Ordinary language is all right.
One could divide humanity into two classes:
those who master a metaphor, and those who hold by a formula.
Those with a bent for both are too few, they do not comprise a class.
The story has it that we adapt, animals are adapted; but we will sometimes cravenly suggest that they adapt, too, like us, when we are reminded of any of the sometimes devastating consequences, to them, of our adapting the world to suit us. As if they had little animal tools, made little animal plans.
Strange that people build lives for themselves.
Now I would rather say, of course another person's absence can make your life seem empty.
Neither the world nor love is in need of a theodicy unless we make it so.
... and you?
'Of course we do! There's... and... and...'
Animals live, people do things; or is it that plants live, and animals do things? And if the latter, do people ever do anything... more?
Questions one is eager to be impatient with.
Not every moral argument need sound like an upsell.
A gloss on what attracts 'the weak' in Genealogy I, 13 to 'the best doctrine on earth', the existence of 'the subject', 'an unbiased "subject" with freedom of choice': they need there to be a me who has nothing to do with me.