Love, in Overview
Love has the power to create and destroy. It is simultaneously consuming and freeing in nature. It is the subject of great prose and the object of brilliant art, yet it remains an equally elusive and tangible concept. Love cannot be adequately defined by man, despite the thoughtful and continued efforts of philosophers and scientists, as its power and ability transcends human thought and reason. It can, however, be classified, by its motivation and purpose. In classifying love, we streamline our collective conscious, and come one step further in understanding the tremendous power it beholds.
The various types of love, used to organize the nature and purpose of unions, have been explored by psychologists, sociologists, and philosophers since the dawn of understanding and reason. The four primary classifications of love are: Eros, Storge, Philia, and Agape. Each type possesses qualities and distinctions that separate it from the others. Some qualities cross-apply to the various types, while others are specific emotions found only within particular classifications of love. A general sense of compassion and kindness, and respect for and towards our fellow man is vital to success, in all four types of love, as it is through mutual respect that love finds peace and harmony, an environment in which it can thrive. Honesty and faithfulness are also extremely important in nearly all types of love, as they offer a moral base upon which trust is built. These basic principles both define and classify love, of all types, and provide focus within its broad scope.
Love thy Family
Love is powerful beyond measure. It can incite war among men, war that leads to death and destruction, while simultaneously providing the natural bonding between man and woman that creates life. It is somewhere between these polar ends of the love spectrum that the classifications of love are established. Each type determined by certain, and often contrasting, needs and abilities.
In two of the four classifications, love can thrive even if unrequited. In Storge, the love one feels towards family, and in Agape, the divine love for all of mankind, love is felt regardless of returned affection. Neither type is dependent upon mutual affection, as in the case of Eros, romantic love, and Philia, the love found in friendship. In Storge, love comes in the form of a natural response to what author C. S. Lewis refers to as the “warm comfortableness” of familiarity. He finds that in family, even “the ugly, the stupid, and the exasperating” are considered lovable (Lewis). This aspect of Storge is found in the unrequited love that Fonny Hunt, a predominant character in James Baldwin’s “If Beale Street Could Talk”, maintains for his mother. Despite Mrs. Hunt’s attempts to control Fonny, and even though “she was damn sure going to save her child” by bringing him to love Jesus, Fonny still ended up doing things that would ultimately disappoint his mother (Baldwin, pg. 15). The narrator, Tish, who is Fonny’s lover and who is carrying Fonny’s unborn child, finds that the “sanctified” nature of Mrs. Hunt strained her relationship with her son, and that “that’s why he was, when you got to know him, so nice, a really nice person, a really sweet man, with something very sad in his eyes” (Baldwin, pg. 15).
Despite his mother’s criticism and control, and without a return of the affection that Fonny felt towards his mother, he still loved her with all his heart. This unrequited, unconditional love exemplifies C. S. Lewis’ discernment that Storge “turns a blind eye to faults, and revives easily after quarrels” (Lewis). Tish mentions, “I know how much he loved her; how much he wanted to love her, to be allowed to love her, to have that translation read” (Baldwin, pg. 19). This desperation for love shows that regardless of the unrequited nature of his relationship with his mother, Fonny loved her anyway, because she was his family, what was familiar and comforting to him.
Love thy Neighbor
Agape, the love of mankind, also requires no return of affection. To love without judgement, accepting human beings as they are, is the divine sense of love that Christianity is based upon, and serves as a common theme in many religions. This unconditional, unrequited love is the underlying force of humanity. George Santayana explored this concept in his hypothetical conversation between Socrates and The Stranger, a dialogue called Philanthropy. Through the Christian stranger, Santayana argues that it is through unconditional love that man is able to emulate the goodness and acceptance found in Christ. He finds that “the philanthropist should strive to secure the true good of mankind, a good predetermined for them by their nature and faculties without their knowledge, and by no means realized in their actual condition…” (Santayana, pp. 127-133 and 136-147). This concept ignores the subjectivity of love, and rather focuses on the possibilities. As God so loves his children, regardless of sin and wrongdoing, we should love one another, without judgement, and in the hopes that we might come to realize our potential.
This form of love, while found in various religions, yet proven to be applicable without any regards to religion, is best exemplified in the Bible, especially within the New Testament. While many scholars suggest that other religious leaders showed more compassion in their practice than Jesus did, the chapters of the New Testament offer complete transcriptions of Agape in action. Acclaimed writer Leo Tolstoy wrote of these accounts in his work “My Religion”, stating that “Almost from the first period of my childhood, when I began to read the New Testament, I was touched and stirred…by that portion of the doctrine of Christ, which includes love, humility, self-denial, and the duty of returning good for evil” (Tolstoy). This statement provides the definition of Agape, and gives an excellent example of its use in religious practice.
Furthermore, the New Testament calls for multiple acts of altruism and philanthropy. From Luke 12:33, when man is told to “Sell your possessions and give to charity”, to Matthew 5:42 when it is said, “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.”, Agape is the underlying force that provides for these acts of divine love.
Love thy Brother
In contrast to loves that exists regardless of reception and return stands Philia, or Friendship. The love found in friendship is the least natural of the loves, as it requires purposeful intent towards forming and maintaining a union between two or more people, and mutual admiration and interest is vital to its success. It involves the bonding of two or more people through common interests, occupation, religion, sports, networking, and other environmental factors. When we meet someone that we find interesting, it is natural to want to learn more about that person, and when we begin to devote time and effort towards discovering another person, we are creating a relationship, developing a bond based on Philia. These non-romantic relationships lead to unions that are built upon mutual respect, admiration, and interest. Should one friend become disinterested in the other, thereby leaving the relationship unrequited, then the bond is broken, as it cannot exist in halves.
Friendship requires many of the same aspects that love does in order to be successful. While most friendships don’t require the amount of time and effort a romantic relationship would, there are still basic needs that must be met. For example, honesty and openness are crucial to a successful friendship. If a person cannot depend on their friends to level with them on important issues, then there is little hope that the bond will remain very strong between them. In addition to honesty and openness, trust and faithfulness are also important within a friendship.
In the independent animated film “Mary and Max”, the concept of trust is put to the test, when after many years of developing a friendship based on shared misery and understanding, Mary betrays Max. For years, he and Mary had been pen pals, forming a deep bond, one in which they felt safe in disclosing personal feelings and thoughts. Each had effectively saved the other’s life at one point or another, giving the other the will and courage to continue on through their difficult and depressing life, all through mailed correspondence, never having actually met one another.
After some time, Max discloses to Mary that he has Asperger’s, a mental disorder that affects his social skills and causes anxiety in stressful or intense situations. As homage to her friend, Mary grows up and becomes a Psychologist, devoting herself to studying the disease in an attempt to better understand Max’s condition. Eventually, she writes a doctoral dissertation on Asperger’s, using Max as her subject. Max, being a very closed and personal person, as is the nature of someone with Asperger’s, feels completely exposed by this act. Part of Max’s condition is that he cannot process emotions well, and struggles even more in expressing himself in an orderly and rational manner. So, Max overreacts and responds with anger and confusion at this ultimate act of betrayal within he and Mary’s friendship.
Eventually, they are able to rekindle their friendship, thanks to Max’s realization that no one is perfect, not even himself, and his understanding that Mary didn’t write the book to hurt him, but rather she just made a mistake, and should be forgiven for her imperfections. However, the example stands that friendship, while not possessing of the same qualities of divine, familial, or romantic love, still has certain needs that must be met and maintained in order to be successful.
Although C.S. Lewis regarded friendship as the “least necessary love”, which is true in the literal sense that, biologically, we can survive and reproduce without this specific bond, friendship, in fact, is one of the most sought after forms of love. In Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, Books VII and IX, he states that “without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods; even rich men and those in possession of office and of dominating power are thought to need friends most of all; for what is the use of such prosperity without the opportunity of beneficence…towards friends” (Aristotle).
Socrates further emphasizes the value in friendship, and finds that it is based on “shared goodness”, instills “humility and avoids flattery”.
This perspective on Philia is also personified in the cartoon “Shrek”. An unlikely meeting between a talking donkey, named Donkey, who hopes to align himself with an ogre named Shrek, whom he deems impressive, leads to a friendship born in humility, while avoiding flattery. An ogre, judged for his hideousness and stereotyped as a threat to humanity, and a talking donkey, one with little class, that demands no respect, find a rare opportunity for pure friendship in their respective loneliness. When Shrek asks Donkey why he is following him, Donkey sings “Cause I’m all alone. There’s no one here beside me. My problems have all gone. There’s no one to deride me…but you gotta have friends” (Shrek).
Philosopher Immanuel Kant classified friendship into three types of friendship based on motivation: Friendship based on need, Friendship based on taste, and Friendship based on disposition. Donkey, in his animal state, and being at a natural disadvantage in life, seeks out the first type of friendship that Kant detailed, Friendship based on need. In “Shrek”, Donkey has found a potential confidant, companion, and protector, someone to help him get through life. From the initial dialogue between Shrek and Donkey, flattery is non-existent, and brutal honesty shapes the conversation. As Donkey pleads his case for building friendship with Shrek through song, Shrek responds “Stop singing! It’s no wonder you don’t have any friends.” To which Donkey retorts “Wow. Only a true friend would be that cruelly honest” (Shrek). This exchange, while likely more blunt and crude than Kant and Socrates imagined imagined in their theories, directly represents both the motivation for, and limitations of, Philia.
Love thy Mate
Of all of the forms of love, Eros is the most complicated, and the most rewarding. Eros provides for procreation, serves as the basic bond for emotional and physical attachment, and allows for human survival. Eros, or love, is an all-encompassing entity, one so enormous that it must be classified into five basic types: Passion, Choice, Emotion, Union, and Valuing.
While all forms of Eros apply to the notion of romantic love, not all forms are present in all romantic unions. The classifications of Eros serve as broad boundaries, used for purposes of definition and motivation. Love, in the romantic sense, has been studied since the dawn of civilized thought. Once humans evolved past meeting the basic needs of survival, they began to develop reason and understanding of human nature. In this, they started to question the enigmatic draw they felt towards one another. The desire to procreate was innate, but the questions surrounding the emotional attachments we began to form led us on, what would become, an endless journey, in search of the true meaning of love.
Eros as Passion is fleeting, based on temporary, intense physical responses to another person. This type of love has been illustrated for centuries in art and literature. Romeo and Juliet serve as the most well-known example of Eros as Passion. The extreme disregard they both show towards life, in the taking of their own upon the forbiddance of their union, demonstrates the extraordinary power that passion can have over the human psyche. Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer states, in his essay Metaphysics of Love, “I cannot understand how it is that such people, who are confident of each other’s love, and expect to find their great happiness in the enjoyment of it, do not avoid taking extreme steps, and prefer suffering every discomfort to sacrificing with their lives a happiness which is greater than any other they can conceive” (Schopenhauer).
Passionate love, while powerful in its form, is incapable of sustaining the rigors associated with the demands of continued, and successful, union.
Oftentimes, love is born of choice. The decision to love someone despite their shortcomings, choosing to love someone for their potential, and providing love to those who may not be deserving of such consideration, are all examples of Eros as Choice. This form of love can accompany other forms, even within the same bond. This choice comes in three distinct forms: objective, subjective, and bestowment without merit.
To choose to love based on the potential one sees in another is choosing love objectively. This form of Choice is what ancient Greek philosophers spent their lives exploring, and is brilliantly represented in Plato’s “Symposium”, especially with regards to The Speech of Socrates. In this speech, Socrates converses with his love, Agathon, and the two solidify the concept that true love can only be “a desire for beauty, and never for ugliness” and that real love can only be between good and good, as it is the objective virtue of man that is worthy of love, not the man himself (Plato).
To choose love based on the actual qualities one possesses is to love subjectively. This concept involves the adage “taking someone at face value”, in that subjectively choosing a lover means to accept and love them as they are, not for what they could be. Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset explored this form of Choice, finding that it is through “expressive means of revealing a person’s true character” that love, true love, for someone is discovered. He adds that people’s flaws make them as lovable as their perfections, in that we are attracted to that which is like within us.
When exploring Eros, as romantic love, emotion cannot be separated from the other classifications. Without emotion, there is no motivation in love. If we don’t feel emotion for someone, regardless of where on the emotional spectrum that feeling lies, then we can’t possibly possess the depth of interest and consideration that makes love possible. C. S. Lewis found that “Eros {as Emotion} makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman” (Lewis). This suggests that it is not simple desire that draws us to love, but the emotional exchange we take part in when we commit ourselves to loving someone in particular.
When we bond in romantic love, we begin to establish Eros as Union. This concept involves the combining of two people’s lives and purposes, with the intent of forming one, complete entity. This ideal is beautifully illustrated in Aristophane’s tale of the separation of self. He tells of the past, when the original human form “…was round, his back and sides forming a circle, and he had four hands and the same number of feet” (Plato). This shape came from the concept that the complete human consisted of two people, born together to form a whole entity. When Zeus became threatened by man, due to his strength and great heart, he separated him by splitting him down the center, creating two halves, each in the shape of a singular human form. Due to their innate need to find one another half to feel complete, man spent his life searching for love, as Union.
Aristophane’s tale gives a visual reference to what we experience as Eros in Union, the coming together of two minds, bodies, and souls, in an attempt to find completeness and purpose. Society, since its inception, has promoted Union as the ultimate goal in life. No matter our lot, if we love and are loved in return, we are said to be rich in love. For it is not material wealth that determines our completeness, but rather the value associated with the exchange of love.
To summarize the various classifications of Eros, while illustrating how they can come together, in lieu of one eliminating the other, to form true love, I again turn to James Baldwin’s “If Beale Street Could Talk”. The relationship between the book’s two main characters, Tish and Fonny, is one born of Passion. While Tish explains, in the opening paragraphs, that in regards to Alonzo Hunt, rather Fonny, “I’ve known him all my life, and I hope I’ll always know him”, it was passion that brought them together as lovers (Baldwin, pg. 1).
The type of passion that Tish and Fonny held for one another was the all-consuming kind, the type that doesn’t stop to think, the kind of passion that leads to babies being born out of wedlock. Tish recalls “I was being changed; all that I could do was cling to him…everything was breaking and changing and turning in me and moving toward him” (Baldwin, pg. 78). This intense draw led to Tish becoming pregnant, which immediately changed the dynamic of her and Fonny’s relationship. They now moved from Eros as Passion to Eros as Choice, as they made the conscious decision to grow their love.
Eros as Choice is a classification of love that is built upon both the subjective and objective valuing of a mate. Tish sees Fonny for the man he could be, loving him for his potential as a great sculptor, husband, and father. This objective valuation is based on Fonny’s potential, not his actualized state. However, even as Tish values these objective qualities in Fonny, she also exhibits Choice in her subject valuation of him. Beyond the “…old black and red lumber jacket…”, and despite the fact that “His heavy shoes were scuffed; and he smelled of fatigue”, regardless of his “slow, long-legged, bowlegged walk”, …Tish felt “He was the most beautiful person I had seen in all my life” (Baldwin, pg. 52). This adoration proves Tish’s choice to love Fonny subjectively, for who he was already, rather than who he might become.
Eros as Emotion is love that is defined by the feelings that humans produce within one another, which leads to bonding between them. Emotions prompt motivation for action in love. They establish the reasoning behind the need for love, and create a desire that cannot be quelled through physical interaction, as with Passion. These emotions range from overwhelming affection to desperation, volatile in their nature, and dependent upon the actions of another. Eros as Emotion leads to attachment in love, creating a dependency upon a mate. Fonny exhibits this when he tells Tish, “You’re with me all the time, all the time, without you I don’t know if I could make it at all, baby…I’ll always come to you. I need you. I love you” (Baldwin, pg. 77).
In examining Eros as Union within “If Beale Street Could Talk”, there is one particular utterance that speaks to the nature of Fonny and Tish’s love for one another. Tish states “…I had always, without ever thinking about it, known that I would spend my life with Fonny” (Baldwin, pg. 53). The circumstances surrounding Fonny and Tish’s story only strengthen their bond. Even in separation, when Fonny is falsely imprisoned for rape, their bond grows stronger, meshing their entities together. As Fonny and Tish grown in their love, their bond strengthens, and the various forms of love that they maintain for one another come together to establish one entity.
Love, in Conclusion
Love, friendship, and family are among the most coveted goals of human interaction. At a very young age, we begin to form bonds of mutual admiration and respect among our peers and families. As we grow, we discover that hardships and difficulties are easier to face with an ally and a support system. We learn that through the bonds of love, we promote continued human existence and provide the care necessary to sustain life. Most importantly, as we develop as humans, we realize that love, friendship, and family add to our existence, and make our time on earth more fulfilling.
Works Cited
*Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics, Books VII and IX. 350 BCE. MS. W. D. Ross Translation. Internet Classics Archive. 1925
*Baldwin, James. If Beale Street Could Talk. New York: Vintage Books. 1974.
*Kant, Immanuel. Lecture on Friendship. Lectures on Ethics. Louis Infield Translation. 1930
*Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 1971
*Plato. The Symposium.385-370 BCE. MS. Christopher John Gill Translation. Penguin Classics. 1999.
*Santayana, George. Philanthropy. Dialogues in Limbo. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1925. pp. 127-133 and 136-147.
*Schopenhauer, Arthur. Metaphysics of Love. Essays and Aphorisms. Penguin Classics. 2004.
*Tolstoy, Leo. My Religion. 1885. Huntington Smith Translation. Paternoster Row. 1889.
*The Bible. New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1984. Print.
*Mary and Max. Elliot, Adam. Melodrama Pictures, DVD. 2009.
*Shrek. Adamson, Andrew. Dreamworks Pictures, DVD. 2001.
Beth Jacobs 