Love has always baffled the human mind. We’ve gone crazy over it, studied it, gone to war for it, and died for it. Across history, there have been many attempts to define love, and the answer often differs depending on who you ask. There are all kinds of scientific and social explanations for love, but what do some philosophers think it is?
To show the philosophical standpoint of love, it would help to go back as far as we can: to the ancients. The ancient Greeks actually had many different words for love, the most common being eros, philia, storge, and agape. Eros is commonly understood to be sexual or passionate love, philia is friendship or affectionate love, storge is familial love and agape is familial or spousal affection sans sexual meaning.
Aristotle’s predecessor and teacher, Plato, through a dialogue starring Socrates and Phaedrus, advocates for eros being the most important kind of love. He lays out a story, beginning with a more innocent meaning of eros, which includes it being simply a longing for something we don’t have. In this interpretation, Socrates communicates that Eros is a god, son of Aphrodite, and thus shouldn’t be framed in such a harsh, impious way. He uses the theory of Forms — which are the perfect exemplars of abstract concepts like Justice, Beauty or Equality — to explain what eros is. In this story, the human soul sees the Forms prior to incarnation and becomes reminded of them while on Earth. For example, seeing something beautiful prompts the memory of the Form, Beauty.
There are three main arguments Socrates outlines in his speech to Phaedrus: 1) Eros is a good type of divine madness, 2) the human soul longs for the Forms, mainly Beauty and 3) the Form Beauty is connected to philosophy as a gateway to accessing the other Forms. Long story short, eros is a soul’s longing for true Beauty, which it never thought it would see again after being incarnated as a human. Eros is more of a soulful longing than a physical desire.
Aristotle, in “Nichomacean Ethics,” diverges from this and touts philia as the highest form of love. It’s a mutual relationship where people want the best for their friends and are willing to help them achieve those ends. Aristotle outlines three types of friendship. These are friendships of pleasure, utility, and good. Friendships of pleasure are characterized by simply enjoying someone’s company, friendships of utility are based on what being friends with someone can get you and friendships of good are based on mutual enjoyment of character.
As we enter the modern era, conceptions of love take an even more practical turn. One of the most notable names in modern philosophy, Friedrich Nietzsche, had a more negative conception of love that differed from the way it’s typically imagined. He saw love as being purely biological — an instinct that has cultural and natural value. He even puts love on the same playing field as greed. They’re both instincts that drive us to want ownership over someone or something. Love is framed as more of a selfish act than one of devotion or passion.
The contemporary existentialist and feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir also had an interesting perspective on love. In her view, she had love split into two types: inauthentic and authentic. Inauthentic love is characterized by someone forfeiting who they are in a relationship. This would apply to someone who becomes nothing without their relationship or partner. In a time when women were discouraged from being their own people outside of romantic relationships, it makes sense why this was an important distinction. Authentic love, in contrast, was a mutual understanding of independence, with each partner being their own person. By authentically loving someone, you love what makes them an individual, and they do the same for you.
Whether you agree with these philosophies or not, they communicate some differing perspectives on the elusive puzzle that is love. Although this is by no means an exhaustive list, I hope it sheds a little light on some more meanings of love. Happy Valentine’s Day!