The person who falls in love believes that they chose the person they love. However, the place where the choice is made is neither the realm of reason nor the stage of will. Love is not about choosing; it is a state that a person falls into. The verb "to fall" is not coincidental — in many languages, including Turkish, love is coded as a fall , because the person experiencing it also knows that it is not them who makes the decision.

So, where is the decision made? Who or what is the object of love? And what remains when the magic of love is dispelled?

What Does Love Aim For?

When viewed through the lens of Freud's Oedipus and Jung's Electra complexes, this aim is directed towards the opposite sex. However, as shown by modern psychoanalysis — especially object relations theory — the initial object is not biological sex, but the care function. The infant is not attached to the mother's "femaleness," but to her function of being a carrier, nurturer, and mirror. W. Ronald D. Fairbairn's groundbreaking thesis is exactly here: libido is an object-seeking force, not a pleasure-seeking one (libido is object-seeking, not pleasure-seeking). Therefore, love is not directed towards the opposite sex, but towards the object that carries what is lacking in the subject This aim works with two separate vectors: Reflecting object (narcissistic confirmation): The other who sees, knows, and says to the subject, "you exist and you are valuable." This is what Freud called narcissistic object choice (narzisstische Objektwahl); it is deepened in Heinz Kohut's concept of self-object, in Donald Winnicott's "holding" function and mirror role. Let's recall Winnicott's famous sentence: "The baby looks at the mother's face and sees himself." The reflecting other

gives the subject back to themselves

Completing object (carrying the lack): The other who carries and offers what is not in the subject. This is what Freud called the support type (Anlehnungstypus). Carl Gustav Jung reads this dynamic in another language: the subject finds in the other what is repressed and undeveloped in their unconscious — for the male subject, the anima; for the female subject, the animus. Here, the other carries what is not in the subject.

Love is a rare moment when these two vectors overlap in the same object. It is precisely this overlap that makes it both rare and powerful. Where Does the Process Take Place? This orientation operates at the level of

unconscious projection

, not at the level of

conscious approval . Melanie Klein's concept of projective identification describes more intense forms of this process: the subject places what it cannot bear within itself onto the other; the other often begins to actually carry this placed emotion, and the subject is drawn to what it sees in the other. Jung calls this reciprocal unconscious exchange participation mystique — a state where two unconscious minds touch, and boundaries become permeable. The subject does not choose the other as "suitable"; it finds itself already having chosen them. Conscious reason only intervenes later, to provide justification for something that has already happened. Therefore, when a person in love tries to explain why they are in love, they are always inadequate; because the authority managing the process is not the authority explaining it.

The issue of gender also gains meaning here. In the unconscious — as Freud himself established — the basic structure is bisexual. The orientation that appears gendered at the conscious level is directed towards the function of the object in the unconscious; gender is the carrier of this function, not itself.

We can formulate a sentence that summarizes this: A person falls in love with an object that, at the same time, reflects and completes them — and this happens at the unconscious level. Who is in Love?

A crucial distinction is needed here.

The id is not the one in love; the ego, which mistakenly believes itself to be the id — that is, which identifies with the id — is the one in love.

Because the id is a pure economy of impulses; it does not

privatize the object, but sees it as interchangeable tools. On the other hand, the definition of being in love is the opposite: "This object is irreplaceable." Therefore, it is not the id that

experiences being in love, but the ego that mistakes the pressure of the id for its own will. As in Freud's famous image inThe Ego and the Id (1923): the ego is the rider on the horse; but the rider often has to go where the horse wants to go, and moreover, he believes that he is going there of his own volition Love is precisely this moment: the id's investment in the object (the superposition of reflection + completion vectors) is experienced by the ego as "I am in love." Therefore, the person in love says "I can't help it" — because they really can't; the hand is in the id, but they mistakenly believe that hand is their own.Why Does It End? If love were a genuine selection of an object by the ego, it would never end

; it would transform. Because an object known by the ego, even if lost, is internalized, mourned, and its memory is carried (within Freud's

Mourning and Melancholia

framework). However, infatuation often ends without a trace— and the person who was once loved often becomes the person who is later said to be "what have I seen in them." This is the strongest indication that the investment is not in the object, but in the function that the object carries. When the function is exhausted or shifts to another object, love also ends. In other words: The fact that infatuation can end is the strongest retrospective indication that its beginning was id-based.

It is necessary to listen to Jacques Lacan here. Lacan says that desire (désir) is structurally based on lack (manque). Desire appears to be directed towards an object, but in reality, it does not want to obtain

the object — because obtaining it extinguishes desire itself. The real "object" of desire is the objet petit a : the unattainable, the constantly shifting, the constantly lacking. When the object is reached, the fantasy (fantasme) cracks; because the real object cannot carry the place in the fantasy. One step further: desire tries and succeeds in reaching because itdoesn'|'t know it will die . If it knew, its structure would collapse. This state of not knowing is the clearest indication that the id is not reason, but impulse. Impulse is a blind pressure (Drang) — it does not think, calculate, or foresee the result; it simply iterates

. Love is the experience of this blind drive in the ego. Three Elements in Love If we summarize the structure we have established so far, there are three elements in love: 1. Completing:The capacity to carry and offer what is lacking in the subject.

2. Reflecting:

The capacity to carry and reflect the subject's lack without judgment. Compassion (compassion / şefkat) is exactly here — the difference from the narcissistic mirror is that it is

non-judgmental . It returns not only the good, but also the lack. In John Bowlby's attachment theory (attachment theory / bağlanma kuramı), this function is called the

safe haven : the place where the subject can return when stressed, and where they will be accepted as they are. 3. Needing: The subject who cannot carry what they have on their own and needs the other to carry and reflect it. This third element requires special attention. "Being dependent on what is within oneself" seems like a logical paradox—why be dependent on what is within oneself? Because this dependence operates not on the plane of knowledge, but on the plane of fantasy

. The subject believes

that what is unknown within them is possessed by the other; this belief resists evidence and collapses when it conflicts with reality. Love is, epistemologically, not knowledge but belief; ontologically, it is not reality but fantasy; and phenomenologically, it is not choice but dependence. So, What's Behind All of This? In The Metaphysics of Love(Metaphysik der Geschlechtsliebe, 1844), Arthur Schopenhauer puts forth a striking thesis: it is not the individual who loves; it is the will of the species (Wille zum Leben) that loves. The individual says, "I want this," but what they want is not their own will, but the will of the species, which wants to perpetuate itself through them. In Schopenhauer's words: "In love, the genius of the species plays a trick on the individual."

Translating into modern language:

the instinct as the will of the species . Schopenhauer's metaphysical intuition is repeated in the language of biology by Freud's theory of drives (Trieb / drive) and contemporary evolutionary psychology. The species does notforce

the individual—it enchantesthem. Because force creates resistance, and enchantment produces consent. That is why love and sexuality are coded as pleasure: the individual does not object to fulfilling their species-specific task because they believe they are pursuing their own individual — happiness, and they rush to do so.The promise is never fully kept—but the species achieves its purpose. Saying this does not mean reducing humans to this mechanism. Humans certainly feel this impulse and are drawn to it; but they also develop the emotional and cognitive capacities to reshape it. The species charts its own course; the individual can write their own story of meaning, connection, and transformation on that path. The biological origin of love does not require us to explain it only in terms of biology—on the contrary, it is precisely this origin that has the capacity to transform what makes humans human. After the Cracking of Fantasy: Four Structural Paths of the Relationship

What happens after fantasy cracks in some way? This crack often comes with sexuality; but sometimes it manifests itself through the wear and tear of everyday life, economic pressures, children, illness, conflict, or the mundane. Regardless of how the crack comes, the relationship enters one of four structural paths from that point on. These should be read not as good or bad, but as different by their

nature

The three axes that define the path are:

Biological needs: sexuality, physical contact, safe proximity, rhythm harmony. Emotional needs:

recognition, acceptance, belonging, safe haven and secure base (Bowlby).

  • Rational needs: shared project, value alignment, shared goals, mental resonance.
  • The first path — transforming into love: If the needs are met to a sufficient degree across all three axes, the infatuation (Verliebtheit) structure transforms and evolves into mature love (Liebe). Here, Margaret Mahler's theory of separation-individuation comes into play: if both parties can move beyond the illusion of merging and recognize each other as
  • separate individuals , the bond deepens. Wilfred Bion's concept of containment is relevant here — the relationship grows to the extent that the parties can carry each other's unprocessed emotions.

The second path — early termination: If the needs are not sufficiently met, the fantasy crack prevents the transformation into love and closes the wound. Investment is withdrawn, and the parties become alienated. This is often neither a failure nor a loss — it is simply the natural end of an encounter where the projected image does not match reality. The third path — continuing out of necessity: The species goal (children), economic conditions, social pressure, habit, or fear of loneliness can sustain the relationship. As Schopenhauer observed, from a species perspective, the goal has already been achieved; what remains is the

continuation of the framework . Even if the emotional or rational nourishment weakens, the structure remains.

The fourth path — sustaining through effort: Both parties recognize the collapse of the fantasy but still choose to stay together and

work for that choice. This is the path of love, not infatuation — and it requires a completely different capacity. Nurturing Love: Fromm's Framework Erich Fromm, in The Art of Loving(Die Kunst des Liebens, 1956), puts forth perhaps the most critical thesis:

love is not a feeling, but an art.

That is, it is a skill that can be learned, developed, and is a practice that requires effort. To fallin love is a passive event; to stand in love is an active stance. According to Fromm, mature love is " a union where each of the individuals in the relationship retains their own integrity and individuality. " Being together without merging, without being absorbed. Fromm says that this mature love has four structural elements: Care:Actively showing interest in the other person's life and growth.Responsibility:

Being able to respond to the other's needs (the word root is already

  • response-ability Respect:
  • Seeing the other as they are , not trying to shape them according to our own image. Its Latin form,).
  • respicere , means "to look at truly." Knowledge: Striving to know the other deeply, not just superficially.These four are embodied in relationships on a daily basis through the following capacities:
  • Communication: Being able to

hear

  • the other — the practical form of Fromm's knowledge Kindness: Being able tovalue
  • the other — the daily expression of respect — Empathy: Being able to
  • understand the other's situation from the inside — — the emotional ground of responsibility
  • Attentive presence: Attentive presence directed towards the other's existence — the embodied form of care The common essence of the four is one thing:

to recognize the other not as a carrier of fantasy, but as a subject existing in their own right. Martin Buber's "I-Thou" relationship, Emmanuel Levinas's "the face of the other," and the modern relational psychoanalysis concept of "mutual recognition" (Jessica Benjamin) all point to the same place: to see the other not as a tool , but as a face It is precisely at this point that infatuation turns into love: when the other, who is a carrier of fantasy, is replaced by the other, who is a real subject. This does not happen spontaneously; it requires effort. Because the id does not learn, the ego learns. The Chemistry of Love

Now we can return to the title.

The chemistry of love

is not a romantic metaphor, but an almost literal description. Four layers work together: Biological layer (Schopenhauer + instinct):The species enchants us in order to perpetuate itself.

  • Psychodynamic layer (Freud + Klein + Jung + id): We are unconsciously drawn to the object that carries our lack and reflects it.
  • Structural layer (Lacan + fantasy): Desire is framed by fantasy; it cracks when reached.
  • Relational layer (Bowlby + Winnicott + Fromm + care): What remains after the crack, whether the four capacities develop or not, determines it.
  • An individual thinks they are in love. However, the individual who is in love is not the individual itself, but life itself

, which is sustained through them. That is why love is blind, intense, and fleeting. But what remains afterward is the work of the individual, not the species, and how it will be carried forward depends on the functioning of the three needs axes and four capacities. What do you think?Does all of this diminish love? I don't think so.

Knowing

love does not mean not experiencing it. On the contrary: experiencing it as it is enriches life and makes it possible to protect what remains after it has passed. Because the classic distinction between love (Verliebtheit) and love (Liebe) is exactly here: infatuation is a temporary state where the id takes over the ego; love is a lasting structure where the ego recognizes and transforms the id. Infatuation intoxicates, love keeps you sober. Infatuation promises, love

delivers . Infatuation is a temporary lock; love is pausing to look before acting. Yet, we need both: infatuation initiates the bond, love sustains and grows it.Now ask yourself:

In the people you have been infatuated with in the past, did you really love

  • them , or did you love something in them that you didn't recognize in yourself Were they lacking something that you reflected, or were they completing you; or had your need's belief already run out?
  • What remained
  • when it ended — grief, or bewilderment? The answer to this question also tells you which layer it was built on.
  • What kind of relationship are you in right now: one that is turning into love, one that ended early, one that continues out of obligation, or one that is carried on with effort?
  • How developed are Fromm's four elements — care, responsibility, respect, knowledge — and their daily counterparts, the four capacities — communication, kindness, empathy, attentive interest — in you?
  • And finally: when you look into the face of the other person, what do you see — a fantasy that you hope will complete you, or a subject that exists on its own, transcending you?

The chemistry of love and relationships is complex; but understanding it does not take away our right to experience it. It simply makes it possible for us to be less alienated from ourselves afterward. It makes our life needs more accurate, attentive, and balanced; it simplifies and clarifies our perspective on both ourselves and the other person.

Dr. Abdurrahman Subaş

Education and Management Scientist