The Four Loves

[annemehr <annemehr@yahoo.com>]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Melody <Malady579 at h...>" 
<Malady579 at h...> wrote:

> On another note, after reading Cindy's TBAY, I began to realize I
> *had* been a bit unfair in the assessment of agape and eros.  I
> discredited a lot in fact.  I assumed only agape love would die for
> someone. 

I believe your sense of what the four loves are is close but can be 
defined a little more closely.  Look back at your previous post where 
you looked up agape -- it was defined as "Christian love."  So agape 
would be the love of God.  A person with agape would have love for God 
and, by extension, for his people.  Mother Theresa's love for the 
people of Calcutta is was agape love.  So is God's love for us.

>That is, of course, wrong.  One can die for a friend just 
as
> one dies for a son or daughter.  I guess, I was taught that philo 
and
> storge loves shift into agape love at the point when you put their
> life before your own.  From what I learned, agape was the pinnacle 
of
> any type of love and not a side partner.  Is that in fact wrong?

Well...I think rather that it is possible to love a friend with both 
philos and agape and your child with both storge and agape.  On the 
other hand, someone who does not believe in God could still die for 
someone out of philos or storge alone -- these loves will be enough 
motivation in themselves if they are strong enough.  And agape could 
be too weak to lead you to die for someone although strong enough to 
have you doing lesser things for them.  The four loves are distinct 
types of love.

> 
> A thought, would one die for eros though?  I distinguish eros as 
lust
> really.  Maybe in a lusty fervor, one might die for eros, but I 
doubt
> someone would offhand.  But then again, Henry the 8th changed the
> whole of religion in England on eros really, so maybe death in the
> name of eros is not too far off.

Well, here I will disagree.  Eros is a form of love.  Lust, on the 
other hand, is merely wanting sex and has nothing to do with love or 
actually caring for the other person.  True eros is *partly* expressed 
in sexual union as well as in other ways of caring, and you can have 
eros, philos and agape for the same person.  And, yes, I think someone 
could certainly die for someone out of eros alone.

The trouble with talking about eros or sexual love in our society is 
that many relationships are *called* love, that really have little to 
do with it.  It confuses things.  Think of Elkins' romantic paradigm 
-- you know you don't want *that,* but the things she's complaining 
about are not to do with love, they are something else -- 
possessiveness, clinginess, insecurity, or what have you.  What you 
really are hoping for is a truer eros.

You know, from what I have read of yours, I really think you would 
enjoy C.S. Lewis' "The Four Loves," if you haven't already read it 
(and maybe you are already considering it as someone - I forget who, 
sorry, - just recently mentioned it in this thread).

Anne