Essay (On) Love

To quote one of the most famous books of all time, "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking. It is not easily angered and it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts; always hopes, always perseveres." Words written thousands of years ago in the Christian bible still applies in regards to our society today. The condition of unconditional love is so hard to partake or give in this world that it is regarded as an ideal, not an ability. Such headily worshipped ideals of a pursuit to love have been sanctified in a song a million times and forms the crux of too many movies. So many legends surround this emotion, from the mythic heroine Penelope and husband Odysseus to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. What then, is love?

Love takes many forms, from the physical to the emotional aspect. Unlike sex - which often takes place for its own sake - love offers the prospect of unknown riches. It can tear people apart, make us do irrational things. It can entail a blissful connection between two people. It can bring together entire nations. Above all, love is a gamble. Over time, we demand a whole lot of things which must come in that 'package' of love, such as commitment, truth, honesty, sincerity, dedication and other ideals. We wish to live a life to love, to love whole-heartedly, but there is a gripping fear and uncertainty that plagues our decision to plunge in. We deny how tired we are of the constant let-downs. We deny that we are scared to hurt. We deny how badly we want to succeed. And most of all, we deny that we are in denial. In short, we become an army of people who view love through a prism of suspicion and cycnicalism - for because we are shaped by the people around us, we are fed with the notion that love is not devoted, not sacrificial; only catastrophic and foolish. This is the lot that society does to force the notion of the committed nobility of love out of an individual. Opinions are something that almost seems like it is defined by what other people think and feel for by and by, the idea of whole-hearted, undivided affection becomes laughable; becomes run down - scoffed at, mocked at even.

Love is not only viewed negatively. Let me touch on the selfless aspect of love, which I see everyday, in a variety of forms - yet there is no hesitation in recognising it. I find it hard to understand this irresistible sense of happiness that short-circuits me when I see an adorable child stumbling along the streets hand in hand with his mother, very seriously concentrating on taking in the environment and placing one foot in front of the other. It is the mother's firm albeit gentle grip keeping the child from tripping over his own feet. But above all, it is love which guides the mother's primal act of maintaining the said child upright and away from any form of danger. That is parental love in all its glory. As children we love by instinct but it is a selfish love. One which results out of necessity, for it is birthed out of vulnerable, powerless reliance on others for survival. It may be self-seeking, but ultimately it is an innocent love, free of encumbrances we may encounter in the flux of societal change. We all know about life's forks in the road. We all know about opening one door and closing another, life cycles, the changes in seasons. But the minute a child is born... It is beyond surreal. The new parents are different; a simple element hit with a startling catalyst and metamorphosed into one far more complex. What would they not do to love that seven and a half pounds mass in the crib?

Over the course of time, people have tried to put in place an adequate definition of love, one which fits this driving force. There is Aristotle the Greek philosopher, who says that to love is to rejoice. And Plato, who agrees that "He whom love touches not walk in darkness". Neuroscience tells us the chemicals triggered in the brain that are responsible for passionate love and long-term attachment seem to hail more to the activities which people participate in, rather than to the nature of the specific people involved. We can thus postulate that the most important object of love is people. However, another form pertaining to the non-human kind is the love for animals. Some treat it as part of their lifestyle, coming home from work or school to a pet and probably a lot of pet mess along the way. Others have it in them for a living - our globally noble veterinarians hail from this aspect. Per contra, there are a rare few in this world who carry the notion that animals are the primal entities of true, unadulterated affection. I am talking about people who are so bounded by isolation they wake up one day and find a means to counter it - by which I mean pets. Moving on, let me touch on Mark Haddon's The Curious Incident of The Dog in the Night-Time, a 2003 British novel. The protagonist is an autistic child who is unable to acknowledge and warm to others in a way which ordinary people usually can. Lacking the intuitive theory of mind which most humans do, he has no understanding of human emotions but relates extremely well to animals. The reason, after all, which we claim to be of a higher social order than the animals is the ability for us to rise above these animalistic desires and truly listen to reason. Being autistic or dwelling the plight of aloneness, these people are unable to do that. Yet, they achieve solace and perhaps understanding through these beings. Bringing me back to my first point, is love then about peace and solace?

Novels, legends, poems and quotations of famous people worldwide can only briefly touch on the true meaning of love. Because of the complexity and differences of love's social, cultural, and religious definitions and roles, it is challenging to delineate love to suit a universally accepted definition. Having branched out and explored the varying and ever-changing perspectives on this uncommon beauty, I ask myself: What is love? I cannot pinpoint its exact characterisation, but I can and will express it to my family, my friends and to every single pet I have or ever will own in the best possible way that I can. Reasonably, this can be said to be the general cosmopolitan agreement of the unfathomable entity called love: It really is worth being brave for, risking for. And the trouble is, if you do not risk anything, you risk even more.

-
I'm not entirely sure if the last line was relevant. Where else can i fit it in?

Lastly, another concern plagues me. Is the whole essay too.. Random and lacking in concrete details? I fear i have just talked and talked too much without properly bringing to mind the different forms of love.

I thaught evertime before you write an essay, the first thing is to tell yourself what you are going to write. Not just the details inside but a clear structure should be fully present. So, I think you should highlight what you are going to convey in your passage. ^^

Keep walking!

Thank you!
Are there any obvious missing gaps in the structure of this essay?

Right. You have said many interesting things, some phrased very nicely. But the essay as a whole lacks coherence and structure. It's more like a rambling journal entry than an essay.

You ask if there are any gaps in the structure. I see no structure at all.

(By the way, a clue to yourself that something like this might be happening is when you find yourself writing, "moving on," as a transitional phrase.)

What are your main points? How do they fit together? Figure that out, and then you will know what to keep, what to cut, what to move, and what you will need to write to tie it all together.

Thank you Simone.

If for example I want to touch on the forms of love (parental love, the love of a child) and also what love is about (solace?) as my main points, then:

Is the second paragraph entirely relevant? How can it be made better? I was trying to bring to mind how some people are cynical towards love, before I started on what kind of form love takes.

If your point is that love in its different forms serves the same function (solace) you could begin by introducing the question of the purpose of love, then define love, then talk about the different types, showing that each serves the same purpose, and then conclude by stating what you have demonstrated.


Whatever your specific purpose for the essay, it's a good idea to define what you mean by love, which is what I think you are trying to do in that paragraph. You can make it better by coming directly to the point as precisely as possible.

This is a difficult topic to deal with. Our ability to describe any emotion is very, very limited. We attach labels to them and expect others to know what we mean because they have felt the same way at some point themselves.

Love is especially tricky, because, as you realize. we use the word to describe several different emotions. When we talk about a mother's love for her child, we don't mean the same emotion that we refer to when we talk about a adolescent's love for his/her first crush. And neither of them are really like the love we have for our friends. So, you first have to decide whether you think we are justified in using the same word for each emotion. Is there some unifying characteristic or set of characteristics that warrants giving them the same label, or should each be given its own term? You seem to assume the former, but some justification would be nice.

And Simone is right. You need to come up with a working definition of the term fairly soon into your essay. Otherwise, a lot of what you say becomes untenable.


Why should unconditional love be viewed as an ideal? We treat people who have unconditional fear, for example, as mentally ill. An emotion that has overwhelmed someone such that they feel it even when the facts of reality clearly don't warrant it is presumably equally a problem in this sense, regardless of whether the emotion is pleasant or not. You are referencing a Christian notion about love, but its truth is hardly something you can take for granted given your topic. Certainly you can't assert this without first defining the term.


Not bad in and of itself, but glaringly contradicts your view of unconditional love as ideal.


And yet, parental love isn't always a given. Parents can be abusive in any number of ways that seem to show a lack of love. Also, parental love, even when present, is a selfish instinct, a genetic impulse to treasure that which carries the parents' genes. One good reason to treat it differently from the love we bear our friends, which is after all far more a matter of personal choice.

And so on. Start with a working definition of the term, one that either allows you to focus on one type of love in particular, or else to justify including multiple types.