We’re sketching ideas from Simon May’s Love: A History.
Another key Greek player in the history of love is Aristotle.
First, consider those whom you love – on what is your love based? Qualities in that person? Family blood and loyalty? Something indefinable? Attraction of opposites? Or attraction of like-mindeness? A decision of the ‘will to love’?
Apart from sex, is love for a friend different from love for a lover?
These are some questions raised by Aristotle’s view of love. For him the highest form of love is philia – friendship love.
Now, as a good Greek man, he means friendship with another man. A man obviously could not have a noble and equal friendship with a woman since she (along with a slave) could never be up the mark of equality with a man.
Philea is a more down to earth love than Plato’s ascent to the heavens.
Philea is most definitely not a sexual sort of love, since sex brings in all sorts of other lower motivations. It is unstable due to dependence on temporary qualities like pleasure or beauty. For Aristotle, sex is fairly irrelevant to a flourishing, virtuous life.
Aristotle also assumed that philea was conditional. It very much depends on who the other is. For example, love depends on:
1. the virtue of the friend – is he worthy of love? The two men need to be alike; to have similar virtues and interests. To both be concerned about excellence of character
2. the constant character of the friend. If he declines in virtue, love will die for you should drop an unvirtuous friend. Love can only love like.
It is through such love that we come to self-knowledge and fulfil our own potential. Philia helps us to love ourselves and know ourselves.
Love is a virtue that requires discipline and application. It is hard to know ourselves and we find it in love of another – like a mirror, the love of a friend helps us see ourselves. We should therefore choose friends wisely.
You can begin to see how the big A is pretty out of fashion these days.
Modern love is obsessed with sex as an essential requirement: for Aristotle it was pretty irrelevant to flourishing love
Modern ideas of love assume that love is unconditional; for Aristotle it is very much conditional
Modern love is often undisciplined and spontaneous – you can ‘fall in’ (and out of) love in an instant: for Aristotle it takes the discipline of a lifetime to learn and practice love.
Modern love assumes we know ourselves and ‘forget’ ourselves for the other; for Aristotle love is the key to self-knowledge
Modern love can be rooted in many things – beauty, personality, physical attraction, common interests etc: for Aristotle it is dependent on virtue in both parties
Modern love at least desires or dreams of ‘eternal togetherness’: Aristotle is more pragmatic, love can come and go dependent on virtue.
Modern love says we love ourselves first in order to love others: Aristotle says it is in philea that we find ourselves
What do you think we moderns have to learn from Aristotle when it comes to love?