On Love
While I have seen the topic come up numerous times on my Friends Page and Friends of Friends Page, I have intentionally avoided it, or rather, put it off, until now.
The question is often asked, "What is love?" And the general consensus seems to be that there is no right answer, that love means different things to different people -- and yet is somehow always good.
I find that a rather silly reply. It's not that love has no right meanings, that any meaning is acceptable; it is that there are many very different things for which we unfortunately use "love" to refer in this language. Love means different things in different contexts. Asking the question, "What is love?" without context is asking an unanswerable question -- not enough information has been provided. But if the context is, "Do I love this person, should I marry him or her?" it should not be as complicated an issue as people make it.
But like other words with context-dependent meanings[1], people often -- consciously or subconsciously -- use "love" as a cover up for what they really mean. This works because "love" is generally always considered a good thing. For this reason, it seems that many people seem clueless to the idea that there are different kinds of love. They will say such things as, "It's ok, because I'm in love," -- even though the love they feel is an entirely different love than one that is healthy for a relationship.
Here are some different kinds of love, the way I see it (Perhaps there are more.):
A few points:
First, all of the above types of love are amoral; all of them could be good things -- depending on the context. And in the context of a marriage, I believe all types should be present at least some of the time. I enjoy being with my wife; I desire my wife; I show love for my wife; I intimately know and share with my wife.
Second, it is assumed that love makes everything better in relationships. This is absurd. If you love someone only with the enjoyment/pleasure kind of love, that is a passive love; it does nothing to maintain the relationship; it also can change if the other person changes or if your own interests change. If you only love someone with the desire kind of love, you can become so wrapped up in how you feel and what you think you need that you harm and hurt the other person. How selfish! In another case, you may well be serving and helping the other person, but you might not even enjoy being with him or her. You might not be sharing anything with him or her. And most people want to be desired, not served out of duty.
Third, it is said that you cannot choose whom you love. This is also absurd. Each of the kinds of love I mentioned above are tied to the emotions in different ways. I will agree that you cannot control what emotions you initially feel. But as a human, you have the ability to ignore your emotions. You have the ability to choose things in opposition to your emotions if that is that best choice. You are not a mindless robot; you are not an instinct-driven beast. You also have the ability to make choices for the benefit of another in the absence of emotions. No, you cannot just will away infatuation or desire, but basing your decisions on those things alone is folly.
And of course, emotions are fickle; they change.
I hate it when people ask, "How do I know if I am in love?" and they are told, "Oh, you'll just know." This makes it sound like love is some special mystical force, and it also ignores the fact that there are different kinds of love. Here is how I say you can answer the question, "Am I in love?"
Don't ask it.
Ask yourself these less ambiguous questions instead:
"Do I enjoy being with this person? And will I enjoy being with this person in the foreseeable future?"
"Do I desire this person? Do I need this person? Am I confusing want with need?"
"Do I want to serve this person? Do I act in this person's best interests?"
"Am I willing and excited about sharing my life, my thoughts, my emotions with this person?"
It's that simple.
Now I have not read C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves; the above are my own thoughts. Of the four kinds I list, only 3 are the kinds that Lewis considered. Oftentimes, people use Greek words -- as Lewis did -- to refer to the above forms of love and others. This is useful if one forces the Greek words into more precise meanings than they had, but it must be remembered that no language is precise. The Greeks struggled with what the words for love meant as much as we. Also, it could be said that we also have numerous words for love in English: desire, want, lust, like, love, serve, care for, share, etc.
But for essius and others,
επιθυμια epithumia was used for any passionate desire. (The verbal form literally means "to set ones heart/soul on".)
ερως eros was used for the passionate desire kind of love and/or the romantic/sharing/union kind of love. It is the most similar to our romantic love in that it can encompass both.
φιλια philia was used for the love of friendship or brotherhood. For nonhuman objects, it is generally translated "like".
αγαπη agape originally seemed to refer to a searching kind of love, but later became more of a selfless kind of love. It was often used for a higher ranking person caring for a lower ranking person.
By the time of the Koine period, the distinctions between philia and agape became less and less. They are often used interchangeably.
The question is often asked, "What is love?" And the general consensus seems to be that there is no right answer, that love means different things to different people -- and yet is somehow always good.
I find that a rather silly reply. It's not that love has no right meanings, that any meaning is acceptable; it is that there are many very different things for which we unfortunately use "love" to refer in this language. Love means different things in different contexts. Asking the question, "What is love?" without context is asking an unanswerable question -- not enough information has been provided. But if the context is, "Do I love this person, should I marry him or her?" it should not be as complicated an issue as people make it.
But like other words with context-dependent meanings[1], people often -- consciously or subconsciously -- use "love" as a cover up for what they really mean. This works because "love" is generally always considered a good thing. For this reason, it seems that many people seem clueless to the idea that there are different kinds of love. They will say such things as, "It's ok, because I'm in love," -- even though the love they feel is an entirely different love than one that is healthy for a relationship.
Here are some different kinds of love, the way I see it (Perhaps there are more.):
- Enjoyment, Pleasure -- e.g. "I love Star Wars," "I love Bill Cosby," "I love eating," etc.
This kind of love is really a strong, emphatic "like". We are basically saying that we take great enjoyment or find great pleasure in someone or some thing or some action.
This kind of love usually only effects our emotions if we are actively in the company of the person we love or actively doing the action or acting on the object we love.
We could just as well say, "I really like Star Wars," "I enjoy Bill Cosby," "I take pleasure in eating," etc. - Passion, Desire, Lust -- e.g. "I am in love with So-and-So," "I love money," "I love eating," etc.
This kind of love is a strong, passionate desire. It is not just that we like something -- in fact we can desire things or people we don't really enjoy -- it is that we want it with a high level of emotion. Sometimes we want something so much, we feel we need it. Or we need something so much, we are very aware of wanting it.
This kind of love can captivate our emotions such that it drives us to action. (Sometimes, our emotions are captivated by something or someone that we do not actually desire. For this, I use the word "infatuation". But usually infatuation leads to desire, if not for the original object of desire, something like it.)
We could just as well say, "I really want So-and-So," "I really want more money," "I strongly want to eat," etc. - Selflessness, Compassion -- e.g. "I show love to my wife," "I am doing an act of love for my students," "I am doing the loving thing for my friend." etc.
This kind of love is an act. It is actively doing something for the benefit of another. This kind of love can only have an object as a person or animal.
This kind of love is usually not depended on emotions, though it often times affects emotions.
We could just as well say, "I take care of my wife," "I am doing the best for my students," "I am helping my friend," etc. - Romance, Intimacy -- e.g. "I love my wife," "I am in love with So-and-So," etc.
This kind of love is an intimate union. It is a sharing,...
...but a sharing that affects body, mind, and emotions.
We could just as well say, "I feel like my wife and I are one," "I am extremely, intimately close to So-and-So,"etc.
A few points:
First, all of the above types of love are amoral; all of them could be good things -- depending on the context. And in the context of a marriage, I believe all types should be present at least some of the time. I enjoy being with my wife; I desire my wife; I show love for my wife; I intimately know and share with my wife.
Second, it is assumed that love makes everything better in relationships. This is absurd. If you love someone only with the enjoyment/pleasure kind of love, that is a passive love; it does nothing to maintain the relationship; it also can change if the other person changes or if your own interests change. If you only love someone with the desire kind of love, you can become so wrapped up in how you feel and what you think you need that you harm and hurt the other person. How selfish! In another case, you may well be serving and helping the other person, but you might not even enjoy being with him or her. You might not be sharing anything with him or her. And most people want to be desired, not served out of duty.
Third, it is said that you cannot choose whom you love. This is also absurd. Each of the kinds of love I mentioned above are tied to the emotions in different ways. I will agree that you cannot control what emotions you initially feel. But as a human, you have the ability to ignore your emotions. You have the ability to choose things in opposition to your emotions if that is that best choice. You are not a mindless robot; you are not an instinct-driven beast. You also have the ability to make choices for the benefit of another in the absence of emotions. No, you cannot just will away infatuation or desire, but basing your decisions on those things alone is folly.
And of course, emotions are fickle; they change.
I hate it when people ask, "How do I know if I am in love?" and they are told, "Oh, you'll just know." This makes it sound like love is some special mystical force, and it also ignores the fact that there are different kinds of love. Here is how I say you can answer the question, "Am I in love?"
Don't ask it.
Ask yourself these less ambiguous questions instead:
"Do I enjoy being with this person? And will I enjoy being with this person in the foreseeable future?"
"Do I desire this person? Do I need this person? Am I confusing want with need?"
"Do I want to serve this person? Do I act in this person's best interests?"
"Am I willing and excited about sharing my life, my thoughts, my emotions with this person?"
It's that simple.
Now I have not read C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves; the above are my own thoughts. Of the four kinds I list, only 3 are the kinds that Lewis considered. Oftentimes, people use Greek words -- as Lewis did -- to refer to the above forms of love and others. This is useful if one forces the Greek words into more precise meanings than they had, but it must be remembered that no language is precise. The Greeks struggled with what the words for love meant as much as we. Also, it could be said that we also have numerous words for love in English: desire, want, lust, like, love, serve, care for, share, etc.
But for essius and others,
επιθυμια epithumia was used for any passionate desire. (The verbal form literally means "to set ones heart/soul on".)
ερως eros was used for the passionate desire kind of love and/or the romantic/sharing/union kind of love. It is the most similar to our romantic love in that it can encompass both.
φιλια philia was used for the love of friendship or brotherhood. For nonhuman objects, it is generally translated "like".
αγαπη agape originally seemed to refer to a searching kind of love, but later became more of a selfless kind of love. It was often used for a higher ranking person caring for a lower ranking person.
By the time of the Koine period, the distinctions between philia and agape became less and less. They are often used interchangeably.