Theories of Love
A Follow-Up to Notes On Love (that is to say, this will make the most sense if one starts with Notes On Love)
Part One: Love as the Answer to the Problem of Everything
01. LOVE IN THE TIME OF HOMOSAPIENS
How does one achieve oneness? Definitively, what is oneness? I posit the answer to both of these is love. Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that.
The theory of love is, to understate, difficult to explain. Primarily it is a theory of human existence. This is to say that love between humans is inherently deeper than love, or what we can consider equivalent to love, between animals. What then, separates human love from animal love?
I would suggest that, in less eloquent terms than I would like, humans have “transcended” the animal kingdom. Perhaps, “abandoned” is a more apt word. For now, they have left their natural state behind and they can never go back. They can only go forward, develop their reason, their patience, and of course, their love.
To say humans were gifted with reason would be wholly incorrect. Rather, it would be more accurate to say that they earned reason. It is not only part of their life to be aware of it, it is their life; they are aware of themselves and their fellow people, their pasts, and their futures. This is different from an animal, as its awareness of its future is limited to where its next meal will come from. Humans have the capacity to be existential, to be conscious of their short lives and their inevitable deaths. I might suggest that this is where the desire for love comes from.
This awareness of one’s death, of one’s loved ones’ deaths, produces a great amount of anxiety. The idea that we will die before those we love, or that those we love might die before us, is a greatly troubling one. One side effect or symptom of this unease is the feeling of separation. It is man’s greatest desire, deepest need, to overcome separateness. This means achieving unity. The question is then, how does one escape the prison of their aloneness? How do we achieve oneness - the ultimate defeat of the feeling of isolation? The answer is, of course, love, but definitions of unity can vary.
By far the most frequent, though not necessarily the most productive or joy-inducing, is conformity. Here there is development. In the earliest humans we find conformity, primarily among those who share blood and/or land. As culture develops and man becomes more advanced, we find a polis, or the citizens of a state. From the emperor to the poor citizen, every Roman could say “cīvis Rōmānus sum.” In contemporary Western society, conformity is not only suggested, it is enforced. In democracies - though it may be argued there are few, if any - suggestion and propaganda are the chosen tools. Though it is not obvious that conformity is compulsory, democratic societies are visibly overwhelmed with sameness. Perhaps there is an illusion of equality in all this similitude.
02. UNION AND EQUALITY
Under capitalism, the idea of equality has not only been transformed, it has been perverted. There is an equivalence seen between the words “equal” and “same,” rather than “equality”, “oneness” or “unity”. The need for sameness under capitalism is due to the need for human-machines, rather than human-humans. A person must function in mass assemblage, working together not for the good of each other - or even themselves - but for the good of someone higher up (i.e. their boss, the upper class). They must obey the same commands. This scheme only works if each person is convinced they are following their own desires, thus, there is a sense of hyper-individualism that manifests more in selfishness than uniqueness. Just as commodities are standardized, humans are standardized.
In relation, there is a perceived unity in routine. A person goes to work, their tasks are assigned by someone higher up on the ladder than they are, their lunch break is an hour, the restaurant they choose is predetermined by the location of their job and its pay. Even the feelings they experience are prescribed: joy, boredom, ambition, all to match what they think they should be feeling. Leisure time is similarly allocated. Books are selected by length in symbiosis with time off, movies are selected by theaters or suggested by streaming services, records are selected by taste, which relies on a multitude of predetermined factors (i.e. parents, where one grew up, gender). How can one’s life be prescribed in such a way without forgetting one’s individuality?
The unity achieved by routine is not interpersonal - meaning it is only a unity in the sense that people are behaving similarly. What it is not is a unity where people are behaving based on each other - and the unity achieved by conformity is pure pseudoism, therefore these unities are false. The question remains; how does one achieve oneness? The answer is, as previously stated, love.
The desire for love, the desire for interpersonal fusion - which differs from interpersonal relations due to its emphasis on oneness, the combination of two rather than the connection of two - is the strongest and deepest aspiration that humankind can have. It is not only wanted, it is fundamental. Arguably, it is the thing that keeps humanity intact. The inability to achieve it, in any of its many forms, can only result in, on the individual level, insanity, and, on the global level, the utter collapse of humanity. Yet if we equate fusion to love, we find ourselves in a difficult position. Perhaps one can reach fusion in ways different from love. Can it then be called love? Or should the word “love” be reserved for a specific kind of union, one that has been philosophized about and religionized?
The difference may seem purely semantic, making the answer at least partially arbitrary. I would suggest that what matters more than the definition is the feeling. The worry lies in the idea that some forms of love are symbiotic, rather than purely interpersonal. I would liken this symbiosis to the relationship between a pregnant person and their fetus. They experience possibly the greatest oneness, where they are in a way, two, but in many ways, one and the same.
On the contrary, there is a more active form of love, one which creates oneness but encourages individuality. This love breaks the barrier, separating a man from his fellows, uniting him with others, overcoming his separateness, but allowing him to maintain his integrity. Paradoxically, it is this love which creates one from two, but still allows the existence of two.
03. ACTIVE AND PASSIVE LOVE
Here, to digress a bit from previous concepts, I introduce the idea of “active love.” I suggest that love is an active power in humans, rather than a passive one.
This idea of “active love” implies that love is an activity. This interpretation does not take into account the motivations behind activity. For instance, two people are driven to work extraordinarily hard, one is motivated by insecurity, while the other is motivated by ambition. Their cases are different though the outcome appears to be the same. In both cases, the people are driven. They are slaves to their desires. They are acted upon, they are not the actors. Rather, it is the contemplative individual, the one with no other aim than to experience themselves and their connections, that is active, though some might call them lazy. This is because the modern conception of activity implies the expenditure of energy, not the rejuvenation of energy. This type of activity, the restoration, is the use of humans' intrinsic abilities, and it does not necessarily aim to enact external change. Here, in accordance with the latter definition, we can turn to Spinoza, who suggests there are differences between the passive and active effects of actions. The people above, those who are driven, fall into the category of passivity, while the meditative person is an actor. In “Ethics” (1677), Spinoza’s conclusion is that virtue and power are one and the same. The issue lies in the distinction between passion and action. Greed, ambition, insecurity, envy - these are all passions, while love is an action.
In order to disprove the theory of “falling in” love, we must acknowledge that love is an action. The language of “falling” is incorrect. I suggest the term “standing” in love. I say that love is an action because giving is so obviously an action. Another misconception of love is that it is, to a large degree, about receiving.
04. GIVING
This brings up another crucial question: what is giving? Though it may seem like there is a simple and obvious answer, in reality, there are uncertainties and complexities. For example, a common misconception is that giving inherently entails “giving up.” One who has not matured past the ideas and conceptions of receiving, taking, or even hoarding will likely view giving this way. This character views giving as a pretense for receiving; he may give willingly, but only with the assumption that he will get something in return. A similarly false understanding of giving is that it is virtuous, because it is sacrifice. Because of this perception, giving is done not with the idea that something will be gained from the other party, but rather from a higher power, or that one might gain positive reception from others.
These notions of giving are false. The truth of giving is that it is an experience of love. It is joyous because it elicits joy.
By applying the idea of giving to a specific human phenomena, we can see the heightened validity of such a principle. Perhaps the easiest way to understand these phenomena is through sex. At its most elementary level, sex is inherently about giving. One gives themselves, their body, etc. But upon closer inspection, we see that while everyone gives during sex, not everyone is giving. Here lies the difference between good sex, bad sex, and alright sex. There is no need to go into specifics; there are plenty of articles, books, and how-tos on “good sex.” The point here is that giving and consideration are the most important tenets of sex.
In the material realm, giving and richness are interconnected. Richness here is not about having much, but giving much. Those who hoard, who protect their material wealth, holding onto it anxiously, are poor, psychologically speaking. On the other hand, those who give are rich. Of course, not everyone can give, at least not materially speaking. Here I posit that there is a more important way of giving, one that anyone, regardless of class, can engage in.
This form of giving lies in a purely human realm. One does not need to give their things, but rather, their life. I do not mean they sacrifice their life for others, though this is certainly a form of giving, but I seek to focus on the preposition “of,” where we can see a different meaning. We should give what it is that makes us alive; our joy, our understanding, our knowledge. This way of giving enhances the life of the other. Thus, in giving our life, we improve the life of the other person. I ought to stress that we do not give in order to receive, as giving itself elicits happiness. In giving, something is created. Bringing it back to the idea of love, I suggest that giving is something that produces love.
Certainly, I do not need to stress that love as an act of giving is wholly dependent on the person and their “character development.” It suggests, and therefore assumes, a principally “productive orientation,” meaning one has overcome narcissism, dependency, the urge to exploit others, and other such ailments that affect one's ability to love. In the case of possession of these qualities, one lacks the ability to give of themselves, and therefore, lacks the ability to love.
Of course, giving is not the only element of love, and more specifically, the demonstration of love. The following interlinked characters are equally as important as giving. They are: care, responsibility, admiration/respect, and understanding.
05. THE TENETS OF LOVE
If one does not demonstrate care, we would not believe they possessed love for what it is they claim to have fondness for. For example, if a parent claimed to love their child, but did not care for it, no amount of assurance would convince us that they did actually hold love. If this parent did not feed, bathe, and hold their child, we would be skeptical of their love for it. The same goes for animals. If one has a pet but does not properly care for it, there is no convincing outsiders of their “love” for it. Love is a constant and active concern in the well-being and life of the object.
Care brings up another aspect of love, that of responsibility. I do not suggest that one is responsible for others in the modern conception of “responsibility.” Rather than denoting something imposed from the outside, a duty, responsibility here means the readiness and ability to respond. Here, it is voluntary.
Of course, responsibility can easily become possessiveness, were it not for the third element of love, the element of admiration/respect. The reason for my use of both words in the same factor is not because I believe they are the same, but rather, it is to dispel the idea that respect is based on fear and awe. Instead, I turn to etymology, looking at the origin of the word respect. The Latin “respicere” means “to look at.” Respect is, in its simplest terms, the ability to see a person for who they truly are; to be conscious of their individuality. Respect, then, means there can be no exploitation because if I were to respect someone, I would want to see them grow into themselves for their own sake. There is no selfishness in respect or admiration.
Of course, respect is not possible without understanding. It is not feasible to respect someone without understanding them. There are levels to this understanding, to this knowledge. One must understand that real love does not remain in the periphery, rather, it is penetrative. Once they understand this, they can understand that they must transcend their own concern for themselves and see the other. For example, if the other is demonstrating anger, one might assume he must therefore be angry, and that is it. But if one knew him on a deeper level, one might realize that his anger is born of anxiety or tiredness.
Knowledge perhaps has a more abecedarian connection to love, that which relates to the fundamental need for the slightly problematic interpersonal fusion. We often feel that we should become one with those we love. Life, in all regards, is generally secretive. We may claim to know ourselves but upon further scrutiny, we do not. The same is true for knowing our fellow man. Despite this, we cannot help but desire to know; it is in our nature.
There may be a way to know, but it is steeped in cruelty and complication. This is through blatant sadism, where one desires power over another person. In order to know something fully, it must lack humanness, and must be an object, therefore, through sadism, one transforms another into a thing. I suggest that most have too much empathy to act upon this intrusive desire. Most have learned better.
In those yet to learn better, such as children, we can see this route to knowledge plainly. Children may destroy something (toys or appliances) in order to know it; break it open in order to understand it. This cruelty is purely motivated by an innate desire for knowledge.
There is another way to know the human secret, and that is through love. Without force, love is the active penetration of the other person. The desire to know is quelled by the union of individuals. While knowledge is not necessarily gained, the acceptance of not knowing is. I hesitate to turn to Socrates, for fear of seeming like I have a sophomoric knowledge of philosophy, but his famous idea of “I know that I know nothing,” rings true here. In the act of loving, I discover more than I know. I accept that I will never know completely, and that learning is much more important.
The urge to know not only the other but oneself can be denoted by the Delphic motto of “Know thyself,” but I posit here that one can never truly know oneself, though this doesn’t make the quest futile. Perhaps, this problem of knowing humans is parallel to the problem of knowing God. As a practice, I try not to bring religion into my writing, due to my skeptical nature, but I do not believe one can discuss love without discussing, to some degree, a practice that claims to be steeped in love. In much of Western religion, the desire to know God is largely present, however, it is generally acknowledged that we cannot know God. We must take the same approach to humankind; we must concede that we will never fully know each other or ourselves. In mysticism, there has been a movement to give up attempting to know God, rather, there is a satisfaction in the simple union with God.
This experience of union, whether with oneself, with another, or in the religious sense, is not irrational. In fact, as suggested by Albert Schweitzer, it is not only rational, but daring and radical. It is based entirely in our knowledge of the limits of our knowledge.
Care, responsibility, admiration/respect, and understanding are somewhat independent. They are a result of maturity, of a person who has developed their abilities productively, who has worked for that which they want, who has given up narcissism and cruelty, and who has gained empathy and humanity.
06. BRIEF CONCLUSION
I understand I have explored many ideas in this essay. Here I will revisit each idea briefly to refresh the reader. Firstly, I discussed the idea that love between humans differs from that between animals, and of course, I asserted that “love” between animals is not exactly that, but something similar but more biological and less existential. I discuss how capitalism has perverted love, particularly unity, with hyper-individuality and false ideals. Next, I suggest there is a difference between active and passive when it comes to love, and here, I quote Spinoza. The fourth point I make is in relation to giving. Next, I discuss what I believe to be the four main tenets of love: care, responsibility, admiration/respect, and understanding. I go on to explore these in depth. Finally, I consider knowing; knowing each other, knowing oneself, and even knowing God. Here, I quote, against my better judgments, more philosophers. I discuss love, of course, but I certainly do not say everything that needs to be said.