Defining the Search for Meaning

Why is love always the answer?

Put another way: we humans are constantly searching for meaning in life—and for the meaning of life. Even people who want nothing to do with faith or religion do this. Personally, I would say that these searches are really one and the same. After all, theology is the search for spiritual truth, and you cannot search for any kind of truth without meaning. That would be like writing a book full of nonsense words. How is it that we so consistently reach love as the answer, and more controversially, what does that actually mean?

First of all, while your personal search for meaning might begin with a look inward, it won’t stay that way. Inevitably, you must confront your place in life, in the universe, and in relation to others. No man is an island, and no meaning is independent of others.  It will also have to be a personal undertaking, because it is the individual struggle that makes the belief strong. You might accept what a parent or favorite teacher tells you—you might accept what I tell you—but it takes more than mere acceptance to give a belief enough power to change your life. It takes commitment, and the currency of commitment is sacrifice. This is why I don’t push my beliefs on anyone, either here or in person.

But if you want to find greater meaning in life, I can suggest a starting point. The most basic moral recognition that a person can make is that of intrinsic value. If I recognize that I have some kind of innate, irreplaceable value, and that you do as well, then I am beholden to respect that value. Without it, what obligation or responsibility could be argued? In light of intrinsic value, I am forced to confront the entire universe as something with real stakes, and with laws which are to be broken at great peril.

But if this worth is intrinsic, then I did not give it to myself. I can neither create it nor destroy it. The fact of goodness, then, is independent of me, and overrules me.

Isn’t it only common sense then, that the truest revelation of myself should come through voluntary humility and submission before that ideal? If goodness is independent of me, then I cannot align myself with it without humbling myself before it. Self-sacrifice, then, is not merely a heroic thing that may be done when circumstances demand it. Rather, this practice of love and self-sacrifice, which scripture calls “denying yourself and taking up your cross” is by definition the only way of maintaining a clear vision of your life’s meaning.

We can go a little further with goodness, as well. The subject of ethics and the nature of goodness as it applies to different situations has and will continue to be a subject of endless debate. But there is a way to lay solid foundations which can help to clearly define the context of right or wrong going forward. In order to say what is good and what is not, one must have a clear idea of what “goodness” entails. Primary values are often the hardest to define, but we must attempt it.

The classic Christian belief equates goodness with love. The problem we face is that both of these words are so broad in their usage and development across cultures that they carry too many meanings with them. In practice, they often end up meaning whatever the speaker wants them to mean. According to scripture (and most people), love defines the nature of goodness. On the one hand, I DO believe people possess an innate instinct for love. But like all our other instincts, it is not immune to distortion and misinterpretation, and I think people can get into a lot of trouble by assuming the sanctity of their own unexamined views on love. A friend of mine told me recently that when people today say “love,” they almost always mean “eros.” I think there’s a lot in that, and the Greek delineations of love are useful tools of differentiation.

The Greek language has three words commonly used for love: eros, philia, and agape.

Eros is most often used for romantic, sexual love, but more broadly encompasses feelings of intense attraction, admiration, or desire. Eros is defined by seeking some kind of fulfillment or satisfaction through intimacy with a particular person, which may be sexual or romantic, but may not. For example, a guy finds someone who he greatly admires and initiates a sudden, close friendship in which he seeks personal satisfaction through intimacy with someone he perceives as strong, manly, wise, etc. This could be fairly characterized as eros love, despite the lack of a sexual component. Hence the gentle mockery of terms like “bromance.”

Philia, by contrast, is built on mutuality, loyalty, trust, respect, and platonic affection. It is generally defined by things shared: values, interests, goals, emotional bonds, or blood. Work relationships, friends, family, and comrades in arms are all good examples of philial relationships.

While eros love is emotion-based, and usually intense but short-lived, philia is built on a sturdier foundation of shared experiences and/or values. In other words, it is, to some degree, tried and true, and while eros may fade on its own, as emotions are inherently changeable, philia can last indefinitely, unless it is disrupted by something, such as a breach in trust or a shifting of values.

Finally, there is agape. This is love of the sort most often referenced in spiritual or philosophical contexts—the unconditional, self-sacrificing compassion and devotion. The love that gives without expectation of personal reward. While all of these loves are good things when put in their right places, it is agape that defines right. Because it is universal, unconditional, and impersonal in the sense of being detached from personal needs and desires, we can see that it is the most proximate to the truth of objective, universal goodness. The calling to deny oneself and live in pursuit of the higher calling of good for everyone self-evidently aligns with agape, so it is fair to use this as a working expression of what true goodness looks like when it goes to work.

Worth noting too, that when scripture says that God is love in 1 John, in both instances the original Greek word used is “agape.” I do not think it should be difficult for us to agree that the love to which we should aspire does not stop with a state of static non-transgression, nor mere positive, affectionate feelings toward others, but a determination to achieve for each other some fraction of the devotion and sacrifice which has been done for all of us.

Have a blessed, wonderful day!

Dr. Alex Loyd