In terminology, love terminology upgrades refers to []

Physicochemical neutrality
physicochemically-neutral or chemical thermodynamically-neutral term replacements for "love" and related terms, e.g. "hate", that scale up and down the atomic scale (chain of being, so to say; or molecular evolution scale), elemental periodic table to family dinner table; in the same sense in which, at the beginning of the 20th century it became no longer coherent to speak about the love and hate of the elements, so to going into the early 21st century is it no longer coherent to speak about love and hate between humans defined as chemicals (human chemicals), molecules (human molecules), or powered CHNOPS+20 bound state animate structures.


A depiction of via chemical anthropism, therein illustrating the need for love terminology reform and or upgrades, whenever physicochemical and or thermodynamical principles are used to explain human phenomena, i.e. "anthropisms", as Charles Sherrington (1938) said, must be expunged whenever digressions on human nature occur. In short, both depictions shown above illustrate a common natural phenomena that can be quantified according to the principles of physical chemistry. While both versions, left and right, employ the same terminology, i.e. "love" and "hate" to explain what occurs, the version on the left (Ѻ) is but a fun cartoon, made for the purposes of humor, while the version on the right illustrates descriptions real "heated" emotions (i.e. a non-funny situation). The difference between the two is that the left-version employs terms that are NOT actually used in physical chemistry textbooks. Subsequently, if one desires to explain the right-version precisely, according to the laws of nature, then a physicochemically-neutral language must be employed, in the same sense in which actual physical chemistry textbooks define phenomena, using physicochemically-neutral (deanthropomorphized) terminology, otherwise "objectionable nonsense" results.

A depiction of via chemical anthropism, therein illustrating the need for love terminology reform and or upgrades, whenever physicochemical and or thermodynamical principles are used to explain human phenomena, i.e. "anthropisms", as Charles Sherrington (1938) said, must be expunged whenever digressions on human nature occur. In short, both depictions shown above illustrate a common natural phenomena that can be quantified according to the principles of physical chemistry. While both versions, left and right, employ the same terminology, i.e. "love" and "hate" to explain what occurs, the version on the left (Ѻ) is but a fun cartoon, made for the purposes of humor, while the version on the right illustrates descriptions real "heated" emotions (i.e. a non-funny situation). The difference between the two is that the left-version employs terms that are NOT actually used in physical chemistry textbooks. Subsequently, if one desires to explain the right-version precisely, according to the laws of nature, then a physicochemically-neutral language must be employed, in the same sense in which actual physical chemistry textbooks define phenomena, using physicochemically-neutral (deanthropomorphized) terminology, otherwise "objectionable nonsense" results.

Overview
In 450BC, Empedocles, in his four element two force model, referred to "love" as an attractive force and "hate" as a repulsive force, in short; some of this attraction to repulsion balancing (see: attraction-to-repulsion ratio) logic is seen in, e.g., the Gottman stability ratio discussion, amid which the colloquial inexact (atomically-inapplicable) terms love and hate become obviated.

In 1898 to 1903, Ernst Haeckel, in his various love letters, mentions the concept of elective affinity at least three times in respect to his own romantic relationships; in one letter to a Franziska von Altenhausen, Haeckel defines elective affinity as a strange psychological chemotropism: [1]

“… seductive women—why should I, despite all scruples and obstacles, cast myself into the dust before you? Dearst Franziska, herein lies the enigma of ‘elective affinity’, of that strange psychological ‘chemotropism’, of whose power I have spoken repeatedly in my books—little dreaming that I myself should fall a victim to it in my old age!”

In 1910, Henry Bray gave the following suggestions for term reform: [2]

“Similar forces to those that thus bring together the opposite sexes are everywhere evident and acting in the so-called material world, and in the judgment of the writer, equally natural and all-conquering. In our conceit and blindness we call the one force ‘love’, and the other force ‘affinity’; but mere alteration of words cannot alter the fact that the two words are the expression of the same force in nature.”

In this sense, we would say that "love", in colloquial inexact terminology, according to the Goethe-Helmholtz equation (or thermodynamic theory of affinity):

$A=-\left(\frac{\partial G}{\partial \xi}\right)_{p,T}$

equates to positive affinity (or negative Gibbs energy partial differential change per reaction extent) in exact scientific terminology, and that "hate", likewise, corresponds to negative affinity (or positive Gibbs energy partial differential change per reaction extent), in scientific terms, i.e. physicochemcially-neutral language.

Alternatively, in the Haeckel sense, we might aptly state that "love" and "hate" corresponds to positive and negative psychological chemotropism, respectively, similar to a plant turning towards sunlight.

Quotes
The following are related quotes:

“Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished.”
— Johann Goethe (c.1820)

“Love is gravitation toward a beautiful object.”
— Jose Ortega (c.1920) [2]

“Love is a romantic designation for a most ordinary biological process—or, shall we say, chemical—process … a lot of nonsense is talked and written about it.”
— Greta Garbo (1932), Ninotchka

See also
● Life terminology upgrades
● Sociology terminology upgrades

References
1. Haeckel, Ernst. (1930). The Love Letters of Ernst Haeckel: Written Between 1898 and 1903 (editor: Johannes Werner) (elective affinity, pgs. 101, 212, 260). Methuen.
2. Bray, Henry T. (1910). The Living Universe (§19: Atomic and Human Affinities, pgs. 257-65; pg. 259). Truro Publishing Co., 1920.