You know this song. Last year, people counted the days until they were forced to listen to it for the first time in the year. Yes, I gave you my heart last Christmas and you just chucked it in the garbage the next day. Lame.

Today’s meme is our very own Christmas shirt with our boy René Descartes. “Last Christmas, I gave you Descartes,” it says glumly. And Descartes was, for a while, a very worthy present to give. One of the biggest names in modern philosophy, we are still reeling from some of his famous thought experiments. “Cogito ergo sum,” amirite?

But times change, and we’ve moved past the body/mind dualism that Cartesian thought often invites (for the most part). We also don’t believe that animals don’t feel pain, which is an upgrade, to be honest. We keep the math but critique the philosophy, and relegate Descartes to the show off shelves of our bookcases. The very next day.

And that is one facet of this shirt. But let us think for a moment of the original song whose name we won’t speak. It is a whammy of a story about a love spurned after the lover admits feelings for the beloved. I think, in spite of the annoying nature of the song (and the boring nature of its music video), the vulnerability that we offer our beloveds and the feeling of being betrayed or spurned is something that is near-universal. Putting yourself out there is hard.

But what does philosophy say about love? What is the nature of love, and what can we learn about our own relationships from philosophy? Grab some egg nog and let’s get crackin’.

Classical Definitions of Love

To start a conversation on love, let’s start at the beginning. Well, what most people consider the beginning of Western philosophy, anyway. Plato and his Symposium. In this work, Socrates and his friends talk about the nature of romantic and erotic love. The boys have a little get together, discussing their ideas on love and what it entails. Each of Socrates’s bros gets a chance to make a speech.

This dialogue is the beginning of the classical conceptions of love and its types. Aristotle continues to speak of love in the Nichomachean Ethics, writing of a different type of love than Socrates and his buddies describe in the Symposium. Aristotle talks about a love that is friendly in nature, and much calmer than the eros Socrates and his friends describe.

In Greek and early Judeo-Christian philosophy, love is delineated into three types, which follow after Plato and Aristotle’s ideas on love: eros, philia, and agape. Later on, other thinkers add additional classifications of love, but these three have stood the test of time. Let’s talk about them.

Eros: A Love and a God

In the Symposium, the main topic of conversation is Eros, the god, and eros, the type of love. In Greek mythology, Eros is the son of Aphorodite, a god of love. Many might consider Eros in his Romanized form, Cupid, shooting arrows at unsuspecting people to make them fall in love with each other, often randomly, sometimes with malice. 

Eros is often depicted with Aphrodite in art history, her winged son. In Greek mythology, he is prominently featured in what may be one of the original “Beauty and the Beast” tales, where he falls in love with a mortal woman, Psyche, who is not allowed to see him, in spite of marrying and living with him.

But what does this have to do with love?

Consider Eros and his arrows. He seems to spray them willy-nilly at unsuspecting couples. And, like its namesake, eros is romantic love, intense and passionate. It is the root from which we get the word “erotic,” which has physical and sexual connotations in our contemporary use.

In terms of love, eros is a desiring, wanting type of love. It is a love that yearns, that wants to possess the beloved, in some respects. It is the love that people have for each other at the beginning of a relationship, an intense need for the beloved, a craving, even. For Socrates especially, erotic love is the void in which we desire, not necessarily the act of being in a relationship.

You’ve experienced eros if you’ve found someone for whom you’ve had more than a passing attraction. You’ve experienced eros when you’ve wanted to be romantically engaged with a person in a way that is grasping, physical, and yet more than that. Eros is often defined in terms of sexual urge, as Sigmund Freud defines it, but this love is simply not the desire to get it on.

Philia: Not Just from West Philadelphia Born and Raised

The second type of love described in classical philosophy is philia, which is a “brotherly” or friendly sort of love. It is the love that you have for the majority of your friends, and for your family. It is a dutiful love,as the love we often have for our family members. It can also be a love in which the person may find a benefit to befriending the friend. Think networking, on occasion.

You might be familiar with the term “-philia,” as it is often used in terms of psychological issues, such as paraphilias, and another, worse word. It simply translates to “love of.” In addition, the name “Philadelphia” comes from this same concept, the “City of Brotherly Love.” 

Consider, perhaps, how you came across your own friends. Did you become friends because you shared similar hobbies? Did you find each other at work or school? You probably had commonalities starting off, which put you in a place, gave you that awesome moment where you made a new friend. That is philia.

Philia is a much calmer love in many respects, cultivated in the daily bonds of family ties or the enjoyable times experienced in a friendship. It is also a love that we have for our community. It tends to serve a purpose, enriching our lives with friendships that endure the test of time. 

Agape: Transcendent Love of God and Humanity

Agape, not pronounced like the word for what your mouth does when you see something amazing, is the third and final type of love in classical philosophy. Agape is, in a way, rather like a combination of eros and philia, but also entirely different from the other two.

Essential to Christian theology in particular, agape is the love a human has for God, and vice versa. Agape is a passionate, caring, but also transcendent type of love. It is more a theoretical love, in a way, because it is given to God, but also to humanity at large. The commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself” is a good example of this type of love.

The love that we are commanded to have for others is a love that we are expected to give to the person next door, our bestie, and the person on the other side of the world that we have never met. In this way, agape transcends where the other two types of love tend to have a direct connection between the person who loves and the person being loved.

In terms of the divine, we receive the God-love from the creator, who calls us to give it to others in turn. Agape is not motivated by the potential to receive in return. It is not motivated by sexual passion or duty. It is the gift that keeps on giving.

What Is Love? (Baby Don’t Hurt Me)

So, let’s take this back to relationships and the daily business of loving others. Love is something we experience, and an emotion, to an extent, but it is an action. The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, for instance, refers to love as a form of “work.” 

And if you think about it, love is more of an action than a feeling. You love your bestie. You love your partner. You love your absurdly cute fluffball of a pet. You are doing the loving. And since love is an action, there is an actor (you) and the person or thing upon which it is acted (your bestie, your partner, your pet). 

You do not get love without these things. The lover (subject) cannot love without the beloved (object). It is hoped that the love will be reciprocated. When I was much younger, for instance, and thought myself in love with someone, I recall my philosophy mentor from my undergraduate days suggesting that you cannot fully have romantic love with someone unless it is reciprocated. You can have a feeling, but it is not the full force of love if it is not returned by the beloved.

And to keep our relationships, we have to grow them, we have to work on them. For any relationship, we have to make sure we are keeping in touch with our friend, partner, parent, etc. We have to work on any interpersonal issues we might have, solve problems together, and grow. It is not a stagnant thing that begins with googly eyes and ends with a perfect relationship. Love is complicated, difficult, and ever-changing.

It’s a lot to process.

While philosophy is more than a little prepared to categorize and explain the nature of love, the slings and arrows of human experience are something that cannot, I think, be neatly packaged and explained fully by theory. We have to live our truth and love, even if it is often difficult. At the end of the day, you are the subject of your own life.

The frustration of declaring love and having it donated to someone else like a present someone receives with a polite smile but donates to a thrift store is a near-universal experience, allowing us to relate to one of the most prevalent songs of the holiday season, even if we find it annoying. And while the song in question focuses on the bitterness, the sadness of having been rejected, I can attest that, as another famous singer (and philosopher, in my opinion) suggested, there is “life after love.”

So, this Christmas, put on your most hilarious Christmas shirt (we have a few) and maybe spare a minute to think more deeply about the incessant holiday tunes that you will be exposed to for the next month or so.