DOG LOVE
Early every morning, in the wealthy neighborhood where I rent a house, moms come jogging by with their dog tethered along side as they run. They can often be heard speaking to the dog lovingly.  In the late afternoon, these same moms jog by after work, with the same happy dog in tow, mom conversing in sweet tones, unanswered of course. Mom (usually) picks up the dog poop her friend deposits.
Late every morning, mom?s children are pushed in strollers on the same street, by happy Latinas, chattering away in Spanish. Mom could just as easily be pushing her kids for exercise, but she prefers the company of her dog apparently.
The power of love is felt by everyone, except almost by definition, the sociopath. How is it ?felt?? As an awareness of the wonderful-ness that we have the ability  - the blessed gift ? to give our love to another.  We can only bask in the warmth of another?s love of us because we know what love is as an awareness of something we possess to give. 
Mom loves her dog because she is desperate to have someone in her family love her. So she gives her love to ?her? dog. (Question whether anyone can ?own? an animal?)
Dogs are direct descendants of wolves.  Wolves are vicious hunting and attack animals that fear no other animal because they naturally hunt in a pack.  Wolves instinctively track prey, then run them down and claw and tear the prey apart.
Consider how much modification of a wolf?s instinctive behavior must be accomplished to make the domestic dog into a gentle, ?loving? family member, who we do not fear around tiny children?  Breeding away the instincts of the wolf leaves the dog entirely unable to survive without the help of its master. Dogs are entirely dependent on the master for food, shelter, care ? everything: the dog is completely disabled by the domestication process, and knows one thing for sure: do not displease the master in any way, or else care by the master might go away.
The ?look? in a dog?s face that the master takes to be ?loving,? is really the look of fear and terror over the possibility that the master might discontinue his/her support; but the master only sees ?love? in the dog?s face because that is what he/she wants the look to mean.
 
 

utube : "I know something about love"
Truth leads to the unconditional love of One. Oneself, One Universe, One is All. 
Be true, Be One.
Love,
=

Love Must be unconditional otherwise it is desire, attachment, and craving. The discussion demonstrates the relative ignorance of our western philosophy views. Authentic love = I want you to be happy. It is impossible for such an emotion to be conditional. 
 
 

Latin translations of the New Testament translate the original Greek agape as caritas, equivalent to the English theme of charity in the King James Edition. Agape originally referred to the Greek word for brotherly love, as opposed to eros (or passionate love): a distinction faithfully preserved in later scriptural contexts.
The New Testament account of charity occurs in Chapter 13 of St. Paul?s First Letter to the Corinthians. Many modern versions of the New Testament prefer to substitute the related theme of love for charity, although this generalization fails to preserve the original distinctions in terms. Semantics aside, St. Paul extols charity as the greatest of the theological virtues, surpassing faith and hope in terms of moral excellence.

" What the world needs, now.. ". ( Love and concrete ).  As bewildering as the reality
of physical light is to the mind, love is one step ahead of that.  Anyway, it is my
opinion that the oneness which is inherent in the reality of all things is a strong
motivation for love and or compassion.  But it also reflects this issue of the nature
of love, which is enigmatic.  Certainly an anchor point on the journey of life and
can be viewed also as the motive power in creation.  Yet we can also speak
pragmatically of it.  But, does the world need it, now?  I can not deny that.  
Great topic!
From Wikipedia: "In March 1965, DeShannon recorded Burt Bacharach and 
Hal David's "What the World Needs Now Is Love"," ?

Are we gonna next be asking what color is our aura? (the answer depends on what kind of LSD you're on)
What is philosophical in the question? Love is a fascination with the conditional. The unconditional version is catechismal. The role of the idea in the historical dialectic is a weird confabulation between Christian faith and the devotion between fighting men in the feudal age. Both forms of "unconditional love" are pathological. The helicopter parent is not devoted, but paranoid, and guilt ridden for the inadequacy of their of understanding, let alone affection, for their child. But of course we put conditions on love, because conditionality is what love is. This is not the end of the story, but until these discussions become philosophical in a fuller sense nothing serious can even get started.

I think there is only one kind of love that can be unconditional (and it applies to friends, family, lovers)--Augustine described it as the way God loves, which we are here to learn, and that is to wish for any person that they become righteous. I cannot learn to like horrible people, any more than I can learn to like the smell of rotten meat, but I can wish them to become good (and for Christians this means to be redeemed in joy forever). There could be no greater love than this, even though we might not like the person (and it applies to ourselves as well as to others). In this way I can love terrorists, child molesters, and mass murderers. But I could never enjoy the company of death camp guards, knowing what they did, unless both of us were seriously transformed.
And I think it is all right to apply this to a child or anyone close to us who might turn against us. I am not sure it works without the highest (and eternal) joy attached, though.

What the world needs now is......., anonymous devotion?

Need to focus the right place! usleatherfirm

To me, this so-called ?unconditional love? is simply an easy way to elude any share of responsibility in the way we shape our world. For example, in speaking about parental unconditional love, there is one example situation where a mother forgives her child, who has just killed an elderly person, and justifies her forgiveness as: ?he is my son and I love him.? Well, yes, he is your son and you love him, and he also killed an innocent? do you love that too? Why should love play any role in this situation in first place? This is not about love. Some see in this mom?s attitude the real thing, the true ?unconditional love,? and accept this mom?s behavior without criticism. My take on this is that unconditional love is a façade that conveniently allows unconditional lovers to not take any sensitive stands, to not face responsibility, to not act or intervene in certain situations. It allows unconditional lovers to become mere spectators and to push away problems or inconveniences. If I am an unconditional lover, why should I bother anyway about anything?
Wouldn?t society be in a better place if instead of rewarding the so-called unconditional love, which really doesn?t serve well lovers or loved ones, it rewarded accountability?

100% of love for your lover/ or maybe close member of your family or whatever but most used with a lover.
Regardless of how that person treats you, or what they do to you, you love them no matter what. Your love to them is unconditional. Them people who give Unconditional love are the true heroes in this world.
If you want to say "someone do my homework" from now it is easy and convenient

I think love is fundamentally based on the vulnerability of the giver.  For us to feel loved, the giver must offer a gift or themselves from a place of vulnerability.
Compare love and charity.  If someone offers something from a place of security, we call it charity.  When someone offers something while making themselves vulnerable, we call it love.  For example, feeding the homeless at a soup kitchen we think of charity because we are giving (time, money, clothing, food) but from a place of security (behind the counter, we go home after.  The one who sits down with the homeless, eats with them and gives them their own coat is considered loving.  It is second person's vulnerability that makes the difference to us.  What makes an act of giving and act of love is when the giver gives from a place of vulnerability.
I think this is the essential definition of love.  If a someone gives from a place of vulnerability, we perceive it as love.  The giver must be vulnerable to the receiver for their act to be felt as love.  Thought anyone?
 
 

In life the many decisions you make in simple terms is based on your depth of knowledge of a certain topic.
 

Dear Sir, 
may I respectfully ask you to kindly consider "who' the Lord Christ was addressing when he mentioned the Law (which actually is Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself.) That is very important because the Law was not given to make great lovers out of us. The purpose of the Law, including loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves, is to show that we are terrible at it. Not only are we terrible at loving God and others, but we have a need to be loved and accepted. More even so, we are terrible at loving God and others, have a need to be love and accepted but only God himself can meet those needs in us.
According to the Word of God (Romans) the Law was given to condemn us, not to liberate us. Instead, it is both God's love and His Spirit that liberates us. If we seek to obey the Law of Sin and Death and try to do what the Law commands, we will find out that the Law actually produces more sin. That is, if the Law says love, we would not love. Therefore, when we live in the pursuit of the Law we are slaves to sin. Meaning, sin is our Master, and if sin is our Master, we wouldn't love because love is not a virtue of the sinful. 
I find it marvelous that you mention "it is important to stress, though,  that  unconditional love is a gift, not an entitlement.  Nobody  really deserves our unconditional love.  Nobody has the right to demand that you love them selflessly." -  That is so true. It is also true that God is not under any obligation to love us unconditionally. Yet, He is the only one capable of such, the only one capable to meet that need in us, and has given us the gift of His love; though we do not deserve it.
So, when Christ spoke about our need to obey the Law, it was not so that we should work harder to become obedient lovers, since that would be in vain. But it was so that we could recognize our need for His forgiveness, His love and His Life; because it is only through those (His forgiveness, His love and His Life) that His love can be manifested in us, both to love Him and others as ourselves.

In my experience, if someone is physically hungry, he/she is not likely attuned with the vulnerability of the giver love. If you are hungry you want to eat. 
I don't care much about about the excessive qualifying in giving. Granted, sometimes you should use wisdom... But, if someone needs and you can give; then, give and go on. If someone needs and you can't give; then, don't give and go on. If there is an opportunity and desire to sit and talk, then sit down and talk. If not, give and go; or, don't give and go. Just treat people with respect and dignity because the homeless person in the kitchen soup is just as vulnerable as the good Samaritan that comes to visit him, if not more.