Understanding the Philosophies of Love [Article]

The nature of love is a complex and confusion principle, one that has led philosophers to consider love with great thought and thus should be considered one of the true mysteries of life itself. It is a philosophical matter that transcends a number of disciplines including that of epistemology, metaphysics, religion, human nature, politics and ethics but still the matter is often argued amongst philosophers. Love, and the nature of, often draws upon central theories of philosophy and is often compared with the philosophies of sex and gender. The philosophy of love itself has the task of present appropriate issues in a cogent manner, considering the relevant theories of human nature, desire and ethics. The matter at hand, however, remains questionable; does love have a nature?

Those that propose that love is conceptually irrational, in the meaning that it cannot be described in rational or meaningful propositions often present a metaphysical and epistemological argument which would insinuate that love is the ejection of emotions which defy rational examination. Some critics also imply the principle of language such as Papuan, which does not admit the concept of love and thus negates the possibility of philosophical examination. In English, however, the word love is broadly defined and hence imprecise, which leads to problems of definition and meaning, resolved to some extent in the reference to the Greek Terms, Eros, philia and agape.

Implying that love has a nature in itself, it should be considered that, even in Greek times, few philosophers could fixate themselves upon a definition of the term love. Plato, in his writings, defines Eros as a common desire that seeks transcendental beauty whilst is also referred to as constituting a passionate, intense desire for something, commonly defined as a sexual desire which leads to the modern notion of erotic. Aristotle, however, implied the notion that love entails a fondness and appreciation of the other, incorporating not only loyalties to friendship, but to family and one's political community, job, or discipline, commonly known as philia. To further confuse the matter amongst Greek philosophers, a final meaning was implied in the reference to the paternal love of God for man and for man for God, known in the Greek language as agape.

Accepting that love has a nature, despite the confusion between philosophers, it should be, to some extent, describable within the concepts of language. Love, to some, may be knowable and comprehensible to others, as understood in phrases such as I am in love with you' or I love you', but it still remains a mysterious concept in itself. It still remains clouded in confusion, deriving from Greek language itself to that of English language but few can define love with such a simple basis. In definition, love is not a nature that is describable except in basic language but the true meaning, both of the emotion and the nature, must be further considered to understand such concepts, including that of romantic love and the ethics of such love.

In a final consideration, the definition of love itself is confused as the ethical aspects are included. The subject raises questions as to whether it is ethically acceptable to love an object, or to love oneself or whether love, in principle, should be considered a duty. Love, to some, can be considered as an instantiation of social dominance in which the structure of language and etiquette of love is designed to empower men and disempower women. If the language and notions of love were discarded from social dominance, women too would be empowered and thus it further confuses the nature; should love be considered dominant to a single group?