The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis — Book Review
A debunked axiom & Noteworthy stuff
— From Dayo, as she experiences and learns. Welcome to The Mind Palace!
Also available on the Substack newsletter.
Short Take
A complete thought. That’s what I thought when I read the penultimate chapter, Eros. But the book as a whole? I thought it a fine argument for the four forms love supposedly exists as — Affection, Friendship, Eros and Charity.
I believe The Four Loves is a product of sound thinking. Fine thinking that produces fine arguments is good stuff. The book falls perfectly into the knowledge of what that informs the knowledge of how. That is to say, it was enlightening.
On some pages, I went, “that’s interesting”; on many, I thought, “hmm, that’s new”; and on two particular pages, I laughed so hard and then laughed some more because I was sure laughter was not the right response to what I had read. (Hint: Lucretius and George Orwell 💀.)
Noteworthy
Among many things, I understood the concept of Need-love and Appreciative-love, especially in how a believer’s love for God is primarily a need-love. A need-love is a love that holds no meaning outside its relation to a person or a condition. That, and that a need-love will not last longer than its need. That will explain why pride and a love for God cannot co-exist.
The second thing that struck me was the grandiosity of Eros. Just look at this:
“Eros is driven to promise what Eros of himself cannot perform. … Between the best possible lovers, this high condition is intermittent.… The couple whose marriage will certainly be endangered by them [lapses in the high condition of Eros], and possibly ruined, are those who have idolized Eros. They thought he [Eros] had the power and truthfulness of a god. They expected that mere feeling would do for them, and permanently, all that was necessary. When this expectation is disappointed, they throw the blame on Eros1, or more usually, on their partners. In reality, however, Eros, having made his gigantic promise and shown you in glimpses what its performance would be like, has ‘done his stuff’. He, like a godparent, makes the vows; it is we who must keep them.”
Now, isn’t that something?
Something Got Debunked
One axiom I am tired of hearing is that men and women cannot be friends without Eros being the real thing at play. Lordy lord.
I’ll type out a snippet:
“From what has been said, it will be clear that in most societies at most periods, Friendships will be between men and men or between women and women. The sexes will have met one another in Affection and in Eros but not in this love. For they will seldom have had with each other the companionship in common activities which is the matrix of Friendship.
Where men are educated and women not, where one sex works and the other is idle, or where they do totally different work, they will usually have nothing to be Friends about. But we can easily see that it is this lack, rather than anything in their natures, which excludes Friendship; for where they can be companions, they can also become Friends. Hence, in a profession (like my own)2 where men and women work side by side, or in the mission field, or among authors and artists, such Friendship is common.
To be sure, what is offered as Friendship on one side may be mistaken for Eros on the other, with painful and embarrassing results. Or what begins as Friendship in both may become also Eros. But to say that something can be mistaken for, or turn into, something else is not to deny the difference between them. Rather it implies it; we should not otherwise speak of ‘turning into’ or being ‘mistaken for’.”
Not the simplest English, I know, but the point has been made. Made and explained. At least, we can understand why a particular generation stands as the flagbearers of this supposed truth.
Rating
To fulfil all righteousness, I rate this book 4 stars. It’s an insightful book, only that it made me greatly doubt my use of commas. :)
Have a lovely week,
Dayo 🍹
Originally published on Substack: The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis — Book Review [TMP #64]
