1. Love as desire
2. Love of children
3. Love of friends
4. Love of marriage-quality partner.
What can we justifiably ask of any of these others?
Joy in Love--how to cultivate it?
v Here’s a key passage:
Let us say the word: philia is love in all its forms when it flourishes between human beings, whenever it is not reduced to want or passion (erōs). The word, therefore, has a narrower range than the word love (which can be used in reference to an object, animal, or god) but wider than the word friendship (which is hardly ever used with reference to the parent-child relationship) (p. 254).
v How to maintain that passion from first love along with cultivating a mature love over time?
v “In short, concupiscent or covetous love, though not necessarily blameworthy, is a selfish love that loves the other for its own benefit. Benevolent love, on the other hand, is a generous love—it loves the other for the other’s benefit” (p. 262).
o “But erōs is consumed as it is satisfied . . . ; whereas philia, in a happy couple, never ceases to intensify, deepen, and flourish” (p. 263).
The discussion of Eros left me feeling depressed and disheartened—how unromantic a concept it is that love, the virtue that we esteem above all others and constantly strive for, can be reduced to nothing but a carnal or animalistic desire! It was especially upsetting to me that the definition of Eros is centered upon the concept that we can only truly love that which we long for, and that we cannot long for what we already possess. C-S accordingly presents the couple as the death of Eros love, which strikingly contradicts my preconceived notion of the happy couple being love in its purest and highest form. However, although discouraging, Eros is certainly not to be dismissed as too pessimistic or untrue. I feel that C-S truly touches on the heart and importance of Eros when he says, “…we have an ascent, an ascent of love, through love. For carnal love comes first…” and “…desire, or the drive, comes first, and we experience it as want. Eros comes first” (264). I agree with the notion that all love, no matter its object, first begins as desire. But to say that Eros comes first logically means that something must follow, and C-S presents this “something” as a deeper, more intrinsic love—a love that stems from and yet still transcends desire. Called philia, this form of love represents the virtue from which I feel we can derive the purest state of joy.
ReplyDeleteC-S begins the section by contradicting, at least to some degree, the notion of Eros. “For when do action, pleasure and joy take place? The answer is simple: whenever we do, have, or are what we desire, whenever what we desire exists—in short, whenever we desire something that we are not lacking” (244). Are we capable of loving what we lack? Yes; this is the foundation of Eros and, I would argue, the very premise of passion in general. Love, however, certainly does not end here. “I do not love because I lack; I love, and what which I love I sometimes lack” (253). It is at this point—the summit between desiring what we lack and appreciating what we have—that philia rests.
C-S uses two examples to clarify this point. “When sex is accompanied by love and pleasure, when lovers make love lovingly, they lack nothing, and that is why they feel so good and happy, giving pleasure to each other, taking pleasure in themselves and in each other, in their desire and their love” (246). Does the couple still feel desire? Certainly, and this is where we can see a hint of Eros. But philia steps in where Eros falls away, and it remains as the pure joy we receive from having what we most desire. He also uses the example of a father and his child (246). C-S emphasizes the point that the father does not lack a child, and thus delights in and derives love from the sheer fact that his child exists. This does not free the father from Eros, however. There is still passion, and thus Eros, within even the parent-child relationship; the passion takes the form of a strong desire to see the child succeed. This duality and complementarity of the two types of love makes Eros seem altogether much more necessary and much less discouraging than before.
Throughout the section, philia is generally presented as the highest form of friendship—an interpretation that I especially enjoy. Unlike Eros, philia sheds a much more optimistic light upon the concept of the couple, and by doing so emphasizes the importance of companionship in love. C-S says, “Doesn’t ‘philia’ mean ‘friendship?’ Yes, but friendship in its broadest—and also strongest and noblest—sense.” He continues, “Aristotle sees the love (philia) between ‘man and wife’ as a form of friendship, no doubt the most important kind” (254). For years, my parents have told me to “make sure you marry your best friend, because that is the only way that you can both stay happy.” I’ll admit that I typically dismiss their advice as typical ramblings, but this discussion of philia has shown me that this notion is completely true.
C-S poses a crucial question: “How can we passionately love the person with whom we have been sharing our daily life for years, or continue to idolize someone we have come to know so well, or dream what is real; how can we stay in love—a crucial nuance—with our spouse?” (255) If we hold true the notion that all love stems from an original passion, we must also acknowledge that there must be something to take over when passion begins to wane. C-S says that “to subject our love to the vagaries of passion is to be unfaithful ahead of time to those we love, passionately or otherwise” (258). But what is the secret of the couples who are able to remain happy, at least for the most part, for their entire married lives? What steps in when passion fades? The answer is philia, or the ability to accept that love changes and to take delight in more than original passion. To commit to passion is a fallacy; we must take delight, as C-S says, in the fact that our partners “simply exist,” in the fact that we can derive sheer joy solely because they are in our lives.
ReplyDeleteThis state of contentedness does not necessarily arise on its own, and I feel what we can truly derive from this section is the fact that we must strive to find joy even when passion no longer exists. A favorite quote of mine, found at the end of the chapter, reads, “Better a little true love than the dream of love. Better a real couple than a dreamed-of passion. Better a little true happiness than a happy illusion. For the sake of what? For the sake of good faith (love of truth), for the sake of life and happiness—for passion does not and cannot last, or can only last as unhappiness” (260). We must let go of our preconceived notions about love, for we all have them; and we must acknowledge the joy we receive from the fact that we can be truly happy when we are accompanied by what we love most.
"There is the love that we suffer from, which is passion, and there is the love that we make and give, which is action." (246) Here, Comte-Sponville clearly reveals the difference between Eros and Philia love. C-S suggests that Eros love requires a lacking, a desire of something that we do not have. However, he suggests that Philia love is about loving and appreciating what you already have.
ReplyDelete“In short, concupiscent or covetous love, though not necessarily blameworthy, is a selfish love that loves the other for its own benefit. Benevolent love, on the other hand, is a generous love—it loves the other for the other’s benefit” (p. 262)... “But erōs is consumed as it is satisfied . . . ; whereas philia, in a happy couple, never ceases to intensify, deepen, and flourish” (p. 263). In his discussion of Philia, C-S communicates that Philia does not often stand alone. Typically, Philia is coupled with Eros. Often, Eros is the beginning of love, the desire of something that we do not have. In contrast, Philia is the nurturing of this love, a deeper appreciation for what you do have.
In an intimate relationship, I would argue that Eros is the initiator. Our desire to love and be loved and to share in passion with another individual is what drives us to search for love. However, somewhere on this quest to self-satisfaction, we find Philia love. In a deep, passionate relationship, passion itself is no longer the object. Philia love is a true longing for the best for another being, not for personal gain, but to bring happiness to another.
Philia love should exist in all relationships, not just intimate ones. We should love our friends and family not solely for what they do for us, but for who they are. We should actively love in all relationships in appreciation for the being that we are sharing with.
"Aristotle sees the love (philia) "between man and wife" as a form of friendship, no doubt the most important kind." (254) Honestly, once you "have" the love of another and your initial Eros has disintegrated, what else are you left with? Philia, friendship and "the joy of loving and being loved," (254) must exist for love to last. In turn, Eros will continue to burn brightly as one desires to share and grow with the one that they love with a deep, Philia love. In a healthy relationship, one is incredibly joyful and satisfied by their love; however, they will never truly have enough time to share with that love. “I can’t get enough of you, baby,” shouldn’t be about a surface physical love, but about the Eros desire to share with your lover for eternity.
This love and desire to actively make another happy because of who they are and what they mean to you must flourish in the end. For if we all take care of each other, what more will we need?
Philia is "to enjoy his [a friend's, ect.] existence and presence the pleasures and joys he offers him" (254). After one has what one desires, one draws pleasure and happiness from it, and one normally wishes "the one who is good to us well" (263). Philia is giving that pleasure and joy and receiving joy in return through that others' existence. Philia is shared joy - mutual happiness that one loved and loving another.
ReplyDeleteI think that Sponville was accurate in saying that it takes the "will of the lover to join himself to the thing loved." When one desires another, the image that is loved is not him or her - rather, a fanciful illusion of what that person wants to see. However, Sponville says that the pleasure and joy of philia must be "found," implying that one must go looking for it, that there is some level of work involved in finding joy in another's existence. That work is adapting to love the real friend or lover rather than be caught up in the imaginary one. Sponville expands on this idea with two key statements: "They [the lasting couple] love their duet too much, with its harmonies, counterpoint, and occasional dissonances" (257) and "Let us say that philia is love-as-joy…a choice we take on ourselves, a reciprocal of pleasure and trust" (254). The second statement reveals this joy in the real existence of another is mutual. Both experience joy and the "great happiness that we are loved" (255). By saying that philia is a "choice we take on ourselves," it implies that philia love requires a level of trust and, perhaps, risk. There is little risk in lacking something because what you are looking for is not restructured by real life. "Prince Charming is simply the husband you lacked, the husband you dreamed of" (255-256).
The first key statement reveals that this love of the real is a process of adaptation. This evident in Sponville's description of the long-lasting marriage. Indeed, it has harmonies (times where each person's differences complement each other), and it also has dissonance (times where their difference's clash, times where perhaps one expects Prince Charming and does not find him). Sponville states that "love exists only as joy and there is no joy other than love" and that "love is transparent joy" (253). If philia love is deriving and sharing joy with another person, then I do not believe that the couple described in the first key statement is always experiencing philia. I do not think that while dissonance is occuring, either are experiencing joy. While one argues, another probably is not feeling especially happy, especially for the sake of the other's existence. He or she may not want to hurt the other, but he or she is not explicitly experiencing happiness, either. However, perhaps philia is too good to last - even in the perfect marriage or the perfect friendship - because even the perfect real situation is real, and real couples have differences that need to be worked out. Working those differences out through active dissonance is really a byproduct of active love. It means that the couple wants to see the truth in the other, and love is "transparent."
This willingness to adapt and the inconsistency of philia is true in children, friends, and marriages. However, if philia fades away, if "Prince Charming" is no longer so charming, one's love for another must rest on eros or agape until philia reemerges. One still desires friendship or even that particular friend, and because of that desire, he or she will stay by his or her friend's side. A person may also be loyal to that friend or child or husband or wife out of agape. If not agape, then out of the virtue of fidelity. If philia reemerges, then the mutal love is restored. There is some new aspect of one's friend or child that one finds joy in. Perhaps one's son says "thank you" after not doing so for years. Perhaps one's friend apologizes for a wrongdoing, thus the trust in that friendship. Then after trust returns, joy comes.
ReplyDeleteJust a quick thought:
ReplyDeleteEver contemplate the phrase "I love you"?
Do you guys find it odd, after reading this chapter concerning love, how powerful those three little words are?
"I love you"... it's such a broad term now. I love Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, but I also love my sister, and my boyfriend, and my best friend. When I express my desire and love of delectable delicacies, I am experiencing a form of Eros love. When I tell my baby sister that I love her, I am expressing Philia love. But when I hear those three words that quicken my heartbeat from the man that I love, it is a mixture of both.
Perhaps Eros love and Philia love balance each other to result in a deeper, more thorough love. A relationship without Eros is platonic, while a relationship without Philia is infatuation. Eros+Philia= A true, romantic, loving relationship.
Hm. Maybe I don't love Reese's afterall... ;)
I thought what Comte-Sponville had to say about the father-son love was very interesting. At the same time that the father loves what he has- the son who exists with all his personality traits and actions at the present moment, he also loves and desires what he hopes will come- the son's reaching of hopes and dreams and success and the continued life of the son. The combination of the love for what we presently have and the love and desire for what we want to come could make us completely joyful, but couldn't it also make us sorrowful? I feel that sometimes I would be a much happier person if I could just focus on the present, on what I have now rather than longing for the future and worrying over if certain people will remain in my life the way they are now. "Such love does indeed exist: a father's passionate love for his son, with its hopes and fears that imprison the son as well, dooming them both to anguish, the imaginary, and nothingness" (247). How dismal life and love would be if this were the only love that existed- the kind that only keeps us longing, never being fulfilled or joyful for what we actually do have with us. "This kind of love exists, but it is not the only kind; for the father also loves his child as he is, the child he no longer lacks, the actual, present, living child, against whom anguish, nothingness, and death are powerless..." (247). What a beautiful idea- love that doesn't produce fear or worry for the future, but that overwhelms us with joy for the person, or the pieces, aspects, or memories, of the person that we are/were able to experience no matter what the future may hold. A love that overcomes anguish and overpowers fear, philia is truly an amazing kind of love.
ReplyDelete"Let us say that philia is love-as-joy, inasmuch as it is, or can be, reciprocal: the joy of loving and being loved, mutual or potentially mutual goodwill, the will to live together, a choice we take on ourselves, a reciprocal pleasure and trust" (C-S 254). I thought this was a great way to sum up philia love. I couldn't agree more with the point that Karlie made when she was talking about philia love in a deep relationship. I also believe that eros love initiates a relationship. While passion and attraction might not be critical to a successful relationship, I think it is eros that usually brings people together in the first place and helps build the relationship. That being said, there comes a point when it moves past eros. That does not mean that eros does not work in conjunction with philia, but I feel like philia is love on a deeper level. As you grow old together, the physical passion might fade, but that does not mean that the love you have together disappears. Philia brings you closer together, it is the joy of loving. As Comte-Sponville points out, it is "active love" (254). I think a critical aspect of a successful marriage is friendship. Your partner in marriage should not just be your husband/wife, but your best friend as well. "What lovers do not become friends if they are happy together?" In my opinion, it is philia that carries on the love and relationship once eros fades.
ReplyDelete