In Search of a Higher Love

It was probably 2019, New York City, I was in a bar drinking a gin and seltzer, alone, as I often did then. A few feet from the precipice of a chasm, but I did not know it yet. Or maybe I did. When "Higher Love", sung by Steve Winwood and Chaka Khan, came on the bluetooth speaker. It was not the first time I had
heard it, but it was the first time in a long time, and the feeling was one I hadn't felt in a long time.

Like a stream of fresh clear air on the radio waves, piercing the heavy stale haze of the bar. It was a reminder of the existence of something pure and true, beyond what my world had become, an ideal captured. In the coming years, as things got worse, and then better, it would continue to serve as a reminder of the world above. A buoy in the rough sea.

But how was this song conceived of, what was Winwood channeling? What is Love, and will he fly as soon as we try to pin him down? The dialogue that is perhaps of most relevance to this question is Plato's Symposium, which contains a number of speeches on the topic of love, each delivered by a guest at the house of Agathon. The task is outlined by Eryximachus; he proposes that each guest in turn, from left to right, make a speech in honor of Love, as the deity has been neglected, having no encomiast or sophist. I suggest that anyone who might be reading here proceed themselves to the Symposium, but I will attempt to paraphrase and summarize while retaining some salient points. 

Phaedrus is the first to speak, he praises Love as a mighty god on account of him being the eldest of the gods as attested by Hesiod, who spoke "First Chaos came, and then broad-bosomed Earth, The everlasting sear of all that it, And Love". Phaedrus next credits Love as the source of greatest benefits to us, among these being the virtuous lover, and the sense of honor that engenders bravery and good works in the beloved. And further, citing the tales of Alcestis and Achilles, he states Love is the reason for courage in men and women, causing them to dare to die on behalf of their lovers. While I enjoy a Hesiod quote, I am not fully on board with the attribution of violence and murder to Love.

The next speech is that of Pausanias, which centers on the proving of the existence of two Loves rather than the praise of Love, with the justification that we should know which Love to praise. He argues that as there are two Aphrodites, and Love is inseparable from Aphrodite, then so too should there be two Loves.

The elder heavenly Aphrodite is the daughter of Uranus, whereas the younger is the daughter of Zeus and Dione, and as she is called "common" then so must her accompanying Love also be. Here appears to be a promising passage that might shed light on the question at hand. Unfortunately, in Pausanias's elaboration on the natures of the two Aphrodites and Loves, we find that familiar mischaracterization of women that invariably presents itself in every philosophical and religious text, and so we must summarily relegate the speech to the trash heap. The speech of Eryximachus follows and expands on Pausanias's characterization of the double Love. Into the trash heap you go.

Aristophanes then delivers his encomium, and it takes a refreshingly different tack. He praises Love on the basis of him being the healer of man, for the primeval human form had three sexes: man, woman, and the union of the two, these being the children of the sun, earth, and moon, respectively. Moreover, the original human was round, he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces. He could walk upright and could also "roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air". Now, the primeval round person was vicious and terrible in strength, Otys and Ephialtes being two such of these, and thusly they were required to be split in two, "as you might divide an egg with a hair". More regarding their anatomies and privy parts follows. The result is that we in our current form are each one half of that primeval whole, and love which is the desiring to become one again, is to be praised as that which will lead to happiness in unity again. Curious tale, leaving me with thoughts of an ancestral fungus.

Agathon gives the penultimate speech, and he provides the counterpoint to Phaedrus's argument, declaring Love as the fairest and best god on account of him being the youngest. He must be so, for he is tender, does not act by force, is just and temperate, and has his dwelling among the flowers. Not only this, but he is the source of many arts and inventions prized by the gods, and finally, it is love of beauty that set the empire of the gods in order.

Socrates's turn finally has arrived, and he promptly and acerbically tears the previous speeches apart, stating that in his simplicity he imagined that the topic of praise should be true, but now he sees the intention was to attribute to love every species of greatness and glory, whether really belonging to him or not. Socrates then proceeds directly towards describing the nature of Love, as Diotima of Mantineia once instructed Socrates, and now Socrates relates to the guests. Love is a demi-god.

Love is of something, something necessarily that he is in want of and does not possess, and that something is the good. And that which is in want of the good cannot already be good, then so Love cannot be good. And as all gods must be good, then Love cannot be a god. This does not mean that Love is evil or foul, as there is a mean between wisdom and ignorance which is right opinion, and so too is there a mean between good and evil. Being neither good nor evil, neither immortal nor mortal, Love is a great spirit, a daimon, as all great spirits are intermediate between the divine and the mortal. Love's power is that he interprets, acting as a mediator between gods and men, and in him all is bound together. 

Socrates then recounts the story of Love's parentage as told to him by Diotima; in short, Love is the child of Poros (Plenty) and Penia (Poverty), conceived and born at the feast in celebration of the birthday of Aphrodite. Like his mother, he is poor, rough, and squalid, always in distress. Like his father, he is bold, strong, resourceful. He is "alive and flourishing at one moment when he is in plenty, and dead at another moment, and again alive by reason of his father's nature. But that which is flowing in is always flowing out, and so he is never in want and never in wealth...". And because he is a lover of the beautiful, and Aphrodite is beautiful, and also because he was born on her birthday, he is her follower and attendant.

As wisdom also is beautiful, he is a philosopher, a lover of wisdom. Those of us who love the beautiful, the good, and the everlasting possession of it, may be called lovers. And Love's great gift to us is that under his influence, through the pursuit of beauty and wisdom, we may achieve communion with those absolute divine essences, bring forth beautiful realities, and become divine ourselves.

At this point in the dialogue, a drunken Alcibiades enters, and things get "complex" and "messy". A better commentary on this can be found at Old$'s place (Out In The Alleyway).

So, returning to the question, what is Love? If you ask me, we are Love. When we are seeking Beauty, Truth and Wisdom. When we are walking the path that leads to these divine immortal principles. But also when we are acting as conduits, intermediaries, not only between gods and men, but between men and men. When we open ourselves to the daimones that flow between us, and feel the joys and pains and sufferings of one another. This, in my opinion, is empathy. And when we seek the everlasting possession of the good not only for ourselves, but for all beings and creatures. To me, this is higher love.

An avant garde piece, as a good friend once said: