"Soul mate": a gnostic idea undermining real love

[fnr]

A 2001 survey of “twenty somethings” by the Gallup Organization on behalf of the National Marriage Project found that finding a “soul mate” was the most important thing in their path toward marriage. To cite Gallup’s web site on the study:
“Ninety-four percent of all never-married singles want their spouses to be soul mates first and foremost – surpassing matters of religion, economics, and the ability to be a good mother or father.”

While it’s an older survey, I believe that the emphasis on finding one’s “soul mate” persists.

The notion of a “one true love” is an old one, but one that’s only gotten stronger over time. Mainstream entertainment industries like music and movies extol the rush of finding someone who you know, deep inside, is the person you’ve been waiting for.

It’s not just singles who justify a lack of commitment on the basis of seeking a soul mate… I personally know people who have justified marital infidelity on the basis that they found their soul mate in someone else. I myself have been told by ex-girlfriends during break-ups that, while they love me and think I’m an awesome person, that a “still small voice” inside them is telling them that their one true love is still out there somewhere. In a way, I can be thankful for not having ended up with someone who doesn’t appreciate commitment. However, I think that’s the response that our culture wants us to give.

In essence, the search for a soul mate is very much akin to the search for the outfit of clothing that fits you perfectly and makes you look your best. Who doesn’t want that? Someone who perfectly complements you and makes you feel like a better person is a wonderful thing. The rush of an early relationship is just so exhilarating! But, like a perfect outfit that may not fit exactly the same in a couple years, or might look like last year’s fashion trends, the belief that someone is your soul mate can be fleeting.

Psychologist Christine Meinecke has written a book, “Everybody Marries the Wrong Person”. Her web site includes this description of the book:
Infatuation is temporary.
Disenchantment is inevitable.
Marriage cannot succeed without mature love.
Mature love is self-responsible.

God created us to be in relationship with one another. I attended a talk last week by Boston College theologian Richard Gaillardetz, who described how Genesis 2 is often mistranlated from the ancient Hebrew. 'adam is not a proper name, but a play on the word for “earth” – 'adama. 'adam is not a gendered noun, but bears the meaning of “earthen creature.” It’s not until God removes the rib from 'adam that gendered nouns are used, and it’s important to note that it’s only at that point that humanity is described as at peace in itself. To view it through a Trinitarian lens, humanity is created in relationship with one another – as the three hypostases of God are in relationship to one another.

In contrast to the notion that we are created to be happy in relationship with other human beings (particularly members of the opposite sex), the notion of a “soul mate” is based on a concept that we have one true identity and our happiness comes from knowing that identity and finding a person who matches our self-conception.

The ancient heresy of Gnosticism asserted that salvation comes through gnosis – knowledge of oneself (“Rapture” theology seems to me a modern form of Gnosticism, but that’s for another time). To the Gnostics, the world is an evil place, created by a being other than the one true God, and Jesus is the logos bearing the secret of humanity’s true identity as spiritual beings. By learning the “secret” taught by Jesus, Gnostics said that we could overcome the suffering that is life and attain salvation.

How is the notion of a “soul mate” Gnostic? Well, it’s based on the notion that true love is based exclusively on finding someone who perfectly complements “the real me.” The notion that “the real me” is a secret, waiting to be discovered by someone’s “one true love” seems to me to be heavily influenced by Gnostic thinking.

The ancient Greeks were better than we are in describing love. They had four names for love, based on different types of love… C.S. Lewis wrote a book about them, describing them them as:

• Storge – Affection through familiarity, such as present between family members and long-time acquaintances.
• Phileo – The friendship bond, a freely chosen type of love shared between people who share common activities or interests.
• Eros – “Being in love.” It’s not sex, it’s attraction. It can be like a drug, an addictioin. “The flame” in a marriage.
• Agape – Unconditional love. It’s the “love” Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13. Ephesian 5’s chapter, talking about how men and women should submit to one another, seems to describe this as well. It also seems like the love of the father in the Prodigal Son, or the landlord in the pay of the Parable of the Day Laborers.

To me, the search for a soul mate is about seeking a truly overwhelming sense of eros alone. But one reason that divorce rates are high is that “the flame” in eros can die out, and that’s when people start thinking they met the wrong person. But to extend the analogy further, a flame will burn out unless you give it something to burn… and it’s in agape and phileo between spouses that the fire gets its fuel.

The divorce rate is 50% in the U.S., including among Catholics. I’m one who’s been divorced and annulled. This is a sign that there’s something very wrong about how we carry out our relationships.

 

[Chantal25]

o me, the search for a soul mate is about seeking a truly overwhelming sense of eros alone. But one reason that divorce rates are high is that “the flame” in eros can die out, and that’s when people start thinking they met the wrong person. But to extend the analogy further, a flame will burn out unless you give it something to burn… and it’s in agape and phileo between spouses that the fire gets its fuel.

The divorce rate is 50% in the U.S., including among Catholics. I’m one who’s been divorced and annulled. This is a sign that there’s something very wrong about how we carry out our relationships.

Especially for many women seeking for Mr. perfect. I think it is important to find someone you get along (when you grow old later, it would be useful), he doesn’t have addiction, he is responsible, honest, have a good heart and of course that you find charming (whatever it means to you, to me someone that defend the weak, is sexy).

Nobody is perfect and the flaws will show up once you are married, but if you remember to keep your focus that you do have a pearl, with practicing your faith and prayer, you will overcome the challenges and keep lit this flame with gratitude of any good deed that your partner do for you or the family. God will take care of your marriage if you allow him to be with you every day through prayer.

Blessings!

 

[3DOCTORS]

fnr, kudos for a brilliant presentation of an ever-growing problem. Actually it’s been around for quite awhile in various forms. I would add that “falling head over heels in love” is a concept that is also pretty overrated in this culture.

“If I knew then what I know now” I would’ve held out for a guy who thinks more the way you do. That would be a real “soul mate”! Some nice young lady is going to get a real prize in you. And you in her.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Strongly agreed. Thanks for posting this.

 

[1ke]

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Regina_Love]

couples who live the teachings of the Catholic Church, and practice NFP have over 97% marriage success rate! They do well because, they follow the wisdom of God, who created Sacramental Marriage. It’s about learning otherness, and generosity of heart. The opposite of our Me me me societal training. Shack up couples have an 80% divorce rate after they marry.

Our faith calls us to become ever more Holy. This transformation of our person makes us a better person each year, which our spouse appreciates.

 

[Litcrit]

Good post. Denis de Rougement’s book Love in the Western World tackles this very issue brilliantly. He connects, quite convincingly, the erotic poetics of courtly love with the dualistic heresy of Catharism (very similar and certainly indebted to Gnosticism). The idea of “romantic love” that somehow leads to an ecstasy of … whatever … and not to a “mundane” marriage with responsibilities, cleaning, preparing food, changing diapers, etc., has its origins in the “courtly love” poetry of the troubadours. The idea was taken up by Dante and Petrarch, disseminated in numerous (dualistic, Neoplatonic) Renaissance trattati d’amore and popular poetry, reasserted itself in Romantic poetry, and reached us today.

People who insist on finding an ideal “soul mate” seem to conveniently forget the fact that this entire tradition was predicated on never actually being happily married to theirs or having any form of sexual relationship with them - just pining, suffering, and finally dying, escaping this filthy world.

 

[manualman]

Excellent points, though I generally caution those who have made a significant identification of a serious philosophical error not to react so strongly as to fall into an error on the other side of the spectrum.

I find it helps to think of healthy human culture as a city on a hill. Once we identify that people have tumbled down into the ditch on one side of the hill, there’s peculiar human tendency for people to react to that realization by recoiling so far away from that slope that they tumble down the hill into the ditch on the OTHER side of the hill!

Think of how often this happens

1. Unjust homophobia leads to rationalization of homosexual behavior in reaction.
2. Activist meddling with catholic liturgy, devotion and doctrine leads to sedevacantism in reaction.
3. Societal acceptance of abortion sometimes (rarely) leads those who comprehend it for what it is to use violence against abortionists.
   And many more examples.

Not that the OP has displayed an unbalanced reaction, but we should be on guard not to denigrate the value and role that passion really does have to play in marriage. Pure passion is based on the beauty of the relationship, not merely infatuation. Christopher West makes a great point that nobody would have ever given an ounce of legitimacy to guys like Hugh Hefner if Hef hadn’t gotten his start in a culture uncomfortable with the idea of what sex IS and the way in which God designed it to be a blessing for mankind.

Just because there is no such thing as a soul-mate doesn’t mean that just any two people that share the faith and a few interests will make a healthy match. On the other hand, I suspect that the number of people in life that share your critical values in life that ARE compatible outnumber those who aren’t.

 

[fnr]

Not that the OP has displayed an unbalanced reaction, but we should be on guard not to denigrate the value and role that passion really does have to play in marriage. Pure passion is based on the beauty of the relationship, not merely infatuation. Christopher West makes a great point that nobody would have ever given an ounce of legitimacy to guys like Hugh Hefner if Hef hadn’t gotten his start in a culture uncomfortable with the idea of what sex IS and the way in which God designed it to be a blessing for mankind.

You’re absolutely right. I hope I didn’t come across as saying that passion is unimportant. Certainly not!

I’m a divorced (and annulled) man, so the issue is pretty germane to me. I experienced the failure of a marriage that, like many such tragedies, were preceded by “the flame” going out. The spark was gone. In many ways, I can say that I’m happier now being out of that marriage, but I can also look back on the process that led there and recognize signs that my ex and I both made. If passion is a flame, it needs to be kindled or it will not last.

More recently, I faced an interesting “match” question on a dating site I’ve used. “Which is more important for a relationship: passion or dedication?” To me, you really can’t have a healthy relationship if both of them aren’t present. Passion without dedication is mercurial and fickle. Dedication without passion turns a relationship into drudgery, which can be a psychological trap – hiding one’s loneliness and unhappiness in a marriage both cuts off honest communication and breeds resentment. Well, this isn’t the confessional but you can see what I’ve experienced…

Just because there is no such thing as a soul-mate doesn’t mean that just any two people that share the faith and a few interests will make a healthy match. On the other hand, I suspect that the number of people in life that share your critical values in life that ARE compatible outnumber those who aren’t.

On the first sentence, I totally agree. Passionate love is something so part of what humans seek, and it seems like the author of Genesis 2-3 understood it. The first humans weren’t happy until they were made male and female. And how did God punish their first sin? To Eve, he said that she would be subject to her husband. So dominion – rather than communion – became the price for sin. And hopefully, in Christ we are able to love in the way that God created is - in imagio dei.

 

[Luvz2travel]

Especially for many women seeking for Mr. perfect. I think it is important to find someone you get along (when you grow old later, it would be useful), he doesn’t have addiction, he is responsible, honest, have a good heart and of course that you find charming (whatever it means to you, to me someone that defend the weak, is sexy).

Nobody is perfect and the flaws will show up once you are married, but if you remember to keep your focus that you do have a pearl, with practicing your faith and prayer, you will overcome the challenges and keep lit this flame with gratitude of any good deed that your partner do for you or the family. God will take care of your marriage if you allow him to be with you every day through prayer.

Blessings!

Very true I was never looking for a soul mate persay but someone who was a good friend, good leader, honest, has goals and isn’t afraid to take a chance. Sadly enough most of the men I know are only interested in the model type who they usually quickly dump and move on the the next one when they get bored. Only the needed guy who want someone to suport them or what to use me to relieve their loneness ever express interest in me so I gave up the dating game and live my life alone but free of users.

 

[chevalier]

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with those ideas of love surpassing economic matters and some of the other things you mentioned in the beginning.

You’re also internally inconsistent already in the title since your “real love” is the same type of concept as somebody else’s “real love” or “true love”; in fact, you actually mentioned “true love” further down in your post without realising that the concept is similar to your own “real love”.

Just because you or I can’t find someone sufficiently impressed with our respective personalities doesn’t mean other people are wrong in seeking something sufficiently special as opposed to settling, i.e. dropping their standards, notably to a point where we fit just because the expectations are so basic that many people fit them.

To me, the search for a soul mate is about seeking a truly overwhelming sense of eros alone.

Nope. There’s a reason it’s “soul mate” and not “body mate”. As for “mate”, please refer to amica mea in the Song of Songs.

 

[akela135]

I had a secular teacher, who taught a course on marriage and family at my college who always taught the class if they wanted to have a happy relationship instead of looking for a “soul mate” they should look for a “sole mate”. I always found that great advice!

 

[fnr]

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with those ideas of love surpassing economic matters and some of the other things you mentioned in the beginning.

That list from Gallup includes commonalities that would be found in a person with whom you have a relationship. As my other comments have said, passion is important, but love is not just passion (eros), which by itself is subject to the winds of change.

You’re also internally inconsistent already in the title since your “real love” is the same type of concept as somebody else’s “real love” or “true love”; in fact, you actually mentioned “true love” further down in your post without realising that the concept is similar to your own “real love”.

My intent was to contrast what I see as the myth of “one true love,” which I think is similar to the notion of a “soul mate,” with what I consider real love, which is a combination of eros, fileos, and agape. While the notion of “one true love” seems very much based on eros alone, to me, real love is not just a feeling of intimacy and attraction.

In modern parlance, the axiom “love is a verb” captures much of what I think “real love” entails. You could also call it “true love,” but not in the mythic sense of someone seeking their soul mate or “one true love.” Love isn’t just a feeling, it’s an active verb. “Being in love” is not the same as “giving love” or “loving.” Think of the different meanings of the two questions: “Do I love her?” and “Am I loving her?”

Fundamentally, what I consider “real love” is not just based on butterflies in your stomach. That’s not too far from infatuation. “Real love” needs to fit the description St. Paul gives in Ephesians 5:
21 Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body s 24 As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, 27that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, 30because we are members of his body.
I will note here that in the ancient Greek, there is no verb in verse 22, so 21-22 are more accurately translated this way: “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives to their husband as to the Lord.” This verse is too often used to justify male dominion of women.

Just because you or I can’t find someone sufficiently impressed with our respective personalities doesn’t mean other people are wrong in seeking something sufficiently special as opposed to settling, i.e. dropping their standards, notably to a point where we fit just because the expectations are so basic that many people fit them.

And I’m not saying that we should settle. I am saying that sometimes, we don’t know what we need or want. I’m saying that if you’re attracted to someone, get along with them, share important goals and values, and have common friends, after a few months of dating, breaking up on the idea that “my true love is still out there” is a pretty strong bet that “the perfect person” is out there. Again, that goes to my major point: if our decision to spend our lives with someone (or stay in a marriage) is based solely on “tingles,” there is a degree that we force out real love, which empties itself for another.

Nope. There’s a reason it’s “soul mate” and not “body mate”. As for “mate”, please refer to amica mea in the Song of Songs.

Well, the gnostic notion that there’s a secret, true self that we just need to know isn’t physical either. Eros is not just physical lust – it’s more the notion of attraction, which encompasses humor, wit, and physical beauty. The notion of a “soul mate” is based on the notion that there’s some person out there who just instantly takes our sense of eros to a point where it’s never been before. It’s what Hollywood sells (e.g., “The Adjustment Bureau,” “The Matrix,” “Serendipity”) as love… and it’s not real.

That may be the starting point for a relationship, but if that’s all there is, it provides a very strong explanation for why the divorce rate is 50%. People just don’t stick it out anymore.

 

[chevalier]

That list from Gallup includes commonalities that would be found in a person with whom you have a relationship. As my other comments have said, passion is important, but love is not just passion (eros), which by itself is subject to the winds of change.

I’ve already negated the idea it’s only or mostly about passion. It also has affection, companionship and a bunch of other things but like I said, I’ve already mentioned this at the end of my post.

My intent was to contrast what I see as the myth of “one true love,” which I think is similar to the notion of a “soul mate,” with what I consider real love, which is a combination of eros, fileos, and agape. While the notion of “one true love” seems very much based on eros alone, to me, real love is not just a feeling of intimacy and attraction.

See, the problem is everybody’s “to me”. Your “to me” versus their “to me”. Shuffling words like “real” or “true”, one instead of another, won’t change that. I look at you and I look at them, I see two sides each with its own myths, following exactly the same patterns.

In modern parlance, the axiom “love is a verb” captures much of what I think “real love” entails. You could also call it “true love,” but not in the mythic sense of someone seeking their soul mate or “one true love.” Love isn’t just a feeling, it’s an active verb. “Being in love” is not the same as “giving love” or “loving.” Think of the different meanings of the two questions: “Do I love her?” and “Am I loving her?”

Technicalities of parts of speech, especially different from one language to another, aren’t really a great foundation for analysis.

Fundamentally, what I consider “real love” is not just based on butterflies in your stomach.

Neither is it to them.

That’s not too far from infatuation.

“Soul mate” by definition excludes a passing infatuation. Even your own example disproves that. Those women told you they had that infatuation with you in place but they were waiting for the soul mate or true love and thus chose to give up the (prospect of a) relationship with you for the sake of that larger thing.

“Real love” needs to fit the description St. Paul gives in Ephesians 5:

Let’s not start lawyering. Love is not about that.

And I’m not saying that we should settle. I am saying that sometimes, we don’t know what we need or want. I’m saying that if you’re attracted to someone, get along with them, share important goals and values, and have common friends, after a few months of dating, breaking up on the idea that “my true love is still out there” is a pretty strong bet that “the perfect person” is out there. Again, that goes to my major point: if our decision to spend our lives with someone (or stay in a marriage) is based solely on “tingles,” there is a degree that we force out real love, which empties itself for another.

That’d be correct except for the presumption that it actually is just tingles.

Well, the gnostic notion that there’s a secret, true self that we just need to know isn’t physical either.

Is a soul physical?

Eros is not just physical lust – it’s more the notion of attraction, which encompasses humor, wit, and physical beauty. The notion of a “soul mate” is based on the notion that there’s some person out there who just instantly takes our sense of eros to a point where it’s never been before. It’s what Hollywood sells (e.g., “The Adjustment Bureau,” “The Matrix,” “Serendipity”) as love… and it’s not real.

It’s hard to achieve but not necessarily unachievable. I believe that people impose blocks on themselves and prevent themselves from reaching that happiness. Hollywood doesn’t actually lie to anybody. It presents people being happy with each other and coming victorious out of trials and tribulations, it does not deny the need to sacrifice and to be forgiving. People want a licence to be grumpy and still to get the butterflies. I can’t get the uplifting loving feeling if I choose to be grumpy, and I have no right to expect others to join me in my giving up my dreams of anything better than my mediocre solemn grumpiness. We are all made for greatness, actually, and each of us could be as spectacular as any Hollywood hero.

That may be the starting point for a relationship, but if that’s all there is, it provides a very strong explanation for why the divorce rate is 50%. People just don’t stick it out anymore.

People feel entitled to a second chance and sometimes blame the misfortune on a poor choice, honest mistake in choosing the partner and so on. Determinism meet easy excuse. For the record, Hollywood love isn’t actually deterministic. Quoting the passage about, “setting you apart before the world existed,” actually beats Hollywood.

Sorry for being grumpy BTW.