By: Connor Judson Garrett – June 3, 2016
Defining love is nearly impossible. To find a definition everyone agrees on is about as subjective as asking someone to define happiness – we have a general understanding of what it is, but the words we’d put it in are deeply personal.
What we do agree on is that there are many types of love and a range of intensities we feel. To attempt to find an encompassing definition that can fit the varieties and intensities of love we have to make it simple.
The definition I’m going to propose does not fit all contexts. If you apply it to marriage I’m not sure it’ll be a happy one, but this particular definition is honest and true because it’s rooted in the present. If you have to remind yourself why you love someone it could be argued that in lapse you were momentarily out of love. We often equate love with stability, and choice, so we think our way through these lapses for relationships to succeed. That kind of love is more like thoughtfulness and caring. An alternative is to equate love with truth – not truth directed towards another, but being true to yourself.
If we don’t twist the definition of love to suit us pragmatically for the sake of our relationship’s longevity or for a socially practical definition then we can uncover its meaning. Think back to when you’ve been “in love.” Forget happy endings or rewriting the narrative with an asterisk if it didn’t work out – it was real – you thought about that person throughout the day and you cherished them – you were overwhelmed with feelings, overwhelmed by the thought of that person, and sometimes you didn’t know what to do with it.
This might sound like passion, so you can dismiss it if you’d like, but then is it worth its weight without a bit of madness?
Love is reverie with a dash of delirium.