The Four Loves, by C. S. Lewis, is a discussion on the varieties of Love that are felt by humans, from the perspective of a Christian.#

Introduction#

A recurring theme in this book is the way that things that are inherently good, such as Love, can become twisted and evil when they are abused and an object of addiction.

Every human love, at its height, has a tendency to claim for itself a divine authority. Its voice tends to sound as if it were the will of God Himself. It tells us not to count the cost, it demands of us a total commitment, it attempts to over-ride all other claims and insinuates that any action which is sincerely done "for love's sake" is thereby lawful and even meritorious. [p. 15]

The basic issue for Love is: Love can be so compelling and important to a person that they may forget their obligations as humans to be moral and just, i.e. the forget God's law.

We may give our human loves the unconditional allegiance which we owe only to God. Then they become gods: then they become demons. Then they will destroy us, and also destroy themselves. For natural loves that are allowed to be come gods do not remain loves. They are still called so, but can become in fact complicated forms of hatred. [p. 17]

The hatred that a corrupt Love is transformed into is often a form of jealousy where the Lover owns the object of affections and is offended at every moment spent apart.

Likings and Loves for the Sub-human#

In this chapter, Lewis makes the initial division of the types of love: Need-love, Gift-love, and Appreciative-love.

Need-love cries to God from our poverty; Gift-love longs to serve, or even to suffer for, God; Appreciative-love says: "We give thanks to thee for thy great glory." Need-love says of a woman "I cannot live without her"; Gift-love longs to give her happiness, comfort, protection--if possible, wealth; Appreciative-love gazes and holds its breath and is silent, rejoices that such a wonder should exist even if not for him, will not be wholly deject by losing her, would rather have it so than never to have seen her at all. [p. 26]

(By the way, the description of appreciative-love is terribly romantic.)

He also discusses the proposal of ranking these Loves and makes the following comment of general interest:

The human mind is generally far more eager to praise and dispraise than to describe and define. It wants to make every distinction a distinction of value; hence those fatal critics who can never point out the differing quality of two poets without putting them in an order of preference as if they were candidates for a prize. [p. 21]

Elsewhere in the chapter, he talks about the love for non-living things, such as the State. In this discussion, he talks about the value of a nation's myths, but makes the comment that they should not be confused (as they too often are) with history:

The schoolboy who hears them should dimly feel--though of course he cannot put it into words--that he is hearing saga. Let him be thrilled--preferably "out of school"--by the "Deeds that won the Empire"; but the less we mix this up with his "history lessons" or mistake for a serious analysis--worse still, a justification--of imperial policy, the better. [p. 36]

Affection#

Lewis comments on the rituals of social relations and how these relate to the feelings between families and close company:

On the contrary, Affection at its best practises a courtesy which is incomparably more subtle, sensitive, and deep than the public kind. In public a ritual would do. At home you must have the reality which that ritual represented, or else the deafening triumphs of the greatest egoist present. You must really give no kind of preference to yourself; at a party it is enough to conceal the preference. [p. 55]

Friendship#

The experience of all is enhanced when more join in friendship:

Lovers seek for privacy. Friends find this solitude about them, this barrier between them and the herd, whether they want it or not. They would be glad to reduce it. The first two would be glad to find a third. [p. 78]

The parallels to trade are obvious.

Eros#

Another romantic description of the essence of romantic, not sexual, love:

A man in this state really hasn't leisure to think of sex. He is too busy thinking of a person. The fact that she is a woman is far less important than the fact that she is herself. He is full of desire, but the desire may not be sexually toned. If you asked him what he wanted, the true reply would often be, "To go on thinking of her." He is love's contemplative. [p. 108]

Charity#

Another wise way of pointing out the temptation associated with every instance of Love:

It remains certainly true that all natural loves can be inordinate. Inordinate does not mean "insufficiently cautious". Nor does it mean "too big". It is not a quantitative term. It is probably impossible to love any human being simply "too much". We may love him too much in proportion to our love for God; but it is the smallness of our love for God, not the greatest of our love for the man, that constitutes the inordinacy. [p. 139-140]

And finally, an interesting metaphor for God's relationship to the Love in our lives:

We cannot see light, though by light we can see things. [p. 143]