The Four Loves: Difference between revisions
→Philia—friend bond: Adelphos, not philia, is the Greek word for brother. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
No edit summary Tag: possible vandalism |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
== Pleasures == |
== Pleasures == |
||
opoku continued his examination by exploring the nature of pleasure, distinguishing Need-pleasures (such as water for the thirsty) from Pleasures of Appreciation, such as the love of nature.<ref>Lewis, p. 20 and p. 27</ref> From the latter, he developed what he called “a third element in love...Appreciative love”,<ref>Lewis p. 26</ref> to go along with Need-love and Gift-love. |
|||
Throughout the rest of the book, Lewis would go on to counterpart that three-fold, qualitative distinction against the four broad types of loves indicated in his title.<ref>R. MacSwain ed, ''The Cambridge Companion to C. S. Lewis'' (2010) p. 147-8</ref> |
Throughout the rest of the book, Lewis would go on to counterpart that three-fold, qualitative distinction against the four broad types of loves indicated in his title.<ref>R. MacSwain ed, ''The Cambridge Companion to C. S. Lewis'' (2010) p. 147-8</ref> |
||
Revision as of 22:44, 11 August 2015
 First edition | |
| Author | C. S. Lewis |
|---|---|
| Cover artist | Michael Harvey |
| Language | English |
| Genre | Philosophy |
| Publisher | Geoffrey Bles |
Publication date | 1960 |
| Publication place | Northern Ireland |
| Media type | Print (Hardback & Paperback) |
| Pages | 160 |
| OCLC | 30879763 |
The Four Loves is a book by C. S. Lewis which explores the nature of love from a Christian and philosophical perspective through thought experiments.[1] The book was based on a set of radio talks from 1958, criticised in the US at the time for their frankness about sex.[2]
Need/gift love
Taking his start from St. John's words "God is Love", Lewis initially thought to contrast "Need-love" (such as the love of a child for its mother) and "Gift-love" (epitomized by God's love for humanity), to the disparagement of the former.[3] However he swiftly happened on the insight that the natures of even these basic categorizations of love are more complicated than they at first seemed: a child's need for parental comfort is a necessity, not a selfish indulgence, while conversely parental Gift-love in excessive form can be a perversion of its own.[4]
Pleasures
opoku continued his examination by exploring the nature of pleasure, distinguishing Need-pleasures (such as water for the thirsty) from Pleasures of Appreciation, such as the love of nature.[5] From the latter, he developed what he called “a third element in love...Appreciative love”,[6] to go along with Need-love and Gift-love.
Throughout the rest of the book, Lewis would go on to counterpart that three-fold, qualitative distinction against the four broad types of loves indicated in his title.[7]
In his remaining four chapters, Lewis treats of love under four categories ("the highest does not stand without the lowest"), based in part on the four Greek words for love: affection, friendship, eros, and charity. Lewis states that just as Lucifer—a former archangel—perverted himself by pride and fell into depravity, so too can love—commonly held to be the arch-emotion—become corrupt by presuming itself to be what it is not.
A fictional treatment of these loves is the main theme of Lewis's novel Till We Have Faces.
Storge—empathy bond
Storge (storgē, Greek: στοργή) is liking someone through the fondness of familiarity, family members or people who relate in familiar ways that have otherwise found themselves bonded by chance. An example is the natural love and affection of a parent for their child. It is described as the most natural, emotive, and widely diffused of loves: natural in that it is present without coercion; emotive because it is the result of fondness due to familiarity; and most widely diffused because it pays the least attention to those characteristics deemed "valuable" or worthy of love and, as a result, is able to transcend most discriminating factors. Lewis describes it as a dependency-based love which risks extinction if the needs cease to be met.
Affection, for Lewis, included both Need-love and Gift-love. He considered it responsible for 9/10th of all solid and lasting human happiness.[8]
Ironically, however, affection's strength is also what makes it vulnerable. Affection has the appearance of being "built-in" or "ready made", says Lewis, and as a result people come to expect it irrespective of their behavior and its natural consequences.[9] Both in its Need and its Gift form, affection then is liable to 'go bad', and to be corrupted by such forces as jealousy, ambivalence and smothering.[10]
Philia—friend bond
Philia (philía, Greek: φιλία) is the love between friends as close as siblings in strength and duration. The Friendship is the strong bond existing between people who share common values, interests or activities.[11] Lewis immediately differentiates Friendship Love from the other Loves. He describes friendship as, "the least biological, organic, instinctive, gregarious and necessary...the least natural of loves".[12] Our species does not need friendship in order to reproduce, but to the classical and medieval worlds it is a higher-level love because it is freely chosen.
Lewis explains that true friendships, like the friendship between David and Jonathan in the Bible, are almost a lost art. He expresses a strong distaste for the way modern society ignores friendship. He notes that he cannot remember any poem that celebrated true friendship like that between David and Jonathan, Orestes and Pylades, Roland and Oliver, Amis and Amiles. Lewis goes on to say, "to the Ancients, Friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves; the crown of life and the school of virtue. The modern world, in comparison, ignores it".
Growing out of Companionship, friendship for Lewis was a deeply Appreciative love, though one which he felt few people in modern society could value at its worth, because so few actually experienced true friendship.[13]
Nevertheless, Lewis was not blind to the dangers of friendships, such as its potential for cliqueyness, anti-authoritarianism, and pride.[14]
Eros—erotic bond
Eros (erōs, Greek: ἔρως) for Lewis was love in the sense of 'being in love' or 'loving' someone, as opposed to the raw sexuality of what he called Venus: the illustration Lewis uses was the distinction between 'wanting a woman' and wanting one particular woman -something that matched his (classical) view of man as a rational animal, a composite both of reasoning angel and instinctual alley-cat.[15]
Eros turns the need-pleasure of Venus into the most appreciative of all pleasures;[16] but nevertheless Lewis warned against the modern tendency for Eros to become a god to people who fully submit themselves to it, a justification for selfishness, even a phallic religion.[17]
After exploring sexual activity and its spiritual significance in both a pagan and a Christian sense, he notes how Eros (or being in love) is in itself an indifferent, neutral force: how "Eros in all his splendour...may urge to evil as well as good".[18] While accepting that Eros can be an extremely profound experience, he does not overlook the dark way in which it could lead even to the point of suicide pacts or murder, as well as to furious refusals to part, "mercilessly chaining together two mutual tormentors, each raw all over with the poison of hate-in-love".[19]
Agape—unconditional 'God' love
Charity (agápē, Greek: ἀγάπη) is the love that serves regardless of changing circumstances. Lewis recognizes this one as the greatest of the other three loves, and sees it as a specifically Christian virtue to achieve. The chapter on the subject focuses on the need to subordinate the other three natural loves—as Lewis puts it, "The natural loves are not self-sufficient"[20]—to the love of God, who is full of charitable love, to prevent what he termed their 'demonic' self-aggrandizement.[21] Lewis did not actually use the word agape although later commentators did.[22][23][24]
See also
References
- ^ Carl Rogers, Becoming Partners (1984) p. 238
- ^ Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Companion & Guide (1996) p. 779 and p. 88-90
- ^ C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves (1960) p. 9-12
- ^ Hooper, p. 368-70
- ^ Lewis, p. 20 and p. 27
- ^ Lewis p. 26
- ^ R. MacSwain ed, The Cambridge Companion to C. S. Lewis (2010) p. 147-8
- ^ Lewis, p. 50 and p. 66
- ^ Lewis, p. 50-2
- ^ Hooper, p. 370-1
- ^ Hooper, p. 654
- ^ Lewis, p. 70
- ^ Lewis, p. 77, p. 84-5 and p. 70
- ^ Hooper, p. 372
- ^ Lewis, p. 108-9 and p. 116
- ^ Hooper, p. 373
- ^ Lewis, p. 127-32 and p. 113
- ^ Lewis, p. 124
- ^ Lewis, p. 124 and p. 132
- ^ Lewis, p. 133
- ^ MacSwain, p. 146
- ^ A. Lindsley. C.S. Lewis on Love. C. S. Lewis Institute
- ^ P Kreeft. Love, in Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics. Ignatius Press 1988, p. 181
- ^ The Question of God, Program Two: C.S. Lewis: The Four Loves. PBS