Skip to main content

What is love?

People use the word “love” all the time, especially around this time of year, and it’s a major part of several cultures, as we find it within song, books, and film, but what does it really mean?
Many people simply believe love is an animalistic or genetic urge that dictates our behaviour, and a survival instinct so humanity doesn’t become extinct. They consider the feeling of “love” to be an extension of chemical-biological elements of the human nature that takes place when choosing a mate. However a problem for this is that it doesn’t explain the affections for those who cannot have kids or do not wish to reproduce.
Others believe in Plato’s version of love; that love is made of a series of characteristics, in which the animalistic desire or base lust is suspended by an intellectual conception of love, based on sensual attraction and mutuality.
Ancient philosophy suggests the idea that love is made from eros, philia, and agape. The term eros refers to the part of love made of a passionate intense desire for something, or moreover, the sexual desire for someone. Within Greek mythology, Eros is the son of the Greek Goddess Aphrodite, and the God of sexual desire and attraction; his Roman counterpart being the well-known Cupid. However, to Plato, eros simply only meant to hold a simple desire for beauty, within the person, due to our natural behaviour to search for true beauty that reminds us of the beauty within the World of Forms.
The word philia contrasts eros, entailing a fondness and appreciation for others. For ancient Greeks, the term not only suggested a fondness for friends, but loyalties for family, one’s community, and their job. Aristotle suggests that philia is the purest part of friendship, as it cannot come from those who gossip, or those who are aggressive in manner or personality, but rather from than who are temperate, and full of virtue. Although Aristotle says reciprocity is necessary, it doesn’t have to be equal, as a saying of Aristotelian love and friendship is that “the better should be more loved than he loves”, however, saying this, the love should still be proportional.
The term agape refers to the paternal love for god for man, and to man for god, and extends to include a brotherly love for all of humanity. This is built upon within humanity in Leviticus 19:18 with the commandment of loving “thy neighbour as thyself”, as Aquinas used the Aristotelian theories to proclaim God as the most rational being and therefore the most deserving of one’s love, respect, and considerations. However, those who are not religious use the saying “it is better to give than receive”. Most claim that it’s simply a concept of universal love, and of loving people equally, whereas other’s claim this is impractical, due to most not being able to experience being in love with more than one person at a time. But this leads to the question what is the difference of being in love and loving someone?  
Being in love with someone, suggests a romantic love, which is deemed to be of a higher status than sexual or physical attractiveness alone. The idea stems from the Platonic tradition that love is a desire for beauty that transcends the physical body, or in simpler terms, comes from within a person. Romantic love also comes to Aristotle’s theory, similar to the idea of soulmates, and the special love two people find in each other’s virtues – the idea of one soul within two bodies.
Whereas loving someone suggests an innocent love, perhaps using the idea of philia and agape, but forgetting the sexual desire part of love.

The two types of love may be why some feel that they can love more than one person at a time; they may love the multiple people in different ways, as they may love a lot of their friends, however may only be in love with one person, and the person may just be having trouble finding the difference between the two feelings since they are so similar, and therefore confusing.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's a matter of intelligence

There are two types of people in the world; those who believe they know everything, and those who believe they will never be finished learning. Which one are you? Benjamin Franklin once said “the doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance”, and this quote speaks to me, because only he who believes he knows all, is ignorant of knowledge. This quote is simply telling us that no man, even the smartest of all, could possible know everything, and if they said otherwise, they are arrogant and ignorant. To be ignorant means to be lacking in knowledge, meaning that if you believe you know everything that the world can offer you, you lack awareness of the ever changing world and the new knowledge it can bring. The quote is very similar to, and possibly even inspired by Socrates’ quote “True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing”, which also has a similar meaning of that it’s impossible for someone to know everything, despite what they may claim...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is Mother Nature a lousy mother?

Most people can agree that when outside, and surrounded by nature of some sort, it can be a comforting feeling; the pleasant sound of wind rustling the leaves, or waves gently crashing along a shore, but is nature as calm and pleasant as it seems? Take the ocean for example, all that water and it’s still possible to die of thirst, or the fact that even the calmest bodies of water could be hiding horrible current, waiting to pull you under. This could even be seen as a metaphor for life in a way; even when things seem like they are great, and nothing could go wrong, there’s always something there waiting to grab and pull you under. However, nowhere has has nature told us that the ocean is for anything but transport between islands, however people just complain when they can’t use it for another purpose. Mother Nature has also given us the bitter irony of a desert - scorching hot during the day but freezing cold during the night, rather than the usual climate of an average temper...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does the future for the arts look like?

Back in 2015, Education Secretary Nicky Morgan advised teens against studying subjects that fall under the categories of being a humanities class or part of the arts, due to the belief it would hold back students “for the rest of their lives”, but is this really true? Prior to the recent election, 7 parties were asked, however UKIP and the Green Party refused to give any answers, leaving only 5 responses to each question, the first being what the meaning of the arts is to their party, and if their party would maintain support financially for subjects that are part of the arts. Each party responded positively about the arts, Labour spoke of how the arts helps “broaden our horizons” and contributes “a huge amount to our economy”, and they stated that they would “create a £1billion cultural capital fund to invest and upgrade the UK’s cultural facilities”, however the question remains of what this money would have been created from. Similarly, Conservatives responded that they are “st...
Post a Comment
Read more