Love is the strong feeling of fondness correlated to a sense of strong faithfulness or philosophical oneness. The significance of love varies comparative to the addressed context. First, romantic love is seen as an indefinable feeling of passionate attraction shared in ardent or intimate attraction and interpersonal and sexual relationships, (module 1 lecture notes). Though love is often associated with personal relationships, love is often specified a broader implication, a love of humankind, of nature, with life itself and the Universe i.e. a universal love (module 3). Other sorts of loves exist, that is spiritual love, religious love, family love, and, more casually, great fondness for anything considered strongly enjoyable, desirable to include behavior and food. This miscellaneous range of meanings of love reflects the concept’s depth, flexibility, and convolution (module 2).
In the chapter, (François Maurice, p.30) the author is trying to describe what love and friendship is at personal level and social level (module1). In this issue of what is exactly love, the writer seems to be a bit confused as to what exactly is love and particularly true love. He uses a hyperbolic description to elaborate how people are usually affected by love.The writer goes ahead to identify the effects and threats that love can cause especially when one refuses to grasp the main topic that is being addressed by the author. For example, the author argues that love can be perceived to be good and some thing that people should enjoy. However, he is nervous and he is trembling for this love that he perceived to be of great advantage as life and people are concerned. This is what love is at personal level and social level. It is hyperbolic in that the author puts contradicting statements in that what he describes as love can be a creator and at the same time a destroyer.
(Henri Nouwen: The Challenge of Love p 24), The writer personifies what is love and its side effect by saying that, “I know that I often hate instead of love, and that sometimes I like to hurt instead of cure, to kill instead of heal“. By saying that he is a hypocrite, means that love can be something else that people cannot understand. It means that love has a hidden agenda. Incase it is not properly utilized it can mutate to a dangerous virus that can wipe the family or that can untie the wedlock. The writer is disgusted as to whether there is love without hatred. He wonders whether is there a fatal component of hate in the center of everything that is called love. Actually, for love to exist there must be hatred in order to distinguish what to love and what to hate. There is good and evil, but there cannot be only good because people might not detect evil. The word good is used to describe what is evil and vice versa.
From the article (Henri Nouwen, p.26) He rebukes what is evil by transgressing destruction that is caused by abused love. All in all love can be evil or treated as evil. He says that the study of nonviolence has shown how this taking mode of existences is based on the concept of the irreversibility of evil. Virtues of evil such as blatant mistakes, failures due to human weaknesses, and offences are unchangeable elements on the record of human life (module 3). In the chapter the author is very satirical and challenging that man and his deeds, dreams of only and the only thing “evil”. From this episode, it is apparent that man and evil is an irreversibility concept right from the time immemorial. He argues that evil is definitely unchangeable. In addition, the only solution to evil is just to destroy it. Another challenge is how to destroy the evil at social level. According to his belief, evil cannot be reversed and forgiven contrally to Christians beliefs. However, he suggests that evil can be eradicated by uprooting or burning it to ash. Nevertheless, (Henri Nouwen page 31 and 32), the author tries to reveal that eventually there is reversibility of evil. This is true when he quotes the action of sexual intercourse between a couple that was not much solid there before. And I quote,”On the belief in the reversibility of evil, evil is not final and unchangeable”. He uses Gandhi’s concept of non-violence that was based on forgiveness that could change every foe to a great friend. Going on, it is indicated in the beginning of (Henri Nouwen page 32) that one person want to exploit another on the spot and not tomorrow , meaning that there is no true love even if this is a couple united in love. In another word, in social life people are after what you have and not what you are. It is true that in cultural background, people make love out of certain hidden agenda and not because of true love. Some of these agenda are money or wealth, security, status and recognition. Many people prefer marrying affluent people who are powerful in the government for security purpose and fame.
There is agony that the writer is lamenting on the weaknesses of love that lead to hatred. People are suffering just because of abusing what is love. This leads to dynamics of war and hate even in life saving institutions. This is found from, (François Mauriac, page 28, 3rd paragrahp) where he wonders as to whether love, peace and forgiveness are dream of those who are at the external of the stated cruel circle.
Nevertheless, after a tearful lamenting and critical thinking, there is change of evil in the novel as the writer argues that it takes a lot of courage, but it might just open a new horizon, a new way of living. He predicts a great change when he refers to the opening the door from a ferocious circle and creating a door to a new beginning. ( Henley J.M Newman, pg 28, 3rd paragraph) From this episode, conversation, which is a virtue of understanding and love changes everything as love and evil are concerned.It, is written that conversation is the discovery of the possibility of love and this love outdo what is evil.
The challenge of love is how can people show tolerance to ones evil and understanding, love is based on the mutuality of the admission of our total self to each other. But is it true according to the author that people can carry others burden as if the burdens are theirs. This is a big challenge. As quote,”my potency is your strength, and beside that your soreness is my soreness, your fault my fault and finally your sin is my sin”.(Henley J. M Nowen, pg 29) It is true that nobody can accept to be executed on behalf of another person.Here the writer exaggerate the concept of love, that does not exist and if existed ,it was only shown by the son of a man, Jesus Christ.
After realizing the effect of taking form and the loving form, automatically the beginning of change arises. Whereby painful fluctuations in life between the two desires of taking form and forgiving form innovate the change, the uncovering the truth that it is safe to love. This is an alternative for love that breaks down all sort of evil and the hope of eternal life changes everything to the final day of divine love and life.(module 3).
Reference
Henri Nouwen: The Challenge of Love (2007). Web.
François Mauriac’s “Viper’s Tangle: Impact of Culture on Love (2006). Web.