@@jackjack4412 ...I'm willing to bet that this crazy old man, being at least a little younger, fucked like an animal, and was attractive to women simply because he is an intelligent person who clearly cares about his partner's pleasure in sex as much as his own. As a cis man you really need nothing else to fuck good and often.
Even i think that you have this needs that have to be satisfied that ist Something that comes Out of capitalism. The suggest to you that you have this and that Kind of needs artificial created
@@saschawalmroth5465 It doesn't come from capitalism, it comes from the downfall of religion and age of enlightenment. This gave rise to hedonism and leftism that supports it. Capitalism simply takes advantage of that, but it's not the cause.
This is actually his weakest philosophical work. He is totally not a Hegelian here, but very much a romantic. Hegel would point out that love is the problem. Love emerges only as a phenomenon when you love some and hate others.
@@dt6822 nah, we could have a whole debate about Hegel on love. It is not so definitive as you are laying out here.. What you are doing is sneaking in an Englesian/"Marxian" version of Hegel... which naturalizes capitalist interpersonal relationships... saying that the "holy family" wasn't really ever that "holy" and everything is always already capitalism, for example. It is why Zizek tells us, that we need to get out of marx and return to Hegel. Which I will be releasing a video soon about. Also, I think Zizek's weakest argument is also Hegel's weakest argument, regarding "India" which I critique at the end of my ritual traces series on my channel, from the point of view of Derrida and Spivak.
@@Cyberphunkisms And I would say that you are adopting a view on Marx that is a later Marx, if at all Marx, to do with his alleged disdain of traditional forms of marriage what with the oppression of women and the like. First, if this is in fact what people view that Marx is saying, it's not my view of it at all, and he is not at all attacking the holy family as some kind of a oppressive construct the way sociologists may attack it today. Rather, Marx is always attacking what Lucacs would later phrase as reification. Marx was not doing a historical analysis as an objective pursuit, by his own admission since the conception of History is always a construction through multiple means of representation. In other words, if you understand Marx as a sociologist rather than a philosopher, or you believe he's making ethical arguments rather than ontological or epistemological ones, it's normal to view his perspectives on social arrangements in an incomplete way. But returning back to Hegel, it doesn't ultimately matter whether my reading of Hegel is correct, nor is Marx's views on family really relevant. I am speaking phenomenologically: one only finds the emergence of love in any sort of understanding outside of the context of physical impulse need, is only made possible through its inability to love everyone, because one cannot know everyone. In other words you love those you know who are additionally in some ways beneficial to you. To imagine love in ways that Slavoj does here is always profoundly ontological and platonic and in that way perhaps Hegel would approve. But it isn't epistemologically sound.
@@nikkingman It depends, doesn't it? If they were using that to VALIDATE their claim, like in an argument that'd be a fallacy. But to just appreciate some respected person saying something they feel, that's not a fallacy because there is no argument/claim being made based on that.
@@nikkingman What? Do you think it wasn't satisfying? I don't see what could be fallacious when they aren't making a point. They're expressing their feelings.
@@Proud_Troll I don't believe they were referring to his appearence. Even if they were, beauty is subjective. I can find someone beautiful and could could find that same person hideous :)
@@thesecretorganist thats true if marry somebody that has had sexual partners before. If both the man and women are virgins then the divorce rate (for a long term marriage) is only 2%, but if either party has had sex even once before then the divorce rate is around 50%. There is a study that shows this. I guess the traditionalists were correct in their "no sex before marriage" stance.
It’s nice when you have a certain opinion on a more personal topic and then a person you have great respect for comes along and basically says “Yeah I agree”
I think that it's great that both very high up philosphers could go to any laymens philosophy and just go "I agree, great/shite ain't it" and both parties having a great time with it.
What most people dont say about love is "Care". True love means genuinely caring about someone, wanting the best for them even of it may not be the best thing for u, treating them with empathy and kindness. Letting them express their feelings emotions without judgement. Giving them comfort and joy. Love is not fake flattery. U need to be honest yet encouraging and appreciative. Truly nuturing someone to be the happiest, best versions of themselves. Taking and giving help without abuse. But we dont live in an ideal world. We are not perfect.
Disclaimer: I completely agree with zizek on this and many other ideas. What I find so fascinating about him is that he is often written off as a "radical leftist" but he is in the true sense of the word a moderate- his conclusions don't result in some fantastic overhaul of everything or any deliberate blind spots on issues but are instead a balanced interpretation of the way things are. It is fascinating to think of how many truly conservative arguments zizek makes, much more coherently than most popular conservatives, yet he is considered radical and dangerous because he arrives at those conclusions by really thinking them through rather than through any kind of dogmatism. Yet there is a stigma around him as if he was some kind of dogmatic marxist. It's almost as if someone who intelligently understand and agrees with prevalent ideology is more dangerous than someone who doesn't understand or agree
A person's views on more personal social issues don't necessarily need to have anything to do with your wider political views on society. I see this mostly in American-esque discourse. This and that is Leftist, if you believe in this you must therefore be more conservative, etc. It's a stupid mode of reducing what is inherently an extremely broad field in to two directions and a primitive way of viewing politics. (I'm not accusing you of doing this, just commenting on why I think things are perceived this way.)
This is the most robustly rounded and practical definition of marriage... one that is so experientially true too... marriage is about sharing and inhabiting the little rituals which make meanings... my admiration for Zizek as a profound philosopher just shot up...
He starts his whole thesis with a false premise though. He states "marriage no longer serves an economic function" which is false. Married couples are taxed much less than singles. Everything after that false premise is romantic bs. He's a clown more than an intellectual.
@@anonymous-rj6ok Depends where, where I live, the state recognizes "cohabitation" (probably not the right word but its translation is difficult) between couples. No need for marriage to get tax benefits, it therefore renders marriage absolutely useless.
@@anonymous-rj6ok the exclusive economic function that marriage neccessitated at an earlier doesnt hold same weight. He says love now "can' (potential) to be truly beautiful.
almost an assault on the brain. But he is right marriage is not about sex, it's about building a life around someone. Taking the whole package and compromising. Marriage is also the foundation for family because you're thinking beyond yourself which is necessary for building and sustaining family.
Thank you zizek! its funny how you can have an idea in your mind for years but you cant never really articulate it pretty good and then you hear someone tell it in a perfect way and you feel great.
Hear me out here... Zizek just wants to check if he is speaking his mind truthfully or bullshitting. So, for every word he speaks, he is touching his nose to check its length. As long as it doesn't grow, he continues to speak. It is just a manual polygraph for him. Someone needs to let him know that he is not really Pinocchio!
I saw this vid and immediately went and watched the whole thing...mainly because it had subtitles and the topics were ''simple'' and not deeply explored relative to his other interviews/vids...it was really easy for me to follow up (and comprehend every sentence without losing my mind by trying to keep up w so many complex concepts and ideas) with him this time love him
@@billthebutcher3171 i think it is "meeting zizek at home (2019) by Qing Wang. I haven't watched it yet but it showed up in the related videos and i think that's the video
@@tme98 i think it is "meeting zizek at home (2019) by Qing Wang. I haven't watched it yet but it showed up in the related videos and i think that's the video
Non, it is not. I swear to dog, marriage, the force which shall says that love is forever, that you must have one, is a nightmare : it's the essence of the American dream, a cristallisation of beauty, turned into the worst thing ever. However, bargaining about the beauty of marriage, finding something beautiful in it, despite it - and it's the term here, yes, this is beautiful, beautifully human. Shrek-like I might said.
The main issue is that however you see marriage might not be how your partner sees it. What for you is a major, permanent commitment might be a minor, malleable one to them.
Beautiful and fits my personal philosophy ^^. There are things that are secret in nature, that can only be seen when you're there, and those things cannot be faked, they require an inner commitment, a faith, that is the opening of the heart, and with it comes purity.
Reminded me of a song by Giorgio Gaber (which Zizek may know, as Gaber was quite famous in Italy and especially among marxists) THE DILEMMA Across a beach, not so serene, A man and a woman were walking, Upon them the vast shadow of the dilemma; The man was perhaps more daring, More stupid and charming, The woman had forgiven, not without sorrow. The dilemma was always the same, An elementary question: Whether or not their love made sense. In a house overlooking the sea Lived a man and a woman, Upon them the shadow of the dilemma; The man is a quiet animal Provided he lives in his den, As for the woman, you don't know if she's deceitful or divine; The dilemma represents The balance of forces on field, Because love and quarrel are the forms of our time. And their love was dying Like everyone's love, Like a normal, widely occurring thing; Because dying and making others die Is an ancient custom people usually have. He almost always spoke Of hope and of fear As if they were the core of his future image, And cultivated his desires Always searching for the truth, She listened to him in silence, or maybe she already knew. He too, curiously enough, Like everyone, was born from a womb; But, sadly, he can't remember or, maybe, doesn't know. On a springtime day When she wasn't looking at him He ran after the eyes of another girl, And it's still unknown today If he was innocent like an animal, Or if he was dumbfounded by vanity. And still she wondered, strangely enough, If she had to keep loving him, To remain faitfhul to her husband. And their love was dying Like everyone's love, With the words everyone knows by heart; They knew how to cry and suffer But without blaming The current times, or history... Their desire of staying together Was so difficult to be judged, You don't know if it's something old, or if it's pleasing; It was all an unbroken series Of unguarded moments and hard work With the great tenacity typical of things past; And this is the point of this story, Anyway not so important, That you can call, if you want, Resistance. Maybe the memory of that month of May Was a lesson, even in failure, Of severity, of cult for courage; And they decidedly refused Our ideas of free love, They were unable to adapt to that choice; I can't tell whether to our choice Or to our new fate, I only know they killed themselves. And their love died Like everyone's love, Not for an abstract thing, like family, They chose death For a real thing, Like family... I would like to understand more clearly, To go over the course of their lives, The courageous battles they had won or lost; I would like to get through Into the mystery of a man and a woman, Into the immense labyrinth of that dilemma. Maybe that desperate act Could even be the sign Of something we'll understand soon. And their love was dying Like everyone's love, Like a normal, widely occurring thing; Because dying and making others die Is an ancient custom people usually have.
Even without the economic reasons that lead to marriage (and sometime it's not true, because there is plenty of lazy people who want to live on the shoulders of the partner), there is still the idea of marriage as an achievement regardless of who the partner is. That is very common. Marriage can be a beautiful thing depending on the meaning that one gives to it. But there is not only the economic factor that affects the "purest" value of marriage. There are also other factors, like the idea of social achievement that I mentioned before. So, at the end, the ones who can be very close to the "pure" love will not love in this way because of marriage as we know it. Someone who gets to experience the "true" love would experience it even without a commitment officialized by an institution. The commitment of two partners is not about marriage unless we deinstitutionalize the marriage itself and say that marriage exists between any couple in which the partners are committed to each other without the need of a stamp on a paper or a ring. The fact that we recognize marriage only in couples that hold a ring is one of the reasons why marriage is often an aesthetical need more than the proof of a deep commitment. The tons of divorces prove this. That, of course, doesn't mean that those holding a ring can't experience a deep commitment.
@@wa794 What a beautiful example of semantics. He just said it's not "real love," which is would only be "against" someone who thought that the "amory" in "polyamory" meant something
It's like buying "you are the best partner in the world" card and then you give it to multiple persons :))) the ones that still say poly has the same emotional, they still didn't get it. No worries, it's not for everyone
1:58 "Love is: I cannot live without you"... Hmm, I disagree. Let me just drop this here: “The capacity to be alone is the capacity to love. It may look paradoxical to you, but it's not. It is an existential truth: only those people who are capable of being alone are capable of love, of sharing, of going into the deepest core of another person--without possessing the other, without becoming dependent on the other, without reducing the other to a thing, and without becoming addicted to the other. They allow the other absolute freedom, because they know that if the other leaves, they will be as happy as they are now. Their happiness cannot be taken by the other, because it is not given by the other.” - Osho
@@openyoureyes1763 Another brilliant quote, thank you for sharing. I frankly find it quite astounding that saying such things to a potential partner (at least in the Western World where I live) would be considered rude, insulting, or "not true love". Our culture has romanticized unhealthy/toxic relationships to such a degree that I feel alienated for not agreeing with the "I cannot live without you" mindset. I would be over the moon to hear my partner say "I am happy with you, and I would also be happy without you, because my happiness is not dependant on your existence." I would know that my partner could carry on living and be happy even if something happened to me. I wouldn't want them to cease to function and remain miserable in the event of my death because they couldn't live without me.
We may debate this but I don't think Zizek was paying too close attention to formalising this sentence. Of course one needs to be able to live on their own, not to be fully dependent on the person they love, but Zizek is simply making another point.
I don't think he meant it in a codependent 'I can't live without you way'. I thought of it as a statement expressing love. I cannot allow myself to let you go through all your troubles alone. I want to be present with you all the way. But nice quote.
It's just not that simple. Humans form attachments, it's just human nature. It makes us dependent but is also the basis of loyalty and being able to sacrifice. And without those things love rings a bit hollow.
what žižek hasnt considered about polyamory here is that there may not be this selectiveness for certain needs met by different partners, and in fact, these different partners may actually end up causing a person to have fewer of their needs met. say a person has a high libido and two partners with a low libido; these partners may feel less internal pressure than in a monogamous relationship to provide sex to the high libido partner, and thus the high libido partner may end up having less sex than they would if they had been in a monogamous relationship with one of them. yet, this high libido person may want to be around their partners regardless of this, and this is what žižek defines as love; it is not about having one's needs met, and it is not about having a partner whom you see as perfect for you (or multiple partners forming some kind of a composite perfect partner).
Lot of words to say whatever. If love is so strong then why does it need some formal bullshit like marriage. Also, love is about satisfying needs. Needs of acceptance, of emotional, intellectual and sexual closeness, what he means is that he prefers to satisfy them all with one person and not more.
You didn't notice the obvious lie? He states "marriage no longer serves an economic function". In reality, married couples are taxed much less than singles. So the premise is false. Everything after that falsehood is romantic bs. What a clown he is.
I'm not a fan of him or his views on politics, but imo he's spot on with his description of love and marriage here. "Love is not about satisfying your needs" Deep. Respect.
When i talk about marriage with friends they mostly think about dividing shares of homes of money etc and this has become such common that i think because of structure of culture most people just lost the beauty of commitment and actual intimacy... as i see the commitment based relationships are dissapearing slowly and this level of polyramous relationships despite personal differences i see it as overall unhealthy dynamics playing so much in the way we think and act upon relationships and sex. Everyone screws who can they screw have fun or not commit ie situationships but they still feel like shit at the end of the day and level of comprimising also has declined significantly which isnt not a good thing overall sometimes you need to compromise on things that doesnt sabotage your own well being and boundaries. And this doesnt make you a loser at all you iust learn to find a win/win situation and it s part of human connection you can put robots you can put casual sex put it multiple casual relationships you ll still feel empty because it falls short with our nature and gut looking for a bonding
He's totally right about individualistic "neoliberal" polyamory. But marriages also can be individualistic. Polyamory can also be about true love. The problem is not the format of the relationship, it's what people bring to the format.
One sniffs = 10% IQ gain
ramping ramping
His snot is cocaine
Yeah, he mastered the IQ breathing tecnique
Crazy😂
25910% IQ in total
'Sex is beautiful, passionate nights, whatever.'
~ S. Zizek
It's crazy anyone would ever sleep with him
@@jackjack4412check his older when he was young.He had a certain something going for him
. But anyway he clearly suffered a lot romantically.
@@jackjack4412 Go look at who he has dated and come back.
@@jackjack4412 ...I'm willing to bet that this crazy old man, being at least a little younger, fucked like an animal, and was attractive to women simply because he is an intelligent person who clearly cares about his partner's pleasure in sex as much as his own.
As a cis man you really need nothing else to fuck good and often.
@@jackjack4412 I mean he is old now but girls love communists lol, they tend to be emotional.
"Love is not about satisfying your needs" That's beautiful and true
Even i think that you have this needs that have to be satisfied that ist Something that comes Out of capitalism. The suggest to you that you have this and that Kind of needs artificial created
americans be like: So become a cuckold
@@saschawalmroth5465 It doesn't come from capitalism, it comes from the downfall of religion and age of enlightenment. This gave rise to hedonism and leftism that supports it. Capitalism simply takes advantage of that, but it's not the cause.
@@notuxnobuxSorry its Not the downfall its that capitalism create artificial needs. Its since Marketing was hitting in.
@@notuxnobux religions are still very big in the world and wtf do you think that people weren't hedonistic before the 1600s?
Most wholesome zizek video on the internet 🤗
You forgot the one where he describes getting the n-word pass
@@hellshakeyano7686 i haven't watched it, can you send me the link?
@@samwellick1706 czcams.com/video/Og6VI3WXtp0/video.html
@@samwellick1706 It was this one czcams.com/video/5dNbWGaaxWM/video.html
@@hellshakeyano7686send me link
I have never heard someone explaining the term Love with such a great precision as Žižek did in two minutes. Impressive!
goes side by side with his words about "fear of falling in love" ...
aka feminism killed socialism
Yes he can be breathtakingly articulate.
This is actually his weakest philosophical work. He is totally not a Hegelian here, but very much a romantic. Hegel would point out that love is the problem. Love emerges only as a phenomenon when you love some and hate others.
@@dt6822 nah, we could have a whole debate about Hegel on love. It is not so definitive as you are laying out here..
What you are doing is sneaking in an Englesian/"Marxian" version of Hegel... which naturalizes capitalist interpersonal relationships... saying that the "holy family" wasn't really ever that "holy" and everything is always already capitalism, for example.
It is why Zizek tells us, that we need to get out of marx and return to Hegel. Which I will be releasing a video soon about.
Also, I think Zizek's weakest argument is also Hegel's weakest argument, regarding "India" which I critique at the end of my ritual traces series on my channel, from the point of view of Derrida and Spivak.
@@Cyberphunkisms And I would say that you are adopting a view on Marx that is a later Marx, if at all Marx, to do with his alleged disdain of traditional forms of marriage what with the oppression of women and the like. First, if this is in fact what people view that Marx is saying, it's not my view of it at all, and he is not at all attacking the holy family as some kind of a oppressive construct the way sociologists may attack it today. Rather, Marx is always attacking what Lucacs would later phrase as reification. Marx was not doing a historical analysis as an objective pursuit, by his own admission since the conception of History is always a construction through multiple means of representation. In other words, if you understand Marx as a sociologist rather than a philosopher, or you believe he's making ethical arguments rather than ontological or epistemological ones, it's normal to view his perspectives on social arrangements in an incomplete way.
But returning back to Hegel, it doesn't ultimately matter whether my reading of Hegel is correct, nor is Marx's views on family really relevant. I am speaking phenomenologically: one only finds the emergence of love in any sort of understanding outside of the context of physical impulse need, is only made possible through its inability to love everyone, because one cannot know everyone. In other words you love those you know who are additionally in some ways beneficial to you. To imagine love in ways that Slavoj does here is always profoundly ontological and platonic and in that way perhaps Hegel would approve. But it isn't epistemologically sound.
It's always satisfying hearing such a famous and respected philosopher explain something you've been feeling and thinking yourself.
you've just verbalized a logical fallacy
@@nikkingman It depends, doesn't it? If they were using that to VALIDATE their claim, like in an argument that'd be a fallacy. But to just appreciate some respected person saying something they feel, that's not a fallacy because there is no argument/claim being made based on that.
@@nikkingman What? Do you think it wasn't satisfying? I don't see what could be fallacious when they aren't making a point. They're expressing their feelings.
Lol @@nikkingman
Slavoj, I can't live without you.
Tough luck, guess you're the one to clean the toilet now.
Yea but are u ready to change radically to be w him?
He is a beautiful person.
He's a softie ❤
No, no he isn't.
he is very not beautiful.
@@Proud_Troll I don't believe they were referring to his appearence. Even if they were, beauty is subjective. I can find someone beautiful and could could find that same person hideous :)
😂
He must really love marriage, he's been married four times lol
He married one person at a time.
That is generally how marriage works
😂😂😂 oh the irony
@Lavender Eyes im crying of laughter 😁😁😁
@@thesecretorganist thats true if marry somebody that has had sexual partners before. If both the man and women are virgins then the divorce rate (for a long term marriage) is only 2%, but if either party has had sex even once before then the divorce rate is around 50%. There is a study that shows this. I guess the traditionalists were correct in their "no sex before marriage" stance.
'Make some homosexual experiments' killed me 😂
It’s nice when you have a certain opinion on a more personal topic and then a person you have great respect for comes along and basically says
“Yeah I agree”
I think that it's great that both very high up philosphers could go to any laymens philosophy and just go "I agree, great/shite ain't it" and both parties having a great time with it.
He soothed my heart. Thankyou Zizek.
What most people dont say about love is "Care". True love means genuinely caring about someone, wanting the best for them even of it may not be the best thing for u, treating them with empathy and kindness. Letting them express their feelings emotions without judgement.
Giving them comfort and joy.
Love is not fake flattery. U need to be honest yet encouraging and appreciative. Truly nuturing someone to be the happiest, best versions of themselves.
Taking and giving help without abuse.
But we dont live in an ideal world. We are not perfect.
ok, now explain what this has to do with marriage
@@chilli1472pissy
@@chilli1472xD
Zizek. I went to slovenia 🇸🇮 because of him. Ljublijna is such a beautiful city.
Ljubljana is so underrated !
@@schwingmeister2171 who's underrating it? I need names. I'll deal with them
Disclaimer: I completely agree with zizek on this and many other ideas. What I find so fascinating about him is that he is often written off as a "radical leftist" but he is in the true sense of the word a moderate- his conclusions don't result in some fantastic overhaul of everything or any deliberate blind spots on issues but are instead a balanced interpretation of the way things are. It is fascinating to think of how many truly conservative arguments zizek makes, much more coherently than most popular conservatives, yet he is considered radical and dangerous because he arrives at those conclusions by really thinking them through rather than through any kind of dogmatism. Yet there is a stigma around him as if he was some kind of dogmatic marxist. It's almost as if someone who intelligently understand and agrees with prevalent ideology is more dangerous than someone who doesn't understand or agree
A person's views on more personal social issues don't necessarily need to have anything to do with your wider political views on society. I see this mostly in American-esque discourse. This and that is Leftist, if you believe in this you must therefore be more conservative, etc. It's a stupid mode of reducing what is inherently an extremely broad field in to two directions and a primitive way of viewing politics. (I'm not accusing you of doing this, just commenting on why I think things are perceived this way.)
Quite astounding how he managed to grab his nose three (if not four) times at 0:52 during the hand gestures. Man does not miss a beat!
😂😂😂
This is the most robustly rounded and practical definition of marriage... one that is so experientially true too... marriage is about sharing and inhabiting the little rituals which make meanings... my admiration for Zizek as a profound philosopher just shot up...
Why in the world would you take marriage advice from someone who has NEVER had sex?
Truly a overwhelming force on all topics.
He starts his whole thesis with a false premise though. He states "marriage no longer serves an economic function" which is false. Married couples are taxed much less than singles. Everything after that false premise is romantic bs. He's a clown more than an intellectual.
@@anonymous-rj6ok Depends where, where I live, the state recognizes "cohabitation" (probably not the right word but its translation is difficult) between couples. No need for marriage to get tax benefits, it therefore renders marriage absolutely useless.
@@anonymous-rj6ok the exclusive economic function that marriage neccessitated at an earlier doesnt hold same weight. He says love now "can' (potential) to be truly beautiful.
almost an assault on the brain. But he is right marriage is not about sex, it's about building a life around someone. Taking the whole package and compromising. Marriage is also the foundation for family because you're thinking beyond yourself which is necessary for building and sustaining family.
Thank you zizek! its funny how you can have an idea in your mind for years but you cant never really articulate it pretty good and then you hear someone tell it in a perfect way and you feel great.
"And when you awaken, there is a problem"
I can't explain why, but this extremely profound.
smartest slobbering mess i've ever seen
Really, really good interviewer. Sometimes it's just (non-verbally) showing you're present that will get you amazing responses like this.
Pretending to understand English
He is a normal man ! You only have to show something naked ! 🤣 Embarrassing !
Also, showing 95% of your legs
@@hugoclarke3284 nice legs though...
Everything about her looks nice
Hear me out here...
Zizek just wants to check if he is speaking his mind truthfully or bullshitting.
So, for every word he speaks, he is touching his nose to check its length. As long as it doesn't grow, he continues to speak. It is just a manual polygraph for him.
Someone needs to let him know that he is not really Pinocchio!
Best video of zizek so far.
I saw this vid and immediately went and watched the whole thing...mainly because it had subtitles and the topics were ''simple'' and not deeply explored relative to his other interviews/vids...it was really easy for me to follow up (and comprehend every sentence without losing my mind by trying to keep up w so many complex concepts and ideas) with him this time
love him
Dude could you send the link of the full video, I'm interested to watch the whole video too.
I would appreciate it.
@@billthebutcher3171 same, I want to watch it!
@@tme98 Dude I found the video , here's the link:
czcams.com/video/YTCiVDwmZ6U/video.html
There you go bud , enjoy the video.
@@billthebutcher3171 i think it is "meeting zizek at home (2019) by Qing Wang. I haven't watched it yet but it showed up in the related videos and i think that's the video
@@tme98 i think it is "meeting zizek at home (2019) by Qing Wang. I haven't watched it yet but it showed up in the related videos and i think that's the video
Simple and elegant explanation
Things have got so out of hand that marriage is based now (for the first time ever, maybe)
basé et rouge-pilulé
@@apoolplayer278 LMFAO muh bruh
niggas see a 50% divorce rate and be like: oh based, better get myself some of that
Non, it is not.
I swear to dog, marriage, the force which shall says that love is forever, that you must have one, is a nightmare : it's the essence of the American dream, a cristallisation of beauty, turned into the worst thing ever.
However, bargaining about the beauty of marriage, finding something beautiful in it, despite it - and it's the term here, yes, this is beautiful, beautifully human.
Shrek-like I might said.
The main issue is that however you see marriage might not be how your partner sees it. What for you is a major, permanent commitment might be a minor, malleable one to them.
Beautiful and fits my personal philosophy ^^. There are things that are secret in nature, that can only be seen when you're there, and those things cannot be faked, they require an inner commitment, a faith, that is the opening of the heart, and with it comes purity.
Absolutely wonderful words. This is the kind of message that the world needs to hear more often.
If he's the speaker, better to read the subtitles.
Reminded me of a song by Giorgio Gaber (which Zizek may know, as Gaber was quite famous in Italy and especially among marxists)
THE DILEMMA
Across a beach, not so serene,
A man and a woman were walking,
Upon them the vast shadow of the dilemma;
The man was perhaps more daring,
More stupid and charming,
The woman had forgiven, not without sorrow.
The dilemma was always the same,
An elementary question:
Whether or not their love made sense.
In a house overlooking the sea
Lived a man and a woman,
Upon them the shadow of the dilemma;
The man is a quiet animal
Provided he lives in his den,
As for the woman, you don't know if she's deceitful or divine;
The dilemma represents
The balance of forces on field,
Because love and quarrel are the forms of our time.
And their love was dying
Like everyone's love,
Like a normal, widely occurring thing;
Because dying and making others die
Is an ancient custom people usually have.
He almost always spoke
Of hope and of fear
As if they were the core of his future image,
And cultivated his desires
Always searching for the truth,
She listened to him in silence, or maybe she already knew.
He too, curiously enough,
Like everyone, was born from a womb;
But, sadly, he can't remember or, maybe, doesn't know.
On a springtime day
When she wasn't looking at him
He ran after the eyes of another girl,
And it's still unknown today
If he was innocent like an animal,
Or if he was dumbfounded by vanity.
And still she wondered, strangely enough,
If she had to keep loving him,
To remain faitfhul to her husband.
And their love was dying
Like everyone's love,
With the words everyone knows by heart;
They knew how to cry and suffer
But without blaming
The current times, or history...
Their desire of staying together
Was so difficult to be judged,
You don't know if it's something old, or if it's pleasing;
It was all an unbroken series
Of unguarded moments and hard work
With the great tenacity typical of things past;
And this is the point of this story,
Anyway not so important,
That you can call, if you want, Resistance.
Maybe the memory of that month of May
Was a lesson, even in failure,
Of severity, of cult for courage;
And they decidedly refused
Our ideas of free love,
They were unable to adapt to that choice;
I can't tell whether to our choice
Or to our new fate,
I only know they killed themselves.
And their love died
Like everyone's love,
Not for an abstract thing, like family,
They chose death
For a real thing,
Like family...
I would like to understand more clearly,
To go over the course of their lives,
The courageous battles they had won or lost;
I would like to get through
Into the mystery of a man and a woman,
Into the immense labyrinth of that dilemma.
Maybe that desperate act
Could even be the sign
Of something we'll understand soon.
And their love was dying
Like everyone's love,
Like a normal, widely occurring thing;
Because dying and making others die
Is an ancient custom people usually have.
Going through this comment section gives me hope in humanity.
the ending is fire
Please sir stop touching your nose. I'm amazed at the ladies ability to keep a straight face while he wipes his nose. Hahaha. I love you Slavoj
This was a relief, unexpectedly
Never imagined Tricia Takanawa from family guy interviewing Zizek
LMFAO
Son🤣🤣🤣 you got me rollin the damnnnn floor
The real underrated comment
i clicked on this expecting some cold takedown of marriage as a concept but i was wrong! i really like what he says here.
Even without the economic reasons that lead to marriage (and sometime it's not true, because there is plenty of lazy people who want to live on the shoulders of the partner), there is still the idea of marriage as an achievement regardless of who the partner is. That is very common. Marriage can be a beautiful thing depending on the meaning that one gives to it. But there is not only the economic factor that affects the "purest" value of marriage. There are also other factors, like the idea of social achievement that I mentioned before. So, at the end, the ones who can be very close to the "pure" love will not love in this way because of marriage as we know it. Someone who gets to experience the "true" love would experience it even without a commitment officialized by an institution. The commitment of two partners is not about marriage unless we deinstitutionalize the marriage itself and say that marriage exists between any couple in which the partners are committed to each other without the need of a stamp on a paper or a ring.
The fact that we recognize marriage only in couples that hold a ring is one of the reasons why marriage is often an aesthetical need more than the proof of a deep commitment. The tons of divorces prove this. That, of course, doesn't mean that those holding a ring can't experience a deep commitment.
preach
@@burnzz69 peach
@@valerio51987plum
I love it, very nicely put
Can someone point me to the full version od this interview? Thanks on advance
Where can we watch the rest? Which channel is this?
Each time he touches his nose he unlocks a new beautiful phrase, ready to be deployed
Where is the full interview? Can someone please help me find it?
czcams.com/video/YTCiVDwmZ6U/video.html
I have greatly more respect for Zizek after speaking against polyamory, which no doubt his supporters are quite for.
I wouldn’t say he spoke “against” polyamory. He said that he, for himself, is not agreeing with the basic concept of polyamory
@@wa794 Is that stating that you don't agree with something not the same thing as speaking against it?
@@wa794 What a beautiful example of semantics. He just said it's not "real love," which is would only be "against" someone who thought that the "amory" in "polyamory" meant something
Against is when you don't do the thing, the more you don't do it the more you think it's bad. So true.
Full interview link anyone?
Beautifully put
That interviewer nod at "sex is beautiful" though
Holy sh... this man made some valid points... He's a romantic.
So beautifully put
COVID exists
Zizek: guess I'll die.
Zizek... I will marry because of you.
Somebody get bro a tissue
Where is the full video this excerpt is from?
m.czcams.com/video/YTCiVDwmZ6U/video.html
Glad I came across this video.
I love how Zizek is acutely aware that most people won’t be happy with his take on love and marriage 😂
I am guessing many of his followers are into polyamory and hedonism? lol
@@roardinoson7 if they are anarkiddies then ya, theyre almost always poly and non binary lmao
@@roardinoson7 One doesnt have to share all his ideas to say: This man made some valid, interesting points.
@@oliveryt7168 definitely not, i just discovered this guy recently and idk who follows him
"It can sthurvive, marriage asth a commitment to sthare a world wit sambady." - Slavoj Zizek
where can i find the full interview?
m.czcams.com/video/YTCiVDwmZ6U/video.html
Well, can we get the rest of the interview, so we can hear the whole story
just get some water on your hands and spritz it on your face, worry that your nose will fall off. it went a little something like that
That was beautiful
It's like buying "you are the best partner in the world" card and then you give it to multiple persons :))) the ones that still say poly has the same emotional, they still didn't get it. No worries, it's not for everyone
1:58 "Love is: I cannot live without you"... Hmm, I disagree. Let me just drop this here:
“The capacity to be alone is the capacity to love. It may look paradoxical to you, but it's not. It is an existential truth: only those people who are capable of being alone are capable of love, of sharing, of going into the deepest core of another person--without possessing the other, without becoming dependent on the other, without reducing the other to a thing, and without becoming addicted to the other. They allow the other absolute freedom, because they know that if the other leaves, they will be as happy as they are now. Their happiness cannot be taken by the other, because it is not given by the other.”
- Osho
@@openyoureyes1763 Another brilliant quote, thank you for sharing. I frankly find it quite astounding that saying such things to a potential partner (at least in the Western World where I live) would be considered rude, insulting, or "not true love". Our culture has romanticized unhealthy/toxic relationships to such a degree that I feel alienated for not agreeing with the "I cannot live without you" mindset.
I would be over the moon to hear my partner say "I am happy with you, and I would also be happy without you, because my happiness is not dependant on your existence." I would know that my partner could carry on living and be happy even if something happened to me. I wouldn't want them to cease to function and remain miserable in the event of my death because they couldn't live without me.
We may debate this but I don't think Zizek was paying too close attention to formalising this sentence. Of course one needs to be able to live on their own, not to be fully dependent on the person they love, but Zizek is simply making another point.
I don't think he meant it in a codependent 'I can't live without you way'. I thought of it as a statement expressing love. I cannot allow myself to let you go through all your troubles alone. I want to be present with you all the way.
But nice quote.
It's just not that simple. Humans form attachments, it's just human nature. It makes us dependent but is also the basis of loyalty and being able to sacrifice. And without those things love rings a bit hollow.
All this bullshit is good but human nature doesn't work that way. Also all these saints/philosophers have their own definition anyway
Not a single comment about the skirt? Nada? Zip? This is unacceptable.
what žižek hasnt considered about polyamory here is that there may not be this selectiveness for certain needs met by different partners, and in fact, these different partners may actually end up causing a person to have fewer of their needs met.
say a person has a high libido and two partners with a low libido; these partners may feel less internal pressure than in a monogamous relationship to provide sex to the high libido partner, and thus the high libido partner may end up having less sex than they would if they had been in a monogamous relationship with one of them. yet, this high libido person may want to be around their partners regardless of this, and this is what žižek defines as love; it is not about having one's needs met, and it is not about having a partner whom you see as perfect for you (or multiple partners forming some kind of a composite perfect partner).
Someone could share the full interview?
m.czcams.com/video/YTCiVDwmZ6U/video.html
Lot of words to say whatever. If love is so strong then why does it need some formal bullshit like marriage. Also, love is about satisfying needs. Needs of acceptance, of emotional, intellectual and sexual closeness, what he means is that he prefers to satisfy them all with one person and not more.
Well u can always break everything down to base level
The most gratifying byproduct of simple articulation is the people who therefore think the subject is inherently simple.
From what I could understand, I find it agreeable.
But please, for all that is good and holy, GET SOME TISSUES!
Great points. But personally I don't believe in marriage until and unless you have found someone you can TRULY love and your interests meet.
What is Zizek's nose problem?
Honestly as someone who isn't a fan of Zizek's discussions, I was happily surprised that he very beautifully and eloquently discussed marriage. (=
You didn't notice the obvious lie? He states "marriage no longer serves an economic function". In reality, married couples are taxed much less than singles. So the premise is false. Everything after that falsehood is romantic bs. What a clown he is.
Anyone knows where is this from?
Here. czcams.com/video/YTCiVDwmZ6U/video.html
sauce for the full video?
m.czcams.com/video/YTCiVDwmZ6U/video.html
So much wisdom in between those sniffles
Where can we see the full talk?
CZcams
m.czcams.com/video/YTCiVDwmZ6U/video.html
Source of the interview please
m.czcams.com/video/YTCiVDwmZ6U/video.html
Who's the lady?🤗
I'm not a fan of him or his views on politics, but imo he's spot on with his description of love and marriage here.
"Love is not about satisfying your needs"
Deep. Respect.
Actually love is about satisfying needs. Needs of emotional, intellectual and sexual closeness, needs of being accepted
I love this video from Zizek
So cute
Brilliant
I love marriage too. It's a next level thing where your vulnerability is at it's maximum. It's a personal development training.
I will marry the host.
Americans: He is a simp.
No. He is gigachad. FFS! He is 73, his wife is 40! God bless!
wheres full version?
m.czcams.com/video/YTCiVDwmZ6U/video.html
What is the name of the reporter?
Qing Wang
When i talk about marriage with friends they mostly think about dividing shares of homes of money etc and this has become such common that i think because of structure of culture most people just lost the beauty of commitment and actual intimacy... as i see the commitment based relationships are dissapearing slowly and this level of polyramous relationships despite personal differences i see it as overall unhealthy dynamics playing so much in the way we think and act upon relationships and sex. Everyone screws who can they screw have fun or not commit ie situationships but they still feel like shit at the end of the day and level of comprimising also has declined significantly which isnt not a good thing overall sometimes you need to compromise on things that doesnt sabotage your own well being and boundaries. And this doesnt make you a loser at all you iust learn to find a win/win situation and it s part of human connection you can put robots you can put casual sex put it multiple casual relationships you ll still feel empty because it falls short with our nature and gut looking for a bonding
Marriage, literally still has an economic function for many. Marriage that lasts? Both with good income? Raise children, grow, learn, etc
This is what people on cocaine think they sound like.
Marriage is not love. Love is love. Marriage is just a legal prison that makes divorce lawyers rich; at least in the west.
Not only in the west but in all civilizations. Also love is really something recent, in the past there's no such thing as love.
@@WilliamParkerer Wrong on both accounts
Guys in the streets and bars in Brazil is just like this guy.
I love this man damn
Legend
Incredibly based.
Get this man a Kleenex
That interviewer is beautiful
Precisely!
Favoloso! 👍
Is he okay
He's totally right about individualistic "neoliberal" polyamory. But marriages also can be individualistic.
Polyamory can also be about true love. The problem is not the format of the relationship, it's what people bring to the format.
yeah, I believe in polyamory but the way our society is configured doesn't help
the thighs on that interviewer tho god DAMN
"For me there is something absolutely exclusive about loving just one person." LOL, that's sorta the definition of exclusive, idnit?
Does anybody know the journalist's name or Onlyfans account?