The Case Against Interpreting Eros as Erotic Love: A Commentary on Paul Ricœur’s Early Work in Education and Philosophical Anthropology

Agape, philia, and eros are the forms of love that receive most attention in the work of the French philosopher Paul Ricœur. The general consensus among commentators is that when Ricœur talks about agape, he means a love that is all about giving, with no expectation of receiving anything in return; and when he talks about eros, he means something close to erotic love or erotic desire. This article builds on the research of two French commentators, Olivier Abel and Jérôme Porée, to offer a more detailed account of what Ricœur says about love of neighbour and concern for others, and where he says it, during one very specific period: 1947–1960. That is the period when Ricœur was very committed to education reform in France. However, the article disputes Abel and Porée’s interpretation of what Ricœur means by eros in Fallible Man, a work of philosophical anthropology published in 1960. The article shows that Ricœur’s interpretation of eros, far from being the standard one, is in fact highly original, and a perfect example of the imaginative use of philosophical resources that marked his early career. The article also discusses The Symbolism of Evil, a second work of philosophical anthropology that Ricœur published the very same year. In the context of that discussion, it draws attention to two references to “love” that link back to the eros of Fallible Man. It then offers a close reading of Marguerite Léna’s insightful commentary on a remarkable passage from The Symbolism of Evil, where Ricœur talks about the essential roles that love and fear play in all forms of education, including moral education.