Loving oneself and others

[Tridimity]

It is oft said that, in order to love others, one must first love oneself. What is the reasoning behind this assertion? I can appreciate the fact that, in order to accept the love of another person, we must first love our self - otherwise we are likely to disbelieve their positive comments about our self and to reject their love as we may feel that it is not deserved; that we do not deserve happiness. However, the assertion aforementioned implies that it is impossible to have loving feelings towards another person if we do not first love our self. I cannot think of satisfactory reasons as to why this may be - as far as I can tell, it is possible for a person to lack self-esteem or even to have an extremely negative self-image and yet to still be able to appreciate the qualities in another person to the extent of loving the other person. Have I simply misinterpreted the statement or are there reasons underpinning the statement which I have not thought of? Also, is a neutral self-esteem really insufficient - do we really need to love our self before we are able to love others?

[CharonY]

I think in order to be able to properly discuss it, one has to frame it more precisely. I.e. what is really meant with loving oneself and how does it differ from the proposed "neutral" self esteem?

This appears to be a bit pop-psycho and I wonder how it is phrased in actual literature. What I gather from these and similar phrases appears to be that one has to be at peace with oneself.

 

In this context I interpret loving oneself not as being on the higher percentile of the range of self-esteem (potentially bordering the area of narcissism), but rather being within a broad distribution that you termed "neutral".

 

There is (as expected) quite a bit of complexity. For example, self esteem is generally categorized in implicit (i.e. automatic self evaluation) and explicit self-esteem, which is a more conscious self reflection. Both extremes can exist in the same person. Narcissistic personality disorder is generally associated with high explicit self-esteem, but it has been argued that this, in fact masks low-implicit self esteem (e.g. Kernberg 1985 "Borderline conditions and pathological narcissm").

Either extreme can lead to issues in social interactions as one tends to be more involved with oneself and ones inner turmoil rather than with the significant other.

 

I think what this phrase really tries to express is that one is OK with the faults and issues one might have. Think "love" in terms of accepting and understanding and it should about fit the bill.

[Tridimity]

Thanks CharonY,

 

As will be apparent, I have zero background in Psychology. I too would deem that a neutral self-esteem - a realistic acceptance of one's own attributes and flaws - ought to suffice as a basis for building a healthy relationship with another person. The phrase is often used as a self-explanatory truism however I was unsure as to whether the 'loving' of oneself refers to a highly positive self-image or merely to a neutral self-acceptance - the latter seems closer to the mark. It still seems to me, though, that it is possible to have loving feelings for another person and to maintain some kind of romantic relationship with them, even if one has not yet reached self-acceptance. Perhaps it would represent for some people a kind of psychological and emotional break to quit self-hating for a while and to focus instead on loving somebody else - although this state of affairs may lead to co-dependency or to a one-sided dependency. I would think that it would be possible to have loving feelings for another person from afar, i.e. while not in a relationship with them, even when one's self-esteem is lacking.

 

Perhaps I should look at the literature

 

Tri

Edited November 18, 2013 by Tridimity

[EdEarl]

A newborn infant has not lived long enough to develop a complex psychology. It loves its mother, because mother provides food and comfort. If the newborn did not care to live, i.e., if it did not love itself enough to want to live, it would not care if mother provided food or comfort, and would not love mother.

 

On the other hand, people sometimes commit suicide because they are rejected by someone they profess to love.

 

IDK

[Tridimity]

A newborn infant has not lived long enough to develop a complex psychology. It loves its mother, because mother provides food and comfort. If the newborn did not care to live, i.e., if it did not love itself enough to want to live, it would not care if mother provided food or comfort, and would not love mother.

 

On the other hand, people sometimes commit suicide because they are rejected by someone they profess to love.

 

IDK

 

I guess that both of the above scenarios can be regarded as having as their basis the instinctive desire to propagate one's own genes. The former type of love confers a survival advantage while the latter is perhaps an inappropriate (in evolutionary terms) response to the scuppering of a biologically programmed plan to reproduce. The latter would confer a selective advantage if not for the over-reaction: which is perhaps the reason why evolution has conferred upon most people the psychological and emotional capacity to swiftly move on from rejection and to consider reproduction with a different partner, making oneself equally vulnerable to rejection and heartbreak, as if the first failure had never occurred.

 

It seems that all types of love are at least partly selfish - even friendly love can be regarded as mutual support for the purposes of survival. How quickly we cease to love somebody once they no longer represent a viable reproduction or survival benefit!

[GiantEvil]

 

 

It is oft said that, in order to love others, one must first love oneself. What is the reasoning behind this assertion?

I find that with many oft said assertions that there is no particular reasoning involved. What exactly is self love? And where do we draw the line between an altruistically useful self love and narcissism? I think that things people say is like a stopped clock, mostly wrong except for twice a day.

 

 

It seems that all types of love are at least partly selfish - even friendly love can be regarded as mutual support for the purposes of survival. How quickly we cease to love somebody once they no longer represent a viable reproduction or survival benefit!

What about Romeo and Juliet?

[iNow]

I cannot think of satisfactory reasons as to why this may be

Because we only ever perceive others through the filter of ourselves. If that filter is full of crud, that which passes through it will never be clean and pure.

 

I'm struggling a bit to find the words to express my meaning, but we never really get to "know" someone else, we only ever know our personal version of them. I don't know the "real" tridimity. I only know iNow's version of tridimity. If I don't feel positive about myself or feel a love and acceptance of myself as a human being, then my version of you will forever be skewed and anchored toward the negative.

 

Said another way... If we don't love ourselves, then it's very difficult to ever truly love that part of ourselves made up by our connection with someone else.

 

 

I think what this phrase really tries to express is that one is OK with the faults and issues one might have. Think "love" in terms of accepting and understanding and it should about fit the bill.

I think this is a fantastic point and really couldn't agree more.

[Tridimity]

If we don't love ourselves, then it's very difficult to ever truly love that part of ourselves made up by our connection with someone else.

 

 

This is the part that doesn't seem to fit with reality as I see it. It seems to me that it is possible to be lacking in self-esteem and yet to also have loving feelings for another person with whom one is not in a relationship; to watch them from afar, in their interactions with other people, and to think that they are brilliant and to love them for it. In my experience, the appreciation of natural beauty, for example, the beauty of a rainbow or a waterfall, is not diminished any by a lack of self-esteem - so why should it be different for our appreciation of the beauty of humans?

[CharonY]

That is a very abstract concept that you propose and it seems to me to be outside of the realm of psychology, especially if defined as broad, it is not really quantifiable and becomes more a philosophical question.

What psychologists have investigated in this context is how self-esteem affects relationships. If you love (or claim to love) someone from afar, you are appreciating a mostly abstract concept. your idea of a person that can be embellished as much as you want.

The problem with accepting yourself and others is when the reality clashes with this fantasy, which is almost inevitable in a true long-lasting relationship. One of the issues for example is that if you are unable to accept your flaws, you may also have a harder time to accept them in other people, as they will never be as perfect as you imagine them to be.

This is only a very crude example, but my point is that there are studies based on outcomes (familiar stability, depression, parenting efficacy etc.). But they are analysed in the context of interactions with other people.

[Tridimity]

If you love (or claim to love) someone from afar, you are appreciating a mostly abstract concept. your idea of a person that can be embellished as much as you want.

 

 

Not an abstract concept if they are an integral part of your life and you of theirs; if you are involved in one another's lives and have a substantial degree of contact but that is not occurring in the context of a romantic relationship. It is possible to get to know people pretty well in this way, and especially if they do not realise that you are paying attention, because then they do not alter their behaviour according to the way in which they wish to be perceived. There is then no need for embellishment although I accept your point concerning the flaws which may not be immediately apparent and which would require the kind of interaction only possible in the context of a romantic relationship in order to be discovered.

One of the issues for example is that if you are unable to accept your flaws, you may also have a harder time to accept them in other people, as they will never be as perfect as you imagine them to be.

 

 

If you entirely accept your own flaws, would you really need or crave the approval of anybody else; would you still really desire the love of another, wouldn't you just be content with yourself and feel no compulsion to be accepted by another?

[iNow]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that your love for others will forever fall short of its maximum potential until you first accept your own faults and flaws and find a love of yourself.

[dimreepr]

I think this question, in essence, comes down to understanding; the better you understand yourself the greater the chance you will understand/forgive your friend/partner’s limitations, without which few relationships survive.

Also a frank understanding of yourself leads to peace/love of self and others.

[Tridimity]

I think this question, in essence, comes down to understanding; the better you understand yourself the greater the chance you will understand/forgive your friend/partner’s limitations, without which few relationships survive.

Also a frank understanding of yourself leads to peace/love of self and others.

 

So, essentially, the truism ought to read, 'You must first accept yourself before you can accept another' or something to that effect. Thanks for your comments, that part seems to be fairly clear now.

 

But what of the fact that people who love others also typically seek the approval of those whom they love? E.g. a wife seeks the approval of her husband and a husband seeks the approval of his wife. According to the truism, each person has already accepted their self - has accepted both their attributes and limitations - so why do they seek the approval/acceptance of their partner? I guess it may be because they love their partner and wish to procreate and/or share their life with their partner - their partner's acceptance is a prerequisite for the fulfillment of these objectives - so can be considered not so much as fixing one person's insecurity with the acceptance bestowed by another, as learning to live together happily? What of the people whose limitations and flaws are not so benign that they ought to passively accept them? And what of their potential partner(s) - ought they to accept the limitations and flaws? How do you know what ought to be acceptable and what not? How far ought a person to change their own characteristics so as to minimise their flaws as perceived by their partner? At some point, the person may become so changed by living as a reflection of their partner's expectations that they have all but eroded the last part of their authentic self.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Tridimity

[dimreepr]

I think a more apt truism is “it takes one to know one” and reveals the difference between knowledge and understanding although, of course, acceptance is important; you don’t have to understand to forgive but it helps.

At the heart of this discussion is a more fundamental truism; we are all told of our uniqueness, which is of course true, but however much this massages our ego we are human (as much as every dog is unique, it’s still a dog and behaves as such). Essentially we are all clones and it’s our culture that informs our thinking (meaning, if I had lead your life I’d mostly think/do just as you think/do) mostly, so, for me the truism should read ‘you’re me in a different skin’ and so through completely honest introspection, forgiveness is easy.

[Tridimity]

Some people turn into

 

 

Whomever others want them to be

Edited November 21, 2013 by Tridimity

[dimreepr]

Some people have medical issues and some have historical issues, both understandable and forgivable, although I'm not entirely sure of your point.

[Tridimity]

Some people have medical issues and some have historical issues, both understandable and forgivable, although I'm not entirely sure of your point.

My point is that some people lose their authentic identity while trying to secure the love and approval of their partner.

[iNow]

My point is that some people lose their authentic identity while trying to secure the love and approval of their partner.

In which case, one could argue it wasn't really love in the first place.

[Tridimity]

In which case, one could argue it wasn't really love in the first place.

 

Well, yes, it's just something people try as a means of attempting to secure the love of another. Even if they are successful, the other person will be loving an ignis fatuus.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Tridimity

[dimreepr]

The question you need to ask isn’t, have I wasted my love/understanding on this will-o’-the-wisp, but rather, what cruel circumstance created such a person?

[iNow]

It might be interesting to try defining love again. We began that chat above, but it didn't seem to gain much traction. I bring this up because I realize upon reading the last few posts that my own definition of love is pretty dynamic and evolves with the discussion.

 

Right now, for instance, I'm defining love as the phenomenon which brings out our best, minimizes our worst, and makes us feel more whole... merely as the result of someone ELSEs existence.

[Tridimity]

Yes, let's define love. My ideas of love centre very much on the biological processes, conferred upon us by Evolution, that facilitate procreation and the pair-bonding necessary to successfully raise a child to reproductive age. A number of hormones and neurotransmitters have been implicated in the initial attraction and subsequent long-term attachment including nerve growth factor ("honeymoon" molecule), testosterone, oestrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin (infatuation), oxytocin (attachment) and vasopressin. Clearly, the physiological basis of raw sexual desire (what one might call lust) is necessary for the initiation of a long-term loving relationship but is not sufficient - attachment must occur.

 

However the above description is a best attempt at explaining what happens during the process of falling in love and maintaining a loving relationship from an objective standpoint - I would not propose that it be used as a standalone definition and am much more interested in the subjective experiences of love. E.g. if love is mostly about acceptance of the attributes and limitations of our partner, as has been alluded to earlier in the thread - then why do we not fall in love with our friends in the same way - after all, many of us accept these characteristics of our friends? And does this mean to say that the love between partners in two different couples - one formed between two very honourable people who have little to forgive or accept versus one formed between two people with many vices - is equal in worth? The 'acceptance' definition needs some adjustment imo.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Tridimity

[Tridimity]

It's kind alike when one's hurting oneself,when he can do it to himself it's obvious there's no problem with him to do it to others!

 

 

That's not obvious at all. It is possible to have self-esteem issues but to simultaneously respect other people. I have known of people with self-esteem issues and clinical depression who had thoughts of suicide and yet who respected others.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Tridimity

[davidivad]

It is oft said that, in order to love others, one must first love oneself. What is the reasoning behind this assertion? I can appreciate the fact that, in order to accept the love of another person, we must first love our self - otherwise we are likely to disbelieve their positive comments about our self and to reject their love as we may feel that it is not deserved; that we do not deserve happiness. However, the assertion aforementioned implies that it is impossible to have loving feelings towards another person if we do not first love our self. I cannot think of satisfactory reasons as to why this may be - as far as I can tell, it is possible for a person to lack self-esteem or even to have an extremely negative self-image and yet to still be able to appreciate the qualities in another person to the extent of loving the other person. Have I simply misinterpreted the statement or are there reasons underpinning the statement which I have not thought of? Also, is a neutral self-esteem really insufficient - do we really need to love our self before we are able to love others?

it is important to love yourself (have a positive self esteem). to this extent, the love that you look for will be more healthy for you. as your self esteem improves, you begin to have higher expectations of what a partner should or should not do. yes, you can love anyone you want to but is that love true? may i suggest that taking love apart for it's numerical value may prove in the end that it does not exist at all. this would make you an unloving person. it would defeat the purpose of finding what you want. if you want to believe in love then love yourself first and good things will follow.

Edited January 9, 2014 by davidivad