1 . Climacus u ges cau ion by eminding us ha an analogy be ween ea hly lo e and ai h
is «impe ec » (K W VII, 48), pe haps e en a «decep ion» (K W XII.1, 598).
En ahona 29, 1998 9 1- 9 5
Kie kegaa d and The Lo e
M. Jamie Fe ei a
Uni e si y o Vi ginia
«A belie e , a e all, is a lo e ; as a ma e o ac , when i comes o en hu-
siasm, he mos ap u ous lo e o all lo e s is bu a s ipling compa ed wi h
a belie e .» (K W XIX, 103) In his judgmen made by An i-Climacus,
K i e k e g a a d exp esses a iew ound epea edly in his w i ings —namely, ha
he lo e is a pa icula ly ap model o e ealing dimensions o eligious ai h.
Wha hen is i o be a «lo e »? The igu e o he lo e winds i s ways h o u g h-
ou Kie k e g a a d's w i ings, clo hed in he conc e e expe ience o aes he ic,
e hical, and/o eligious ca ego ies. As we would expec , «lo e» and «lo e »
a e no used uni ocally in he pseudonymous and non-pseudonymous wo k s .
No a e hose e ms used uni ocally e en wi hin he con ex o he pseudo-
nyms hemsel es: he pic u e o he lo e ound he e is some imes he aes-
he ic ision o aes he ic lo e, some imes he e hical ision o aes he ic lo e ,
some imes he aes he ic pe spec i e on e hical lo e, some imes he e hical pe s-
p e c i e on e hical lo e, and some imes he aes he ic o e hical pe spec i e on
eligious lo e. Wha a e we o lea n, o be e , how a e we o be enabled,
h ough hese a ied po ai s o he lo e ? Al hough I canno do jus ice o
ha a ie y in hese ew pages, I wan o indica e se e al o he ways in which
an analysis o he «lo e » who is mos in lo e can illumina e eligious ai h1.
I will begin wi h a look a how Kie k e g a a d's la e «delibe a ions» on «genuine»
l o e, lo e o neighbo , expose a ich in e play be ween he passion and un-
condi ionali y which quali y lo e .
Kie kegaa d's mos explici and leng hy accoun o lo e, Wo ks o Lo e
(1847) ini ially se s up a s a k con as be ween p e e en ial lo e and non-p e -
e en ial lo e. P e e en ial lo e [Fo kje lighed] is said o be he hea no only
o e o ic lo e [Elsko ], bu also o iendship. Bo h a e consigned o he do-
main o exp essions o sel -lo e since bo h a e ways o lo ing «ano he -me»:
«e o ic lo e and iendship a e p e e en ial lo e» and «passiona e p e e ence is ac-
ually ano he o m o sel -lo e.» (KW XVI, 52-53) Bo h iendship and lo e
educe o « he I in oxica ed in he o he I» —e en «in lo e and iendship one's
9 2 En ahona 29, 1998 M. Jamie Fe ei a
2 . God's inco po eali y would imply an impe ec ion in he analogy, bu ou embodiedness
is cen al. Al hough Kie k e g a a d sugges s ha «passion» e q u i es ha we exclude « he hi d » ,
he con ex makes clea ha he is ejec ing he «p e e ence» a he han he «passion»; mo-
e o e , he simply de ines «sensuous, lesh» as «sel ishness», so we canno assume ha he
would see embodied conc e eness as nega i e (K W XVI, 50, 52).
neighbo is no lo ed bu one's o he sel , o he i s I once again, bu mo e
in ensely.» (KW XVI, 56-57) Non-p e e en ial lo e [Kje lighed], lo e o neigh-
bo , on he con a y, is he pa adigm o genuine lo e o an o he because i is
he pa adigm o lo e o a genuine o he . La e in Wo ks o Lo e, we will dis-
co e Kie kegaa d's no ma i e p oposal ha LOVE IS UNSELFISH, LOVE
IS FREE, and LOVE IS FAITHFUL. Bu be o e conside ing wha is a s ake
in he model o unsel ish, ee, and ai h ul lo e (as well as how his illumi-
na es ai h), i is impo an o no e ha Kie k e g a a d pu s in ques ion he s a k-
ness o his dicho omy be ween p e e en ial and non-p e e en ial lo e by his
accoun o he ela ion be ween a ious exp essions o lo e.
K i e k e g a a d akes pains h oughou Wo ks o Lo e o emedy a a ie y o
«misunde s andings» o he s a us o genuine lo e by indica ing ha hey a e
no mu ually exc l u s i e; he e is no exis en ial “e i h e / o ” he e. I is a «mis-
unde s anding» o hink ha «in Ch is iani y he belo ed and he iend a e
l o ed ai h ully and ende ly in qui e a di e en way han in paganism.» (K W
XVI, 53) The goal is o «p e s e e lo e o he neighbo » i n e o ic lo e and
iendship (KW XVI, 62). K j e l i g h e dis no a «highe lo e» in addi ion o e o -
ic lo e and iendship (KW XVI, 45, 58); i is no a «mo e explici de ini-
ion» o pagan lo e (KW XVI, 142); i is no a di e en « ype» o lo e since
h e e is «only one kind o lo e, he spi i 's lo e» (KW XVI, 66, 143). I should
«pe mea e» e e y exp ession o lo e (KW XVI, 112); i can and should «lie
a he base o and be p esen in e e y o he exp ession o lo e» (KW X V I ,
146). Genuine lo e allows «d i es», «inclina ion», « eeling», «na u al e l a i o n s »
and «p e s c i p i e igh s [...] o emain in o ce»; i is no indi e en o « am-
ily ela ions» o « iendship» o « a he land». (KW XVI, 144). The sanc i i-
ca ion i seeks is o «make e e y hing new while e e y hing is s ill old.» (K W
XVI, 145) The esul —Ch is iani y «has no changed any hing» («e e y h i n g
is s ill old») in he con en o lo e and iendship, while i «has changed e e y-
hing, has changed lo e as a whole.» (KW XVI, 147) I ake hese a i ma ions
o unchanged con en o sugges ha he genuinely lo ing esponse add e s s e s
speci ic conc e e human needs: he conc e eness and dis inc i eness o lo e do
no necessa ily comp omise neighbo lo e, and, con e s e l y, neighbo lo e does
no necessa ily jeopa d i ze he conc e eness and dis inc i eness o lo e .
Wha do we lea n om his sugges ion ha one does no lea e e o ic lo e
o iendship behind in o de o lo e someone as a neighbo , ha lo e can be
p e s e ed and ans igu ed in a ans o ming expe ience? We lea n —again—
wha we ha e al eady hea d om Climacus—namely, ha lo e is a e all,
w h a e e else i is, a p a s s i o n. Tha is, i is a esponse o embodied, conc e e
pe sons o embodied, conc e e pe sons2.I , hen, ai h can be ui ully analo-
Kie kegaa d and The Lo e En ahona 29, 1998 9 3
3 . This does no , o cou se, deny ha ai h is a con inual s uggle o s i ing.
g i zed wi h he passion o lo e, as An i-Climacus sugges s, we a e e m i n d e d
ha he «happy passion» which Climacus e ms « ai h» (K W VII, 54, 59) is
c o n c e ely embodied, as con as ed wi h he an as ic abs ac ion o an ide-
a l i zed pu e in ellec .
How else does he unde s anding o lo e as passion illumina e e l i g i o u s
ai h? Fi s , Kie k e g a a d's a ious au ho s exp ess an A is o elian pe spec i e
on passion — o A is o le, passions like lo e and ange illus a e a ca ego y
which anscends he dis inc ion be ween passi e and ac i e— we a e e s-
ponsible o ou passions, hey a e ou ac s, e en hough hey may no be done
delibe a ely o «on pu pose». When Climacus sugges s ha exis ence is «a ime
o alling in lo e», a « ime o being in lo e», he hin s a he passi i y o lo e
— ye he also desc ibes exis ence as a « ask», he ask o exis ing in con a-
dic ion, he ask o subjec i i y. (K WXII.1, 396-397; 167, 314, 349-350) Lo e
is a alling and a ask — i is nei he simply passi e no simply ac i e. Pa s s i o n
is bo h passi e and ac i e, o be e , i anscends he simplis ic dicho omy
b e ween hem.
A second cha ac e is ic o passion is ha i is no some hing one has « o
a ce ain deg ee». Climacus insis s: «Much ha is s ange has been said abou
en husiasm, much ha is deplo able, much ha is ou ageous, bu he mos
ob use hing said abou i is ha i is o a ce ain deg ee». Si m i l a l y, wi h e o i c
l o e: « he mos ob use hing said abou i is ha i is o a ce ain deg e e » .
(K W XII.1, 229) Passions like en husiasm and lo e exhibi a h e s h o l d d i-
mension: one is no somewha in lo e o a li le en husias ic; a he , un il a
esponse has a pa icula quali y, i is no ye lo e o en husiasm a all. Fa i h ,
as a «happy passion», is simila ly an in eg al, all-o -no hing, expe ience3.
Wha a e he implica ions o passion's ejec ion o «a ce ain deg ee»? On e
implica ion is sugges ed h ough he connec ion An i-Climacus makes be we e n
a lo e and a lack o easons o de ense. He w i es: « he mos ap u ous lo e
o all lo e s is bu a s ipling compa ed wi h a belie e . Imagine a lo e . Is i
no ue ha he would be capable o speaking abou his belo ed all day long
and all nigh , oo, day in and day ou ? Bu do you belie e i could e e oc-
cu o him, do you belie e, i would be possible o him, do you no hink
he would ind i loa hsome o speak in such a manne ha he would y o
demons a e by means o h ee easons ha he e is some hing o being in
l o e [...] do you belie e ha a lo e would e e hink o conduc ing a de ense
o his being in lo e, ha is admi ha o him i was no he absolu e, un-
condi ionally he absolu e, bu ha he hough o i as being in a class wi h
a gumen s agains i and on ha basis de eloped a de ense.» «Is i no ob i-
ous ha he pe son who is eally in lo e would ne e d eam o wan ing o
p o e i by h ee easons o o de end i .» (KW XIX, 103, 104) In o he wo d s ,
as he medie al mys ics like Ec k h a , Silesius, and Ma gue i e Po e e, we e
ond o saying, lo e is «wi hou why. »
9 4 En ahona 29, 1998 M. Jamie Fe ei a
4 . Un o una ely his is ansla ed in he English e sion as « e c i p oci y», which can misle-
ad as o wha mu uali y is allowe d .
5. The «c i e ion» as ound in emembe ing he dead emphasizes asymme y, bu he asym-
m e y o he es case is no a model o lo e because, as he insis s, «wi hou a yo u and an
I, he e is no lo e (e en hough wi h m i n e and yo u s, he e is no lo e).» (K W XVI, 266)
The hemes o “wi hou deg e e s” and “wi hou why” a e con e se sides o
he idea o uncondi ionali y, and Kie k e g a a d's desc ip ion in Wo ks o Lo e
o genuine lo e as unsel ish, ee, and ai h ul illus a es his uncondi ionali y.
«Lea n», he says, « o lo e he li ing unsel ishly, e e l y, ai h ully.» (K W X V I ,
358) Tha lo e is unsel ish is one exp ession o how i is “wi hou why”. Hi s
accoun o lo e as unsel ish is elabo a ed in e ms o he ejec ion o « e p a y-
men lo e» (G j e n k j e l i g h e d)4.Tha is, lo e is no condi ional on any hing gi e n
o us by he o he . Lo e is wi hou he “w h y” o a mo i e o ei he ew a d o
a pa icula kind o esponse. The ex eme o his— ha lo e is no condi-
ional on any esponse by he o he —is ound in he limi case o lo e o he
dead. Bu his is a es case, o Kie k e g a a d, a heu is ic de ice mean o cla -
i y he pu i y o ou mo i e s5.
The eedom o lo e is ano he aspec o i s being “wi hou why”. He e
K i e k e g a a d's poin is ha lo e is no condi ional on any coe cion, howe e ,
sub le, by he o he . Wha is «ex o ed» om us canno be lo e. (K W X V I ,
351) Lo e is wi hou he “w h y” o manipula ion o p e s s u e by he o he .
Fi n a l l y, he ideli y which cha ac e izes lo e can be ph ased in e ms o being
“wi hou why”. Wha is a s ake he e is ha lo e is no condi ional on he
o he 's ai h ulness, suppo , o encou agemen . One's lo e is no co e l a e d
on a one- o-one basis wi h he o he 's esponse; i does no a y wi h a i a-
ions in he belo ed. Lo e is wi hou he “w h y” o being ied au oma ically
o a change in he o he . Again, he ex eme case o i e l e ance o esponse is
ound only in he limi case, he heu is ic es , p o ided by lo e o he dead.
In sum, an analogy o ai h wi h he passion o lo e sugges s ha ai h is
c o n c e ely embodied ( a he han me e in ellec ual assen ), no suscep ible o
« d e g ees», and «wi hou why (wi hou jus i ica ion)». Elabo a ing he analo-
gy h ough he dimensions o `wi hou why' in Wo ks o Lo e, we can see ha
ai h as lo e o God (o he ollowing o Ch is ) is absolu ely uncondi ional.
Indeed, one could a gue ha s ill ano he message is implici in Kie k e g a a d ' s
discussion o he es case o lo e o he dead: he message is ha he es case
o ea hly lo e (lo e o he dead) pa allels o p e p a es he soul o he es
case o ai h —namely, o he asymme y o a «da k nigh ». Kie k e g a a d ' s
God is, a e all, «a Hidden Go d » .
Bi b l i o g a p h y
Concluding Unscien i ic Pos sc ip o Philosophical F a g m e n s , Kie k e g a a d's W i i n g s
XII.1 (1992). T ans. How a d V. and Edna H. Hong. P ince on: P ince on Un i e -
si y P e s s .
Kie kegaa d and The Lo e En ahona 29, 1998 9 5
Philosophical F a g m e n s, Kie k e g a a d's W i ings, VII (1985). T ans. How a d V. and
Edna H. Hong. P ince on: P ince on Un i e si y P e s s .
The Sickness Un o De a h, Kie k e g a a d's W i ings, XIX (1980). T ans. How a d V. and
Edna H. Hong. P ince on: P ince on Un i e si y P e s s .
Wo ks o Lo e, Kie k e g a a d's W i ings, XVI (1995). T ans. How a d V. and Edna H.
Hong. P ince on: P ince on Un i e si y P e s s .