{"title":"尼格伦和奥德谈爱:一种批判","authors":"Bradford McCall","doi":"10.5406/processstudies.49.2.0275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article offers a critique of Anders Nygren’s influential theory of love, which radically distinguishes among eros, agape, and philia. By contrast, a defense is offered of Thomas Jay Oord’s view, which I label “kenotically donated love” or “full-Oorded” love. Comparisons are developed of related biological relationships like mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism.","PeriodicalId":315123,"journal":{"name":"Process Studies","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nygren and Oord on Love: A Critique\",\"authors\":\"Bradford McCall\",\"doi\":\"10.5406/processstudies.49.2.0275\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article offers a critique of Anders Nygren’s influential theory of love, which radically distinguishes among eros, agape, and philia. By contrast, a defense is offered of Thomas Jay Oord’s view, which I label “kenotically donated love” or “full-Oorded” love. Comparisons are developed of related biological relationships like mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":315123,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Process Studies\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Process Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5406/processstudies.49.2.0275\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Process Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/processstudies.49.2.0275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This article offers a critique of Anders Nygren’s influential theory of love, which radically distinguishes among eros, agape, and philia. By contrast, a defense is offered of Thomas Jay Oord’s view, which I label “kenotically donated love” or “full-Oorded” love. Comparisons are developed of related biological relationships like mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
