"I love you but I don't like you."

[Rachel Rugelach]

"I love you but I don't like you." Can one really love another person without actually liking that person?

Author Stephen King wrote: "Love without liking is like a chain with a manacle at each end." That line comes from a character whom King has stated is his favorite character out of all the characters he has ever created in his stories: Holly Gibney. In this particular story (and King has written several stories featuring this character), Holly is referring to the relationship she has with her domineering mother who has contributed to Holly's mental illness.

I can imagine someone feeling that he/she loves another person that he/she doesn't necessarily like, perhaps out of a sense of family obligation -- somebody that you wouldn't have chosen to associate with if not for the fact that you are linked to that person through family. Is that the chain and the manacles? Is it entirely due to emotional imprisonment that makes one believe that one loves without liking? And is that really "love"?

Did Stephen King get it right? Or is there more to it?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I wonder if it means you're currently mad/upset with a person and their ways, but love purely out of a commitment.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is definitely possible to care about a person that one does not like nor love, although that is almost by definition unhealthy.

I prefer to call that caring instead of loving, because I like the word love and want to preserve it from negative conotations.

Also, I don't think that I agree that birth and duty relationships deserve to be called family.

This is an interesting subject matter, but the concepts can be tricky and confusing.

The main lesson to be learned, IMO, is that it is definitely possible in close relationships to be pressured into unhealthy situations. It isn't all that rare for people to effectively blackmail their own caretakers and loving ones in various ways. People can go to extreme lengths if they have convinced themselves that they will be shunned otherwise, or that they literally have no alternative.

Love and family as I define them are something else entirely, though, and are explicitly unrelated to birth and blood connections of any kind; don't get me started on how I hate and despise mentions of "blood of one's own blood". There is literally no excuse for valuing them.

Exposure, however, has value - as well as the associated dangers. It brings the opportunity to understand and perhaps come to love someone.

My conclusions?

1. It is well worth the while to be aware of our own true feelings about the people that we meet, as well as those about the people that are part of our lives out of lack of choice. Those feelings can and will change as time passes and circunstances. That is unavoidable and generally a good if scary thing.
2. It is equally important to recognize situations which force us to take otherwise undesirable choices. We all exert pressures on the people that care about us and receive similar pressures from those that we love. Love is valuable because it takes a toll and yet remains well worth the price. If it somehow becomes effortless, than it is also worthless and unnecessary; if instead becomes unrewarding, then it is also unsustainable and unhealthy, and it may be necessary to go through the trouble of letting it go. A painful process by definition.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Author Stephen King wrote: "Love without liking is like a chain with a manacle at each end." That line comes from a character whom King has stated is his favorite character out of all the characters he has ever created in his stories: Holly Gibney. In this particular story (and King has written several stories featuring this character), Holly is referring to the relationship she has with her domineering mother who has contributed to Holly's mental illness.

It is a character, however, and not he himself. A good author imagines the motivations and the intelligence of the characters and attempts to animate them without imprinting the author's own personality upon them.

"I love you but I don't like you." Can one really love another person without actually liking that person?

Its a reasonable question. You can pity someone who you don't like. Parents often don't like their own children, yet they care for them. You can be emotionally codependent. You can be deeply disappointed in someone you care for. You can simultaneously care and be angry with. You can care for someone you don't like because of their connection to someone else you care about, such as a spouse's annoying pet. You can find things to like about someone you don't like, too. Last of all you can like yourself so much that you like even the people you don't like, because everyone has something in common with you.

I can imagine someone feeling that he/she loves another person that he/she doesn't necessarily like, perhaps out of a sense of family obligation -- somebody that you wouldn't have chosen to associate with if not for the fact that you are linked to that person through family. Is that the chain and the manacles? Is it entirely due to emotional imprisonment that makes one believe that one loves without liking? And is that really "love"?

Did Stephen King get it right? Or is there more to it?

I don't know how to answer that succinctly. Stephen King has not given an official opinion on it, and I don't know if his character has gotten it right. There are in our minds hidden connections between all things. The dichotomy of like and dislike is itself confusing. From an early age children perceive two worlds one good one bad, and they struggle to integrate these into a single thing. The good has always been manacled to the bad.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

"I love you but I don't like you."

My spontaneous guess is that at least every parent in the world, at some point or other, has felt just that (though I would add “right now” to the end of the sentence) and knows exactly what it means.

Fear not, it passes!


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Brian2]

We can love our enemies, but that does not mean to feel warm and fuzzy about them, it means to treat them with dignity and respect and give them what they need to survive, basically treating them as you would like them to treat you.

 

[Harel13]

We can love our enemies, but that does not mean to feel warm and fuzzy about them, it means to treat them with dignity and respect and give them what they need to survive, basically treating them as you would like them to treat you.

That's how you define love?

 

[PureX]

"I love you but I don't like you." Can one really love another person without actually liking that person?

Author Stephen King wrote: "Love without liking is like a chain with a manacle at each end." That line comes from a character whom King has stated is his favorite character out of all the characters he has ever created in his stories: Holly Gibney. In this particular story (and King has written several stories featuring this character), Holly is referring to the relationship she has with her domineering mother who has contributed to Holly's mental illness.

I can imagine someone feeling that he/she loves another person that he/she doesn't necessarily like, perhaps out of a sense of family obligation -- somebody that you wouldn't have chosen to associate with if not for the fact that you are linked to that person through family. Is that the chain and the manacles? Is it entirely due to emotional imprisonment that makes one believe that one loves without liking? And is that really "love"?

Did Stephen King get it right? Or is there more to it?

People often fall in love with the idea of someone they develop, and then become disappointed when their beloved does not fulfill their idea. The sad truth is they never really knew or loved the person; but only their idea of the person.

 

[Quintessence]

"Love" is one of the most ridiculously polysemic words in the English language. Considering how may words humans come up with in English for genitals, you'd think they'd come up with more precise and meaningful language to describe the myriad of different types of love instead of using the same word to describe parent-child affection that they do for sexual relationships. I try not to think about what that says about the cultural history and priorities of our ancestors, honestly, but it makes it painfully easy to "love" without liking...

 

[Eddi]

I love my country but I don't like it

Because of the way it is

I want better for it

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

My spontaneous guess is that at least every parent in the world, at some point or other, has felt just that (though I would add “right now” to the end of the sentence) and knows exactly what it means.

Fear not, it passes!


Humbly
Hermit

I think the difference is that the parent may not like the child's behavior, but that doesn't stop the parent from liking their own child (that is, if the parent ever liked and loved their own child). When a child's behavior is unlikable (as in a child who bullies other children), it's up to the parent to teach the child how to be a better person. At least, that's what one would expect in good parenting. Disliking one's child (instead of merely disliking the child's behavior) isn't going to be conducive to having expectations of improvement in one's child.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

"Love" is one of the most ridiculously polysemic words in the English language. Considering how may words humans come up with in English for genitals, you'd think they'd come up with more precise and meaningful language to describe the myriad of different types of love instead of using the same word to describe parent-child affection that they do for sexual relationships. I try not to think about what that says about the cultural history and priorities of our ancestors, honestly, but it makes it painfully easy to "love" without liking...

Honestly, I've never thought of "love" in the same way for both a parent-child relationship and a sexual relationship. However, I can think of another term for a relationship that's based on sex alone, with an inappropriate word preceding the word "buddy." I've never had one of those types of relationships, though, so what do I know?

I define the word "love" as being based on one's concern for the well-being of the loved person even to the extent of placing that person's well-being above one's own well-being, all because of the emotional investment that one has in that person. That kind of emotional investment can be applied to many types of relationships, such as: parent/child, sibling/sibling, husband/wife, partner/partner.

We can love our enemies, but that does not mean to feel warm and fuzzy about them, it means to treat them with dignity and respect and give them what they need to survive, basically treating them as you would like them to treat you.

@Brian2, I can't imagine loving my enemies -- or loving anyone who seeks to do me harm. Certainly not "loving" by the definition that I gave above.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I think the difference is that the parent may not like the child's behavior, but that doesn't stop the parent from liking their own child (that is, if the parent ever liked and loved their own child). When a child's behavior is unlikable (as in a child who bullies other children), it's up to the parent to teach the child how to be a better person. At least, that's what one would expect in good parenting. Disliking one's child (instead of merely disliking the child's behavior) isn't going to be conducive to having expectations of improvement in one's child.

You’re very right Rachel, I do agree with you.

It’s a pity that we do not see it that same way when we “don’t like” others: that it is how they act or what that stands for that we “don’t like” and that behind it is a person (someone’s child), behaving “badly”.

Perhaps if we did, we’d deal with people differently.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Wildswanderer]

"I love you but I don't like you." Can one really love another person without actually liking that person?

Author Stephen King wrote: "Love without liking is like a chain with a manacle at each end." That line comes from a character whom King has stated is his favorite character out of all the characters he has ever created in his stories: Holly Gibney. In this particular story (and King has written several stories featuring this character), Holly is referring to the relationship she has with her domineering mother who has contributed to Holly's mental illness.

I can imagine someone feeling that he/she loves another person that he/she doesn't necessarily like, perhaps out of a sense of family obligation -- somebody that you wouldn't have chosen to associate with if not for the fact that you are linked to that person through family. Is that the chain and the manacles? Is it entirely due to emotional imprisonment that makes one believe that one loves without liking? And is that really "love"?

Did Stephen King get it right? Or is there more to it?

Absolutely. Liking someone indicates that their personality and actions agree with you.
Loving someone is much deeper than that, It's ability to look beyond actions and personality, and to offer what is often not deserved, forgiveness and compassion.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Absolutely. Liking someone indicates that their personality and actions agree with you.
Loving someone is much deeper than that, It's ability to look beyond actions and personality, and to offer what is often not deserved, forgiveness and compassion.

Right. I understand the difference between loving and merely liking someone. But is loving someone that you don't necessarily like the equivalent of (as Stephen King wrote) "a chain with a manacle at each end"? In other words, do you have to make yourself able "to look beyond actions and personality" because you feel you have no other choice? Especially when the relationship, between an adult individual and that adult's parent (for example), is causing genuine harm to the individual?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Right. I understand the difference between loving and merely liking someone. But is loving someone that you don't necessarily like the equivalent of (as Stephen King wrote) "a chain with a manacle at each end"? In other words, do you have to make yourself able "to look beyond actions and personality" because you feel you have no other choice? Especially when the relationship, between an adult individual and that adult's parent (for example), is causing genuine harm to the individual?

Well you can definitely set boundaries but yes, in my belief system I am required to love the person regardless. You don't have to be chained to the person, however. I think the key is to be strong enough in your own self to love without allowing person to manipulate you excessively. Not saying it's easy.

 

[Aštra’el]

If you have ever been part of a military unit or a sports team… then you might understand how one might develop some measure of trust, love and respect for certain individuals you might not particularly “like”.

 

[Brian2]

That's how you define love?

That is part of loving others. It could extend further of course.

 

[osgart]

I care very much for a lot of people I don't love. I care about them because they mean well but are disastrous otherwise.

Caring deeply without love is very common for me.

Love for people is a joy. It's above and beyond.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I care very much for a lot of people I don't love. I care about them because they mean well but are disastrous otherwise.

Caring deeply without love is very common for me.

Love for people is a joy. It's above and beyond.

Yes, I also care for people whom I don't love, regardless of whether they are likable or not. Caring for the welfare of others is basic humanity. I would not even have an imprisoned criminal tortured by others if I could prevent it.

But the question was: Is loving without liking like "a chain with a manacle at each end"?