In the first few minutes, Agnes accuses Ben of not trusting her to print his notes without peeking at them -as if this absence of trust reflects an emotional defect on his part, rather than something she has not earned on hers. They then segue into Agnes’ first question: ‘What is trust?’ …Ben shamefully dances around the matter, accepting her implicit premise and striving to bring up anything except the sensible idea that trust entails credit that someone earns -credit that with him she did not earn re the prints.
This is a fascinating discussion. I’m an Episcopal priest and religion/philosophy teacher, married with 3 kids, and I frequently officiate weddings. And I was caught flat footed by the simple question “What is a marriage?” My first temptation is to point to the performative words of liturgy in the Prayer Book and say “that is marriage”. But that certainly excludes many cases I would want to include, such as marriages in other religious and secular traditions. After thinking about it, I would float “mutual commitment to exclusive companionship with a sexual dimension and lifelong intention” as a functional definition of marriage that would include the cases I want to include, while excluding instances such as friendship, business partnership, or sex work. I think I will adapt and use that question for premarital counseling: What is a marriage, and what does a wedding have to do with it?
@@williamofdallas With current students, no. Thankfully! But lots of alumni and faculty and staff. You gotta remember: In 5-10 years most folks in your graduating class will be looking for someone to do their wedding!
It was refreshing to hear the term "performative [utterance]" used in Austin's original sense, from "How to do Things with Words". Lately it has taken on a usage meaning roughly "something said just for show".
1:37:15 we don’t see our marriage as a failure 1:49:57 ingmar Bergman 2:17:52 respect; you’re separate people 2:26:07 labels- to have a norm to live up to which can now fail 2:26:41 “we’re going to aim big and we’ll never have enough reason to know we’ll succeed”
It would be so awesome if the audience questions could be repeated, even if short and reformulated by the speakers. Sometimes it is very very hard to hear what they state and one find herself guessing and assuming. Great initiative!
Interesting notions brought up. I wish there could have been more on conflict negotiation skills and, I guess, they tie in but, the final notion of 'collaboration' that Agnes brought up.
Start of the conversation: It's interesting to think about this very real, tangible practical thing that a lot of people experience in their life. An hour and 6min into the conversation: NOW IF people could undergo mitosis....
Relating to the discussion around 1:16:10 about how women tend to expect more growth from men than men tend to expect from women, I wonder if it is relevant to look at the particular arenas in which men and women seek to grow in their lives. I have often heard it said that men are looking for a "safe harbor" in their relationship in contrast to the challenges they take on in their professional life. If have personally often thought that I would like my primary relationship to be one of comfort as a reprieve from my professional life where I expect to and even look forward to being challenged. Is it possible that women are less likely to look for that comfort in their primary relationship (perhaps finding that comfort in friends or other sources) and instead see their primary relationship as an arena for growth?
I have a few follow-up questions: 1. What's in a name? Why do women tend to take their husband's last name in traditional marriages? and 2. Why (and how) does the government (in the US, and elsewhere) endorse or encourage marriage? Through tax incentives, etc.
Мој бивши муж и ја смо раскинули пре годину и два месеца, а ја сам била у шестом месецу трудноће. Обоје се волимо и то је био шок за мене и заиста ми је сломило срце. Покушао сам да га позовем и обе линије су биле прекинуте. Покушао сам да дођем до њега на друштвеним мрежама, али ме је склонио са њих. Покушао сам да дођем до његових родитеља и они су ми рекли да је њихов син рекао да ме не воли и да не жели да ме види и да не знају шта није у реду. Плакала сам и плакала сваки дан јер сам га много волела. Док се нисам породила и беба није имала годину дана, нисам могла да вратим своју љубав. Опет сам био збуњен. Не знам шта да радим, а остала сам и без посла и немам новца да се бринем о беби. Била сам несрећна у животу па сам плакала сестри и рекла јој свој проблем и рекла да зна за моћну чаролију која је бачена др апатом која јој помаже када није могла да затрудни. Контактирала сам га путем е-поште и он је рекао да ће ми помоћи и рекао ми је да је жена ставила чини на мог мужа и рекла да ће ми помоћи да разбијем чини тако да ће ми се муж заувек вратити и да ће бити мој. За мене је било велико изненађење што се догодило све што је рекао. Муж ми се одмах вратио и рекао ми да му опростим. Хвала вам пуно овом моћном и искреном чаролију. Молим се да ће дуго живети и радити више од свог дивног дела. Ако имате проблем који вас мучи у животу, обратите се овом моћном играчу чаролија! Он ти може помоћи. Неће вас изневерити, можете га контактирати путем гмаил адресе: драпата4@гмаил.цом или преко његовог вибера/вхатсапп-а:(+447307347648)
i dislike the normativeness running through the whole discussion so far (1h). what is good and bad, and normal and non-normal. where are those notions coming from? i feel not only terms like marriage ought to be "defined" (as philosophers always try to do, but never quite settle). the second aspect i dislike is the idea that one can simply use research "findings" and then philosophize about them as if these were established truths, when the social science research "findings" can and must always be challenged. Moreover, the findings can be challenged not just by means of other studies, but also of philosophical questioning or interrogations (epistemological, but also political). so, why not interrogate those "findings" about marriage or divorce and the harm on children, for example, but also the idea that married people are "happier"?
On monetized marriage: I think it might be true that all interactions are fundamentally transactional in nature, if you drill through all the layers to get to the bedrock of the interaction or the relationship. But those layers are what give the transaction meaning too. In a meaningful relationship, washing dishes today can be repaid in mowing the lawn tomorrow, sexual favors tonight, or buying a house five years later. In that case, it may not be entirely clear to the dishwasher what he or she did to earn the house, but it was all the little things adding up over time. So when a couple forces the bedrock to the top layer like this, I think it crushes the layers of meaning that might appear beneath it. So maybe a relationship is a most extreme kind of exercise in reciprocity, where the hope is that they can build those layers into a tower until the task of finding a glimpse of the bedrock is so inconceivable that the relationship is indistinguishable from magic/love. I think that might be the source of the disgust women feel toward the criticism that she only loves him for his wealth/status. The observation pierces through layers and so it feels like an attack on her character for the crime of feeling meaning or feeling a disproportionate amount of meaning from that layer compared to the man. The reverse of that might be the disgust men feel toward the criticism that he only loves her for her beauty/fertility.
On the sex divide regarding growth: Here's the male version of the divide. I notice that women often have trouble finding love for a man until after he has grown. Men want a woman who loves the part of him that has the capacity for growth. Because that part is older than all the other parts, so it's closest to his identity. Most women don't seem to want to do any of the womaning that catalyzes a man's growth these days. It's a stark contrast from just 18 years ago when for example Avril Lavigne wrote the lyics "Too bad that you couldn't see... See the man that boy could be." Recently I was reading an anecdote about a woman who lost the ability to be aroused by her husband when he lost his job and she saw him crying. She reported to her girl friends that it wasn't the lost job that caused her loss of attraction. It was the crying. I wonder if the degree to which a woman falls in love with the part of the man that has grown - as opposed to the part of the man that has the capacity for growth - is proportionate to the degree of disillusionment she will experience when she observes him crying.
Your "evidence" is not even anecdotal, it's SECOND HAND ANECDOTAL??? Even if you didn't state your gender it's crystal clear you're a man. This post makes me want to facepalm so hard. You are clearly looking for evidence to confirm your already present toxic beliefs
If a woman loses all attraction for a man because she sees him crying that woman didn't really love him. She was looking for a Daddy not a partner if she expects her man not to be able to express sadness and grief fully.
On no fault divorce incentivizes being nicer to each other: In the vein of marriage being a container for the couple to transform into a better problem solving unit on behalf of the kids, I could see how niceness has its limitations. Transformation is a painful process and sometimes a person doesn't want to let a bad idea die. Maybe two people can't catalyze growth in one another if they're constraining themselves to behaviors that the other person considers nice.
11:26 If this is true, it seems to undermine the entire idea of legally enshrining marriage as opposed to just having long-term, romantic relationships. While I generally have a very bleak view of political conservatism, on this particular issue I can't help but agree with a Ronald Reagan quote. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help' ."
What if we divorce our marriages too late? At first marriage is probably more exciting and therefore higher in utility than a romantic relationship without marital status. Over time for a lot of people, problems creep in, the relationship degrades, they start fighting and so on. At this point the standard procedure is to work hard, to resolve these issues and keep the marriage going. At this point you experience a lot of negative utility. More negative utility than in a non-marital relationship, which you would probably end much faster. So what if we did the opposite. We take the surplus of positive utility at the beginning of a marriage and end the marriage as soon as we would end a non-marital relationship. So all in all marriage with fast divorce is the best form of a romantic relationship. Marriage with slow divorce often the worst form.
Because these two Are the married/divorced couple, discussing/philosophising divorce ~ ~ ~ it comes across as a therapy session for their benefit ~ I honestly couldn't watch the entire discussion.
i think she is really confused about marriage. i dont think she is qualified to write the book either... i can see why her marriage failed. it is her personality/values and the way she acts towards her ex-husband.
Мој бивши муж и ја смо раскинули пре годину и два месеца, а ја сам била у шестом месецу трудноће. Обоје се волимо и то је био шок за мене и заиста ми је сломило срце. Покушао сам да га позовем и обе линије су биле прекинуте. Покушао сам да дођем до њега на друштвеним мрежама, али ме је склонио са њих. Покушао сам да дођем до његових родитеља и они су ми рекли да је њихов син рекао да ме не воли и да не жели да ме види и да не знају шта није у реду. Плакала сам и плакала сваки дан јер сам га много волела. Док се нисам породила и беба није имала годину дана, нисам могла да вратим своју љубав. Опет сам био збуњен. Не знам шта да радим, а остала сам и без посла и немам новца да се бринем о беби. Била сам несрећна у животу па сам плакала сестри и рекла јој свој проблем и рекла да зна за моћну чаролију која је бачена др апатом која јој помаже када није могла да затрудни. Контактирала сам га путем е-поште и он је рекао да ће ми помоћи и рекао ми је да је жена ставила чини на мог мужа и рекла да ће ми помоћи да разбијем чини тако да ће ми се муж заувек вратити и да ће бити мој. За мене је било велико изненађење што се догодило све што је рекао. Муж ми се одмах вратио и рекао ми да му опростим. Хвала вам пуно овом моћном и искреном чаролију. Молим се да ће дуго живети и радити више од свог дивног дела. Ако имате проблем који вас мучи у животу, обратите се овом моћном играчу чаролија! Он ти може помоћи. Неће вас изневерити, можете га контактирати путем гмаил адресе: драпата4@гмаил.цом или преко његовог вибера/вхатсапп-а:(+447307347648)
In the first few minutes, Agnes accuses Ben of not trusting her to print his notes without peeking at them -as if this absence of trust reflects an emotional defect on his part, rather than something she has not earned on hers.
They then segue into Agnes’ first question: ‘What is trust?’ …Ben shamefully dances around the matter, accepting her implicit premise and striving to bring up anything except the sensible idea that trust entails credit that someone earns -credit that with him she did not earn re the prints.
Yes it's almost like she cheated on him with one of her students...
This is a fascinating discussion. I’m an Episcopal priest and religion/philosophy teacher, married with 3 kids, and I frequently officiate weddings. And I was caught flat footed by the simple question “What is a marriage?” My first temptation is to point to the performative words of liturgy in the Prayer Book and say “that is marriage”. But that certainly excludes many cases I would want to include, such as marriages in other religious and secular traditions. After thinking about it, I would float “mutual commitment to exclusive companionship with a sexual dimension and lifelong intention” as a functional definition of marriage that would include the cases I want to include, while excluding instances such as friendship, business partnership, or sex work. I think I will adapt and use that question for premarital counseling: What is a marriage, and what does a wedding have to do with it?
Haha are there a lot of opportunities for premarital counseling at ESD?
@@williamofdallas With current students, no. Thankfully! But lots of alumni and faculty and staff. You gotta remember: In 5-10 years most folks in your graduating class will be looking for someone to do their wedding!
It was refreshing to hear the term "performative [utterance]" used in Austin's original sense, from "How to do Things with Words". Lately it has taken on a usage meaning roughly "something said just for show".
Thank you for recording this.
It's the little things you do together... that make perfect relationships..the neighbors you annoy together, the children you destroy together...
i found the portal.
1:37:15 we don’t see our marriage as a failure
1:49:57 ingmar Bergman
2:17:52 respect; you’re separate people
2:26:07 labels- to have a norm to live up to which can now fail
2:26:41 “we’re going to aim big and we’ll never have enough reason to know we’ll succeed”
It would be so awesome if the audience questions could be repeated, even if short and reformulated by the speakers. Sometimes it is very very hard to hear what they state and one find herself guessing and assuming. Great initiative!
Interesting notions brought up. I wish there could have been more on conflict negotiation skills and, I guess, they tie in but, the final notion of 'collaboration' that Agnes brought up.
Start of the conversation: It's interesting to think about this very real, tangible practical thing that a lot of people experience in their life.
An hour and 6min into the conversation: NOW IF people could undergo mitosis....
Relating to the discussion around 1:16:10 about how women tend to expect more growth from men than men tend to expect from women, I wonder if it is relevant to look at the particular arenas in which men and women seek to grow in their lives. I have often heard it said that men are looking for a "safe harbor" in their relationship in contrast to the challenges they take on in their professional life. If have personally often thought that I would like my primary relationship to be one of comfort as a reprieve from my professional life where I expect to and even look forward to being challenged. Is it possible that women are less likely to look for that comfort in their primary relationship (perhaps finding that comfort in friends or other sources) and instead see their primary relationship as an arena for growth?
I can’t imagine what ‘growth’ would even mean though, other than economic.
This is an excellent analysis. And I think you have really hit on something here. TY!
I have a few follow-up questions: 1. What's in a name? Why do women tend to take their husband's last name in traditional marriages? and 2. Why (and how) does the government (in the US, and elsewhere) endorse or encourage marriage? Through tax incentives, etc.
because men used to work and they inherited their fathers estate.
Мој бивши муж и ја смо раскинули пре годину и два месеца, а ја сам била у шестом месецу трудноће. Обоје се волимо и то је био шок за мене и заиста ми је сломило срце. Покушао сам да га позовем и обе линије су биле прекинуте. Покушао сам да дођем до њега на друштвеним мрежама, али ме је склонио са њих. Покушао сам да дођем до његових родитеља и они су ми рекли да је њихов син рекао да ме не воли и да не жели да ме види и да не знају шта није у реду. Плакала сам и плакала сваки дан јер сам га много волела. Док се нисам породила и беба није имала годину дана, нисам могла да вратим своју љубав. Опет сам био збуњен. Не знам шта да радим, а остала сам и без посла и немам новца да се бринем о беби. Била сам несрећна у животу па сам плакала сестри и рекла јој свој проблем и рекла да зна за моћну чаролију која је бачена др апатом која јој помаже када није могла да затрудни. Контактирала сам га путем е-поште и он је рекао да ће ми помоћи и рекао ми је да је жена ставила чини на мог мужа и рекла да ће ми помоћи да разбијем чини тако да ће ми се муж заувек вратити и да ће бити мој. За мене је било велико изненађење што се догодило све што је рекао. Муж ми се одмах вратио и рекао ми да му опростим. Хвала вам пуно овом моћном и искреном чаролију. Молим се да ће дуго живети и радити више од свог дивног дела. Ако имате проблем који вас мучи у животу, обратите се овом моћном играчу чаролија! Он ти може помоћи. Неће вас изневерити, можете га контактирати путем гмаил адресе: драпата4@гмаил.цом или преко његовог вибера/вхатсапп-а:(+447307347648)
Please timestamp the question small selfish suggestion
24:12 what's good about being Married
i dislike the normativeness running through the whole discussion so far (1h). what is good and bad, and normal and non-normal. where are those notions coming from? i feel not only terms like marriage ought to be "defined" (as philosophers always try to do, but never quite settle). the second aspect i dislike is the idea that one can simply use research "findings" and then philosophize about them as if these were established truths, when the social science research "findings" can and must always be challenged. Moreover, the findings can be challenged not just by means of other studies, but also of philosophical questioning or interrogations (epistemological, but also political). so, why not interrogate those "findings" about marriage or divorce and the harm on children, for example, but also the idea that married people are "happier"?
I want the owl statue on top of the radiator. Name your price. LOl.
Ah ah ah yeah yeah non transactional ah ah
On monetized marriage: I think it might be true that all interactions are fundamentally transactional in nature, if you drill through all the layers to get to the bedrock of the interaction or the relationship. But those layers are what give the transaction meaning too. In a meaningful relationship, washing dishes today can be repaid in mowing the lawn tomorrow, sexual favors tonight, or buying a house five years later. In that case, it may not be entirely clear to the dishwasher what he or she did to earn the house, but it was all the little things adding up over time. So when a couple forces the bedrock to the top layer like this, I think it crushes the layers of meaning that might appear beneath it. So maybe a relationship is a most extreme kind of exercise in reciprocity, where the hope is that they can build those layers into a tower until the task of finding a glimpse of the bedrock is so inconceivable that the relationship is indistinguishable from magic/love.
I think that might be the source of the disgust women feel toward the criticism that she only loves him for his wealth/status. The observation pierces through layers and so it feels like an attack on her character for the crime of feeling meaning or feeling a disproportionate amount of meaning from that layer compared to the man. The reverse of that might be the disgust men feel toward the criticism that he only loves her for her beauty/fertility.
That was a very thoughtful analysis.
Do you observe a fundamentally transactional nature in parent-baby/baby-parent interaction?
Nice Gorman dress
Trust - certainty (v) and confidence (h) in the integrity of your spouse so that full attention can be maintained without distraction (love).
On the sex divide regarding growth: Here's the male version of the divide. I notice that women often have trouble finding love for a man until after he has grown. Men want a woman who loves the part of him that has the capacity for growth. Because that part is older than all the other parts, so it's closest to his identity. Most women don't seem to want to do any of the womaning that catalyzes a man's growth these days. It's a stark contrast from just 18 years ago when for example Avril Lavigne wrote the lyics "Too bad that you couldn't see... See the man that boy could be."
Recently I was reading an anecdote about a woman who lost the ability to be aroused by her husband when he lost his job and she saw him crying. She reported to her girl friends that it wasn't the lost job that caused her loss of attraction. It was the crying. I wonder if the degree to which a woman falls in love with the part of the man that has grown - as opposed to the part of the man that has the capacity for growth - is proportionate to the degree of disillusionment she will experience when she observes him crying.
Your "evidence" is not even anecdotal, it's SECOND HAND ANECDOTAL??? Even if you didn't state your gender it's crystal clear you're a man. This post makes me want to facepalm so hard. You are clearly looking for evidence to confirm your already present toxic beliefs
If a woman loses all attraction for a man because she sees him crying that woman didn't really love him. She was looking for a Daddy not a partner if she expects her man not to be able to express sadness and grief fully.
On no fault divorce incentivizes being nicer to each other: In the vein of marriage being a container for the couple to transform into a better problem solving unit on behalf of the kids, I could see how niceness has its limitations. Transformation is a painful process and sometimes a person doesn't want to let a bad idea die. Maybe two people can't catalyze growth in one another if they're constraining themselves to behaviors that the other person considers nice.
11:26 If this is true, it seems to undermine the entire idea of legally enshrining marriage as opposed to just having long-term, romantic relationships. While I generally have a very bleak view of political conservatism, on this particular issue I can't help but agree with a Ronald Reagan quote. "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help' ."
I don’t believe broken trust can ever be repaired in a marriage. It’s interesting to me that you believe that.
What if we divorce our marriages too late?
At first marriage is probably more exciting and therefore higher in utility than a romantic relationship without marital status. Over time for a lot of people, problems creep in, the relationship degrades, they start fighting and so on. At this point the standard procedure is to work hard, to resolve these issues and keep the marriage going. At this point you experience a lot of negative utility. More negative utility than in a non-marital relationship, which you would probably end much faster. So what if we did the opposite. We take the surplus of positive utility at the beginning of a marriage and end the marriage as soon as we would end a non-marital relationship. So all in all marriage with fast divorce is the best form of a romantic relationship. Marriage with slow divorce often the worst form.
Daring
Because these two Are the married/divorced couple, discussing/philosophising divorce ~ ~ ~ it comes across as a therapy session for their benefit ~ I honestly couldn't watch the entire discussion.
Arnold Brooks should be here. It's clear why Agnes fell in love with him (as reported in the NEW YORKER). He's beautiful.
I'm simultaneously fascinated, shocked, impressed, and disturbed that Ben still lives with Agnes and Arnold.
@@synchronium24 what i don't understand is why the young cutie would want to be in any room with her except a seminar room
100
*i am a vampire. \^_^/.* a philosophy vampire. -JC EDIT: maybe im a love vampire. -JC
I haven’t watched this yet but I saw you talk with Eric Weinstein and if you’re keen on a second divorce let me know 🥰
Ok coomer 🤤
Um.
fantastic analysis. wholeheartedly agree
This whole thing would be about 15 minutes if they removed the "Um"s and "Uh"s.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749596X19300208?via%3Dihub
Ahm ahm ah ah ah ah
i think she is really confused about marriage. i dont think she is qualified to write the book either... i can see why her marriage failed. it is her personality/values and the way she acts towards her ex-husband.
Мој бивши муж и ја смо раскинули пре годину и два месеца, а ја сам била у шестом месецу трудноће. Обоје се волимо и то је био шок за мене и заиста ми је сломило срце. Покушао сам да га позовем и обе линије су биле прекинуте. Покушао сам да дођем до њега на друштвеним мрежама, али ме је склонио са њих. Покушао сам да дођем до његових родитеља и они су ми рекли да је њихов син рекао да ме не воли и да не жели да ме види и да не знају шта није у реду. Плакала сам и плакала сваки дан јер сам га много волела. Док се нисам породила и беба није имала годину дана, нисам могла да вратим своју љубав. Опет сам био збуњен. Не знам шта да радим, а остала сам и без посла и немам новца да се бринем о беби. Била сам несрећна у животу па сам плакала сестри и рекла јој свој проблем и рекла да зна за моћну чаролију која је бачена др апатом која јој помаже када није могла да затрудни. Контактирала сам га путем е-поште и он је рекао да ће ми помоћи и рекао ми је да је жена ставила чини на мог мужа и рекла да ће ми помоћи да разбијем чини тако да ће ми се муж заувек вратити и да ће бити мој. За мене је било велико изненађење што се догодило све што је рекао. Муж ми се одмах вратио и рекао ми да му опростим. Хвала вам пуно овом моћном и искреном чаролију. Молим се да ће дуго живети и радити више од свог дивног дела. Ако имате проблем који вас мучи у животу, обратите се овом моћном играчу чаролија! Он ти може помоћи. Неће вас изневерити, можете га контактирати путем гмаил адресе: драпата4@гмаил.цом или преко његовог вибера/вхатсапп-а:(+447307347648)