Advertisement

Sophia

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 493–509 | Cite as

Loving Yourself as Your Neighbor: a Critique and Some Friendly Suggestions for Eleonore Stump’s Neo-Thomistic Account of Love

  • Jordan WesslingEmail author
Article
  • 92 Downloads

Abstract

Many Christian theorists notice that love should contain, in additional to benevolence, some kind of interpersonal or unitive component. The difficulty comes in trying to provide an account of this unitive component that is sufficiently interpersonal in other-love and yet is also compatible with self-love. Eleonore Stump is one of the few Christian theorists who directly addresses this issue. Building upon the work of Thomas Aquinas, Stump argues that love is constituted by two desires: the desire for an individual’s good and the desire to be united to that individual. Stump further develops the desire for union within this Thomistic understanding of love, and she maintains that her developed account not only captures the robustly interpersonal nature of one’s love of another but is also compatible with the love of oneself. Unfortunately, Stump’s way of making sense of this latter claim introduces a significant inconsistency in her analyses of the desire for union in self-love and other-love. Nevertheless, the most important features of Stump’s Neo-Thomistic account are salvageable. For there is a way of understanding love’s desire for union that emerges out of Thomas’s views on love and is compatible with the desiderata suggested by Stump, only does not have the same difficulties that beset Stump’s account. What is offered, then, is a modification of Stump’s account that might better serve her purposes. The resulting view of love, however, is one not only relevant to Stump. Rather, the view that emerges is a broadly Thomistic conception of love that is plausible in its own right and captures a certain biblical emphasis on the relational or interpersonal nature of love.

Keywords

Nature of Christian Love Eleonore Stump Thomas Aquinas Self-love 

References

  1. Adams, R. (1980). Pure love. Journal of Religious, Ethics 8(1), 83–99.Google Scholar
  2. Badhwar, N. K. (1996). The limited unity of virtue. Noûs, 30(3), 306–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barth, K. (1957). Church Dogmatics II/1. In G. W. Bromily, & T. F. Torrance (Ed.), Translated by A.T. Mackay, T.H.L. Parker, W.B. Johnston, Harold Knight, and J.L.M. Haire. London: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
  4. Brunner, E. (1949). The Christian doctrine of God. London: Lutterworth Press.Google Scholar
  5. Creel, R. (1986). Divine impassibility: An essay in philosophical theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. De Sousa, R. (1996). Love undigitized. In R. E. Lamb (Ed.), Love analyzed (pp. 189–207). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  7. Delaney, N. (1996). Romantic love and loving commitment: articulating a modern ideal. American Philosophical Quarterly, 33, 375–405.Google Scholar
  8. Dodds, M. J. (2008). The unchanging God of love: Thomas Aquinas and contemporary theology on divine immutability (2nd ed.). Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, M. (1990). Personal love. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  10. Flanagan, O. J. (1993). Varieties of moral personality: Ethics and psychological realism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Frankfurt, H. G. (1988). The importance of what we care about: Philosophical essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frankfurt, H. G. (2004). The reasons of love. Princeton: Princeton.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, M. (1998). Romantic love and personal autonomy. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 22, 162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall, A. L. (2005). Love: A kinship of affliction and redemption. In G. Meilaender & W. Werpehowski (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of theological ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Helm, B. (2009). Love, identification, and the emotions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 46(1), 39–59.Google Scholar
  16. Helm, B. (2013). Love. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [First published Fri Apr 8, 2005; substantive revision Fri Jun 21, 2013] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/.
  17. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal Qualia. The Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, T. P. (1999). Love disconsoled: meditations on Christian charity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. MacDonald, S. (1990). Egoistic rationalism: Aquinas’s basis for Christian morality. In M. D. Beaty (Ed.), Christian theism and the problems of philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  20. McCabe, H. (1987). God matters. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  21. Mooney, T. B., & Nowacki, M. (2017). The metaphysical, epistemological, and theological background to Aquinas’s theory of education in the De Magistro. Pacifica, 27(3), 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mooney, T. B., & Williams, J. (2017). Valuable asymmetrical friendship. Philosophy, 92(1), 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nozick, R. (1989). Love’s bond. In The examined life: Philosophical meditations (pp. 68–86). New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  24. Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Love and the individual: Romantic rightness and platonic aspiration. In R. E. Lamb (Ed.), Love analyzed. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nygren, A. (1953). Agape and Eros. Translated by Philip Watson. London: Westminster.Google Scholar
  26. Oord, T. J. (2010). Defining love: A philosophical, scientific, and theological engagement. Grand Rapids: Brazos.Google Scholar
  27. Pruss, A. R. (2012). One body: An essay in Christian sexual ethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rodgers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. 1995 reprint. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  29. Sarot, M. (1992). God, passibility and corporeality. Kampen: Kok Pharos.Google Scholar
  30. Scrutton, A. P. (2011). Thinking through feeling: God, emotion and passibility. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  31. Sherwin, M. S. (2011). By knowledge and by love: Charity and knowledge in the moral theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Washington, DC: Catholic University America Press.Google Scholar
  32. Silverman, E. J. (2010). The prudence of love: How possessing the virtue of love benefits the lover. Lanham: Lexington.Google Scholar
  33. Singer, I. (2010). Meaning in life: Volume two, the pursuit of love. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Soble, A. (1989). An introduction to the philosophy of love. In A. Soble (Ed.), Eros, agape and philia: Readings in the philosophy of love. New York: Paragon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Soble, A. (1997). Union, autonomy, and concern. In R. E. Lamb (Ed.), Love analyzed (pp. 65–92). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  36. Solomon, R. C. (1988). About love: Reinventing romance for our times. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  37. Stump, E. (2010). Wandering in darkness: Narrative and the problem of suffering. Oxford: Oxford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swinburne, R. (1997). The evolution of the soul (Revised ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Vanhoozer, K. J. (2002). First theology: God, scripture & hermeneutics. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity.Google Scholar
  40. Vanhoozer, K. J. (2010). Remythologizing theology: Divine action, passion, and authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vellemen, D. J. (1999). Love as a moral emotion. Ethics, 109(2), 338–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weinandy, T. G. (2000). Does God suffer? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fuller Theological SeminaryPasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations