Does love require 2? Must there always be an object when the word love is used? If so, how does this speak to the concept of self-love?
At the risk of upsetting a great many believers in self-love, I propose that Love does require two because of the very definition of what true love is:
True love, or unconditional love is caring for SOMEONE else’s feelings without needing anything back in return.
Love is a choice.
It’s an attitude.
It’s a decision.
It’s actually the most powerful force on the planet but we feel it from elsewhere and others can feel it through us.
Self-love is a concept that has resulted from there being so much pain and confusion around love. We actually learn that love is painful from very early on in our life. We are shown on countless occasions that people who profess to love us, actually can’t sustain it consistently and they show their disapproval of us in many ways.
As a result of this flawed ‘love’, we get left feeling disappointed, rejected and alone and in order to avoid feeling like that, someone comes along and suggests that the solution is to simply love yourself. But this is not what love is and is simply another sign of the world’s confusion about love.
So, what can you do?
- You can accept yourself.
- You can be kind to yourself.
- You can believe you are worth loving without having to keep proving it.
- You can stop beating yourself for for not being good enough.
- You can believe it is okay to make mistakes and learn from them.
- You can get rid of your terribly low self-esteem and stop worrying about what other people think about you all of the time.
But the answer to the above is not to ‘love yourself’ because deep down, you don’t actually believe you are worth loving, so you are going to fall over very quickly with that concept.
You ARE worth loving. Everyone is worth loving.
Unconditional love is about sharing that belief with other people when they don’t fully believe it themselves.