This statement by German philosopher Precht seemscold and harsh, but it is absolutely true. The term ‘love’ isa monster word because we use it to describe manydifferent things, such as love for animals, children, partners, food, etc. Often, it is even equated with “liking.” This mixing of all these things leads tomisunderstandings in communication and in the emotional world. The Romans and Greeks had different words for each of the above examples, resulting in a logical separation and avoiding confusion in languageand emotions. We, however, have created a single wordfor all these things and ask ourselves what love actuallyis and, above all, in relation to what?
People ask themselves why relationships with othersdon’t work as they would like them to, or rather, why theydon’t feel butterflies in their stomach after a while. Well, that is the non-ideal, i.e., the normal state, because lovewas not intended by nature. And if we are completelyhonest, it is not even a feeling, like hunger or thirst. Youcannot ask, “Do you love me?” Because then the answerwould have to be, “Not right now, but maybe later.”
Love is a bag full of promises and means takingresponsibility, caring, giving and not just taking, beingthere for each other, supporting each other, listening, understanding, physicality, accepting a no even withouta reason, respecting each other as they are, not bending, deforming or wanting to change or adapt. Everyone has their own personality profile, and yes, itcan change over the years, just like your appearance. Respect and acceptance are the main aspects. Itsounds so simple, but it’s harder than you think, becauseeveryday life, individuality, changing circumstances, and personality developments can cause these promises tobe lost.
When it comes to love for a partner, people start frombasic assumptions that cannot be fulfilled. Even the statement that he or she is the better half or thatsomeone is not complete without the other shows a misguided understanding of love. Every person is a whole person. And not feeling complete ultimatelymeans a lack of one’s own being. And now anotherperson is supposed to fill this lack or emptiness? What, theoretically, would this half-person have to give the other person? The other half that is no better? But thenthe person would only be half a person again, albeit witha better half? This example alone shows that thisassumption does not lead to the desired result. Furthermore, the question arises: if people need a betterhalf, how have they survived until now? And why shouldanother person have to fill a void in order to be loved orto call this construct love?
Let’s take a step back, though. To the first encounterbetween two people and the butterfly army that breaksout to turn their entire inner lives upside down. The person is in love and dazzled, but it doesn’t last 40 years. Maybe traces of it remain. Everything else isreplaced by something that can also be very beautiful.
The biochemical reason for the state of infatuation is the so-called phenylethylamine, which causes the release ofthe neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin. Both neurotransmitters are pulled right up to the top. We feellight, carefree, confused, etc. In short, we onlyexperience this state when we are drunk or high. The state can last for up to three years at most. The bodycannot keep dopamine and serotonin levels high forlonger than that, otherwise we would end up goingstupid if we continued to wander through the world withrose-colored glasses on.
Admittedly, this kind of explanation may sound harsh tomost of us. And just because this state has a biochemical background does not mean that love cannotbe more than what has been described. The state ofbeing in love is neurochemically different from what wecall, mean, or associate with love.
Apart from the love for children, which has the biologicalfunction of caring for offspring, romantic love for a singlepartner is a caprice of nature. There are over 400 species of monkeys, including us dry-nosed monkeys. However, there is only one species of monkey, the gibbons, that actually live in monogamous relationshipsfor life. Humans try to construct something that cannoteven be translated 1:1 in nature. Humans try to createsomething that goes beyond nature according to theirown psychological needs. This disruptive view may not be able to shake the romanticized world we havecreated, but it does show us something. It makes usaware of our own limitations.
What do these limitations look like? We search forromantic love, associate it with happiness, or evenequate it with happiness, rush headlong intorelationships that ultimately end in disaster becauseinfatuation and expectations remain unfulfilled, as this isthe normal state of affairs and we believe that this iswhat life is all about, as propagated by the media and films. Singles are often described as lonely or alone and viewed with pity. However, surveys show—and I’ll avoidusing the word “research” here—that happiness orsatisfaction is not determined solely by relationshipstatus. So what is it that we are looking for?
Ultimately, the question is not whether I need a relationship to feel complete and whole because ofsome perceived lack, but whether my life had meaning. And suddenly, from an objective point of view, the necessity of a relationship becomes a subjectivequestion. Precht wonders whether there is an inner God, i.e., positive energy, inner strength, belief in good, hope, confidence, etc.
I think that is exactly the point and, at the same time, the answer. It depends on what attitude a person has towardtheir own life and, above all, whether this person likesthemselves, accepts themselves, and, in commonparlance, loves themselves. After all, we are withourselves our whole lives. Not liking yourself, whetherpersonally or physically, leads to unfulfillment, pessimism, and negative thoughts, which in turn lead tonegative events in life. You can look at this through the laws of attraction or even quantum physics if you want, but in the end, experience shows that these thoughtslead to the result that a person feels fulfilled and lovedwhen they are at peace with themselves and, to staywith Precht, have found their inner guidance or theirinner God.
And what about partnership, relationships, and truelove? A good relationship, a loving, supportive partnership can enrich life. However, it is not the onlysource of satisfaction, fulfillment, self-love, and love forone another in the sense of trust, being there for eachother, mutual support, respect, acceptance, physicality, etc. Such a limitation leads to misunderstandings, tounfulfillable expectations of having to fill a void, and toemotional turmoil.
True fulfillment, as a better term to replace the overlycomplex word “love,” does not come from anotherperson. True fulfillment comes from the ability to behappy with oneself.
What do you think?
Nancy Stork, Unterhaching am 14.08.2025
Leave a Reply