sunday snippets : love is weak, we heal through acceptance, not resistance!
Love can be a distraction in any context that requires intense focus and self-sacrifice.
Welcome to Sunday Snippets, where I share reflections from the past week—small but meaningful insights I’ve gathered. In this series, you’ll find:
In My Journal: Personal thoughts, observations, and key moments from my week.
What I Wrote: Highlights from books, articles, or blogs that sparked new perspectives.
What I Heard: Thought-provoking conversations, podcasts, or videos that added value to my learning.
Every Sunday, I’ll take a moment to reflect on what I’ve learned, and I’m excited to share these insights with you. Whether it’s a nugget of wisdom from a book, a thought that surfaced in my journal, or an uplifting quote, I hope these snippets bring you clarity, growth, and a fresh start for the week ahead. Let’s journey together from one Sunday to the next!
In My Journal: Love is Weak – Interpreting the's Perspective
The phrase "love is weak" is one of the many attributed to the Agojie, a group of female warriors from the Kingdom of Dahomey (modern-day Benin).
As an elite force tasked with defending their kingdom and executing war strategies, Agojie's rejection of love as weakness reflects a complex and nuanced worldview.
While it may seem harsh or counterintuitive, particularly in a modern context where love is often viewed as a source of strength, this assertion can be understood more thoroughly through the lens of Agojie's cultural, military, and existential realities.
The Agojie warriors were known for their discipline, fearlessness, and unwavering commitment to the survival and expansion of their kingdom. In the context of their military role, emotions such as love—incredibly personal, romantic love—could be seen as vulnerability.
For warriors tasked with life-and-death decisions, attachments could distract, compromise judgment, or create hesitation on the battlefield. In this sense, "love is weak" is less a philosophical condemnation of love itself and more a strategic approach to survival in war.
The notion that love might lead to weakness is historically common in warrior societies. The Spartans, Samurai, and even modern military forces often emphasised the suppression of personal attachments to prioritise duty and loyalty to the group.
In Agojie's world, this would mean putting the needs of the Dahomey kingdom above personal relationships or desires. By labelling love as "weak," Agojie reinforced the idea that emotional attachments could erode their effectiveness as warriors.
Love can be a distraction in any context that requires intense focus and self-sacrifice. The Agojie warriors had a singular mission: to protect and expand their kingdom.
Their lives were not their own in the traditional sense, and to love deeply would be to risk emotional entanglement that could detract from their purpose.
For them, embracing love might mean facing the pain of loss or the fear of failing to protect those they care about, which could cloud their judgment and decision-making in combat.
In this light, viewing love as weak is a defence mechanism, an emotional barrier that shields them from the pain of vulnerability.
The Agojie were often not allowed to marry or have children, emphasising their complete devotion to the state and military duties. In this context, love symbolised vulnerability and a rejection of the commitment that their warrior code demanded. For them, the battlefield demanded detachment, not attachment.
On a deeper, more philosophical level, the statement "love is weak" challenges modern interpretations of love as inherently strong or empowering. While love can indeed inspire acts of courage, empathy, and sacrifice, it also exposes individuals to profound vulnerability.
To love is to open oneself up to loss, pain, and suffering.
In this sense, love does have a certain fragility, which could be interpreted as weakness. The Agojie, living in a world marked by constant conflict and warfare, might have viewed this vulnerability as something to be avoided at all costs.
From their perspective, emotional strength was derived from detachment and self-reliance, not interpersonal connections. To be a true warrior, they believed, one had to be unencumbered by personal ties that could weaken resolve or lead to hesitation.
This notion has parallels in various existential philosophies. For instance, Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch (the "overman" or "superman") calls for an individual to transcend conventional moral and emotional structures, including attachments, in pursuit of personal power and self-overcoming.
The Agojie's rejection of love might echo this sentiment, suggesting that true strength lies in rising above emotional dependencies.
The idea that "love is weak" may seem cold or even wrong in the modern world. We often emphasise love's positive, empowering aspects—its ability to unite, heal, and motivate people.
For many, love is seen as a source of strength that gives life meaning and purpose. From family bonds to romantic relationships, love is celebrated as a force that enriches the human experience and fosters resilience in the face of hardship.
Our contemporary understanding of love's dual nature is acknowledged.
While love can be empowering, it can also make us vulnerable to deep pain, heartbreak, and suffering.
In this sense, love requires courage—a willingness to risk weakness and vulnerability to experience connection and intimacy.
While seemingly harsh, Agojie's perspective reminds us that love, in its purest form, is not without its costs. It exposes individuals to emotions that can be difficult to manage, especially in contexts where survival and focus are paramount.
Agojie's declaration that "love is weak" reveals much about their context, values, and existential outlook. It is not a universal condemnation of love but a reflection of their specific roles as warriors in a dangerous world where emotional attachments could lead to weakness or death.
For them, survival required strength of will, emotional detachment, and an unrelenting focus on their duty to their kingdom.
Yet, in reflecting on this statement, we are reminded that the nature of love is complex. Love can be a source of strength and weakness, depending on the context. In the realm of warriors like the Agojie, the cost of love was too high, and its potential to weaken resolve was too great. In other contexts, however, love's power to connect, inspire, and transform might outweigh its vulnerabilities.
While the Agojie rejected love in favour of strength and survival, their view offers a striking contrast to modern values, reminding us of the delicate balance between strength and vulnerability in the human experience.
What I Wrote This Week
1. Why Betting on Ourselves Is the Boldest Move We Can Make
2. Not All Past Relationships Have to Come Into Your New Season
3. Memories warm you up from the inside. But they also tear you apart.
4. Why Is Curiosity Paired with Work Ethic Essential for Exploring the Unknown?
5. Unhappiness: the more we resist it, the more it clings to us.
What I Learnt This Week
1. Main character syndrome: Why romanticising your own life is philosophically dubious, setting up toxic narratives and an inability to truly love.
2. Steve Hagen: We heal through acceptance, not resistance.
“The only person you are destined to become is the person you decide to be.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson.
“But until a person can say deeply and honestly, “I am what I am today because of the choices I made yesterday,” that person cannot say, “I choose otherwise.” Stephen R. Covey.
“Personal development is a major time-saver. The better you become, the less time it takes you to achieve your goals.” – Brian Tracy
Thank you for joining me on this journey of growth and reflection. I hope these snippets inspire you as much as they did me. See you next Sunday!
With gratitude,
Ivan
Incredible piece. I now understand how love can be a weakness.