Altough I believe there to be some truth in the video (School of Live actually offers quite decent content from time to time) I think this video has a narrow perception of what love is and judges all we subsumise under the word 'love' without stating clearly the assumptions they make. Do I need to understand and be understood to love? Or might it be on the contrary an actual sign of love to accept our significant other (wording! - 'other' not 'same') to accept what we don't understand? Should we seek love as a potential escape from our innate lonely condition? Or is it not - well expressed for example in one Osho quote i really enjoyed - that it's a necessary condition to realize and thrive in our loneliness to be able to truly love?
“The capacity to be alone is the capacity to love. It may look paradoxical to you, but it's
not. It is an existential truth: only those people who are capable of being alone are capable of love, of sharing, of going into the deepest core of another person--without possessing the other,
without becoming dependent on the other, without reducing the other to a thing, and without becoming addicted to the other. They allow the other absolute freedom, because they know that if the
other leaves, they will be as happy as they are now. Their happiness cannot be taken by the other, because it is not given by the other.”
Maybe it's true that we can't absorb someone else or that we can't enhance our ego by someone else other then in illusions and maybe being with someone can't cure our fear of death but just make it appear to be more distant. Yet then again that's nothing that the idea I personally have (which again is a narrowed opinion and describes my love) of love is supposed to achieve. While these might be just ideas there is something else about love that I believe to be more existencial and generally valid - because it arises of our human condition -, a thought that the following song expressed quite beautifully: