I thought this was a very interesting video and you did an excellent job elucidating Sartre's and Beauvoir's views on love and sex. I am continually impressed by the breadth and depth of your knowledge and your passion for these ideas. Thank you for posting!
Prof Ellie, if I have the great fortune of attending your lectures as a guest attendee (without the tough mind boggling exams which I hate), I would definitely do so!
I REALLY LIKE YOUR DISCUSSIONS... only downside is the mic isnt that clear...i hope it will be fixed in the future!!! looking forward to watching more of youuu
I would love to see people include Badiou's reflections on love in this light. Badiou is notorious for arguing that his views are an attempt to overcome sadistic cynicism of Sartre. And he also argues that only women -and only in novels- have provided an appropriate account of love. But I think there is some Beauvoir in him. What he definitely keeps from both Sartre and Beauvoir is the refusal to allow marriage to overcome love (he talks of this like "the couple"). But he is also quite clearly distinguishing love from sex, as he thinks most French intellectuals, either moralistic or cynical in this regard, do confound them. I think that whereas for Sartre there is always the need to drive every contradiction into an improductive back and forth, Beauvoir seems to keep the chance for Aufhebung, but only with systemic change. For Badiou, the encounter -the event which allows for the truth procedure of love to take place- is itself this change, which overcomes the particular of the situation.
Yes! Ellie here-- I've actually also presented on Badiou's views of love in connection to Beauvoir, and touch on this a bit in my article "Phenomenology and the Ethics of Love," published this year in the academic journal Symposium: Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy. This is part of a longer ongoing writing project that will discuss them in connection in greater detail, though. :) Thanks for your comment!
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Thanks for answering! I will look for the article you mention, and hope to here more on this project of yours in the future. The presentation, as with everything I've seen on this channel, is spot on. Congrats.
Really enjoy your videos. If I can throw a wish into the ether - I'd love to see a Badiou video. Thank you for the work you do & looking forward to whatever's next!
This was wonderful, thank you so much! It reminds me also of Lacan's work; I know that they were in the same intellectual circles, and that Lacan was inspired by Sartre (although he didn't admit it often). Have just worked through Being and Nothingness and Existentialism and Humanism. I had read the first chapters of the Ethics of Ambiguity, but hadn't finished it, and was going to start with Merleau-Ponty (Phenomenology of Perception). But first I'll go back to the ethics of ambiguity based on your lecture.
If we say we know another by seeing the other, we are knowing thingness. Not as an object, but as distinguishing a thing before it is named. So we are ‘talking’ of seeing a thing, we might ask if we use the connectivity of the seen as a realism of the exchange of words? An object is not a thing or something unnamed, but a fully formed known of seeing meaning. A thing is before consciousness, and an object is a consciousness of seen meaning.
What was the problem? From around 10.00 forward, there was a heading of "Sexual desire" and a text followed including a reference to "problem". I don´t understand what the problem is or just as importantly, with whom it rests? Given that what is claimed by Sartre and Beauvoir that there is not just a juxtaposition of objectivity and subjectivity but an intricately intervowen interplay between them, then, how do we proceed with the claim of "problem"?
How do you explain "the human condition"? Is this the difference of where we have come from, all of the details we have changed / adapted from as we edged ever further away from "human nature" now that we are living in a modern world?
Getting past inequalities while both defending and supporting each other's needs. Therefore becoming one equal caring being. Yet only one being in that space of defense and support of that spouse. In all other life encounter, they are still their own self or one together or oneness universe, depending on specificities of moment of life encounter.
he believed in god in the way Spinoza did, which is to say in a very abstract sense. Not so much a supreme intelligent being, more a single infinite and imminant substance.
Instead of metaphorically written at the Philosophers Cafe their concept must have been written at the local brothel ! More the reason for me to feel existential thought will survive on the shelves of literature not having long term legs in the history of philosophy. The fact they only anchor and wrap themselves around the self serving ego stick , leaving no evolution of children through marriage by intention ( concretized applied choice)is a two edge dagger at religion and biology .Leaving only their broken stick in the ground at journeys end .Their contents disappearing in the shadow . They like to ( as existentialist do ) have the stage . That means saying or going something to induce a stare a look from the audience . They are always the x ! Consciousness / l of ego depends on the Look in order to exist .
You don't like it. Got it. It gets you so incensed that you can't get past your disdain and articulate any actual shortcoming or flaw in existentialism. Great engagement.
16:00 subject vs object strikes me as a false duality, a kind of simplification that lots of philosophers are prone to. I believe it would help to use more precise language of human biology and maybe down-to-earth experimental psychology to describe dynamics of love/sex relationships, e.g. genetic programs, negative and positive feedback loops, neurotransmitters strengthening or weakening certain neural pathways, attempts to build a theory of mind of the partner, typical failures of such attempts ... Such false dualities tend to cloud our understanding with extremely low-resolution view and sometimes even false analogies. Folks start to relate people with non-living objects, project those relations on situations ... in attempts to explain behaviour, but this is not what often happens between lovers, its usually more about power games, mind-tricks, humiliation attempts in a hope to evoke submissive behaviours, confinement of strategically useful information and alike. False duality as the one described is not able to model/expose all that complexity.
Why would you describe it as a false duality? Do you think they're actually the same? Or is there a continuous spectrum between them? Or even completely different modes of viewing people? Also, I'm not sure if you're talking about the same kind of love that Beauvoir and Sartre are referring to when you say that power games, mind-tricks and humiliation attempts are a defining feature of it. While those probably do play a big role in a large number of romantic relationships (for lack of a better word), it seems to me they're actually expressions of what is criticized in the video as a confused and twisted view of love, centered on jealousy and entitlement as opposed to a wish for the best of the other person.
@@bladdnun3016 yes, in the context of this video and 'objecthood' there is definitely continuous spectrum between 'perceived phenomena as object' and 'perceived phenomena with theory of mind attached to it', which starts to resonate with our own subjectivity. The more resonance we have with other person, the more detailed theory of mind we were able to construct, therefore understand and better predict their behaviours. Regarding power games, humiliation attempts and all that jazz: they are unavoidable in relationships simply because what may be an innocent question of a joke for you, for your partner may sound like an attack, humiliation or manipulative attempt. So you never know for sure what was it, unless you discuss it ... and even after that there is still a chance that other person just tries to save their face instead of being truly honest. Regarding 'wishing for the best of the other person': it likely should be wishing best for all people involved in communication, as what best for another person may be a catastrophe for you or your other loved ones.
@@illiakailli I think philosophers perceive and analyze the phenomena only through theories, perceptions or logic of speaking. To involve other factors like biology, Sociology, history shouldn't be their job, but we by and large combine all these different layers of facts in the end to get to a complete vision of what is going on. Ironically if you study the most advanced sciences like quantum physics, you'd amazingly notice that many times lessons are getting more philosophical than scientific, moreover you may notice that all pioneer scientists like Einstein had their own kind of philosophy with regards both science and life. In summary if we settle to just combine already existed sciences developed by former intellectuals, we would soon see the presence of a blockage in front of us, that's the easier way but not necessarily the one which pushes humans one step forward cause we would run out of fundamental theories by then.
Always viewed love not as an emotion but as a manipulation, a kind of charade 2 play on another and themselves out of desperation. We arent self aware enough to acknowledge this due to the power of desperation itself.
You are so good at your job, Professor. How incredibly stimulating. Gratitude.
"Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained."
― C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves
I really love this channel, thank you for all the effort and work that you put here.
I thought this was a very interesting video and you did an excellent job elucidating Sartre's and Beauvoir's views on love and sex. I am continually impressed by the breadth and depth of your knowledge and your passion for these ideas. Thank you for posting!
We need more topic, profesor. Your lectures are superb.
Prof Ellie, if I have the great fortune of attending your lectures as a guest attendee (without the tough mind boggling exams which I hate), I would definitely do so!
Thanks Ellie, love your UA-cam and podcasts. Learning a lot.
I REALLY LIKE YOUR DISCUSSIONS... only downside is the mic isnt that clear...i hope it will be fixed in the future!!! looking forward to watching more of youuu
Love these videos! Keep it up
Greetings from Portland Oregon
I would love to see people include Badiou's reflections on love in this light. Badiou is notorious for arguing that his views are an attempt to overcome sadistic cynicism of Sartre. And he also argues that only women -and only in novels- have provided an appropriate account of love. But I think there is some Beauvoir in him. What he definitely keeps from both Sartre and Beauvoir is the refusal to allow marriage to overcome love (he talks of this like "the couple"). But he is also quite clearly distinguishing love from sex, as he thinks most French intellectuals, either moralistic or cynical in this regard, do confound them. I think that whereas for Sartre there is always the need to drive every contradiction into an improductive back and forth, Beauvoir seems to keep the chance for Aufhebung, but only with systemic change. For Badiou, the encounter -the event which allows for the truth procedure of love to take place- is itself this change, which overcomes the particular of the situation.
Yes! Ellie here-- I've actually also presented on Badiou's views of love in connection to Beauvoir, and touch on this a bit in my article "Phenomenology and the Ethics of Love," published this year in the academic journal Symposium: Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy. This is part of a longer ongoing writing project that will discuss them in connection in greater detail, though. :) Thanks for your comment!
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Thanks for answering! I will look for the article you mention, and hope to here more on this project of yours in the future. The presentation, as with everything I've seen on this channel, is spot on. Congrats.
Really enjoy your videos. If I can throw a wish into the ether - I'd love to see a Badiou video. Thank you for the work you do & looking forward to whatever's next!
This was wonderful, thank you so much! It reminds me also of Lacan's work; I know that they were in the same intellectual circles, and that Lacan was inspired by Sartre (although he didn't admit it often).
Have just worked through Being and Nothingness and Existentialism and Humanism. I had read the first chapters of the Ethics of Ambiguity, but hadn't finished it, and was going to start with Merleau-Ponty (Phenomenology of Perception). But first I'll go back to the ethics of ambiguity based on your lecture.
If we say we know another by seeing the other, we are knowing thingness. Not as an object, but as distinguishing a thing before it is named. So we are ‘talking’ of seeing a thing, we might ask if we use the connectivity of the seen as a realism of the exchange of words? An object is not a thing or something unnamed, but a fully formed known of seeing meaning. A thing is before consciousness, and an object is a consciousness of seen meaning.
What was the problem? From around 10.00 forward, there was a heading of "Sexual desire" and a text followed including a reference to "problem". I don´t understand what the problem is or just as importantly, with whom it rests? Given that what is claimed by Sartre and Beauvoir that there is not just a juxtaposition of objectivity and subjectivity but an intricately intervowen interplay between them, then, how do we proceed with the claim of "problem"?
How do you explain "the human condition"? Is this the difference of where we have come from, all of the details we have changed / adapted from as we edged ever further away from "human nature" now that we are living in a modern world?
She's incredible
Getting past inequalities while both defending and supporting each other's needs. Therefore becoming one equal caring being. Yet only one being in that space of defense and support of that spouse. In all other life encounter, they are still their own self or one together or oneness universe, depending on specificities of moment of life encounter.
I think sense of responsibility and commitment should also be discussed in this topic of love & sex.
Odd they call it “just friends” when the much more likely will be “just lover’s” when it ends.
I like hearing ppl.. Express passion .. This is a topic ur really into.. ( me 2)
So good!!Thank you.
can u do a segment about einstein and how he believed the Universe was /is completely deterministic, but that he still believed in 'god'
he believed in god in the way Spinoza did, which is to say in a very abstract sense. Not so much a supreme intelligent being, more a single infinite and imminant substance.
I am your fan!
Can someone explain, what is queer theory exactly and since when has it been devised?
Thank you 🙂
I like her. she's smart.
Instead of metaphorically written at the Philosophers Cafe their concept must have been written at the local brothel !
More the reason for me to feel existential thought will survive on the shelves of literature not having long term legs in the history of philosophy.
The fact they only anchor and wrap themselves around the self serving ego stick , leaving no evolution of children through marriage by intention ( concretized applied choice)is a two edge dagger at religion and biology .Leaving only their broken stick in the ground at journeys end .Their contents disappearing in the shadow .
They like to ( as existentialist do ) have the stage . That means saying or going something to induce a stare a look from the audience . They are always the x ! Consciousness / l of ego depends on the Look in order to exist .
You don't like it. Got it. It gets you so incensed that you can't get past your disdain and articulate any actual shortcoming or flaw in existentialism. Great engagement.
@@fede2 Yeah, that was the most pseudo philosophical way to just list personal grievances against existentialism from commenter.
😢 we'll always have Paris
8:00 to 8:27; not a great regress... reciprocity...
16:00 subject vs object strikes me as a false duality, a kind of simplification that lots of philosophers are prone to. I believe it would help to use more precise language of human biology and maybe down-to-earth experimental psychology to describe dynamics of love/sex relationships, e.g. genetic programs, negative and positive feedback loops, neurotransmitters strengthening or weakening certain neural pathways, attempts to build a theory of mind of the partner, typical failures of such attempts ...
Such false dualities tend to cloud our understanding with extremely low-resolution view and sometimes even false analogies. Folks start to relate people with non-living objects, project those relations on situations ... in attempts to explain behaviour, but this is not what often happens between lovers, its usually more about power games, mind-tricks, humiliation attempts in a hope to evoke submissive behaviours, confinement of strategically useful information and alike. False duality as the one described is not able to model/expose all that complexity.
Why would you describe it as a false duality? Do you think they're actually the same? Or is there a continuous spectrum between them? Or even completely different modes of viewing people?
Also, I'm not sure if you're talking about the same kind of love that Beauvoir and Sartre are referring to when you say that power games, mind-tricks and humiliation attempts are a defining feature of it. While those probably do play a big role in a large number of romantic relationships (for lack of a better word), it seems to me they're actually expressions of what is criticized in the video as a confused and twisted view of love, centered on jealousy and entitlement as opposed to a wish for the best of the other person.
@@bladdnun3016 yes, in the context of this video and 'objecthood' there is definitely continuous spectrum between 'perceived phenomena as object' and 'perceived phenomena with theory of mind attached to it', which starts to resonate with our own subjectivity. The more resonance we have with other person, the more detailed theory of mind we were able to construct, therefore understand and better predict their behaviours.
Regarding power games, humiliation attempts and all that jazz: they are unavoidable in relationships simply because what may be an innocent question of a joke for you, for your partner may sound like an attack, humiliation or manipulative attempt. So you never know for sure what was it, unless you discuss it ... and even after that there is still a chance that other person just tries to save their face instead of being truly honest.
Regarding 'wishing for the best of the other person': it likely should be wishing best for all people involved in communication, as what best for another person may be a catastrophe for you or your other loved ones.
@@illiakailli I think philosophers perceive and analyze the phenomena only through theories, perceptions or logic of speaking. To involve other factors like biology, Sociology, history shouldn't be their job, but we by and large combine all these different layers of facts in the end to get to a complete vision of what is going on. Ironically if you study the most advanced sciences like quantum physics, you'd amazingly notice that many times lessons are getting more philosophical than scientific, moreover you may notice that all pioneer scientists like Einstein had their own kind of philosophy with regards both science and life. In summary if we settle to just combine already existed sciences developed by former intellectuals, we would soon see the presence of a blockage in front of us, that's the easier way but not necessarily the one which pushes humans one step forward cause we would run out of fundamental theories by then.
Yo te amo a ti guera maestra de filosofia
Always viewed love not as an emotion but as a manipulation, a kind of charade 2 play on another and themselves out of desperation. We arent self aware enough to acknowledge this due to the power of desperation itself.
couldnt have said it any better, I absolutely agree with you
Ah ze French … they are so abstract🙃
I find that you`re sharing the habit of rubbing your nose with Slavoi Zizek : is that a common philosophers disease ...?
Hahaha. Now that you mention it I find myself doing it rather frequently when I am extolling the virtues of Latin. I find it annoying.
They needed a cold shower 😞
The fact that you had to place your preferred pronouns made you completely irrelevant to me
that fragile, huh?
@@trevorsmith4230 interesting take based on your perception. carry on
Stay pressed incel
@@bookerandavril you two are a perfect representation of who stands behind this nonsense
@@Kapiwolf123 purr❤️❤️
love is emotional mining ⛏