
A symbolic composition depicts a weathered stone doorway dividing two contrasting landscapes: one open, sunlit, and inviting, the other locked, shadowed, and overgrown. The accompanying imagery illustrates trust opening the door, acceptance keeping it open, and love emerging through relationship, while distrust, nonacceptance, and separation point toward the possibility of hate. The image visually represents the essay’s central theme that love and hate are not isolated emotions but emergent properties shaped by the quality of our relationships with people, animals, places, ideas, and the world around us. (Image generated by ChatGPT using DALL·E, 2026.)
People have been trying to define love for thousands of years, and I don’t think we’ve ever really succeeded. That isn’t because love isn’t real. Quite the opposite. It’s because love is an emotion, and emotions are incredibly difficult to describe without simply replacing one emotional word with another.
People will often define love as affection, devotion, attachment, or deep care. To me, those aren’t definitions. They’re descriptions of other feelings that often accompany love. They don’t really answer the question of what love is.
I’ve come to believe that we’re asking the wrong question.
Instead of asking, “What is love?” I’ve started asking, “What gives rise to the emotion we call love?”
This isn’t a philosophical proof or a scientific theory. It’s simply the understanding I’ve developed through my own experiences and the way I’ve come to see human relationships.
To me, love is the polar opposite of hate.
I don’t use either word casually. People often say they “love” pizza or “hate” Mondays, but those words have always meant something much stronger to me. Hate is one of the most powerful emotions a person can experience, and because I see love as its opposite, I believe love deserves the same respect. Neither word should be thrown around lightly.
Over time, I’ve also realized that trust is central to understanding love.
I used to think you couldn’t trust someone unless you loved them. I’ve changed my mind about that. Trust exists on a spectrum. We trust strangers to obey traffic laws. We trust coworkers to do their jobs. We trust doctors with our health. Those relationships don’t necessarily involve love.
What matters isn’t simply trust itself, but what trust makes possible.
I’ve begun thinking about relationships as rooms connected by a doorway.
Trust opens the door.
Acceptance keeps the door open.
Every time we trust someone, we allow them a little farther into our lives. Every time they accept us for who we genuinely are, rather than demanding we become someone else, that doorway remains open. The relationship deepens.
Eventually, something may begin to emerge from that shared space.
We call it love.
I don’t believe trust automatically becomes love any more than I believe planting a seed guarantees a flower will bloom. Trust and acceptance don’t force love into existence. They simply create the conditions in which love has the opportunity to grow.
The opposite is also true.
Distrust begins to close the door.
Nonacceptance locks it.
That doesn’t mean hate is inevitable. Distrust doesn’t automatically become hate any more than trust automatically becomes love. But distrust and rejection create conditions where resentment, fear, contempt, and eventually hate can begin to grow. They move a relationship in that direction.
To me, love and hate aren’t simply emotions floating around inside us. They emerge from the way we relate to the world around us.
This way of thinking also explains why I don’t believe in the phrase “unconditional love.”
In my mind, it’s almost an oxymoron.
If I only love someone as long as they become the person I want them to be, then I have to question whether I ever loved them in the first place. Perhaps I loved an idea of them. Perhaps I loved my expectations. But I wasn’t loving the person standing in front of me.
That doesn’t mean love has no boundaries. Relationships absolutely should have boundaries. Trust can be broken. People can become abusive, dishonest, or manipulative. Sometimes the healthiest choice is to walk away from a relationship.
But walking away because someone has violated trust is different from asking someone to abandon who they are in order to earn your love.
To me, genuine love begins with accepting another person as themselves.
As I’ve reflected on all of this, I’ve realized something else.
I don’t think love has an essence.
You can’t point to love the way you can point to a mountain or a tree. Love isn’t a physical object waiting to be discovered in nature. It’s a human construction—a way of understanding an emotional experience that arises through our relationships.
That doesn’t make it any less real.
Language is a human construction. Money is a human construction. Marriage is a human construction. They’re all profoundly real because they shape the way we live our lives. I think love belongs in that same category.
The way we experience and understand love is influenced by our individual lives, our cultures, and the historical moments in which we live. Someone from another society or another century might understand love differently than I do, and I don’t think either of us would necessarily be wrong.
Perhaps that’s why I keep coming back to anthropology.
Anthropology has taught me that human beings create meaning. We don’t simply discover it lying around in nature. We build it through our relationships, our cultures, our histories, and our shared experiences.
Love, I think, is one of those meanings.
So if someone asked me to define love today, I wouldn’t describe it with another emotion.
I’d say that love is an emergent property of a relationship.
Whether that relationship is with another person, a cat curled up beside you, a hobby that has become part of your identity, a place that feels like home, or even an idea that has shaped your life, love doesn’t simply appear. It grows through trust, acceptance, shared experience, and the ongoing relationship itself.
I don’t expect everyone to agree with this definition.
In fact, I hope they don’t feel obligated to. Every person’s understanding of love is shaped by the life they’ve lived.
This is simply mine.


The Problem with “Owning the Libs”
By Katherine Walter
On September 20, 2025
In political science
Illustration contrasting “own the libs” cruelty with progressive compassion. (Image generated by ChatGPT, 2025)
In recent years, the phrase “own the libs” has become a rallying cry for many conservatives. At first glance, it might seem like harmless political banter—a way to laugh at the other side. But taken seriously, this mindset reveals something troubling about how politics is being practiced in the United States. It shows a shift away from solving problems and toward something much darker: treating politics as a game where the goal is to make other people suffer.
The idea of owning the libs is not about making life better for ordinary people. Instead, it’s about celebrating when someone else is angry, humiliated, or hurt. Passing laws that restrict healthcare, rolling back rights for LGBTQ+ people, or undermining voting access aren’t framed as solutions to real problems. They are framed as victories precisely because they upset progressives. Cruelty itself becomes the goal.
But politics should not be about harming others—it should be about helping people. That is the central difference between the conservative “own the libs” mindset and progressive politics. Progressives, at their best, focus on policies that improve people’s lives: expanding access to healthcare, making schools stronger, reducing poverty, and protecting the freedom to live authentically. The success of progressive politics is measured in lives improved, not tears shed by political opponents.
This difference matters because it points to two fundamentally different visions for our society. One vision treats politics as a contest of domination, where the worth of an idea lies in how much it angers “the other side.” The other vision treats politics as a tool for compassion, where the worth of an idea lies in how much it improves the lives of our neighbors.
Of course, no political movement is perfect. Progressives sometimes stumble, and not every policy works out as intended. But there is an important moral distinction between trying to help people and trying to hurt them. If our politics is driven by spite, we will end up with policies that deepen division and suffering. If our politics is driven by empathy, we have at least a chance at building a society that is fairer, freer, and more humane.
The question is not whether liberals or conservatives “win.” The real question is: do we want our politics to be about cruelty—or about compassion?