Amor Mundi Part 2: Hating the World, Unquenchable Thirst / Miroslav Volf's 2025 Gifford Lectures
For the Life of the World / Yale Center for Faith & CultureShow Notes
Miroslav Volf confronts Schopenhauer’s pessimism and unquenchable thirst with a vision of love that affirms the world.
“Unquenchable thirst makes for ceaseless pain. This befits our nature as objectification of the ceaseless and aimless will at the heart of reality. ... For Schopenhauer, the pleasure of satisfaction are the lights of fireflies in the night of life’s suffering. These four claims taken together make pain the primordial, universal, and unalterable state of human lives.”
In the second installment of his 2025 Gifford Lectures, Miroslav Volf examines the 19th-century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer’s radical rejection of the world. Through Schopenhauer’s metaphysics of blind will and insatiable desire, Volf draws out the philosopher’s haunting pessimism and hatred for existence itself. But Schopenhauer’s rejection of the world—rooted in disappointed love—is not just a historical curiosity; Volf shows how our modern consumerist cravings mirror Schopenhauer’s vision of unquenchable thirst and fleeting satisfaction. In response, Volf offers a theological and philosophical critique grounded in three kinds of love—epithumic (appetitive), erotic (appreciative), and agapic (self-giving)—arguing that agape love must be central in our relationship to the world. “Everything is a means, but nothing satisfies,” Volf warns, unless we reorder our loves. This second lecture challenges listeners to reconsider what it means to live in and love a world full of suffering—without abandoning its goodness.
### Episode Highlights
1. “Unquenchable thirst makes for ceaseless pain. This befits our nature as objectification of the ceaseless and aimless will at the heart of reality.” 2. “Whether we love ice cream or sex or God, we are often merely seeking to slake our thirst.” 3. “If we long for what we have, what we have never ceases to satisfy.” 4. “A better version is available—for whatever reason, it is not good enough. And we discard it. This is micro-rejection of the world.” 5. “Those who love agape refuse to act as if they were the midpoint of their world.”
### Helpful Links and Resources
- [*The World as Will and Representation* by Arthur Schopenhauer](https://store.doverpublications.com/products/9780486217611?srsltid=AfmBOoqJu-G3QvY1SZqM-dlBf-gIh1RyqKQlVBSv8q_eS8yRs4eCGouX) - [*Paradiso* by Dante Alighieri](https://digitaldante.columbia.edu/dante/divine-comedy/paradiso/paradiso-1/) - [Victor Hugo’s *Les Misérables*](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/135) - [*A Brief for the Defense* by Jack Gilbert](https://poetrysociety.org/poems/a-brief-for-the-defense)
### Show Notes
- Schopenhauer’s pessimism as rooted in disappointed love of the world - God’s declaration in Genesis—“very good”—contrasted with Schopenhauer’s “nothing is good” - Job’s suffering as a theological counterpoint to Schopenhauer’s metaphysical despair - Human desire framed as unquenchable thirst: pain, boredom, and fleeting satisfaction - Schopenhauer’s diagnosis: we swing endlessly between pain and boredom - Three kinds of love introduced: epithumic (appetite), erotic (appreciation), agapic (affirmation) - Schopenhauer’s exclusive emphasis on appetite—no place for appreciation or unconditional love - Modern consumer culture mirrors Schopenhauer’s account: desiring to desire, never satisfied - Fast fashion, disposability, and market-induced obsolescence as symptoms of world-negation - “We long for what we have” vs. “we discard the world” - Luther’s critique: “suck God’s blood”—epithumic relation to God - Agape love: affirming the other, even when undeserving or diminished - Erotic love: savoring the intrinsic worth of things, not just their utility - The fleetingness of joy and comparison’s corrosion of value - Modern desire as invasive, subliminally shaped by market competition - Denigration of what is in favor of what could be—a pathology of dissatisfaction - Consumerism as massive “micro-rejection” of the world - Volf’s call to reorder our loves toward apprecia
More from For the Life of the World / Yale Center for Faith & Culture
What happens when an ancient discipline built to remake the self in the context of a way of life and normative map gets sold back to us as lifehacking for stress relief and optimization?
It took Odysseus ten years to sail home from Troy to Ithaca; we can fly the same distance in about an hour. But faster travel hasn't brought us any closer to home. We can know more, do more, and connect more than ever, and yet our ability to belong to our own reality seems to be shrinking. Philosopher Ian Marcus Corbin, who teaches at Harvard Medical School and directs Harvard's Public Culture Project, takes up that paradox in his new book, To Arrive Where We Started: Belonging in the Modern World. The title comes from T.S. Eliot's Four Quartets, and Corbin reads Eliot's lines as something like a mission statement for humanity: the point of the journey is not to escape reality or optimize our way around it, but to truly belong to it.
Everything is “maxxed” right now, and the news cycle in particular seems to be historymaxxing, insisting that things have never been worse than they are now. And the threats are real, from AI and global warming to election integrity—foreign affairs gone wrong, and violence abroad, in our homes, and in our schools. But the news maxxes us on fear, and so do politicians and corporations, because they want us to do something. If theologian Lee C. Camp is right, history was already maxed at the incarnation, and it came through a subversive way of life: humble, compassionate, at times angry, but radical and scandalous all the same. Camp, author of *Scandalous Witness: A Little Political Manifesto for Christians* and founder and host of the nationally syndicated podcast and radio show No Small Endeavor, argues that the idolatry of the nation state, and even the effort to legislate Christian morality and values into a political movement, is a subversion of Christianity.
Human growth can seem to just happen—genes, care, and nurture set each of us on a trajectory across the lifespan. But how do people actually grow toward wholeness, and is virtue even the point?
Technology, Aaron Cline Hanbury suggests, is never a purely neutral tool. But the history of ethical thinking about technology shows that as long as there's been technology, there's been anxiety about it. Or perhaps more accurately, anxiety about what we might do with it. And increasingly, what it might do to us.