In 1960 C.S. Lewis published a book by this title. He wrote a very helpful analysis of the four Greek words that are used in the New Testament for the English word “Love.” The book turned out to be as popular as it was insightful. In addition to being an important theological thinker, especially in conservative Christian thinker, Lewis proofed to be a very creative writer with his “Narnia Chronicles” and other fictional stories.
Lewis was a generally known and admired as a thoughtful and widely read Christian lay-theologian. At the same time, most of his admirers do not know that he was as well a top-notch Professor of Literature at Cambridge University. Indeed, in many ways Lewis’ notoriety at the popular level was preceded by his well-founded scholarship in the field of English Literature. In addition, only late in life did he bring his scholarly mind to bear on issues that surrounded the nature and basis of religious belief. He wrote a number of books dealing with what is called “Apologetics”, i.e. the rationale for faith.
Now, back to the topic of this blog. In his book The Four Loves Lewis sets out to examine and explicate the meaning of the four terms used in the New Testament that are translated into the English term “Love.” The Greeks new, as we do, that love is a “many splendored thing” and thus it takes at least four different terms to express its full meaning. Fortunately, Lewis knew his Greek and how to explain the meanings of its often various diverse terms.
The first of the terms often translated “love” that Lewis discusses is storge. This term is used in Greek literature to designate a kind of empathetic feeling or understanding. Although it does not occur in the New Testament, it often plays a dominant role in various well-known Greek dramas. It is what is meant when we today say that members of a family love one another. The second Greek word Lewis discusses is philia. We are quite familiar with this word in English because it is usually translated as “brotherly love”, as in the name of the city “Philadelphia”.
This term is also often translated more broadly as “friendship love”, or as fraternal affection among close friends.
Then there is sexual love. We use the term in this way when we say that two people “made love”. This term does not strictly speaking occur in the New Testament, but the behavior associated with sexual love is sometimes described. Unfortunately, in the New Testament this sort of behavior is generally associated with pagan sexual behavior and evil treatment of both men and women. This sort of behavior is generally described in the New Testament, as in Chapter One of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, as “lichenivorous”. I should think that there must be a form of eros which does not involve such negative behavior.
Finally, Lewis discusses agape, the unconditional love of one person for another that may transcend any of the above mentioned forms of love even without negating them. Lewis defines this form of love, characteristic of God’s love for humanity, as essentially “unconditional.” As Paul puts it: “While we were yet sinners, God loved us.” This love goes beyond all boundaries and barriers. It ignores the usual categories of social and political judgement, even of previous directly evil behavior.
It was this “agapeistic” love that animated Jesus’ in his dealings with the people of his time and place. He sought to treat others in a way that had their best interest at heart. These qualities are all displayed in the so-called “Sermon on the Mount.” (Mathew 5-7). On the cross Jesus said: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they are doing.” The “agape” posture towards people embodied in Jesus’ life and teachings goes beyond but is not really contrary to the other forms of love. It transcends them without negating them. It is of course possible to combine, or as our technology today often puts it, to “bundle”, these dimensions of love into one form of behavior, but “agape’ does not require the inclusion of the others in order to be valid.

When I first got to read both Plato and Aristotle in depth in graduate school I discovered how different their writings and philosophies are. Plato is rhapsodic and thoughtfully deep while Aristotle is more systematic and analytic. At first I enjoyed reading Plato more, but had to admit that at times he seemed to wander and get stuck trying to fully explain his line of reasoning. Aristotle initially struck me as boring and too detailed in his reasoning.
However, as the years of teaching both went bye my feelings about the two changed. Aside from his wonderful descriptions and explanations in his allegory of the cave, Plato’s writings eventually came to seem too scattered and overly creative to be of real philosophical use. Moreover, the basis for his ideal state, the Republic, as well as the ultimate result, seems tenuis at best. I do agree that wisdom is what is needed in governmental leadership, but the extreme measures included in Plato’s design are far too narrow and subject to extortion and misuse.
By the same token, some of Aristotle’s political beliefs and would-be practices surely seem rather naïve and subject to misunderstanding. Nevertheless, on the whole I think Aristotle is more realistic in his estimation of the limits of human political practice. Moreover, his careful and concrete analysis of various extant constitutions strikes me as a more realistic place to begin than does Plato’s idealized Republic. While Aristotle offers no “ultimate solution”, his approach was concrete rather than abstract, as was Plato’s.
I will admit that when it came to metaphysical concerns, Aristotle was every bit as abstract and speculative as was Plato. Indeed, it was Plato’s approach and systematic analysis, focused in the work of Augustine, that eventually guided the theologians of the Middle Ages and Protestant thought, while it was the more analytic and empirical approach that inspired the Roman Catholic vision, focused in the learning how to think of Thomas Aquinas, in the modern era.
In the end I must admit that Plato and Aristotle have had equal influence in Western thought, but it seems to me that there is something more concrete and realistic about Aristotle’s approach. Yet I am sure that this debate will not end here. In the end it’s the discussion about such issues that really matter, not the particular conclusions each one comes to embrace. Tracing the arguments each of these great thinkers offer is the very heart of learning about philosophy, learning how to think for oneself.
While Plato enjoyed a certain amount of freedom and popularity throughout his career, in spite of the fate of his master Socrates at the hands of the Athenian government. Aristotle, on the other hand, felt he had to leave Athen for various reasons “lest it sin against philosophy a second time”, and thus had to carry on his studies in several places in what is now Turkey. Nonetheless, he managed to make many discoveries and invented a number of classification systems that are still of use today.
One puzzle and unfortunate fact is that he seems to have had little actual influence on the young and great Alexander for whom he was he tutor for several years. Nonetheless, the latter seems to have been quite faithful in sending specimens of rare and even unique life forms gathered from his wide ranging travels throughout Egypt even India back to his great teacher. It is amazing to speculate what Alexander, this greatest student of Aristotle, might have accomplished had he not died so young, at the age of 33.