A love for an abstract thing, it’s called passion; a love for a touchable thing, it’s called collection; a love for a person, it’s called love itself.
No matter what object the love indicates to, it shouldn’t be based on “I should”, but on “I want”. The former is a persuasion, the latter is an impulse.
Generally, people can tell if they love their work or not; they will be clear that even if there is no passion, they accept it, under the responsibility of “I should”.
However, when it refers to a person, it is hard to tell, as lots of things are blurred, influenced by the outside and inside, especially for responsibility and trauma, then they mess up together. Generally, “I should” is a safer and easier way.
For Rainer Rilke, love is hard; therefore, to love.
In real life, no matter where love is driven, it is all hard. However, a love under “I should” is not in the range of love, because love itself is an impulse under willingness, rather than a responsibility, under compromise.
A love under a compromise for an aim will result in negative flow. When there is an action of love, there is an expectation of reciprocation. If such an expectation didn’t occur, efforts will be transferred to pressure, rather than pleasure, working on both sides. Therefore, it’s crucial to distinguish pure love from attachment, which is driven by hidden personal needs to express or escape vulnerability.
Ultimately, to love is not about the outcome, whether they have or not, but it is about the process itself, in which one can fulfill oneself. Practically, instead of compromising on the belief or feeling of loving the other, expanding the self-limitation is the core, which also serves as a basis for self-autonomy. While in love, such an impulse is enough for motivation.