purrs_for_Her on Nostr: okay, let me try and explain. because, to me, i think you're conflating the idea of ...
okay, let me try and explain.
because, to me, i think you're conflating the idea of preferences with conditions. the idea that unconditional love requires loving everything misses the point of it entirely.
you seem to be focusing on physical attributes (appearance, type, actions) and not the intangible (emotions, feelings, connections). and maybe this is we're the disconnect is.
unconditional love is something that is given freely without conditions, expectations, or limitations. it doesn't imply that you have to love everything—it's not something universal—but it's love for a *specific* person that doesn't go away based on his or her actions or attributes.
unconditional love is founded in a deep connection with someone. it's essence rests in the depth of commitment and acceptance for that particular person, regardless of their imperfections or mistakes. having a preference for a specific person doesn't negate the possibility of unconditional love, it defines it.
i'm not sure what else to say without essentially repeating myself. i think you're overlooking the distinction between the conditions that affect the existence of love and the preferences that move us toward who we choose to love.
the questions like "would you still love this person if he were a demon" or "what if another different person was in place of who you love" kind of leave me at a loss because, to me, they miss the point. they reduce it to a logical experiment rather than an emotional experience.
because, to me, i think you're conflating the idea of preferences with conditions. the idea that unconditional love requires loving everything misses the point of it entirely.
you seem to be focusing on physical attributes (appearance, type, actions) and not the intangible (emotions, feelings, connections). and maybe this is we're the disconnect is.
unconditional love is something that is given freely without conditions, expectations, or limitations. it doesn't imply that you have to love everything—it's not something universal—but it's love for a *specific* person that doesn't go away based on his or her actions or attributes.
unconditional love is founded in a deep connection with someone. it's essence rests in the depth of commitment and acceptance for that particular person, regardless of their imperfections or mistakes. having a preference for a specific person doesn't negate the possibility of unconditional love, it defines it.
i'm not sure what else to say without essentially repeating myself. i think you're overlooking the distinction between the conditions that affect the existence of love and the preferences that move us toward who we choose to love.
the questions like "would you still love this person if he were a demon" or "what if another different person was in place of who you love" kind of leave me at a loss because, to me, they miss the point. they reduce it to a logical experiment rather than an emotional experience.