Okay, I figured out how to simplify this without block-quoting certain books that obviously influenced this. I think Zizek is both right because of his influences from Lacan and wrong due to the background influences of capitalism that he doesn't interrogate as much as he thinks he does.
Love in "my" definition consists of three components:
Accepting beings as such. That is, using empathy to see why they are the way they are without trying to put them in a pre-defined box. Love should drive us to see others as they truly are, and stave off apathy. Also, an aside, this is by no means saying you have to empathize with a toxic person or justify doing so, but one should consider that might be an unhealthy kind of love to tolerate a one-sided situation.
Recognition of minds beyond one's own. This is sort of an extension of 1. When you are accepting of a person's reasons for being as they are, it opens you up to seeing them as a thinking being with their own reasons for doing things, which can help immensely with respecting their needs and autonomy.
Attentiveness to potential change. Living things aren't static. They can come upon hardships, weakness, failures, learning, and growth. Love pays attention to these changes, and attempts to ease, aid, teach, or nurture them. My fav example that a lot of people here can identify with is transitioning. Do you still love someone if you cannot support their transition? I would say no. Similarly, I would say it's not love if you're apathetic to someone's struggle with addiction or food insecurity, etc.
As an aside: romance/limerance can be a shortcut to these, but imo isn't love in itself. It's very VERY easy to objectify partners and fwbs and so many relationships self-destruct due to possessiveness. To achieve love with a romantic partner, it's imperative to recognize their humanity.
Tbh, I think your feelings are normal because capitalism sucks the humanity out of everything, not because you're a 'sociopath.' But with a little work these things are easy to set goals for.
Like I said in my other comment, the 'ineffibility' of love is capitalist obfuscation so they can sell you dating apps and nucular families and junk. It's more simple than it looks. But my preferred authors also tie a community aspect into it which I post a lot about.
I think loving humanity for struggling for existence is pretty natural. Gilman-Opalsky talks about that in his analysis of the work of Weil and Levinas, and follows it up with a chapter about Plato's Symposium in which he proposes the ancient Greek "soulmate" concept could be expanded to apply to entire communities. That is: rather than expecting an individual to complete your 'soul' as in the traditional metaphor, it is the entire community which you help complete and which simultaneously completes you.
As for loving individuals, this sort of generalized love of humanity can be split up into sort of 'slices' of 'attention' (since attention is the limiting resource here). And you can synthesize that love with romance or limerance or cathexis if it feels right for that relationship.
Okay, I figured out how to simplify this without block-quoting certain books that obviously influenced this. I think Zizek is both right because of his influences from Lacan and wrong due to the background influences of capitalism that he doesn't interrogate as much as he thinks he does.
Love in "my" definition consists of three components:
As an aside: romance/limerance can be a shortcut to these, but imo isn't love in itself. It's very VERY easy to objectify partners and fwbs and so many relationships self-destruct due to possessiveness. To achieve love with a romantic partner, it's imperative to recognize their humanity.
Tbh, I think your feelings are normal because capitalism sucks the humanity out of everything, not because you're a 'sociopath.' But with a little work these things are easy to set goals for.
deleted by creator
Like I said in my other comment, the 'ineffibility' of love is capitalist obfuscation so they can sell you dating apps and nucular families and junk. It's more simple than it looks. But my preferred authors also tie a community aspect into it which I post a lot about.
deleted by creator
I think loving humanity for struggling for existence is pretty natural. Gilman-Opalsky talks about that in his analysis of the work of Weil and Levinas, and follows it up with a chapter about Plato's Symposium in which he proposes the ancient Greek "soulmate" concept could be expanded to apply to entire communities. That is: rather than expecting an individual to complete your 'soul' as in the traditional metaphor, it is the entire community which you help complete and which simultaneously completes you.
As for loving individuals, this sort of generalized love of humanity can be split up into sort of 'slices' of 'attention' (since attention is the limiting resource here). And you can synthesize that love with romance or limerance or cathexis if it feels right for that relationship.