essay on love and life

Essay on Love for Students and Children

500+ words essay on love.

Love is the most significant thing in human’s life. Each science and every single literature masterwork will tell you about it. Humans are also social animals. We lived for centuries with this way of life, we were depended on one another to tell us how our clothes fit us, how our body is whether healthy or emaciated. All these we get the honest opinions of those who love us, those who care for us and makes our happiness paramount.

What is Love?

Love is a set of emotions, behaviors, and beliefs with strong feelings of affection. So, for example, a person might say he or she loves his or her dog, loves freedom, or loves God. The concept of love may become an unimaginable thing and also it may happen to each person in a particular way.

Love has a variety of feelings, emotions, and attitude. For someone love is more than just being interested physically in another one, rather it is an emotional attachment. We can say love is more of a feeling that a person feels for another person. Therefore, the basic meaning of love is to feel more than liking towards someone.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Need of Love

We know that the desire to love and care for others is a hard-wired and deep-hearted because the fulfillment of this wish increases the happiness level. Expressing love for others benefits not just the recipient of affection, but also the person who delivers it. The need to be loved can be considered as one of our most basic and fundamental needs.

One of the forms that this need can take is contact comfort. It is the desire to be held and touched. So there are many experiments showing that babies who are not having contact comfort, especially during the first six months, grow up to be psychologically damaged.

Significance of Love

Love is as critical for the mind and body of a human being as oxygen. Therefore, the more connected you are, the healthier you will be physically as well as emotionally. It is also true that the less love you have, the level of depression will be more in your life. So, we can say that love is probably the best antidepressant.

It is also a fact that the most depressed people don’t love themselves and they do not feel loved by others. They also become self-focused and hence making themselves less attractive to others.

Society and Love

It is a scientific fact that society functions better when there is a certain sense of community. Compassion and love are the glue for society. Hence without it, there is no feeling of togetherness for further evolution and progress. Love , compassion, trust and caring we can say that these are the building blocks of relationships and society.

Relationship and Love

A relationship is comprised of many things such as friendship , sexual attraction , intellectual compatibility, and finally love. Love is the binding element that keeps a relationship strong and solid. But how do you know if you are in love in true sense? Here are some symptoms that the emotion you are feeling is healthy, life-enhancing love.

Love is the Greatest Wealth in Life

Love is the greatest wealth in life because we buy things we love for our happiness. For example, we build our dream house and purchase a favorite car to attract love. Being loved in a remote environment is a better experience than been hated even in the most advanced environment.

Love or Money

Love should be given more importance than money as love is always everlasting. Money is important to live, but having a true companion you can always trust should come before that. If you love each other, you will both work hard to help each other live an amazing life together.

Love has been a vital reason we do most things in our life. Before we could know ourselves, we got showered by it from our close relatives like mothers , fathers , siblings, etc. Thus love is a unique gift for shaping us and our life. Therefore, we can say that love is a basic need of life. It plays a vital role in our life, society, and relation. It gives us energy and motivation in a difficult time. Finally, we can say that it is greater than any other thing in life.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Before You Write a Love Essay, Read This to Get Examples

The day will come when you can’t escape the fate of all students: You will have to write a what is love essay.

No worries:

Here you’ll find tons of love essay topics and examples. No time to read everything? Scroll down to get a free PDF with original samples.

Definition: Essay on Love

First, let’s define what is love essay?

The most common topics are:

• Definition of love
• What is love?
• Meaning of love

Why limit yourself to these hackneyed, general themes? Below, I’ll show how to make your paper on love original yet relevant to the prompt you get from teachers.

Love Essay Topics: 20 Ideas to Choose for Your Paper

Your essay on love and relationship doesn’t have to be super official and unemotional. It’s ok to share reflections and personal opinions when writing about romance.

Often, students get a general task to write an essay on love. It means they can choose a theme and a title for their paper. If that’s your case,  feel free to try any of these love essay topics:

• Exploring the impact of love on individuals and relationships.
• Love in the digital age: Navigating romance in a tech world.
• Is there any essence and significance in unconditional love?
• Love as a universal language: Connecting hearts across cultures.
• Biochemistry of love: Exploring the process.
• Love vs. passion vs. obsession.
• How love helps cope with heartbreak and grief.
• The art of loving. How we breed intimacy and trust.
• The science behind attraction and attachment.
• How love and relationships shape our identity and help with self-discovery.
• Love and vulnerability: How to embrace emotional openness.
• Romance is more complex than most think: Passion, intimacy, and commitment explained.
• Love as empathy: Building sympathetic connections in a cruel world.
• Evolution of love. How people described it throughout history.
• The role of love in mental and emotional well-being.
• Love as a tool to look and find purpose in life.
• Welcoming diversity in relations through love and acceptance.
• Love vs. friendship: The intersection of platonic and romantic bonds.
• The choices we make and challenges we overcome for those we love.
• Love and forgiveness: How its power heals wounds and strengthens bonds.

Love Essay Examples: Choose Your Sample for Inspiration

Essays about love are usually standard, 5-paragraph papers students write in college:

• One paragraph is for an introduction, with a hook and a thesis statement
• Three are for a body, with arguments or descriptions
• One last passage is for a conclusion, with a thesis restatement and final thoughts

Below are the ready-made samples to consider. They’ll help you see what an essay about love with an introduction, body, and conclusion looks like.

What is love essay: 250 words

Lao Tzu once said, “Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength while loving someone deeply gives you courage.” Indeed, love can transform individuals, relationships, and our world.

A word of immense depth and countless interpretations, love has always fascinated philosophers, poets, and ordinary individuals. This  emotion breaks boundaries and has a super power to change lives. But what is love, actually?

It’s a force we feel in countless ways. It is the warm embrace of a parent, filled with care and unwavering support. It is the gentle touch of a lover, sparking a flame that ignites passion and desire. Love is the kind words of a friend, offering solace and understanding in times of need. It is the selfless acts of compassion and empathy that bind humanity together.

Love is not confined to romantic relationships alone. It is found in the family bonds, the connections we forge with friends, and even the compassion we extend to strangers. Love is a thread that weaves through the fabric of our lives, enriching and nourishing our souls.

However, love is not without its complexities. It can be both euphoric and agonizing, uplifting and devastating. Love requires vulnerability, trust, and the willingness to embrace joy and pain. It is a delicate balance between passion and compassion, independence and interdependence.

Finally, the essence of love may be elusive to define with mere words. It is an experience that surpasses language and logic, encompassing a spectrum of emotions and actions. Love is a profound connection that unites us all, reminding us of our shared humanity and the capacity for boundless compassion.

What is love essay: 500 words

A 500-word essay on why I love you

Trying to encapsulate why I love you in a mere 500 words is impossible. My love for you goes beyond the confines of language, transcending words and dwelling in the realm of emotions, connections, and shared experiences. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor to express the depth and breadth of my affection for you.

First and foremost, I love you for who you are. You possess a unique blend of qualities and characteristics that captivate my heart and mind. Your kindness and compassion touch the lives of those around you, and I am grateful to be the recipient of your unwavering care and understanding. Your intelligence and wit constantly challenge me to grow and learn, stimulating my mind and enriching our conversations. You have a beautiful spirit that radiates warmth and joy, and I am drawn to your vibrant energy.

I love the way you make me feel. When I am with you, I feel a sense of comfort and security that allows me to be my true self. Your presence envelops me in a cocoon of love and acceptance, where I can express my thoughts, fears, and dreams without fear of judgment. Your support and encouragement inspire me to pursue my passions and overcome obstacles. With you by my side, I feel empowered to face the world, knowing I have a partner who believes in me.

I love the memories we have created together. From the laughter-filled moments of shared adventures to the quiet and intimate conversations, every memory is etched in my heart. Whether exploring new places, indulging in our favorite activities, or simply enjoying each other’s company in comfortable silence, each experience reinforces our bond. Our shared memories serve as a foundation for our relationship, a testament to the depth of our connection and the love that binds us.

I love your quirks and imperfections. Your true essence shines through these unique aspects! Your little traits make me smile and remind me of the beautiful individual you are. I love how you wrinkle your nose when you laugh, become lost in thought when reading a book, and even sing off-key in the shower. These imperfections make you human, relatable, and utterly lovable.

I love the future we envision together. We support each other’s goals, cheering one another on as we navigate the path toward our dreams. The thought of building a life together, creating a home filled with love and shared experiences, fills my heart with anticipation and excitement. The future we imagine is one that I am eager to explore with you by my side.

In conclusion, the reasons why I love you are as vast and varied as the universe itself. It is a love that defies logic and surpasses the limitations of language. From the depths of my being, I love you for the person you are, the way you make me feel, the memories we cherish, your quirks and imperfections, and the future we envision together. My love for you is boundless, unconditional, and everlasting.

A 5-paragraph essay about love

I’ve gathered all the samples (and a few bonus ones) in one PDF. It’s free to download. So, you can keep it at hand when the time comes to write a love essay.

Ready to Write Your Essay About Love?

Now that you know the definition of a love essay and have many topic ideas, it’s time to write your A-worthy paper! Here go the steps:

• Check all the examples of what is love essay from this post.
• Choose the topic and angle that fits your prompt best.
• Write your original and inspiring story.

Any questions left? Our writers are all ears. Please don’t hesitate to ask!

• Essay samples
• Essay writing
• Writing tips

Recent Posts

• Writing the “Why Should Abortion Be Made Legal” Essay: Sample and Tips
• 3 Examples of Enduring Issue Essays to Write Yours Like a Pro
• Writing Essay on Friendship: 3 Samples to Get Inspired
• How to Structure a Leadership Essay (Samples to Consider)
• What Is Nursing Essay, and How to Write It Like a Pro

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Love:- Sample Essays for Students in 100, 200 and 300 words

• Updated on  
• Feb 2, 2024

Can a person live without love? Is it the essence of survival? Why do we fall for someone? What is the meaning of love?  Love is one of the most important feelings in human life. Humans are social animals and we have lived for centuries with this way of life where we take confidence in asking another person how our clothes fit us, or how we look. Those who love us, give us the most honest opinions and make our happiness paramount which means love is found in joy, fulfilment and a sense of purpose.

Also Read: 99+ Psychology Facts About Human Behaviour You Would Find Interesting

Table of Contents

• 1 Essay on Love in 100 words
• 2 Essay on Love in 200 words
• 3 Essay on Love in 300 words

Essay on Love in 100 words

Love is the very essence of the human life. Without love, the world would become cold and bleak. God has gifted us different kinds of emotions and love is one the most beautiful of them all. It is an emotion that each of us has experienced at some point in our lives. When someone shows us their love, it makes us feel complete and special. It is like a divine energy that nourishes us throughout our lives. Love has a lot of positive aspects. It provides a foundation on which an individual builds, relishes, and nurtures. Furthermore, this intense feeling shows us how to deepen our emotions. We can say that giving love is a way of worshipping God.

Also Read:- Heart-Touching Mother’s Day 2023 Quotes

Essay on Love in 200 words

Love is a feeling of strong affection and bonding towards an individual. The very concept of love might become an unimaginable thing and also it may happen to each person in a particular way. 

Love comprises feelings, attitudes, and emotions. The feeling is more than just a physical attraction, emotional connection, and a soulful bond. The very basic meaning of love is to feel more than just liking someone. Expressing the same is a wonderful experience. Love is one of the most basic human needs. Everyone wants to feel loved. It is something that completes an individual and brings peace to them.

Love is important for the mind as well as for the body. The more connected you are, the healthier you will be especially emotionally. It is true that love even eradicates depression. It is that much powerful. It is one of the best antidepressants. Life without love would be unimaginable.

Love is something that ends conflicts, brings light into one’s life, gives hope, and makes life worth living. It brings warmth that is needed to nurture life and an individual too. Without love, the world would become a cold and bleak place for everyone. Love builds and heals.

Also Read:-   Speech on Love is More Powerful Than Hate

Also Read: How to Prepare for UPSC in 6 Months?

Essay on Love in 300 words

Love consists of a set of emotions, behaviors, and beliefs with strong feelings of affection. A person might say that they love their dog. The very concept of love is different for each individual as it may happen to each person in a particular way. We can say that it is more than just liking someone, it is an emotional attachment. 

Though love is important in every way still, let us have a look how this intense feeling relates to our bodies as well as to our relations:

1. Hormone of Love

Love helps our body to produce oxytocin, the feel-good hormone and is probably one of the best antidepressants. It makes any individual healthier especially emotionally.

2. Basic Necessity

Love is one of the most basic human needs. Expressing it to others benefits both, the person who delivers it as well as the recipient. One of the ways it can be shown to close ones is as contact comfort. Several experiments show that the babies who were not given contact comfort, especially during the first six months, grow up to be psychologically damaged. 

3. Makes Relations Healthy

In a relationship, Love is the binding element that keeps it strong and makes it grow. The individuals in love, are much more emotionally connected making them connected on a soulful level. The comfort in that is unparalleled. 

Love is the very essence of existence. Life without love is not worthy of being lived. Before we are even aware, love is showered on us each day by our mothers, fathers, siblings, etc. It is a unique gift that helps us shape our lives. Without it, the society would perish. Love motivates us in the darkest times, helps us to overcome negativity and gives us purpose in our lives with new perspectives. It is greater than anything else in life.

Also Read: Speech on Mother Daughter Relationship for School Students

Love is the very essence of the human life. Without love, the world would become cold and bleak. God has gifted us several different kinds of emotions and love is one the most beautiful of them all. It is one such emotion that each of us has experienced at some point in our lives. When someone shows us their love, it makes us feel complete, it makes us feel special. Like a divine energy, love nourishes us throughout our lives. It has a lot of positive aspects such as it provides a foundation on which an individual builds, relishes, nurtures, and heals, it shows us how to deepen our emotions. We can say that giving love is a way of worshipping god.

Love is a feeling of strong affection and bonding towards an individual. The very concept of love might become an unimaginable thing and also it may happen to each person in a particular way.

Love is the very essence of existence. Life without love is not worthy to be lived. Before we are even aware, love is showered on us each day by our mothers, fathers, siblings, etc. It is a unique gift that helps us shape our lives. Without it, the society would perish. Love gives us the motivation we need even in the darkest of times, it helps us overcome negativity and gives us purpose in our life and new perspectives. It is greater than anything else in life.

Related Blogs

This brings us to the end of our blog on Essay on Love. Hope you find this information useful. For more information on such informative topics for your school, visit our essay writing and follow Leverage Edu.

Deepansh Gautam

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Essays About Love: 20 Intriguing Ideas for Students

Love can make a fascinating essay topic, but sometimes finding the perfect topic idea is challenging. Here are 20 of the best essays about love.

Writers have often explored the subject of love and what it means throughout history. In his book Essays in Love , Alain de Botton creates an in-depth essay on what love looks like, exploring a fictional couple’s relationship while highlighting many facts about love. This book shows how much there is to say about love as it beautifully merges non-fiction with fiction work.

The New York Times  published an entire column dedicated to essays on modern love, and many prize-winning reporters often contribute to the collection. With so many published works available, the subject of love has much to be explored.

If you are going to write an essay about love and its effects, you will need a winning topic idea. Here are the top 20 topic ideas for essays about love. These topics will give you plenty to think about and explore as you take a stab at the subject that has stumped philosophers, writers, and poets since the dawn of time.

For help with your essays, check out our round-up of the best essay checkers .

1. Outline the Definition of Love

2. describe your favorite love story, 3. what true love looks like, 4. discuss how human beings are hard-wired for love, 5. explore the different types of love, 6. determine the true meaning of love, 7. discuss the power of love, 8. do soul mates exist, 9. determine if all relationships should experience a break-up, 10. does love at first sight exist, 11. explore love between parents and children, 12. discuss the disadvantages of love, 13. ask if love is blind, 14. discuss the chemical changes that love causes, 15. outline the ethics of love, 16. the inevitability of heartbreak, 17. the role of love in a particular genre of literature, 18. is love freeing or oppressing, 19. does love make people do foolish things, 20. explore the theme of love from your favorite book or movie.

Defining love may not be as easy as you think. While it seems simple, love is an abstract concept with multiple potential meanings. Exploring these meanings and then creating your own definition of love can make an engaging essay topic.

To do this, first, consider the various conventional definitions of love. Then, compare and contrast them until you come up with your own definition of love.

One essay about love you could tackle is describing and analyzing a favorite love story. This story could be from a fiction tale or real life. It could even be your love story.

As you analyze and explain the love story, talk about the highs and lows of love. Showcase the hard and great parts of this love story, then end the essay by talking about what real love looks like (outside the flowers and chocolates).

This essay will explore what true love looks like. With this essay idea, you could contrast true love with the romantic love often shown in movies. This contrast would help the reader see how true love looks in real life.

An essay about what true love looks like could allow you to explore this kind of love in many different facets. It would allow you to discuss whether or not someone is, in fact, in true love. You could demonstrate why saying “I love you” is not enough through the essay.

There seems to be something ingrained in human nature to seek love. This fact could make an interesting essay on love and its meaning, allowing you to explore why this might be and how it plays out in human relationships.

Because humans seem to gravitate toward committed relationships, you could argue that we are hard-wired for love. But, again, this is an essay option that has room for growth as you develop your thoughts.

There are many different types of love. For example, while you can have romantic love between a couple, you may also have family love among family members and love between friends. Each of these types of love has a different expression, which could lend itself well to an interesting essay topic.

Writing an essay that compares and contrasts the different types of love would allow you to delve more deeply into the concept of love and what makes up a loving relationship.

What does love mean? This question is not as easy to answer as you might think. However, this essay topic could give you quite a bit of room to develop your ideas about love.

While exploring this essay topic, you may discover that love means different things to different people. For some, love is about how someone makes another person feel. To others, it is about actions performed. By exploring this in an essay, you can attempt to define love for your readers.

What can love make people do? This question could lend itself well to an essay topic. The power of love is quite intense, and it can make people do things they never thought they could or would do.

With this love essay, you could look at historical examples of love, fiction stories about love relationships, or your own life story and what love had the power to do. Then, at the end of your essay, you can determine how powerful love is.

The idea of a soul mate is someone who you are destined to be with and love above all others. This essay topic would allow you to explore whether or not each individual has a soul mate.

If you determine that they do, you could further discuss how you would identify that soul mate. How can you tell when you have found “the one” right for you? Expanding on this idea could create a very interesting and unique essay.

Break-ups seem inevitable, and strong relationships often come back together afterward. Yet are break-ups truly inevitable? Or are they necessary to create a strong bond? This idea could turn into a fascinating essay topic if you look at both sides of the argument.

On the one hand, you could argue that the break-up experience shows you whether or not your relationship can weather difficult times. On the other hand, you could argue that breaking up damages the trust you’re working to build. Regardless of your conclusion, you can build a solid essay off of this topic idea.

Love, at first sight is a common theme in romance stories, but is it possible? Explore this idea in your essay. You will likely find that love, at first sight, is nothing more than infatuation, not genuine love.

Yet you may discover that sometimes, love, at first sight, does happen. So, determine in your essay how you can differentiate between love and infatuation if it happens to you. Then, conclude with your take on love at first sight and if you think it is possible.

The love between a parent and child is much different than the love between a pair of lovers. This type of love is one-sided, with care and self-sacrifice on the parent’s side. However, the child’s love is often unconditional.

Exploring this dynamic, especially when contrasting parental love with romantic love, provides a compelling essay topic. You would have the opportunity to define this type of love and explore what it looks like in day-to-day life.

Most people want to fall in love and enjoy a loving relationship, but does love have a downside? In an essay, you can explore the disadvantages of love and show how even one of life’s greatest gifts is not without its challenges.

This essay would require you to dig deep and find the potential downsides of love. However, if you give it a little thought, you should be able to discuss several. Finally, end the essay by telling the reader whether or not love is worth it despite the many challenges.

Love is blind is a popular phrase that indicates love allows someone not to see another person’s faults. But is love blind, or is it simply a metaphor that indicates the ability to overlook issues when love is at the helm.

If you think more deeply about this quote, you will probably determine that love is not blind. Rather, love for someone can overshadow their character flaws and shortcomings. When love is strong, these things fall by the wayside. Discuss this in your essay, and draw your own conclusion to decide if love is blind.

When someone falls in love, their body feels specific hormonal and chemical changes. These changes make it easier to want to spend time with the person. Yet they can be fascinating to study, and you could ask whether or not love is just chemical reactions or something more.

Grab a science book or two and see if you can explore these physiological changes from love. From the additional sweating to the flushing of the face, you will find quite a few chemical changes that happen when someone is in love.

Love feels like a positive emotion that does not have many ethical concerns, but this is not true. Several ethical questions come from the world of love. Exploring these would make for an interesting and thoughtful essay.

For example, you could discuss if it is ethically acceptable to love an object or even oneself or love other people. You could discuss if it is appropriate to enter into a physical relationship if there is no love present or if love needs to come first. There are many questions to explore with this love essay.

If you choose to love someone, is heartbreak inevitable? This question could create a lengthy essay. However, some would argue that it is because either your object of affection will eventually leave you through a break-up or death.

Yet do these actions have to cause heartbreak, or are they simply part of the process? Again, this question lends itself well to an essay because it has many aspects and opinions to explore.

Literature is full of stories of love. You could choose a genre, like mythology or science fiction, and explore the role of love in that particular genre. With this essay topic, you may find many instances where love is a vital central theme of the work.

Keep in mind that in some genres, like myths, love becomes a driving force in the plot, while in others, like historical fiction, it may simply be a background part of the story. Therefore, the type of literature you choose for this essay would significantly impact the way your essay develops.

Most people want to fall in love, but is love freeing or oppressing? The answer may depend on who your loved ones are. Love should free individuals to authentically be who they are, not tie them into something they are not.

Yet there is a side of love that can be viewed as oppressive, deepening on your viewpoint. For example, you should stay committed to just that individual when you are in a committed relationship with someone else. Is this freeing or oppressive? Gather opinions through research and compare the answers for a compelling essay.

You can easily find stories of people that did foolish things for love. These stories could translate into interesting and engaging essays. You could conclude the answer to whether or not love makes people do foolish things.

Your answer will depend on your research, but chances are you will find that, yes, love makes people foolish at times. Then you could use your essay to discuss whether or not it is still reasonable to think that falling in love is a good thing, although it makes people act foolishly at times.

Most fiction works have love in them in some way. This may not be romantic love, but you will likely find characters who love something or someone.

Use that fact to create an essay. Pick your favorite story, either through film or written works, and explore what love looks like in that work. Discuss the character development, storyline, and themes and show how love is used to create compelling storylines.

If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

This essay focuses on personal love, or the love of particular persons as such. Part of the philosophical task in understanding personal love is to distinguish the various kinds of personal love. For example, the way in which I love my wife is seemingly very different from the way I love my mother, my child, and my friend. This task has typically proceeded hand-in-hand with philosophical analyses of these kinds of personal love, analyses that in part respond to various puzzles about love. Can love be justified? If so, how? What is the value of personal love? What impact does love have on the autonomy of both the lover and the beloved?

1. Preliminary Distinctions

2. love as union, 3. love as robust concern, 4.1 love as appraisal of value, 4.2 love as bestowal of value, 4.3 an intermediate position, 5.1 love as emotion proper, 5.2 love as emotion complex, 6. the value and justification of love, other internet resources, related entries.

In ordinary conversations, we often say things like the following:

• I love chocolate (or skiing).
• I love doing philosophy (or being a father).
• I love my dog (or cat).
• I love my wife (or mother or child or friend).

However, what is meant by ‘love’ differs from case to case. (1) may be understood as meaning merely that I like this thing or activity very much. In (2) the implication is typically that I find engaging in a certain activity or being a certain kind of person to be a part of my identity and so what makes my life worth living; I might just as well say that I value these. By contrast, (3) and (4) seem to indicate a mode of concern that cannot be neatly assimilated to anything else. Thus, we might understand the sort of love at issue in (4) to be, roughly, a matter of caring about another person as the person she is, for her own sake. (Accordingly, (3) may be understood as a kind of deficient mode of the sort of love we typically reserve for persons.) Philosophical accounts of love have focused primarily on the sort of personal love at issue in (4); such personal love will be the focus here (though see Frankfurt (1999) and Jaworska & Wonderly (2017) for attempts to provide a more general account that applies to non-persons as well).

Even within personal love, philosophers from the ancient Greeks on have traditionally distinguished three notions that can properly be called “love”: eros , agape , and philia . It will be useful to distinguish these three and say something about how contemporary discussions typically blur these distinctions (sometimes intentionally so) or use them for other purposes.

‘ Eros ’ originally meant love in the sense of a kind of passionate desire for an object, typically sexual passion (Liddell et al., 1940). Nygren (1953a,b) describes eros as the “‘love of desire,’ or acquisitive love” and therefore as egocentric (1953b, p. 89). Soble (1989b, 1990) similarly describes eros as “selfish” and as a response to the merits of the beloved—especially the beloved’s goodness or beauty. What is evident in Soble’s description of eros is a shift away from the sexual: to love something in the “erosic” sense (to use the term Soble coins) is to love it in a way that, by being responsive to its merits, is dependent on reasons. Such an understanding of eros is encouraged by Plato’s discussion in the Symposium , in which Socrates understands sexual desire to be a deficient response to physical beauty in particular, a response which ought to be developed into a response to the beauty of a person’s soul and, ultimately, into a response to the form, Beauty.

Soble’s intent in understanding eros to be a reason-dependent sort of love is to articulate a sharp contrast with agape , a sort of love that does not respond to the value of its object. ‘ Agape ’ has come, primarily through the Christian tradition, to mean the sort of love God has for us persons, as well as our love for God and, by extension, of our love for each other—a kind of brotherly love. In the paradigm case of God’s love for us, agape is “spontaneous and unmotivated,” revealing not that we merit that love but that God’s nature is love (Nygren 1953b, p. 85). Rather than responding to antecedent value in its object, agape instead is supposed to create value in its object and therefore to initiate our fellowship with God (pp. 87–88). Consequently, Badhwar (2003, p. 58) characterizes agape as “independent of the loved individual’s fundamental characteristics as the particular person she is”; and Soble (1990, p. 5) infers that agape , in contrast to eros , is therefore not reason dependent but is rationally “incomprehensible,” admitting at best of causal or historical explanations. [ 1 ]

Finally, ‘ philia ’ originally meant a kind of affectionate regard or friendly feeling towards not just one’s friends but also possibly towards family members, business partners, and one’s country at large (Liddell et al., 1940; Cooper, 1977). Like eros , philia is generally (but not universally) understood to be responsive to (good) qualities in one’s beloved. This similarity between eros and philia has led Thomas (1987) to wonder whether the only difference between romantic love and friendship is the sexual involvement of the former—and whether that is adequate to account for the real differences we experience. The distinction between eros and philia becomes harder to draw with Soble’s attempt to diminish the importance of the sexual in eros (1990).

Maintaining the distinctions among eros , agape , and philia becomes even more difficult when faced with contemporary theories of love (including romantic love) and friendship. For, as discussed below, some theories of romantic love understand it along the lines of the agape tradition as creating value in the beloved (cf. Section 4.2 ), and other accounts of romantic love treat sexual activity as merely the expression of what otherwise looks very much like friendship.

Given the focus here on personal love, Christian conceptions of God’s love for persons (and vice versa ) will be omitted, and the distinction between eros and philia will be blurred—as it typically is in contemporary accounts. Instead, the focus here will be on these contemporary understandings of love, including romantic love, understood as an attitude we take towards other persons. [ 2 ]

In providing an account of love, philosophical analyses must be careful to distinguish love from other positive attitudes we take towards persons, such as liking. Intuitively, love differs from such attitudes as liking in terms of its “depth,” and the problem is to elucidate the kind of “depth” we intuitively find love to have. Some analyses do this in part by providing thin conceptions of what liking amounts to. Thus, Singer (1991) and Brown (1987) understand liking to be a matter of desiring, an attitude that at best involves its object having only instrumental (and not intrinsic) value. Yet this seems inadequate: surely there are attitudes towards persons intermediate between having a desire with a person as its object and loving the person. I can care about a person for her own sake and not merely instrumentally, and yet such caring does not on its own amount to (non-deficiently) loving her, for it seems I can care about my dog in exactly the same way, a kind of caring which is insufficiently personal for love.

It is more common to distinguish loving from liking via the intuition that the “depth” of love is to be explained in terms of a notion of identification: to love someone is somehow to identify yourself with him, whereas no such notion of identification is involved in liking. As Nussbaum puts it, “The choice between one potential love and another can feel, and be, like a choice of a way of life, a decision to dedicate oneself to these values rather than these” (1990, p. 328); liking clearly does not have this sort of “depth” (see also Helm 2010; Bagley 2015). Whether love involves some kind of identification, and if so exactly how to understand such identification, is a central bone of contention among the various analyses of love. In particular, Whiting (2013) argues that the appeal to a notion of identification distorts our understanding of the sort of motivation love can provide, for taken literally it implies that love motivates through self -interest rather than through the beloved’s interests. Thus, Whiting argues, central to love is the possibility that love takes the lover “outside herself”, potentially forgetting herself in being moved directly by the interests of the beloved. (Of course, we need not take the notion of identification literally in this way: in identifying with one’s beloved, one might have a concern for one’s beloved that is analogous to one’s concern for oneself; see Helm 2010.)

Another common way to distinguish love from other personal attitudes is in terms of a distinctive kind of evaluation, which itself can account for love’s “depth.” Again, whether love essentially involves a distinctive kind of evaluation, and if so how to make sense of that evaluation, is hotly disputed. Closely related to questions of evaluation are questions of justification: can we justify loving or continuing to love a particular person, and if so, how? For those who think the justification of love is possible, it is common to understand such justification in terms of evaluation, and the answers here affect various accounts’ attempts to make sense of the kind of constancy or commitment love seems to involve, as well as the sense in which love is directed at particular individuals.

In what follows, theories of love are tentatively and hesitantly classified into four types: love as union, love as robust concern, love as valuing, and love as an emotion. It should be clear, however, that particular theories classified under one type sometimes also include, without contradiction, ideas central to other types. The types identified here overlap to some extent, and in some cases classifying particular theories may involve excessive pigeonholing. (Such cases are noted below.) Part of the classificatory problem is that many accounts of love are quasi-reductionistic, understanding love in terms of notions like affection, evaluation, attachment, etc., which themselves never get analyzed. Even when these accounts eschew explicitly reductionistic language, very often little attempt is made to show how one such “aspect” of love is conceptually connected to others. As a result, there is no clear and obvious way to classify particular theories, let alone identify what the relevant classes should be.

The union view claims that love consists in the formation of (or the desire to form) some significant kind of union, a “we.” A central task for union theorists, therefore, is to spell out just what such a “we” comes to—whether it is literally a new entity in the world somehow composed of the lover and the beloved, or whether it is merely metaphorical. Variants of this view perhaps go back to Aristotle (cf. Sherman 1993) and can also be found in Montaigne ([E]) and Hegel (1997); contemporary proponents include Solomon (1981, 1988), Scruton (1986), Nozick (1989), Fisher (1990), and Delaney (1996).

Scruton, writing in particular about romantic love, claims that love exists “just so soon as reciprocity becomes community: that is, just so soon as all distinction between my interests and your interests is overcome” (1986, p. 230). The idea is that the union is a union of concern, so that when I act out of that concern it is not for my sake alone or for your sake alone but for our sake. Fisher (1990) holds a similar, but somewhat more moderate view, claiming that love is a partial fusion of the lovers’ cares, concerns, emotional responses, and actions. What is striking about both Scruton and Fisher is the claim that love requires the actual union of the lovers’ concerns, for it thus becomes clear that they conceive of love not so much as an attitude we take towards another but as a relationship: the distinction between your interests and mine genuinely disappears only when we together come to have shared cares, concerns, etc., and my merely having a certain attitude towards you is not enough for love. This provides content to the notion of a “we” as the (metaphorical?) subject of these shared cares and concerns, and as that for whose sake we act.

Solomon (1988) offers a union view as well, though one that tries “to make new sense out of ‘love’ through a literal rather than metaphoric sense of the ‘fusion’ of two souls” (p. 24, cf. Solomon 1981; however, it is unclear exactly what he means by a “soul” here and so how love can be a “literal” fusion of two souls). What Solomon has in mind is the way in which, through love, the lovers redefine their identities as persons in terms of the relationship: “Love is the concentration and the intensive focus of mutual definition on a single individual, subjecting virtually every personal aspect of one’s self to this process” (1988, p. 197). The result is that lovers come to share the interests, roles, virtues, and so on that constitute what formerly was two individual identities but now has become a shared identity, and they do so in part by each allowing the other to play an important role in defining his own identity.

Nozick (1989) offers a union view that differs from those of Scruton, Fisher, and Solomon in that Nozick thinks that what is necessary for love is merely the desire to form a “we,” together with the desire that your beloved reciprocates. Nonetheless, he claims that this “we” is “a new entity in the world…created by a new web of relationships between [the lovers] which makes them no longer separate” (p. 70). In spelling out this web of relationships, Nozick appeals to the lovers “pooling” not only their well-beings, in the sense that the well-being of each is tied up with that of the other, but also their autonomy, in that “each transfers some previous rights to make certain decisions unilaterally into a joint pool” (p. 71). In addition, Nozick claims, the lovers each acquire a new identity as a part of the “we,” a new identity constituted by their (a) wanting to be perceived publicly as a couple, (b) their attending to their pooled well-being, and (c) their accepting a “certain kind of division of labor” (p. 72):

A person in a we might find himself coming across something interesting to read yet leaving it for the other person, not because he himself would not be interested in it but because the other would be more interested, and one of them reading it is sufficient for it to be registered by the wider identity now shared, the we . [ 3 ]

Opponents of the union view have seized on claims like this as excessive: union theorists, they claim, take too literally the ontological commitments of this notion of a “we.” This leads to two specific criticisms of the union view. The first is that union views do away with individual autonomy. Autonomy, it seems, involves a kind of independence on the part of the autonomous agent, such that she is in control over not only what she does but also who she is, as this is constituted by her interests, values, concerns, etc. However, union views, by doing away with a clear distinction between your interests and mine, thereby undermine this sort of independence and so undermine the autonomy of the lovers. If autonomy is a part of the individual’s good, then, on the union view, love is to this extent bad; so much the worse for the union view (Singer 1994; Soble 1997). Moreover, Singer (1994) argues that a necessary part of having your beloved be the object of your love is respect for your beloved as the particular person she is, and this requires respecting her autonomy.

Union theorists have responded to this objection in several ways. Nozick (1989) seems to think of a loss of autonomy in love as a desirable feature of the sort of union lovers can achieve. Fisher (1990), somewhat more reluctantly, claims that the loss of autonomy in love is an acceptable consequence of love. Yet without further argument these claims seem like mere bullet biting. Solomon (1988, pp. 64ff) describes this “tension” between union and autonomy as “the paradox of love.” However, this a view that Soble (1997) derides: merely to call it a paradox, as Solomon does, is not to face up to the problem.

The second criticism involves a substantive view concerning love. Part of what it is to love someone, these opponents say, is to have concern for him for his sake. However, union views make such concern unintelligible and eliminate the possibility of both selfishness and self-sacrifice, for by doing away with the distinction between my interests and your interests they have in effect turned your interests into mine and vice versa (Soble 1997; see also Blum 1980, 1993). Some advocates of union views see this as a point in their favor: we need to explain how it is I can have concern for people other than myself, and the union view apparently does this by understanding your interests to be part of my own. And Delaney, responding to an apparent tension between our desire to be loved unselfishly (for fear of otherwise being exploited) and our desire to be loved for reasons (which presumably are attractive to our lover and hence have a kind of selfish basis), says (1996, p. 346):

Given my view that the romantic ideal is primarily characterized by a desire to achieve a profound consolidation of needs and interests through the formation of a we , I do not think a little selfishness of the sort described should pose a worry to either party.

The objection, however, lies precisely in this attempt to explain my concern for my beloved egoistically. As Whiting (1991, p. 10) puts it, such an attempt “strikes me as unnecessary and potentially objectionable colonization”: in love, I ought to be concerned with my beloved for her sake, and not because I somehow get something out of it. (This can be true whether my concern with my beloved is merely instrumental to my good or whether it is partly constitutive of my good.)

Although Whiting’s and Soble’s criticisms here succeed against the more radical advocates of the union view, they in part fail to acknowledge the kernel of truth to be gleaned from the idea of union. Whiting’s way of formulating the second objection in terms of an unnecessary egoism in part points to a way out: we persons are in part social creatures, and love is one profound mode of that sociality. Indeed, part of the point of union accounts is to make sense of this social dimension: to make sense of a way in which we can sometimes identify ourselves with others not merely in becoming interdependent with them (as Singer 1994, p. 165, suggests, understanding ‘interdependence’ to be a kind of reciprocal benevolence and respect) but rather in making who we are as persons be constituted in part by those we love (cf., e.g., Rorty 1986/1993; Nussbaum 1990).

Along these lines, Friedman (1998), taking her inspiration in part from Delaney (1996), argues that we should understand the sort of union at issue in love to be a kind of federation of selves:

On the federation model, a third unified entity is constituted by the interaction of the lovers, one which involves the lovers acting in concert across a range of conditions and for a range of purposes. This concerted action, however, does not erase the existence of the two lovers as separable and separate agents with continuing possibilities for the exercise of their own respective agencies. [p. 165]

Given that on this view the lovers do not give up their individual identities, there is no principled reason why the union view cannot make sense of the lover’s concern for her beloved for his sake. [ 4 ] Moreover, Friedman argues, once we construe union as federation, we can see that autonomy is not a zero-sum game; rather, love can both directly enhance the autonomy of each and promote the growth of various skills, like realistic and critical self-evaluation, that foster autonomy.

Nonetheless, this federation model is not without its problems—problems that affect other versions of the union view as well. For if the federation (or the “we”, as on Nozick’s view) is understood as a third entity, we need a clearer account than has been given of its ontological status and how it comes to be. Relevant here is the literature on shared intention and plural subjects. Gilbert (1989, 1996, 2000) has argued that we should take quite seriously the existence of a plural subject as an entity over and above its constituent members. Others, such as Tuomela (1984, 1995), Searle (1990), and Bratman (1999) are more cautious, treating such talk of “us” having an intention as metaphorical.

As this criticism of the union view indicates, many find caring about your beloved for her sake to be a part of what it is to love her. The robust concern view of love takes this to be the central and defining feature of love (cf. Taylor 1976; Newton-Smith 1989; Soble 1990, 1997; LaFollette 1996; Frankfurt 1999; White 2001). As Taylor puts it:

To summarize: if x loves y then x wants to benefit and be with y etc., and he has these wants (or at least some of them) because he believes y has some determinate characteristics ψ in virtue of which he thinks it worth while to benefit and be with y . He regards satisfaction of these wants as an end and not as a means towards some other end. [p. 157]

In conceiving of my love for you as constituted by my concern for you for your sake, the robust concern view rejects the idea, central to the union view, that love is to be understood in terms of the (literal or metaphorical) creation of a “we”: I am the one who has this concern for you, though it is nonetheless disinterested and so not egoistic insofar as it is for your sake rather than for my own. [ 5 ]

At the heart of the robust concern view is the idea that love “is neither affective nor cognitive. It is volitional” (Frankfurt 1999, p. 129; see also Martin 2015). Frankfurt continues:

That a person cares about or that he loves something has less to do with how things make him feel, or with his opinions about them, than with the more or less stable motivational structures that shape his preferences and that guide and limit his conduct.

This account analyzes caring about someone for her sake as a matter of being motivated in certain ways, in part as a response to what happens to one’s beloved. Of course, to understand love in terms of desires is not to leave other emotional responses out in the cold, for these emotions should be understood as consequences of desires. Thus, just as I can be emotionally crushed when one of my strong desires is disappointed, so too I can be emotionally crushed when things similarly go badly for my beloved. In this way Frankfurt (1999) tacitly, and White (2001) more explicitly, acknowledge the way in which my caring for my beloved for her sake results in my identity being transformed through her influence insofar as I become vulnerable to things that happen to her.

Not all robust concern theorists seem to accept this line, however; in particular, Taylor (1976) and Soble (1990) seem to have a strongly individualistic conception of persons that prevents my identity being bound up with my beloved in this sort of way, a kind of view that may seem to undermine the intuitive “depth” that love seems to have. (For more on this point, see Rorty 1986/1993.) In the middle is Stump (2006), who follows Aquinas in understanding love to involve not only the desire for your beloved’s well-being but also a desire for a certain kind of relationship with your beloved—as a parent or spouse or sibling or priest or friend, for example—a relationship within which you share yourself with and connect yourself to your beloved. [ 6 ]

One source of worry about the robust concern view is that it involves too passive an understanding of one’s beloved (Ebels-Duggan 2008). The thought is that on the robust concern view the lover merely tries to discover what the beloved’s well-being consists in and then acts to promote that, potentially by thwarting the beloved’s own efforts when the lover thinks those efforts would harm her well-being. This, however, would be disrespectful and demeaning, not the sort of attitude that love is. What robust concern views seem to miss, Ebels-Duggan suggests, is the way love involves interacting agents, each with a capacity for autonomy the recognition and engagement with which is an essential part of love. In response, advocates of the robust concern view might point out that promoting someone’s well-being normally requires promoting her autonomy (though they may maintain that this need not always be true: that paternalism towards a beloved can sometimes be justified and appropriate as an expression of one’s love). Moreover, we might plausibly think, it is only through the exercise of one’s autonomy that one can define one’s own well-being as a person, so that a lover’s failure to respect the beloved’s autonomy would be a failure to promote her well-being and therefore not an expression of love, contrary to what Ebels-Duggan suggests. Consequently, it might seem, robust concern views can counter this objection by offering an enriched conception of what it is to be a person and so of the well-being of persons.

Another source of worry is that the robust concern view offers too thin a conception of love. By emphasizing robust concern, this view understands other features we think characteristic of love, such as one’s emotional responsiveness to one’s beloved, to be the effects of that concern rather than constituents of it. Thus Velleman (1999) argues that robust concern views, by understanding love merely as a matter of aiming at a particular end (viz., the welfare of one’s beloved), understand love to be merely conative. However, he claims, love can have nothing to do with desires, offering as a counterexample the possibility of loving a troublemaking relation whom you do not want to be with, whose well being you do not want to promote, etc. Similarly, Badhwar (2003) argues that such a “teleological” view of love makes it mysterious how “we can continue to love someone long after death has taken him beyond harm or benefit” (p. 46). Moreover Badhwar argues, if love is essentially a desire, then it implies that we lack something; yet love does not imply this and, indeed, can be felt most strongly at times when we feel our lives most complete and lacking in nothing. Consequently, Velleman and Badhwar conclude, love need not involve any desire or concern for the well-being of one’s beloved.

This conclusion, however, seems too hasty, for such examples can be accommodated within the robust concern view. Thus, the concern for your relative in Velleman’s example can be understood to be present but swamped by other, more powerful desires to avoid him. Indeed, keeping the idea that you want to some degree to benefit him, an idea Velleman rejects, seems to be essential to understanding the conceptual tension between loving someone and not wanting to help him, a tension Velleman does not fully acknowledge. Similarly, continued love for someone who has died can be understood on the robust concern view as parasitic on the former love you had for him when he was still alive: your desires to benefit him get transformed, through your subsequent understanding of the impossibility of doing so, into wishes. [ 7 ] Finally, the idea of concern for your beloved’s well-being need not imply the idea that you lack something, for such concern can be understood in terms of the disposition to be vigilant for occasions when you can come to his aid and consequently to have the relevant occurrent desires. All of this seems fully compatible with the robust concern view.

One might also question whether Velleman and Badhwar make proper use of their examples of loving your meddlesome relation or someone who has died. For although we can understand these as genuine cases of love, they are nonetheless deficient cases and ought therefore be understood as parasitic on the standard cases. Readily to accommodate such deficient cases of love into a philosophical analysis as being on a par with paradigm cases, and to do so without some special justification, is dubious.

Nonetheless, the robust concern view as it stands does not seem properly able to account for the intuitive “depth” of love and so does not seem properly to distinguish loving from liking. Although, as noted above, the robust concern view can begin to make some sense of the way in which the lover’s identity is altered by the beloved, it understands this only an effect of love, and not as a central part of what love consists in.

This vague thought is nicely developed by Wonderly (2017), who emphasizes that in addition to the sort of disinterested concern for another that is central to robust-concern accounts of love, an essential part of at least romantic love is the idea that in loving someone I must find them to be not merely important for their own sake but also important to me . Wonderly (2017) fleshes out what this “importance to me” involves in terms of the idea of attachment (developed in Wonderly 2016) that she argues can make sense of the intimacy and depth of love from within what remains fundamentally a robust-concern account. [ 8 ]

4. Love as Valuing

A third kind of view of love understands love to be a distinctive mode of valuing a person. As the distinction between eros and agape in Section 1 indicates, there are at least two ways to construe this in terms of whether the lover values the beloved because she is valuable, or whether the beloved comes to be valuable to the lover as a result of her loving him. The former view, which understands the lover as appraising the value of the beloved in loving him, is the topic of Section 4.1 , whereas the latter view, which understands her as bestowing value on him, will be discussed in Section 4.2 .

Velleman (1999, 2008) offers an appraisal view of love, understanding love to be fundamentally a matter of acknowledging and responding in a distinctive way to the value of the beloved. (For a very different appraisal view of love, see Kolodny 2003.) Understanding this more fully requires understanding both the kind of value of the beloved to which one responds and the distinctive kind of response to such value that love is. Nonetheless, it should be clear that what makes an account be an appraisal view of love is not the mere fact that love is understood to involve appraisal; many other accounts do so, and it is typical of robust concern accounts, for example (cf. the quote from Taylor above , Section 3 ). Rather, appraisal views are distinctive in understanding love to consist in that appraisal.

In articulating the kind of value love involves, Velleman, following Kant, distinguishes dignity from price. To have a price , as the economic metaphor suggests, is to have a value that can be compared to the value of other things with prices, such that it is intelligible to exchange without loss items of the same value. By contrast, to have dignity is to have a value such that comparisons of relative value become meaningless. Material goods are normally understood to have prices, but we persons have dignity: no substitution of one person for another can preserve exactly the same value, for something of incomparable worth would be lost (and gained) in such a substitution.

On this Kantian view, our dignity as persons consists in our rational nature: our capacity both to be actuated by reasons that we autonomously provide ourselves in setting our own ends and to respond appropriately to the intrinsic values we discover in the world. Consequently, one important way in which we exercise our rational natures is to respond with respect to the dignity of other persons (a dignity that consists in part in their capacity for respect): respect just is the required minimal response to the dignity of persons. What makes a response to a person be that of respect, Velleman claims, still following Kant, is that it “arrests our self-love” and thereby prevents us from treating him as a means to our ends (p. 360).

Given this, Velleman claims that love is similarly a response to the dignity of persons, and as such it is the dignity of the object of our love that justifies that love. However, love and respect are different kinds of responses to the same value. For love arrests not our self-love but rather

our tendencies toward emotional self-protection from another person, tendencies to draw ourselves in and close ourselves off from being affected by him. Love disarms our emotional defenses; it makes us vulnerable to the other. [1999, p. 361]

This means that the concern, attraction, sympathy, etc. that we normally associate with love are not constituents of love but are rather its normal effects, and love can remain without them (as in the case of the love for a meddlesome relative one cannot stand being around). Moreover, this provides Velleman with a clear account of the intuitive “depth” of love: it is essentially a response to persons as such, and to say that you love your dog is therefore to be confused.

Of course, we do not respond with love to the dignity of every person we meet, nor are we somehow required to: love, as the disarming of our emotional defenses in a way that makes us especially vulnerable to another, is the optional maximal response to others’ dignity. What, then, explains the selectivity of love—why I love some people and not others? The answer lies in the contingent fit between the way some people behaviorally express their dignity as persons and the way I happen to respond to those expressions by becoming emotionally vulnerable to them. The right sort of fit makes someone “lovable” by me (1999, p. 372), and my responding with love in these cases is a matter of my “really seeing” this person in a way that I fail to do with others who do not fit with me in this way. By ‘lovable’ here Velleman seems to mean able to be loved, not worthy of being loved, for nothing Velleman says here speaks to a question about the justification of my loving this person rather than that. Rather, what he offers is an explanation of the selectivity of my love, an explanation that as a matter of fact makes my response be that of love rather than mere respect.

This understanding of the selectivity of love as something that can be explained but not justified is potentially troubling. For we ordinarily think we can justify not only my loving you rather than someone else but also and more importantly the constancy of my love: my continuing to love you even as you change in certain fundamental ways (but not others). As Delaney (1996, p. 347) puts the worry about constancy:

while you seem to want it to be true that, were you to become a schmuck, your lover would continue to love you,…you also want it to be the case that your lover would never love a schmuck.

The issue here is not merely that we can offer explanations of the selectivity of my love, of why I do not love schmucks; rather, at issue is the discernment of love, of loving and continuing to love for good reasons as well as of ceasing to love for good reasons. To have these good reasons seems to involve attributing different values to you now rather than formerly or rather than to someone else, yet this is precisely what Velleman denies is the case in making the distinction between love and respect the way he does.

It is also questionable whether Velleman can even explain the selectivity of love in terms of the “fit” between your expressions and my sensitivities. For the relevant sensitivities on my part are emotional sensitivities: the lowering of my emotional defenses and so becoming emotionally vulnerable to you. Thus, I become vulnerable to the harms (or goods) that befall you and so sympathetically feel your pain (or joy). Such emotions are themselves assessable for warrant, and now we can ask why my disappointment that you lost the race is warranted, but my being disappointed that a mere stranger lost would not be warranted. The intuitive answer is that I love you but not him. However, this answer is unavailable to Velleman, because he thinks that what makes my response to your dignity that of love rather than respect is precisely that I feel such emotions, and to appeal to my love in explaining the emotions therefore seems viciously circular.

Although these problems are specific to Velleman’s account, the difficulty can be generalized to any appraisal account of love (such as that offered in Kolodny 2003). For if love is an appraisal, it needs to be distinguished from other forms of appraisal, including our evaluative judgments. On the one hand, to try to distinguish love as an appraisal from other appraisals in terms of love’s having certain effects on our emotional and motivational life (as on Velleman’s account) is unsatisfying because it ignores part of what needs to be explained: why the appraisal of love has these effects and yet judgments with the same evaluative content do not. Indeed, this question is crucial if we are to understand the intuitive “depth” of love, for without an answer to this question we do not understand why love should have the kind of centrality in our lives it manifestly does. [ 9 ] On the other hand, to bundle this emotional component into the appraisal itself would be to turn the view into either the robust concern view ( Section 3 ) or a variant of the emotion view ( Section 5.1 ).

In contrast to Velleman, Singer (1991, 1994, 2009) understands love to be fundamentally a matter of bestowing value on the beloved. To bestow value on another is to project a kind of intrinsic value onto him. Indeed, this fact about love is supposed to distinguish love from liking: “Love is an attitude with no clear objective,” whereas liking is inherently teleological (1991, p. 272). As such, there are no standards of correctness for bestowing such value, and this is how love differs from other personal attitudes like gratitude, generosity, and condescension: “love…confers importance no matter what the object is worth” (p. 273). Consequently, Singer thinks, love is not an attitude that can be justified in any way.

What is it, exactly, to bestow this kind of value on someone? It is, Singer says, a kind of attachment and commitment to the beloved, in which one comes to treat him as an end in himself and so to respond to his ends, interests, concerns, etc. as having value for their own sake. This means in part that the bestowal of value reveals itself “by caring about the needs and interests of the beloved, by wishing to benefit or protect her, by delighting in her achievements,” etc. (p. 270). This sounds very much like the robust concern view, yet the bestowal view differs in understanding such robust concern to be the effect of the bestowal of value that is love rather than itself what constitutes love: in bestowing value on my beloved, I make him be valuable in such a way that I ought to respond with robust concern.

For it to be intelligible that I have bestowed value on someone, I must therefore respond appropriately to him as valuable, and this requires having some sense of what his well-being is and of what affects that well-being positively or negatively. Yet having this sense requires in turn knowing what his strengths and deficiencies are, and this is a matter of appraising him in various ways. Bestowal thus presupposes a kind of appraisal, as a way of “really seeing” the beloved and attending to him. Nonetheless, Singer claims, it is the bestowal that is primary for understanding what love consists in: the appraisal is required only so that the commitment to one’s beloved and his value as thus bestowed has practical import and is not “a blind submission to some unknown being” (1991, p. 272; see also Singer 1994, pp. 139ff).

Singer is walking a tightrope in trying to make room for appraisal in his account of love. Insofar as the account is fundamentally a bestowal account, Singer claims that love cannot be justified, that we bestow the relevant kind of value “gratuitously.” This suggests that love is blind, that it does not matter what our beloved is like, which seems patently false. Singer tries to avoid this conclusion by appealing to the role of appraisal: it is only because we appraise another as having certain virtues and vices that we come to bestow value on him. Yet the “because” here, since it cannot justify the bestowal, is at best a kind of contingent causal explanation. [ 10 ] In this respect, Singer’s account of the selectivity of love is much the same as Velleman’s, and it is liable to the same criticism: it makes unintelligible the way in which our love can be discerning for better or worse reasons. Indeed, this failure to make sense of the idea that love can be justified is a problem for any bestowal view. For either (a) a bestowal itself cannot be justified (as on Singer’s account), in which case the justification of love is impossible, or (b) a bestowal can be justified, in which case it is hard to make sense of value as being bestowed rather than there antecedently in the object as the grounds of that “bestowal.”

More generally, a proponent of the bestowal view needs to be much clearer than Singer is in articulating precisely what a bestowal is. What is the value that I create in a bestowal, and how can my bestowal create it? On a crude Humean view, the answer might be that the value is something projected onto the world through my pro-attitudes, like desire. Yet such a view would be inadequate, since the projected value, being relative to a particular individual, would do no theoretical work, and the account would essentially be a variant of the robust concern view. Moreover, in providing a bestowal account of love, care is needed to distinguish love from other personal attitudes such as admiration and respect: do these other attitudes involve bestowal? If so, how does the bestowal in these cases differ from the bestowal of love? If not, why not, and what is so special about love that requires a fundamentally different evaluative attitude than admiration and respect?

Nonetheless, there is a kernel of truth in the bestowal view: there is surely something right about the idea that love is creative and not merely a response to antecedent value, and accounts of love that understand the kind of evaluation implicit in love merely in terms of appraisal seem to be missing something. Precisely what may be missed will be discussed below in Section 6 .

Perhaps there is room for an understanding of love and its relation to value that is intermediate between appraisal and bestowal accounts. After all, if we think of appraisal as something like perception, a matter of responding to what is out there in the world, and of bestowal as something like action, a matter of doing something and creating something, we should recognize that the responsiveness central to appraisal may itself depend on our active, creative choices. Thus, just as we must recognize that ordinary perception depends on our actively directing our attention and deploying concepts, interpretations, and even arguments in order to perceive things accurately, so too we might think our vision of our beloved’s valuable properties that is love also depends on our actively attending to and interpreting him. Something like this is Jollimore’s view (2011). According to Jollimore, in loving someone we actively attend to his valuable properties in a way that we take to provide us with reasons to treat him preferentially. Although we may acknowledge that others might have such properties even to a greater degree than our beloved does, we do not attend to and appreciate such properties in others in the same way we do those in our beloveds; indeed, we find our appreciation of our beloved’s valuable properties to “silence” our similar appreciation of those in others. (In this way, Jollimore thinks, we can solve the problem of fungibility, discussed below in Section 6 .) Likewise, in perceiving our beloved’s actions and character, we do so through the lens of such an appreciation, which will tend as to “silence” interpretations inconsistent with that appreciation. In this way, love involves finding one’s beloved to be valuable in a way that involves elements of both appraisal (insofar as one must thereby be responsive to valuable properties one’s beloved really has) and bestowal (insofar as through one’s attention and committed appreciation of these properties they come to have special significance for one).

One might object that this conception of love as silencing the special value of others or to negative interpretations of our beloveds is irrational in a way that love is not. For, it might seem, such “silencing” is merely a matter of our blinding ourselves to how things really are. Yet Jollimore claims that this sense in which love is blind is not objectionable, for (a) we can still intellectually recognize the things that love’s vision silences, and (b) there really is no impartial perspective we can take on the values things have, and love is one appropriate sort of partial perspective from which the value of persons can be manifest. Nonetheless, one might wonder about whether that perspective of love itself can be distorted and what the norms are in terms of which such distortions are intelligible. Furthermore, it may seem that Jollimore’s attempt to reconcile appraisal and bestowal fails to appreciate the underlying metaphysical difficulty: appraisal is a response to value that is antecedently there, whereas bestowal is the creation of value that was not antecedently there. Consequently, it might seem, appraisal and bestowal are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled in the way Jollimore hopes.

Whereas Jollimore tries to combine separate elements of appraisal and of bestowal in a single account, Helm (2010) and Bagley (2015) offer accounts that reject the metaphysical presupposition that values must be either prior to love (as with appraisal) or posterior to love (as with bestowal), instead understanding the love and the values to emerge simultaneously. Thus, Helm presents a detailed account of valuing in terms of the emotions, arguing that while we can understand individual emotions as appraisals , responding to values already their in their objects, these values are bestowed on those objects via broad, holistic patterns of emotions. How this amounts to an account of love will be discussed in Section 5.2 , below. Bagley (2015) instead appeals to a metaphor of improvisation, arguing that just as jazz musicians jointly make determinate the content of their musical ideas through on-going processes of their expression, so too lovers jointly engage in “deep improvisation”, thereby working out of their values and identities through the on-going process of living their lives together. These values are thus something the lovers jointly construct through the process of recognizing and responding to those very values. To love someone is thus to engage with them as partners in such “deep improvisation”. (This account is similar to Helm (2008, 2010)’s account of plural agency, which he uses to provide an account of friendship and other loving relationships; see the discussion of shared activity in the entry on friendship .)

5. Emotion Views

Given these problems with the accounts of love as valuing, perhaps we should turn to the emotions. For emotions just are responses to objects that combine evaluation, motivation, and a kind of phenomenology, all central features of the attitude of love.

Many accounts of love claim that it is an emotion; these include: Wollheim 1984, Rorty 1986/1993, Brown 1987, Hamlyn 1989, Baier 1991, and Badhwar 2003. [ 11 ] Thus, Hamlyn (1989, p. 219) says:

It would not be a plausible move to defend any theory of the emotions to which love and hate seemed exceptions by saying that love and hate are after all not emotions. I have heard this said, but it does seem to me a desperate move to make. If love and hate are not emotions what is?

The difficulty with this claim, as Rorty (1980) argues, is that the word, ‘emotion,’ does not seem to pick out a homogeneous collection of mental states, and so various theories claiming that love is an emotion mean very different things. Consequently, what are here labeled “emotion views” are divided into those that understand love to be a particular kind of evaluative-cum-motivational response to an object, whether that response is merely occurrent or dispositional (‘emotions proper,’ see Section 5.1 , below), and those that understand love to involve a collection of related and interconnected emotions proper (‘emotion complexes,’ see Section 5.2 , below).

An emotion proper is a kind of “evaluative-cum-motivational response to an object”; what does this mean? Emotions are generally understood to have several objects. The target of an emotion is that at which the emotion is directed: if I am afraid or angry at you, then you are the target. In responding to you with fear or anger, I am implicitly evaluating you in a particular way, and this evaluation—called the formal object —is the kind of evaluation of the target that is distinctive of a particular emotion type. Thus, in fearing you, I implicitly evaluate you as somehow dangerous, whereas in being angry at you I implicitly evaluate you as somehow offensive. Yet emotions are not merely evaluations of their targets; they in part motivate us to behave in certain ways, both rationally (by motivating action to avoid the danger) and arationally (via certain characteristic expressions, such as slamming a door out of anger). Moreover, emotions are generally understood to involve a phenomenological component, though just how to understand the characteristic “feel” of an emotion and its relation to the evaluation and motivation is hotly disputed. Finally, emotions are typically understood to be passions: responses that we feel imposed on us as if from the outside, rather than anything we actively do. (For more on the philosophy of emotions, see entry on emotion .)

What then are we saying when we say that love is an emotion proper? According to Brown (1987, p. 14), emotions as occurrent mental states are “abnormal bodily changes caused by the agent’s evaluation or appraisal of some object or situation that the agent believes to be of concern to him or her.” He spells this out by saying that in love, we “cherish” the person for having “a particular complex of instantiated qualities” that is “open-ended” so that we can continue to love the person even as she changes over time (pp. 106–7). These qualities, which include historical and relational qualities, are evaluated in love as worthwhile. [ 12 ] All of this seems aimed at spelling out what love’s formal object is, a task that is fundamental to understanding love as an emotion proper. Thus, Brown seems to say that love’s formal object is just being worthwhile (or, given his examples, perhaps: worthwhile as a person), and he resists being any more specific than this in order to preserve the open-endedness of love. Hamlyn (1989) offers a similar account, saying (p. 228):

With love the difficulty is to find anything of this kind [i.e., a formal object] which is uniquely appropriate to love. My thesis is that there is nothing of this kind that must be so, and that this differentiates it and hate from the other emotions.

Hamlyn goes on to suggest that love and hate might be primordial emotions, a kind of positive or negative “feeling towards,” presupposed by all other emotions. [ 13 ]

The trouble with these accounts of love as an emotion proper is that they provide too thin a conception of love. In Hamlyn’s case, love is conceived as a fairly generic pro-attitude, rather than as the specific kind of distinctively personal attitude discussed here. In Brown’s case, spelling out the formal object of love as simply being worthwhile (as a person) fails to distinguish love from other evaluative responses like admiration and respect. Part of the problem seems to be the rather simple account of what an emotion is that Brown and Hamlyn use as their starting point: if love is an emotion, then the understanding of what an emotion is must be enriched considerably to accommodate love. Yet it is not at all clear whether the idea of an “emotion proper” can be adequately enriched so as to do so. As Pismenny & Prinz (2017) point out, love seems to be too varied both in its ground and in the sort of experience it involves to be capturable by a single emotion.

The emotion complex view, which understands love to be a complex emotional attitude towards another person, may initially seem to hold out great promise to overcome the problems of alternative types of views. By articulating the emotional interconnections between persons, it could offer a satisfying account of the “depth” of love without the excesses of the union view and without the overly narrow teleological focus of the robust concern view; and because these emotional interconnections are themselves evaluations, it could offer an understanding of love as simultaneously evaluative, without needing to specify a single formal object of love. However, the devil is in the details.

Rorty (1986/1993) does not try to present a complete account of love; rather, she focuses on the idea that “relational psychological attitudes” which, like love, essentially involve emotional and desiderative responses, exhibit historicity : “they arise from, and are shaped by, dynamic interactions between a subject and an object” (p. 73). In part this means that what makes an attitude be one of love is not the presence of a state that we can point to at a particular time within the lover; rather, love is to be “identified by a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75). Moreover, Rorty argues, the historicity of love involves the lover’s being permanently transformed by loving who he does.

Baier (1991), seeming to pick up on this understanding of love as exhibiting historicity, says (p. 444):

Love is not just an emotion people feel toward other people, but also a complex tying together of the emotions that two or a few more people have; it is a special form of emotional interdependence.

To a certain extent, such emotional interdependence involves feeling sympathetic emotions, so that, for example, I feel disappointed and frustrated on behalf of my beloved when she fails, and joyful when she succeeds. However, Baier insists, love is “more than just the duplication of the emotion of each in a sympathetic echo in the other” (p. 442); the emotional interdependence of the lovers involves also appropriate follow-up responses to the emotional predicaments of your beloved. Two examples Baier gives (pp. 443–44) are a feeling of “mischievous delight” at your beloved’s temporary bafflement, and amusement at her embarrassment. The idea is that in a loving relationship your beloved gives you permission to feel such emotions when no one else is permitted to do so, and a condition of her granting you that permission is that you feel these emotions “tenderly.” Moreover, you ought to respond emotionally to your beloved’s emotional responses to you: by feeling hurt when she is indifferent to you, for example. All of these foster the sort of emotional interdependence Baier is after—a kind of intimacy you have with your beloved.

Badhwar (2003, p. 46) similarly understands love to be a matter of “one’s overall emotional orientation towards a person—the complex of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings”; as such, love is a matter of having a certain “character structure.” Central to this complex emotional orientation, Badhwar thinks, is what she calls the “look of love”: “an ongoing [emotional] affirmation of the loved object as worthy of existence…for her own sake” (p. 44), an affirmation that involves taking pleasure in your beloved’s well-being. Moreover, Badhwar claims, the look of love also provides to the beloved reliable testimony concerning the quality of the beloved’s character and actions (p. 57).

There is surely something very right about the idea that love, as an attitude central to deeply personal relationships, should not be understood as a state that can simply come and go. Rather, as the emotion complex view insists, the complexity of love is to be found in the historical patterns of one’s emotional responsiveness to one’s beloved—a pattern that also projects into the future. Indeed, as suggested above, the kind of emotional interdependence that results from this complex pattern can seem to account for the intuitive “depth” of love as fully interwoven into one’s emotional sense of oneself. And it seems to make some headway in understanding the complex phenomenology of love: love can at times be a matter of intense pleasure in the presence of one’s beloved, yet it can at other times involve frustration, exasperation, anger, and hurt as a manifestation of the complexities and depth of the relationships it fosters.

This understanding of love as constituted by a history of emotional interdependence enables emotion complex views to say something interesting about the impact love has on the lover’s identity. This is partly Rorty’s point (1986/1993) in her discussion of the historicity of love ( above ). Thus, she argues, one important feature of such historicity is that love is “ dynamically permeable ” in that the lover is continually “changed by loving” such that these changes “tend to ramify through a person’s character” (p. 77). Through such dynamic permeability, love transforms the identity of the lover in a way that can sometimes foster the continuity of the love, as each lover continually changes in response to the changes in the other. [ 14 ] Indeed, Rorty concludes, love should be understood in terms of “a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75) that results from such dynamic permeability. It should be clear, however, that the mere fact of dynamic permeability need not result in the love’s continuing: nothing about the dynamics of a relationship requires that the characteristic narrative history project into the future, and such permeability can therefore lead to the dissolution of the love. Love is therefore risky—indeed, all the more risky because of the way the identity of the lover is defined in part through the love. The loss of a love can therefore make one feel no longer oneself in ways poignantly described by Nussbaum (1990).

By focusing on such emotionally complex histories, emotion complex views differ from most alternative accounts of love. For alternative accounts tend to view love as a kind of attitude we take toward our beloveds, something we can analyze simply in terms of our mental state at the moment. [ 15 ] By ignoring this historical dimension of love in providing an account of what love is, alternative accounts have a hard time providing either satisfying accounts of the sense in which our identities as person are at stake in loving another or satisfactory solutions to problems concerning how love is to be justified (cf. Section 6 , especially the discussion of fungibility ).

Nonetheless, some questions remain. If love is to be understood as an emotion complex, we need a much more explicit account of the pattern at issue here: what ties all of these emotional responses together into a single thing, namely love? Baier and Badhwar seem content to provide interesting and insightful examples of this pattern, but that does not seem to be enough. For example, what connects my amusement at my beloved’s embarrassment to other emotions like my joy on his behalf when he succeeds? Why shouldn’t my amusement at his embarrassment be understood instead as a somewhat cruel case of schadenfreude and so as antithetical to, and disconnected from, love? Moreover, as Naar (2013) notes, we need a principled account of when such historical patterns are disrupted in such a way as to end the love and when they are not. Do I stop loving when, in the midst of clinical depression, I lose my normal pattern of emotional concern?

Presumably the answer requires returning to the historicity of love: it all depends on the historical details of the relationship my beloved and I have forged. Some loves develop so that the intimacy within the relationship is such as to allow for tender, teasing responses to each other, whereas other loves may not. The historical details, together with the lovers’ understanding of their relationship, presumably determine which emotional responses belong to the pattern constitutive of love and which do not. However, this answer so far is inadequate: not just any historical relationship involving emotional interdependence is a loving relationship, and we need a principled way of distinguishing loving relationships from other relational evaluative attitudes: precisely what is the characteristic narrative history that is characteristic of love?

Helm (2009, 2010) tries to answer some of these questions in presenting an account of love as intimate identification. To love another, Helm claims, is to care about him as the particular person he is and so, other things being equal, to value the things he values. Insofar as a person’s (structured) set of values—his sense of the kind of life worth his living—constitutes his identity as a person, such sharing of values amounts to sharing his identity, which sounds very much like union accounts of love. However, Helm is careful to understand such sharing of values as for the sake of the beloved (as robust concern accounts insist), and he spells this all out in terms of patterns of emotions. Thus, Helm claims, all emotions have not only a target and a formal object (as indicated above), but also a focus : a background object the subject cares about in terms of which the implicit evaluation of the target is made intelligible. (For example, if I am afraid of the approaching hailstorm, I thereby evaluate it as dangerous, and what explains this evaluation is the way that hailstorm bears on my vegetable garden, which I care about; my garden, therefore, is the focus of my fear.) Moreover, emotions normally come in patterns with a common focus: fearing the hailstorm is normally connected to other emotions as being relieved when it passes by harmlessly (or disappointed or sad when it does not), being angry at the rabbits for killing the spinach, delighted at the productivity of the tomato plants, etc. Helm argues that a projectible pattern of such emotions with a common focus constitute caring about that focus. Consequently, we might say along the lines of Section 4.3 , while particular emotions appraise events in the world as having certain evaluative properties, their having these properties is partly bestowed on them by the overall patterns of emotions.

Helm identifies some emotions as person-focused emotions : emotions like pride and shame that essentially take persons as their focuses, for these emotions implicitly evaluate in terms of the target’s bearing on the quality of life of the person that is their focus. To exhibit a pattern of such emotions focused on oneself and subfocused on being a mother, for example, is to care about the place being a mother has in the kind of life you find worth living—in your identity as a person; to care in this way is to value being a mother as a part of your concern for your own identity. Likewise, to exhibit a projectible pattern of such emotions focused on someone else and subfocused on his being a father is to value this as a part of your concern for his identity—to value it for his sake. Such sharing of another’s values for his sake, which, Helm argues, essentially involves trust, respect, and affection, amounts to intimate identification with him, and such intimate identification just is love. Thus, Helm tries to provide an account of love that is grounded in an explicit account of caring (and caring about something for the sake of someone else) that makes room for the intuitive “depth” of love through intimate identification.

Jaworska & Wonderly (2017) argue that Helm’s construal of intimacy as intimate identification is too demanding. Rather, they argue, the sort of intimacy that distinguishes love from mere caring is one that involves a kind of emotional vulnerability in which things going well or poorly for one’s beloved are directly connected not merely to one’s well-being, but to one’s ability to flourish. This connection, they argue, runs through the lover’s self-understanding and the place the beloved has in the lover’s sense of a meaningful life.

Why do we love? It has been suggested above that any account of love needs to be able to answer some such justificatory question. Although the issue of the justification of love is important on its own, it is also important for the implications it has for understanding more clearly the precise object of love: how can we make sense of the intuitions not only that we love the individuals themselves rather than their properties, but also that my beloved is not fungible—that no one could simply take her place without loss. Different theories approach these questions in different ways, but, as will become clear below, the question of justification is primary.

One way to understand the question of why we love is as asking for what the value of love is: what do we get out of it? One kind of answer, which has its roots in Aristotle, is that having loving relationships promotes self-knowledge insofar as your beloved acts as a kind of mirror, reflecting your character back to you (Badhwar, 2003, p. 58). Of course, this answer presupposes that we cannot accurately know ourselves in other ways: that left alone, our sense of ourselves will be too imperfect, too biased, to help us grow and mature as persons. The metaphor of a mirror also suggests that our beloveds will be in the relevant respects similar to us, so that merely by observing them, we can come to know ourselves better in a way that is, if not free from bias, at least more objective than otherwise.

Brink (1999, pp. 264–65) argues that there are serious limits to the value of such mirroring of one’s self in a beloved. For if the aim is not just to know yourself better but to improve yourself, you ought also to interact with others who are not just like yourself: interacting with such diverse others can help you recognize alternative possibilities for how to live and so better assess the relative merits of these possibilities. Whiting (2013) also emphasizes the importance of our beloveds’ having an independent voice capable of reflecting not who one now is but an ideal for who one is to be. Nonetheless, we need not take the metaphor of the mirror quite so literally; rather, our beloveds can reflect our selves not through their inherent similarity to us but rather through the interpretations they offer of us, both explicitly and implicitly in their responses to us. This is what Badhwar calls the “epistemic significance” of love. [ 16 ]

In addition to this epistemic significance of love, LaFollette (1996, Chapter 5) offers several other reasons why it is good to love, reasons derived in part from the psychological literature on love: love increases our sense of well-being, it elevates our sense of self-worth, and it serves to develop our character. It also, we might add, tends to lower stress and blood pressure and to increase health and longevity. Friedman (1993) argues that the kind of partiality towards our beloveds that love involves is itself morally valuable because it supports relationships—loving relationships—that contribute “to human well-being, integrity, and fulfillment in life” (p. 61). And Solomon (1988, p. 155) claims:

Ultimately, there is only one reason for love. That one grand reason…is “because we bring out the best in each other.” What counts as “the best,” of course, is subject to much individual variation.

This is because, Solomon suggests, in loving someone, I want myself to be better so as to be worthy of his love for me.

Each of these answers to the question of why we love understands it to be asking about love quite generally, abstracted away from details of particular relationships. It is also possible to understand the question as asking about particular loves. Here, there are several questions that are relevant:

• What, if anything, justifies my loving rather than not loving this particular person?
• What, if anything, justifies my coming to love this particular person rather than someone else?
• What, if anything, justifies my continuing to love this particular person given the changes—both in him and me and in the overall circumstances—that have occurred since I began loving him?

These are importantly different questions. Velleman (1999), for example, thinks we can answer (1) by appealing to the fact that my beloved is a person and so has a rational nature, yet he thinks (2) and (3) have no answers: the best we can do is offer causal explanations for our loving particular people, a position echoed by Han (2021). Setiya (2014) similarly thinks (1) has an answer, but points not to the rational nature of persons but rather to the other’s humanity , where such humanity differs from personhood in that not all humans need have the requisite rational nature for personhood, and not all persons need be humans. And, as will become clear below , the distinction between (2) and (3) will become important in resolving puzzles concerning whether our beloveds are fungible, though it should be clear that (3) potentially raises questions concerning personal identity (which will not be addressed here).

It is important not to misconstrue these justificatory questions. Thomas (1991) , for example, rejects the idea that love can be justified: “there are no rational considerations whereby anyone can lay claim to another’s love or insist that an individual’s love for another is irrational” (p. 474). This is because, Thomas claims (p. 471):

no matter how wonderful and lovely an individual might be, on any and all accounts, it is simply false that a romantically unencumbered person must love that individual on pain of being irrational. Or, there is no irrationality involved in ceasing to love a person whom one once loved immensely, although the person has not changed.

However, as LaFollette (1996, p. 63) correctly points out,

reason is not some external power which dictates how we should behave, but an internal power, integral to who we are.… Reason does not command that we love anyone. Nonetheless, reason is vital in determining whom we love and why we love them.

That is, reasons for love are pro tanto : they are a part of the overall reasons we have for acting, and it is up to us in exercising our capacity for agency to decide what on balance we have reason to do or even whether we shall act contrary to our reasons. To construe the notion of a reason for love as compelling us to love, as Thomas does, is to misconstrue the place such reasons have within our agency. [ 17 ]

Most philosophical discussions of the justification of love focus on question (1) , thinking that answering this question will also, to the extent that we can, answer question (2) , which is typically not distinguished from (3) . The answers given to these questions vary in a way that turns on how the kind of evaluation implicit in love is construed. On the one hand, those who understand the evaluation implicit in love to be a matter of the bestowal of value (such as Telfer 1970–71; Friedman 1993; Singer 1994) typically claim that no justification can be given (cf. Section 4.2 ). As indicated above, this seems problematic, especially given the importance love can have both in our lives and, especially, in shaping our identities as persons. To reject the idea that we can love for reasons may reduce the impact our agency can have in defining who we are.

On the other hand, those who understand the evaluation implicit in love to be a matter of appraisal tend to answer the justificatory question by appeal to these valuable properties of the beloved. This acceptance of the idea that love can be justified leads to two further, related worries about the object of love.

The first worry is raised by Vlastos (1981) in a discussion Plato’s and Aristotle’s accounts of love. Vlastos notes that these accounts focus on the properties of our beloveds: we are to love people, they say, only because and insofar as they are objectifications of the excellences. Consequently, he argues, in doing so they fail to distinguish “ disinterested affection for the person we love” from “ appreciation of the excellences instantiated by that person ” (p. 33). That is, Vlastos thinks that Plato and Aristotle provide an account of love that is really a love of properties rather than a love of persons—love of a type of person, rather than love of a particular person—thereby losing what is distinctive about love as an essentially personal attitude. This worry about Plato and Aristotle might seem to apply just as well to other accounts that justify love in terms of the properties of the person: insofar as we love the person for the sake of her properties, it might seem that what we love is those properties and not the person. Here it is surely insufficient to say, as Solomon (1988, p. 154) does, “if love has its reasons, then it is not the whole person that one loves but certain aspects of that person—though the rest of the person comes along too, of course”: that final tagline fails to address the central difficulty about what the object of love is and so about love as a distinctly personal attitude. (Clausen 2019 might seem to address this worry by arguing that we love people not as having certain properties but rather as having “ organic unities ”: a holistic set of properties the value of each of which must be understood in essential part in terms of its place within that whole. Nonetheless, while this is an interesting and plausible way to think about the value of the properties of persons, that organic unity itself will be a (holistic) property held by the person, and it seems that the fundamental problem reemerges at the level of this holistic property: do we love the holistic unity rather than the person?)

The second worry concerns the fungibility of the object of love. To be fungible is to be replaceable by another relevantly similar object without any loss of value. Thus, money is fungible: I can give you two $5 bills in exchange for a $10 bill, and neither of us has lost anything. Is the object of love fungible? That is, can I simply switch from loving one person to loving another relevantly similar person without any loss? The worry about fungibility is commonly put this way: if we accept that love can be justified by appealing to properties of the beloved, then it may seem that in loving someone for certain reasons, I love him not simply as the individual he is, but as instantiating those properties. And this may imply that any other person instantiating those same properties would do just as well: my beloved would be fungible. Indeed, it may be that another person exhibits the properties that ground my love to a greater degree than my current beloved does, and so it may seem that in such a case I have reason to “trade up”—to switch my love to the new, better person. However, it seems clear that the objects of our loves are not fungible: love seems to involve a deeply personal commitment to a particular person, a commitment that is antithetical to the idea that our beloveds are fungible or to the idea that we ought to be willing to trade up when possible. [ 18 ]

In responding to these worries, Nozick (1989) appeals to the union view of love he endorses (see the section on Love as Union ):

The intention in love is to form a we and to identify with it as an extended self, to identify one’s fortunes in large part with its fortunes. A willingness to trade up, to destroy the very we you largely identify with, would then be a willingness to destroy your self in the form of your own extended self. [p. 78]

So it is because love involves forming a “we” that we must understand other persons and not properties to be the objects of love, and it is because my very identity as a person depends essentially on that “we” that it is not possible to substitute without loss one object of my love for another. However, Badhwar (2003) criticizes Nozick, saying that his response implies that once I love someone, I cannot abandon that love no matter who that person becomes; this, she says, “cannot be understood as love at all rather than addiction” (p. 61). [ 19 ]

Instead, Badhwar (1987) turns to her robust-concern account of love as a concern for the beloved for his sake rather than one’s own. Insofar as my love is disinterested — not a means to antecedent ends of my own—it would be senseless to think that my beloved could be replaced by someone who is able to satisfy my ends equally well or better. Consequently, my beloved is in this way irreplaceable. However, this is only a partial response to the worry about fungibility, as Badhwar herself seems to acknowledge. For the concern over fungibility arises not merely for those cases in which we think of love as justified instrumentally, but also for those cases in which the love is justified by the intrinsic value of the properties of my beloved. Confronted with cases like this, Badhwar (2003) concludes that the object of love is fungible after all (though she insists that it is very unlikely in practice). (Soble (1990, Chapter 13) draws similar conclusions.)

Nonetheless, Badhwar thinks that the object of love is “phenomenologically non-fungible” (2003, p. 63; see also 1987, p. 14). By this she means that we experience our beloveds to be irreplaceable: “loving and delighting in [one person] are not completely commensurate with loving and delighting in another” (1987, p. 14). Love can be such that we sometimes desire to be with this particular person whom we love, not another whom we also love, for our loves are qualitatively different. But why is this? It seems as though the typical reason I now want to spend time with Amy rather than Bob is, for example, that Amy is funny but Bob is not. I love Amy in part for her humor, and I love Bob for other reasons, and these qualitative differences between them is what makes them not fungible. However, this reply does not address the worry about the possibility of trading up: if Bob were to be at least as funny (charming, kind, etc.) as Amy, why shouldn’t I dump her and spend all my time with him?

A somewhat different approach is taken by Whiting (1991). In response to the first worry concerning the object of love, Whiting argues that Vlastos offers a false dichotomy: having affection for someone that is disinterested —for her sake rather than my own—essentially involves an appreciation of her excellences as such. Indeed, Whiting says, my appreciation of these as excellences, and so the underlying commitment I have to their value, just is a disinterested commitment to her because these excellences constitute her identity as the person she is. The person, therefore, really is the object of love. Delaney (1996) takes the complementary tack of distinguishing between the object of one’s love, which of course is the person, and the grounds of the love, which are her properties: to say, as Solomon does, that we love someone for reasons is not at all to say that we only love certain aspects of the person. In these terms, we might say that Whiting’s rejection of Vlastos’ dichotomy can be read as saying that what makes my attitude be one of disinterested affection—one of love—for the person is precisely that I am thereby responding to her excellences as the reasons for that affection. [ 20 ]

Of course, more needs to be said about what it is that makes a particular person be the object of love. Implicit in Whiting’s account is an understanding of the way in which the object of my love is determined in part by the history of interactions I have with her: it is she, and not merely her properties (which might be instantiated in many different people), that I want to be with; it is she, and not merely her properties, on whose behalf I am concerned when she suffers and whom I seek to comfort; etc. This addresses the first worry, but not the second worry about fungibility, for the question still remains whether she is the object of my love only as instantiating certain properties, and so whether or not I have reason to “trade up.”

To respond to the fungibility worry, Whiting and Delaney appeal explicitly to the historical relationship. [ 21 ] Thus, Whiting claims, although there may be a relatively large pool of people who have the kind of excellences of character that would justify my loving them, and so although there can be no answer to question (2) about why I come to love this rather than that person within this pool, once I have come to love this person and so have developed a historical relation with her, this history of concern justifies my continuing to love this person rather than someone else (1991, p. 7). Similarly, Delaney claims that love is grounded in “historical-relational properties” (1996, p. 346), so that I have reasons for continuing to love this person rather than switching allegiances and loving someone else. In each case, the appeal to both such historical relations and the excellences of character of my beloved is intended to provide an answer to question (3) , and this explains why the objects of love are not fungible.

There seems to be something very much right with this response. Relationships grounded in love are essentially personal, and it would be odd to think of what justifies that love to be merely non-relational properties of the beloved. Nonetheless, it is still unclear how the historical-relational propreties can provide any additional justification for subsequent concern beyond that which is already provided (as an answer to question (1) ) by appeal to the excellences of the beloved’s character (cf. Brink 1999). The mere fact that I have loved someone in the past does not seem to justify my continuing to love him in the future. When we imagine that he is going through a rough time and begins to lose the virtues justifying my initial love for him, why shouldn’t I dump him and instead come to love someone new having all of those virtues more fully? Intuitively (unless the change she undergoes makes her in some important sense no longer the same person he was), we think I should not dump him, but the appeal to the mere fact that I loved him in the past is surely not enough. Yet what historical-relational properties could do the trick? (For an interesting attempt at an answer, see Kolodny 2003 and also Howard 2019.)

If we think that love can be justified, then it may seem that the appeal to particular historical facts about a loving relationship to justify that love is inadequate, for such idiosyncratic and subjective properties might explain but cannot justify love. Rather, it may seem, justification in general requires appealing to universal, objective properties. But such properties are ones that others might share, which leads to the problem of fungibility. Consequently it may seem that love cannot be justified. In the face of this predicament, accounts of love that understand love to be an attitude towards value that is intermediate between appraisal and bestowal, between recognizing already existing value and creating that value (see Section 4.3 ) might seem to offer a way out. For once we reject the thought that the value of our beloveds must be either the precondition or the consequence of our love, we have room to acknowledge that the deeply personal, historically grounded, creative nature of love (central to bestowal accounts) and the understanding of love as responsive to valuable properties of the beloved that can justify that love (central to appraisal accounts) are not mutually exclusive (Helm 2010; Bagley 2015).

• Annas, J., 1977, “Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism”, Mind , 86: 532–54.
• Badhwar, N. K., 1987, “Friends as Ends in Themselves”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research , 48: 1–23.
• –––, 2003, “Love”, in H. LaFollette (ed.), Practical Ethics , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42–69.
• Badhwar, N. K. (ed.), 1993, Friendship: A Philosophical Reader , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Bagley, B., 2015, “Loving Someone in Particular”, Ethics , 125: 477–507.
• –––, 2018. “(The Varieties of) Love in Contemporary Anglophone Philosophy”, in Adrienne M. Martin (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Love in Philosophy , New York, NY: Routledge, 453–64.
• Baier, A. C., 1991, “Unsafe Loves”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 433–50.
• Blum, L. A., 1980, Friendship, Altruism, and Morality , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• –––, 1993, “Friendship as a Moral Phenomenon”, in Badhwar (1993), 192–210.
• Bransen, J., 2006, “Selfless Self-Love”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 9: 3–25.
• Bratman, M. E., 1999, “Shared Intention”, in Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–29.
• Brentlinger, J., 1970/1989, “The Nature of Love”, in Soble (1989a), 136–48.
• Brink, D. O., 1999, “Eudaimonism, Love and Friendship, and Political Community”, Social Philosophy & Policy , 16: 252–289.
• Brown, R., 1987, Analyzing Love , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clausen, G., 2019, “Love of Whole Persons”, The Journal of Ethics , 23 (4): 347–67.
• Cocking, D. & Kennett, J., 1998, “Friendship and the Self”, Ethics , 108: 502–27.
• Cooper, J. M., 1977, “Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship”, Review of Metaphysics , 30: 619–48.
• Delaney, N., 1996, “Romantic Love and Loving Commitment: Articulating a Modern Ideal”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 33: 375–405.
• Ebels-Duggan, K., 2008, “Against Beneficence: A Normative Account of Love”, Ethics , 119: 142–70.
• Fisher, M., 1990, Personal Love , London: Duckworth.
• Frankfurt, H., 1999, “Autonomy, Necessity, and Love”, in Necessity, Volition, and Love , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–41.
• Friedman, M. A., 1993, What Are Friends For? Feminist Perspectives on Personal Relationships and Moral Theory , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 1998, “Romantic Love and Personal Autonomy”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 22: 162–81.
• Gilbert, M., 1989, On Social Facts , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 1996, Living Together: Rationality, Sociality, and Obligation , Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, 2000, Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Grau, C. & Smuts, A., 2017, Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Love , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hamlyn, D. W., 1989, “The Phenomena of Love and Hate”, in Soble (1989a), 218–234.
• Han, Y., 2021, “Do We Love for Reasons?”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research , 102: 106–126.
• Hegel, G. W. F., 1997, “A Fragment on Love”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 117–20.
• Helm, B. W., 2008, “Plural Agents”, Noûs , 42: 17–49.
• –––, 2009, “Love, Identification, and the Emotions”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 46: 39–59.
• –––, 2010, Love, Friendship, and the Self: Intimacy, Identification, and the Social Nature of Persons , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Howard, C., 2019, “Fitting Love and Reasons for Loving” in M. Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (Volume 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198846253.001.0001
• Jaworska, A. & Wonderly, M., 2017, “Love and Caring”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2020). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.15
• Jollimore, T, 2011, Love’s Vision , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Kolodny, N., 2003, “Love as Valuing a Relationship”, The Philosophical Review , 112: 135–89.
• Kraut, Robert, 1986 “Love De Re ”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 10: 413–30.
• LaFollette, H., 1996, Personal Relationships: Love, Identity, and Morality , Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Press.
• Lamb, R. E., (ed.), 1997, Love Analyzed , Westview Press.
• Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R., 1940, A Greek-English Lexicon , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edition.
• Martin, A., 2015, “Love, Incorporated”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 18: 691–702.
• Montaigne, M., [E], Essays , in The Complete Essays of Montaigne , Donald Frame (trans.), Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958.
• Naar, H., 2013, “A Dispositional Theory of Love”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 94(3): 342–357.
• Newton-Smith, W., 1989, “A Conceptual Investigation of Love”, in Soble (1989a), 199–217.
• Nozick, R., 1989, “Love’s Bond”, in The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations , New York: Simon & Schuster, 68–86.
• Nussbaum, M., 1990, “Love and the Individual: Romantic Rightness and Platonic Aspiration”, in Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 314–34.
• Nygren, A., 1953a, Agape and Eros , Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
• –––, 1953b, “ Agape and Eros ”, in Soble (1989a), 85–95.
• Ortiz-Millán, G., 2007, “Love and Rationality: On Some Possible Rational Effects of Love”, Kriterion , 48: 127–44.
• Pismenny, A. & Prinz, J., 2017, “Is Love an Emotion?”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2017). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.10
• Price, A. W., 1989, Love and Friendship in Plato and Arisotle , New York: Clarendon Press.
• Rorty, A. O., 1980, “Introduction”, in A. O. Rorty (ed.), Explaining Emotions , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1–8.
• –––, 1986/1993, “The Historicity of Psychological Attitudes: Love is Not Love Which Alters Not When It Alteration Finds”, in Badhwar (1993), 73–88.
• Scruton, R., 1986, Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic , New York: Free Press.
• Searle, J. R., 1990, “Collective Intentions and Actions”, in P. R. Cohen, M. E. Pollack, & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Intentions in Communication , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 401–15.
• Setiya, K., 2014, “Love and the Value of a Life”, Philosophical Review , 123: 251–80.
• Sherman, N., 1993, “Aristotle on the Shared Life”, in Badhwar (1993), 91–107.
• Singer, I., 1984a, The Nature of Love, Volume 1: Plato to Luther , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1984b, The Nature of Love, Volume 2: Courtly and Romantic , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1989, The Nature of Love, Volume 3: The Modern World , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn.
• –––, 1991, “From The Nature of Love ”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 259–78.
• –––, 1994, The Pursuit of Love , Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• –––, 2009, Philosophy of Love: A Partial Summing-up , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Soble, A. (ed.), 1989a, Eros, Agape, and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love , New York, NY: Paragon House.
• –––, 1989b, “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Love”, in Soble (1989a), xi-xxv.
• –––, 1990, The Structure of Love , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• –––, 1997, “Union, Autonomy, and Concern”, in Lamb (1997), 65–92.
• Solomon, R. C., 1976, The Passions , New York: Anchor Press.
• –––, 1981, Love: Emotion, Myth, and Metaphor , New York: Anchor Press.
• –––, 1988, About Love: Reinventing Romance for Our Times , New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Solomon, R. C. & Higgins, K. M. (eds.), 1991, The Philosophy of (Erotic) Love , Lawrence: Kansas University Press.
• Stump, E., 2006, “Love by All Accounts”, Presidential Address to the Central APA, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association , 80: 25–43.
• Taylor, G., 1976, “Love”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 76: 147–64.
• Telfer, E., 1970–71, “Friendship”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 71: 223–41.
• Thomas, L., 1987, “Friendship”, Synthese , 72: 217–36.
• –––, 1989, “Friends and Lovers”, in G. Graham & H. La Follette (eds.), Person to Person , Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 182–98.
• –––, 1991, “Reasons for Loving”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 467–476.
• –––, 1993, “Friendship and Other Loves”, in Badhwar (1993), 48–64.
• Tuomela, R., 1984, A Theory of Social Action , Dordrecht: Reidel.
• –––, 1995, The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Velleman, J. D., 1999, “Love as a Moral Emotion”, Ethics , 109: 338–74.
• –––, 2008, “Beyond Price”, Ethics , 118: 191–212.
• Vlastos, G., 1981, “The Individual as Object of Love in Plato”, in Platonic Studies , 2nd edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3–42.
• White, R. J., 2001, Love’s Philosophy , Rowman & Littlefield.
• Whiting, J. E., 1991, “Impersonal Friends”, Monist , 74: 3–29.
• –––, 2013, “Love: Self-Propagation, Self-Preservation, or Ekstasis?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 43: 403–29.
• Willigenburg, T. Van, 2005, “Reason and Love: A Non-Reductive Analysis of the Normativity of Agent-Relative Reasons”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 8: 45–62.
• Wollheim, R., 1984, The Thread of Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wonderly, M., 2016, “On Being Attached”, Philosophical Studies , 173: 223–42.
• –––, 2017, “Love and Attachment”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 54: 235–50.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Aristotle , Nicomachean Ethics , translated by W.D. Ross.
• Moseley, A., “ Philosophy of Love ,” in J. Fieser (ed.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

character, moral | emotion | friendship | impartiality | obligations: special | personal identity | Plato: ethics | Plato: rhetoric and poetry | respect | value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic

Copyright © 2021 by Bennett Helm < bennett . helm @ fandm . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Love and Relationship Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The word ‘love’ is observed to have distinct meanings in various settings and contexts. Different people from various cultural settings would tend to have different perceptions about love. Generally, love refers to some kind of inexplicable feeling which is felt by people towards others, probably those of the opposite sex. Relationship on the other hand would refer to the condition of people being connected or associated with each other.

We have all experienced love at one moment of life, but it is as though there is still much we don’t know about love itself. Humans have always asked inexplicable questions about love such as, “Why do we fall in love?” or “What makes us love others?” We may not necessarily have perfect answers for all the questions regarding love but there is no doubt that we have been closer to the right answers for most of these questions through the perception of psychologists.

For instance, according to love psychologists, the reason as to why we fall in love will depend on our minds. The way our minds perceive love is what comes out to us as love. Sometimes, these perceptions may match with the perceptions of another person and in that case love is certain to be realized.

Different groups of people have different views about love. Some communities would see it as something that would be contained in the eyes while others just associate it with blood thus the observations ‘love is in the eyes of the beholder’ and ‘blood is thicker than water’ respectively.

However, some aspects in life have come up to disqualify these perceptions, making people to search for other alternative explanations. For instance, let us consider the situation of blind people. Does their incapability to see hinder them from loving? More importantly, if love was really contained in the blood, will there be any cases concerning lost identities in life as we can see today?

Having asked ourselves these questions, it would be easy for us to appreciate the psychological view of love that is determined by our minds as the perfect answer to most of the questions we frequently ask ourselves regarding love. The issue of love and what makes people fall in love has been a subject of debate all over the world for a very long time. There may never be false love as some thinkers would observe, but we are all informed of the many uncertainties associated with love nowadays.

Think of someone who is strolling down the street without any specific focus or intention then suddenly, he bumps on a lady and it happens they fall in love at the first sight. How can this situation be explained? There is no other perfect manner we can explain this but through the ‘idea of the mind.’

What had just happened between the two people would depend on their brains. Single people; ones who are not in any relationship will always be in hunt for love and if someone fitting their criteria crosses their path, they will definitely be attracted to them and these feelings would trigger love instantly.

The person in this example fell in love with the lady she met on the street owing to the opportunistic perceptions of his mind that he was single and he needed a lover. This is just what happens to many people in this world as far as love is concerned.

As it would be observed, most people would appear to be crazy in love at the beginning of their relationship. This however is likely to change over the time and that fire would fade away as they continue seeing each other. They can even start having feelings of hate against each other.

This is another stand which can be used to justify the hypothesis in this argument. Most of the times, humans are misguided by their minds to make instant choices about love, instead of taking their time to think of the possible outcomes which are likely to arise later. This way, they end up making the wrong choices in what can be termed as ‘rushed love.’ This is a misunderstood situation that would be characterized by arguments and hate against each other come in the future.

To avoid such situations, psychologists have observed a number of factors for people to consider before thinking of falling in love. First of all, we should try to establish a checklist about the things we expect to see in our future lovers and some of the aspects which can apply in the checklist might include behavior, appearance, and education. A checklist is more likely to guide us to the right people thus sparing us future disappointments in relationships.

Through the observations of this topic, we get to learn the benefits of psychology in helping us come into terms with some behaviors and processes of life. Through psychology, we can gain practical benefits regarding various aspects of life. Psychology is always certain to offer satisfying answers to most of the questions we may frequently ask ourselves about many things facing us in our daily lives.

For instance, in the above case concerning love psychology would provide the right answers and the perfect guideline on how to go about it without regrets. This would help people make the right decisions thus avoiding future disappointments. In this case, we should see the capability of psychology in giving us the perfect guideline about sensitive issues of life.

• A Supplier’s Checklist for Barrien Metal Product Incorporation
• Children Safety Considerations Table and Checklist
• Comparing and Contrasting Expectations in a Relationship Engagement
• Relevance of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
• Addiction to an Experience
• Insomnia: A Sleeping Disorder Type
• Psychological Measurements and Requirements
• Studying Brain's Inner Workings
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 2). Love and Relationship. https://ivypanda.com/essays/love-and-relationship-essay/

"Love and Relationship." IvyPanda , 2 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/love-and-relationship-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Love and Relationship'. 2 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Love and Relationship." May 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/love-and-relationship-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Love and Relationship." May 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/love-and-relationship-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Love and Relationship." May 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/love-and-relationship-essay/.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Modern Love

How We Write About Love

By Daniel Jones

• Feb. 5, 2015

A few months ago, I read several articles touting the health benefits of writing in a deeply personal way. Studies had shown that writing introspectively on a regular basis can lead to lowered blood pressure, improved liver function and even the accelerated healing of postoperative wounds. The study’s subjects had been told to write for short periods each day about turbulent emotional experiences.

I bet a lot of them wrote about love. As the editor of this column, I have spent much of the last decade reading stories of people’s turbulent emotional experiences. They all involved love in one way or another.

Which isn’t so surprising. Who hasn’t been stirred up by love? But these writers had spun their experiences into stories and sent them here, where more than 99 percent must be turned away.

Although the would-be contributors may be happy to learn of the surprising health benefits of their writing, I think they hoped for a more glamorous reward than improved liver function.

Lately I have been thinking about those tens of thousands of passed-over stories and all the questions and lessons about love they represent. When taken together, what does all this writing reveal about us, or about love? Here’s what I have found.

First, and most basic: How we write about love depends on how old we are.

The young overwhelmingly write with a mixture of anxiety and hope. Their stories ask: What is it going to be for me?

Modern Love College Essay Contest

We invited college students nationwide to open their hearts and laptops and write an essay that tells the truth about what love is like for them today.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Subscribe to our newsletter

50 great articles and essays about love and relationships, love and life, masters of love by emily esfahani smith, this is emo by chuck klosterman, how to pick your life partner by tim urban, my superpower is being alone forever by joe berkowitz and joanna neborsky, it's not them, it's you by jen doll, together alone by michael hobbes, liking is for cowards by jonathan franzen, 30 more essays about life, relationships, in relationships, be deliberate by emily esfahani smith and galena rhoades, endless love by aaron ben-ze’ev, does a more equal marriage mean less sex by lori gottlieb, deeply, truly (but not physically) in love by lauren slater, is an open marriage a happier marriage by susan dominus, the breakup museum by leslie jamison, tinder and the dawn of the "dating apocalypse" by nancy jo sales, dating online by emily witt, love me tinder by emily witt, tinder hearted by allison p. davis, a million first dates by dan slater, mormons, orthodox jews and the dating crisis by jon birger, dating by numbers by kevin poulsen, why we cheat by lisa taddeo, why women stray by david buss, the adultery arms race by michelle cottle, the cuckold by james harms, why we love by helen fisher, essays in love by alain de botton, all about love by bell hooks, a general theory of love by thomas lewis, fari amini and richard lannon, 100 more great nonfiction books, see also..., 50 great psychology articles, 50 great essays about life, 20 great articles about happiness.

The Psychology of Love

Love by lauren slater, the science of love by barbara fredrickson, the biology of attraction by helen e. fisher, love is like cocaine by helen fisher, the rejection lab by alison kinney, there's no such thing as everlasting love by emily esfahani smith, 50 more articles about psychology, men, women, sex and darwin by natalie angier, 12 revelations about sex by alain de botton, safe-sex lies by meghan daum, why my wife won't sleep with me by sean elder, women who want to want by daniel bergner, 50 more articles about sex, kids these days, no labels, no drama, right by jordana narin, why developing serious relationships in your 20s matters by elizabeth spiers, like. flirt. ghost. by mary h. k. choi, friends without benefits by nancy jo sales, boys on the side by hanna rosin, 50 more articles about growing up, the limits of friendship by maria konnikova, the type of love that makes people happiest by arthur c. brooks, how friendships change in adulthood by julie beck, it’s your friends who break your heart by jennifer senior, friends of a certain age by alex williams, a guide to friendship, schmoozing, and social advancement by glenn o'brien, the man date by jennifer 8. lee.

About The Electric Typewriter We search the net to bring you the best nonfiction, articles, essays and journalism

The Key to the Good Life: Bertrand Russell on Love and How to Stop Limiting Your Happiness

By maria popova.

After establishing his definition of the good life — “The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge,” Russell writes. “Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life.” — he turns to the more essential of these two ingredients, the one humanity has spent centuries trying to define and dedicated entire philosophies to mastering . Russell writes:

Although both love and knowledge are necessary, love is in a sense more fundamental, since it will lead intelligent people to seek knowledge, in order to find out how to benefit those whom they love. But if people are not intelligent, they will be content to believe what they have been told, and may do harm in spite of the most genuine benevolence.

Once again, Russell’s prescience reveals itself — many decades later, the great Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanhs would come to write that “to love without knowing how to love wounds the person we love.” But Russell is careful to note that knowing how to love first requires that we come to know love’s many dimensions:

Love is a word which covers a variety of feelings; I have used it purposely, as I wish to include them all. Love as an emotion — which is what I am speaking about, for love “on principle” does not seem to me genuine — moves between two poles: on one side, pure delight in contemplation; on the other, pure benevolence. Where inanimate objects are concerned, delight alone enters in; we cannot feel benevolence towards a landscape or a sonata. This type of enjoyment is presumably the source of art. It is stronger, as a rule, in very young children than in adults, who are apt to view objects in a utilitarian spirit. It plays a large part in our feelings towards human beings, some of whom have charm and some the reverse, when considered simply as objects of aesthetic contemplation.

The alchemy of a complete love, Russell argues, fuses these two elements of delight and benevolence in beholding the beloved:

Love at its fullest is an indissoluble combination of the two elements, delight and well-wishing. The pleasure of a parent in a beautiful and successful child combines both elements; so does sex-love at its best. But in sex-love benevolence will only exist where there is secure possession, since otherwise jealousy will destroy it, while perhaps actually increasing the delight in contemplation. Delight without well-wishing may be cruel; well-wishing without delight easily tends to become cold and a little superior. A person who wishes to be loved wishes to be the object of a love containing both elements.

The imbalance between the two is, perhaps, what unnerved Susan Sontag as she contemplated “love, sex, and the world between half a century later. For Russell, this two-legged love is inseparable from the second element of the good life: knowledge. But he is careful to note that this knowledge is scientific — a knowledge of the world in its full fact and glimmering reality — rather than ethical. Morality, he argues, is a wholly different matter — and yet, strangely, it too circles back to a psychological force we’ve come to associate with love: desire. In a sentiment that calls to mind the crossroads of Should and Must , he writes:

All moral rules must be tested by examining whether they tend to realize ends that we desire. I say ends that we desire, not ends that we ought to desire. What we “ought” to desire is merely what someone else wishes us to desire. Usually it is what the authorities wish us to desire — parents, school-masters, policemen, and judges. If you say to me “you ought to do so-and-so,” the motive power of your remark lies in my desire for your approval — together, possibly, with rewards or punishments attached to your approval or disapproval. Since all behavior springs from desire, it is clear that ethical notions can have no importance except as they influence desire. They do this through the desire for approval and the fear of disapproval. These are powerful social forces, and we shall naturally endeavor to win them to our side if we wish to realize any social purpose.

Desire, Russell insists, is a driver so potent that it can’t be legislated against or controlled via any other sticks-and-carrots system — it can only be harnessed and cultivated:

There is no conceivable way of making people do things they do not wish to do. What is possible is to alter their desires by a system of rewards and penalties, among which social approval and disapproval are not the least potent. The question for the legislative moralist is, therefore: How shall this system of rewards and punishments be arranged so as to secure the maximum of what is desired by the legislative authority? … Outside human desires there is no moral standard. Thus, what distinguishes ethics from science is not any special kind of knowledge but merely desire.

And yet our conception of morality, Russell argues, seems completely divorced from the realities of the human experience:

Current morality is a curious blend of utilitarianism and superstition, but the superstitious part has the stronger hold, as is natural, since superstition is the origin of moral rules. Originally, certain acts were thought displeasing to the gods, and were forbidden by law because the divine wrath was apt to descend upon the community, not merely upon the guilty individuals. Hence arose the conception of sin, as that which is displeasing to God. No reason can be assigned as to why certain acts should be thus displeasing.

This, of course, calls to mind not only Mark Twain’s general lament about how we’ve used religion to justify injustice but also the particular superstition with which homosexuality has been historically regarded. But even as early as 1925, Russell — a conscientious critic of religion — recognizes the absurdity of such thinking and points to the critical thinking required for making up one’s own mind in evaluating the alleged dangers of what such superstition condemns as “immoral”:

It is evident that a man with a scientific outlook on life cannot let himself be intimidated by texts of Scripture or by the teaching of the Church. He will not be content to say “such-and-such an act is sinful, and that ends the matter.” He will inquire whether it does any harm or whether, on the contrary, the belief that it is sinful does harm. And he will find that, especially in what concerns sex, our current morality contains a very great deal of which the origin is purely superstitious. He will find also that this superstition, like that of the Aztecs, involves needless cruelty, and would be swept away if people were actuated by kindly feelings towards their neighbors. But the defenders of traditional morality are seldom people with warm hearts… One is tempted to think that they value morals as affording a legitimate outlet for their desire to inflict pain; the sinner is fair game, and therefore away with tolerance!

How remarkable to consider that Russell’s admonition comes two decades before those same heartless defenders of so-called morality drove computing pioneer Alan Turing, one of humanity’s most magnificent and significant minds, into the grave and nearly a century before the equality of love triumphed over DOMA . Many decades later, Oliver Sacks would remark in his moving autobiography that “sex is one of those areas — like religion and politics — where otherwise decent and rational people may have intense, irrational feelings.” Indeed, Russell addresses this matter directly:

It should be recognized that, in the absence of children, sexual relations are a purely private matter, which does not concern either the State or the neighbors. Certain forms of sex which do not lead to children are at present punished by the criminal law: this is purely superstitious, since the matter is one which affects no one except the parties directly concerned.

Much of this, he argues, is the task of education, something at least as urgent today, when creationism — the most standardized mode of superstition — is still being taught in classrooms:

In all stages of education the influence of superstition is disastrous. A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit. Inconvenient questions are met with ‘hush, hush’, or with punishment.

Half a century before The Little Red Schoolbook and before Italo Calvino made his passionate case for reproductive rights , Russell points ever so elegantly at the misogynistic “morality” espoused by the church:

At puberty, the elements of an unsuperstitious sexual morality ought to be taught. Boys and girls should be taught that nothing can justify sexual intercourse unless there is mutual inclination. This is contrary to the teaching of the Church, which holds that, provided the parties are married and the man desires another child, sexual intercourse is justified however great may be the reluctance of the wife. Boys and girls should be taught respect for each other’s liberty; they should be made to feel that nothing gives one human being rights over another, and that jealousy and possessiveness kill love. They should be taught that to bring another human being into the world is a very serious matter, only to be undertaken when the child will have a reasonable prospect of health, good surroundings, and parental care. But they should also be taught methods of birth control, so as to insure that children shall only come when they are wanted.

Returning to the relationship between morality and the two pillars of the good life, Russell — predating Martin Luther King’s famous proclamation that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” by several decades — writes:

Moral rules ought not to be such as to make instinctive happiness impossible. […] The good life, we said, is a life inspired by love and guided by knowledge… [But] in all that differentiates between a good life and a bad one, the world is a unity, and the man who pretends to live independently is a conscious or unconscious parasite. […] To live a good life in the fullest sense a man must have a good education, friends, love, children (if he desires them), a sufficient income to keep him from want and grave anxiety, good health, and work which is not uninteresting. All these things, in varying degrees, depend upon the community, and are helped or hindered by political events. The good life must be lived in a good society, and is not fully possible otherwise.

What I Believe is a timeless trove of wisdom from cover to cover. Complement it with Russell on the power of “fruitful monotony” and why science is essential to democracy .

— Published May 18, 2015 — https://www.themarginalian.org/2015/05/18/bertrand-russell-what-i-believe-love/ —

www.themarginalian.org

PRINT ARTICLE

Email article, filed under, bertrand russell books culture love philosophy psychology, view full site.

The Marginalian participates in the Bookshop.org and Amazon.com affiliate programs, designed to provide a means for sites to earn commissions by linking to books. In more human terms, this means that whenever you buy a book from a link here, I receive a small percentage of its price, which goes straight back into my own colossal biblioexpenses. Privacy policy . (TLDR: You're safe — there are no nefarious "third parties" lurking on my watch or shedding crumbs of the "cookies" the rest of the internet uses.)

Feb 20, 2023

250-500 Word Example Essays About Love and Romance

Got an Essay assignment about Love and Romance? Let us help you out with these inspiring Examples!

Love, an emotion that has captivated the hearts and minds of poets, authors, and artists throughout history, remains a profound and multi-faceted subject. While the depth and complexity of this emotion can make it a daunting topic to explore in an essay, the right resources can turn this challenge into a rewarding endeavor. For those looking to capture the essence of love and romance in their writing, our essay writer can be a beacon of inspiration and assistance. This tool, powered by Jenni.ai, offers a seamless journey through the essay-writing process, from brainstorming ideas to refining the final draft. 

Whether you're delving into argumentative, persuasive , or reflective essays about love, Jenni.ai ensures clarity, coherence, and a touch of elegance in your prose. It's a trusted companion for students, educators, and seasoned writers alike, simplifying the writing journey every step of the way.

1. The Evolution of Love: A Study of the Changing Nature of Romance throughout History

Introduction.

Love is one of humanity's most complicated and mysterious emotions. People have strived to comprehend and define Love throughout history, resulting in many works of literature, art, and music dedicated to the subject. Despite its universal appeal, the nature of Love has evolved significantly throughout time, reflecting evolving cultural, social, and economic situations. In this essay, we will look at the evolution of Love, from ancient times to the present.

Ancient Love

A. Greek and Roman Love

Love was viewed as a complex and varied feeling in ancient Greece and Rome, comprising characteristics of desire, friendship, and awe. Love was frequently represented as a tremendous force in ancient civilizations, capable of both propelling individuals to high heights of success and bringing them down into the depths of sorrow. This was especially true of romantic Love, which was glorified in epic poems like the Iliad and Odyssey , as well as works of art and literature depicting the hardships and sufferings of star-crossed lovers.

B. Medieval Love

A chivalric code known as courtly Love emerged in medieval Europe. Its core tenants were the importance of Love, honour, and devotion. During this time, romantic Love was typically portrayed as an unrequited emotion, with the lover pining for the affections of a faraway and unreachable beloved. Medieval poets and troubadours mirrored this romanticised picture of Love in their works by singing and writing about the highs and lows of passionate Love.

Modern Love

A. The Renaissance

The idealized picture of Love that had ruled for centuries was called into question by artists and intellectuals during the Renaissance, marking a turning point in the development of romantic relationships. During this time, romantic Love was portrayed as more tactile and visceral. Shakespeare, for instance, reflected the shifting beliefs of his day by exploring the nuanced and often tragic nature of Love in his works.

B. The Enlightenment

The concepts of reason and individuality began to gain root during the Enlightenment, and with that came a shift in how people saw Love. Political marriages and alliances were often formed based on Love, which was now considered a more sensible and practical feeling. Thinkers from the Enlightenment period, including Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, shared this perspective on Love as a tool for bettering society and the individual.

C. The Modern Era

Today, the word "love" is most often used to describe a feeling one has when they are in a committed relationship or when one has achieved their own goals. Love has become a consumable good thanks to the spread of consumerism and the worship of the individual. The media and arts reflect this conception of Love by depicting it as a means to one's fulfillment and contentment.

The changing cultural, social, and economic conditions of each historical epoch are reflected in the history of Love. The essence of Love has changed dramatically throughout the years, from its idealised image in ancient Greece and Rome to its depiction as a spiritual tie in mediaeval Europe to its current identification with romantic relationships and personal fulfilment. Despite these changes, Love remains a strong and enduring force in human existence, inspiring numerous works of art, literature, and music and affecting how we live and interact with one another.

2. The Power of Love: Examining the Impact of Love on Our Lives and Relationships

Love is a strong feeling that may dramatically alter our life and the bonds we form with others. love, whether romantic, familial, or platonic, can unite us and improve our lives in countless ways., the benefits of love.

A. Improved Physical Health

Love has been demonstrated to improve physical health by decreasing stress, lowering blood pressure, and increasing immunity. The hormone oxytocin, which is released in response to social bonding and has been demonstrated to reduce physiological responses to stress, is thought to be at play here.

B. Enhanced Mental Health

In addition to its physical benefits, Love has been shown to have a beneficial effect on our mental health, lowering stress and anxiety levels and boosting our general sense of happiness. The protective powers of Love against the negative consequences of stress and other difficulties in life are well accepted.

C. Strengthened Relationships

A stronger tie may be formed between two people via the power of Love. Relationships of all kinds, whether romantic, familial, or platonic, may benefit from the strengthening effects of Love by increasing their levels of closeness, trust, and mutual understanding.

The Challenges of Love

A. Love can be painful

Sometimes Love hurts, as when a relationship ends or when we can't find the one we're looking for. One of life's most trying events is losing someone we care about, which may leave us feeling isolated, discouraged, and empty.

The Power of Love to Overcome Challenges

Despite these difficulties, Love may help us overcome them and grow closer to one another. The strength of Love is that it may help us learn and grow, both as people and as a community, via its many forms, such as forgiveness, compromise, and the willingness to persevere through adversity.

Finally, Love is a strong and transformational force that may profoundly influence our lives and relationships. Love may provide us joy, comfort, and a feeling of purpose, whether between friends, family, or romantic partners. Despite its numerous advantages, Love may also bring with it difficulties such as heartbreak and strife. Nonetheless, never underestimate the power of Love. 

It has the potential to draw people together and form deep, long-lasting bonds. Love has the power to make the world a better place, whether through acts of kindness, selflessness, or simply being there for one another. So, let us embrace Love in all of its manifestations and harness its potential to improve our lives and the lives of those around us.

3. The Science of Love: Understanding the Biology and Psychology Behind Love and Attraction

For millennia, people have been drawn and intrigued by the intricate and intriguing feeling of Love. Despite its enormous global significance, the science of Love is now being thoroughly investigated. This paper will investigate the biology and psychology of Love and attraction, delving into the different elements that impact these powerful emotions and how they form our relationships.

The Biology of Love

A. Hormone Function

Love is a biological process controlled by chemicals such as dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin. These hormones influence our sensations of attraction, enthusiasm, and enjoyment and boost sentiments of trust and closeness.

B. The Influence of Genetics

Genetics also has an impact on Love and attraction, with some personality qualities and physical characteristics that are considered to be appealing to potential spouses being handed down from generation to generation. This suggests that particular preferences for specific sorts of people are hardwired into our genetics, influencing our romantic and sexual attraction patterns.

The Psychology of Love

A. The Role of Attachment Styles

Our attachment types, which we acquire from our early connections with our caretakers, also affect our Love. These attachment types can significantly influence our later relationships, influencing how we build and keep deep attachments with others.

B. The Impact of Social Norms and Values

Cultural Values

Social conventions and cultural ideas also impact Love and attraction, with societal expectations and values impacting our romantic and sexual impulses. These social conventions and cultural ideas influence everything from who we are attracted to and how we approach and pursue relationships.

The Meeting of Biology and

Love Psychology

The biology and psychology of Love are inextricably linked and interdependent, with one having a complicated and subtle impact on the other. This suggests that, while biology influences our sentiments of attraction and Love, our psychological experiences and beliefs may equally shape these emotions.

To summarise, love science is a complicated and intriguing discipline that encompasses the biology and psychology of this strong and transformational emotion. By investigating the elements that impact Love and attraction, we may gain a deeper understanding of the systems that underpin these feelings and how they shape our lives and relationships. The study of Love is a vital and beneficial effort, whether we seek Love, attempt to preserve Love, or wonder about the science underlying this feeling.

4. The Fine Line Between Love and Obsession: Exploring the Dark Side of Love

Love is a powerful and transformative emotion that can bring immense joy and fulfilment to our lives. But Love can also turn dark and dangerous when it crosses the line into obsession. This essay will examine the fine line between Love and obsession, exploring how Love can become unhealthy and dangerous.

The Characteristics of Obsessive Love

A. Unhealthy Attachment

Obsessive Love is characterized by an unhealthy attachment to another person, with the obsessed person becoming overly dependent on their partner for emotional fulfilment. This can lead to feelings of possessiveness and jealousy, as well as a need for constant attention and validation.

B. Control and Manipulation

Obsessive Love can also involve control and manipulation, with the obsessed person trying to control every aspect of their partner's life and behaviour. This can range from minor acts of manipulation, such as trying to dictate what their partner wears or who they spend time with, to more serious forms of control, such as physical abuse or stalking.

The Dark Side of Love

A. Stalking and Harassment

The dark side of Love can take many forms, with stalking and harassment being among the most extreme and dangerous forms of obsessive behaviour. Stalking and harassment can have serious and long-lasting consequences for the victim, causing fear, stress, and trauma that can impact their mental and physical well-being.

B. Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is another form of the dark side of Love, with physical, sexual, and psychological abuse being used as a means of control and domination. Domestic violence can have devastating consequences for the victim, often leading to serious injury or even death.

The Roots of Obsessive Love

A. Psychological Issues

Obsessive Love can have its roots in psychological issues, including depression, anxiety, and borderline personality disorder. These conditions can lead to feelings of insecurity and low self-esteem, making it difficult for individuals to form healthy relationships.

B. Cultural and Social Factors

Cultural and social factors can also play a role in the development of obsessive Love, with certain societal beliefs and norms promoting possessiveness and control in relationships. This can include gender roles, expectations, and cultural beliefs about Love and relationships.

In conclusion, the fine line between Love and obsession is delicate and dangerous, with Love crossing over into unhealthy and dangerous territory when it becomes obsessive. By understanding the characteristics of obsessive Love and how it can take dark and dangerous forms, we can better protect ourselves and our loved ones from the negative consequences of this powerful emotion.

5. The Concept of Unconditional Love: An Analysis of the Ideal of Selfless Love

All kinds of different things count as Love since it's such a complicated and diverse feeling. Unconditional Love is frequently depicted as altruistic, all-encompassing, and unshakable, making it one of the most romanticized types. In this essay, I'd discuss the idea of unconditional Love, defining it and contrasting it with other types of affection.

An Explanation of Selfless Love

A. Selfless Love

The term "unconditional love" is commonly used to describe a type of Love that puts the other person's needs before its own. In this kind of Love, one person cares for another without any thought of return or compensation.

B. Love that encompasses everything

Many people use the term "all-encompassing" to express how unconditional Love embraces a person regardless of who they are or what they've done in their lives. A love like this doesn't depend on the other person changing or improving in any way; rather, it's an unconditional embrace of the person as they are.

The Ideal of Unconditional Love

A. Love Without Conditions

Unconditional Love is a romantic ideal in which the lover places no restrictions on the object of his affection. Since it involves so much giving of oneself, this kind of Love is typically held up as the pinnacle of romantic relationships.

B. Putting the Feeling into Action

However, since we are all flawed human beings, practising unconditional Love can be challenging in daily life. Although this may be the case, the ideal of unconditional Love is still significant since it motivates us to improve our Love and compassion towards others.

The Advantages of Unconditional Love

A. Stronger Connections

Unconditional Love has the potential to improve our connections with others, leading to deeper and more meaningful bonds. This kind of Love creates a non-judgmental and welcoming attitude towards people, which can assist to lessen conflict and improve understanding.

B. More Joy and Satisfaction

As a result of the more profound relationships it fosters, unconditional Love may also increase a person's sense of well-being and contentment. Finding Love like this may give our life new meaning and make us feel whole.

In conclusion, many of us hold unconditional Love as a relationship goal. Even if it's not always possible, the ideal of unconditional Love is worthwhile since it motivates us to increase our Love and compassion. The concept of unconditional Love may lead us to a more meaningful and happy lifestyle, whether our goal is to better our relationships or to find more pleasure and contentment in general.

6. The Importance of Communication in Love Relationships: A Study of the Role of Communication in Maintaining Love

Love relationships, like all others, benefit greatly from open lines of communication between partners. Connecting with one another on a regular basis, whether it's to chat about the day, express emotions, or problem-solve, is crucial to keeping the Love alive between you. This essay will discuss the significance of communication in romantic relationships, specifically how it helps couples stay together and grow closer over time.

Advantages of good communication

Increased Compatibility and Mutual Understanding

Love partnerships benefit significantly from open lines of communication that facilitate mutual understanding and closeness. Sharing our innermost ideas, emotions, and experiences with our partners via direct and honest communication strengthens our bonds with them.

Reduced Conflict

As we can better address difficulties and find positive solutions to differences when communicating effectively, we experience less conflict in our relationships. Relationships may be stronger and more loving by talking through differences and finding common ground.

The Difficulties in Expressing Your Feelings in a Romantic Relationship

A. Confusing Messages and Confused Intents

Good communication can sometimes be difficult, especially in romantic partnerships, despite its many advantages. Conflict, anger and a lack of trust may all result from poor communication and misunderstandings in relationships.

B. Vulnerability and Emotional Safety

Likewise, it takes courage and trust to open up and talk about your feelings with the person you love. It may be nerve-wracking to communicate our innermost thoughts and feelings with a partner because of the risk of being judged harshly or rejected.

The Importance of Active Listening

What is Active Listening?

Maintaining positive connections with others requires not just good talkers but also good listeners. Paying close attention to the other person as they speak and making an effort to get their viewpoint and requirements is an essential component of active listening.

The Benefits of Active Listening

The ability to listen attentively and process information can have a significant influence on interpersonal bonds. You may show your spouse how much you value their opinion and the commitment you have to the relationship by listening attentively to what they have to say.

Finally, it's important to note that communication is a cornerstone of successful, loving partnerships. Communication is crucial for developing and maintaining healthy relationships , whether it is via problem-solving, venting, or just listening. Your relationship may grow stronger and become more rewarding and loving if you put an emphasis on communicating well with one another.

Final Words

Love is a complicated and varied theme that has inspired numerous works of art, literature, and music. Whether it is the science of Love, the power of Love, or the development of Love, there is a great deal to learn and comprehend about this universal feeling. 

Students now have access to a potent tool that may assist them in writing essays about Love with ease and assurance thanks to Jenni.ai. From giving ideas and recommendations to leading you through the writing process, Jenni.ai is the ideal option for anyone who wants to write about Love and relationships. Why then wait? Sign up for a free trial of Jenni.ai today and explore its numerous writing perks!

Try Jenni for free today

Create your first piece of content with Jenni today and never look back

Essay on Love

Students are often asked to write an essay on Love in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Love

Understanding love.

Love is a powerful emotion, felt by all creatures. It’s a bond that connects us, making us care deeply for others. From family to friends, we experience love in different forms.

Types of Love

There are many types of love. We love our family unconditionally, our friends deeply, and our pets loyally. This shows love’s versatility.

The Power of Love

Love can bring happiness, comfort, and warmth. It can heal wounds and bring peace. The power of love is truly magical.

Love’s Challenges

Love isn’t always easy. It can bring pain and heartache. But overcoming these challenges strengthens love.

Also check:

250 Words Essay on Love

The essence of love.

Love, a universal sentiment, is a complex and multidimensional concept that has been the subject of countless discourses and studies. It is a powerful emotion, a binding force that transcends physicality and enters the realm of the spiritual.

The Multifaceted Nature of Love

Love is not monolithic; it is multifaceted and varies in intensity and expression. It can be romantic, platonic, familial, or self-love. Each type is vital and contributes to our overall well-being. Romantic love, for instance, is often characterized by passion and intimacy. Platonic love, on the other hand, is grounded in intellectual connection and shared interests.

The Transformative Power of Love

Love has the power to transform individuals and societies. It fosters empathy, kindness, and understanding, breaking down barriers and promoting unity. Love can heal wounds, mend broken hearts, and inspire acts of selflessness and sacrifice. It is the catalyst for human growth and the foundation of our humanity.

Despite its beauty, love is not without challenges. It can lead to heartbreak, disappointment, and despair. However, these trials are part of the journey of love, teaching us resilience and the value of vulnerability.

The Enduring Mystery of Love

In conclusion, love is a multifaceted, transformative, and enduring emotion that shapes our lives in profound and intricate ways. It is the essence of our humanity, a testament to our capacity for empathy, compassion, and connection.

500 Words Essay on Love

The concept of love.

Love, a four-letter word that encapsulates a plethora of emotions, is a universal concept that transcends all barriers. It is a deeply personal and subjective experience, yet it also serves as a communal bond that ties societies together. The complexity of love is such that it can be viewed from various perspectives, including biological, psychological, and philosophical.

Biological Perspective of Love

Psychological perspective of love, philosophical perspective of love.

Philosophically, love is often viewed as an existential need. It is seen as a path to self-discovery and personal growth. The philosopher Plato suggested that love is the pursuit of the whole, a quest for completeness. This idea is echoed in the concept of ‘soulmates’ prevalent in popular culture. Yet, love is not solely about finding the ‘missing piece’; it is also about selflessly caring for another, seeking their happiness, and accepting them unconditionally.

Love as a Social Construct

Conclusion: the complexity and importance of love.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Essay on Love | Love Essay for Students and Children in English

February 7, 2024 by Prasanna

Essay on Love: Love has many meanings. It can mean being affectionate towards a person, and the affection reciprocated. Love is a set of emotions that we experience. Love could also mean beliefs or behaviors that show your affection towards someone. Love is a feeling that everybody yearns. It makes them feel happy and vital.

Love can be for many things, family, partners, pets, nature, and even for oneself. Honesty, care, and trust accompany love. As humans, we depend on one and other, and though we may be different, love binds us all together and making the world a much better place.

You can read more  Essay Writing  about articles, events, people, sports, technology many more.

Long and Short Essays On Love for Students and Kids in English

We have given one long essay on love of 400-500 words and one short essay on love of 200 words. The long essay on love is for students of classes 7,8,9, and 10 and competitive exam aspirants. Short Essay on Love is suitable for students of Classes 1,2,3,4,5 and 6.

Long Essay on Love 500 Words in English

Love is the many emotions that we experienced when affection and care showed to us. It is not just romance. Love can mean many things and can vary from person to person. Honesty, care, and trust constitute love. Everyone wants to be loved. It gives them happiness and makes them feel like they matter. We love for many things, and the love we think varies throughout our lives.

Our first experience of love is at birth. The bond that we form with our parents is one of the purest. Parents love us from the moment we are born, and this love only grows stronger. They care for us and help us improve. A child always needs the warmth and love of their parents. As we grow older, we learn to become more independent and do not need our parents as much. However, they are always there when we need them, and they will ever love us. As they grow older, they need our help and attention. Moving on with our lives and forgetting about them affects them, and they feel lonely. We need to be there for them the same way they were with us.

Siblings may not always get along and fight constantly, but the love between them is the strongest. Despite all the insults and arguments, they will always defend us and keep us safe. The love between them is unspoken but still felt; the expression of love is not the way we think it to be. Though siblings may not say, “I love you,” we know that they do. Grandparents shower their love for their grandkids. They also want to spend time with them and create memories, and they are there for us no matter what. They always want to see their grandchildren happy.

Love is the base for romantic relationships; two partners who care and love each other. They trust each other and try to work out their differences when they fight. Friendships also have the essence of love. Though it may not be romantic, friends still love us. They care for us, make us happy, and care about us. Friendships based on popularity and status does not last long.

Friendships require trust and someone who you can open to without thinking twice. You make the best memories and have the most fun. Most of all, a friend is someone you can count on; that is love. Sometimes, these relationships may not work out. Rather than feeling wrong and shameful, we must cherish the moments we had and not hate anybody. Love can be towards nature: appreciating what Earth has given us and protecting them with care.

Loving yourself is the most important. When someone acts differently from what others perceive as normal, they are often left out.

We must learn to accept who we are and the way we look. Once we accept ourselves, we can truly love. Love is not just about other people, but it is also about loving ourselves first. Love is also accepting others for who they are, not what we expect them to be.

Short Essay On Love 200 Words in English

Love is a wide range of emotions we feel. When we trust someone and show affection towards them, it is love.

Parents shower us with love since birth. They take care of us and make sure that we are always happy. As we grow older, they teach us many values, most of all, how to love someone. They love us even when we lead our own lives and do not depend on them much. The love between parents and their children is pure. Grandparents love their grandchildren. They tell us their childhood stories and will do anything to make their grandchildren smile.

We show love for our siblings. Though siblings fight, they always love each other. Love can also be for our friends, who play with us and we have loads of fun. They are still there for us, no matter what. Love can happen between two people who care about each other and happy. Love can also be for our environment when we care for plants and animals by protecting our environment.

Love makes us happy and makes us feel like we matter. Showing affection helps a person feel better. Love is the basis of any relationship we have in life. We must learn to love ourselves and the people around us.

10 Lines on the Topic Essay on Love in English

The ten lines are helpful for competitive exam aspirants and while making speeches.

• Love is the many emotions that we experience affection and care.
• Honesty, responsibility, and trust constitute love.
• It is a feeling that everybody years for as it makes them feel happy and vital.
• Our first experience of love is at birth. The bond that we form with our parents is one of the purest.
• Parents teach us important values and make us independent. We need to be there for them the same way they were with us.
• The love between siblings is an unspoken one but always felt. Despite the fights and arguments, they defend us and make us feel safe.
• Grandparents shower their love for their grandkids. They also want to spend time with them and make sure that they are always smiling.
• Love is the base for romantic relationships; two partners who care and love each other. They work out their differences when they quarrel and trust each other immensely.
• Friendships also have the essence of love. Friendships require trust and someone who you can open to without thinking twice.
• We must learn to accept who we are and the way we look. Once we accept ourselves, we can truly love.

FAQ’s On Essay on Love

Question 1. How can we define love?

Answer: Love is the many emotions that we experience affection and care. It is not just romance. Love can mean many things and can vary from person to person. Honesty, care, and trust constitute love.

Question 2. Does love only involve romance?

Answer: Love is not just about romance. Love can be for our parents, siblings, friends, nature, and oneself.

Question 3. How does love play a role in friendship?

Answer: Though it may not be romantic, friends still love us. They care for us, make us happy, and care about us. Friendships require trust and someone who is always there for you. You make the best memories and have the most fun.

Question 4. How can we love ourselves?

Answer: We must learn to accept who we are and the way we look. Once we accept ourselves, we can truly love. Love is not just about other people, but it is also about loving ourselves first.

• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos

Make Your Note

A Good Life is One Inspired by Love and Guided by Knowledge

• 18 Apr 2024
• 10 min read

I Slept and Dreamt That Life was Joy. I Awoke and Saw That Life was Service. I Acted and Behold, Service was Joy. 

— rabindranath tagore.

Throughout history, humanity has turned to diverse philosophies, religions, and ethical systems for guidance in pursuing a fulfilling life. Amidst this vast array of teachings, one timeless concept remains prominent, the idea that a meaningful life is driven by love and steered by knowledge. This principle captures the fundamental essence of living with purpose, integrity, and wisdom . This essay will investigate the intricate relationship between love and knowledge, examining their impact on our perceptions, choices, and holistic welfare.

In the vast array of human existence, one thread weaves through the fabric of every meaningful experience i.e., love. Love  is the force that propels us forward, the light that illuminates our darkest days, and the essence that gives depth and richness to our lives. A good life, then, is not merely a sequence of accomplishments or material acquisitions, but rather a journey inspired by love in its myriad forms. Whether it be the love shared between partners, the bonds forged within families, or the compassion extended to strangers, love serves as the cornerstone upon which we build our most cherished memories and aspirations.

At its essence, love cultivates bonds, empathy , and selflessness, fostering a profound sense of belonging and direction within individuals and societies alike. Whether directed towards oneself, others, or the broader world, love motivates acts of kindness, compassion, and generosity. Whether it manifests in familial ties, friendships, romantic relationships, or a universal love for humanity, this profound sentiment stands as a cornerstone for nurturing enriching connections and facilitating personal evolution.

Furthermore, love ignites passion and creativity, driving individuals to pursue their dreams and aspirations with fervor and determination. When guided by love, people often find themselves drawn to activities, causes, or professions that resonate with their deepest values and desires . This alignment between passion and purpose not only brings joy and fulfillment to individuals but also contributes positively to society at large.

While love provides the inspiration, knowledge serves as the guiding light that illuminates the path towards a good life. Knowledge encompasses not only factual information but also insights gained through experience, education, and reflection . It empowers individuals to make informed decisions, navigate complexities , and solve problems effectively. In a rapidly changing world, where uncertainty and ambiguity abound, the importance of knowledge cannot be overstated.

The Bhakti movement , with its emphasis on devotion and love for a higher power, transcended social barriers, demonstrating how love and spiritual knowledge can strengthen social bonds.

Living a good life is guided by knowledge . It's like having a map that helps us navigate through the ups and downs of life. Knowledge empowers us to make informed decisions , understand the world around us, and cultivate meaningful relationships. Whether it's learning from our experiences, gaining wisdom from others, or seeking out new information, knowledge enriches our lives and opens doors to new opportunities.

Moreover, knowledge cultivates critical thinking, skepticism, and open-mindedness, enabling individuals to question assumptions, challenge dogma , and seek truth . This intellectual curiosity drives continuous learning and growth, allowing individuals to expand their perspectives, deepen their understanding of the world, and adapt to new circumstances with resilience and agility.

Skepticism and open-minded inquiry are essential to the thriving of science. Scientists continuously interrogate assumptions, contest established theories, and search for evidence to either support or challenge hypotheses. For instance, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity disrupted the conventional understanding of space, time, and gravity. This disruption led to significant advancements in physics, ultimately enhancing human life through various avenues.

In the digital era , knowledge empowers individuals to assess information from diverse media sources critically. For instance, during elections, well-informed citizens apply their critical thinking abilities to verify political statements, identify biased reporting, and make informed voting choices based on credible facts rather than misinformation or propaganda. This improved decision-making process among citizens ultimately impacts society as a whole by ensuring the election of suitable candidates.

Philosophers employ critical thinking and open-minded exploration to delve into fundamental inquiries about existence, morality, and the nature of reality. For example, Socrates , renowned for his skepticism, urged his followers to scrutinize their beliefs through dialogue and introspection. This approach fosters intellectual humility and a deeper comprehension of oneself and the world, thereby facilitating the ease of others' lives.

Knowledge of different cultures and perspectives fosters open-mindedness and empathy. For example, travelers who immerse themselves in diverse cultural experiences gain a broader understanding of human diversity, challenging stereotypes and fostering appreciation for the richness of global heritage.

The symbiotic relationship between love and knowledge is evident in how they inform and complement each other in shaping our lives. Love without knowledge risks becoming naive or misguided , leading individuals to act impulsively or overlook consequences. Conversely, knowledge without love may result in cold rationality or indifference, lacking the warmth and empathy necessary for meaningful human connections.

When love intertwines with knowledge, it takes on a deliberate and perceptive quality, rooted in a profound comprehension of oneself and others. When knowledge is infused with love, it takes on a compassionate and empathetic quality, motivated by a genuine concern for the welfare of all individuals. The synergy between love and knowledge creates a harmonious equilibrium, nurturing comprehensive growth and thriving.

In practical terms, living a life inspired by love and guided by knowledge entails a commitment to certain principles and practices. It involves cultivating self-awareness and emotional intelligence, fostering a deeper understanding of one's own values, beliefs, and motivations . This self-awareness serves as the foundation for building authentic relationships and making choices aligned with one's principles.

India's Chipko Movement, originating in the 1970s in Uttarakhand , is a prime example of environmental activism rooted in love for nature and traditional knowledge . This movement led to greater awareness of ecological conservation and sustainable forest management practices. 

It requires a dedication to lifelong learning and personal development, embracing curiosity, humility, and intellectual rigor. Whether through formal education, experiential learning, or self-directed inquiry, the pursuit of knowledge expands our horizons, broadens our perspectives, and enriches our lives.

It entails cultivating empathy and compassion towards others, recognizing the inherent dignity and worth of every individual. By practicing empathy, active listening, and kindness, we foster connections that transcend differences and build bridges of understanding and solidarity.

It also involves taking responsibility for our actions and their consequences, recognizing that our choices have ripple effects that extend beyond ourselves. By making ethical decisions informed by both love and knowledge, we contribute to the well-being of our communities and the world at large.

A good life is indeed one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Love provides the passion, purpose, and connection that infuse our lives with meaning and vitality. Meanwhile, knowledge empowers us to make informed decisions, navigate challenges, and contribute positively to the world. Together, love and knowledge form a powerful synergy that fosters personal growth, meaningful relationships, and ethical living. As we strive to cultivate love and deepen our understanding of the world, may we continue to seek wisdom and act with compassion, thereby enriching our lives and the lives of others.

“Nothing In Life is to be Feared, It is Only to be Understood. Now is the Time to Understand More, so That We May Fear Less.”

— Marie Curie

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Six Misconceptions We Have About Romantic Love

Love is everywhere you look. People talk about love in pop songs, on TV, across social media, over dinner, at work, and in school hallways. There is also growing scientific interest in romantic love, as is evident from the increased number of publications on this topic, the organization of conferences—and the Greater Good Science Center’s new project on the science of love, which launches this month.

Why? First, romantic love pertains to virtually everyone. More than 80% of American adolescents reported to have been involved in at least one romantic relationship by the age of 18, according to one 2003 study , and love has been observed in almost all cultures that have been studied . Second, when people fall in love, it greatly affects their lives . People are sometimes even willing to change their friends, job, country, or religion to be with their beloved.

But do we really understand love? Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about romantic love permeating popular media, the scientific community, or both. Some of these stem from the assumptions we make about romantic love. Others arise from hypotheses or interpretations put forth in scientific articles being cited in other articles as empirical evidence. Collectively, these misconceptions hamper the progress of the scientific understanding of romantic love—and they can lead any of us astray when we think about love in our own lives. Here are six misconceptions about romantic love that are not supported by the research to date.

1. Romantic love is not necessarily dyadic or even interpersonal

The first misconception is that romantic love is something that must exist between two people. For example, an anonymous reviewer of one of my manuscripts commented, “It’s odd that ~1/6 of the sample who were purportedly ‘in love’ were not in a relationship with the target of their love.”

Contrary to what the reviewer seemed to think, it does not take two to love. While romantic love has obvious interpersonal aspects (i.e., people are in love with another person and romantic relationships involve more than one person by definition), romantic love is not  necessarily  dyadic or interpersonal. For example, people can develop love feelings for someone before they become involved in a romantic relationship—and they can still experience love feelings after a relationship has ended. People can be in love with someone who doesn’t love them back. People can love someone they have never been and will never be in a romantic relationship with. People can experience love feelings for someone they have never even interacted with. Examples of this are love at first sight and parasocial attachment to celebrities or fictional characters in movies, TV shows, video games, and books.

So, romantic love is not always a social process and does happen outside of relationships. The misconception that romantic love only happens within relationships has led some people to confuse relationship satisfaction and love feelings. But people can be satisfied with a relationship if it fulfills some need (such as money, housekeeping, sex, protection, child care, status, personal growth), even if they don’t love their partner. And in abusive relationships, it is possible that the victim loves their abuser while being unsatisfied with the relationship. So, relationship satisfaction is not the same as how in love someone is.

2. Love is not an emotion

Many of us believe love is an emotion, like fear, anger, sadness, surprise, disgust, and joy.

Although scientists do not agree on how many and which types of love exist, they do agree that there are multiple types of love—and that’s actually one reason to assume that love  as a whole  is not an emotion. For example, researchers have distinguished between infatuation (aka passionate love) and attachment (aka companionate love). Infatuation is the early stage of love that is associated with euphoria, nervousness, and butterflies in the stomach. Attachment, on the other hand, takes time to develop and is a calming, comforting feeling.

There are also reasons to assume that the different types of love themselves are not emotions either. First, love elicits various emotions depending on the situation. Loving someone who loves you back can make you experience the emotion joy, while loving someone who does not love you back can make you experience the emotion sadness.

There’s another reason why the different types of love are not really emotions: My own neuroscience research finds that distraction after a romantic breakup decreased negative feelings but not the intensity of love, and that negative reappraisal of an ex-partner (e.g., “They weren’t so great”) decreased love intensity yet increased negative feelings.

Those observations suggest that love regulation and emotion regulation are distinct. In other words, love regulation targets love feelings (such as infatuation and attachment), whereas emotion regulation targets emotions (such as fear, anger, sadness, surprise, disgust, and joy).

Finally, love can be very long-lasting, whereas emotions are usually quite fleeting. Research has shown that emotions typically last for a half hour up to several days. The longest-lasting emotion was sadness, which can last two to five days. In contrast, it is not uncommon for infatuation to last for weeks or months and for attachment to last for years or decades.

Rather than an emotion, scientists have called love an attitude, a script, or a motivation or drive—like craving, lust, hunger, and thirst.

3. Romantic love does not just have positive effects

The third misconception is that romantic love has mainly positive effects.

Of course, love has many positive effects on people and society. Infatuation, for example, elicits positive emotions such as euphoria, and romantic relationships increase happiness and life satisfaction. But it is often overlooked that love has many negative effects on people and society, as well.

First, love can elicit several negative emotions. Infatuation is stressful, love can be accompanied by jealousy, the death of a romantic partner may elicit intense grief, and unreciprocated love and romantic breakups trigger sadness and shame.

Second, love can reduce general well-being. Romantic breakups are a main risk factor for depression in adolescents. And dysfunctional romantic relationships and romantic breakups are associated with decreased happiness and life satisfaction.

Third, people who are in love may be distracted from their duties (such as work or homework) because they think about their beloved all the time. Even though this may not bother the infatuated person, it may result in a loss of productivity or at least frustration in the people around the lover.

Fourth, love plays a role in several mental disorders (such as sexual dysfunctions, paraphilic disorders, and erotomanic and jealous delusional disorders), as well as in suicidal behavior. Finally, love is associated with criminal behavior such as stalking, domestic violence, and homicide.

It may be clear that love has both positive and negative effects, the latter of which cause substantial individual, social, and economic burden. I hope that scientific research on romantic love can both increase the positive effects of love and decrease its negative effects on people and society.

4. There is no love brain region, love neurotransmitter, or love hormone

It’s important to know that each brain region, neurotransmitter, and hormone has multiple functions—and also that each function requires multiple brain regions, neurotransmitters, and hormones. Love affects behavior, feelings, thoughts, and bodily responses in many different ways. And each of these “symptoms” of romantic love depends on different brain regions, and multiple neurotransmitters and hormones.

Take, for example, the fact that people have better memory for information that has to do with their beloved, which is related to how arousing this information is. We know that better memory for exciting information depends on two brain regions called the amygdala and the hippocampus, the neurotransmitter noradrenaline, and the hormones adrenaline and cortisol. Therefore, it can be expected that those parts of our nervous systems are involved in the better memory for information related to the beloved.

Greater Good Resources for Love and Connection

Articles, videos, and podcast episodes to help you strengthen your relationships and show love to those around you

Or consider this: We get clammy hands when we are infatuated. Researchers know that this sweating is part of the flight-or-fight response and involves release of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the sympathetic nervous system, which in turn is controlled by the hypothalamus in the brain. Therefore, that brain region and neurotransmitter likely play a role in getting clammy hands when infatuated.

Even though scientists typically understand that there is no dedicated love component in our nervous systems, they could improve the focus of their research questions and designs by understanding romantic love as an emergent process that consists of numerous moving parts, each with its own neurobiological basis. But why should everyone else care? Because, perhaps, if you share this understanding of love feelings as complex neurological processes, you might better understand why love can feel so complicated to you!


5. A love drug won’t be developed anytime soon

There is a misconception that we will soon be able to the develop a love drug, which is something that people have pursued for ages, for example through sorcery. Even nowadays, people across the world wishfully use aphrodisiacs and love philters. Although evidence-based pharmacological manipulation of love feelings may be possible at some point, several issues prevent the development of an effective and safe “love pill” in the short term.

We are only just starting to learn which neurotransmitters and hormones might play a role in the different types of love. For example, several neuroimaging studies have shown that certain brain regions (such as the caudate, putamen, ventral tegmental area, insula, cingulate cortex, and inferior frontal gyrus) are more active when people view pictures of their beloved than when they view pictures of other people. Some of those brain regions (especially the caudate, putamen, and ventral tegmental area) contain a lot of the neurotransmitter dopamine. The activation of these dopaminergic brain regions in response to the beloved has been taken to mean that romantic love is associated with high levels of dopamine. However, it is important to note that the method used in those neuroimaging studies (functional magnetic resonance imaging) only shows what areas of the brain receive extra oxygen through blood. But this method cannot show whether dopamine is released.

As far as I know, there is only one study that has actually measured dopamine levels when people view pictures of their beloved (compared to when they view pictures of friends), using a method called positron emission tomography. That study shows more dopamine release when people view the beloved (as opposed to the friend) in two brain regions that are called the medial orbitofrontal cortex and the prefrontal cortex. This study surprisingly did not find more dopamine release when people viewed the beloved than the friend in the more typical dopaminergic regions that received more oxygen through blood in previous studies. So, more research is needed on whether and where dopamine is released when people see their beloved.

As another example, it has been suggested that romantic love is associated with low levels of serotonin because of its resemblance with obsessive-compulsive disorder. But in one study, women who were in love had higher serotonin levels in their blood than women who were not in love. And obsessive thinking about the beloved in these women was associated with higher, rather than lower, serotonin levels in their blood. So we cannot conclude at this time that romantic love is associated with low serotonin levels.

Crucially, to develop a “love pill” we would have to prove that changing the level of some neurotransmitter or hormone actually changes the intensity of love. But most studies so far have only compared people who are in love when they view pictures of their beloved with when they view other pictures. It would be informative, but more difficult, to compare people who are in love with people who are not in love. Or, even better, to compare people before and after they fall in love.

It would also be challenging to design a drug that changes love feelings for one person specifically, which would be desirable in at least some situations. For example, someone who is married might want to decrease their love feelings for a crush without changing (or while increasing) their love for their spouse. And because the neurotransmitters and hormones involved in love have many different functions, any love drug that affects the levels of these neurotransmitters or hormones may have side effects that could be adverse. So, unfortunately, it will be a while until you can use a love drug to change how in love you are, if ever.

6. Romantic love is not uncontrollable

However, there are many situations in which it might be beneficial to change how in love you are—and my research says that you can. The solution is not drugs, but rather intentional thinking.

In some situations, love feelings may be stronger than desired, such as when people are still in love with an ex-partner, when the love is forbidden, and when people are in love with someone who treats them poorly. In situations like those, people may want to decrease how in love they are, which can help them cope with heartbreak. It can also help people to stop pursuing an inappropriate partner or to put an end to a dysfunctional (e.g., abusive) relationship.

At other times, love feelings may be weaker than desired, such as when they decline over time in long-term relationships. In situations like that one, you may want to increase how in love you are, which could help you maintain long-term relationships.

Nevertheless, many people think that love regulation is difficult or even impossible. But my research suggests that people can become more or less in love by doing or thinking certain things. One study shows that something as simple as looking at pictures of the beloved increases infatuation and attachment. Another study finds that thinking about positive aspects of the beloved (“they are so smart,” “he is such a good cook”), the relationship (“we agree on how to spend our money”), and the future (“we’ll live happily ever after”) increases attachment. And yet another of my studies suggests that fantasizing about having sex with your beloved (such as imagining something you would like your partner to do to you during sex) increases sexual desire and infatuation. These are strategies that you can use to strengthen your love feelings for someone.

In another experiment, thinking about the negative aspects of the beloved (“she never puts the cap on the toothpaste”), the relationship (“we fight a lot”), and the future (“we won’t stay together forever”) decreased infatuation and attachment. These are strategies that you can use to weaken your love feelings for someone.

So, in contrast to what you may think, it is beneficial and possible to change how in love you are. Give it a try when you find yourself more or less in love than you’d like to be!

This article is a shortened and revised version of “ Refuting Six Misconceptions About Romantic Love ,” published in May 2024 by the journal Behavioral Sciences .

About the Author

Sandra Langeslag

Sandra Langeslag, Ph.D. , is an associate professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. She is the director of the Neurocognition of Emotion and Motivation (NEM) Lab. Her research focuses mainly on the interaction between romantic love and cognition.

You May Also Enjoy

Three Reasons Why You Can’t Always Trust Romantic Instincts

How Biology Prepares Us for Love and Connection

What’s Love Got to Do with the Brain?

How to Communicate With Love (Even When You’re Mad)

How to Stop Romantic Comedies from Ruining Your Love Life

More From Forbes

College essays that worked and how yours can too.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS - JULY 08: A view of Harvard Yard on the campus of Harvard University on ... [+] July 08, 2020 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology have sued the Trump administration for its decision to strip international college students of their visas if all of their courses are held online. (Photo by Maddie Meyer/Getty Images)

The college essay is a pivotal piece of the college application showcasing your individuality and differentiated outlook to admissions officers. What makes an essay truly shine? Let’s dive into the words behind three standout essays highlighted by university websites and a school newspaper's brand studio so you can get into the right mindset for crafting your own narrative.

Embracing Differences: Finding Strength In Uniqueness

Essay Excerpt: ‘Bra Shopping ’ (Harvard)

Featured by the Harvard Crimson Brand Studio , Orlee's essay recounts a student's humorous and insightful experience of bra shopping with her grandmother, weaving in her unique family dynamics and challenges at her prestigious school.

What Works:

• Humor and Honesty: The student's humor makes the essay enjoyable to read, while her honesty about her challenges adds depth.
• Self-Awareness: She demonstrates a strong sense of self-awareness, embracing her uniqueness rather than trying to fit in.
• Resilience: Her narrative highlights resilience and the ability to find strength in differences.

For Your Essay : To write an essay that embraces your uniqueness, start by identifying a quirky or challenging experience that reflects who a key insight into your experience. Think about how this experience has shaped your perspective and character. Use humor and honesty to bring your story to life, and focus on how you have embraced your differences to become stronger and more resilient.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, finding connections: humor and self-reflection.

Essay: ‘Brood X Cicadas ’ (Hamilton College)

As an example on Hamilton's admissions website, Nicholas writes about the cicadas swarming his hometown every 17 years and draws a parallel between their emergence and his own transition to college life. He uses humor and self-reflection to create a relatable and engaging narrative.

• Humor: Nicholas uses humor to make his essay entertaining and memorable. His witty comparisons between himself and cicadas add a unique twist.
• Self-Reflection: By comparing his life to the cicadas’, he reflects on his own growth and readiness for change.
• Relatability: His narrative about facing new experiences and challenges resonates with readers who have undergone similar transitions.

For Your Essay: To infuse humor and self-reflection into your essay, start by identifying an ordinary experience or object and think about how it relates to your life. Write down funny or insightful observations about this connection. Use humor to make your essay more engaging, but ensure it still conveys meaningful self-reflection. This balance can make your essay both entertaining and profound.

Persistence and Multicultural Identity: Life Lessons From Tortilla Making

Essay: ‘ Facing The Hot Griddle ’ (Johns Hopkins University)

In this essay published by Hopkins Insider, Rocio uses the process of making tortillas to explore her multicultural identity and the challenges she has faced. Her story beautifully weaves together her Guatemalan heritage and her experiences growing up in the United States.

• Metaphor and Symbolism: The process of making tortillas becomes a powerful metaphor for the student’s journey and struggles. The symbolism of the masa harina and water mixing parallels her blending of cultural identities.
• Personal Growth: The essay highlights her perseverance and adaptability, qualities that are crucial for success in college.
• Cultural Insight: She provides a rich, personal insight into her multicultural background, making her story unique and compelling.

For Your Essay: To write an essay that explores your identity through a metaphor, start by thinking about an activity or tradition that holds significant meaning for you. Consider how this activity relates to your life experiences and personal growth. Use detailed descriptions to bring the activity to life and draw connections between the process and your own journey. Reflect on the lessons you've learned and how they've shaped your identity.

A winning college essay isn’t simply about parading your best accomplishment or dramatizing your challenges. It’s not a contest for which student is the most original or entertaining. Rather, the essay is a chance for you to showcase your authenticity, passion, resilience, social awareness, and intellectual vitality . By sharing genuine stories and insights, you can create an essay that resonates with admissions committees and highlights your unique qualities.

For you to have the best possible essay, mindset is key. Here’s how to get into the zone:

• Reflect Deeply: Spend time thinking about your experiences, challenges, and passions. Journaling can help you uncover deep insights.
• Discuss and Share: Talking about your stories with friends, family, or mentors can provide new perspectives and emotional clarity.
• Immerse Yourself: Engage in activities that you are passionate about to reignite the feelings and memories associated with them.
• Draft Freely: Don’t worry about perfection on the first try. Write freely and honestly, then refine your narrative.

The secret to a standout college essay lies in its authenticity, depth, and emotional resonance. By learning from these successful examples and getting into the right mindset, you can craft an essay that not only stands out but also provides a meaningful insight into who you are. Remember, your essay is your story—make it a piece of writing that you will always be proud of.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Steals & Deals: Up to 70% off a Color Wow hair kit, Wrinkles Schminkles patches, bralettes, more

• Share this —

• Watch Full Episodes
• Read With Jenna
• Inspirational
• Relationships
• TODAY Table
• Newsletters
• Start TODAY
• Shop TODAY Awards
• Citi Concert Series
• Listen All Day

Follow today

More Brands

• On The Show
• TODAY Plaza

I told him he was too short for me. Then we fell in love

I was 57 years old — divorced almost 25 years — when I met Jim on Match.com. He was a year older than me, divorced for an equal number of years. His children, like mine, were grown and gone.

Right away I knew I liked this man. He was smart and funny and handsome and quietly sexy. He knew how to listen, but when he spoke — in a voice I loved, soft and deep — he had interesting things to say. He had great hair.

At the restaurant where we met, three hours passed like nothing. 

On our next date, Jim picked me up in his beloved convertible, a very old and not particularly valuable Porsche. Riding in the passenger seat beside him, headed to the ocean, I felt like Audrey Hepburn in “Two for the Road.” We hiked for hours, then went for wine and oysters. 

On our third date he came to my house. I made pasta with pesto sauce, some of which must have ended up on my wrist without my noticing, but Jim did. Very tenderly, he took my hand and brought it to his lips. He licked the pesto off.

Now comes the hard part of this story. The first hard part. The harder part comes later.

At the end of this perfectly terrific and romantic date, I told Jim how much I liked him. “I hope I get to know you better,” I said. 

There was just one problem, I told him. “You’re too short for me.”

I’m not proud of this statement. But there you have it.

I’m 5-foot-6 on a good day. I estimated that Jim was 5-foot-7. It’s not as if when we walked into a restaurant together I’d be towering over him.

But I had always seen myself with a tall man — 6 feet tall at least, and on the burly side.

I know why I’d dreamed up this picture. By the time I met Jim, I’d been on my own a long time. I could not name a time in my life when a man had taken care of me. And though this made no sense — worse, it was idiotic — I had come to equate strength, and the ability to protect me, with height and physical girth. 

That wasn’t Jim.

We were sitting on the couch in my living room when I delivered the news to Jim that he was too short to be my boyfriend. He’d been about to kiss me. A stricken look came over his face.

“I’d better go home,” he said.

“We can still be friends,” I told him. (The kiss of death.) He shook his head.

“I’ve been falling in love with you,” he said. “If we can’t be together — really together — I can’t see you again.”

But he did. Not that I revised my position on height as a requirement for a romantic relationship with me. He just decided to hang in there a while longer. I didn’t know this yet, though I’d learn: Jim was a fighter. 

We took another hike. He brought along his Nikon. It turned out he was a serious photographer. Also a bass player in a band. Also an Eagle Scout. Still 5-foot-7, however.

A week or so later I invited Jim over to my house again for a meal. It was a weekend known as Fleet Week, when the Blue Angels fighter pilot team comes to San Francisco to perform amazing air stunts in the sky over the city. All that day, in preparation for the big air show, they’d practiced their maneuvers over Marin County, where I lived. I loved watching them.

I set out a plate of some very nice cheese. Jim brought a bottle of wine. The two of us sat out on my deck waiting for the planes to appear overhead. Jim lit up a cigar.

Then there they were: a phalanx of six planes, swooping and dipping just over our heads at Mach speed, their wings nearly touching but not quite. 

“There’s just something about the Blue Angels,” I told Jim. “They’re so incredibly sexy.”

He lifted the cigar to his lips. Blew out a puff of smoke, his gaze fixed on the wild blue yonder.

“There’s an interesting requirement for becoming a Blue Angel,” he said.

“I guess you have to be really great at flying a plane,” I offered. “With excellent eyesight.” 

“To qualify as a Blue Angel,” Jim said, taking his time, “a person cannot be taller than 5-foot-7.” 

Then he just smiled. 

We were married a year and a half later. With the high heels I chose to wear for our wedding, I was probably a little taller than Jim. He was unfazed by this. He was never anything but proud of me, and proud to stand at my side. I had a name for him: my guard dog. Because no matter what, he looked out for me.

Now comes the truly hard part in this story. 

A year after our wedding, Jim was diagnosed with stage 2 pancreatic cancer . He survived a 14-hour surgery, a year of chemotherapy and radiation, the loss of his hair, the loss of feeling in his fingers — which meant he could no longer play his guitar. The loss of just about everything he loved other than me. His weight dropped to under 100 pounds by this point. Though I knew the pain was terrible, he refused morphine until the very end. He didn’t want to lose consciousness. He didn’t want to miss a minute of being alive and at my side.

Jim has been dead eight years now. I still think of him every time I see the Blue Angels — and so many other times. I never felt a need to check the accuracy of what he told me about height requirements for joining that elite squad of pilots, though I learned recently that his claim was inaccurate — just a brilliant strategic invention that allowed me to see what was in fact true: My husband was brave and strong in ways that had nothing to do with physical stature.

Sometimes, still, I wear a particular checked flannel shirt he loved. Also his blue jeans. And it feels good to me that we were the same size. I know this now: You don’t need to be tall or burly to be someone’s guard dog.

Joyce Maynard is a bestselling author. Her new novel, “How the Light Gets In,” came out in June 2024. She is also the author of “The Best of Us,” a memoir about finding and losing her husband.

I planned an international trip without my husband. I couldn’t believe how people reacted

I was poor and gay — and my childhood revolved around hiding that

I’m living with the ghost of my husband’s first wife

After 20 years, I met my childhood hero: The local news anchor who looked like me

The day I returned home after being kidnapped by Islamic terrorists

I ran away from a troubled teen program and escaped for good. This is my story

No one wants the family spinning wheel. So why is it so hard to get rid of?

How my (many) wedding superstitions saved my marriage

Can you get better at small talk? Here's what happened when I tried to

I did my own makeup on my wedding day. Here’s how it went

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Family — Love

Essays on Love

Hook examples for love essays, anecdotal hook.

Love, as I have come to understand, is more than a feeling; it's a force that has shaped the course of my life. Join me on a journey through the depths and complexities of this powerful emotion.

Question Hook

What is the true nature of love? Is it an unexplainable chemistry between two people or a profound connection that transcends words? Exploring the concept of love opens the door to a world of wonder.

Quotation Hook

""Love is an endless act of forgiveness. Forgiveness is the key to action and freedom."" These words from Maya Angelou remind us of the transformative power of love and forgiveness in our lives.

Types of Love Hook

Love wears many faces, from romantic love to platonic, familial, and self-love. Delve into the different types of love and their unique qualities that define our human experience.

Love and Relationships Hook

What is the secret to a lasting and meaningful relationship? Explore the dynamics of love in the context of relationships and the role it plays in our connections with others.

The Science of Love Hook

Peek into the fascinating world of neurochemistry and psychology to uncover the science behind love. How do our brains and bodies respond to this extraordinary emotion?

Love's Impact on Art and Culture Hook

Throughout history, love has inspired countless works of art, music, and literature. Analyze the profound influence of love on our cultural expressions and creative endeavors.

True Love: The Power of Love

Reflection of love: an paper about love, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Indelible Imprint of a First Love

Unpacking the complex emotion of love: a philosophical inquiry, the time i loved the wrong person, a love letter to my eternal soulmate, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

A World Without Love: The Ramifications of an Affectionless Society in 1984

Love yourself challenge, "a sacrifice for love, a true tragic story of young lovers, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

A Letter from The Girl Who Loves You

Where to: experience love at first sip, love and adultery in "the lady with the dog" by anton chekhov, nothing gonna change my love for you, true connection and essence of love, how sun love moon, the portrayal and role of the concept of love in the handmaid's tale, the meaning of family to me, my experience growing up from broken family, how does music communicate emotion, a letter to my mother, foundation and light of home, my ideal partner: a personal reflection on relationships, the relationship between science and love in tom stoppard’s "arcadia", elton john and david furnish: long-lasted love story, transcend boundary of time and space, mansoor ali khan and sharmila tagore - love story of lifetime, social status relation to love and chance in 'marivaux', not every lose is a lose, sex and sexuality in the unbearable lightness of being, relevant topics.

• Foster Care
• Marriage and Family
• Family Values

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Press Herald

Account Subscription: ACTIVE

Questions about your account? Our customer service team can be reached at [email protected] during business hours at (207) 791-6000 .

• Arts & Entertainment

Hillary Clinton to release essay collection about personal, public life

'Something Lost, Something Gained: Reflections on Life, Love and Liberty' will be out in September.

You are able to gift 5 more articles this month.

Anyone can access the link you share with no account required. Learn more .

With a Press Herald subscription, you can gift 5 articles each month.

It looks like you do not have any active subscriptions. To get one, go to the subscriptions page .

Loading....

Hillary Clinton’s next book is a collection of essays, touching upon everything from marriage to politics to faith, that her publisher is calling her most personal yet.

Simon and Schuster announced Tuesday that Clinton’s “Something Lost, Something Gained: Reflections on Life, Love and Liberty” will be released Sept. 17.

“Something Lost, Something Gained: Reflections on Life, Love and Liberty” by Hillary Rodham Clinton. The book will be released Sept. 17. Simon & Schuster via AP

Among the topics she will cover: Her marriage to former President Bill Clinton, her Methodist faith, adjusting to private life after her failed presidential runs, her friendships with other first ladies and her takes on climate change, democracy and Vladimir Putin.

“The book reads like you’re sitting down with your smartest, funniest, most passionate friend over a long meal,” Clinton’s editor, Priscilla Painton, said in a statement.

“This is the Hillary Americans have come to know and love: candid, engaged, humorous, self-deprecating – and always learning.”

Clinton, the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary and presidential candidate, will promote her book with a cross country tour. “Something Lost, Something Gained” comes out two months before Bill Clinton’s memoir about post-presidential life, “Citizen.”

Financial terms were not disclosed. Clinton was represented by Washington attorney Robert Barnett, whose other clients have included former President George W. Bush and former President Barack Obama.

Clinton’s previous books include such bestsellers as “It Takes a Village,” “Living History” and “What Happened.”

Modify your screen name

Join the Conversation

Please sign into your Press Herald account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can register or subscribe . Questions? Please see our FAQs .

Your commenting screen name has been updated.

Send questions/comments to the editors.

« Previous

A fictional dad and his daughter observe nestlings in this debut children’s book

Next »

In ‘Bear,’ a grizzly claws at a family bond in a mix of horror and enchantment

Smiling Hill Farm’s historic legacy could foil Gorham Connector plan

U.k. election exit poll projects big win for labour, end to 14 years of conservative rule, coast guard calls off search for man who fell off boat in casco bay, has popham’s effort to save dunes with christmas trees paid off, shedding light on the dark side of jamie wyeth and his artwork, member log in.

Please enter your username and password below. Already a subscriber but don't have one? Click here .

Not a subscriber? Click here to see your options

Understanding the Brain’s Role in Controlling Taste Sensation

This essay is about the brain’s role in controlling the sense of taste. It explains how taste perception begins with taste buds on the tongue which send signals through the gustatory pathway to the brainstem and then to the thalamus. The primary gustatory cortex in the insula and frontal operculum identifies basic taste qualities while the orbitofrontal cortex integrates taste with smell and texture. The amygdala handles emotional responses to taste and the hypothalamus regulates appetite and satiety. The essay also highlights the influence of other sensory inputs cognitive factors and the plasticity of the gustatory system in shaping taste preferences and perceptions.

How it works

Taste is a big part of our daily life controlled by different parts of our brain. It lets us enjoy all kinds of flavors from sweet chocolate to bitter coffee. Figuring out how our brain handles taste gives us cool ideas about how we taste and love food.

It all starts with taste buds on our tongue—they pick up sweet salty sour bitter and umami flavors. These buds send messages through a network called the gustatory pathway. First stop: the brainstem where taste signals get sorted out.

Then it’s off to the thalamus a kind of brain switchboard which sends them to the main taste area in the brain—the gustatory cortex in the insula and frontal operculum.

But tasting isn’t just about identifying flavors. It’s also about mixing in smells textures temperatures and even feelings and memories about food. Higher-up brain parts like the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) help with this—they team up tastes with smells to make flavors pop. This helps us tell apart a strawberry and a raspberry not just by taste but also by smell and feel.

Then there’s the amygdala part of our emotional brain. It gets involved when we love a dessert or hate a veggie. That’s why certain foods can bring back strong memories—like a favorite meal from when you were a kid or a comforting dish during tough times.

And don’t forget the hypothalamus—it helps us know when we’re hungry or full. It teams up with the taste system to make food taste better when we need it most like making sweet or savory things more tempting when we’re hungry.

Taste is also shaped by other senses and what we think. Our brain puts together how food feels and its temperature with taste to give us the whole experience. Plus our past what we expect and our culture all shape what we like to taste.

Recent studies show our taste can change over time. Trying new foods how we eat and even health stuff can make us like tastes we used to hate like bitter stuff in coffee or dark chocolate. This shows how our brain can learn and change how we feel tastes.

In the end taste is a team effort in our brain with lots of parts working together. From finding taste with our buds to mixing in all our senses and feelings our brain makes sure we enjoy and understand all the flavors around us. Knowing how our brain handles taste not only makes us appreciate food more but also tells us a lot about how our senses work and why we do what we do.

Cite this page

Understanding the Brain's Role in Controlling Taste Sensation. (2024, Jul 06). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-brains-role-in-controlling-taste-sensation/

"Understanding the Brain's Role in Controlling Taste Sensation." PapersOwl.com , 6 Jul 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-brains-role-in-controlling-taste-sensation/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Understanding the Brain's Role in Controlling Taste Sensation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-brains-role-in-controlling-taste-sensation/ [Accessed: 6 Jul. 2024]

"Understanding the Brain's Role in Controlling Taste Sensation." PapersOwl.com, Jul 06, 2024. Accessed July 6, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-brains-role-in-controlling-taste-sensation/

"Understanding the Brain's Role in Controlling Taste Sensation," PapersOwl.com , 06-Jul-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-brains-role-in-controlling-taste-sensation/. [Accessed: 6-Jul-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Understanding the Brain's Role in Controlling Taste Sensation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-brains-role-in-controlling-taste-sensation/ [Accessed: 6-Jul-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers