The world in which we live is one that is defined by languages; these are man-made means of communication like most other forms of communications the world knows of today. Often the terms that people are acquainted with are ones that are quite fluid, and often there is severe confusion because of this fluidity.
Indeed a term such as love is one that is fluid; particular, in contemporary times, the word love is so often associated with other forms of emotions. For example, in fast-paced societies such as those in the west, love has come to be associated with physical love (sex). However, this is in contrast to those who search for the essence of love.

Love is believed to have a more spiritual characteristic to it than what it is often accepted as in modern societies. Love is a term therefore, that has evolved from its original meaning. At the same time, it also must not be forgotten that love is not devoid of its original meaning, as there are doctrines and philosophical views of this word love that help few contemporaries hold on to its essence.

In addition to the meaning of love in the Gospel, Socrates also has his own unique views about this emotion or word. Socrates associates the word love with the right actions of human beings. He also pulls into play the gods’ acceptance of right actions. Out of his in-depth thinking Socrates comes to a conclusion that:
1. If the right actions are pious only because the gods love them, then the piety of an action would depend on the whims of the gods.
2. If the gods loved pious actions because they were the right actions, then it can be said that there must exist some non-divine source of value (Apology, 2000).
By these two possible answers, Socrates almost tells his listeners that a pious action need not be one that is defined by what the gods say; it may be one that is morally right, and so, the gods love it.

In view of the word love, it might be asserted that by love Socrates refers to the natural acceptance and pleasure that the gods feel towards particular actions that are morally right. Here, one can observe the difference between Socrates’ view of love and the meaning of love that is demonstrated in the Gospel of Mathew.
In Socrates’ view, love refers to being pleased by something that is morally right while in the Gospel of Mathew, it can be observed that love refers to devotion to God and responsibility towards one’s neighbors (Mathew, 2004). Though these might be described as right actions, in view of Socrates’ approach it might be asserted that being responsible for one’s neighbors may be morally correct, but devotion to god, questionable. However, in view of the Christianity as a Doctrine, one would expect Socrates to deem devotion towards god as one’s foresworn duty.
Socrates would not only assert that individuals should be devoted to God as a creator, but he would also hold that devoting one’s self to God is good because it is right to respect the one that created and cared for his people. However, Socrates would certainly disagree on being devoted to God because of fearing his wrath. This is because of the fact that in his view it would perhaps not be the right action (fearing god).

In his view, it would be better to simply be a ‘just person’ as the gods are more appreciative of these kinds of character. Since being just is a right action, morally speaking, it is something that the gods would love, and so would a sovereign God (Apology, 2000).

In addition to this approach to love, it may also be asserted that for Socrates, love is also associated with beauty. He asserts that Love is the desire to procreate in beauty. From this one may also see that love for Socrates also is related to intimate love. It can be observed in the above words that love for Socrates may well mean sexual attraction with the intent of producing off spring. However, there is nothing wrong with that because it is the right action, whether it is considered instinctive or not.

Furthermore, from Socrates’ point of view, love is also:
1. one beautiful body
2. the beauty of all bodies
3. the beauty of souls
4. the beauty of laws, activities, and customs
5. the beauty of knowledge, ideas, and theories
6. Beauty in itself (Apology, 2000)
According to this small list above, it appears that Socrates has indeed encompassed a considerable amount under his description of the word love. I find myself agreeing with him, especially considering contemporary times, as love is a fluid word or one that can have more meaning today.
From a Christian perspective, it is worth fearing God. However, I find myself agreeing with Socratic principles because one should love God because he is the creator; one should not fear him. There should of course be need to fear Him if we disrespect Him and His work in creating us and everything around us (Jamison, 2000).

In addition to this, I find that Socrates would help the average Christian to analyze him/herself in view of loving God. This is because of the fact that Socrates encourages self-examination. One could benefit from such examination because Socrates holds that one can expose his or her own flaws and work on them to live a better life. This is why he says that the examined life is a good life and one worth living. If a Christian has to examine him or herself, it is almost certain that s/he would understand what love is in essence (Jamison, 2000).
In view of the Gospel of Mathew too, what Christ preached could also be seen more clearly through one’s self-examination. This is because one would want to see exactly what is meant by loving God and loving one’s neighbors (Mathew, 2004). It becomes increasingly clear that love for God means respect and devotion towards Him as our creator. This is opposed to the loving God through fear of Him punishing us.

Looking at self-examination from another angle, it must be asserted that self-examination is a process through which not only can one decipher the essence of love. This is true to say because if one chooses to carry out self-examination for every action and thought, one would be able to understand the reasons behind those actions and thoughts, and also figure out whether or not these are justified or not. Though there may be arguments against such a notion, it is true to assert that through self-analysis, one can reach the truth (Jamison, 2000).