Love, Growth, and Meaning (Which Are, It Turns Out, Related)

Deep consequences of being orienting creatures

If you take wanting seriously as the floor of life, three things that usually get separate chapters in different books turn out to be the same thing showing different faces. Love is what wanting looks like when it lines up with something else’s wanting. Growth is what wanting looks like when it learns to do more. Meaning is what wanting looks like when it holds together over time.

Whenever a tradition has tried to talk about a good life without a theory of want, it has had to smuggle one in through the back door, usually wearing a robe.

Key moves

  • Love is mutual orientation: two (or more) wills lining up enough that each becomes part of the other’s good.
  • Growth is expanded capacity to want, perceive, and act. Not “becoming bigger” but becoming able to handle more.
  • Meaning is durable alignment between what you will, what the world allows, and what you are becoming.
  • The three are linked: love expands what you can want for, growth expands what you can want toward, meaning is the felt sense that the expansion is real.
  • Emptiness is rarely the absence of pleasure. More often it is misaligned willing: you got what you thought you wanted and noticed, too late, that you were aiming at the wrong thing.
  • “Purpose” is not handed down from above. It is a stable pattern of wanting that survives contact with reality.

Where this touches lived life

  • A relationship that “should be working” but feels dead is usually two people whose wills stopped lining up; the love did not vanish, the orientation drifted.
  • Burnout is rarely lack of energy. It is wanting that has lost its line of sight to anything you actually care about.
  • The question “what is the meaning of my life” almost always answers better as “what am I currently leaning toward, and is that lean still mine.”

What we’re not claiming

  • Not that love is reducible to coordinated wanting. The claim is that coordinated wanting is one of its load-bearing parts.
  • Not that growth is always good. Runaway complexity is a real failure mode and we will return to it.
  • Not that meaning is delivered. Meaning has to be made, repeatedly, and the making is its own kind of work.

Influences & Further Reading

  1. Martin Buber I and Thou (1923)

    Love as mutual orientation enacted between beings: not a feeling one has but a mode of relating one enacts together.

  2. Iris Murdoch The Sovereignty of Good (1970)

    Love as just and loving attention, the method of all virtues; attention leads to growth leads to meaning.

  3. Harry Frankfurt The Importance of What We Care About (1988)

    Caring integrates the self across time; love is the paradigm case of what it means to be a person with a volitional essence.

  4. Viktor Frankl Man's Search for Meaning (1946)

    Will to meaning as the primary motivational force; emptiness is the existential vacuum produced by misaligned willing.

  5. Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, Books VIII-IX (-350)

    Philia, eudaimonia, and growth through shared virtuous activity: love, meaning, and growth unified in one account from the start.

  6. Deci & Ryan Self-Determination Theory (1985)

    Empirical: autonomy, competence, and relatedness are universal psychological needs; growth is indexed to their alignment.

  7. Martha Nussbaum Upheavals of Thought (2001)

    Emotions as intelligent responses to value: love as a form of practical reasoning that constitutes rather than merely expresses the self.

  8. Simone de Beauvoir The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947)

    Freedom requires others to be free. Love and growth are not private achievements but ethical stakes in a shared world.

  9. Ernest Becker The Denial of Death (1973)

    Immortality projects as the primary human meaning-making strategy: love, heroism, and creative work as attempts to transcend biological finitude; meaning is not just durable wanting but wanting pressed against the fact of death.