Thursday, January 05, 2006

The Four Loves

I am once again sitting in the Starbucks after work.
I know. HUGE surprise.
Piles of snow outside, really, it is obscene. It looks so.... Antarctic-ish out there I think I am going to stay in here just a bit longer.
I just finished reading a terrific book.

The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis.
This thing was first published in 1960, and as such, I’m sure a lot of people might say “Hah. It is out of date. We’ve learned a lot about love since then!”
To which I would reply, “No we haven’t. There’s nothing new, really.”
The subject matter of this book is as applicable today as it was back then. And just as applicable as it was fifty years before Lewis wrote it! The main reason for this is because he is not discussing love in a Dr. Phil McGraw sort of way.

Poor Dr. Phil. He is the butt of so many.... Dr. Phil jokes, and stuff.
I have his new book Love Smart: Find The One You Want – Fix The One You Got© in my hands right here. I’m flipping through it. Yes, this type of fad-based discussion of love and relationships does change with the times, for sure.
But in The Four Loves Lewis is talking about timeless meanings and principles of love, albeit, from a decidedly Christian perspective.
He begins by distinguishing what he calls Need-love (based on need, such as the love of a child for its mother) from Gift-love (selfless, the kind of love some attribute to God, or to a loving father), and then divides love into four categories, based on the four Greek words for love.
Each word is treated in its own chapter.
Affection (storge) is described as fondness through familiarity, especially between family members or people who have otherwise found themselves together by chance.
Friendship (philia) is a stronger bond (than Affection) and exists between people who share a common interest or activity. I love the part where he said, In this kind of love, as Emerson said, Do you love me? means Do you see the same truth? – Or at least, “Do you care about the same truth?” The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance, can be our Friend. He need not agree with us about the answer.

This kind of Friendship goes beyond mere Companionship. It’s like a celebration of common ground, between people of similar interests and compatibility.
Then there is the Greek word Eros, which is love in the sense of 'being in love'. This is distinct from sexuality, which Lewis calls Venus, although he does discuss sexual activity and its spiritual significance in both a pagan and a Christian sense. He warns that if Eros is elevated to the status of a god, it has a tendency to self-destruct or at least not deliver what was promised or expected. However, he praises (to the rooftops, really) the proper (indispensable) function of Eros and Venus!
Charity (agape) is a love towards one's neighbour which does not depend on any loveable qualities that the object of love possesses. In this final chapter, Lewis presents quite a challenging and well-reasoned argument against living a life of “self-invited and self-protective lovelessness.”
Overall, I think it a tremendously relevant book. Better than Dr. Phil’s.

Mind you, I have not read Dr. Phil’s, this is true. And I won't. And I’ve read Lewis’s book twice now.
In probably the most radical statement found in the entire book, he says “The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.”
Wow.
You’ve got to admit, that sounds pretty serious, even if a person did not believe in the possibility of either contingency.

*********

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your words!