“Do you love someone for what they do, or who they are?”

On basis of ability, you could love someone(or something) both ways, that is, you could love people for their doings, or their “personalities”, the way they are; who they are. This is illustrated through our love for some figures (religious, academic, political, etc…), in that though we don’t necessarily know what the are like in close relationships, or everyday life, we still have “some sort of love” for them, if we do.

It is crucial to note that in our process of questioning the purposes and basis of our love for anything, we also have to be careful about our definition of love. According to Sternberg’s theory of love, love can be understood in terms of a triangular connection of three components (intimacy, passion, and commitment/decision). The different possible combinations of those components result in “different kinds” of love. Some of these kinds are: Romantic love (intimacy and passion only), Companionate love (intimacy and commitment only), and empty love (commitment only).

In that sense, one could notice that different kinds of inputs into relationships could change the nature of emotional matters thereof. Thereby, changing the basis on what and how we formulate those emotions.

As far as the common theme goes, we can narrow down our interest in the matter, and define the questioned type of love to be the romantic or platonic types of love. By exhibiting several common situation, we could conclude sufficiently probable basis we love people on the basis of.

Consider love in its platonic essence, that is consider love present in true friendship relationships. Upon what basis do you think love is present in this case between beams of such a dynamic system? The intuitive answer is: “kinda both”. If we examine this relationship in terms of Sternberg’s theory, it’s a relationship where intimacy is alone present, so counterintuitively commitment isn’t part of the equation. That implies, in a way or another, that there other dependencies that lead us to think of commitment being part of such relationships (expectation of regularly spending time together, being present in times of need, etc…) If that is to imply anything, it is to imply that we need to love what our friends do in order for us to be inclined to practice those factors of commitment, although there are not factually present, or even essential per se. Hence, we actually love our friends for who they are, but we also “need” to love what they do in order for us to call it a true friendship in terms of what is called a universal definition of friendship, or our psychology, if relevant.

Also consider love in its romantic essence, that is consider love present in romantic relationships, or that between those that call each other a “significant other”. In terms of Sternberg’s theory, only passion and intimacy are present. Yet that is misleading in a multicultural sense, or even in terms of differences of visions in many relationships of the same kind (romantic). Commitment can also be present, even if it’s a romantic love. The reason of such confusion is merely due to the naming conventions we follow commonly. For if commitment is present, then it’s to be called a consummate love where every possible component is present, including commitment. So, for our purposes let’s consider romantic love to be equal to that of consummate. In this sense, this kind of love is, in a way, a friendship with the passion and commitment parts being added to it, which makes it very applicable (logically) the implication of the the previous case on this case too!

Now we should note that, in same fashion, we also have to be careful about our definition of “who they are”. As philosophical as it may get, we indeed need not definitive answers to the such. I was once asked a question: “what does home mean to you?” After much thought, I answered that home is that one thing I can define myself with sometimes. It’s a place where a great share of memories are consisting of and at. For one to question themselves, what they would become had they lost their memories, is in fact intriguing. That implies that memories do shape, at least, our conception of self and others. If memories are part of us, and they somehow play a significant part of defining as, then the same applies to many of what those memories are attached to. That is one’s personality, attitude, body language, usual gestures, virtues and vices, etc… one fun(also interesting) insight that you might appreciate noting is the lyrics of Kings of Leon’s Use Somebody. Namely this piece:

“Someone like you,

and all you know,

and how you speak”

In this piece, whomever mentioned , is being described by the way they speak and what they know. Although not an exhaustive of a list to describe someone, but indeed partly illustrates how one knows other and perceives “who they are”.