A young preacher suggested the following definition for the term 'Love': Love=action (he used the rhyme "motion bring emotion").
Let's suppose that in a marriage one of the spouses invests every amount of energy in sustaining the other. However one day he has a car accident and becomes paralyzed. In that sense whereas before he was able to move and exempt his spouse from daily family duties, now he is precluded from doing so due to his paralysis.
The questions that arises is: can he still love his wife? If love is motion as our dear preacher suggested then he certainly can't! Based on the (1)definition Love=action the individual is no longer able to act thus he is no longer loving(in that sense the wife is deprived of her husband's love).
However could this be correct? Does one need to act/physically (move) in order to love the other?
Certrainly one may take the other perspective and suggest the following:
(2)If love is not motion then love is passive. But passive love cannot generate anything thus passive love does not qualify as a genuine definition of love.
However what this latter opponent might miscontrue is the verb 'passive'. If (1) indicated a physical motion (2) indicates a passive stance/a lack of motion. But in the context of love , love need not be moving physically even when it seems so in light of physical cues. Indeed the agent may still be moving mentally thus 'in motion'.
Doesn't a genuine definition of Love have to capture the mental motion?
Thus the definition as offered by our dear preacher is insufficient to this extent.(at least)
As far as the rhyme that sustains the definition, it simply does NOT work : "motion brings emotion"
Here: a boy asks a girl out-the girl refuses-the action of the boy leads him to regret his choice and arouses hate towards the girl and embarrasement within. Indeed motion brings emotion but does not guarantee that the emotion that it brings satisfies the one that love is looking for in this definition