Eros Vs Agape love?

[Kelly K.]

I have an upcoming paper and debate for a class on Eros vs Agape love. The main question is which will lead an individual to living a happier life. So I have a few questions:

does Rand ever talk about either of these loves? and if so where can i find them? in which of her books?

does anyone know of any other works which argue for one or the other? internet, articles, other books.

and does anyone have any ideas they would like to share regarding the issue?

I'm arguing that Eros love would leave one to a happier more fulfilling life, so any arguments in favor of that are greatly appreciated.

[DavidOdden]

No, she did not. You're referring to two of four words of Ancient Greek which might be reasonably be translated into English as "love". The semantics of the distinction between αγάπη and έρως is really properly in the scope of classical philology, not philosophy. Rand did write on the concept of "love", and other related concepts such as "value". It is not clear to me that it is appropriate to translate as αγάπη "love", as opposed to "benevolence".

[Hairnet]

I have an upcoming paper and debate for a class on Eros vs Agape love. The main question is which will lead an individual to living a happier life. So I have a few questions:

does Rand ever talk about either of these loves? and if so where can i find them? in which of her books?

does anyone know of any other works which argue for one or the other? internet, articles, other books.

and does anyone have any ideas they would like to share regarding the issue?

I'm arguing that Eros love would leave one to a happier more fulfilling life, so any arguments in favor of that are greatly appreciated.

The way I have had it explained to me by a psychology professor is that Eros is love that is about romance, passion, and sex. Agape is something that is meant to be a philosophical love, a love for all humanity. My professor explained that it was basically the love of Christ (altruistic).

Based on what DavidOdden said, my professor and many others may have misunderstood what the Greeks said. Benevolence and altruism are entirely different things, but are easily confused by people who accept the basic premises presented by our culture. In part I think Christianity depends on this confusion.

Lets say that agape meant something along the lines of "a benevolent attitude towards humanity,and a love of the potential in all men and women".

I would say that Agape is great indicator of someone's quality of life (they aren't misanthropes). This is an effect however. It is a sign of good ideas and good decisions, not something that can just be acted out. Eros is good, but men and women can be plenty happy without it.

However if we take the first definition your class is comparing apples to oranges. Agape is an attitude towards other people that is healthy and that comes from being healthy, Eros is about relationships of a romantic-sexual nature. How can it be said that either are anything but one component of a happier life? That is like saying "What is a more efficient way to live, off of air, or off of food?". There is nothing mutually exclusive about the two.

Any concept of unconditional love is dangerous. So if agape is meant to mean that, then I would argue for Eros in that it is the only kind of love presented that makes sense.

[Plasmatic]

When I was a minister the term "agape" was always pushed as unconditional love. Don't ever remember a reference given in all those years of "serving the Lord"...

Edited May 15, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

I'm arguing that Eros love would leave one to a happier more fulfilling life, so any arguments in favor of that are greatly appreciated.

Since Rand did not discuss either concept specifically, can you maybe elaborate on the distinction between eros and agape you are making? If it involves unconditional love, as agape seems to mean in my minimal research, there is plenty Rand has written on that idea. Love would properly be the response to the aspects that one values in another. To love a person regardless of any bad they do is to deny any value in treating people how they deserve to be treated, whether as a value, or not as a value.

[Capitalism Forever]

There is nothing inherently unconditional or collectivist about the word agape, any more than there is about the English word love. On Greek TV, the phrase "I love you" is commonly subtitled as "Σ'αγαπώ." To attribute any "unselfish," non-objective meaning to this term is to pervert it the same way as the English word "love" is often perverted.

The existence of several concepts referring to positive emotions towards others is not in any way unique to the Greek language. In English, too, we have several ways of saying that we "love" a person:

• I like you
  
• You're one of my best friends
  
• You matter to me
  
• You turn me on
  
• I'm in love with you
  
• I want you
  
• etc.
  

A particular concrete emotional response may be subsumed under any number of these concepts--usually more than one. For example, your evaluation of the chef at your favorite restaurant may fall under "like" and "love," but probably not under "turn me on" or "want you." The hot chick you saw at the mall would get a "like" and a "turn me on," but not (yet) an "in love." Your wife would, in an ideal case, get all six of the above, and more. And so on--the point being that, just as it is the case with entities, it is only individual concrete emotions that exist, and words are our means of grouping them based on their similarities--and there are overlaps and hierarchical relationships between the groups, so it's usually not a case of "either-or."

The debate mentioned in the OP is in effect asking, "Which will lead an individual to living a happier life, being in love with someone or wanting someone?"--which is a bit like, "Which is likelier to get you from point A to point B, driving or stepping on the gas?" I mean, doesn't the one usually involve the other?

[ctrl y]

I have an upcoming paper and debate for a class on Eros vs Agape love. The main question is which will lead an individual to living a happier life. So I have a few questions:

does Rand ever talk about either of these loves? and if so where can i find them? in which of her books?

does anyone know of any other works which argue for one or the other? internet, articles, other books.

and does anyone have any ideas they would like to share regarding the issue?

I'm arguing that Eros love would leave one to a happier more fulfilling life, so any arguments in favor of that are greatly appreciated.

A life lived just by Eros seems comically one dimensional, because Eros makes its object a thing to be pursued. In that life others are only objects for your lust, which means you cannot have brothers and sisters. We need Agape to fill out our relationships with things like friendly banter and exchange of ideas. Agape alone is too weak, and Eros alone is too strong. Neither, alone, seems capable of producing much happiness. This reminds me of the mind-body dichotomy... would a ghost or a corpse be happier?

Edited May 15, 2010 by ctrl y

[Kelly K.]

when i say that eros love would lead to a happier life, i mean that pursuing a romantic, passionate relationship with one other person would make one happier than one making their own concern with perpetuating agape love. also, it is not meant that one will solely be using one love, but placing a higher value on one of the loves, and if given th option between spending time with a significant other and giving time to helping others, one would choose time with a signifiacant other. and by agape love it is meant that treating all equally, not judging, and providing people with what they need not what they deserve.

[VcatoV]

Having read both Plato and the Bible in the original Greek (unfortunately, Aristotle is still a tad above my knowledge-he had a knack for inventing words!), I have found that it is very difficult to convey Greek concepts of love into English. What makes this all the more troubling is that, just like in English, the language evolves. Agape during the Classical period has a very different translation than that of the Koine/Christian period. So the first thing to realize is that there is no single correct/proper definition of agape and eros. You would have to cite a specific poet or philosopher who used the term, and then discover in which context they used it. This is the only way to truly understand the meaning of both words.

Nevertheless, a vague "definition" can be built. But once again, there is a problem. Love, to the Greeks, was a relationship. Thus when a Greek said "I love you" to their parents, they did so in a different way than they did when they said it to a sibling, a child, a fellow countryman, an idea, a sexual partner, a romantic partner, etc. The essential point to take away is this: the difference in the words defines a difference in relationship. It does get a tad bit more complex: it was possible (and common) to have a certain type of love-relationship with a person who did not necessarily match the original recipient within the definition. For example, the Christians found it easy to adopt agape love as the love between fellow Christians because they were acting "brotherly" towards one another, while not necessarily being brotherly.

In a broader sense, though, love also conveyed the disposition of an individual. This disposition was seen as necessarily congruent with the status of the relationship. In order to have the relationship of brotherly love/agape, it was necessary for an individual to possess the attribute/characteristic/form/category of brotherliness. The Greeks heavily conveyed in their language the belief that many of these emotions/loves were naturally present, but repressed by culture/society/the individual on purpose (for good or bad). In short-all Greeks had agape within themselves, but repressed/ignored/discovered it anew for a variety of reasons.

While this might sound overly philosophical, these ideas were firmly rooted into the Greek mind, and thus when conveying a specific type of love, all of these attributes/peculiarities were taken into effect. To properly understand eros and agape would take a lifetime of work.

Now, with this background in mind, to address your questions:

I have an upcoming paper and debate for a class on Eros vs Agape love. The main question is which will lead an individual to living a happier life.

The Greek would respond that both were necessary to live a proper life. They are not mutually exclusive. This is indeed true. If we take the simple English definitions of erotic and brotherly love, would you not say that both are necessary? You desire an erotic relationship with your partner and a brotherly relationship with your siblings, or your closest friends. What matters is that you attain the proper balance, or the necessary course, which leads to a flourishing love life. This means: you want to be erotic with your spouse, not but let your erotic side become so dominant that you are attempting to sleep with every person you can; or, you want to be agape with your best friend, but you do not want to trust fully/be highly benefited by each passing stranger. Every act of love, to take the Aristotelean ethical formula, must be done at the right time, for the right reasons, under the right circumstances.

So I have a few questions:

does Rand ever talk about either of these loves? and if so where can i find them? in which of her books?

does anyone know of any other works which argue for one or the other? internet, articles, other books.

and does anyone have any ideas they would like to share regarding the issue?

I'm arguing that Eros love would leave one to a happier more fulfilling life, so any arguments in favor of that are greatly appreciated.

Let me know how much time you have, because the subject is immense. The definitive, must reads are the Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle, the Symposium and Phaedrus by Plato, Works and Days by Hesiod, and the Metamorphoses by Ovid.