, I still "love" her but she's gone. This other person is just a stranger; I've no reason to care for her or consider her my "sister".

I think we're essentially saying the same thing, but I'm being more coldly rational about it. I refuse to love someone who doesn't treat me right. Period. A friend who turns into a shit asshole is, after a time, no longer my friend.

You may not buy it, but here is (in my opinion) one of the better (perhaps romantic) idea of what love is.
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 13:4-8a

Yes, I actually agree w/ that. Love is all those things. But notice that the verse doesn't claim that love is a one-way street. If you are in a relationship w/ a person that doesn't reciprocate that same way, then that is not a relationship of Love. Rather it's co-dependence or some other abusive, one-sided relationship. But certainly not Love.

Think of it this way. Even the epitome of "unconditional love", God's love, is not really unconditional. There's a Hell. Yes, God will forgive if we sincerely repent. But if we do not. If we do not reciprocate that love -- then we go to Hell and are cast forever out of any relationship w/ God, for all eternity.

It's the same principle. Love is a two-way street. Anything other than that, isn't love. Unrequited love isn't "Love" (it might even just be psycho stalking). Love exists in the mutual relationship between two persons, it's not the feeling of one person towards another (that might be admiration).

Think of this example. I may be a friend to Steven Spielberg. Say nice things about him, support his films, stuff like that. But. We're not friends. To think so would make me delusional! I might admire Spielberg, or have a crush on him, or call it anything you like. But we're not friends. We're only friends if both of us A) knew each other and B) acted like friends towards each other.

Since I've been basing much of my argument on Ayn Rand, I thought I'd toss in something from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC):

1765: There are many passions. The most fundamental passion is love, aroused by the attraction of the good. Love causes a desire for the absent good and the hope of obtaining it; this movement finds completion in the pleasure and joy of the good possessed. The apprehension of evil causes hatred, aversion, and fear of the impending evil; this movement ends in sadness at some present evil, or in the anger that resists it.

1766: "To love is to will the good of another." All other affections have their source in this first movement of the human heart toward the good. Only the good can be loved. Passions "are evil if love is evil and good if it is good."

Notice two key components here. A) Love is aimed at some "good" in a not so disimilar way as Rand's concept of a market exchange. B) Love only aims at positive goods (virtues), not negative ones (faults).

Here's a longer definition of Love (as theological virtue).

I agree with what Caleb has to say. I think that we CAN love unconditionally - parental love is very much that. We love the whole person - not just their virtues. We recognize their faults and love them in spite of those. That is what causes human pain and the the suffering of love. I believe unconditional love is very hard to express - God is the only one who truly loves us in spite of all we are. He doesn't wait for us to love Him first - He loved us first.
Yes, love is a choice - I can choose to love you unconditionally and I believe that parental love is that many times.
Your friends have good things to say. Think about them.
I'm really sorry that you feel as you do about your sister. Love her even in the pain.

Yes, I've talked quite a bit w/ Caleb especially. And I think we agree (you, too) but perhaps use a different vocabulary. Your statement is that you love a person despite their faults. That's my point. You do NOT love someone FOR their faults -- and only a fool expects to be loved FOR them (rather than DESPITE them).

And you agree that love is a choice. But I can't chose to give up my free will. That's a choice that can never be made. I can choose to elect a leader to govern over me. But individuals ALWAYS retain the right to take back that choice and replace their leaders. That's just a basic principle of liberal political thought -- you always have the right to dissolve your social bonds and construct others. This principle also applies to inter-personal relationships. There's no reason to believe it shouldn't.

Please don't love me "unconditionally". I see that as an insult to me. If you love me no matter what I do. If you'd love me even if I spit on your face and don't love you back. If you love me that way. Then what does it say about me? What does it say about the reasons you love me? If you love me in such a haphazard, arbitrary way, then it makes no difference whether you love me or some other stranger. Then you don't love ME at all -- you just love the abstract concept son, whether he be a thief, a murderer, or anything more vile.

When I say I love my parents, I mean that I love my parents. Not because I'm compelled to. Obedience bound by social compulsion is NOT obedience. Such obedience is also NOT a virtue. It's just compulsion. I love my parents, my family (as so defined), and my friends by my free, volitional will. By choice. No compulsion.