...I recognize that love has very real (and logical) evolutionary roots for us. It has survival value. A loveless soul (using "soul" purely rhetorically) is a forlorn apparition, unlikely to thrive or be able to function well in human society. The Bible says "We love because God first loved us." For a nonbeliever, I think, instead, "We love because our family first loved us." It's our first experience with it, and individuals who grow up in a loveless household, if they are that unfortunate, suffer for it. The ability to express and feel love is integral to healthy human function, and the roots of it have to be tied to our experience of love in our family (or the lack thereof). If we're loved, we are capable of loving, in return, and passing it along. All fairly obvious.
But when it gets into the realm of romantic love, and what that means, then the Devil's in the details. I don't know how a pragmatic soul feels love, because I'm simply not pragmatic. Maybe a pragmatist's view of love revolves around a kind of cost/benefit analysis of being with/without that person -- like "Zeke is around, Zeke likes to shovel the driveway in the winter, Zeke likes to cook for me -- ergo, I love Zeke, because my life is better with Zeke than without Zeke." Maybe a pragmatist views love in another way, like "Jade is really hot; she looks good on my arm, we look good together, when we're out, everybody checks us out. People can't believe how lucky I am to have Jade. Ergo, I love Jade."
Maybe? I don't know. To me, either of the above seem like dead ends for different reasons. Is love what you can do for the other person, or what you can get from the other person? Or are those merely beneficial side effects of it?
If you love someone, you want to make them happy. Their happiness makes you happier, too (and vice versa -- their pain hurts you). The challenge is when you love someone who might love what you do for them (and, hahah, to them), but maybe they don't love you -- that is, who you are.
To be true, love must be acceptance of the person for who they are. Not who they could be, or who you wish they were, who you thought they were, or what they can do for you. It has to simply be that person bringing you joy simply by being who they are, or you finding joy simply in that person's being.
Our society sort of sabotages that, I think, in the endless creation of wants and needs through lifestyle marketing -- happiness and contentment aren't encouraged; it's always about vaulting from "need" to "need." I think perhaps love has been both idealized and diminished in the popular culture. Romantic love, in particular, because it is not safe, it is often painful and hopeless and desperate, and it is not readily fungible. When marketing conveys the impression that X will make you lovable/desirable, it insinuates that you are not lovable to begin with.
If someone accepts and appreciates you as you are, then you're in a good position, where love is concerned. If you accept and appreciate them, in turn, then you're both better off. Otherwise, somebody's going off a cliff.
