essay about romantic love

Free Romantic Relationship Essay Examples & Topics

A relationship is a connection between two or more people. Relationships vary in nature and can be positive, negative, platonic, intimate, etc. That is to say, there are numerous types of relationships. Yet, four basic ones are generally recognized in society. You’re likely to be familiar with acquaintanceships, friendships, romantic and family relationships.

Typically, “being in a relationship” refers to a romantic connection between two people. This kind of love is an emotional attachment between individuals, with passion being just one of the prominent features. Romantic relationships involve both spiritual and physical intimacy, commitment, and trust.

In your romantic relationship essay, you can explore this phenomenon using fictional characters from literature or movies. You also have the opportunity to ponder upon the concept of love, its different types and manifestations or analyze your relationships. In this article, our team collected tips that will be useful for writing such a paper. In addition, you will find romantic essay examples and topics on this page.

Romantic Relationship Essay Tips

Your essay about a romantic relationship will depend on the assignment you receive. Besides argumentative and persuasive papers, you may be asked to write reflective or analytical work. Regardless of the essay type, they all have the same basic academic structure. So, here we’ll explain how to start and end this task.

The following aspects will be suitable for argumentative essays about a romantic relationship:

• A catchy hook. Come up with a creative way to grab your readers’ attention from the very first sentence. Ask a question, use a metaphor, or include a quote. You can even provide statistics – use any method to ensure your audience is captivated.
• Some context. The introduction is the place to familiarize your audience with your topic. Provide a general background that will give some context to the rest of your essay. This is also the place to clarify any terms unfamiliar to your readers.
• Thesis statement. Write a sentence that will reflect the main point you are trying to make. A strong thesis statement should guide your readers through your essay. Include the key argument that you will develop in the body of your paper.
• Arguments & supporting evidence. In the main body, develop each key point separately. Here, each paragraph should include a topic sentence, supporting details, and examples. Make sure your arguments are backed up by solid evidence. We recommend you use only trustworthy sources of information (academic articles, official websites with the domain .gov, .edu, etc.).
• Short summary and restatement. In your conclusion, summarize the key points and restate your thesis statement. Do not add any new arguments, facts, or details. The conclusion is the place to review your findings and propose further areas for study.
• A concluding sentence. The key to successful essay writing is a solid and dynamic concluding sentence. It must provide a sense of closure and open space for further study. Spend some time drafting up the perfect last sentence of your essay.

14 Topics about Romantic Relationships

Any successful romantic love essay requires an appropriate topic. Unfortunately, they can be hard to find, especially regarding such a sensitive subject. We created a list of unique ideas to explore and consider in this section. You can also try out our title generator. It will propose even more topics about romantic relationships.

• Factors affecting attractions towards other people during teenage years.
• The role of meaningful conversations in maintaining a healthy relationship between partners.
• The “ideal” boyfriend and girlfriend: fake portrayals of romantic love on social media.
• How can love letters improve the romantic relationship between partners in the digital era?
• Romeo and Juliet as an example of enduring love, commitment, and passion.
• The main principles of interpersonal communication used in conflict resolution.
• Similarities and differences in love expression between adolescents and grownups.
• How may the poor basis for interpersonal relationships affect marriage in the long run?
• Unrequired love among teenagers. What are the threats of experiencing it at a young age?
• What is romantic love? How do you distinguish it from a short-term crush?
• The major stages of relationship development.
• What are some major takeaways about love that we can get from the literature of the Romanic Era?
• How can you be more romantic and maintain passion after long years of married life?
• My ideal love story: the model of romantic relationship I would like to have in my life.

Thank you for your attention! Below you will find romantic essay examples. They will show you how other students handled such an assignment.

56 Best Essay Examples on Romantic Relationship

Why beautiful women prefer unattractive men.

• Words: 1140

Long-Distance and Extended Time Effect on Relationships

• Words: 1991

Arguments: What Is Love?

A woman’s love.

• Words: 1385

Culture Influence on Intimacy and Human Relationships

• Words: 1978

Creating a Healthy Loving Relationship

Students and faculty members’ romantic relations.

• Words: 1457

5 Love Languages Description

Love and its nature: “perception of love in young adults”, gender communication in romantic relationship.

• Words: 1591

Rules of Modern Love and Art of Courtly Love

The history of dating and romantic relationships.

• Words: 1002

Adolescent Romantic Relationships

The influence of pornography on the internet, “are gen z more pragmatic about love and sex” by klein, love. characteristics of a true feeling, responsibility in romantic relationships, “six styles of love” by hendricks and john allan lee, love components in sternberg’s triangular theory, sexuality and sexual happiness analysis, interracial romantic relationships, “biochemistry of love” by carter & porges, sociology of the family: love and relationships.

• Words: 1413

Online Dating Platforms, Sex, and Relationships

Love and marriage: “the lady with the pet dog” and “the birthmark”.

• Words: 1009

Dating in Los Angeles: The City of Dreams That Come True

Self-happiness and its impact on romantic relationships, attachment styles and relationships.

• Words: 1416

Interpersonal Attraction Between Two People

• Words: 1059

Mate Preference Based on Personality Traits

The biology of love in knox and schacht’s book and stanislawski’s video, romantic relationship: main aspects.

• Words: 1122

McDonald’s and Romantic Relationships

• Words: 1369

Shteyngart: The Case of Lenny and Eunice

The role of secrecy in erotic romantic love.

• Words: 1547

Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make Me a Match

• Words: 3969

Dating Online as a Part of Human Life

Ideas of love: western civilizations.

• Words: 4463

What Is The Meaning Of Love?

Long-term intimate relationships.

• Words: 2423

First Date: Sociological Analysis

“sex and the city”: the question of monogamy and polygamy, why people idealize love but do not practice it, why do people search for love.

• Words: 1049

Abusive Intimate Relationships and Turning Points

Attraction and relationships analysis, online relationships are real and positive, early dating rituals in filter theory, dual relationships and boundaries in adolescents, infidelity in sexual relationships and marriage.

• Words: 1034

Romantic Relationship Stages and Characteristics

Common conflict areas in marital and couple relationships, creation and breaking of relationships in you’ve got mail and annie hall.

• Words: 1447

Love in a Relationship Without Sex

• Words: 1713

Love, in the Form of Romance, Can Never Give Us What We Want

• Words: 3514

Maintaining and Repairing Relationships

• Words: 1408

Feb 20, 2023

250-500 Word Example Essays About Love and Romance

Got an Essay assignment about Love and Romance? Let us help you out with these inspiring Examples!

Love, an emotion that has captivated the hearts and minds of poets, authors, and artists throughout history, remains a profound and multi-faceted subject. While the depth and complexity of this emotion can make it a daunting topic to explore in an essay, the right resources can turn this challenge into a rewarding endeavor. For those looking to capture the essence of love and romance in their writing, our essay writer can be a beacon of inspiration and assistance. This tool, powered by Jenni.ai, offers a seamless journey through the essay-writing process, from brainstorming ideas to refining the final draft. 

Whether you're delving into argumentative, persuasive , or reflective essays about love, Jenni.ai ensures clarity, coherence, and a touch of elegance in your prose. It's a trusted companion for students, educators, and seasoned writers alike, simplifying the writing journey every step of the way.

1. The Evolution of Love: A Study of the Changing Nature of Romance throughout History

Introduction.

Love is one of humanity's most complicated and mysterious emotions. People have strived to comprehend and define Love throughout history, resulting in many works of literature, art, and music dedicated to the subject. Despite its universal appeal, the nature of Love has evolved significantly throughout time, reflecting evolving cultural, social, and economic situations. In this essay, we will look at the evolution of Love, from ancient times to the present.

Ancient Love

A. Greek and Roman Love

Love was viewed as a complex and varied feeling in ancient Greece and Rome, comprising characteristics of desire, friendship, and awe. Love was frequently represented as a tremendous force in ancient civilizations, capable of both propelling individuals to high heights of success and bringing them down into the depths of sorrow. This was especially true of romantic Love, which was glorified in epic poems like the Iliad and Odyssey , as well as works of art and literature depicting the hardships and sufferings of star-crossed lovers.

B. Medieval Love

A chivalric code known as courtly Love emerged in medieval Europe. Its core tenants were the importance of Love, honour, and devotion. During this time, romantic Love was typically portrayed as an unrequited emotion, with the lover pining for the affections of a faraway and unreachable beloved. Medieval poets and troubadours mirrored this romanticised picture of Love in their works by singing and writing about the highs and lows of passionate Love.

Modern Love

A. The Renaissance

The idealized picture of Love that had ruled for centuries was called into question by artists and intellectuals during the Renaissance, marking a turning point in the development of romantic relationships. During this time, romantic Love was portrayed as more tactile and visceral. Shakespeare, for instance, reflected the shifting beliefs of his day by exploring the nuanced and often tragic nature of Love in his works.

B. The Enlightenment

The concepts of reason and individuality began to gain root during the Enlightenment, and with that came a shift in how people saw Love. Political marriages and alliances were often formed based on Love, which was now considered a more sensible and practical feeling. Thinkers from the Enlightenment period, including Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, shared this perspective on Love as a tool for bettering society and the individual.

C. The Modern Era

Today, the word "love" is most often used to describe a feeling one has when they are in a committed relationship or when one has achieved their own goals. Love has become a consumable good thanks to the spread of consumerism and the worship of the individual. The media and arts reflect this conception of Love by depicting it as a means to one's fulfillment and contentment.

The changing cultural, social, and economic conditions of each historical epoch are reflected in the history of Love. The essence of Love has changed dramatically throughout the years, from its idealised image in ancient Greece and Rome to its depiction as a spiritual tie in mediaeval Europe to its current identification with romantic relationships and personal fulfilment. Despite these changes, Love remains a strong and enduring force in human existence, inspiring numerous works of art, literature, and music and affecting how we live and interact with one another.

2. The Power of Love: Examining the Impact of Love on Our Lives and Relationships

Love is a strong feeling that may dramatically alter our life and the bonds we form with others. love, whether romantic, familial, or platonic, can unite us and improve our lives in countless ways., the benefits of love.

A. Improved Physical Health

Love has been demonstrated to improve physical health by decreasing stress, lowering blood pressure, and increasing immunity. The hormone oxytocin, which is released in response to social bonding and has been demonstrated to reduce physiological responses to stress, is thought to be at play here.

B. Enhanced Mental Health

In addition to its physical benefits, Love has been shown to have a beneficial effect on our mental health, lowering stress and anxiety levels and boosting our general sense of happiness. The protective powers of Love against the negative consequences of stress and other difficulties in life are well accepted.

C. Strengthened Relationships

A stronger tie may be formed between two people via the power of Love. Relationships of all kinds, whether romantic, familial, or platonic, may benefit from the strengthening effects of Love by increasing their levels of closeness, trust, and mutual understanding.

The Challenges of Love

A. Love can be painful

Sometimes Love hurts, as when a relationship ends or when we can't find the one we're looking for. One of life's most trying events is losing someone we care about, which may leave us feeling isolated, discouraged, and empty.

The Power of Love to Overcome Challenges

Despite these difficulties, Love may help us overcome them and grow closer to one another. The strength of Love is that it may help us learn and grow, both as people and as a community, via its many forms, such as forgiveness, compromise, and the willingness to persevere through adversity.

Finally, Love is a strong and transformational force that may profoundly influence our lives and relationships. Love may provide us joy, comfort, and a feeling of purpose, whether between friends, family, or romantic partners. Despite its numerous advantages, Love may also bring with it difficulties such as heartbreak and strife. Nonetheless, never underestimate the power of Love. 

It has the potential to draw people together and form deep, long-lasting bonds. Love has the power to make the world a better place, whether through acts of kindness, selflessness, or simply being there for one another. So, let us embrace Love in all of its manifestations and harness its potential to improve our lives and the lives of those around us.

3. The Science of Love: Understanding the Biology and Psychology Behind Love and Attraction

For millennia, people have been drawn and intrigued by the intricate and intriguing feeling of Love. Despite its enormous global significance, the science of Love is now being thoroughly investigated. This paper will investigate the biology and psychology of Love and attraction, delving into the different elements that impact these powerful emotions and how they form our relationships.

The Biology of Love

A. Hormone Function

Love is a biological process controlled by chemicals such as dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin. These hormones influence our sensations of attraction, enthusiasm, and enjoyment and boost sentiments of trust and closeness.

B. The Influence of Genetics

Genetics also has an impact on Love and attraction, with some personality qualities and physical characteristics that are considered to be appealing to potential spouses being handed down from generation to generation. This suggests that particular preferences for specific sorts of people are hardwired into our genetics, influencing our romantic and sexual attraction patterns.

The Psychology of Love

A. The Role of Attachment Styles

Our attachment types, which we acquire from our early connections with our caretakers, also affect our Love. These attachment types can significantly influence our later relationships, influencing how we build and keep deep attachments with others.

B. The Impact of Social Norms and Values

Cultural Values

Social conventions and cultural ideas also impact Love and attraction, with societal expectations and values impacting our romantic and sexual impulses. These social conventions and cultural ideas influence everything from who we are attracted to and how we approach and pursue relationships.

The Meeting of Biology and

Love Psychology

The biology and psychology of Love are inextricably linked and interdependent, with one having a complicated and subtle impact on the other. This suggests that, while biology influences our sentiments of attraction and Love, our psychological experiences and beliefs may equally shape these emotions.

To summarise, love science is a complicated and intriguing discipline that encompasses the biology and psychology of this strong and transformational emotion. By investigating the elements that impact Love and attraction, we may gain a deeper understanding of the systems that underpin these feelings and how they shape our lives and relationships. The study of Love is a vital and beneficial effort, whether we seek Love, attempt to preserve Love, or wonder about the science underlying this feeling.

4. The Fine Line Between Love and Obsession: Exploring the Dark Side of Love

Love is a powerful and transformative emotion that can bring immense joy and fulfilment to our lives. But Love can also turn dark and dangerous when it crosses the line into obsession. This essay will examine the fine line between Love and obsession, exploring how Love can become unhealthy and dangerous.

The Characteristics of Obsessive Love

A. Unhealthy Attachment

Obsessive Love is characterized by an unhealthy attachment to another person, with the obsessed person becoming overly dependent on their partner for emotional fulfilment. This can lead to feelings of possessiveness and jealousy, as well as a need for constant attention and validation.

B. Control and Manipulation

Obsessive Love can also involve control and manipulation, with the obsessed person trying to control every aspect of their partner's life and behaviour. This can range from minor acts of manipulation, such as trying to dictate what their partner wears or who they spend time with, to more serious forms of control, such as physical abuse or stalking.

The Dark Side of Love

A. Stalking and Harassment

The dark side of Love can take many forms, with stalking and harassment being among the most extreme and dangerous forms of obsessive behaviour. Stalking and harassment can have serious and long-lasting consequences for the victim, causing fear, stress, and trauma that can impact their mental and physical well-being.

B. Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is another form of the dark side of Love, with physical, sexual, and psychological abuse being used as a means of control and domination. Domestic violence can have devastating consequences for the victim, often leading to serious injury or even death.

The Roots of Obsessive Love

A. Psychological Issues

Obsessive Love can have its roots in psychological issues, including depression, anxiety, and borderline personality disorder. These conditions can lead to feelings of insecurity and low self-esteem, making it difficult for individuals to form healthy relationships.

B. Cultural and Social Factors

Cultural and social factors can also play a role in the development of obsessive Love, with certain societal beliefs and norms promoting possessiveness and control in relationships. This can include gender roles, expectations, and cultural beliefs about Love and relationships.

In conclusion, the fine line between Love and obsession is delicate and dangerous, with Love crossing over into unhealthy and dangerous territory when it becomes obsessive. By understanding the characteristics of obsessive Love and how it can take dark and dangerous forms, we can better protect ourselves and our loved ones from the negative consequences of this powerful emotion.

5. The Concept of Unconditional Love: An Analysis of the Ideal of Selfless Love

All kinds of different things count as Love since it's such a complicated and diverse feeling. Unconditional Love is frequently depicted as altruistic, all-encompassing, and unshakable, making it one of the most romanticized types. In this essay, I'd discuss the idea of unconditional Love, defining it and contrasting it with other types of affection.

An Explanation of Selfless Love

A. Selfless Love

The term "unconditional love" is commonly used to describe a type of Love that puts the other person's needs before its own. In this kind of Love, one person cares for another without any thought of return or compensation.

B. Love that encompasses everything

Many people use the term "all-encompassing" to express how unconditional Love embraces a person regardless of who they are or what they've done in their lives. A love like this doesn't depend on the other person changing or improving in any way; rather, it's an unconditional embrace of the person as they are.

The Ideal of Unconditional Love

A. Love Without Conditions

Unconditional Love is a romantic ideal in which the lover places no restrictions on the object of his affection. Since it involves so much giving of oneself, this kind of Love is typically held up as the pinnacle of romantic relationships.

B. Putting the Feeling into Action

However, since we are all flawed human beings, practising unconditional Love can be challenging in daily life. Although this may be the case, the ideal of unconditional Love is still significant since it motivates us to improve our Love and compassion towards others.

The Advantages of Unconditional Love

A. Stronger Connections

Unconditional Love has the potential to improve our connections with others, leading to deeper and more meaningful bonds. This kind of Love creates a non-judgmental and welcoming attitude towards people, which can assist to lessen conflict and improve understanding.

B. More Joy and Satisfaction

As a result of the more profound relationships it fosters, unconditional Love may also increase a person's sense of well-being and contentment. Finding Love like this may give our life new meaning and make us feel whole.

In conclusion, many of us hold unconditional Love as a relationship goal. Even if it's not always possible, the ideal of unconditional Love is worthwhile since it motivates us to increase our Love and compassion. The concept of unconditional Love may lead us to a more meaningful and happy lifestyle, whether our goal is to better our relationships or to find more pleasure and contentment in general.

6. The Importance of Communication in Love Relationships: A Study of the Role of Communication in Maintaining Love

Love relationships, like all others, benefit greatly from open lines of communication between partners. Connecting with one another on a regular basis, whether it's to chat about the day, express emotions, or problem-solve, is crucial to keeping the Love alive between you. This essay will discuss the significance of communication in romantic relationships, specifically how it helps couples stay together and grow closer over time.

Advantages of good communication

Increased Compatibility and Mutual Understanding

Love partnerships benefit significantly from open lines of communication that facilitate mutual understanding and closeness. Sharing our innermost ideas, emotions, and experiences with our partners via direct and honest communication strengthens our bonds with them.

Reduced Conflict

As we can better address difficulties and find positive solutions to differences when communicating effectively, we experience less conflict in our relationships. Relationships may be stronger and more loving by talking through differences and finding common ground.

The Difficulties in Expressing Your Feelings in a Romantic Relationship

A. Confusing Messages and Confused Intents

Good communication can sometimes be difficult, especially in romantic partnerships, despite its many advantages. Conflict, anger and a lack of trust may all result from poor communication and misunderstandings in relationships.

B. Vulnerability and Emotional Safety

Likewise, it takes courage and trust to open up and talk about your feelings with the person you love. It may be nerve-wracking to communicate our innermost thoughts and feelings with a partner because of the risk of being judged harshly or rejected.

The Importance of Active Listening

What is Active Listening?

Maintaining positive connections with others requires not just good talkers but also good listeners. Paying close attention to the other person as they speak and making an effort to get their viewpoint and requirements is an essential component of active listening.

The Benefits of Active Listening

The ability to listen attentively and process information can have a significant influence on interpersonal bonds. You may show your spouse how much you value their opinion and the commitment you have to the relationship by listening attentively to what they have to say.

Finally, it's important to note that communication is a cornerstone of successful, loving partnerships. Communication is crucial for developing and maintaining healthy relationships , whether it is via problem-solving, venting, or just listening. Your relationship may grow stronger and become more rewarding and loving if you put an emphasis on communicating well with one another.

Final Words

Love is a complicated and varied theme that has inspired numerous works of art, literature, and music. Whether it is the science of Love, the power of Love, or the development of Love, there is a great deal to learn and comprehend about this universal feeling. 

Students now have access to a potent tool that may assist them in writing essays about Love with ease and assurance thanks to Jenni.ai. From giving ideas and recommendations to leading you through the writing process, Jenni.ai is the ideal option for anyone who wants to write about Love and relationships. Why then wait? Sign up for a free trial of Jenni.ai today and explore its numerous writing perks!

Try Jenni for free today

Create your first piece of content with Jenni today and never look back

Before You Write a Love Essay, Read This to Get Examples

The day will come when you can’t escape the fate of all students: You will have to write a what is love essay.

No worries:

Here you’ll find tons of love essay topics and examples. No time to read everything? Scroll down to get a free PDF with original samples.

Definition: Essay on Love

First, let’s define what is love essay?

The most common topics are:

• Definition of love
• What is love?
• Meaning of love

Why limit yourself to these hackneyed, general themes? Below, I’ll show how to make your paper on love original yet relevant to the prompt you get from teachers.

Love Essay Topics: 20 Ideas to Choose for Your Paper

Your essay on love and relationship doesn’t have to be super official and unemotional. It’s ok to share reflections and personal opinions when writing about romance.

Often, students get a general task to write an essay on love. It means they can choose a theme and a title for their paper. If that’s your case,  feel free to try any of these love essay topics:

• Exploring the impact of love on individuals and relationships.
• Love in the digital age: Navigating romance in a tech world.
• Is there any essence and significance in unconditional love?
• Love as a universal language: Connecting hearts across cultures.
• Biochemistry of love: Exploring the process.
• Love vs. passion vs. obsession.
• How love helps cope with heartbreak and grief.
• The art of loving. How we breed intimacy and trust.
• The science behind attraction and attachment.
• How love and relationships shape our identity and help with self-discovery.
• Love and vulnerability: How to embrace emotional openness.
• Romance is more complex than most think: Passion, intimacy, and commitment explained.
• Love as empathy: Building sympathetic connections in a cruel world.
• Evolution of love. How people described it throughout history.
• The role of love in mental and emotional well-being.
• Love as a tool to look and find purpose in life.
• Welcoming diversity in relations through love and acceptance.
• Love vs. friendship: The intersection of platonic and romantic bonds.
• The choices we make and challenges we overcome for those we love.
• Love and forgiveness: How its power heals wounds and strengthens bonds.

Love Essay Examples: Choose Your Sample for Inspiration

Essays about love are usually standard, 5-paragraph papers students write in college:

• One paragraph is for an introduction, with a hook and a thesis statement
• Three are for a body, with arguments or descriptions
• One last passage is for a conclusion, with a thesis restatement and final thoughts

Below are the ready-made samples to consider. They’ll help you see what an essay about love with an introduction, body, and conclusion looks like.

What is love essay: 250 words

Lao Tzu once said, “Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength while loving someone deeply gives you courage.” Indeed, love can transform individuals, relationships, and our world.

A word of immense depth and countless interpretations, love has always fascinated philosophers, poets, and ordinary individuals. This  emotion breaks boundaries and has a super power to change lives. But what is love, actually?

It’s a force we feel in countless ways. It is the warm embrace of a parent, filled with care and unwavering support. It is the gentle touch of a lover, sparking a flame that ignites passion and desire. Love is the kind words of a friend, offering solace and understanding in times of need. It is the selfless acts of compassion and empathy that bind humanity together.

Love is not confined to romantic relationships alone. It is found in the family bonds, the connections we forge with friends, and even the compassion we extend to strangers. Love is a thread that weaves through the fabric of our lives, enriching and nourishing our souls.

However, love is not without its complexities. It can be both euphoric and agonizing, uplifting and devastating. Love requires vulnerability, trust, and the willingness to embrace joy and pain. It is a delicate balance between passion and compassion, independence and interdependence.

Finally, the essence of love may be elusive to define with mere words. It is an experience that surpasses language and logic, encompassing a spectrum of emotions and actions. Love is a profound connection that unites us all, reminding us of our shared humanity and the capacity for boundless compassion.

What is love essay: 500 words

A 500-word essay on why I love you

Trying to encapsulate why I love you in a mere 500 words is impossible. My love for you goes beyond the confines of language, transcending words and dwelling in the realm of emotions, connections, and shared experiences. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor to express the depth and breadth of my affection for you.

First and foremost, I love you for who you are. You possess a unique blend of qualities and characteristics that captivate my heart and mind. Your kindness and compassion touch the lives of those around you, and I am grateful to be the recipient of your unwavering care and understanding. Your intelligence and wit constantly challenge me to grow and learn, stimulating my mind and enriching our conversations. You have a beautiful spirit that radiates warmth and joy, and I am drawn to your vibrant energy.

I love the way you make me feel. When I am with you, I feel a sense of comfort and security that allows me to be my true self. Your presence envelops me in a cocoon of love and acceptance, where I can express my thoughts, fears, and dreams without fear of judgment. Your support and encouragement inspire me to pursue my passions and overcome obstacles. With you by my side, I feel empowered to face the world, knowing I have a partner who believes in me.

I love the memories we have created together. From the laughter-filled moments of shared adventures to the quiet and intimate conversations, every memory is etched in my heart. Whether exploring new places, indulging in our favorite activities, or simply enjoying each other’s company in comfortable silence, each experience reinforces our bond. Our shared memories serve as a foundation for our relationship, a testament to the depth of our connection and the love that binds us.

I love your quirks and imperfections. Your true essence shines through these unique aspects! Your little traits make me smile and remind me of the beautiful individual you are. I love how you wrinkle your nose when you laugh, become lost in thought when reading a book, and even sing off-key in the shower. These imperfections make you human, relatable, and utterly lovable.

I love the future we envision together. We support each other’s goals, cheering one another on as we navigate the path toward our dreams. The thought of building a life together, creating a home filled with love and shared experiences, fills my heart with anticipation and excitement. The future we imagine is one that I am eager to explore with you by my side.

In conclusion, the reasons why I love you are as vast and varied as the universe itself. It is a love that defies logic and surpasses the limitations of language. From the depths of my being, I love you for the person you are, the way you make me feel, the memories we cherish, your quirks and imperfections, and the future we envision together. My love for you is boundless, unconditional, and everlasting.

A 5-paragraph essay about love

I’ve gathered all the samples (and a few bonus ones) in one PDF. It’s free to download. So, you can keep it at hand when the time comes to write a love essay.

Ready to Write Your Essay About Love?

Now that you know the definition of a love essay and have many topic ideas, it’s time to write your A-worthy paper! Here go the steps:

• Check all the examples of what is love essay from this post.
• Choose the topic and angle that fits your prompt best.
• Write your original and inspiring story.

Any questions left? Our writers are all ears. Please don’t hesitate to ask!

• Essay samples
• Essay writing
• Writing tips

Recent Posts

• Writing the “Why Should Abortion Be Made Legal” Essay: Sample and Tips
• 3 Examples of Enduring Issue Essays to Write Yours Like a Pro
• Writing Essay on Friendship: 3 Samples to Get Inspired
• How to Structure a Leadership Essay (Samples to Consider)
• What Is Nursing Essay, and How to Write It Like a Pro

Essays About Love and Relationships: Top 5 Examples

Love, romance, and relationships are just as complicated and messy as they are fascinating. Read our guide on essays about love and relationships.

We, as humans, are social beings. Humanity is inclined towards living with others of our kind and forming relationships with them. Love, whether in a romantic context or otherwise, is essential to a strong relationship with someone. It can be used to describe familial, friendly, or romantic relationships; however, it most commonly refers to romantic partners. 

Love and relationships are difficult to understand, but with effort, devotion, and good intentions, they can blossom into something beautiful that will stay with you for life. This is why it is important to be able to discern wisely when choosing a potential partner.

5 Essay Examples

1. love and marriage by kannamma shanmugasundaram, 2. what my short-term relationships taught me about love and life by aaron zhu, 3. true love waits by christine barrett, 4. choosing the right relationship by robert solley, 5. masters of love by emily esfahani smith, 1. what is a healthy romantic relationship, 2. a favorite love story, 3. relationship experiences, 4. lessons relationships can teach you, 5. love and relationships in the 21st century, 6. is marriage necessary for true love.

“In successful love marriages, couples have to learn to look past these imperfections and remember the reasons why they married each other in the first place. They must be able to accept the fact that neither one of them is perfect. Successful love marriages need to set aside these superior, seemingly impossible expectations and be willing to compromise, settling for some good and some bad.”

Shanmugasundaram’s essay looks at marriage in Eastern Cultures, such as her Indian traditions, in which women have less freedom and are often forced into arranged marriages. Shanmugasundaram discusses her differing views with her parents over marriage; they prefer to stick to tradition while she, influenced by Western values, wants to choose for herself. Ultimately, she has compromised with her parents: they will have a say in who she marries, but it will be up to her to make the final decision. She will only marry who she loves. 

“There is no forever, I’ve been promised forever by so many exes that it’s as meaningless to me as a homeless person promising me a pot of gold. From here on out, I’m no longer looking for promises of forever, what I want is the promise that you’ll try your best and you’ll be worth it. Don’t promise me forever, promise me that there will be no regrets.”

In Zhu’s essay, he reflects on his lessons regarding love and relationships. His experiences with past partners have taught him many things, including self-worth and the inability to change others. Most interestingly, however, he believes that “forever” does not exist and that going into a relationship, they should commit to as long as possible, not “forever.” Furthermore, they should commit to making the relationship worthwhile without regret. 

“For life is a constant change, love is the greatest surprise, friendship is your best defense, maturity comes with responsibility and death is just around the corner, so, expect little, assume nothing, learn from your mistakes, never fail to have faith that true love waits, take care of your friends, treasure your family, moderate your pride and throw up all hatred for God opens millions of flowers without forcing the buds, reminding us not to force our way but to wait for true love to happen perfectly in His time.”

Barrett writes about how teenagers often feel the need to be in a relationship or feel “love” as soon as possible. But unfortunately, our brains are not fully matured in our teenage years, so we are more likely to make mistakes. Barrett discourages teenagers from dating so early; she believes that they should let life take its course and enjoy life at the moment. Her message is that they shouldn’t be in a rush to grow up, for true love will come to those who are patient. You might also be interested in these essays about commitment and essays about girlfriends .

“A paucity of common interests gets blamed when relationships go south, but they are rarely the central problem. Nonetheless, it is good to have some — mostly in terms of having enough in common that there are things that you enjoy spending time doing together. The more important domains to consider are personality and values, and when it comes to personality, the key question is how does your potential partner handle stress.”

Solley, from a more psychological perspective, gives tips on how one can choose the ideal person to be in a relationship with. Love is a lifetime commitment, so much thought should be put into it. One should look at culture, values regarding spending money, and common interests. Solley believes that you should not always look for someone with the same interests, for what makes a relationship interesting is the partners’ differences and how they look past them. 

“There are two ways to think about kindness. You can think about it as a fixed trait: Either you have it or you don’t. Or you could think of kindness as a muscle. In some people, that muscle is naturally stronger than in others, but it can grow stronger in everyone with exercise. Masters tend to think about kindness as a muscle. They know that they have to exercise it to keep it in shape. They know, in other words, that a good relationship requires sustained hard work.”

Smith discusses research conducted over many years that explains the different aspects of a relationship, including intimacy, emotional strength, and kindness. She discusses kindness in-depth, saying that a relationship can test your kindness, but you must be willing to work to be kind if you love your partner. You might also be interested in these essays about divorce .

6 Writing Prompts On Essays About Love and Relationships

Everyone has a different idea of what makes a great relationship. For example, some prioritize assertiveness in their partner, while others prefer a calmer demeanor. You can write about different qualities and habits that a healthy, respectful relationship needs, such as quality time and patience. If you have personal experience, reflect on this as well; however, if you don’t, write about what you would hope from your future partner. 

Love and relationships have been an essential element in almost every literary work, movie, and television show; an example of each would be Romeo and Juliet , The Fault in Our Stars , and Grey’s Anatomy . Even seemingly unrelated movies, such as the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings franchises, have a romantic component. Describe a love story of your choice; explain its plot, characters, and, most importantly, how the theme of love and relationships is present. 

If you have been in a romantic relationship before, or if you are in one currently, reflect on your experience. Why did you pursue this relationship? Explore your relationship’s positive and negative sides and, if applicable, how it ended. If not, write about how you will try and prevent the relationship from ending.

All our experiences in life form us, relationships included. In your essay, reflect on ways romantic relationships can teach you new things and make you better; consider values such as self-worth, patience, and positivity. Then, as with the other prompts, use your personal experiences for a more interesting essay. Hou might find our guide on how to write a vow helpful.

How love, romance, and relationships are perceived has changed dramatically in recent years; from the nuclear family, we have seen greater acceptance of same-sex relationships, blended families, and relationships with more than two partners—research on how the notion of romantic relationships has changed and discuss this in your essay. 

More and more people in relationships are deciding not to get married. For a strong argumentative essay, discuss whether you agree with the idea that true love does not require marriage, so it is fine not to get married in the first place. Research the arguments of both sides, then make your claim. 

Check out our guide packed full of transition words for essays . If you’re still stuck, check out our general resource of essay writing topics .

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

AFS Programs

Essays on Love: Exploring the Depths of Human Connection

Love is a complex and multifaceted emotion that has been explored and celebrated in various forms of art throughout history. From Shakespeare’s famous sonnets to the latest blockbuster movie, love’s impact can be seen and felt in all corners of the world. But what exactly is love? Is it a feeling, an experience, or something deeper? How do we define it, and what prompts us to seek and nurture connections with others?

These are just a few of the questions that have fascinated philosophers, poets, and scientists for centuries. Love, in its essence, is a fundamental aspect of human existence that goes beyond simple attraction or affection. It encompasses a wide range of emotions, from the joy and fulfillment of finding a life partner to the vulnerability and pain that can come with a broken heart.

In academic papers and essays on love, there are various topics one can choose to write about. From exploring the different types of love, such as romantic love, platonic love, and familial love, to delving into the impact of love on mental and physical health, the possibilities are endless. The choice of topic will depend on your own interests and the purpose of your essay.

When writing a 500-word essay, a 5-paragraph structure works perfectly. Start with a strong hook or a thought-provoking quotation to grab the reader’s attention. Then, in the body paragraphs, you can use examples, anecdotes, or research to support your thesis statement and explore your ideas further. Finally, conclude by summarizing your main points and leaving the reader with a final thought or call to action.

One of the great benefits of writing essays on love is that it allows you to touch upon topics that are frequently left unexplored in everyday conversations. Love is a universal experience, yet it is often talked about in vague terms without delving into its complexities. By writing about love, you have the opportunity to bring these nuanced discussions to the forefront and deepen your understanding of this powerful emotion.

So, whether you wish to write a personal reflection on a past love, analyze the cultural and societal influences on our perception of love, or explore the future of love in an increasingly digital world, there is a wealth of material to draw from. The important thing is to choose a topic that you are passionate about and that will allow you to showcase your unique perspective.

In the following essays, we will delve into various aspects of love, including the role of vulnerability in creating fulfilling connections, the ways in which love can be a force for personal growth and change, and the impact of love in different cultures and time periods. Each essay will present a different lens through which to view and understand love, providing you with new insights and perspectives to consider.

So get ready to dive into the depths of human connection, as we explore the many ways in which love shapes and defines our lives. Whether you are a seasoned writer or just starting out, these essays on love will provide you with the tools and inspiration to write thought-provoking and impactful papers that will be sure to leave a lasting impression.

Download this collection of essays on love now and see for yourself the power of words and the art of writing in capturing the essence of love.

Bonus tip: If you are struggling to find the perfect topic for your love essay, try writing a 250-words essay on “What Love Means to Me.” This exercise will help you reflect on your own experiences and perceptions of love and can serve as a great starting point for further exploration.

The Power of Love Essays

When writing love essays, it is important to choose a topic that resonates with you personally. Whether you are exploring the love within a family, the love shared between friends, or the romantic love between partners, selecting a topic that you have a deep connection with will allow you to write with extra attention and authenticity.

The thesis statement is an essential part of your essay, as it states the main argument or focus of your paper. In love essays, the thesis statement often explores the definition of love, how it affects individuals and society, and its role in fulfilling human needs for connection and vulnerability.

In order to support your thesis statement, it is crucial to do thorough research on the topic. You can choose to include scientific studies, cultural examples, or personal experiences that add depth and credibility to your essay. By including a variety of sources, your love essay will be well-rounded and comprehensive.

When crafting your essay, consider using prompts or writing exercises to inspire your writing. Such prompts may ask you to define what love means to you, discuss a time when you felt loved, or explore the role of love in a specific context or culture. These prompts can provide a framework for your essay and help you stay focused on your main points.

As you write your love essay, keep in mind the impact that love has on both individuals and society as a whole. Love can inspire, heal, and bring people together, but it can also be a source of pain and vulnerability. By delving into the complexities of love, your essay will paint a picture of its power and significance in our lives.

Finally, to give your readers a bonus, you can include examples of famous love essays or provide a sample love essay of your own. This will allow your readers to see how others have approached the topic and give them inspiration for their own writing.

Examples of Love Essays That Explore the Depths of Human Connection

One way to hook the reader’s attention is by starting with an anecdotal or personal story about love. For example, you could write about a time when you felt a deep connection with someone, whether it was a romantic partner, a friend, or a family member. By sharing your own experience, you give the reader a glimpse into the world of love and human connection.

In academic writing, it is important to have a clear thesis statement that outlines the main argument of your essay. When writing about love, you could choose a thesis statement that explores the idea that love is a necessary and fulfilling human experience. This statement can be supported by research on the health benefits of love and the importance of social connections for overall well-being.

One way to support your thesis is by using examples from famous movies or literature that depict love and its impact on relationships. For example, you could write about how the movie “The Notebook” portrays a deep and enduring love between the two main characters, and how their love transforms both of their lives.

In addition to using examples from popular culture, you can also draw inspiration from your own life and relationships. Think about the people you love and the ways in which they have enriched your life. Consider writing about a specific moment or experience that encapsulates the depth and power of love.

When writing about love, it is important to consider the different dimensions of human connection. Love can be romantic, platonic, familial, or even self-directed. By exploring these different types of love, you can paint a more comprehensive picture of the complexities of human relationships.

For those who wish to delve deeper into the topic of love, it is also possible to write a longer essay, such as a 500-word essay. This length allows for a more in-depth exploration of the topic and can provide more room for personal reflection and analysis.

Understanding the Different Types of Love Essays

Defining love: academic essays on love.

If you’re looking to delve into the academic aspects of love, you might choose to write an essay that explores the definition of love. In this type of essay, you can examine the various theories and philosophical perspectives on love, such as the different types of love according to the ancient Greeks or the psychological aspects of falling in love. This type of essay typically requires research and the inclusion of credible sources to support your arguments.

The Power of Love: Anecdotal Essays

Anecdotal essays on love provide a more personal and experiential perspective. In this type of essay, you have the freedom to share your own experiences and explore the power of love in your life. You can recount personal stories of love and its impact, discussing how it has shaped your relationships, changed your worldview, or enriched your life. Anecdotal essays allow you to connect with readers on an emotional level and provide a glimpse into the essence of love.

Exploring Love in Literature and Art

Love has been a recurring theme in literature and art for centuries. Writing an essay on love in literature or art allows you to explore how this universal human emotion has been portrayed throughout history. You can analyze famous works of literature, such as Shakespeare’s plays or Jane Austen’s novels, and examine how love is depicted and its significance in those works. Alternatively, you can delve into the world of art and discuss how artists have captured the essence of love through various mediums, such as painting, sculpture, or film.

Love in the Modern World: Essays on Modern Relationships

In the modern world, love and relationships have taken on new complexities and challenges. Essays on modern relationships can explore topics such as the impact of technology on love, online dating, or the changing dynamics of long-term partnerships. You can discuss the role of vulnerability, communication, and compromise in modern relationships, offering insights and reflections on what makes them fulfilling and how they differ from relationships in the past.

Whether you wish to write a 500-word essay or a 25-page thesis on love, there is a type of love essay that will capture your attention and inspire you. Love is a vast and boundless subject, and the ideas and topics you can explore are endless. Choose a type of love essay that resonates with you, and dive into this fascinating world that touches us all.

As a bonus, we’ve created a free download of 20 inspiring love essay topics that can serve as a starting point for your writing. These topics cover a wide range of love-related themes, from unconditional love and the pain of love to the ideal partner and the role of love in a shared future. Download this resource for instant inspiration and choose the topic that speaks to you the most.

Exploring Romantic Love, Familial Love, and Platonic Love in Essays

1. romantic love.

One of the most commonly explored forms of love in essays is romantic love. Romantic love is often depicted as passionate, intense, and all-consuming. Writers use their words to paint a picture of love’s essence, often touching on the vulnerability, joy, pain, and deep connection that comes with romantic relationships. They may analyze the science behind love’s attraction or share personal experiences and insights into the complexities of love.

For example, in the famous essay “On Love” by Alain de Botton, he explores the idea of an ideal partner and questions the societal expectations and pressures that shape our perception of love. He argues that true love requires a deep understanding of oneself and the ability to accept and love another person for who they truly are.

2. Familial Love

Another form of love frequently explored in essays is familial love. Familial love refers to the deep and unconditional bond between family members, such as between parents and children or among siblings. Writers may reflect on their own experiences with familial love, examining the unique dynamics, unconditional support, and selflessness that often characterize these relationships.

In her essay “This I Believe,” Maya Angelou writes about the love she received from her grandmother, who taught her the importance of love and taught her how to be a strong and confident woman. Through this touching personal story, Angelou highlights the transformative power of familial love.

3. Platonic Love

Essays on love also frequently explore platonic love, which is characterized by deep affection and connection without any romantic or sexual components. Platonic love often exists between close friends and can be just as profound and meaningful as romantic or familial love.

In the essay “The Four Loves,” C.S. Lewis discusses the concept of true friendship and the value of platonic love. He argues that platonic love is a higher form of love that transcends the physical and material aspects of a relationship, focusing instead on the deep emotional and intellectual connection between individuals.

Exploring different forms of love in essays provides readers with a broader understanding of the complexities of human connection and the many ways in which love manifests in our lives. Whether it’s through personal stories, philosophical musings, or academic research, essays on love offer a blueprint for understanding and navigating the intricate world of relationships.

Love Essay Topics That Will Spark Inspiration

• What is the essence of love?
• The impact of love on relationships
• Love in the world of science
• The art of love: How does it work?
• The definition of love: A philosophical perspective
• Exploring the depth of human connection through love
• The role of love in fulfilling relationships
• Love and family: The importance of shared experiences
• Why do people fall in love?
• The feeling of love: A 500-word picture
• Love in literature: Analysis of famous love stories
• The impact of technology on modern-day relationships
• Is love a choice or a feeling?
• Love at first sight: A myth or reality?
• The different ways people express their love
• Love in the digital age: Can it be genuine?
• The role of love in personal growth and development
• The connection between love and happiness
• Unrequited love: The pain and longing
• The evolution of love through the ages
• Love and forgiveness: Can they coexist?
• The role of love in shaping our individual identities
• Love in times of crisis: How does it sustain us?
• The importance of self-love in forming healthy relationships
• Love in different cultures and societies
• The future of love: What will it look like?

These topics provide a blueprint for writing an engaging and thought-provoking love essay. Choose a topic that resonates with you and allows you to explore the depths of human connection. Remember to use examples and real-life experiences to support your points. Whether you’re writing an academic paper or a personal essay, these topics will help you create a powerful piece that will leave a lasting impression on your reader’s mind.

As a bonus, here are 3 sample topic hooks to get you started:

• “Love is a powerful force that can transcend boundaries and bring people together. In this essay, we will explore the impact of love on relationships and how it shapes our lives.”
• “Have you ever wondered what love really means? In this essay, we will delve into the essence of love and try to answer this age-old question.”
• “Love is like a touch of magic that can transform lives. In this essay, we will examine the role of love in personal growth and development.”

Feel free to use these hooks as inspiration for your own love essay. Remember to stay true to your own voice and ideas, and have fun exploring the wonderful world of love!

Download here to get a ready-made 25 love essay topics guide written by our experienced writers. Without any tools or academic papers, it’s an easy and free way to find your next topic!

From Love and Relationships to the Power of Self-Love

When we think of love, the first thing that often comes to mind is the romantic love between partners. This type of love is often characterized by attraction, passion, and deep emotional connection. It is the kind of love that makes your heart race and gives you butterflies in your stomach. Many essays have been written about the essence of romantic love and how it can shape our lives.

But love is not just limited to romantic relationships. There are many different types of love that we experience in our lives. For example, the love we feel for our family and friends is equally important and meaningful. These types of love are often characterized by a deep sense of care and concern for the well-being of others.

Another important aspect of love is self-love, which is the idea of having a positive regard for oneself. It is about accepting and valuing who you are as a person and taking care of your own needs. Self-love is crucial for personal growth and happiness. It allows us to set healthy boundaries, prioritize our own well-being, and cultivate a positive self-image.

The Power of Self-Love

Self-love is not selfish; it is a necessary component of a healthy and fulfilling life. When we love ourselves, we are better equipped to love others and build strong, meaningful relationships. It allows us to bring our best selves to our interactions with others and to form deep connections based on mutual respect and understanding.

Self-love is also important for overcoming challenges and setbacks in life. It gives us the strength and resilience to bounce back from difficult situations and to keep moving forward. When we love and believe in ourselves, we have the power to achieve our goals and create the life we desire.

Choosing to prioritize self-love is not always easy, especially in a world that often tells us we need to be perfect. But it is a choice that we must consciously make if we want to live a life filled with love and happiness.

Tips for Practicing Self-Love

Practicing self-love is a lifelong journey that requires effort and commitment. Here are a few tips to help you on your path to self-love:

• Take care of your physical and mental health. Prioritize self-care activities that nourish your body and mind.
• Set boundaries and learn to say no. It is important to prioritize your own needs and not overextend yourself.
• Celebrate your accomplishments, no matter how small. Acknowledge your strengths and achievements on a regular basis.
• Surround yourself with positive and supportive people who uplift and encourage you.
• Practice self-compassion. Treat yourself with the same kindness and understanding that you would offer to a loved one.

What is the main theme of the article?

The main theme of the article is the exploration of the depths of human connection through essays on love.

Are there any examples of love essays provided in the article?

Yes, the article provides examples of love essays that readers can choose from for inspiration.

Why should I read essays on love?

Reading essays on love can provide a deeper understanding of human connection and the various emotions and experiences associated with love.

What are some possible topics for love essays?

Some possible topics for love essays can include the different types of love, the challenges of love, the impact of love on personal growth, and the role of love in relationships.

How can reading love essays inspire me?

Reading love essays can inspire you by offering new perspectives, insights, and experiences that can help you reflect on your own emotions and relationships.

What is the main focus of the essay?

The main focus of the essay is exploring the depths of human connection through the lens of love. The essay delves into different aspects of love, including its definition, various types of love, and its impact on human relationships.

What are some examples of love mentioned in the essay?

The essay gives examples of different types of love, such as romantic love, familial love, and platonic love. It discusses the love between a couple in a romantic relationship, the love between family members, and the love between friends.

By Alex Koliada, PhD

Alex Koliada, PhD, is a well-known doctor. He is famous for studying aging, genetics, and other medical conditions. He works at the Institute of Food Biotechnology and Genomics. His scientific research has been published in the most reputable international magazines. Alex holds a BA in English and Comparative Literature from the University of Southern California , and a TEFL certification from The Boston Language Institute.

Subscribe to our newsletter

50 great articles and essays about love and relationships, love and life, masters of love by emily esfahani smith, this is emo by chuck klosterman, how to pick your life partner by tim urban, my superpower is being alone forever by joe berkowitz and joanna neborsky, it's not them, it's you by jen doll, together alone by michael hobbes, liking is for cowards by jonathan franzen, 30 more essays about life, relationships, in relationships, be deliberate by emily esfahani smith and galena rhoades, endless love by aaron ben-ze’ev, does a more equal marriage mean less sex by lori gottlieb, deeply, truly (but not physically) in love by lauren slater, is an open marriage a happier marriage by susan dominus, the breakup museum by leslie jamison, tinder and the dawn of the "dating apocalypse" by nancy jo sales, dating online by emily witt, love me tinder by emily witt, tinder hearted by allison p. davis, a million first dates by dan slater, mormons, orthodox jews and the dating crisis by jon birger, dating by numbers by kevin poulsen, why we cheat by lisa taddeo, why women stray by david buss, the adultery arms race by michelle cottle, the cuckold by james harms, why we love by helen fisher, essays in love by alain de botton, all about love by bell hooks, a general theory of love by thomas lewis, fari amini and richard lannon, 100 more great nonfiction books, see also..., 50 great psychology articles, 50 great essays about life, 20 great articles about happiness.

The Psychology of Love

Love by lauren slater, the science of love by barbara fredrickson, the biology of attraction by helen e. fisher, love is like cocaine by helen fisher, the rejection lab by alison kinney, there's no such thing as everlasting love by emily esfahani smith, 50 more articles about psychology, men, women, sex and darwin by natalie angier, 12 revelations about sex by alain de botton, safe-sex lies by meghan daum, why my wife won't sleep with me by sean elder, women who want to want by daniel bergner, 50 more articles about sex, kids these days, no labels, no drama, right by jordana narin, why developing serious relationships in your 20s matters by elizabeth spiers, like. flirt. ghost. by mary h. k. choi, friends without benefits by nancy jo sales, boys on the side by hanna rosin, 50 more articles about growing up, the limits of friendship by maria konnikova, the type of love that makes people happiest by arthur c. brooks, how friendships change in adulthood by julie beck, it’s your friends who break your heart by jennifer senior, friends of a certain age by alex williams, a guide to friendship, schmoozing, and social advancement by glenn o'brien, the man date by jennifer 8. lee.

About The Electric Typewriter We search the net to bring you the best nonfiction, articles, essays and journalism

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Romeo and Juliet — Narrative Essay About Love

Narrative Essay About Love

• Categories: Romeo and Juliet

About this sample

Words: 777 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 777 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 384 words

3 pages / 1504 words

4 pages / 1657 words

7 pages / 3216 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Romeo and Juliet

In William Shakespeare's famous tragedy "Romeo and Juliet," the theme of punishment plays a crucial role in shaping the actions and outcomes of the characters. Punishment, in its various forms, serves as a driving force behind [...]

In the timeless tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, one character who often finds himself at the center of blame is Friar Lawrence. This essay will delve into the question of whether Friar Lawrence is to blame for the tragic deaths of [...]

William Shakespeare's timeless tragedy, 'Romeo and Juliet,' is celebrated for its masterful use of foreshadowing—a literary device that hints at future events, creating anticipation and adding depth to the narrative. In this [...]

William Shakespeare's tragedy, Romeo and Juliet, is a timeless tale of love, conflict, and tragedy. The story revolves around the love between the titular characters, Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet, whose untimely deaths [...]

What a day it has been, maybe my family was right to suggest that I should start writing a diary. So far my life hasn’t been at all that interesting, although this morning perhaps changed my mind. So for now, I will go along [...]

Introduction to William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet Mention of the role of fate and destiny in the story Analysis of how Shakespeare introduces the concept of fate in the prologue Explanation of terms like [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

This essay focuses on personal love, or the love of particular persons as such. Part of the philosophical task in understanding personal love is to distinguish the various kinds of personal love. For example, the way in which I love my wife is seemingly very different from the way I love my mother, my child, and my friend. This task has typically proceeded hand-in-hand with philosophical analyses of these kinds of personal love, analyses that in part respond to various puzzles about love. Can love be justified? If so, how? What is the value of personal love? What impact does love have on the autonomy of both the lover and the beloved?

1. Preliminary Distinctions

2. love as union, 3. love as robust concern, 4.1 love as appraisal of value, 4.2 love as bestowal of value, 4.3 an intermediate position, 5.1 love as emotion proper, 5.2 love as emotion complex, 6. the value and justification of love, other internet resources, related entries.

In ordinary conversations, we often say things like the following:

• I love chocolate (or skiing).
• I love doing philosophy (or being a father).
• I love my dog (or cat).
• I love my wife (or mother or child or friend).

However, what is meant by ‘love’ differs from case to case. (1) may be understood as meaning merely that I like this thing or activity very much. In (2) the implication is typically that I find engaging in a certain activity or being a certain kind of person to be a part of my identity and so what makes my life worth living; I might just as well say that I value these. By contrast, (3) and (4) seem to indicate a mode of concern that cannot be neatly assimilated to anything else. Thus, we might understand the sort of love at issue in (4) to be, roughly, a matter of caring about another person as the person she is, for her own sake. (Accordingly, (3) may be understood as a kind of deficient mode of the sort of love we typically reserve for persons.) Philosophical accounts of love have focused primarily on the sort of personal love at issue in (4); such personal love will be the focus here (though see Frankfurt (1999) and Jaworska & Wonderly (2017) for attempts to provide a more general account that applies to non-persons as well).

Even within personal love, philosophers from the ancient Greeks on have traditionally distinguished three notions that can properly be called “love”: eros , agape , and philia . It will be useful to distinguish these three and say something about how contemporary discussions typically blur these distinctions (sometimes intentionally so) or use them for other purposes.

‘ Eros ’ originally meant love in the sense of a kind of passionate desire for an object, typically sexual passion (Liddell et al., 1940). Nygren (1953a,b) describes eros as the “‘love of desire,’ or acquisitive love” and therefore as egocentric (1953b, p. 89). Soble (1989b, 1990) similarly describes eros as “selfish” and as a response to the merits of the beloved—especially the beloved’s goodness or beauty. What is evident in Soble’s description of eros is a shift away from the sexual: to love something in the “erosic” sense (to use the term Soble coins) is to love it in a way that, by being responsive to its merits, is dependent on reasons. Such an understanding of eros is encouraged by Plato’s discussion in the Symposium , in which Socrates understands sexual desire to be a deficient response to physical beauty in particular, a response which ought to be developed into a response to the beauty of a person’s soul and, ultimately, into a response to the form, Beauty.

Soble’s intent in understanding eros to be a reason-dependent sort of love is to articulate a sharp contrast with agape , a sort of love that does not respond to the value of its object. ‘ Agape ’ has come, primarily through the Christian tradition, to mean the sort of love God has for us persons, as well as our love for God and, by extension, of our love for each other—a kind of brotherly love. In the paradigm case of God’s love for us, agape is “spontaneous and unmotivated,” revealing not that we merit that love but that God’s nature is love (Nygren 1953b, p. 85). Rather than responding to antecedent value in its object, agape instead is supposed to create value in its object and therefore to initiate our fellowship with God (pp. 87–88). Consequently, Badhwar (2003, p. 58) characterizes agape as “independent of the loved individual’s fundamental characteristics as the particular person she is”; and Soble (1990, p. 5) infers that agape , in contrast to eros , is therefore not reason dependent but is rationally “incomprehensible,” admitting at best of causal or historical explanations. [ 1 ]

Finally, ‘ philia ’ originally meant a kind of affectionate regard or friendly feeling towards not just one’s friends but also possibly towards family members, business partners, and one’s country at large (Liddell et al., 1940; Cooper, 1977). Like eros , philia is generally (but not universally) understood to be responsive to (good) qualities in one’s beloved. This similarity between eros and philia has led Thomas (1987) to wonder whether the only difference between romantic love and friendship is the sexual involvement of the former—and whether that is adequate to account for the real differences we experience. The distinction between eros and philia becomes harder to draw with Soble’s attempt to diminish the importance of the sexual in eros (1990).

Maintaining the distinctions among eros , agape , and philia becomes even more difficult when faced with contemporary theories of love (including romantic love) and friendship. For, as discussed below, some theories of romantic love understand it along the lines of the agape tradition as creating value in the beloved (cf. Section 4.2 ), and other accounts of romantic love treat sexual activity as merely the expression of what otherwise looks very much like friendship.

Given the focus here on personal love, Christian conceptions of God’s love for persons (and vice versa ) will be omitted, and the distinction between eros and philia will be blurred—as it typically is in contemporary accounts. Instead, the focus here will be on these contemporary understandings of love, including romantic love, understood as an attitude we take towards other persons. [ 2 ]

In providing an account of love, philosophical analyses must be careful to distinguish love from other positive attitudes we take towards persons, such as liking. Intuitively, love differs from such attitudes as liking in terms of its “depth,” and the problem is to elucidate the kind of “depth” we intuitively find love to have. Some analyses do this in part by providing thin conceptions of what liking amounts to. Thus, Singer (1991) and Brown (1987) understand liking to be a matter of desiring, an attitude that at best involves its object having only instrumental (and not intrinsic) value. Yet this seems inadequate: surely there are attitudes towards persons intermediate between having a desire with a person as its object and loving the person. I can care about a person for her own sake and not merely instrumentally, and yet such caring does not on its own amount to (non-deficiently) loving her, for it seems I can care about my dog in exactly the same way, a kind of caring which is insufficiently personal for love.

It is more common to distinguish loving from liking via the intuition that the “depth” of love is to be explained in terms of a notion of identification: to love someone is somehow to identify yourself with him, whereas no such notion of identification is involved in liking. As Nussbaum puts it, “The choice between one potential love and another can feel, and be, like a choice of a way of life, a decision to dedicate oneself to these values rather than these” (1990, p. 328); liking clearly does not have this sort of “depth” (see also Helm 2010; Bagley 2015). Whether love involves some kind of identification, and if so exactly how to understand such identification, is a central bone of contention among the various analyses of love. In particular, Whiting (2013) argues that the appeal to a notion of identification distorts our understanding of the sort of motivation love can provide, for taken literally it implies that love motivates through self -interest rather than through the beloved’s interests. Thus, Whiting argues, central to love is the possibility that love takes the lover “outside herself”, potentially forgetting herself in being moved directly by the interests of the beloved. (Of course, we need not take the notion of identification literally in this way: in identifying with one’s beloved, one might have a concern for one’s beloved that is analogous to one’s concern for oneself; see Helm 2010.)

Another common way to distinguish love from other personal attitudes is in terms of a distinctive kind of evaluation, which itself can account for love’s “depth.” Again, whether love essentially involves a distinctive kind of evaluation, and if so how to make sense of that evaluation, is hotly disputed. Closely related to questions of evaluation are questions of justification: can we justify loving or continuing to love a particular person, and if so, how? For those who think the justification of love is possible, it is common to understand such justification in terms of evaluation, and the answers here affect various accounts’ attempts to make sense of the kind of constancy or commitment love seems to involve, as well as the sense in which love is directed at particular individuals.

In what follows, theories of love are tentatively and hesitantly classified into four types: love as union, love as robust concern, love as valuing, and love as an emotion. It should be clear, however, that particular theories classified under one type sometimes also include, without contradiction, ideas central to other types. The types identified here overlap to some extent, and in some cases classifying particular theories may involve excessive pigeonholing. (Such cases are noted below.) Part of the classificatory problem is that many accounts of love are quasi-reductionistic, understanding love in terms of notions like affection, evaluation, attachment, etc., which themselves never get analyzed. Even when these accounts eschew explicitly reductionistic language, very often little attempt is made to show how one such “aspect” of love is conceptually connected to others. As a result, there is no clear and obvious way to classify particular theories, let alone identify what the relevant classes should be.

The union view claims that love consists in the formation of (or the desire to form) some significant kind of union, a “we.” A central task for union theorists, therefore, is to spell out just what such a “we” comes to—whether it is literally a new entity in the world somehow composed of the lover and the beloved, or whether it is merely metaphorical. Variants of this view perhaps go back to Aristotle (cf. Sherman 1993) and can also be found in Montaigne ([E]) and Hegel (1997); contemporary proponents include Solomon (1981, 1988), Scruton (1986), Nozick (1989), Fisher (1990), and Delaney (1996).

Scruton, writing in particular about romantic love, claims that love exists “just so soon as reciprocity becomes community: that is, just so soon as all distinction between my interests and your interests is overcome” (1986, p. 230). The idea is that the union is a union of concern, so that when I act out of that concern it is not for my sake alone or for your sake alone but for our sake. Fisher (1990) holds a similar, but somewhat more moderate view, claiming that love is a partial fusion of the lovers’ cares, concerns, emotional responses, and actions. What is striking about both Scruton and Fisher is the claim that love requires the actual union of the lovers’ concerns, for it thus becomes clear that they conceive of love not so much as an attitude we take towards another but as a relationship: the distinction between your interests and mine genuinely disappears only when we together come to have shared cares, concerns, etc., and my merely having a certain attitude towards you is not enough for love. This provides content to the notion of a “we” as the (metaphorical?) subject of these shared cares and concerns, and as that for whose sake we act.

Solomon (1988) offers a union view as well, though one that tries “to make new sense out of ‘love’ through a literal rather than metaphoric sense of the ‘fusion’ of two souls” (p. 24, cf. Solomon 1981; however, it is unclear exactly what he means by a “soul” here and so how love can be a “literal” fusion of two souls). What Solomon has in mind is the way in which, through love, the lovers redefine their identities as persons in terms of the relationship: “Love is the concentration and the intensive focus of mutual definition on a single individual, subjecting virtually every personal aspect of one’s self to this process” (1988, p. 197). The result is that lovers come to share the interests, roles, virtues, and so on that constitute what formerly was two individual identities but now has become a shared identity, and they do so in part by each allowing the other to play an important role in defining his own identity.

Nozick (1989) offers a union view that differs from those of Scruton, Fisher, and Solomon in that Nozick thinks that what is necessary for love is merely the desire to form a “we,” together with the desire that your beloved reciprocates. Nonetheless, he claims that this “we” is “a new entity in the world…created by a new web of relationships between [the lovers] which makes them no longer separate” (p. 70). In spelling out this web of relationships, Nozick appeals to the lovers “pooling” not only their well-beings, in the sense that the well-being of each is tied up with that of the other, but also their autonomy, in that “each transfers some previous rights to make certain decisions unilaterally into a joint pool” (p. 71). In addition, Nozick claims, the lovers each acquire a new identity as a part of the “we,” a new identity constituted by their (a) wanting to be perceived publicly as a couple, (b) their attending to their pooled well-being, and (c) their accepting a “certain kind of division of labor” (p. 72):

A person in a we might find himself coming across something interesting to read yet leaving it for the other person, not because he himself would not be interested in it but because the other would be more interested, and one of them reading it is sufficient for it to be registered by the wider identity now shared, the we . [ 3 ]

Opponents of the union view have seized on claims like this as excessive: union theorists, they claim, take too literally the ontological commitments of this notion of a “we.” This leads to two specific criticisms of the union view. The first is that union views do away with individual autonomy. Autonomy, it seems, involves a kind of independence on the part of the autonomous agent, such that she is in control over not only what she does but also who she is, as this is constituted by her interests, values, concerns, etc. However, union views, by doing away with a clear distinction between your interests and mine, thereby undermine this sort of independence and so undermine the autonomy of the lovers. If autonomy is a part of the individual’s good, then, on the union view, love is to this extent bad; so much the worse for the union view (Singer 1994; Soble 1997). Moreover, Singer (1994) argues that a necessary part of having your beloved be the object of your love is respect for your beloved as the particular person she is, and this requires respecting her autonomy.

Union theorists have responded to this objection in several ways. Nozick (1989) seems to think of a loss of autonomy in love as a desirable feature of the sort of union lovers can achieve. Fisher (1990), somewhat more reluctantly, claims that the loss of autonomy in love is an acceptable consequence of love. Yet without further argument these claims seem like mere bullet biting. Solomon (1988, pp. 64ff) describes this “tension” between union and autonomy as “the paradox of love.” However, this a view that Soble (1997) derides: merely to call it a paradox, as Solomon does, is not to face up to the problem.

The second criticism involves a substantive view concerning love. Part of what it is to love someone, these opponents say, is to have concern for him for his sake. However, union views make such concern unintelligible and eliminate the possibility of both selfishness and self-sacrifice, for by doing away with the distinction between my interests and your interests they have in effect turned your interests into mine and vice versa (Soble 1997; see also Blum 1980, 1993). Some advocates of union views see this as a point in their favor: we need to explain how it is I can have concern for people other than myself, and the union view apparently does this by understanding your interests to be part of my own. And Delaney, responding to an apparent tension between our desire to be loved unselfishly (for fear of otherwise being exploited) and our desire to be loved for reasons (which presumably are attractive to our lover and hence have a kind of selfish basis), says (1996, p. 346):

Given my view that the romantic ideal is primarily characterized by a desire to achieve a profound consolidation of needs and interests through the formation of a we , I do not think a little selfishness of the sort described should pose a worry to either party.

The objection, however, lies precisely in this attempt to explain my concern for my beloved egoistically. As Whiting (1991, p. 10) puts it, such an attempt “strikes me as unnecessary and potentially objectionable colonization”: in love, I ought to be concerned with my beloved for her sake, and not because I somehow get something out of it. (This can be true whether my concern with my beloved is merely instrumental to my good or whether it is partly constitutive of my good.)

Although Whiting’s and Soble’s criticisms here succeed against the more radical advocates of the union view, they in part fail to acknowledge the kernel of truth to be gleaned from the idea of union. Whiting’s way of formulating the second objection in terms of an unnecessary egoism in part points to a way out: we persons are in part social creatures, and love is one profound mode of that sociality. Indeed, part of the point of union accounts is to make sense of this social dimension: to make sense of a way in which we can sometimes identify ourselves with others not merely in becoming interdependent with them (as Singer 1994, p. 165, suggests, understanding ‘interdependence’ to be a kind of reciprocal benevolence and respect) but rather in making who we are as persons be constituted in part by those we love (cf., e.g., Rorty 1986/1993; Nussbaum 1990).

Along these lines, Friedman (1998), taking her inspiration in part from Delaney (1996), argues that we should understand the sort of union at issue in love to be a kind of federation of selves:

On the federation model, a third unified entity is constituted by the interaction of the lovers, one which involves the lovers acting in concert across a range of conditions and for a range of purposes. This concerted action, however, does not erase the existence of the two lovers as separable and separate agents with continuing possibilities for the exercise of their own respective agencies. [p. 165]

Given that on this view the lovers do not give up their individual identities, there is no principled reason why the union view cannot make sense of the lover’s concern for her beloved for his sake. [ 4 ] Moreover, Friedman argues, once we construe union as federation, we can see that autonomy is not a zero-sum game; rather, love can both directly enhance the autonomy of each and promote the growth of various skills, like realistic and critical self-evaluation, that foster autonomy.

Nonetheless, this federation model is not without its problems—problems that affect other versions of the union view as well. For if the federation (or the “we”, as on Nozick’s view) is understood as a third entity, we need a clearer account than has been given of its ontological status and how it comes to be. Relevant here is the literature on shared intention and plural subjects. Gilbert (1989, 1996, 2000) has argued that we should take quite seriously the existence of a plural subject as an entity over and above its constituent members. Others, such as Tuomela (1984, 1995), Searle (1990), and Bratman (1999) are more cautious, treating such talk of “us” having an intention as metaphorical.

As this criticism of the union view indicates, many find caring about your beloved for her sake to be a part of what it is to love her. The robust concern view of love takes this to be the central and defining feature of love (cf. Taylor 1976; Newton-Smith 1989; Soble 1990, 1997; LaFollette 1996; Frankfurt 1999; White 2001). As Taylor puts it:

To summarize: if x loves y then x wants to benefit and be with y etc., and he has these wants (or at least some of them) because he believes y has some determinate characteristics ψ in virtue of which he thinks it worth while to benefit and be with y . He regards satisfaction of these wants as an end and not as a means towards some other end. [p. 157]

In conceiving of my love for you as constituted by my concern for you for your sake, the robust concern view rejects the idea, central to the union view, that love is to be understood in terms of the (literal or metaphorical) creation of a “we”: I am the one who has this concern for you, though it is nonetheless disinterested and so not egoistic insofar as it is for your sake rather than for my own. [ 5 ]

At the heart of the robust concern view is the idea that love “is neither affective nor cognitive. It is volitional” (Frankfurt 1999, p. 129; see also Martin 2015). Frankfurt continues:

That a person cares about or that he loves something has less to do with how things make him feel, or with his opinions about them, than with the more or less stable motivational structures that shape his preferences and that guide and limit his conduct.

This account analyzes caring about someone for her sake as a matter of being motivated in certain ways, in part as a response to what happens to one’s beloved. Of course, to understand love in terms of desires is not to leave other emotional responses out in the cold, for these emotions should be understood as consequences of desires. Thus, just as I can be emotionally crushed when one of my strong desires is disappointed, so too I can be emotionally crushed when things similarly go badly for my beloved. In this way Frankfurt (1999) tacitly, and White (2001) more explicitly, acknowledge the way in which my caring for my beloved for her sake results in my identity being transformed through her influence insofar as I become vulnerable to things that happen to her.

Not all robust concern theorists seem to accept this line, however; in particular, Taylor (1976) and Soble (1990) seem to have a strongly individualistic conception of persons that prevents my identity being bound up with my beloved in this sort of way, a kind of view that may seem to undermine the intuitive “depth” that love seems to have. (For more on this point, see Rorty 1986/1993.) In the middle is Stump (2006), who follows Aquinas in understanding love to involve not only the desire for your beloved’s well-being but also a desire for a certain kind of relationship with your beloved—as a parent or spouse or sibling or priest or friend, for example—a relationship within which you share yourself with and connect yourself to your beloved. [ 6 ]

One source of worry about the robust concern view is that it involves too passive an understanding of one’s beloved (Ebels-Duggan 2008). The thought is that on the robust concern view the lover merely tries to discover what the beloved’s well-being consists in and then acts to promote that, potentially by thwarting the beloved’s own efforts when the lover thinks those efforts would harm her well-being. This, however, would be disrespectful and demeaning, not the sort of attitude that love is. What robust concern views seem to miss, Ebels-Duggan suggests, is the way love involves interacting agents, each with a capacity for autonomy the recognition and engagement with which is an essential part of love. In response, advocates of the robust concern view might point out that promoting someone’s well-being normally requires promoting her autonomy (though they may maintain that this need not always be true: that paternalism towards a beloved can sometimes be justified and appropriate as an expression of one’s love). Moreover, we might plausibly think, it is only through the exercise of one’s autonomy that one can define one’s own well-being as a person, so that a lover’s failure to respect the beloved’s autonomy would be a failure to promote her well-being and therefore not an expression of love, contrary to what Ebels-Duggan suggests. Consequently, it might seem, robust concern views can counter this objection by offering an enriched conception of what it is to be a person and so of the well-being of persons.

Another source of worry is that the robust concern view offers too thin a conception of love. By emphasizing robust concern, this view understands other features we think characteristic of love, such as one’s emotional responsiveness to one’s beloved, to be the effects of that concern rather than constituents of it. Thus Velleman (1999) argues that robust concern views, by understanding love merely as a matter of aiming at a particular end (viz., the welfare of one’s beloved), understand love to be merely conative. However, he claims, love can have nothing to do with desires, offering as a counterexample the possibility of loving a troublemaking relation whom you do not want to be with, whose well being you do not want to promote, etc. Similarly, Badhwar (2003) argues that such a “teleological” view of love makes it mysterious how “we can continue to love someone long after death has taken him beyond harm or benefit” (p. 46). Moreover Badhwar argues, if love is essentially a desire, then it implies that we lack something; yet love does not imply this and, indeed, can be felt most strongly at times when we feel our lives most complete and lacking in nothing. Consequently, Velleman and Badhwar conclude, love need not involve any desire or concern for the well-being of one’s beloved.

This conclusion, however, seems too hasty, for such examples can be accommodated within the robust concern view. Thus, the concern for your relative in Velleman’s example can be understood to be present but swamped by other, more powerful desires to avoid him. Indeed, keeping the idea that you want to some degree to benefit him, an idea Velleman rejects, seems to be essential to understanding the conceptual tension between loving someone and not wanting to help him, a tension Velleman does not fully acknowledge. Similarly, continued love for someone who has died can be understood on the robust concern view as parasitic on the former love you had for him when he was still alive: your desires to benefit him get transformed, through your subsequent understanding of the impossibility of doing so, into wishes. [ 7 ] Finally, the idea of concern for your beloved’s well-being need not imply the idea that you lack something, for such concern can be understood in terms of the disposition to be vigilant for occasions when you can come to his aid and consequently to have the relevant occurrent desires. All of this seems fully compatible with the robust concern view.

One might also question whether Velleman and Badhwar make proper use of their examples of loving your meddlesome relation or someone who has died. For although we can understand these as genuine cases of love, they are nonetheless deficient cases and ought therefore be understood as parasitic on the standard cases. Readily to accommodate such deficient cases of love into a philosophical analysis as being on a par with paradigm cases, and to do so without some special justification, is dubious.

Nonetheless, the robust concern view as it stands does not seem properly able to account for the intuitive “depth” of love and so does not seem properly to distinguish loving from liking. Although, as noted above, the robust concern view can begin to make some sense of the way in which the lover’s identity is altered by the beloved, it understands this only an effect of love, and not as a central part of what love consists in.

This vague thought is nicely developed by Wonderly (2017), who emphasizes that in addition to the sort of disinterested concern for another that is central to robust-concern accounts of love, an essential part of at least romantic love is the idea that in loving someone I must find them to be not merely important for their own sake but also important to me . Wonderly (2017) fleshes out what this “importance to me” involves in terms of the idea of attachment (developed in Wonderly 2016) that she argues can make sense of the intimacy and depth of love from within what remains fundamentally a robust-concern account. [ 8 ]

4. Love as Valuing

A third kind of view of love understands love to be a distinctive mode of valuing a person. As the distinction between eros and agape in Section 1 indicates, there are at least two ways to construe this in terms of whether the lover values the beloved because she is valuable, or whether the beloved comes to be valuable to the lover as a result of her loving him. The former view, which understands the lover as appraising the value of the beloved in loving him, is the topic of Section 4.1 , whereas the latter view, which understands her as bestowing value on him, will be discussed in Section 4.2 .

Velleman (1999, 2008) offers an appraisal view of love, understanding love to be fundamentally a matter of acknowledging and responding in a distinctive way to the value of the beloved. (For a very different appraisal view of love, see Kolodny 2003.) Understanding this more fully requires understanding both the kind of value of the beloved to which one responds and the distinctive kind of response to such value that love is. Nonetheless, it should be clear that what makes an account be an appraisal view of love is not the mere fact that love is understood to involve appraisal; many other accounts do so, and it is typical of robust concern accounts, for example (cf. the quote from Taylor above , Section 3 ). Rather, appraisal views are distinctive in understanding love to consist in that appraisal.

In articulating the kind of value love involves, Velleman, following Kant, distinguishes dignity from price. To have a price , as the economic metaphor suggests, is to have a value that can be compared to the value of other things with prices, such that it is intelligible to exchange without loss items of the same value. By contrast, to have dignity is to have a value such that comparisons of relative value become meaningless. Material goods are normally understood to have prices, but we persons have dignity: no substitution of one person for another can preserve exactly the same value, for something of incomparable worth would be lost (and gained) in such a substitution.

On this Kantian view, our dignity as persons consists in our rational nature: our capacity both to be actuated by reasons that we autonomously provide ourselves in setting our own ends and to respond appropriately to the intrinsic values we discover in the world. Consequently, one important way in which we exercise our rational natures is to respond with respect to the dignity of other persons (a dignity that consists in part in their capacity for respect): respect just is the required minimal response to the dignity of persons. What makes a response to a person be that of respect, Velleman claims, still following Kant, is that it “arrests our self-love” and thereby prevents us from treating him as a means to our ends (p. 360).

Given this, Velleman claims that love is similarly a response to the dignity of persons, and as such it is the dignity of the object of our love that justifies that love. However, love and respect are different kinds of responses to the same value. For love arrests not our self-love but rather

our tendencies toward emotional self-protection from another person, tendencies to draw ourselves in and close ourselves off from being affected by him. Love disarms our emotional defenses; it makes us vulnerable to the other. [1999, p. 361]

This means that the concern, attraction, sympathy, etc. that we normally associate with love are not constituents of love but are rather its normal effects, and love can remain without them (as in the case of the love for a meddlesome relative one cannot stand being around). Moreover, this provides Velleman with a clear account of the intuitive “depth” of love: it is essentially a response to persons as such, and to say that you love your dog is therefore to be confused.

Of course, we do not respond with love to the dignity of every person we meet, nor are we somehow required to: love, as the disarming of our emotional defenses in a way that makes us especially vulnerable to another, is the optional maximal response to others’ dignity. What, then, explains the selectivity of love—why I love some people and not others? The answer lies in the contingent fit between the way some people behaviorally express their dignity as persons and the way I happen to respond to those expressions by becoming emotionally vulnerable to them. The right sort of fit makes someone “lovable” by me (1999, p. 372), and my responding with love in these cases is a matter of my “really seeing” this person in a way that I fail to do with others who do not fit with me in this way. By ‘lovable’ here Velleman seems to mean able to be loved, not worthy of being loved, for nothing Velleman says here speaks to a question about the justification of my loving this person rather than that. Rather, what he offers is an explanation of the selectivity of my love, an explanation that as a matter of fact makes my response be that of love rather than mere respect.

This understanding of the selectivity of love as something that can be explained but not justified is potentially troubling. For we ordinarily think we can justify not only my loving you rather than someone else but also and more importantly the constancy of my love: my continuing to love you even as you change in certain fundamental ways (but not others). As Delaney (1996, p. 347) puts the worry about constancy:

while you seem to want it to be true that, were you to become a schmuck, your lover would continue to love you,…you also want it to be the case that your lover would never love a schmuck.

The issue here is not merely that we can offer explanations of the selectivity of my love, of why I do not love schmucks; rather, at issue is the discernment of love, of loving and continuing to love for good reasons as well as of ceasing to love for good reasons. To have these good reasons seems to involve attributing different values to you now rather than formerly or rather than to someone else, yet this is precisely what Velleman denies is the case in making the distinction between love and respect the way he does.

It is also questionable whether Velleman can even explain the selectivity of love in terms of the “fit” between your expressions and my sensitivities. For the relevant sensitivities on my part are emotional sensitivities: the lowering of my emotional defenses and so becoming emotionally vulnerable to you. Thus, I become vulnerable to the harms (or goods) that befall you and so sympathetically feel your pain (or joy). Such emotions are themselves assessable for warrant, and now we can ask why my disappointment that you lost the race is warranted, but my being disappointed that a mere stranger lost would not be warranted. The intuitive answer is that I love you but not him. However, this answer is unavailable to Velleman, because he thinks that what makes my response to your dignity that of love rather than respect is precisely that I feel such emotions, and to appeal to my love in explaining the emotions therefore seems viciously circular.

Although these problems are specific to Velleman’s account, the difficulty can be generalized to any appraisal account of love (such as that offered in Kolodny 2003). For if love is an appraisal, it needs to be distinguished from other forms of appraisal, including our evaluative judgments. On the one hand, to try to distinguish love as an appraisal from other appraisals in terms of love’s having certain effects on our emotional and motivational life (as on Velleman’s account) is unsatisfying because it ignores part of what needs to be explained: why the appraisal of love has these effects and yet judgments with the same evaluative content do not. Indeed, this question is crucial if we are to understand the intuitive “depth” of love, for without an answer to this question we do not understand why love should have the kind of centrality in our lives it manifestly does. [ 9 ] On the other hand, to bundle this emotional component into the appraisal itself would be to turn the view into either the robust concern view ( Section 3 ) or a variant of the emotion view ( Section 5.1 ).

In contrast to Velleman, Singer (1991, 1994, 2009) understands love to be fundamentally a matter of bestowing value on the beloved. To bestow value on another is to project a kind of intrinsic value onto him. Indeed, this fact about love is supposed to distinguish love from liking: “Love is an attitude with no clear objective,” whereas liking is inherently teleological (1991, p. 272). As such, there are no standards of correctness for bestowing such value, and this is how love differs from other personal attitudes like gratitude, generosity, and condescension: “love…confers importance no matter what the object is worth” (p. 273). Consequently, Singer thinks, love is not an attitude that can be justified in any way.

What is it, exactly, to bestow this kind of value on someone? It is, Singer says, a kind of attachment and commitment to the beloved, in which one comes to treat him as an end in himself and so to respond to his ends, interests, concerns, etc. as having value for their own sake. This means in part that the bestowal of value reveals itself “by caring about the needs and interests of the beloved, by wishing to benefit or protect her, by delighting in her achievements,” etc. (p. 270). This sounds very much like the robust concern view, yet the bestowal view differs in understanding such robust concern to be the effect of the bestowal of value that is love rather than itself what constitutes love: in bestowing value on my beloved, I make him be valuable in such a way that I ought to respond with robust concern.

For it to be intelligible that I have bestowed value on someone, I must therefore respond appropriately to him as valuable, and this requires having some sense of what his well-being is and of what affects that well-being positively or negatively. Yet having this sense requires in turn knowing what his strengths and deficiencies are, and this is a matter of appraising him in various ways. Bestowal thus presupposes a kind of appraisal, as a way of “really seeing” the beloved and attending to him. Nonetheless, Singer claims, it is the bestowal that is primary for understanding what love consists in: the appraisal is required only so that the commitment to one’s beloved and his value as thus bestowed has practical import and is not “a blind submission to some unknown being” (1991, p. 272; see also Singer 1994, pp. 139ff).

Singer is walking a tightrope in trying to make room for appraisal in his account of love. Insofar as the account is fundamentally a bestowal account, Singer claims that love cannot be justified, that we bestow the relevant kind of value “gratuitously.” This suggests that love is blind, that it does not matter what our beloved is like, which seems patently false. Singer tries to avoid this conclusion by appealing to the role of appraisal: it is only because we appraise another as having certain virtues and vices that we come to bestow value on him. Yet the “because” here, since it cannot justify the bestowal, is at best a kind of contingent causal explanation. [ 10 ] In this respect, Singer’s account of the selectivity of love is much the same as Velleman’s, and it is liable to the same criticism: it makes unintelligible the way in which our love can be discerning for better or worse reasons. Indeed, this failure to make sense of the idea that love can be justified is a problem for any bestowal view. For either (a) a bestowal itself cannot be justified (as on Singer’s account), in which case the justification of love is impossible, or (b) a bestowal can be justified, in which case it is hard to make sense of value as being bestowed rather than there antecedently in the object as the grounds of that “bestowal.”

More generally, a proponent of the bestowal view needs to be much clearer than Singer is in articulating precisely what a bestowal is. What is the value that I create in a bestowal, and how can my bestowal create it? On a crude Humean view, the answer might be that the value is something projected onto the world through my pro-attitudes, like desire. Yet such a view would be inadequate, since the projected value, being relative to a particular individual, would do no theoretical work, and the account would essentially be a variant of the robust concern view. Moreover, in providing a bestowal account of love, care is needed to distinguish love from other personal attitudes such as admiration and respect: do these other attitudes involve bestowal? If so, how does the bestowal in these cases differ from the bestowal of love? If not, why not, and what is so special about love that requires a fundamentally different evaluative attitude than admiration and respect?

Nonetheless, there is a kernel of truth in the bestowal view: there is surely something right about the idea that love is creative and not merely a response to antecedent value, and accounts of love that understand the kind of evaluation implicit in love merely in terms of appraisal seem to be missing something. Precisely what may be missed will be discussed below in Section 6 .

Perhaps there is room for an understanding of love and its relation to value that is intermediate between appraisal and bestowal accounts. After all, if we think of appraisal as something like perception, a matter of responding to what is out there in the world, and of bestowal as something like action, a matter of doing something and creating something, we should recognize that the responsiveness central to appraisal may itself depend on our active, creative choices. Thus, just as we must recognize that ordinary perception depends on our actively directing our attention and deploying concepts, interpretations, and even arguments in order to perceive things accurately, so too we might think our vision of our beloved’s valuable properties that is love also depends on our actively attending to and interpreting him. Something like this is Jollimore’s view (2011). According to Jollimore, in loving someone we actively attend to his valuable properties in a way that we take to provide us with reasons to treat him preferentially. Although we may acknowledge that others might have such properties even to a greater degree than our beloved does, we do not attend to and appreciate such properties in others in the same way we do those in our beloveds; indeed, we find our appreciation of our beloved’s valuable properties to “silence” our similar appreciation of those in others. (In this way, Jollimore thinks, we can solve the problem of fungibility, discussed below in Section 6 .) Likewise, in perceiving our beloved’s actions and character, we do so through the lens of such an appreciation, which will tend as to “silence” interpretations inconsistent with that appreciation. In this way, love involves finding one’s beloved to be valuable in a way that involves elements of both appraisal (insofar as one must thereby be responsive to valuable properties one’s beloved really has) and bestowal (insofar as through one’s attention and committed appreciation of these properties they come to have special significance for one).

One might object that this conception of love as silencing the special value of others or to negative interpretations of our beloveds is irrational in a way that love is not. For, it might seem, such “silencing” is merely a matter of our blinding ourselves to how things really are. Yet Jollimore claims that this sense in which love is blind is not objectionable, for (a) we can still intellectually recognize the things that love’s vision silences, and (b) there really is no impartial perspective we can take on the values things have, and love is one appropriate sort of partial perspective from which the value of persons can be manifest. Nonetheless, one might wonder about whether that perspective of love itself can be distorted and what the norms are in terms of which such distortions are intelligible. Furthermore, it may seem that Jollimore’s attempt to reconcile appraisal and bestowal fails to appreciate the underlying metaphysical difficulty: appraisal is a response to value that is antecedently there, whereas bestowal is the creation of value that was not antecedently there. Consequently, it might seem, appraisal and bestowal are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled in the way Jollimore hopes.

Whereas Jollimore tries to combine separate elements of appraisal and of bestowal in a single account, Helm (2010) and Bagley (2015) offer accounts that reject the metaphysical presupposition that values must be either prior to love (as with appraisal) or posterior to love (as with bestowal), instead understanding the love and the values to emerge simultaneously. Thus, Helm presents a detailed account of valuing in terms of the emotions, arguing that while we can understand individual emotions as appraisals , responding to values already their in their objects, these values are bestowed on those objects via broad, holistic patterns of emotions. How this amounts to an account of love will be discussed in Section 5.2 , below. Bagley (2015) instead appeals to a metaphor of improvisation, arguing that just as jazz musicians jointly make determinate the content of their musical ideas through on-going processes of their expression, so too lovers jointly engage in “deep improvisation”, thereby working out of their values and identities through the on-going process of living their lives together. These values are thus something the lovers jointly construct through the process of recognizing and responding to those very values. To love someone is thus to engage with them as partners in such “deep improvisation”. (This account is similar to Helm (2008, 2010)’s account of plural agency, which he uses to provide an account of friendship and other loving relationships; see the discussion of shared activity in the entry on friendship .)

5. Emotion Views

Given these problems with the accounts of love as valuing, perhaps we should turn to the emotions. For emotions just are responses to objects that combine evaluation, motivation, and a kind of phenomenology, all central features of the attitude of love.

Many accounts of love claim that it is an emotion; these include: Wollheim 1984, Rorty 1986/1993, Brown 1987, Hamlyn 1989, Baier 1991, and Badhwar 2003. [ 11 ] Thus, Hamlyn (1989, p. 219) says:

It would not be a plausible move to defend any theory of the emotions to which love and hate seemed exceptions by saying that love and hate are after all not emotions. I have heard this said, but it does seem to me a desperate move to make. If love and hate are not emotions what is?

The difficulty with this claim, as Rorty (1980) argues, is that the word, ‘emotion,’ does not seem to pick out a homogeneous collection of mental states, and so various theories claiming that love is an emotion mean very different things. Consequently, what are here labeled “emotion views” are divided into those that understand love to be a particular kind of evaluative-cum-motivational response to an object, whether that response is merely occurrent or dispositional (‘emotions proper,’ see Section 5.1 , below), and those that understand love to involve a collection of related and interconnected emotions proper (‘emotion complexes,’ see Section 5.2 , below).

An emotion proper is a kind of “evaluative-cum-motivational response to an object”; what does this mean? Emotions are generally understood to have several objects. The target of an emotion is that at which the emotion is directed: if I am afraid or angry at you, then you are the target. In responding to you with fear or anger, I am implicitly evaluating you in a particular way, and this evaluation—called the formal object —is the kind of evaluation of the target that is distinctive of a particular emotion type. Thus, in fearing you, I implicitly evaluate you as somehow dangerous, whereas in being angry at you I implicitly evaluate you as somehow offensive. Yet emotions are not merely evaluations of their targets; they in part motivate us to behave in certain ways, both rationally (by motivating action to avoid the danger) and arationally (via certain characteristic expressions, such as slamming a door out of anger). Moreover, emotions are generally understood to involve a phenomenological component, though just how to understand the characteristic “feel” of an emotion and its relation to the evaluation and motivation is hotly disputed. Finally, emotions are typically understood to be passions: responses that we feel imposed on us as if from the outside, rather than anything we actively do. (For more on the philosophy of emotions, see entry on emotion .)

What then are we saying when we say that love is an emotion proper? According to Brown (1987, p. 14), emotions as occurrent mental states are “abnormal bodily changes caused by the agent’s evaluation or appraisal of some object or situation that the agent believes to be of concern to him or her.” He spells this out by saying that in love, we “cherish” the person for having “a particular complex of instantiated qualities” that is “open-ended” so that we can continue to love the person even as she changes over time (pp. 106–7). These qualities, which include historical and relational qualities, are evaluated in love as worthwhile. [ 12 ] All of this seems aimed at spelling out what love’s formal object is, a task that is fundamental to understanding love as an emotion proper. Thus, Brown seems to say that love’s formal object is just being worthwhile (or, given his examples, perhaps: worthwhile as a person), and he resists being any more specific than this in order to preserve the open-endedness of love. Hamlyn (1989) offers a similar account, saying (p. 228):

With love the difficulty is to find anything of this kind [i.e., a formal object] which is uniquely appropriate to love. My thesis is that there is nothing of this kind that must be so, and that this differentiates it and hate from the other emotions.

Hamlyn goes on to suggest that love and hate might be primordial emotions, a kind of positive or negative “feeling towards,” presupposed by all other emotions. [ 13 ]

The trouble with these accounts of love as an emotion proper is that they provide too thin a conception of love. In Hamlyn’s case, love is conceived as a fairly generic pro-attitude, rather than as the specific kind of distinctively personal attitude discussed here. In Brown’s case, spelling out the formal object of love as simply being worthwhile (as a person) fails to distinguish love from other evaluative responses like admiration and respect. Part of the problem seems to be the rather simple account of what an emotion is that Brown and Hamlyn use as their starting point: if love is an emotion, then the understanding of what an emotion is must be enriched considerably to accommodate love. Yet it is not at all clear whether the idea of an “emotion proper” can be adequately enriched so as to do so. As Pismenny & Prinz (2017) point out, love seems to be too varied both in its ground and in the sort of experience it involves to be capturable by a single emotion.

The emotion complex view, which understands love to be a complex emotional attitude towards another person, may initially seem to hold out great promise to overcome the problems of alternative types of views. By articulating the emotional interconnections between persons, it could offer a satisfying account of the “depth” of love without the excesses of the union view and without the overly narrow teleological focus of the robust concern view; and because these emotional interconnections are themselves evaluations, it could offer an understanding of love as simultaneously evaluative, without needing to specify a single formal object of love. However, the devil is in the details.

Rorty (1986/1993) does not try to present a complete account of love; rather, she focuses on the idea that “relational psychological attitudes” which, like love, essentially involve emotional and desiderative responses, exhibit historicity : “they arise from, and are shaped by, dynamic interactions between a subject and an object” (p. 73). In part this means that what makes an attitude be one of love is not the presence of a state that we can point to at a particular time within the lover; rather, love is to be “identified by a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75). Moreover, Rorty argues, the historicity of love involves the lover’s being permanently transformed by loving who he does.

Baier (1991), seeming to pick up on this understanding of love as exhibiting historicity, says (p. 444):

Love is not just an emotion people feel toward other people, but also a complex tying together of the emotions that two or a few more people have; it is a special form of emotional interdependence.

To a certain extent, such emotional interdependence involves feeling sympathetic emotions, so that, for example, I feel disappointed and frustrated on behalf of my beloved when she fails, and joyful when she succeeds. However, Baier insists, love is “more than just the duplication of the emotion of each in a sympathetic echo in the other” (p. 442); the emotional interdependence of the lovers involves also appropriate follow-up responses to the emotional predicaments of your beloved. Two examples Baier gives (pp. 443–44) are a feeling of “mischievous delight” at your beloved’s temporary bafflement, and amusement at her embarrassment. The idea is that in a loving relationship your beloved gives you permission to feel such emotions when no one else is permitted to do so, and a condition of her granting you that permission is that you feel these emotions “tenderly.” Moreover, you ought to respond emotionally to your beloved’s emotional responses to you: by feeling hurt when she is indifferent to you, for example. All of these foster the sort of emotional interdependence Baier is after—a kind of intimacy you have with your beloved.

Badhwar (2003, p. 46) similarly understands love to be a matter of “one’s overall emotional orientation towards a person—the complex of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings”; as such, love is a matter of having a certain “character structure.” Central to this complex emotional orientation, Badhwar thinks, is what she calls the “look of love”: “an ongoing [emotional] affirmation of the loved object as worthy of existence…for her own sake” (p. 44), an affirmation that involves taking pleasure in your beloved’s well-being. Moreover, Badhwar claims, the look of love also provides to the beloved reliable testimony concerning the quality of the beloved’s character and actions (p. 57).

There is surely something very right about the idea that love, as an attitude central to deeply personal relationships, should not be understood as a state that can simply come and go. Rather, as the emotion complex view insists, the complexity of love is to be found in the historical patterns of one’s emotional responsiveness to one’s beloved—a pattern that also projects into the future. Indeed, as suggested above, the kind of emotional interdependence that results from this complex pattern can seem to account for the intuitive “depth” of love as fully interwoven into one’s emotional sense of oneself. And it seems to make some headway in understanding the complex phenomenology of love: love can at times be a matter of intense pleasure in the presence of one’s beloved, yet it can at other times involve frustration, exasperation, anger, and hurt as a manifestation of the complexities and depth of the relationships it fosters.

This understanding of love as constituted by a history of emotional interdependence enables emotion complex views to say something interesting about the impact love has on the lover’s identity. This is partly Rorty’s point (1986/1993) in her discussion of the historicity of love ( above ). Thus, she argues, one important feature of such historicity is that love is “ dynamically permeable ” in that the lover is continually “changed by loving” such that these changes “tend to ramify through a person’s character” (p. 77). Through such dynamic permeability, love transforms the identity of the lover in a way that can sometimes foster the continuity of the love, as each lover continually changes in response to the changes in the other. [ 14 ] Indeed, Rorty concludes, love should be understood in terms of “a characteristic narrative history” (p. 75) that results from such dynamic permeability. It should be clear, however, that the mere fact of dynamic permeability need not result in the love’s continuing: nothing about the dynamics of a relationship requires that the characteristic narrative history project into the future, and such permeability can therefore lead to the dissolution of the love. Love is therefore risky—indeed, all the more risky because of the way the identity of the lover is defined in part through the love. The loss of a love can therefore make one feel no longer oneself in ways poignantly described by Nussbaum (1990).

By focusing on such emotionally complex histories, emotion complex views differ from most alternative accounts of love. For alternative accounts tend to view love as a kind of attitude we take toward our beloveds, something we can analyze simply in terms of our mental state at the moment. [ 15 ] By ignoring this historical dimension of love in providing an account of what love is, alternative accounts have a hard time providing either satisfying accounts of the sense in which our identities as person are at stake in loving another or satisfactory solutions to problems concerning how love is to be justified (cf. Section 6 , especially the discussion of fungibility ).

Nonetheless, some questions remain. If love is to be understood as an emotion complex, we need a much more explicit account of the pattern at issue here: what ties all of these emotional responses together into a single thing, namely love? Baier and Badhwar seem content to provide interesting and insightful examples of this pattern, but that does not seem to be enough. For example, what connects my amusement at my beloved’s embarrassment to other emotions like my joy on his behalf when he succeeds? Why shouldn’t my amusement at his embarrassment be understood instead as a somewhat cruel case of schadenfreude and so as antithetical to, and disconnected from, love? Moreover, as Naar (2013) notes, we need a principled account of when such historical patterns are disrupted in such a way as to end the love and when they are not. Do I stop loving when, in the midst of clinical depression, I lose my normal pattern of emotional concern?

Presumably the answer requires returning to the historicity of love: it all depends on the historical details of the relationship my beloved and I have forged. Some loves develop so that the intimacy within the relationship is such as to allow for tender, teasing responses to each other, whereas other loves may not. The historical details, together with the lovers’ understanding of their relationship, presumably determine which emotional responses belong to the pattern constitutive of love and which do not. However, this answer so far is inadequate: not just any historical relationship involving emotional interdependence is a loving relationship, and we need a principled way of distinguishing loving relationships from other relational evaluative attitudes: precisely what is the characteristic narrative history that is characteristic of love?

Helm (2009, 2010) tries to answer some of these questions in presenting an account of love as intimate identification. To love another, Helm claims, is to care about him as the particular person he is and so, other things being equal, to value the things he values. Insofar as a person’s (structured) set of values—his sense of the kind of life worth his living—constitutes his identity as a person, such sharing of values amounts to sharing his identity, which sounds very much like union accounts of love. However, Helm is careful to understand such sharing of values as for the sake of the beloved (as robust concern accounts insist), and he spells this all out in terms of patterns of emotions. Thus, Helm claims, all emotions have not only a target and a formal object (as indicated above), but also a focus : a background object the subject cares about in terms of which the implicit evaluation of the target is made intelligible. (For example, if I am afraid of the approaching hailstorm, I thereby evaluate it as dangerous, and what explains this evaluation is the way that hailstorm bears on my vegetable garden, which I care about; my garden, therefore, is the focus of my fear.) Moreover, emotions normally come in patterns with a common focus: fearing the hailstorm is normally connected to other emotions as being relieved when it passes by harmlessly (or disappointed or sad when it does not), being angry at the rabbits for killing the spinach, delighted at the productivity of the tomato plants, etc. Helm argues that a projectible pattern of such emotions with a common focus constitute caring about that focus. Consequently, we might say along the lines of Section 4.3 , while particular emotions appraise events in the world as having certain evaluative properties, their having these properties is partly bestowed on them by the overall patterns of emotions.

Helm identifies some emotions as person-focused emotions : emotions like pride and shame that essentially take persons as their focuses, for these emotions implicitly evaluate in terms of the target’s bearing on the quality of life of the person that is their focus. To exhibit a pattern of such emotions focused on oneself and subfocused on being a mother, for example, is to care about the place being a mother has in the kind of life you find worth living—in your identity as a person; to care in this way is to value being a mother as a part of your concern for your own identity. Likewise, to exhibit a projectible pattern of such emotions focused on someone else and subfocused on his being a father is to value this as a part of your concern for his identity—to value it for his sake. Such sharing of another’s values for his sake, which, Helm argues, essentially involves trust, respect, and affection, amounts to intimate identification with him, and such intimate identification just is love. Thus, Helm tries to provide an account of love that is grounded in an explicit account of caring (and caring about something for the sake of someone else) that makes room for the intuitive “depth” of love through intimate identification.

Jaworska & Wonderly (2017) argue that Helm’s construal of intimacy as intimate identification is too demanding. Rather, they argue, the sort of intimacy that distinguishes love from mere caring is one that involves a kind of emotional vulnerability in which things going well or poorly for one’s beloved are directly connected not merely to one’s well-being, but to one’s ability to flourish. This connection, they argue, runs through the lover’s self-understanding and the place the beloved has in the lover’s sense of a meaningful life.

Why do we love? It has been suggested above that any account of love needs to be able to answer some such justificatory question. Although the issue of the justification of love is important on its own, it is also important for the implications it has for understanding more clearly the precise object of love: how can we make sense of the intuitions not only that we love the individuals themselves rather than their properties, but also that my beloved is not fungible—that no one could simply take her place without loss. Different theories approach these questions in different ways, but, as will become clear below, the question of justification is primary.

One way to understand the question of why we love is as asking for what the value of love is: what do we get out of it? One kind of answer, which has its roots in Aristotle, is that having loving relationships promotes self-knowledge insofar as your beloved acts as a kind of mirror, reflecting your character back to you (Badhwar, 2003, p. 58). Of course, this answer presupposes that we cannot accurately know ourselves in other ways: that left alone, our sense of ourselves will be too imperfect, too biased, to help us grow and mature as persons. The metaphor of a mirror also suggests that our beloveds will be in the relevant respects similar to us, so that merely by observing them, we can come to know ourselves better in a way that is, if not free from bias, at least more objective than otherwise.

Brink (1999, pp. 264–65) argues that there are serious limits to the value of such mirroring of one’s self in a beloved. For if the aim is not just to know yourself better but to improve yourself, you ought also to interact with others who are not just like yourself: interacting with such diverse others can help you recognize alternative possibilities for how to live and so better assess the relative merits of these possibilities. Whiting (2013) also emphasizes the importance of our beloveds’ having an independent voice capable of reflecting not who one now is but an ideal for who one is to be. Nonetheless, we need not take the metaphor of the mirror quite so literally; rather, our beloveds can reflect our selves not through their inherent similarity to us but rather through the interpretations they offer of us, both explicitly and implicitly in their responses to us. This is what Badhwar calls the “epistemic significance” of love. [ 16 ]

In addition to this epistemic significance of love, LaFollette (1996, Chapter 5) offers several other reasons why it is good to love, reasons derived in part from the psychological literature on love: love increases our sense of well-being, it elevates our sense of self-worth, and it serves to develop our character. It also, we might add, tends to lower stress and blood pressure and to increase health and longevity. Friedman (1993) argues that the kind of partiality towards our beloveds that love involves is itself morally valuable because it supports relationships—loving relationships—that contribute “to human well-being, integrity, and fulfillment in life” (p. 61). And Solomon (1988, p. 155) claims:

Ultimately, there is only one reason for love. That one grand reason…is “because we bring out the best in each other.” What counts as “the best,” of course, is subject to much individual variation.

This is because, Solomon suggests, in loving someone, I want myself to be better so as to be worthy of his love for me.

Each of these answers to the question of why we love understands it to be asking about love quite generally, abstracted away from details of particular relationships. It is also possible to understand the question as asking about particular loves. Here, there are several questions that are relevant:

• What, if anything, justifies my loving rather than not loving this particular person?
• What, if anything, justifies my coming to love this particular person rather than someone else?
• What, if anything, justifies my continuing to love this particular person given the changes—both in him and me and in the overall circumstances—that have occurred since I began loving him?

These are importantly different questions. Velleman (1999), for example, thinks we can answer (1) by appealing to the fact that my beloved is a person and so has a rational nature, yet he thinks (2) and (3) have no answers: the best we can do is offer causal explanations for our loving particular people, a position echoed by Han (2021). Setiya (2014) similarly thinks (1) has an answer, but points not to the rational nature of persons but rather to the other’s humanity , where such humanity differs from personhood in that not all humans need have the requisite rational nature for personhood, and not all persons need be humans. And, as will become clear below , the distinction between (2) and (3) will become important in resolving puzzles concerning whether our beloveds are fungible, though it should be clear that (3) potentially raises questions concerning personal identity (which will not be addressed here).

It is important not to misconstrue these justificatory questions. Thomas (1991) , for example, rejects the idea that love can be justified: “there are no rational considerations whereby anyone can lay claim to another’s love or insist that an individual’s love for another is irrational” (p. 474). This is because, Thomas claims (p. 471):

no matter how wonderful and lovely an individual might be, on any and all accounts, it is simply false that a romantically unencumbered person must love that individual on pain of being irrational. Or, there is no irrationality involved in ceasing to love a person whom one once loved immensely, although the person has not changed.

However, as LaFollette (1996, p. 63) correctly points out,

reason is not some external power which dictates how we should behave, but an internal power, integral to who we are.… Reason does not command that we love anyone. Nonetheless, reason is vital in determining whom we love and why we love them.

That is, reasons for love are pro tanto : they are a part of the overall reasons we have for acting, and it is up to us in exercising our capacity for agency to decide what on balance we have reason to do or even whether we shall act contrary to our reasons. To construe the notion of a reason for love as compelling us to love, as Thomas does, is to misconstrue the place such reasons have within our agency. [ 17 ]

Most philosophical discussions of the justification of love focus on question (1) , thinking that answering this question will also, to the extent that we can, answer question (2) , which is typically not distinguished from (3) . The answers given to these questions vary in a way that turns on how the kind of evaluation implicit in love is construed. On the one hand, those who understand the evaluation implicit in love to be a matter of the bestowal of value (such as Telfer 1970–71; Friedman 1993; Singer 1994) typically claim that no justification can be given (cf. Section 4.2 ). As indicated above, this seems problematic, especially given the importance love can have both in our lives and, especially, in shaping our identities as persons. To reject the idea that we can love for reasons may reduce the impact our agency can have in defining who we are.

On the other hand, those who understand the evaluation implicit in love to be a matter of appraisal tend to answer the justificatory question by appeal to these valuable properties of the beloved. This acceptance of the idea that love can be justified leads to two further, related worries about the object of love.

The first worry is raised by Vlastos (1981) in a discussion Plato’s and Aristotle’s accounts of love. Vlastos notes that these accounts focus on the properties of our beloveds: we are to love people, they say, only because and insofar as they are objectifications of the excellences. Consequently, he argues, in doing so they fail to distinguish “ disinterested affection for the person we love” from “ appreciation of the excellences instantiated by that person ” (p. 33). That is, Vlastos thinks that Plato and Aristotle provide an account of love that is really a love of properties rather than a love of persons—love of a type of person, rather than love of a particular person—thereby losing what is distinctive about love as an essentially personal attitude. This worry about Plato and Aristotle might seem to apply just as well to other accounts that justify love in terms of the properties of the person: insofar as we love the person for the sake of her properties, it might seem that what we love is those properties and not the person. Here it is surely insufficient to say, as Solomon (1988, p. 154) does, “if love has its reasons, then it is not the whole person that one loves but certain aspects of that person—though the rest of the person comes along too, of course”: that final tagline fails to address the central difficulty about what the object of love is and so about love as a distinctly personal attitude. (Clausen 2019 might seem to address this worry by arguing that we love people not as having certain properties but rather as having “ organic unities ”: a holistic set of properties the value of each of which must be understood in essential part in terms of its place within that whole. Nonetheless, while this is an interesting and plausible way to think about the value of the properties of persons, that organic unity itself will be a (holistic) property held by the person, and it seems that the fundamental problem reemerges at the level of this holistic property: do we love the holistic unity rather than the person?)

The second worry concerns the fungibility of the object of love. To be fungible is to be replaceable by another relevantly similar object without any loss of value. Thus, money is fungible: I can give you two $5 bills in exchange for a $10 bill, and neither of us has lost anything. Is the object of love fungible? That is, can I simply switch from loving one person to loving another relevantly similar person without any loss? The worry about fungibility is commonly put this way: if we accept that love can be justified by appealing to properties of the beloved, then it may seem that in loving someone for certain reasons, I love him not simply as the individual he is, but as instantiating those properties. And this may imply that any other person instantiating those same properties would do just as well: my beloved would be fungible. Indeed, it may be that another person exhibits the properties that ground my love to a greater degree than my current beloved does, and so it may seem that in such a case I have reason to “trade up”—to switch my love to the new, better person. However, it seems clear that the objects of our loves are not fungible: love seems to involve a deeply personal commitment to a particular person, a commitment that is antithetical to the idea that our beloveds are fungible or to the idea that we ought to be willing to trade up when possible. [ 18 ]

In responding to these worries, Nozick (1989) appeals to the union view of love he endorses (see the section on Love as Union ):

The intention in love is to form a we and to identify with it as an extended self, to identify one’s fortunes in large part with its fortunes. A willingness to trade up, to destroy the very we you largely identify with, would then be a willingness to destroy your self in the form of your own extended self. [p. 78]

So it is because love involves forming a “we” that we must understand other persons and not properties to be the objects of love, and it is because my very identity as a person depends essentially on that “we” that it is not possible to substitute without loss one object of my love for another. However, Badhwar (2003) criticizes Nozick, saying that his response implies that once I love someone, I cannot abandon that love no matter who that person becomes; this, she says, “cannot be understood as love at all rather than addiction” (p. 61). [ 19 ]

Instead, Badhwar (1987) turns to her robust-concern account of love as a concern for the beloved for his sake rather than one’s own. Insofar as my love is disinterested — not a means to antecedent ends of my own—it would be senseless to think that my beloved could be replaced by someone who is able to satisfy my ends equally well or better. Consequently, my beloved is in this way irreplaceable. However, this is only a partial response to the worry about fungibility, as Badhwar herself seems to acknowledge. For the concern over fungibility arises not merely for those cases in which we think of love as justified instrumentally, but also for those cases in which the love is justified by the intrinsic value of the properties of my beloved. Confronted with cases like this, Badhwar (2003) concludes that the object of love is fungible after all (though she insists that it is very unlikely in practice). (Soble (1990, Chapter 13) draws similar conclusions.)

Nonetheless, Badhwar thinks that the object of love is “phenomenologically non-fungible” (2003, p. 63; see also 1987, p. 14). By this she means that we experience our beloveds to be irreplaceable: “loving and delighting in [one person] are not completely commensurate with loving and delighting in another” (1987, p. 14). Love can be such that we sometimes desire to be with this particular person whom we love, not another whom we also love, for our loves are qualitatively different. But why is this? It seems as though the typical reason I now want to spend time with Amy rather than Bob is, for example, that Amy is funny but Bob is not. I love Amy in part for her humor, and I love Bob for other reasons, and these qualitative differences between them is what makes them not fungible. However, this reply does not address the worry about the possibility of trading up: if Bob were to be at least as funny (charming, kind, etc.) as Amy, why shouldn’t I dump her and spend all my time with him?

A somewhat different approach is taken by Whiting (1991). In response to the first worry concerning the object of love, Whiting argues that Vlastos offers a false dichotomy: having affection for someone that is disinterested —for her sake rather than my own—essentially involves an appreciation of her excellences as such. Indeed, Whiting says, my appreciation of these as excellences, and so the underlying commitment I have to their value, just is a disinterested commitment to her because these excellences constitute her identity as the person she is. The person, therefore, really is the object of love. Delaney (1996) takes the complementary tack of distinguishing between the object of one’s love, which of course is the person, and the grounds of the love, which are her properties: to say, as Solomon does, that we love someone for reasons is not at all to say that we only love certain aspects of the person. In these terms, we might say that Whiting’s rejection of Vlastos’ dichotomy can be read as saying that what makes my attitude be one of disinterested affection—one of love—for the person is precisely that I am thereby responding to her excellences as the reasons for that affection. [ 20 ]

Of course, more needs to be said about what it is that makes a particular person be the object of love. Implicit in Whiting’s account is an understanding of the way in which the object of my love is determined in part by the history of interactions I have with her: it is she, and not merely her properties (which might be instantiated in many different people), that I want to be with; it is she, and not merely her properties, on whose behalf I am concerned when she suffers and whom I seek to comfort; etc. This addresses the first worry, but not the second worry about fungibility, for the question still remains whether she is the object of my love only as instantiating certain properties, and so whether or not I have reason to “trade up.”

To respond to the fungibility worry, Whiting and Delaney appeal explicitly to the historical relationship. [ 21 ] Thus, Whiting claims, although there may be a relatively large pool of people who have the kind of excellences of character that would justify my loving them, and so although there can be no answer to question (2) about why I come to love this rather than that person within this pool, once I have come to love this person and so have developed a historical relation with her, this history of concern justifies my continuing to love this person rather than someone else (1991, p. 7). Similarly, Delaney claims that love is grounded in “historical-relational properties” (1996, p. 346), so that I have reasons for continuing to love this person rather than switching allegiances and loving someone else. In each case, the appeal to both such historical relations and the excellences of character of my beloved is intended to provide an answer to question (3) , and this explains why the objects of love are not fungible.

There seems to be something very much right with this response. Relationships grounded in love are essentially personal, and it would be odd to think of what justifies that love to be merely non-relational properties of the beloved. Nonetheless, it is still unclear how the historical-relational propreties can provide any additional justification for subsequent concern beyond that which is already provided (as an answer to question (1) ) by appeal to the excellences of the beloved’s character (cf. Brink 1999). The mere fact that I have loved someone in the past does not seem to justify my continuing to love him in the future. When we imagine that he is going through a rough time and begins to lose the virtues justifying my initial love for him, why shouldn’t I dump him and instead come to love someone new having all of those virtues more fully? Intuitively (unless the change she undergoes makes her in some important sense no longer the same person he was), we think I should not dump him, but the appeal to the mere fact that I loved him in the past is surely not enough. Yet what historical-relational properties could do the trick? (For an interesting attempt at an answer, see Kolodny 2003 and also Howard 2019.)

If we think that love can be justified, then it may seem that the appeal to particular historical facts about a loving relationship to justify that love is inadequate, for such idiosyncratic and subjective properties might explain but cannot justify love. Rather, it may seem, justification in general requires appealing to universal, objective properties. But such properties are ones that others might share, which leads to the problem of fungibility. Consequently it may seem that love cannot be justified. In the face of this predicament, accounts of love that understand love to be an attitude towards value that is intermediate between appraisal and bestowal, between recognizing already existing value and creating that value (see Section 4.3 ) might seem to offer a way out. For once we reject the thought that the value of our beloveds must be either the precondition or the consequence of our love, we have room to acknowledge that the deeply personal, historically grounded, creative nature of love (central to bestowal accounts) and the understanding of love as responsive to valuable properties of the beloved that can justify that love (central to appraisal accounts) are not mutually exclusive (Helm 2010; Bagley 2015).

• Annas, J., 1977, “Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism”, Mind , 86: 532–54.
• Badhwar, N. K., 1987, “Friends as Ends in Themselves”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research , 48: 1–23.
• –––, 2003, “Love”, in H. LaFollette (ed.), Practical Ethics , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42–69.
• Badhwar, N. K. (ed.), 1993, Friendship: A Philosophical Reader , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Bagley, B., 2015, “Loving Someone in Particular”, Ethics , 125: 477–507.
• –––, 2018. “(The Varieties of) Love in Contemporary Anglophone Philosophy”, in Adrienne M. Martin (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Love in Philosophy , New York, NY: Routledge, 453–64.
• Baier, A. C., 1991, “Unsafe Loves”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 433–50.
• Blum, L. A., 1980, Friendship, Altruism, and Morality , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• –––, 1993, “Friendship as a Moral Phenomenon”, in Badhwar (1993), 192–210.
• Bransen, J., 2006, “Selfless Self-Love”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 9: 3–25.
• Bratman, M. E., 1999, “Shared Intention”, in Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–29.
• Brentlinger, J., 1970/1989, “The Nature of Love”, in Soble (1989a), 136–48.
• Brink, D. O., 1999, “Eudaimonism, Love and Friendship, and Political Community”, Social Philosophy & Policy , 16: 252–289.
• Brown, R., 1987, Analyzing Love , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clausen, G., 2019, “Love of Whole Persons”, The Journal of Ethics , 23 (4): 347–67.
• Cocking, D. & Kennett, J., 1998, “Friendship and the Self”, Ethics , 108: 502–27.
• Cooper, J. M., 1977, “Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship”, Review of Metaphysics , 30: 619–48.
• Delaney, N., 1996, “Romantic Love and Loving Commitment: Articulating a Modern Ideal”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 33: 375–405.
• Ebels-Duggan, K., 2008, “Against Beneficence: A Normative Account of Love”, Ethics , 119: 142–70.
• Fisher, M., 1990, Personal Love , London: Duckworth.
• Frankfurt, H., 1999, “Autonomy, Necessity, and Love”, in Necessity, Volition, and Love , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–41.
• Friedman, M. A., 1993, What Are Friends For? Feminist Perspectives on Personal Relationships and Moral Theory , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 1998, “Romantic Love and Personal Autonomy”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 22: 162–81.
• Gilbert, M., 1989, On Social Facts , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 1996, Living Together: Rationality, Sociality, and Obligation , Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, 2000, Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Grau, C. & Smuts, A., 2017, Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Love , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hamlyn, D. W., 1989, “The Phenomena of Love and Hate”, in Soble (1989a), 218–234.
• Han, Y., 2021, “Do We Love for Reasons?”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research , 102: 106–126.
• Hegel, G. W. F., 1997, “A Fragment on Love”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 117–20.
• Helm, B. W., 2008, “Plural Agents”, Noûs , 42: 17–49.
• –––, 2009, “Love, Identification, and the Emotions”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 46: 39–59.
• –––, 2010, Love, Friendship, and the Self: Intimacy, Identification, and the Social Nature of Persons , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Howard, C., 2019, “Fitting Love and Reasons for Loving” in M. Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (Volume 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198846253.001.0001
• Jaworska, A. & Wonderly, M., 2017, “Love and Caring”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2020). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.15
• Jollimore, T, 2011, Love’s Vision , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Kolodny, N., 2003, “Love as Valuing a Relationship”, The Philosophical Review , 112: 135–89.
• Kraut, Robert, 1986 “Love De Re ”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 10: 413–30.
• LaFollette, H., 1996, Personal Relationships: Love, Identity, and Morality , Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Press.
• Lamb, R. E., (ed.), 1997, Love Analyzed , Westview Press.
• Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R., 1940, A Greek-English Lexicon , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edition.
• Martin, A., 2015, “Love, Incorporated”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 18: 691–702.
• Montaigne, M., [E], Essays , in The Complete Essays of Montaigne , Donald Frame (trans.), Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958.
• Naar, H., 2013, “A Dispositional Theory of Love”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 94(3): 342–357.
• Newton-Smith, W., 1989, “A Conceptual Investigation of Love”, in Soble (1989a), 199–217.
• Nozick, R., 1989, “Love’s Bond”, in The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations , New York: Simon & Schuster, 68–86.
• Nussbaum, M., 1990, “Love and the Individual: Romantic Rightness and Platonic Aspiration”, in Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 314–34.
• Nygren, A., 1953a, Agape and Eros , Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
• –––, 1953b, “ Agape and Eros ”, in Soble (1989a), 85–95.
• Ortiz-Millán, G., 2007, “Love and Rationality: On Some Possible Rational Effects of Love”, Kriterion , 48: 127–44.
• Pismenny, A. & Prinz, J., 2017, “Is Love an Emotion?”, in C. Grau & A. Smuts (2017). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199395729.013.10
• Price, A. W., 1989, Love and Friendship in Plato and Arisotle , New York: Clarendon Press.
• Rorty, A. O., 1980, “Introduction”, in A. O. Rorty (ed.), Explaining Emotions , Berkeley: University of California Press, 1–8.
• –––, 1986/1993, “The Historicity of Psychological Attitudes: Love is Not Love Which Alters Not When It Alteration Finds”, in Badhwar (1993), 73–88.
• Scruton, R., 1986, Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic , New York: Free Press.
• Searle, J. R., 1990, “Collective Intentions and Actions”, in P. R. Cohen, M. E. Pollack, & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Intentions in Communication , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 401–15.
• Setiya, K., 2014, “Love and the Value of a Life”, Philosophical Review , 123: 251–80.
• Sherman, N., 1993, “Aristotle on the Shared Life”, in Badhwar (1993), 91–107.
• Singer, I., 1984a, The Nature of Love, Volume 1: Plato to Luther , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1984b, The Nature of Love, Volume 2: Courtly and Romantic , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1989, The Nature of Love, Volume 3: The Modern World , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn.
• –––, 1991, “From The Nature of Love ”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 259–78.
• –––, 1994, The Pursuit of Love , Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• –––, 2009, Philosophy of Love: A Partial Summing-up , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Soble, A. (ed.), 1989a, Eros, Agape, and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love , New York, NY: Paragon House.
• –––, 1989b, “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Love”, in Soble (1989a), xi-xxv.
• –––, 1990, The Structure of Love , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• –––, 1997, “Union, Autonomy, and Concern”, in Lamb (1997), 65–92.
• Solomon, R. C., 1976, The Passions , New York: Anchor Press.
• –––, 1981, Love: Emotion, Myth, and Metaphor , New York: Anchor Press.
• –––, 1988, About Love: Reinventing Romance for Our Times , New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Solomon, R. C. & Higgins, K. M. (eds.), 1991, The Philosophy of (Erotic) Love , Lawrence: Kansas University Press.
• Stump, E., 2006, “Love by All Accounts”, Presidential Address to the Central APA, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association , 80: 25–43.
• Taylor, G., 1976, “Love”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 76: 147–64.
• Telfer, E., 1970–71, “Friendship”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 71: 223–41.
• Thomas, L., 1987, “Friendship”, Synthese , 72: 217–36.
• –––, 1989, “Friends and Lovers”, in G. Graham & H. La Follette (eds.), Person to Person , Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 182–98.
• –––, 1991, “Reasons for Loving”, in Solomon & Higgins (1991), 467–476.
• –––, 1993, “Friendship and Other Loves”, in Badhwar (1993), 48–64.
• Tuomela, R., 1984, A Theory of Social Action , Dordrecht: Reidel.
• –––, 1995, The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Velleman, J. D., 1999, “Love as a Moral Emotion”, Ethics , 109: 338–74.
• –––, 2008, “Beyond Price”, Ethics , 118: 191–212.
• Vlastos, G., 1981, “The Individual as Object of Love in Plato”, in Platonic Studies , 2nd edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3–42.
• White, R. J., 2001, Love’s Philosophy , Rowman & Littlefield.
• Whiting, J. E., 1991, “Impersonal Friends”, Monist , 74: 3–29.
• –––, 2013, “Love: Self-Propagation, Self-Preservation, or Ekstasis?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 43: 403–29.
• Willigenburg, T. Van, 2005, “Reason and Love: A Non-Reductive Analysis of the Normativity of Agent-Relative Reasons”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 8: 45–62.
• Wollheim, R., 1984, The Thread of Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wonderly, M., 2016, “On Being Attached”, Philosophical Studies , 173: 223–42.
• –––, 2017, “Love and Attachment”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 54: 235–50.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Aristotle , Nicomachean Ethics , translated by W.D. Ross.
• Moseley, A., “ Philosophy of Love ,” in J. Fieser (ed.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

character, moral | emotion | friendship | impartiality | obligations: special | personal identity | Plato: ethics | Plato: rhetoric and poetry | respect | value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic

Copyright © 2021 by Bennett Helm < bennett . helm @ fandm . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Engineering
• Write For Us
• Privacy Policy

Essay on Love

Here we have shared the Essay on Love in detail so you can use it in your exam or assignment of 150, 250, 400, 500, or 1000 words.

You can use this Essay on Love in any assignment or project whether you are in school (class 10th or 12th), college, or answer writing for competitive exams. 

Topics covered in this article.

Essay on Love in 150-250 words

Essay on love in 300-450 words, essay on love in 500-1000 words.

Love is a powerful and universal emotion that transcends boundaries and brings people together. It is an intense feeling of affection, care, and compassion towards someone or something. Love can exist in various forms, including romantic love, love for family and friends, and love for humanity.

Love has the ability to inspire and transform individuals. It brings joy, happiness, and a sense of fulfillment to our lives. Love nurtures relationships, fosters understanding, and creates bonds of trust and loyalty. It encourages selflessness, empathy, and acts of kindness.

Love is not limited to romantic relationships; it extends to the love we have for our families and friends. It is the foundation of strong, supportive, and nurturing relationships. Love for our families provides a sense of belonging, security, and unconditional support. Love for our friends brings companionship, laughter, and shared experiences.

Love also has the power to transcend personal relationships and extend to the broader community. Love for humanity motivates acts of kindness, compassion, and service to others. It inspires individuals to work towards social justice, equality, and the well-being of all.

In conclusion, love is a beautiful and transformative emotion that connects individuals and enhances the quality of our lives. It fosters deep relationships, brings joy and fulfillment, and motivates acts of kindness and service. Love is a powerful force that binds us together, promotes understanding, and creates a sense of belonging in our world.

Love is a complex and profound emotion that has been a subject of fascination and exploration throughout human history. It is a deep affection and care that we feel for someone or something, transcending boundaries and connecting us on a fundamental level.

Love can manifest in various forms, including romantic love, love for family and friends, and love for humanity. Romantic love is characterized by intense emotions, attraction, and a desire for companionship and intimacy. It brings joy, passion, and a sense of completeness to our lives. Love for family and friends is built on a foundation of trust, loyalty, and support. It creates strong bonds of connection, shared experiences, and a sense of belonging. Love for humanity is a broader form of love that encompasses empathy, compassion, and a commitment to the well-being of others.

Love has the power to transform individuals and relationships. It fosters personal growth, empathy, and understanding. Love encourages selflessness, as we prioritize the needs and happiness of our loved ones. It teaches us to be patient, forgiving, and accepting of both the strengths and flaws of those we care about. Love helps us navigate the challenges and complexities of relationships, as we communicate, compromise, and work together towards mutual growth and happiness.

Love is not without its challenges, as it can also bring vulnerability, heartbreak, and loss. However, it is through these challenges that love reveals its resilience and strength. Love gives us the courage to overcome obstacles, mend broken bonds, and heal emotional wounds. It teaches us valuable lessons about forgiveness, resilience, and the power of connection.

Ultimately, love is an essential part of the human experience. It brings richness, meaning, and joy to our lives. Love fosters deep connections, encourages personal growth, and inspires acts of kindness and compassion. It is a force that transcends differences and unites us in our shared humanity. In a world that often seems divided, love has the potential to bridge gaps, foster understanding, and create a more compassionate and harmonious society.

In conclusion, love is a complex and transformative emotion that enriches our lives in profound ways. It is a universal language that connects us to one another and reminds us of our shared humanity. Whether in romantic relationships, familial bonds, or our love for humanity, love has the power to bring happiness, growth, and connection. By cultivating love in our lives, we can create a world filled with compassion, understanding, and genuine human connections.

Title: Love – The Universal Language of Connection and Fulfillment

Introduction :

Love is a powerful and universal emotion that transcends cultural, geographical, and linguistic boundaries. It is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that has been the subject of artistic, philosophical, and scientific exploration throughout human history. Love is a fundamental aspect of the human experience, shaping our relationships, influencing our choices, and bringing joy, fulfillment, and meaning to our lives. In this essay, we will delve into the various dimensions of love, its impact on our well-being, its different forms, and its role in fostering connection and personal growth.

Love and Connection

Love is intricately linked to the idea of connection. It is a force that binds us together, fostering deep relationships and creating a sense of belonging. Love enables us to form emotional connections with others, resulting in companionship, support, and mutual understanding. It allows us to experience empathy and compassion, connecting us on an emotional level and forging bonds of trust and loyalty. Love nurtures relationships, creating an environment of emotional safety and acceptance, where individuals can express themselves fully and be embraced for who they are.

Forms of Love

Love manifests in various forms, each with its own unique characteristics and dynamics. Romantic love is often the first form of love that comes to mind, characterized by intense passion, attraction, and a desire for emotional and physical intimacy. It is a deep connection between two individuals, rooted in shared values, interests, and mutual respect.

Love for family is another powerful form of love. It encompasses the bond between parents and children, siblings, and extended family members. Family love is often unconditional, built on a foundation of support, sacrifice, and a shared history. It offers a sense of belonging, security, and the comfort of knowing that one is part of a loving and nurturing unit.

Love for friends is a special kind of bond that goes beyond blood relations. Friends become our chosen family, offering companionship, laughter, and a support system outside of our immediate relatives. Friendship love is built on trust, shared experiences, and mutual respect. It is a source of emotional support, encouragement, and the joy of companionship.

Love for humanity is a broader form of love that transcends individual relationships. It encompasses compassion, empathy, and a sense of responsibility towards the well-being and dignity of all human beings. This form of love drives individuals to contribute to the betterment of society, fight for social justice, and promote equality and inclusivity.

Love and Personal Growth

Love has the power to transform individuals and facilitate personal growth. It encourages self-reflection, as we learn about our own strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities through our connections with others. Love challenges us to become better versions of ourselves, as we strive to be more patient, understanding, and supportive in our relationships. It teaches us important lessons about forgiveness, empathy, and compromise.

Love also provides a source of inspiration and motivation. When we feel loved and supported, we gain the confidence to pursue our dreams, take risks, and explore our potential. Love provides a sense of security and a safe space for personal exploration, allowing us to embrace our true selves and express our authentic thoughts and emotions.

Furthermore, love fosters resilience in the face of adversity. It gives us the strength to overcome challenges, as we draw upon the love and support of those who care for us. Love provides a source of comfort and emotional stability, helping us navigate difficult times with resilience and determination.

Love and Well-being

Love plays a vital role in our overall well-being and mental health. Studies have shown that individuals who experience love and emotional support tend to have lower levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. Love provides a buffer against the challenges of life, offering emotional reassurance, a sense of belonging, and a feeling of being understood and valued. Love also contributes to our physical health. The emotional support and connection that love brings can have positive effects on our immune system, cardiovascular health, and overall longevity. Love promotes a sense of happiness, contentment, and a positive outlook on life, all of which contribute to improved well-being.

Furthermore, love encourages positive social interactions and a sense of community. It fosters social connections, strengthens social support networks, and reduces feelings of loneliness and isolation. Love promotes a sense of belonging and connectedness to others, which is essential for our mental and emotional well-being.

Love and Cultural Expression

Love has been a central theme in art, literature, music, and various cultural expressions throughout history. Artists and creatives have explored the depth and complexity of love, capturing its essence through different mediums. Love has inspired countless poems, songs, paintings, and sculptures, reflecting its profound impact on human experience and emotion.

Cultural norms and traditions also shape the expression of love in different societies. Love rituals, such as weddings, celebrations, and ceremonies, are often an integral part of cultural practices. These rituals symbolize and reinforce the commitment, connection, and bond shared by individuals and communities.

Love and its Challenges

While love brings immense joy and fulfillment, it is not without its challenges. Love requires effort, communication, and compromise. It involves vulnerability, as we open ourselves up to the possibility of rejection, heartbreak, and loss. Love requires us to navigate differences, conflicts, and changing dynamics within relationships. However, it is through these challenges that love grows stronger, as individuals learn and grow together, developing deeper levels of understanding and resilience.

Conclusion :

Love is a fundamental and universal force that permeates every aspect of our lives. It connects us to others, fosters personal growth, contributes to our well-being, and shapes our cultural expressions. Love brings joy, meaning, and a sense of purpose to our existence. It is a language that transcends barriers, bridging divides, and uniting individuals and communities. As we navigate life’s complexities, love offers us solace, support, and the transformative power to create a more compassionate and harmonious world.

Related Posts

• Essay on Pollution
• Essay on “Impact of Social Media on Youth”

• Relationships

What Is Romantic Love?

Is it an evolutionary adaptation, a social construct, or something else.

Posted February 9, 2020 | Reviewed by Daniel Lyons M.A.

• Why Relationships Matter
• Find a therapist to strengthen relationships

What is love? The word love has been used synonymously with enjoyment, enthusiasm, attachment , affection, sexual attraction , care, concern, loyalty, devotion, etc.

It's important to distinguish: r omantic love (also known as romance) has a more specific meaning, and refers to “ intense attraction that involves the idealization of the other, within an erotic context, with the expectation of enduring for some time into the future.” 1 In today’s post, I examine four ways of looking at romance.

1. Romantic love as an evolutionary adaptation.

Let me start with one of the less romantic views of romantic love, which suggests love is a product of forces that increase the chances of passing on one’s genes to future generations.

Some readers may be thinking that passing on one’s genes requires sex only, so what’s love got to do with it (as Tina Turner might say)?

To explain, let me first note we often seek romantic partners who have high levels of certain qualities (e.g., health, beauty, wealth). Assuming we succeed in acquiring a partner with those qualities, however, we face two problems.

One, those qualities do not last (e.g., our partners grow old, get ill, lose their high-paying jobs). Second, we may be tempted by individuals with greater positive attributes (e.g., richer, younger, smarter, prettier).

So, what would keep an individual from divorcing or cheating on their significant other? According to the evolutionary psychologist David Buss, the answer is love. 2-4

Love evolved as a solution to what Buss calls the “ problem of commitment .” It is only when we love our partner that we refuse to leave them even if they lose what we value in them (e.g., money, looks, abilities) or if someone “better” comes along .

2. Romantic love as what unites us with our partner.

Switching now to what may be the most romantic view of love, let us talk about soulmates. In Plato’s The Symposium , Aristophanes gives the following famous story as the origins of soulmates:

Aristophanes says human beings were initially round (their sides and backs formed a circle), had four arms and legs, and one head with two faces which looked in opposite directions. As such, humans were very powerful. So Zeus decided to “ cut them in two [so] they will be diminished in strength.” 5

We human beings, as these split bodies, spend our lives seeking our other halves, so we can be whole again. It is this “desire and pursuit of the whole” that we call "love."

The idea of us looking for our other halves—and the idea that like attracts like—makes sense to many people because we often find ourselves attracted to those with whom we share much in common.

Research also supports this view. For instance, a 2006 study, in which participants rated various aspects of a married couple based on pictures of their faces, found “perceived age, attractiveness , and some personality traits [such as extraversion and conscientiousness ] were similar between partners .” 6

3. Romantic love as a blind force.

They say love is blind but is Cupid blind, too? In other words, do we fall in love with random people?

If love is a blind force, then romance might be triggered by chance encounters with random individuals—not by recognition of meeting a potential soulmate.

This view has also received research support. For instance, attraction is influenced by proximity. According to Zajonc’s “ mere repeated exposure ” theory, when we have regular contact with a stimulus, we develop a preference for that object, person, etc. 7 This means we are more likely to feel attracted to—and form a romantic relationship with—our coworkers, classmates, or neighbors than with strangers.

Of course, proximity alone is rarely enough; proximity-based romantic relationships may not survive if missing other important ingredients (e.g., positive emotions ). 8

Nevertheless, evidence showing that our choice of romantic relationships is influenced by proximity may pose a challenge to the more starry-eyed views of romantic love as possible only between soulmates.

4. Romantic love as a sociocultural construct.

Could it be that how we define love says more about our society and culture than it does about some absolute and universal concept of true love? Perhaps.

For instance, intimacy is an important element of romantic love, but what we consider intimate relationships in America arose in the early nineteenth century; they did so in the context of rapid modernization and urbanization, and the separation of the world of home from work. As one author put it: “Individualism and intimacy are the Siamese twins of modernization .” 9

Nonetheless, even if we were to assume the essence of romantic love is universal and refers to the same thing today as it did many years ago, evidence suggests romantic love was often much less important in the past.

Case in point, in ancient Greece, marriage functioned as a means of reproduction and control over the inheritance of property; however, as societies changed over time so did the institution of marriage . Consequently, a new need arose for a type of love capable of bringing two people together in a “monogamous, lifelong, nuclear family-like bond,” a love that could take the place of “work previously done by patriarchal financial arrangements.” Romantic love became important in part because society “created certain specific work for it to do.” 10

See if you spot any similarities in how your family, friends, or strangers celebrate this holiday. Contemplate what these similarities tell you about traditions and societal expectations (wherever you happen to be living in 2020), the significance of romance, what it means to be romantic, and the right way to celebrate love (e.g., with chocolates, cards, flowers). Consider whether it is possible for you to celebrate love differently. What would such a celebration of love look like?

Facebook image: G-Stock Studio/Shutterstock

1. Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31, 149-155.

2. Buss, D. M. (1988). Love acts: The evolutionary biology of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 100– 118). Yale University Press.

3. Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. Free Press.

4. Buss, D. M. (2006). The evolution of love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 65– 86). Yale University Press.

5. Bury, R. G. (1932). The Symposium of Plato . Cambridge University Press.

6. Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). Assortative mating for perceived facial personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 973-984.

7. Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 224–228.

8. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 737–45.

9. Gadlin, H. (1977). Private lives and public order. In G. Levinger & H. L. Raush (Eds.). Close relationships: Perspectives on the meaning of intimacy (pp. 33-72). University of Massachusetts Press.

10. Jenkins, C. (2017). What love is: And what it could be. Basic Books.

Arash Emamzadeh attended the University of British Columbia in Canada, where he studied genetics and psychology. He has also done graduate work in clinical psychology and neuropsychology in U.S.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Essay on Love for Students and Children

500+ words essay on love.

Love is the most significant thing in human’s life. Each science and every single literature masterwork will tell you about it. Humans are also social animals. We lived for centuries with this way of life, we were depended on one another to tell us how our clothes fit us, how our body is whether healthy or emaciated. All these we get the honest opinions of those who love us, those who care for us and makes our happiness paramount.

What is Love?

Love is a set of emotions, behaviors, and beliefs with strong feelings of affection. So, for example, a person might say he or she loves his or her dog, loves freedom, or loves God. The concept of love may become an unimaginable thing and also it may happen to each person in a particular way.

Love has a variety of feelings, emotions, and attitude. For someone love is more than just being interested physically in another one, rather it is an emotional attachment. We can say love is more of a feeling that a person feels for another person. Therefore, the basic meaning of love is to feel more than liking towards someone.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Need of Love

We know that the desire to love and care for others is a hard-wired and deep-hearted because the fulfillment of this wish increases the happiness level. Expressing love for others benefits not just the recipient of affection, but also the person who delivers it. The need to be loved can be considered as one of our most basic and fundamental needs.

One of the forms that this need can take is contact comfort. It is the desire to be held and touched. So there are many experiments showing that babies who are not having contact comfort, especially during the first six months, grow up to be psychologically damaged.

Significance of Love

Love is as critical for the mind and body of a human being as oxygen. Therefore, the more connected you are, the healthier you will be physically as well as emotionally. It is also true that the less love you have, the level of depression will be more in your life. So, we can say that love is probably the best antidepressant.

It is also a fact that the most depressed people don’t love themselves and they do not feel loved by others. They also become self-focused and hence making themselves less attractive to others.

Society and Love

It is a scientific fact that society functions better when there is a certain sense of community. Compassion and love are the glue for society. Hence without it, there is no feeling of togetherness for further evolution and progress. Love , compassion, trust and caring we can say that these are the building blocks of relationships and society.

Relationship and Love

A relationship is comprised of many things such as friendship , sexual attraction , intellectual compatibility, and finally love. Love is the binding element that keeps a relationship strong and solid. But how do you know if you are in love in true sense? Here are some symptoms that the emotion you are feeling is healthy, life-enhancing love.

Love is the Greatest Wealth in Life

Love is the greatest wealth in life because we buy things we love for our happiness. For example, we build our dream house and purchase a favorite car to attract love. Being loved in a remote environment is a better experience than been hated even in the most advanced environment.

Love or Money

Love should be given more importance than money as love is always everlasting. Money is important to live, but having a true companion you can always trust should come before that. If you love each other, you will both work hard to help each other live an amazing life together.

Love has been a vital reason we do most things in our life. Before we could know ourselves, we got showered by it from our close relatives like mothers , fathers , siblings, etc. Thus love is a unique gift for shaping us and our life. Therefore, we can say that love is a basic need of life. It plays a vital role in our life, society, and relation. It gives us energy and motivation in a difficult time. Finally, we can say that it is greater than any other thing in life.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Short Essay: About Love

A couple of short essay examples about love.

Table of Contents

About Love Essay Example 1

Love is a universal emotion that has been written about and explored in literature, art, and music throughout human history. It is a complex feeling that can manifest in many different ways, including romantic love, familial love, and platonic love. While love can bring joy and happiness, it can also cause heartache and pain. However, research suggests that love can have both positive and negative effects on mental and physical health. In this essay, we will explore the different aspects of love, including its effects on health, and the importance of effort and communication in maintaining strong relationships.

Love is a complex emotion that can manifest in many different ways. One of the most common forms of love is romantic love, which involves a deep emotional and physical attraction to another person. This type of love is often associated with feelings of euphoria and passion, but it can also bring heartache and disappointment. Familial love, on the other hand, is the love between family members, such as parents and children, siblings, and grandparents. This type of love is often unconditional and enduring, providing a sense of security and belonging. Platonic love is the love between friends, which can be just as strong and meaningful as other forms of love.

Research suggests that love can have both positive and negative effects on mental and physical health. Studies have shown that people in loving relationships tend to have lower levels of stress and anxiety, better cardiovascular health, and longer lifespans. However, love can also cause negative health effects, such as depression and anxiety when relationships end. In addition, unhealthy relationships can lead to emotional and physical abuse, which can have long-lasting effects on mental and physical health.

Love requires effort and communication in order to maintain strong relationships and overcome challenges. Effort involves making time for one another, showing affection, and supporting each other through difficult times. Effective communication is also essential in building and maintaining relationships. This includes listening actively, expressing feelings and needs clearly, and resolving conflicts in a healthy and respectful manner. Without effort and communication, relationships can easily break down, leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation.

In conclusion, love is a complex emotion that can take many different forms. While it can bring joy and happiness, it can also bring heartache and pain. Research suggests that love can have both positive and negative effects on mental and physical health. Therefore, it is important to put in the effort and communication required to maintain strong relationships and overcome challenges. By doing so, we can experience the many benefits of love and create meaningful connections with others.

About Love Essay Example 2

Love is a complex emotion that has been the subject of literature, music, and art for centuries. It can be defined as a strong feeling of affection and attachment towards someone or something. Love takes many forms, including romantic love, familial love, and love between friends. In this essay, we will explore the different types of love and the impact they have on our lives. We will also examine the joys and sorrows that come with loving someone or something deeply.

Romantic love is perhaps the most well-known form of love. It is characterized by intense feelings of attraction, passion, and desire between two people. Romantic love is often associated with physical intimacy and can take many different forms, including long-term relationships, casual dating, and one-night stands.

When people are in romantic love, they often feel a range of emotions, including excitement, happiness, and nervousness. However, romantic love can also be accompanied by pain and heartbreak. When relationships end, it can be difficult to cope with the loss of someone who was once so important to us. Nevertheless, the joys of romantic love often outweigh the risks, as it can bring great happiness and fulfillment to our lives.

Familial love refers to the love between family members, including parents, siblings, and children. This type of love is often unconditional, which means that it is not based on factors such as physical appearance or success. Familial love is often characterized by a deep sense of loyalty and support, and it can be a source of great comfort and security.

However, familial love is not always easy. Family members can have conflicts and disagreements, and it can be difficult to navigate these relationships. In some cases, familial love can also be accompanied by pain and heartbreak, such as when family members pass away or become estranged from one another. Despite these challenges, familial love is an important part of our lives, and it can bring us great happiness and fulfillment.

Love between friends refers to the deep affection and attachment that can develop between people who are not romantically involved. This type of love is often characterized by shared interests, experiences, and values. Friends can provide us with support, encouragement, and a sense of belonging.

However, love between friends can also be accompanied by challenges. Friends can have conflicts and disagreements, and it can be difficult to navigate these relationships. In some cases, friendships can end, and it can be difficult to cope with the loss of someone who was once so important to us. Despite these challenges, love between friends is an important part of our lives, and it can bring us great happiness and fulfillment.

In conclusion, love is a complex emotion that takes many different forms. Romantic love, familial love, and love between friends all have their joys and sorrows. While love can bring great happiness and fulfillment to our lives, it can also be accompanied by pain and heartbreak. Nevertheless, the importance of love in our lives cannot be overstated, as it is a fundamental part of what makes us human.

About Love Essay Example 3

Love is an emotion that has been the subject of countless songs, poems, and stories throughout history. It is a feeling that can take many forms and can be experienced in various relationships, including romantic, familial, and platonic. Love can bring great joy and fulfillment, but it can also be accompanied by pain and heartbreak. In this essay, we will explore the different forms of love and the ways in which it can affect our lives.

Love is a complex emotion that can take many forms. Romantic love is often the first type of love that comes to mind, and it is characterized by feelings of attraction, passion, and intimacy. This type of love can be experienced between two people of any gender and can lead to long-lasting relationships, marriage, and a family. Familial love is the love that exists between family members, such as parents and children or siblings. This type of love is often unconditional and can provide a sense of security and support. Lastly, platonic love is the love that exists between friends. This type of love can be just as strong as romantic or familial love, but it is not based on physical attraction or blood relations.

Love can bring great joy and fulfillment, but it can also be accompanied by pain and heartbreak. When love is reciprocated, it can create a sense of happiness and contentment that is difficult to describe. However, when love is not returned, it can lead to feelings of rejection, sadness, and even depression. In romantic relationships, heartbreak can occur when one partner decides to end the relationship or when infidelity is involved. In familial relationships, heartbreak can occur when a parent and child have a falling out or when siblings become estranged. In platonic relationships, heartbreak can occur when a friend moves away or when a friendship ends due to a disagreement.

Expressions of love can include physical touch, words of affirmation, acts of service, and quality time spent together. Physical touch can include hugging, kissing, holding hands, or any other physical contact that shows affection. Words of affirmation can include saying “I love you,” complimenting your partner, or expressing your appreciation for someone. Acts of service can include doing something nice for your partner, such as cooking dinner or cleaning the house. Quality time spent together can include going on a date, watching a movie, or simply spending time talking and enjoying each other’s company. These expressions of love can help to strengthen relationships and create a sense of intimacy.

In conclusion, love is a complex emotion that can take on many forms and can affect our lives in various ways. It can bring great joy and fulfillment, but it can also be accompanied by pain and heartbreak. By understanding the different forms of love and the expressions of love, we can create stronger relationships and experience the full range of emotions that love can bring.

About Mr. Greg

Mr. Greg is an English teacher from Edinburgh, Scotland, currently based in Hong Kong. He has over 5 years teaching experience and recently completed his PGCE at the University of Essex Online. In 2013, he graduated from Edinburgh Napier University with a BEng(Hons) in Computing, with a focus on social media.

Mr. Greg’s English Cloud was created in 2020 during the pandemic, aiming to provide students and parents with resources to help facilitate their learning at home.

Whatsapp: +85259609792

[email protected]

Things you buy through our links may earn Vox Media a commission

• The Case for Marrying an Older Man

A woman’s life is all work and little rest. An age gap relationship can help.

In the summer, in the south of France, my husband and I like to play, rather badly, the lottery. We take long, scorching walks to the village — gratuitous beauty, gratuitous heat — kicking up dust and languid debates over how we’d spend such an influx. I purchase scratch-offs, jackpot tickets, scraping the former with euro coins in restaurants too fine for that. I never cash them in, nor do I check the winning numbers. For I already won something like the lotto, with its gifts and its curses, when he married me.

He is ten years older than I am. I chose him on purpose, not by chance. As far as life decisions go, on balance, I recommend it.

When I was 20 and a junior at Harvard College, a series of great ironies began to mock me. I could study all I wanted, prove myself as exceptional as I liked, and still my fiercest advantage remained so universal it deflated my other plans. My youth. The newness of my face and body. Compellingly effortless; cruelly fleeting. I shared it with the average, idle young woman shrugging down the street. The thought, when it descended on me, jolted my perspective, the way a falling leaf can make you look up: I could diligently craft an ideal existence, over years and years of sleepless nights and industry. Or I could just marry it early.

So naturally I began to lug a heavy suitcase of books each Saturday to the Harvard Business School to work on my Nabokov paper. In one cavernous, well-appointed room sat approximately 50 of the planet’s most suitable bachelors. I had high breasts, most of my eggs, plausible deniability when it came to purity, a flush ponytail, a pep in my step that had yet to run out. Apologies to Progress, but older men still desired those things.

I could not understand why my female classmates did not join me, given their intelligence. Each time I reconsidered the project, it struck me as more reasonable. Why ignore our youth when it amounted to a superpower? Why assume the burdens of womanhood, its too-quick-to-vanish upper hand, but not its brief benefits at least? Perhaps it came easier to avoid the topic wholesale than to accept that women really do have a tragically short window of power, and reason enough to take advantage of that fact while they can. As for me, I liked history, Victorian novels, knew of imminent female pitfalls from all the books I’d read: vampiric boyfriends; labor, at the office and in the hospital, expected simultaneously; a decline in status as we aged, like a looming eclipse. I’d have disliked being called calculating, but I had, like all women, a calculator in my head. I thought it silly to ignore its answers when they pointed to an unfairness for which we really ought to have been preparing.

I was competitive by nature, an English-literature student with all the corresponding major ambitions and minor prospects (Great American novel; email job). A little Bovarist , frantic for new places and ideas; to travel here, to travel there, to be in the room where things happened. I resented the callow boys in my class, who lusted after a particular, socially sanctioned type on campus: thin and sexless, emotionally detached and socially connected, the opposite of me. Restless one Saturday night, I slipped on a red dress and snuck into a graduate-school event, coiling an HDMI cord around my wrist as proof of some technical duty. I danced. I drank for free, until one of the organizers asked me to leave. I called and climbed into an Uber. Then I promptly climbed out of it. For there he was, emerging from the revolving doors. Brown eyes, curved lips, immaculate jacket. I went to him, asked him for a cigarette. A date, days later. A second one, where I discovered he was a person, potentially my favorite kind: funny, clear-eyed, brilliant, on intimate terms with the universe.

I used to love men like men love women — that is, not very well, and with a hunger driven only by my own inadequacies. Not him. In those early days, I spoke fondly of my family, stocked the fridge with his favorite pasta, folded his clothes more neatly than I ever have since. I wrote his mother a thank-you note for hosting me in his native France, something befitting a daughter-in-law. It worked; I meant it. After graduation and my fellowship at Oxford, I stayed in Europe for his career and married him at 23.

Of course I just fell in love. Romances have a setting; I had only intervened to place myself well. Mainly, I spotted the precise trouble of being a woman ahead of time, tried to surf it instead of letting it drown me on principle. I had grown bored of discussions of fair and unfair, equal or unequal , and preferred instead to consider a thing called ease.

The reception of a particular age-gap relationship depends on its obviousness. The greater and more visible the difference in years and status between a man and a woman, the more it strikes others as transactional. Transactional thinking in relationships is both as American as it gets and the least kosher subject in the American romantic lexicon. When a 50-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman walk down the street, the questions form themselves inside of you; they make you feel cynical and obscene: How good of a deal is that? Which party is getting the better one? Would I take it? He is older. Income rises with age, so we assume he has money, at least relative to her; at minimum, more connections and experience. She has supple skin. Energy. Sex. Maybe she gets a Birkin. Maybe he gets a baby long after his prime. The sight of their entwined hands throws a lucid light on the calculations each of us makes, in love, to varying degrees of denial. You could get married in the most romantic place in the world, like I did, and you would still have to sign a contract.

Twenty and 30 is not like 30 and 40; some freshness to my features back then, some clumsiness in my bearing, warped our decade, in the eyes of others, to an uncrossable gulf. Perhaps this explains the anger we felt directed at us at the start of our relationship. People seemed to take us very, very personally. I recall a hellish car ride with a friend of his who began to castigate me in the backseat, in tones so low that only I could hear him. He told me, You wanted a rich boyfriend. You chased and snuck into parties . He spared me the insult of gold digger, but he drew, with other words, the outline for it. Most offended were the single older women, my husband’s classmates. They discussed me in the bathroom at parties when I was in the stall. What does he see in her? What do they talk about? They were concerned about me. They wielded their concern like a bludgeon. They paraphrased without meaning to my favorite line from Nabokov’s Lolita : “You took advantage of my disadvantage,” suspecting me of some weakness he in turn mined. It did not disturb them, so much, to consider that all relationships were trades. The trouble was the trade I’d made struck them as a bad one.

The truth is you can fall in love with someone for all sorts of reasons, tiny transactions, pluses and minuses, whose sum is your affection for each other, your loyalty, your commitment. The way someone picks up your favorite croissant. Their habit of listening hard. What they do for you on your anniversary and your reciprocal gesture, wrapped thoughtfully. The serenity they inspire; your happiness, enlivening it. When someone says they feel unappreciated, what they really mean is you’re in debt to them.

When I think of same-age, same-stage relationships, what I tend to picture is a woman who is doing too much for too little.

I’m 27 now, and most women my age have “partners.” These days, girls become partners quite young. A partner is supposed to be a modern answer to the oppression of marriage, the terrible feeling of someone looming over you, head of a household to which you can only ever be the neck. Necks are vulnerable. The problem with a partner, however, is if you’re equal in all things, you compromise in all things. And men are too skilled at taking .

There is a boy out there who knows how to floss because my friend taught him. Now he kisses college girls with fresh breath. A boy married to my friend who doesn’t know how to pack his own suitcase. She “likes to do it for him.” A million boys who know how to touch a woman, who go to therapy because they were pushed, who learned fidelity, boundaries, decency, manners, to use a top sheet and act humanely beneath it, to call their mothers, match colors, bring flowers to a funeral and inhale, exhale in the face of rage, because some girl, some girl we know, some girl they probably don’t speak to and will never, ever credit, took the time to teach him. All while she was working, raising herself, clawing up the cliff-face of adulthood. Hauling him at her own expense.

I find a post on Reddit where five thousand men try to define “ a woman’s touch .” They describe raised flower beds, blankets, photographs of their loved ones, not hers, sprouting on the mantel overnight. Candles, coasters, side tables. Someone remembering to take lint out of the dryer. To give compliments. I wonder what these women are getting back. I imagine them like Cinderella’s mice, scurrying around, their sole proof of life their contributions to a more central character. On occasion I meet a nice couple, who grew up together. They know each other with a fraternalism tender and alien to me.  But I think of all my friends who failed at this, were failed at this, and I think, No, absolutely not, too risky . Riskier, sometimes, than an age gap.

My younger brother is in his early 20s, handsome, successful, but in many ways: an endearing disaster. By his age, I had long since wisened up. He leaves his clothes in the dryer, takes out a single shirt, steams it for three minutes. His towel on the floor, for someone else to retrieve. His lovely, same-age girlfriend is aching to fix these tendencies, among others. She is capable beyond words. Statistically, they will not end up together. He moved into his first place recently, and she, the girlfriend, supplied him with a long, detailed list of things he needed for his apartment: sheets, towels, hangers, a colander, which made me laugh. She picked out his couch. I will bet you anything she will fix his laundry habits, and if so, they will impress the next girl. If they break up, she will never see that couch again, and he will forget its story. I tell her when I visit because I like her, though I get in trouble for it: You shouldn’t do so much for him, not for someone who is not stuck with you, not for any boy, not even for my wonderful brother.

Too much work had left my husband, by 30, jaded and uninspired. He’d burned out — but I could reenchant things. I danced at restaurants when they played a song I liked. I turned grocery shopping into an adventure, pleased by what I provided. Ambitious, hungry, he needed someone smart enough to sustain his interest, but flexible enough in her habits to build them around his hours. I could. I do: read myself occupied, make myself free, materialize beside him when he calls for me. In exchange, I left a lucrative but deadening spreadsheet job to write full-time, without having to live like a writer. I learned to cook, a little, and decorate, somewhat poorly. Mostly I get to read, to walk central London and Miami and think in delicious circles, to work hard, when necessary, for free, and write stories for far less than minimum wage when I tally all the hours I take to write them.

At 20, I had felt daunted by the project of becoming my ideal self, couldn’t imagine doing it in tandem with someone, two raw lumps of clay trying to mold one another and only sullying things worse. I’d go on dates with boys my age and leave with the impression they were telling me not about themselves but some person who didn’t exist yet and on whom I was meant to bet regardless. My husband struck me instead as so finished, formed. Analyzable for compatibility. He bore the traces of other women who’d improved him, small but crucial basics like use a coaster ; listen, don’t give advice. Young egos mellow into patience and generosity.

My husband isn’t my partner. He’s my mentor, my lover, and, only in certain contexts, my friend. I’ll never forget it, how he showed me around our first place like he was introducing me to myself: This is the wine you’ll drink, where you’ll keep your clothes, we vacation here, this is the other language we’ll speak, you’ll learn it, and I did. Adulthood seemed a series of exhausting obligations. But his logistics ran so smoothly that he simply tacked mine on. I moved into his flat, onto his level, drag and drop, cleaner thrice a week, bills automatic. By opting out of partnership in my 20s, I granted myself a kind of compartmentalized, liberating selfishness none of my friends have managed. I am the work in progress, the party we worry about, a surprising dominance. When I searched for my first job, at 21, we combined our efforts, for my sake. He had wisdom to impart, contacts with whom he arranged coffees; we spent an afternoon, laughing, drawing up earnest lists of my pros and cons (highly sociable; sloppy math). Meanwhile, I took calls from a dear friend who had a boyfriend her age. Both savagely ambitious, hyperclose and entwined in each other’s projects. If each was a start-up , the other was the first hire, an intense dedication I found riveting. Yet every time she called me, I hung up with the distinct feeling that too much was happening at the same time: both learning to please a boss; to forge more adult relationships with their families; to pay bills and taxes and hang prints on the wall. Neither had any advice to give and certainly no stability. I pictured a three-legged race, two people tied together and hobbling toward every milestone.

I don’t fool myself. My marriage has its cons. There are only so many times one can say “thank you” — for splendid scenes, fine dinners — before the phrase starts to grate. I live in an apartment whose rent he pays and that shapes the freedom with which I can ever be angry with him. He doesn’t have to hold it over my head. It just floats there, complicating usual shorthands to explain dissatisfaction like, You aren’t being supportive lately . It’s a Frenchism to say, “Take a decision,” and from time to time I joke: from whom? Occasionally I find myself in some fabulous country at some fabulous party and I think what a long way I have traveled, like a lucky cloud, and it is frightening to think of oneself as vapor.

Mostly I worry that if he ever betrayed me and I had to move on, I would survive, but would find in my humor, preferences, the way I make coffee or the bed nothing that he did not teach, change, mold, recompose, stamp with his initials, the way Renaissance painters hid in their paintings their faces among a crowd. I wonder if when they looked at their paintings, they saw their own faces first. But this is the wrong question, if our aim is happiness. Like the other question on which I’m expected to dwell: Who is in charge, the man who drives or the woman who put him there so she could enjoy herself? I sit in the car, in the painting it would have taken me a corporate job and 20 years to paint alone, and my concern over who has the upper hand becomes as distant as the horizon, the one he and I made so wide for me.

To be a woman is to race against the clock, in several ways, until there is nothing left to be but run ragged.

We try to put it off, but it will hit us at some point: that we live in a world in which our power has a different shape from that of men, a different distribution of advantage, ours a funnel and theirs an expanding cone. A woman at 20 rarely has to earn her welcome; a boy at 20 will be turned away at the door. A woman at 30 may find a younger woman has taken her seat; a man at 30 will have invited her. I think back to the women in the bathroom, my husband’s classmates. What was my relationship if not an inconvertible sign of this unfairness? What was I doing, in marrying older, if not endorsing it? I had taken advantage of their disadvantage. I had preempted my own. After all, principled women are meant to defy unfairness, to show some integrity or denial, not plan around it, like I had. These were driven women, successful, beautiful, capable. I merely possessed the one thing they had already lost. In getting ahead of the problem, had I pushed them down? If I hadn’t, would it really have made any difference?

When we decided we wanted to be equal to men, we got on men’s time. We worked when they worked, retired when they retired, had to squeeze pregnancy, children, menopause somewhere impossibly in the margins. I have a friend, in her late 20s, who wears a mood ring; these days it is often red, flickering in the air like a siren when she explains her predicament to me. She has raised her fair share of same-age boyfriends. She has put her head down, worked laboriously alongside them, too. At last she is beginning to reap the dividends, earning the income to finally enjoy herself. But it is now, exactly at this precipice of freedom and pleasure, that a time problem comes closing in. If she would like to have children before 35, she must begin her next profession, motherhood, rather soon, compromising inevitably her original one. The same-age partner, equally unsettled in his career, will take only the minimum time off, she guesses, or else pay some cost which will come back to bite her. Everything unfailingly does. If she freezes her eggs to buy time, the decision and its logistics will burden her singly — and perhaps it will not work. Overlay the years a woman is supposed to establish herself in her career and her fertility window and it’s a perfect, miserable circle. By midlife women report feeling invisible, undervalued; it is a telling cliché, that after all this, some husbands leave for a younger girl. So when is her time, exactly? For leisure, ease, liberty? There is no brand of feminism which achieved female rest. If women’s problem in the ’50s was a paralyzing malaise, now it is that they are too active, too capable, never permitted a vacation they didn’t plan. It’s not that our efforts to have it all were fated for failure. They simply weren’t imaginative enough.

For me, my relationship, with its age gap, has alleviated this rush , permitted me to massage the clock, shift its hands to my benefit. Very soon, we will decide to have children, and I don’t panic over last gasps of fun, because I took so many big breaths of it early: on the holidays of someone who had worked a decade longer than I had, in beautiful places when I was young and beautiful, a symmetry I recommend. If such a thing as maternal energy exists, mine was never depleted. I spent the last nearly seven years supported more than I support and I am still not as old as my husband was when he met me. When I have a child, I will expect more help from him than I would if he were younger, for what does professional tenure earn you if not the right to set more limits on work demands — or, if not, to secure some child care, at the very least? When I return to work after maternal upheaval, he will aid me, as he’s always had, with his ability to put himself aside, as younger men are rarely able.

Above all, the great gift of my marriage is flexibility. A chance to live my life before I become responsible for someone else’s — a lover’s, or a child’s. A chance to write. A chance at a destiny that doesn’t adhere rigidly to the routines and timelines of men, but lends itself instead to roomy accommodation, to the very fluidity Betty Friedan dreamed of in 1963 in The Feminine Mystique , but we’ve largely forgotten: some career or style of life that “permits year-to-year variation — a full-time paid job in one community, part-time in another, exercise of the professional skill in serious volunteer work or a period of study during pregnancy or early motherhood when a full-time job is not feasible.” Some things are just not feasible in our current structures. Somewhere along the way we stopped admitting that, and all we did was make women feel like personal failures. I dream of new structures, a world in which women have entry-level jobs in their 30s; alternate avenues for promotion; corporate ladders with balconies on which they can stand still, have a smoke, take a break, make a baby, enjoy themselves, before they keep climbing. Perhaps men long for this in their own way. Actually I am sure of that.

Once, when we first fell in love, I put my head in his lap on a long car ride; I remember his hands on my face, the sun, the twisting turns of a mountain road, surprising and not surprising us like our romance, and his voice, telling me that it was his biggest regret that I was so young, he feared he would lose me. Last week, we looked back at old photos and agreed we’d given each other our respective best years. Sometimes real equality is not so obvious, sometimes it takes turns, sometimes it takes almost a decade to reveal itself.

More From This Series

• Can You Still Sell Out in This Economy?
• 7 Stories of Dramatic Career Pivots
• My Mother’s Death Blew Up My Life. Opening a Book and Wine Store Helped My Grief
• newsletter pick
• first person
• relationships
• the good life

The Cut Shop

Most viewed stories.

• What We Know About the Mommy Vlogger Accused of Child Abuse
• When Your Kid Is the Classroom Problem Child
• Everyone Named in the Latest Diddy Lawsuit
• How I Got Scammed Out of $50,000  
• The Real Estate Developer Having Great Sex With Her Ex

Editor’s Picks

Most Popular

What is your email.

This email will be used to sign into all New York sites. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive email correspondence from us.

Sign In To Continue Reading

Create your free account.

Password must be at least 8 characters and contain:

• Lower case letters (a-z)
• Upper case letters (A-Z)
• Numbers (0-9)
• Special Characters (!@#$%^&*)

As part of your account, you’ll receive occasional updates and offers from New York , which you can opt out of anytime.

Advertisement

Supported by

Louis Gossett Jr.’s Greatest Roles: A Streaming Guide

His range was wide, as evidenced by performances in projects as different as “Roots,” “An Officer and a Gentleman” and “Diggstown.”

• Share full article

By Jason Bailey

When most people think of the venerable character actor Louis Gossett Jr., who died Friday at 87 , they understandably summon up his Oscar-winning turn in the 1982 drama “An Officer and a Gentleman.” But he accumulated over 200 credits over a screen, stage and television career that spanned more than 60 years, and brought a skill set that included not only drama but also comedy, science fiction, action and horror. Here are a few highlights from his illustrious career and where to stream them.

Rent or buy it on most major platforms .

Gossett had already established himself as an actor of note onstage, and in television guest shots and small but memorable appearances on film (“The Landlord,” “Skin Game”) when he was cast in the ABC mini-series adaptation of Alex Haley’s best seller. He plays the key role of Fiddler, an older enslaved man who becomes a mentor to the central character, Kunta Kinte (LeVar Burton). Fiddler allows Gossett to display several of the gifts that would distinguish him throughout his career: an inherent dignity, a no-nonsense toughness and a (seemingly contradictory) warmth and humanity. The mini-series was a cultural sensation , breaking records for television viewership, and Gossett would win an Emmy for his unforgettable work.

‘An Officer and a Gentleman’

Stream it on Max ; rent or buy it on major platforms .

Gossett was 45 when he won the Oscar for best supporting actor — the first Black actor to do so — for his magnificent turn in this Richard Gere-fronted romantic drama. The role of Sergeant Foley, the drill instructor who breaks Gere’s hotshot recruit while simultaneously becoming a father figure to the young man, could have been played as a walking, talking cliché. But Gossett, who trained for the role at Camp Pendleton’s school for drill instructors, transcends the tropes of the character, investing Foley with genuine decency and unexpected warmth under his rock-hard exterior. “Mr. Gossett, always a good supporting player, is this time a star,” our critic wrote at the time .

‘Enemy Mine’

Rent or buy it on major platforms .

Had Gossett landed a role like Foley a decade earlier, he might have spent the 1970s playing an assortment of rich and complicated characters. But the 1980s were not exactly a golden era of studio filmmaking, and he struggled to find projects worthy of his considerable talents, often proving the most (or only) noteworthy element of otherwise marginal action pictures like “Iron Eagle” and “Firewalker.” But he got a genuine chance to act in this futuristic sci-fi adventure from the director Wolfgang Petersen (“Air Force One”). Dennis Quaid is an intergalactic pilot marooned on a distant planet with an alien life form; Gossett is said alien, given the unenviable challenge of acting a leading role through pounds of scaly makeup that renders him all but unrecognizable. Yet he’s up to the task, investing the character with pathos and gravitas, while our knowledge of the actor underneath lends serious symbolic weight to the film’s themes of understanding and commonality between races.

‘Diggstown’

Stream it on Tubi and PluoTV ; rent or buy it on Fandango at Home .

One of the undiscovered gems of the Gossett filmography is this sports-tinged comedy, a bit of a specialty for the director Michael Ritchie, whose credits include “Semi-Tough” and “The Bad News Bears.” James Woods is a fast-talking con man and fight promoter who descends on the Georgia town of the title, known for its high-dollar illegal boxing matches, and makes a big bet: His fighter can take on any 10 opponents in 24 hours and beat them all. Gossett is Honey Roy Palmer, the fighter, and at 48, he seems like anything but a sure bet. But in this “Sting”-style twisty tale, no one and nothing are what they seem. It’s a perfect role for the actor, who plays it with a twinkle in his eye and plenty of tricks up his sleeve, and the result is “ a funny and vulgar fable ” that our critic praised for its “speed and cheerful nerviness.”

Gossett received his final Emmy nomination (for outstanding supporting actor in a limited series or movie) for this adaptation of the wildly influential graphic novel by Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore. Series creator Damon Lindelof freely reframed, reinterpreted and remixed the narrative out of its 1980s origins to address not only the hidden corners of America’s racial history, but also the current moment of activism and protest. Gossett appears in the vital supporting role of Will Reeves, grandfather to the protagonist, Angela Abar (Regina King), whose age and wheelchair use hide a secret past: while a policeman in the late 1930s, he took on the secret identity of Hooded Justice, righting the wrongs his racist police department ignored. It’s a staggering performance, and one that speaks to the power of Gossett’s persona: You don’t doubt for one moment that this man was once a literal superhero.

‘The Color Purple’

Though he has several posthumous projects in postproduction, the final feature film appearance during Gossett’s lifetime was his brief but stinging turn in Blitz Bazawule’s adaptation of the Alice Walker story. He appears as Ol’ Mister, father to Colman Domingo’s Mister, the abusive and domineering husband who keeps the protagonist, Celie, under his thumb. In just a handful of scenes, Gossett’s work as a growling, bitter old man tells us everything we need to know about how and why the younger Mister is the way he is. Gossett shared in the nomination for outstanding performance by a cast in a motion picture at the Screen Actors Guild Awards, and that might be the best way to remember him: as an invaluable piece of so many ensembles, a team player who nevertheless always shined bright.