"We must be our own before we can be another's."

I have heard about and considered the idea that "love" does not exist. Love is a chemical reaction. Love is an emotional crutch that we can liken to anything else that provides us with a security blanket. This basic tenant of the human experience (as well as that of many animals) is a fallacy. I was reading about this idea last night, and at first it came across as crass and overly analytical. It doesn't matter if its a chemical reaction, or if it demonstrates a fault in confidence or character...its still a great feeling, and one that I can't imagine living without. However, if I bounce the initial thought of a loveless existence off my idea of our purpose in this life, which is strictly scientific and evolutionary, I would have to call myself a hypocrite for buying into the drunken euphoria that is our sense of love. Its no different than considering God's existence for the sake of feeling more orderly and purposeful in life. Unconsciously, this is a common occurrence. I can't expect anyone to consider that any of my philosophical ideas hold water if I bend some rules around my logic for the sake of seeming like a good, sensitive guy within the public mainframe. I would be just as guilty of manufacturing the truth-value of a new religion as those who do so with the Bible today. So, I continued reading. As I read on about this idea, it started to open a new train of thought. What was being explained is that real love is not what it is taken for today. Its not the Romeo and Juliet poetry, nor is it the innate love we possess for a relative. Love is not an outward-motioned sentiment attributed to another creature or object. You don't supply love, and you can't make someone happy by loving them. Love is how you feel about yourself and your place in life. If you develop a reliable sense of love from within, your actions are unconsciously loving. If someone else makes you develop your own sense of self-worth and self-interest, you may develop an affinity for that person. You may seek out his or her acquaintance, and may miss him or her when absence. But, this longing and fellowship is not the essence of love. If we reference the love between a couple, or the Romeo and Juliet sense of romanticism, how does this idea of love relate? Its not very complicated. If you have not developed an adequate sense of self-worth, you will develop a sense of love for your partner similar to that of a drug addict and his next fix. You need the chemical reaction, and you need the security. It may not even be that your partner's finest characteristics are tantalizing to you, but rather that your partner has vowed to honor you, be available to you, and adore you. But, that vow may be the result of various factors, including age, family pressure, lust, or community status. This is what makes matrimony so tricky. The smartest and most sincere people can still get caught up in the whirlwind of romanticism. However, it does not mean that this person feels love in its root sense. This is not to say that love cannot develop with your partner, and reach beyond romanticism. Your partner may have the talent and self-assurance to be an example for you, and guide you (even if unconsciously) towards a better, more loving view of yourself and your life. But, what I think what needs to be considered is if the match is such where these pieces fit. I see this philosophy as so basic in structure (love oneself, THEN, love others), but yet so difficult in action. Take another example...your love for a parent or additional relative. Love is assumed, but I see this as a result of the developmental role in your life. Your mother nurtures you, and your father disciplines you...or vice-versa. They have assisted you in becoming who you are. If you like who you are, you assume a responsibility and undying gratitude for their years of service. You are a shadow being raised in their being, and you appreciate them for this. Is this the feeling of love? Its beyond the romanticism that we feel with a partner, so isn't this nearly a tangible and indisputable sentiment? Is it acceptable to consider that you may not "love" your parents? The feeling you have is an appreciation and likeness for their efforts, but you feel love within yourself for it. The internalized sense is love. If you like who you are, they are credited with having created an energy within you that you will never be able to repay. Their duty was to harness the positive in your life, and allow you to proceed accordingly. In essence, what the essay in question did for me was help me accept that love is not a gift that can be given. Its not an connection between two people. Its an unconscious feeling of value that can be attributed to the development and cycling of emotions. You can learn about love from others, but you cannot receive love from others. This does not de-value the love between people (partners or family), but it removes the tendency to rely on others to give it to you. If you take value in who you are, and move forward accordingly, your relationships become easier to understand and foster. If love is taken as a gift that is exchanged, it becomes susceptible to human tragedies and fauts Its an interesting concept. I hope it does not come across as de-valuing love, because that is not my point. My point is that its not a toy. I still say 'i love you' when the feelings are strong. I still fall into the paradise of romanticism. But, maybe we should conceptualize love as an essence that is not to be handled and mishandled. Maybe it can be thought of as the natural perpetuation of goodness. There are no people, places, or things connected to this.