Can God love?

[emjay]

Er... awkward But maybe I just wanted to have a discussion rather an argument, because I'm actually interested in the subject and it's new to me... and there's no point if we're talking about different things.

Anyway, what did I get right? I don't hear that very often

You;re not going to get a "conversation" out of Drich, lol. Heres here to fish for souls by telling you you;re wrong about everything.

Eros.  It actually is the desire of value and the seeking out of value or transcendent beauty..at least in it;s classical conception. In point of fact..eros -is- love.  The other categories, like philia...that was friendship.  Agape...good will and benevolence.  When Drich thinks eros he thinks titties....but thats not actually what it was envisioned as, even if it included that as the very lowest form of eros.  Of the body driving the eros car rather than the soul doing so.

Well yeah, I know he's here to preach, and how he goes about it, but my interest here was in understanding these three terms - eros, agape, and philia - in reference to love in general and the question of the OP. So on that score I was interested in his, or anyone else's, perspectives on those three terms... to supplement and/or correct my own understanding from reading the book. So since he tends to talk about agape a lot, there was no reason not to think he wouldn't be knowledgeable about the subject, what it's defined as at least. Just as you are, and just as I welcome your perspective as well. After all, both of your descriptions of the three seem pretty similar, except for his focus on the erotic of eros... but if that's how he uses the term, then so be it... that's his perspective... all to be weighed into the final analysis so to speak. But since I don't see it like that... ie as erotic only... and neither do you apparently... but instead (now... following my 'gross misunderstanding') see it as strictly about egocentric, but not 'othercentric', value-seeking of any kind (which still may be wrong... but that's where I'm up to with my understanding)... it means than in order to have a fruitful discussion with him I need to either reformulate my questions in his usage of the terms, or reformulate them without use of the terms at all... or at least not with the contentious eros, since the only alternative is us talking past each other using different definitions. In other words that's probably the end of the discussion for now... just need to keep on reading.