So the Greeks used categories that are very different from our cultures now and you can't entirely superimpose it onto how we think about love now. I mean, the bond between two gay men, we would call 'eros' but they would call it 'philia'. And there are no words for friendship between women, would that be philia or agape then? If we were to use those terms in our culture, I suspect philia would be better suited. Agape remains a bit of a mystery then; when does a relationship extend beyond eros, philia or storge and enter the realm of agape?

I would also suspect that one can feel different kinds of love for the same person at the same time. For example: I agree that Sherlock and Mycroft experience storge because of their bloodbond, but they are also alike in they way they think and they have probably spent quite some time together, so they would also experience philia. 

So back to Sherlock and John: would they experience philia, agape or both? Where does one end and the other begin? I'm not sure. 

And I'm with you on the Mycroft thing, all my favorite scenes are Mycroft scenes. 

silverblaze wrote:

So the Greeks used categories that are very different from our cultures now and you can't entirely superimpose it onto how we think about love now. I mean, the bond between two gay men, we would call 'eros' but they would call it 'philia'. And there are no words for friendship between women, would that be philia or agape then? If we were to use those terms in our culture, I suspect philia would be better suited. Agape remains a bit of a mystery then; when does a relationship extend beyond eros, philia or storge and enter the realm of agape?

I would also suspect that one can feel different kinds of love for the same person at the same time. For example: I agree that Sherlock and Mycroft experience storge because of their bloodbond, but they are also alike in they way they think and they have probably spent quite some time together, so they would also experience philia. 

So back to Sherlock and John: would they experience philia, agape or both? Where does one end and the other begin? I'm not sure. 

And I'm with you on the Mycroft thing, all my favorite scenes are Mycroft scenes. 

I think Philia was not seen as women´s thing in the past solely because women were raised differently and they lacked social contacts that were needed for having such a relationship. But I see no problem in using this word in connection with women now.

Philia, Eros and Storge have one thing in common: the person who feels those kinds of love wants some benefit for himself/herself. The person feeling Agape doesn´t seek any benefit for himself/herself but only for the beloved. 

When Sherlock and John started living together, they relationship was Philia: both men wanted to obtain something from their bond - Sherlock wanted a sympathetic audience for his exploits and John wanted to engage himself in dangerous adventures. But with time their relationship transformed itself into Agape, when they were content together even if there was no gain from such a relationship for any of them. (And Molly Hooper is a very nice example of Agape - she gains absolutely nothing from shielding Sherlock in TRF, yet she does it anyway).

I don´t think Agape as such is mutually exclusive with Philia or Storge. It is only exclusive with Eros - you cannot be selfishly passsionate and unconditionally self-sacrificing at the same time.

Greeks saw Eros as slightly dangerous, as testified by this words from Euripides´ "Medea":

Love coming on too strong 
does not give glory or virtue 
to men.But if Afrodite comes in moderation, 
no other goddess is so gracious. 
Never, oh goddess, let fly at me an inescapable arrow 
from your golden bow, after you drench it in desire.
But I pray that composure be my friend, 
the finest gift of the gods

Last edited by nakahara (May 13, 2014 5:31 pm)

Over sexualisation of society, reflected in every single TV show and film and also: human animal instincts...

Last edited by besleybean (May 13, 2014 8:07 pm)

But sex is bad, Susi. Bad, bad, bad.

It's not that I see sex as destructive, it just does not equal love.

besleybean wrote:

It's not that I see sex as destructive, it just does not equal love.

So? So where there's love there can't be sex, or what is that supposed to mean? In my opinion one does not exclude the other, at least not necessarily.
But Susi is right, this discussion got boring ages ago... 
 

Ah, that explains a lot.

I never dreamt that my little babbling about Greek philosophy will start war on the forum and bore people to death... sigh. 

It was not your Greek excursion that got boring, nakahara. 

No, Greek is not boring at all