The Relation between Eros and Agape - Essay Example

Relation between Eros and Agape Introduction Eros and agape are two perspectives about love that originates from the different types of love existing in ancient Greek society. Ancient Greek society had four words that include eros, storge, philia, and agape to describe denote the meaning conveyed by the concept of love. This Essay is concerned with the analysis of existing relation between eros and agape to understand the implication of beliefs about the two especially concerning the relationship between God and humanity. Erotic love as eros has come to be known in English has a number definitions based on the culture of society over which it is implied but has a history that goes back to the Greek Eros who is the god of love. Among the ancient Greek society, Eros was a unifying force whose influence was felt in bringing together previously separated beings (Jeanrond 14). The meaning of word has come to have both spiritual and psychological experience of either love with by referring to the role of love and sexuality in a culture or simply sexual love. Agape is the other Greek word for love that has taken a Christian meaning of love that comes from God. Since it is love that comes from God, to understand agape love is to understand the nature of God especially in relation to human beings his actions towards humanity. Agape love is experienced in God’s unwarranted love for humanity and other creations. The meaning and concepts of the two types of love has over the years, been determined by contrasting the two in order to determine how they exist with eros being depicted as possessive of self-centered love. Synthesis between Eros and Agape There are two essential stands with concern to eros and agape, were there is a group of theologians and philosophers who think the two can be synthesized led by historical researchers in the area such Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. However, there prominent theologians such as Anders Nygren who perceive such efforts as being doomed to fail as the two have irreconcilable differences. To understand the concept of eros and agape based on the assertions made by Augustine, it is important to trace back to his beliefs about desire and how human beings achieve fulfilment of their desires. Augustine’s work is based on human desire to achieve something that will provide happiness, which forms the basis for his use of metaphors reflecting hunger and thirst to describe the search for truth, beauty and goodness. Achievement of truth, goodness and beauty is what is seen as resulting in absolute satisfaction and are inherent in all humanity whether pagan or Christian, regardless of whether they are aware of this drive or not (Barrett 67). There is a universal need for happiness in humanity, which acts as a unifying feature in the implicit aspirations of the pagans and the explicit hope of Christians. This search of happiness relates to the egocentric nature of eros with the reason for one to direct love towards an object regarded as valuable being to possess it. Plato also agrees with this perception of love noting acquisition of good things is what makes people happy and that to “love the good, therefore, is the same as to desire to possess” (Soble 141). Augustine does not see human desire as being a passive wishing for future state of affairs but as a powerful force that acts in a dynamic manner to motivate human actions towards a particular destination. To elaborate on the power of human desire, Augustine used the metaphor of oil and water noting that if oil was poured into water, it will rise above to the surface but if water is poured into oil, water will sink below oil. The weight of these two properties takes them to their rightful places with love being similar in seeking for proper place to rest. Augustine used the term “delight” “love” and “desire” interchangeably with all of them indicating the movement towards the beloved and the and the desire to satisfy or fill a void and attraction based on the desirability of the beloved (Barrett 68). Based on the identification of human desire which is firstly motivated by the need satisfy ones want by possessing earthly love, Augustine sees human love as rising from down upwards in search of God’s love. This is because the search of earthly love according to Augustine results in disappointment and anxiety. Based on this concept love can also be perceived as suffering as it is characterized by fear that one will not “attain one’s object” or that when this is achieved one will lose it (Solomon and Higgins 338). Earthly love is found unsatisfactory due to its mutable nature as opposed to the “perfectly actualized God”. Matter, which is what earthly things are made of have the potential of assuming different forms and therefore possesses the element of potentiality that means it lacks full absoluteness. Therefore, matter could become anything including what is it is not supposed to be which the reason earthly phenomena is does not always satisfy. Therefore, Augustine sees love as based on earthly phenomena as leading to anxiety and frustrations. The inadequacies found in the love for earthly phenomena are therefore the basis of Augustine’s assertion about the existence of a meeting point where the two can be synthesized that leads to transference of such love towards God. The disillusionment comes with searching for the earthly love that turns the attention of human beings towards God. This therefore provides the groundwork for Augustine’s assertion that there can be a convergence between eros and agape. However, for Augustine, the love of God does not happen as directed by human beings but is the initiative of God Himself who redirects human desire. This belief about desire is reflected in the concept of salvation proposed by Augustine where he asserts desire cannot be immediately willed into existence but has to be as a result of something that happens to the individual to make them discover new desires. Human beings do not possess the capabilities to self-direct and integrate their desires towards a new perception of life. The change in perception must therefore by stimulated by something outside the individual with the object of desire being the first to elicit and initiate the process for the individual to experience its attractive power (Barrett 90). Therefore, Augustine sees the transformation of human desires being initiated by God who transforms human beings into lovers of God. The expression of God’s love is mediated by Jesus and made available to human beings through the sacramental and social practices of the church and is in response to the attractiveness of God. God acts through His gracious gift of love which that stimulates human heart and carries them upwards towards the Devine. The theme of desire takes the centre stage in Augustine’s understanding of the Christian life and service to God. It is the desire for God that Augustine sees as playing an essential role in mediating the process of sanctification and makes its predictable that the sanctification will be a growth that will drive human beings to achieve the status of being like God. This belief held by Augustine was based on the philosophical belief of the time that human beings ultimately become like what they desire which means the lover of God will be like God (Barrett 81). Although Aquinas seeks to reformulate the Augustinian concept of God’s love, he does not dismiss Augustine’s assertion that God is present in man’s love. This is especially in relation to the love of the neighbour where Aquinas posits that the love existing between human beings is not only from God, but it is also God. Consequently, Aquinas does not reject the existence of agape love which operates at the human level but supplements it with love that inherently human love. The result of this assertion by Aquinas is that by loving ones neighbour, one combines both agape love and eros love. However, the assertion made here does not include how to them in actual occurrence or what one should look for in discerning between eros and agape working together in humanity (Singer 321). While there have been wide criticism of Augustine’s assertions regarding the ability to synthesize eros and agape, there has been a rejection of his relation of the two forms of love with desire. Desire in most cases has been perceived as being something pagan based on it being self-concerned to the extent that it cannot be regarded as a feature in Christianity. Therefore, desire for an excess good should not be perceived as an essential presupposition of the Christian faith. Therefore, Christians are asked to steer away from a desire for personal beatitude, as it is perceived as a surrendering oneself to some kind of selfishness. Such disapproval of desire informs the stands held by critics of Augustine such as Anders Nygren who categorically identified love motivated by a lack in the soul that seeks to be filled by possession of a desired object as eros. While agape is perceived as the Christian love that that gives itself to others without the motivation of reward (Barrett 66). Irreconcilable Differences between Eros and Agape Jeanrond notes that Anders Nygren is the most successful writer of the twentieth century to have written on love and contributed greatly to the literature on the difference between Christian love and the Greek concept of eros and the Jewish understanding of love as depicted in their laws. When making the distinctions between agape and eros Anders Nygren categorically asserts that there can never be any ground to make a comparison between the two as they have nothing in common (Stewart 228-229). Anders Nygren sees the two types of love as being different approaches to life asserting that the two did not have features that were common in both therefore there was no basis for comparison. The ideas presented by Anders Nygren provided grounds for identification of the differences that that can be attributed to the two forms of love since it is in the existence of the differences between the two that existing relations between the two can be determined (Oord 35). In determining the relations between eros and agape, a number of differences can be identified which will therefore play a role in understanding the two concepts (Brümmer 128). Firstly, the one of the foremost distinction regards forgetfulness. Anders Nygren’s identification of Christian love as agape was also widely accepted by scholars of theology therefore providing a basis for making comparisons (Jeanrond 113). This provided the basis for the differentiation of platonic understood as eros and the Christian love, agape as two irreconcilable concepts in identifying the different forms of love (Jeanrond 114-115). Based on the definition of agape, Nygren provides a revised version of the Old Testament and the Greek understand of the concept by introducing a Christian meaning which perceives Christian love as originating from God. On the other hand, eros is perceived as being experienced in the “human form of egocentric and desiring love” (Jeanrond 115). This love is depicted in human predisposition to always push for acquisitions of material and immaterial worldly possessions that benefits their persons. Further, this differentiation of eros and agape leads to the conclusion that the latter is self-forgetful love that gives itself away to the others but the former is a love driven by the desire to acquire something from the lover. Therefore, Eros is based on the perception that one requires something from the other person in order to satisfy particular need or be happy. The differentiation of eros and agape based on the motivations for undertaking an action, leads to the deification of agape as “the attitude of giving myself in service to the other” (Brummer 110). This is because agape love relates to giving oneself to the service of the other and is based on the fact that God comes to human beings from outside, it is only God and the neighbour that can be loved with Agape love ruling out the possibility of self-love being categorized in this group (Jeanron118). This is quite different from eros, which is seen as desiring love that needs the other to be fulfilled and does not depend on giving service that is beneficial to the other. The attractive force is also a basis for creating a distinction between the eros and agape especially based on the qualities that the other possess and can therefore be of value when directing love towards them. Based on this level of distinction between the two, eros is directed towards the loved based on their perceived attractive value whilst agape love is directed to even regardless of the qualities possessed by the loved including those perceived as not lovable. Consequently, Agape is perceived as being “for every person qua human existent” (Danaher 221) this is especially true when considering that agape is self-forgetful and therefore does not need to be directed towards the loved because of their attractiveness or due to any unique capabilities (Barrett 320). Agape love is identified on the basis of dispassionate conferral of love on the beloved devoid of motivation based on any value possessed by the loved but is only based on the lover’s agape. The purest form of agape love is therefore referred “Divine Gift-Love” and is described as being “disinterested and desires what is simply best for the beloved” which forms the basis for the desire to love for the good of another. However, eros is an interested love that is based on taking advantage of the pleasure that the recipient of such love might possess to satisfy our needs or desires (Brümmer 135). It is also important to understand eros and agape in terms of where each originates with God’s love coming from outside while love coming from human beings is seen as selfish or acquisitive. This regard, the love that comes from God is revealed to human beings through Jesus Christ and is therefore the love that gives especially given the foundation of Christian faith, which is based on the sacrifice made by Jesus for humanity. This implies the agape love comes from God through Jesus with humanity being the recipients. Given that human love begins from downwards towards the divine, humanity strugglers to accomplish the kind of love that God portrays towards them. However, there is no way human love will be equal to the love of God with Nygren rejecting any the assumption that there could be a synthesis inform of the Caritas-synthesis as developed by Augustine (Jeanrond118). There is a distinction between divine love and human expression of love with God being the sovereign subject of love; the human being is only a channel of God’s down-pouring love (Jeanrond 120). Nygren perceives Augustine’s assertions, theology of love as being an unholy combination between eros and agape, but still borrows from the concept of love presented by Augustine, and Luther based on anthropological and theological conjecture that considers the human being in terms of the original sin, guilt and alienation from God. In this case, humanity can only act as a vessel through which God channels His love but not as an agent of divine love. There are a number of issues that arise of the conception of agape and eros by Anders Nygren especially based on his assertions that any attempt to find similarities or reconcile the two is bound to fail. The understanding of the differences of eros and agape indicates some areas of weaknesses in the final suggestions that are presented in distinguishing the two. Although Anders Nygren successfully draws on the history of both forms of love by including the ideas of previous researchers in the area such as Augustine and Luther, his contribution has an area of weakness especially as it is based on identifying what one is and the other is not. In his defence of agape as the highest form of love based on being divine and coming from God to man, Anders Nygren’s final output is negatively affected by depiction of eros. Nygren’s definition of Agape relies solely on his negation of eros seen from his definition of Agape as “spontaneous” and "unmotivated" (Oord 36). By identifying agape as spontaneous, Nygren implies there is no causation for the existence of the love while unmotivated implies a lack of stimulation based on value to propel the expression of such love towards the object of love. Although this negation of agape is neutralized by the characterization of this form of love as "Agape is creative" and "Agape is the initiator of fellowship with God" such does not provide historical role of agape love nor explicitly define Nygrens concept of Agape (White 130). By concentrating on negation of eros in order to identify the differences that this form of love has compared to agape, Nygren’s interpretation of the Christian scripture is also affected negatively. An instance where this is the case is in the interpretation of the commandment that one should love their neighbours as they love themselves (Mark 12:28-34). First of all, Nygren’s perception of Agape as being unselfish love as an approach in his negation of Eros leads to his rejection that that the commandment also contains an aspect of self-love. Secondly, Nygren rejects the interpretation that God endorses the love of self in this testament. Nygren sees the inclusion of neighbourly love as implying the absence of self-love, as he perceives neighbourly love as having the power to overcome self-love (Brummer 137). The consequence of this interpretation is that Nygren misconstrue the command to love ones neighbour as ones self as this commandment does not reject, exclude and overcome self-love. This commandment does not provide an antagonistic proposition of love of neighbor and self-love where the presence of one diminishes or ends that of the other; instead, it presents self-love as a human reality. It indicates a fact of human existence which can be used as a basis over which the love of a neighbour may be measured where for instance since no self-loving individual will knowingly harm the self, this should also be reciprocated to the neighbour. Conclusion From the foregoing analysis of the relationship between eros and agape, the two forms of love refers to the relationship between God and human beings and between human beings as exemplified in the love of the neighbour. While there are philosophers such Augustine and Aquinas who thinks there can be a synthesis between the two, there are also those such as Nygren who do not believe in any attempt to relate the two forms of love. Augustine’s reasons for believing about the synthesis of the two forms of love stems from the understanding of humanity and matter, which is perceived as not absolute in nature, constituently, human being are bound to change in certain ways therefore making the prospect of one getting satisfied minimal. God is the only being that is absolute and is therefore capable of loving consistently without change. As a result of humanity being able to change, Augustine sees their inability to get satisfied as the reason they cannot love consistently but according to what they desire at a particular time. Therefore, Augustine sees earthly things as lacking the ability to satisfy human being but leading to anxiety and disappointments. This disappointment with earthly things creates a basis for the development of agape love between God and human beings. However, man does not seek God directly but an object that is outside him; therefore, motivates his shift in desire, God initiates this love with human beings. There are philosophers such as Aquinas who have agreed with some parts of the relations between agape and eros as posited by Augustine. This is especially with regard to the love of the neighbour, which Aquinas sees as possess both eros and agape. However, the greatest divergent of views is what has is presented by Nygren who does not think there is any common ground between the expression of eros and agape. According to Nygren, these two divergent forms of love do not have anything in common. To prove his assertions Nygren points out a number of contrasting features that indicates the differences in the two forms of love. Nygren sees the nature of humanity that is egocentric as what contributes to the differences between eros and agape given that human beings are motivated by selfish interests and gains for them to love. On the other hand, the love of God or agape love is not based on any attractive quality that those targeted possess which makes it spontaneous and unmotivated. However, the concept of eros and agape as presented by Nygren does not fully capture the love existing between God and human beings and between human beings. This is especially with regard to the question of areas where the two forms of love find a common ground. Given the agreement between the assertions held by Augustine and Nygren on the love for the neighbour as possessing the qualities of agape, Nygren’s argument that when such love is present there cannot be eros is found to be unsatisfactory. In conclusion, this essay finds the existence of a common ground between eros and agape in the expression of neighbourly love based on the commandment that one should love one’s neighbour as one loves oneself. Works Cited Barrett, Lee C. Eros and Self-Emptying: The Intersections of Augustine and Kierkegaard. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013. Print. Brümmer, Vincent. The model of love: A study in philosophical theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print. Danaher, William J. The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. Print. Jeanrond, Werner G. A Theology of Love. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010. Print. Oord, Thomas Jay. The Nature of love: A theology. St Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2010. Print. Singer, Irving. The Nature of Love: The Modern World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2009. Print. Soble, Alan. Eros, agape, and philia: readings in the philosophy of Love. New York: Paragon House, 1989. Print. Solomon, Robert C and Higgins, Kathleen M. The philosophy of (erotic) love. Lawrence, Kansas: Univ Pr of Kansas, 1991. Print. Stewart, Robert M. Philosophical perspectives on sex and love. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Print. White, Richard. Loves philosophy. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001. Print. Read More