If the essence of relationships between men and women is obviously a value exchange, why do we name it “love”?

Q: If the essence of relationships between men and women is obviously a value exchange, why do we name it “love”?

A: The term “essence” belongs to speculative (philosophical) vocabulary, whereas “love” is an umbrella word people use to narrate their raw felt emotions. In that sense, your question is about as meaningful as asking: “Why does a father share the same surname as his son?”

Most naming in this world comes from habit, not strict rationality. For anyone who has to coin or choose a name, the first goal is that others can instantly understand it—so it must lean on convention and shared consensus. Sure, China could be called some multi-segment, hyper-descriptive political entity of ‘XX, XX, XX, XX’, but is there any necessity? Likewise, “love” could be renamed “a value exchange between X and Y possessing characteristics of XX,” but that would just be stiff and wooden.

In fact, saying “the essence of XX is XX” is itself a speculative definition. Speculation doesn’t transcend human rationality; it’s merely a small sub-module inside human rationality. Of course some people will use “a value exchange of XX” as a metaphor for love, but ultimately they remain a minority.