Friendship and Erotic Love

by Jeanne Leonard

		Erotic love often gets a bad rap. Robert C. Solomon points out in his essay "The Virtue of (Erotic) Love" that typically, philosophers, theologians and psychologists write erotic love off as being bestial and irrational. Erotic love is often treated as a human weakness, and the sooner we can curb our erotic desires to a minimum, some say, the richer our lives will be. Those of us who do chose to acknowledge our desires and act on them more freely are often told we're out of control, too emotional, or irrational. Continence and temperance have traditionally been valued as virtues with the continent person taming her sexual desires and activity to a trifling amount.
     Solomon believes that eros (erotic love) is being treated unfairly. In fact, the fear of eros as sinful or in today's terms, "unhealthy," is so great that few philosophers have bothered to inquire into the value of eros. Philia love, or friendship, has instead been one of the more favored forms of love chosen for discussions. The love of friends has long since been highly regarded. But, Solomon believes that erotic love is just as valuable as philia, and deems it as being virtuous.
     Whether philia or eros is the better form of love could probably be debated forever. Instead, it might be more useful to examine how both could be complimentary to a relationship. Both philia and eros could achieve complete harmony. A new style of love would emerge: a kind of love where all friends are related erotically or sexually, perhaps borrowing the concept of selflessness and givingness from agapeÑan equal, unconditional selfless love of a God for people; the love of all humans simply because they are humans.
     Solomon argues that eros should be deemed a virtue. The emotion of erotic love is admirable in itself, says Solomon. Simply because it "lacks common sense," many people don't trust erotic love's emotion. Solomon suqgests that possibly emotions have their own "truth" and when inside erotic love's truths, eros makes perfect sense. If only the philosophers would look at eros less judgmentally, they would notice that eros is actually a very noble virtue. The person practicing the virtue of love is often so unshakeable in her devotion to her beloved because love itself is so powerfull an emotion that "reason itself pales in importance." This is a lot to say for a virtue. It takes a lifetime of practice to even master other virtues such as honesty and goodness. But eros comes natural to us, and it seems we need only feel it to have it mastered. Eros feeds off of itself, so we need not worry about practicing specific behaviors (truth telling), we need only feel the love.
     And here, thinks Solomon, is where the "irrationaliy of erotic love" is necessary: to be capable of controlling our erotic emotions to the point that we could choose to erotically love or not love anyone, would render the object of our love "inter changeable" with any other person. To Solomon "eroticism of the particular" where "In love the particular is everything" is important and he asserts that "The virtue of love is and ought to be entirely preferential and personal." If I had no personal taste, then any lover would do, and my feeling for that lover would be as meaninqless as my feeling for a generic brand of milk as opposed to a name brandÑeither would please me the same.
     The desire to achieve a "union of the minds" and "share an identity," to become a unit (we) instead of just one (me)Ñthese are consequences of eros that Solomon thinks are socially beneficial. In eros we tend to "drop our quards" and enter each other's world (beliefs, values, hopes, etc.) in order to merqe with each other. And in this process of merginq we are also learning to compromise, to "get along" and appreciate diffrences. This type of love, says Solomon, is an expansion of the self rather than selfless ness. When one enters an erotic relationship with someone, s/he will need to learn his/her partner's values, beliefs, etc. S/he doesn't need to adopt these values and beliefs, and doing so would be denying one's own beliefs and is selfless behavior. Instead, s/he needs only to understand his/her partner's values and beliefs so that s/he can respect them in his/her partner. This type of "getting into" another's world while not losing sight of one's own is incredible, says Solomon, because it's where individuals learn social cooperation. Solomon intimates that this type of learned "getting along" can only be good for the world and its communities where individualism often thwarts social harmony.
     Solomon says that we overlook other desirable qualities of eros when we don't view it as a virtue. Once we do accept eros as a virtue, we begin to see the benefits it offers us. There are two other qualities that Solomon finds in eros which he deems as important in qualifying eros as a virtue: that eros aids one in self awareness; and that eros is "exciting"Ñand he sees excitement itself as a virtue.
     Solomon thinks all of these qualities/virtues culminate to form what has been thought of as an undesireable virtue of eros, but which he argues otherwise: "It has too long been daimed without argument that subjectivity and emotion in ethics inevitably mean selfishness, prejudice, chaos, violence, and destruction, but the truth is that the nature of love, at least, is quite the opposite, not at all selfish, often tender, and creative."
     When Solomon says that one of the virtues of eros is its "particularity," he seems to be referring to the exclusive love that two people feel towards one another; a monogamous love. But need eros be monogamous? It seems eros could be non-monogamous (erotic love shared with more than one person) and still be virtuous. One could be erotically involved with many lovers and still be particular in her choice of those she selects as lovers. Her love would be no less exciting (probably more so) simply because she choses more than one lover; and it is not necessarily true that the non-monogamous lover would love any less deeply than the monogamous lover. It would also seem that the suggested social benefit that Solomon says eros provides for a society would increase if non-monogamous relationships were more common.
     Perhaps once we can accept eros as virtuous we might be more receptive to all it has to offer every one of our relationships, friendship included. Just as other virtues do, eros as a virtue could deepen our friendships (philia love). In ancient Greek society the love of friends was considered the highest form of love, typically between an older and younger man who were erotically involved as well. Friendships/romances between women were also deemed acceptable, but they were not venerated as male relationships wereÑactually they were ranked quite low. Still, the idea remains: eros has much to offer ordinary friendships.
     Societal laws and attitudes frustrate any opportunity for the virtue of eros to be incorporated into philia love. The laws of society imply that homosexuality and bisexuality are abnormal. The restrictions on the kinds of sex that people can and cannot have, and the exclusion of same sex marriages by law and the church attempts to define our lives for us: while one man and one woman are acceptable as an erotic love relationship, those of our same sex remain only to act as our friends. With these guidelines already layed out, it's interesting to wonder how much they determine our sexuality. Had societies been formed on the notion that humans are naturally bisexual, perhaps our friendships today would look a lot like the ancient Greek model of friendship. It seems the laws and social customs which govern society frustrate any possibility of people ever experimenting with sexuality. If these laws were not in the way, people would be more likely to act on any homosexual urges that previously scared them.
     Bisexuality is probably more natural to the human condition than our laws and prudish customs would lead us to believe. If this bisexual condition was realized by, or at least experimented with by our same sex and opposite sex philia relations, Solomon's notion of eros bringing social harmony to our society could be achieved in a big way. Solomon says that we learn compromise and also that we expand ourselves when we engage in erotic love, and we work against total individualism in society. So if we extend our erotic lives further to encompass our everyday friendships, it seems we would move even closer to this social harmony.
     Not only could society benefit if eros and philia were combined, but so too could philia itsel. If there is an underlying sexual tension in our friendship, we still force the relationship to be a platonic one, and this could become quite frustrating. If instead we experimented sexually with our friend, we would probably deepen our relationship tremendously. We would get to know her in ways formerly "forbidden" to us. Our love would know no boundaries: not only would we be privy to what her favorite color is; what her values and beliefs are, but now we'd know how she likes to be kissed or caressed as well. The latter knowledge would not be enough by itself and I am suggesting that the former knowledge isn't enough either.
     Janice C. Raymond, a feminist writer, argues that women need to develop and re-define friendship for ourselves outside the male standards of friendship. Raymond believes that women have been "taught to be thoughtfull without thinking." Women need to start thinking for ourselves because without thought, says Raymond, our friendships with other women will be merely "sentimental," and while "there has been a historical recognition of the friendship union as a primary passion associated with thinking . . . . There is a dynamic integrity of existence in a thoughtful passion that is missing in a more sentimental friendship." Once we have achieved a "thoughtful passion," Raymond says that the friendship can become either sexual or not according to what we, as women, want. "And if it isn't sexualized, passion is being falsely repressedÑby patriarchal ideals and norms of monogamy, by uptightness, and/or by the making of unnecessary distinctions between friends and lovers." Raymond's "ideal world" where women create and define their own friendships outside of "the male gaze," threatens the male world, as does my notion of discarding the boundaries between eros and philia.
     It seems that the very structure (social, political, economic) of our society would be altered drastically if heterosexuality and monogarny ceased to be revered as the "great norms." It is in the interest of the existent society to deny that bisexuality or non monogamous temperaments could be closer to the norm. In fact, portraying these things as deviant would be beneficial to the present society: then people may shrink from any sign of these tendencies in themselves, thus never realizing possibilities for
more profound friendships.
     There needs to be a way that eros can be combined with philia (voluntarily at the friends' volitions) as a valuable relationship. Governments and laws will probably not accept this, but people still can. Maybe a revised, updated and popularized version of agape love could join both eros and philia. Possibly this version of agape could throw out the concept of universality and replace it with an openness "to all love of most people."
      Instead of attempting to love everyone equally, we could set our sights on loving all those we can more completely. And the more types of love we can love an individual with, then the more completely we are loving her. We may want to rename this new
type of love, so as not to confuse it with the old agape. Because although we want to love in great numbers, we will still be loving according to our own personal and particular preferences. Thus each individual doesn't become "interchangeable."
     Monogamy and heterosexuality are not necessarily normal simply because they seem to have become "the norm." It seems rather that social customs and laws have dictated what our sexual preferences and practices should be. If non-monogamous temperaments and bisexuality were deemed as natural, "normal," and acceptable, then more people might realize their own inclinations towards such relationships and actualize them. Then we could combine eros and philia and popularize it as a valid way to relate to our friends. If erotica in friendship were more widespread, then all people would realize this type of loving as a valid way to relate and large numbers of people might choose it. Granted not every one would want to relate in these ways because there are those who are naturally monogamous and/or heterosexual, or even not erotic at all, but at least everyone would know it as a real option in the same way they now know "the single life" as an option.
     For those who are naturally bisexual or non-monogamous (these two don't necessarily go together), erotic philia would possibly deepen their relationships. These people have probably been "longing for more" in their current rehtionship(s). Perhaps the prevalence of failed relationships is a sign that some people aren't cut out for total monogamous or total heterosexual relationship. (The word "monogamy" has two meanings: marrying only once with no second relationships; or having one relationship or marriage at a time.)
     It is interesting to note that most people use the word in the second sense most often. It's an acknowledgement that single relationships often don't last. Some do, though, and I would contend that this is due to the parties' natural monogamous tendencies.) By combining eros with philia, we might help relationships to last longerÑwithout the pressure of monogamy and being freer to experiment with both sexes, one can be loyal in her love for another without being monogamous.
     Eros as a virtue would benefit our friendships. The "particularity" of our love could be expanded allowing for many to be arousing to us and in our friendships where we have a "meeting of the minds" or a "second self" we could have a meeting of the bodies as well, thus enriching our relationships. This would add excitement to our lives and friendships. Many of Walt Whitman's poems reflect such an excitement as well:

				I am he that aches with amorous love;
				Does the earth gravitate; does not all matter, aching, attract all matter?
        So the body of me to all I meet or know. 

The particularity and excitement of eros in friendship could provide for social harmony as well. Janice Raymond notes in redefining female friendships for the future, our old concepts of friendships need to be revised if the world is ever going to change and be more inclusive of women's ideas. And Solomon recognizes that eros aids us in abandoning our individualistic tendencies, and thus it can be socially harmonizing. As Walt Whitman seems to imply in "This moment yearning and thoughtful":

         Oh far, far away . . . talking other dialects,
					And it seems to me if I could know those men I should
					become attached to them as I do to men in my own lands,
					Oh I know we should be brethren and lovers. . .



                     Works Cited 

Raymond, Janice C. "Passion for Friends: Toward a Philosophy of Female Affection." 
		[handout in "Philosophy and Friendship" class: Webster University, 1993] 	
Solomon, Robert C. "The Virtue of (Erotic) Love." [handout in "Philosophy and Friendship" 
		class] 
Whitman, Walt. Leaves of Grass. New York: New American Library, 1980.