What do you think?
Rate this book
The Four Loves
A repackaged edition of the revered author's classic work that examines the four types of human love: affection, friendship, erotic love, and the love of God—part of the C. S. Lewis Signature Classics series.
C.S. Lewis—the great British writer, scholar, lay theologian, broadcaster, Christian apologist, and bestselling author of Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Chronicles of Narnia, and many other beloved classics—contemplates the essence of love and how it works in our daily lives in one of his most famous works of nonfiction. Lewis examines four varieties of human love: affection, the most basic form; friendship, the rarest and perhaps most insightful; Eros, passionate love; charity, the greatest and least selfish. Throughout this compassionate and reasoned study, he encourages readers to open themselves to all forms of love—the key to understanding that brings us closer to God.
C.S. Lewis—the great British writer, scholar, lay theologian, broadcaster, Christian apologist, and bestselling author of Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Chronicles of Narnia, and many other beloved classics—contemplates the essence of love and how it works in our daily lives in one of his most famous works of nonfiction. Lewis examines four varieties of human love: affection, the most basic form; friendship, the rarest and perhaps most insightful; Eros, passionate love; charity, the greatest and least selfish. Throughout this compassionate and reasoned study, he encourages readers to open themselves to all forms of love—the key to understanding that brings us closer to God.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
5666 people are currently reading
123076 people want to read
About the author
C.S. Lewis
1,267 books46k followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954. He was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.
Lewis was married to poet Joy Davidman.
W.H. Lewis was his elder brother]
Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954. He was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.
Lewis was married to poet Joy Davidman.
W.H. Lewis was his elder brother]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,417 reviews
February 25, 2008
Read this in college when most of it went over my head...then life happens. After a life full of joy and tragedy and senseless loss at times...this work sits in my nightstand drawer so I can be renewed, reawakened and reminded of higher purposes when the world is too much with me.
May 21, 2025
I have for many years had a feeling of serious aversion for this book. It is logical throughout, and that is probably the very reason for my aversion.
Logic to me has always seemed like gilding the lily! The lily, to an Asperger's case like me, is God's love.
When God created the World, it was perfect.
And it still is, from His point of view!
We humans have flaws, but notwithstanding, God loves us. The Quaker novelist Philip Gulley makes us see that those very flaws are the REASON for God's love.
He loves us for our erratic paths.
His own Son's life and Love is in them. Jesus, unlike Lewis, tells us we love God through our hearts.
Not through our brainy logic!
Well, and you know what? I GREW as a Christian through this book. It was 2001. I had agreed to try an experimental new drug for my bipolarity - Risperdal.
It banished all humanity from my heart. But Lewis’ logic convinced me to follow Jesus anyway.
Already I saw I had to love my bosses and coworkers - and submit to their guidance - with Humility.
Folks thought I was odd.
But because of it I made it to my pension!
And I believe to this day that the Heart has its reasons that mere Reason will never understand.
But C.S. Lewis showed me Logic is the Catalyst for those reasons of the Heart!
Logic to me has always seemed like gilding the lily! The lily, to an Asperger's case like me, is God's love.
When God created the World, it was perfect.
And it still is, from His point of view!
We humans have flaws, but notwithstanding, God loves us. The Quaker novelist Philip Gulley makes us see that those very flaws are the REASON for God's love.
He loves us for our erratic paths.
His own Son's life and Love is in them. Jesus, unlike Lewis, tells us we love God through our hearts.
Not through our brainy logic!
Well, and you know what? I GREW as a Christian through this book. It was 2001. I had agreed to try an experimental new drug for my bipolarity - Risperdal.
It banished all humanity from my heart. But Lewis’ logic convinced me to follow Jesus anyway.
Already I saw I had to love my bosses and coworkers - and submit to their guidance - with Humility.
Folks thought I was odd.
But because of it I made it to my pension!
And I believe to this day that the Heart has its reasons that mere Reason will never understand.
But C.S. Lewis showed me Logic is the Catalyst for those reasons of the Heart!
October 8, 2008
Overall a fascinating read, though a bit more "high-brow" than my usual fare. Having a background in the classics, as in OLD classics, would help to make more of it understandable. And sometimes I got a little lost in his logic. However, the points of view on the different types of love were very useful to me, in reflecting on my own life and relationships. If I were to sum up the effect on me in one word, it would be "clarifying."
I am an incurable romantic; nevertheless through the years I have adopted more and more a non-romantic view of marriage relationships. One of my wife's and my favorite sayings is, "Nacimos para amarnos." Loosely translated it means we were made for each other. Part of me believes it was our destiny to meet and become life partners, that we were uniquely suited to each other. But another part of me believes our relationship succeeded not because we each found that one and only person that we could be happy with, but rather because of God's Love and His influence in our lives, our commitment to Him and each other, and our willingness to change and sacrifice along the way. The fact that my wife is an absolute angel is, of course, also a factor! We are still very much "in love" but it's not anything like the "cupid" phenomenon that first drew us together. So I have often mused on "being in love" and how that relates to present and future happiness in married life. In many cases, it seems, people put too much emphasis on the romantic side of prospective relationships, and in others not enough. C.S. Lewis provides an excellent perspective on this issue, and the idea of balancing different considerations, in his Eros discussion.
I am an incurable romantic; nevertheless through the years I have adopted more and more a non-romantic view of marriage relationships. One of my wife's and my favorite sayings is, "Nacimos para amarnos." Loosely translated it means we were made for each other. Part of me believes it was our destiny to meet and become life partners, that we were uniquely suited to each other. But another part of me believes our relationship succeeded not because we each found that one and only person that we could be happy with, but rather because of God's Love and His influence in our lives, our commitment to Him and each other, and our willingness to change and sacrifice along the way. The fact that my wife is an absolute angel is, of course, also a factor! We are still very much "in love" but it's not anything like the "cupid" phenomenon that first drew us together. So I have often mused on "being in love" and how that relates to present and future happiness in married life. In many cases, it seems, people put too much emphasis on the romantic side of prospective relationships, and in others not enough. C.S. Lewis provides an excellent perspective on this issue, and the idea of balancing different considerations, in his Eros discussion.
December 8, 2023
This is one of the only recordings we have of CS Lewis’ speaking voice. In this audiobook, he outlines his philosophy on the four ancient Greek words for love.
Storge - parent/child love, family affection
Philia - friendship love, brotherly love
Eros - erotic love
Agape - love of God/spirituality
We have to remember this man was born in 1898, so some of his world views are quite dated. There were a few times I felt myself cringing, only to remember that listening to an opposing viewpoint is not a bad thing.
I really enjoyed his thoughts on friendships, and how important these are to our well-being. We all could use more love.
“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.”
Storge - parent/child love, family affection
Philia - friendship love, brotherly love
Eros - erotic love
Agape - love of God/spirituality
We have to remember this man was born in 1898, so some of his world views are quite dated. There were a few times I felt myself cringing, only to remember that listening to an opposing viewpoint is not a bad thing.
I really enjoyed his thoughts on friendships, and how important these are to our well-being. We all could use more love.
“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.”
September 16, 2009
With clarity C.S. Lewis outlines the four loves as he understands them. As I read I recognized the roles these loves play, and have played, in my life and in the lives of those I know. People and possible motives for their actions became apparent to me. It is a book that captures reflections to share with the reader and allow them to create more of the same. Below is an excerpt that I wished to share.
"There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket - safe, dark, motionless, airless - it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeembale... We shall draw nearer to God, not be trying to avoid the sufferings inherent in all loves, but by accepting them and offering them to Him; throwing away all defensive armour. If our hearts need to be broken, and if He chooses this as the way in which they should break, so be it."
"There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket - safe, dark, motionless, airless - it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeembale... We shall draw nearer to God, not be trying to avoid the sufferings inherent in all loves, but by accepting them and offering them to Him; throwing away all defensive armour. If our hearts need to be broken, and if He chooses this as the way in which they should break, so be it."
April 29, 2025
This book is meant to be an essay on how and why we (the readers... and humanity in general) should only give our unconditional affection to God, while everyone receives a very limited amount of it. C.S. Lewis then goes the scientific route in trying to prove that such a mentality is in fact not only the natural order of things, but also a very healthy.
Things start out well, with the first two parts debating parental affection and friendship vs love for God. Specifically, the need for a fine line to be drawn between loyalty and healthy critcism. Granted, I did skip the part where C.S. Lewis goes on and on about keeping the ultimate expression of love for God, but I liked his overall reasoning of not putting anyone on a pedestal.
The 3rd part was meant to talk about the limitations to be put on Eros (romantic love), but instead got bogged down in how it is not sex. A sound plan in theory, but in practice it never moves past what Eros isn't. Sort of like me, when I tried to BS my way though literary analyses in high school: ramble a lot about tangential topics and hope for the best.
The final part of the book, arguably the most important of all, was meant to explain how (and why?) our love for God is meant to surpass every other type of love. Unfortunately it completely missed its target audience, ending up preaching to the choir. I'm sure that all the poetic waxing about ultimate rewards and such would've hit great for a true believer. As a very skeptical atheist however, none of the arguments presented here seemed even marginally appealing to me.
I consider myself fairly simple-minded when it comes to spirituality, but if the argument for Heaven being great doesn't even include reuniting with loved ones, I'm out.
Score: 2.6/5 stars
It started great, giving me hope for an intriguing debate. Unfortunately, as the concepts got more complicated the arguments failed to keep up, resorting instead to lofty praises. Might as well have just gone all "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" with a few Hallelujah-s thrown in for good measure.
Things start out well, with the first two parts debating parental affection and friendship vs love for God. Specifically, the need for a fine line to be drawn between loyalty and healthy critcism. Granted, I did skip the part where C.S. Lewis goes on and on about keeping the ultimate expression of love for God, but I liked his overall reasoning of not putting anyone on a pedestal.
The 3rd part was meant to talk about the limitations to be put on Eros (romantic love), but instead got bogged down in how it is not sex. A sound plan in theory, but in practice it never moves past what Eros isn't. Sort of like me, when I tried to BS my way though literary analyses in high school: ramble a lot about tangential topics and hope for the best.
The final part of the book, arguably the most important of all, was meant to explain how (and why?) our love for God is meant to surpass every other type of love. Unfortunately it completely missed its target audience, ending up preaching to the choir. I'm sure that all the poetic waxing about ultimate rewards and such would've hit great for a true believer. As a very skeptical atheist however, none of the arguments presented here seemed even marginally appealing to me.
I consider myself fairly simple-minded when it comes to spirituality, but if the argument for Heaven being great doesn't even include reuniting with loved ones, I'm out.
Score: 2.6/5 stars
It started great, giving me hope for an intriguing debate. Unfortunately, as the concepts got more complicated the arguments failed to keep up, resorting instead to lofty praises. Might as well have just gone all "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" with a few Hallelujah-s thrown in for good measure.
March 9, 2008
I talk about how much I dislike Lewis and yet read two of his books in the space of a few days. Hypocritical much? If you enjoy Lewis' continual didacticism, this is the book for you. I found it hard to get through (though I persevered) due to sexist anachronisms (women, as homemakers, cannot understand a man's world or thoughts) and statements with which I vehemently disagree presented as facts (don't get me started). Admittedly, I don't read philosophy or dogma well, and this is both. However, it is to Lewis' credit -- though I'm not sure how -- that I finished the book at all and actually started critically thinking about how much love I was putting into important relationships in my life and how I could do a better job of it. The combination of a having a very high fever and reading The Great Divorce (which I had read the day before) was a one-two punch against which I had no defense. Lewis got through!
May 6, 2015
Lewis explores love
24 March 2013
This is one of those books that every time I read it (this is the third time I think) I learn something new, so I guess I am going to have to put this book up in the realms of literature. The interesting thing about this book is that when Lewis wrote it he had not been in a relationship (he remained single until he met Joy Davidman, which is actually the subject of a book, a movie, and even a play) so he is not actually writing from experience. However, we should note that Eros plays only one part of this particular book and, as Lewis demonstrates, love is much, much more than erotic love.
The title of the book comes from the idea that in Greek there are four different words for love and Lewis puts them down as: affection, friendship, erotic love, and charitable love. Like the Symposium (which no doubt he was familiar with) he also rates them in the order of importance, with Charity being the highest form of love. The idea of charity is doing things for people with no expectation of anything in return simply out of the goodness of your heart. In fact, doing such things for strangers and for people who can never actually give anything back is the essence of this type of love.
Lewis explores each of these forms of love, though he adds a fifth, which he does not necessarily consider to be love, but rather a fondness of something - in this he outlines the love of one's country (patriotism) and the love of nature. Throughout the book though (with the exception of Charity) he is also exploring the dangers that with these forms of love give rise (okay, he does not actually do that with friendship, and indicates that any of the dangers that arise from affection and eros go beyond what that form of love really is). He makes mention of the dark gods numerous times, and since he was a Christian when he was writing this, he is no doubt referring to demonic forces. Obviously with a love of nature he considers the idea of worshipping nature as a god one aspect of this, and with patriotism, the extremes of which give rise to another form. However, remember that when this book was being written (and he had also fought in the trenches of World War I) World War II was in full swing.
It is interesting what he says about friendship (or as another person puts it, brotherly love) in that it is something that people do not recognise as a form of love in our modern society. In fact people stay away from it for fear of it giving rise to accusations of homosexuality (which was still illegal in his days). However, as is true to Lewis, he does not shy away from discussing this aspect of friendship, and I note from what he has written, in those days homosexuals were seen as being more effeminate than not. Of course he completely debunks that idea by referring to the fact that homosexual love did exist between warriors in the ancient world, and to refer to them, as he says, as 'pansies', is shows a complete mis-understanding the nature of it (though I suspect that this idea, as it is still today, is a means of denigrating those who live a homosexual lifestyle).
Another interesting thing that he points out is how certain people fear the friendship love, especially people like religious leaders and corporate bosses. The idea is that with friendship love there is not only a lack of control over the relationship, but also the fear of a conspiracy. Fortunately in most of the churches that I have been involved with there has not been any attempt to destroy friendships, but I have heard of churches where fake friendships are formed to maintain control over people. Obviously this is more so in the corporate world where friendships can be viewed as a threat to somebody's authority. In fact some bosses will encourage in fighting amongst the employees so that their position may remain secure.
Anyway, I could probably write a lot more on this book, but since this is my last day in Hong Kong before I head off to Europe, and that I have laundry to get done as well as packages to post back to Australia (I ended up buying just a little to much while I was here) I must sign off now.
24 March 2013
This is one of those books that every time I read it (this is the third time I think) I learn something new, so I guess I am going to have to put this book up in the realms of literature. The interesting thing about this book is that when Lewis wrote it he had not been in a relationship (he remained single until he met Joy Davidman, which is actually the subject of a book, a movie, and even a play) so he is not actually writing from experience. However, we should note that Eros plays only one part of this particular book and, as Lewis demonstrates, love is much, much more than erotic love.
The title of the book comes from the idea that in Greek there are four different words for love and Lewis puts them down as: affection, friendship, erotic love, and charitable love. Like the Symposium (which no doubt he was familiar with) he also rates them in the order of importance, with Charity being the highest form of love. The idea of charity is doing things for people with no expectation of anything in return simply out of the goodness of your heart. In fact, doing such things for strangers and for people who can never actually give anything back is the essence of this type of love.
Lewis explores each of these forms of love, though he adds a fifth, which he does not necessarily consider to be love, but rather a fondness of something - in this he outlines the love of one's country (patriotism) and the love of nature. Throughout the book though (with the exception of Charity) he is also exploring the dangers that with these forms of love give rise (okay, he does not actually do that with friendship, and indicates that any of the dangers that arise from affection and eros go beyond what that form of love really is). He makes mention of the dark gods numerous times, and since he was a Christian when he was writing this, he is no doubt referring to demonic forces. Obviously with a love of nature he considers the idea of worshipping nature as a god one aspect of this, and with patriotism, the extremes of which give rise to another form. However, remember that when this book was being written (and he had also fought in the trenches of World War I) World War II was in full swing.
It is interesting what he says about friendship (or as another person puts it, brotherly love) in that it is something that people do not recognise as a form of love in our modern society. In fact people stay away from it for fear of it giving rise to accusations of homosexuality (which was still illegal in his days). However, as is true to Lewis, he does not shy away from discussing this aspect of friendship, and I note from what he has written, in those days homosexuals were seen as being more effeminate than not. Of course he completely debunks that idea by referring to the fact that homosexual love did exist between warriors in the ancient world, and to refer to them, as he says, as 'pansies', is shows a complete mis-understanding the nature of it (though I suspect that this idea, as it is still today, is a means of denigrating those who live a homosexual lifestyle).
Another interesting thing that he points out is how certain people fear the friendship love, especially people like religious leaders and corporate bosses. The idea is that with friendship love there is not only a lack of control over the relationship, but also the fear of a conspiracy. Fortunately in most of the churches that I have been involved with there has not been any attempt to destroy friendships, but I have heard of churches where fake friendships are formed to maintain control over people. Obviously this is more so in the corporate world where friendships can be viewed as a threat to somebody's authority. In fact some bosses will encourage in fighting amongst the employees so that their position may remain secure.
Anyway, I could probably write a lot more on this book, but since this is my last day in Hong Kong before I head off to Europe, and that I have laundry to get done as well as packages to post back to Australia (I ended up buying just a little to much while I was here) I must sign off now.
July 8, 2014
The other works of C.S. Lewis that I have been reading recently, tackle more of the concept of Christianity. Lewis, arguing in those works concepts that I agree with. Namely that Christians aren't any more moral than any other people, nor are they any more spiritual (after all there can be spiritual good and spiritual evil), but that Christianity is more about returning the natural to the supernatural. However, here in this work of non-fiction, he chooses to discuss the topic of love.
Love is one of those ideas that everyone believes they understand. It is one of the most talked about topics in the world after all. Lewis here attempts to show his readers that they know less about love, and that love is harder to discuss, than you would think. He attempts to divide love into two initial categories: Give-Love and Need-Love. Need-Love, Lewis claims, should not be seen as purely selfish, after all, humans are created with certain needs that are required to be lovingly met. He does make the point however, that an imbalance of this Need-Love is detrimental.
He continues on to discuss four particular types of love which connect to these two categories: storge, philia, eros and agape. Or in more modern terms: affection, friendship, romance and charity.
Affection (storge) is family love, the humble love. It is the love that you feel for people that you are close to, without it being erotic in nature. It is here that Lewis first explores and notes that like with any love if you turn it into a god it becomes a devil. Or, in other words, if you idolise aspects of this love, you turn it into something that curses you. If I constantly 'give' to others because of my affection, to the point where I am 'giving' them things that they do not need I am smothering them. It is this aspect of affection that Lewis criticises as 'Need-Love'. Not to mention that affection is the type of love which many people take for granted, when, like any love it never is.
Friendship (philia) is the love between brothers or sisters. It, as Lewis, explores it, is the love which we turn into the idea of 'equality' today and though writing decades ago, he even tackles this idea. Friendship's goal is not to turn love into something that serves us - to make others bow to our values and so on - but is about finding the common ground between friends (and it is this issue I have with 'equality' - that it trues to bend others to one side's values and ideals rather than finding the common ground). The danger of friendship however, is that it can lead one to create separate 'friendship' groups which ignore the point of friendship as love.
Romantic love (eros) is the sense of being in love. Lewis separates this from purely being about sex by stating that he considers sex to be the 'Venus' of erotic love. This is interesting, because we have turned the word 'erotic' into one which is laden with purely sexual undertones. As Lewis points out however, lusty desire - which is not love - is desire which can be satisfied by any person who are sexually attracted to. Eros on the other hand is the desire for ONE individual. It is quite clear to see how eros as a love has been distorted by modern society I believe, yet Lewis also notes that eros can be dangerous in that it can be abused in a fixative sense - that one can fixate themselves upon one person 'mindlessly'.
Finally we come to Charity, which is referenced in the Bible as agape (though not by Lewis himself) - the greatest form of love. This is spiritual love, the kind of love that God has towards us, and therefore is love in the sacrificial sense. It is love without demanding anything in return, giving without receiving, and is therefore the highest goal of all other loves. Together they are meant to work together towards, and with, charity in an individual's life.
Though Lewis writes his book with a Christian worldview and with Christian audiences mainly in mind, this is one of the more applicable of all Lewis' books to a broad audience. Within it, Lewis reveals the notion that love is not the single concept that we have turned it into. And therefore, such arguments and excuses as 'but I love them' can be turned on their head in the face of this realisation. As said before, Lewis reveals that the aim of Christianity is to turn humanity towards becoming not naturally more moral (after all greed, gluttony and other vices are part of the natural order) but supernaturally perfect. To that end, this book serves to address how Christians should live with love and further what the aim of love should be.
November 1, 2016
“Amar del todo es ser vulnerable. Ama cualquier cosa y tu corazón seguramente será estrujado y posiblemente roto. Si quieres asegurarte de mantenerlo intacto, no debes darle tu corazón a nadie, ni siquiera a un animal. Cúbrelo cuidadosamente con pasatiempos y pequeños lujos; evita cualquier enredo; guárdalo bajo llave en el ataúd o el féretro de tu egoísmo. Pues en ese féretro -seguro, oscuro, sin movimiento y sin aire- cambiará. No lo harán pedazos; se volverá irrompible, impenetrable, irredimible… El único lugar a parte del cielo donde puedes estar perfectamente seguro contra todos los peligros… del amor, es el infierno.”
Para mí no hay muchas maneras de reseñar a Lewis con estas obras. O te gusta o no. O aprendes algo o no lo haces, pero sí tengo que hablar de la forma tan madura, natural y segura en que habla de estos temas. Se nota que le importaba realmente darse a entender, explicarse de forma que todo el que lo lea reciba eso que él mismo había aprendido, reconociendo que seguía sin saberlo todo. Me pareció un libro sencillo a la vez que profundo, y se me hizo un poco largo solo por la cantidad de ejemplos que ponía, pero eran necesarios para ilustrar sus ideas.
November 8, 2014
Though Lewis is a favorite writer of mine, this is the first time that I've read this particular short volume, presenting his theological, moral, psychological and philosophical reflections on the human experience of the four kinds of "love" referred to (by different Greek words) in the New Testament. One reviewer spoke of this as an "apologetic," and indeed Lewis wrote many apologetic works, designed to make a rational case for Christianity for unbelieving readers. However, this isn't one of them. Here he's presupposing that the Bible and the Christian gospel are true, and writing to offer readers who share that view his insights into how, in the light of that truth, we should think about love in its various manifestations. Non-Christian readers would probably not be interested in that approach to the subject (although, since all truth is God's truth, he draws his thoughts from a lifetime --this was published three years before he died-- of observation of human beings, not simply from Scripture and theology). It's also not a book that's designed to be a "practical" manual, laying down all sorts of rules for day-to-day conduct. Rather, it's concerned with helping people to think about the subject rightly, in the consciousness that "ideas have consequences" for behavior. The vocabulary and thought, as always in Lewis' writing, is aimed at the ordinary intelligent layman; it avoids jargon, and while it's profound, it's never pedantic.
The six-chapter structure of the book is simple and logical. First, he introduces the subject of love in general in Chapter 1, moving beyond the facile labeling of "gift-love" as invariably positive and "need-love" as invariably inferior and negative, and expounding the idea that "God is love" (and not the converse). Chapter 2, by way of prolegomena, treats our "Likings and Loves for the Sub-human," including love of nature, and patriotism; these aren't the types of love for personal beings spoken of in Scripture, but have a certain "continuity" with them. Finally, he devotes a chapter to each of the "loves" addressed in Scripture: the natural affection of family and close association; freely-conferred friendship; Eros, or romantic love; and "charity" (Latin, caritas; Greek, agape), the kind of unconditional, self-giving love God has for us and desires us to have for Him and for each other.
Simply recounting the chapter schema, however, doesn't reflect the variety and depth of insight here, and summarizing it in the limited space of a review wouldn't do it justice. This is a meaty, pithy book to sink your intellectual and spiritual teeth into, and designed to make you think. Even when you disagree with him (and I do on one or two minor points), here as elsewhere, Lewis is always intellectually stimulating, and leads you to insights you wouldn't have come to without the interaction. But what he proffers, he does so with a profound humility that commands my respect and admiration as much as his wisdom. His was a first-rate mind; and it's always a privilege to read his work.
The six-chapter structure of the book is simple and logical. First, he introduces the subject of love in general in Chapter 1, moving beyond the facile labeling of "gift-love" as invariably positive and "need-love" as invariably inferior and negative, and expounding the idea that "God is love" (and not the converse). Chapter 2, by way of prolegomena, treats our "Likings and Loves for the Sub-human," including love of nature, and patriotism; these aren't the types of love for personal beings spoken of in Scripture, but have a certain "continuity" with them. Finally, he devotes a chapter to each of the "loves" addressed in Scripture: the natural affection of family and close association; freely-conferred friendship; Eros, or romantic love; and "charity" (Latin, caritas; Greek, agape), the kind of unconditional, self-giving love God has for us and desires us to have for Him and for each other.
Simply recounting the chapter schema, however, doesn't reflect the variety and depth of insight here, and summarizing it in the limited space of a review wouldn't do it justice. This is a meaty, pithy book to sink your intellectual and spiritual teeth into, and designed to make you think. Even when you disagree with him (and I do on one or two minor points), here as elsewhere, Lewis is always intellectually stimulating, and leads you to insights you wouldn't have come to without the interaction. But what he proffers, he does so with a profound humility that commands my respect and admiration as much as his wisdom. His was a first-rate mind; and it's always a privilege to read his work.
December 29, 2019
Simple straightforward observations on the 4 types of love. Basic information that can enrich anyone's understanding of human relationships. Listened to the only recording of the author himself via audiobook. The four categories are Storge (near relations), Philia (friendship), Eros (obvious), and Agape (God). These Greek concepts are nothing new. But the parallels and clear examinations of human interaction Lewis writes about are timeless.
June 12, 2018
So I always love reading anything by C.S. Lewis. He is my go-to author! This book is basically Lewis just talking about his insights and his perspectives on love. It's almost like I am out with him drinking coffee at the cafe and he's just sharing his thoughts on love and friendship. There was a lot of contradictions i.e. sex without love can be a good thing...friendship can be a bad thing. And I was like, "Okay...explain." And Lewis *does* explain and offers terrific ideals and values on love, friendship, Affection, Charity and the like. For anyone who loves hearing Lewis "talk", this is a great book to read.
October 20, 2024
2024 Review
This is one I should have come back to years ago. Lewis is remarkably thought provoking in his classification of the four loves. More importantly, he is practical. He explains each category, lists the strengths and weaknesses, and then moves on to the next. The reader is left with plenty to work on but in such a slender volume that nothing feels belabored.
Original rating 4 stars
This is one I should have come back to years ago. Lewis is remarkably thought provoking in his classification of the four loves. More importantly, he is practical. He explains each category, lists the strengths and weaknesses, and then moves on to the next. The reader is left with plenty to work on but in such a slender volume that nothing feels belabored.
Original rating 4 stars
June 9, 2019
ENGLISH: One of the best books about love I've ever read. This is the fifth time I've read it, just after "The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm. My conclusion is that Lewis knows what he is speaking about far more than Fromm. Of the four loves Lewis talks about, Fromm only knows two: storge and eros (affection and erotic love). He completely ignores friendship (philia) and the love of God (charitas), which is not strange, because Fromm declares himself non-theist.
The part that Lewis devotes to charitas is excellent and deep. This book shows that the author has lived many of the things he says.
One of the gems in this book is the fallacy of the invisible cat, Lewis's version of affirming the consequent, which I have used several times in my blog. For instance, here: http://populscience.blogspot.com/2019...
ESPAÑOL: Uno de los mejores libros sobre el amor que he leído. Lo he leído cinco veces. Como acabo de leer "El Arte de Amar" de Erich Fromm, mi conclusión es que Lewis le da cien vueltas a Fromm. De los cuatro amores que señala Lewis, Fromm sólo conoce dos: storge y eros (el afecto y el amor erótico). Ignora por completo la amistad (philia) y el amor de Dios (charitas), lo que no es extraño, porque Fromm se declara no teísta.
La parte que Lewis dedica a charitas es excelente y profunda. Se nota que muchas de las cosas que dice en este libro las ha vivido.
Una de las joyas de este libro es la falacia del gato invisible, la versión de Lewis de la afirmación del consecuente, que he utilizado varias veces en mi blog. Por ejemplo, aquí: http://divulciencia.blogspot.com/2019...
The part that Lewis devotes to charitas is excellent and deep. This book shows that the author has lived many of the things he says.
One of the gems in this book is the fallacy of the invisible cat, Lewis's version of affirming the consequent, which I have used several times in my blog. For instance, here: http://populscience.blogspot.com/2019...
ESPAÑOL: Uno de los mejores libros sobre el amor que he leído. Lo he leído cinco veces. Como acabo de leer "El Arte de Amar" de Erich Fromm, mi conclusión es que Lewis le da cien vueltas a Fromm. De los cuatro amores que señala Lewis, Fromm sólo conoce dos: storge y eros (el afecto y el amor erótico). Ignora por completo la amistad (philia) y el amor de Dios (charitas), lo que no es extraño, porque Fromm se declara no teísta.
La parte que Lewis dedica a charitas es excelente y profunda. Se nota que muchas de las cosas que dice en este libro las ha vivido.
Una de las joyas de este libro es la falacia del gato invisible, la versión de Lewis de la afirmación del consecuente, que he utilizado varias veces en mi blog. Por ejemplo, aquí: http://divulciencia.blogspot.com/2019...
July 7, 2019
4 1/2 stars. I bumped it up 1/2 star for the last chapter ..... awesome!
April 8, 2016
Whenever I read any book by Lewis I always ask myself why I read anything else until I've read everything he has ever written. He puts everything in such a way that is so complex yet so simple. Only a true genius can write something that you feel exactly the same way yourself, but could never have the eloquence to state it like Lewis can.
Highly recommend The Four Loves to anyone who has ever loved anything. I live with a beautiful example of these loves in my own home in my husband, and I kept looking up from my reading the whole time and asking him questions about affection, friendship, Eros, and charity.
This would be wonderful for any young teenagers who are just coming into dating or adulthood and wonderful for a discussion group of all ages. There's so much to think about and talk through about how these loves look practically in daily life.
Highly recommend The Four Loves to anyone who has ever loved anything. I live with a beautiful example of these loves in my own home in my husband, and I kept looking up from my reading the whole time and asking him questions about affection, friendship, Eros, and charity.
This would be wonderful for any young teenagers who are just coming into dating or adulthood and wonderful for a discussion group of all ages. There's so much to think about and talk through about how these loves look practically in daily life.
November 26, 2014
This is not the exact same material as his book that bears the same title. Rather it is from a series of radio broadcasts prior to the publication of the book.
That said, I am enjoying hearing Lewis's own voice. I keep thinking of J.R.R. Tolkien's supposed basing of the Ents and their way of talking on his friend C.S. Lewis ... and it kind of works.
Also the material is great and is a wonderful precis (probably) of the book which I know contains more material. And which I will be reading in the future. This is great stuff, especially the section about friendship.
That said, I am enjoying hearing Lewis's own voice. I keep thinking of J.R.R. Tolkien's supposed basing of the Ents and their way of talking on his friend C.S. Lewis ... and it kind of works.
Also the material is great and is a wonderful precis (probably) of the book which I know contains more material. And which I will be reading in the future. This is great stuff, especially the section about friendship.
October 18, 2015
The Four Loves is based on the four Greek words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. Lewis defines each of these types of love and how they affect our lives. It was a short, lovely read. It was at times a little highbrow, but remember that it was written in the 40's by a Cambridge professor. Still Lewis has a wonderful way with words, and some of the reflections and quotes were quiet resonant. Such as this one:
“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.”
I wish parts of it had flowed a little smoother, however I did enjoy it. There were also tiny bits of snark that keep it from being too stuffy. The segment on friendship was my favorite.
“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.”
I wish parts of it had flowed a little smoother, however I did enjoy it. There were also tiny bits of snark that keep it from being too stuffy. The segment on friendship was my favorite.
June 21, 2023
Another masterful work full of brilliant, moving, and succinct insight. I will definitely be rereading in the near future.
July 21, 2011
At his best Lewis can be very good (Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity), but at other times he can be a bit frustrating. He has an excellent mind overstuffed with knowledge of many fine things, he’s often insightful, and he’s able to write engagingly and accessibly while fleshing out a carefully conceived and detailed plan. But when he’s not at his best there can be too much wordplay and other cleverness combined with an over-certain pedagogy, or at least that’s how it comes off for me. It’s particularly frustrating when there are a lot of good ideas and connections that you know could be deepened with more reflection and care. While clearing out the underbrush. You might say someone with his gifts has kind of an obligation to use them carefully and well for the greater good. Of course you might not say that, but let’s assume you might. At times this book feels like it was tossed off by an unusually gifted journalist. It’s a good book, but you get the sense that it could have been much better. At least I get that sense. And the material is important - it merits the best effort. Lewis wrote about the psychic and spiritual drain that Screwtape caused him, getting into the skin of a senior demon for the duration of its writing, and how he could never do that again to write a sequel despite many requests. I’m grateful that he put himself through that, and maybe he didn’t really have an obligation to sweat more to make this book better. But I do wish he had.
September 17, 2012
The fantasy novels of CS Lewis can barely touch the fanciful nature of love, but in The Four Loves, his work on the subject feels so in tune with the complexity of its forms that it seems as if it MUST be written by some learned/aged Don Juan reflecting back on the lusts and loves of his past, so much so that you forget all about Lewis, the pasty white English professor and his faerie books. The Four Loves made a strong impression on me in my youth. Perhaps I didn't, and maybe still don't, take his every word on love as the end-all truth, the absolute definition, the incontrovertible conclusion, but his ideas struck me as sound and intriguing in the very least. It's been quite some time since I last read this. I think it's due for a reread, as I'm curious to see how my perception has change.
April 1, 2008
This book was something I looked forward to reading and then I was totally bored and disgusted with it. What frustrated me the most is how he would take an opinion or outright incorrect statement such as Pagans worship trees (way way way out of context and incorrect) and then use that false statement to support his arguments. That is basic logic 101 class and made most of his arguments invalid. I wanted to like what he was saying but couldnt because he was just down right incorrect in so much.
February 17, 2016
Outstanding. Also read in September of 1983. And then in 2016 I listened to the audio recording of Lewis himself reading an earlier form of the book.
December 19, 2021
storge
"Aproape oricine însă poate deveni obiect al afecțiunii, până și urâtul, și prostul, și enervantul. Nu trebuie să fie nicio potrivire evidentă între cei uniți de ea...Ea ignoră chiar și barierele de specie. O vedem nu numai între câine și om, ci și, mai surprinzător, între câine și pisică."
"Odată când am făcut o observație despre afecțiunea destul de frecvent întâlnită dintre pisică și câine, prietenul meu mi-a replicat: `Da. Dar pariez că nici un câine nu ar mărturisi-o altor câini.` "
philia
"Prietenia este - într-un sens câtuși de puțin peiorativ -cea mai puțin naturală dintre iubiri, cea mai puțin instinctivă, biologică, gregară și necesară."
"...credem că noi înșine ne-am ales semenii. In realitate, o diferență de câțiva ani în datele noastre de naștere, câteva mile în plus între anumite case, alegerea unei universități în locul alteia, serviciul militar la diferite regimente, abordarea sau neabordarea accidentală a unui subiect la o primă întâlnire - oricare dintre aceste întâmplări ne-ar fi putut ține separați. Dar, pentru un creștin, nu există, riguros vorbind, întâmplări."
eros
"Atunci când este prezent un adevărat eros, împotrivirea la poruncile lui e resimțită ca o apostazie, iar ispitele, atunci când sunt veritabile (după norma creștină), vorbesc cu glasul datoriilor-datorii cvasireligioase, acte de zel pios față de Iubire."
"Astfel, erosul, ca și celelalte iubiri, dar mai frapant, datorită puterii, blândeței, terorii și agresivității sale, își relevează adevăratul statut. Nu poate fi de unul singur ceea ce trebuie să fie totuși dacă este să rămână eros. Trebuie să fie ajutat; așadar, trebuie să fie condus. Zeul moare sau devine demon dacă nu i se supune lui Dumnezeu."
agape
"Ne vom apropia mai mult de Dumnezeu nu încercând să evităm suferințele în iubiri, ci acceptându-le și oferindu-i-le Lui, lepădând orice armură defensivă. Dacă inima noastră simte nevoia să se frângă și dacă El hotărăște că aceasta e calea de urmat pentru ca ea să se frângă, așa să fie."
"Omul se poate înălța la cer numai din cauză că Cristos, care a murit și s-a înălțat la cer, este `imprimat în El`. Oare nu trebuie să presupunem că același lucru este valabil și în cazul iubirilor unui om? Numai cei în care a intrat Iubirea în Sine se vor înălța la Iubirea în Sine. Și ei pot fi înălțați cu El numai dacă au împărtășit într-o oarecare măsură moartea Sa, dacă elementul natural din ei s-a supus - an de an într-o agonie bruscă - procesului de transmutație."
"Aproape oricine însă poate deveni obiect al afecțiunii, până și urâtul, și prostul, și enervantul. Nu trebuie să fie nicio potrivire evidentă între cei uniți de ea...Ea ignoră chiar și barierele de specie. O vedem nu numai între câine și om, ci și, mai surprinzător, între câine și pisică."
"Odată când am făcut o observație despre afecțiunea destul de frecvent întâlnită dintre pisică și câine, prietenul meu mi-a replicat: `Da. Dar pariez că nici un câine nu ar mărturisi-o altor câini.` "
philia
"Prietenia este - într-un sens câtuși de puțin peiorativ -cea mai puțin naturală dintre iubiri, cea mai puțin instinctivă, biologică, gregară și necesară."
"...credem că noi înșine ne-am ales semenii. In realitate, o diferență de câțiva ani în datele noastre de naștere, câteva mile în plus între anumite case, alegerea unei universități în locul alteia, serviciul militar la diferite regimente, abordarea sau neabordarea accidentală a unui subiect la o primă întâlnire - oricare dintre aceste întâmplări ne-ar fi putut ține separați. Dar, pentru un creștin, nu există, riguros vorbind, întâmplări."
eros
"Atunci când este prezent un adevărat eros, împotrivirea la poruncile lui e resimțită ca o apostazie, iar ispitele, atunci când sunt veritabile (după norma creștină), vorbesc cu glasul datoriilor-datorii cvasireligioase, acte de zel pios față de Iubire."
"Astfel, erosul, ca și celelalte iubiri, dar mai frapant, datorită puterii, blândeței, terorii și agresivității sale, își relevează adevăratul statut. Nu poate fi de unul singur ceea ce trebuie să fie totuși dacă este să rămână eros. Trebuie să fie ajutat; așadar, trebuie să fie condus. Zeul moare sau devine demon dacă nu i se supune lui Dumnezeu."
agape
"Ne vom apropia mai mult de Dumnezeu nu încercând să evităm suferințele în iubiri, ci acceptându-le și oferindu-i-le Lui, lepădând orice armură defensivă. Dacă inima noastră simte nevoia să se frângă și dacă El hotărăște că aceasta e calea de urmat pentru ca ea să se frângă, așa să fie."
"Omul se poate înălța la cer numai din cauză că Cristos, care a murit și s-a înălțat la cer, este `imprimat în El`. Oare nu trebuie să presupunem că același lucru este valabil și în cazul iubirilor unui om? Numai cei în care a intrat Iubirea în Sine se vor înălța la Iubirea în Sine. Și ei pot fi înălțați cu El numai dacă au împărtășit într-o oarecare măsură moartea Sa, dacă elementul natural din ei s-a supus - an de an într-o agonie bruscă - procesului de transmutație."
July 17, 2021
Llegué a este libro tras leer
El Arte de Amar
de
Erich Fromm
. Ambos libros enfocan la afectividad desde ángulos distintos. Lewis describe el amor de forma más genérica, vivencial y apologética. Fromm lo hace de forma más pragmática, desmenuzando el amor en sub productos de la psicología: fe, actividad, coraje, concentración, gratitud, cuidado, respeto, responsabilidad, conocimiento, preocupación, disciplina, paciencia, etc. Lewis divide el libro en los siguientes capítulos:
Introducción: Nuestros amores se definen desde lo más bajo, desde los placeres. El alcance de nuestros placeres prefigura la calidad de nuestro amor. Hay dos formas básicas de amor: el amor apreciación (semejanza) permite admirar lo bueno en los demás, la imagen de Dios que hay en ellos. Pero no es un amor completo. En cambio, el amor necesidad (movido por lo vital) lleva a la aproximación al prójimo y a Dios. La vida divina en sí misma, es no sólo semejanza, sino que es la vida divina realizada según las exigencias humanas, tal como la vivió Cristo. Se hace a través de la aproximación a Dios por medio de nuestra voluntad.
Capítulo I: gustos y amores por lo sub-humano: Del amor necesidad puede surgir otra clase de amor, siempre a partir de principios morales . Cuantas mujeres abandonadas por sus amantes cuando éstos han saciado sus necesidades. Principios morales como la fidelidad o la gratitud hubieran mantenido la relación. Lewis denuncia muchos excesos de la sociedad actual: deformación del lenguaje para el adoctrinamiento, paganismo (amor a la naturaleza), nacionalismo (patriotismo)
Capítulo II: El Afecto: Es el amor más instintivo pero es la primera grieta por donde nuestro ego empieza a romperse para elevarse. Empezamos a salir de nosotros mismos para apreciar la bondad o inteligencia del otro. No se da importancia. Podría confundirse con 1 Corintios 13 . Cristo deja claro que no debemos fiarlo todo a este tipo de amor (Lc 14, 26)
Capítulo III: La Amistad: El compañerismo es la matriz de la amistad. Debe asentarse en una afición o cruz común que dé paso a la mutua admiración. Pequeños círculos de amigos han transformado el mundo. De ahí que sea denostada por el poder político temiendo posibles rebeliones. Tenemos que desterrar la idea de que elegimos los amigos. Las amistades no se eligen, Dios nos sirve la mesa. Cristo dijo: "yo os he elegido a vosotros" (Jn 15,9-17)
Capítulo IV: El eros no es suficiente: Lewis explica por qué el enamoramiento no es duradero por sí mismo. Nuestro ego vuelve con el tiempo y debemos esforzarnos por los trabajos que promete el eros. El marido debe sacrificarse por su esposa. Es necesaria humildad, caridad y la gracia divina.
Capítulo V: La Caridad: Los amores naturales no perduran porque no cumplen sus promesas o son dirigidos hacia el mal. Amar es sufrir. Nunca es posible la seguridad. La única alternativa es el ataúd del egoísmo. No debemos calcular para evitar sufrimientos ni tratar de cuidar la propia felicidad. Fromm lo expresa esta idea con otras palabras:
Siguientes paradas: Mi búsqueda sobre este tema mira ahora hacia estos libros:
Love's Sacred Order: The Four Loves Revisited por Leiva-Merikakis, Erasmo
The Love Dare por Kendrick, Stephen
Introducción: Nuestros amores se definen desde lo más bajo, desde los placeres. El alcance de nuestros placeres prefigura la calidad de nuestro amor. Hay dos formas básicas de amor: el amor apreciación (semejanza) permite admirar lo bueno en los demás, la imagen de Dios que hay en ellos. Pero no es un amor completo. En cambio, el amor necesidad (movido por lo vital) lleva a la aproximación al prójimo y a Dios. La vida divina en sí misma, es no sólo semejanza, sino que es la vida divina realizada según las exigencias humanas, tal como la vivió Cristo. Se hace a través de la aproximación a Dios por medio de nuestra voluntad.
Capítulo I: gustos y amores por lo sub-humano: Del amor necesidad puede surgir otra clase de amor, siempre a partir de principios morales . Cuantas mujeres abandonadas por sus amantes cuando éstos han saciado sus necesidades. Principios morales como la fidelidad o la gratitud hubieran mantenido la relación. Lewis denuncia muchos excesos de la sociedad actual: deformación del lenguaje para el adoctrinamiento, paganismo (amor a la naturaleza), nacionalismo (patriotismo)
Capítulo II: El Afecto: Es el amor más instintivo pero es la primera grieta por donde nuestro ego empieza a romperse para elevarse. Empezamos a salir de nosotros mismos para apreciar la bondad o inteligencia del otro. No se da importancia. Podría confundirse con 1 Corintios 13 . Cristo deja claro que no debemos fiarlo todo a este tipo de amor (Lc 14, 26)
Capítulo III: La Amistad: El compañerismo es la matriz de la amistad. Debe asentarse en una afición o cruz común que dé paso a la mutua admiración. Pequeños círculos de amigos han transformado el mundo. De ahí que sea denostada por el poder político temiendo posibles rebeliones. Tenemos que desterrar la idea de que elegimos los amigos. Las amistades no se eligen, Dios nos sirve la mesa. Cristo dijo: "yo os he elegido a vosotros" (Jn 15,9-17)
Capítulo IV: El eros no es suficiente: Lewis explica por qué el enamoramiento no es duradero por sí mismo. Nuestro ego vuelve con el tiempo y debemos esforzarnos por los trabajos que promete el eros. El marido debe sacrificarse por su esposa. Es necesaria humildad, caridad y la gracia divina.
Capítulo V: La Caridad: Los amores naturales no perduran porque no cumplen sus promesas o son dirigidos hacia el mal. Amar es sufrir. Nunca es posible la seguridad. La única alternativa es el ataúd del egoísmo. No debemos calcular para evitar sufrimientos ni tratar de cuidar la propia felicidad. Fromm lo expresa esta idea con otras palabras:
Quien insiste en la seguridad y la tranquilidad como condiciones primarias de la vida no puede tener fe; quien se encierra en un sistema de defensa, donde la distancia y la posesión constituyen los medios que dan seguridad, se convierte en un prisionero.
-Sufrimiento según Fromm-
Siguientes paradas: Mi búsqueda sobre este tema mira ahora hacia estos libros:
Love's Sacred Order: The Four Loves Revisited por Leiva-Merikakis, Erasmo
The Love Dare por Kendrick, Stephen
September 10, 2024
4.3 Stars 🌟
Okay, I've read a few C.S. Lewis books by now, and I'm getting used to his writing style. So, I went in expecting to be wowed and sucked in by a fresh new perspective. I'm really falling in love with this writing style and the layers of such an imaginative and intellectual mind.
Straight off, I was already nodding in agreement and laughing at C.S. Lewis's simplified examples at what love is. He already turned it on its head; I've always thought that I knew what love is. I know everything he's talking about, I do not know what love is 🤣
I nearly expired following that bit about patriotism and nature. There are moments when C.S. Lewis tends to lose me and as much as I should care about patriotism and nature, I didn't begin to care until realising they were very much in line with the point he was making in the end. That's just it, though. His illustrations don't always capture my attention, and then they turn out to be of greater importance.
I enjoyed the colourful examples, but out of the works that I've read, I must admit that this time, I felt jumbled by them. They represented his points well enough, but I failed to stay rooted in the original point and got lost. Especially in Affection. I couldn't give a clear answer if anyone were to ask me about that chapter. Not at all.
"Those who cannot conceive Friendship as a substantive love but only a disguise or elaboration of Eros betray the fact that they have never had a Friend."
The chapter on Friendship is beautiful.
"In each of my friends, there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out."
There is such an amazing study of human behaviour in C.S. Lewis's writing. Things that are instinctive truths that once said out loud just turn into mental fireworks for me.
The chapter on Eros took me entirely by surprise. I'm not sure what to make of it. It was really different in both structure and tone from the other chapters. I was expecting at some time to feel a sense of its greater power, but C.S. Lewis's views were completely outside my current realm of understanding. Not because it was difficult to understand, because it was such a different view, I couldn't move past my initial shock to comprehend it. I'm still thinking about it. Not with a question to oppose it, just really thinking. I've never been in love, so this is hard to grasp for me, especially because so much of the Eros represented in media has also played a part in my idea of what forms it. I'm just not so well-rounded that I can understand some of the things in this chapter. I'm no longer wearing rose coloured glasses either, but I feel like within what he's saying, he missed the element of goodness....Is what I first said after reading the chapter once 😅
I decided that it wouldn't be fair to call that a review. So after rereading the chapter, it felt like C.S. Lewis was blowing the glitter off my view of Romantic Love. I grew up on these ideas of secular romance and dashing heroes and heroines full of explosive attraction and relationships formed by aesthetics. I liked my glitter. Not the ugly dull lump underneath it. But he kept shining the lump until I could see that it was actually a precious gem. There is such a beauty in the truth about love, and if you pay attention, this chapter can erase years of the dramatic and cinematic and show you something amazing. Love is more romantic now that I can laugh at it.
The chapter on Charity was shorter than I had expected. Yet so humbly done, another unexpected. I love that C.S. Lewis saved this love for last and used it to turn all other chapters on their heads.
The Four Loves has been a pleasant surprise. A trip of an idea that was a roller coaster. C.S. Lewis set up the entire book extremely well, and I think that played a really important role in both my understanding as well as communicating what love is. Especially since the ending has such a humble statement.
I actually have no complaints with this book at all. My only complaint is that I can't understand it in its fullness over a first read. As always, I'll look forward to a reread at some point.
Okay, I've read a few C.S. Lewis books by now, and I'm getting used to his writing style. So, I went in expecting to be wowed and sucked in by a fresh new perspective. I'm really falling in love with this writing style and the layers of such an imaginative and intellectual mind.
Straight off, I was already nodding in agreement and laughing at C.S. Lewis's simplified examples at what love is. He already turned it on its head; I've always thought that I knew what love is. I know everything he's talking about, I do not know what love is 🤣
I nearly expired following that bit about patriotism and nature. There are moments when C.S. Lewis tends to lose me and as much as I should care about patriotism and nature, I didn't begin to care until realising they were very much in line with the point he was making in the end. That's just it, though. His illustrations don't always capture my attention, and then they turn out to be of greater importance.
I enjoyed the colourful examples, but out of the works that I've read, I must admit that this time, I felt jumbled by them. They represented his points well enough, but I failed to stay rooted in the original point and got lost. Especially in Affection. I couldn't give a clear answer if anyone were to ask me about that chapter. Not at all.
"Those who cannot conceive Friendship as a substantive love but only a disguise or elaboration of Eros betray the fact that they have never had a Friend."
The chapter on Friendship is beautiful.
"In each of my friends, there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out."
There is such an amazing study of human behaviour in C.S. Lewis's writing. Things that are instinctive truths that once said out loud just turn into mental fireworks for me.
The chapter on Eros took me entirely by surprise. I'm not sure what to make of it. It was really different in both structure and tone from the other chapters. I was expecting at some time to feel a sense of its greater power, but C.S. Lewis's views were completely outside my current realm of understanding. Not because it was difficult to understand, because it was such a different view, I couldn't move past my initial shock to comprehend it. I'm still thinking about it. Not with a question to oppose it, just really thinking. I've never been in love, so this is hard to grasp for me, especially because so much of the Eros represented in media has also played a part in my idea of what forms it. I'm just not so well-rounded that I can understand some of the things in this chapter. I'm no longer wearing rose coloured glasses either, but I feel like within what he's saying, he missed the element of goodness....Is what I first said after reading the chapter once 😅
I decided that it wouldn't be fair to call that a review. So after rereading the chapter, it felt like C.S. Lewis was blowing the glitter off my view of Romantic Love. I grew up on these ideas of secular romance and dashing heroes and heroines full of explosive attraction and relationships formed by aesthetics. I liked my glitter. Not the ugly dull lump underneath it. But he kept shining the lump until I could see that it was actually a precious gem. There is such a beauty in the truth about love, and if you pay attention, this chapter can erase years of the dramatic and cinematic and show you something amazing. Love is more romantic now that I can laugh at it.
The chapter on Charity was shorter than I had expected. Yet so humbly done, another unexpected. I love that C.S. Lewis saved this love for last and used it to turn all other chapters on their heads.
The Four Loves has been a pleasant surprise. A trip of an idea that was a roller coaster. C.S. Lewis set up the entire book extremely well, and I think that played a really important role in both my understanding as well as communicating what love is. Especially since the ending has such a humble statement.
I actually have no complaints with this book at all. My only complaint is that I can't understand it in its fullness over a first read. As always, I'll look forward to a reread at some point.
March 20, 2018
I’ve decided to re-read some of the old C.S. Lewis titles that inhabited my parents’ bookcases. Most of them I read first when I was a teenager and glad to page through most anything near at hand. At some point in my early twenties I decided that Lewis was too something-or-other for me. I could never quite figure out what it was about him that irked. Was he too reasonable and intellectual? Not reasonable or intellectual enough? I don’t know.
Reading him again in my mid-forties is a different experience. I find him more engaging, more conversational. He is such an excellent writer, and a fine, clear thinker. He has a gift for sanity (which somehow feels more rare than it used to). He may still be too reasonable and intellectual for me; or not reasonable and intellectual enough. I don’t know. And there are a few bits here in The Four Loves that haven’t, perhaps, aged perfectly well by some standards. But there’s no one like Lewis today (a public thinker and writer with broad appeal who is also a serious Christian? Shocking.)
Lewis is also incredibly quotable:
Of course language is not an infallible guide, but it contains, with all its defects, a good deal of stored insight and experience. If you begin by flouting it, it has a way of avenging itself later on.
[O]ur whole being by its very nature is one vast need: incomplete, preparatory…
The human mind is generally far more eager to praise and dispraise than to describe and define.
Nature does not teach. A true philosophy may sometimes validate an experience of nature; an experience of nature cannot validate a philosophy. Nature will not verify any theological or metaphysical proposition (or not in the manner we are now considering); she will help to show what it means.
[T]he proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift.
We all appear as dunces when feigning an interest in things we care nothing about.
People who bore one another should meet seldom; people who interest one another, often.
The mass of the people, who are never quite right, are never quite wrong.
It is a bad thing not to be able to take a joke. Worse, not to take a divine joke; made, I grant you, at our expense, but also (who doubts it) for our endless benefit? …The fact that we have bodies is the oldest joke there is. Eros (like death, figure drawing, and the study of medicine) may at moments cause us to take it with total seriousness. The error consists in concluding that Eros should always do so and permanently abolish the joke.
When natural things look divine, the demonic is just round the corner.
If I am sure of anything I am sure that His teaching was never meant to confirm my congenital preference for safe investments and limited liabilities. …Christ did not teach and suffer that we might become…more careful of our own happiness.
The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.
The good man is sorry for the sins which have increased his Need. He is not entirely sorry for the fresh Need they have produced.
When we see the face of God we shall know that we have always known it. He has been a party to, has made, sustained and moved moment by moment within, all our earthly experiences of innocent love. All that was true love in them was, even on earth, far more His than ours, and ours only because His.
All that is not eternal is eternally out of date.
Reading him again in my mid-forties is a different experience. I find him more engaging, more conversational. He is such an excellent writer, and a fine, clear thinker. He has a gift for sanity (which somehow feels more rare than it used to). He may still be too reasonable and intellectual for me; or not reasonable and intellectual enough. I don’t know. And there are a few bits here in The Four Loves that haven’t, perhaps, aged perfectly well by some standards. But there’s no one like Lewis today (a public thinker and writer with broad appeal who is also a serious Christian? Shocking.)
Lewis is also incredibly quotable:
Of course language is not an infallible guide, but it contains, with all its defects, a good deal of stored insight and experience. If you begin by flouting it, it has a way of avenging itself later on.
[O]ur whole being by its very nature is one vast need: incomplete, preparatory…
The human mind is generally far more eager to praise and dispraise than to describe and define.
Nature does not teach. A true philosophy may sometimes validate an experience of nature; an experience of nature cannot validate a philosophy. Nature will not verify any theological or metaphysical proposition (or not in the manner we are now considering); she will help to show what it means.
[T]he proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift.
We all appear as dunces when feigning an interest in things we care nothing about.
People who bore one another should meet seldom; people who interest one another, often.
The mass of the people, who are never quite right, are never quite wrong.
It is a bad thing not to be able to take a joke. Worse, not to take a divine joke; made, I grant you, at our expense, but also (who doubts it) for our endless benefit? …The fact that we have bodies is the oldest joke there is. Eros (like death, figure drawing, and the study of medicine) may at moments cause us to take it with total seriousness. The error consists in concluding that Eros should always do so and permanently abolish the joke.
When natural things look divine, the demonic is just round the corner.
If I am sure of anything I am sure that His teaching was never meant to confirm my congenital preference for safe investments and limited liabilities. …Christ did not teach and suffer that we might become…more careful of our own happiness.
The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.
The good man is sorry for the sins which have increased his Need. He is not entirely sorry for the fresh Need they have produced.
When we see the face of God we shall know that we have always known it. He has been a party to, has made, sustained and moved moment by moment within, all our earthly experiences of innocent love. All that was true love in them was, even on earth, far more His than ours, and ours only because His.
All that is not eternal is eternally out of date.
March 21, 2017
I'm listening to this book so I'm not sure how everything is spelled. This first type of love reminds me of the basic level of care at the bottom of the psychological pyramids that is so often neglected and often leads to such dysfunctional young adults and crime. If an infant doesn't feel secure and isn't nurtured, then he will not grow up feeling compassion for humanity.
As for philia I totally agree with his philosophy. I have "friends" and I have friends. I have a group of five sorority sisters that I have known for over twenty years that I talk to every.single.day. No lie. I talk to them more than I do to my daughter, which I'm not sure what that says about my relationships. I also have a few friends that although I don't talk to them often I know they would be there for me if I needed them. Then there is Matt, my favorite. I dont know what I'd do without him, even if he does live thousands of miles away from me.
I think the important fact to take away from his discussion of Eros is that it is like a garden. It needs care. It cannot take care of itself. Constant tendering is required for it to thrive.
Lastly is the belief in love as a Christian. It's easy to say "god loves me", but does my behavior merit that? And can I say my behavior is the reflection?
As for philia I totally agree with his philosophy. I have "friends" and I have friends. I have a group of five sorority sisters that I have known for over twenty years that I talk to every.single.day. No lie. I talk to them more than I do to my daughter, which I'm not sure what that says about my relationships. I also have a few friends that although I don't talk to them often I know they would be there for me if I needed them. Then there is Matt, my favorite. I dont know what I'd do without him, even if he does live thousands of miles away from me.
I think the important fact to take away from his discussion of Eros is that it is like a garden. It needs care. It cannot take care of itself. Constant tendering is required for it to thrive.
Lastly is the belief in love as a Christian. It's easy to say "god loves me", but does my behavior merit that? And can I say my behavior is the reflection?
August 21, 2020
I have long admired Lewis's essay on "Friendship," but this was my first time reading his take on the other three loves, and all four at once. My favorite passage comes right at the end of the book, in essay on "Charity."
"We were made for God. Only by being in some respect like Him, only by being a manifestation of His beauty, loving-kindness, wisdom or goodness, has any earthly Beloved excited our love. It is not that we have loved them too much, but that we did not quite understand what we were loving. It is not that we shall be asked [once in heaven] to turn from them, so dearly familiar, to a Stranger. When we see the face of God we shall know that we have always known it. He has been a party to, has made, sustained and moved moment by moment within, all our early experiences of innocent love. All that was true love in them was, even on earth, far more His than ours, and ours only because His. In Heaven there will be no anguish and no duty of turning away from our earthly Beloved. First, because we shall have turned already; from the portraits to the Original, from the rivulets to the Fountain, from the creatures He made lovable to Love Himself. But secondly, because we shall find them all in Him" (168-169).
C.S. Lewis in 2020: Book 10 of 16
"We were made for God. Only by being in some respect like Him, only by being a manifestation of His beauty, loving-kindness, wisdom or goodness, has any earthly Beloved excited our love. It is not that we have loved them too much, but that we did not quite understand what we were loving. It is not that we shall be asked [once in heaven] to turn from them, so dearly familiar, to a Stranger. When we see the face of God we shall know that we have always known it. He has been a party to, has made, sustained and moved moment by moment within, all our early experiences of innocent love. All that was true love in them was, even on earth, far more His than ours, and ours only because His. In Heaven there will be no anguish and no duty of turning away from our earthly Beloved. First, because we shall have turned already; from the portraits to the Original, from the rivulets to the Fountain, from the creatures He made lovable to Love Himself. But secondly, because we shall find them all in Him" (168-169).
C.S. Lewis in 2020: Book 10 of 16
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,417 reviews