Essay Topics
Types of Essays
Essay Checklist
Word Counter
Readability Score
Essay Rewriter
Frank Sinatra is credited with saying, "Love is a many-splendored thing." Searching for more specific definitions of love, one may find terms such as "eros," "philia," and "agape," three varieties of love described by ancient Greeks. They can be (somewhat over-) simplified as attraction, friendship, and unconditional love. My own definition of love is the intangible force that connects people. Love is the reason that man thinks about the thoughts and feelings of others. Love forces you to put your own needs aside and address the needs of your beloved. When Phaedrus claims that a state built upon love could conquer the globe in Symposium, he speaks of eros, and supports male-male couples as a military godsend. While this may have fit the definition of the strongest state possible built upon one of the primary types of love defined by the Greeks, today's states rise and fall more through commerce than combat, leading one to lean more towards philia as a founding principle of a successful state. Aristotle himself notes that philia is a broad love (in that it comes in many forms: love between siblings, friendship, the relationship between producer and consumer, and even patriotism), and that it is a love that must be shared to be successful, though philia may or may not be reciprocated depending upon the relationship between two parties. This implied balance of give and take as opposed to wanton drive makes philia the strongest basis for a state. One might argue in favor of an agapist state as the strongest, on the basis that universal love for humanity is the greatest and truest love that exists, and that a state founded upon that principle would also be equally great and true. In terms of a working agape state, one would expect every member of the state to love his neighbors and fellow countrymen as though they were his own family, possibly even more than his own family, and to act accordingly, sowing good for all those with whom he interacts, and that this love of his is not limited to only his neighbors and countrymen but the entirety of humanity. One would expect that state to function in a manner, then, that expresses a deep love for the entire world, both in physical and political composition, regardless of allegiances or embargoes or wars. Such a state would surely lend all it could to other, less fortunate regions, and work both long and hard to see improvement in whatever infertile or otherwise inhospitable environments it encounters as it thrives and expands its borders. There is no limit to what the agape state wishes to offer the wanting world. There is, however, a limit to what the agape state can offer the world. Nothing about an all-loving, all-giving attitude implies that the state possesses unlimited resources of any sort to give. The people of the state, who will use a portion of said collected resources sustaining themselves and their state, must still gather those resources. They are then faced with choosing between stockpiling the resources for future use or spreading the resources amongst people and areas in need. In reality, both options would occur simultaneously, with the state portioning the resources towards each use as it deems best. However, with a state based upon the concept of universal, unconditional sacrificial love, what would the state deem the best use of its resources? A state must support itself before expanding or aiding any neighboring countries, much as a man must support himself before being able to support another person. To do otherwise is a perversion of agape, as it is a detriment to the ability of a state or person to provide for the needs of others. The agapist state would thus be forced to undergo some egoism in order to secure its own survival, and the survival of its ideals. A purely agapist state could not grow or flourish, unless it is in possession of the most vast and tremendous wealth of resources the world has to offer. A state based on philia would have an almost equally difficult time with this same problem, though philia lends itself towards the betterment of all involved in a more balanced fashion. Interactions with others are based upon the mutual benefit of both parties, by collaborating, sharing, and trading resources. This practice permeates throughout the society of the state, in both internal and external policies. Citizens of the state act upon their brotherhood with one another to provide as best as they can for themselves and each other, lending where others are lacking and borrowing as needed. The state follows suit in its engagement with its people; laws are made that pursue justice and fairness in all dealings, from those dealing with the mundane and more commonplace aspects of life to the punishment and reduction of criminal elements to the ever-murky sphere of private commerce. This is continued into the relationships the state maintains with other states: wars are not fought without consideration of their impact, treaties are not written with ulterior greed hidden in their words, and trade is not conducted with one open hand and another clutching a proverbial dagger. The philiac state holds itself, its constituents, those of other states, and other states themselves in an equal light, using logic to evaluate all possible solutions to find the best for all. This balanced foundation provides for a state that, while not perfect, is capable of sustaining itself, growing, and encouraging growth in other states. Classically, philiac relationships fall into three categories: those of utility, of pleasure, and for good. The first two do not necessarily lend themselves towards being prolonged friendships, but still maintain the core concept that either or both parties need something from the other and engage in either fair trade of goods and services or camaraderie in a particular activity. The third is the type of philia that is attributed to the philiac state thus far, and the most lasting of any sort of philiac friendship, based on an analysis of the receiving party's needs prior to the giving party and the desire to meet those needs first as well, either out of devotion to the receiving party or a sense of fulfillment to the giving party. A state, itself, cannot truly feel fulfillment, as it is merely a superfluous structure created by the congregation of like people seeking to establish order; those that comprise the state, however, are capable of feeling this fulfillment, and thus the state may be said to enjoy the same feeling. In this fashion, a virtuous state and its people can take pride in itself and themselves, strengthening its commitment to doing right by its constituents and those of other nations, growing with each successive successful act of sharing, trading, and cooperation -- the most basic of positive human interactions. What then of the state founded upon eros and its viability and strength? Plato's eros is an overwhelming desire for beauty leading to the discovery or remembrance of truth, and a never-ending search for completion in a sense. A society built on this concept seems to be strong and well rooted, with the capability to become something lasting and remarkable. The question is, though, what does the state pursue so doggedly? The concepts of beauty and truth do not lend themselves well to the goals of a state, especially when taken literally. Art, culture, philosophy and science would likely be the pet pursuits of this state in its most virtuous form: fine, wonderful even, but they require resources the state must acquire. This state's baser form, however, would turn its passionate eros towards gathering more resources and expanding its borders to gather more and expanding and devouring more and more land, materials and men to reflect upon its creative regurgitation. Like the agape state, this state is very emotionally driven, and considers its own desires first in egoist fashion. In a younger world, with fewer states and people already occupying the space the eros state seeks to possess, perhaps this hungry state could thrive quite well, but on today's over-crowded Earth such a political body can only upset other nations and draw their ire. The many splendors of love, like paints every hue of the rainbow, possess equally numerous niches and appropriate uses. For a solitary human seeking to interact with another solitary human, each of the three classical Greek ideas of love discussed in this essay are perfect vehicles for self-realization and fulfillment. However, once each's scope is widened and exaggerated to the extreme, their differences lead to completely different journeys and destinations. Eros becomes ravenous hunger or endless chasing, agape becomes selfless starvation or martyrdom through excessive service, and philias becomes tempered, balanced, cooperative friendship. It has been said that the truly self-sufficient have no need for friendship as they already possess everything, but one can easily look at the world and quickly see that no one person or country possesses everything he or it needs to operate in a healthy fashion. As the globe turns, the cooperation, trade, and sharing done by individuals, groups, and nations of every scale provides for the needs of the few and the many everywhere. This current system is not perfect, as there are many who suffer unjustly under it, as well as many who thrive without having any direct involvement or acknowledgement with the people providing for them. However, it is and will continue to be based off of a notion of philia, whether the altruistic extreme of true friendship or the shallow friendship of utility. The path to humanity's growth personally, nationally, globally lies in cooperation and positive interaction within itself. The combination of these facts asserts philia's dominance as the strongest love-related basis for any political body.
Essay Writing Checklist
The following guidelines are designed to give students a checklist to use, whether they are revising individually or as part of a peer review team.
Introduction
  • Is the main idea (i.e., the writer's opinion of the story title) stated clearly?
  • Is the introductory paragraph interesting? Does it make the reader want to keep on reading?
Body Paragraph
  • Does each body paragraph have a clear topic sentence that is related to the main idea of the essay?
  • Does each body paragraph include specific information from the text(including quoted evidence from the text, if required by the instructor)that supports the topic sentence?
  • Is there a clear plan for the order of the body paragraphs (i.e., order of importance, chronology in the story, etc.)?
  • Does each body paragraph transition smoothly to the next?
Conclusion
  • Is the main idea of the essay restated in different words?
  • Are the supporting ideas summarized succinctly and clearly?
  • Is the concluding paragraph interesting? Does it leave an impression on the reader?
Overall Essay
  • Is any important material left unsaid?
  • Is any material repetitious and unnecessary?
  • Has the writer tried to incorporate "voice" in the essay so that it has his/her distinctive mark?
  • Are there changes needed in word choice, sentence length and structure, etc.?
  • Are the quotations (if required) properly cited?
  • Has the essay been proofread for spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.?
  • Does the essay have an interesting and appropriate title?
Definition and Analysis of Love in Philosophy
Trending Essay Topics
Explore today's trending essay topics:
Reference
Feel free to use content on this page for your website, blog or paper we only ask that you reference content back to us. Use the following code to link this page:
Terms · Privacy · Contact
Essay Topics © 2019

Definition And Analysis Of Love In Philosophy

Words: 1638    Pages: 6    Paragraphs: 9    Sentences: 58    Read Time: 05:57
Highlight Text to add correction. Use an editor to spell check essay.
              Frank Sinatra is credited with saying, "Love is a many-splendored thing. " Searching for more specific definitions of love, one may find terms such as "eros," "philia," and "agape," three varieties of love described by ancient Greeks. They can be (somewhat over-) simplified as attraction, friendship, and unconditional love. My own definition of love is the intangible force that connects people. Love is the reason that man thinks about the thoughts and feelings of others. Love forces you to put your own needs aside and address the needs of your beloved. When Phaedrus claims that a state built upon love could conquer the globe in Symposium, he speaks of eros, and supports male-male couples as a military godsend. While this may have fit the definition of the strongest state possible built upon one of the primary types of love defined by the Greeks, today's states rise and fall more through commerce than combat, leading one to lean more towards philia as a founding principle of a successful state. Aristotle himself notes that philia is a broad love (in that it comes in many forms: love between siblings, friendship, the relationship between producer and consumer, and even patriotism), and that it is a love that must be shared to be successful, though philia may or may not be reciprocated depending upon the relationship between two parties. This implied balance of give and take as opposed to wanton drive makes philia the strongest basis for a state.
             
              One might argue in favor of an agapist state as the strongest, on the basis that universal love for humanity is the greatest and truest love that exists, and that a state founded upon that principle would also be equally great and true. In terms of a working agape state, one would expect every member of the state to love his neighbors and fellow countrymen as though they were his own family, possibly even more than his own family, and to act accordingly, sowing good for all those with whom he interacts, and that this love of his is not limited to only his neighbors and countrymen but the entirety of humanity. One would expect that state to function in a manner, then, that expresses a deep love for the entire world, both in physical and political composition, regardless of allegiances or embargoes or wars. Such a state would surely lend all it could to other, less fortunate regions, and work both long and hard to see improvement in whatever infertile or otherwise inhospitable environments it encounters as it thrives and expands its borders. There is no limit to what the agape state wishes to offer the wanting world.
             
              There is, however, a limit to what the agape state can offer the world. Nothing about an all-loving, all-giving attitude implies that the state possesses unlimited resources of any sort to give. The people of the state, who will use a portion of said collected resources sustaining themselves and their state, must still gather those resources. They are then faced with choosing between stockpiling the resources for future use or spreading the resources amongst people and areas in need. In reality, both options would occur simultaneously, with the state portioning the resources towards each use as it deems best. However, with a state based upon the concept of universal, unconditional sacrificial love, what would the state deem the best use of its resources? A state must support itself before expanding or aiding any neighboring countries, much as a man must support himself before being able to support another person. To do otherwise is a perversion of agape, as it is a detriment to the ability of a state or person to provide for the needs of others. The agapist state would thus be forced to undergo some egoism in order to secure its own survival, and the survival of its ideals. A purely agapist state could not grow or flourish, unless it is in possession of the most vast and tremendous wealth of resources the world has to offer.
             
              A state based on philia would have an almost equally difficult time with this same problem, though philia lends itself towards the betterment of all involved in a more balanced fashion.
             
              Interactions with others are based upon the mutual benefit of both parties, by collaborating, sharing, and trading resources. This practice permeates throughout the society of the state, in both internal and external policies. Citizens of the state act upon their brotherhood with one another to provide as best as they can for themselves and each other, lending where others are lacking and borrowing as needed. The state follows suit in its engagement with its people; laws are made that pursue justice and fairness in all dealings, from those dealing with the mundane and more commonplace aspects of life to the punishment and reduction of criminal elements to the ever-murky sphere of private commerce. This is continued into the relationships the state maintains with other states: wars are not fought without consideration of their impact, treaties are not written with ulterior greed hidden in their words, and trade is not conducted with one open hand and another clutching a proverbial dagger. The philiac state holds itself, its constituents, those of other states, and other states themselves in an equal light, using logic to evaluate all possible solutions to find the best for all. This balanced foundation provides for a state that, while not perfect, is capable of sustaining itself, growing, and encouraging growth in other states.
             
              Classically, philiac relationships fall into three categories: those of utility, of pleasure, and for good. The first two do not necessarily lend themselves towards being prolonged friendships, but still maintain the core concept that either or both parties need something from the other and engage in either fair trade of goods and services or camaraderie in a particular activity. The third is the type of philia that is attributed to the philiac state thus far, and the most lasting of any sort of philiac friendship, based on an analysis of the receiving party's needs prior to the giving party and the desire to meet those needs first as well, either out of devotion to the receiving party or a sense of fulfillment to the giving party. A state, itself, cannot truly feel fulfillment, as it is merely a superfluous structure created by the congregation of like people seeking to establish order; those that comprise the state, however, are capable of feeling this fulfillment, and thus the state may be said to enjoy the same feeling. In this fashion, a virtuous state and its people can take pride in itself and themselves, strengthening its commitment to doing right by its constituents and those of other nations, growing with each successive successful act of sharing, trading, and cooperation -- the most basic of positive human interactions.
             
              What then of the state founded upon eros and its viability and strength? Plato's eros is an overwhelming desire for beauty leading to the discovery or remembrance of truth, and a never-ending search for completion in a sense. A society built on this concept seems to be strong and well rooted, with the capability to become something lasting and remarkable. The question is, though, what does the state pursue so doggedly? The concepts of beauty and truth do not lend themselves well to the goals of a state, especially when taken literally. Art, culture, philosophy and science would likely be the pet pursuits of this state in its most virtuous form: fine, wonderful even, but they require resources the state must acquire. This state's baser form, however, would turn its passionate eros towards gathering more resources and expanding its borders to gather more and expanding and devouring more and more land, materials and men to reflect upon its creative regurgitation. Like the agape state, this state is very emotionally driven, and considers its own desires first in egoist fashion. In a younger world, with fewer states and people already occupying the space the eros state seeks to possess, perhaps this hungry state could thrive quite well, but on today's over-crowded Earth such a political body can only upset other nations and draw their ire.
             
              The many splendors of love, like paints every hue of the rainbow, possess equally numerous niches and appropriate uses. For a solitary human seeking to interact with another solitary human, each of the three classical Greek ideas of love discussed in this essay are perfect vehicles for self-realization and fulfillment. However, once each's scope is widened and exaggerated to the extreme, their differences lead to completely different journeys and destinations. Eros becomes ravenous hunger or endless chasing, agape becomes selfless starvation or martyrdom through excessive service, and philias becomes tempered, balanced, cooperative friendship. It has been said that the truly self-sufficient have no need for friendship as they already possess everything, but one can easily look at the world and quickly see that no one person or country possesses everything he or it needs to operate in a healthy fashion.
             
              As the globe turns, the cooperation, trade, and sharing done by individuals, groups, and nations of every scale provides for the needs of the few and the many everywhere. This current system is not perfect, as there are many who suffer unjustly under it, as well as many who thrive without having any direct involvement or acknowledgement with the people providing for them. However, it is and will continue to be based off of a notion of philia, whether the altruistic extreme of true friendship or the shallow friendship of utility. The path to humanity's growth personally, nationally, globally lies in cooperation and positive interaction within itself. The combination of these facts asserts philia's dominance as the strongest love-related basis for any political body.
Love Essay 
+1
Tip: Use our Essay Rewriter to rewrite this essay and remove plagiarism.
Next Love Essay: The Chemistry Of Love

Add Notes

Have suggestions, comments or ideas? Please share below. Don't forget to tag a friend or classmate.
clear
Formatting Help
Submit
Sitemap