Thursday talks about Soren Kierkegaard, as he is wont to do.
5 comments:
Wednesday
said...
This is really interesting.
I think I have to disagree with Kierkegaard on this one, though. To say that you owe the object of your love the expression of it, seems to imply that love is based upon the likeable characteristics of the person, not on the love of which God is the source. (Friend-love versus Charity-love?) I think the love that is able to give grace to the unlovable is more true. (... but I still think Lewis' other three loves are still valid, just, hmm)
And yet, I see what you're saying about love actually being about the other person- making it more selfless, maybe.
Also... the flip side of obligations are rights. Do we really have a right to expect people to tell us they love us?
Still, I often/sometimes feel like I have an obligation to express my love to people. Maybe it's an obligation to myself (what I want to do) or to God (his command to love). And then what about times when the expression of love makes it exist in the first place?
One more thing... I believe in this case, the word is "wont". (I'm trying to decide if me telling you that was helpful or bothersome)
Well, it was helpful to me, because I was wondering whether I should tell him that it was "wont." :)
We are obligated to love others, but I'm not sure what you mean by "express." Can we love without expressing our love? Is this just semantic? Not sure. I mean, if love is merely action, then the only way to express it is through something other than actions (words, emotions?). If love is more than action, can we really express it at all?
I'm picturing "expressing our love" through love languages - acts of service, touch, compliments, quality time, and gifts. I mean, that seems sensible to me. But if love is doing things for others, than loving and expressing our love are essentially the same thing.
So what is this nebulous "love?" I don't think it's as nebulous as I'm making it out to be, but I'm not sure exactly how we express it. Any thoughts?
Tuesday: Well, Kierkegaard does not thing that love is, strictly speaking, action. Rather, action is how love is known (by it's fruits). However, these actions that are it's fruits are not the same thing as "expressing" love. Because fruits (aka, works, hence the title of the book) can be missed, or unnoticed. But expression is more for the explicit purpose of being noticed, or being communicated. So, I think that love as action is not the same thing as expressing love.
A Year Of Questions is a project begun on March 22, 2010, by seven teens who want to be better at asking questions and articulating answers. This blog exists to make it easier to discuss these questions (because a 500 character limit on YouTube comments is rather limiting). Enjoy!
5 comments:
This is really interesting.
I think I have to disagree with Kierkegaard on this one, though. To say that you owe the object of your love the expression of it, seems to imply that love is based upon the likeable characteristics of the person, not on the love of which God is the source. (Friend-love versus Charity-love?) I think the love that is able to give grace to the unlovable is more true. (... but I still think Lewis' other three loves are still valid, just, hmm)
And yet, I see what you're saying about love actually being about the other person- making it more selfless, maybe.
Also... the flip side of obligations are rights. Do we really have a right to expect people to tell us they love us?
Still, I often/sometimes feel like I have an obligation to express my love to people. Maybe it's an obligation to myself (what I want to do) or to God (his command to love). And then what about times when the expression of love makes it exist in the first place?
One more thing... I believe in this case, the word is "wont". (I'm trying to decide if me telling you that was helpful or bothersome)
Well, it was helpful to me, because I was wondering whether I should tell him that it was "wont." :)
We are obligated to love others, but I'm not sure what you mean by "express." Can we love without expressing our love? Is this just semantic? Not sure. I mean, if love is merely action, then the only way to express it is through something other than actions (words, emotions?). If love is more than action, can we really express it at all?
I'm picturing "expressing our love" through love languages - acts of service, touch, compliments, quality time, and gifts. I mean, that seems sensible to me. But if love is doing things for others, than loving and expressing our love are essentially the same thing.
So what is this nebulous "love?" I don't think it's as nebulous as I'm making it out to be, but I'm not sure exactly how we express it. Any thoughts?
Wednesday:
Tuesday: Well, Kierkegaard does not thing that love is, strictly speaking, action. Rather, action is how love is known (by it's fruits). However, these actions that are it's fruits are not the same thing as "expressing" love. Because fruits (aka, works, hence the title of the book) can be missed, or unnoticed. But expression is more for the explicit purpose of being noticed, or being communicated. So, I think that love as action is not the same thing as expressing love.
Post a Comment