I had recently carried out a survey with 20 people of age 18 – 25 asking them about the definition of love; or what do they construe to be love.
And after many lengthy rants and ramblings about what it probably is, I was inspired by some of the answers to reduce it to a very objective level, which even Albert Einstein failed to do. A one line definition.
Love is an urge to support another after “complete understanding” on a physiological and psychological level.
To dumb it down, it can be said that love can only happen when partners know each other about their looks and thought process. For love to happen there should be knowledge about physical appearance and meeting of minds. This is applicable even in the relation between parents and children, or in any relation for that matter.
So now you can only read on till the conclusion if you accept that love is “complete understanding”.
And that you have agreed with this definition, let’s go forward.
Let’s draw a graph Effort v. Data
In this graph the curve approaches the line of complete data asymptotically and meets at infinity. Meaning thereby, with only infinite amount of effort you can have 100% data about your partner.
For the uninitiated the law of marginal utility says “The additional benefit a person derives from a given increase of his stock of a thing diminishes with every increase in the stock that he already has”
For example the first rosogolla would taste very desirable and as far as I know myself I would even consider the fourth one, it would taste good enough, but the sixth and seventh can’t be acceptable, and the eighth and ninth would actually take the marginal and total utility derived from the rosogollas to the negative and that would mean I would feel sick if I consume one more and I would be ready to pay for not forcing me to have one.
Therefore applying the law of marginal utility on the pursuit of “complete understanding” shows that with every effort we make to know each other we would end up knowing lesser, and at some point of time, long before achieving “complete understanding” we might stop making efforts to understand each other.
So therefore it can be said that it’s impossible to have full knowledge about each other as per this hypothesis; and as full knowledge or “complete understanding” is unachievable so is love.
Don’t lose heart yet, this version of love is very ideal.
Never try to understand each other fully, and you should remain satisfied with whatever information you have. If you try to delve deeper you might get frustrated.
Never expect anyone to love you just because of your looks, that wouldn’t be love that would be something else.
Love doesn’t need beauty or smartness to exist, it just needs understanding and acceptance.
There might be deep desires for each other according to dictionary.reference.com/browse/love but if we were to take this version of love then it becomes very selfish and mainly shows the one way version of love which is unsustainable and not preferable. This form of love is corruptible, incomplete and ends with the ability to form desires, and thus is not transcendental over space and time.
This can even happen between siblings and filial love, but when they discover heinous acts of each other the desire to support is gone, and they may even end up hating each other.