Please do inform readers also about "accepted truth," where one may find "objective science," and consider for a second taking the ambiguity of the idea behind "idea" as an acceptable grey area, wherein if one were to attempt to objectify every human notion, an encyclopedia might not exist.123...
"Truth about 'true' love please
As the article notes true love is a "popular" idea. However, popular is by no means a test for truth as many popular ideas are outright falsehoods. We need to make this distinction here so that readers can understand that 'true' love has no basis in accepted truth...eg there is no objective science that I know of that has tested this idea against the facts.
We also need to be careful with the word 'selfless'. Many martyrs in other areas, such as religious or political martyrs, martyr themselves for selfish reasons that sometimes appear to to the uniformed to be selfless. To call True love to the point of self-sacrifice a 'selfless' act without knowing the genuine intentions of those involved is dangerous and most likely quite false.
I am going to qualify a few of the statements in the article to this end. (drop in editor)
Apologies. Above response attended for this comment. [Please do inform readers also about "accepted truth," where one may find "objective science," and consider for a second taking the ambiguity of the idea behind "idea" as an acceptable grey area, wherein if one were to attempt to objectify every human notion, an encyclopedia might not exist.]
Point of View issues
One editor has a problem with what he calls unsourced personal commentary. As this article has no sources other than mine and is (was) all a collection of personal commentary I find that hard to accept. Below is the content I tried to add before he began to revert what he called 'unsourced personal commentary'. I welcome other editors with cooler heads to weigh in because I see a well-known popular POV being pushed here with no balance from people with other less popular (yet equally potent) points of view. (drop in editor)
True love is a popularly held concept of loving someone without restraint and without restriction. Usually, true love is described as love without condition, motive or attachment, loving someone just because they are themselves, not because of their actions. People acting on the basis of what they see as 'true' love will often set aside their own well being for the safety and happiness of their lovers, even though their relationship may not be formalized or reciprocated. Sometimes, this idea and it's associated feelings are strong enough to inspire acts of suidical self-sacrifice as in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. However, it is important to note that 'true' love is a popular idea and as such is far from being inherently true.
In fact, some pyschologists, such as David Schnarch, believe that the opposite is the case. They believe that conditional love (or love in exchange for love) in committed relationships leads to genuine love. This controversial thesis runs counter to popular conceptions of romantic love which stresses 'true' love as genuine love.
Another similar term is unconditional love, though this term is more often used to describe an strong emotional bond between blood family and other relatives. True love, in contrast, usually refers to a strong love between lovers or spouses, though overt sexuality is not required
- Schnarch, David, Passionate Marriage: Keeping Love and Intimacy Alive in Committed Relationships, 1998, ISBN 0805058265
I've noticed a small Inconsistency in this article when compared to the one about puppy love. In both articles, Romeo and Juliet are mentioned, and it is basically claimed that they had that particular kind of love for each other. If they DID have both kinds, it should be mentioned, and then further said that their 'puppy love' evolved into 'true love.' (if indeed that was the case.)
About that inconsistency
I was the one who added the puppy love/infatuation part (along with other parts) to the article. Yes, I agree we should point out something along those lines, either of the fact that Romeo/Juliet's love evolved from puppy love to true love, or that there are different interpretations as to whether it was puppy love or true love. Or perhaps it is both, and the Puppy Love article was just pointing out that Romeo and Juliet were both very young. So puppy love can have a partially overlapping definition with true love? I think we can add something like that into the article. Thobanster 07:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
People have been vandalising this article with rude comments and I think it should become protected. 220.127.116.11 07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anything, person, place, or idea, exist in an unconditional state? Be it "love," or "true love," or any other term, everything exist in a relationship to one, or more other things. I came to this page, by way of a search for the word "unconditional" as in an unconditional state. I am a poet. I write poems. I write from my life. This means everything I remember, and even what I have forgot. I ask myself, what does this term, or any term, mean to me? What does it mean to others? Does it mean anything at all? Well, certainly it means something, or I wouldn't be writing this at 2am in the morning from the city of Prague. So, what have I learned from reading what you have each written here tonight? Well, we don't seem to agree on what love, or true love means. Do we have to agree? I don't think so. So let us agree to disagree, and go on to the point, or the "meaning" of love, "true love" or an unconditional state of anything. Now I believe in believing. I also believe in an unconditional state of love, but I cannot prove this state, unconditionally. Does that then make it not true? I am an old man. I have been loved, and I have loved in turn, but did I love because I was loved? No, I did not. So, for me, the only proof I have to there being a "true love," is myself. That most likely, is the only proof I will every have. It is enough. Thank you for your thoughts, and good night from Prague. Edmund