English has one word for love. Ancient Greek had at least eight. This isn't just a linguistic curiosity — it's an indicator that the Greeks understood something important: that what we call "love" is not a single unified experience but a family of related states that feel different, function differently, and have very different implications for relationships.
Modern psychology has mapped these distinctions scientifically. The result is a framework that's both more nuanced and more useful than the idea that love is simply love, that you either feel it or you don't, and that it should be self-explanatory once it arrives.
The ancient Greek framework
The eight Greek types of love are still taught in philosophy and psychology today because they remain useful. Here they are — briefly and honestly, without excessive romanticisation.
The intense, passionate, often physical form of love associated with new relationships. Named after the god of love. Characterised by desire, longing, and the obsessive quality of early infatuation. Powerful and motivating — but neurologically, the most volatile and least stable form of love.
The love between close friends; characterised by loyalty, shared experience, and mutual affection without the erotic component. Aristotle considered this the highest form of love. In romantic relationships, philia is what sustains a partnership after the initial eros intensity diminishes.
The affection between family members — parents and children, siblings. Also used to describe the kind of deep familiarity that develops between long-term partners, the "comfortable love" that includes knowing each other's quirks and still choosing to stay.
The selfless love directed at all people, regardless of personal connection. In romantic relationships, agape shows up as the commitment to your partner's wellbeing independent of what you get back. Later adopted in Christian theology as the form of divine love.
The flirtatious, game-playing, uncommitted form of love associated with casual dating and early-stage flirtation. Not inherently negative, but problematic when one person is experiencing ludus while the other is experiencing something more serious.
The pragmatic love that develops in long-term relationships through mutual compromise, patience, and tolerance. Not the stuff of Valentine's Day cards, but arguably the most important form for lasting partnerships. Pragma is what you're building towards, not away from.
Love of the self. The Greeks distinguished between healthy philautia — self-respect, self-care, a stable sense of worth — and narcissistic self-obsession. Modern psychology's extensive work on self-esteem and mental health maps closely onto this distinction.
Pouring yourself into what you do; doing something with soul, creativity, and love. Less a type of romantic love and more a disposition — but relevant to how people show love through effort, craft, and care for the things they make for others.
"A healthy long-term relationship contains most of these types simultaneously — which is partly why they're so hard to maintain and so extraordinary when they work."
What modern psychology adds
Robert Sternberg's Triangular Theory (covered in more depth in our piece on what love actually is) maps onto the Greek framework usefully. His three components — intimacy, passion, and commitment — overlap with the Greek types: passion maps onto eros, intimacy onto philia and storge, commitment onto agape and pragma.
Sternberg's seven types of love (from the triangle)
Different combinations of his three components produce: Liking (intimacy only), Infatuation (passion only), Empty love (commitment only), Romantic love (intimacy + passion), Companionate love (intimacy + commitment), Fatuous love (passion + commitment), and Consummate love (all three). Most researchers consider consummate love the target — but also the hardest to maintain over time.
Helen Fisher's neuroimaging research adds a biological layer, identifying three distinct neural systems that correspond loosely to these types: the lust system (sex drive), the attraction system (the dopamine-driven romantic love stage), and the attachment system (the longer-term bond). These systems are independent and can point towards different people — which is one neurological explanation for infidelity, and for the experience of loving someone without being "in love" with them.
Passionate love vs. companionate love
Perhaps the most practically important distinction for modern relationships is the one between passionate love and companionate love, formalised by Elaine Hatfield and colleagues in the 1980s.
Passionate love is intense, urgent, and all-consuming. It's characterised by intrusive thoughts about the partner, longing for reciprocation, and emotional swings contingent on the other person's behaviour. It corresponds closely to the early-stage eros and to what Fisher's research identifies as the attraction system.
Companionate love is warm, stable, and deeply comfortable. It includes deep affection, caring, and attachment. It corresponds to philia, storge, and pragma. It's what remains — and grows — after passionate love's initial intensity has settled.
Why this distinction matters in practice
Many relationships run into crisis at the transition point between passionate and companionate love because one or both partners interpret the diminishing intensity as evidence that they've fallen out of love. They haven't — they've simply moved from one form of love to another. The problem is that Western culture disproportionately valorises passionate love, which makes companionate love feel like a consolation prize. It isn't. It's the foundation.
Attachment styles and how they shape love
Understanding the types of love is only part of the picture. The other part is understanding how your attachment style — the set of expectations and behaviours developed in early relationships — shapes which types of love you find accessible and which you find threatening.
Anxiously attached people tend to experience eros intensely but struggle with the security required for companionate love to develop. Avoidantly attached people may suppress eros and find the vulnerability of deep intimacy uncomfortable. Securely attached people can generally move more fluidly across the spectrum.
Matched on the things that build lasting love
LoveCertain uses relationship science to match on attachment style, values, and life stage — the foundations for companionate love that lasts. £49 once. 90-day guarantee.
What this framework tells you about your own relationships
The most useful thing this framework offers is a vocabulary for experiences that are often confusing or misread. If you're in a relationship and the eros has quieted, you're not necessarily falling out of love — you may be transitioning into pragma and companionate love, which is both normal and, if the philia is strong, quite beautiful.
If you're experiencing ludus in someone who is experiencing eros, that mismatch is worth addressing rather than waiting for parity to emerge. If your relationship is strong on philia and storge but lacks eros, that's specific information about what might need attention — or honest acknowledgement.
And if you're searching for a partner, knowing what type of love you're looking for and what type of relationship you're ready to build helps enormously in distinguishing between people who are exciting and people who might be genuinely right. Chemistry tends to signal eros. Compatibility tends to predict whether the other types of love can develop.
The Certain Letter
Science-backed, jargon-free. No spam, ever.
Related: our piece on benching, zombieing, and other dating terms explained.
Related: the LoveCertain guide on friend to lover.
Related: the LoveCertain guide on relationship psychology explained.
Find someone you can build all of it with
LoveCertain matches on the things that help love grow from passionate to lasting — values, attachment style, life stage. Because eros alone isn't enough, but it's a good place to start.
Join for £49
