Beyond Obsession and Disgust:

Lucretius on the Therapy of Love

ARCHIMEDES C. ARTICULO, M.Phil.

Dean
College of Arts and Sciences
Cagayan State University
chitocsu@gmail.com

I.

This paper deals with Lucretius’ critique of man’s most cherished and glorified ideals:
Love.

I’m a believer of love – or as Naussbaum would romantically put it – a lover of love.

This is the reason why, at first, I viewed the entire Lucretian project on love as suspect.1 It was
only later that I discovered that Lucretius did not really attack love on its entirety, but only in
one of its many forms and expressions (but something which makes love and loving pleasurable
and adventurous): erotic love.

Erotic love, or eros, is understood by Epicureans, like Lucretius, as something to mean

“an intense [suntonos] desire for intercourse, accompanied by agony and distraction.”

For Epicureans, sexual intercourse is a human desire with a natural basis. But when there
is strained or intense eagerness, and when there is an unsatisfiable or unlimited desire to perform
it – then, sexual intercourse becomes ethically bad. It transforms to become an erotic love: a
detestable hybrid, a corruption of a basic natural impulse at the hands of false beliefs.2 And in
the case of Lucretius, what he allows, and in fact aims, is a “properly managed” sexual
intercourse: an intercourse that is both pleasurable and uncorrupted by false beliefs.3
1
See Naussbaum, Martha. The Therapy of Desires: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. 1994. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press. Chapter 5.
2
Ibid, p. 154
3
Ibid.
 Naussbaum’s discussion of Lucretius’ arguments against love are simply too broad and
too many to be presented here. It is my intention to present only one major Lucretian idea which
I find personally interesting: the impossibility of the aim of the erotic love.

According to Naussbaum, Lucretius have tried to show that the central aim of people “in
love”, the aim that they are trying to gratify in intercourse, is so strange that no lovers could own
it consciously without convicting themselves to absurdity. When lovers “make love” they aim at
union (or fusion) with the object of their desire, or to put it brutally, to sexually devour their
beloved.4

This is the origin, Lucretius argues, of the intensity of their sexual efforts, the reason for
the fluctuation of their passion in unsure wanderings over the whole body of their partners, and
the explanation of their frenzied biting and grasping. But the lover’s partner can never be taken
in – she is so much more than pieces of matter. Hence, lovers must feed themselves on
perceptions and on these alone.

According to Lucretius, the separateness of the other is not a delight to these lovers, but a
painful frustration of their dearest wish, which is to eat the other sexually, feeding on that other
mind and body and having it completely. And so, out of desperation about a lover’s passivity, he
forms a false belief that through sex he can put an end to the longing that undermines him,
getting complete control over its excruciatingly separate and uncontrolled source: his sexual
partner.

This whole set up is what Lucretius calls love-illusion, and the consequences for the
lover are great. Externally, the lover wastes his strength and force, losses his control over the
rest of his life, he damages his fortune and reputation; and he damages his political activity. 5
Internally, the lover experiences a continuous sense of frustration and non-fulfillment, he suffers
from the stabbing power of jealousy which reminds him of his incomplete possession, and

4
Ibid. p. 174
5
Ibid. p. 176
hateful disillusionment of the partner whom he falsely perceived as the goddess Venus.6 And so
Lucretius offers the following advice as a conclusion: “If she (i.e. the partner) has a good mind
and is not spiteful, overlook all this in your turn, and yield to human life.”

In short, accept human things and human limits, and recognize the separateness and
humanity of your beloved.

According to Naussbaum, what Lucretius is trying to say in his attack on the aim of
erotic love is that lovers for whom deep need of another is felt as torment and unmanly
weakness will seek to defeat the separateness that gives rise to their weakness, and will believe
that they can achieve this through sexual incorporation. For Lucretius, this error is the best
explanation for the jealousy and sadism that impair many erotic relationships, and also for the
male’s frequent neglect or denial of the women’s pleasure.

Is Lucretius wrong about this?

Naussbaum answers on the negative. She believed that Lucretius is right because the
history of our failures to attend to the humanity of those we love is long, as long as our
unwillingness to live as incomplete beings.

Naussbaum considers this Lucretian critique as therapeutic, not in a nihilistic sense, but
in a humane and constructive way. This, according to Naussbaum, is achieved by exposing
myths and delusions that constraint us and prevent us from dealing with one another in a fully
human way – it teaches lovers to acknowledge one another as human beings – both natural and
social – in one of their most important and intimate activities.

II.

For the contemporary Filipino lovers of love, the Lucretian therapeutic critique of erotic
love is indeed very appropriate – and timely. Try to understand Lucretius’ “lover” to mean

6
Ibid. pp. 176-181
“mistress” (“kulasisi”, “babae”, “chicks”, “kabit”) and Lucretius point will be much better
understood by any average Filipino adult male.

Our dailies (check the tabloids for juicy headlines) are always full with stories about the
various sexually creative violence committed against women or with breathtaking crimes of
passion. All these, I believe, have their roots on Filipino false belief about love, or to put it more
precisely, on Filipino erotic obsession.

I agree with Nausbaum when she said Lucretius is right: in erotic love, the aim is purely
the pleasure of the flesh – but this, in itself, won’t make it wrong, as Dr. Margarita Holmes will
argue. And as inconsistent as it may seem, I also agree with Dr. Holmes. What makes erotic love
wrong is its selfishness or one-sidedness, for it is centered mainly on satisfying the pleasure of
the male partner.

Repeating what Naussbaum has said, in the religion of love (which I believe the Filipino
chick-boys are fanatically affiliated) men are obsessed with aims that have little to do with
giving pleasure. But, echoing Lucretius, there is pleasure on both sides. And it is just right to be
sensitive as to allow the other partner to partake in the thrill, excitement and joy of sexual
intercourse.

But to think that Filipinos are no more than perfect living paragon of Lucretian erotic
lovers would be unspeakably unfair. It is because Filipinos (most Filipinos) are also known for
their being “maginoo” – that is, as gentlemen, as cavaliers, who are not only good at offering
seats to women and to the elderly but also, to Lucretius’ and even to Naussbaum’s surprise,
tender in biting and grasping; caring, sensitive and respectful “passionate love makers”.

Lastly, let me put the issue in light of the Filipino traditional conception of marriage
which I, with all honesty, most sincerely subscribe to.

For most Filipinos, marriage is viewed not only about licit or legitimate, healthy or
pleasurable sexual relationship – it is, most importantly, a lifelong friendship and partnership
between husband and wife. Indeed, Filipinos liken marriage to a well-structured house: the
husband is the “haligi” (pillar) and the wife is the “ilaw” (light). One is never complete without
the other, for only by living together they form a “tahanan”.

The marital house is not simply a dwelling place for two people “in love”, but a
comfortable home where one completes the other. The marital house is the only place, and it
should always remain as the only place, where erotic love finds its non-Lucretian meaning.