Hi, Ava. Would you please say more about the following excerpt from your post?
"If you’re good at relationships, you don’t need to be good at literally anything else; if you’re bad at relationships, you will never be happy, no matter what other virtues you possess or what you achieve in the world."
So, can you love another and not love the whole world? Genuinely asking. Because of EVERYTHING we are living today. Is it really love, when it excludes the rest of humanity, when it sufices itself in indulging in selective empathies?? Love, real love means a certain compassionate outlook on life, one that will do justice to our yearning both for romantic love and for connection to others.
Yes. You can. Most people don't love the whole world. It's too hard. The world is too big. I think a lot of people love their idea of whole world, but that is not the same thing. One problem is how easy it is to become intolerant of people whose idea of the whole world is different from you own. If you love your idea, then disagreement can feel like hate, when it usually isn't anything more than a different perspective.
I found Ava’s article to be thoughtful and personal, and I appreciate her sharing her take on the very messy realities of actually embracing someone deeply into your life. Her reflections on style, judgment, and emotional exposure felt grounded in lived experience; flawed and honest in all the ways that love actually is.
In contrast, the idea that love must be universal to be “real” undermines the depth of sincere individual bonds, romantic or not. Loving someone deeply and meaningfully is not invalidated by refusing to extend that same warmth to war criminals, abusers, or those who take joy in systemic cruelty. When you love with intention and choose who and what to nurture, that’s more honest and more enriching to the people involved.
Real compassion includes discernment. Boundaries don’t diminish love, they protect its integrity.
Obviously, "loving someone deeply and meaningfully is not invalidated by refusing to extend that same warmth to war criminals, abusers, or those who take joy in systemic cruelty". You bringing war criminals into the conversation talks volumes about your own stand on humanity as a whole. I am - obviously - referring to loving, ergo caring, for others. In joy, in sufferance, in need. I am talking about compassion (that comes from love) for people as a principle. Everywhere. I am talking about AGAPE, not about EROS. Any conversation about love that does not include the love for "The Other" is a self-centered one that only leads to extremes of selfishness or hatred.
Thank you for clarifying your perspective. That wasn’t evident from your original comment, which came across as suggesting that selective love—love with discernment—was inherently lesser. I appreciate that you’re pointing toward agape now.
To be clear, my mention of war criminals and abusers was not intended as a provocation but rather a direct response to the absolutism in your phrasing. When someone asks, “Is love real if it excludes the rest of humanity?” the short answer is "Yes." You said you were “genuinely asking,” so I attempted to explain my reasoning. The natural extension of that question (the only part I thought was actually obvious) becomes: Is there a line, and where do we draw it?
I believe in compassion. It’s precisely why I’m here, trying to promote discourse and the re-evaluation of flawed ideas. I believe people can change. I only reply now in the hope that I might bring you to my way of thinking; or perhaps you can show me why mine is flawed.
I also believe you can be compassionate without supporting evil. If you feed the army that invades your nation and empower them to enslave you and your kin, what has your agape wrought? Yes, I cite extremes—but your question, the idea of loving the whole world, is also extreme.
Care and compassion are not the same as love. (Amare, non ergo curare.) I can care about the suffering of someone who has caused great harm. I will bind their wounds, give them a blanket if they are cold, and prevent them from starving. But I choose not to extend them the same warmth I reserve for those I trust and love. That boundary doesn’t make my love selfish—it makes it sincere.
My original post wasn’t about eros. I explicitly said “romantic or not” because I knew it was not obvious. I believe agape is most meaningful when it acknowledges the full complexity of human behavior—not as an excuse for moral absolutism, but as a reason to love wisely.
If that sounds grim, so be it. I still have hope. But I choose to make my love matter, not dissolve it into an abstract principle so diffuse it no longer touches the ground.
I’m still not sure how your original comment connected with Ava’s article, which I found to be a grounded and relevant meditation on practical relational intimacy. It felt like a different conversation entirely. I believe Ava’s article resonates with my personal conviction to love wisely.
Yes to a Modern Love type of thing on Substack. That Gillian Rose quote and your follow-up thought are fantastic! If one wants a sustainable romantic relationship, one must find harmony in the apparent conflict between platonic and romantic love, because why would anyone want to be in a long term relationship with someone they were not friends with? And this will necessarily involve risk and the potential for hurt and change. Zen teacher Reb Anderson says that in early marriage ceremonies they would say, "I plight thee my troth", which is to say, I endanger my truth to you. We can choose to do so in seeking an expanded sense of our own truth, often too small and confining a truth to live within alone.
"But that would necessarily be a rejection of the merging that occurs in romantic love, where what they do to themselves becomes partially something they do to you."
i've been thinking a lot about the distinction between platonic and romantic love and this clarified a lot of things for me so succinctly! i wonder if the opposite is a thing too – being as involved with your friendships as you would a romantic partner.
It is true for any relationship where there is a deep commitment binding you together. I live and work with three friends on a co-operative smallholding. I’m affected by almost everything they do, or don’t.
It is true for any relationship where there is a deep commitment binding you together. I live and work with three friends on a co-operative smallholding. I’m affected by almost everything they do, or don’t.
Great piece of thinking and writing here. Putting life experience into concise concepts and thus into accurate words, let alone dissecting and describing relational styles, was never my strong suit. Mercy. Merciless, merciful. Tasty.
Interesting read. What comes to my mind is what I learnt from The Relationship Anarchy Smorgasbord. I've also been taught what a romantic relationship should be in a quiete general way and I'm married almost for 20 years. Discussions with poly people and other has widened my lense, and relaxed my view too —and my wife's too.
I'm not trying to convince anyone here, but if the author or anyone reading this piece is interested in exploring this subject further, I highly recommend to read about the Smorgasbord. It really expanded my way of understanding relationships. Romantic ones and beyond. Thanks to the author reminding me of that resource.
Thank you. Good points. I can love people for who they are, but the way they handle things that directly affect me can certainly change my mind about continuing that relationship or not: friendships or romantic relationships. Over the years I’ve learned to believe someone when they show me who they are & make decisions based on that.
Hello Ava. Nice post. I agree with the clash of lifestyles. I always called that the difference between attraction and compatibility. You can be attracted to someone, but not compatible at all. I suppose we all have a list of exes like that. Your perspective on friends and romantic partners is also spot on, based on my experience. You know the song 'Love Changes (Everything)' fits right here. I blame it on backwards hope. The kind of hope that keeps us trapped in what was not what is, and yes, I have spent way too long in that space myself. Keep writing, I will subscribe and follow. Thanks
Insightful, thanks for your words. You touched briefly on the modern love type in your pretext. I think there is a certain friction between the expectation of relationships in old fashioned and modern terms. I believe, as we move towards more modern relationships (which can be contextualised by so many things whether media, world challenges, less religion, growing female independence etc.), the idea of writing about what ‘it’ is becoming is pretty fascinating and I would be interested to read more. Enjoy Europe!
Hello Ava, I am thrilled to find your writing and how you have articulated into words the feelings I have had about certain experiences in my own life. I find relationships not so easy to understand oftentimes, so am very intentional in who I choose to befriend or with whom I spend time. It's great to find that you are willing to delve deeper into the granular and messy complexities that relationships bring about in each of us when thinking about who we really are, and then to write and share about it. All the best in your journey.
Hi, Ava. Would you please say more about the following excerpt from your post?
"If you’re good at relationships, you don’t need to be good at literally anything else; if you’re bad at relationships, you will never be happy, no matter what other virtues you possess or what you achieve in the world."
Thank you.
So, can you love another and not love the whole world? Genuinely asking. Because of EVERYTHING we are living today. Is it really love, when it excludes the rest of humanity, when it sufices itself in indulging in selective empathies?? Love, real love means a certain compassionate outlook on life, one that will do justice to our yearning both for romantic love and for connection to others.
Yes. You can. Most people don't love the whole world. It's too hard. The world is too big. I think a lot of people love their idea of whole world, but that is not the same thing. One problem is how easy it is to become intolerant of people whose idea of the whole world is different from you own. If you love your idea, then disagreement can feel like hate, when it usually isn't anything more than a different perspective.
I found Ava’s article to be thoughtful and personal, and I appreciate her sharing her take on the very messy realities of actually embracing someone deeply into your life. Her reflections on style, judgment, and emotional exposure felt grounded in lived experience; flawed and honest in all the ways that love actually is.
In contrast, the idea that love must be universal to be “real” undermines the depth of sincere individual bonds, romantic or not. Loving someone deeply and meaningfully is not invalidated by refusing to extend that same warmth to war criminals, abusers, or those who take joy in systemic cruelty. When you love with intention and choose who and what to nurture, that’s more honest and more enriching to the people involved.
Real compassion includes discernment. Boundaries don’t diminish love, they protect its integrity.
Obviously, "loving someone deeply and meaningfully is not invalidated by refusing to extend that same warmth to war criminals, abusers, or those who take joy in systemic cruelty". You bringing war criminals into the conversation talks volumes about your own stand on humanity as a whole. I am - obviously - referring to loving, ergo caring, for others. In joy, in sufferance, in need. I am talking about compassion (that comes from love) for people as a principle. Everywhere. I am talking about AGAPE, not about EROS. Any conversation about love that does not include the love for "The Other" is a self-centered one that only leads to extremes of selfishness or hatred.
Thank you for clarifying your perspective. That wasn’t evident from your original comment, which came across as suggesting that selective love—love with discernment—was inherently lesser. I appreciate that you’re pointing toward agape now.
To be clear, my mention of war criminals and abusers was not intended as a provocation but rather a direct response to the absolutism in your phrasing. When someone asks, “Is love real if it excludes the rest of humanity?” the short answer is "Yes." You said you were “genuinely asking,” so I attempted to explain my reasoning. The natural extension of that question (the only part I thought was actually obvious) becomes: Is there a line, and where do we draw it?
I believe in compassion. It’s precisely why I’m here, trying to promote discourse and the re-evaluation of flawed ideas. I believe people can change. I only reply now in the hope that I might bring you to my way of thinking; or perhaps you can show me why mine is flawed.
I also believe you can be compassionate without supporting evil. If you feed the army that invades your nation and empower them to enslave you and your kin, what has your agape wrought? Yes, I cite extremes—but your question, the idea of loving the whole world, is also extreme.
Care and compassion are not the same as love. (Amare, non ergo curare.) I can care about the suffering of someone who has caused great harm. I will bind their wounds, give them a blanket if they are cold, and prevent them from starving. But I choose not to extend them the same warmth I reserve for those I trust and love. That boundary doesn’t make my love selfish—it makes it sincere.
My original post wasn’t about eros. I explicitly said “romantic or not” because I knew it was not obvious. I believe agape is most meaningful when it acknowledges the full complexity of human behavior—not as an excuse for moral absolutism, but as a reason to love wisely.
If that sounds grim, so be it. I still have hope. But I choose to make my love matter, not dissolve it into an abstract principle so diffuse it no longer touches the ground.
I’m still not sure how your original comment connected with Ava’s article, which I found to be a grounded and relevant meditation on practical relational intimacy. It felt like a different conversation entirely. I believe Ava’s article resonates with my personal conviction to love wisely.
Yes to a Modern Love type of thing on Substack. That Gillian Rose quote and your follow-up thought are fantastic! If one wants a sustainable romantic relationship, one must find harmony in the apparent conflict between platonic and romantic love, because why would anyone want to be in a long term relationship with someone they were not friends with? And this will necessarily involve risk and the potential for hurt and change. Zen teacher Reb Anderson says that in early marriage ceremonies they would say, "I plight thee my troth", which is to say, I endanger my truth to you. We can choose to do so in seeking an expanded sense of our own truth, often too small and confining a truth to live within alone.
"But that would necessarily be a rejection of the merging that occurs in romantic love, where what they do to themselves becomes partially something they do to you."
i've been thinking a lot about the distinction between platonic and romantic love and this clarified a lot of things for me so succinctly! i wonder if the opposite is a thing too – being as involved with your friendships as you would a romantic partner.
It is true for any relationship where there is a deep commitment binding you together. I live and work with three friends on a co-operative smallholding. I’m affected by almost everything they do, or don’t.
It is true for any relationship where there is a deep commitment binding you together. I live and work with three friends on a co-operative smallholding. I’m affected by almost everything they do, or don’t.
It's magical? First thought, that's an easy way out of that article.
Actually, they do still sell tickets at the airport. Missed a flight and bought a new ticket there in the airport.
Judith
Great piece of thinking and writing here. Putting life experience into concise concepts and thus into accurate words, let alone dissecting and describing relational styles, was never my strong suit. Mercy. Merciless, merciful. Tasty.
So well distilled. Relationship theory 101. Thanks for the clarity.
Interesting read. What comes to my mind is what I learnt from The Relationship Anarchy Smorgasbord. I've also been taught what a romantic relationship should be in a quiete general way and I'm married almost for 20 years. Discussions with poly people and other has widened my lense, and relaxed my view too —and my wife's too.
I'm not trying to convince anyone here, but if the author or anyone reading this piece is interested in exploring this subject further, I highly recommend to read about the Smorgasbord. It really expanded my way of understanding relationships. Romantic ones and beyond. Thanks to the author reminding me of that resource.
Thank you. Good points. I can love people for who they are, but the way they handle things that directly affect me can certainly change my mind about continuing that relationship or not: friendships or romantic relationships. Over the years I’ve learned to believe someone when they show me who they are & make decisions based on that.
Hello Ava. Nice post. I agree with the clash of lifestyles. I always called that the difference between attraction and compatibility. You can be attracted to someone, but not compatible at all. I suppose we all have a list of exes like that. Your perspective on friends and romantic partners is also spot on, based on my experience. You know the song 'Love Changes (Everything)' fits right here. I blame it on backwards hope. The kind of hope that keeps us trapped in what was not what is, and yes, I have spent way too long in that space myself. Keep writing, I will subscribe and follow. Thanks
Thank you Ava. Love your perspective on love affairs.
Insightful, thanks for your words. You touched briefly on the modern love type in your pretext. I think there is a certain friction between the expectation of relationships in old fashioned and modern terms. I believe, as we move towards more modern relationships (which can be contextualised by so many things whether media, world challenges, less religion, growing female independence etc.), the idea of writing about what ‘it’ is becoming is pretty fascinating and I would be interested to read more. Enjoy Europe!
I love the Modern Love idea and I have some amazing stories..
Hey I really enjoyed this. It articulates some of my feelings about recently breaking up with someone, even though I appreciate them a lot.
Hello Ava, I am thrilled to find your writing and how you have articulated into words the feelings I have had about certain experiences in my own life. I find relationships not so easy to understand oftentimes, so am very intentional in who I choose to befriend or with whom I spend time. It's great to find that you are willing to delve deeper into the granular and messy complexities that relationships bring about in each of us when thinking about who we really are, and then to write and share about it. All the best in your journey.