Love as the Altruistic Outpouring

Christian can be said as the best person who supposedly understand love. Because Christian foundation is built in none other than the God of love (1 John 4:16: God is love), revealed in Christ Jesus and anchored in God of Trinity. Philosopher supposedly is the one who understand love best after Christian. The earliest definition of philosopher comes from Thales, the "lover" of wisdom. So love is inscribed in the very definition of a philosopher. But when we asked Christian and philosopher, what is love? Maybe most of them remind silent and cannot give a quick answer.  Not they have no idea about love. To define Love is not an easy task and maybe, love essentially cannot be defined. Love can only be experienced and lived out naturally, without fully know the meaning of love per se. Christian experience love through God of love. Philosopher experience love through wisdom-seeking.

Levinas at one time says that actually he does not like the word "love" for it really debased. This is true. Once we can define love, then it is less than love. Love is ambiguous. Love is opaque. Love is a mystery! At the one hand we seems to know about love but once we try to define it, we are lost completely. Plato and Badiou tell us that whoever does not take love as starting point, they will never understand the nature of philosophy. But this how things get interesting. If we cannot understand love, then how can we make love as starting point by this taken place, how can we do philosophy in the first place then? This is a bewilder paradox of love for every thinker who ponder upon love. Because of this enigma, love has been converted and used widely in our daily conversation as the substitution of "liking something." "I love pizza, I love Italy, I love hiking!" Love now is being simplified. Some others understand love as an emotion. When there is a feeling of excitement, rattling and free-flowing mood and so on, that's love for us! The most famous attempt to define love comes from C.S Lewis when he define love through the three categories of love. Agape, Phila, Eros. All definitions above are valid, and might catch certain angle of what love is. 

I try to define Love as the Altruistic Outpouring from a rational subject. This definition encompasses  three substantial elements. Passion, motivation and Action. Altruistic means that the subject is disinterested and selfless, to concern on other well-being and it expressed to the real outpouring of action either visible or invisible for the purpose of maturing. If it is less altruistic, it become lust not love. Some have argue that it is impossible for a man to commit altruistic action. Impossible to be selfless since the one who commit selflessness is a self. Yet, this argument confused the category by identified selfless as no self. Altruistic does not deny self. Selfless is in term of unselfish, motivated not for self-gain. Therefore, if one have not give the best outpouring that is selfless toward someone/something then it is not love but only "love-like." 

In Christian faith, God is love is not love is God. We should and cannot reverse the order. God is love because He is the best expression and ground of the Altruistic Outpouring. Every love in this world is only a copy of greatest ideal of God's love. And of course, the cross is the symbol that capture this notion of love. Stephen J Binz in his book The Tragic & Triumph of the Cross wrote,

"We know that God is love because of His actions, His self-disclosure in the world. And the highest manifestation of God's love is in the cross. We might tend to describe love as a powerful emotion or comfortable feeling. But God has shown us that the best definition of love is not to be found in worlds, but in the concrete symbol of the cross. The Cross-describes love as self-giving."

Furthermore, the true Philosopher show this copy of altruistic outpouring of divinity as they seek wisdom without aiming for money, fame, or name. Aristotle distinguished between becoming philosopher and human being. Philosopher does not seek money. Human being does. That is why Aristotle distinguished himself from Sophists, the first philosopher group who sell wisdom and exchange it with money. The practical philosopher seek wisdom to transform self and also the society oppose to theoretical philosophy which are only seeking wisdom just for the sake of wisdom. This is not the lover of wisdom but only people who lust for wisdom. 

One of the most important aspect is coming from the last part of the definition of love which I made, "from rational subject". I venture to say, love is only category that is applicable for human being and God. Animal cannot love. Although the animals can show the altruistic outpouring. For animal, at best what they did is an act of caring, protecting and surviving (their species) but never will be an act of love. Being who can commit love need to understand that they are indeed projecting and pour love for Love is rational. Love is never blind and irrational.

Up to this point I agree with Levinas. The word Love cannot capture the whole meaning and implication of this overwhelming things called by "love". That is why love is closely tied to divinity. Alan Watts elaborate in The Wisdom of Insecurity on defining God, "The moment I name it, it is no longer God". Love and God cannot be boxed by words (Also religion included: See my previous writing an inquiry to the definition of religion). Yet, aware of this limitation in defining love in this writing, at least, we can have a bit of clue that love is essentially active and never passive in it outset and essence. Eric Formm talk this active form of love as "stand in love" rather than "fall in love". For those people who only want to be loved but never love back will never understand love fully. That is why, in Christian faith after God love human being, with the full force of altruistic outpouring he says also, love your God with all your heart, soul and mind. This is not for the benefit of God but us. We can only understand love best, when we practice love ourselves.