"Sacrificing your happiness for the happiness of the one you love, is by far, the truest type of love." ~Anonymous
King Lear by Shakespeare addresses the idea of altruism in a different way. It accounts for the fact that sacrifice can account for love and is required, but sacrifice does not always lead to love. This is demonstrated in Lear himself: unsure of what love is, but through different sacrifices, he is better able to understand "true" love. (He sacrifices his Kingdom and sanity for his precious girls, receiving little to nothing in return.) For Lear sacrifice is necessary in order to identify if love exists or not.
Goneril's sacrifice went to the extremes. She sacrificed herself and her own sister, by poisoning her, in order to fill her wishes to love Edmund - all which ended in utter destruction, and ultimately death.
Kent's sacrifice seems to be overlooked and underwritten; which is ironic, because Kent's sacrifice seems to me to be the most genuine. After being banished by Lear, Kent degrades his own identity to that of a peasant just in order to remain loyal to Lear and serve him, eventually leading to assumed suicide so Kent could follow his King even unto death.
It is interesting in Lear that love is not evident without some kind of sacrifice. I think that Shakespeare uses Lear to prove that sacrifice is an essential component of love, but often, when we sacrifice in order to obey selfish desires, like Goneril, it amounts to nothing.
So in regard to my big question relating to Lear, I've discovered that you can sacrifice without necessarily being an altruistic, selfless person.
