### Setting the Scene: What is _Works of Love_? _Works of Love_, published on September 29, 1847, came out about six months after another of Kierkegaard's works, _Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits_, which was dedicated to "that single individual" he happily called his reader. Kierkegaard, known for his thoughtful, step-by-step approach (sometimes called "maieutic carefulness"), anticipated that despite his focus on the individual, people might accuse him of knowing nothing about "sociality". So, inspired by this thought, he formulated the title for his next book: _Works of Love_. The book itself was written in two series, the first finished in April 1847 and the second on August 2nd of the same year, with the manuscript delivered to the printer by August 17th. It wasn't just written in a vacuum, though. Kierkegaard had been thinking about the themes of love for years, with reflections appearing in earlier works like his dissertation (1841), _Either/Or_ (1843), _Three Upbuilding Discourses_ (1843), and _Stages on Life's Way_ (1845). Themes like self-love, erotic love, marital love, and the love of God had already been explored, and discourses like "Love Will Hide a Multitude of Sins" had appeared. What makes _Works of Love_ stand out is that it's seen as Kierkegaard's most significant exploration of erotic love and Christian love, building on the different types of love shown in his earlier writings. A helpful tool he uses is the presence of two distinct words for love in Danish: _Elskov_ and _Kjerlighed_. This distinction allows for a clearer contrast between different kinds of love than the single word "love" in English. However, just having the words doesn't guarantee understanding. That's why the book is called "deliberations" instead of "discourses". A deliberation, unlike a discourse, doesn't just assume everyone already knows what the definitions mean. It aims to shake people out of their usual, comfortable ways of thinking with what Kierkegaard calls the "dialectic of truth". So, the book's goal is to meet the reader where they are, amidst their possibly muddled understanding of love, and present a "positive love ethics". ### Love as a Work, Not Just a Feeling A central idea in _Works of Love_ is right there in the title: love is understood through its _works_. It's not just a wish, a thought, a feeling, or a mood. Love, in the sense Kierkegaard is primarily focusing on, is a _deed_. He's not trying to list _all_ possible works of love, because they are essentially "inexhaustible". Nor is he trying to give a final, complete description of any single work, because even the smallest act of love is "essentially indescribable". He sees love's hidden life as being "recognizable by its fruits". In fact, love has a "need" to be known by its fruits, just like a poet needs to write or a young woman needs to love. This need to be known by its fruits signifies richness. Imagine a plant bursting with life that _had_ to keep that life hidden – it would wither! Love is the opposite; it needs to find expression. But here's an interesting point: while love is known by its fruits, it's not always directly or unconditionally known by any single expression. You can't pick one sacred word and say, "If someone uses this word, they definitely have love". The same word spoken by different people, or even the opposite word, can show love. The crucial thing is _how_ the word is said and meant, and _how_ the work is done. Yet, even then, there's no single "thus and so" that absolutely proves love is there or isn't there. This leads to a powerful idea: we must _believe_ in love. This belief is necessary first so we can even notice love exists, especially against a cynical view that denies its existence. But it's also needed _after_ we've seen its fruits. Kierkegaard says it's "even more blessed to believe in love" than to just rejoice over its fruits. Belief is the highest point, because the life of love itself is "more than the single fruit and more than all the fruits together". Ultimately, love is known and recognized only "by the love in another" – "Like is known only by like". This suggests a deeper, spiritual form of recognition. - _Further thought:_ If love requires belief to be seen, how does this challenge our modern, often skeptical ways of assessing sincerity or authenticity? ### The Commandment: "You Shall Love" Perhaps one of the most distinctive points Kierkegaard makes about Christian love is that it exists because it is a _duty_ – specifically, because of the commandment "You shall love". He finds this idea "utterly amazed" him at times, seeming as if love might "lose everything" by becoming a duty, even though he insists it "gains everything". He contrasts this with the way a poet describes erotic love or friendship, where the passion seems much "higher" than this "poor: 'You shall love'". Poetic love, which is often based on instinct or inclination, feels a need to bind itself (like swearing an oath), and the poet acts almost like a priest in this process. But according to Kierkegaard, _only when it is a duty to love_ is love "eternally secured against every change, eternally made free in blessed independence, eternally and happily secured against despair". - _Independence:_ Spontaneous love might feel free, but it can be dependent on possessing the beloved or winning the friend. If someone says, "I cannot love you any longer," and you reply, "Then I can also stop loving you," this isn't independence; it's dependence on whether the other person loves you. The truly independent person, whose love is secured by eternity's "shall," replies, "In that case I shall still continue to love you". This unchangingness is the true independence, rooted in humbling oneself under the eternal requirement. - _Security against Despair:_ Spontaneous love can lead to despair. This despair isn't just caused by misfortune, but is a "misrelation in a person's innermost being" – a "lack of the eternal". Misfortune doesn't _make_ someone despair; it simply reveals that they _were_ in despair. The only true security against despair is undergoing "the change of eternity through duty's shall". The love that has accepted this command can never despair because it is not _in_ despair. - _Divine Origin:_ Kierkegaard suggests the commandment "You shall love" has a "divine origin". It's often the least suitable thing to say when someone is heartbroken over losing a loved one, potentially embittering them, highlighting how different this divine comfort is from human attempts. The "shall of eternity" removes unhealthiness and preserves healthiness in our feelings. It constrains purely human impulses like storming forth in passion or retreating into cold worldly sagacity. - _Further thought:_ Does the idea of being _commanded_ to love make sense to you? How does it change your perception of love compared to thinking of love as purely a spontaneous feeling? ### Poet vs. Christian: Two Worlds of Love Kierkegaard draws a sharp contrast between the poet's understanding of love (focused on erotic love and friendship) and the Christian understanding (focused on love for the neighbor). - **The Poet:** The poet sings about erotic love and friendship, and according to Kierkegaard, is the "priest" of spontaneous, inclination-based love. This love is based on a passionate drive, finding its highest expression in believing there is "but one and only one beloved in the whole world". For the poet, loving a second time is an "abomination". This passion has an "unconditional characteristic—that it excludes the third". Erotic love and friendship, as the poet sees them, are "good fortune," a stroke of luck; there is no inherent _moral task_ involved beyond perhaps gratitude for one's good fortune. They are forms of "preferential love". They often involve "admiration" for the beloved or friend. This kind of love, focused on an exclusive "one and only," contains "enormous self-willfulness" and is actually the lover "relating himself to himself in self-love". In erotic love and friendship, you love the "other I," which is really "the first I once again, but more intensely"—an "enhanced and augmented self-love". There's a sense of keeping the soul, of the distinction between "mine and yours" remaining through exchange or mixing. - **The Christian:** Christian love is fundamentally different. It teaches us to love "all people, unconditionally all". Just as intensely as erotic love narrows to one, Christian love expands to include everyone. If you make an exception of a single person you won't love, it's simply "unconditionally not Christian love". Christian love is rooted in "self-denial's love". Self-denial drives out preferential love and self-love. The object of Christian love is the _neighbor_, who is "infinitely far" from being a "one and only person" because the neighbor is "all people". The neighbor is loved not based on admiration, but on the command. In Christian love, the "I" is defined purely spiritually, and the neighbor is a "purely spiritual specification". It's only in loving the neighbor that self-love can be cured. Christian love contains an inherent _moral task_. This love is defined _by love itself_, not by its object, because its object is _every_ human being without specific distinguishing qualities. It has no misgivings or anxiety about the relationship, unlike loves dependent on their object. Kierkegaard argues that the poet and Christianity are "diametrically opposite in their explanations" of love. Trying to understand your life using both simultaneously will lead to error. Christianity "dethrones inclination" and puts the "shall" in its place. - _Further thought:_ Can you think of examples in art or literature that illustrate the poet's view of love? How does this compare to what you understand as Christian love? ### Self-Denial and the Neighbor At the heart of Christian love is the concept of "self-denial". This means getting rid of "preferential love" and, crucially, eliminating the distinction between "mine and yours". While erotic love might exchange rings and friendship might mix blood, these still involve a form of ownership or shared ownership – my beloved is _mine_, my friend's blood flows in my veins (which is still _mine_ in a sense). But self-denying love cancels "mine and yours" entirely. If you know nothing as "mine," then, paradoxically, "all things become his, his who had no mine at all, his who in self-denial made yours all that was his". Kierkegaard connects this to the idea of gaining one's soul by losing it. Erotic love and friendship are seen as a way of "keeping of the soul," whereas the spirit's love (neighbor love) has the courage to "will to have nothing at all" and thereby "gains God". The truly loving person, operating in self-denial, "does not seek his own". He doesn't worry about legal claims, justice, equity, or even the mutual exchange found in other loves. The one thing he knows how to do is "to be tricked, to be deceived, to give everything away without getting the least in return". The world sees this self-sacrificing person as a "poor fool". By self-denial, he becomes the "unconditionally injured one," but having eternally forgotten the "mine and yours" distinction, he reaches the "highest blessedness within himself". Nothing can make him think he has any "mine". - _Helping Others:_ This self-denying love also manifests in helping others to "stand by himself, to become himself, to become his own master". This is presented as the "greatest, the only beneficence" one human can do for another. The loving person's help is so self-effacing that it "infinitely vanishes in the God-relationship" of the person being helped. The helper works without reward, making himself "nothing". If his help is even noticed, the relationship is "disturbed". This hidden, self-annihilating help is crucial because every human is destined to become free and independent through God's help. - _Recollected by God:_ Despite forgetting himself and his suffering to think of others, the one who loves is not forgotten. God is thinking of him. "God is Love, and when a person out of love forgets himself, how then would God forget him!". - _Further thought:_ The idea of helping someone by "vanishing" and letting them stand on their own through God's help is quite radical. How does this compare to typical ideas of charity or helping others? ### Works of Love in Practice: Examples Beyond the overarching concepts, Kierkegaard explores specific "works of love" through his deliberations. - **Love Builds Up:** "Love builds up" is a key work. This isn't like building a house, where you work on the structure. Spiritually, love is both the "ground and foundation" and the "building" itself. One human being cannot "implant love" in another; only God can do that. So, love builds up not by changing the other person, but by the loving one _controlling himself_. He does this by _presupposing_ that love is already present in the other person's heart, even if it's hidden. This presupposition "draws out the good," "loves forth love". It requires conquering oneself. This is a difficult work, seeming like "doing nothing at all," giving the loving one "no merit at all" because the presupposition is the work, not the result. Love builds up even where love seems lacking, refusing to tear down first, instead presupposing love and loving it forth. It doesn't seek its own or rejoice at wrong, which are associated with tearing down. - **Love Believes All Things:** Love "believes all things" and, by this very act, is "never deceived". This isn't passive credulity, but an active work or task. It's distinct from worldly sagacity that tries to avoid deception. - **Love Hopes All Things:** Love "hopes all things" and is thereby "never put to shame". This is also a work. The loving one hopes "for others" as a work. Even for the most seemingly lost person, love hopes for the "possibility of the good". This hope is the "best gift" one can bring, superior to medical hope (which can be untruthful) or human help. Love hopes because it is loving, and eternity vouches that hope is always possible. Kierkegaard sees hope for oneself and hope for others as "one and the same" for the loving person; love is the "middle term". - **Love Hides a Multitude of Sins:** This is understood as love in its "outward direction". Just as God's forgiveness takes away sin, love hides sins, but it's also a "relation of faith". The one who loves _sees_ the sin but _believes away_ what is seen through forgiveness. Forgiveness is rare because faith in its power is meager. It's unloving to doubt the power of one's own forgiveness. Love can prevent evil by not providing the "occasion" for it. - **Love Abides:** God's love sustains existence and "abides". Human love also abides, not as an inactive quality, but as an "active work" that is acquired and preserved. Human love is a relationship involving three: the lover, the object(s), and "love itself... present as the third". If a relationship breaks due to misunderstanding or someone leaving, the one who loves says, "I abide"—he keeps love present on his side. - **Mercifulness (Even Without Resources):** Mercifulness is a work of love "even if it can give nothing and is able to do nothing". This is a source of comfort for the poor who can still be merciful. It can also shame the wealthy or generous into a "holy modesty," giving without wanting recognition. This kind of mercifulness is purely inward, potentially hidden by external lowliness. - **The Victory of the Conciliatory Spirit:** This is the work of love that "wins the one overcome". It's not just being willing to forgive when asked, but being "in agreement" with the enemy "long, long before" they ask. It means fighting _for_ the enemy, even against oneself. This requires "strength... in weakness" and involves seeking to win the other's love by freeing them from evil or the humiliation of needing forgiveness. - **Recollecting One Who is Dead:** This is presented as a way to test the nature of love. When you relate to someone dead, there is no influence from their personality or actions; the observer is, in a sense, alone. This makes it a work of the _freest_ love because the dead person cannot extort it or exert compulsion. It is also the work of the _most faithful_ love because the object cannot help you be faithful. Recollecting the dead provides a "criterion" to test yourself and learn to love the living unselfishly, freely, and faithfully. It reminds us of the eternal nature of duty; the duty to love the seen cannot cease just because death makes them unseen. - **Praising Love:** Finally, praising love is presented as a work of love itself. It's not an art dependent on talent, but a universally human task everyone "ought to be able to do". It requires "time and industry". To praise love "effectually," it must be done "inwardly in self-denial" and "in the love of truth". Only in self-denial can one hold fast to God, who is love. Self-denial makes one an "instrument for God," allowing anyone to know everything about love. A poet cannot praise love because they rely on talent, not the earnestness of the self-denial relationship with God. True praise of love requires "self-sacrificing unselfishness outwardly". It's impossible to win the "approval of the moment" by truthfully praising true love, which is self-denial (giving up the momentary). This unselfishness is necessary. A poetical challenge posed is that to truly praise self-denial's love for the unlovable object (the neighbor), the speaker must be seen as self-loving (so they gain no advantage), and the subject must be the unlovable object. - _Further thought:_ Which of these "works of love" seems most challenging or counter-intuitive to you? Why? ### Reception and Reflection _Works of Love_ was published by Carl Reitzel. It was one of the few of Kierkegaard's many books that saw a second edition during his lifetime. He received the standard honorarium for the first edition. Interestingly, the book received "scant attention by reviewers". This suited Kierkegaard, who preferred the attention of "that single individual" rather than many "superficial readers". While the two contemporary reviews mentioned in the source were positive, Kierkegaard's journal notes suggest he found the reviewers "inadequate readers". One reviewer, Mendel Levin Nathanson, praised Kierkegaard as a talented author who didn't fear consequences and used terms like "powerful gripping impression" and "most beautiful and most profound," ending with a wish to hear him preach the Gospel. The other, anonymous, reviewer in _Nyt Aftenbladet_ used the book primarily as a starting point for his own philosophical and theological thoughts, apologizing for the length of the review while also noting the "unusual riches" of the work. Kierkegaard wryly commented on this, contrasting the apology for the review's length with the lack of apology for an equally long police report on a thief's trial in the same paper, noting the public's different perception of importance. More important to Kierkegaard was the reception by Bishop Mynster, whom he saw as the book's primary intended reader. Visiting Mynster, Kierkegaard found him "very cold," interpreting this as offense from the book. He had anticipated that the book's "ideality of vision and stringency of thought" would be "polemical". Indeed, the book's analysis is penetrating and its ideality "radical, uncompromising". Despite its polemical edge, to a later reader, the book is also described as "empowering in its gracious theocentricity and upbuilding in its inclusive neighborliness". Kierkegaard himself regarded the writing of _Works of Love_ as an "act, as a work of love". Parts were works of love to specific people, such as the chapter on mercifulness potentially written with his crippled nephew in mind, or the chapter on recollecting the dead as an act of filial piety toward his parents. Sending a copy to his sister-in-law was also a work of love. He saw the entire book, in its challenging ideality, as a "strong but difficult work of love" toward Bishop Mynster, the Church in Denmark, and the nation. He viewed the book as a crucial point in his entire authorship, moving from the perspective of "the poet" towards "religious existing" and emphasizing action alongside inwardness. ### Final Thoughts _Works of Love_ offers a challenging but ultimately deeply rewarding perspective on what it means to truly love, particularly from a Christian viewpoint. It pushes back against comfortable, worldly notions of love based on feeling, inclination, or mutual benefit, arguing instead for a love grounded in duty, self-denial, and the command to love the neighbor – universally and unconditionally. It's a book that asks us to examine our own understanding of love, perhaps turn it "topsy-turvy," and consider love not as a fortunate feeling that strikes us, but as a demanding, active work rooted in eternity.