How to use an operational definition of love?

[ReadyOne]

An operative definition can be used to examine something to see if it meets the definition. If often contains a test. Pass the test, and the object meets the definition.

One example is the rhetorical duck argument: If it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it sheds water like a duck, then it must be a duck!

The test is: does an object "waddle, quack, and shed water". Passing the test qualifies the object as a duck.

Love is more concern for the welfare of someone or something than for your own.
​

So how's this useful to identify real love?

 

[PuckIt]

Negative, Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

First, the dynamic is inherently flawed in making a leap from the concrete to the abstract.

Second, a co-dependent person automatically places everyone's welfare ahead of their own. Therefore, according to this operational definition, they must love everyone.

However, by virtue of being afflicted with co-dependency, their self-love value is operationally nil. This means that placing the value of the well being of another ahead of their own is effectively placing it ahead of a null value. Ipso facto, the "love" is also null.

And I am way, way too sober if we are going to Machiavelli or Kant next...

 

[TarnishedPenny]

So how's this useful to identify real love?

Sadly, you're fighting with the limitations of the English language and the emotional complexity of our species. While your definition is about as good as one can get, it's only a good approximation.

I won't get into eros vs agape vs pragma and so forth. Convenient terms for someone writing a dissertation, maybe not so much for someone living in the real world.

I am unconvinced that one can fully define 'love', anymore than one can nail Jell-O to a tree.

Points for trying. I certainly couldn't do better.

 

[pplwatching]

Love is more concern for the welfare of someone or something than for your own.
​

I think that PuckIt's answer exposes fundamental assumptions made in the litmus test itself. Tarnished touched on the different words that the Greek's have for love. I think that the distinctions between those words are important if we are to understand that the test is different for different kinds of love.

Connecting the dots between PuckIt and Tarnished, Philautia (love of self) should perhaps be considered a minimum requirement necessary to apply the test to any other kind of love. Putting aside the other unhealthy extreme of narcissism, a love of self is what enables us to love others in a healthy way. When we love ourselves, then love for others becomes a series of choices and actions. When we are able to choose our self-love and put our welfare first, and yet still choose to put the welfare of others first then we have all of the preconditions and a framework necessary to apply this test.

Within this framework love becomes an action verb. To apply the test we can examine our choices and the things that we choose to do for other people given that we are able to choose not to. We can also change the rubric by also considering whether or not a choice or an action is to our advantage or disadvantage to better meet the spirit of the word "welfare" in the test. A choice that comes with a substantial price attached (emotionally, physically, financially, etc) can IMHO arguably be considered to pass this test if it is made freely in this framework.

From there we can look at the other Greek words (or any other interpretation that you like). We love our fellow humans (Agape, Philia) when we contribute to disaster relief or offer to help out a friend with no expectation of repayment, even we might be better off not helping them (and are free to choose not to). If fear of being considered a jerk or a tightwad, fear of hell, or some other compulsion is the motivation then no the action does not pass the test.

Pragma and erotas (mature love, such as love between married couples) are perhaps the most difficult because in addition to wanting to be a good lover we have to also consider our own needs and the best interests of the relationship itself (making compromises helps the relationship work over time, as do patience and tolerance).

Storge (love for our children) is perhaps the least obvious. We are charged with the welfare of our children legally, and often make sacrifices out of obligation, but we can still pass the test (IMHO).

 

[JaneRamsey]

For me love is like picturing your life as a giant puzzle, and love is when you find a missing piece hidden under the couch.

 

[PuckIt]

For me love is like picturing your life as a giant puzzle, and love is when you find a missing piece hidden under the couch.

Good answer.


For me, I tend to think love is like a star. Even when you can't see it for everything in the way, it's still there if it exists at all.

 

[SissySalina]

An operative definition can be used to examine something to see if it meets the definition. If often contains a test. Pass the test, and the object meets the definition.

One example is the rhetorical dusk argument: If it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it sheds water like a duck, then it must be a duck!

The test is an object "waddle, quack, and shed water". Passing the test qualifies the object as a duck.

Love is more concern for the welfare of someone or something than for your own.
​

So how's this useful to identify real love?

Lets back up- what does a "duck" have to do with "dusk" is that not apples and oranges?

 

[SissySalina]

An operative definition can be used to examine something to see if it meets the definition. If often contains a test. Pass the test, and the object meets the definition.

One example is the rhetorical dusk argument: If it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it sheds water like a duck, then it must be a duck!

The test is an object "waddle, quack, and shed water". Passing the test qualifies the object as a duck.

Love is more concern for the welfare of someone or something than for your own.
​

So how's this useful to identify real love?

Lets back up- what does a "duck" have to do with "dusk" is that not apples and oranges?

 

[PuckIt]

Lets back up- what does a "duck" have to do with "dusk" is that not apples and oranges?

Lets back up- what does a "duck" have to do with "dusk" is that not apples and oranges?

Nice DP, Goose!


(But, if you take that apples and oranges to an algebraic equation next, I'm gonna Gibbs smack ya.)

 

[Que]

What difference would it make to "correctly" identify whether some yearning is, or is not, "twue wuv?" A condition that presupposes a binary yes/no test...which is silly on its face.

Love is a continuum of feelings that grow or diminish over time dependent on whether and how you feed it. Any efforts made to assist in that process of feeding by the other person are entirely subject to the whims and motivations of the other person. You catch the feelings you do based on your own emotional investment.*

The only thing that matters is whether it is a worthwhile pursuit for you, and only you can answer that because it's a subjective question.

*If you want to avoid entanglement, do not invest emotionally. If you want the other person to invest, you have to provide opportunities for them to invest emotionally.