“I love you” has no meaning

I contemplated whether to put a question mark at the end of the title since I am not sure about it, but I chose not to, since I believe it’s likely true and since I am sure about almost nothing in life.

Let’s consider the following two uses of “love”:

1. I say, “I love you” to a girl
2. I say, “I love french fries.”

Is there a difference in how “love” has been used in the above two statements?

I think the use of the word “love” is quite similar in the two contexts: in both the cases, it means that I derive value from something. 

In the first case, I derive value from a girl. In the second case, I derive value from french fries.

Similarly, we use the word “love” in many other ways.

1. I love this watch.
2. I loved that event.
3. I would love to be a part of the program.
4. When a friend helps you significantly, you say to your friend, “I love you, dost.”

In all the cases, the use is consistent. “I love X” means “I derive value from X.”

Let’s say a boy falls in love with a girl at first sight. What does that mean?

Love at first sight! What else?! 🙂

It means that, per the boy’s assessment, the girl will add significant value to his life. Perhaps he finds the girl attractive. So, he may derive physical satisfaction from her. 

Or, if the girl is beautiful by social standards, she can also provide social value to the boy. His friends may say to him, “Wow! Man, you get to date such a beautiful girl.”

Naturally, if you are dating someone with high social value, you must also have some worth. So, in a way, a beautiful girl may be a source of social- or self-worth for the boy.

Perhaps the boy finds that the girl aligns with his values, and they may be able to create a harmonious life together. (This is, of course, quite unlikely. Most people never even attempt to figure out their values.)

Let’s say the boy proposes to the girl, and the girl says, “No”.

Now, he is heartbroken. Why?

He can still love her. No?

Oh! But he wanted the girl to love him back. 

Why?

Because only then can the girl add value to his life. 

Of course, when the girl declines his proposal, she won’t add value to his life. 

So, the guy is heartbroken because he was imagining a life much better than his current life, and now that will not happen. People also feel heartbroken when they fail to get into their desired roles, companies, or b-school programs.

So, “heartbroken” means that your life will be far inferior to your imagined life. It is about you and the quality of your life, not about your “love” for someone else. 

Now, let’s imagine that instead of just saying “no”, the girl rebukes the boy, “Who will date a person like you? Have you seen your face in the mirror?”

What will happen to the boy and his “love” for the girl?

He may get angry and, perhaps, so angry that he may want to hurt the girl.

Hurt the girl? How can he? Doesn’t he “love” her?

How can you hurt someone you love? You can’t.

So, clearly, he didn’t “love” her. He just saw a potential in her to add value to his life.

However, instead of saying that I see a tremendous amount of value that you can add to my life and, in return, I will also try to add value to your life, the person says, “I love you.”

Instead of presenting it as a transaction, which is the reality, the person gives it a twist.

—-

I have used the example of a boy proposing to a girl. However, the ideas equally apply to married couples and all kinds of relationships.

“I love you” means I derive value from you and will compensate you. Of course, the condition is that you must also be willing to continue to add value to me.

If there arose a point that you stopped adding value to my life, I would begin to evaluate our “relationship” (or contract). If there came a point in life in which I saw you constantly subtracting value from my life (i.e., acting against my interest), I would withdraw my sweetness and may turn bitter towards you, depending on how much value you are subtracting from my life.

—

A fundamental question is: can you really love another person?

The answer is No.

You are willing to add value to their life as long as they are adding value to your life. If they start subtracting value from your life, you will turn against them sooner or later.

Thus, you never love another person. You love only your experience of life. If someone helps make it better, you are sweet to them. If someone makes your life experience worse, you become bitter towards them.

This is how it is, and it cannot be any other way.

Why?

Because we all are limited by our experience of life. I can value something only if it enhances my experience of life. If something negatively impacts my experience of life, I disregard it.

—

What about people who put the interests of others above their own interests?

I think that’s a superficial reading of the situation. Such people are not putting others’ interests over their own interests. These people are sensitive (empathetic) such that others’ experience significantly impacts their experience. Thus, in an attempt to optimise their experience, they end up serving others around them. These people are still serving their own interests, but given their empathy and sensitiveness, their interests lie in the happiness of the people around them.

Thus, they cannot help but support people around them.

The more sensitive a person is, the more they will be impacted by others’ pain and joy. 

A man of character (empathy, joy, or sensitiveness), by default, will care about others’ interests since he won’t find peace otherwise. 

Thus, in an attempt to serve their interests, such people serve others.

—

The above discussion can also partially answer the question, “Why are relationships falling apart these days?”

The reason is that people are not joyful; people are suffering. People who have a lot of suffering within get easily and frequently triggered.

Naturally, if someone triggers me, i.e., is the source of suffering for me, I cannot continue to have sweet emotions towards them.

Thus, the relationship falls.

The relationship does not fall apart because people only care about their interests. It falls because people are suffering, and such people are easily triggered by others.

As I have argued above, we care only about our interests by design. However, if I am joyful, I’ll naturally serve others. My interest will lie in making others happy. In that case, I will likely have many relationships, and they will not fall apart.

—

Here are a couple of additional points I would like to make:

1. I have tried to argue above that there is nothing called “I love you”. Essentially, we value others who enhance our experience of life, and we are willing to enhance their experience of life. Does that mean we are all selfish? If I say “yes”, will you have a problem? If you indeed have a problem accepting that we are all selfish, the reason is perhaps the value judgment we have assigned to being selfish. We have come to believe that being selfish is bad. We need to be selfless. And all that nonsense. As I have argued above, by design, we all are trying to optimise our life experiences. And there is nothing wrong with it. The problem with the world is not that we are selfish and are trying to optimise our experience of life. The problem with the world is that we are not sensitive or joyful enough that our interests lie in the happiness of others.
   
2. As I have argued above, our “love” is always conditional. And if it is conditional love, it is not love for the other person; it is love for our conditions and experience of life.
   
   Love is truly love only if it is unconditional. However, unconditional love has to be universal. Why?
   
   Because if I don’t put any conditions on you to love you, then even if you become like any person X, I will still love you. That means I must also love person X. If I love you without conditions, I cannot put a condition that you have to remain you. Even if you become someone else, I must still love you. That is unconditional love. And that love is universal.
   
   Thus, as Sadhguru JV says, “love is not a relationship; love is a state of being.”