Page 77 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 21

hest degree: spiritual indwelling. Eros, again, is cannot find joy in being welcomed by the other.
the desiring dimension of love that seeks unity
with the other. Undoubtedly, eros tends to be
burdened by its own ambiguity, which, as Bene-
dict XVI says, is that the ero�c force can over-
power reason. Eros, separated from logos
(truth, reason), can become a sort of "divine
madness” (Deus caritas est, no. 4) which results
in self-destruc�ve excesses. If united to truth
(logos) eros seeks a union that does not reduce
the good of the other to the sa�sfac�on of
one’s own whims.
It is important, at this point, to correct a com-
mon misunderstanding. The fact that when
eros is separated from logos becomes an irra�-
onal, maddening desire does not mean that the
yearning for unity with the other, the need both
for the other and to be received by the other, is
in itself nega�ve. One does not understand the
nature of conjugal union, for example, by star-
�ng out from instances of sexual degrada�on
and violence; in the same vein, eros goes equal-
ly misunderstood if greed or lust is taken as its
complete form. If eros and agape are two inse-
parable dimensions of love, this desire is in
itself a perfec�on. In fact, Aquinas says, every
creature yearns for God according to the de-
gree proper to its own par�cipa�on in being
(Quodlibetum, I, q. 4, a. 3). Thus, eros reveals
that the perfec�on of oneself is not in oneself.
The lover desires to be one with the beloved
who already somehow dwells in the lover. The
lover desires, needs, and implores that the be-
loved let him be part of her as she is in him.
Eros indicates that the lover cannot give to him-
self that of which he already has a foretaste; it
must be given to him gratuitously. This is the ra-
dical poverty of eros: not that it does not know
love, but that it puts itself at the disposal of the
other’s gi�, oriented itself towards a recep�on
whose occurrence and measure does not lie at
its disposal. Of course, human desires are al-
ways in need of purifica�on. The desire for uni-
ty tends to become possessiveness. Yet to con-
sider the poverty proper to eros as an imperfec-
�on presupposes a nega�ve anthropology,
according to which all desires are taken a priori
as sinful. A love that does not desire is a love
that cannot suffer and, as such, is a love that
77
The giving of a gi� is an expression of love
(eros) inasmuch as it is both a response to a
preceding gi� and a yearning for a response, a
gratuitous unity with the receiver.
If the ero�c dimension of love acknowledges
the possibility to receive the other and the
search for unity with the other, the agapic di-
mension highlights the obla�ve [sacrificial] gi�
of self. To love another is to love its good. To
love its good, however, always requires surren-
dering oneself to the other, living for the
other's sake, giving oneself to the other. Agape
represents love's katalogical [downward] mo-
vement. Just as it is proper to love to ask (eros),
it is also a perfec�on of love to kneel (agape).
The lover who is intent only on seeking the un-
ity turns the beloved into a means for self-sa�s-
fac�on. Instead, the true lover, that is, the per-
son whose agape is true, spends himself for the
sake of the beloved. He wishes to affirm the be-
loved with the radical gi� of self. The love that
keeps too close an eye on what it has done, ac-
quired, or sacrificed for the sake of the beloved
suffocates both par�es. This is why agape puri-
fies eros. It ensures that the desire to be one
with the other is for the other's sake and not
for one's own profit. Agape helps logos give
form to eros. At the same �me, eros is intrinsic
to agape because the love that gives without
receiving or being permanently open to receive
from the other is, in reality, a denial of self.
Eros without agape becomes ego�sm—in this
case, the gi� will crush the receiver. Agape wi-
thout eros is a denial of self. A self-effacing offe-
ring of oneself without the simultaneous de-
light in and plead to be received by the other,
that is, without an awareness of what one re-
ceives in giving and gives in receiving, is yet an-
other form of ego�sm, this �me under the form
of piety. The gi� without the giver is no longer
a gi�.
Eros and agape are two dimensions of the same
form of love. From the point of view of the uni-
ty between the giver, the gi�, and the receiver,
we can now see that whereas eros emphasizes
the unifying aspect of love, agape underscores
the difference between them. Love posits an-