Ok I meant to be funny but I’ll continue anyways, what if I said, “We declare that Definitions are the incontrovertible evidence in any syllogism because we haven’t yet recognized and evidence to suggest that such is not a reasonable decleration or that declerations are reasonable to begin with, but absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.”?
The “evidence” is the deduction that declarations (and thus definitions) are required for thought. That is not an assumption either, but a deduction.
You can keep going to lower and lower levels and you will always be faced with the fact that such declarations must be used to either substantiate your point or contradict your point.
In your above quote, you already used definitions and deduction merely to make your claim that you can’t rely on them because “we haven’t seen the evidence for or against”. If I can’t make my statement due to such “absence of evidence”, neither can you contradict my statement for the same reason. Is “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” an assumption that has an absence of evidence to support?
{{ and you seriously might want to consider using your spell checker more often}} 
Yeah I saw that problem nonetheless even if we can’t really know anything we have to have something to talk about…
Empathy is only one of many factors that make up the term ‘love’, surely?
Does sexual attraction come into this at all? Otherwise you have reduced love for a mate and love for your family into one thing.
I’d say sex is really just something that has come to symbolize love. We think it signifies the hight of love, but I’d say because we think that we don’t let love go further, or don’t recognize more potent levels of love when we have them.
Does everything need to be defined or indeed can it be.
Love is not anything other than itself, we all know exactly what that is because it’s so fundamental [almost like thought itself is]. As soon as we attach some other meaning to it we can at most only define that part of it.
It only needs to be defined if you want to think or talk about it.
If we don’t think about anything, we don’t have to know what it is that we are not thinking about. 
Ha, nice one! 
…but it is defined, it is love, like tractor is a tractor, all we can really talk about is usage.
But in order to know something is a tractor you must also know what the various parts of a tractor are that define that thing as being a tractor. For example if you just said a tractor exists, one might infer that anything that exists is a tractor. if you don’t say a tractor has wheels, has an engine…etc then the word tractor ultimately has no utility. but then I think that perhaps it is maybe just to say love is love alone, if you actually mean love is existence or everything that exists. I mean is not love sort of “attraction” or seeking to be together with something else. Without togetherness how could anything exist. Without gravity there would be nothing, love is perhaps like gravity. Or maybe it is gravity 
Emm…
Love == the desire/effort to support
Although, I admit the word “support” isn’t the greatest. It’s in the right direction.
The “attraction” that you are taking about isn’t the “love” portion of the overall effect. It is the desire portion. Desire is “wanting”, usually to possess. That isn’t the actual love although they tend to go hand in hand.
Would you propose desiring not to desire?
What can you choose to do and do it without desire? and if it happens without direct correlation to what you choose that doesn’t change the fact that it is possible that something you chose at some point in time may have led to it.
Not until after you die.
“Nothing can die until it fails to try.”
But it is critically important to do more than merely desiring. the action of love has purpose and aim. That aim is not merely to possess.
I think the idea of love is like ultimate-oneness or togetherness, or at least the seeking of togetherness, to want for the self is inevitable, to see yourself as more than “your” body and mind is the only way to approach selflessness, but it is questionable that complete selflessness is good, as well as wether it can be achieved. The aim is not to have for this body and mind, and only take from that body and mind, for to one that sees all as the self that is like takeing from the self. But without more how can there be less? Perhaps true love is altering between the state of having more to the state of having less faster and faster to the extent that while it will seem that no change is occuring nonetheless more and less is being experienced, and thus there is experience…
See the thread on “Something bout Altruism”
Preservation of the self can be a means of preserving the other.
A good example being mother and child. Often, especially before birth, if the mother dies the baby dies, or there is no longer someone to take care of the baby, or one could assert the lack of a mother at all is harmfull to the baby.
I know that man who said that one too.
I don’t.
In subjects and relations theory, subjects are either extrinsic or intrinsic. An extrinsic subject identifies the relation, intrinsic subjects compose the relation. Intrinsic subjects are antipathetic to each other, but they are empathetic to the extrinsic subject. If the subjects are related in time, the extrinsic subject is a procedure. If one asks the question, “What does ‘emotionally with’ mean?” It means, in terms of subjects and relations, to support an extrinsic subject. (not sure if that makes any sense to you, but it is how I would expound on it further)
Well, if I understand that underlined part, you are saying that empathy is the “desire to support the subject (other person)”.
I have stated that;
Love == the desire/effort to support
Doesn’t that make them identical?
Sure, the definition that empathy is the desire/effort to support is a good one, but does it qualify as the generic definition of love? Don’t you agree that it is simpler and more to the point to say, “love is excessive empathy,” than it is to say, “love is the excessive desire/effort to support?” Besides, if love is the opposite of hate, it makes more sense to go with antipathy is the opposite of empathy as it does to go with destroy is the opposite of support. After all, is destroy really the opposite of support? Also, with hate, does hate really mean to destroy? According to Ortega de Gasset, If you love someone you want this person to thrive and be happy, if you hate someone you wish this person to die and disappear. Do you agree with Gasset, when you hate someone you always wish this person to die and disappear? Can’t hate be amicable? Isn’t is better to define hate in terms of antipathy than it is in terms of destroy?
P.S. I’m going on vacation, won’t be able to post for about a week.