Liberality of love
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
Billy Howard
Love has become a word we use so freely it has lost its true meaning; we “love” our morning coffee, a new pair of shoes, or a catchy song on the radio. This casual and widespread application of a term once reserved for profound human connection has rendered it almost meaningless. When we express the same level of “love” for a slice of pizza as we do for our family, the word loses its power to describe deep affection. This linguistic inflation not only cheapens our language but also risks diluting our understanding of genuine emotional bonds.
The English language has an impressive array of words to describe different shades of positive feeling, yet we overwhelmingly default to “love.” We have “like,” “enjoy,” “appreciate,” and “adore,” each with its own nuanced meaning. Instead of saying, “I love this book,” we could say, “I’m engrossed in this book,” or “I appreciate the author’s intricate plot.” This more precise vocabulary would better reflect our true feelings without overstating them. By using a single word for every positive experience, we flatten our emotional landscape and, thusly, lose the ability to distinguish between the fleeting pleasure of a dessert and the enduring commitment we feel toward a husband, wife, or child.
This isn’t just a matter of semantics. The way we talk about our emotions shapes how we experience them. When we use “love” to describe everything, we become desensitized to its real weight. The phrase “I love you” can begin to sound like “I love pepperoni pizza,” reducing a profound declaration to a casual preference. This trivialization can make it difficult for us to recognize and articulate the unique and powerful nature of genuine love. It can lead to a world where deep, lasting affection is treated with the same casualness as a passing fancy.
The issue is that we are confusing different forms of affection. Ancient Greeks, for example, had several words for love, each with a distinct meaning. Eros referred to romantic or passionate love, while Philia described the deep friendship and loyalty we feel for friends. Storge was the term for natural, familial affection between parents and children and Agape was the highest form of love, a selfless, unconditional love for all humanity. This rich vocabulary allowed them to distinguish between different types of affection, preventing the kind of confusion we now face. By using one word, “love,” for all these different relationships, we are trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
Perhaps it’s time to reclaim the term by being more mindful of our words. When talking about food or hobbies, we can opt for words like “enjoy” or “like” that accurately convey our feelings without overstating them. We can reserve “love” for those relationships and experiences that truly warrant it—the bonds that shape our lives, challenge us, bring profound joy and sorrow. By doing so, we restore the term’s power and honor its true meaning. In a world where so much is fleeting, preserving the language of deep connection is more important than ever.
The casual use of “love” has transformed a powerful and meaningful term into a simple expression of preference. By diluting its significance, we risk losing the ability to truly understand and appreciate the profound emotional connections that define our lives. Let’s start using our words more carefully, so that when we say “I love you,” it truly means something. I could be wrong but it’s just something to consider.
To pose a question, comment, or share your opinion about this opinion, you can reach Howard at bg@authorbghoward.com or P. O. Box 8103, Jacksonville, FL 32239.
