Are Eros and Agape fundamentally different kinds of love? Throughout the history of Christianity, theologians have struggled with the relation between these two forms of love. This relation has been interpreted very differently with regard to questions such as: Is there a conceptual primacy of one over the other or should they be regarded as equally standing next to each other? How is the prevalence of the two forces to be balanced? And most importantly – given the indisputable differences between the two, how can they be mediated in the encounter between the Divine and the human?
On one side of the extreme, a fundamental separation between them is postulated, with Agape attributed to God only and Eros relegated to the human sphere. Such a separation was popularized by the Swedish theologian Anders Nygren. He strongly rejects the Neo-Platonic influence on Christianity which puts at its centre the human striving towards the Divine through Eros in hopes of designing a purified, superior Christian doctrine.
Texts by Richard of St. Victor and Catherine of Siena who stand within the Neoplatonic and Mystic traditions of Christianity argue that it is the balanced incorporation of the idea of Eros (as opposed to its full rejection) which enables an understanding of a reciprocal loving relationship by making room for human activity in building it. This understanding is shown to be reasonable within the context of modern theology by laying the foundations for a conceptual re-interpretation of the doctrine of creation and incarnation which enables a fundamental realignment of the relation between Eros and Agape.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Part I: Nygren’s Mutilation of Christian Love
Part II: Eros and Agape in Classical Texts
a. Richard of St. Victor
b. Catherine of Siena
c. Discussion: Eros and Agape in Richard and Catharine compared
Part III: Eros and Agape in Modern Theology
Conclusion
Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the fundamental relationship between Eros and Agape within Christian theology, challenging the widely held view—popularized by Anders Nygren—that these two forms of love are essentially distinct and mutually exclusive. By analyzing classical theological perspectives and modern interpretations of creation and incarnation, the work argues that Eros and Agape should be understood as complementary aspects of a singular, reciprocal loving relationship between the Divine and the human.
- Critique of Anders Nygren's dichotomy between Eros and Agape.
- Analysis of Richard of St. Victor’s contemplative journey and the role of desire.
- Examination of Catherine of Siena’s inclusive view of Divine Eros.
- Integration of modern theological doctrines of creation and incarnation.
- Reconceptualization of human cooperation in the process of divine reconciliation.
Excerpt from the Book
Part I: Nygren’s Mutilation of Christian Love
The arguably most popular treatise on the opposing nature of Eros and Agape was put forward by Nygren. He is, however, criticised for his reading of Plato as a strawman and a biased interpretation of Scripture. Central aspects of his differentiation include:
Eros arises out of need and want.
Eros can only be self-love, for man loves God on the basis of the conviction that He satisfies his needs. Thus, the aim of Eros is to gain possession of an object which he regards as valuable and feels he needs since God is the highest good and loving him promises ultimate happiness.
Eros is egocentric and acquisitive.
Eros can never be a self-renunciating form as Agape for when man loves a fellow human being with Eros, the latter is not regarded as a neighbour, but as a worldly being participating in the Idea of the Beautiful and which can therefore be used as means of ascent to it.
Eros is man’s way to God while Agape is God’s way to man, exclusively.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter introduces the core problem of the relationship between Eros and Agape and outlines the essay's intent to challenge the rigid separation established by Anders Nygren.
Part I: Nygren’s Mutilation of Christian Love: An analysis of Nygren’s theological framework, focusing on his rejection of Eros as inherently selfish and his assertion that Agape is the sole form of legitimate Christian love.
Part II: Eros and Agape in Classical Texts: This section investigates historical perspectives, contrasting Richard of St. Victor’s linear progression of love with Catherine of Siena’s more inclusive theology of Divine Eros.
Part III: Eros and Agape in Modern Theology: Explores how contemporary theology, through the doctrines of creation and incarnation, reconciles Eros and Agape as essential, complementary components of divine-human participation.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the arguments presented throughout the essay, reaffirming that the integration of Eros allows for a more active and cooperative human role in the divine project of reconciliation.
Keywords
Eros, Agape, Anders Nygren, Richard of St. Victor, Catherine of Siena, Divine Love, Creation, Incarnation, Christian Theology, Neoplatonism, Self-renunciation, Cooperation, Reconciliation, Human Freedom, Union.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper explores the theological relationship between Eros (often characterized as desire-based love) and Agape (often characterized as self-giving, selfless love) within the history of Christianity.
What is the central argument regarding the two types of love?
The author argues that the strict, binary separation between Eros and Agape is flawed and that a more balanced theological understanding views them as complementary forces.
Who is the primary theologian challenged in this work?
The work primarily challenges the Swedish theologian Anders Nygren, who advocated for a fundamental, exclusive divide between the two types of love.
Which historical figures are used to support the author's argument?
The essay draws upon the writings of Richard of St. Victor and Catherine of Siena to demonstrate alternative, more nuanced understandings of love within the mystical tradition.
How does modern theology contribute to the author's thesis?
Modern theology is used to re-interpret the doctrines of creation and incarnation, which provide a foundation for seeing God’s own nature as relational and inherently inclusive of desire.
What is the key conclusion regarding human participation?
The author concludes that by acknowledging the validity of Eros, the human being is empowered to act as an active, cooperative partner in the relationship with the Divine, rather than remaining a passive vessel.
Why does the author critique Richard of St. Victor’s perspective?
While acknowledging the value of Richard’s work, the author notes that he still views Eros as inferior to Agape and insists on a linear, replacement-based progression of love.
How does Catherine of Siena's view differ from Richard's?
Catherine attributes Eros to the Divine nature itself, which closes the gap between human and Divine love and emphasizes union as a shared goal.
- Citation du texte
- Céline Sun (Auteur), 2018, Are Eros and Agape fundamentally different kinds of love?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/448932
