Love (n.) is within the object. If we love a woman, it is because she is lovable.
Love (n.) is meaningless apart from the deeds of love... no potentiality of love other than that which is manifested in loving just as there is no genius other than that expressed in the work of art. In life a man draws his own portrait and there is nothing but that portrait.
Love (n.) is to hate the same enemy.
Love (n.) for Proust and his disciples is tied to the loved person by mere contiguity — a solipsism of affectivity that comes from isolating the feeling from its meaning.
Love (n.) is not, primarily, consciousness of itself: it is consciousness of the charms of the loved person.
Love (n.) of fine hands is a certain way of loving finesse on those hands — what would a love mean that was not a love of these qualities?
Love (n.) of a present person lives her very life: it constantly surprises me, I must remake it at each moment — there is always more to love in her than I in fact love, an inexhaustibility like an idea in the Kantian sense.
Love (n.) for the absent undergoes an essential reversal: the feeling now produces its object, and the irreal Annie is no more than the strict correlate of my feelings — so the love is never more than what it is.
Love (n.) at a distance slowly loses its nuance and becomes love in general — the all-purpose feeling psychologists and novelists describe — until one writes: 'I have lost your image, I am more separated from you than ever.'
Love (n.) said as I love or I hate on the strength of one moment of attraction or revulsion performs an infinitization — as when one glimpse of an inkwell, or of the blue of the blotter, posits the whole.
Love (n.) is a transcendent object, out in the world like a chair; it cannot shrink into the inwardness of a consciousness.
Love (n.) for a friend is worth such-and-such a sum only once I have actually paid it.
Love (n.) does not exist apart from the deeds of love; there is no potential love other than that manifested in loving.