Comparing Augustine's Ordo Amoris with Hierocles' Circles of Concern

JD Vance has recently referenced an incorrect version of Augstine’s Ordo Amoris, revealing of his Christian Nationalist thinking. But it did raise some interesting parallels between two similar-sounding ideas.

Both Augustine’s concept of Ordo Amoris(the "order of love") and Hierocles’ Circles of Concern explore the relationship between human affections, ethics, and our place in the broader cosmos.

While they emerge from different philosophical traditions—Augustine from Christian theology and Neoplatonism, and Hierocles from Stoicism—they share a common focus on ordering our emotions and relationships to align with virtue and the greater good.

However, their approaches and ultimate goals differ significantly.

1. Core Concepts

Augustine’s Ordo Amoris

Definition:

Ordo Amoris refers to the proper ordering of loves, where each affection is directed toward its rightful object under divine will. For Augustine, love itself is not inherently good or bad—it is the order of love that determines whether it leads to virtue or vice.

Philosophical Basis:

Rooted in Christian theology, Augustine sees love as central to human existence. He argues that disordered love (e.g., loving temporal goods more than God) leads to sin and suffering, while properly ordered love restores harmony within oneself and with God. Not big amoungst the prosperity gospel lot methinks.

Goal:

To align one’s loves with the eternal and immutable truth of God, fostering inner peace and unity with the divine order.

Hierocles’ Circles of Concern

Definition:

Hierocles visualizes human relationships as concentric circles, with the self at the center, followed by family, community, and ultimately all of humanity. The goal is to "draw the circles inward," expanding one’s sense of care and concern outward from the self to encompass all people.

Philosophical Basis:

Grounded in Stoicism, this model emphasizes universal kinship (oikeiôsis), the idea that all humans are interconnected and share a common nature. By cultivating empathy and extending care beyond immediate circles, individuals contribute to the common good.

Goal:

To break down artificial barriers between the self and others, fostering a sense of global citizenship and moral responsibility.

2. Similarities

1. Ethical Framework for Love and Relationships

Both concepts provide ethical guidelines for directing our affections and actions. They emphasize the importance of structuring our emotional lives to promote virtue and harmony.

2. Focus on Expanding Concern Beyond the Self

Augustine’s Ordo Amoris encourages love for God and neighbor, transcending selfish desires.

Hierocles’ Circles explicitly advocate for broadening one’s circle of concern to include distant others, moving beyond narrow self-interest.

3. Alignment with Cosmic Order

Both systems view morality as participation in a larger, divinely ordained order:

- For Augustine, this is the divine plan centered on God.

- For Hierocles, it is the natural order of human interconnectedness and reason.

4. Practical Implications for Daily Life

Both models offer practical guidance for living virtuously. Augustine’s emphasis on ordering loves helps individuals prioritize spiritual over material goods, while Hierocles’ method of “drawing the circles inward” provides a concrete way to practice empathy and altruism.

3. Differences

1. Theological vs. Secular Foundations

Augustine’s *Ordo Amoris* is deeply theological, rooted in Christian faith and the belief in God as the ultimate source of love and order.

Hierocles’ Circles are secular and grounded in Stoic philosophy, focusing on reason, nature, and human interconnectedness without reference to a deity. Or a Christian monotheistic deity. The god of the Stoics requires a longer explanation.

2. Ultimate Focus

Augustine prioritizes vertical love—love directed upward toward God—as the highest good. Properly ordered love for others flows from this primary relationship.

Hierocles emphasizes horizontal love—expanding care outward to include all humanity. The ultimate aim is social cohesion and universal justice rather than union with a divine being.

3. Role of the Self

In Augustine’s framework, the self must first be aligned with God before it can rightly love others. Disordered self-love (pride, selfishness) is a major obstacle.

In Hierocles’ model, the self remains central but is gradually integrated into an ever-widening network of relationships. The self is not diminished but expanded through connection with others.

4. Mechanics of Transformation

Augustine’s transformation occurs through grace and divine assistance, enabling the soul to reorder its loves according to God’s will.

Hierocles’ transformation is achieved through deliberate practice, such as consciously extending goodwill and reducing biases toward those outside one’s immediate circles.

5. Scope of Application

Augustine’s Ordo Amoris applies primarily to personal spirituality and salvation, though it has implications for interpersonal relationships.

Hierocles’ Circles are explicitly social and political, aiming to create a just and harmonious society by fostering universal empathy.

A Question

By considering these perspectives, do we gain a richer understanding of how to live wisely, compassionately, and harmoniously in both personal and societal contexts?