[nonrandomstring]

I too found the Machiavellian deconstruction distasteful at times. But it's a useful lens. Like all such categorical psychology - personality types and whatnot - it's a blunt utility, one that may even rally "experimental evidence" to its support, but ultimately is elegant observation of and in its time.

To be fair, the author acknowledges most of that. The etymology was interesting. Less so the intersection with "class" which is a weak sociological concept in my opinion.

Ultimately I felt it was a cold analysis though. He struggles with defining love other than a coincidence of four types plus sex, which I think misses about 90% of what love is, including fancies and fevers brought on by sunshine and hormones and quite opaque to reason.

There is something odd in reading any account of the passions that attempts to be dispassionate.

While he mentions how some bonds mat break down, the types are mainly presented as static, missing any discussion of events and shared experiences that shape relationships, for example; military service where a bunch of random dudes you accidently cohabit, hang-out and take the piss with, quickly turn into brothers you'd die for and spend the rest of your life drinking with.

[Lio]

> He struggles with defining love

Well it is infamously difficult to define, so he's not alone in that.

Poets, artists, philosophers and scientists have all been trying and failing to define love for thousands of years.

I suspect that it means different things to different people so by its nature is undefinable.

[nonrandomstring]

For me, the writings of Erich Fromm offer wonderful and coherent insights..Particularly those that move love from something that 'happens to us' to something we're responsible for.

[ReactiveJelly]

"big", "fast", and "heavy" all mean different things to programmers, train engineers, rocket designers, and astronomers, but they all still manage to quantify things.

If I love someone, I find them interesting, I feel bad when they feel bad, I want to spend time around them and get one-on-one attention from them, especially physical attention. That's at least half a definition for one person.

[Lio]

> "Big", "fast", and "heavy" all mean different things to programmers, train engineers, rocket designers, and astronomers, but they all still manage to quantify things.

Love is none of those things though and it's not measurable. What would the units be?

Half a definition is about as close as you'll get but it's the other half you'll never pin down. To paraphrase a cheesy film, you could spend your whole life trying and fail but it still wouldn't be a wasted life.