Love is so difficult to define. We use it in so many ways, I love playing golf, I love my brother, I love my friends, or I love my wife. How does one distinguish love from infatuation or lust?
There are three paradigms that the ancient Greeks have attempted to describe love by, 'Agape', 'Philia', and 'Eros'.
Agape – The sort of love God has for us persons, as well as our love for God and by extension, of our love for each other.
Eros –Love in the sense of a kind of passionate desire for an object, typically sexual passion. It is often described as the “‘love of desire,’ or acquisitive love” and therefore as egocentric.
Philia – The kind of affectionate regard or friendly feeling towards not just one's friends but also possibly towards family members, business partners, and one's country at large.
For the Greeks, the term Philia incorporated not just friendship, but also loyalties to family and polis-one's political community, job, or discipline. While Agape has come primarily through the Christian tradition, used in religion and that is one key point that separates it from Philia.
Now when we have Eros love for someone, is it just because we want to have sex with them (procreation) or have them protect us from potential dangers such as women in our ancestor's times. Or for social or monetary reasons which seem more applicable in contemporary times but still highly resembles the very same reasons we had 10,000 years ago. It really seems to be dependent on egocentric reasons, doesn’t it?
That is why many philosophers believe that Eros is “selfish” and is a response to the merits of the beloved—especially the beloved's goodness or beauty.
‘If x loves y then x wants to benefit and be with y etc., and he has these wants (or at least some of them) because he believes y has some determinate characteristics ψ in virtue of which he thinks it worth while to benefit and be with y. He regards satisfaction of these wants as an end and not as a means towards some other end.’ (Taylor 1976)
But Plato believed that sexual desire to be a deficient response to physical beauty in particular, a response which ought to be developed into a response to the beauty of a person's soul and, ultimately, into a response to the form, Beauty.
However in the contemporary world romantic love seems just to be agape with sexual activity which acts merely as the expression of what otherwise looks very much like normal friendship.
Now imagine this dilemma, there is someone who has a sexual incestuous relationship with his sister. Is that love, Eros or Philia? Yes it is affection for a family member but it is also affection with sexual desire. What about if that someone is also christian, and have been "commanded" by god to 'love thy neighbour'. Agape also? So what the hell is love?
Maybe the three different notions are a difference of degree rather than a difference of kind.
2 comments:
I find it quiet interesting how you use the Greek terms to explain love. I also like how you contradict the word 'love' or 'to love' with your example of loving your sister but at the same time not being 'allowed' to love her.
Thank you for your comment. However you may have misunderstood my use of the example dilemma. I did not say that the brother was not allowed to love the sister through the “Eros” sense of love. But how do we describe his love for his sister, if it is also “Agape” or “Philia”.
Maybe this is only instance we can use the world “love” as they may fit all three paradigms…
Post a Comment