Introduction
Love has been a fountain of inspiration for many poets, writers, musicians, and artists. Its many aspects, facets, interpretation, and forms of expression have been painted, acted upon, portrayed, and re-portrayed in many forms of arts, visual and performing. It has been written about endlessly.
Love has been connected closely with relationships, as love seems to exist always between two or more individuals. However, Love is a much-abused term in the modern context as most ordinary people easily use it in their day-to-day interaction without having to fully understand what it encompasses, or means. But technically, the word has evolved to mean a lot of things, and surprisingly, Lewis has also warned of its evil implications.
This paper shall try to explore the purpose of Lewis in defining four loves, as well as delineate personal or modern individual’s understanding of love, specifically eros and the others.
Discussion
Visher (2003) pointed out that while the past eras have looked upon religion as the common framework under which everyday existence proceeds, local and international laws have long replaced this role. And as many schools of thought have emerged as to how people should regard and behave their fellow humans, Lewi’s book has maintained a Christian view on the various forms of love as ways in giving and showing what we have for others.
The Four Loves explores the nature of love from a Christian perspective through thought experiments and examples from literature wherein the “need-love” seen in a child for its mother, and the gift-love as exemplified by God’s love for humanity were Lewis’ jumping point. These basic categorizations of love, Lewis proposed, are more complicated than they seem, formulating the foundation of his topic that “the highest does not stand without the lowest”. Lewis explores the nature of pleasure and then divides love into four categories, based in part on the four Greek words for love: affection, friendship, eros, and charity.
Based on the Greek word “storge”, affection according to Lewis is fondness through familiarity common between family members or people that have been together by chance for quite a period. Primate acts found between mother and infant are explored that include sucking, licking, cuddling, among others. Affection is described as the most natural, emotive, and widely diffused among the four loves as it exists without being forced or coerced. It is emotive and the result of fondness due to familiarity. This kind of love is characteristic of being able to transcend the most discriminating factors and does not concentrate or even notice that which could be valuable or worthy of love. Nevertheless, this affection’s strength is also its weakness as it appears to be built-in or ready-made wherein people end up expecting or demanding affection from other/s that somehow blurs situations.
The Greek philia or friendship, according to Lewis is a kind of love that bonds people who share a common interest or activity although Lewis proposed that friendship is narrower than mere companionship. Lewis contends that friendship exists only if there is something for the friendship to be about. Lewis believes it is the least natural of loves as it is not biologically necessary such as affection for rearing a child, eros for creating a child, or charity for providing for a child. Likewise, it has the least association with impulse or emotion although it is looked upon as most admirable looking at the bond on how or why the friendship was created freeing the participants from self-consciousness. It is also beyond jealousy because the participants in friendship look beyond or above themselves and welcome those looking for the same. Friendships weigh in civilization value, according to Lewis, which could be of monumental importance to society as many advances in society may never have been embarked upon without friendship to blunt the loneliness. Nevertheless, exclusivity among friends may ignore calls outside the group and could impact worse scenarios.
In Kant’s lectures, he discusses the choices man makes concerning Friendship. He writes “…But if everyone cared only for himself and never troubled about anyone else, there would be no friendship. The two things must, therefore, be combined. Man cares for his own happiness and for that of others also… if I choose only friendship then my happiness would suffer…” Kant paints a picture of a struggle many of us endure when considering friendship against self-happiness. In another view, Lewis wrote “…The rest of us know that though we can have erotic love and friendship for the same person yet in some ways nothing is less like a Friendship than a love-affair. Lovers are always talking to one another about their love; Friends face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest.”
On another hand, eros or love in the sense of being in love has been differentiated by Lewis against sexuality and he discussed sexual activity as well as spiritual significance in Christian and pagan understanding. Lewis identified eros as indifferent and still positive in the sense that it promotes appreciation of the beloved regardless of any pleasure that can be obtained from them. However, Lewis warned that blind devotion may occur pointing out that many of history’s abominable events are rooted in blind devotion, thereby proposing that love must be kept from being evil by not elevating it to the status of a god.
The Greek “agape” or charity refers to the unconditional love given to another which is not dependent on any good or positive, worthy qualities that the object of love possesses. Agape love cares regardless of circumstances and Lewis recognizes agape as the greatest of all loves. He then regards agape as a Christian virtue. He proposed that there is a need of subordinating the natural loves to the love of God, stating among others that God, “…is so full, in fact, that it overflows, and He can’t help but love us.” In this chapter, Lewis compares agape love with a garden where charity is as the gardening utensils, the lover is the gardener, and God is the elements of nature. However, Lewis recommended that those who practice charity must not flaunt and warp this pure love as he quoted Matthew 6:3 on giving, “…when you give to someone, don’t tell your left hand what your right hand is doing.”
In comparison to other common notions about love, we may refer to Aristotle who pointed out that “As has been said, there are three kinds of philia, according to virtue, utility, and pleasure, and these in turn are divided into two, the one set according to equality, the other according to surplus. Both sets are philiai, but friends [philoi] are those according to equality; for it would be absurd for a father to be a friend [philos] to his child, but of course he loves [philei] him and is loved [philei] by him,” (Pakaluk, 1995). Likewise, Greek friendship, has conceptions under three main head of circles: the family, fellow-citizens and “the third main group of philoi” which “approximates most closely to modern conceptions of a friend,” (Blundell, 1989) although Strauss (1986) pointed out that “Friendship was of fundamental importance in Athenian society. Second only to parent-child and kinship ties in the intensity of its obligations, friendship is central to the thought of many ancient Greek writers.”
In addition, Fisher (1976) wrote that “Linguistically, the most general word for what belongs to a person, in his group or on his side, is philos or the noun philia, which we usually translate ‘friend’, but which, when applied to persons, systematically spans both kin and non-kin, those with whom one has links of mutual aid and benevolence.”
It has also been observed in Aristotle’s treatise that “Religious societies, familial bonds, affinities among travelers, civility among citizens, arrangements of hospitality, and tacit contractual agreements — all these are woven into his account of friendship,” ( Pakaluk, 1991, xiv).
Lewis’s book may be comparable to Soble’s (1989) book which encompassed major traditions in the philosophy of love from Platonic eros, Christian agape to Aristotelian philia. Soble proposed that while eros is acquisitive, egocentric to the point of being selfish, un-constant, and unfaithful, agape on the other is giving love, unwavering despite ingratitude, and creates value in its object. Eros is an ascending love and agape descending, of which Soble suggested that philia is everything between eros and agape.
On another note, it is indicated that love is difficult to explain as the word refers to many different things. However, love is often framed in the Greek love words – eros, philia, and agape and Soble maintains that the general characterization of eros-style’ love arises in this way that X loves Y because Y has attractive or valuable qualities. On another hand, Agape-style’ love is understood as X loving Y independently of Y’s value offering formulations of the theories of eros, agape, and philia explaining generally what these love types might mean for the contemporary period.
Conclusion
Since its publication, Lewis’s book has garnered the acceptance of Christians of various affiliations for championing agape, the love characteristic of God’s giving. The book could be another worthy addition to the Bible as it promotes giving, understanding, and unconditional positive relations among individuals.
Lewis’s description of the four types of love is somewhat not in congruence with what is popular among contemporary modern individuals, culturally speaking. One solid example could be the line, “I want to make love…” which is purely physical or sexual, and not at all related to what Lewis has discussed. But Lewis successfully delineated the various connotations with “love” in general and in particular.
As for its contemporary use, the book of Lewis needs to encompass a more recent context of love as it has evolved in ways that were far different than when the book was written. Theoretically, though, it is as practical as any good book on relationships when it comes to understanding the many kinds of relationships that humans or individuals engage in. The book could guide the reader towards a proper perspective of what he or she is into.
References
Fisher, N.R.E. (1976). “Introduction.” Social Values in Classical Athens (ed. NRE Fisher), 1-45. Dent.
Konstan, David. (1996). “Greek Friendship.” The American Journal of Philosophy 117 (1), 71-94.
Lewis, C.S. (1971). The Four Loves. Harvest Books. Pakaluk, Michael (1991) Other Selves – Philosophers on Friendship: an anthology. Hackett Publishing Company.
Pakaluk, Michael (1995). “Aristotle and the Perfect Life by Anthony Kenny” A Review. Ancient Philosophy 15, 233-245.
Soble, Alan (1989). Eros, Agape, and Philia. Paragon House.
Strauss, Barry. (!986). Athens after the Peloponnesian War: Class, Faction and Policy 403-386 B.C. London: Croon Helm.
Vischer, Robert (2003). “Heretics in the Temple of Law: The Promise and Peril of the Religious Lawyering Movement.” Journal of Law and Religion 19 (2), 427-490.