Love only comes from the outside, it brings you back into attachment to what you cannot control and instigate. Love is an alienated area that advances from the unknown, from a place different from me. Love exiles me from outside.As for loving myself from myself, this generally means: I alone am sufficient to love myself. Self-love is either from one self or from two different egos.

1-The first denies heterogeneity, so the ego does not separate from itself in order to love. It is impossible for a single ego to be multiple and answer the doubt, “Does anyone love me?".

2-The second is unbelievable: how can the alter ego confirm her love for me in particular, as long as I am a stranger and different from her. We may adopt the distinction between the transcendental ego and the concrete ego to solve the dilemma, but it is not cognitively correct, so how can we be satisfied with it philosophically? Some will say: Why deny the power of the ego, without any stranger relying on my love and then assuring me of my love?.

You must go ahead of your ego and love yourself as heterosexual, because those who loved you (your parents) did so only because they preceded you, so they loved you before you were able to receive their love. What true love awaits is others. If you claim to love yourself, you must bear the false claim that you are racing against yourself. Self-love is not a verbal illusion, but a noble, deep-rooted love that is older and older than you.

To answer "Does anyone love me?" I must first acknowledge that I am loved from the outside,and then in particular, acknowledge that the decision to love myself is not only equal to vanity, but exceeds it with strength and conviction.

Therefore, without transcendence over yourself and your expectation of others who are supposed to love you, every love similar to vanity only serves to strengthen sovereignty. One positive answer to the question “Does anyone love me?” is not enough. Only extravagance that surprises and exceeds is enough.The act of love requires distance and going the distance. The act of love requires more than a distance that is artificial, or really etched, or really cut off.

So, if I can't get ahead of myself, or go the extra mile,or go the distance, then I can't think or accomplish the formula {{I love myself}}. So would that mean we are incapable of loving ourselves and it's impossible for one to love his self?

  • You may find inspiring the conversation of Yajnavalkya to his beloved wife Maitreyi as he is preparing to die.
    – Rushi
    Feb 8 at 16:19
  • 1
    "You must go ahead of your ego and love yourself as heterosexual". What does ones gender have to do with all this?
    – JonathanZ
    Feb 8 at 17:29
  • An ancient Zen master once was asked by a stranger a deepity puzzle 'Who was I before I were born and when I were born I was who?'... Feb 8 at 20:18

2 Answers 2


Love as Interactive Memories

Jesus advocates the effort to love of God, as taught by Moses, and to gain the knowledge of God as the Father in heaven. This implies that the instinct to love God exists in the self; and the ability to gain the knowledge of the Father in heaven exists in the self; but the knowledge itself may be present or absent. In more general terms learning to love or hate seems to develop as the product of a process in which the self and not-self are both active sources of cause.

Love comes from inside and outside, in the context of drama, as the product of an emotional process that I characterize as pleasure in the presence of another human or living thing. The self and the not-self are joint sources of cause, always operating at the same time, in the context of human drama. However, when the not-self is aiding the self to feel vital-pleasure (the fates are kind) then the self tends to recognize itself as the sole or dominant source of cause once one survives the potential ordeal of early life trauma.

Love versus Self-Esteem

Baruch Spinoza, in The Ethics, gives a working definition of love:

Love is a feeling of pleasure accompanied by an idea of its external cause.

As I recall Spinoza uses the adjective external in his definition of love. Also, I think he further describes self-approval and/or pride as the generic idea of the self as the cause of pleasure.

Nathanial Branden, in The Psychology of Self-Esteem, describes self-esteem as a conscious statement expressing two judgments passed on the self:

Self-esteem is the sum of two judgments passed on the self expressed in this sentence: I am fit and worthy to live.

According to Branden the emotional source of self-esteem is an experience of admiration. During this process that he calls admiration there is pleasure in observing a plant, animal, or another person as a fellow living being. In the context of the interaction or experience of self in relation to other living things the self forms the emotional foundations for the explicit moral judgment: "I am fit and worthy to live". Branden describes how parents and authorities undermine the development of self-esteem but he does not focus much on the many patterns of pain and deprivation that would be involved in the dramatic formation of judgments of the self as fit or unfit or worthy or unworthy to enjoy admiration or vital pleasure as the essence of interaction with other humans and all living beings.

If one combines the ideas of Spinoza and Branden in the context of introspection then it is not unreasonable to observe that love and self-esteem are both products of the process that we experience internally as pleasure in the presence of other humans or other living beings. Black Elk said man would die from loneliness if not for the animals. Besides using animals as economic resources Native man gains much pleasure and vitality from observing the vitality of the so-called lower animals.


Thete is the famous enlightenment difference between amoure propre and amour de soi.

"vanity". In philosophy, it is a term used by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who contrasts it with another kind of self-love which he calls amour de soi. According to Rousseau, the difference between the two is that amour-propre assumes that self-esteem can only be found by gaining the approval of others, whereas amour de soi involves one's feelings for oneself alone, without any intervening concerns about how one is seen by others. According to Rousseau, amour de soi is more primitive and is compatible with wholeness and happiness, while amour-propre is a form of self-love that arose only with the appearance of society and individuals' consequent ability to compare themselves with one another. Rousseau thought that amour-propre was subject to corruption, thereby causing vice and misery. But in addition, by guiding us to seek others' approval and recognition, amour-propre can contribute positively to virtue.


Getting the right balance at different times and for different people may even be like an artform. However, loving others is far more preferable, I think, to loving oursevles. This isn't a philosophical maxim, and I just think it reflects better on our ilves and ourselves, paradoxically perhaps.

  • Exalted pleasure may arise in the womb. Self-other intuition arises (Madonna-child archetype) with no need to interact with others. During and after birth bouts of intense pain are certain to occur for a mammal born alive. Philosophers tend to be intellectuals who do recognize their feelings of intense pleasure or pain as maps to ideas of cause. Therefore, these intellectuals fail to incorporate the scriptural allegory of "eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" into their philosophy. A Hebrew prophet says, by old age, one can learn to reject the bad and choose the good. Feb 9 at 17:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .