I'm going to say something controversial. I don't believe in unconditional love. 
The reason I say so, is that I'm talking about relationships.
Love, as a concept, or existential idea, can't have conditions, just like the concept of pride. We can talk about what pride or love or honor means to us, but we can't put conditions on a concept, so in as much as that is true, in my mind, I suppose those concepts are unconditional, but neither are they conditional.
So what else is love? It's one of those amazing words that has multiple definitions. Love as action. Love as feeling. Love as concept.
I'll deal with love as feeling quickly. I can feel love towards any number of things. A person, a place, an animal. Those feelings are generally involuntary, to large degree, though they can be fluid and changing with many factors. All that to say: feelings aren't beholden to condition, as in expectations or needs or desires. Aren't those the "conditions" in the popular sense of "conditional love"? That leads us to the third definition.
Love as action. Love as a verb, as the saying goes, popularized in song and sermon. So then the context becomes love within relationship where we practice this verb. That is generally where the term "unconditional love" has it's context. "We should love unconditionally." And that's exactly where it is impossible.
Conditions are ALWAYS present within relationship. And I would submit, they should be, in a healthy relationship. Conditions as boundaries, or as my good friend likes to call them, agreements. Conditions/boundaries/agreements help us define what we are and are not willing to do or not do within relationship. That, I submit, fosters trust and thus, vulnerability. Vulnerability, I would say, and have experienced, is the gravity that pulls the three definitions of love together.
Vulnerability is the Sun in who's gravitational pull the planets of love orbit.
I don't think true vulnerability is possible without boundaries/agreements - conditions.
The reason I say so, is that I'm talking about relationships.
Love, as a concept, or existential idea, can't have conditions, just like the concept of pride. We can talk about what pride or love or honor means to us, but we can't put conditions on a concept, so in as much as that is true, in my mind, I suppose those concepts are unconditional, but neither are they conditional.
So what else is love? It's one of those amazing words that has multiple definitions. Love as action. Love as feeling. Love as concept.
I'll deal with love as feeling quickly. I can feel love towards any number of things. A person, a place, an animal. Those feelings are generally involuntary, to large degree, though they can be fluid and changing with many factors. All that to say: feelings aren't beholden to condition, as in expectations or needs or desires. Aren't those the "conditions" in the popular sense of "conditional love"? That leads us to the third definition.
Love as action. Love as a verb, as the saying goes, popularized in song and sermon. So then the context becomes love within relationship where we practice this verb. That is generally where the term "unconditional love" has it's context. "We should love unconditionally." And that's exactly where it is impossible.
Conditions are ALWAYS present within relationship. And I would submit, they should be, in a healthy relationship. Conditions as boundaries, or as my good friend likes to call them, agreements. Conditions/boundaries/agreements help us define what we are and are not willing to do or not do within relationship. That, I submit, fosters trust and thus, vulnerability. Vulnerability, I would say, and have experienced, is the gravity that pulls the three definitions of love together.
Vulnerability is the Sun in who's gravitational pull the planets of love orbit.
I don't think true vulnerability is possible without boundaries/agreements - conditions.
