Love

We hear about love all around us, in music and movies, on TV, in stories. If you look in the dictionary, they define love as a tender, warm feeling; warm liking; affection; attachment. Love is simply a choice we make when we find someone who makes us happy, and who we trust with our innermost thoughts and feelings. We hear that love will make us happy. We hear that single people are lonely. We are told that if we are not part of a couple, we are not complete. We all want to be part of this thing called love.

Okay, we get a boyfriend or girlfriend, now everything should be perfect. But, its not perfect, because life never is. It is easy to become disappointed. Feelings can change. One person may decide to say good-bye. When that happens, the one left behind will feel rejected. Rejection means someone choosing between one thing and another. The one who doesnt get chosen is rejected. This person who feels rejected thinks as if they are not good enough. It hurts. When the person you love decides to leave you, it is even more painful. Does rejection mean failure?

No. The end of a relationship means that the boyfriend or girlfriend decided that s/he wanted a change in the path of their lives. The reasons for this are within the ex – not within the rejected person. No one is a less valuable person because their boyfriend or girlfriends feelings have changed. The bad thing about getting dumped or abandoned is it costs us our self-esteem. We feel a full tidal wave of rejection bring us to our knees, sucking the wind out of our sails. We form an inner-hate and get caught in a self-destructive mode.

We create within ourselves intense feelings of rejection, isolation, and a profound loss of love, acceptance, and control. When we are dumped it creates a grief that is far more intense than the loss of love through death. With death the person who has died has not consciously elected to withdraw their love for you. You get a sense of closure and finalization. Death has no possibilities of changing its mind! But when we are dumped the person has made the decision to withdraw from you and desert you. They have rejected you, turned their back to you, and, often times, moved on to someone else.

Getting ‘dumped’ hurts like hell. It sucker-punches the very air out of us and leaves us feeling alone, lost, and hopeless. We lose our very selves when the person we love makes the conscious decision to leave us. The grief of being abandoned can quickly progress to extreme sadness, self doubt, insecurity, and fear. Abandonment drains our self-esteem. It can lead to depression, addictions, compulsions, and uncontrollable anxiety or panic attacks. In extreme cases, some are left with suicidal thoughts. If left unresolved, abandonment can interfere with – or even prevent – any healthy future relationships.

Once in this cycle, we will often find ourselves abandoned over and over again, as we become either blocked from fully connecting to others, or struggle with extreme-attachment for fear of being abandoned again. We may accept abuse and infidelity, just to avoid feelings of abandonment. Sometimes we remain in a panic-like state of obsessiveness and hyper-vigilance towards our abandoner, or inner focused on our own pain and hurt. We often carry with us feelings of being deserted, needy, and demoralized.

Eventually, our lack of self-control makes us feel like a victim within our own creation, causing self hatred, harm, or injury. Curing the grief that surrounds you is to find happiness within you. Sounds impossible, but it isn’t. It is not only very possible, it has been there all along. If it weren’t you would have curled up in a ball at the foot of the one who left you, and died. And, yes, you might have felt that way, but did you do it? No! Because you still know, buried deep inside of you, that your ex was not the be-all to your life.

And how do I know that? Because you are here, reading this, looking for answers to your pain. Searching for help to mend your abandoned self! You have the courage and the desire to ‘continue on’. You believe in you, you have faith in life, and you are aware of your capacity to love again. A new and better life is not only possible, not only probable, but a plain and simple fact. But right now, you just hurt. And you hurt bad. And you want to know why. Well… look at it this way. You loved someone. You loved them very much. And they abandoned you.

You thought the world of them and they crushed your heart and stole your dreams. Wow – so much power they have… to be able to inflict such heavy and massive destruction to your well-being. And with this ‘imposed’ power they become almost ‘God-like’ to you. You subconsciously fear this power, and by fearing it, the object of your power – your ex – actually becomes almost like an obsession to you. You think about them all the time, You dream of them. They’re the first thought in your head when you wake and the last when you go to sleep. And this constant dwelling confuses you.

You actually come to believe that you love them and need them far more than you actually do. And, what about the one who abandoned you? Here are some facts to ponder: Some abandoners often times feel powerful in the fact that they can and have inflicted so much emotional pain on someone. They feel almighty in the knowledge that they have, alone, created such extensive devastation. They might even feel a heightened sense of self-importance. Sadly, their ego may be exaggerated as they witness either the begging and pleas, or the hopeless, lost agony coming from you.

Often abandoners will not openly admit to these feelings of triumph. Hiding these emotions, they will more often than not, tend to relay feeling of guilt or regret, either for causing the other person pain, or simply because they are ‘sorry that the relationship didn’t work out’. However, for many abandoners the guilt is very real. To diminish their own guilt, and justify their decision to end the relationship, they will, often point the finger away from them, blaming the other person (you) for the breakup, or for the problems in the relationship. They will attempt to save their own face at all costs.

Even the cost of you. They often come off as callous, heartless, or cruel to the ones they left behind. Many ‘dumpees’ have come up to me and asked, “How can they just move on so easily, and not hurt like I do? How can someone who claimed they loved me just two weeks ago, this week announce to the world that I am a neurotic bitch? ” Let me point out that many who make the choice to leave and end a relationship do not set out directly to cause hurt and pain. Their main goal is to find happiness and personal fulfillment, not to directly cause hurt to someone they care about.

Many different types of love play an important role in the world today. True love and infatuation coexist to make up love that can occur between a man and a woman. Although true love and infatuation may appear similar on the surface, they actually reside on opposite ends of the spectrum. Many young people today have experienced infatuation, but only a select few have actually experienced true love. The faster one learns to distinguish between the two, the less likely one ends up making a big mistake. Infatuation may last for a while and may pleasure and entertain while it lasts, but only true

Although people sometimes find it hard to distinguish between true love and infatuation, a few major differences separate the two. First of all, infatuation involves just a feeling; real love requires a commitment also. Infatuation only allows for love of emotion. Real love, though, commands love of devotion. Only the emotions are affected in infatuation, but real love involves both emotions and will. Next, a person can fall into infatuation, but a person has to grow into real love. For instance, when a guy sees a girl so beautiful that his heart starts pounding every time he sees her, he xperiences infatuation.

Even though he knows nothing about the girl, she Several things compose true love, a very special kind of love. It occurs between two people and it grows stronger every day. Many older people will say that a person will only experience true love once or maybe even twice in a lifetime. On the other hand, many people will never experience true love. If an individual asks any happily married adult, How will I know that I am in love? , about ninety-five percent of them will say, One will just know. Well, since I know I have never really experienced true love, I can only give a ew characteristics of true love.

First of all, if a man loves a woman, he will love, trust, and respect the woman as much as he loves, trusts, and respects himself. He will also put her needs ahead of his own. The foundation of true love should rest on the relationship of two people as a whole, not just their On the contrary, the inverse proves true for infatuation. Instead of loving and trusting each other, one often wonders about the faithfulness of the relationship. Sometimes he wonders if his partner really even cares about him at all. Also, he always seems excited and eager when he dates this person hat he thinks he loves, but he may forget about her after a few days.

People that let infatuation drive their relationships always find little imperfections in their spouses and make a big deal over them. When a person truly loves someone, he accepts them and looks over their minor imperfections. Infatuation is usually self-centered, short-lived, and when it ends, one usually Infatuation may last for a while and may pleasure and entertain while it lasts, but only true love can last a lifetime. One should always remember this when he begins looking for a spouse. A person would never want to marry nyone that only infatuates him because the marriage would end up in an ongoing fight.

People in marriages based on infatuation continually try to make their spouses into what they want. One should also realize that marriage doesnt change people. More than likely, if a couple fights a good bit now, they will also fight a good bit after they get married. Many marriages that people enter into planning to change their spouse end in divorce. Getting a divorce has become all too popular among todays society. I dont like to see people getting a divorce because it not only affects the couple, it also affects their families and their children.

How is love to influence our lives? Love-struck people do crazy things to express how they care for that particular person yet it is a long and windy road to these actions. It is down this path that experience spawns and trouble and happiness are felt. Janie Crawford of Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God, shows the road through the steps of her three relationships. These relationships, though not fulfilling ones, conclude in bettering Janie’s search and understanding of life.

Johnny Taylor, Janie’s first kiss and gatekeeper to her future, When Janie was sixteen, she embarked on a sexual awakening. Johnny Taylor was a poor young man who lived in the Florida area. Janie allowed him to kiss her over the fence. Unfortunately, Nanny saw everything. With Nanny’s horrendous background of sinful deeds done to her, she wanted the best for Janie. As she saw the kiss, the doors of life opened for Janie and Nanny wasn’t going to have her make the same mistakes that she had.

Yet, Nanny had been impregnated under the circumstances of being a slave and this was not the case for Janie. Nanny stated that “black women were the mules of the world”, but she didn’t want Janie to be a mule. She wanted to see Janie in a secure situation before she died, and Logan Killicks could provide that. Janie did not want to marry Logan, but she did so because Nanny told her “that she would eventually come to love him. ” Ironically, Logan wanted to force Janie into the servitude that Nanny feared. Also, he was disappointed that Janie never returned his affection and attraction.

If he could not possess her through love, he would possess her by demanding her submission. At heart, his actions arose from the fear that Janie would leave him. Two months after her marriage to Logan, Janie visited Nanny to ask when she would start loving him. Nanny berated Janie for not appreciating Logan’s wealth. Although Logan pampered Janie for a year, he began complaining that she was spoiled. That night, Logan criticized Janie for being spoiled and lazy. Janie voiced his deepest fears when she suggested that she might leave him.

Logan reminded her of her family’s reputation, hoping to hurt her feelings. Turning to these drastic of measures blew Janie into a frenzy and she left with a smooth-talking gentleman that very next day. Janie chose to leave Logan for Jody because he revived her dreams of love in marriage. Her first marriage had taught her that marriage and love do not go hand in hand. However, she still believed that love was the best motivation for marriage. Jody promised that he would never turn Janie into a common pack mule. He promised her that she would reap all the benefits of his work.

His words eerily echo Nanny’s dream of respectability and financial security for Janie. However, Janie didn’t marry Jody because of these promises. She married him because he inspired the feelings she had experienced while sitting under the blossoming peach tree when she was sixteen and the moment her womanhood became crystal clear. Ironically, Janie’s marriage to Jody was the very embodiment of Nanny’s dreams for her. Unlike Logan, he did not make her a pack mule. He gave her financial security and respectability. However, the marriage was largely an unhappy union.

Janie could not be herself around Jody. Moreover, Jody still used Janie as a garbage even though he gave her wealth and respectability. So it seems that Nanny’s worst fears and her highest hopes were realized in Janie’s second marriage. It was until one afternoon in the store that she met a lofty yet handsome young man who went, strangely enough, by the name of Tea Cake. Tea Cake’s courtship was different from that of Logan and Jody. Janie’s first marriage was more of a contract of sale between Nanny and Logan than anything else.

Janie’s second marriage was an escape from the first one. Moreover, it was based on disappointed dreams. Jody courted her by talking about himself and his dreams. Tea Cake, on the other hand, pursued Janie with a more romantic flair. Also, he allowed her equal footing in negotiating the terms of their relationship. Gaining personal freedom was a two-fold process. First, she had to be free in her private life, but she also had to free herself from restricting social attitudes. Only then could she begin to heal the rift between her outside self and her inside self.

She feels that what she has learned from her relationship with Tea Cake cannot be conveyed through words. Self-realization is a personal journey that can only be made through gaining life experience. Therefore, Janie acknowledges the flaws inherent in retelling her life, but she does not necessarily undercut the importance of having found her voice. Neither does she undercut the benefit of sharing her story with others. She doesn’t believe that her story should be the single, authoritative guidebook to self-realization. It can, however, inspire others to re-examine their lives.

A key to understanding Sociology and the Social Sciences in general is to evaluate subjects through time and compare and contrast characteristics that have changed and those that have remained the same. For this assignment I have elected to access three sources dealing with love; in three distinct time periods in the modern era. First we will survey one of the first popular mediums for the expression of love; that of poetry. I have chosen a poem by W. H. Auden to represent the early portion of this century- specifically the 1930s and 1940s.

I knew I had to include a song from my idol Jim Morrison. Not only is e the perfect voice of the volatile sex revolution of the 1960s and 1970s; his work captures the profile of a rock star who undoubtedly acquired his domineering attitude from the endless worship of submissive women. Lastly we enter the modern era with a article from my favorite magazine Men’s Health on the mistakes a man must avoid in order to please his lover. As we shall see, the increased freedom is very interesting in our first representation to the last. My goal is to show how love has changed.

I hope to show what is accepted in our society today, compared with only several decades ago. Application My sources run the gamut of ideas in the subject of love. I think Auden’s poem is the best representation of what has been termed courtly love. This seems logical, since this Romantic Era type of love was a pre-cursor to what we know as modern love. The author takes the troubadour role in his crooning style of praising his love’s qualities. He idealizes his mate and is satisfied just being in the same room as she. There are not any ulterior motives evident.

Auden would be categorized as a heavenly lover, in that his love is more lofty and sacred. There is definite contrast to this idealism though. In his last lines the author, without reservation tells of his sorrow at his loss of her to another. Morrison’s Love Her Madly could almost be interpreted as a form of limerance. He has this extreme fondness for his subject: Don’t ya love her madly? Anyone who knows the story of Jim Morrison knows that the topic of love and all that comes with it was an integral facet of his being. He is a good example of love in the context of a super-star entertainer.

Morrison’s songs, and most others found in the entertainment world cannot compare with reality. These people do not lead normal lives. Their depiction of such things as love may even be accurate portrayals of their lives, but should not be taken to represent society as a whole. Love was quite important to Morrison- provided that he had it often and with different partners. One woman could never contain his sexual urges. In this reality many sociological concepts are found. Morrison cohabited with numerous women, mainly his life-long steady girlfriend Pamela.

Morrison’s male domineering attitude is evident in his line “Wanna be her daddy. ” While women were beginning to experience more equality during this eriod, males were still seen as dominant. He does show signs of compassion with his line: Don’t ya love her as she’s walking out the door. Like she did one thousand times before. This shows that he was not as worried about being a man as some may have thought. He lost his love once again and he is not afraid to admit it. Even so, Morrison’s primary style of love was definitely ludus.

He had no reservations about playing the field. Pre- marital sex was easily brushed aside by Morrison in this era when society was more accepting of free love. Our Men’s Health article is best understood by using the two gender’s exual scripts- or blueprints of our sexuality, to sort out society’s expected roles. 50 Ways To Peeve Your Lover does a decent job of informing men of the mistakes that women recognize in their sexual demeanor. Due to sexual scripts themselves, there are many learned behaviors and attitudes that men possess that they have always known as the best way.

Men, due to the fact that they are less open to criticism and less willing to express their feelings, they are more subject to doing things the wrong way and never even realizing it. No-noes like squeezing a woman’s breast because they think it turns her on, failing to sk her questions during sex, not complementing her, and other forms of improper etiquette may be what is holding back many couples from happier and more successful relationships. Critique These three representations of love were all the norms in their time but would be out of context if switched to another.

People may appreciate Auden’s simplicity and purity of loves’ demeanor, but it is safe to say that it would not do very well in today’s’ society that urns for lust and sex over honest love. Society wants to be entertained and taken to a fantasy world- one that is ifferent and more exciting than their own. In the early 20ieth century and before I’m sure that people were satisfied reading a poem like this for the simple fact that it was a depiction of their feelings at the time- but written by a person that could write more eloquently than themselves.

They were entertained by such works because they captured their mood in words. As music evolved with society along with it, the poet took on a new form of expression. Music was perfect- it has often been thought of as sexual in nature. Words along with music symbolized an era of increased freedom and experimentation as he walls that portrayed sex as “a bad thing” began to crumble. Morrison’s portrayal of loose standards of sex, while exaggerated for society in general, are still accurate in that this was a more liberal time than previous decades.

Songs such as this made it more accepted for teens and other impressionable youngsters both to have sex and see it in a kinder light. Articles such as our Men’s Health example have become the norm in today’s increasingly open and less moral society. While the church’s forbidding of such an open discussion of sex was more adhered to in the past, people today re more comfortable talking about this and other topics that they want to hear about. We have already realized the myth that just because sex was not as discussed back then did not mean that people refrained from talking about it and doing it in secret.

In fact, we know that ancient cultures such as those in Italy had an even greater sex culture than we do today. Many will say that this attitude is a better approach because it gets feelings out in the open, instead of keeping them locked up inside. Thus people are more honest with each other and can work their difficulties out before they explode. Conclusion It is definitely true that attitudes on love have changed in the last decade. Social structures and norms have fluctuated and have influenced people’s decisions in their own lives as well as their perceptions of others.

Many people would rather return to the innocent times of Auden where love seemingly was true and carried no strings. There does seem to be a problem with the increased fragmentation of society in regards to finding love today. Gone are the days when you married your high school sweet-heart and lived happily ever after. Increased mobility and the ease of travel has left love more vailable and open. People need more help today from outside services like dating hotlines and the help of marriage counselors and physchologists to sort out their troubles. It follows though that society is more complex and therefore better.

Women have more rights and more say in society. There is no doubt that females were exploited more in the past than today. While society’s attitudes have changed over the years and will continue to change, one thing remains the same: love is a driving force in our lives. Social Issues Love In Today’s Society Love In Today’s Society Steve Carey Introduction A key to understanding Sociology and the Social Sciences in general is to evaluate subjects through time and compare and contrast characteristics that have changed and those that have remained the same.

For this assignment I have elected to access three sources dealing with love; in three distinct time periods in the modern era. First we will survey one of the first popular mediums for the expression of love; that of poetry. I have chosen a poem by W. H. Auden to represent the early portion of this century- specifically the 1930s and 1940s. I knew I had to include a song from my idol Jim Morrison. Not only is e the perfect voice of the volatile sex revolution of the 1960s and 1970s; his work captures the profile of a rock star who undoubtedly acquired his domineering attitude from the endless worship of submissive women.

Lastly we enter the modern era with a article from my favorite magazine Men’s Health on the mistakes a man must avoid in order to please his lover. As we shall see, the increased freedom is very interesting in our first representation to the last. My goal is to show how love has changed. I hope to show what is accepted in our society today, compared with only several decades ago. Application My sources run the gamut of ideas in the subject of love. I think Auden’s poem is the best representation of what has been termed courtly love.

This seems logical, since this Romantic Era type of love was a pre-cursor to what we know as modern love. The author takes the troubadour role in his crooning style of praising his love’s qualities. He idealizes his mate and is satisfied just being in the same room as she. There are not any ulterior motives evident. Auden would be categorized as a heavenly lover, in that his love is more lofty and sacred. There is definite contrast to this idealism though. In his last lines the author, without reservation tells of his sorrow at his loss of her to another.

Morrison’s Love Her Madly could almost be interpreted as a form of limerance. He has this extreme fondness for his subject: Don’t ya love her madly? Anyone who knows the story of Jim Morrison knows that the topic of love and all that comes with it was an integral facet of his being. He is a good example of love in the context of a super-star entertainer. Morrison’s songs, and most others found in the entertainment world cannot compare with reality. These people do not lead normal lives.

Their depiction of such things as love may even be accurate portrayals of their lives, but should not be taken to represent society as a whole. Love was quite important to Morrison- provided that he had it often and with different partners. One woman could never contain his sexual urges. In this reality many sociological concepts are found. Morrison cohabited with numerous women, mainly his life-long steady girlfriend Pamela. Morrison’s male domineering attitude is evident in his line “Wanna be her daddy. While women were beginning to experience more equality during this eriod, males were still seen as dominant. He does show signs of compassion with his line: Don’t ya love her as she’s walking out the door. Like she did one thousand times before. This shows that he was not as worried about being a man as some may have thought. He lost his love once again and he is not afraid to admit it. Even so, Morrison’s primary style of love was definitely ludus. He had no reservations about playing the field. Pre- marital sex was easily brushed aside by Morrison in this era when society was more accepting of free love.

Our Men’s Health article is best understood by using the two gender’s sexual scripts- or blueprints of our sexuality, to sort out society’s expected roles. 50 Ways To Peeve Your Lover does a decent job of informing men of the mistakes that women recognize in their sexual demeanor. Due to sexual scripts themselves, there are many learned behaviors and attitudes that men possess that they have always known as the best way. Men, due to the fact that they are less open to criticism and less willing to express their feelings, they are more subject to doing things the wrong way and never even realizing it.

No-noes like squeezing a woman’s breast because they think it turns her on, failing to ask her questions during sex, not complementing her, and other forms of improper etiquette may be what is holding back many couples from happier and more successful relationships. Critique These three representations of love were all the norms in their time but would be out of context if switched to another. People may appreciate Auden’s simplicity and purity of loves’ demeanor, but it is safe to say that it would not do very well in today’s’ society that urns for lust and sex over honest love.

Society wants to be entertained and taken to a fantasy world- one that is different and more exciting than their own. In the early 20ieth century and before I’m sure that people were satisfied reading a poem like this for the simple fact that it was a depiction of their feelings at the time- but written by a person that could write more eloquently than themselves. They were entertained by such works because they captured their mood in words. As music evolved with society along with it, the poet took on a new form of expression. Music was perfect- it has often been thought of as sexual in nature.

Words along with music symbolized an era of increased freedom and experimentation as the walls that portrayed sex as “a bad thing” began to crumble. Morrison’s portrayal of loose standards of sex, while exaggerated for society in general, are still accurate in that this was a more liberal time than previous decades. Songs such as this made it more accepted for teens and other impressionable youngsters both to have sex and see it in a kinder light. Articles such as our Men’s Health example have become the norm in today’s increasingly open and less moral society.

While the church’s forbidding f such an open discussion of sex was more adhered to in the past, people today are more comfortable talking about this and other topics that they want to hear about. We have already realized the myth that just because sex was not as discussed back then did not mean that people refrained from talking about it and doing it in secret. In fact, we know that ancient cultures such as those in Italy had an even greater sex culture than we do today. Many will say that this attitude is a better approach because it gets feelings out in the open, instead of keeping them locked up inside.

Thus people are more honest with each other nd can work their difficulties out before they explode. Conclusion It is definitely true that attitudes on love have changed in the last decade. Social structures and norms have fluctuated and have influenced people’s decisions in their own lives as well as their perceptions of others. Many people would rather return to the innocent times of Auden where love seemingly was true and carried no strings. There does seem to be a problem with the increased fragmentation of society in regards to finding love today. Gone are the days when you married your high school sweet-heart and lived happily ver after.

Increased mobility and the ease of travel has left love more available and open. People need more help today from outside services like dating hotlines and the help of marriage counselors and physchologists to sort out their troubles. It follows though that society is more complex and therefore better. Women have more rights and more say in society. There is no doubt that females were exploited more in the past than today. While society’s attitudes have changed over the years and will continue to change, one thing remains the same: love is a driving force in our lives.

Loving is a much more positive experience than being loved. In order to love, one must come to accept one to the extent that one is able to express his own emotions toward another person. A particular divinity can be experienced through loving others. While being loved does not necessarily provide one with the ability to love others, it certainly adds to the appreciation of one which, in turn, allows love to be expressed and divinity to be experienced. However, the issue of being divine, emotionally or spiritually, continues to revolve back to loving others, not being loved.

The theme that it is more divine to love than to be loved is illustrated accurately through the novella, Death in Venice, by Thomas Mann. The novella depicts a grown man, Aschenbach, who experiences strange emotions toward a young boy, Tadzio. Mann first develops Aschenbach as an emotionally displeased character who later experiences a transformation within himself and his beliefs as a result of his love for Tadzio. The novella begins with Aschenbach considering the results of his latest writing.

The reader is introduced to a man who cannot find fulfillment in his work, despite the world’s approval of him. Aschenbach is loved by the world through the “national honor”(Mann, 199) his supporters give him. His desire concerning his career being “intent from the start upon fame” (Mann, 200), Aschenbach recognizes himself as the subject of his own reputation. Despite his own knowledge of the love for him, Aschenbach is depicted as an unhappy character who deliberates his being alone during the summer.

It is evident from the beginning that Aschenbach has no family contact- his wife being deceased and his daughter married. Aschenbach is indeed “loved” by the world for his work, and yet, he is at first unable to express love or emotional desire. He is therefore unable to experience divinity within himself or the surrounding world because although he is loved, he does not love. Although Aschenbach’s daughter is living, Mann’s mention of her is short and blunt. This in turn represents Aschenbach’s lack of emotion toward her as one would believe that his only living kin deserves some recognition.

Mann leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind that Aschenbach has difficulty accepting others or his work. When Aschenbach travels to Venice to escape being alone, as well as “to make his summer bearable” (Mann, 199), he encounters the young boy Tadzio. His infatuation with Tadzio begins a transformation within himself which enables him to accept and develop his thoughts and feelings. This acceptance results in a more divine nature as Aschenbach comes to the realization that he loves Tadzio.

The reader also becomes aware of Aschenbach’s increasing pride in his work. On one occasion, while observing Tadzio, Aschenbach reflects on “the sober passion” (Mann, 234) that encompasses him as he develops from “the marble mass of language” (Mann, 234) a short essay which he had imagined and created within himself. Tadzio proves to be an inspiration for Aschenbach, who idolizes the boy enough to use his “beauty as a model for the brief essay” (Mann, 234). Such an inspiration is further enhanced by Aschenbach’s love and desire for the boy (Mann, 236).

Without coming to terms with the intensity of his love, Aschenbach would have been unable to experience such an overwhelming desire to write. This “desire to illuminate [his personal feelings] in his own words” (Mann, 234) does indeed bring Aschenbach closer to divinity and self-assurance. Mann’s writing also reflects Aschenbach’s transformation as it becomes more fluent and descriptive concerning the Greek Gods. The theme that it is more divine to love than to be loved is further developed through Mann’s introduction of the Greek Gods, who were considered to be the divinity of human nature.

The presence of the divine imagery becomes most evident through a dream Aschenbach experiences shortly before his declaration of his “love” (Mann, 241) for Tadzio. As the novella progresses, the Greek Gods reoccur more often. The presence of the Gods is a prelude to the divinity Aschenbach will soon come to know. Through Aschenbach’s transformation from a man struggling to accept his own work and emotions to a man completely at ease with himself, Mann illustrates that it is more divine to love than to be loved.

Though Aschenbach was loved by those around him for his work, he was unable to express his own love or experience satisfaction. When Tadzio enters his life, Aschenbach is able to find pleasure in his work as a result of his expressions of love. Love allowed Aschenbach to experience peace and release a variety of hidden emotions. Before his death, Aschenbach was able to create a work of which he was content with and “soon [won] the admiration of many” (Mann, 234). Aschenbach’s love for Tadzio allowed him to experience a more divine appreciation for his work than the world’s love for ever had.

Close your eyes, now imagine a world of love; not hate, a world of equality; not preference. Now, imagine a colorblind society. That is what most of American society wants. That is the reason Affirmative Action was birthed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. That is also the reason that Proposition 209 was voted for in 1996. These two historical events are driven by the desire of equality. What is Affirmative Action? According to Geraldine Leshin, it is “Taking positive or active steps to accomplish the public policy goal of equal employment opportunity.

What is Proposition 209? Its a new law that has been passed that “prohibits the state of California and local governments from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, public education or public contracting (San Jose Mercury News). ” Affirmative action was implemented for important reasons. “Broadly defined, affirmative action refers to efforts to increase educational and employment opportunities for minorities and women.

More specifically, it applies to various programs and policies designed to increase the number of minorities and women hired by government and industry and admitted into colleges and universities. “(Faundez, 213) Affirmative action is important especially in the work force. Before affirmative action, minorities and women felt, and seemed to be, discriminated against being chosen for the job. Affirmative action was to help with the “increasing of opportunities for those that were previously discriminated against”(Lemann, 145).

Affirmative action was created to not only help Black-Americans, but to help “many groups beyond women and minorities including the disabled, veterans, economically disadvantaged and others. “(Nicolaus, , 87) Affirmative action also aids in the areas of contracting and education. With contracting,, “affirmative action helps firms owned by women and minorities, or firms that can show a disadvantage”(Lemann, 110) Affirmative action in education also reaches out to disabled students, women, minorities, economically disadvantaged students, veterans, etc.

It helps them in many ways like: ” early outreach programs, recruitment and retention programs, efforts in admissions to diversify the student population, and specific financial aid opportunities. “(Edwards, 213) So as you can see, Affirmative action was proposed and accepted for a great many reasons that constantly create controversy. Not only minorities have supported affirmative action. Most people would imagine all minorities love affirmative action and strongly voted for it and thats why it passed.

Thats part of the reason, but we must not forget two major supporters of Affirmative action. One of these supporters is an unsuspected group of men; namely, the Angry White Guys for Affirmative Action. Yes, a group of white men! These men are angry because they feel that being a white man gives them more privileges than are fair. Paul Rockwell, the president of Angry White Guys for Affirmative Action says: We hear a lot about angry white males today. Well, we too are angry white males.

But contrary to the caricature, we support affirmative action. As white men whose own families got free medical care, or unquestioned access to higher education through the GI Bill, who shared in the social uplift of the New Deal, we support affirmative action for those who are still left out. And we are not tear-jerk liberals, or millionaires who can afford to appear magnanimous. It is out of our own self-interest, as direct beneficiaries of social engineering, that we support programs of inclusion.

Ryan Mendoza from the Yale Daily News applauds the Angry White Guys because he says, “Although Affirmative Action treats innocent white males unequally, it does not deprive them of any genuine equal opportunity rights. Affirmative Action only eliminates undeserved increases in their prospects of success. ” The other group that supports the survival of Affirmative Action is the organization “California Votes NO on 209.

They firmly believe in Affirmative Action for the same reasons the others do, “Affirmative Action refers to programs that seek to remedy past discrimination against women, minorities, and others by increasing the recruitment, promotion, retention, and on-the-job training opportunities in employment and by removing barriers to admission to educational institutions. ” Affirmative Action supporters are fighting to keep it alive because they fear that things like Proposition 209 will destroy all that has been fought to obtain. They fear that non-discriminatory affirmative action programs by state and local governments will be abolished.

They fear that it will impede the enforcement of anti-discriminatory laws, or efforts to include previously excluded citizens. The fear that it will apply to even private sector programs. They also fear it will abolish programs where sex is a necessary distinction (Public Affairs Web). The reasons that Affirmative Action was created in the beginning were important and real reasons. However, times have been changing and many feel that the need for Affirmative Action has as well. This is the reason why Proposition 209 became an explosive issue in the 1996 voting.

The creators of this proposition, as well as its supporters, believe that Prop. 209 is essential for the future of racial harmony as well as a chance for equal progression. There are many reasons Proposition 209 was created. Ted Rall, author of The Affirmative Action Debate Exposed, supports Proposition 209 because he says: In any situation where there are only a limited number of slots and an excess number of qualified applicants, one persons advantage is another persons disadvantage. But it any way you want, but thats simple math, and its an equation that white male applicants understand intuitively.

Instead of simply admitting that whites and men get hurt by affirmative action and that this is the price they pay for the sins of their racist and sexist fathers, the proponents of affirmative action have become experts in deceit. Rather than having the moral courage to say that these policies are imperfectbut necessaryremedies for centuries of systematic discrimination, these lying wimps try to sell the dubious proposition that life is not a zero-sum game, that granting an advantage to one person doesnt have to penalize someone else. Is it any wonder whites are screaming for an end to affirmative action?

White males are feeling deprived of their honest and deserved accomplishments and the fruits of their efforts just because they are white. They feel that their chances at a job are immediately less because businesses have quotas of race to fill. They realize that they may even be more qualified for a job but will lose out because they arent a minority. That is reverse discrimination. They believe that the passage of this proposition will encourage a healthy competition for jobs, and that it will cause people to strive harder to do their best.

They are hoping for a color-blind opportunity at a job and that their individual qualifications and personalities can land them the job they desire and earned. Not only white, middle class, suburbanite men are in favor of the implementation of Proposition 209 and the doing away with of Affirmative Action. Many minority men feel the same way. They often are left feeling as if they were given a job, not because of their qualifications, but to simply fit the quota. They feel this causes their co-workers to despise them. It also eats away at their self-esteem.

Some feel the effects of being “handed” a job are worse than having to fight for a job that they earned (Lemann, 54). Our government leaders and many of Californian citizens of all race and creeds are fighting for the equality they see in Prop. 209, and the truth about what it will not take away from society. The ending of Affirmative Action, they believe, “is needed to end this wasteful and divisive system and restore color-blindness to California law and government. It will help make the California Constitution an instrument of unity, not division (San Jose Mercury Sun).

US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said: “Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect and protect us as equal before the law. ” Governor Pete Wilson supports the ending of Proposition 209. He says that “mandating and practicing inequality cannot bring equality. In a single sentence, this initiative captures the spirit of fairness and equal opportunity that is at the heart of the American dream. ” The fears of the pro-affirmative action groups can be set to rest.

They assure that the ending of Affirmative Action through Proposition 209 will NOT abolish non-discriminatory affirmative action programs by state and local governments. It will NOT impede the enforcement of anti-discriminatory laws, or efforts to include previously excluded citizens. It will NOT apply to private sector programs. And it will NOT abolish programs where sex is a necessary distinction (Public Affairs Web). It is obvious that on both sides of the issue of Affirmative Action, that there are valid arguments. Is racial harmony something that can be legislated or is it simply a matter of the heart that we ourselves need to change?

Will there ever be equality in the work place, and if so, is it the survival of Affirmative Action or the passing of Proposition 209, or a program like it, that will bring that long-awaited equality? Does Affirmative Action hurt the white man? Is it only the white man that suffers, or is it also biting the hands of those who are feeding it, taking away the dignity and pride of those of ethnic minorities hunting for jobs? These are the questions to the issue of Affirmative Action that we each have to decide upon and now that you have the necessary information, it is up to you to decide.

For Centuries in our society marriage between man and woman has been a practiced cultural right and custom. Over 90% of Americans will marry in their lifetime and roughly 50% of those marriages will result in Divorce. Many Sociological factors contribute to the high divorce rate expressed in our culture. Reasons that contribute to the divorce rate are longer life expectancy, women in the work force, birth control, social acceptance of cohabitation, single parenting and welfare reform.

It is also now socially acceptable and legal to get a divorce due to dissatisfaction and unhappiness. This social acceptance of divorce implies that today there is a changing criteria when entering marriage. Couples today now insist on the element of personal fulfillment and happiness for entering wedlock, where as, in times past this was not one of the main considerations for man and woman to get married. Historically with in marriage man and women have adopted gender roles.

These gender roles that are predicated by society are traditionally seen as the man in the provider/ authoritarian role and the woman is seen as the caretaker of the home and children or in the nurturer role. These gender roles exist in our society today, even though our society now considers man and woman equal and gives each sex equal rights. Consequently, many couples still adopt traditional roles while in other marriages couples opt for non-traditional roles and treat each other as equals these are called egalitarian relationships and are far less frequent in our society.

By examining these egalitarian couples that do not operate with in the traditional limits of gender and comparing them to traditional relationships, we, as a society can learn how the elements of traditional gender roles in marriage have provided a disservice to man and woman and how the less common egalitarian marriage may better suit individuals in the pursuit of a fulfilling and lasting marriage. Pepper Shwartz, Ph. D, a professor at the University of Washington and author of the book, Love Between Equals: How Peer Marriage Really Works, explores the aspects of traditional and egalitarian or peer marriage.

She examines how gender roles interfere with partner equality, deep friendship and fulfillment. She also argues that we should eliminate the provider and nurturer role when pursuing a peer marriage because these traditional roles interfere with man and woman’s chance to overcome the social and biological differences that separate them and ultimately interfere with the pursuit of fulfillment and happiness of the marriage. In her book, Schwartz identifies five types of marital failures that come from traditional gender guidelines and undermine marital intimacy.

Schwartz also identifies four principles adopted by peer couples that, in turn, promote intimacy. Throughout Schwartz’s history of research she has found the failure of empathy among traditional couple’s leads to isolation, feeling alone and not understood. She demonstrates that this failure comes from traditional couples not sharing common perceptions which gives them separate experiences instead of a shared world. This initiates a feeling of being unknown and affects communication while tearing away at intimacy.

Schwartz also recognizes the failure of interest in traditional marriages that occurs when partners become too separate in their daily lives. When the man is involved at work and the woman is involved at home with the children they end up with lack of conversation. They begin to ask ritually how each other’s day was with out genuine interest and more out of obligation. Or the couples stop sharing altogether about day to day experiences because they do not want to burden the other partner and lastly the husband may use his wife as a ‘sounding board’ and talk at her leaving no room for her in the conversation.

Again this results in the failure of shared worlds, which results in the couple having little emotional exchange and having to get it from friends and family. Another failure in traditional marriages that Schwartz points out is the lack of mutual respect. Due to gender roles the relationship between man and wife in traditional marriage is a senior and junior partnership based on hierarchy. The husband has ultimate power to make decisions because he makes the money. Schwartz notes that power is typically the right of the breadwinner and with it breeds superiority.

Traditional wives feel patronized and this failure of respect brings resentment. In conjunction, Schwartz has observed traditional couples having a failure of realism. By this, Schwartz means that the husband and wife idealize one another usually as the husband being all knowing and the wife being a saint. This idealizing or lack of realism interferes with partner’s ability to give and receive support and understanding. Finally, the traditional marriage dehumanizes women.

Traditional wives are encouraged to invest themselves in their husband’s interests and to even read books on how to please a man. After time, usually after the kids have left the house, wives report feeling like they do not know who they are, they end up with out a sense of self. This realization that many women come to creates anger over not being able to be their own person while they view their husbands as “having it all. ” Schwartz identifies this failure among traditional marriages to be a large factor contributing to divorce.

Having identified failures found in traditional marriages Pepper Schwartz proposes that peer marriages may be the answer to the failures seen in traditional marriages because peer marriages operate on a different premise. The couples in peer marriages that Schwartz interviewed find being equal and interdependent rewarding and they work towards a common goal of a union based on equality. They see peer marriage as a way to have stability and a lasting relationship. Schwartz found four common threads in the peer marriage that seemed to save them from the failures of a traditional marriage.

She recognized that couples in peer marriages have developed deep friendship by having mutual respect for one another and understanding with tolerance. Peer couples have such a deep friendship because they have a shared world. They are invested in similar interests and make their relationship a priority over work and other external factors. These couples insist on having shared experiences. Schwartz emphasizes that couples in peer marriages are also able to negotiate differences because they have a deep friendship. Friends do not pull rank over one another or veto opinions offered, or monopolize conversations. ”(Shwartz,30) They are fair to one another because they value each other as equals. They also take turns in deciding on what to do, giving advice, and being the strong one or the one who needs support. Due to peer marriages being based on equality Schwartz did not find the problems of hierarchy in peer marriages. However, she did recognize that there are costs associated with having a peer marriage. Costs associated with peer marriages are career, identity and exclusion of others.

Couples in peer marriages typically do not have demanding careers because they choose to put their relationship first. They also need to maintain separate identities and avoid becoming enmeshed and need to remember to include family and friends in their relationship to avoid being isolated. Considering the Benefits of Peer marriage as opposed to traditional marriage Schwartz discusses why more couples opt for a traditional one. She concludes that there is an attraction to hierarchy because it is familiar. Peer marriage is unfamiliar and doesn’t have any guidelines to follow.

Peer marriages are often seen as difficult to obtain because they do not have a provider role and a nurturer role. Couples in peer marriages both provide economic and emotional support to the relationship and share power. Schwartz contends that by appreciating the similarities between man and woman instead of focussing on the differences that separate them we can overcome the detriments that gender roles promote and enjoy a more fulfilling and lasting marriage. After reading Love Between Equals I found Pepper Schwartz’s study to provide a deeper understanding of marriage in our society.

The concept of peer marriage challenges many sociological theories held on marriage. It defies Gary Becker’s economist theory and recognizes that marriage is not necessarily based on efficiency of tasks but rather on the personal fulfillment of having an equal partner. The book also reaches to understand the dimensions of a fulfilling marriage that satisfies both man and woman equally. While many couples find traditional marriage satisfying this book is dedicated to those who want more than tradition.

Perhaps our future generations will be investing in peer marriages because as our gender roles in society become more similar the need to have an equal may appeal to be a greater asset to couples. Schwartz did an excellent of job of examining how gender roles can shape a marriage. This is extremely critical because as the pursuit of happiness becomes a requirement in relationships it will force man and woman to evaluate what they want in a partner. Do they always want to be the leader or the follower?

Hopefully it will evoke these kinds of questions and force man and woman alike to evaluate their own gender stereotype and make changes that better suit who they are. In regarding the curriculum of Sociology 352, The Family, I would suggest incorporating chapters 1, 3 and 4 into the course, it would be best contrasted if coupled by Gary Becker’s reading or the Second Shift because it would truly add to the concepts of child rearing and gender roles. Secondly, these chapters in the book demonstrate how our past experiences and social reforms of the past have helped shape our relationships and values of the present day.

The want and expression of peer marriage is not some rebellious act designed by couples who hate tradition. It is a result and a reflection of how some of our traditions have not served our best interests. I believe that peer marriage is based on the foundation that couples want something more out their relationships that they couldn’t find with in the limits of tradition. I find Pepper Schwartz’s work and research to be revolutionary to our changing society’s needs. A principle of nature is survival of the fittest.

I find this example comparable to societal traditions of marriage. If some traditions, such as gender roles in marriage, do not serve a beneficial purpose then they will die out and the elements that do provide a beneficial purpose will thrive. I hope this is the case of peer marriage. Schwartz kept her reading interesting by comparing the differences of traditional and peer marriage. By introducing points and supporting them through personal accounts of couples from either type of marriage she managed to successfully support her contentions.

Through examining the myriad of ways that gender roles interfere with intimacy, Pepper Schwartz has identified the costs of traditional marriage and the rewards of peer marriage. She has demonstrated that the provider and nurturer roles assumed by man and woman ultimately negate intimacy and antagonize deep friendship. She shows that deep friendship found through equality is essential for intimacy and that peer marriage promotes commitment, shared worlds, co-parenting and the celebration of similarity. It is these qualities that peer marriage promote that make a marriage lasting and fulfilling for man and woman.

How is love to influence our lives? Love-struck people do crazy things to express how they care for that particular person yet it is a long and windy road to these actions. It is down this path that experience spawns and trouble and happiness are felt. Janie Crawford of Zora Neale Hurstons Their Eyes Were Watching God, shows the road through the steps of her three relationships. These relationships, though not fulfilling ones, conclude in bettering Janies search and understanding of life.

Johnny Taylor, Janies first kiss and gatekeeper to her future, When Janie was sixteen, she embarked on a sexual awakening. Johnny Taylor was a poor young man who lived in the Florida area. Janie allowed him to kiss her over the fence. Unfortunately, Nanny saw everything. With Nannys horrendous background of sinful deeds done to her, she wanted the best for Janie. As she saw the kiss, the doors of life opened for Janie and Nanny wasnt going to have her make the same mistakes that she had. Yet, Nanny had been impregnated under the circumstances of being a slave and this was not the case for Janie.

Nanny stated that black women were the mules of the world, but she didn’t want Janie to be a mule. She wanted to see Janie in a secure situation before she died, and Logan Killicks could provide that. Janie did not want to marry Logan, but she did so because Nanny told her that she would eventually come to love him. Ironically, Logan wanted to force Janie into the servitude that Nanny feared. Also, he was disappointed that Janie never returned his affection and attraction. If he could not possess her through love, he would possess her by demanding her submission.

At heart, his actions arose from the fear that Janie would leave him. Two months after her marriage to Logan, Janie visited Nanny to ask when she would start loving him. Nanny berated Janie for not appreciating Logan’s wealth. Although Logan pampered Janie for a year, he began complaining that she was spoiled. That night, Logan criticized Janie for being spoiled and lazy. Janie voiced his deepest fears when she suggested that she might leave him. Logan reminded her of her family’s reputation, hoping to hurt her feelings.

Turning to these drastic of measures blew Janie into a frenzy and she left with a smooth-talking gentleman that very next day. Janie chose to leave Logan for Jody because he revived her dreams of love in marriage. Her first marriage had taught her that marriage and love do not go hand in hand. However, she still believed that love was the best motivation for marriage. Jody promised that he would never turn Janie into a common pack mule. He promised her that she would reap all the benefits of his work.

His words eerily echo Nanny’s dream of respectability and financial security for Janie. However, Janie didn’t marry Jody because of these promises. She married him because he inspired the feelings she had experienced while sitting under the blossoming peach tree when she was sixteen and the moment her womanhood became crystal clear. Ironically, Janie’s marriage to Jody was the very embodiment of Nanny’s dreams for her. Unlike Logan, he did not make her a pack mule. He gave her financial security and respectability. However, the marriage was largely an unhappy union.

Janie could not be herself around Jody. Moreover, Jody still used Janie as a garbage even though he gave her wealth and respectability. So it seems that Nanny’s worst fears and her highest hopes were realized in Janie’s second marriage. It was until one afternoon in the store that she met a lofty yet handsome young man who went, strangely enough, by the name of Tea Cake. Tea Cake’s courtship was different from that of Logan and Jody. Janie’s first marriage was more of a contract of sale between Nanny and Logan than anything else.

Janie’s second marriage was an escape from the first one. Moreover, it was based on disappointed dreams. Jody courted her by talking about himself and his dreams. Tea Cake, on the other hand, pursued Janie with a more romantic flair. Also, he allowed her equal footing in negotiating the terms of their relationship. Gaining personal freedom was a two-fold process. First, she had to be free in her private life, but she also had to free herself from restricting social attitudes. Only then could she begin to heal the rift between her outside self and her inside self.

She feels that what she has learned from her relationship with Tea Cake cannot be conveyed through words. Self-realization is a personal journey that can only be made through gaining life experience. Therefore, Janie acknowledges the flaws inherent in retelling her life, but she does not necessarily undercut the importance of having found her voice. Neither does she undercut the benefit of sharing her story with others. She doesn’t believe that her story should be the single, authoritative guidebook to self-realization. It can, however, inspire others to re-examine their lives.

If today, when the history of Christianity is already two thousand years old, we ask ourselves the question, what is its main contribution to human culture, then, almost without thinking, we can answer: the ideal of all-embracing love as the basis of human existence. Christianity immediately recognized itself as the carrier of a fundamentally new, not previously ethical, new understanding of a person, his place in the world, new laws of human existence. The Sermon on the Mount is based on the principles of the removal of ancient morality by the morality of the new, based on the principles of love. New commandments are given most often not as a development of old ones, but as their denial, removal. “You heard what was said: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, Do not resist evil. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him; and whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt from you, give him your outer clothing … ”(Matthew 5, 38-40).

The ideal of a comprehensive, all-pervasive and forgiving love arose and was formed in the Late Antique world, in the most holistic and complete form in the sphere of religious consciousness, because without sanctification with divine authority he could hardly become the property of the public consciousness of the ancient world and it appeared as a negation of the opposite ideal. If in the Old Testament fear was the main principle of the interaction between God and man, then in the New Testament love became love, which did not completely abolish “the fear of God” but subordinate it to itself.

The very incarnation (incarnation) of the Son of God, all of his activities on earth, the suffering and the shameful death on the cross to atone for the sins of men were understood by evangelists, then patristics, as an action of God’s deepest love for people. “For God so loved the world,” writes John the Evangelist, “that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him ”(Jn 3, 16-17).

Comparing this amazing act of God’s love for people with the level of their consciousness, the Apostle Paul notes that a person will hardly give his life for another, unless someone decides to sacrifice for his benefactor. And “God proves His love for us by the fact that Christ died for us when we were still sinners” (Rom 5, 8), and with this saved us for eternal life. From that great and mysterious time, “the love of God was poured out into our hearts by the Holy Ghost, given unto us” (Rom 5, 5), and “the love of Christ embraces us” (2 Cor 5, 14). It is so great and strong that it surpasses all understanding (Eph 3, 19), because it pours out not only into the external world, but also acts within the Divine itself – it binds the Father and the Son.

“As the Father loved me, and I loved you,” Jesus calls out to people, “abide in my love” (Jn 15, 9). God himself set the example of infinite and saving love for people, and the New Testament, and after it Christian thinkers throughout the history of Christianity, have tirelessly urged fellow believers to imitate divine love. “So, imitate God, as children of the beloved, and live in love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself for us as an offering and sacrifice to God, a pleasant aroma” (Ephesians 5: 1-2).

All three synoptic Gospels transmit (although somewhat in different forms) an episode with the temptation of Jesus by the scribe, who asked him about the greatest commandment of the law and heard in response; “…“ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind ”: This is the first and greatest commandment; the second is similar to her: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The law and the prophets are based on these commandments (Mt 22, 37-40).

Jesus actually literally repeated the commandments of the Pentateuch of Moses. However, there they are listed among many other manuals and “statutes” and are in different books. Jesus puts them in first place as principal and unites them. The concept of the “neighbor”, referred to in the Old Testament only to the “sons of Israel”, it extends to all mankind, summing up in response to the scribe of the Samaritan despised by the Jews (see: Lk 10, 30—37).

In this case, Jesus does not cancel the commandments of the law, but, on the contrary, strengthens them, brings to the fore and focuses on the second (in his calculation) commandments; love of neighbor. The main, ultimate, ideal in the New Testament is also the commandment of the love of God. All its authors remember it, for love is from God. He brought it to people, loved them, and longed for reciprocal feelings. However, it is impossible without the implementation of the second commandment, without love of neighbor.

“He who says,“ I love God, ”and hates his brother, is a liar; for he who does not love his brother, whom he sees, how can he love God, whom he does not see? ”(1 John 4, 20). Love for the neighbor, that is, for each person, in the New Testament is a necessary condition for the love of God, the main step on the way to him, and therefore it is almost in the center of attention of all New Testament authors. The Apostle Paul ardently convinces the Romans; “… he who loves another, has fulfilled the law,” for all the commandments of Christ “consist in this word; “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to one’s neighbor; so love is the fulfillment of the law ”(Rom 13: 8-10).

Through sermons and personal examples, the Gospel Jesus throughout his whole life on earth passionately inculcated the idea and sense of love towards his neighbor into human hearts. And at the last farewell conversation with the disciples (“the secret evening”), he gives them a new, higher commandment of love, calling to make it the basis of human relationships after his departure. Emphasizing its significance, Jesus repeats it three times during the course of the conversation. “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another; as I have loved you, may you love one another ”(Jn 13, 34); “This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you” (John 15, 12); “I command you this, that you love one another” (Jn 15:17).

Now he calls the disciples, and through them each person, to love each other not only with ordinary human love (“as himself”), but also higher — divine, which Jesus (as well as God himself, for: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me ”—In 14, 10) He loved people. Driven by this love, he betrayed himself to a shameful death in order to save his beloved. This love is almost beyond human ability, yet Jesus believes in man and calls him to all-conquering sacrificial love. “There is no more that love, as if one lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15, 13).

The power of this love saves the beloved for eternal life, only it lifts a man out of his slave state, elevates him to the high position of a friend worthy of the friendship and love of God himself. If the Old Testament considered people only slaves of God, then the “Gospel of John” elevates them to the level of his friends. “You are my friends,” says Jesus to the people, “if you do what I command you.” And he commands, first of all, the love of each other. “I no longer call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his lord does; but I called you friends, because I told you everything that I heard from My Father ”(Jn 15, 14-15).

So, the love of people for each other can bring them out of the slave, humiliated state, into which their hatred and enmity have plunged, and make friends not only among themselves, but also God himself. Such a high human thought has never put a man or his, perhaps, the most difficult and controversial feeling – love. Ancient philosophy knew two types of love – sensual love (Aphrodite on earth) and divine eros (Aphrodite of heaven), as a cosmic force, but practically did not know forgiving love of neighbor, which, according to Christian notions, only makes man equal to God.

Love in the New Testament is understood very broadly, and almost all of its aspects are sanctified by divine authority. It is understood as a generally virtuous life, as the fulfillment of all moral and ethical norms that have been developed for centuries in the ancient world and enshrined in Holy Scripture as divine commandments. “Love is that we walk according to His commandments,” says the apostle John (2 John 1, 6).

These commandments, in addition to the main ones – love for God and neighbor, include elementary moral requirements: honor your father and mother, do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not slander your friend, do not wish your neighbor’s property. He who obeys these commandments is a man who lives in love. He is rewarded with the reciprocal feeling of God himself, and this is the pledge of eternal life and endless bliss. “If you keep my commandments,” Jesus promises, “you will abide in my love, just as I have kept the commandments of my Father and abide in His love. These things I have told you, may my joy remain in you, and your joy will be perfect ”(Jn 15: 10-11).

True love is accompanied by joy, spiritual pleasure from complete unity with the beloved, complete merging with him in the act of love, deep knowledge of him, carried out not at a rational level, but at some other, higher spiritual levels. This knowledge is no longer actually human, but divine, for “whoever loves God, knowledge of Him is given to him” (1 Cor. 8, 3).

God is love – in this brief formula, the deep universal human meaning of Christianity, which, alas, still remains a whole misunderstood humanity, and some of its representatives who have comprehended this may be the greatest, ideal of human existence, are revered in our society by crazy, sick, at best, cranks. A vivid example in the national culture is still not canceled the public sentence of the late Gogol, who tried to remind mankind and realize the ideal of Christian love in his work.

Mutual and all-embracing love was erected in the New Testament to the highest level of perfection accessible to humanity of that time — it is identified with God, sanctified by its authority. God, according to the New Testament, loves people so much that he sends his Son to the slaughter for their salvation. And the New Testament authors urge people to love each other so selflessly. For this is promised the highest reward – the possession of God himself. “… If we love each other, then God abides in us, and His love is perfect in us” (1 John 4, 12). “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (1 Jn 4, 16).

Possession of God, that is, complete “knowledge” of him, equates man to God, makes him free and independent, deprives of all fear – not only before the forces of this world, but also before God himself. Love, as the highest state of human existence, removes the “fear of God” prescribed to a person in his everyday life, even the fear of the Day of Judgment. “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear is torment; He who fears is not perfect in love ”(1 John 4, 18).

The first defenders and propagandists of Christianity, who taught during the times of persecution of him by the Roman authorities, interpreted the New Testament doctrine of love, primarily as a command of humane relations between people, of humanity as the main principle of social existence.

Relying on the preconditions that emerged in Stoic philosophy, early patristicism attempted to develop and introduce into late-antique society a complex of such relations within a society that would protect the freedom and dignity of the human personality in all its individual identity, in its original self. In place of the philosophical spiritual eros of antiquity, Christianity brought intimate, deeply human, compassionate love for one’s neighbor, sanctifying it with divine authority, divine commandment and producing it from divine love.

Comprehensive, all-pervading love for people becomes the main weapon in the hands of early Christians against all evil and violence, and all early Christian culture strives to embody the ideals of Christian humanism in life. God gave man wisdom and humanity, therefore for Christians religion is in the first place – “knowledge and reverence for the true God”, but right behind it and in close connection with it follows humanity – “mercy or humanity”. Humanity, mercy, compassion, love for people – this is an area of ​​feelings and moral principles, opened by Christianity and put them in the basis of building a new culture.

Following the early Christian thinkers, the Byzantine church fathers paid much attention to the problem of love. The ideas of humanity, humane attitude to each specific person and for them retain their high importance, but here they practically do not add anything new to the ideas of apologists. The finds of the Byzantines lie more in the realm of purely spiritual experience, which, in their deep conviction, based on the New Testament, is impossible without love. “Cognition is carried out by love”, – the greatest thinker of the 4th century AD said aphoristically. Gregory of Nyssa, and the idea of ​​many Byzantine theologians and practitioners of “spiritual work” actively worked in this direction.

The doctrine of divine eros constituted the deepest foundations of all Christian-Byzantine spirituality. Christianity as a worldview and religion, addressed to the widest masses of the population, avoided the abstract complicated forms of expression of their teachings. It sought to express the most complex spiritual truths in forms accessible to the understanding of each believer. Realizing eros, love as the main creative driving force of the universe, Byzantine thinkers sought to convey this idea to all members of the Church, introducing into their consciousness not its cosmic significance, but primarily the social and personal meaning. After all, the Christian God, though we comprehend, but, above all, is a person, and divine eros is manifested for man in the forms of interpersonal, individual and very intimate love. Knowing God, merging with him is, ultimately, a very personal, very intimate, secret act, although it is possible and necessary to prepare for it in a conciliar manner.

The late patristic tradition ascribes to one of the greatest Byzantine theologians, the Areopagitic commentator Maximus the Confessor (VII century), the publication of a collection of statements about love that best express patriotic ideas. The four “sotnitsy” aphoristic judgments, addressed primarily to the beloved of Christ himself, the monks, presented many aspects of the Christian (and broader – medieval in general) understanding of love. Love appears in this collection, primarily as an important epistemological factor, that is, cognitive power. Higher knowledge is acquired by man only on the paths and in the act of immeasurable love for the Absolute.

The knowledge of divine things is possible only in the state of the “blissful passion of holy love” for them, “connecting the mind with spiritual contemplation” and detaching it completely from the material world. “The passion of love sticks” a person to God, his spirit soars to God “on the wings of love” and contemplates his properties, as far as the human mind can. “When, in the attraction of love, the mind ascends to God, then he feels neither himself nor anything of existence. Illuminated by the divine, immeasurable light, he feels nothing of the created, just as the physical eye does not see the stars in the shining sun. ” In a state of infinite and all-consuming love, the mind “moves forward to research about God and receives clear and clear information about him.”

Even faith, which in Christianity as a teaching, first of all religious, occupies the main place, cannot do without love. Only love ignites the “light of reference” in the soul, and, moreover, it is infinite. “Faith and hope,” says Maxim, “have a limit; love, uniting with the infinite and ever increasing, abides forever. And because love is above everything. ” Love purifies the spirit of man from false and base attachments and opens spiritual treasures in himself, in the depths of his “heart”, under which Christianity, as already indicated, means not the physical heart, but a certain spiritual and spiritual center of man.

It is in it that a person who is seized with divine love, “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” finds. In the act of this love, our mind is transformed, becoming like the divine Mind. He becomes wise, kind, human-loving, gracious, long-suffering – “in a word, almost all divine attributes accept him. And the mind that becomes detached from God becomes either bestial, wallowing in voluptuousness, or brutal, inducing to attack people for bestial pleasures. ”

Mergence with God (equal to possessing him, mystical knowledge of him) in the act of divine love is the goal of the life of a Christian; it promises him salvation and endless bliss. “Do not be quick to reject spiritual love, for there is no other way for salvation left for people,” asserts Maxim. And this way goes through the moral and ethical sphere – the correct Christian way of life, that is, through the fulfillment of divine commandments, and, above all, the commandments of love for one’s neighbor. Therefore, Byzantine thinkers paid close attention to it.

Developing New Testament ideas, Maxim calls upon his readers to love all people equally: virtuous “by nature and for good will”, and vicious ones – “by nature” (that is, as brothers) and out of compassion, as senseless and lost in darkness . But the highest kind of love on a social level is love for enemies. “Voluntarily doing good to those who hate is characteristic only of perfect spiritual love.” A man who loves reproaching him and doing good to him, follows the “path of Christian philosophy,” laid by Christ himself, that is, the path of truth.

Carefully studying the relationships of people to each other, Maxim distinguishes five types of love:

1) “for God’s sake” – so virtuous loves all people;

2) “by nature” – love between children and parents;

3) “out of vanity” – the glorified loves the glorifying;

4) “out of greed” – they love the rich so much for the gifts he gives them;

5) “out of voluptuousness” – carnal love, not having the goal of having children.

Only the first kind of love, in the eyes of Christians, is worthy of praise; the second is natural and neutral, and the other three are “passionate” and are criticized by Christian theorists.

Love for people, for each specific person as disinterested service, as constant care for the disadvantaged and helping them, as a constant prayer for all before God, Byzantine fathers were sharply distinguished from fame, wealth, luxury, carnal pleasures). If love of neighbor is the path to unity with God, then “love of the world” turns man away from divine love, because, as Palamas wrote, they are opposite to each other. “The love of God is the root and beginning of all virtues, and the love of the world is the cause of all evil.”

Each of these types of love destroys the other, and their beginnings are enclosed in the dual nature of man. His soul desires spiritual love and spiritual pleasures, and the body strives for momentary carnal pleasures. Therefore, the soul is overwhelmed with love for God, and the body towards the world, and the struggle between these types of love occurs in almost every person.

The successor of Palamas in the episcopal department in Thessaloniki, Nikolay Kavasila, to some extent, summed up the centuries-old patristic tradition of understanding love in the Byzantine-Orthodox region. God is love, and divine eros inexhaustible exudes into the world and impregnates it. God has a special love for his main creation, man, so that “the ineffable love of God and God’s love for our kind exceeds the human mind” and the mysterious “His union with the beloved is beyond any kind of unity, so no one can understand or depict way, ”writes Kavasila.

God initially invested in the souls of people a reciprocal love of self, but because of the free will granted to them, this love was drowned out in them, not without the help of satanic forces, with a vicious love for the world, nevertheless, there is always an “amazing predisposition” to high love in human souls.

Having accepted human flesh, endured suffering and death itself for the sake of people, God vividly reminded them of his love for them, set an example of disinterested love and encouraged them to follow this example in their daily lives. At the same time, Kawasila stresses, God honored his high love not only for human nature, but for each person individually, opening to him an individual path to God.

In people of spiritual love, which ultimately leads to the cognition of the First Cause in the act of mystical merging with it, excitement is carried out in Christianity by including them in the system, the main points of which are determined by interrelated concepts: Benefit – Beauty – Love – Knowledge – Enjoyment.

Already in the very mystery of baptism, Kawasila believes, Christ is receiving his beauty, which arouses such love for him in the hearts, which draws a person far from earthly limits. Appearing persecutors of Christians, she turned them into zealous followers of Christ and martyrs for their faith.

So, the Byzantine culture, continuing and developing many ancient traditions of understanding love, made a new and significant step towards the study of this complex phenomenon of human existence. Early Christian and then Byzantine thinkers and writers saw in love the most important and universal creative principle of the universe, on which its spiritual and vital existence is based. The Byzantines felt well the ambivalent (negative and positive) meaning of sensual love and unconditionally highlighted spiritual love in all its aspects. They paid special attention to the socio-moral understanding of love as the main principle of social relations. All this advances the Christian-Byzantine theory of love to one of the prominent places in the history of culture.

Only in love and through love does a man become a man. Without love, he is an inferior being, devoid of real life and depth and unable to either act effectively or adequately understand others and himself. And if a person is a central object of philosophy, then the theme of human love, taken in all its breadth, should be one of the leading in philosophical reflections.

Philosophical analysis of love unfolds in two main directions: a description of specific diverse types of love (from the most distinct of its species to species that are on the verge of attraction and partiality) and the study of those common features that are inherent in each of the types of love. The main attention is paid to sexual (erotic) love, which is the paradigm of all love. Love is interpreted as inclination, impulse, inspiration, as the will to power and at the same time striving for loyalty, as a special sphere of creativity and at the same time stimulating creativity in other areas, as an objective expression of the depths of the personality and its freedom, while freedom willing to voluntarily bring themselves into slavery, as a complex, multi-plane enumeration of the biological and social, personal and socially significant, intimate, secret and at the same time open, seeking, pretending.

Childhood of human love

For a long time, people asked themselves when love arose — whether a man took it from the animal kingdom, or did it appear later. Many believe that love was born later than their fellows – hate, envy, friendliness, maternal feelings. Cavemen who lived in a horde, group marriage, probably did not know any love. Ancient scholars say that it was not even when monogamy began to arise. Proceeding from the works of such researchers, Morgan and Bachofen, Engels wrote: “Until the Middle Ages, there could be no question of individual sexual love. It goes without saying that physical beauty, friendships, the same inclinations, etc., awakened in people of different sexes the desire for sexual intercourse, which for both men and women was not completely indifferent to whom they had entered into these intimate relations . But from this to modern sexual love is still infinitely far. ”

Many philosophers, psychologists, scientists believe that during antiquity there was no love, but there was only bodily eros, simple sexual desire. Eros of antiquity – this is what they call the love of that time, and this is a walking look, which many consider to be an axiom. It is unlikely, of course, true that in ancient times there was no true love. About love is now and again stated in the most ancient myths of Greece, and in the classical era, almost twenty-five centuries ago, even theories of spiritual love appeared – Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. And the Greek gods of love? In the retinue of the goddess of love, Aphrodite, there were many gods – patrons of love. One of them personified the beginning and end of love (Eroth had an arrow giving birth to love and an arrow that quenched it), the other – carnal desires (Gimeroth), the third – reciprocal love (Anterot), the fourth – passionate desire (Pof), the fifth – love persuasion (goddess Peyto), the sixth – marriage (Hymen), the seventh – childbirth (Eilithia). And since there were gods of love and even theories of love, where did they come from, if not out of love?

When the ancient temples lived then priestess of love, they were revered, and love was deified as a mysterious force. Of course, this is still a simple eros, bodily, devoid of spirituality. But even in those times it was clear to people that this eros is not just an animal feeling, it humanizes man. With the passage of time, people changed, others were made their way of life, their psychology. And probably, it is impossible to deduce the rules common to all epochs of antiquity, to think that love was the same in them, equal to itself.

The love of early antiquity may well be called ancient eros. It is a kind of pre-love, there is still a lot in common with the natural, the same for humans and other living beings. The corporeal (although already spiritualized) aggression, desires of the flesh — such was, apparently, the early eros of antiquity. It is often said in myths that the gods took on the appearance of other people in order to appear to their beloved under their guise.

It is interesting that love appears at a time when a woman falls under the domination of a man. One would have thought that love arose in history as a psychological compensation for female slavery: having subjugated a woman, the man himself was taken prisoner by her. But this is an external approach – and very single-line. It can be assumed that similar morals reigned in the early times of the barbaric patriarchy. Love could not stand this psychological ice age and perished. And only after many millennia, when the relationship between a man and a woman began to soften, love began to be born again. The personality begins to separate itself from society, it becomes more and more aware of its separate, private interests, more and more bring them to the fore. And along with this isolation, love is also deepening dramatically, it seems to be pushed forward, falls under a magnifying glass, and the comprehension of its values ​​is made much more profound and branched.

It is then that a feeling of exclusiveness of love, of its incompatibility with other feelings, appears. Every now and then the poets say that love is the center of life, the most important thing in it, that it is stronger than anything in the world – stronger than the bonds of blood, stronger than even the instinct of life. Therefore, in ancient poetry begins to sound a note of the endlessness of love feeling

With the course of civilization, the ancient syncretism is increasingly disintegrating, and the times when spirituality has not yet left the lap of physicality are farther and farther away. Now it is often self-sufficient, independent, already exists by itself. Love is pervaded more and more by spiritual burdens, and this can be seen not only in the lyrics, but also in the late antique novel. For the ancients, love is a mixture of honey and poison, and it was not for nothing that their tragedy wrote about it with such fear. Together with the advent of love, not only the joys of life, but, perhaps even more, its sorrows, its pain, anxiety, sharply increased. Love is a huge psychological enhancer of perception, and it increases in the eyes of people both happiness and unhappiness, and perhaps unhappiness even more than happiness. And so there is so much grief and pain in the ancient drama, in the ancient lyrics, and indeed in poets of all other eras – from Petrarch to Blok and Mayakovsky.

Entering into the life of humanity, love changes the whole structure of its value.

Love in ancient Greece

The ancient Greeks distinguished several types of love.

This, above all, of course, is Eros, deified eros. Eros, or Eros, is love-passion, love, borderline with madness, mad love. The ancient Greeks said this: “erotomania” – “crazy (reckless) love”. There was a verb “ereomaneo” – “to be mad with love”.

Eros is mainly sexual love. Hence, “erotica” is the art of love. Hence the name of the work of the Roman poet Levi “Erotopaynion” – “Love fun”, similar to Ovid’s Latin-language poem – “The Art of Love”. True, love-passion can be directed to another. Herodot wrote about the Spartan king Pausanius (this is not the one in “Peer”), that he “had a passion” (“erota schon”) to become a tyrant of the whole of Hellas … However, love passion, like any passion, is rare and short. Like everything immeasurable (the ancient Greeks understood the irrational, insane as immeasurable), passion, devouring its carrier, devours itself.

More calm “filia”. The noun “filia” has its verb – “phileo” – “I love” (“phileo sous” – “I love you”). This love has a wider range of meanings than Eros. Such love is difficult to love many-sided. It is, moreover, not only love, but also friendship. Therefore, erotic love is only one type of filia.

Love as the highest degree of a good emotional attitude of “I” to “not-I” oscillates between self-love, where “not-I” is “I”, and “friendliness”, love for “not-I”, for which mediated self-love may be concealed when the object of love (“philton”) is reduced only to the object and to the means of satisfying self-love, and is not considered as something valuable, as something even more valuable than “me”. Love in the first sense is consumer love. This is not true love. Only the second, selfless, true love. It was not for nothing that Hegel said that true love is finding oneself in giving up oneself and disappearing oneself in another. True love is selfless. It includes the element of pity and compassion for the object of love.

In addition to “Eros” and “Filya”, the Greeks had other terms for love. These terms are derived from “filia”: “phylostorgia” – “tender love, ardent affection”, “filotec” – “friendship, affection, love”. Even softer than “filia” love is, perhaps, “agapecis” – love-attraction. At the time of the evening dawn of pagan culture and the morning dawn of Christianity, this love took the form of “agape” – New Testament love (agaps are fraternal meals from early Christians).

Among the kinds of “filia” was the love of myths (“phylomuthos” – “loving tales, myths”). Ancient Greek mythology, as it is known, is rich in images, plots, legends, many ancient Greek tragedians, poets, prose writers, artists, sculptors drew their themes from it …

Mythology is anthropomorphic. In mythology, people, not knowing the laws of nature, genuine cause-and-effect relationships in the world, explained the phenomena superficially, associating them associatively, by analogy with their relationships and properties. There was a great metaphor – the transfer to nature of human properties and relationships, which is why, since human nature is alien to nature, human things transferred to nature accumulated above nature, forming a supernatural, supernatural world personifying certain natural, as well as some social phenomena of supernatural beings, gods, demons, etc. And even if these creatures are outwardly not like people, zoomorphic or monstrous, they still think, speak and act like people, guided by human motives. This is an implicit anthropomorphism.

Love was mythologized and deified. In ancient Greece, it was mythologically represented in the images of several mythological creatures. This is primarily Aphrodite and Eros (in Rome, respectively, Venus and Cupid).

Aphrodite – the goddess of love and beauty. She was attributed a large role. She submits almost all living things. Aphrodite even reduces the gods with women, and goddesses with men.

He had his own mythological image and eros. This is Eros – the son of Aphrodite (according to some versions, Artemis, who changed her virginity). That cute, playful and ruthless boy with wings, with a bow and arrows of love, which, according to his whim, he lets out into gods, then into people, is the fruit of Hellenistic art, and in the beginning Eroth was depicted as an untreated stone boulder.

Homer does not mention Eros in the number of gods. This is an impersonal force, attracting gods and people of the opposite sex to each other.

And here we find the transition to philosophy.

Among the kinds of “filia” was the love of knowledge. These are “filomateia” – “love of knowledge, curiosity” (“matema” – “knowledge, teaching, science”, hence mathematics), “philology” – “love of scholarly conversations, studies”, hence philology (however, “logos” meant not every word, but only a scientific, rational one, hence the different meaning of the term “philology”, which is now accepted), “philopeustia” – “curiosity, curiosity”, finally, “philosophy” – “love of knowledge, curiosity; research, teaching, science; love of wisdom, philosophy; philosophical doctrine. The verb “philosopheo” meant “to love knowledge, to be inquisitive, to think wisely …”, and the noun “philosopher” is “an educated, enlightened person, scientist, lover of wisdom …”.

Philosophy, having arisen from the mythological worldview under the influence of the special knowledge of the intellect, logos, which had gotten strong in life itself, as well as in the spheres of special knowledge of the intellect, logos (logos cannot be identified with philosophy, logos – thanks to which philosophy exists), still managed to get rid of anthropomorphism. They are like philosophers “plugging holes” in their philosophical systems. For this, the remaining, in essence, mythological images of love were used, first of all of Aphrodite, Eros, Filiya. The ancient Greek pre-philosopher Hesiod, unable to explain the driving force of the cosmogonic process, the process of origin and development of the cosmos (and who can explain it?), Finds this force in the cosmic, universal eros.

The image of Eroth was philosophically comprehended by Plato in The Feast. Participating in this conversation, Socrates (through whose mouth Plato speaks, who avoided speaking out on his own behalf in his writings) essentially accepts Pausanias’ thought about two Eros: vulgar, earthly and sublime, heavenly (although he does not use this terminology), filling it with idealistic content in the spirit of the teachings of Plato on the two worlds, the earthly, physical, sensual and heavenly, ideal, imaginable. In Platon’s “Feast” dialogue, Socrates in his own way develops the image of Eros, saying that it’s true that he heard all this from a certain wise woman, Diotima, who enlightened him in terms of love. Eros is not beautiful and not good in itself, but neither is it ugly and mean, it is not wise and ignorant in itself. Eros lies midway between these extremes. He is like a unity of opposites. Such, in our language, is the dialectical nature of Eros.

Eros is the son of the god of wealth Poros and the goddess of poverty (there was such a goddess!) Singing (hence the “penalty”). Being the son of such dissimilar parents, Eros is controversial. Eros is not just a kind of “golden mean” between the beautiful and the ugly, between wisdom and ignorance. Eros – the pursuit of a worse state for the better. “Eros is the love of beauty”, and wisdom is one of the most beautiful goods in the world, therefore Eros in the image of Socrates – Plato is a lover of wisdom, a philosopher. So Plato explains the higher meaning of the term “philosophy”, introduced into circulation by Pythagoras (6th century BC), who proceeded from the fact that only the desire for wisdom is available to people, but not wisdom itself. In Socrates – Plato, Eros is a supernatural being, a demon is a mediator between gods and humans.

Further, Socrates proves that the love of beauty is the love of his own good, the love of the eternal possession of this good, the love of immortality. But people are mortal. The proportion of immortality that immortal gods have given people is the ability to be creative (and this is “everything that causes the transition from non-existence to being”), to birth (“birth is that fraction of immortality and eternity that is released to a mortal being”). However, the pursuit of beauty has a higher meaning. This is the pursuit of an ideal, heavenly, or more precisely, non-heavenly world. Here, Eros is no longer just a mediator between people and gods (this is still the mythological aspect of Eros at Socrates – Plato), but an intermediary between the physical and ideal worlds, the very desire for beauty as such, for the idea of ​​beauty. Everyman loves beautiful things, beautiful bodies. But the philosopher loves beauty in itself. It is pure, transparent, unalloyed, not burdened with human flesh, colors, and every mortal gaze, it is divine and uniform. Having seen such a beautiful thing once, a person can no longer live the same miserable life. Such a person no longer gives birth to the ghosts of virtue, but the very virtue, not the ghosts of truth, but the truth itself … So, Socrates says, the wise Diotima told me, “and I believe her. And, believing her, I try to assure others that in the pursuit of human nature for such an inheritance she will hardly find a better helper than Eros. Therefore, I affirm that everyone must honor Eros … ”

Such is the image of Eros in the philosophical system of the idealist Plato. Behind all kinds of love: for parents, for children, for a woman, for a man, for a fatherland, for work, for poetic and legal creativity, etc., etc., should be supreme love – love for the world of eternal and unchanging ideas to the highest world of goodness as such, beauty as such, truth as such.