_Works of Love_ by Kierkegaard is the most uplifting, encouraging, and hope-restoring book I have ever read. Kierkegaard's statement that "the greatest act of love anyone can ever achieve is to mourn for someone who is dead" is a statement I have used to guide myself through innumerable existential crises and has given me hope in my darkest hours. The wisdom contained in this book is an essential tool in dealing with the premature and untimely death of a loved one, and restoring your hope and faith in God even in the face of tragedy. Kierkegaard's sense of empathy and morality is unsurpassed by any other philosopher living or dead, and I will also go so far as to call him a saint.

This book is also extremely well-written, well-translated, and readable. _Works of Love_ is living proof of the theory that inherently complicated and profound subject matter does not necessarily have to be extremely difficult to read. Kierkegaard's use of anecdotal situations and clear real-life examples to illustrate his theories make the book more readily understandable, and his writing style naturally lends itself to clear and accurate translation. Unlike many German philosophers of the same time period, Kierkegaard (from Denmark) does not lapse into highly personal, abstract, and inaccessable concepts, but instead focuses on more realistic and timeless problems that have plagued humanity since the dawn of sentience. While authors like Hegel and Schopenhauer are intellectually stimulating and mildly interesting, reading their works does not exactly make you happier, more hopeful, and more empathetically caring. You are often left with nothing but pie-in-the-sky theories regarding esoteric philosophical questions that are only marginally relevant to the everyday realities we experience. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, can greatly improve the quality of your life, and help you achieve a positive and non-hateful outlook.

Also keep in mind that this is easily Kierkegaard's most personal book, revealing the inner nature of his own spiritual beliefs. Unlike an author like Heidegger, who will ramble for 400 pages and never even bother to tell you if he believes in God or not, Kierkegaard is up front and honest with the reader, speaking directly to us. A true expert on Kierkegaard knows that he often wrote under pseudonyms, and playfully stepped into another character or alter-ego, lending an almost ficticious aspect to some of his philosophical works. In reading some of these pseudonymous books, a careful reader will observe that Kierkegaard often contradicts his real persona in subtle ways. It is easy to overlook his purposeful self-contradictions and alter-ego characterizations unless you compare these works with his more personal and truthful works, _Works of Love_ being the prime example.

Should you buy this book? YES!! I unconditionally recommend this book to anyone, anywhere. It is the perfect introduction to Kierkegaard; the one you should read first. It is also a recapitulation and summary of all of his most important concepts, so it could also be read last. But at some point you must read this book. The only type of person who would not appreciate this book is someone who has thoroughly convinced himself of the hopelessness, meaninglessness, and absurdity of existence; someone who has become completely disillusioned with God in response to tragedy, and believes knowledge can only beget sorrow. Most people with this kind of negative outlook are often anti-intellectuals anyway, and seldom read legitimate philosophical books anymore. But even if you are disillusioned with God and unable to comprehend tragedy, you still might want to read this book because it may provide the only way out of your depressing predicament. _Works of Love_ is a shining beacon of hope in an often violent, tragic, and chaotic universe, and is one of the few books ever written that is sophisticated and credible enough to pull even the most die-hard sceptic out of the despair of hopelessness.

This is more of a reaction to Kierkegaard's "Works of Love" than a review of the book. I cannot perfect perfection.

First, he hits the genius of Christianity, and take's Paul's chapter on Charity, 1 Corinthians 13 as the backbone text. This is an impressive "love poem" which really explains why Christianity is so novel. If you don't believe me, read pre-Christian literature, such as Socrates, Homer, or The Epic of Gilgamesh. Pre-Christian society ignored human dignity and worth, and people were just functions of the state, or the whim of the king.

Secondly, Kierkegaard recognizes that love is a work, and not merely a state of heart or a chattering point. This notion of work is anathema to "Pop Protestantism," which was Kierkegaard's mortal enemy. He commented that the obsession with "grace" had turned Christianity upside-down, and had caused men to try and cheat God out of his religion. This is another way of saying that faith without works is dead.

Kierkegaard last insight is that God is the basis of love, which he underscores in the opening invocation. Too many people gloss by this prefacing prayer, but that is what separates love and love with power. God gives us power to love.

I found this translation quite readable. Soren, in any version, is rather thick, almost as if he is intentionally trying to hide things. Part of difficulty comes from the dense 19th Century verbosity that was a token of the age. However, his greatest asset is humorous illustrations, which helps mentally fix the points forever.

The only criticism I have is that Kierkegaard does not connect love to the Atonement. He does, in the introductory benediction, assert that we need to have love securely wedded to God, but he does not connect love to the Atonement and the Resurrection, the central doctrines of Christianity.

This is Soren at his best, so I recommend that you begin your Danish journey here, then move on to "Either/Or," "Fear And Trembling," and "Sickness Unto Death." But the key to Kierkegaard's existentialism is love.

The title of this book is originally named not as "The Concept of Love", but as "The Concept of Anxiety". It means that this book is written not for love to be desired, but for anxiety to be conquered. Therefore, if you fell anxious because of love, you should read this book. He will introduce you to the true love with the healing of your heart.

This book is written after "The Diary of A Seducer", which resembles certain French immoral novel. This is the secret that he must write this book. It didn't bring pleasure to him actually, but the deep gap between him and his fiancee. Therefore, he falled into the critical solitute accompanied with anxiety and sorrow. To overcome this situation, the sincere relationship with people and God are necessary, he thinks. From my viewpoint, this is all of the background of this book. The reason that his thinking gets much sympathy from people is the modern theme of the absense of the human relationship.

There are four things you need to remember about this book:

1) It is Kierkegaard's doctoral thesis and he bears a great load of hostility against his professors. He works this out passive-aggressively, by writing in a near impenetrable style. They are testing him by making him defend a thesis and he, in his turn, is testing them to see whether they can figure out exactly what thesis he is defending. He claims that Irony, the concept he is explicating, is "infinite absolute negativity." Certainly his thesis is. The thesis is not just about Irony, it enacts Irony. The thesis shows him the master of Irony.

2) The thesis seems hostile to Socrates who, throughout his authorship he always speaks of with approval. This is because among the contemporary witnesses he chooses to credit Aristophanes above Xenophon and Plato. Aristophanes' portrayal is indeed negative. Aristophanes is clearly hostile to Socrates. Socrates even blames Aristophanes at his trial for poisoning the peoples' minds against him.

3) He later repudiated the idea that Irony is "infinite absolute negativity," claiming that at the time he was an "Hegelian fool." Kierkegaard claims he did not, in his thesis, appreciate certain positive aspects of Socratic Irony, qualities that made Socrates a great ethicist. Certainly, he would never have believed Aristophanes except that he confirms Hegel's view of Socrates.

4) This book does not belong with the other books of his authorship (starting with Either/Or). While it is brilliantly shrewd, it does not carry out Kierkegaard's program. While it illustrates a mastery of technique, it is not a mature work in the sense that it lacks the his characteristic questions and concerns. This is the source of a negativity absent from his later works.

If you want to read a classic on the subject, read this book. An acquaintance with Xenophon, Plato and Aristophanes is vital. Moreover, patience with Kierkegaard's infuriating style is also a must.

1. Infuriating style? You're missing most of the irony. Don't you see it? The irony of the book has gone around like a serpent biting its own tail! And that's the point.

2. On whether or not Irony is a mature work: the first part is not. The first part begins and ends with Hegel, with occasional allusions to what points he will hit in the second part. Want to skip the first part because it's long and doesn't seem to get to the point, or you don't know enough about Socrates? Forget the second part then, which won't make any sense at all without the working definition it takes until the discussion of Aristophanes to get to. And don't worry about not having a background on the Greeks. All you have to do is have a little working knowledge of the Apology of Plato, and know that Xenophon is a bit of a dimwit. Everything you wouldn't know and Kierkegaard doesn't tell you is said in the commentary, which is both repititious to those who know, and vexatious to those who don't, but is really helpful nonetheless.

3. The second part, especially in the discussion of Lucinde is a microcosm of the rest of Kierkegaard's philosophy. It just takes a little bit of a skewed lens (an ironic lens, if you will). Irony as infinite negativity? (which is probably an infuriating way of putting it since it really doesn't say anything about irony unless you understand the context provided by the discussion on Socrates in the first part... see why you can't just skip ahead?) alludes to concious despair, or at least if you're an ironist, and you see the emptiness of your position LEADS you to concious despair. The Ironic itself becomes sublimated somewhere between the aesthetic and the humorous, something unsustainable in it of itself, because after all, it is infinite negativity (once again,i refer you to the first part. It has something to do with Socrate's position that he was the wisest man in Athens because he knew nothing, and about the soul after death. See why Socrates is so necessary an ingredient now?).

4. The discussion on Lucinde in the second part is his descisive turn away from the Aesthetic and from Regine, not the Seducer's Diary as presented in EITHER/OR. In fact, EITHER/OR is his more direct explanation of his position that he first touched upon in Irony. Do you see the irony in that? He had to write a pseudonymonous work of an editor who finds a pile of papers in a desk in order to be more direct about a subject he indirectly touched upon in his dissertaition.

5. This is seminal Kierkegaard. This is the book that makes clear the infinite bottomless pit that Kierkegaard points you to in his later work is in fact, an infinite bottemless pit--WAAAUUGHHHH!

6. I hereby disclaim all my references to Kierkegaard. Especially this one.

I am of Danish descent, so I is nice to hear from the motherland. However, I am not of K's tradition, so this is an outsider's look at Mr. K's philosophy.

I am quite impressed with what Mr. K has to say. It took me a while to get into his style of speaking and writing, but one I picked up his dialect, I was awestruck! Sometimes titles not only grab you, but mesmerize you. His essay "Sickness unto Death," which I had heard of in passing, was one of these titles that I just could not get out of my head.

The advantage of this compilation is that it is done by the General Editors of the "Collected Works of S. K.," so the translation, pagination and diction are all the same in the individual books and this small hors d'oeuvre plate. Having used various translations of Machiaveli, or different editions of Plato, it is nice to have one standard translation.

I recommend book as a being like a "Best of Kierkegaard," much like a "Best of" CD from an unknown band. You get the good stuff, eliminate all the filler material, and can buy the individual books if you so choose.

As I said, I am not of K's faith, but I appreciate his faithfulness in search for truth!

A wonderful, chronologically arranged anthology from the immensely prodigious output of Soren Kierkegaard, complete with excellent introductory notes.

My only criticism? The typography is a bit dense, and in particular the font size for the running text is small. I would appeal to the publisher to reformat this book using a larger text size (e.g., 10 point) -- even at the expense of adding additional pages to the overall book size.

nevertheleee... introduced to man as on of
the four main existentialist.., nietsche,
camus sartre... maybe fifth antoine de
st. exupery's flight to arras

however.. suffice to comment.. kierkegard
is mellow man

the triumvirate brace of christianic
philosophy is soren kierkegard, and
the psychologists, bruto bettleheim,
harry stack sullivan, and karen horney

best wishes,
enjoy one's own bibliophilic bent

spotter3
coastwatch quadrant 8,
truk atoll, caroline islands,south pacific