https://www.peren-revues.fr/revue-k/983 Entrées d’index fr 0 https://www.peren-revues.fr/revue-k/1668 According to Kierkegaard’s Works of Love, love undermines private property, which modern political philosophy, from Hobbes to Hegel, considers the foundation of civil society. Love is therefore an anti-political category, producing a permanent political state of exception. At the same time, love must be recognizable by its fruits, without, however, being able to objectively identify and prove what and where these fruits are. Therefore, love, the anti-political and the impossible par excellence, must entail visible and political consequences in the world. dim., 18 janv. 2026 18:46:02 +0100 lun., 19 janv. 2026 17:27:18 +0100 https://www.peren-revues.fr/revue-k/1668 https://www.peren-revues.fr/revue-k/1633 In Works of Love (1847), Kierkegaard understands neighborly love as an individual ethics of inwardness, one that does not seek to be the source of social or political transformation. This stance has led the author to be categorized as conservative, seeking to preserve a status quo that was in his favor. He also rejects the thesis that societies progress in such a way that they might one day achieve utopia, a society where inequalities are but a distant memory. For him, power relations do not disappear over the course of history; rather, they simply transform into more subtle mechanisms, where values become representations without being truly embodied by individuals. In this context, he considers neighborly love—in its intersubjective aspect—to be a form of everyday resistance, that is to say a way of recognizing the other as a subject when they are reified or instrumentalized. However, we will take a step back from Kierkegaard’s claim that his ethics is apolitical, and instead examine the political potential of what we could call the minima amoris acta. sam., 17 janv. 2026 21:03:26 +0100 dim., 18 janv. 2026 22:02:55 +0100 https://www.peren-revues.fr/revue-k/1633 https://www.peren-revues.fr/revue-k/981 Despite the appearances by which she has often been held captive, the figure of Medea can be read as an expression of absolute love. In particular, what emerges from a reading of Euripides' tragedy is what we might call the unrelenting cruel nature of love. In the frightening gesture with which she gives death to her children, the dismissal of the logic of power is intertwined with a paradoxical expression of love, for which giving death can sometimes represent the only possible gesture of care. mar., 16 janv. 2024 11:08:28 +0100 mar., 16 janv. 2024 11:08:41 +0100 https://www.peren-revues.fr/revue-k/981