Love is an experience that all humans desire. However, unfortunately, for many, this experience remains elusive and unattainable. There have been efforts by various philosophers to shed light on the meaning and manifestation of love. Thanks to these philosophers, mankind has inched closer to gaining a deeper understanding of what it means to love and to be loved. Plato and Aristotle are among the philosophers who gave special focus to the question of love. In their respective works, they set out to establish the features and functions of love. Nygren is yet another philosopher who focused his attention on the purpose and meaning of love. Borrowing heavily from the ideas and perspectives of Aristotle and Plato, Nygren provided intriguing insights on love from a religious standpoint.
In his text, Price (1990) dissects the views of Plato and Aristotle on love. He notes that according to these two philosophers, love is characterized by an overflow of affection from the life of one to that of another. He also adds that Plato and Aristotle believed that loving another is an act of self-service. Essentially, Plato and Aristotle were convinced that by loving others, individuals propel themselves to new heights of realization and fulfilment. In particular, Plato was convinced that love has an uplifting effect. In developing his own perspective of love in a religious context, Nygren appears to have derived inspiration from Plato and Aristotle. One of the features of Divine love that he addresses is that this kind of love is particularly experienced by the undeserving. He states that “God does not love that which is already in itself worthy of love, but on the contrary, that which in itself has no worth” (Nygren, 1998, p. 87). In the same way that Plato and Aristotle believed that love uplifts, Nygren held the view that Divine love empowers and builds those who are thought to be unworthy of this love.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As one reads Nygren’s work, they are prompted to reflect on the absurdity of Divine love. According to Nygren, God’s love for mankind is spontaneous and unmotivated (Nygren, 1998). Basically, Nygren held that God does not seek reasons to love mankind. It is impossible to explain the motivations behind God’s love. This position echoes the views of Plato and Aristotle on love. For example, Aristotle believed that utility is the basis of love. He felt that individuals demonstrate love for others because of the usefulness that their friendships offer (“Philosophy of Love”, n.d). Nygren sought to highlight how Divine love contrasts with the love among men. Whereas God’s love is not drive by any desire for benefit, the love and friendship among men is based on the expectation of reward. Plato shared Aristotle’s position that love among men serves practical purposes. He noted that love is the result of poverty and cunning resourcefulness (Vernon, 2009). Essentially, as is the case with Aristotle, Plato also believed that in loving others, humans are motivated by the benefits they expect to obtain.
Nygren’s work offers insights into the unique and intriguing nature of Divine love. In his text, he suggested that Divine love can only be understood through reference to God’s nature. He indicates that God loves mankind because love is part of his identity: “When it is said that God loves man, that is not a judgment on what man is like, but on what God is like” (Nygren, 1998, p. 85). This view is based on Aristotle’s opinion regarding love. Aristotle contended that man can only love another when he first loves himself. It is clear that Aristotle understood that individuals are the source of the love that they feel for others. They cannot offer love unless and until they accept themselves as deserving of love and take steps to love themselves. It is fair to argue that when he asserted that Divine love flow’s from God’s nature, Nygren sought to make it clear that the source of love is far more important than the object. He was guided by Aristotle’s position that love can only be displayed by those who love themselves.
Nygren is an authority on Divine love. This can be seen in his conceptualization of this love. As part of his discussion on the features that define Divine love, he notes that God’s love allows mankind to engage in fellowship with him. In essence, Nygren indicates that Divine love anchors the relationship between God and mankind. He seems to have based this belief in the works of Aristotle and Plato. Plato felt that love is the foundation of true friendship (Vernon, 2009). As Vernon points out in his analysis of Plato’s definition of love, when two individuals are in love, “they will be in a position to convert the energy of their love into a zest for life” (Vernon, 2009, par. 8). Aristotle agreed that love should be the basis of strong and lasting friendships. According to Aristotle, individuals love and establish friendships with those who share their dispositions and values (“Philosophy of love”, n.d). There is no doubt that Aristotle and Plato provided Nygren with the insight and guidance he needed to conclude that God’s relationship with mankind is founded on Divine love.
The discussion above has examined the role that Aristotle and Plato played in shaping Nygren’s perspectives. It has been made clear that Nygren borrowed the views of the two philosophers. Focus can now shift to examine the normative consequences of the link between the ideas of Nygren and the views of Aristotle and Plato. The main consequence is that Divine love can be understood through reference to friendship and love among humans. As has been noted in the discussion above, Aristotle and Plato focused their works on the love among humans. They shed light on the forces that shape the interactions among individuals. On the other hand, Nygren explored Divine love. Since his perspective is based on the works of Aristotle and Plato, Nygren essentially suggests that to understand God’s love, one simply needs to examine how humans engage with one another.
The consequences of the association between the views of Nygren, and Aristotle and Plato go beyond simply enabling individuals to understand that love among humans mirrors Divine love. Another consequence is that individuals are able to identify steps that they can take to enhance their relationships. Among the issues that Nygren addressed is that Divine love is unmotivated. On the other hand, Aristotle and Plato observed that love among humans is driven by selfish desires. There is no doubt that Divine love is superior. Therefore, individuals should endeavor to emulate God’s love. Instead of loving others in the hope of reward, they should be selfless and pursue noble virtues in their love for others. As they do this, they will be able to express their love even when they do not receive any reward.
In conclusion, love remains a key force that continues to shape the human experience. It is the source of the misery that mankind endures while still delivering tremendous happiness. In their respective works, Aristotle, Nygren and Plato highlighted the complexities of love. While Aristotle and Plato focused on love among humans, Nygren was more concerned with Divine love. Despite the difference in their areas of focus, all these philosophers underscore the critical role that love plays in imbuing human life with meaning. The key take-away from their works is that love fuels human life and allows for connections with God.
References
Nygren, A. (1998). Agape and Eros. In Soble, A. (Ed.). Eros, Agape and Philia. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
Philosophy of love. (n.d). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved December 6, 2018 from https://www.iep.utm.edu/love/
Price, A. W. (1990). Love and friendship in Plato and Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vernon, M. (2009). Plato’s dialogues, part 4: what do you love? The Guardian. Retrieved December 6, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/24/plato-dialogues-philosophy
