i was often told that and now tell it to others lol. its kinda like in a Woody Allen movie (don't care for him personally) where his characters therapist or whatever tells him "no, you don't love me, you love the idea of me". and i think that's what happens to alot of us, basically, at least in regards to crushes and infatuations
@@professorbaxtercarelessdre1075 That' the point though. To fall in love with an image of virtue you can observe in the person you are in love with. Of course the person him/herself is not perfect, no one is, but he/she acts as a way for you to comprehend and ultimatelly desire virtue and beauty.
@@agapanthiacardui5977 i don't get it, i'm really slow and have trouble grasping things, hate to blame it on my autism again but that's usually the reason i think. i want to understand what you're saying but i just can't wrap my head around it lol
The most harmful idea is that belief that everyone has one person destined for them, and all you need in life is to find that one person, and after that everything will be ideal: marriage will automatically be happy, children will automatically be brilliant etc. And that you should give up all your goals and plans if that is the only way to be with that one person.
Giving up on one goals also quite often ends up eventually boiling into resentment and vilification for the partner be it justified or not. Thus leading to the relationship to break down and lead to the person who sacrificed their dreams to feel a great deal of regret.
+Alicia en el pais de las maravillas Try reading some Ayn Rand it is pretty much what she advocates, for an rationalised kind of selfishness of putting oneself first above others and doing something because you want to rather than what society wants and how selflessness can be quite damaging. Even though I know there will be plenty you will have disagreements with it just that objectiveism does set out interesting arguments about this that are worthwhile to think about.. .
And who says that? I mean, I could some and wanted to be with that person the rest of my life and viceversa (biceversa? Idk) But that doesn't mean that we both can have goal and dreams that we want to acomplish and that we have to give them up.
Frank Dueñas The point is more so that many people give up their dreams for love. Some lovers are attached to specific geography zones for instance and will refuse to move, if your dream is to live another country for instance or your partner does not want you to get that promotion because it would mean less time with them, even if that promotion is your dream job. Yes this is not true for every case but the point is that this stuff happens It is important to not to forget that you exist and you have your own desires dreams and feeling and in situations like that it is best to question whether or not that relationship you are in is worth it for you. This is the issue about practicalities, there is only a certain amount of sacrifice you should be able to tolerate. Personally I have encountered this a lot with past lovers with things like that because I have a very specific dream in mind that I do not want to give up. Many people did not want to give up the contact time or would be unable to move with me as I need to in order to forward my career or want to travel the world and stuff. So even when I felt great love for these people I knew that it would twist if I did give such things up.
+ecos889 Well you are doing good not giving up your dreams. In life you are supposed to end up with a person that will be walking in your same path and where both are happy. That is why is true that love isn't all you need. You also need to know if both really know each other, If your personalities are compatible, If both were raised with similar values (not necesarily the same) among other things. Although It doesn't mean that you Have to acomplish all of your dreams before getting married or anything like that. A lot of couples acomplish their dreams after settling up.
Romanticism ruined love by burying us under a set of clichés and scripts that make situations that should be personal feel like the shooting of a budget tv show featuring bad actors
@BOB I agree. It's very sad that even allegedly philosophically inclined channels like The School of Life present romanticism as a set of stereotypes. Romanticism is the breaking of stereotypes, being free and genuine to yourself, to your own age, to not follow norms, to not be dependent on others' expectations. Unfortunately, contemporary people cannot acknowledge its transformational nature and just see it as something of the past, as a soap-opera thing. That's not romanticism. It's the market's appropriation of it.
Communication, commitment, and sharing the same values. That's what my parents have told me is important. People change as they grow, and there will be periods of time in a marriage when you may grow apart and times when you grow back together - no matter how much you click or are meant to be together. My parents also emphasize the temporality of feelings. You can't expect happiness and infatuation forever just because you married someone, that's just not how emotions work. Feelings come and go. You could have the best life and still have moments of unhappiness, or a difficult one with moments of happiness. Feelings are just feelings after all. Above all my parents have stressed to me that love is a choice. I'm going to repeat that because I think this is so important. Love is a choice. A successful marriage comes from two people waking up every day and choosing to love the other person. Some days that's easier to do than others, but it's such a freeing thought. A marriage that relies on a foundation of feelings (which are so fickle) would be incredibly unstable. Feelings are probably the worst material for a foundation of a relationship. And I think that's where people mess up, they end things when the feelings go away, not realizing that they'll go away with the next person too eventually, and also not realizing that the feelings will come back eventually as well.
I like your insight, but I would like to beg the question; What is the purpose of marriage without emotion? What is love without emotion, even? Perhaps I'm just a hopeless romantic, but the idea of being with someone I'm compatible with yet am not emotionally moved by really bothers me. If that's what a relationship is, then why be in one? I manage my life perfectly fine on my own, so if there's nothing I cannot do on my own then to what reason would I be in a relationship if not for a feeling? I hope some of that made sense. I don't mean to be vague if I was. Anyway, thank you for your time.
Romance is encourageable in marriage to enhance the relationship between the husband and wife. However, being overly romantic can blind our views of true love. Love is practical while romance is frivolous.
i certainly, for many years, thought i had to find someone i love more than me, which i never imagined would be hard, considering i never loved myself at all lol. now here i am trying to love myself first cause if i don't love me, who would?
I agree with you but sometimes this idea often gets mixed with ruthless pursuit of self interest. People who cheat are often the kind of people who believe that own happiness is more important than others.
Romanticism can breed idealism and inflated expectations which leads to disappointment when your reality doesn't match your rose colored ideal. It's great to have standards but keep one foot in reality and in the acceptance of imperfection.
People believe that a relationship with the "right" person won't be difficult or boring, but what it means by "right" is always vague. When people encounter difficulties, lulls, or unhappiness, they believe these are signs that their chosen partner is the "wrong" person and with the "right" person, these things will not be encountered at all or will simply work themselves out without too much effort or strain. Thus creating a pattern of serial monogamy, abandoning relationship after relationship once the euphoria of new love wears off.
Bono Music That wasn't meant to mean that you have to put up with everything a partner wants to do or you're obliged to try to "work it out". The anti-romanticism model of relationships says that practical considerations are significant, and asking a partner to change can be reasonable and necessary. If you have radically different feelings about monogamy and fidelity, that relationship isn't sustainable. I don't think wanting an open or polyamorous relationship is morally wrong, though I'm skeptical of the endurance of that type of relationship paradigm, but I think that people who don't want to be monogamous shouldn't have relationships with people who feel differently. Deception is always wrong.
Well...yes and labels are a little bit of a mental block too. Love requires rationalizing and feeling. We might fear that the other person we are trying to love might make us feel worse or tare us down a little if they are having a bad day and they tell us about our bad day ruining ours. So, remaining positive plus rationalizing plus feeling. Most of these actually apply in other types of relationship models as well. Since people have flaws, trying to understand love and give and receive can be tricky. The other person must also mutually understand the persons needs both financially and socially. It is unfortunately not always a good idea to be in a relationship were someone demands a lot from you almost like a hostage type of relationship saying they will leave if you do not give them something. We can make flaws along the way and then understand the areas the other person might not be strong in through practicing communication and looking for certain ques. Love really does require rationalizing and feeling for someone else where as we might feel torn down a little if they are having a bad day and they tell us about our bad day it will ruin ours. So remaining positive plus rationalizing plus feeling.
I've always like Erich Fromm´s idea :“Love is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise. If love were only a feeling, there would be no basis for the promise to love each other forever. A feeling comes and it may go. How can I judge that it will stay forever, when my act does not involve judgment and decision.”
For me, I think that people have a lack of courage anymore when it comes to love. They are obsessed with the idea of a "perfect person" or just being friends until you are ready (which truly, you will never be). People are afraid of committing, and procrastinate finding a partner in our time. Instead we need to remember no one is perfect and you will never really feel ready. Love in the end is a leap of faith and a lot of work.
Funny... this is my biggest complaint about relationships and dating... I call it "TV love"... I stopped believing in the romantic view of love in my 30s and even then was too late... It's high school mentality...
Hollywood Romanticism killed love not the concept itself. Not only did romantic movies create unrealistic expectations, but shows that depict men as idiots and women as sexual manipulators also have made love a lot harder. Probably because people go into their first relationships with these huge expectations, get hurt a few times, and then decide that all men or women are just like how they are portrayed on sitcoms.
Disney princess stories (the early ones especially) like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella make "love at first sight" and "happily ever after" seem like the normal when they almost impossible. I refuse to let my young daughter watch these movies until we are old enough to discuss why the "love" in these movies is unrealistic.
@@KyrieW Agreed. I try to teach my girls. There's no love at first sight. Men who claim they do, actaully it's "lust at first sight." Beware of those who want something quick and just for fun.
I believe no one can describe love better than the person who experienced it. That idealistic love is what it really was. Love can be everything. It's just that, as you grow old, your perception of it changes because you learn more of reality and you become more reasonable. Love that's too emotionally-dependent can be comforting but temporary, and it prevents seeing the realistic aspects of it. Love that is too practical can be realistic but obligatory and unsatisfying, neglecting the emotional aspects of it. I think the love that is balanced continually grows and lasts.
Romanticism as a mid-eighteenth century ideology and movement was not exclusively about love, but about inserting the dramatic and emotional style into different forms of art reminiscent of the roman epics, hence, ROMANticism. The term "Romantic" referring to love exclusively only came into use in the twentieth century. The ideas expressed in this video still holds, but the movement itself was about much more than defining the expectations of love.
My thoughts exactly. First Generation of Romantic Poets didn't even define the so-called boundaries of love, they simply introduced a simpler way of writing, aiming to appeal to the common people.
I do not recognize my decades long studies of Romanticism in the video. The Romantic Movement of 1750 did not have such goals in mind nor in any recollection can I hear any of those great Romantic figures saying such things.
The word romantic was actually a term of reproof used by the educated clergy in the Middle Ages for the common people of present-day Spain, France and Italy for speaking mutilated Latin. The word was revived in the 19th century because of the aesthetic fascination with the medieval folk culture.
Yes, I often think about it too and it can help show differences between a emotional highs and lows through drama. Unfortunately, drama is not a realistic life setting and life is not that organized as well. Things happen and love requires rationalizing and feeling. We might fear that the other person we are trying to love might make us feel worse or tare us down a little if they are having a bad day and they tell us about our bad day ruining ours. So, remaining positive plus rationalizing plus feeling. Most of these actually apply in other types of relationship models as well. Since people have flaws, trying to understand love and give and receive can be tricky. The other person must also mutually understand the persons needs both financially and socially. It is unfortunately not always a good idea to be in a relationship were someone demands a lot from you almost like a hostage type of relationship saying they will leave if you do not give them something. We can make flaws along the way and then understand the areas the other person might not be strong in through practicing communication and looking for certain ques. Love really does require rationalizing and feeling for someone else where as we might feel torn down a little if they are having a bad day and they tell us about our bad day it will ruin ours. So remaining positive plus rationalizing plus feeling.
Just a question- why haven't you (this narrator) narrated all audiobooks in the world, or at least the school of Life ones? You have such a huggable voice :)
Hello there! If you watch Alain's documentary " Status Anxiety" on youtube you can hear the voice for two and a half hours:-) I would subscribe to that channel too. He has excellent documentaries there. Have a nice evening!
Hello there! You were asking me how to find Alain de Botton's other youtube channel. You can go to my channel, on the right side there is a list of channels I love. There it is. If you live in the UK though, you may not be able to see the documentaries because of a copy right issue. In that case I highly recommend you to read his books. Especially " The Consolations of Philosophy".
This is why I think Romeo&Juliet is the perfect romantic lovestory: Romeo's 15, Juliet's 13 and everything about their story is the total opposite of a mature relationship.
@@canoftrash9452 I think he's 17 or 18 in the original Italian story but in Shakespeare's stage version he's 15 which makes more sense given the immaturity of his behavior.
growing up in my teenage years, i thought romanticism is what love is like, and should be. This is because of love stories, songs I constantly hear, and for a very long period of time, I was seeking for this "soul mate". As I grew older, and experienced more things, I have come to the conclusion that the love that romanticism promotes is just a religious belief. If you can make yourself believe it, and meet other compatible believers, good for you, but the chance is too slim.
I'm not sure about everyone else, but the way that you described how love and relationships work is the way that I've always thought about it. I always thought that each person would truly have to understand one another (flaws and all) to truly love each other and I always assumed that practicalities are what a lot of couples talk about. I'm also severely against the "love at first sight" notion. How can someone love somebody else by only knowing their face and nothing else? EDIT: I /like/ the idea of Romanticism, but it's impractical, impossible, and selfish.
Yeah. All the romances shown in films are pretty much impossible to get irl. It just makes you have an unhealthy opinion of relationships. A bit romance here and there in a relationship is certainly nothing bad in a relationship though.
I agree, though not entirely. my grandpa had a love at first sight experience and has been together with my grandma ever since. I think those kind of mysteries are what make life so great. :)
Luke Lemmon That's great! And I get that people might get that "feeling" at first sight, but it doesn't happen too often and I think popular media shouldn't make that their main focus.
PhedelCastro We probably wouldn't have the same morals and way of thinking, meaning in no way they are my perfect soulmate, so I would have no trouble saying no to them.
Now I want to see a romcom with these ideas. Person A should fall in love with person B "at first sight ". Person B should be practical person who believes in the ideas in this video but maybe disregards the merits of feeling in love, a bit much. Shenanigans ensues, and the two learn from each other. Whether or not they have end up together at the end, I'm not sure.
As an aromantic person coming to terms with my identity was a constant struggle due to constantly being bombarded with content centered around romantic love: ads,movies,books etc It always sounded fake and forced to me.
Hitee Bhardwaj I’m only aro but I totally feel you!! I can’t even begin to imagine how it must feel to be bombarded with sexual content on a daily basis...
@@nicolenicole6325 I hate that people force me to be like them. Like if I said I'm aroace i don't feel such pleasure in both. But then they cut me off-and said its just a phase you'll learn to be romantic, Likee brrruhhh... Wuut??? So you know me much more I know myself???
Asexuals dont believe sex and love go together. They don't feel romantically inclined or sexually aroused as easily as other ppl do. Some people nurture deep minds before sex vs. A casual sex fling.
Moaz Eldefrawy Well, I agree that married couples often have unrealistic expectations, and that they place too much emphasis on squishy "feelings", as opposed to relationships based on more practical considerations. Steve Camp, a contemporary Christian musician, expressed it well with a song, "Love's Not A Feeling". Love sometimes DOES involve feelings, of course. But what happens when the feelings go away? What happens when the passion has disappeared from a relationship where it once existed? When that happens, it often leads to divorce, which is extremely destructive in relation to children (all other things being equal). The part with which I disagree is the idea that sex can be a good thing even if it involves adultery, also known as an affair. Having a "lover on the side" may seem like a good idea to a liberal who takes his or her cues from relatively decadent European culture, but statistical analysis shows the destabilizing effects of adultery. Children need stability. They don't need or want secondary daddies or mommies. The only reason that we accept such things is that we've become inured --- also known as becoming "desensitized" to immorality.
Persian Badgal I wouldn't need to sacrifice my needs, just my convenience--because I am going to come back here. I want to make sure it is the best world it can be: One thousand years from now, somewhere else, there is someone who is exactly like you down to the atom. Is that person you? Also, consider that my baseline consciousness is very much like yours. And the baseline consciousness of a newborn baby is maybe the same as that of any other healthy newborn. Consciousness is what makes me me. Materialism is false: There cannot be an infinite series of conditioned realities. A conditioned reality is a reality which is dependent on other things (component parts) for its existence. A hydrogen atom is a conditioned reality, because protons and electrons must exist for hydrogen atoms to exist. Since matter cannot be infinitely small, and since an atom does not have an infinite number of component parts, there must be an ultimate bottom to the component layers--an unconditioned reality. Also, since each component layer is completely dependent on the layer beneath it there must be an unconditioned reality to give rise to the component layers for the same reason that an infinite series of zeros does not add up to one. I have no reason to believe this ultimate reality is merciful, loving, or angry. However, I believe that because of this unconditioned reality it may be possible for the patterns of our consciousness to be uploaded to this essence, this unconditioned reality, and replicated in other parts of the cosmos. Given an infinite set of possible scenarios this seems at least probable. Evidence for this possible process lies in the fact that particles may "pop into and out of existence." It is not logically coherent to say that particles ACTUALLY cease to exist then come back into existence. Many aspects of the universe are counterintuitive, but this does not mean the universe works in a way that is logically incoherent. Particles unform into the essence, then the essence re-forms them later. This debunks materialism, because the essence is not a material form of reality, since all material forms of reality are made of component parts. And since this essence actively sustains the cosmos, it is God.
@@thesecretiveone6313 in the case of marriage: to help your partner out and sometimes they will help you out. Teamwork makes the dream work. In the general case: sometimes sacrificing something will give more to someone else (or others) that it does for yourself. I think that's the aim of all good people: try to get a net positive impact on this shitty world riddled with suffering.
Yes in movies also the love is extremely romantic,😄 in czech movie of 80s husband comes home and wife gives him slap between the door, Why did you came so late?😄 What can be not romantic about it???? 😄 He just did some scams to gain money. Its comedy... They used to play couple in some movies. ....I somehow have problem to take modern movies seriously... The old movies were quite funny and natural..... In modern movies they take everything so seriously that its hard to watch it. but I real life quite nice marriage Abrham/Šafranková.
Don't believe in fate and ''the magic of true love''. You're not a Disney Princess. Also, don't be too greedy about how your partner should look or other superficial stuff. Instead look for good character. And be loyal. Very, very loyal. Share your life with them, every bit of it, and don't keep any secrets whatsoever. If both partners are looking for nice guys/girls, and do nice stuff to each other as well as others, love will happen and it will be forever.
+I dog you I'm glad you're totally wrong. Yes we fight, but ultimately we love each other too much. Whether you like it or not, this IS the best way. If you think your relationship failed, you can rest assured that you failed to do what I said. When there is a superficial thing that causes the attraction, it is rare that both simultaneously find something in each other enough to love, and you will surely lose interest in that "thing" just like you lost interest in that last iPhone or whatever.
Even in close relationships, everyone has secrets and keeps secrets. I don't mean that as in a "secret mistress or mister" or something as damaging or deceiving in a relationship. But its impossible to know what someone else is thinking or feeling at all times and is unnecessary. Everyone has thoughts or "things" they keep to themselves. I think its an unrealistic idea and expectation to share every bit of our inner life with one person, at least in my experience. It removes a sense of independence and can be quite oppressive. The expectation itself may be more damaging than anything else as well. I may have misunderstood your sentiment on that however, might just have meant open communication overall. Wholeheartedly agree about seeking something deeper than superficial based love though. Lust and love are not the same. But physical attraction/chemistry is very important and not something I could personally overlook either
And you don't have one "soulmate" or whatever. You have many possible "soulmates", and many people can become your match, who weren't fit for you before. You just try to find someone who is good enough for you, because there is not one perfect match. Just find a really good match, and stick with it. (But people can always change, so if you change into a terrible match, you might need to split up). But, you can always make things work, try to fix the relationship, but leave it if it just can't be fit.
vaguelyhuman How does sharing make you depend on someone or choosing to be loyal??? like really? Its all a choice. The above doesn't say: "rely on them to provide for you"
I like that there's room for a middle ground! A relationship can be practical for longevity and still go through different phases of romance for enjoyment. Of course communication is a top priority for me in a relationship, but I also want to read poetry together and stare into each other's eyes... "Post-romantic" seems to take the best of all that comes before it!
The biggest part that affected me and few other teenagers is "when a man loves you he will thinks you're the most beautiful girl in the world", applies vice versa, which is definetely aren't true, and some people that has insecurity will tend to overreact when the partner comments on other's beauty/even liking other's pretty pictures. and its not only because of our insecurities, it's also because we've been too much exposed to this idealistic kind of mindset and we believe thats how relationship supposed to be.
When a man loves you he will FEEL like you're the most beutiful girl in the world. He may see that other girl have 'better' nose or eyes but he won't love these nose and eyes.
I liked the video and I agree with the main idea behind it, but the title is a little misleading. Romanticism didn't ruin love. Romanticism is mostly an artistic and philosophical movement with emphasize on emotions. It can be a source of inspiration and learning. Romanticism didn't ruin love nor did it ruin the idea of romantic relationships. We do that, while failing to grasp that real "true love" is not a general premade concept that we all have to accept by default. It's anything but general. I always think of love between two people as a work in continuous progress - like a huge puzzle, that we never really finish, but with each piece, we get a better, more beautiful idea of it. The thing is, even though a lot of those puzzle pieces are the same for different people, most of them are personal and subjective and sometimes it's really hard to work with them and make them fit, but it can be done. I think romanticism can be one of those puzzle pieces. Human beings are not flat characters from books and movies. We are real and multidimensional; our relationships are also real and multidimensional. So why should we look at things as complex as love in such a simple way as Romantic Template vs Classical Template? There is no "template" that works for more than one relationship. Each relationship is different and has its own "template".
I find my views to align with what you're saying, Paula. I also like the comparison you made between a relationship and a puzzle. Different templates work for different people, and these templates are not found online or obtained from others. Rather, I feel these templates are found in oneself and in the journey of creating a relationship.
We need a kind of way of tempering romance with pragmatism and temper pragmatism with romance. Just romance is unrealistic expectations of your partner and life in general. Just pragmatism is psychologically unsatisfying and feeling trapped in an emotionally unfulfilling relationship. I think a couple needs both practical and emotional reasons to be with each other, and most lasting, loving couples do.
Am I the only one payed attention in history or art class in there? Romanticism was an artistic movement, quoting, "characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical." It has nothing to be with what you are talking about. There's a difference between ROMANTICSM and ROMANCE.
But they are still not the same. Romanticism involves all kind of stories, feelings and emotions, not just love. You can romantice life, death, victory, battles, violence, revolutions and much more. It's not about making things look pretty and sappy. It's about taking human life to different levels of beauty and perfection. Most of the time it has nothing to do with love or relationships. Pretending that there's no difference between both concepts makes the creator of this video sound like an ignorant.
As someone who was really keen on art classes with many of my favourite books from the romantic era, this bothered me. They certainly did not upheld the "Love conquers all" attitude towards love but rather passionately embraced all emotions, positive and negative.
I was a complete romantic. Until I met my current partner, then I found true love and romanticism does not always go together (most of the time) and that is just fine.
My boyfriend and I do these things all the time. :) I was really shy, insecure and had huge anxiety problems going into the relationship, but he is really open about basically everything, and we can talk about almost anything without it seeming wrong or weird. He has given me so much confidence in just the one year we have been together. If we are talking about some intimate problems, and I start backing out because I'm uncomfortable, he pushes me to talk about it, and he never laughs at it or makes it weird. He pushes me to do more things by myself, for example in social situations, even when he knows it "triggers" my anxiety, but steps in to help if he sees me becoming overwhelmed by the situation. It's the perfect balance between motivation and restraint. I'm not a native in the country we live in and the language is my second language, which makes me even more shy and anxious than I was in my native country when dealing with the locals. He helps me deal with problems like this. We know the economic limits of each other and no one expects the other to break the budget when it comes to gifts and outings. We go on a "quid pro quo" system, where he maybe gives three meals out or something similar, and I give one, because he has a full time job and I'm a student. :) We are comfortable being away from each other, for example if he has 3 weeks off from work, we will maybe spend one week together and he uses the other two to do things he likes. I never thought I would meet someone so amazing, and it only being my second relationship sets the bar very high if we ever break up...
Romanticism didn't kill love...expectations did that. Your expectations, your partner expectations and overall the expectations that society put on us all. If Romanticism is about free-giving and free-caring for each other with no implicit expectations then it's not going to frustrate you.
We need to separate affection from Romanticism. One is an act of love and appreciation, the other is an political ideology. Romanticism is an political ideology on how love and relationship should function, in this case romanticism claim that we should find our soulmate that will fulfill all of our expectation. So actually you are agreeing with the point of the video.
they have actually found quite a number of arranged marriages work out, because the people entering into them do so with relatively low expectations. Alternately, in the country with the highest divorce rate (Denmark), the most commonly listed reason for divorce is 'expectations were not met'.
Well not always, but they can, even though I'm personally not for it. My parents had an arranged marriage that neither wanted, but they totally worked it out after being together long enough. It's not a romantic tale, but their families were a good practical partnership for each other. They've been together for over 30 years and I like to think my siblings and I turned out pretty well after my 23 years of knowing all of them. We're all Americans by the way, so this didn't just happen in some third world country like everyone commonly believes.
+Jasmine Ashurst Could you tell me about the practicality of it please? I think that the christian ideal of marriage seems to fit this classical template more than the romantic.
The biggest myth is that people don't change over say 7 or 10 years time, and if they do change the change is going to be in a perfect parallel pathway side by side for both parties involved. Reality is the two have no idea what kind of person they will be in 10 years, and if they will remain compatable with their partner/wife/husband. It may turn out they do, but the chances are not really in anyones favor. Marriage for life has turned out that it was never totally realistic, but that scares a lot of people so they have bought into this whole myth that was never based in reality.
I think that marriage itself isn’t about compatibility it’s about commitment. Most people don’t realize that after being together so long people will change and in order to keep a marriage you will have to accept those changes. That’s commitment and it’s hard. I think it’s definitely possible. But like the video says you’re not gonna be in your honeymoon phase the whole time.
I cannot agree more, and I have been saying this for years. I never learned to be romantic; it wasn't modeled for me in my childhood, so I don't have this hanging over my head. And my partner noticed it, right away. He said that I am not very affectionate, but that I do things that show him I love him. I think Romanticism reduced love to an effect, a noun, and we must struggle to remake it into an action, a verb. Actions show character. Love demonstrates character.
I feel like everyone uses this to discredit friendship. I read this book recently where someone kind of ditches their best friend for this passionate, romantic relationship and I was angry that this huge and temporarily fulfilled expectation for romance had dragged a sympathetic character out of caring about anyone else. I've lost so many friends in the past to this and it breaks my heart every time someone says they don't have time for a night out or a nice discussion because they're in love.
Seems like a lot of women are waiting for the "knight in shining armor" to sweep them off their feet and ride into the sunset. This results in women rejecting many men because they arent "perfect". Love isnt perfect. Love is sloppy and messy. Love has its ups and downs. If you keep waiting for the perfect person, you will be single forever.
If we are not being told we only like assholes and "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" we are being told we are up ourselves and waiting for the perfect guy and we think we are too good for everyone. We just can't win.
It's taken me many decades to come to these realizations through many hard lessons and experiences. I hope many young people understand what you're saying here...
Every human being who is past puberty should watch this! I needed to see this! Thank you for the explanation of what REAL love entails... And what it doesn't. And where the original idea (fantasy) of love came from. Maybe watching can make someone grateful for a relationship they take for granted, and someone else may realize their "picture perfect" relationship is or marriage is really an unhappy one that isn't about love. I needed this reassurance as every store I go into now is smothered with red hearts and gifts for Valentine's day. I always wondered why only one day of the year is dedicated to recognize "love". Really it should be called Romanticism day because that's all people make it about. Not true love. Maybe this video could save those with the wrong impression of what a truly loving relationship is a lot of heartache and possibly even some clarity. Just my opinion.
This video not only misunderstood Romanticism, but also heavily misrepresented pre-romanticist views of love. No matter what your opinion is on the concept of love you should research your subject better. Many things you state are simply wrong and even run contrary to historical fact. Assuming we are looking at the Western marriage pattern, considering we are talking about the Western concept of Romanticism. The idea that marriage was a practical thing is highly elitist and only based on nobility, marriage between the common man and woman was most definitely based on love and attraction, and was expected to be preceded by a long period of courting in which the young couple would get to know one another. It's true that love went along with arrangements such as dowries, inheritance and all such things, but in the end emotional compatibility was considered the most important factor when considering a marriage partner, because marriage was meant to be for life as it was considered a most sacred institution. Signs of affection such as serenades, gifts or even planting a may-tree in her garden were common. In order to protect this ideal the catholic church even banned arranged marriages (though the nobility didn't follow this rule much). Speaking of the church: the idea of sex being directly coupled to marital love is a Christian idea and is even described in the Bible. Similarly, adultery is considered a sin in Christianity as well, and it even tells men not to cover other women than their own wife. These pre-romanticist Western ideals of love in which a man and woman are meant to be devoted to one another alone are evident in works such as Romeo and Juliet (written more than a century before romanticism), which you ironically make multiple references to. This is not to mention the passion-filled ideas of courtly love from the middle ages. It's true that the Western marriage pattern changed around 1750, but contrary to your claims this period is what we now sometimes call the "first sexual revolution", in which sex and marriage actually became more separated from one another. It was a time in which premarital sex, pregnant brides, single motherhood and unmarried cohabitation became more common.
I think one of the issues with marriage today is that ppl do not understand that the institution of marriage is truly a financial establishment. And that the loving longterm relationship one has with another is an entirely separate thing. Sure love is an ingredient needed for a successful marriage but there must also be practical similarities. Such as similar values, respect, and plans for the future. Because love in itself is not practical- it is an intuitive feeling
I told my boyfriend before we broke up that "we shouldn't try to fit in every role in someone's life, we're not perfect." I don't know why i said that but now i understand.
The romantic era wasn't just about love. It was an era when artists started to deal with their own personalities and thoughts. Before that art was just about political leaders and their kingdoms and/or religion. The art developed in the romantic era was a breakout from that same art formula that was happening though 300 or 400 years before it came up. I agree with with some points and also enjoyed the video but the romantics were great people who thought quite outside the box for that period in any kind of art or science.
I’ve been seriously emotionally and physically paralyzed from being a hopeless romantic. Thanks to knowledge and learning and logic I am slowly picking myself up my pride my mind my body. I was really losing my life for love. “What u won’t do for love” song sounds so much different now. I will keep learning but holy shit.
I don't completely agree with the guy (especially his historical references...) but we are evolved for ideal gene proliferation. Attachment is a tool in that process I recon. There will always be some amount of conflict in the process of passing on superior genes. Conflict/deception between male/female and between individuals. Anyway stay in the moment. Life if what you make it. Base decisions on what you want rather than what you don't want. Pain guaranteed, suffering doesn't always have to be.
Ishieka Morris no marriages fail for the reasons he believes important. Money, status, towels on the floor lol, etc. I hardly see people in relationships for reasons opposed here. Marriages fail because what they view as criteria for marriage, so called “love”, is really not love at all.
Not really, not always. There's many marriages that were done between those who had no ounce of personal affection or trust and there were also those who were duped into a marriage.
That's not exactly wrong though xD. Everyone may not be the centre of the universe kind of special (rather no one), but to say one isn't special is not that right either.
Fits with values exactly. I've always been bothered by media's depiction of love and how people want it in real life. But reality doesn't work like that. If you don't acknowledge reality, the relationship will become dysfunctional with toxic expectations.
Exactly. As much as I love to read all these stories with partners understanding the other without words I have to understand that that won't happen. I have been exposed to romanticism since I was like 11? And it was difficult for me to understand hat my dad could not infact understand when mom was upset without her being passive aggressive or actually communicating. Real life doesn't work that way.
Once again, The School of Life menages to put together an elegant stream of words that flawlessly explains a concept, which is so commonly felt, yet so difficult to cohesively grasp. One of the most worthy channels on the platform, hands down. Keep on enlighten us!
+The School of Life, in ten years, expect people coming back to your videos and saying "This saved my life." You have been a wonderful counselor for so many people, in love and thought life and everything.
Not sure I buy the premise. I actually thought I would, but the focus of the argument seems to be debunking the value of pure romanticism, which is nothing new under the sun. I've yet to meet someone modern who believes that pure, irrational romantics is the way to approach a relationship. Seems to me that most people now are mixing in non-romantic things like communication and acceptance, and that believing too much in pure romance is largely a mark of age (youth) because it's harder to understand romance in a rational way when you're barely old enough to have experienced it in the first place.
Have a look at the excerpts from Bridezillas and say romanticism is dead. Look at the ongoing fight same sex couples across Western cultures for the right to marry, the enduring popularity of love songs, 50 Shades of Grey, the continuing popularity of Mills and Boon and will they, won't they costume dramas, rom cons, etc. Romanticism isn't dead because the alienation which engendered it - the Industrial and Agrarian Revolutions and the breakdown in familial and personal security is still prevalent. Whilst some of us are aware of the difficulties in emotional relationships, many still want to follow romanticism's promise. All I know for sure is that marriage and friendship are idealised but the necessary skills required to be successful in these are life skills, rather than natural attributes. You live and learn I suppose...
I think it’s weird when someone breakups with someone and says: ”Oh it just wasn’t meant to be!” Maybe it was meant to be. Maybe it was meant to you guys be together, maybe you both learned something from your relationship. Just because you guys didin’t get married doesn’t mean it wasn’t meant to be. You guys we’re meant to be, but just not meant to be ”together forever” :)
I'm so glad that this video acknowledges that a romantic partner does not also need to be a person's best friend. Those roles to me are incredibly different (and should also be spread out for the sake of emotional diversification).
What's a better version of Romanticism according to you? I interpret this video as an attack on a strong, idealized version of romanticism. Of course romanticism comes in other shades as well.
+Dahaka97 The Classical movement was about politeness, propriety, and lack of passions, The Romanic movement was about the passions of honesty in expression and virtue of individuals. Hedonism is about living for pleasure while avoid practicalities. Just because the Romantic and Hedonist movements are both not Classical, this channel is lumping them together to produce Romantic-Hedonism, and calling the result Romantic. I am a non-hedonic Romantic and I find these being lumped together extremely insulting!
Sorry, but you guys got the idea of romanticism totally wrong. Romanticism had little to nothing to do wth actual love. Novalis (one of the most famous writers of the Romantic period in Germany, the country with probably the strongest romantic movement) described romanticism as such: "When I give the normal a higher being, the common a mysterious touch, the known the honor of being unknown, the finite a feeling of infinite, this is when I romanticise it." There is nothing about love or sex. What you are talking about is Cheesy Hollywood romantic-comedy flicks. They of course have altered our way we perceive love. But this has nothing to do with the Romantic period which occurred in Europe in the early 19th century. Please differentiate next time
It's well known that Germans have no actual concept of love. And this is coming from a German. I'd say the country with the most "romanticism" in this context is Italy.
I think romanticism is important in the beginning stages (and all stages of love!) because it shows you care but I totally agree that it's not everything!
That's why I stopped reading love novels because as I grow older, I realized that real true love is not portryaed in those books. It only injects my mind superficial ideas about love which brought lots of heartache when I was younger and naive ☺ I now prefer reading books about relationships by Christian authors and succesful Christian couples which shows how to love godly and purely ❤
This topic has been so frequent between some groups lately that I guess there is a shift of the notion of "love" post the romanticism-era. Not only the "check-list" for romanticism but also all the new tools to get this online is so overwhelm to a lot. While I still like do have "romantic" gestures for anyone I may be dating (silly doodles, flowers randomly or a huge hug out of nowhere, etc) I also have seen past partners struggle with some of these "check-list" I seen perfectly good relationships ends because we didn't fullful this list and after many years later I can look back and regret that we followed a template by what is supposed to be and not the fact that we were happy with more ups than downs. Just remember there is a difference between fighting for something is worth it that being afraid to move on...
Could you do a video About the importance of education today and how it was back then? Would love to see how education has changed it value over the years.
They call Bollywood , Hollywood ,disney and k-drama, thai -drama,arabic and Chinese drama and all the other entertainment industry people' = "artist"...when they know nothing about art , their idea of love revolve around and pushes one the most common and toxic idea of art that is "romance". Do they know other form of art? Makeup is an art, perfumery is an art, dance with emotion,geometry,sync and with spiritual message is an art (not just moving body there's many different classical dance whose purpose isn't just to look beautiful),singing is an art(not just different type of sound, it's about meaningful lyrics, spiritually guided and natural).they know know nothing about scholars,literature, art and architecture. And now they are also glorifying abusive relationship with no way to escape. People want to become "artist"and wish to go to these Industry but they don't even know art. These industry have put all the attention on beauty and consumerism. I despise that everyone is following the same rule as to fall in love, it's so made-up, inauthentic , fake, programmed and buisness like. And people who don't fall in this category are not in love 😂. They have even ruined novel and books(current one and ancient one) to follow their interpretation of love and life. It's hellish, how people think they are smart but the only thing they project is stupidity.
Is it just me or is the classical way of thinking seem to be always the better mindset out of the two. Maybe I'm just biased since I identify much more with it but yeah, romanticism seems to be quite flawed.
i wouldn't be so sure about that, many classical philosophers saw romantic love as a kind of madness (that attitude having a lot to do with misogyny), and found 'fraternal' love more 'noble'. marriage was almost entirely practical, public and domestic life where highly segregate, and the positive feelings we associate with marriage--affection, loyalty, friendship, a sense of equality and respect, etc---would have been foreign to classical philosophers and their understanding of marriage. I think post modernism--a healthy skepticism towards certain romantic attitudes while still valuing the underlying ideal of romantic love--is an apt term, moreso than purely 'classical' in its conclusions. edit: i think 'the experience of romantic love' might actually be a more appropriate, 'post modern' turn of phrase instead of 'the underlying ideal of romantic love' just an addition.
I'm so happy someone finally said it. I've actually had friend groups disintegrate because of my beliefs surrounding human relationships. It's just nice to see that I'm represented in the public sphere.
For women, not for men. Take the Victorian age, the Roman Empire or the Greek society for example. The men were exempt from exclusivity because it wasn't in their nature. Oy the adulterous women were penalized.
I clicked on this video expecting to be unhappy about it. Thinking it would tell us everything wrong with love but offer no solutions. To the contrary, it pointed out valid reasons why marriages continually fail and offered solutions. Loved this video!
Why must all secrets be spoken about to my partner? Can't I keep those demons locked away for my own mind to quell in? I feel so ashamed whenever I see or hear that you shouldn't keep anything from your partner. But I do, does this mean I am a horrible partner now?
"We should meet a person of extraordinary outer- and inner beauty" "We should never be attracted to others" "We should have highly satisfying sex forever" "We should have no sectrets and spend constant time together" Etc. I feel like you just presented a bunch of strawman arguments about what romanticism is, so you could debunk them with ease.
Although I guess I would add that I think this thing would be fine if it didn't make such a wan motion toward intellectual history -- "Romanticism -- 1750" -- why not just say "the rise of what we now call Romantic Notions" or some such thing?
This set of ideas and ideals has literally nothing to do with the epoche of Romanticism (that is long over by the wy). It's okay if you don't explain what you mean, then people will assume the (wrongly used) notion of "stuff that is romantic". But if you introduce the epoche at least make sure that it covers what you think it covers. The set of ideas you criticize comes rather from Romance movies, contemporary love novels and maybe series like "Sex and the City" (when you watch them very selectively). Topics like marriage, old age and even children are usually no topic in works from Romanticism.
Thanks so much for taking the trouble to put this objection. In fact we developed these ideas through a reading of the first part of the most popular novel of the late 18th Century - Goethe's 'Sorrows of the Young Werther'. But we'd be happy to be corrected by your more accurate and extensive knowledge.
Nah, you need to read a bit further to realize old Werther was the classic notion of lost idealistic love. Next you will be telling me Petrarch's Laura was the precursor to this lol.
We did in fact read further. The point is just that the early section lays out the key ideas of a romantic attitude, which then get subtly undermined in the rest of the novel. But Goethe was always complaining that his readers didn't understand what he was trying to do in the later sections.
Hi John! Thank you for replying. Well, "Die Leiden des jungen Werther" are counted among "Sturm und Drang" (=Storm and Stress) an epoche that deals with unmanageable emotions and the emotional outbreak from situations like in "Götz von Berlichingen" (by Goethe) or "Die Räuber" (by Schiller). Hance a bad example, I fear: Werther is used to show how love can develop into a sickness, a madness that will, in the end, cost your life. To the reader it is clearly visible how silly and hopeless his love is, his friends, even Lotte tries to convince him that he is taking it too far. He ignores them, nurtures his despair and insanity and in the end, takes his life. Not sure if I would count that as a relationship manual ;) Most Sturm and Drang authors developed into "Weimarian Classic" in their later life (i.e. after their 20ies). This epoche is considered the 'enemy' of Romanticism, probably best to explain with a quote by Goethe: "Romanticism, that's the sick, the unnatural". While Weimerian Classic tried to re-enact the ideals of Antique Classic, the old Roman and Greek authors, used ideals like Enlightenment and reason. Romanticism on the other hand deals with nature, natural feelings, the intermixture of dream and reality, human darkness, ... More like an American or English Gothic Novel. Romantic plays and novels usually end in tragedy or a state of transcendence, love is a topic, but relationships rarely are. Marriage is rather used as a threat (the hero loses his freedom and is bound to a civil live) and nearly never happens at all. A good example for a Romantic novel is Hoffmann's "The Sandman", I think reading the Wikipedia article might suffice for a first impression. It is often hard to distinguish the different strands of literature in this time, as a lot have elements from different strands. But neither depicts sex, relationships of old people or even intimacy in a relationship. I hope that helped. It's not that easy to explain that issue in a few sentences, hence, if you have any futher questions, feel free to ask :) Best Schimmelreiterin (As in "The Rider on the White Horse", has some romantic motifs, but is actually counted as Literary Realism, by the way ;)) PS: Sorry for my awful English, I'm no native speaker. And I probably mistranslated some of the names, sorry for that, too.
Thanks very much for your extensive response. I'm not sure, now what exactly the issue at stake is. Our point is simply that the early section of Werther - which reflects the ideas we've ascribed to Romanticism - was hugely influential and popular with readers. And that it seems fair enough to describe these as Romantic ideas. PS no problem re English - you're pretty fantastic at it by the way.
There are certainly issues with Romanticism but I don't believe you need to exterminate it in order to revitalize love. Like just about any philosophical theory, it has its own set of pros and cons. Practicality is important, but so is flexibility. Acceptance is important, yet so are boundaries. Love involves a great deal of skill, but is it really wise to neglect it's emotional aspect because of this? The puzzle of love cannot be solved with any single piece.
Once, I think that everyone should ignore all these kinds of help and just suffer to learn, well, I wasn't completely right, the capacity of your videos of make me see the other side of things with kindness is incredible. and, beyond that, improve my english a lot. You are the best!
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "A woman is married for four things: for her wealth, for her lineage, for her beauty or for her piety. Select the pious, may you be blessed!".
For the love of God School of Life stop making such amazing content with genuine meaning all the time you're making everything else I watch seem flat and basic.
Agreed. Definitely think we confuse love with the emission of dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine, that's all 😊 but that's not to say those "feelings" aren't valid!
Having a partner needs work. Love isn't really enough. Look around, a lot of people who love each other are divorcing each other and breaking up with each other, because, according to what we see, it's not love if you need to work for (or on) it. Honestly, that's the stupidest thing.
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
I remember I was really into a girl in high school, and my best friend told me "Don't fall in love with falling in love."
i was often told that and now tell it to others lol. its kinda like in a Woody Allen movie (don't care for him personally) where his characters therapist or whatever tells him "no, you don't love me, you love the idea of me". and i think that's what happens to alot of us, basically, at least in regards to crushes and infatuations
@@professorbaxtercarelessdre1075 That' the point though. To fall in love with an image of virtue you can observe in the person you are in love with. Of course the person him/herself is not perfect, no one is, but he/she acts as a way for you to comprehend and ultimatelly desire virtue and beauty.
@@agapanthiacardui5977 i don't get it, i'm really slow and have trouble grasping things, hate to blame it on my autism again but that's usually the reason i think. i want to understand what you're saying but i just can't wrap my head around it lol
I also don't get it
@@givenmakhobela1405 thanks, glad i'm not alone :)
The most harmful idea is that belief that everyone has one person destined for them, and all you need in life is to find that one person, and after that everything will be ideal: marriage will automatically be happy, children will automatically be brilliant etc. And that you should give up all your goals and plans if that is the only way to be with that one person.
Giving up on one goals also quite often ends up eventually boiling into resentment and vilification for the partner be it justified or not. Thus leading to the relationship to break down and lead to the person who sacrificed their dreams to feel a great deal of regret.
+Alicia en el pais de las maravillas Try reading some Ayn Rand it is pretty much what she advocates, for an rationalised kind of selfishness of putting oneself first above others and doing something because you want to rather than what society wants and how selflessness can be quite damaging. Even though I know there will be plenty you will have disagreements with it just that objectiveism does set out interesting arguments about this that are worthwhile to think about.. .
And who says that?
I mean, I could some and wanted to be with that person the rest of my life and viceversa (biceversa? Idk) But that doesn't mean that we both can have goal and dreams that we want to acomplish and that we have to give them up.
Frank Dueñas The point is more so that many people give up their dreams for love. Some lovers are attached to specific geography zones for instance and will refuse to move, if your dream is to live another country for instance or your partner does not want you to get that promotion because it would mean less time with them, even if that promotion is your dream job.
Yes this is not true for every case but the point is that this stuff happens It is important to not to forget that you exist and you have your own desires dreams and feeling and in situations like that it is best to question whether or not that relationship you are in is worth it for you. This is the issue about practicalities, there is only a certain amount of sacrifice you should be able to tolerate.
Personally I have encountered this a lot with past lovers with things like that because I have a very specific dream in mind that I do not want to give up. Many people did not want to give up the contact time or would be unable to move with me as I need to in order to forward my career or want to travel the world and stuff. So even when I felt great love for these people I knew that it would twist if I did give such things up.
+ecos889 Well you are doing good not giving up your dreams.
In life you are supposed to end up with a person that will be walking in your same path and where both are happy.
That is why is true that love isn't all you need. You also need to know if both really know each other, If your personalities are compatible, If both were raised with similar values (not necesarily the same) among other things.
Although It doesn't mean that you Have to acomplish all of your dreams before getting married or anything like that. A lot of couples acomplish their dreams after settling up.
Romanticism ruined love by burying us under a set of clichés and scripts that make situations that should be personal feel like the shooting of a budget tv show featuring bad actors
Sadly yes
@BOB I agree. It's very sad that even allegedly philosophically inclined channels like The School of Life present romanticism as a set of stereotypes. Romanticism is the breaking of stereotypes, being free and genuine to yourself, to your own age, to not follow norms, to not be dependent on others' expectations. Unfortunately, contemporary people cannot acknowledge its transformational nature and just see it as something of the past, as a soap-opera thing. That's not romanticism. It's the market's appropriation of it.
I like your comment so much I'm probably going to write it down in calligraphy. And I'm not even joking. About sums up my entire dating experience.
@@tanyamue8752 lol me too
Oof. Someone said it. Finally.
Communication, commitment, and sharing the same values. That's what my parents have told me is important. People change as they grow, and there will be periods of time in a marriage when you may grow apart and times when you grow back together - no matter how much you click or are meant to be together. My parents also emphasize the temporality of feelings. You can't expect happiness and infatuation forever just because you married someone, that's just not how emotions work. Feelings come and go. You could have the best life and still have moments of unhappiness, or a difficult one with moments of happiness. Feelings are just feelings after all. Above all my parents have stressed to me that love is a choice. I'm going to repeat that because I think this is so important.
Love is a choice.
A successful marriage comes from two people waking up every day and choosing to love the other person. Some days that's easier to do than others, but it's such a freeing thought. A marriage that relies on a foundation of feelings (which are so fickle) would be incredibly unstable. Feelings are probably the worst material for a foundation of a relationship. And I think that's where people mess up, they end things when the feelings go away, not realizing that they'll go away with the next person too eventually, and also not realizing that the feelings will come back eventually as well.
I like your insight, but I would like to beg the question; What is the purpose of marriage without emotion? What is love without emotion, even?
Perhaps I'm just a hopeless romantic, but the idea of being with someone I'm compatible with yet am not emotionally moved by really bothers me. If that's what a relationship is, then why be in one?
I manage my life perfectly fine on my own, so if there's nothing I cannot do on my own then to what reason would I be in a relationship if not for a feeling?
I hope some of that made sense. I don't mean to be vague if I was. Anyway, thank you for your time.
Love is a choice like you said 👌🏿
You've nailed it
Agreed, same applies to your own life. Life is a choice and love too.
Romance is encourageable in marriage to enhance the relationship between the husband and wife.
However, being overly romantic can blind our views of true love. Love is practical while romance is frivolous.
Especially the fact that we've romanticised the idea of wanting someone and loving them more than ourselves.
i certainly, for many years, thought i had to find someone i love more than me, which i never imagined would be hard, considering i never loved myself at all lol. now here i am trying to love myself first cause if i don't love me, who would?
I agree with you but sometimes this idea often gets mixed with ruthless pursuit of self interest. People who cheat are often the kind of people who believe that own happiness is more important than others.
@Sterope-zo9rv I think it's something made by Paul Bransom
It depends on how you look at that. To be willing to give your life to save another is proof of love
Romanticism can breed idealism and inflated expectations which leads to disappointment when your reality doesn't match your rose colored ideal. It's great to have standards but keep one foot in reality and in the acceptance of imperfection.
People believe that a relationship with the "right" person won't be difficult or boring, but what it means by "right" is always vague. When people encounter difficulties, lulls, or unhappiness, they believe these are signs that their chosen partner is the "wrong" person and with the "right" person, these things will not be encountered at all or will simply work themselves out without too much effort or strain. Thus creating a pattern of serial monogamy, abandoning relationship after relationship once the euphoria of new love wears off.
Bono Music That wasn't meant to mean that you have to put up with everything a partner wants to do or you're obliged to try to "work it out". The anti-romanticism model of relationships says that practical considerations are significant, and asking a partner to change can be reasonable and necessary. If you have radically different feelings about monogamy and fidelity, that relationship isn't sustainable. I don't think wanting an open or polyamorous relationship is morally wrong, though I'm skeptical of the endurance of that type of relationship paradigm, but I think that people who don't want to be monogamous shouldn't have relationships with people who feel differently. Deception is always wrong.
moonlily1 tnx mate. i agree with u. glad u explained :)
Bless you >:'( Open-relationship?
Well...yes and labels are a little bit of a mental block too. Love requires rationalizing and feeling. We might fear that the other person we are trying to love might make us feel worse or tare us down a little if they are having a bad day and they tell us about our bad day ruining ours. So, remaining positive plus rationalizing plus feeling. Most of these actually apply in other types of relationship models as well. Since people have flaws, trying to understand love and give and receive can be tricky. The other person must also mutually understand the persons needs both financially and socially. It is unfortunately not always a good idea to be in a relationship were someone demands a lot from you almost like a hostage type of relationship saying they will leave if you do not give them something. We can make flaws along the way and then understand the areas the other person might not be strong in through practicing communication and looking for certain ques. Love really does require rationalizing and feeling for someone else where as we might feel torn down a little if they are having a bad day and they tell us about our bad day it will ruin ours. So remaining positive plus rationalizing plus feeling.
“And they lived happily ever after”- Disney
That saying isn’t invented by disney lmao
Mgd Kns exactly. they thought they did something
🤮
@@mgdkns6678 It was from the Grimm Bros. I'm sure Disney didn't give them credits though.
In FB, would give “care” react, as in “we wish”
It didn't ruin love, it ruined our view on love.
I like your way of saying that love is so much more than just an emotion.
Love is bullshit
... i've been to Egypt... and seen the spinx..one thing i know for sure.. love stinks...
more like it made it marketable and commercially exploitable
I've always like Erich Fromm´s idea :“Love is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise. If love were only a feeling, there would be no basis for the promise to love each other forever. A feeling comes and it may go. How can I judge that it will stay forever, when my act does not involve judgment and decision.”
I used to believe that, but when your wife goes to the police, and tells them she is afraid of you, it is time to rethink.
For me, I think that people have a lack of courage anymore when it comes to love. They are obsessed with the idea of a "perfect person" or just being friends until you are ready (which truly, you will never be). People are afraid of committing, and procrastinate finding a partner in our time. Instead we need to remember no one is perfect and you will never really feel ready. Love in the end is a leap of faith and a lot of work.
I feel called out. LOL
Is love even an emotion or something? What is it really
I was attacked
@@planetary-rendez-vous I think love is when both are committed to keep up together in life
I disagree with the friendship part no one does friends first then date then relationship and if they did it would be better.
Funny... this is my biggest complaint about relationships and dating... I call it "TV love"... I stopped believing in the romantic view of love in my 30s and even then was too late... It's high school mentality...
Same, same.
High school mentality, which shows we have been programmed to it. Stop believing that idea mid 20
Thank god i understood it at the beginning of 12.
TV love sums it up. Perfect word!
@@VENOM-ol6pv hello you lucky champ!
This video may have just saved my marriage by not getting one
LOL
Period.
HAHAHAHAHA
DaGamingLife stick to your gaming life, bro.
Facctsss
I swear, my ex was obsessed with full on romanticism, and was always reading love stories. I'm sure i was being judged way too harshly haha.
Been there, felt that.
Gosh me too!!!!! He'd always say "you're not romantic" ,my relationship with him was so unhealthy,mainly due to the overly obsession on romanticism
@Hellboy Well, it's going to hurt when that person knows it's not EXACTLY how it goes.
@Hellboy I hope everyone who goes through this "awkward" realization know this.
Remember,love is the ultimate evil
Hollywood Romanticism killed love not the concept itself. Not only did romantic movies create unrealistic expectations, but shows that depict men as idiots and women as sexual manipulators also have made love a lot harder. Probably because people go into their first relationships with these huge expectations, get hurt a few times, and then decide that all men or women are just like how they are portrayed on sitcoms.
Turn off the tv
JimboParadox I agree with the comment above, and no hate but what's up with Notting Hill, I love that film
Disney princess stories (the early ones especially) like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella make "love at first sight" and "happily ever after" seem like the normal when they almost impossible. I refuse to let my young daughter watch these movies until we are old enough to discuss why the "love" in these movies is unrealistic.
@@KyrieW Agreed. I try to teach my girls. There's no love at first sight. Men who claim they do, actaully it's "lust at first sight." Beware of those who want something quick and just for fun.
Okay, I can't be the only person who was told from childhood that everything that comes in TV is a lie......
Honestly for me romanticism is more about falling back on love with life
To appreciate life for what it is in its entierty. Good, Bad and inbetween.
I believe no one can describe love better than the person who experienced it. That idealistic love is what it really was. Love can be everything. It's just that, as you grow old, your perception of it changes because you learn more of reality and you become more reasonable. Love that's too emotionally-dependent can be comforting but temporary, and it prevents seeing the realistic aspects of it. Love that is too practical can be realistic but obligatory and unsatisfying, neglecting the emotional aspects of it. I think the love that is balanced continually grows and lasts.
I feel the same... Love can be anything and you only get to know when you fall in love.
Honestly, i believe balance is what makes things work in most things in life as well, youll get nothing done if you're so stuck to one side
Thanks for this comment. I needed to hear this.
Romanticism as a mid-eighteenth century ideology and movement was not exclusively about love, but about inserting the dramatic and emotional style into different forms of art reminiscent of the roman epics, hence, ROMANticism. The term "Romantic" referring to love exclusively only came into use in the twentieth century. The ideas expressed in this video still holds, but the movement itself was about much more than defining the expectations of love.
My thoughts exactly. First Generation of Romantic Poets didn't even define the so-called boundaries of love, they simply introduced a simpler way of writing, aiming to appeal to the common people.
I do not recognize my decades long studies of Romanticism in the video. The Romantic Movement of 1750 did not have such goals in mind nor in any recollection can I hear any of those great Romantic figures saying such things.
The word romantic was actually a term of reproof used by the educated clergy in the Middle Ages for the common people of present-day Spain, France and Italy for speaking mutilated Latin. The word was revived in the 19th century because of the aesthetic fascination with the medieval folk culture.
Justin Burton He got that covered as well in his other video.
Yes, I often think about it too and it can help show differences between a emotional highs and lows through drama. Unfortunately, drama is not a realistic life setting and life is not that organized as well. Things happen and love requires rationalizing and feeling. We might fear that the other person we are trying to love might make us feel worse or tare us down a little if they are having a bad day and they tell us about our bad day ruining ours. So, remaining positive plus rationalizing plus feeling. Most of these actually apply in other types of relationship models as well. Since people have flaws, trying to understand love and give and receive can be tricky. The other person must also mutually understand the persons needs both financially and socially. It is unfortunately not always a good idea to be in a relationship were someone demands a lot from you almost like a hostage type of relationship saying they will leave if you do not give them something. We can make flaws along the way and then understand the areas the other person might not be strong in through practicing communication and looking for certain ques. Love really does require rationalizing and feeling for someone else where as we might feel torn down a little if they are having a bad day and they tell us about our bad day it will ruin ours. So remaining positive plus rationalizing plus feeling.
Just a question- why haven't you (this narrator) narrated all audiobooks in the world, or at least the school of Life ones? You have such a huggable voice :)
I think his voice won't fit well with some audiobooks though but it's perfect with this kinds of setting.
Hello there! If you watch Alain's documentary " Status Anxiety" on youtube you can hear the voice for two and a half hours:-) I would subscribe to that channel too. He has excellent documentaries there. Have a nice evening!
+Lua Veli
What's that channel called?
+francis dudero
True :)
Hello there! You were asking me how to find Alain de Botton's other youtube channel. You can go to my channel, on the right side there is a list of channels I love. There it is. If you live in the UK though, you may not be able to see the documentaries because of a copy right issue. In that case I highly recommend you to read his books. Especially " The Consolations of Philosophy".
Idea for a poem:
A romantic poet reflects regretfully on the fact that he ruined love with romanticism.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂❤
Ah.That will be hard to read lol.
My dear, thorned rose,
Thou hast left thine towels on the floor once more,
The floor,
The floor of my heart.
Damn, here's a 4 year late thanks
@@venturer9400 same
This is why I think Romeo&Juliet is the perfect romantic lovestory: Romeo's 15, Juliet's 13 and everything about their story is the total opposite of a mature relationship.
Its not true love, LITERALLY they saw eachother and fell in love like that wow they are now in love
Lmfao wasn't Romeo 18? WHICH IS CREEPy BuT yA kNoW....
@@canoftrash9452 I think he's 17 or 18 in the original Italian story but in Shakespeare's stage version he's 15 which makes more sense given the immaturity of his behavior.
@@xxfluffycloudsxx Agreed, it's not true love - it's romantic love, which is the imaginary love of children.
@@dontaylor7315 oh, okay thnx😂
For me, romantic love has always felt like the process of applying to college or university, from the tests to all the interviews.
growing up in my teenage years, i thought romanticism is what love is like, and should be. This is because of love stories, songs I constantly hear, and for a very long period of time, I was seeking for this "soul mate". As I grew older, and experienced more things, I have come to the conclusion that the love that romanticism promotes is just a religious belief. If you can make yourself believe it, and meet other compatible believers, good for you, but the chance is too slim.
Interesting way to look at it !
I'm not sure about everyone else, but the way that you described how love and relationships work is the way that I've always thought about it. I always thought that each person would truly have to understand one another (flaws and all) to truly love each other and I always assumed that practicalities are what a lot of couples talk about.
I'm also severely against the "love at first sight" notion. How can someone love somebody else by only knowing their face and nothing else?
EDIT: I /like/ the idea of Romanticism, but it's impractical, impossible, and selfish.
Yeah. All the romances shown in films are pretty much impossible to get irl. It just makes you have an unhealthy opinion of relationships.
A bit romance here and there in a relationship is certainly nothing bad in a relationship though.
I agree, though not entirely. my grandpa had a love at first sight experience and has been together with my grandma ever since.
I think those kind of mysteries are what make life so great. :)
Luke Lemmon
That's great! And I get that people might get that "feeling" at first sight, but it doesn't happen too often and I think popular media shouldn't make that their main focus.
What if you met your perfect sole mate. Beautiful, kind etc. But....they were an adamant Trump supporter. Would you still pursue it?
PhedelCastro
We probably wouldn't have the same morals and way of thinking, meaning in no way they are my perfect soulmate, so I would have no trouble saying no to them.
Now I want to see a romcom with these ideas. Person A should fall in love with person B "at first sight ". Person B should be practical person who believes in the ideas in this video but maybe disregards the merits of feeling in love, a bit much. Shenanigans ensues, and the two learn from each other. Whether or not they have end up together at the end, I'm not sure.
sounds like '500 days of summer'!
+EAZY-E Great movie. 😃
+EAZY-E I've never seen it before
500 DAYS OF SUMMER
+plica06 spoilers!
This actually really opened my eyes... it made me realise how unrealistic my attitude towards love is. Thanks!
As an aromantic person coming to terms with my identity was a constant struggle due to constantly being bombarded with content centered around romantic love: ads,movies,books etc
It always sounded fake and forced to me.
Don't let anyone get you down, do whatever you feel makes you yourself. I support you!
Jayze Pickles you’re a sweetheart!! Thank you and wish you the best
OMG same I'm aroace too,,,
Hitee Bhardwaj I’m only aro but I totally feel you!! I can’t even begin to imagine how it must feel to be bombarded with sexual content on a daily basis...
@@nicolenicole6325 I hate that people force me to be like them. Like if I said I'm aroace i don't feel such pleasure in both. But then they cut me off-and said its just a phase you'll learn to be romantic, Likee brrruhhh... Wuut??? So you know me much more I know myself???
paraphrasing the great Bill Maher here... "the biggest problem with Hollywood movies isn't violence, it's their representation of romance"
ninearthify Can you recommend a movie or two that portrays romance realistically ?!
Moment of silence for the asexuals who aren't aromantic, living in a society that believes love and sex are bonded together.
Asexuals dont believe sex and love go together. They don't feel romantically inclined or sexually aroused as easily as other ppl do. Some people nurture deep minds before sex vs. A casual sex fling.
U feel my pain bud
Thank you for pointing it out
@@irenem.965 I am this and I 'fall in love' so easily.
@@irenem.965 This whole post flew right over your head, and you don't even know what you're talking about...
I don't agree with everything this guy says, but on the whole, he nails it.
It would be awesome to share your opinion ^^.
Moaz Eldefrawy Well, I agree that married couples often have unrealistic expectations, and that they place too much emphasis on squishy "feelings", as opposed to relationships based on more practical considerations.
Steve Camp, a contemporary Christian musician, expressed it well with a song, "Love's Not A Feeling".
Love sometimes DOES involve feelings, of course.
But what happens when the feelings go away? What happens when the passion has disappeared from a relationship where it once existed? When that happens, it often leads to divorce, which is extremely destructive in relation to children (all other things being equal).
The part with which I disagree is the idea that sex can be a good thing even if it involves adultery, also known as an affair.
Having a "lover on the side" may seem like a good idea to a liberal who takes his or her cues from relatively decadent European culture, but statistical analysis shows the destabilizing effects of adultery.
Children need stability. They don't need or want secondary daddies or mommies.
The only reason that we accept such things is that we've become inured --- also known as becoming "desensitized" to immorality.
Thanks for sharing. I think you explained some stuff better than the video itself.
I have to agree with you.
Thanks for pointing that out.
This is a description of a stereotype, not genuine Romanticism. For instance, genuine Romanticism values self-sacrifice. This wasn't even mentioned.
Maybe they intentionally focused on the problematic parts of Romanticism to fix the problem. There's no point talking about beliefs that ain't broke.
Joel Fry why would you sacrifice your own needs for anyone?
Persian Badgal I wouldn't need to sacrifice my needs, just my convenience--because I am going to come back here. I want to make sure it is the best world it can be: One thousand years from now, somewhere else, there is someone who is exactly like you down to the atom. Is that person you? Also, consider that my baseline consciousness is very much like yours. And the baseline consciousness of a newborn baby is maybe the same as that of any other healthy newborn. Consciousness is what makes me me. Materialism is false:
There cannot be an infinite series of conditioned realities. A conditioned reality is a reality which is dependent on other things (component parts) for its existence. A hydrogen atom is a conditioned reality, because protons and electrons must exist for hydrogen atoms to exist. Since matter cannot be infinitely small, and since an atom does not have an infinite number of component parts, there must be an ultimate bottom to the component layers--an unconditioned reality. Also, since each component layer is completely dependent on the layer beneath it there must be an unconditioned reality to give rise to the component layers for the same reason that an infinite series of zeros does not add up to one. I have no reason to believe this ultimate reality is merciful, loving, or angry. However, I believe that because of this unconditioned reality it may be possible for the patterns of our consciousness to be uploaded to this essence, this unconditioned reality, and replicated in other parts of the cosmos. Given an infinite set of possible scenarios this seems at least probable. Evidence for this possible process lies in the fact that particles may "pop into and out of existence." It is not logically coherent to say that particles ACTUALLY cease to exist then come back into existence. Many aspects of the universe are counterintuitive, but this does not mean the universe works in a way that is logically incoherent. Particles unform into the essence, then the essence re-forms them later. This debunks materialism, because the essence is not a material form of reality, since all material forms of reality are made of component parts. And since this essence actively sustains the cosmos, it is God.
Joel Fry i love youuuuuuu
@@thesecretiveone6313 in the case of marriage: to help your partner out and sometimes they will help you out. Teamwork makes the dream work.
In the general case: sometimes sacrificing something will give more to someone else (or others) that it does for yourself. I think that's the aim of all good people: try to get a net positive impact on this shitty world riddled with suffering.
We must also remember that love is a choice and healthy relationships require commitment to bloom.
Yes in movies also the love is extremely romantic,😄 in czech movie of 80s husband comes home and wife gives him slap between the door, Why did you came so late?😄
What can be not romantic about it???? 😄 He just did some scams to gain money.
Its comedy... They used to play couple in some movies. ....I somehow have problem to take modern movies seriously... The old movies were quite funny and natural..... In modern movies they take everything so seriously that its hard to watch it.
but I real life quite nice marriage Abrham/Šafranková.
I've Seen 95% of the Videos on this Channel and this one is definitely in the top 5 ❤️
*My Top 5
def top 5 for the non-biography videos
Same
Don't believe in fate and ''the magic of true love''. You're not a Disney Princess. Also, don't be too greedy about how your partner should look or other superficial stuff. Instead look for good character. And be loyal. Very, very loyal. Share your life with them, every bit of it, and don't keep any secrets whatsoever. If both partners are looking for nice guys/girls, and do nice stuff to each other as well as others, love will happen and it will be forever.
+I dog you I'm glad you're totally wrong. Yes we fight, but ultimately we love each other too much. Whether you like it or not, this IS the best way. If you think your relationship failed, you can rest assured that you failed to do what I said.
When there is a superficial thing that causes the attraction, it is rare that both simultaneously find something in each other enough to love, and you will surely lose interest in that "thing" just like you lost interest in that last iPhone or whatever.
Even in close relationships, everyone has secrets and keeps secrets. I don't mean that as in a "secret mistress or mister" or something as damaging or deceiving in a relationship. But its impossible to know what someone else is thinking or feeling at all times and is unnecessary. Everyone has thoughts or "things" they keep to themselves. I think its an unrealistic idea and expectation to share every bit of our inner life with one person, at least in my experience. It removes a sense of independence and can be quite oppressive. The expectation itself may be more damaging than anything else as well. I may have misunderstood your sentiment on that however, might just have meant open communication overall.
Wholeheartedly agree about seeking something deeper than superficial based love though. Lust and love are not the same. But physical attraction/chemistry is very important and not something I could personally overlook either
And you don't have one "soulmate" or whatever. You have many possible "soulmates", and many people can become your match, who weren't fit for you before. You just try to find someone who is good enough for you, because there is not one perfect match. Just find a really good match, and stick with it. (But people can always change, so if you change into a terrible match, you might need to split up). But, you can always make things work, try to fix the relationship, but leave it if it just can't be fit.
I really want to believe this is true
vaguelyhuman How does sharing make you depend on someone or choosing to be loyal??? like really? Its all a choice. The above doesn't say: "rely on them to provide for you"
I like that there's room for a middle ground! A relationship can be practical for longevity and still go through different phases of romance for enjoyment. Of course communication is a top priority for me in a relationship, but I also want to read poetry together and stare into each other's eyes... "Post-romantic" seems to take the best of all that comes before it!
I love this. I never believed our partner "completes us" and if the sex isnt amazing it's a lost cause.
Come on now.
I have to agree with you on that.
Should complement not complete
The biggest part that affected me and few other teenagers is "when a man loves you he will thinks you're the most beautiful girl in the world", applies vice versa, which is definetely aren't true, and some people that has insecurity will tend to overreact when the partner comments on other's beauty/even liking other's pretty pictures. and its not only because of our insecurities, it's also because we've been too much exposed to this idealistic kind of mindset and we believe thats how relationship supposed to be.
When a man loves you he will FEEL like you're the most beutiful girl in the world. He may see that other girl have 'better' nose or eyes but he won't love these nose and eyes.
I liked the video and I agree with the main idea behind it, but the title is a little misleading. Romanticism didn't ruin love. Romanticism is mostly an artistic and philosophical movement with emphasize on emotions. It can be a source of inspiration and learning. Romanticism didn't ruin love nor did it ruin the idea of romantic relationships. We do that, while failing to grasp that real "true love" is not a general premade concept that we all have to accept by default. It's anything but general. I always think of love between two people as a work in continuous progress - like a huge puzzle, that we never really finish, but with each piece, we get a better, more beautiful idea of it. The thing is, even though a lot of those puzzle pieces are the same for different people, most of them are personal and subjective and sometimes it's really hard to work with them and make them fit, but it can be done. I think romanticism can be one of those puzzle pieces. Human beings are not flat characters from books and movies. We are real and multidimensional; our relationships are also real and multidimensional. So why should we look at things as complex as love in such a simple way as Romantic Template vs Classical Template? There is no "template" that works for more than one relationship. Each relationship is different and has its own "template".
I find my views to align with what you're saying, Paula. I also like the comparison you made between a relationship and a puzzle. Different templates work for different people, and these templates are not found online or obtained from others. Rather, I feel these templates are found in oneself and in the journey of creating a relationship.
👏👏👏👏
Beautifully said.
We need a kind of way of tempering romance with pragmatism and temper pragmatism with romance. Just romance is unrealistic expectations of your partner and life in general. Just pragmatism is psychologically unsatisfying and feeling trapped in an emotionally unfulfilling relationship. I think a couple needs both practical and emotional reasons to be with each other, and most lasting, loving couples do.
Perfect.
Amen!!
Am I the only one payed attention in history or art class in there? Romanticism was an artistic movement, quoting, "characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical." It has nothing to be with what you are talking about. There's a difference between ROMANTICSM and ROMANCE.
But they are still not the same. Romanticism involves all kind of stories, feelings and emotions, not just love. You can romantice life, death, victory, battles, violence, revolutions and much more. It's not about making things look pretty and sappy. It's about taking human life to different levels of beauty and perfection. Most of the time it has nothing to do with love or relationships. Pretending that there's no difference between both concepts makes the creator of this video sound like an ignorant.
He should have just called it romance and not romanticsm. That's all. I'm sure it wouldn't have been that difficult.
As someone who was really keen on art classes with many of my favourite books from the romantic era, this bothered me. They certainly did not upheld the "Love conquers all" attitude towards love but rather passionately embraced all emotions, positive and negative.
I guess the intent is to talk about the romanticisation of romance. Forgive the folks .
Exactly, lol.
I always describe relationships as two imperfect people coming together trying to make it work.
Yeah it's a perfect description of HEALTHY relationship
I was a complete romantic. Until I met my current partner, then I found true love and romanticism does not always go together (most of the time) and that is just fine.
My boyfriend and I do these things all the time. :)
I was really shy, insecure and had huge anxiety problems going into the relationship, but he is really open about basically everything, and we can talk about almost anything without it seeming wrong or weird. He has given me so much confidence in just the one year we have been together. If we are talking about some intimate problems, and I start backing out because I'm uncomfortable, he pushes me to talk about it, and he never laughs at it or makes it weird. He pushes me to do more things by myself, for example in social situations, even when he knows it "triggers" my anxiety, but steps in to help if he sees me becoming overwhelmed by the situation. It's the perfect balance between motivation and restraint. I'm not a native in the country we live in and the language is my second language, which makes me even more shy and anxious than I was in my native country when dealing with the locals. He helps me deal with problems like this.
We know the economic limits of each other and no one expects the other to break the budget when it comes to gifts and outings. We go on a "quid pro quo" system, where he maybe gives three meals out or something similar, and I give one, because he has a full time job and I'm a student. :)
We are comfortable being away from each other, for example if he has 3 weeks off from work, we will maybe spend one week together and he uses the other two to do things he likes.
I never thought I would meet someone so amazing, and it only being my second relationship sets the bar very high if we ever break up...
that sounds amazing. I hope it continues to be that way for a long time. good luck to you
Vroxzz Roxz Thank you. :)
update? :)
Romanticism didn't kill love...expectations did that. Your expectations, your partner expectations and overall the expectations that society put on us all.
If Romanticism is about free-giving and free-caring for each other with no implicit expectations then it's not going to frustrate you.
the source of all disappointments is expectations
It's Romanticism that is responsible for having put these myths and false expectations as a standard in the first place.
but in romanticism you expect that from your partner. Hence romanticism creates expectations that are too high.
If you have expectations from your partner being "if I do this I'll receive that" then no you are not being romantic just exchanging favors.
We need to separate affection from Romanticism. One is an act of love and appreciation, the other is an political ideology. Romanticism is an political ideology on how love and relationship should function, in this case romanticism claim that we should find our soulmate that will fulfill all of our expectation. So actually you are agreeing with the point of the video.
So this is why arranged marriages work.
or atleast why love marriages don't have a better success rate than arranged marriages
they have actually found quite a number of arranged marriages work out, because the people entering into them do so with relatively low expectations. Alternately, in the country with the highest divorce rate (Denmark), the most commonly listed reason for divorce is 'expectations were not met'.
Well not always, but they can, even though I'm personally not for it. My parents had an arranged marriage that neither wanted, but they totally worked it out after being together long enough. It's not a romantic tale, but their families were a good practical partnership for each other. They've been together for over 30 years and I like to think my siblings and I turned out pretty well after my 23 years of knowing all of them. We're all Americans by the way, so this didn't just happen in some third world country like everyone commonly believes.
The premise of marriage in Islam is much more practical than that of the Christian ideal.
+Jasmine Ashurst Could you tell me about the practicality of it please? I think that the christian ideal of marriage seems to fit this classical template more than the romantic.
This was the perfect video to watch before bed, communication is so, so important in a relationship and sexual attraction can be overrated.
The biggest myth is that people don't change over say 7 or 10 years time, and if they do change the change is going to be in a perfect parallel pathway side by side for both parties involved. Reality is the two have no idea what kind of person they will be in 10 years, and if they will remain compatable with their partner/wife/husband. It may turn out they do, but the chances are not really in anyones favor. Marriage for life has turned out that it was never totally realistic, but that scares a lot of people so they have bought into this whole myth that was never based in reality.
I think that marriage itself isn’t about compatibility it’s about commitment. Most people don’t realize that after being together so long people will change and in order to keep a marriage you will have to accept those changes. That’s commitment and it’s hard. I think it’s definitely possible. But like the video says you’re not gonna be in your honeymoon phase the whole time.
I cannot agree more, and I have been saying this for years. I never learned to be romantic; it wasn't modeled for me in my childhood, so I don't have this hanging over my head. And my partner noticed it, right away. He said that I am not very affectionate, but that I do things that show him I love him. I think Romanticism reduced love to an effect, a noun, and we must struggle to remake it into an action, a verb. Actions show character. Love demonstrates character.
*****, we're fine. We understand each other's styles and respond accordingly.
Actually Romanticism being very affected by Fichte considers action as one of the most important aspects of being
I feel like everyone uses this to discredit friendship. I read this book recently where someone kind of ditches their best friend for this passionate, romantic relationship and I was angry that this huge and temporarily fulfilled expectation for romance had dragged a sympathetic character out of caring about anyone else. I've lost so many friends in the past to this and it breaks my heart every time someone says they don't have time for a night out or a nice discussion because they're in love.
Seems like a lot of women are waiting for the "knight in shining armor" to sweep them off their feet and ride into the sunset. This results in women rejecting many men because they arent "perfect". Love isnt perfect. Love is sloppy and messy. Love has its ups and downs. If you keep waiting for the perfect person, you will be single forever.
If we are not being told we only like assholes and "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" we are being told we are up ourselves and waiting for the perfect guy and we think we are too good for everyone. We just can't win.
No point on taking any side to the extreme.
Everything must have a balance.
most men who think that don't actually know many women lol
+Pedro Afonso I think your lack of success with real life women might be related to your affinity for marking your fellow human beings out of 10.
***** ...if you ever wonder why you're eternally single you can just look at this comment
I feel like an alien for not liking the concept of marriage
Welcome to the club
"Love begins when the feelings end"
It's taken me many decades to come to these realizations through many hard lessons and experiences. I hope many young people understand what you're saying here...
Every human being who is past puberty should watch this! I needed to see this! Thank you for the explanation of what REAL love entails... And what it doesn't. And where the original idea (fantasy) of love came from. Maybe watching can make someone grateful for a relationship they take for granted, and someone else may realize their "picture perfect" relationship is or marriage is really an unhappy one that isn't about love. I needed this reassurance as every store I go into now is smothered with red hearts and gifts for Valentine's day. I always wondered why only one day of the year is dedicated to recognize "love". Really it should be called Romanticism day because that's all people make it about. Not true love. Maybe this video could save those with the wrong impression of what a truly loving relationship is a lot of heartache and possibly even some clarity. Just my opinion.
This video not only misunderstood Romanticism, but also heavily misrepresented pre-romanticist views of love. No matter what your opinion is on the concept of love you should research your subject better. Many things you state are simply wrong and even run contrary to historical fact. Assuming we are looking at the Western marriage pattern, considering we are talking about the Western concept of Romanticism. The idea that marriage was a practical thing is highly elitist and only based on nobility, marriage between the common man and woman was most definitely based on love and attraction, and was expected to be preceded by a long period of courting in which the young couple would get to know one another. It's true that love went along with arrangements such as dowries, inheritance and all such things, but in the end emotional compatibility was considered the most important factor when considering a marriage partner, because marriage was meant to be for life as it was considered a most sacred institution. Signs of affection such as serenades, gifts or even planting a may-tree in her garden were common. In order to protect this ideal the catholic church even banned arranged marriages (though the nobility didn't follow this rule much). Speaking of the church: the idea of sex being directly coupled to marital love is a Christian idea and is even described in the Bible. Similarly, adultery is considered a sin in Christianity as well, and it even tells men not to cover other women than their own wife. These pre-romanticist Western ideals of love in which a man and woman are meant to be devoted to one another alone are evident in works such as Romeo and Juliet (written more than a century before romanticism), which you ironically make multiple references to. This is not to mention the passion-filled ideas of courtly love from the middle ages.
It's true that the Western marriage pattern changed around 1750, but contrary to your claims this period is what we now sometimes call the "first sexual revolution", in which sex and marriage actually became more separated from one another. It was a time in which premarital sex, pregnant brides, single motherhood and unmarried cohabitation became more common.
I think one of the issues with marriage today is that ppl do not understand that the institution of marriage is truly a financial establishment. And that the loving longterm relationship one has with another is an entirely separate thing. Sure love is an ingredient needed for a successful marriage but there must also be practical similarities. Such as similar values, respect, and plans for the future. Because love in itself is not practical- it is an intuitive feeling
very true, thanks for the knowledge
I told my boyfriend before we broke up that "we shouldn't try to fit in every role in someone's life, we're not perfect." I don't know why i said that but now i understand.
The romantic era wasn't just about love. It was an era when artists started to deal with their own personalities and thoughts. Before that art was just about political leaders and their kingdoms and/or religion. The art developed in the romantic era was a breakout from that same art formula that was happening though 300 or 400 years before it came up. I agree with with some points and also enjoyed the video but the romantics were great people who thought quite outside the box for that period in any kind of art or science.
I’ve been seriously emotionally and physically paralyzed from being a hopeless romantic. Thanks to knowledge and learning and logic I am slowly picking myself up my pride my mind my body. I was really losing my life for love. “What u won’t do for love” song sounds so much different now. I will keep learning but holy shit.
I don't completely agree with the guy (especially his historical references...) but we are evolved for ideal gene proliferation. Attachment is a tool in that process I recon. There will always be some amount of conflict in the process of passing on superior genes. Conflict/deception between male/female and between individuals.
Anyway stay in the moment. Life if what you make it. Base decisions on what you want rather than what you don't want. Pain guaranteed, suffering doesn't always have to be.
There should be a dating site based on different areas of this, like who could be your co-chauffeur or your co-parent
This is one of the most important lesson(or video) that I've had the privilege to witness
So romanticism is responsible for the high divorce rate.
Naw that's your inability to subvert your expectations of each other and make goals with each other with consideration to each other.
Ishieka Morris no marriages fail for the reasons he believes important. Money, status, towels on the floor lol, etc. I hardly see people in relationships for reasons opposed here. Marriages fail because what they view as criteria for marriage, so called “love”, is really not love at all.
Not really, not always. There's many marriages that were done between those who had no ounce of personal affection or trust and there were also those who were duped into a marriage.
@Nadeko which social changes do you think had the greatest impact?
I feel like I'm the only person in *my world that relates to the classical school of thought.
Oh no, you're not the only one, trust me ;)
That's not exactly wrong though xD. Everyone may not be the centre of the universe kind of special (rather no one), but to say one isn't special is not that right either.
Indian always classical :)
me2
Thomas Headley I used 'my world' to specify that in my own context I am (or I feel like I am) the only one that thinks this way :).
This video may have just saved my marriage
HeroForHire Did it?
yeah did it?
DID IT?!
He got stabbed to death by his wife. Sry :(
Emanuel Linton that was way too funny. Thanks for the good laugh
Fits with values exactly. I've always been bothered by media's depiction of love and how people want it in real life. But reality doesn't work like that. If you don't acknowledge reality, the relationship will become dysfunctional with toxic expectations.
Exactly. As much as I love to read all these stories with partners understanding the other without words I have to understand that that won't happen. I have been exposed to romanticism since I was like 11? And it was difficult for me to understand hat my dad could not infact understand when mom was upset without her being passive aggressive or actually communicating. Real life doesn't work that way.
Once again, The School of Life menages to put together an elegant stream of words that flawlessly explains a concept, which is so commonly felt, yet so difficult to cohesively grasp.
One of the most worthy channels on the platform, hands down.
Keep on enlighten us!
+The School of Life, in ten years, expect people coming back to your videos and saying "This saved my life." You have been a wonderful counselor for so many people, in love and thought life and everything.
dude... go to an actual counselor
This stuff scares me
BOBO FAHK
lol indeed mate
How so ?
Which means it rings a bell with you, which is a good thing.
+Professicchio it terrifies me too but how is it a good thing ?
Not sure I buy the premise. I actually thought I would, but the focus of the argument seems to be debunking the value of pure romanticism, which is nothing new under the sun. I've yet to meet someone modern who believes that pure, irrational romantics is the way to approach a relationship. Seems to me that most people now are mixing in non-romantic things like communication and acceptance, and that believing too much in pure romance is largely a mark of age (youth) because it's harder to understand romance in a rational way when you're barely old enough to have experienced it in the first place.
Have a look at the excerpts from Bridezillas and say romanticism is dead. Look at the ongoing fight same sex couples across Western cultures for the right to marry, the enduring popularity of love songs, 50 Shades of Grey, the continuing popularity of Mills and Boon and will they, won't they costume dramas, rom cons, etc. Romanticism isn't dead because the alienation which engendered it - the Industrial and Agrarian Revolutions and the breakdown in familial and personal security is still prevalent. Whilst some of us are aware of the difficulties in emotional relationships, many still want to follow romanticism's promise. All I know for sure is that marriage and friendship are idealised but the necessary skills required to be successful in these are life skills, rather than natural attributes. You live and learn I suppose...
I think it’s weird when someone breakups with someone and says: ”Oh it just wasn’t meant to be!”
Maybe it was meant to be. Maybe it was meant to you guys be together, maybe you both learned something from your relationship. Just because you guys didin’t get married doesn’t mean it wasn’t meant to be. You guys we’re meant to be, but just not meant to be ”together forever”
:)
I'm so glad that this video acknowledges that a romantic partner does not also need to be a person's best friend. Those roles to me are incredibly different (and should also be spread out for the sake of emotional diversification).
if anyone wanna love me post-romantically, call me...
maybe
Lol!
haha.. good one. :)
Smash
You didn't leave your number. That's not very post romantic
Hey I just met you
Do Classicals always feel a need to misrepresent Romantic views?
What's a better version of Romanticism according to you? I interpret this video as an attack on a strong, idealized version of romanticism. Of course romanticism comes in other shades as well.
Also, being classical when making major decisions (like marriage) doesn't exclude romanticism in the relationship
+Dahaka97 The Classical movement was about politeness, propriety, and lack of passions,
The Romanic movement was about the passions of honesty in expression and virtue of individuals.
Hedonism is about living for pleasure while avoid practicalities.
Just because the Romantic and Hedonist movements are both not Classical, this channel is lumping them together to produce Romantic-Hedonism, and calling the result Romantic.
I am a non-hedonic Romantic and I find these being lumped together extremely insulting!
Unsubscribed.
+MegaBro you.re right in your criticism, but in today's perspective there is an argument to be made that romanticism implies hedonism
Sorry, but you guys got the idea of romanticism totally wrong. Romanticism had little to nothing to do wth actual love. Novalis (one of the most famous writers of the Romantic period in Germany, the country with probably the strongest romantic movement) described romanticism as such: "When I give the normal a higher being, the common a mysterious touch, the known the honor of being unknown, the finite a feeling of infinite, this is when I romanticise it." There is nothing about love or sex.
What you are talking about is Cheesy Hollywood romantic-comedy flicks. They of course have altered our way we perceive love. But this has nothing to do with the Romantic period which occurred in Europe in the early 19th century. Please differentiate next time
It's well known that Germans have no actual concept of love.
And this is coming from a German. I'd say the country with the most "romanticism" in this context is Italy.
There are different romanticism movements
I don´t get what you say. Richard Wagner is extremely romantic and a lot involved in love.
@@carsontroeh127 yeah but it's just an idealistic thing. In Italy right now, the romantic love is just a dream full of hope and illusions
I think romanticism is important in the beginning stages (and all stages of love!) because it shows you care but I totally agree that it's not everything!
That's why I stopped reading love novels because as I grow older, I realized that real true love is not portryaed in those books. It only injects my mind superficial ideas about love which brought lots of heartache when I was younger and naive ☺
I now prefer reading books about relationships by Christian authors and succesful Christian couples which shows how to love godly and purely ❤
You are right
I don't even read or watch romance. I always thought that romance is just unrealistic and absurd even when I was a child.
Damn, I was very sceptical when I saw the title but man, I 100% agree.
This topic has been so frequent between some groups lately that I guess there is a shift of the notion of "love" post the romanticism-era. Not only the "check-list" for romanticism but also all the new tools to get this online is so overwhelm to a lot.
While I still like do have "romantic" gestures for anyone I may be dating (silly doodles, flowers randomly or a huge hug out of nowhere, etc) I also have seen past partners struggle with some of these "check-list" I seen perfectly good relationships ends because we didn't fullful this list and after many years later I can look back and regret that we followed a template by what is supposed to be and not the fact that we were happy with more ups than downs.
Just remember there is a difference between fighting for something is worth it that being afraid to move on...
Could you do a video About the importance of education today and how it was back then? Would love to see how education has changed it value over the years.
They call Bollywood , Hollywood ,disney and k-drama, thai -drama,arabic and Chinese drama and all the other entertainment industry people' = "artist"...when they know nothing about art , their idea of love revolve around and pushes one the most common and toxic idea of art that is "romance". Do they know other form of art?
Makeup is an art, perfumery is an art, dance with emotion,geometry,sync and with spiritual message is an art (not just moving body there's many different classical dance whose purpose isn't just to look beautiful),singing is an art(not just different type of sound, it's about meaningful lyrics, spiritually guided and natural).they know know nothing about scholars,literature, art and architecture.
And now they are also glorifying abusive relationship with no way to escape.
People want to become "artist"and wish to go to these Industry but they don't even know art. These industry have put all the attention on beauty and consumerism.
I despise that everyone is following the same rule as to fall in love, it's so made-up, inauthentic , fake, programmed and buisness like. And people who don't fall in this category are not in love 😂. They have even ruined novel and books(current one and ancient one) to follow their interpretation of love and life. It's hellish, how people think they are smart but the only thing they project is stupidity.
nah, romanticism focused on subjectivity and the freedom of emotion
there are no certain rules or beliefs
Is it just me or is the classical way of thinking seem to be always the better mindset out of the two. Maybe I'm just biased since I identify much more with it but yeah, romanticism seems to be quite flawed.
***** *Shrug* Maybe Classical has flaws that are just not apparent to me. Idk
he said always. that the classical mindset is ALWAYS the better choice. this vid is about only about love
I agree. I think the reactionaries of the industrial revolution ruined everything.
i wouldn't be so sure about that, many classical philosophers saw romantic love as a kind of madness (that attitude having a lot to do with misogyny), and found 'fraternal' love more 'noble'. marriage was almost entirely practical, public and domestic life where highly segregate, and the positive feelings we associate with marriage--affection, loyalty, friendship, a sense of equality and respect, etc---would have been foreign to classical philosophers and their understanding of marriage. I think post modernism--a healthy skepticism towards certain romantic attitudes while still valuing the underlying ideal of romantic love--is an apt term, moreso than purely 'classical' in its conclusions.
edit: i think 'the experience of romantic love' might actually be a more appropriate, 'post modern' turn of phrase instead of 'the underlying ideal of romantic love' just an addition.
+Briar Reed Kant was a man child in your estimation? Could you explain your statement, please?
That was seriously informative from beginning to end, i felt like it was a perfect video. My favourite School of Life video so far.
I agree. It was very succinct while still laying out all of the ideas very well. "This is perfect" definitely came to mind.
I'm so happy someone finally said it. I've actually had friend groups disintegrate because of my beliefs surrounding human relationships. It's just nice to see that I'm represented in the public sphere.
I find the internet mindset to be drastically different and better than the irl uninformed mindset
Adultery was aggressively rejected before romanticism. It was penalized heavily in all ancient societies and even modern traditional ones.
It's getting accepted now like a game or adventure today
For women, not for men. Take the Victorian age, the Roman Empire or the Greek society for example. The men were exempt from exclusivity because it wasn't in their nature. Oy the adulterous women were penalized.
I clicked on this video expecting to be unhappy about it. Thinking it would tell us everything wrong with love but offer no solutions. To the contrary, it pointed out valid reasons why marriages continually fail and offered solutions. Loved this video!
Now that I'm in love, I've felt more lonely than ever! When I'm not with her or actively communicating with her, I feel alone.
that is attachment, not love
@@sarahs2776 True! Glad that's over with. This comment was three years ago! lol
@@PHYREXIANFISH omgg I just noticed how old it was!😂
We've all been there haha
@@PHYREXIANFISH are you still with her?
I wanna dislike this because it hits all the right points :(
its reality
thats why being is the a master decision in life
Why must all secrets be spoken about to my partner? Can't I keep those demons locked away for my own mind to quell in? I feel so ashamed whenever I see or hear that you shouldn't keep anything from your partner. But I do, does this mean I am a horrible partner now?
So true.
How love stories always tell you about the struggle to get together but not how details eat away your feelings about each other.
that classical template and its descriptions is a good guide for relationships wow
"We should meet a person of extraordinary outer- and inner beauty"
"We should never be attracted to others"
"We should have highly satisfying sex forever"
"We should have no sectrets and spend constant time together"
Etc.
I feel like you just presented a bunch of strawman arguments about what romanticism is, so you could debunk them with ease.
Thank you, now I don't have to comment.
Although I guess I would add that I think this thing would be fine if it didn't make such a wan motion toward intellectual history -- "Romanticism -- 1750" -- why not just say "the rise of what we now call Romantic Notions" or some such thing?
This set of ideas and ideals has literally nothing to do with the epoche of Romanticism (that is long over by the wy). It's okay if you don't explain what you mean, then people will assume the (wrongly used) notion of "stuff that is romantic". But if you introduce the epoche at least make sure that it covers what you think it covers.
The set of ideas you criticize comes rather from Romance movies, contemporary love novels and maybe series like "Sex and the City" (when you watch them very selectively). Topics like marriage, old age and even children are usually no topic in works from Romanticism.
Thanks so much for taking the trouble to put this objection. In fact we developed these ideas through a reading of the first part of the most popular novel of the late 18th Century - Goethe's 'Sorrows of the Young Werther'. But we'd be happy to be corrected by your more accurate and extensive knowledge.
Nah, you need to read a bit further to realize old Werther was the classic notion of lost idealistic love. Next you will be telling me Petrarch's Laura was the precursor to this lol.
We did in fact read further. The point is just that the early section lays out the key ideas of a romantic attitude, which then get subtly undermined in the rest of the novel. But Goethe was always complaining that his readers didn't understand what he was trying to do in the later sections.
Hi John!
Thank you for replying.
Well, "Die Leiden des jungen Werther" are counted among "Sturm und Drang" (=Storm and Stress) an epoche that deals with unmanageable emotions and the emotional outbreak from situations like in "Götz von Berlichingen" (by Goethe) or "Die Räuber" (by Schiller). Hance a bad example, I fear: Werther is used to show how love can develop into a sickness, a madness that will, in the end, cost your life. To the reader it is clearly visible how silly and hopeless his love is, his friends, even Lotte tries to convince him that he is taking it too far. He ignores them, nurtures his despair and insanity and in the end, takes his life. Not sure if I would count that as a relationship manual ;)
Most Sturm and Drang authors developed into "Weimarian Classic" in their later life (i.e. after their 20ies). This epoche is considered the 'enemy' of Romanticism, probably best to explain with a quote by Goethe: "Romanticism, that's the sick, the unnatural".
While Weimerian Classic tried to re-enact the ideals of Antique Classic, the old Roman and Greek authors, used ideals like Enlightenment and reason.
Romanticism on the other hand deals with nature, natural feelings, the intermixture of dream and reality, human darkness, ... More like an American or English Gothic Novel. Romantic plays and novels usually end in tragedy or a state of transcendence, love is a topic, but relationships rarely are. Marriage is rather used as a threat (the hero loses his freedom and is bound to a civil live) and nearly never happens at all. A good example for a Romantic novel is Hoffmann's "The Sandman", I think reading the Wikipedia article might suffice for a first impression.
It is often hard to distinguish the different strands of literature in this time, as a lot have elements from different strands. But neither depicts sex, relationships of old people or even intimacy in a relationship.
I hope that helped. It's not that easy to explain that issue in a few sentences, hence, if you have any futher questions, feel free to ask :)
Best
Schimmelreiterin (As in "The Rider on the White Horse", has some romantic motifs, but is actually counted as Literary Realism, by the way ;))
PS: Sorry for my awful English, I'm no native speaker. And I probably mistranslated some of the names, sorry for that, too.
Thanks very much for your extensive response. I'm not sure, now what exactly the issue at stake is. Our point is simply that the early section of Werther - which reflects the ideas we've ascribed to Romanticism - was hugely influential and popular with readers. And that it seems fair enough to describe these as Romantic ideas.
PS no problem re English - you're pretty fantastic at it by the way.
There are certainly issues with Romanticism but I don't believe you need to exterminate it in order to revitalize love. Like just about any philosophical theory, it has its own set of pros and cons.
Practicality is important, but so is flexibility.
Acceptance is important, yet so are boundaries.
Love involves a great deal of skill, but is it really wise to neglect it's emotional aspect because of this? The puzzle of love cannot be solved with any single piece.
Once, I think that everyone should ignore all these kinds of help and just suffer to learn, well, I wasn't completely right, the capacity of your videos of make me see the other side of things with kindness is incredible. and, beyond that, improve my english a lot. You are the best!
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "A woman is married for four things: for her
wealth, for her lineage, for her beauty or for her piety. Select the
pious, may you be blessed!".
can you explain what that passage means?
mochi 1993 In islam, it is best to pick the partner who wants to please God...
Sound advice!
For the love of God School of Life stop making such amazing content with genuine meaning all the time you're making everything else I watch seem flat and basic.
after this one Im hoping for one on "how to be a good roommate".
Agreed. Definitely think we confuse love with the emission of dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine, that's all 😊 but that's not to say those "feelings" aren't valid!
Having a partner needs work. Love isn't really enough. Look around, a lot of people who love each other are divorcing each other and breaking up with each other, because, according to what we see, it's not love if you need to work for (or on) it. Honestly, that's the stupidest thing.
As someone who’s trying to reevaluate priorities this video is phenomenal.