Unconditional Love Has One Condition

A paradox? Maybe. I guarantee that by the end of this post there will be plenty of chances to argue about semantics.

When people talk about unconditional love, they are talking about a situation in which one person will love and cherish another person regardless of the actions of that person (or in the event of a bad situation). In theory, unconditional love can be inherent or acquired; a person starts out always loving his/her family unconditionally, and then when they meet that special somebody, they learn to love that person unconditionally as well. Sometimes, close friends can also be elevated to that position (unconditional love is not limited to that of a romantic nature). If I promise to "love you for who you are" or "love you no matter what," it can be said that I love you unconditionally. But is this the case?

Can truly unconditional love exist?

Yes, with one condition. So maybe not (again, semantics).

It has also been my observation that in particular, our generation of young people often lack the one condition that makes this love possible.

Let's start this journey with a example that takes a look into the past.


Arranged marriages have been around for thousands of years. Tribes, clans, and even entire civilizations throughout the ancient world would mandate that a woman and a man were chosen to be betrothed by their relatives and/or community. In modern times, the concept of an arranged marriage is often frightening to those who are not familiar with it. The very thought of forfeiting the right to fall in love with a person sends shivers down the spines of free-thinkers. However, proponents of this system believe that marriage is a familial concept, not a personal one. Marriages are selected for the benefit of the families involved. It is expected of the two individuals entering into the marriage that they will respect that fact, and learn to love one another over the course of the relationship. Both parties put in a lot of effort to make the marriage a success. This success can be demonstrated by the fact that in some cultures (particularly in the East) these types of marriages are still prevalent. Although there are shortcomings in any societal construct, who is to doubt the validity of this idea? Especially in a society where marriages based on love fail more than half the time?

Back to the present. In our fast paced, technology driven world, relationships face a new barrier: time dependency. Can't find the time to meet somebody? A telephone call, e-mail, or SMS may suffice. Don't want to establish direct contact? How about a Facebook wall post? For example, at Stanford University, exploratory dating is a concept lost upon the majority of the highly driven, academically exceptional and egregiously overworked student population. Many of the relationships I saw that succeeded relied on casual sex or near-marital status right off the bat. After observing this phenomenon on numerous occasions, I decided that the reasoning was quite simple. Being so busy with work, students determined that they would make it an "all or nothing" situation: keep things simple and not put any work into their relationship, or put any effort not dedicated to work into a single person and then just go the distance. In any case, the sheer lack of spare time enforces this binary system.

In platonic relationships, a similar dichotomy is observed. For instance, there are work buddies, drinking buddies, and a whole host of other types of friendships that are formed under circumstances dictated by convenience. You make friends at work because you might spend a large portion of your life on the job. If you plan on going to bars and don't want to be perceived as a lone creeper, you go with somebody for moral and alcoholic support. On the other hand, in the case of a friendship where emotional investment is involved, the level of that investment will have a direct effect on the value of the friendship (as opposed to the convenience relationship where putting effort in does not matter). Each person becomes a part of the other. Friends who reach the level of "BFF" (best friend forever) cannot arbitrarily change the direction of the friendship without running into serious difficulty. Even though people want their friends to feel no obligations, the truth is that if one person puts something into the relationship, they subconsciously expect something back.


By now I'm sure you've noticed a pattern. Each of these situations seem to lead themselves to an "either or" solution, and this solution is directly correlated to the effort involved in the relationship. This might seem like an obvious outcome, however it is often overlooked when people reach a place in which they believe they love someone unconditionally.


The truth is, unconditional love has one everlasting condition: effort. If a person truly believes that behaving however they want without giving back (on the other persons terms), the relationship is bound to either end in disaster, or continue in a manner that is even more destructive in the long term.


The reason for the "either or" nature of successful relationships is quite simple when you add the effort coefficient. Just like in a game theory square, in a situation in which both people comply (put effort into the relationship), they are both happy. Technically this is known as Nash equilibrium, where the choices of the individuals are made for the group rather than in the case of solely the individual. Also, the case where neither individual complies, success is also apparent in a more indirect way. By "not caring," and living life as each person sees it, relationships based on convenience or need work out just fine. This is Adam Smith equilibrium, where the best solution is presented by people pursuing their individual needs. In situations where one person is putting in more effort than the other, we often see difficult breakups that leaves one person devastated, or damaging long term relationships in which the person who receives less has accepted the situation at hand and doesn't know or doesn't care to change it.

So what's that take-away message here? Isn't it obvious that effort is a major part of relationships?

Not these days. In our increasingly fast paced world, instant gratification is becoming more easily attainable in our professional and even our social lives. The advent of SMS, e-mail, and social networking allows us to establish contact with little effort. As such, the young people in our generation expect everything to come easy. Last time I checked, however, in the last twenty years human brains have evolved much slower than technology. People still need attention, love, empathy, and understanding; the only way to share these qualities is through good old fashioned hard work.

You can have unconditional love. Just know that as much effort that you put in to obtain it, it requires no less to maintain it.

What gives me the right to talk about this subject?

Absolutely nothing. But then again, why do people listen to Dr. Phil? Or Oprah? Or Rachael Ray, for that matter?

Obvious answer: they are older (wiser?), much more famous, and make quite a bit more money than me. Maybe, one day, I will also have all those things and have the credibility I need for pepole to listen. Until then, you readers will just have to take me on a little faith.

I plan on exploring the realms of human interactions dictated by people's emotions, particularly what happens when things go wrong. I have no idea where this journey will take me. In the end, I may learn as much as my audience.

And so, dear readers, I implore you to grab a spoon and chow down on some Spicy Lentil Soup. Like the titular soup does for sinuses, I hope this blog clears your mind and gives insight into how our emotions affect our judgement. If it's too hot and brings tears to your eyes, I'd reccomend a tall glass of milk.