Eros's Inclusiveness

Being inclusive goes far beyond just loving all humans that are around you. Which Eros tends to leave out in its meaning. The love found within Eros tends to be all consuming, it is fixed around one person. Eros is thought of as desire, often in the physical sense, which does in some ways take beauty into account, yet this recognition of beauty is more selfish and based off of what the lover finds intriguing and less of a respect for the beauty itself. There is self-fulfillment all throughout Eros desire. This makes this very exclusive in the way of being tailored toward someone’s own desires. The appreciation of beauty is not being understood equally it’s specific and unique to the lover’s desire.

Philia also fails at being inclusive for the sole reason that the lover decides who they deem fit to love (Cowley 18). People who have Philic love actively search out people who have similar interests to them and who can benefit them the most as a friend. By narrowing down their option these individuals risk missing out diversity in their life. If one I to only search for people who complement them, they have the possibility of missing out on all the wonderfully, different

and unique individuals who are out tin the world. It does make sense to find people who are likeminded and treat them well, but this closes people off to different experiences and people. Being selective to whom you treat is not only exclusive, but also selfish and morally wrong.
Both Eros and Philia frameworks have selfish tendencies throughout.

Eros as described above is a love that is seen not only as sexual desire, but a “general, unspecified pre-occupation with her (the beloved) totality (Lewis, 133)”. Although the positive side of Eros is experiencing passionate love, individuals are indulging in their own desires, the end goal to please themselves. This mindset is selfish therefore Eros is no longer able to be morally correct. Eros requires is that the lover has some initial interest in the beloved that gave them some sort of self-gratification or pleasure. This does not make Eros any less of a form of love, but this does inhibit Eros from being considered honest in the lover’s true intentions for loving the beloved. This dishonestly goes against my definition of

moral.
Philia as described above is the love of friendship. This initially is seen as a selfless act, because being a friend and a good friend requires is a lot of hard work and involves the lover to get to know the beloved. Following the Philia framework the lover chooses who they become friends with. Choosing one person over the other to treat well, is self-centered. This is because the lover is choosing who the deem worthy of their friendship (Cowley 20). They are picking which person they want to get to know. The simple act of rejecting another human because one does not think they will get along, is selective and selfish. Kierkegaard also explains that Philia, requires mutual interest or desire in one another (Cowley 27). Mutual interest indicated that there is a possibility that there could be a shift in the relationship, an altering of feelings, or actions of an individual, causing a falling out between the two parties. The possibility of a change in status in a relationship means that one of the parties found that the relationship was not benefiting them enough to continue working toward the end goal of love. Kierkegaard also states, “ even the classic description of a friend as ‘another self’ only serves to demonstrate the depth of self-obsession found in friendship” (Cowley 19). By seeing others as another form of ourselves, we are actively looking for people who mirror our better qualities, or the qualities we value at that time. Philic love encourages individuals to find people who they have mutual interests with and form connections with them. This actively searching for like-minded individuals narrows down the opportunities for love.