Love is very mysterious, often incomprehensible, in our choices sometimes as well.
Proust had a very subtle answer , He says that you are in love “in your mind” not with “the object”
and the great mistake people make, is in investing the person one loves with what actually exists only within the person who does the loving. He said as well that “lovers” are like countries or better, they are like politics. The emotions they inspire are just as absurd, just as little based on logic, as is attraction to a country or to some political opinion…what is Love?
interesting, so what role, if any, would the object play? does the “lover” simply desire to feel love and thus does, or does it well up from within their self- like a reaction to something within themselves? Otherwise the object would have to play some role in the equation, at least a catalyst, and would then be deserving of love, at best.
Yes, Sterling, you have found the right words:" the object would have to play some role in the equation, at least a catalyst" the kind of love Proust talked about is more of the seductive game than the kind of love Bertrand Russell did talk about … and often it is difficult to be able to make such fine distinctions distinguishing sexuality from emotions of the heart and sensual and sexual emotions. Some wonder if it is possible to be passionately in platonic love? I believe one can love of pure love without the torments of the flesh though it is very rare…however to most people I have asked
they answered me "to each his/her own religion. I dont believe in it…
The Princess de Cleves did died of love for Nemours, her love came from such a pure soul…
(Princesse de Cleves or if you want to google it "The princess de cleves by Robin Buss)
However the most poignant interpretation and definition of love at least for myself. is the one of Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell:
Three passions have governed my life:
The longings for love, the search for knowledge,
And unbearable pity for the suffering of [humankind].
Love brings ecstasy and relieves loneliness.
In the union of love I have seen
In a mystic miniature the prefiguring vision
Of the heavens that saints and poets have imagined.
With equal passion I have sought knowledge.
I have wished to understand the hearts of [people].
I have wished to know why the stars shine.
Love and knowledge led upwards to the heavens,
But always pity brought me back to earth;
Cries of pain reverberated in my heart
Of children in famine, of victims tortured
And of old people left helpless.
I long to alleviate the evil, but I cannot,
And I too suffer.
This has been my life; I found it worth living.
I’ve thought much about love lately and have come to the conclusion that I do not believe in the abstract and very popular romantic vision of it as simply an end. Being thoroughly pragmatic I look at it as something that is not subjective nor completely emotive but as something useful for focus and to assuage the social need that drives at us from all angles. Modern thought seems to me to say that you should fall in love and look for the perfect match for yourself. I disagree and say their are many people out there who are at least compatible with me. So I have thought of love as more of a decision and a willingness to accept someone and also to enter into a protective and financial symbiosis that functions as both a means and ends and offers the support that keeps me centered from day to day. I cannot suggest that this is a perfect or complete answer as the whole aspect of love and marriage relies heavily on our social structure and our particular human freedom.
It seems I am off the mark as far as the subject/object discussion, but I felt my insight might give you some food for thought.