Love that does not depend on anything

Okay, so basically everything depends on something. Something that doesn't change is called ‘independent of something’, and ”

If you send your lover a love letter, it's love that's hanging in the mail.

Gal,
My emphasis is on “depends”. If the thing does not change, then the love does not depend on it (the thing is not null and in any case does not nullify love).

Unrelated,
about which it is said: “A postman is a postman on his bike”.
[An incident that happened to a friend of mine who is a judge. A well-known lawyer appeared before him, and in his words mentioned the idiom “a word of mouth on his bike” (with a little bit of a pun under the p”a). My friend, who is a lover of language, immediately corrected him that it should be false under the p”a. That lawyer was not confused, and immediately replied: I meant to say “a postman is a postman on his bike” (and here it is really a little bit of a pun).

Rabbi, I didn't understand why when the thing doesn't change then love depends on it? On the contrary, exactly the opposite, love doesn't change because it depends on him, and he is the one who doesn't change. Isn't that right?

*”… The thing doesn't change so love doesn't depend on it”…

There is clearly a dependency, but in such a situation the dependency is meaningless. The meaning of dependency is that if the thing that depends on it changes, the thing that depends on it also changes. It's like telling someone I'm willing to do X for you as long as your name is Moses. Does the action depend on his name being Moses? Yes. Is this dependency significant? No, because it's clear that his name is Moses and it always will be.

Yes, I agree. And because I think the language is "not dependent on anything" it's strange that the commentators there didn't stop and explain something.

I interpret the concept of "unconditional love" as "love for its own sake." To love the other not because of the functions he fulfills in my world, but to love him because there is value in love itself.

Of course. But the question is what do you love about him (what is the value of treating him with love?). His being a Jew, a person, a stranger? All of these are reasons for love, and so he asked why it is not a love that depends on something.

Gal,
Rambam”s version:

“Any love that depends on something is useless – is useless and love is useless, and that which does not depend on something is useless – is never useless”

The Mishnah gives examples, “The love of Amnon and Tamar”, “The love of David and Jonathan”
The difference between them is that the love of Amnon and Tamar is a love that stems from a need or instinct, after Amnon committed the abomination “and hatred”.

In the love of David and Jonathan, it is not a love that stems from desire. And this is why the Mishnah says that it does not depend on anything.

Dependent on anything = stems from desire

However, from the Peshitta perspective, it seems that two Tannaim wrote the Mishnah. Whoever wrote the Risha meant one thing, which is difficult to understand, and we will need an interpretation, and these are presented at the end.

Interesting comment. Depends on something in the lover and not in the beloved. But in practice there is no big difference. It is clear that in the end what causes dependent love is something in the lover (which is perhaps aroused by something in the beloved).

My proposal says that there is a difference between "love for its own sake," meaning the desire to give to someone without personal interest, and love that depends on interest. Love that is free of interests will never be canceled because it does not depend on anything external to the person who loves.

Copenhagen Interpretation,

Thank you for your words! Indeed, the Maimonides version is smoother for me. Thank you.

If you think that love for Israel and love for the Creator is a love that does not depend on anything, then why was providence abolished?

I didn't understand the question.

In the opinion of Shalom Cohen:
A. The lover necessarily watches over the beloved. (And if he has excuses for why he stops, then he does not love)
B. Love that does not depend on anything is never void.
C. God loves His people Israel with a love that does not depend on anything.
D. God's watchfulness over His people Israel is necessarily never void.

And I ask: Would this be called the tsarna?

Generalization is giving a mathematical form (formalization). What you did is just preparation for generalization.
For the very argument you put forward, I do not accept your assumptions A and C.

And if we were not to conclude, it would not be right to explicitly state the subject of the thread that love that does not depend on a thing is not null. What is a “thing”? What is the attribute called a “thing” that is not part of the object itself? The stimulus? Immigration? Judaism? And surely the object must have a certain attribute that arouses love. So what type of attributes are just a “thing” and what are the attributes of the thing in itself? And on this the Maimonides wrote that we consider attributes of a thing in itself when they are not null. And according to this, the understanding of the Rambam is completely different, since the Mishnah does not come to tell me anything that is not renewed at all - that if the cause of love is never nullified, then love is never nullified (but it does not mean that the Mishnah comes to renew by the power of the lover whose love exists without the need for innovations and changes.) - and therefore the Rambam writes a sign. A sign of when the attribute becomes the thing in itself and when it does not. When it does not nullify, it is the thing itself. And the reason that love does not nullify is because he loves the thing itself. Therefore, even when the thing itself no longer exists in a certain sense, such as the death of a dear family member, the love continues because he is still a dear family member and such an attribute exists even when life has been taken from the object. So to this day he experiences the concept of the beloved in a certain way, whereas today in a different way. But the concept continues in its essence forever and this attribute is not a universal void, and therefore the Mishnah wrote that if it does not depend on the thing but is itself, then love is not void. And the Rambam brought an identification mark for the properties of the thing itself. Indeed, the reason that love is not void is that the thing itself is not void. But on the part of the Mishnah there is a huge word, that if this is a property of the thing in itself, then there is no void for love. And the Rambam explained what the mark is and in fact this is also the reason. But the Mishnah took this approach (and did not write like the Rambam) apparently to convey to us the exclusivity of eternity only for "that which does not depend on the thing" and that there is nothing else that is not void.
Of course, my thing in itself has nothing to do with the Kantian concept. I simply did not know what to call it. Until I remembered the Aramaic word "self"
This is my attempt to expand on the Rabbi's third response about when to say that a certain dependency is significant and when not. The Rabbi did mean significant regarding the cancellation of love, but I emphasized more the side of significance for love that is not null.
Does the Rabbi think it is better for me to respond like this or should I prepare for the misunderstanding?

This is a bit reminiscent of Maimonides' version cited above. But it seems compelling to me. The fact that I have two legs is not empty. Is it a love that does not depend on an empty thing? Clearly, beyond the lack of emptyness, there must be some content characteristic of the beloved.
I also did not understand the "enormous" innovation that you saw in the mishna. I will question what you have raised: if the thing that causes love is not empty, it is clear that love will not be canceled. But your difficulty is not really a difficulty. The claim is that love that depends on something may or may be canceled. And there is an innovation in this, even though it is a simple thing (see the introduction to Mesilat Yesharim, and so Malcolm once said: it is an eye-opening tautology).
There is no need for a generalization when it adds nothing. My words above were not a criticism, but a substantive answer to your question about whether there is a generalization here.