Wednesday, November 21, 2018 | site map | contact | FSJ

Subscribe to Salvo magazine today! Take a look at an issue online and if you like what you see, SUBSCRIBE at a discounted rate.


Warning: include(new/inc/moredecode.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/salvomag/public_html/new/articles/salvo9/9decode.php on line 20

Warning: include(new/inc/moredecode.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/salvomag/public_html/new/articles/salvo9/9decode.php on line 20

Warning: include(): Failed opening 'new/inc/moredecode.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/home/salvomag/public_html') in /home/salvomag/public_html/new/articles/salvo9/9decode.php on line 20


n. tender, passionate affection for another person
v. to have love or affection for

History: “Love” is one of the oldest words in the English language, dating back to the eighth century. Its meaning was derived from the ancient Greek philosophers, who went to great pains to examine each of the term’s dimensions. Interestingly, not a single one of the Greek types of love correlates with the commonly held modern view that emphasizes love as a feeling. For example, the Greek word eros, which is now associated with sensual desire and longing, was actually thought to involve an active contemplation of the beauty within a person, as well as an appreciation of beauty itself. The other types of Greek love—agape, philia, and storge—have even less of a “feeling” component, instead emphasizing reciprocal actions of caring, protection, and enjoyment. In the Middle Ages, the concept of “romantic” love took root, and while courtly poetry often expressed love as an irresistible urge that defied everything from the boundaries of social class to the bonds of marriage, it also saw true love as a lofty and transcendent thing. With the rise of Darwinism and Freudian psychoanalysis in the 19th and 20th centuries, however, the understanding of love was debased in two ways: the former saw it as merely a function of biological survival, and the latter dismissed it as an illusion of the mind.

Etymology: The word “love” comes from the Old Frisian term luve, which meant “affection and friendliness toward another person.” As time went on, its definition became increasingly ambiguous, as it was used to refer to an ever-widening range of phenomena. Beginning in 1225, for instance, “love” came to likewise mean “a beloved person.” The phrase “in love” dates back to 1580 and marks the first time that the word described an emotion rather than an action. In 1919, the term “love life,” meaning “one’s collective amorous activities,” was coined, and in 1950, the phrase “make love,” which had previously meant “to pay amorous attention to,” changed into a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Thus, by the middle of the twentieth century, “love” had devolved from a precise and virtuous act of devotion into a nebulous concept that could be applied to any number of behaviors, sentiments, and things. Occasionally, a philosopher, such as Thomas Jay Oord, has tried to salvage its original definition—Oord says that to love is to “act intentionally, in sympathetic response to others, to promote overall well-being”—but it is too late to call back the word from its indiscriminate application throughout English-speaking society.

Effect: Today we profess love for everything, whether it be our pets, our favorite foods, or our cars, and we do so at the slightest provocation. This haphazard ascription of love to any sort of warm feeling, however trivial, has, in many cases, made love itself disposable. We are as quick to stop loving as we are to love; and science is ready to back us up in this regard, teaching us not only that love is no longer an action, but that it is completely out of our control—a neurological drive that cannot be resisted and that alters its focus on a biological whim. Alas, many of us these days are either in love or out of love but never actively loving—never contemplating or caring or committing—and the cumulative result is a culture largely captive to its transitory passions. 

If you enjoy Salvo, please consider giving an online donation! Thanks for your continued support.


A Boy's Life: 5 Recommendations for Shielding Our Sons from the Anti-Culture—And Setting Them Towards Manhood by Anthony Esolen

Revolution 101: How the 'New Civics' Is Fomenting Civil Unrest by Terrell Clemmons

Up for Grabs: In Science, When 'Anything Goes,' Everything Goes by Denyse O'Leary

Optimal Optics: Evolutionists Don't Know a Good Eye When They See One by Jonathan Wells


The Darwin Tales: It's Time to Remit Darwinian Storytelling to the Annals of History by Terrell Clemmons

Engendered Confusion: The Chaos of Postmodern Sexuality by Laurie Higgins

Zombie Killer: The "Icons of Evolution" Have Joined the Ranks of the Undead by Denyse O'Leary

My Favorite Zombies: Can We Let Them Rest in Peace? by James M. Kushiner

Eye Openers: Eight Common Factors for Atheists Changing Their Minds About God by Matt Nelson

Tuning Out the Universe: How Naturalism & Post-Fact Science Ignore the Evidence We See by Denyse O'Leary

Deep-Seated Rights: What They Are & Why You Have Them by Steve Jones

Improbably So: Fine-Tuning Is Unlikely, but Unlikely Things Happen All the Time by Tim Barnett

The Long Red Shadow: Mike Shotwell Has a Message for Millennial America by Terrell Clemmons

The Good Life: It's to Know, Serve & Love the Truth, Not the Pursuit of Happiness by James Altena

Taking Polls Apart: Human Complexity Foils Electoral Predictions by Denyse O'Leary

Morality as Story: The False Charity of Modern Journalism by Rebekah Curtis

Can We Talk?: It Is Crucial That We Put Our Minds to Contentious Issues by James M. Kushiner

© 2018 Salvo magazine. Published by The Fellowship of St. James. All rights reserved. Returns, refunds, and privacy policy.