Scan barcode
sarahetc's review against another edition
5.0
Deeply thoughtful and thoroughly heartening. A must read, especially when we look around and see so little love.
maggiedoodlez's review against another edition
4.0
“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, my favorite of these essays is agape. Lewis just makes it all accessible.
My least favorite was on philia because I felt its construction of the sexes and its commentary on sexuality to be frustrating. Never has it been clearer that Lewis lived within a wildly different framework of expectations for humanity. I did think it shed further light on Susan’s character arc in Narnia, though, and I would love to have read this before I wrote my analysis for Medieval Lit.
Lewis’s analysis on a shared interest between friends was also amusing to me because it’s fun to trace this philosophy through Donald Hall and ultimately to John Green’s “third thing” (though, forgive me, I can’t remember which essay you can find it in). The biggest difference for me, though, was how staunchly separate Lewis keeps this function of love from eros, placing it solidly and solely within the realm of philia. I think I like Green’s analysis better. Or, at the very least, I disagree with Lewis on the improbability of a couple’s capability to have a braided version of both.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, my favorite of these essays is agape. Lewis just makes it all accessible.
My least favorite was on philia because I felt its construction of the sexes and its commentary on sexuality to be frustrating. Never has it been clearer that Lewis lived within a wildly different framework of expectations for humanity. I did think it shed further light on Susan’s character arc in Narnia, though, and I would love to have read this before I wrote my analysis for Medieval Lit.
Lewis’s analysis on a shared interest between friends was also amusing to me because it’s fun to trace this philosophy through Donald Hall and ultimately to John Green’s “third thing” (though, forgive me, I can’t remember which essay you can find it in). The biggest difference for me, though, was how staunchly separate Lewis keeps this function of love from eros, placing it solidly and solely within the realm of philia. I think I like Green’s analysis better. Or, at the very least, I disagree with Lewis on the improbability of a couple’s capability to have a braided version of both.
rileypeper's review against another edition
3.0
Four different levels of love. I was first introduced to this topic by one of my new favorite authors [a:Richard Rohr|7919|Richard Rohr|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1372442705p2/7919.jpg]. The four levels of love are storge (affection/empathy), philia (friendship), eros (romantic), and agape (charity). This is a very important foundation that English language speakers have lost because we lump these four different Greek words into the pile of "love." (On top of that we also "love" sports teams, foods, activities, etc.)
I really like what C.S. Lewis has to say; sometimes I don't like the way he says it. I feel like his writings can be unorganized or scattered at times. I felt the same way during the last part of [b:Mere Christianity|40792344|Mere Christianity|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1531409863l/40792344._SX50_.jpg|801500]. I think his premise is great, I got some good stuff out of this book, but I was hoping for a more linear discussion on the topic of the four loves.
I really like what C.S. Lewis has to say; sometimes I don't like the way he says it. I feel like his writings can be unorganized or scattered at times. I felt the same way during the last part of [b:Mere Christianity|40792344|Mere Christianity|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1531409863l/40792344._SX50_.jpg|801500]. I think his premise is great, I got some good stuff out of this book, but I was hoping for a more linear discussion on the topic of the four loves.
led4th's review
4.0
4.5 stars :) it took me a little while to get into this one, but once I did - WOW! Definitely going to have to come back to this again.
joshuaray's review against another edition
4.0
Great insights on different kinds of loves and relationships that we can have. Love his ultimate point that no love can stand on its own without Love transforming it and that the failings of all other loves on their own point to our need for that transforming Love.
benwillie's review
5.0
Endlessly quotable. This is one of the books I reference most—not because the ideas contained are particularly novel or revolutionary, but because they are expressed so clearly in 192 brilliant pages. If only this book were required reading in the world; then perhaps "love" would cease to be one of the most misunderstood words in our language marked by constant equivocation. Once you've read this, you won't be able to unsee the obvious divisions between these four categories of profound human emotion in your life and in the lives of those around you. Contains many excellent examples of Ordo Amoris—the right ordering of the affections, and an idea that has been around since Aristotle. Can't recommend highly enough. (Also, the audiobook is neat because it's Lewis himself reading his lecture notes, which is one of the few existing recordings of the man himself!)
mtnmama's review against another edition
3.0
I don't know that I got all I could out of a first reading. Lewis has some important things to say, but I feel like I would need to re-read this to truly begin to get all of it.