Agápē is not a philosophical construct. It is a condition of being. It is a condition of existence developed through an expanding consciousness of reality. Philosophical pursuits, however, expand consciousness. Agápē existence requires an expanded and continuously expanding consciousness. It was noted earlier that erōs assures the survival of the species. Applied philía characteristics improve the survival of individuals and therefore improves the survival of the species. This enhanced survival occurs through a functioning cooperation between individuals who began banding together for mutual benefit. This banding together of individuals for mutual benefit developed institutional constructs that formed civilizations. Philía assures the survival of civilization which in turn improves the survival of the species. To date, human beings have grown to become a dominant force, if not the dominant force, among the animals of Earth. If érōs and philía function to enhance the survival of the species, then does agápē likewise significantly affect the survival of humans?
To answer this question, it is necessary to travel over the top and out of the metaphorical box that restricts the individual’s thinking to only consider what the individual’s experience dictates as probable. In this confining box seemingly unreal possibilities are disregarded as wishful thinking or dreams of a utopian existence. This box is populated with many individuals who have a huge vested interest in maintaining the status quo to assure that their privileged position remains intact. Additionally, I have been in many different meetings and conferences in which presenters have noted many times that most individuals resist change. People do not generally desire change. Take a moment and consider yourself. How comfortable are you in embracing change in your life, in your work, in the way that you function or in your daily routines, etc.?
I was a teacher of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS for short) for seven or so years. This was an interesting program that combined computer simulations and a Socratic method of instruction to improve students’ ability to think critically. The first half of the class was a round table discussion during which a computer-simulated challenge is presented to the students which they would need to solve during the second half of the class. Over the course of the year, the students would face many such problems of varying degrees of difficulty in diverse computerized environments. As the HOTS teacher, I was trained to always respond to students’ questions with a leading question that would point them in the direction where they needed to consider possible solutions. I was never allowed to tell them a solution, nor was I to respond with a declarative sentence; I always responded with a question — hence a Socratic method of teaching.
What became apparent and easily observable from the first challenge to the last was a behavior demonstrated by every student with differing degrees of persistence. Once the student discovered that the first strategy tried would not work, he or she complained that there was no solution to the given problem. My conversation with the student almost always began with the question, “What have you tried?” My questioning continued with the objective to have the student verbalize every detail that his or her strategy included. After this review was concluded, I asked, “Is there any information that you have not considered?” This question was designed to open the student’s thinking to consider other options. There were times when, after hearing a detail or some information being considered I would ask, “Is that important?” A follow up might be, “Why is that important?” So went the conversation in such a fashion with each student. Never did I give them the solution nor did I ever demonstrate a strategy to try. If no solution was discovered that day, we ended and started the next class with students talking about the previous day’s attempts. If a student solved the challenge, that student was not allowed to state that solution in a declarative fashion. A student who had solved the challenge could ask another student an appropriate leading question to guide the thinking.
What I found very interesting was that once a student tried several possible strategies but to no avail, that student resurrected the first strategy that was applied or that failed strategy that was his or her favorite even though it failed to solve the challenge. While walking around the room observing the students behavior I would notice such a student continuing to employ the failed strategy over and over again. I would begin the conversation with, “How is it going?” Response: “Not well.” The next question needed to be asked more than once at different challenges until the habit of returning to failed strategies was broken. “If you continue doing what you are doing, will you solve the problem?” Responses to this question differed and the following question had to be tailored to the particulars of those responses.
There were many aspects of ‘thinking’ versus ‘critical thinking’ that arose during my teaching HOTS, but one that struck me deeply was the strong tendency to retreat to a known strategy that did not work because the individual could not think of something else to do. Is a failed strategy better than no strategy at all? This is a worthy question upon which to reflect. I leave this question to your own musings.
In taking up the challenge of discerning how agápē affects the survival of humans and in good HOTS tradition, let us review some highlights of what I think I know.
I stand upon my mantra, always. “See a thing for what it is, nothing more, nothing less, but remember that Wonder and Mystery are forever and always present.” I seek to adhere to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s proclamation, “to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius.” Merging these two components I am faced with the challenge of seeing my self for who and what I am, nothing more, nothing less. This includes my relationships with others including my current wife. I am also required to be open, sensitive to, and aware of the Wonder and Mystery present in myself, my wife, and the realities of agápē, philía and érōs.
It was my desire to locate an individual who had similar goals for a relationship based on equality rather than one based on dominance and submission. I was very fortunate to engage in such a relationship with my current wife and I am astounded at my good fortune. The profoundness of such a relationship manifested itself that night in which I experienced a poetic moment gazing from my deathbed upon the vision of my wife watching a late night movie and realizing that together we found a remarkable way of living together. It is this relationship that facilitated my understanding of the truth of agápē.
Agápē is facilitating the development of the individual to the highest level of humanity humanly possible. Agápē is about nurturing. Agápē is about naturally reciprocating.
Consciousness is critical. It is critical in understanding érōs, philía and agápē but not much consciousness is required by érōs. Consciousness is more important with issues of philía. Agápē cannot be achieved without a higher level of consciousness than that required by philía. Erōs assures the survival of the species. Philía assures the survival of civilization. With the onset of increased cooperation and the emergence of villages, expressions of philía increased. It is relationships facilitated by strong philía that have facilitated advancement to our modern human existence, but is philía enough for our continued existence?
I believe that the first step in evaluating whether or not philía is enough to maintain our current and future human existence is to inventory the current status of Earth’s viability. This accounting must be global more than merely an accounting of a select few nations. Currently, in the global news column is the issue of climate change as an existential threat to life on the planet. There have been many political voices that have proclaimed that there is no such existential threat to the planet but the vast majority of scientists throughout the globe have affirmed its existence which is due to greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere of Earth. It is my understanding that globally the number of scientists affirming this existential threat is nearing 100%.
Thousands of homes in the state of California have been destroyed by forest fires that are burning hot and spreading fast because of dry conditions and very strong winds fueling the fires. Fears of coastal villages and cities being reclaimed by rising sea levels pop up in global news. Scientists and governmental officials are monitoring the situation as the polar ice sheets are melting at alarming rates. I read an article which reported that an insurance company was looking into what financial risks were potentially connected to loss of coastal homes caused by those rising sea levels. Hurricanes are becoming more severe and causing more damage to coastal populations. Local weather in my area has seen a significant uptick in wind speeds approaching hurricane levels without being a bonafide hurricane. This new type of storm has been termed a “bomb cyclone.” The bomb cyclone that hit my area this year knocked out our electrical power for two days. I have lived in this area for over 30 years, and this is the first bomb cyclone that we have experienced. I side with the majority of global scientists who believe that climate change is currently an existential threat to human existence on Earth.
As an aside, I have read (and strongly encourage others to read) Clive Ponting’s book, A Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations. It was copyrighted by Clive Ponting in 1991 and first published in Great Britain by Sinclair-Stevenson Limited. The first U.S. Edition appeared in 1992. The premise of this text which Ponting seeks to demonstrate is that these great civilizations collapsed because their civilizations were built upon unsustainable ecological systems. Preceding the political collapse of each civilization was the collapse of the ecological system that sustained the population. Additionally, I have heard several commentators on the political climate in the United States of America describing it as being akin to George Orwell’s novel, 1984. The commentator that I heard equated President Donald Trump’s misinformation and the continued pronouncement, on Trump’s part, of “fake news” to very similar episodes in Orwell’s novel 1984. Within this text, officials touted fiction as facts and facts as fiction.
I am not here to prove the seriousness or existence of an existential threat to Earth via climate change, nor am I here to prove that in the United States of America fact is becoming fiction and fiction is becoming fact. It is for the reader to evaluate the status of the world in this historical time that we humans find ourselves. Look around the whole of Earth and ask yourself if humans have made this planet a better place for life to thrive? If the answer is, “No,” or if the answer is, “For some, yes, but not for all,” then philía characteristics might not be enough to sustain human existence.
For me, the scientific facts and my personal experience of climate change over the course of my life is dramatic and incontrovertible. As for humans interacting with humans politically, the current global condition with the never-ending wars, the expansive military-industrial complex exercising far-reaching influence to assert its (their) priorities over any other issues moves me to wonder how far philía characteristics can prevent our self-imposed annihilation. If you want to get a perspective of humankind’s demonstrated potential for inhumanity to others, research the behavior of the governments, combatants, and any other individuals or agents in the modern Syrian atrocities. Chemical warfare, nuclear warfare, biological warfare and now the weaponizing of sound waves are realities that have been used and are potential weapons at the disposal of many different governments.
To assess the comparative affect of agápē over érōs or philía with regard to human survival by delineating all of the negative situations in our current world and assessing the affect of agápē in each of those situations would be formidable if not impossible. I think that there is a more efficient way to proceed. Reforming the question, “Does agápē significantly affect the survival of humans?” to “What role does agápē existence play in the survival of humans?” tweaks this reflection into a more efficient path in pursuit of an enlightened answer.