Explaining Models of Love according to Alan Soble

Compose an answer to one of the following questions:

 

1. Table of Desccriptors

AGAPE

• non-property-based
• reason independent
• irrational/incomprehensible
• creates value in the beloved
• indifferent to beloved’s properties
• Spontaneous/unmotivated

EROS

• reason-dependent
• property-based
• Rational/comprehensible
• Perceives and values the beloved’s properties
• motivated

Using the above table of descriptors for the eros (e-type) and agape (a-type) models of love, provide a detailed description of ONE of the models, EROS or AGAPE. Next, drawing from Alan Soble’s analysis of the exclusivity condition of genuine love [see PDF doc “Exclusivity”], explain why he believes that agapic love may be less exclusive than eros.

How to approach this question:

Imagine that you are attempting to explain your chosen model to your lover/partner (real or fictional) who has never read Alan Soble’s essay (“Two Models of Love”). Your task is to explain the model to your lover/partner in as clear terms as possible using the terminology/concepts from Soble’s essay (i.e. with reference to the table of descriptors). This means that, given your lover’s/partner’s unfamiliarity with the essay, you must explain each descriptor in a way that your listener can understand, by showing how the descriptors characterize the model of love and how they complement each other (how they connect/relate). Note that in order to achieve maximum clarity, you may need to refer to the other model of love (eros or agape, depending on which model you have chosen) to convey your point clearly. It may help to further imagine that you are trying to persuade your lover/partner of your erosic/e-type or agapic/a-type love for her/him. Regarding the second part of the question (Soble on exclusivity), you might use your description from the first part of the question as a starting point. For example, if you chose the agapic model to explain to your lover/partner, you could extend your explanation by discussing why Soble thinks agapic love will not guarantee exclusivity; or if you wrote about erosic love, you might continue your discussion by explaining why Soble thinks e-type love is no less exclusive than agape love. In either case, you should provide a comparison of the two models with respect to exclusivity.

When I am marking your answer, I will assume the viewpoint of your lover/partner, pretending that I know absolutely nothing about Soble’s analysis of eros/agape. I will evaluate your answer based on how well overall you have presented the model of love and how well (or poorly) it fares with respect to the exclusivity condition. The strongest answers will be those that sufficiently explain each of the descriptors of one’s chosen model of love and to what degree the model secures exclusivity (as per Soble).

Once again, there is no need for lengthy introductions or historical backdrops (e.g. “Eros derives from Plato…Agape is rooted in Christianity”). Go straight to answering the question. 

Do not use variables (e.g. x, y) of any kind in your answer, nor names mentioned in the PPt lectures/tutorials (Kim/Kanye, Jay-Z/Beyonce). Use proper names of your own choosing (actual or fictional).

 

OR

 

2. Table of Desccriptors

AGAPE

• reason independent
• non-property-based
• irrational/incomprehensible
• creates value in the beloved
• indifferent to beloved’s properties
• Spontaneous/unmotivated

EROS

• reason-dependent
• property-based
• Rational/comprehensible
• Perceives and values the beloved’s properties
• motivated

The “cardinal flaw” of Platonic eros (e-type love), according to Gregory Vlastos, is that it “does not provide for love of whole persons.” 

 

(i) Discuss the meaning of this objection with respect to eros (e-type) and agape (a-type) models of love (that is, explain why the e-type, but not the a-type model, is vulnerable to this criticism). Competent answers should refer to the main descriptors of each model of love.

 

(ii) In response to Gregory Vlastos’s criticism of erosic love, Raja Halwani poses the question (p81), “Suppose that we did have a soul or a self, over and above our properties, what would it mean to love the person as a person?” Explain how Halwani criticizes the two possible answers [loving the soul apart from its manifestations/loving the soul via its manifestations] that an agapist might offer in response to this question [pg81]. What is Halwani’s own view [pg 82] on what it is to  love a person as a person for whom he or she really is? 

 

Do not use variables (e.g. x, y) of any kind in your answer, nor names mentioned in the PPt lectures/tutorials (Kim/Kanye, Jay-Z/Beyonce), nor names that Halwani uses (Nora, Omar). Use proper names of your own choosing (actual or fictional).