Love Through the Ages — From Eros to Agape

The Greeks: Desire and Friendship

The Greeks gave us some of the earliest attempts to classify love. Plato, in his Symposium, saw eros—romantic desire—not as an end in itself, but as a ladder leading the soul upward toward the contemplation of Beauty itself. Eros begins with attraction to the body, but matures into love of the soul, and ultimately into love of wisdom. Yet, eros remains tied to desire; it wants something, seeks fulfillment.

Then came philia—friendship and brotherly love. Aristotle described philia as mutual goodwill, a shared recognition of virtue. But again, conditions lurk: friends are valued because they are good, or useful, or pleasant. Rarely is philia unconditional; it is anchored in reciprocity.

Already, we see the problem: love is entangled with valuation.

Christianity: The Radicality of Agape

Christian theology introduced agape, often translated as selfless or divine love. Agape does not ask, “What do you offer me?” but affirms worth regardless of merit. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8) is perhaps the starkest expression: love poured out not because of, but despite.

Agape breaks the economy of reciprocity. It is unconditional, terrifying, and difficult to imitate. To love enemies, to forgive seventy times seven, to turn the other cheek—these are not strategies of valuation but gestures of being. No wonder humanity resists: agape demands that we love even where value cannot be found.

The Mystics: Love as Dissolution of Self

Mystics across traditions—Rumi in Islam, Meister Eckhart in Christianity, Mirabai in Hinduism—spoke of love as the dissolution of the ego. Here, love is not about valuation of traits but the annihilation of separateness. “I am you, and you are I” becomes the ultimate declaration.

But this form of love is nearly inhuman, for it asks us to surrender the self entirely. We fear this as much as we fear pure agape: both erase the bargaining chips of identity, control, and worth.

Modern Thinkers: Love as Art, Freedom, and Responsibility

In the modern era, love was reinterpreted again:

• Søren Kierkegaard insisted that love is a duty, not a feeling, because feelings can fade but commitment endures.

• Erich Fromm called love an art requiring discipline, patience, and practice—far from the spontaneous rush of passion we romanticize today.

• Simone Weil described attention as the purest form of love: to truly see another without reducing them to use or desire.

All these voices converge on the same suspicion: humanity is disastrously poor at love because we confuse it with desire, reciprocity, or possession.

Where We Stand Today

Our culture is saturated with eros—romance, passion, attraction—and sprinkled with philia—networked friendships and alliances. But agape? Rare, feared, and often dismissed as naïve. We say we want “true love,” but what we usually want is recognition that we are useful, attractive, or admirable.

Thus the irony persists across centuries: love is humanity’s highest aspiration, yet also its most consistent failure.

About the Author

Dr. Julius Kirimi Sindi is a global expert in research funding, policy impact, and donor relations. With extensive experience in analyzing philanthropy, business, and science funding, Dr. Sindi fosters sustainable and inclusive research ecosystems. He has facilitated international business relationships across Africa, Europe, and Asia. His upcoming book, "The Blueprint of Life Well Lived," explores successful strategies for navigating complex business environments while achieving sustainable growth.