There’s a line in St. Augustine’s Confessions
that (even though I haven’t read it in full) had stuck to me ever since I read
it as a seventeen-year-old: “Pondus meum amor meus ; eo feror, quocunque
feror”, or, in English: “My weight is my love, it takes me wherever I go.”[i]
This is
indeed very true upon self-reflection. Love draws us to whatever it is we love.
It pulls us to our beloved. As Dr. Peter Kreeft puts it, “love is our spiritual
gravity, our mass, our density – and our destiny”[ii]. Our love for food draws
us to it at times of hunger, we want to run to our beloved friends every time
we feel miserable, we might resort to our love for wine to numb ourselves a
little bit during moments of stress, or we might to turn to the God of Love
when we are spiritually lost. Love indeed moves us away from ourselves to unite
ourselves to another. Love takes us from the mere “I” and puts us to the “we”:
“I and my favorite food”, Me and my friends”, “The Lord and I”.
But
there’s a very special kind of love that captivates us in a very different way
than mere love for food or friend. It’s a love that I don’t think escapes the
common man. We’ve all felt it, I believe, and we’ve been ecstatic, excited,
flattered, or even hurt because of it. It’s called romance. And for a
lot of people, this love knocks on their hearts often, and it scares them: it
might end up in heartbreak (again!).
The
purpose of this essay is to ask this question: what, precisely, is romantic
love? Specifically, what is romance in the Thomistic perspective (in the
philosophical/theological study of St Thomas Aquinas’ thought)? In order to
answer this question, it is important to know what love is in general first.
So, let us, first and foremost, inquire: what is love?
Defining
the building blocks of Romance
Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae, uses the word
“love” in three different ways: it may refer to the Love of God (Prima Pars,
Question 20) which, since He is ontologically simple, is Himself, that is why
“God is Love” (1 John 4:8). It may also refer to the supernatural virtue of
love, or Charity (Secunda Secundae Partis, Questions 23-46), the same
love that St. Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 13. Lastly, it may refer to the
passion, or the emotion, of love (Prima Secundae Partis, Question 26).
This is the kind of love that Aristotle refers to as that which is part of the
concupiscible (from the Latin, concupiscere, “desire” in English) powers[iii]. In analyzing romance
(at least in this essay), we should look at it in the lens of love in the third
sense of the term.
We cannot speak of it in the first sense, since it is
improper to speak of God’s love as romantic, for romantic love wills, or
desires a good, other than oneself for one’s perfection, but God doesn’t will
anything other than Himself for His perfection, for His Nature fits Him for
Himself, and so His Will gravitates to Himself alone. He, therefore, is
involved in eternal, self-sufficient, self-loving, which is not what romantic
love is[iv].
We may speak of romantic love in light of the supernatural
virtue of charity, or in light of the second sense. For, being an effect of
grace under justification, together with faith and hope[v], it elevates and heals
human nature in all its aspects, including man’s ability to be attracted
romantically. But this would entail that we will no longer speak of it as it is
considered by itself. Also, this is unnecessary, for even the man who lacks the
said virtue is still able to fall in love. So, for the purposes of this essay,
we will set aside Charity and just focus on discussing romantic love in light
of the third, or last, sense: love as a passion.
But first: what is a passion[vi]? A passion is, let’s just
say for simplicity’s sake, an emotive power of the soul. It’s what we
call a “feeling” or “emotion”. When you feel sad when watching a movie
involving heavy drama, that’s a passion. When you feel happy because your
favorite team won the championship, that’s a passion.
Let’s expand our thoughts a little more. According to Aristotle,
Aquinas, and Catholic teaching, humans have souls. And our souls have certain
abilities that we either (1) share with all living things, (2) with other animals,
or (3) is unique to us as rational animals. An example of (1) is the power of
nutrition, or the preservation of bodily existence, a power we exercise when we
eat or get nutrients. An example of (2) is locomotion, or movement, or our
ability to move from one place to another. An example of (3) is our intellect,
or the seat of intellectual cognition, which enables us to do things like solve
mathematical problems.
The passions are part of what we share with other animals,
but it is important also to emphasize the fact that the passions don’t exist in
us in the same way it exists in animals like, say, a dog. The lower powers of
the soul that we share with other living things are elevated in a higher state
due to the fact that we have an existentially higher form of soul, called the rational
soul. Our rational powers perfect our lower appetites and integrate them
into our higher human life. An example of this is how our power of nutrition is
elevated given our rationality: we have attached a cultural significance to
eating in a way that mere animal eating doesn’t have, like in birthday parties,
or receptions, to give concrete examples. It’s important to remember this as we
progress in the topic of this essay.
The passions, which are individual parts of our appetite,
are our response to sense cognition, or our interaction to the external world
through sensation. We have 5 external senses (and we all know these): sight,
smell, taste, touch, and hearing. We also have 4 internal senses,
according to Aquinas: common sense, or that which coordinates sense
knowledge; imagination, or that which furnishes sense images; estimative
power, or “animal reason”; and sense memory, or that which stores
sense impressions[vii].
When these powers are used, we either desire what we sensed because it is good,
or we evade it because it is bad. This power to pursue the lovable and to flee
what is hateful is what appetite is in general. It is the passions when we
specify.
To understand this better, consider this statement: “That
barbeque sure smells delicious! Reminds me of the barbeque from my favorite
restaurant. I can’t wait to eat it.” What we have here is a statement based on
sense cognition that lead to a response from the appetite: the one who spoke the
statement first smelled the barbeque (exercise of the external power of
smell) which reminded him of the barbeque from his favorite restaurant (exercise
of the internal power of sense memory) that lead him to crave it or to want
to eat it (exercise of the passion of desire).
Once again, our appetitive powers are elevated due to our
rationality. Animals only have mere sense appetite, since they have no
power to think of or love the good or hate the bad the way we do. Our appetite
is different from them. We call it the will. It inclines us to what we,
not only sense, but apprehend as good or fitting. It’s object it the known
good (since we cannot love, or hate, what we do not know). The will is also
the seat of our freedom, which allows us to choose the multiple means by which
we can go to our ends that we know is good for us.
There’s still a lot going on here other than what I have
just expounded on. What is important is for us to grasp the basics I have just
given. Now, let us focus on the passion of love and what it entails with
regards to romance.
The
Passion of Love
Love is the root of the passions[viii]. We are only
inclined to move towards that which we know is lovable, or good (remember, once
again, the quote from St. Augustine above). This gives us a definition of loving:
it is the recognition that something else is fitting for me, that
something is good for me. And in encountering these goods infused in our nature
(a good meal for lunch, a friend, a new knowledge about the truth) causes in us
a sense of longing, that feeling of “that should be for me, that should
be me mine, it is for me”.
Aquinas cites Pseudo-Dionysius in saying that love is a “vis
unitiva” or a unitive power[ix]. It unites us to our
beloved in two ways: it unites us to the goods that build us up, as we are
united with food as a digestive or nutritive good; and drives us to achieve
real union by moving us to “grab” the good, as we are driven to cook in order
to be able to achieve the good of eating.
It is also important to point out that love is divided in
two: “towards
the good which a man wishes to someone (to himself or to
another) and towards that to which he wishes some good”[x]. In other words, it is
divided into love of concupiscence (“towards the good”), and love of
friendship (“towards that to which he wishes some good”). To set up the
main course of this essay, let’s use this example: A man is drawn towards courting
(love of concupiscence, to the good), but he is drawn to it not just for the
sake of courtship, he is drawn to it to win the heart of the woman he loves
(love of friendship, to the person).
Love is a concupiscible passion. The concupiscible appetite
is that which responds to a “sensible good or evil, simply apprehended as
such, which causes pleasure or pain.”[xi]
The concupiscible passions are those passions that respond to simple goods or
evils, in contrast to the irascible passions, which concerns goods/evils that
are difficult to achieve/avoid. Now, do I think romantic love just belongs to
the concupiscible passions per se? No, and I don’t think Aquinas, in his
genius, will say otherwise. Initially, I would say that romance is indeed a
concupiscible passion, but it may turn into something irascible depending on
the circumstances, just like other goods. More on this later.
Application
of Thomistic principles to Romantic Love
CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF
LOVE
Having all the background ideas in place, let’s look at the
passion of love in greater detail but now focusing on romance.
What causes romantic attraction? Let’s answer this by
asking what causes love in general.
Aquinas lists three causes of love[xii]. First, goodness:
the object must first present itself as a perfection, a good, something that is
desirable. This may be something superficial at first - the beloved’s beautiful
eyes, or the beloved’s good singing voice, probably even the beloved’s dorky
personality – but it is a good nonetheless.
Second, knowledge: you cannot love what you don’t
know. What is good in the beloved is apprehended by the lover: “she really has
beautiful eyes…I like the way he sings”. The lover knows that a good is
possessed by the beloved, and he aims to get hold of it.
Third, likeness: the beloved should be, in some way
or another, akin, or similar, to the lover. The man who courts a woman or who
wants to grab a woman’s attention may appeal to their similarities to enkindle
interest to the woman: “What’s your favorite food? Really? That’s crazy because
that’s my favorite too!” In order to develop love, there has to be a
“same-ness” to begin with.
So, these are the causes of romantic love. We are all able
to relate, aren’t we?
What about the effects of love? Aquinas lists four[xiii].
First, union: love seeks the presence of the
beloved. We miss our loves if they aren’t present. Second, mutual indwelling: the lover
finds, or searches for, the beloved, while the beloved dwells in the lover’s
mind. This is what makes the lover say “you’re always on my mind”.
Third, ecstasy: the lover “stands outside of
himself” in pursuit of the beloved. And fourth, zeal: every obstacle or
impediment is opposed by the lover so that he may be able to enjoy the presence
of his love. Calum Scott probably said it best in his song, You are the Reason:
“I’d climb every mountain, and swim every ocean just to be with you…”
PASSIONS THAT FOLLOW FROM
LOVE
In the Summa Theologiae, Prima
Secundae, Questions 30 and 31, Aquinas discusses the two passions that
follow from love.
If the beloved is absent, love gives rise to desire or
concupiscence[xiv]:
this is defined as “love in motion”. Since the beloved is not with the
lover, the love that proceeds from the lover is a love that seeks, a love that
is restless, that finds. I guess you can call this the philosophy behind
missing someone. Desire is what makes someone say “I’m officially missing
you”.
If, on the other hand, the beloved is present, love gives
rise to pleasure. If desire is love in motion, then pleasure is just “love
at rest”. The lover’s love is a contented love, simply enjoying the fact
that the one loved is right there with him. Pleasure is when you are able to
put your head on his shoulder, or rest on his chest to feel his heartbeat, or
embrace him with all your arms wide open. “I’d rather have bad times with you,
than good times with someone else,” says Luther Vandross, “I’d rather have
the one who holds my heart”. Vandross’ lyrics aim for pleasure. This is the
type of love we all long for, not just with regards to romance, but with all
the goods we long for.
Romance
as an Irascible Passion
Si crush, parang exam: pag hindi mo makuha, tititigan mo
na lang.
Attraction is an easy
thing, but the challenge is getting what attracts you. Commonly, this
involves a lot of obstacles: knowing her favorite food or color, winning her
friends’ approval, making sure you ask her “have you eaten already?” every meal
time. Expressing love involves many duties. The question is: can the lover do
it all?
This is where, I think, romantic love is, at certain
circumstances, turned into an irascible passion. Once again, irascible
passions are those passions that recognizes a difficulty in achieving the good
(or avoid the bad). So, when it comes to, specifically, courtship or pleasing
one’s beloved, we need not only to ask the question of “Is this a good thing?”.
We should also consider “Should I approach this? How do I approach this? This
seems challenging.”
Since the good is seen as difficult to achieve (or the bad
as difficult to shun), the person should now inquire whether he attacks or
proceeds, or flee, before the difficult good or evil. Torpe ka ba o hindi?
That’s the question.
Now, Aquinas lists five irascible powers, but for the sake
of this essay, all we have to focus on is the first two powers he discusses in
the Summa: hope and despair[xv].
Hope is the response if the “difficult thing is (still) something
possible to obtain”[xvi].
It is that which moves us to achieve a good, even if it is difficult. Despite
the obstacles, the lover still aims to grasp the beloved because he still
can. Even if the lover might need to go through a lot of challenges, he
senses that the good is still able to be achieved, and so he proceeds, even if
it means catching a grenade or jumping in front of the train for the beloved,
as Bruno Mars once said in his song, grenade. Bruno may be exaggerating,
but you get the point. Those who pursue the beloved confidently even if it is
hard to do so are filled with the passion of hope.
Despair
is the passion that is felt for the good “in so far as it is considered as
unobtainable”[xvii]. So, if hope is the
response to an achievable good despite the difficulty, despair is the response
to an unachievable good. What this causes to the lover is to draw back, to
give up, you might say, in pursuing the beloved, since the beloved is just
beyond himself. “Naliligaw at malayo ang
tanaw. Pinipigilan na ang pusong pinipilit ay ikaw.” This is the response of either the unconfident
lover (torpe), or the lover who thinks his beloved is just far beyond himself (“she’s so beautiful;
look at me, an ugly dude”). The hopeless romantic is filled with despair.
That
is the outline of the Thomistic philosophical analysis on what happens with
romance as related to the passions. But remember what we’ve said awhile ago:
our abilities are elevated due to our rational soul. So, how exactly are
romantic feelings elevated by our ability to think and love and choose?
Romance and Rationality
It is important to note, first and foremost, that the
fact that we are able to be romantically attracted to someone is already a
product of rationality. Remember that we have different appetites compared
to mere animals, who have no rationality in them at all. Scooby-doo, for
instance, since he is just a dog, can only be moved by the sense appetite, by
instinct, you might say. He may be moved by the smell of meat, but he cannot
apprehend, judge, or reason[xviii] about the meat
(despite the things the Scooby-doo cartoon shows, such as Scooby-doo being able
to talk, for the capacity for language flows from rationality only). He cannot
say or think, “Oh, this meat is chicken meat. Chicken meat can be fried or not…
it can be used in different recipes”. A man like Shaggy, though, can do those
things, and he can be moved towards the goods he is inclined to by the will,
not just his instincts.
Apply these things to the inclination of animated things to
the good of reproduction[xix] (to preserve the
fullness of being to the next generation of being) and what you get is
precisely the essence of romantic attraction. Reproduction is a power we share
with all the living things, not just animals, for even plants reproduce. Here’s
the thing, though: we’re not just animals or plants, and so our capability for
reproduction is integrated in our higher, rational, human life. Remember the
example we used awhile ago: our ability to absorb nutrition through eating is
integrated into our rationality, and so we have attached a social and cultural
significance to eating, as evident in parties.
The same thing’s true for our capacity to reproduce. Our
reproductive powers are elevated due to our humanity. Where does this lead to?
This leads to the concept of romance, in which the concepts of marriage
and the human family are integral parts. This is interesting since
this means that in Aquinas’ philosophy (and in Catholicism in general), marriage
is a natural institution that flows exactly from human nature. It’s not
just something man made up for himself. This means that marriage cannot just
be altered by human law. Of course, the ethics surrounding marriage and the
issues attached to it (as to whether same-sex marriage should be legalized, for
instance) is beyond the scope of this essay. The point is that romance, which
is uniquely a human ability, doesn’t stop in itself. It points to even more
complex, more beautiful things in which we as humans are tied to, all because
we are human.
Conclusion
There’s a lot to talk about with regards romance, of
course, and not all of them can be analyzed and exposed in here. Topics like
the role of the passions in human flourishing in general, for instance, can be
a great topic to discuss. But I think I have done my job properly: to look at
romantic feelings in the lens of the Angelic Doctor through his philosophy on
the passions. Now it is clear to us as to what is the philosophy behind falling
in love, missing someone, and desiring to marry and raise a family with our
beloved. Now it is evident to us what lies behind our being crazy over someone.
Romance is indeed a very complex thing, but we now, at
least, know where it comes from and how it works in us humans.
It is my hope that this essay gives clarity to romance
using Aquinas’ philosophy as basis. I also hope that this arouses a desire to
the intellect of the reader to pursue a search for Thomistic philosophy, to
love reality as Aquinas saw it.
[iii] Aristotle, Topics
ii, 7
[iv] To see more about
Aquinas’ exposition on the Will of God, See Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars,
QQ. 19-21
[vi] Summa
Theologiae, Prima Secundae, QQ. 22-48
[vii] Ibid., Prima
Secundae, Q. 78, aa. 3-4
[viii] Ibid., Prima
Secundae, Q. 26, a. 2, reply to Objection 1
[ix] Ibid., Prima
Secundae, Q. 26, a. 2, reply to Objection 2
[x] Ibid., Prima
Secundae, Q. 26, a. 4, “I answer that…”
[xi] Ibid., Prima
Secundae, Q. 23, a. 1, “I answer that…”
[xiv] It is once again
important to remember that we are just using the term “concupiscence” as a
synonym for desire. There is nothing in the term as currently used as connected
to the effects of original sin or even with regards to mere sexual desire or
lust as it is commonly used today.
[xix] To see more on
Aquinas’ treatment on the powers of the soul, see Summa Theologiae, Prima
Secundae, QQ. 77-83
Comments
Post a Comment