Danish existentialist THEOLOGICAL philosopher would sound even more awesome and unique😅😄 theology and existentialism is one of the most unique pov of theology imo.
thank you for narrating this video Alan. it was excellent. words are important. still they are ambiguous and deeply complex in their many meanings and possible approaches depending on the lenses and perspectives from which we come to them, hence the difficult of translation and interpretation in the philsoophies. buddhistic taositic patience for difficult and downtrodden people, or even those who outright choose evil, even evil against the observer---is different than love. 'mehta' might be considered christian style kierkardian love. love is not 'all'. and anyone preaching that love is 'all' should be confronted with the need , implicit in cognition itself, for discrimination between how to love people. universal love for the murder who comes to kill you is not love for the murder. by allowing him to kill you , you encourage him to continue on this path. one must avoid feeding evil in order to prevent it from growing. this requires discrimination.
I can understand his perspective, however this goes against human nature. We are by default discriminatory when it comes to love, particularly the females of our species.
We wouldn’t have Christian existentialism if he ended up getting married. It really sucks that he was restless his entire life but we wouldn’t have his entire authorship had he settled down. It’s literally an Either-Or situation.
The woman's voice is awful. I literally click away of a video immidietly when i hear her voice , even if i am really interested on the topic Not even once have i watched a video in this channel not narrated by Alain. He should be the only speaker. I can't stand anyone else.
Thank you for revisiting this absolute philosophical juggernaut and legend. This man lived a hollow life and withheld himself from so many things because he was too self-aware. And he taught us all so many lessons in his short time. He wrote so many books and diaries that you could read him for the rest of your life. The only thing that comes across my mind when I read him is, "This man was genuinely authentic." He lived a hard life and I really wish we could bring him to our modern time and rehabilitate him. He deserved a better life. You get the feeling that this was a man who could have conquered the world with his intellect, but instead he humbled himself so deeply that he became misguided in his humility. But it gave him great abstract wisdom.
Oh my God! This hit hard. It was unconfortable to think of how flawd my view can be. How much I praise justice and righteousness, and how much my romantic interest is usually bound to my admiration for the person. I am one of those who have not found another person to love, other than my family and close friends. Thank you for this summary. I will read this book.
Love from a Christian standpoint equals; Compassion, respect and kindness. If you stop seeing love as a romantic concept, his ideas will make a whole lot more sense.
This explains why divorce rates are +50% and second marriages divorce at +60%. People marry out of romance, lust, biological desire, evolutionary urge, convenience, insecurity, neediness, fear, selfishness, and the list goes on. But, how often do they marry for love as defined in the video?
As Plato has outlined, lovers should not seek perfect matches or unchanging ideal partners. Instead, we should look for those with whom we can grow together, individuals who allow us to improve ourselves and who feel comfortable showing their own flaws and insecurities, and vice versa, Love is a journey, not a constant end, to help attain our self-fulfillment and theirs.
Thank you, school of Life. I can't write well In English, sorry for that. But thanks to you i could manage the 7 years depression i had. Reading a la recherche du temps perdu or l'étranger (last one was easier. But i could find it thanks to you) where a challenge. But you guys, you help me more than anyone. Please, keep doing your videos. You're making the difference for those who're lost... You're making more than whatever institution or organisation that selectively help people according to their financial status. I want to sub your videos in Spanish... I don't know when I could do it, but i really wish you can reach more people. Thank you for everything, and I wish you the best.
Without doubt, Kierkegaard had a point. But I don’t think this “universal” love and romantic love are at odds with each other. They’re just very different things with very different purposes that our language unfortunately doesn’t do a great job of distinguishing. We can extend love of the kind described here to all sorts of people without necessarily wanting to have an intimate relationship with them, and at the same time hope to meet a rather special someone with whom we do want to build such a relationship.
Have you read the "The Art of Loving" by Eric Fromm? He breaks down the different kinds of love we posses and give to others in a clear and beautiful way
In real Aristotelian metaphysics, the question is love for God versus love for creature and the assumption is that a man can love the Good and the True for their own sake and the "no good" and "no true" for the sake of the Good and the True. In Modern metaphysics no such love is possible because Good and True are considered unknowable and unattainable. Therefore the only remaining question is love as giving from the self versus love as receiving for the self.
I love that you pointed out the linguistic aspects of our conflation of these two kinds of love. And even more sadly is that in languages that do provide a linguistic distinction between this 'universal love' and 'romantic love' such as in Chinese and Japanese (愛 = love vs. 戀 = romance), most people who speak those language don't recognize the difference between the two. Interestingly, just to illustrate your point that universal love and romantic love are not mutually exclusive, it is common in Chinese and Chinese-rooted languages to put the two together (i.e., 戀愛). However, this does disservice to the nuanced distinction between the two because '戀愛' generally means only 'romantic love', which arrives at the same linguistic confusion just as in English!
Love is a gift you give to someone whether they deserve it or not expecting nothing in return. Love done with expectation is not love but a transaction.
Business yes, just like many see marriage itself and then they wonder late in life, if ever, why it didn't "work out" and how come that they become so embittered and miserable...
"Let us be Christian in all of our actions. But I want to tell you this evening that it is not enough for us to talk about love, love is one of the pivotal points of the Christian faith. There is another side called justice. And justice is really love in calculation. Justice is love correcting that which revolts against love." Martin Luther King jr.
Yes but is the "love in calculation" the romantic singularly discriminatory kind of love or universal love? I suspect for most of us, we would apply the former into the equation of justice and mete it out with a sword rather than trying to meditate on absurdities of the later....
It is Christian, for it is impossible for man. You must never read Kierkegaard without the paradox of sin, that is to say: The paradox that we know unconditional love to be the truth, but are unable to practice it.
The pursuit of justice is the quickest way to an unloving hell -SOL, thank you for phrasing it so well, it was sth I was debating about with some friends.
Soren Kierkegaard is like that friend who is always single but gives everyone relationship advice, there’s a Persian saying: “if you know how to dig a hole, dig one in your own garden”
you clearly dont know anything about his biography... he knew love like no other western thinker. maybe Dante or Ovid but Kierkegaard still stands out the most.
And some are meant to be a messenger. Not a player in the game . . Ironically sometimes you cannot have it both ways. So in another essence his “sacrificing” for others is actually ultimate love
I think this is really interesting, and challenging. I do wonder how this love is supposed to make us act. The video doesn't indicate how we should act towards everyone when we love them. It says what not to do - don't persecute, don't punish - but not what to do instead. I haven't read Kierkegaard, so I don't know if he addressed this - I'd be happy for someone to let me know if he did or not. I think my problem is that while I understand we shouldn't persecute, love typically means to accept and often indulge. Not to try to change. When you love the paedophile or the rapist, does it mean you accept they are like that and will never change, and indulge it? Are they allowed to keep doing these things? How can loving acceptance and prevention of bad behaviour co-exist? I've used extreme examples on purpose to make my point clear, but it can be applied pretty broadly. What do we do when those we love do something abhorrent? And if we just accept it, do we stop them? Are we showing real love for the victims, or ourselves if we are the focus of that act if we don't stop it? I'm not trying to be inflammatory, this is a question I genuinely struggle with around acceptance and forgiveness while defending oneself or others against harmful behaviours. I would be really interested to know what the School of Life take on this is, and how it's consistent with love.
Helena, your thinking is in fact quite veracious, watching this video essay or thinking about kierkegaard's proposition can make one feel great difficulty , let alone when we try to think from the perspective of such a higher virtue (real or abstract) , we may feel imperfect, guilty of not attaining it. According to me difficulty with kierkegaard's idea comes because we are trying to use the same term ( and same concept) , same idea or lens to philosophise functioning and importance of two very different things, affection by its very nature can't be universal thing, we do it , feel it or act upon it for a fair few, that involves kin , kith , close friends and spouse/husband/wife/lover, and it can't be other way round, for affection involves actions of nature that can't be given to everyone, let alone to those for whom we have valid reason to distance ourselves from, a son donates one of the kidney to a dying father, mother giving her food to her kids even when she is hungry, enduring pain , sacrificing pleasure , security , life are all actions of affection that people do for "loved" ones, that they share strong affection with, it is somewhat preferential by nature (and we do act baised towards whom we have affection, like wanting to forgive them more or excuse them more in comparison to a stranger) , more so affection has evolutionary foundation to it, it is a natural mechanism through which we bond, so at core, it is not even a choosen attitude , it is one of our basic nature and does not come from a specific cultural attitude or concept, Also you defined love as something that involves acceptance and indulgence, this might not be comprehensive of what all we can identify as love, again as i mentioned affection does involve preference but even affection cannot involve complete acceptance of someone , example a son cannot love back an abusive alcoholic father and just accept him as it is, doing so would cause nothing better and it won't be any virtuous, even in affectionate relationships , a certain boundary exist where judgement and accountability comes, so accordance and indulgence are not the best descriptions of love, we often say those who we nurture, protect and care for are the one we love (or those who nurture , protect or care for us are the ones who love us) , part of this nurturing and caring is let someone know how they can be harmful or how they produce suffering for others or for themselves, love in that way is not acceptance but cultivation, Kierkegaard's critique of romance of his time is somewhat valid and in fact insightful if all society knows about love is through most shallow motifs of romances that involves tropes of youth,beauty,attraction,admiration etc only and this true of today's society as well , just like today such form of "love" is more like a commodity than a virtue derived from our existentially inherent capacity. And his proposition of universal love again sounds percipient we replace the word ' love' by 'compassion' (that is different from affection),if we can recognise to be compassionate as a virtue and extend compassion towards everyone (which is also what buddhism proposes) , it can not only help us to avoid possessive emotions like rage, revenge , vengeance but an opportunity to accept our immoral, destructive part (of whole humanity, including ourselves), profession of such a philosophy can purify our actions and thoughts of so many ways it can produce suffering, cruelty or fundamentalism (of notions, postulates or emotions), by acting compassionate it would not mean to act preferential towards someone who has commited some kind of harm but we can also accept they are obliged to their victims and that just like they deserve protection that comes from moral attitude , their victim deserve this from them , that way we allow the opportunity of remorse and repetence and atonement, not just endless banishment to punishments. Still kierkegaard's special emphasis on Christian love exemplified in Jesus's love can produce rationally valid contradictions when acting it in real life, given post enlightenment Christian philosophy like taking Jesus as role model deviated from olden theology which emphasised his role as a godhead ( and thus inherent incapability of humans to be like him and thus his capacity to love everyone as something divinely special) but still inherits many ideas from it might have made the entire line of thinking bit of a cacophony of ideas, unless the exact way to profess something is also given as you mentioned.
Christ also said along with loving others, that we love God and God IS love… Christ also said that we must LOVE OURSELVES. Applying this love to ourselves is as crucial as the other two that we must practice. ❤️
That being said, Christian love is not only kindness. It is the act of making someone better. That could come in the form of correction which the other person may or may not want.
Nope absolutely Not.. A christian is not to impose anything on anyone, love them treat them kindly and let go of the outcome.. Tough love is a religious invention, it’s a new packaging for you’ll do as I want or else
"If One Is Truly to Succeed in Leading a Person to a Specific Place, One Must First and Foremost Take Care to Find Him Where He is and Begin There. This is the secret in the entire art of helping. Anyone who cannot do this is himself under a delusion if he thinks he is able to help someone else. In order truly to help someone else, I must understand more than he-but certainly first and foremost understand what he understands. If I do not do that, then my greater understanding does not help him at all. If I nevertheless want to assert my greater understanding, then it is because I am vain or proud, then basically instead of benefiting him I really want to be admired by him. But all true helping begins with a humbling. The helper must first humble himself under the person he wants to help and thereby understand that to help is not to dominate but to serve, that to help is a not to be the most dominating but the most patient, that to help is a willingness for the time being to put up with being in the wrong and not understanding what the other understands." -Kierkegaard
This is ironic since he called off his own engagement because he felt inadequate. He could not expect someone to.adopt his own meaning of love. Selfless and detached from the illusion of unconditional love.
I would love to understand this perspective and how it can be applied to sexual/romantic relationships. How do we balance a blind love with the biological reactions of attraction?
I share your sentiments Talia I personally feel that the whole idea about romantic attraction is simply that we wait for someone whom we are attracted to, before coming to know about their flaws then try to accept them despite them. Kierkegaard’s viewpoint just simply sounds too good and pure to be applied in the real world, because at the end of the day whether we are attracted to someone or not, we will realise their flaws. And isn’t it better that we had been attracted to the person in the first place. I’d love to hear perspectives on this!
In my perspective the ideas are compatible. It's how couples can stay in love through old age. Where looks and benefits are less, it's just about loving a person even if they don't give you much in return. Necessary for any couple if you ask me. Said shorter, this is the kind of love necessary after a year of dating. When the butterflies go away.
@@StarAmbience42 thanks for this! I think it’s a good point of how Kierkegaard’s can be applied for people who are already in love, or in a relationship which they can love. But another side of the question and something we could ponder further is for people who are finding love. In view of this Kierkegaardian perspective, what should they look for, or are they right to ask for certain criterias of their future romantic partners
@@StarAmbience42 thanks for this! I think it’s a good point of how Kierkegaard’s can be applied for people who are already in love, or in a relationship which they can love. But another side of the question and something we could ponder further is for people who are finding love. In view of this Kierkegaardian perspective, what should they look for, or are they right to ask for certain qualities of their future romantic partners. If so what qualities is it ok to ask for and what not, given that being in a relationship is an exercise to practice our ability to love
I like this perspective a lot. That being said it's DIFFICULT AS HELL and I strongly advise to not apply this without certain boundaries. To apply such boundaries without being prejudiced and unloving is another difficult matter to think upon. For believers, this is where prayers comes in. Well actually, prayers should come before anything else. I just found applying this kind of love will lead us into some sort of suffering, especially when we do it for someone who is / will be a constant part of us. And it's very human of us to want to get away from suffering. Isn't that what we ask for deliverance from day by day ? Evil and the suffering it brought. I guess I'm just so confused..
It is not only difficult, but impossible. But as Jesus says: What is impossible for humans, is possible for God. We cannot love what is undeserving in our eyes, because our love is selfish (we only love that which we like or at least understand) - but God can and has loved all creation by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. When we come to terms with this our sinfulness, that we ourselves are undeserving of love, undeserving of life, we see the grace of God, that gives us exactly the love and the life we do not deserve (but need, as this video beautifully puts it). Only from this humility can we become Gods children, bearing forth His infinite love, not our own selfish love, to our fellow humans, for all whom He died on the cross. Only when we see that we deserve nothing, we see that we have received everything by grace. God loves that which is low, gives life to that which is dead. So what I am trying to say: You and I cannot "apply" this kind of love, for it is in fact Gods almighty love we are talking about. We must only have faith that He loves us, not for the good we do, which is nothing in His eyes, but as the utterly fallible creatures we are. We must everyday pray for this humility, that lets us see that we deserve nothing, but undeservingly receive everything, every breath, every blink of our eyelids, every second of life, from Him - for He would take it all away in an instant, did He not will it. When we as such believe ourselves to be truly nothing, dust and ashes, without His gifts, we can begin to share this gift of life with the people around us. For we do not deserve them either, but they are Gods most precious gifts to us, and loving them is cherishing them not on account of their actions towards us or our own towards them, but on account of them being here, as we are here, together by the grace of God.
@@gghhap I'm sure good ol Søren would appreciate your sentiment but with a little bit of acidity, It's difficult to tell how anthropomorphized his version of God is especially considering his interpretations of the book of Job and the story of Abraham, so I'm curious as to what his thoughts on prayer would be, surely I know he would be outrageously against prayer for gain or salvation, but I can't deduce if he feels that way about prayer for others sake.
@@CyroMM True. Hegel to Kierkegaard “builds a castle, but lives in the doghouse”, meaning he speculates a grand and rationally coherent system for the world but doesent reflect on his own irrationally sinful existence. For Hegel says: “All is spirit”, and in this he moves to destroy christianity, in which we confess the resurrection of the flesh, which is not spirit.
i thought of this exact quote as this video played, ahah. but to quote dostoevsky’s the adolescent: "My friend, to love people as they are is impossible. And yet one must. And therefore do good to them, clenching your feelings, holding your nose, and shutting your eyes (this last is necessary).”
@@jp2001almeida he wrote that somewhere on his journals or notebooks. I think it's about the order of things, where in nature one can find the male/female dichotomy everywhere. Male = function, female = matter/substance (your body from conception went all through the heart of your mother). What perhaps would had make Kierkegaard sad about an imbalance in the modern age (he saw it in his time and the german romantics), is when the exception becomes to norm (queer theory as an example); like when men stop being capable of intellectual thought and women becoming incapable of devotion to their men. A pseudonym (secular thought) of him went a bit into this in the concept of anxiety...
Even if you do love everyone unconditionally, a man's inner inert character of expecting the same in return can practically destroy one emotionally and psychologically. Thus, I think it's very important to choose the people in one's life and avoid any form of unhealthy attachment as much as possible.
I don't know if i will be hated for this, but for me romantic relationships are a kind of illusion we create for the other person in order to show affection to us. We all like to be loved but giving it without any cause is surely difficult. I find myself hard to find a female partner as i think it's a biologically bias and this love is not pure. I could manipulate my partner in order to get more affection, sex , attention. I sometimes try to love a person irrespective of their gender to love equally. Sometimes i thought it's not gay obviously but i find peace and sense of purity in this kind of love. I have often heard ppl saying that you should be a bit mysterious, don't over share, don't be emotional or ask for love in the initial phases to find a girlfriend. But tbh i hate those tactics to my guts. Any relation which is formed by altering your actions is a deception for other person, and this hurts me. I can't misguide anyone in order to cure my loneliness, or to get in someone pants. I sure feel bad that i am not gonna get someone to spend life with but that's also a thought in self interest therefore i snap back to the theory of universal love. And tbh it gets easier day by day to have empathy and love for more ppl.
Why would anybody hate you for being asexual? Sorry if I misunderstand, but I find your prose a little hard to follow (especially when you use pronouns with unclear antecedents). For instance, to what does “it” refer when you write “giving it without any cause is difficult?”Does that “it” refer to “love” or to “a kind of illusion [you] create [to manipulate someone into giving you affection]? “I find myself hard” doesn’t mean what I think you’re trying to say here. Is that “hard” thing the “it” you hesitate to “give” to a female partner because it’s “impure” because it’s a biological drive? Trust me, there’s a lot more reasons why you might could call it “impure” than merely its biological genesis - there’s also going to be a lot of bodily fluids (from sweat to semen to saliva to blood to feces to vaginal nectar to water-based lube…there might be language spoken you wouldn’t want your grandparents to hear…there might be teeth marks or fingernail marks or other bruises, pulled hair, the sound of flesh pounding flesh, broken furniture, torn or soiled clothing, an embarrassing intruder, a sexually transmitted infection…
I’ve more than likely made my point why someone might use the word “impure,” but I want to clearly and unequivocally state that none of the above is “impure” in my book as long as it’s between two or more consenting adults, without coercion, guilt, pressure, shame, blackmail, bribes, or whatever else desperate desi kids do to bump nasties n get they rocks off. I probably could have left it at “without coercion,” since everything that follows are examples of coercion, but I want to add one more thing that would render it “impure” by my morality - if anyone involved is cheating on someone - whether they are spoken for as an engaged virgin or in a monogamous (unmarried) partnership or even in a polyamorous/non-monogamous relationship whose explicitly agreed up rules they are knowingly violating. Oh! And if you’re dishonest/not forthcoming about having an STI. (That said, sometimes people might feel trapped in a bad situation which they might not have the courage or means to break off immediately, and I’m not going to judge them too harshly for “cheating” on a jerk of a partner.)
Don’t be that guy. That guy sucks. He has low self esteem which means he is probably going to abuse his partner (because he will blame him/her for anything that hurts his already low self esteem). I love love. Trust me. I love the giddiness of early infatuation, when you’re still getting to know a new partner and they are all you can think about and you love everything about them from the way they sneeze to the way their hips sway when they walk away from you. It’s awesome (and it rarely lasts, unless you’re really lucky…or unlucky? I never intended to stay forever with my first or fourth or fortieth love, lol, but I never deceived any one of them, either, ftr.) Getting back to my essay in response to your essay - listen to your friends. Yes, be a bit mysterious. No, don’t overshare. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “don’t be emotional,” because I’d encourage you to be fun, funny, supportive, kind, gentle, generous, etc, if that is how you feel - obviously don’t fake this in order to manipulate someone - but take it slow. You don’t really know each other yet. That takes time.
If you are constantly blowing up her phone, she would be right to think you are a loser with no life who is going to be a burden on her if you get together. If you profess your undying love a week after meeting her, she would be right to think you’re emotionally unstable and might commit suicide if you get laid off from a job one day. You feel me? Just have some other friends and interests (you call the “hobbies” in Desh) so she knows you’re not always going to be stuck to her ass like a diaper. And don’t be a doormat, either. Don’t ask “How high?” every time she says to jump. That’s not attractive. Most healthy people enjoy a challenge. I can tell you from experience, having a stalker - even a smart, cute, somewhat interesting stalker - is creepy af. They become like that little brother or sister who follows you everywhere-begs the question, “Doesn’t this loser have anywhere else to go/anything else to do?” In the states (and likely South Asia) we call it playing games - all this stuff you say you don’t want to do. And you know what? Nobody (except sociopaths and seriously damaged people) LIKES to play games. But you know what else? You got no choice! You play any sports or games for fun? Winning feels good, right? Imagine if your opponent just forfeited every time you suited up and hit the pitch or set up all the pieces on the board. “No thanks! You are such a great player. You deserve to win. It is an honor to lose to a great person such as you!” If that happened to me once, I’d be annoyed, but maybe also my self esteem would get a boost. If I practiced hard for another week and came back and the same opponent did the same thing - I would not hit them, I would not break anything, but I would be angry and all future matches with that person would be canceled. That’s boring. I want a worthy opponent to challenge me and push me, inspire me, force me to do my best! I don’t want to go home with the consolation prize which nobody earns, nobody wants, is given as a cheap (and futile) attempt to make the losers feel a little less bad. What’s fun is when someone acts like they are going one way so you move to block them and they fake you out and score. That’s a worthy opponent, and you just learned their trick. The next time they come up the field you are ready, they start to fake but you’re ready, except they pass it to a teammate this time. When you have possession, you pull similar moves. (Clearly I know nothing about soccer, er, football.) And this is slowly how you get to know each other, each other’s strengths and weaknesses, each other’s teammates (friends and family) and THEIR strengths and weaknesses, each other’s reactions to both success and failure. Sex/love/marriage/partnership relationships are…not scary, per se…but they can carry a lot of weight. And they can royally fuck up not just an individual, but a whole extended family - a village - if they don’t work out. (They can also be casual, meaningless fun, but it doesn’t sound like that’s for you. That’s ok!)
You have no choice but to play such games…unless you want mummydaddy to set you up with Savitri from the gaon…or you’ve got a solid friendship that is becoming something else (which can also be scary - risk ruining an important friendship?!) So call (or even better, text) her. Ask her how she’s doing. Make small talk. Tell her how you’re doing. Be funny. (But even if your world is falling apart at that moment, just say it’s fine. Pretend she’s a bank teller. Don’t start dumping all your problems on her right away.) Talk about the weather. Talk about your mutual friends. Maybe talk a little about your hopes and aspirations. Then cut the conversation short - say you were having so much fun talking that you lost track of time and you are about to be late for another commitment. If you call and she doesn’t answer, it’s up to you and how well you know her and how confident you feel, but maybe leave a message or maybe don’t. (Voicemails can sound really pathetic if you’re nervous about calling a new crush, which she might play for her friends and they will all cruelly laugh at you, or she might be flattered and find it endearing).
@@sunnyshinecreation well, you're not practising self love by allowing them to abuse you. Setting boundaries is an act of love- by doing so you're preventing that person from doing bad things to others which is really an act of self-harm.
I’m unable to love everyone. I can only love those I hold close to me or have an honest and good heart. I wonder if Kierkegaard is idealistic in his idea of altruistically loving everyone or whether I’m egotistical in only loving those I care about or find good hearted.
When this video was uploaded , It was just in match with my lesson sternberg's theory of love and since I am familiar with the two ... It has been a nice conversation breaker
"I have come to the frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element. It is my personal approach that creates the climate. It is my daily mood that makes the weather. I possess tremendous power to make life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration, I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal. In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis is escalated or de-escalated, and a person is humanized or de-humanized. If we treat people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat people as they ought to be, we help them become what they are capable of becoming." -HAIM G. GINOTT
I'm an atheist who prides myself in practicing the teachings of love and kindness that Jesus preached versus actual Christians who just pretend they do.
“The rigid, the domineering person lacks flexibility, lacks the pliability to comprehend others; he demands his own from everyone, wants everyone to be transformed in his image, to be trimmed according to his pattern for human beings. Or he does what he regards as a rare degree of love, on a rare occasion he makes an exception. He seeks, so he says, to comprehend a particular human being, that is, in an alto-gether definite, specific-and arbitrary -way he thinks of something definite about this person and then insists that the other shall fulfill this idea. Whether this is exactly the other person’s distinctiveness or not makes no difference, because this is what the domineering person has supposed about him. If the rigid and domineering person cannot ever create, he wants at least to transform-that is, he seeks his own so that wherever he points he can say: See, it is my image, it is my idea, it is my will. Whether the rigid and domineering person is assigned a large sphere of activity or a small one, whether he is a tyrant in an empire or a domestic tyrant in a little attic room essentially makes no difference ; the nature is the same: domineeringly refusing to go out of oneself, domineeringly wanting to crush the other person’s distinctiveness or torment it to death. The nature is the same-the worst tyrant who ever lived and had a world to tyrannize became bored with it and ended up tyrannizing flies, but he really remained the same!”
I've met enough people who are seriously mentally ill - narcissistic, sociopathic, damaged by past trauma with no means of fixing it. These are not people I can love...not hate either. I would just prefer to maintain a safe distance. There are those who will come into the lives of others and just cause (very often) irreparable damage.
@@Nowhy where did you get that idea from? I didn't think it was implied at all! The funny thing is though that I do very often get used as a tool and no, I don't like it. I work in an environment where I am exposed to highly intellectual but very sick people. I myself needed alot of help in 2006 when drug addiction nearly destroyed me and everyone close to me. I was really sick and I was helped by strangers who showed me a way out. Now 16 (clean) years later I am still paying it forward and trying to help others recover from addiction. And yes sometimes it takes everything I've got but somehow it's still worth it.
very difficult for mere mortals indeed! How about the narcissistic, the toxic, and the psychopath/sociopath? How can one love them and not be harmed/destroyed?
We all really want your academic analyses of philosophers, longer form if possible. I think viewers are little less taken with your proscriptive/prescriptive "how to live your life" type videos. We want the philosophy and we can decide for ourselves.
The way this is presented does not resolve the problem of the fundamental characteristic of every human, or indeed any other species to make distinctions whether on the basis of emotions, thoughts, curiosity, intellect, or creativity. To say that the ultimate goal is to love everyone equally, tends to obliterate the notion of love altogether, at least in terms of what it can be distinguished from to all sorts of complexities, contrasts, or conflicts that can be made with respect to the object or subject of love. I suppose then that at that level of love, there is no longer any distinction between the subject and object, a mystical point that has transcended social, interpersonal or linguistic bounds.
Applying specieism to Kierkegaard? Also, you forget language/imagination... You would need to read the works that he wrote under his pseudonyms, if you want to go that route...
If there is no feedback in the exactness of love one receives through his/her action, then applying game theory, people will all be cruel and exploiting and then get away from “love”! Don’t think it’s a sustainable strategy. It only works if everyone follows this to core, but even a single bad apple ruins the equilibrium.
The point is, why we so sexually attracted or aroused to someone beautiful or engaging? because of the will to reproduce.. It would be interesting to see the debate between Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer...
Although I agree with a lot that has been said in this video. I believe he just went from one extreme to another. He went from only loving one person to loving everyone. If you look at it in a practical sense. Loving someone that way opens up the person to be more forgiving, regardless of the other person's personality and leaves room for being taken advantage of to completely being walked over. In this kind of love that person should still continue to love despite what the person has done, there in lies the flaw. Secondly I think he was too much into religion because I heard the word Christian too many times. This kind of love works in a perfect world or in a movie when one person changes another simply through kindness. It also ignores the aspect of complex personalities. You cannot appreciate someone whose main feature is the thing that you hate. By learning to love such a person you also open yourself to that certain feature and it is not necessarily always a good thing. So in short conditions and guidelines are key here.
Maybe you want to go into dialectics a bit.. if you don't see the idea, all you write here is a judgment on yourself. Btw, in the book, he writes about the works of love, not Christian love itself (agape).. the video here oversimplifies a lot and your concerns would be addressed in the book...
He's writing a treatise against romantic love. And his argument is that overemphasizing romantic feelings cheapens the idea of love itself. His culture (and ours) overemphasize romantic feelings and equate it to love, Christianity has a different definition of love that goes way beyond how someone makes you "feel"
Love and understanding do not exists in isolation, but are closely intertwined and go hand-in-hand; to love people is to see them for who they truly are - beyond any external appeal or apparent malformation - and love them nonetheless. A great way to distinguish between actual love, and mere (& always fleeting) infatuation, thanks TSoL (& Kierkegaard). 😊
The kind of love Kierkegaard professes is what I call justice. I see no difference between the two. After all why am I loving anyone if I don't think they're all deserving of love? I don't think it's possible to love someone and not at the same time show them justice. What is love without justice?
What is your view on “Works of Love”? Join the discussion in the comments below.
Danish existentialist THEOLOGICAL philosopher would sound even more awesome and unique😅😄 theology and existentialism is one of the most unique pov of theology imo.
Kierkegaard's views are comforting!
He sounds like a guy who never got properly fucked.
thank you for narrating this video Alan. it was excellent.
words are important. still they are ambiguous and deeply complex in their many meanings and possible approaches depending on the lenses and perspectives from which we come to them, hence the difficult of translation and interpretation in the philsoophies.
buddhistic taositic patience for difficult and downtrodden people, or even those who outright choose evil, even evil against the observer---is different than love.
'mehta' might be considered christian style kierkardian love.
love is not 'all'. and anyone preaching that love is 'all' should be confronted with the need , implicit in cognition itself, for discrimination between how to love people. universal love for the murder who comes to kill you is not love for the murder. by allowing him to kill you , you encourage him to continue on this path. one must avoid feeding evil in order to prevent it from growing. this requires discrimination.
I can understand his perspective, however this goes against human nature. We are by default discriminatory when it comes to love, particularly the females of our species.
First i read the title as “Kierkegaard in love” and i was like great, he finally found someone
Definitely would watch that movie
@@BDonks Come to think of it, so would I
We wouldn’t have Christian existentialism if he ended up getting married. It really sucks that he was restless his entire life but we wouldn’t have his entire authorship had he settled down. It’s literally an Either-Or situation.
He had no problem loving, but had problem finding someone who loved him?
@@tubeyou89119. Yes. I agree.
“People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid.”- Søren Kierkegaard, This is one of my favorite quotes.
Crazy because now they are trying to quiet people with censorship. Which is very wrong.
Will be using this over and over again.
@Noise Control 👍🏾Yes
🤡-FIRE!
I don't get it.
I'm just so happy to be hearing Alain's hypnotic calming voice again.
The woman's voice is awful. I literally click away of a video immidietly when i hear her voice , even if i am really interested on the topic
Not even once have i watched a video in this channel not narrated by Alain. He should be the only speaker. I can't stand anyone else.
Me too 💖💖 I missed him 😭
Does anybody know His socials?
What's his full name?
Alain De Botton
Thank you for revisiting this absolute philosophical juggernaut and legend. This man lived a hollow life and withheld himself from so many things because he was too self-aware. And he taught us all so many lessons in his short time. He wrote so many books and diaries that you could read him for the rest of your life. The only thing that comes across my mind when I read him is, "This man was genuinely authentic." He lived a hard life and I really wish we could bring him to our modern time and rehabilitate him. He deserved a better life. You get the feeling that this was a man who could have conquered the world with his intellect, but instead he humbled himself so deeply that he became misguided in his humility. But it gave him great abstract wisdom.
Alain’s voice is back with more existential crisis. 😍
I'm pretty sure everyone will watch this channel much more if Alain stays as the narrator
True
" It is amazing that how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness"
~Leo Tolstoy
Oh my God! This hit hard. It was unconfortable to think of how flawd my view can be. How much I praise justice and righteousness, and how much my romantic interest is usually bound to my admiration for the person. I am one of those who have not found another person to love, other than my family and close friends. Thank you for this summary. I will read this book.
Sharing that is what I consider brave.
It is true.
@@Nowhy Thank you!
Love from a Christian standpoint equals; Compassion, respect and kindness. If you stop seeing love as a romantic concept, his ideas will make a whole lot more sense.
Please continue your series on philosophers and make 100s of videos on them. We really love them.
That's right.
This explains why divorce rates are +50% and second marriages divorce at +60%. People marry out of romance, lust, biological desire, evolutionary urge, convenience, insecurity, neediness, fear, selfishness, and the list goes on. But, how often do they marry for love as defined in the video?
As Plato has outlined, lovers should not seek perfect matches or unchanging ideal partners. Instead, we should look for those with whom we can grow together, individuals who allow us to improve ourselves and who feel comfortable showing their own flaws and insecurities, and vice versa, Love is a journey, not a constant end, to help attain our self-fulfillment and theirs.
Haven't heard anything as powerful or valuable as this in a long time
You can't truly love all others until you learn to love yourself first.
I think that’s the hidden thought
And maybe you can’t love yourself entirely until you love all of humanity
@@PutterLee agreed
@@PutterLee Yin and Yang.
@@PutterLee bingo
Thank you, school of Life. I can't write well In English, sorry for that. But thanks to you i could manage the 7 years depression i had. Reading a la recherche du temps perdu or l'étranger (last one was easier. But i could find it thanks to you) where a challenge. But you guys, you help me more than anyone. Please, keep doing your videos. You're making the difference for those who're lost... You're making more than whatever institution or organisation that selectively help people according to their financial status. I want to sub your videos in Spanish... I don't know when I could do it, but i really wish you can reach more people. Thank you for everything, and I wish you the best.
A spanish sub would be amazing!
Without doubt, Kierkegaard had a point. But I don’t think this “universal” love and romantic love are at odds with each other. They’re just very different things with very different purposes that our language unfortunately doesn’t do a great job of distinguishing. We can extend love of the kind described here to all sorts of people without necessarily wanting to have an intimate relationship with them, and at the same time hope to meet a rather special someone with whom we do want to build such a relationship.
Have you read the "The Art of Loving" by Eric Fromm? He breaks down the different kinds of love we posses and give to others in a clear and beautiful way
In real Aristotelian metaphysics, the question is love for God versus love for creature and the assumption is that a man can love the Good and the True for their own sake and the "no good" and "no true" for the sake of the Good and the True. In Modern metaphysics no such love is possible because Good and True are considered unknowable and unattainable. Therefore the only remaining question is love as giving from the self versus love as receiving for the self.
I love that you pointed out the linguistic aspects of our conflation of these two kinds of love. And even more sadly is that in languages that do provide a linguistic distinction between this 'universal love' and 'romantic love' such as in Chinese and Japanese (愛 = love vs. 戀 = romance), most people who speak those language don't recognize the difference between the two. Interestingly, just to illustrate your point that universal love and romantic love are not mutually exclusive, it is common in Chinese and Chinese-rooted languages to put the two together (i.e., 戀愛). However, this does disservice to the nuanced distinction between the two because '戀愛' generally means only 'romantic love', which arrives at the same linguistic confusion just as in English!
@@im_vincy, the universal love is a faulty concept.
@@seriouscat2231 You *are* a serious cat.
It's amazing how I always learn something new on this channel. A solace for the anxieties of the soul, indeed.
Much love from Brazil!
I'm amazed of the timing these bits come, like they're synchronized with the days I'm living. Thanks!
Hi Rafa. There's no mystery about it: the subjects we focus on - love, friendship, work, and the agonies of being human - are of permanent relevance.
@@theschooloflifetv thank you for replying in that way. It's not some "greater plan" it's relateable content that we can get things from.
@@theschooloflifetv I love you people.
Now I have to go research what Kierkegaard thought about Plato’s Symposium. their discussion of love is what got me into philosophy.
What an extraordinary thinker he was.
Was missing these types of videos based on philosophers' views... Waiting for more like these
Love is a gift you give to someone whether they deserve it or not expecting nothing in return. Love done with expectation is not love but a transaction.
And if love becomes transaction it will be vunerable to everything a commodity is vulenrable to .
Business yes, just like many see marriage itself and then they wonder late in life, if ever, why it didn't "work out" and how come that they become so embittered and miserable...
"Let us be Christian in all of our actions. But I want to tell you this evening that it is not enough for us to talk about love, love is one of the pivotal points of the Christian faith. There is another side called justice. And justice is really love in calculation. Justice is love correcting that which revolts against love." Martin Luther King jr.
Yes but is the "love in calculation" the romantic singularly discriminatory kind of love or universal love? I suspect for most of us, we would apply the former into the equation of justice and mete it out with a sword rather than trying to meditate on absurdities of the later....
We need more of this Kierkegaard love nowadays
Kierkegaard is speaking of the unconditional love that extends beyond the erotic and romantic. Very inclusive and reminds me a lot of Buddhist roots
It is Christian, for it is impossible for man. You must never read Kierkegaard without the paradox of sin, that is to say: The paradox that we know unconditional love to be the truth, but are unable to practice it.
It would be more Taoist than the practice of Buddhism.
The pursuit of justice is the quickest way to an unloving hell -SOL, thank you for phrasing it so well, it was sth I was debating about with some friends.
Soren Kierkegaard is like that friend who is always single but gives everyone relationship advice, there’s a Persian saying: “if you know how to dig a hole, dig one in your own garden”
His writings on love make sense, because he pursued no romantic love after his former fiancee. So, watch the video, and you will see he dug the hole.
@Dootie nicely put, I might steal that at some point!
you clearly dont know anything about his biography... he knew love like no other western thinker. maybe Dante or Ovid but Kierkegaard still stands out the most.
@Dootie Solomon's paradox
And some are meant to be a messenger. Not a player in the game . .
Ironically sometimes you cannot have it both ways.
So in another essence his “sacrificing” for others is actually ultimate love
Been missing these early type of SoL videos about different philosophers with Alain.
allan’s soothing existential-triggering voice is back
I’m Happy to hear Alain’s voice 🤩
I think this is really interesting, and challenging. I do wonder how this love is supposed to make us act. The video doesn't indicate how we should act towards everyone when we love them. It says what not to do - don't persecute, don't punish - but not what to do instead. I haven't read Kierkegaard, so I don't know if he addressed this - I'd be happy for someone to let me know if he did or not.
I think my problem is that while I understand we shouldn't persecute, love typically means to accept and often indulge. Not to try to change.
When you love the paedophile or the rapist, does it mean you accept they are like that and will never change, and indulge it? Are they allowed to keep doing these things? How can loving acceptance and prevention of bad behaviour co-exist?
I've used extreme examples on purpose to make my point clear, but it can be applied pretty broadly.
What do we do when those we love do something abhorrent? And if we just accept it, do we stop them? Are we showing real love for the victims, or ourselves if we are the focus of that act if we don't stop it?
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, this is a question I genuinely struggle with around acceptance and forgiveness while defending oneself or others against harmful behaviours. I would be really interested to know what the School of Life take on this is, and how it's consistent with love.
Yess i agree
Helena, your thinking is in fact quite veracious, watching this video essay or thinking about kierkegaard's proposition can make one feel great difficulty , let alone when we try to think from the perspective of such a higher virtue (real or abstract) , we may feel imperfect, guilty of not attaining it.
According to me difficulty with kierkegaard's idea comes because we are trying to use the same term ( and same concept) , same idea or lens to philosophise functioning and importance of two very different things, affection by its very nature can't be universal thing, we do it , feel it or act upon it for a fair few, that involves kin , kith , close friends and spouse/husband/wife/lover, and it can't be other way round, for affection involves actions of nature that can't be given to everyone, let alone to those for whom we have valid reason to distance ourselves from, a son donates one of the kidney to a dying father, mother giving her food to her kids even when she is hungry, enduring pain , sacrificing pleasure , security , life are all actions of affection that people do for "loved" ones, that they share strong affection with, it is somewhat preferential by nature (and we do act baised towards whom we have affection, like wanting to forgive them more or excuse them more in comparison to a stranger) , more so affection has evolutionary foundation to it, it is a natural mechanism through which we bond, so at core, it is not even a choosen attitude , it is one of our basic nature and does not come from a specific cultural attitude or concept,
Also you defined love as something that involves acceptance and indulgence, this might not be comprehensive of what all we can identify as love, again as i mentioned affection does involve preference but even affection cannot involve complete acceptance of someone , example a son cannot love back an abusive alcoholic father and just accept him as it is, doing so would cause nothing better and it won't be any virtuous, even in affectionate relationships , a certain boundary exist where judgement and accountability comes, so accordance and indulgence are not the best descriptions of love, we often say those who we nurture, protect and care for are the one we love (or those who nurture , protect or care for us are the ones who love us) , part of this nurturing and caring is let someone know how they can be harmful or how they produce suffering for others or for themselves, love in that way is not acceptance but cultivation,
Kierkegaard's critique of romance of his time is somewhat valid and in fact insightful if all society knows about love is through most shallow motifs of romances that involves tropes of youth,beauty,attraction,admiration etc only and this true of today's society as well , just like today such form of "love" is more like a commodity than a virtue derived from our existentially inherent capacity.
And his proposition of universal love again sounds percipient we replace the word ' love' by 'compassion' (that is different from affection),if we can recognise to be compassionate as a virtue and extend compassion towards everyone (which is also what buddhism proposes) , it can not only help us to avoid possessive emotions like rage, revenge , vengeance but an opportunity to accept our immoral, destructive part (of whole humanity, including ourselves), profession of such a philosophy can purify our actions and thoughts of so many ways it can produce suffering, cruelty or fundamentalism (of notions, postulates or emotions), by acting compassionate it would not mean to act preferential towards someone who has commited some kind of harm but we can also accept they are obliged to their victims and that just like they deserve protection that comes from moral attitude , their victim deserve this from them , that way we allow the opportunity of remorse and repetence and atonement, not just endless banishment to punishments.
Still kierkegaard's special emphasis on Christian love exemplified in Jesus's love can produce rationally valid contradictions when acting it in real life, given post enlightenment Christian philosophy like taking Jesus as role model deviated from olden theology which emphasised his role as a godhead ( and thus inherent incapability of humans to be like him and thus his capacity to love everyone as something divinely special) but still inherits many ideas from it might have made the entire line of thinking bit of a cacophony of ideas, unless the exact way to profess something is also given as you mentioned.
it's great to see this kind of video again! going back to its roots circa 2015
I missed this type of video with this animation, it's truly the most enjoyable. and with Alain's voice !!!!
Christ also said along with loving others, that we love God and God IS love… Christ also said that we must LOVE OURSELVES. Applying this love to ourselves is as crucial as the other two that we must practice. ❤️
... in the right way ...
That being said, Christian love is not only kindness. It is the act of making someone better. That could come in the form of correction which the other person may or may not want.
Nope absolutely Not.. A christian is not to impose anything on anyone, love them treat them kindly and let go of the outcome.. Tough love is a religious invention, it’s a new packaging for you’ll do as I want or else
who are you to know what "better" is for another person
"If One Is Truly to Succeed in Leading a Person to a Specific Place, One Must First and Foremost Take Care to Find Him Where He is and Begin There.
This is the secret in the entire art of helping.
Anyone who cannot do this is himself under a delusion if he thinks he is able to help someone else. In order truly to help someone else, I must understand more than he-but certainly first and foremost understand what he understands.
If I do not do that, then my greater understanding does not help him at all. If I nevertheless want to assert my greater understanding, then it is because I am vain or proud, then basically instead of benefiting him I really want to be admired by him.
But all true helping begins with a humbling.
The helper must first humble himself under the person he wants to help and thereby understand that to help is not to dominate but to serve, that to help is a not to be the most dominating but the most patient, that to help is a willingness for the time being to put up with being in the wrong and not understanding what the other understands."
-Kierkegaard
Another great idea from Mister Kierkegaard.
Take a bow.
This idea is so close to the Indian philosophy of spirituality.. where one realises the true self and beyond.
This is not a popular perspective on love, but it is the truth.
Finally, you guys get back to doing these!
This is ironic since he called off his own engagement because he felt inadequate. He could not expect someone to.adopt his own meaning of love. Selfless and detached from the illusion of unconditional love.
Is that so?
I would love to understand this perspective and how it can be applied to sexual/romantic relationships. How do we balance a blind love with the biological reactions of attraction?
I share your sentiments Talia
I personally feel that the whole idea about romantic attraction is simply that we wait for someone whom we are attracted to, before coming to know about their flaws then try to accept them despite them.
Kierkegaard’s viewpoint just simply sounds too good and pure to be applied in the real world, because at the end of the day whether we are attracted to someone or not, we will realise their flaws. And isn’t it better that we had been attracted to the person in the first place.
I’d love to hear perspectives on this!
In my perspective the ideas are compatible. It's how couples can stay in love through old age. Where looks and benefits are less, it's just about loving a person even if they don't give you much in return. Necessary for any couple if you ask me. Said shorter, this is the kind of love necessary after a year of dating. When the butterflies go away.
@@StarAmbience42 thanks for this! I think it’s a good point of how Kierkegaard’s can be applied for people who are already in love, or in a relationship which they can love. But another side of the question and something we could ponder further is for people who are finding love. In view of this Kierkegaardian perspective, what should they look for, or are they right to ask for certain criterias of their future romantic partners
@@StarAmbience42 thanks for this! I think it’s a good point of how Kierkegaard’s can be applied for people who are already in love, or in a relationship which they can love. But another side of the question and something we could ponder further is for people who are finding love. In view of this Kierkegaardian perspective, what should they look for, or are they right to ask for certain qualities of their future romantic partners. If so what qualities is it ok to ask for and what not, given that being in a relationship is an exercise to practice our ability to love
Kierkegaard is my favorite philosopher - great video as usual!
Finally an actual video from this channel... been too long
I like this perspective a lot. That being said it's DIFFICULT AS HELL and I strongly advise to not apply this without certain boundaries. To apply such boundaries without being prejudiced and unloving is another difficult matter to think upon. For believers, this is where prayers comes in. Well actually, prayers should come before anything else. I just found applying this kind of love will lead us into some sort of suffering, especially when we do it for someone who is / will be a constant part of us. And it's very human of us to want to get away from suffering. Isn't that what we ask for deliverance from day by day ? Evil and the suffering it brought. I guess I'm just so confused..
It is not only difficult, but impossible. But as Jesus says: What is impossible for humans, is possible for God. We cannot love what is undeserving in our eyes, because our love is selfish (we only love that which we like or at least understand) - but God can and has loved all creation by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. When we come to terms with this our sinfulness, that we ourselves are undeserving of love, undeserving of life, we see the grace of God, that gives us exactly the love and the life we do not deserve (but need, as this video beautifully puts it). Only from this humility can we become Gods children, bearing forth His infinite love, not our own selfish love, to our fellow humans, for all whom He died on the cross. Only when we see that we deserve nothing, we see that we have received everything by grace. God loves that which is low, gives life to that which is dead.
So what I am trying to say: You and I cannot "apply" this kind of love, for it is in fact Gods almighty love we are talking about. We must only have faith that He loves us, not for the good we do, which is nothing in His eyes, but as the utterly fallible creatures we are. We must everyday pray for this humility, that lets us see that we deserve nothing, but undeservingly receive everything, every breath, every blink of our eyelids, every second of life, from Him - for He would take it all away in an instant, did He not will it. When we as such believe ourselves to be truly nothing, dust and ashes, without His gifts, we can begin to share this gift of life with the people around us. For we do not deserve them either, but they are Gods most precious gifts to us, and loving them is cherishing them not on account of their actions towards us or our own towards them, but on account of them being here, as we are here, together by the grace of God.
@@gghhap I'm sure good ol Søren would appreciate your sentiment but with a little bit of acidity, It's difficult to tell how anthropomorphized his version of God is especially considering his interpretations of the book of Job and the story of Abraham, so I'm curious as to what his thoughts on prayer would be, surely I know he would be outrageously against prayer for gain or salvation, but I can't deduce if he feels that way about prayer for others sake.
@@CyroMM Prayer doesent change God, but the one praying, according to Kierkegaard. And God to him is as anthropomorphized as can be in Jesus Christ.
@@gghhap makes sense as to why he disagreed with Hegel so heavily then
@@CyroMM True. Hegel to Kierkegaard “builds a castle, but lives in the doghouse”, meaning he speculates a grand and rationally coherent system for the world but doesent reflect on his own irrationally sinful existence. For Hegel says: “All is spirit”, and in this he moves to destroy christianity, in which we confess the resurrection of the flesh, which is not spirit.
“The more I love men as a whole , the less I can love him in particular “ Dostoyevsky…
i thought of this exact quote as this video played, ahah. but to quote dostoevsky’s the adolescent:
"My friend, to love people as they are is impossible. And yet one must. And therefore do good to them, clenching your feelings, holding your nose, and shutting your eyes (this last is necessary).”
The animator has quite a sense of humor 😂😂😂
I always cry w/ Kierkegaard
And he wrote onxe, that if women become men and men become women, that he would as a consequence just go to the marketplace and cry.
@@Nowhy You know where he wrote that? and whats your take on that excerpt?
@@jp2001almeida he wrote that somewhere on his journals or notebooks.
I think it's about the order of things, where in nature one can find the male/female dichotomy everywhere. Male = function, female = matter/substance (your body from conception went all through the heart of your mother). What perhaps would had make Kierkegaard sad about an imbalance in the modern age (he saw it in his time and the german romantics), is when the exception becomes to norm (queer theory as an example); like when men stop being capable of intellectual thought and women becoming incapable of devotion to their men. A pseudonym (secular thought) of him went a bit into this in the concept of anxiety...
This guy is so wise man
That's my favorite type of video from School of life. Great work :)
Even if you do love everyone unconditionally, a man's inner inert character of expecting the same in return can practically destroy one emotionally and psychologically. Thus, I think it's very important to choose the people in one's life and avoid any form of unhealthy attachment as much as possible.
There is always a need in a man's love...
You missed the entire point.. listen till it clicks. . Might be ten times. Might be a million.
You are a woman, after all, you need to be more picky, because of biology. It's understandable
woman moment
Kierkegaard brought me here, School of Life has kept me here
I don't know if i will be hated for this, but for me romantic relationships are a kind of illusion we create for the other person in order to show affection to us. We all like to be loved but giving it without any cause is surely difficult.
I find myself hard to find a female partner as i think it's a biologically bias and this love is not pure. I could manipulate my partner in order to get more affection, sex , attention. I sometimes try to love a person irrespective of their gender to love equally. Sometimes i thought it's not gay obviously but i find peace and sense of purity in this kind of love.
I have often heard ppl saying that you should be a bit mysterious, don't over share, don't be emotional or ask for love in the initial phases to find a girlfriend. But tbh i hate those tactics to my guts. Any relation which is formed by altering your actions is a deception for other person, and this hurts me. I can't misguide anyone in order to cure my loneliness, or to get in someone pants. I sure feel bad that i am not gonna get someone to spend life with but that's also a thought in self interest therefore i snap back to the theory of universal love. And tbh it gets easier day by day to have empathy and love for more ppl.
Why would anybody hate you for being asexual? Sorry if I misunderstand, but I find your prose a little hard to follow (especially when you use pronouns with unclear antecedents). For instance, to what does “it” refer when you write “giving it without any cause is difficult?”Does that “it” refer to “love” or to “a kind of illusion [you] create [to manipulate someone into giving you affection]?
“I find myself hard” doesn’t mean what I think you’re trying to say here. Is that “hard” thing the “it” you hesitate to “give” to a female partner because it’s “impure” because it’s a biological drive?
Trust me, there’s a lot more reasons why you might could call it “impure” than merely its biological genesis - there’s also going to be a lot of bodily fluids (from sweat to semen to saliva to blood to feces to vaginal nectar to water-based lube…there might be language spoken you wouldn’t want your grandparents to hear…there might be teeth marks or fingernail marks or other bruises, pulled hair, the sound of flesh pounding flesh, broken furniture, torn or soiled clothing, an embarrassing intruder, a sexually transmitted infection…
I’ve more than likely made my point why someone might use the word “impure,” but I want to clearly and unequivocally state that none of the above is “impure” in my book as long as it’s between two or more consenting adults, without coercion, guilt, pressure, shame, blackmail, bribes, or whatever else desperate desi kids do to bump nasties n get they rocks off. I probably could have left it at “without coercion,” since everything that follows are examples of coercion, but I want to add one more thing that would render it “impure” by my morality - if anyone involved is cheating on someone - whether they are spoken for as an engaged virgin or in a monogamous (unmarried) partnership or even in a polyamorous/non-monogamous relationship whose explicitly agreed up rules they are knowingly violating. Oh! And if you’re dishonest/not forthcoming about having an STI. (That said, sometimes people might feel trapped in a bad situation which they might not have the courage or means to break off immediately, and I’m not going to judge them too harshly for “cheating” on a jerk of a partner.)
Don’t be that guy. That guy sucks. He has low self esteem which means he is probably going to abuse his partner (because he will blame him/her for anything that hurts his already low self esteem).
I love love. Trust me. I love the giddiness of early infatuation, when you’re still getting to know a new partner and they are all you can think about and you love everything about them from the way they sneeze to the way their hips sway when they walk away from you. It’s awesome (and it rarely lasts, unless you’re really lucky…or unlucky? I never intended to stay forever with my first or fourth or fortieth love, lol, but I never deceived any one of them, either, ftr.)
Getting back to my essay in response to your essay - listen to your friends. Yes, be a bit mysterious. No, don’t overshare. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “don’t be emotional,” because I’d encourage you to be fun, funny, supportive, kind, gentle, generous, etc, if that is how you feel - obviously don’t fake this in order to manipulate someone - but take it slow. You don’t really know each other yet. That takes time.
If you are constantly blowing up her phone, she would be right to think you are a loser with no life who is going to be a burden on her if you get together. If you profess your undying love a week after meeting her, she would be right to think you’re emotionally unstable and might commit suicide if you get laid off from a job one day. You feel me? Just have some other friends and interests (you call the “hobbies” in Desh) so she knows you’re not always going to be stuck to her ass like a diaper.
And don’t be a doormat, either. Don’t ask “How high?” every time she says to jump. That’s not attractive. Most healthy people enjoy a challenge. I can tell you from experience, having a stalker - even a smart, cute, somewhat interesting stalker - is creepy af. They become like that little brother or sister who follows you everywhere-begs the question, “Doesn’t this loser have anywhere else to go/anything else to do?”
In the states (and likely South Asia) we call it playing games - all this stuff you say you don’t want to do. And you know what? Nobody (except sociopaths and seriously damaged people) LIKES to play games. But you know what else? You got no choice! You play any sports or games for fun? Winning feels good, right? Imagine if your opponent just forfeited every time you suited up and hit the pitch or set up all the pieces on the board.
“No thanks! You are such a great player. You deserve to win. It is an honor to lose to a great person such as you!”
If that happened to me once, I’d be annoyed, but maybe also my self esteem would get a boost. If I practiced hard for another week and came back and the same opponent did the same thing - I would not hit them, I would not break anything, but I would be angry and all future matches with that person would be canceled. That’s boring. I want a worthy opponent to challenge me and push me, inspire me, force me to do my best! I don’t want to go home with the consolation prize which nobody earns, nobody wants, is given as a cheap (and futile) attempt to make the losers feel a little less bad.
What’s fun is when someone acts like they are going one way so you move to block them and they fake you out and score. That’s a worthy opponent, and you just learned their trick. The next time they come up the field you are ready, they start to fake but you’re ready, except they pass it to a teammate this time. When you have possession, you pull similar moves. (Clearly I know nothing about soccer, er, football.)
And this is slowly how you get to know each other, each other’s strengths and weaknesses, each other’s teammates (friends and family) and THEIR strengths and weaknesses, each other’s reactions to both success and failure.
Sex/love/marriage/partnership relationships are…not scary, per se…but they can carry a lot of weight. And they can royally fuck up not just an individual, but a whole extended family - a village - if they don’t work out. (They can also be casual, meaningless fun, but it doesn’t sound like that’s for you. That’s ok!)
You have no choice but to play such games…unless you want mummydaddy to set you up with Savitri from the gaon…or you’ve got a solid friendship that is becoming something else (which can also be scary - risk ruining an important friendship?!)
So call (or even better, text) her. Ask her how she’s doing. Make small talk. Tell her how you’re doing. Be funny. (But even if your world is falling apart at that moment, just say it’s fine. Pretend she’s a bank teller. Don’t start dumping all your problems on her right away.) Talk about the weather. Talk about your mutual friends. Maybe talk a little about your hopes and aspirations. Then cut the conversation short - say you were having so much fun talking that you lost track of time and you are about to be late for another commitment.
If you call and she doesn’t answer, it’s up to you and how well you know her and how confident you feel, but maybe leave a message or maybe don’t. (Voicemails can sound really pathetic if you’re nervous about calling a new crush, which she might play for her friends and they will all cruelly laugh at you, or she might be flattered and find it endearing).
Love is unfortunately fake among many people. Regardless, love your enemies, but do not let them abuse you.
How can you love your enemy even tjhough they abuse you ?
@@sunnyshinecreation well, you're not practising self love by allowing them to abuse you. Setting boundaries is an act of love- by doing so you're preventing that person from doing
bad things to others which is really an act of self-harm.
Wow for the first time ever I dont feel nervous about not understanding love. I’ve been learning.
Love is a chemical reaction in the brain that compels animals to breed. It is a cold, objectifying, cruel adaptation, not warm or free, or beautiful.
I missed your voice, if only it'd be possible to hear exceptionally your voice on this channel...
Watching this on Valentine's day 2024. Alone once again weeee
As a Dane I actually get where he is coming from with his definitions of "elskov" & "kærlighed". Wise man indeed.
I’m unable to love everyone. I can only love those I hold close to me or have an honest and good heart. I wonder if Kierkegaard is idealistic in his idea of altruistically loving everyone or whether I’m egotistical in only loving those I care about or find good hearted.
What a wonderful teacher!
When this video was uploaded , It was just in match with my lesson sternberg's theory of love and since I am familiar with the two ... It has been a nice conversation breaker
Kierkegaard was such a blessing to the world.
kirkegaard is awsome, a true christian. i Live right next to his famous walking paths in Denmark by the sea.
Alain is back🥰🥰🥰
"We love because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19)
please start making more videos in this format again!!!
There is no such thing as a soul mate. There is only choice. Choose wisely my friends.
i thought youd never make more videos like this aaaa
"I have come to the frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element. It is my personal approach that creates the climate. It is my daily mood that makes the weather. I possess tremendous power to make life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration, I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal. In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis is escalated or de-escalated, and a person is humanized or de-humanized. If we treat people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat people as they ought to be, we help them become what they are capable of becoming."
-HAIM G. GINOTT
When forced to choose, we choose the best available. To demand anything else is nonsense.
You certainly can love everyone and at the same time want and love one romantic partner...I've done so. ❤
What about war and genocide? How to love those who come with war?
I'm an atheist who prides myself in practicing the teachings of love and kindness that Jesus preached versus actual Christians who just pretend they do.
If you pride yourself in anything, you are as far from the teachings of Jesus as can be. Even He said: "I am not good, good is only one".
“The rigid, the domineering person lacks flexibility, lacks the pliability to comprehend others; he demands his own from everyone, wants everyone to be transformed in his image, to be trimmed according to his pattern for human beings. Or he does what he regards as a rare degree of love, on a rare occasion he makes an exception. He seeks, so he says, to comprehend a particular human being, that is, in an alto-gether definite, specific-and arbitrary -way he thinks of something definite about this person and then insists that the other shall fulfill this idea. Whether this is exactly the other person’s distinctiveness or not makes no difference, because this is what the domineering person has supposed about him. If the rigid and domineering person cannot ever create, he wants at least to transform-that is, he seeks his own so that wherever he points he can say: See, it is my image, it is my idea, it is my will. Whether the rigid and domineering person is assigned a large sphere of activity or a small one, whether he is a tyrant in an empire or a domestic tyrant in a little attic room essentially makes no difference ; the nature is the same: domineeringly refusing to go out of oneself, domineeringly wanting to crush the other person’s distinctiveness or torment it to death. The nature is the same-the worst tyrant who ever lived and had a world to tyrannize became bored with it and ended up tyrannizing flies, but he really remained the same!”
Keep these coming.
is so nice to hear you again alain.
I've met enough people who are seriously mentally ill - narcissistic, sociopathic, damaged by past trauma with no means of fixing it. These are not people I can love...not hate either. I would just prefer to maintain a safe distance. There are those who will come into the lives of others and just cause (very often) irreparable damage.
Why would you want to fix others? You like being manipulated and used as a tool?
@@Nowhy where did you get that idea from? I didn't think it was implied at all!
The funny thing is though that I do very often get used as a tool and no, I don't like it.
I work in an environment where I am exposed to highly intellectual but very sick people.
I myself needed alot of help in 2006 when drug addiction nearly destroyed me and everyone close to me. I was really sick and I was helped by strangers who showed me a way out.
Now 16 (clean) years later I am still paying it forward and trying to help others recover from addiction. And yes sometimes it takes everything I've got but somehow it's still worth it.
"Impoverished sense of what love should be" indeed
very difficult for mere mortals indeed! How about the narcissistic, the toxic, and the psychopath/sociopath? How can one love them and not be harmed/destroyed?
Can they destroy you?
Adorno saw this book as impossible for humans or inhuman - if one looks at his life and works, one could see why he thought so..
Can they destroy you?
Adorno saw this book as impossible for humans or inhuman - if one looks at his life and works, one could see why he thought so..
While it may sound noble and spiritual to love like this, it is ripe with problems in the real world. A world without justice is also a living hell.
We all really want your academic analyses of philosophers, longer form if possible. I think viewers are little less taken with your proscriptive/prescriptive "how to live your life" type videos. We want the philosophy and we can decide for ourselves.
I love everyone in this comment section
❤
man such a great author you are.
I would love to see more Videos of you similar to the one in Sydney. The longer the better.
Not all people deserve love. And it's not selfish. This video is more about how kind and tolerance you are.
The way this is presented does not resolve the problem of the fundamental characteristic of every human, or indeed any other species to make distinctions whether on the basis of emotions, thoughts, curiosity, intellect, or creativity. To say that the ultimate goal is to love everyone equally, tends to obliterate the notion of love altogether, at least in terms of what it can be distinguished from to all sorts of complexities, contrasts, or conflicts that can be made with respect to the object or subject of love. I suppose then that at that level of love, there is no longer any distinction between the subject and object, a mystical point that has transcended social, interpersonal or linguistic bounds.
Applying specieism to Kierkegaard?
Also, you forget language/imagination...
You would need to read the works that he wrote under his pseudonyms, if you want to go that route...
You might like his doctorate thesis, which he didn't see as part of his authorship, " the concept of irony".
@@Nowhy Interesting! Tell me more. I’m not familiar with his lesser known writings.
@@Nowhy I’m not sure how in any manner of interpretation, you would think that what I said is applying specieism (is it speciesism?) to Kierkegaard!
This video is so powerful thank you for doing such a great work.
Thanks for the good vibes
I feel that if we loved everyone that would be damaging for ourselves more than benefitial. Everyone deserves love. Not everyone deserves our love.
You do not understand what love is then
I agree. You open up yourself for abuse. No, thank you. Had more than enough of that.
Nothing is more inconvenient than a NEED. And LOVE certainly is that.
Did you do a dry run of the audio and video stream? Audio is terrible, but great content!
Keep talking Alan, pleaseeeee
If there is no feedback in the exactness of love one receives through his/her action, then applying game theory, people will all be cruel and exploiting and then get away from “love”! Don’t think it’s a sustainable strategy. It only works if everyone follows this to core, but even a single bad apple ruins the equilibrium.
Life is not a game. And yes, no need for feelings in games, for what personal decision can be made in a game?
Btw, math is not exact, see Kurt Gödels...
It me rethink things much more biblically, amazing
The point is, why we so sexually attracted or aroused to someone beautiful or engaging? because of the will to reproduce..
It would be interesting to see the debate between Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer...
Kierkegaard read Schopenhauer late in his life and liked him quite a bit, but you can only find writings about him in his journals.
This man was many many years ahead of his time
Or "we" are behind "ours"...
oh my wish more people watched this video
this was beautiful
Although I agree with a lot that has been said in this video. I believe he just went from one extreme to another. He went from only loving one person to loving everyone. If you look at it in a practical sense. Loving someone that way opens up the person to be more forgiving, regardless of the other person's personality and leaves room for being taken advantage of to completely being walked over. In this kind of love that person should still continue to love despite what the person has done, there in lies the flaw. Secondly I think he was too much into religion because I heard the word Christian too many times. This kind of love works in a perfect world or in a movie when one person changes another simply through kindness. It also ignores the aspect of complex personalities. You cannot appreciate someone whose main feature is the thing that you hate. By learning to love such a person you also open yourself to that certain feature and it is not necessarily always a good thing.
So in short conditions and guidelines are key here.
Maybe you want to go into dialectics a bit.. if you don't see the idea, all you write here is a judgment on yourself.
Btw, in the book, he writes about the works of love, not Christian love itself (agape).. the video here oversimplifies a lot and your concerns would be addressed in the book...
He's writing a treatise against romantic love. And his argument is that overemphasizing romantic feelings cheapens the idea of love itself. His culture (and ours) overemphasize romantic feelings and equate it to love, Christianity has a different definition of love that goes way beyond how someone makes you "feel"
I don’t agree on this one. But, interesting concept that is incredibly morally sound.
Love and understanding do not exists in isolation, but are closely intertwined and go hand-in-hand; to love people is to see them for who they truly are - beyond any external appeal or apparent malformation - and love them nonetheless.
A great way to distinguish between actual love, and mere (& always fleeting) infatuation, thanks TSoL (& Kierkegaard). 😊
Parenthood opens your eyes to this exact concept.
The kind of love Kierkegaard professes is what I call justice. I see no difference between the two. After all why am I loving anyone if I don't think they're all deserving of love? I don't think it's possible to love someone and not at the same time show them justice. What is love without justice?
What love would be without justice? Nothing for us humans to decide.
Thank you for this video