Talk:Unconditional love

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historical Origin?[edit]

I think the biggest question to address is the origin of the term. Sure, people try to read the concept into the Bible, but it is not a concept directly from the Bible. The Principal of Reciprocity or Golden Rule is almost the opposite, being condition based. However, whomever originally coined the term or concept might not have meant it as literally irrational/unconditional. The term probably predates English, and so an original term in whatever the original language might have made more sense. Without knowing, my guess would point in the direction of Augustine. Carltonh (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a good rewrite based on the latest literature on the subject[edit]

Unconditional love is the the pursuit of the highest and best good for all, whatever that may be. The current article starts with: "Unconditional love is known as affection without any limitations." - this is not a clear explanation - more can be garnered from the synonyms of affection: "liking, friendliness, amity, fondness, friendship. See love." - Perhaps a study of the history of the concept of "unconditional love" is more appropriate, which should explain how at it's core it is giving without expecting anyting in return, but not necessarily in an affective manner. It could be argued that "unconditional love" is the pursuit of the highest purpose of all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This article contains unnecessary Christian propaganda.[edit]

Largely fixed.

If you don't like the quotes as religious POV, unsourced, or just quotes that use the phrase without explaining it, move them here at least until more verifiable citation. At the moment, they really help very little in defining the concept.

If the pope quote seems hard to place on point, move it here too, pending a more useful English-language cite that brings it home.

But leave the article as a stub. A WP article is needed on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

== N.B ==

Unless some drastic editing/revision takes place to this article within the next 7 days it seems destined for deletion since it is largely an extended POV consisting of lengthy extracts culled from other publications, heavily biased and completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, I was just about to post the exact same thing but you beat me to it. But yah, this is a pathetic excuse for an article. 13:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeps, i say cleanup too, this is an encyclopedia NOT a political/religious article or forum. Invisible pyromanic leprechaun 11:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy proliferation of religious material batman. I'm sorry. Even as a fairly devout Christian, I can't rightly accept a Christianity-patriotic load in Wiki. There is no redemption for this here article; talking full rewrite.

No need to delete[edit]

Strongly suggest that we don't delete this article; however, it does need a major overhaul. The subject is serious and has been touched on from ancient philosophers to star-crossed lovers in the back seats of cars world-wide, I've been a student of the subject for a very long time and as soon as possible will post as scholarly an article/update as I can for review. It is not a theistically-dependent concept. The human drama has countless examples of individual and even groups making extraordinary sacrifices for others, regardless of religious motivations. Unconditional love is simple, that kind of love or motive for action or behavior that seeks absolutely nothing in return from the object of love. The topic should include references to the debate about the kind of love which specific religions attribute to their god or gods. But it should not classify unconditional love as purely the domain of theists. --Liherouin (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Expand this article....[edit]

....but not with nonsense. Surely there's more to say than the small stub that already exists. --N Shar 03:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Unconditional love is simply loving anyone no matter what they think , say, or do —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unconditional versus conditional love[edit]

A number of authors have made a distinction between conditioning and unconditioning love. These distinctions were quite helpful for me to better understand what unconditional love is. How do we show these differences here? How do we include the idea of conditional or in another article? Anacapa 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this page needs to be expanded upon, but it should not have the judgmental views that are expressed later in the description. An encyclopedia should be based on facts, not someone's opinions, regardless of whether they are outwardly identified or not. This is certainly a noteworthy subject, however I came here looking for answers to end a debate, thinking of wikipedia as a highly reliable source, and I left here realizing I already knew more than the site could offer. A rewrite is definitely in order!!

pros and cons about unconditional foregiveness[edit]

Content at issue:

Others see this as a misunderstanding of the Christian concept of forgiveness. Pope John Paul II in an encyclical wrote that the "requirement of forgiveness does not cancel out the objective requirements of justice. . In no passage of the gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence toward evil, toward scandals, toward injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness" (Dives in Misericordia 14)

Long discussions about unconditional foregiveness belong in an article on that topic not an article on unconditional love. Please discuss why this was debated here. I will wait a few weeks before deleting this content and adding it to appropriate forgiveness articles. (drop in editor)

I pulled the above forgiveness content. Please move it to the forgiveness article if relevant there. (drop in editor) 04:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Following the reference to Heather Mills, is the sentence "However, one can follow the 'gold' in these cases and observe who uses whose 'gold' for charitable forms of power." Is this part of the Heather Mills quote? If not, I think the sentence needs to be deleted. It is confusing, not factual and somewhat off the topic. MrsPlum 02:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Love[edit]

This article needs a seperate section about conditional love and its consequences, sadly I lack the necessary education to make these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klemet15 (talkcontribs) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions left unanswered[edit]

I came to this article hoping to find at least some suggestions about where the term "unconditional love" comes from, and when it was first used, and by whom, but instead all I find is verbose, repetitive POV drivel about specific versions of the idea. This is not much use to anyone. Is Wikipedia meant to provide information - you know, names, dates, facts - or is it a space for self-indulgence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Glaring Syntax/Grammar Issues[edit]

Anyone who has read at least halfway through knows what I'm talking about; sentences that just don't make any sense. Is that what it means for an article to require cleanup? That's my guess.

Eg: "chnarch focuses on passionate love as essential to committed sexual relationships and paradoxically as a condition for personal growth as well and they give you what you want"

This article needs to be deleted[edit]

This article contains grammatical and spelling errors, and doesn't even begin to cite what exactly love is, much less what unconditional love is. It's simply another one of those Platonic Theory of Forms ideas that doesn't actually exist, but can (sometimes) be used to describe an unattainable goal. However, mostly it is used as a crutch by those who have had to deal with abandonment. Abandonment is a fact of life. If you or someone else is not participating constructively in herd behavior, you either leave or are kicked out. It's that simple. It's not love, it's herd behavior. Go watch some documentaries on wolves.

PLEASE DELETE THIS ARTICLE!!! IT DOESN'T CONFORM TO WIKI STANDARDS AND NO ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckstephenh (talkcontribs) 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No delete. Unconditional love is a key concept in marital and family therapy[edit]

The article is a stub, and will serve as a placeholder stub until someone takes the time to continue the fixing I've started. An article on unconditional love is needed in Wikipedia. No delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unconditional Love in Psychology, Philosophy, Therapy[edit]

A number of studies of unconditional love can be drawn on to draft a proper Encyclopedic article.

Eric Fromme's pioneering work

Love and Will by Rollo May

The Imago theory of the Hendricks

Integrative Couple's Behavorial Therapy

Unconditional acceptance is a key tool of classic talk therapy.

Rogers' Client Centered Therapy drew from the insight of the potential transformative power of unconditional acceptance of the patient.

There is much to add. I'll be glad when it gets here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation of the "quotations" are unverifiable and seem bogus[edit]

The passive voice is used.

An unverifiable source, or no source, is the source of the verifying citation.

Not up to encyclopedic quality. Put in good cite or remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be improved, but....[edit]

Being in the category of star-crossed lover, and hoping to communicate better to my non-native english companion, I landed here. From discussion, much is improved. This is no place for Christian zealotry. However, the heavy bias towards explaining an incorrect application of unconditional love to dysfunctional relationships is quite misbegotten. A simple mention - a reference to a page on dysfunctional relationships would not be out of place. But the 3 paragraphs, even with the outright claim they have "nothing to do with each other" really should go, although I'm too much of an amateur here to take that on myself. Vermelho (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Unconditional Love: Not an excuse to remain in an abusive relationship[edit]

This article needs to contain some reference to the fact that 'Unconditional Love' in a dysfunctional relationship is not emotionally healthy.

There are far too many people who suffer through abusive relationships, as their abuser states that the offended party should be, or has promised to love the abuser 'unconditionally', whether through the vows of marriage, or through the manipulation of the word 'unconditional love'.

As the younger generations look to Wikipedia for answers to such questions, to leave out any discussion that would somehow be construed by a reader to imply that one should remain in an abusive relationship due to 'unconditional love' is totally and completely unacceptable.

My edits are removed, as I am not a licensed therapist, which is troubling but acceptable to me.

I would hope that future therapists who seek to improve the accuracy of this page, will begin to include such a discussion on their posts in the future.

Beaconmike (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Helping Out[edit]

For a psychology class I am in at the University of Kentucky, I have chosen to work on this article.

I will be changing the introduction paragraph to include more basic information about this topic.

I will also be adding a section on neurological basis in order to offer more scientific evidence and a section on criticism of this concept. Most of the criticisms come from the term being used along altruism, therefore I have linked the two topics in that section. Once posted if there is any other contributions someone can make to bulk up criticism section that would be great! --Alexandria.hagan91 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolute Versus Relative[edit]

Unconditional love is present in an absolute condition as opposed to a relative state. Being absolute there is only one emotion love, in a relative state there is the function of love and fear simultaneously existing together.Dancewithdead (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

see also[edit]

"see also" could be used or weave refs to Agape and earlier in Judaism Chesed into the article.

There seems to be confusion about unconditionally loving someone no matter what, being the same as duty ie, putting up with abusive relationships. The puppy example is that someone's behaviour has to change. If the puppy say, grew tp be untrainable & destructive, the relationship would have to change - it goes to the pound; or, with a person, there is a separation. The love may continue but if there's no resolution, the relationship ends. Don't have time to get good refs atm, which this sort of clarification needs.

Further, sometimes uncon love leads to what appears to be duty (e.g. partners looking after each other whatever the circumstances). Manytexts (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)