True Love Real? Fake?
#11
(05-30-2012, 09:57 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: Laramie, you seems to be thinking of C.S. Lewis ' division, which is Affection, Friendship, Eros, and Charity.  For most people, "true love" falls under Eros.  However, I think-- and Lewis probably says something like, though I can't recall-- that the idea of "true love" really includes the best of all of them.  Lewis does say that in order for Eros to live up to its promise, it must be ruled by charity.  However, the same goes for the other two.

Pope Benedict has said something similar:
Deus Caritas Est Wrote:In philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions have often been radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them: descending, oblative love—agape—would be typically Christian, while on the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love —eros—would be typical of non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture. Were this antithesis to be taken to extremes, the essence of Christianity would be detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life. Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34).
Reply
#12
Yes, but what Pope Benedict says, that Eros and Agape can never be separated, unfortunately seems a bit strong.  They are separated, all too often, particularly Eros from Agape, though the opposite probably occasionally occurs.
Reply
#13
Well, I think Pope Benedict would say that eros without agapeic self-giving eventually loses its nature as eros. I don't think we should confuse lust and eros. And it seems that what he is saying about agape is that this love always exists within relationships, which lean more toward the erotic. You have to "be in love" in a sense. I think there might be something to the idea that these two sorts of love are always somewhat connected in real love as it is actually lived out.
Reply
#14
Well, how about this, was "true love" ever defined?  Can we trace the word to its first use?
Reply
#15
True love?

Here is what St Paul had to say 1 Cor 13:4

[4]Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;
[5] it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
[6] it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.
[7] Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
[8] Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. (RSV)

or our Lord John 15:13

Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (D-R)

I think it is possible for people to achieve this, even a married couple :) I think my parents are a pretty good example of this, but I don't think it comes 'love it first sight' It is something that you have to work at constantly

Luke
Reply
#16
God is Truth.  God is Love.  God is Real.

Therefore, true love is real.  Q.E.D.  :tiphat:

My irrefutable and, most importantly succinct, logic triumphs again. 
Reply
#17
(05-31-2012, 01:01 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: Well, how about this, was "true love" ever defined?  Can we trace the word to its first use?

I think true love was first defined by this gentleman:

[Image: princessbride2.jpg]

He was also a great orator when speaking of marriage.
Reply
#18
(05-31-2012, 02:19 AM)HuskerTom Wrote:
(05-31-2012, 01:01 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: Well, how about this, was "true love" ever defined?  Can we trace the word to its first use?

I think true love was first defined by this gentleman:

[Image: princessbride2.jpg]

He was also a great orator when speaking of marriage.

Is that Terry Jones from Monty Python?
Reply
#19
(05-31-2012, 02:41 AM)Spooky Wrote:
(05-31-2012, 02:19 AM)HuskerTom Wrote:
(05-31-2012, 01:01 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: Well, how about this, was "true love" ever defined?  Can we trace the word to its first use?

I think true love was first defined by this gentleman:

[Image: princessbride2.jpg]

He was also a great orator when speaking of marriage.

Is that Terry Jones from Monty Python?

Nope, it's Peter Cook, the "Impressive Clergyman" from The Princess Bride.
Reply
#20
Quote: Love is immaterial. So you can't verbalize it.
Good point.

"Love" defies definition.  It is spiritual.  The best you can do is describe effects.  It exists, no doubt.  People die for it.  But "it" can't be defined.  Except this: God is Love.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)