Comparative essay

Name of Student
Name of Supervisor
Subject Code
Date
Comparative Essay
Introduction
Many look at love as a divine concept while others look at it as an everyday phenomenon. Some believe that some people are destined to be with each other and are guided by some unseen force towards one another until they meet and find solace for the rest of their lives. Others believe that love occurs over time, through association with each other and based on common interests and mutual understanding. Naturally, these two concepts of love differ from one another, and their approach towards the concept of love also happens to describe their worldview and their belief in the way that the universe functions. The contrast between these two different takes on the same topic, which happens to be a central theme in of human lives in many cultures, needs a closer analysis.
WHAT IS LOVE?
Love the feeling of attraction, which one living being has for another is a concept difficult to explain in words. The attraction could be of several forms, and we do not know if creatures other than humans truly experience it as we do. Further, there are different types of love and the methods in which we express them vary from one another. C. S Lewis speaks of four different types of love and the categories that each of our different relationships falls into (Lewis, 4-6). While most traditional understandings of all kinds of love base themselves on the foundation of love being in some ways eternal and predestined. More modern concepts of love look at it in a more objective manner.

It does not look at love as pristine or divine, but rather as something that grows over time. This means that with growing time and the duration of it two or more people spend with each other, the greater amount of synergy develops between the two and they have a greater ability to understand each other and their love ‘grows’. This is true for any relationship, and it also explains very well how certain relationships work while others don’t.
DIVINITY AND LOVE
In most theological texts, love is compared to a divine blessing. The concept of predestination and the existence of a higher power that creates all humans in pairs, who are supposed to find each other at the opportune moment and hold on to each other through thick and thin unless they are separated by death. Love is sanctified as something holy and which must be preserved at all costs (Lee, 173-182). The cost for the protection of the sanctity of this love is unflinching and undying fidelity, which for some may extend even beyond death. Although mutual exclusivism in romantic interests is primarily a European cultural trend, we do some degree of idealization of the notion of unrelenting love for each other in other cultures as well. According to the norms set by this culture, while betraying one’s love is a great offense, sacrifice of one’s love can only be forgiven if it is done for the sake of a ‘higher’ ideal, like patriotism or faith.
‘DE-SANCTIFIED’ LOVE
As mentioned earlier, many people in modern times believe that there is nothing predestined or ‘holy’ about the concept of love or matrimony. Most of us know that long association with someone creates a degree of interdependence among both the people and the fact that two people fall in love is the product of attraction through interaction. Thus, they reject the notion of predestination of love at first sight. According to them, these notions are only retrospective and do not happen immediately (Shechory et al. 629-638). Thus, love is rather a product of the gradual development of synergy between two people, at times accompanied by some form of sexual attraction to each other. According to this theory, love may increase with time and relationships evolve and develop over time. Relationships may also fail as the personalities of the two people may not be conductive for long-term romantic attachment with each other and the source of attraction may eventually fade. This existence of a more ‘pragmatic’ approach to relationships mean that failure at relationships brings no social stigma, neither does it pressurize people into looking for the perfect partner and allow them to be satisfied and make the most of their current relationships.
CONCLUSION
It would not be pragmatic to compare the two approaches towards love as both look at the world and relationships in a different manner, and each approach makes the other one look highly foolish. Those who believe that love is divine will consider the attempts to have a working relationship with almost anyone, without thinking if it is the one person meant for them. On the other hand, the approach of looking for one’s perfect match will be considered impractical by some due to the fact that they consider that all matches are forged in the trials and tribulations of our daily lives rather than that of an abstract heavenly love. Both the different approaches have different ideas of love and base their relationships on completely different grounds, they can co-exist without conflicts.
Works Cited
Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves. New York: Harcourt, Brace. 1960. Print.
Lee, J. A. A Typology of Styles of Loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1977. Print.
Shechory, Mally, and Riva Ziv. Relationships between Gender Role Attitudes, Role Division, and Perception of Equity among Heterosexual, Gay and Lesbian Couples. Sex Roles. 2007. Print.