For centuries, mankind as a whole has always desired or searched for love at some given point if not for their entire life span. Love is a concept that while the dictionary will give you various definitions, can not really be defined, but rather felt. Even if we believe we are experiencing feelings of love at some point, there is no guarantee that the experience then is an ever-lasting true love. Love grows and changes throughout one’s life starting hopefully with ones parents leading to peers, and on to life partners. Over time, many philosophers have looked into this topic, trying to explain and break down what exactly the concept is. It is the object of this paper to look at both Soleveichick as well as Maimonedes, and apply their views to both a modern day perspective and social work. Love being a concept that has been around since the beginning of time according to some may have been a divine idea. If you look at the way Soleveichick breaks down the character of first man into Adam I and Adam II, I think my point can be clearly seen. According to Soleveichick it seems that Adam I is the utilitarian character by action and attitude, I will return to him later. Adam II on the other had is an existential character by his nature. By that it seems to mean that Adam II in the case of love would be the more romantic character, the one which many at some point of life desire this type of a loving relationship. This is the character where love comes truly within; it is a spiritual kind of love, where one really needs nothing in return but the love itself. In today’s standards these are the people one would just buy flowers for, take long walks on the beach with, as well as exploring and experiencing issues as well as acts of intimacy with. These are the people we desire as life partners (does not necessarily have to be for a marital type of relationship.) at times. I know that from my personal experience at this point in my li...
