Slavoj Žižek on love
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.พ. 2021
- Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek on love, from our Valentine's Day episode of The Internationalist: "Red Valentine: Love and Revolution".
You can watch the full discussion here: • Red Valentine's: Love ...
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
SUPPORT US
It is time for progressives of the world to unite. Show your support.
progressive.international/sup...
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook: / progintl
Twitter: / progintl
Instagram: / progintl_en
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
ABOUT THE INTERNATIONALIST
The Internationalist is a new weekly program that brings you news from the front of our struggles around the world, connecting across territories and oceans, nations and generations.
a free earthquake simulation
Made my day! 😂😂
I want to reach the point of maturity where I can without blushing burst out during a bar conversation "its a complicated thought, I don't have the time to develop it!"
I am at this point.
@@technofeeling2462 Techno is a complex subculture.
@@Gromp what do you mean?
@@technofeeling2462 just referencing ur name
@@technofeeling2462 I bet you're a super cool person to hang out with. No sarcasm
So basically what he's saying its that love- in all its nature- its neither a force of evil or good- its completely independent of each category. And due to this, its disruptive of balance. It has both the qualities to be corrective(agape), and the qualities to be disruptive(eros), and because it is Love, it doesnt care which is which. It just exists.
By trying to separate its qualities, perversion on one side, with commodificated pornography and dating apps, and polyamory and political correctness on the other side with "free love" and "love should be soft and kind" concepts going around, by splitting love like this, people have lost sight of what real love looks like. Real love its not performative, its passionate, its chaotic, its rebellion, its spontaneous, its possessive, and it also meets no social criteria. At the same time it brings empathy, connection and the promise for coexistence. But these sides of love should naturally push and pull at eachother, like the conflict between social love and individual love. That fight should happen on its own, it should not be "managed".
He is saying that Society its trying to artificially manage these aspects of Love to conveniently accommodate it to postmodern needs, and this is why Love has been destroyed and suffocated. Sexuality has been liberated, and Love has been crushed.
well said.
you summarised this so well. honestly.
@@minipiga1302 thank you, I had to split my brain to try to understand him
why is eros disruptive?
@@siddhartacrowley8759 Eros is disruptive because it breaks the balance of community and individual independence/emotional stability. Once you feel Eros for someone, passion threatens to overtake you constantly.
"Blahblahblah" is my favourite Zižek quote
I knew it was coming and it still had me dying
and so on and so on.
Love is the hardest energy to stand in. People don't like it; they don't like to hear about love.
It depends, @vickygreenplate113.
True.
" *sniff* Now about Hegel..."
why aren't you patrolling the mojave? or guarding your post at camp mccarran?
haha, my favourite quote
"It's not sexuality that has to be liberated, it's love. It's love in the passionate sense that is gradually disappearing."
My favorite topic to hear him speak on
I find it depressing, really- Ive found that at least in America more and more folks are suspicious of any kind of love, any kind of desire, that is not immediately fetishizable or commodifiable, that is the other/the one who loves you has to be always-already desirable in a market sense, not needfully even in a personal sense. This applies even to friendships. But then there is a pressure for marriage and such, and folk get wed to whomever has showed them any bit of interest, whether or not actual shared desire exists between them, and they end up in a miserable contract that usually leaves one half indebted after the relation fails in a few years, or both halves rot unhappily together for years and years.
I had some time so I tried to transcribe this short discussion by Slavoj Zizek. Hope you find this useful.
[00:00:00] I'm sorry if my intervention will work as a kind of a destructive brutal spoiling of the illusions. And I do it on purpose as a leftist, as a communist.
[music]
[00:00:20] First, let me say, it's a complex thought, I cannot develop it fully now, that I don't believe in this ultimate unity of collective love, collective of solidarity, and so on, and personal love. I think agape and eros and Terry Eagleton nicely translated agape as political collective love, and eros, individual love, passion, are to be disconnected. There is a gap between the two.
I will not repeat my own thesis. I think that love, and I'm talking now about erotic love, is a catastrophe, literally. My old joke: Imagine yourself living a happy, every life. You have a good job, you meet with friends, blah, blah, blah. Maybe from time to time, a one-night stand and so on, and then you passionately fall in love. All the balance of your life is ruined. You are obsessed by that aura. And it's really like "Eva". This is the moment of rapture. Arrow [?] which is a totally contingent arrow since you are lost. I'm not saying this is the ultimate fate of love. It's a long work where you try to build out of this kind of a relationship which can somehow function.
But returning to my little nice example, this love, collective love which empowers all of you while it affects all of you. Let us imagine, very graceless example, a group of students, professors studying let's say Spinoza's ethics, a very difficult text. Again, you empower each other blah, blah, blah. And then there is a student there, men, women, I don't know what you are, and you fall passionately in love. It ruins the community, I claim. It's a total illusion that somehow the two will work together and so on and so on.
So, my point here is that, now comes my madness, it doesn't mean that private, passionately love can only this kind of destructive moment. But I think more and more, warning: that the only solution is betrayal. I got this idea from, of all kind of people, the writer who recently died, John Le Carre, who in his "A Perfect Spy", one of his best novels, writes that the only ultimate proof of love is betrayal. That you betray the one whom you love.
And I wonder if you've seen, now, I'm going to the lowest of the lowest popular culture, "Homeland"?. This TV series where Carrie played by Claire Danes. At the end, what does she do? CIA agent. She betrays her own country so it appears, go to Moscow and live there. A very intense erotic relationship, there is love there, it's clear. But at the very end of the series, we noticed that she still works as a spy for CIA sending and compare messages and so on. So, I don't think this is to be read that she just fakes love. No. That's the way for her to be fully in love. Love has to be betrayed. If you totally fall in love, you are lost.
Second thing, what does this mean today for our time? I'm also a pessimist here. That's how I read Eva, who I appreciate very much. This is what she calls "commodification" of love and so on and so on. I agree with her. This is a very complex phenomenon. I think simply that today with all our permissivity and so on, it's not sexuality that has to be liberated. It's love. Love in this passionate sense that it's gradually disappearing.
What does this commodification, objectivization mean? I think, again, it's more complex. Again, trigger warning: one of my vulgar examples. I noticed when I was young, I watched them in hardcore pornography. Did you notice how the men is truly objectivized? The men is usually some anonymous sailor with his tattoo marks and gives us that's his job. The woman breaks the rule and while being penetrated and so on, is allowed to look into the camera. But this is not authentic subjectivization, of course. This is, in some sense, the ultimate objectivization. Because she, the woman, has to perform a fake subjectivization. That's how commodification works today.
And why is love in the sense of this absolute erotic passion? It would be interesting to go into this why is love gradually disappearing today? You have a whole trend. Laura Kipnis, whom I otherwise appreciate in her critique of political correctness. She even wrote a book 10 years ago, I think even more, called "Against Love" claiming that first, it was, you can make love, have sex just in marriage and so on further, or to procreate, and then now the last limit is love, and her idea of liberation of sex is [inaudible 00:06:39] love, which are other tendencies today. For example, I always considered it irrational and suspicious ideologically, this advocacy of polyamory. No, love should be just binary with one person. It should be more open and so on and so on.
So what is going on here? I think that, now I will be very brutal and not to talk too long, jump to a conclusion. I think that what this recent trend of attacking love, which is for me another aspect of what I find critical in predominant form of political correctness, is that a short remark to conclude, I think, they are simply acting as if Freud in Psychoanalysis don't exist.
As Alain already mentioned, most of them act as if love is in itself, or sex, a harmonious positive power then something bad oppresses it. It can patriarchy, social repression, and so on and so on. But I think if there is a lesson to be learned from Freud, it is precisely that love is in itself twisted, perverted, as Freud demonstrated. We don't just have a repression of desire. We always then get an additional twist where repression of desire turns around into desire for repression. You start to enjoy act of repression itself.
Or, for example the role of fantasy. I recently read the report -- I always use this story, I'm sorry -- of a tech of a scene when they were shooting a hardcore pornographic movie where something absolutely ridiculous happened. The guy who was doing it, penetrating the woman, stand back and said, "Sorry, I'm losing erection. Can somebody pass me my iPhone so that I will look at a forum how to quickly get excited again."
Now, this is madness. He have there the real woman. He needed virtual space fantasy to get excited. I think this is not a pathology. I think this is in the immanent structure of love. And this then opens all other problems. For example, I'm radically feminist. But because of this reason, I don't think that we can simply accept the hypothesis that which is hidden in this "yes means yes". The hypothesis that we are subjects who know what we want. Because we may know what we want but we don't know what we desire. And I think that this simplistic formula of each of the sexual partners has to be free to desire...Sorry. To formulate what he wants and so on and so on, is not enough. Someone must [inaudible 00:10:16] effect love life. What if I want to be in a certain codified [?] way and so on, of course, oppressed.
This mess is immanent to sexuality. You can make it better and so on but there always is this ambiguity. This does not mean that no doesn't always mean no from a woman to man. I'm not into these vulgarities, "She really wanted it." No. I think it's even much more feminist point that I wanted to make, that yes can be a more subtle no in force and so on and so on. It's just that there is a sphere of ambiguity. My god, we are really divided subjects.
So, I think that the first truly revolutionary act is to fully admit this gap, in Christian terms between agape and eros. Eros is a big, destructive mess. There is no way to liberate it in the sense of you erase oppression and so on and we would be happily enjoying our love life. Permissivity is happening today. The result is exploding frigidity and impotence. I think that what is emerging as ideal form of sexual act today is sadomasochist contract. Everything has to be written down with all specificities and so on and so on. That's where we are losing [inaudible 00:12:00] .
Thanks.
[00:12:01]
omg thank u so so much for your work. english is not my first language so there is moment when i could not understand a couple things and lost the general idea. it’s very useful, thanks !
Just to help with the words you found inaudible:
At 6:39 he says - drop love
At 10:16 he doesn't say someone, he says - sado-masochism is [an] effect of love life.
At the end I think he says that's where we are losing people.
Thank you so much!
You are literally doing gods work, I hope he saved a spot in heaven for u
thank you so much! this transcript will help me to translate this video to Hebrew
'now comes my madness....'
Subtitles: italian (automatically generated)
So basically we do not know what we desire (im guessing because it is unconscious), and the form of understanding love or "true love", as an all positive force with only virtues, which undermines the discoveries of psycoanalisis, is the actual form in wich is rejected (because any form of love wich does not adjust to this ideal definition is said corrupt) or comodified (is used simply by its material factor detached from the subjectivity), and these are the reasons it's desapearing.
Love/eros disrupts, it is not an agreement nor a selfish act. It's ambiguous. You supposedly can't erase one aspect to make it ideal (political correctness), nor exterminate the subjectivity in a mere sexual act (pornography). *sniff*
The s n i f f sold it 😔👌
Am I the only one who had to watch zizek videos 3 times at least to understand all the nuance
❤ I am truly in love with this perspective
Wow, in a debate with Peterson he mentioned love being a catastrophe, to which Peterson replied “that’s why Cupid has arrows”. Now he actually used that, which is quite remarkable. :)
I think zizek (whom I love and defend) is scrappy and doesn’t filter his sources but uses these points regardless of who they are from
@@trevorthompson9887 While I agree that you are probably right in general in this case the source is not Peterson! It is ancient greek mythology!
Lol I think they should've been more honest & given cupid a club....
@@samuele5931Cupid is classical not Greek
@@MysteriumFX reading from Wikipedia Cupid is the Latin name of Eros from Greek mythology. But I have not a classical degree and I am using Wikipedia so I could be wrong.
thank you
Žižek ⭐
if there's one thing we've learned, it's that people can't handle love. when all is over and nothing remains but wasteland, you'll still have people trying to suffocate Eros.
There are people that can't handle love, but I'm more interested in the complexity here.
Who are they, how many, and why?
@@captainvonkleist8323 I guess we could look at the historical suppressions of sexuality, because that's really what we're talking about here. Who are the people we deny sexuality to in our culture? That's the better question, because most everyone here is in the group of people who "can't handle love".
@@wayneteacher That doesn't answer my question. You're the one contending that people can't handle love. Why is that? Is it something about our current circumstances, or is it something inherent about love itself?
Or, do you deny the existence of a way to differentiate between love and sex, as you seem to be implying? Because, I don't think that position is maintainable.
What I'm getting at is there are ways to figure out at least how the biochemical side of human emotion works, and I'd like to have some empirical grounding so I can make a good guess at what people are actually experiencing, how they're behaving, and where the contradictions with society occur with these experiences and behaviors.
I'm really not getting anything like that from you or Slavoj. What I hear is some vague, poorly grounded philosophical nonsense that provides absolutely no real world application.
@@captainvonkleist8323 I'm contending that from a position of power, we probably can't see the "other" to whom we, the people are denying love.
As for "love" and "sex", it is our culture that has taken the great power of Eros and ripped his wings of love from his back, dooming him to work in low budget pornography.
As for a real world application? I just wish people would really start to think deep about love and quit making it a romantic valentines day card.
Real world application:
1. Return love to it's rightful name as Eros-Love.
2. Have the intellectual honesty to see the "Other" to whom we are saying 'No, you are not human enough to be allowed to Love."
@@wayneteacher You're really not responding to me at this point. This is the philosophical nonsense I was talking about. I don't see how you can make such broad statements around a topic as complex as the intersection of love and modern human society and possibly think they carry much weight.
I think you have methodological problems both with how you form and express your opinion on these matters.
slavoj the goat
Zizek and so on and so on.
This of course taken from th-cam.com/video/LtWq26Ag7DI/w-d-xo.html which helps make sense of the names Slavoj mentioned.
I wish every one could have the love they need to know how lovable they are.
You are not unlovable! even in a universe where we have sausages for fingers, we get really good at using our feet!
Unfortunately you have it backwards, you have to know why you're lovable in order to have a healthy loving relationship.
@@whywhywhy9659 you would need love to come to 'know' that... (if that were even true) so you might want to rethink that idea a bit?
@@christianrokicki No. You need to have a solid sense for self identity not based upon another person's views of who or what you are in order to have a truly balanced and healthy relationship. Its a cliche but you do need to "love" yourself first.
@@whywhywhy9659 And did you come upon this "idear" all by yourself?
I gush!
Wow!!!
love own first t sight
Unrequited live us the highest
What do you mean? :o
is it night? and you are restless?
This is so owl of Minerva
Wittgenstein also had fine analytics about Wortspiele used in verbal communication.
Me tinks this Zizek uses this observation as one if his fundamental pillar's.
Sorry I don't chave time now to develop this further ~
Is it accidental that this guy always appears in video of flying saucer quality?
Yeah
“You betray the one you love”
It's always "Agape and Eros".
What about Storage and Phileo?
The sound at the beginning 😂
Personally, I don't feel there's any emotion that can't be handled with patience, self awareness and understanding.
I think there are situations in which love works, and they're worth replicating when appropriate.
Also, I think this dichotomy between interpersonal love and social love isn't so unresolvable.
My read on the durability of religious institutions is that they resolve this tension, however imperfectly.
With the decline of the role of religion in these matters, a void needs to be filled, and I appreciate the discussion, but I don't think Zizek's philosophy is up to the task. I think his is one of those answers that's easy to conceive, but very painful to actually carry out. I don't think he's being honest about the costs, and who they're born by.
I think that by working more gracefully with the humanity presented to us we can find better accommodation for love.
I like this response a lot.
I'm honestly COnFuSed by everything....
Zizek is absolutely honest about how painful his program would be!
He thinks that that is the only way out of the current global crisis.
@@TheYopogo I think Zizek may be correct that his stance, when enacted as social policy, produces revolutionary environments.
What I disagree with Zizek about is what form that revolution may take.
If Zizek is at the vanguard of some social movement with this attitude, then it's a conservative revolution.
First, because his attitude towards love is inherently conservative. There's not much difference between him and a Malthusian.
Second, because his attitude is the status quo among wealthy liberals, and is the attitude that backs current governing social policy. In other words, he represents the status quo, which means he's conservative.
These kinds of conservative attitudes towards love are confused for being progressive because it happens to be popular among highly educated people, and is coherent with current social trends (which are neoliberal).
My opinion is it's these issues that are the biggest obstacle to working class solidarity. Elite circles in this society have a bias towards wealthy males, and dependent females, as opposed to working class households which have always been more egalitarian. Though, I'd argue that current marriage relationships for working class couples look suspiciously like it's the male that's being treated as property. Which is to say, it's inegalitarian, just in the opposite direction as to what's hypothesized in elite circles.
My opinion of neoliberal social policy in this area is that working class men's relationships have been completely poisoned.
Ever rising cost of responsibilities (healthcare, education, housing) and stagnant wages are the economic indicators behind Zizek's attitude. I don't favor that economic status quo, and I don't favor Zizek's attitude that excuses the social status quo.
Elite confusion about the relationship between sex and class is rife within Feminism, and elite discussion on the topic. It's also completely poisoning social policy.
I just don't think you're going to get anywhere with your left wing revolution until you learn enough about human nature to come up with better ideas. Zizek does not represent positive change, in my view. He also doesn't represent an especially well informed opinion on the topic. Which is unfortunate from someone with his background.
I find this fascinating as someone who essentially has love, sexuality, and romance, entirely separated from each other in my life
I am unsure about the betrayal part. I must say that the possibility in itself of a betrayal is a sign of love.
If everything is possible, nothing is actually possible. Is society attacking Love by make it more open?
can someone explain what hes saying
Zizek is a feminist, he calls himself "radically feminist". I want to think of him as a Marxist feminist, as opposed to a liberal or radical feminist. A person can be radical without being a radical feminist. He seems to be the type that is supportive of sex work, insofar as he doesn't critique porn like a radical feminist or Christian conservative, and some Marxists are very anti-porn and anti-prostitution.
Pretty much
wouldn't he be more of a Lacanian feminist? I think he would critique porn, but maybe I'm wrong on that.
"marxists" who are swerfs tend to also be tankies, or retarded in some similar manner, to be fair
LOVE IS NOT SEX.....
🌍
Does anyone know the title songs name in the beginning?
Свиридов - Время, вперед!
I would die for subtitles to this, can't understand almost anything
Lol yes is kind of overwhelming
TLDR: feminist commodification of emotional labor has killed the possibility for love.
@@Cyberphunkisms how was any of the commodification he mentioned feminist?
@@GMAH111 feminism has normalized "it is too much emotional labor to educate you" and along with the American psychological association, has normalized also "cut off culture" and neoliberal therapy culture. Check out my work attacking the neoliberal left, and critiquing feminism!
@@Cyberphunkisms Well, while I agree that at least Twitter Feminism is bad about the emotional labor thing, I can't at all tie this into what Zizek was talking about anywhere in this video
I'm afraid I didn't understand.
😄 😄
I wanna talk to him in person
Slavoj please can i my internt is slow i cant even downloald anawy files that a i need for my work
(not quote) "all fun makers of Zizek will be LEE-QWEE-DATED when the revolution comes!"
What do you mean exactly?
VEN DEE RDEVALOOSHN COMSH
The vulgar: No means yes, and yes means anal. The philosophical: The horizon of romantic love is now a normative foundation of moral legitimacy. This joins merit, equality before the law, individual subjectivity and material progress. The contemporary reality: Love is somewhere between a neurological response of brain chemicals and the latest addition to the pantheon of fetishized activities; love is a kink.
Zizek is a great of the greatest of the most beloved made of love bla bla bla people who make a piece of love from a fairy tales.
And so on and so on
"I'm sorry if it comes off this way AND i do it on purpose" Typical Slavoj opener
3:18 how do you just say that with no context
Is not polyamory a complicated fantasy about non-ownership?
🤔
If monogamy is ownership than it would suck hardcore.
Even from a poly standpoint this anti-poly comment is kind of bashing monogomy worse than it actually is.
If your relationship is based on any of that fantasiesed attraction shit instead of true caring admiration based on the will to connect again and again your love sucks whether your're poly, monogamous or whatever.
The victory march of monogamy began 6000- 10000 years ago with the onset of agricultural civilisation and property.
Mankind is much older than civilisation and recorded history.
The assumtion that monogamy is not natural is as stupid as the idea that polyamory is not natural.
@Vicky Zabaras .. and by we you mean the taliban.
@Vicky Zabaras so you are not religious? Just full of hate against sex, people who engage in consensual relationships and personal freedom 🤔😅
Commitment to a single person, not ownership
And good ol Slavoj has been married since 2013 lol
I think Zizek understands the concept of love more than anyone else in the world. Soviet society was basically emulating a lot of Christian behaviors such as sharing and communal love and so on and so on. But this emulation was shit. It broke down over time. Meanwhile, in America. Our concept of love is so weird!! It includes hate and passion and anxiety and fear. This is all considered love in America!
don't forget that "love" is performed through consumption; dating at expensive restaurants, gifts like chocolate and roses and jewelry, then the diamond engagement ring, wedding, honeymoon.
@P And then you have islam where fear of hellfire is love
@@greyngreyer5nah not really. In Islam the truest love is doing things for the sake of the love/ the loved, not because of fear of hellfire or for the reward of heaven.
In short= doing smth to make your subject of love happy, for the sake of making them happy, or for the sake of the feeling of happiness making your partner happy. Kinda like simping but in a way that your partner also simp back at you? Its a bit weird but also cool.
@@comradeblin256 Totally. That's why you threaten a kid and his single mother in Britain, for dropping a book you find holy. Every time a muslim speaks I hear farting noises. Your words amount to shit.
@@greyngreyer5 then i shall fart even more to make you close your eyes, ears, mind, and soul. **sound of fart intensifies**
Isn't this the antioedipus? Desiring our own repression, postponing desire
:)
Bog neka te blagoslovi, Slavko!
God bless you!
(I believe in this case this is not offending for a communist as He knows I'm talking from my own mind.)
It's a pity that such good content is only provided in the form of a recorded stream. It would be nice to have access to this with better quality. But thank you for sharing anyways.
I really do not know if Zizek is a genuine genius or a polemicist for polemic's sake only. But then I was born confused already. (No malicious innuendo or 'clever' wit intended on my part).
I'm confused about everything 🤡
He is 100% absolutely not a polemicist.
He is a serious philosopher, with a very specific, coherent, creatively constructed position.
You only have to read his philosophical books to see he is the furthest thing possible from a polemicist.
@@TheYopogo Hi, thanks for the message! :) As I wrote above, no malicious innuendo was intended. Yes, I am reading 2 of his books, and I am very encouraged by them, though sometimes I have to read the same sentence 5 or 6 times and research in philosophical dictionaries what he means (which makes me a lot of god and gives me pleasure). I like very much his tendency to start a text denying this or that concept or idea and end it approving of it, deliciously Socratic. I am reading 'First as Tragedy, Then as Farce' and 'In Defense of Lost Causes'. Because I am very curious I am also reading Ian Parker's critical introduction to him. I am a bit old but always learning. Thanks again. :)
@@catalogueofwonders Very good books, well worth reading, but they aren't what I mean.
Zizek writes both polemical/political-commentary books and philosophical/academic books.
The two you mentioned are both in the polemical, political commentary category.
Both very good books, but I can see why you might get the impression that he's a polemicist for polemic's sake.
Unless you're interested in full blown academic philosophy there's really no need to read his academic texts, but if you really want the full meal of his philosophy then the books to go for are "the sublime object of ideology" and "less than nothing".
@@TheYopogo Prefer 'Less than Zero'. You started by saying that he wasn't polemicist 100% and now............ Ok, no need to respond. I need not to be convinced about him or whatever. :)
Sexuality is already liberated, and it's not changed a single thing about people's ostensibly "pure" behavior towards "the opposite sex".
Lmao
Error - ruins the community- yes, totally agree and understandable ~~~ but betrayal is the way (?) 🤔 Can someone elaborate this idea ? Thanks 🙏🏽 ~~
I think he's saying that - pretending to betray your loved one is part of love itself. It's all a game of pretence and self deception.
@@boxofcans461 pretending to betray ? 🤔 Often I was told “don’t test your loved ones!”
@@2park_ it doesn't apply to all situations. But I'm sure you have heard of people wanting their partners to be jealous, so they pretend to love someone else.
@@boxofcans461 But what do they get out from it? A test of persistence? Commitment?
@@yasin7118 because people get bored of peace. They love drama.
Love Slavoj! Despite all the good points he makes, it’s so funny how a communist filosopher can rant about such everyday subjects 😂 someone should definately make a comedy sketch based on him
there are quite a few socialist & communists philosophers. If you go out of your way to check them out you will probably find they are able to make more sense of the world than the mediocre mainstream idealist ones. Especially as the conditions our global capitalist society continues to deteriorate, as they are uniquely equipped to see the problems that true believers are unable to.
None of them are as entertaining and lovable as Zizek though.
So..: you need (desperately) read Marx
Jreg sort of did
I think........love is .....EQ
Dont worry, friends, we get to know love when our dying brains are tripping out. Just dont come back from that and try to live here with that understanding.... but that is just my experience. God isn't humanoid.
Ok im totally new down the philosophy rabbit hole and im here from tiktok. I am 27, gay male, I like people and I am constantly in thought. I stood away from philosophy because I’m prone to influences and being very sad when I uncover others’ “personal thruths” and theories in academia. ANYWAYS, I see many of you bringing up polyamory, world love vs monogamy, ownership and what not. My advice to you is: go make gay friends and meet LGBTQ people and their stories. You can’t talk about intersectional love or the way humans work between Eros and Agaphe with just a limited starting christian traditional or “hippy” college exploration fundation. And when I mean LGBTQs I dont mean the usual ones, but your mirrored itellectual level inside the community. U might discover wonders, I for one definitely have. Cheers!
to love is to gaurd one's solitude
Absolut right,but the Reality is against Love.The singulary Woman is still mostly just a Durchgangsstation.
Unfortunately i can't type so many words and would love to talk with Zizek about this topic... Specially that English language is not his mother tongue so he can't express properly...
Let me try to explain that porn video shooting example, you can't fake sexual act, but actors can't fall in love with their partners just because they want to earn money by filming sexual acts. So what can actor do to avoid pointless personal attachments, only way he can act is if he imagine himself being a love machine. It's his personal mental space he must arouse somehow, not establish relation with actress, so he must find some sort of external stimulant.
What happened in last decades is that strange war against terrorism that turned people into police officers. You can't feel normal emotions and police your partner at the same time, it just doesn't work that way and it never will. So talking about sadomasochistic perversion is the way Žižek think, not how things really are. And it's nothing new, those phenomena were distinct for nazi Germany era, when military police madness was trying to establish new kind of society and breed population that could kill, torture and have sex at same time. So they don't get extinct, of course.
Yeah, and yet, you, and everyone else, is doing that. Just not like the nasis did it. And so Žižek is right.
@@CynicalBastard I don't. Do you?
@@xspotbox4400 Everyone polices themselves. Sometimes for the sake of social order. Sometimes for the sake of "love". Sometimes people mistake policing others for policing themselves, when they ought to be policing themselves. Sometimes people mistake policing themselves for policing society, when society is policing itself. People wane from normal to abnormal emotions, and police them, then wax back to normal emotions, when they should ought to consider someone else's emotions, vis., what is "love", and sometimes for what is the sake of social order. Sometimes people wax and wane from abnormal positions, policing social order, to normal ones, which are emotionally policed by others [in trauma, inadequacy, et al.].
Etc.
It just goes round and round. People either need to admit that things are not as simple for every other person, or ebb away- resigned from social critique- and just let the chips fall where they may. And no one is going to do either of those things, cause people are egocentric.
@@CynicalBastard That's an interesting perspective, are morals only about policing ethics and desires or did we got it all wrong and we basically torture ourselves, by accommodating to something a single individual can't possibly understand. Sounds like that old joke to me about what do you prefer, to eat, drink, sleep and everything else all humans need and must the same, or experience own life potential to it's limits, regardless of consequences. People forget about who they were when they get older, so they figure it must be because they got wiser over time, but might not be so simple. And civilization is not build for a single person, of course, this is why we need traditions, culture, social rules and standards. But does this mean we must respect authority no matter what, even when those people turn totally evil and corrupt, well, this is where mental policing must have met it's limits than. It would be another way of saying, civilization must be maintained for reproduction of species, at all cost, rendering entire purpose of humanity completely useless. Animals could do that just as well. It would be strange to think, to grow up is to became an animal again, absorbing society and behavioral conditioning as a part of natural environments. Just like our pets does. When it come to physical sensation of love, getting older eliminates many of big problems, thing turn to spiritual dimension of lovingness pretty much on their own. It's like a curse, when people finally realize why it's so important to develop sense of love in a quality way, nothing can bring back youth and perfect health, so this task became a natural impossibility. Than it's like, i don't know what that loving feeling is, but i can write a book about it.
Most surprising fact to me was realization that abomination is a real phenomena. I thought it's just some religious concept, involving disgust about general differences among people and hysteric delirium, but now i believe it's much more than that. Perhaps religious interpretations are wrong and flawed in their observations, like most often are, but modern technology makes many phenomena possible and can worsen human condition beyond recognition. It's not even a medical category, experts think psychosis is always induced by living conditions or physical illness, nobody thought a person can mutilate himself deliberately, using forbidden and secret advanced technologies to destroy everything human inside. Neuralink, mass scale war against terrorism program and such are just one example, other countries have similar programs, only they don't talk about it and hide their abominations. But this is not a subject of this video, i mentioned it only because it's generally related and incredibly interesting topics, never debated before in entire history of philosophy or science.
I grew up listening to youth group sermons and reading Christian books about love, not reading "Eros and Civilization" or Camus. I guess this is irrelevant because he is talking about Freud and pop culture (was Marcuse not talking about Freud)? It's still outside of my comfort zone. The more simplistic wholesale rejection of Christian morality or any secular set of virtues that might replace it, is not.
I need subtitles so I can destroy stupid arguments here
He is lonely... all you need is love.
He really is lonely. One can only despise love if they don’t experience it.
@@TheHexbugfan he is defending love.
He is happily married and he very much believes in love, he's just defending his vision of love
u dont get it do u
*grabs t- shirt*
appology accepted, and i stopped there. Love is a type of Light. You see it mostly in young babies and flowers.
Didn't understand. Please someone in layman terms.
SPOILERS!!!
Love is misunderstanding between two fools
in love the two fools cease to exist
@@heartache5742 In their own eyes.
@@CynicalBastard you mean heads? because it's a substantial shift in thinking
Why Zizek do not talk about incels. They are above your love and your artificial catherogories. You talk about previous century.
zizek is coming dangerously close to rationalizing some very harmful attitudes towards sex
People are already doing that.
@@CynicalBastard yes, and zizek is coming close to being one of those people
And what would those attitudes you deem so harmful be?
@@befuddledb that sex is essentially about domination and submission, that it's all about taking and giving power, that it can't be a cooperative act among equals, that sex shouldn't be planned, and worst of all, that consent needn't be explicit
@@Synerco Well, people tend to be confusing the idea of sex for what amounts to the concept of the relationships concerning power and dynamics, and visa versa. Enmeshing together sexuality, intimacy, romance, and physicality. Romantically sex shouldn't be planned. Eroticism doesn't work that way. But yet the social standard is to enmesh and combine romanticism, eroticism, and the ability to "act as equals", which is...totally unrealistic.
okay i kind of hate this video now that i know a little about philosophy
borrowing terms from deleuze, whom zizek really failed to argue against
1. the false subjectivization he brings up occurs precisely because the revelation of a true "otherwise-other" would shatter the illusion of there being an object to masturbate to
2. polyamory actually kind of works even in my experience (i have trouble even with one person haha), because an otherwise-other brings a "world" (if i should call it that - i mean their feel and context, the multiplicity that is not confined to their body but directed outward) with them which you rhizomatically connect with yours
nothing really prevents that from occurring when there is more than one person because one person is already a multiplicity
3. zizek really misses the mark when he brings up "but freud"
you can follow baudrillard and deleuze into this pretty easily
the emancipatory potential of love is precisely in that it shatters the lacanian paradigm we find ourselves in
and so we have a simulacrum of love that coexists with identity which is constructed via objet petit a
it is trapped, it never quite reaches its potential, just as (well not exactly but it's a nice parallel) the deterritorialization of society in capitalism never explodes into freedom
4. they are in a way right when they say that love is corrupted
you have to dig it out
love is not "evil" as zizek's copout may suggest, because what even is evil
love must be liberated precisely from the oedipal
the way fetishes die in love is not a freudian repression, it is a forgetting, a moving on
the romantic fantasy is not the same as the sexual fantasy
you introduce the sexual fantasy into a romantic fantasy (even if the romantic fantasy already involves screwing - i call it that to differentiate it from sex and also because screwing is my favourite word) and the romantic fantasy dies, you're back to the oedipal paradigm. the challenge of romancing is to prevent the crash back down
it's a very gentle thing but when it's simple it's great
when love reaches the plateau stage, the fantasy exists to provide more small events for entertainment
5. the porn guy never really had the real woman in front of him
i mean there was technically a possibility to seize the body in a passionate gesture or whatever but nothing became of it (maybe because they're at work making regular hardcore pornography for money)
these are my complaints
maybe i'm just trying to convince him to experience female sexuality, i don't know
hard agree, great point about a single subject being a multiplicity. "but freud" argument felt way too thin to support a complete dismissal of polyamory. after all, why should eros be immanently singular and exclusive?
@@rinlopez7778 the exclusivity of eros that zizek likes to speak about, the single-ness of it is actually kind of a fascizing element
the exclusion of all the beloved is not threatens to exclude some very important parts of the beloved that may be deemed "external" to them (their family life or the music they like or whatever)
when that happens you get direct conflict and violence in a relationship
even zizek himself came close to this realisation in his writeup "with or without passion" by invoking an analysis of love when talking about fundamentalism
in this way zizek's idea of eros is a reactionary one, and i wish his response wasn't just a "self-aware" giggle
(that makes me a bit sad, those passages in "with or without passion" are really nicely written)
really zizek is missing some directness and sincerity in crucial areas, which is what really makes his thought fall apart in my opinion, he seemingly hasn't examined the ironic distancing he himself employs when he talks about exchanging insults with his non-white friends for fun or being a conservative old romantic or showing interviewers his picture of stalin in his apartment
he is seemingly against disassembling these rituals even though they're harmful
(hint, both of my examples are tied to reactionary masculinity)
maybe he would call me a cultural imperialist for this sentiment as i'm literally advocating for abandoning social customs
Like Joyce, Zizek is intimidated by Deleuze, and so he meets that intimidation with impotent, half-hearted critiques. Deleuze is fürther ahead than any theorist. What other thinker speaks honestly about "the people to come"? Look at how the man functions in the world: there are clearly some desiring-machines there that need some repair and refurbishing.
@@heartache5742 Žižek points out people's hypocrisies finely. Deleuze talks as if people WILL ACTUALLY DO THE THINGS HE SAYS THEY PROBABLY SHOULD.
@@lukehall8151 His 'needs' need to be refurbished? Holy hell...for someone repping Deleuze, you sure are being the armchair psychologist trying to undermine the schizoanalysis of his problematic tendencies, and trying to tie him to the Oedipus complex of social regulation.
I disagree with a lot of what he says even though I am personally monogamous. There are couples who would never ever be able to enjoy sexual pleasure unless they were on polyamorous relationships, this is just one instance where the arrangement makes sense. However, the distinction he makes between what we want and what we desire is spot on and very beautifully put! He knows his words.
Sex is not Love.
🌎 .
I only clicked because I thought this would be a parody. In a way it was.
why so?
I had been watching a bunch of parodies and impersonations and i thought the title was unusual for Zizek. But then it really was Zizek and the guy has more ticks than a grandfather clock. He's hard to watch with all the shifting and tugging and so on.
Don't have sex with someone you love.
Sex is boring with almost everyone. I remember gettimg good at it to get it over with. So I could have a conversation. I can't believe I had to sell my body to actually converse. It is all a disgusting mess here in 3D.
Are you men or women
It's not love that he is talking about. Love is not material. Love is beyond definition even if you accept it or not. Build carracter as a human being. understand what love is. Forgot your own fantasies. Sexuality is something to cultivate. The whole chakra system is based on this. But for you my contempoty dwellers I say that you must have patience to understand everything. btw telepathy works, if you are without a inner conflict.
From a philosophical standpoint, this is gibberish.
wide vocabulary, but accent huhu srry
Zyzek what you talk about? maybe you are left but not leftist and definitely not commie. You are troll. But good hearted one.
I know you're being sincere and so on, but zizek, this really isn't your subject. sincerely, a woman your age.
Yeah, he’s in over his head.
Oh look, a nobody who thinks that they know everything about love. Cry me a river.
Yeah Zizek is out of his depth here, starting with the formulation of his premiss that things like polyamory are an aggression on the concept of love, which only works because he has an inherently romanticised concept of love, up to failing to realise that a performer in a porn movie might simply not be turned on by the person that they are shooting with and then falsely gleaning some imagined insight from it. Pretty rare to see twelve and a half minutes of continuously shit takes from Zizek, but here we are.
Is it wrong to have a romanticized conception of love ?
@@omnirath Nothing wrong with that no, but it's still a bad foundation for the argument Zizek puts forward.