Rediscovering Love: Ancient Greek Wisdom Meets Kierkegaard's Existential Insights
From Eros to Agape: How Classical Distinctions and Kierkegaard's Philosophy Illuminate Modern Romantic Relationships.
In contemporary English, 'love' encompasses many human experiences and emotions. Yet, it remains a term that often feels inadequate in capturing the complexities and nuances of these feelings. I find it helpful to return to the ancient Greeks to understand the complex concept of love better. They distinguished between different kinds of love: eros (romantic love), Philia (friendship), Agape (selfless, unconditional love), and storge (familial love). This more nuanced categorisation provides a better framework for exploring human relationships and emotions. Moreover, it avoids any possible equivocation.
The Greek Words for Love
Eros: This is the passionate, often intense form of love that arouses romantic and physical attraction. It is the love most commonly associated with romantic relationships.
Philia: Often translated as 'friendship,' Philia is the affectionate regard and companionship between friends.
Agape: This form of love is selfless, unconditional, and universal. It is often associated with spiritual or divine love.
Storge: This is the natural affection in families, such as the love between parents and children.
But why does this matter in a modern context? I hear you ask. Enter Søren Kierkegaard, a pioneering philosopher whose thoughts on love are surprisingly relevant today. Kierkegaard challenges us to look beyond fleeting romance (as I am convinced the modern ‘dating culture’ is becoming, perhaps already is?) and consider love an existential commitment. His insights reveal how our romantic relationships can shape our deepest sense of self and purpose. By understanding the ancient Greek distinctions of love, we can better grasp Kierkegaard's transformative ideas and remain conceptually straightforward; with this rough understanding, let us return to a writer who places love centrally in his thoughts: Soren Kierkegaard.
Kierkegaard’s Contribution to Understanding Love
Søren Kierkegaard provides fascinating insights into the nature of love, particularly eros, in the aesthetic sphere of life. His reflections on love transcend romantic infatuation, delving into human relationships' ethical and spiritual dimensions, such as portrayed by the concept of Agape. Kierkegaard's philosophy invites us to examine the nature of our romantic attachments and how these relationships reflect and shape our existential conditions. This exploration is especially crucial in today's dating culture, which seems to be built on prioritising individualistic tendencies and the pursuit of fleeting pleasures over deep, ethical commitments.
Eros and Existential Commitment
The previous paragraph may well have you asking what the hell are these words supposed to mean. “The aesthetic sphere of life”, what is that? So, to understand Kierkegaard's understanding of eros and its existential commitment, we must first explore how Kierkegaard frames human existence and how this framing applies to romantic love. Kierkegaard's philosophy revolves around what he would later call the stages of life’s way: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. His seminal work Either/Or first discusses these stages or spheres.
Nevertheless, each stage represents a different mode of existence, but I think viewing them as different subjective responses to life is better. Yet, I would also contend that these spheres are parasitic on each other, like a three-circled Venn diagram, as opposed to three separate circles, and love, in the broad sense, plays a supportive role alongside Kierkegaard’s celebrated idea of the leap of faith1 in transitioning from one sphere to another. However, what mode of the Grecian concepts mentioned above of love can we narrow in on? I say that it is the basis of Eros that, through our ethical commitments, sets the path to Agape that Kierkegaard has in mind, yet I am only going to focus on the aesthetic Eros of Kierkegaards thought. I mention that previous idea for anyone interested in Kierkegaard. So, let's begin with the aesthetic stage.
The Aesthetic Stage and Eros
In the aesthetic stage, derived from the Greek word Aesthete, which may be translated as ‘to observe’ or ‘to perceive’ rather than someone artistic or overly concerned with their physical appearances, individuals are primarily driven by sensory experiences and personal gratification, which should sound familiar to all you promiscuous hedonists(!) Romantic love in this context is often characterised by infatuation, desire, and the pursuit of pleasure. Moreover, the author of the aesthetic writings in Either/Or, ‘A’, informs us that this stage has levels within it. First is the dreaming stage: a vague craving for something unknown. The craving creates a desire, and due to that desire, we often seek out means to satisfy the craving. From this second stage, we move on to the third, full-blown desire, as epitomised in the character of Don Giovanni (it is worth pausing here and reflecting on this aspect of dreaming, seeking, and desire as I am steamrolling ahead).
The use of Don Giovanni is vital for understanding one aspect of the aesthete-subject (keep reading for the other) because he only exists in music and is the perfect vehicle for ‘living in the moment’. Furthermore, he wants his desires fulfilled now, as he exists now, with little regard for others. In this amoral presentism of Don Giovanni, Kierkegaard prefers to call Don Giovanni a ‘deceiver’ rather than a ‘seducer’. It is his capacity as a deceiver that Don Giovanni cannot reflect whether his love will be requited or not. Without this reflection, there can be no awareness of possibilities. For example, it is possible that person C may not accept my desire as well as likely that they will. Knowing that C may go either way creates the anxiety that their freedom imposes upon me.
Notably, the element of ‘loving’ suggests that our freedom to create ourselves is distorted by trying to define our beloved or ourselves wanting to be defined by them. Thus, we are denying our freedom from a kind of oppression (I refer you to Sartre’s chapter ‘Being-for-the-other’ in Being and Nothingness for elaboration on this conflict-based relationship with others). However, if I lived moment to moment, this reflective element would seem non-existent as I would have no time to think about the possibilities. We all know the saying, “the worst they can say is no”, but this undesired no has the potential to cause great inner turmoil or anxiety (I recommend The Concept of Anxiety). While the notion of possibilities may lead to anxiety through our reflections, this reflection allows us to choose the life we want. For example, we may ask questions similar to the following: Do we live for the object of our desire? Do we live for ourselves and keep others at arm’s length due to the possibility of rejection? When applied more generally, this type of reflection of possibilities may create a single goal we may use as the focal point of our lives. Kierkegaard holds such dedication to a unifying goal as admirable:
So it is with joy and inner vigoration that I contemplate great men who have found that great stone for which they sell everything, even their lives, whether I see them intervening forcefully in life, with firm step, without wavering, going down their chosen paths, or run into them off the beaten track, self-absorbed, working toward their lofty goals (Journals and Notebooks 21).
Love is the key to such a passion; life without love, for Kierkegaard, is like Odysseus without his guiding star—adrift and aimless in an endless sea. A life without passion, life as an embodied mechanised carnal drive devoid of reflected meaning (to exist, for Kierkegaard, is to take up a stance in relation to one’s life; hence, the ‘admirable unifying goal’) transforms the world into a playground where substantial values are absent; therefore, existing as deceivers renders us inhuman (due to having empty and undefined possibilities), existing in the eternal now where Others become mere objects for our disposal or gratification, rather than existing with-others. We, therefore, live in a subjective-mode that is absent from our existence. In other words, without a degree of reflection, we have no becoming, only being, and being without becoming is like a flame without fuel—flickering until it extinguishes into nothingness. And Don Giovanni, as a version of an aesthete-subject, extinguishes into, ultimately, nothing once the music stops.
Nevertheless, Don Giovanni is a deceiver, not a seducer, but what is the difference? The attentive reader will already see that it lies in reflection. Don Giovanni lives moment from moment without reflecting on possibilities - like how online dating now encourages users to stop ‘thoughtlessly swiping on profiles’ and encourage ‘thoughtful swiping’ where users consider the profile more thoughtfully; however, for a fee this mindset can be nullified and ‘thoughtless swiping’ can resume. Moreover, the reputation of ‘hook-up’ culture is, at the bottom, based on Giovanniesque deception - as a dating app creates an immediate, ready-made persona to enter our lives. This ready-made version of people for us to select, analogous to fast food, makes an objectifying disposable world with infinite possibilities, where we refuse to engage the reality of other people as subjective. In such a world, everything is possible, yet nothing happens because there is no commitment to one possibility, which would exclude others. Online dating is about entertaining the potential enjoyment of many lovers without imposing a limit on a particular one. Denying this limitation is a lack of freedom, which, for Kierkegaard, is the ability to act - to become something. We refuse to turn a possibility real by remaining in the playground of possibilities. As the opening of the ecstatic lecture informs us:
If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will regret it; if you marry or you do not marry, you will regret both; whether you marry or you do not marry, you will regret both (Either/Or: 54).
This passage highlights the idea that without commitment, be it to a partner in a relationship or a specific life choice; one remains stuck in a state of potential without actualising any one possibility, leading to an unfulfilled and superficial existence. This suggests itself from the use of "if" and "whether", as reflecting on the inevitability of regret in any significant life choice can emphasise the paralysis of having too many possibilities without committing to any one path. Therefore, life becomes a superficial, mechanized existence without commitment and reflection. Just as Don Giovanni’s. So much for a deceiver, but what is a ‘seducer’ for Kierkegaard?
The difference between a deceiver and a seducer, then, lies in how rather than how many lovers are seduced. Kierkegaard highlighted a strategic seducer in his celebrated ‘seducer’s diary’:
The Aesthetic Lover
Imagine someone who falls passionately in love, revelling in the thrill of a new romance. This person is consumed by excitement and desire, seeking constant stimulation and validation from their beloved. However, when the initial passion fades, they find themselves restless and discontent, often moving from one romantic conquest to another in search of new thrills.
I like to call this chewing gum romance. It starts sweet and full of flavour but quickly loses its taste, becoming dull and unappealing, prompting the search for a fresh piece. For the seducer, the first hurdle is finding someone to seduce. Often, we gravitate to those we become enchanted by, which is surplus to Don Giovanni's requirements. This enchantment is, for lack of a better term, psychosomatic enchantment: physical and intellectual enchantment. For the seducer, personality and attractiveness must go hand in hand; physical attractiveness and no personality would bore the seducer, whereas personality and no physical attractiveness would not be worth their time (Either/Or 276). Once the seducer discovers such a psychosomatic enchantment, they move onto the cliched expression “the sizzle is worth more than the steak” - the art of seduction is worth more than the sex that the seduction leads to. Here, the introduction to the ‘seducers diary’ highlights a pivotal and often overlooked insight into the aesthetic seducer:
Behind the world in which we live, far away in the background, lies another world, which stands in approximately the same relation to this world as the scene one sometimes sees in the theatre in the background of the main scene stands in relation to the latter. Through a thin gauze one sees, as it were, a world of gauze, lighter, more ethereal, of a different quality from the actual world. Many people who are physically present in the actual world do not actually belong to it but this other world (Either/Or 249).
Much like the indecision and paralysis of possibilities, the seducer is living in another world, where the idea of himself is the intoxicating gift for the seduced - not the real physical person. This idea is of paramount importance, much like today’s dating culture. Is it not the idea of a persona that has been reflectively manufactured to intoxicate people? In this digital dating utopia, we become intoxicated by the idea of our seducers; they do not exist as Others - real, actually existing human beings. Thus, it is in thought that we primarily enjoy others, ‘a lighter, more ethereal world’. It is for this reason that, on the one hand, we are aware of stories that talk about how two people meet in actual life and cannot engage with each other but can engage ‘online’ - it is the idea of the person that is given to us that we engage primarily with.
On the other hand, it, I suggest, is also the reason we hear of the rise of ‘hook-up’ culture where spiritual onanists engage in relationships that provide immediate gratification at the expense of the Other. Thus, living in the world of the idea, we forget what it means to exist - to really exist in the actual world. For these reasons, I hold that the aesthetic lover is trapped in the aesthetic stage, unable to form a deeper connection or find lasting fulfilment. The love experienced here is contingent on the emotions and sensations of the moment, lacking depth and stability. This lack ultimately leads the aesthete-subject to meaninglessness and a kind of attitudinal nihilism. However, this realisation allows one to move into the ethical sphere.
Eros in the Aesthetic Sphere
In Kierkegaard's aesthetic sphere, eros plays a central role in shaping the pursuit of sensory experiences and personal gratification. This form of love is characterized by infatuation, desire, and the relentless pursuit of pleasure. Individuals in the aesthetic stage are driven by the need for immediate satisfaction, often living in the moment without regard for deeper connections or commitments.
Romantic love in this context is typified by a series of fleeting and superficial relationships, where the excitement of new infatuations quickly fades, leading to restlessness and a continual search for new thrills. This cycle of ephemeral pleasures prevents individuals from achieving meaningful or lasting fulfilment.
Kierkegaard uses the character of Don Giovanni to illustrate this mode of existence. Don Giovanni, an emblematic figure of the aesthetic stage, is driven by an insatiable desire for new conquests. He lives entirely in the present without reflecting on his relationships' consequences or reality. He is described as a deceiver rather than a seducer, as his actions lack genuine engagement and also lack deeper emotional or ethical considerations.
In the aesthetic stage, individuals are trapped in a world where "everything is possible, yet nothing happens" because there is no commitment to a singular possibility, which would necessitate the exclusion of others. This lack of commitment reflects a refusal to turn possibilities into realities, resulting in a superficial existence where substantial values are absent.
Kierkegaard critiques this approach to eros, emphasizing that it leads to a life devoid of true passion and meaning. Without the reflective element that comes with deeper commitments, individuals are left in a state of being without becoming, flickering aimlessly like a flame without fuel until they extinguish into nothingness. Eros in the aesthetic sphere thus represents a form of existential paralysis, where the pursuit of pleasure ultimately leads to emptiness and unfulfilled potential.
Transition to the Ethical sphere.
Having explored the role of Eros in the aesthetic sphere, it becomes clear that pursuing immediate gratification and superficial pleasures ultimately leads to a hollow and unfulfilled existence. Kierkegaard argues that true fulfilment and depth in human relationships can be achieved by transitioning from the aesthetic sphere to the ethical sphere.
In the ethical sphere, love is no longer driven by the fleeting passions of eros but by a conscious choice, responsibility, and commitment to another person. This stage represents a shift from seeking personal gratification to embracing ethical responsibilities and mutual respect. The moral sphere challenges individuals to cultivate deeper, more meaningful relationships sustained through dedication and shared growth.
Kierkegaard posits that in the ethical sphere, love involves recognising the individuality of the beloved and committing to their well-being, even amidst challenges and hardships. This form of love is characterized by mutual respect, responsibility, and a willingness to grow together. It is not merely about personal pleasure but about nurturing a lasting bond that contributes to the existential growth of both partners.
Consider the example of a couple who encounter difficulties and conflicts after the initial excitement of romance. Instead of seeking escape or new thrills, they choose to commit to each other, working through their issues with patience and understanding. Their love, now rooted in the ethical sphere, is marked by stability, depth, and enduring commitment.
Kierkegaard emphasises that this transition involves consciously upholding and nurturing the relationship, recognizing the other person's value and the importance of shared goals. Individuals move beyond the aesthetic pursuit of pleasure to a more meaningful, fulfilling existence.
Thus, transitioning to the ethical sphere is crucial in achieving true existential fulfilment. To be understood as living a meaningful life that brings true happiness and satisfaction by being true to yourself, forming deep connections, and pursuing what really matters to you. By embracing ethical commitments and responsibilities, individuals can transform their relationships into profound, lasting connections that enrich their lives and foster mutual growth.
The ethical sphere and moving away from Eros
It may come as no surprise that the ethical sphere is the polar opposite of the aesthetic sphere. One of the general claims that all systems of ethics hold as fundamental—maybe not egoism, but we will ignore it—is that they urge the individual to rise above self-satisfying desire for the good of the community. However, for Kierkegaard, being ethical involves more than this rising up; it holds that we take responsibility for our own lives by making choices and commitments. The first stage in this sphere is to accept the despair generated by the realisation of the meaninglessness of the aesthetic. The author of part two of Either/Or, ‘Judge William’, claims this is the atonement for our exploitation of others in the aesthetic sphere. This realisation fuels the ‘leap’ into the ethical response to life. Part of this ethical life is to give ourselves to a higher power: the communist manifesto, the Ten Commandments, or whatever. But in the spirit of love, it is to commit to one person by accepting the limitations of that choice. For Kierkegaard, marriage held such a powerful example of institutionalised moral duty. We need not follow Kierkegaard in this, but we can see that family, jobs, respecting social conventions, and participating in community are all ways to act ethically that can secure a sense of self. Responding ethically in this way allows deeper connections with people as we move from objectifying them to seeing them as subjective human beings.
Moreover, by responding to life this way, we can begin to control our impulsive behaviour. For example, Eros suggests that it is best suited for the moment, as being in a committed relationship requires a continual revival that respects the freedom and individuality of the beloved while also embracing the responsibility that comes with commitment. This dynamic creates a space where both individuals can grow and flourish within the relationship. Thus, the activation of freely choosing to commit, thereby accepting the responsibility that comes with that choice:
Commitment vs. Freedom
Imagine a person who deeply loves their partner but fears that commitment might limit their personal freedom. They worry that the responsibilities of a committed relationship will stifle their individuality and opportunities for personal growth. Kierkegaard would challenge this individual to consider how true freedom is not about the absence of commitments but about choosing commitments that enable personal and mutual growth.
The tension between commitment and freedom is a central existential challenge. Kierkegaard argues that authentic love involves embracing this tension and understanding that true freedom is found in the responsible choice to commit to another person. This commitment requires reflective concern for the future, consciously affirmed despite the possibility that love can end abruptly. Love's insecure foundation necessitates effort and bravery to make it meaningful, moving us away from Eros and into a hybrid of Philia and Storge. As opposed to love becoming ‘impersonal’ and devoid of ‘excitement’.
Nevertheless, in this hybrid, Philia represents the deep, enduring friendship and companionship that forms the backbone of a committed relationship, developing mutual respect, trust, and shared values. Storge brings natural affection and care, typically found in familial love, providing security and unconditional support.
By integrating Philia and Storge, love becomes a dynamic interplay of commitment and freedom, where partners choose to support and grow with one another. This hybrid form of love transcends the immediate gratification of Eros, moving towards a stable and nurturing relationship that requires continuous effort and reflection.
In the ethical stage, love is seen as a journey of mutual growth and shared responsibility, building a meaningful and fulfilling life together. This shift from the aesthetic to the ethical sphere signifies a deeper understanding of love, where true freedom is found not in the absence of commitments but in the conscious and responsible choice to uphold them, transforming Eros into this Philia/Storge hybrid.
Kierkegaard’s Insights on the Depths of Eros
Kierkegaard's insights on eros challenge us to see romantic love as more than just an emotional or physical connection. He urges us to view love as an existential commitment that involves ethical responsibility, personal growth, and mutual respect. By transitioning from the aesthetic to the ethical stage and from Eros to Philia/Storge, individuals can experience a deeper, more fulfilling form of love that can endure beyond the initial infatuation.
Applying Kierkegaard’s Philosophy Today
In today’s world, where the nature of romantic relationships is constantly evolving, Kierkegaard’s insights offer illumination. His position on the ethical dimension of love encourages us to view romantic relationships not merely as sources of pleasure or companionship but as arenas for personal and existential growth.
Kierkegaard's philosophy challenges the superficiality often found in contemporary dating culture, where relationships can be transient and self-serving. Instead, he proposes that true intimacy and understanding arise from ethical commitment, transcending fleeting emotions and desires. This commitment is not a restrictive obligation but a liberating force, enabling individuals to connect and achieve genuine intimacy deeply.
In modern relationships, where the fear of commitment often leads to shallow connections and a cycle of brief encounters, Kierkegaard invites us to reconsider the value of dedication. By committing to another person, we engage in a transformative process that fosters mutual growth, respect, and understanding. This allows us to move beyond the aesthetic pursuit of pleasure into a more meaningful, enduring bond.
Moreover, Kierkegaard emphasises that commitment involves a conscious choice to uphold and nurture the relationship, even amidst challenges. It encourages us to embrace the complexities of love, recognising that the true depth of a relationship is revealed through enduring dedication and the willingness to grow together. In this light, commitment becomes a path to existential fulfilment, where both partners contribute to each other's development and find purpose in their shared journey.
Kierkegaard's insights remind us that the most rewarding relationships are built on ethical commitment in a culture that often prioritises individualism and instant gratification. This approach enhances the quality of our romantic relationships and enriches our overall sense of self and purpose, leading to a more authentic and fulfilling existence.
By applying Kierkegaard’s philosophy to modern love, we are invited to seek deeper connections and embrace love as an existential commitment that enriches our lives far beyond the fleeting pleasures of aesthetic infatuation.
In light of Kierkegaard's existential exploration of romantic love, we are left with a relevant question:
In our quest for romantic fulfilment, are we seeking the deep, ethical commitment that Kierkegaard describes, or are we merely chasing the fleeting pleasures of aesthetic infatuation?
Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" refers to believing in something beyond rational evidence, particularly in the context of religious faith. It involves a personal commitment to belief despite uncertainty and the absence of logical proof, emphasizing the subjective nature of faith.