The Affection And Friendship Of The Greeks Religion Essay

Following the Greeks, C.S. Lewis divides love into four classs: Affection, Friendship, Eros, and Charity. He goes through each of the first three natural loves, offering observations and depicting the joys, dangers, and challenges inherent in each. The last and highest love, Charity, is the love of God. Lewis claims that with love ever comes hazards — the ultimate hazard of loss of the dear or that your bosom will be crushed. However, if one chooses non to love at all for fright of this hazard, he will go difficult, cold, and finally irreclaimable.

The writer writes in the first individual point of position, giving his personal ideas on the four sorts of loves and his ideas on the functions each drama in the lives of people-and the functions those loves should function. The book is structured into several chapters, nevertheless, there are four cardinal chapters each titled by the type of love presented. From the simplest types of love that centre on mere feelings and general liking, to 1s with a deep sense of sacrificial giving, Lewis explains the nature of the types of love with hopes that the reader can understand the appropriate love in the right state of affairs, and understand how to show love more systematically.

By depicting unequivocal types of love, Lewis argues that cognition of love, peculiarly for believing Christians, will take to a better experience in exerting the types of love in their right context. Lewis illustrates his instruction by utilizing concrete illustrations for each of his unequivocal four types of love, while giving particular note to loves directed towards sub-human things. Lewis ‘s decision is this: “ The lone topographic point outside of Heaven where you can be absolutely safe from all the dangers and disturbances of love is Hell. ”

Section B.

In the debut, Lewis discusses the differences between Gift-love and Need-love.

One basic rule of Lewis ‘s work is the differentiation between Need-love and Gift-love. The Need-love has to make, for Lewis, with “ a craving to be loved, ” which is kindred to a kid ‘s yearning for the love of his parents ‘ . Alternatively of belittling this type of love as wholely selfish, Lewis describes how this type of love, while limited, is “ the accurate contemplation in consciousness of our existent nature. ” Lewis writes that “ we need others physically, emotionally, intellectually ; we need them if we are to cognize anything, even ourselves ” ( 2 ) . Lewis acknowledges the human status sympathetically. Gift-love, by contrast, has its ultimate look in Christ ‘s decease on the cross. This is an active, altruistic love. Lewis characterizes Gift-love in its ordinary look as “ that love which moves a adult male to work and be after and salvage for the future wellbeing of his household which he will decease without sharing or seeing ” ( 1 ) . He explains that although our Need-loves may be demanding and greedy, they are good and necessary because there is small danger that they can be made into Gods. They are non near adequate to God, by similitude, to be twisted like that. The highest does non be without the lowest and a works has roots below every bit good as sunlight above.

The following subdivision, Likings And Loves For The Sub-Human, is a treatment of Pleasures of Need versus Pleasures of Appreciation. The types of love explored here include nationalism and love of nature.

The first type of love mentioned by Lewis is Affection. Originating from the Greek word – storge – Affection is defined as the fancy through acquaintance, particularly between household members or people who have otherwise found themselves together out of the blue. Lewis considers fondness to be the most basic of loves because it is non all that different from what animate beings display. He does do the point that it is no less valuable than other types of love. Affection is one of the most extremely self-contradictory types of love. The image that best describes that emotion is a female parent nursing her immature, whether it ‘s a human female parent or an animate being. This is a premier illustration of how the assorted loves evolve and overlap. The female parent offers gift love when she gives birth to the kid, suckle it, and provides protection. But she is besides exhibiting need love because she literally must give birth or dice, and must let the babe to suckle or she ‘s in hurting. Harmonizing to Lewis, the paradox is this: “ It is a Need-love but what it needs is to give. It is a Gift-love but it needs to be needed ” ( 32 ) . That ‘s non to state fondness Begins and ends with female parents and kids. It in fact extends into about all other relationships and love types. It is described as the most natural, affectional, and widely strewed of all loves: natural in that it exists without force ; emotive because it is the consequence of fancy due to acquaintance ; and most widely strewed because it pays the least attending to those features deemed “ valuable ” or worthy of love and, accordingly, is able to travel beyond most discriminating and damaging factors. Ironically, its strength is besides what makes it vulnerable. Affection has the visual aspect of being “ constitutional ” or “ ready made ” , says Lewis, and as a consequence people come to anticipate, even to demand, its presence-irrespective of their behaviour and its natural effects ( 39 ) . He refers to literary plants like ‘The Wind in the Willows ‘ , Tristram Shandy, Emma and others to show the good and the bad manifestations of Affection.

The 2nd type of love as defined by Lewis is Friendship. From the Grecian word phileo, the generalised definition of friendly relationship stands as this: it is a strong bond bing between people who portion common involvement or activity. The writer asserts the claim that many people believe friendly relationship to be the least of import of all the sorts of love. He says there is small accent placed on friendly relationship by the modern authors. Most people will acknowledge that adult male does necessitate some friends, but the fact that they are doing an admittance instead than saying a fact tends to minimize the relationship. Most of those people are n’t speaking about true friendly relationship. Peoples can populate without friendly relationship, doing it the least natural of the loves. By unnatural, Lewis means it ‘s non a biological necessity. Eros is necessary to go on life and most people are affected by it, and Affection is reasonably much necessary to keep society together and most people are affected by it, but obviously, strong friendly relationship between persons is n’t something that any of us must see, and plentifulness of us do non. Society, or in carnal footings, the battalion or the herd, can acquire along absolutely good without the being of two-person friendly relationships. In fact, “ the minute two [ people: ] are friends they have in some degree drawn apart together from the herd ” ( 58 ) . Friendship was lauded as a serious virtuousness in antediluvian and mediaeval times, but in modern times, the love-focus seems to hold shifted off from it. In respect to the blending of loves, plentifulness of people know firsthand that romantic love and Friendship can be within the same relationship, but “ in some ways nil is less like a Friendship than a love-affair. Lovers are ever speaking to one another about their love ; Friends barely of all time about their Friendship. Lovers are usually face to confront, absorbed in each other ; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common involvement ” ( 61 ) . He says that fact has lessened the focal point on friendly relationships from yearss gone by. He points out a alteration of attitude-that friends have become something to “ make full in the Chinamans ” instead than being the “ chief class of life ‘s feast ” ( 58 ) . Lewis says that most friendly relationships are work forces to work forces and adult females to adult females because there ‘s seldom those shared activities between work forces and adult females that form the footing for friendly relationship. There ‘s nil that precludes friendly relationship from traversing the lines of gender and it is possible for work forces and adult females to be friends. A possible ruin is when one offers friendly relationship and the other errors it for something more. Lewis makes literary allusions in this chapter, specifically to Ralph Waldo Emerson. I vastly enjoyed the portion where he states that in Friendship, as Emerson said, “ Do you love me? ” means, “ Do you see the same truth? ” – Or at least, “ Do you care about the same truth? ” The adult male who agrees with us that some inquiry, little regarded by others, is of great importance, can be our Friend. He need non hold with us about the reply ( 66 ) . Lewis is a great advocator of Friendship and has much to state in congratulations of it, which ties in with what we know of him and his friendly relationship with writer J.R.R. Tolkien. This sort of Friendship goes beyond mere Companionship – for it is based upon a similar jubilation of common land, between people of similar involvements and compatibility.

The 3rd type of love as defined by Lewis is Eros, most closely linked to romantic love. Eros has to make with the province of “ being in love ” and is non needfully what we presently think of as erotic- ” That sexual experience can happen without Eros, without being “ in love, ” and that Eros includes other things besides sexual activity, I take for granted ” ( 91 ) . Eros is focused about wholly on the love-object, the Beloved, and small attending is paid to the ego. We do n’t love the Beloved because we think they will supply us with more pleasance than anyone else can-we love them for their ain ego, irrespective of the affect they have on us. Eros is really unselfish in that manner, wholly situated outside the ego and centered on appreciating and profiting the Beloved. Lewis says that one of the chief troubles with Eros is the inclination to take it excessively earnestly, non in the sense that love is n’t a serious and of import affair, but in the sense that it ‘s so easy to acquire brush off by the heightened, near-angelic province of being in love, by the soul-deep gravitation of it, that people can bury the blithe side and the comedy involved in our behaviour when we love ( it of import to retain the ability to laugh at oneself ) . Strictly serious lovers are marks for lampoon, in both existent lives as in fiction. The other point to be wary of is the inclination to do Eros a God in its ain right, to function the emotion itself with wholehearted devotedness. In all, Eros is love in the sense of ‘being in love ‘ and is apathetic from the others antecedently mentioned. This type of love is separate from gender, which Lewis calls Venus, although he does pass clip discoursing sexual activity and its religious significance in both a heathen and a Christian sense.

Charity, the 4th type of love, arising from the Grecian word agape is possibly one of the most universally of import and influential manner of loving. The three old illustrations have been “ natural, ” earthly, human types of love ; but Charity is godly love itself, the beginning of all the others. It is the love that brings Forth caring regardless of circumstance, and is unconditioned in its purest nature. In relation to Christianity, this is a quotation mark I found helpful when understanding Lewis ‘ Charity loving:

“ Love is patient, love is sort. It does non envy. Love is ne’er braggart, nor conceited, nor rude ; It is non self-serving, nor easy angered. It keeps no record of wrongdoing. It does non delight in immorality, But rejoices in the truth. It ever protects, trusts, hopes, and conserves. There is nil love can non confront ; There is no bound to its religion, hope, and endurance. In a word, there are three things that last forever: Faith, hope, and love ; But the greatest of them all is love. ” ( 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 )

Affection, Friendship, and Eros “ can non even remain themselves ” ( 118 ) or keeps from melting or mutating without the aid of godly love. And Lewis believes that natural loves do non frequently compete with our love for God ; in fact, we ‘re far more likely to love our fellow human existences excessively small than excessively much. Rather than being in competition, the presence of Godhead love, when it regulations in the human bosom, raisings and strengthens all the natural loves. There is nil needy about Charity, as it ‘s the original Gift-love: “ In God there is no hungriness that needs to be filled, merely plenty that desires to give ” ( 126 ) . Lewis describes how gaping perfects our natural loves and prepares us both to truly love God and be like Him. The thought behind Charity and the function this type of love dramas within our lives is best summarized with Lewis ‘ quotation mark, “ When we see the face of God we shall cognize that we have ever known it ” ( 139 ) .

Section C.

Subjectively speech production, I found Lewis ‘ book to be interesting and edifying in his accounts and dislocation of the four types of love, nevertheless, I found the material really ambitious and at times, far excessively scholarly for even basic apprehension. His tone is persuasive, yet non forceful in any manner, for he presents his thoughts qualitatively and uses many mentions ( Biblical and literary ) to back up his subject. In connexion to this, Lewis utilizes many literary illustrations with the logical thinking of the literature being more of a common land with the reader than his personal experience ; To be honest, I have non read, nor do I know many who are competently familiar with Ovid, or Tristram Shandy – and if they were, could they retrieve them good plenty for these illustrations to do sense wholly. Lewis does an equal occupation of doing certain the thoughts being presented are still communicated good plenty without the illustration, but several times I had to read the same transition repeatedly in order to retain the full effect of what the writer was stating.

Possibly it is besides the fact that I am non familiar with Christianity, its rules and instructions, since I was raised an Atheist did I happen it more hard to hold on the construct of “ God is Love ” and so on. While I understand it is defined and measured in altruism and appreciating what one has been given instead than what one lacks, I found this type of love about impossible to be practiced out wholly in modern-day ( American/Western ) society. Sometimes his statements on Christianity, or merely love itself, were difficult to follow and his positions and illustrations of certain types of love are masked by the English civilization of the period in which he lived, therefore non ever applicable. Last, I would non travel as far to state that I was personally pained, but I would trust that I am non entirely when I say that for a adult female, some of Lewis ‘ male chauvinist mistimings ( adult females, as housewifes, can non understand a adult male ‘s universe or ideas ) and statements could be interpreted as chauvinistic, which at times clouded his statements. If I could change anything, I would wish the writer would hold spent more clip intricately interrupting down Christian constructs to those less intimate in the affair.

In malice of minutes of confusion, the general message of the book was good, full of wisdom and penetration, and well-presented. Lewis provided great penetration into the differences between each of the classs illustrated. The construct of Affection versus Friendship in footings of what makes a ‘real friend ‘ was instead absorbing ( or so I thought ) , particularly as he continued his illustrations through love ‘s patterned advance to demo how and why friendly relationships are formed or neglect to be made, how/why friendly relationships can turn into romantic relationships or non, and what aspect Charity and the love of God plays in all of these.

It ‘s funnyaˆ¦I used to believe that if I merely found the “ perfect ” manner to make attention and pattern relationships, I would ne’er acquire injury or hold my bosom broken. Silly, huh? Although I ‘ve merely been on this Earth for 20 short old ages, this book counters that sort of logic about love. What I have gained from Lewis ‘ wisdom is that love is vulnerable, and you will acquire hurt ; and the lone topographic point you can to the full get away from the “ dangers and disturbances ” of love is in Hell ( for those who believe in such ) . Lewis ‘ book helped me, and I am certain it has helped others similar to me to interrupt free from the mentality of seeking to avoid hurting in relationships, and alternatively, replace it with a desire to truly love other people. We can ne’er wholly avoid injury or hurting in relationships ( for it seems inevitable ) , but if we approach relationships with the mentality of avoiding hurting, we will ne’er see the joy of true love and felicity. This book ‘s range is non limited to one sort of relationship. It is the ‘Four Loves, ‘ after all – four sorts of love… Affection, Friendship, Eros, and Charity.