Chapter I. Love: its essence and manifestation
Love is one, but its imitations number in the thousands.
Francois de La Roche Foucault
In should be stressed right away that in the history of the development of human thought, the concept of love was no less important than the concept of force, and it was just as difficult to define as all other fundamental categories that describe nature and society. Naturally, in the history of philosophy definitions of the concept of love underwent such amazing metamorphoses that the uninitiated reader, having read some of them, would not be likely to understand what it was about. Let me give you an example for curiosity’s sake: “In all its nuances, X is nothing more or less than the direct or indirect trace marked in the heart of the element by the psychic convergence of the universe on itself.” Thusly was “love in all its nuances” defined by that major French thinker, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.[1]
It is difficult, of course, to picture this loving “convergence” and this “universum”; they are incomprehensible out of context. It’s just that Chardin was of the opinion that the property of unity (convergence) exists already on the level of molecules, and through a string of phenomena it manifests itself in physical love between humans (p. 189). Should we follow Chardin’s logic (and he is by no means the only one who thought – still thinks – in this fashion), it will lead us to the well-known Anthropic Principle; I disagree with it categorically and wrote about it in my book Dialectics of Force.
The matter is, the concept love has many aspects, since the word encompasses a very wide spectrum of various phenomena: love between man and woman, love for children, friends, the Motherland, animals, persons of same sex, nature, beer, football, etc., etc. Why is one and the same word applicable to such different things and phenomena? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to get to the very essence of the very phenomenon of love. Using philosophical language, it is necessary to find in this phenomenon the universal that enables it to be universal. In the context of this work I could have restricted myself to a conceptual analysis of just love between man and woman, but, figuring that in any event I will be facing demands to explain the difference between “man-woman” love and, say, love for the Motherland, I was compelled to immerse myself in philosophy in order to arrive at the generalizing definition of love, i.e. to find its universal essence.
However, in order to make this essence comprehensible, I had to make a brief excursion into the history of philosophical thought in order to trace the evolution of the concept of love. I stress the word “concept,” since philosophers and theologians sought to examine this phenomenon precisely on the conceptual level, along with such equally complex concepts as force, happiness, goodness, etc. These definitions helped form the morals of societies, their ethical norms and laws.
I want to remark in advance that the history of philosophical thought about love has been described in a multitude of works by Western and Russian philosophers. Using a formal approach, I could have just included references to these works and gone on right away to presenting my own conception. However, in that version the reader might have failed to notice the new contributions I have made to the cognizance of this phenomenon. Moreover, one should keep in mind that the interpretations of earlier thinkers’ views by modern philosophers may differ cardinally from each other. For example, my appraisals of the famous work On Love by Vladimir Solovyov differ sharply from those by the Russian philosopher V. P. Shestakov. There is nothing surprising about it, since differences in interpretation and analyses are characteristic of all philosophers; this is why there are so many works on one and the same topic. There are many reasons for this: cultural differences, philosophical and political predilections, the method of analysis itself, etc. Love would appear to be a nonpolitical category, but look how differently it is described by different political forces through the works of “their own philosophers.” Therefore I am compelled to “skim over,” however briefly, some works by certain philosophers, giving them my own appraisals. They may not be evident to readers who have not studied this topic purposefully, but the specialists “on love” will notice them at once.
For starters, a purely informational reference about the very world love and certain terms that are used as synonyms for this word. Linguists point out that the word originated from the Sanskrit word lubh (or lobh, lubhyati), meaning insurmountable, passionate desire. Born from it were the Latin words lubēre, libēre, libēt (to like), which by way of the old-German word lupa turned in modern German into Liebe, lieb (love, beloved), and in English – in love. By the way, the word lupa in Latin meant prostitute (as well as she-wolf), hence the word lupanarium (bordello), popular in Russia in the early 20th century. As for the Russian words l’ub and l’ubov’, as well as their counterparts in the other Slavic languages, they are descended, in all likelihood, directly from the Sanskrit word.[2] However, there are three other important terms that originated in ancient Greece: Eros, philia, agape.
Eros, descended from the Greek erasthai, means passion, insurmountable desire for something; it is ordinarily linked to sexual desire. However, in Plato’s works Eros is more often interpreted as desire directed toward beauty, with true beauty capable of being embodied only in the form of ideas.
Philia means affection, good disposition, friendliness. To ancient Greeks, this term meant not only friendship between people, but also loyalty - to family, to one’s field of activity, to the community. It is precisely this word that was key in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Books VIII and IX). Aristotle believed that philia is objective of itself, but it is only inherent to those people who are noble and just. The absence of such qualities makes man devoid of philia, putting him, therefore, on the lowest rungs of human development.
Many people confuse Eros with philia, since both are associated with reactions to positive qualities of the subject or object, and not tied directly to sexual feelings (I remind again that according to Plato, Eros is first and foremost an idea). Actually, there are differences between them, but more about that in the corresponding section.
Agape as love hails to the Christian tradition and originally meant God’s fatherly love toward man and man’s filial love toward God, as well as brotherly love of all humanity in general. Agape incorporates elements of both Eros and philia. Using these words, philosophers attempted to distinguish more precisely the meaning of each, to uncover the coincidences and the differences. For example, A. Nygren believed that “while Eros recognizes, discovers for itself the value of the object, agape creates these values.”[3] It is worth noting that the term agape is used actively not just in theology, but also in philosophical literature, in particular in the works of Kant and Kierkegaard.
Even though the interpretation of these terms is still subject to much debate, their meaning often depends on the context of the work, and, most importantly, on the author’s conception of love.
[1] Teilhard de Chardin, 188.
[2] I think the reader needs no hints to figure out why in several South European countries the word for “love” is derived from the word Amour.
[3] Quoted from: Shestakov. Eschatology and Utopia, 90.
On Love, Family, and the State
(Philosophical-sociological Essay)