World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Philosophy of love

Article Id: WHEBN0023209509
Reproduction Date:

Title: Philosophy of love  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Love, Social and political philosophy, Social philosophy, Philosophy of Love: A Partial Summing-Up, Biological basis of love
Collection: Ethics, Love, Philosophy of Love, Social Philosophy
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Philosophy of love

Philosophy of love is the field of social philosophy and ethics that attempts to explain the nature of love.[1]


  • Current theories 1
  • Western traditions 2
    • Classical roots 2.1
    • Petrarchism 2.2
    • Gallic scepticism 2.3
    • Western philosophers of love 2.4
  • Eastern traditions 3
  • See also 4
  • References 5
  • Further reading 6
  • External links 7

Current theories

There are many different theories that attempt to explain what love is, and what function it serves. It would be very difficult to explain love to a hypothetical person who had not himself or herself experienced love or being loved. In fact, to such a person love would appear to be quite strange if not outright irrational behavior. Among the prevailing types of theories that attempt to account for the existence of love there are: psychological theories, the vast majority of which consider love to be very healthy behavior; there are evolutionary theories that hold that love is part of the process of natural selection; there are spiritual theories that may, for instance consider love to be a gift from God; there are also theories that consider love to be an unexplainable mystery, very much like a mystical experience.

Western traditions

Classical roots

Setting aside Empedocles's view of Eros as the force binding the world together,[2] the roots of the classical philosophy of love go back to Plato's Symposium.[3] From its riches, we may perhaps single out three main threads that would continue to reverberate through the centuries that followed.

  1. The idea of two loves, one heavenly, one earthly. As Uncle Toby was informed, over two millennia later, "of these loves, according to Ficinus's comment on Valesius, the one is rational - the other is natural - the first...excites to the desire of philosophy and truth - the second, excites to desire, simply".[4]
  2. Aristophanes's conception of mankind as the product of the splitting in two of an original whole: Freud would later draw on this myth - "everything about these primaeval men was double: they had four hands and four feet, two faces"[5] - to support his theory of the repetition compulsion.
  3. Plato's sublimation theory of love - "mounting upwards...from one to two, and from two to all fair forms, and from fair forms to fair actions, and from fair actions to fair notions,, until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute beauty".[6]

Aristotle by contrast placed more emphasis on philia (friendship, affection) than on eros (love);[7] and the dialectic of friendship and love would continue to be played out into and through the Renaissance,[8] with Cicero for the Latins pointing out that "it is love (amor) from which the word 'friendship' (amicitia) is derived"[9] Meanwhile Lucretius, building on the work of Epicurus, had both praised the role of Venus as "the guiding power of the universe", and criticised those who become "'s best years squandered in sloth and debauchery".[10]


Among his love-sick targets, Catullus, along with others like Héloïse, would find himself summoned in the 12C to a Love's Assize.[11] From the ranks of such figures, and perhaps also under Islamic influences, would emerge the concept of courtly love;[12] and from that Petrarchism would form the rhetorical/philosophical foundations of romantic love for the early modern world.[13]

Gallic scepticism

Alongside the passion for merging that marked Romantic love,[14] a more sceptical French tradition can be traced from Stendhal onwards. Stendhal's theory of crystallization implied an imaginative readiness for love, which only needed a single trigger for the object to be imbued with every phantasised perfection.[15] Proust went further, singling out absence, inaccessibility or jealousy as the necessary precipitants of love.[16] Lacan would almost parody the tradition with his saying that "love is giving something you haven't got to someone who doesn't exist".[17] A post-Lacanian like Luce Irigaray would then struggle to find room for love in a world that will "reduce the other to the same...emphasizing eroticism to the detriment of love, under the cover of sexual liberation".[18]

Western philosophers of love

Eastern traditions

  1. Given what Max Weber called the intimate relationship between religion and sexuality,[19] the role of the lingam and yoni in India, or of yin and yang in China, as a structuring form of cosmic polarity based on the male and female principles,[20] is perhaps more comprehensible. By way of maithuna or sacred intercourse,[21] Tantra developed a whole tradition of sacred sexuality,[22] which led in its merger with Buddhism to a view of sexual love as a path to enlightenment: as Saraha put it, "That blissful delight that consists between lotus and vajra...removes all defilements".[23]
  2. More soberly, the Hindu tradition of friendship as the basis for love in marriage can be traced back to the early times of the Vedas.[24]
  3. Confucius is sometimes seen as articulating a philosophy (as opposed to religion) of love.[25]

See also


  1. ^ Irving Singer (31 March 2009). Philosophy of Love: A Partial Summing-Up. MIT Press.  
  2. ^ Erotic, in Richard Gregory, The Oxford Companion to the Mind (1987) p. 228
  3. ^ Linnell Secomb (1 June 2007). Philosophy and Love: From Plato to Popular Culture. Edinburgh University Press.  
  4. ^ Lawrence Sterne, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy (1976) p. 560-1
  5. ^ S. Freud, On Metapsychology (PFL 11) p. 331
  6. ^ B. Jowett trans, The Essential Plato (1999) p. 746
  7. ^ Aritotle, Ethics (1976) p. 377-9
  8. ^ William C. Carroll ed., The Two Gentlemen of Verona (2004) p. 3-23
  9. ^ Quoted in Carroll, p. 11
  10. ^ Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe (1961) p. 27 and p. 163-5
  11. ^ Helen Waddell, The Wandering Scholars (1968) p. 20 and p. 26
  12. ^ K. Clark, Civilisation (1969) p. 64-5
  13. ^ Carroll, p. 31
  14. ^ Irving Singer, The Philosophy of Love (2009) p. 40M
  15. ^ Irving Singer, The Nature of Love (2009) p. 360-1
  16. ^ G. Brereton, A Short History of French Literature (1954) p. 243
  17. ^ Adam Phillips, On Flirtation (1994) p. 39
  18. ^ Luce Irigaray, Sharing the World (2008) p. 49 and p. 36
  19. ^ Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion (1971) p.236
  20. ^ Carl Jung, Man and his Symbols (1978) p. 81 and p. 357
  21. ^ Sophy Hoare, Yoga (1980) p. 19
  22. ^ Margo Anand, The Art of Sexual Ecstasy (1990) p. 38-47
  23. ^ Quoted in E. Conze, Buddhist Scriptures (1973) p. 178
  24. ^ Hindu Philosophy of Marriage
  25. ^ F. Yang/J. Taamney, Confucianism (2011) p. 289

Further reading

External links

  • Love and Reasons (Special issue of Essays in Philosophy)
  • "Philosophy of Love" article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Singer & Santayana On Love
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on love
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.