Love - such a huge word, with so many meanings. How would you define it? Or do you interpret it always according to context?

Indeed! :)

The garbage-truck driver doing his rounds in the early morning is practising love even if he's not thinking about or feeling it at the time. Where would we be without these essential people who deal with our waste? Some of it includes poisonous chemicals, razor blades, used syringes and condoms, broken glass, explosive aerosols, soiled nappies and contaminated bandages. The safety equipment and protocols are now built into the job, but mistakes still occur.

How much thought or appreciation do we give to the almost invisible many who make our lives so much better? This post was edited by inky at February 22, 2020 7:21 PM MST

Your definition works very well, I think, as a way of generalising the way we use the word.

How much easier it would be for learners of English if such a definition was included in the OED, Webster, and Macquarie?

But could it be argued that, for the sake of clarity, we need better-nuanced words?

For instance, in romantic love, there is virtually no true love at all, merely amorous projection of a purely fantasised ideal. After all, neither yet knows who the other really is.
While in spousal love, one partner might say they "love" the other but the passion may have died out decades ago. Psychologists now assert that the ability to stay married depends on the ability to accept that passionate love is temporary, that it inevitably dies with over-familiarity and fading hormones. That oxytocin and friendship become the only glue.
And then, would we not do better with some other word for the addictive love of drugs, alcohol, sugar, overeating, gambling, etc?

Or do we prefer the word "love" for all of it because it suits our unconscious agendas to remain vague?
I don't mean to argue that this is what I believe - but is there some element of this in our cultural norms?





This post was edited by inky at February 22, 2020 7:21 PM MST

I think we could make an argument that the word “love“ is sometimes used to unduly ennoble conditions that may be more effectively described in other terms. Maybe for lack of a broader vocabulary. 

As is the case with human passions, the terms we use to articulate them are also subjective. But I would add, not without merit.  :)

Now you've got me thinking. :)
I'll be spending a day or two contemplating the subjective perception of "love," especially as it refers to passions for non-human objects, activities and substances.
Will reply again when I've come to some sort of hypothesis.

I’d love to hear it. 

:)

Soon.