Attempted Solutions: Exploring Theories and Their Limits
In this second edition (read the 1st edition), I present an overview of some of the dominant theories about love, along with the arguments often raised against them. Love remains one of the most discussed yet least agreed-upon concepts in human experience. Philosophers, theologians, and laypeople alike have wrestled with its meaning, often approaching it from distinct and sometimes opposing perspectives.
Here, I outline three major philosophical positions that attempt to define love – what I call the monistic views. Each of these camps locates the essence of love in a single primary faculty: the mind, the heart, or material reality.
1. The Mind-Centred View
Proponents of this view argue that love can only be truly known and evaluated through the mind. They claim that rationality and intellectual discernment are essential to identifying what constitutes genuine, objective love.
The mind, they assert, is uniquely capable of distinguishing between true love and illusion. The heart, in contrast, is portrayed as unreliable; easily deceived by passion, attraction, or sentimentality. According to this view, emotions may cloud our judgement, but the mind offers the clarity needed to recognise authentic love
2. The Heart-Centred View
This perspective holds that love is most authentically known through the heart. Advocates of this view argue that the heart is the seat of human emotion and the primary organ through which love is felt, expressed, and understood.
They suggest that the heart is the first cause of love, responsible for initiating feelings that the mind later attempts to analyse. From this standpoint, the mind without the heart is like a “tabula rasa”, an empty slate, with no innate understanding of love. They believe that emotional intuition, not reason, is the most trustworthy guide to love.
3. The Materialist View
The materialist approach posits that love is grounded in physical expression, especially through the giving and receiving of material things. In this view, love is demonstrated not through internal states but through tangible actions and possessions.
A variant of this theory aligns with behaviourism, which reduces love to observable behaviours. Since love as an inner experience is abstract and difficult to quantify, behaviourists argue that only actions—what can be seen and measured—can reliably communicate love. From this reductionist angle, love is not something one feels but something one does.
Reflections on the Theories
These three frameworks—the rational, the emotional, and the material—represent popular attempts to solve the mystery of love. Each offers valuable insight but also suffers from limitations when taken in isolation. A purely rational approach may neglect the depth of emotion. An emotionally driven view may overlook the role of discernment. A materialist account may reduce love to mere transaction, stripping it of deeper meaning.
These theories serve as stepping stones in our journey toward understanding love, but they stop short of offering a fully satisfying answer. They describe how love may be experienced or expressed, but not what love is in its essence.
In my final edition, I will move beyond these competing theories and offer my own philosophical and biblical insight into the fundamental meaning of love—its true essence, its being qua being.
