What is Love?

Originally posted by vistesd
Romantic that I am, I try not to put it that way to my wife though... 😉

Indeed. Women are no good at biochemistry.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Indeed. Women are no good at biochemistry.

I think an important thing to recognize is that the biochemical definition does not “deconstruct” the others, so long as they are taken behaviorally and aesthetically—just as knowledge of the biochemical activities going on when I listen to Beethoven does not diminish the aesthetic enjoyment—and so I might add to it something like “and the urges, feelings and behavior that derive therefrom.”

The arguments begin when the leap is made to the metaphysical level, if love is treated as a “thing-in-itself” separate from natural phenomena. Such is not necessary in monistic religio-philosophical expressions (such as Buddhism, and similar streams found in the other religions); whether or not it is necssary in the theistic religions, I’m not sure.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think an important thing to recognize is that the biochemical definition does not “deconstruct” the others, so long as they are taken behaviorally and aesthetically—just as knowledge of the biochemical activities going on when I listen to Beethoven does not diminish the aesthetic enjoyment—and so I might add to it something like “and the urges, feelings an ...[text shortened]... in the other religions); whether or not it is necssary in the theistic religions, I’m not sure.

Indeed. It is important for all to remember that Beethoven symphonies are merely a collection of individual notes. That does not detract from the complexity or the beauty (which we percieve) of the piece. Complexity from simplicity, now that's beautiful.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Its a series of biochemical reactions in the brain, evolved with the function of maximising the transmission of certain genetic configurations through the generations.

Ladies man, no?

Originally posted by Jee
Love is the acceptance of a bigger truth than Logic: Feelings

Man, you are gonna have some serious heartbreaks in your life.

Originally posted by vistesd
My wife recently asked one of her students (whose first language was Greek) if she could translate philia into English. The student said it was very difficult, because philia is a “deep” (her word) concept—in the end, she said it means something like “when you lie down, I lie down; where you go, I go...” This is the word we routinely call “b ...[text shortened]... o Freaky’s comment about “energy” than meets the eye, which is what made me use the word “urge.”

The Holy Father had quite a bit to say about eros, philia and agape in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love):

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

EDIT: From a Christian perspective, of course.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think an important thing to recognize is that the biochemical definition does not “deconstruct” the others, so long as they are taken behaviorally and aesthetically—just as knowledge of the biochemical activities going on when I listen to Beethoven does not diminish the aesthetic enjoyment—and so I might add to it something like “and the urges, feelings an ...[text shortened]... in the other religions); whether or not it is necssary in the theistic religions, I’m not sure.

Not only does the biochemical definition not "deconstruct" the others, I would say that it does not even manage to define 'love' in terms that exclude the others.

To see if this is true, we need to ask if what we could consider 'love' is separable in any way from its normal biochemical manifestation in humans (and even here we must note that 'love' can manifest itself physically distinctly in different human beings). For instance, if you were watching a version of Love Story but with androids (or animated talking animals) as characters, would we fail to recognise the basic emotion of 'love' seen there? Alternatively, if we were to see similar biochemical processes in insects that lack any capacity for rational thought, would we say it was the same thing (or something similar) to what we experience in our rational, chosen love?

Note - I am not trying to say that humans can experience 'love' in ways that manifest themselves differently from the normal biochemical reactions (so I am not talking any form of dualism here). What I am saying is that the human experience of love, though inextricably linked to the biochemical, is nevertheless not defined by it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The Holy Father had quite a bit to say about eros, philia and agape in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love):

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

EDIT: From a Christian perspective, of course.

In the Greek, and in the Greek Orthodox Church, eros and agape were never artificially separated, as they seem to have become in Western Protestantism—where eros came to mean sexual desire only, and agape came to mean a kind of charitable compassion. It appears from the Pope’s encyclical that either (1) eros and agape were never so artificially separated in Catholicism, or (2) to the extent that they have been, Benedict is redressing that error, as in the following quotes:

In philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions have often been radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them: descending, oblative love—agape—would be typically Christian, while on the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love —eros—would be typical of non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture. Were this antithesis to be taken to extremes, the essence of Christianity would be detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life. Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized.

We have thus come to an initial, albeit still somewhat generic response to the two questions raised earlier. Fundamentally, “love” is a single reality, but with different dimensions; at different times, one or other dimension may emerge more clearly. Yet when the two dimensions are totally cut off from one another, the result is a caricature or at least an impoverished form of love.

We have seen that God's eros for man is also totally agape.

______________________

A few examples from the Orthodox literature that I have collected thus far—

Orthodox theologian Giorgios I. Mantzarides writes: “ Usually, the concept of love as agape is differentiated from the concept of love as eros, because the former manifests the disinterested movement of self-offering, while eros is the self-interested movement which seeks some satisfaction. Thus, for example, the movement of God toward man is characterized as agape, while the movement of man toward God is characterized as eros…But at other times the two terms are used in exactly the same way as synonyms… In the Aeropagitic writings we read, ‘Whether we consider eros to be divine, angelic, intellectual, psychic, or natural, we must understand it to be a unifying and binding power which moves superiors to provide for the weaker, which moves equals into a communion with one another…’ Here the word eros is used as a synonym for the word love (agape).” (from his book Orthodox Spiritual Life; my italics)

Another Orthodox theologian, Olivier Clement, in his The Roots of Christian Mysticism, writes: “The inspired poet of eros is Dionysius the Aeropagite. And [St.] Maximus the Confessor, commenting on him, does not hesitate to equate eros with agape.” Maximus, in his commentary on Dionysius’ On The Divine Names, writes: “The Song of Songs calls him [God] agape, or ‘sensual pleasure,’ and ‘desire,’ which means eros.”*

Orthodox theologian Christos Yannaras, in his The Elements of Faith, writes:

“And especially in the Gospel of John, eternal life which Christ comes to give us is defined by the verb ‘to know’ [Greek: ginosko; noun: gnosis], which always renders the Hebrew word which means, in biblical language, the erotic relationship of a man and a woman: ‘Eternal life is this, to know [ginoskosin] you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent’ (Jn 17:3)…

“In the patristic tradition, God himself in his internal triadic life will be defined as ‘the whole of eros,’ the fullness of continuous erotic unity: ‘This eros is love, and it is written that God is love’.”**

(http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/frluke_newage.aspx):

If one were to examine a dictionary of Greek terms defined according to the usage of the Holy Fathers, for example A Patristic Greek Lexicon, one would find the following examples for the word eros: 1. love, defense of term as synonym for agape; 2. of God's love; 3. of man's love towards God; 4. of love towards saints; 5. for virtues (A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe, D. D., Oxford, 1961).

St. Andrew Orthodox Christian Church (http://www.standrew-parish.org/spirituality/piety.htm):

Love is the greatest of all virtues. Love is the reason God created the world, it is what binds Him to his creation, it is what made Him send his only-begotten Son into the world to destroy death. Love is the action of goodness for the sake of the other (Greek 'agape'😉; it is the erotic love (Greek 'eros'😉 that seeks union: between man and woman, but also between God and Man; it is the friendship (Greek 'phila'😉 between God and Man, as well as the friendship between human beings.


(http://www.sage.edu/faculty/salomd/nyssa/meta.html):

In another passage Gregory speaks of desire as follows: "For love (agape) which is aroused is called desire" (eros), p.383
Because eros is a passion, it lies outside the realm of our intellectual faculties. Eros is best described as an intensification of agape: "The bride is wounded by a spiritual fiery shaft of desire (eros). For agape which is aroused is called eros." (ibid, p.383).

Also:

In Hastings. J Dictionary of the Bible under the reference for Love in the LXX we read:

All these varieties of love, human and divine, may in the LXX be expressed by the verb agapao and noun 'agape'. In the story of Samson and Delilah agapao describes sexual relationship (Judges 16 v 4, 15) not to mention Solomon's legalised lust (3 K 11 v 2), besides expressing love in its higher reaches…. In the Greek Bible in the form that it must have been known to the NT writers, agapao does duty for every shade and variety of love, for divine pity and preference for Israel right down to erotic passion. It is true that agapao is not the only verb to express erotic love in the LXX, for there are also pro-aireomai and enthumeomai (Heb hshk ethelo hps); but it is very commonly used to render Hebrew hb when the context makes plain that this very type of love or passion is intended. Nor has agapao the monopoly for rendering what may be described as reasoning attachment; thus the more usual verbs for divine pity are eleeo and oikterio. The noun 'agape' is usually connected with sex, or at least with the love of women; or it is a passion comparable in intensity with hatred; it is not at all a higher love than philia. Indeed in the LXX agapesis may be said to be a higher type of love than AGAPE (c.f. especially Hosea 11 v 4, Zephaniah 3 v 17, Jeremiah 38 (31) v 3) [from http://www.agapetae.org/agape.html]

* Despite the “ecclesial” interpretations of the Song of Songs, both in Judaism and Christianity, I still think it is best read as a passionate love poem without too much allegorization—or, at least, that the first sense not be lost.

** Here again quoting Maximus Confessor’s commentary on Dionysius.