Strauss, DFM
University of the Free State

The theological significance of an analysis of the meaning of love from the perspective of the philosophy of theology

ABSTRACT

The aim of this article is to explore the structural features of love as succinctly captured in the sketch below. In order to achieve this goal attention will be given to a number of distinct but related issues. It will be argued that the core meaning of love primarily refers to a distinct aspect, mode or function or reality, namely the moral aspect (§3 and §4). Al­though it is unique and indefinable (§4 and §5), it intrinsically also co­heres with all the other aspects of reality (such as the numerical, the biotical, the logical-analytical and the sign-mode) (§6). In order to account for this inter-modal coherence the nature of analogies and metaphors are elucidated (§7). Owing to its uniqueness the core meaning of the moral aspect (like all the other aspects) is irreducible (§5). The argument is ex­tended by taking into account that every concrete (natural and social) entity and process has a typical function within the moral aspect of reality (partially §9 and §10). Moral subject-subject relations form the basis of the way in which Buber over-emphasized such relations (§3) and dis­cussing his view will provide the possibility to show that moral subject-subject relations are indeed differentiated by multiple contexts (§3). Buber's influence on Aalders, Stoker and Heyns is seen in the restriction of the meaning of the ethical to subject-subject relations (§ 9). Only against this background it is possible to account for the richly nuanced meaning of love (§10). Finally an important episte­mological distinction is related to the moral aspect, explaining the difference between conceptual knowledge and concept-transcending knowledge (§11). The overall pict­ure that emerges from this analysis relates to all the academic disciplines, including theology. In the course of the argument the theological signi­ficance of some of the distinctions is highlighted.

Sketch: Concluding perspective presented as preface

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Most human beings enter this world within the context of the loving care of a mother, father and in many instances other family members. Parents express their intimate relationship with their children by loving them and telling them that they love them. Before a couple gets married they presumably declare their mutual love. The word love is also employed in many other contexts. In all these instances we experience love in inter-human relationships, i.e. in the context of subject-subject relations.

The well-known personalistic thinker, Martin Buber, developed his peculiar view on the nature of love in his book Ich und Du (1923) by over-emphasizing subject-subject relations. We start with a brief discussion of his views in order to show that it is insufficient merely to focus on subject-subject relations, because as such it does not explain the different kinds of moral relationships of love with which we are acquainted in everyday life – the theme of the succeeding paragraph that accounts for love in multiple contexts (§3 ).

It should be noted that the kind of analysis developed in this article differs from an empirical study. Its aim is to ascertain the functional and structural ontic conditions making possible our experience of love within different contexts. Because the technical philosophical expression that captures this idea of “making possible” is transcendental, one may characterize the method used in this article as transcendental-empirical.1

2. PERSONAL LOVE IN THE THOUGHT OF BUBER

In his mentioned work Martin Buber develops a dualistic view of reality. He places all emphasis upon the personal encounter of human beings in love. This personal encounter in love is then dialectically positioned by opposing it to all impersonal relations between human beings and the external world. According to Buber reality reveals itself to humankind in two ways, since the ‘I’ stands in two fundamental relations: the I-Thou relationship and the I-It relationship. For Buber no I-in-itself exists, since the word ‘I’ always encompasses one of these two relationships. ‘He’ and ‘She’ falls within the “I-It” relationship. The world as we experience it, with the ‘It’, ‘He’, and ‘She’, even with in­ternal experiences or secrets reserved for the initiated, is already constituted by ‘Its’, by objects. The experiences of this world are not reciprocal, and affect only the human being who experiences them. Thus, the world-as-experience belongs to the fundamental term “I-It.” In contrast to this the fundamental “I-Thou” relationship forms the basis for the world-of-relationship that knows no inner barriers since only ‘Its’ are mutually delimited. The “I-Thou” relationship exists in the presence of an encounter, since only in this relationship does the present reveal itself. The objects of the “I-It” relationship, however, are experienced in the past. The individual ‘Thou’ becomes ‘It’ after the experience of encounter, and the individual ‘It’ can become ‘Thou’ by stepping into the experience of an encounter.2

Love is the distinguishing mark of the personal “I-Thou” relationship. Buber expands his approach in a world-historical and religious context (he was Jewish). Every great culture continually draws its spark of life from an original experience of encounter, from an answer to the Thou. When these renewing relational occasions are lost, a culture stultifies and becomes subject to that fate which rests on every human being in the full weight of a dead world mass. Liberation from this situation, to being children of God, according to Buber, comes only from new experiences of encounter, a fateful answer from human beings to their Thou. Only in this way can a culture renew itself. In the dominant idea of fate, which subjects humankind to social, cultural, psychic, historical and other laws, it is forgotten that no one can meet fate unless proceeding from a position of freedom.3

According to Buber, faith in fate surrenders humankind to the overpowering grip of the It-World, whereas a person becomes free in the I-Thou relationship, free also from the grip of a rationally obvious system (Buber's reaction against rationalism), a freedom fun­damentally indicated by liberation from faith in unfreedom. The meaning of life is to be found, according to Buber, in the embrace of fate and freedom.

The word love is central in this supposed encounter between person and person. Does it provide an insight into the mystery of human existence? Can we truly say that love is the actual core of human existence – or at least that it should be? Both Classical Greek and Eastern philosophy emphasize the ethical (moral) nature of a person – as can be seen in the characterization of an individual as a rational-moral creature.

Does it make sense to see love as the essence of being human? We now look at this problem from the perspective of love in multiple contexts.

3. LOVE IN MULTIPLE CONTEXTS

We are immediately confronted with the problem that love reveals itself in many ways. Human beings are embedded in distinct and uniquely differentiated relationships of love – such as family love, marital love, patriotism, and so forth (for a related explanation, see Dooyeweerd 1999:125). Yet, no one of these distinct relationships can be identified with the central, radical and total bond of humanity – transcending all the branches of life. What does this reference to what is radical, central and total mean? The purpose of employing these terms is to account for the decisive and all-encompassing relationship between humankind and God, because this relationship indeed concerns the human heart, the root of our existence that exercises its central and direction-giving influence by laying claim to all of life (life as a whole, life in its totality). The other side of the coin of this radical, central and total (RCT) relationship is given in the multiplicity of differentiated, peripheral and partial (DPP) relationship found in diverse societal contexts.

In the light of this distinction between RCT and DPP relationships it must be clear that all moral relationships of love exhibit the nature of DPP relationships. Since the latter involve the differentiated branches of human life they ought to be distinguished from the root dimension of creation, that can also be designated as the religious dimension of creation if the term religion is understood in its RCT sense and not restricted merely to one branch of life, such as organized within a particular denomination of the institutional church.

As soon as the RCT dimension of being human is contemplated it becomes clear that this dimension transcends all DPP relationships. The ultimate RCT question is straight-forward. It does not concern membership of some or other church denomination, marital relationship, state citizenship, cultural affiliation, and so on – for the sole issue is whether or not one is a Christian.

Scriptures, in its reference to this RCT dimension of creation, with good reason points at the heart of human existence – which is, according to the poet of Proverbs, the wellspring of life (Proverbs 4:23). The human self-hood, the human I-ness, collectively incorporated in the New Humanity in Christ, is normed by the central commandment of love, expressed in the calling to serve God and our fellow human beings whole-heartedly. The RCT-DPP distinction therefore ultimately is a matter of self-knowledge, knowledge of the heart of human existence.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the Bible explicitly employs the word love both in a RCT and a DPP sense. In other words, the Bible frequently uses the word love in a differentiated way, referring to a particular facet, among others, of human existence and it frequently also happens that the Bible uses love in an RCT sense. Naturally, when love is used in a differentiated sense, it should not be confused with love in its central sense – as it is expressed, among others, in the central religious commandment of love. This commandment, which demands that we love God and our neighbour with all our heart, belongs to the RCT dimension of creation and therefore contains an appeal to all facets of our existence. When we talk about marriage, family or patriotic love, however, we are only referring to a specific limited sector of our existence and not to life in its totality.

Later on we shall, with reference to specific Bible texts, return to this difference. We first focus on the following question:

Does this distinction between the central and differentiated meaning of love (and faith) bring us any closer to a definition of the meaning of love (or faith)?4

4. THE PROBLEM OF DEFINING LOVE

As familiar as we are with the use of this word, so difficult it seems to define it. Every definition requires defining terms, terms that can explain what is meant. However, sooner or later we have to step back and ask about the meaning of the terms employed in the definition, i.e. we have to define the defining terms. Subsequently another step backwards is required in order to define these second level terms. But can we stop at this third level? If not, further levels of defining terms are required, pushing us into the logical fallacy of a regressus in infinitum. How do we escape from this apparent dead alley?

We may benefit from looking at various other academic disciplines where this issue was resolved through the acknowledgement of what became known as primitive terms, i.e. of terms with which one has to start without being able to define them. The implication of this assumption is that conceptual knowledge ultimately depends upon indefinable terms – actually underscoring the self-insufficiency of human thinking and concept formation. Although still continuing the long-standing legacy that ethics deals with the “good,” Ewing did advance a proper understanding of the problem of indefinability, for he mentions that the British moral philosopher, G.E. Moore, believed that the good has no definition: “I think we shall see that some terms must be indefinable if anything is to be defined at all” (Ewing 1962:87).

The general idea of a modal5 aspect holds that the core meaning of any aspect brings to expression its irreducibility, which is reflected in its indefinability, explaining why it is also designated as primitive.6

Philosophers and theologians always wrestled with this problem within the related context of contemplating the relationship between unity and diversity which is intimately connected with the perennial problem of uniqueness and coherence.7 Philosophy of theology may benefit from a brief look at the disciplines of linguistics and mathematics because such a detour will deepen our insight into the problem of indefinability.

4.1 Linguistics

Semantics, as a sub-discipline of general linguistics, had to accept “meaning” as a primi­tive term. For example, when the distinction by Immanuel Kant between analytic and synthetic propositions (cf. Kant 1787:10 ff.) is pursued, an attempt can be made to define a typical semantic phenomenon such as synonymy in terms of analyticity. Two sentences have the same meaning only if each one of them entails the other one in an analytic sense. Yet Quine highlighted the circularity of such an attempt. Analyticity is defined in terms of meaning (a sentence is supposed to be analytically true if it is true only on the basis of its meaning), whereas meaning (in this case: similarity of meaning = synonymy) is defined in terms of analyticity. Fodor said that “there is no meaning-independent way of characterizing either analyticity or meaning (Fodor 1977:43).

4.2 Mathematics

Similar to the way in which linguistics had to accept (assume) “meaning” as something basic and primitive, axiomatic set theory also had to accept primitive terms. For example, within the version of axiomatic set theory that was develop by the mathemacians Zermelo and Fraenkel (therefore also known as Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory), “member of” (cf. Faenkel et.al., 1973:23) is introduced as a primitive term. Gödel also remarked that as yet we do not have a satisfactory non-circular definition of the term “set.”

The operation ‘set of x's’ (where the variable ‘x’ ranges over some given kind of objects) cannot be defined satisfactorily (at least not in the present state of knowledge), but can only be paraphrased by other expressions involving again the concept of set, such as: ‘multitude of x's’, ‘combi­nation of any number of x's’, ‘part of the totality of x's’, where a ‘multi­tude’ (‘combination’, ‘part’) is conceived as something that exists in itself, no matter whether we can define it in a finite number of words (so that random sets are not excluded) (Gödel, 1964:262).

In terms of his logicistic approach to mathematics Russell believes that with the aid of his class concept, which is supposed to be purely logical in nature, he can reduce mathe­matics to logic. However, he did not realize the circularity entailed in his argumentation. He speaks of 1 + 1 as the number of a class w which is the logical sum of two classes u and v (with no common terms and each one term only – Russell 1956:119). Clearly, Russell already had to use the terms ‘one’ and ‘two’ in order to advance his attempted definition of 1+1 – showing the circularity present in his ‘definition’.

Our argument will be that within our experience of the diversity in reality the moral aspect of love also represents a basic term that is equally indefinable. But this aim requires that we first explore another issue lying at the foundation of the issue of indefinability, namely irreducibility.

5. INDEFINABILITY AND IRREDUCIBILITY

The diversity of experiential aspects within creation depends first of all on their mutual irreducibility, manifested in their uniqueness. This irreducible uniqueness ensures that there are only two options when it comes to concept and definition:

i. Provide mere synonyms for the core meaning of an aspect.

ii. Define the core meaning of an aspect in terms derived from a different aspect, i.e. one that is irreducible to the first-mentioned aspect.

Option (ii), namely attempting to define love by employing terms derived from non-ethical aspects, terminates in reduction and this results in a clash of laws, also known as antinomies.8 Reflecting on option (i) suggests that we can only end up by uttering tautological statements, such as love is love, life is life or continuity is continuity. Yet this stance at least rejects reductionistic “nothing but” claims, such as when it is alleged that “love is nothing but …” – and then the open space can be filled in by anything different from the core ethical meaning of love, such as instinct, lust, feeling, duty, and so on.

Scheler, for example, attempts to define love in terms of movement, concrete-individual value-laden objects and ideal values.9 Fellsches concedes that love cannot be brought under an exact concept.10 Yet he proceeds by explicating a number of things about love, such as its relatedness to something; that love entails a self, another self and the relation between these two (in philosophical parlance, it concerns a subject-subject relation); that it disregards of power;11 and so on.

6. THE MEANING OF LOVE IS EXPRESSED IN COHERENCE

What is actually happening here is that Scheler does not define the core meaning of love but simply, without realizing what he does, explores the other side of uniqueness, namely coherence. Acknowledging the uniqueness (irreducibility and indefinability) of love provides us just with the first part of the picture, because the meaning of love only comes to expression through its coherence with all the non-ethical aspects of reality.

Yet, this additional perspective is valid only if the original core meaning of love is accepted in the sense that, within the moral aspect, it qualifies all references to other aspects of reality. The mere fact that Scheler does not recognize this qualifying role of the ethical aspect, shows that instead of analyzing this inter-aspectual (or: inter-modal) coherence, he indeed attempts to define love in non-ethical terms (movement, values, subject-subject relations). Such a path leads to the reduction of love to whatever non-ethical terms (or more than ethical terms) are employed.

Movement relates to the original meaning of the kinematical aspect of uniform motion (constancy) and therefore does not “define” love at all. Of course, by virtue of the interconnection between different aspects, the ethical aspect does analogically reflect the coherence between these two aspects, for genuine love relationships display the feature of ethical persistence (constancy), even if they may only have a relatively short duration. But ethical endurance (persistence; constancy) is not the same as, for example, the economic persistence of a currency, or the biotic persistence (the life-span of a living entity), and so on. Although the term value does have a bearing on the ethical – we speak of ethical values – we have to question the “basket” understanding of morality according to which all forms of normativity are embraced by it, also found in theology and theological ethics. To be sure, there are also other kinds of values, such a religious values, economic values, cultural values, and so on. Consequently, as such it cannot be a distinctive defining feature of the ethical. Likewise, there are also multiple non-ethical subject-subject relations (such as lingual subject-subject relations, social subject-subject relations and aesthetic subject-subject relations), disqualifying at once also subject-subject relations to serve as a distinctive defining feature of love (as Buber attempted to do). These two properties – values and subject-subject relations – represent properties shared by different aspects.

7. ANALOGY AND METAPHOR

The traditional Thomistic view of the analogia entis ensured that the theme of analogical knowledge remained alive within theological circles. However, the underlying problem regarding similarities and differences represent one of the general philosophical issues that is unavoidable within theology. We will develop an alternative new understanding of the relation between analogy and metaphor by contrasting it with the recently advanced “embodied” view of metaphor found in the approach of Lakoff and Johnson. The theological significance of our own new view will be presented in §11 within the context of a discussion of the difference between conceptual and concept-transcending knowledge.

Lakoff and Johnson also acknowledge the basic nature of love (its uniqueness): “Our experience of love is basic – as basic as our experience of motion or physical force” (Lakoff and Johnson 1999:70). To this view they add that the “inherent structure” of love is “nonmetaphorical” (Lakoff and Johnson 1999:70). Yet, according to them, “abstract concepts” are conceptualized by multiple metaphors.12 They speak of conceptual meta­phors and cross-domain mappings – where these domains are also conceptual in nature. They believe that without these mappings the domain of love would shrink to a mere skeleton: “Without the conventional conceptual metaphors for love, we are left with only the skeleton, bereft of the richness of the concept” (Lakoff and Johnson 1999:72). They substantiate their view with reference to conventional understandings of love: “Love is conventionally conceptualized, for example, in terms of a journey, physical force, illness, magic, madness, union, closeness, nurturance, giving of oneself, complementary parts of single object and heat” (Lakoff and Johnson 1999:71).

If love is truly basic then it is, as argued above, not only irreducible but also conceptually indefinable. For this reason it is strictly speaking incorrect to speak of the concept of love. What can be conceptualized are the multiple moments of coherence between the ethical aspect and those aspects lying at the foundation of this aspect. We called these moments of coherence analogical moments because they refer to some or other aspect in which the analogical term appears in its original (irreducible) sense. Some of the “conventional metaphors” mentioned by Lakoff and Johnson actually fall within the category of aspectual analogies (modal analogies). The meaning of love indeed entails moral13 union (two-oneness – numerical analogy), moral closeness (spatial ana­logy), moral nurturance (cultural analogy of care) and moral participation (an analogy of the whole-parts relation that has its original seat within the spatial aspect).

Modal functional (inter-aspectual) analogies can at most be substituted by syno­nymous terms (for example when continuous extension – the core meaning of the spatial aspect – is ‘synonymised’ by words and phrases such as being connected, coherent or even the expression the whole-parts relation – see Strauss 2002).

In the absence of an articulated theory of modal functions, the nature of inter-modal (inter-aspectual/inter-functional) connections is distorted in the theory of con­ceptual metaphor. The effect is that instead of analyzing the ontic meaning of the moral aspect – with love as its unique and indefinable meaning-nucleus – Lakoff and Johnson embarks on an investigation of the “concept of love” by asking whether or not it is “independent of the metaphors for love?” (Lakoff & Johnson 1999:71). Concepts and conceptual domains reflect the analytical activities of human subjects. But discerning inter-modal connections between different aspects in reality presupposes their ontic existence-in-coherence. For this reason the inter-modal connections between modal aspects are seen in their backward-pointing (retrocipatory) and forward-pointing (antici­patory) analogies. It is through these (retrocipatory and anticipatory) analogies that an aspect demonstrates its structural participation in an unbreakable meaning-coherence.

The expression “conceptual metaphor” – although described in an intelligible way by Lakoff and Johnson – conflates the sign mode with its foundational logical-analytical aspect. Concepts are not words – and therefore they are also not metaphors. If the word “lion” brought with it all the features entailed in the concept lion, then the metaphor referring to General De la Rey as “the lion of Western Transvaal” would be contra­dictory, for clearly a human being is not a lion. Logically speaking it is contradictory to envisage a square circle – but in its metaphorical use of words language is not troubled by this at all, for we are all used to speak of a boxing ring (which is actually square!).

Lakoff and Johnson see in their “theory of conceptual cross-domain mapping” an approach that can account for everyday and novel cases, for “the theory of the novel cases is the same as the theory of the conventional cases,” which is “thus best called a theory of metaphor” (Lakoff & Johnson 1999:70).

The cross-domain mappings operative in “conceptual metaphor” do require a truly conceptual understanding of the constitutive elements of the (original) domains. Their guideline states that difficulties emerge whenever such mappings are understood in a literal instead of metaphorical sense.

It is precisely this difference between the literal and metaphorical which shows that metaphor has its original seat within the sign mode and not within the logical-analytical aspect. It pre-supposes the conceptual-logical dimension (as a foundational aspect), but ought to be distinguished from it.

Although metaphors transcend the logical-analytical mode, their lingual meaning cannot be understood except on the basis of concept formation. Without the foundational role of (analytical) concept formation, the entire distinction between a source domain and a target domain becomes meaningless, as well as the distinction between literal and metaphorical. Precisely because a metaphor is not a concept, it can employ words metaphorically without violating the analytical scope of some or other concept to which the word(s) under consideration may refer (compare the mentioned example of General De la Rey metaphorically designated as the “lion of Western Transvaal”).

Since the choice of source and target domains is relatively arbitrary, it is under­standable why metaphors could be replaced by other metaphors, apparently unrelated to the initial ones. It is only in the case of purely functional modal analogies that every attempt at such an exchange is unsuccessful, since the invariable effect is that modal (functional) analogies are simply substituted by or with synonymous terms. Look for example at different ways to capture the spatial analogy within the structure of the social aspect (leaving aside the fact that one has to distinguish between analogies on the law side and the factual side): social distance; social next-to-each-other; social super- and sub-ordination; social position; social stratification, and so on. All these expressions are in an important way connotatively synonymous – namely insofar as they (analogically) reflect some or other structural feature of the spatial aspect. This possibility to ‘syno­nymise’ modal analogies is absent in the case of analogies between entities (or entities and modal properties/modal domains) as designated by metaphors. One may replace the metaphor “the nose of the car” by referring to the “bonnet of the car.” Whereas we do have denotative synonymity in this case, connotative synonymity is absent.

In fact, we have to expand our argument that aspectual analogies (similarities and differences between aspects of reality) ought to be distinguished from metaphors, be­cause there are actually four possibilities. Metaphors represent three kinds of analogies:

1. Analogies between different entities (E–E: “the nose of the car”);

2. Analogies between entities and functional aspects (E–A: such as the “web of belief”);

3. Analogies between aspects and entities (A–E: such as the “social glue” of society).

These three categories of analogies are true metaphors because they are replaceable by others totally different from the initial ones. For this reason the fourth option, inter-as­pectual analogies, are not called metaphors – owing to the irreducibility of functional as­pects their modal analogies cannot be replaced, except by synonyms as we have noted in connection with continuous extension. In §11 the theological significance of this way of distinguishing between different kinds of analogies will be explained.

Our analysis of the inter-modal coherence between the moral aspect and the other aspects of reality in the next paragraph commences by looking at a well-known biblical passage.

8. ASPECTUAL ANALOGIES REFLECTING THE COHERENCE BETWEEN THE MORAL ASPECT AND OTHER ASPECTS OF REALITY

Suppose we say that love is patient and kind, that it trusts, protects and rejoices with the truth (cp. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7). Are we not then addressing issues such as moral polite­ness (social analogy within the ethical aspect), moral trust (fiduciary analogy), moral care (cultural-historical analogy), and moral truth (logical-analytical analogy). Without enter­ing in a theoretical analysis the Bible simply explores in a perfectly meaningful way the interconnections between the moral aspect and the other aspects of reality.

Of course a systematic theoretical analysis will expand the scope of the above-mentioned analogies implicit in the text of Corinthians. For example, such an analysis can point out that relationships of love always reflect an element of coherence with the one and the many (the numerical). The reference to the ethical unity of a married couple only makes sense because two people are united in it – it is a moral bi-unity. The fact that marriage is described as an intimate moral relationship says something about the moral proximity of marriage partners. They share a peculiar moral sphere in life, with a clear demarcation and awareness of what is inside and outside (we versus they). Amidst the changing environment a marriage has to endure, it ought to display ethical persistence and moral adaptation (the kinematical, physical and biotical analogies). Love implies mutual attraction (physical analogy),14 often manifested in emotional ties. Without the necessary moral sensitivity (sensitive-psychical analogy), without being morally con­siderate (logical analogy) and without avoiding what is morally excessive (economic analogy) there will be no moral harmony and no moral justness (aesthetic and juridical analogies).

None of these moral analogies can be replaced like metaphors. Yet, metaphors about love can enrich the inter-aspectual meaning of modal analogies – for example when ethical persistence is metaphorically depicted as the journey of love.

Although some of the examples of modal analogies within the ethical aspect were coloured by the typical nature of marriage it should be kept in mind that the basic meaning of the moral aspect has an intrinsic modal universality. This claim merely states that whatever there is – albeit concrete (natural and societal) entities and processes of whatever kind – has a function within the ethical aspect. The meaning of the moral aspect of love should start with this unspecified modal universality of the ethical aspect. If it is not done one may run into difficulties to distinguish, for example, between law and mora­lity. In this context the moral subject-object relation will receive some brief attention as well.

9. LAW AND MORALITY

Since Kant, we inherited a distinction between law and morality in terms of the following opposition: law is said to be universal, external and compulsory, whereas morality is sup­posed to be individual, internal and voluntary. To understand what is here at stake, one has to consider the distinction between collective and communal societal relation­ships on the one hand and coordinated societal relationships on the other.15 By describing law as universal, external and compulsory, the jural aspect is identified with typical collective jural relationships – such as those found within the state, where the ‘external’ authority of the government applies ‘universally’ and in a coercive (compulsory) way to all subjects. When morality is defined in terms of ethical coordinated relationships, it is characterized as individual, internal and voluntary. However, we may reverse the picture completely simply by choosing the nuclear family (a moral societal collectivity), for then the authority of the parents is valid for all children (‘universal’); it is external to them and compulsory for them. Alternatively, instead of considering state-law we may look at a coordinated jural relationship, such as what is found within contractual relationships. In this case every individual is free to enter (or not to enter) into a contract, it is a purely individual decision and therefore not external but internal. Now it is law that is individual, internal and voluntary and morality that is universal, external and compulsory. It is therefore clear that the general modal meaning of law and morality ought to be un­derstood in abstraction from all collective, communal and coordinated relationships.16

Fellsches discusses three kinds of love, namely erotic love, friendship love and general human love (in the sense that all human beings share in the capacity to love) (Fellsches 1999:785-787). These are all examples of moral subject-subject relationships. Some ethicists followed Buber, Aalders and Stoker in restricting the meaning of the moral aspect to moral subject-subject relationships.

Stoker explicitly says that a mere love for nature does not reveal the ethical or moral dimension, since the latter only occurs when the former is viewed in the light of ‘persoonlikheidsliefde’ (literally: ‘personality love’ – see Stoker 1941:29).17 In order to explain his intention Stoker gives the example of torturing an animal. Such an act is not immoral because it is an animal that is tortured, but because a human being performs the act. By torturing an animal, the human being displays a lack of self-love and does not fulfil the calling we as human beings have to rule over creation. It is striking that Heyns nonetheless refers to love that is non-moral in nature, namely love for entities in nature (things, plants and animals). The logical consequence of restricting the moral domain to the moral subject-subject relations (starting ewith Buber), is that since animals are not persons, they by definition fall outside the ethical domain. By contrast, the reality of love for things, plants and animals decisively shows that the moral aspect also embrace ethical subject-object relations – during the past few decades theologically reflected in increasing concerns for environmental issues (global warming etc.).18

What, within legal philosophy, is known as legal-ethical principles or the princi­ples of juridical morality (see Hommes 1972:481-456), such as the criminal legal princi­ple of fault, the principle of bona fides, that of equity, the juridical personality principle, and so on, are actually all instances of justice. In other words, the meaning of love is also reflected within the structure of non-moral aspects, such as the jural in the case of prin­ciples of the jural morality.

10. LOVE IN MULTIPLE SENSES

The first way to deal with the multiple senses in which the word love can be used is to make the claim that the semantic domain of the word love encompasses a multiplicity of nuances. Semantic field theory (see Geckeler 1971 and 1978) accounts for these meaning-nuances by means of Venn-diagrams. Synonymous words share at least one meaning-nuance from their respective semantic domains, while each word should at least also have one meaning-nuance that is distinct from the other word. For example, the Afri­kaans words /donker/ and /duister/ share the nuance of “absence of light” – whereas the “deep tint” as a meaning-nuance of /donker/ has as its correlate an equally unique meaning-nuance in the meaning-nuance “sinister” of the word /duister/. If no single meaning-nuance overlaps an antonym is at hand.

However, the meaning of love opens up further complications that cannot be accounted for solely with an appeal to the semantic domain of words. What is needed is an important epistemological distinction that has direct relevance for the theological use of the term love in a central religious sense, a differentiated (DPP) sense (see §3), and in what will be called a concept-transcending sense (the idea of God's love).

11. CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND CONCEPT TRANSCENDING KNOWLEDGE

What happened when Jesus was approached by the Pharisees with regard to divorce (Matt. 19:8)? Christ held that what God has put together, no person may put asunder, to which the Pharisees replied by asking why Moses prescribed the use of a letter of divorce? Jesus in turn replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning” (Mt. 19:8). Jesus appeals to the beginning – in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen.1:1). This is an appeal to the original creation: in principle (i.e., by virtue of the creational principle for marriage) no-one may divorce, even as a person's sinful heart and anti-normative acts (cf. Mt. 15:19) may require it factually.

The Bible regularly uses the word love in a differentiated sense, referring to a particular aspect of human existence. Just as frequently the word love is also employed in a radical religious sense, i.e. in a RCT sense. Yet, when love is used in a differentiated sense it should not be confused with love in the central religious sense of the word – as it is for example expressed in the central commandment of love. This commandment, demanding that we love God and our neighbour with all our heart, belongs to the RCT dimension of creation and contains, for exactly this reason, an appeal to all the facets of our existence. For that reason the second part of the central commandment of love is implied by the first part, because our fellow human beings are equally created in the image of God and it calls for love of God. However, when we talk about marital love, family love or patriotic love, we are only referring to one specific sector of our existence and not to its totality. The RCT meaning of the central commandment of love does not contain these typical specifications – such as marital love, family love and friendship love – because the latter forms of love are derived from differentiated (typical) creational principles. Of course the law or structural principle holding for a specific kind or type of entities continues to have its own universality, but this universality is specified. The law for being a marriage is universal in the sense that it holds for all marriages. But because not everything is a marriage, this type of law is specified – it applies to marriages only. In general, one can say that modal laws encompass all possible entities, whereas typical laws (type laws) only hold for a limited class of entities. Natural and social entities therefore function in a ‘typical’ way within every modal aspect.19

We have noted that this difference is clearly present in the Bible. In distinction from those portions of Scripture which pertinently refer to the central sense of the commandment of love (such as Mt. 22: 37-40, Dt. 6:5, and Lev. 19:18), we find many sections in which love is positioned alongside terms derived from other facets of reality. Consider the statements in Gal. 5: 22 and I Tim. 6: 11. The first reference speaks of the “fruit of the Spirit”, and then mentions “love, joy, peace, ...” and so forth. It also mentions that towards which we should be striving, namely “faith, endurance and gentleness.”

Note, by the way, that something similar happens to the word faith: it is some­times used in the sense of a total heart commitment to God and at other times – such as in the mentioned case of I Tim.6:11 – to indicate a virtue which is valued next to and in distinction from other virtues.

When the word love is used to refer to anything functioning within the moral or ethical aspect of reality we meet a conceptual use of this term. This remark applies to the core meaning of all the other aspects of reality, for terms derived from them can also be used in a conceptual way.

A multiplicity of entities have their number – and when this number is used to refer to them the core meaning of number found a conceptual use. The core meaning of number is given in a discrete multiplicity. Merely using this core meaning may also sup­port our awareness that everything is individually unique, in the sense of being distinct. This awareness embraces much more than merely the numerical aspect. In fact it refers to something individual in its totality, pointing at all its aspects and not just to its arith­metical aspect. In other words, number words may either be used to refer to whatever functions within the boundaries of the numerical aspect of reality or they may be used to refer to realities exceeding or transcending the boundaries of this aspect. This latter kind of use may be designated as a concept transcending use of numerical terms. Likewise, the spatial awareness of wholeness (totality) first of all refers to spatial figures – if the three sides of a triangle are not present at once (as a whole) then we do not have a triangle. Next to this conceptual use of the spatial term whole (totality) we can also employ it in a concept transcending manner – for example when we refer to something in its totality, once again entailing all facets of such an entity and not merely its spatial aspect.

This equally applies to the moral aspect, with love as its core meaning. A conceptual use of the term love is found when we use it to refer to individuals or societal collectivities functioning within this aspect. However, when we speak of the central com­mandment of love the term love is employed in a concept transcending way – pointing beyond the ethical meaning of love to the radical, central and total religious dimension of creation – where the ultimate commitments of human beings find their seat and from whence the issues of life emerge (see Proverbs 4:23). When the Bible says God is love another instance of using the term love in a concept transcending way is encountered – but in this case its referential meaning does not merely exceed the boundaries of the moral aspect of creation, but indeed also creation itself.20 Although we are used to associate God almighty with God's sovereignty and God the Father with God's love, these two key metaphors, which are employed in a concept-transcending way by the Bible, do not exclude the apparent opposite features, because the sovereign God is loving and the loving father is just.

Many theologians hold that God's transcendence is decisive for our acknowl­edgment of God as God.

Sometimes one referential, concept transcending, mode of speech is privileged, without recognizing the creational location of the terms employed. Brunner, for example, states: “The omnipresence of God is his elevation above space whereas his eternity and immutability constitute his elevation above time” (Brunner 1972:272). What he does not realize is that he had to use spatial terms in order to assert that God is ‘above’ space! Likewise the idea of God's immutability employs the core kinematical meaning of time, manifested in a uniformly moving body (also designated by using synonymous terms such as endurance, persistence and constancy) in a concept transcending manner.21

It simply seems to be unavoidable that the difference between God and creation can only be explained while inevitably using certain creational terms – and for that purpose we have accounted for this inevitability by introducing a (philosophical) epistemological distinction within knowledge, namely that between conceptual knowledge and (the limits of concepts transcending) idea-knowledge. The theological significance of this distinction could be illustrated with reference to the classical theological idea that one must distinguish between God “in Himself ” and God as “He revealed Himself to us.”

This distinction is informed by another one – one in which essence and appearance are opposed to each other. This distinction is derived from the Greek substance concept. Since it exceeds the cope of this article to explain this legacy in more detail, it will suffice merely to briefly mention what it entails. The substance concept informed the theological tradition and inspired it to distinguish between God's self-knowledge (theologia archetypa directed towards God as He is “in Himself”) and the knowledge through which He revealed Himself to us (accommodated to creation – theologia ectypa). All of this flows from the substance concept. In addition this distinction is also closely connected to what is called communicable and incommunicable properties of God. Bavinck explains that the theologia archetypa concerns the knowledge with which God knows himself and that the theologia ectypa is the knowledge of God as accommodated and ‘anthropomorphisised’ to be suitable for the finite human consciousness.22

Alternatively, when the it is said that God is love there is not anything “unkown” involved, hidden behind this revelation. After all, if it were the case God would have turned into an unknown God, a Deus absconditum. However, in terms of the distinction between conceptual knowledge and concept-transcending knowledge we take God on His Word and accept that He is the love He claims He is. We can trust the Word of God. God is indeed what He reveals to us, behind this revelation there is not an unknowable, unrevealed “essence.” By contrast we only have to realize that in His love God transcends whatever we can conceptually know of God. True knowledge of God is therefore always concept transcending in nature.

Reflecting on the nature of love in a biblical context and positioned against the background of the preceding distinction has to say something about eros and agape as well. Of course the possible meanings of the Greek words eros, philia and agape are relatively dependent upon the context.23 Plato and other thinkers from antiquity used the word agape for marital love and family love, whereas within the New Testament it is used for love in the sense of the (central religious) RCT dimension of creation.

12. CONCLUDING REMARK

The aim of the analysis presented in this article aimed at demonstrating that reflections within the domain of the philosophy of theology involves general philosophical distinctions while at the same time requiring that their significance for theology is elucidated. The outcome of the dissected different meaning nuances of the term love is captured in the sketch found at the beginning of this article. Right from the beginning the distinctions that were introduced anticipated the account of the difference between conceptual and concept-transcending knowledge present at the end of the article. For that matter, in referring to the religious dimension of creation the terms radical, central and total were used. But they were not employed in a conceptual sense, but in a concept-transcending sense. However, the full picture only emerged on the basis of systematically unpacking and highligthing the indispensible structural elements of the moral aspect with love as its core meaning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bavinck, H. 1918. Gereformeerde dogmatiek. (4 Vols. unaltered reprint, 1967) Kampen: Kok.

Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H. 1964 (Eds.). Philosophy of Mathematics, Selected Read­ings. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Brunner, E. 1972. Dogmatik I, Die Christliche Lehre von Gott (first impression 1946), Zürich: Theologischer Verlag.

Buber, M. 1953. I and Thou. Edinburgh: Clark (First German edition 1923).

Dooyeweerd, H. 1999. In the Twilight of Western Thought. Collected Works of Herman Dooyeweerd, B Series, Volume 4, General Editor D.F.M. Strauss, Special Editor J.K.A. Smith. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.

Ewing, A.C. 1962. Ethics. London: The English University Press LTD.

Fellsches, J. 1999. Liebe. In: Sandkühler, H. G. 1999. Enzyklopädie Philosophie. Hamburg: Felix Meiner (pp. 784-788).

Fodor, J.D. 1977. Semantics: Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar. Hassocks: Harvester Press.

Fraenkel, A., Bar-Hillel, Y., Levy, A. & Van Dalen, D. 1973. Foundations of Set Theory. 2nd revised edition. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Galileo Gallilei 1638: Dialogues and mathematical demonstrations concerning two new sciences, the German translation, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Geckeler, H. (Editor.) 1978. Strukturelle Bedeutungslehre. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch­gesellschaft.

Geckeler, H. 1971. Strukturelle Semantik und Wordfeldtheorie. München: Fink.

Gödel, K. 1964. What is Cantor's Continuum Problem? In: Benacerraf & Putnam, 1964. (This article appeared in 1947 in the American Mathematical Monthly, 54, pp.515-525).

Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy, translated by William Rehg; 2nd print, Cambridge: Massachu­setts: MIT Press.

Heyns, J.A. (Without Date). Algemene Inleiding tot die Etiek (Class-Notes).

Hommes, H.J. 1972. De Elementaire Grondbegerippen der Rechtswetenschap. Deventer: Kluwer.

Jüngel, E. 1978: Gott als Geheimnis der Welt. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Kant, I. 1787. Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 2nd Edition (references to CPR B). Hamburg: Felix Mei­ner edition (1956).

Korzybski, A. 1948. Science and Sanity. An Introduction to non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Connecticut: The International non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible, 1984: New International Version. Oxford: Oxford Uni­versity Press.

Regan. T. 1997. The Case for Animal Rights. Los Angeles: University of California Press (first edition 1983).

Russell, B. 1956. The Principles of Mathematics. London: George Allen & Unwin. (First pu­blished in 1903, Second edition 1937, Seventh impression 1956).

Scheler, M.F. 1973. Wesen und Formen der Sympathie; Die deutsche Philospohie der Gegenwart. (Gesammelte Werke, Volume 7). Bern: Francke Verlag.

Spykman, G.J. 1992. Reformational theology: a new paradigm for doing dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Stoker, H.G. 1941. Die Grond van die Sedelike. Stellenbosch: Pro Ecclesia.

Stoker, H.G. 1967. Oorsprong en Rigting. Cape Town: Tafelberg.

Stoker, H.G. 1967a. Teologiese, Wysgerige en Vakwetennskaplike Etiek. In: Stoker 1967:223-230.

Stone, C.D. 1998a. Should Trees Have Standing? – Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, in; VanDeVeer, 1998 (pp.148-159).

Strauss, D.F.M. 2002. Philosophical Reflections on continuity. In: Acta Academica, 34(3) (pp.1-32).

Strauss, D.F.M. 2006. Reintegrating Social Theory – Reflecting upon human society and the discipline of sociology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Troost, A. 2004. Vakfilosofie van de Geloofswetenschap. Prolegomena van de Theologie. Budel: Damon.

VanDeVeer and Pierce, C. 1998. The Envirenmental Ethics & Policy Book, 2nd Edition. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

KEY WORDS

Love (moral aspect), Indefinability (primitive terms), Uniqueness and coherence, Analogy and metaphor, Concept and idea

TREFWOORDE

Liefde (morele aspek), Ondefinieerbaarheid (primitiewe terme), Uniekheid en samehang, Analogie en metafoor, Begrip en idee

KONTAK BESONDERHEDE

Prof DFM Strauss

Universiteit van die Vrystaat

Posbus 339

9300 BLOEMFONTEIN

E-pos: dfms@cknet.co.za