Firstly, so we don't end up misunderstanding each other, a 'naturalist' is somebody who doesn't need to invent anything supernatural to account for the world. A 'naturist', by contrast, is somebody who likes to spend time without any clothes on. It's possible to be both a naturist and a naturalist, but neither requires the other.
I
was led to think about this question of love, when thinking about
that great library of books, full of poetry, helpful homilies and
utterly mad ravings, all chucked together and called 'the bible'.
Actually, I wasn't thinking of my favourite book, Ecclesiastes, since
you ask, but, rather about one of Saul's less nasty epistles, his
first letter to the Corinthians. - oh, yes, Saul renamed himself
'Paul', indicative of how lacking in imagination name-changers are,
and a reason to have suspicions about him; people, or institutions,
that change their names often have less than honourable intentions. Still, the poor chap did hail from Tarsus, enough to give anybody a chip on the shoulder and a wonky sense of self.
In
particular, I was thinking that any naturalist would understand, and,
mostly, agree, with his comments on love, rendered thus by the King
James' version:
Corinthians
13:4-7 King James
Version (KJV):
"Charity
suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth
not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth
not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily
provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth
not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth
all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all
things."
Not
that suffering is a good thing, in itself, it's a bad thing.
The
first noticeable problem is that 'Charity' has changed its meaning
somewhat since 1604. So it was necessary to have a look at the
original Greek. There, the word used is 'agape' - in Greek, ἀγάπη
translated by the OED as 'brotherly love'.
The
problem is that this is different from our 'one-fits-nobody' word
'love'. The Ancient Greeks had four words for love:
Storge
– What we'd call 'affection', for kith & kin
Philia
- Friendship love, why we only have half a dozen real friends, and
they are so precious
Eros
- Lust, or, more charitably, limerence, sexual love
Agape
- Brotherly love – translated, as I say above, as 'charity'.
So,
where's the problem, all these are part of normal human experience,
they're as natural as any naturalist would want?
Well,
the problem is that agape, was hijacked by the early Christians to
des cribe what they thought of as their unique form of love, which
involved love of fellow cult-members, but also, 'love' of
monotheistic god they'd adapted from judaism.
Clearly,
a naturalist might like members of his chess club, or old school
chums (not the ones who became close friends, for whom there would be
philia), but it'd be going a bit far to call this 'love'. A
naturalist would not be the sort of person who'd end up joining a
cult, either, because most cults involve some measure of supernatural
claim.
Is
there, though, to reclaim the Greek term 'agape', a distinguishable
kind of selfless love, for strangers, that's not erotic? Both storge
and philia are only possible with people you know quite well.
If
not, then, because cult members don't have anything special, apart
from a weak sense of self, there's no such thing as the christian
notion of 'agape' either. I don't think that's true – I think that
there is, at a boarding school, or in a business, or on a long boat
trip, a sort of bonding, a type of loose tribalism, where you're not
with kith, but, because of your shared circumstances and physical
proximity, a selfless caring that does develop.
It's
an important word to reclaim, I think, because this sort of love is
quite different from the nasty cult-worship of countries – the
patriotism, or nationalism, that seeks to pervert storge, philia and,
most of all, agape, to apply to the fanatical assignment of the worst
features of tribalism to supporting a country as if it were a god
that could do no wrong.
Agape
is a well-recognised and important basis for our shared humanity and
shared journey as living, sentient, and collaborative animals.
Was
Saul right, then, in his letter to the Corinthians?
I
think not. It's a beautiful passage, and we recognise a truth in it,
but 'agape' is the wrong word. Actually he should have used either
philia or storge. Which is why, to avoid saying 'philia/storge',
which would drain the poetry, he preferred to misuse agape.
We could correct it by saying (since agape, philia, storge and eros are all now English words):
"Storge suffereth long, and is kind; Storge envieth not; Storge vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, and, also
Philia suffereth long, and is kind; Philia envieth not; Philia vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up;
They do not behave themselves unseemly, seeketh not their own, are not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."
