We all form individual bonds with different people. What ends up being the most harmful is not what we do to each other, but what we let our expectations and desires of the other person do to us.
If I got anything out of that, it's that human relationships don't exist in a vacuum. The minimum number of elements for a relationship (not just a sexual partnership, but in general) isn't 2, it's 3: at least two partners, but also a third element that allows the connection between them to be tested, negotiated, and grown. Outside challenges allow relationships to strengthen, as both people realize that (ideally) the other person isn't really the source of their unhappiness, they're actually in the same boat, and the process of fixing their problems begins with or results in(...Im not sure which at this point) them coming together once more and rekindling their connection. I dont know if that's what Zizek meant, I suspect I'm wrong, but it's what I got out of it at least. Sorta reminds me of the "red pill" approach to sexual relationships: It's never about forming a connection with another person, but using that person (women in this case) as a means to resolve one's own deficiencies (of sex, self-worth, validation, etc). I suspect a lot of people are driven by this, though. If I respect nothing else about the Manchildosphere (and I don't), it's that they're at least honest about their motivations. (Honest in terms of sincere and unabashed. If you ask them, I'm sure they'll reject my assessment.) However, digging your heels into this psychopathology is something else. So is inventing a self-serving interpretation of Darwinism to justify your moral poverty.
So many seem confused.. what he's saying in a nutshell is that without an outside presence between you and your loved ones there is no actual relationship. For example, if you and your woman were the only two left on the planet, all these notions of jealousy and arrogance would not exist because there would be nothing to relate to. How does your girl know or think that she deserves better? Because her girlfriends or mother have displayed an example and/or sentiment as to why she should have her life a certain way. If you take the comparative lens away there is simply the average filter than bends based on whichever person's ideology we're speaking about.
Its basic psychoanalysis, the third is the excluded one that is always present in fantasy. The original oedipal relationship is a triangle. There is no way to understand this, if you don't have basic understanding of psychoanalytic theory.
I just figured out why “exhibitionism” (or in my case, having sex in deserted but public places) used to be so much fun more me. It was the fantasy/danger of us being intruded on by a passerby! Even though this never happened, the specter was always the 3rd “person” in the act. Lacan was something like a genius.
Its not really the same, the idea is that the third is always present. What you were doing is simply the breaking of a rule, a societal prohibition. As its literally illegal, public indecency. It was Freud who came up with the third, its directly from the oedipal conflict where there is always 3 people involved. But he actually proposed that there are always 4 people involved. And Kernberg went even further, and said there is 6 people involved.
This is from Kornberg's book; Love Relations. Direct and reverse triangulations, which I have described in earlier work (1988), constitute the most frequent and typical unconscious scenarios, which may at worst destroy the couple or at best reinforce their intimacy and stability. I use direct triangulation to describe both partners' unconscious fantasy of an excluded third party, an idealized member of the subject's gender-the dreaded rival replicating the oedipal rival. Every man and every woman unconsciously or consciously fears the presence of somebody who would be more satisfactory to his or her sexual partner; this third party is the origin of emotional insecurity in sexual intimacy and of jealousy as an alarm signal protecting the couple's integrity. Reverse triangulation defines the compensating, revengeful fantasy of involvement with a person other than one's partner, an idealized member of the other gender who stands for the desired oedipal object, thus establishing a triangular relationship in which the subject is courted by two members of the other gender instead of having to compete with the oedipal rival of the same gender for the idealized oedipal object of the other gender. I propose that, given these two universal fantasies, there are potentially, in fantasy, always six persons in bed together: the couple, their respective unconscious oedipal rivals, and their respective unconscious oedipal ideals. If this formulation brings to mind Freud's (1954) comment to Fliess, "I am accustoming myself to the idea of regarding every sexual act as a process in which four persons are involved" (letter 113, p. 289), it should be noted that his comment was made in a discussion of bisex uality. My formulation arises in the context of unconscious fantasies based on oedipal object relations and identifications.
A lot of people take his words literally and totally miss the point of what he's saying. Apparently thousands of youtubers think they're smarter than this man, yet they're on youtube complaining because they don't understand it. I'm sure all these youtubers are sophisticated philosophers...
Perhaps the reason why the sexual relationship, in media, needs a third party mediator is to create tension? Perhaps it's used as a tool to maintain interest in the characters? If we, the viewers, are completely assured, in our minds, that there is no danger in the two characters not connecting then we don't need to invest as much emotion in their fates I.e. will they or won't they... "I know they will; so what's the point?". Throw something into the mix as subtle as a horse's head... it may create just enough tension for the viewer. In the viewer's mind, "Hey horse get out of THE WAY!"... JMO though. I haven't read any of the "crazy theories" Slavoj is referring too. It would have been great if he explained the importance of the mediator.
The point that you make about the adds keeping people entertained with tension is exactly the same way it works in real life. If there is not the possibility of loss, of some intrusion, then there is no tension in the relationship, that's when it stops becoming entertaining, that is when the experience of love dies.
Sebastian Jimenez Bienen That's probably one of the reasons why it plays such an important role in advertising. The advertisers only have 30 secs (typically) to hook the viewer in, emotionally, to the product. With out tension, as you wrote, it stops becoming entertaining.
Sebastian Jimenez Bienen Well, you could say that. However, in reality, uncertainty is enough for that tension. Nothing is a guarantee, no matter how predictable the person. Interestingly, if a person is predictable, they feel trustworthy. If you look at a person as predictable, you may or may not condescend them for it (because people do not like to be seen as predictable). This is a real difference that awareness creates that confuses the circumstances of the relation often creating tension. Thus its not enough to be mildly aware, its better to pay close attention otherwise you miss the details that can damage trust. Also, love is not about entertainment. its about trust, entertainment is what you do when you are bored, trust is what you want when you are secure and want a good future. What i mean by trust is that the person is faithful, predictable and open (according to the literature on it). However, trust to me is a bit bigger, there are three major feelings you can get with a person. Physical attraction, emotional connection and an intellectual stimulation (do they respond and invest in conversation or do they say "true, woah, ect" are you of the same mind on many topics including values?). While these give the feeling of love and are entertaining they are not trust. When physical sensations combine with emotional connection that combine with a sense of being of the same mind this creates a very powerful sensation of being in love. Trust is almost like the results of an economic game. How does the person respond to uncertainty and threat. Say a threat to the relationship, or a problem that arises. Its one thing to trust a persons word, which can conveniently be carved from good intentions but may be totally naive to the way they will actually respond. Trust therefore is their actual response. If the response is healthy (benign or belittling the personal meaning of the circumstance) or they use conflict resolution strategies whilst keeping over the top emotions out of it therefore protecting and keeping the nature of the interaction healthy even under stress. you get an experience of a person effectively dealing with a genuinely challenging situation which because of the genuine threat posed, creates trust on its resolution. By actions are greater than words, we are talking trust and not merely proof. Trust is far larger as it affects all domains of a relationship. So in real life there are the visceral domains of physical, emotional and intellectual and the economic domains of trust that underplays the entire interaction. From the persons perspective there are emotional positions or vibes that create immediate tension (uncertainty and enjoyment) by their interplay. There are also particulars like techniques and states that when coalesced into a flow create a very fun and enjoyable albeit momentary dynamic.
"Love is not about entertainment, its about trust" First, let me correct myself by adding that when I say entertainment, I'm merely using an unfair, but nonetheless convenient simplification of the idea of fullness of spirit. Fullness of spirit, so the philosophers of the Platonic traditions think, only comes when one desires something one cannot have. That's exactly what falling in love is, desiring something so much your whole self is invested in it even when you know you can't have it. Now, you could very well raise the point that there are a lot of people that already have what they want but keep desiring it (people that are rich who still want more money, people that are married that are still deeply in love. etc), but the thing is that having something doesn't mean that you'll have it forever. In the best case scenario you'll have what you want until you die, but even if, you will still die, and you will lose that. The idea of falling in love then is exactly that, wanting something, someone and wanting it/he/she forever. So because you can't truly want something that you can have forever, love in this sense fundamentally relies on the possibility of loss, the possibility that it will not last forever, the possibility that there can and will most likely come an intrusion (a third party) to interrupt or even break apart the relationship. Now, the type of love that you are talking about, the one that is founded on trust, that's not really falling in love, that's just a deep psychological need for stability as you very well put it. Freud called the need to trust someone a need to protect the ego. So in his terms it would not be a love for the other, but a love for oneself. I mean, don't get me wrong, you can very well describe that as love, it's just not the feeling/idea described in the video, and it really doesn't fit the concept of falling in love.
Not quite, your example of love is not love. It is desire. To love in terms of psychology refers to a very particular process but ultimately the combining of three states with the imagined process (thinking of the person in magical ways, fun together, saying their name to yourself with that feeling in your chest) of love that creates investment. I say imagined because people fall in love when they are away not in front of the person. Desire is not equatable with love, trust itself is not love but is integral to love just as is desire. Im not talking a fantasy here, but reality. it is a combination of several levels of emotion and reality. Also, the feeling of falling in love is different to the nature of true love. If desire is the foundation of love, then we would expect arranged marrages to never last if we give the partners the freedom to break up. however, they are more stable than romantic relationships. your idea sounds nice "wanting what you cannot have" but its more poetic than true to nature. Otherwise affairs would be acceptable and functional parts of a healthy relationship. Trust is the actual foundation of a loving relationship. Desire the foundation of a passionate one. Passion is not bad, but alone it is prone to tragedy. Passion held with restraint and exercised in the context of trust. Thats what separates enacting a rape fantasy with your wife (who recently read 50 shades) from actual rape (an obscene expression of desire). Unlike in a movie or in mere intellectual consideration, there is serious uncertainty to real life. This uncertainty presents the constant threat of loss if considered authentically. Simply because you cannot-- like the camera-- observe anothers thoughts and behaviors all day whilst simultaneously minding your own life. I dont think your idea of love is healthy or realistic or even authentic. just romanticised lust. Also, for love to be genuine it requires trust more so than any particular feeling of desire. In fact, relationships based entirely on desire fail rather fast. Trust alone is just a business or friendship but with feelings in the context of romance, it creates healthy and fulfilling love. I dont need an argument about having what one has. The entire idea of "having" for happiness is not even provable. What one has and what one wants are separate from the self. People who want because it fills themselves do not know what they want. What they want is to be grateful for what they have including life. Why else would they seek it? Why else can people live so happily with so little? What of the poor man who is so content to farm for his daily bread and love his wife at night? Those desires you talk about, the best argument i have against you is this: if we accept that love is wanting what you do not have then having an affair is an act of love and not lust. This does not measure up to reality. Nor is it what i think you intend to say. For one, people have a desire to be competent and autonomous as well as have a secure social environment. Once obtained, these lead to immense feelings of satisfaction from which life becomes more about living it in harmony with ones revealed purpose. The most valuable thing you presented, that i agree with and that i can back to some degree with literature is: "So because you can't truly want something that you can have forever, love in this sense fundamentally relies on the possibility of loss, the possibility that it will not last forever, the possibility that there can and will most likely come an intrusion (a third party) to interrupt or even break apart the relationship." All this is, is uncertainty and potentially a challenge to the relationship-- that is, a context in which genuine trust can develop. Just as people want to have, they also want acceptance, to be loved for who they are, not what they have or what they do despite the influence of these things. To summarize, you described perfectly desire and the uncertainty that accompanies it. The same uncertainty, i talk about creates trust. Arranged marriages last therefore trust is sufficient and necessary because feelings can follow but if trust isn't developed the relationship fails quickly (and most often harshly). Love isn't only pursuit. pursuit is the beginning, after that, its a choice day by day to be respectful of both your own personal integrity and your partners and to believe in them and their integrity. Look at them with eyes of desire and trust that their love for you is genuine and if it is, being grateful in a way that best suits the highest expression of your human spirit even if it means centering yourself and following your own dreams (after all if they love you, they want to see you do your best). It takes effort and constant attention. Its not about having it either, its just about looking at your partner with respect, admiration and love and finding it natural to maintain these domains as part of the process of what feels truly right; for yourself and for the relationship. Love is founded on trust and healthily involves compromise and is filled in completely by the feelings that accompany the subjective perception of love. Also, freud is right, it does arise as a need to protect the ego. But this is not bad, having an ego that is at the whims of another is extremely unhealthy. Since love creates investment, if this investment isn't secure, it can affect your personal identity and security. You dont invest money (all the time) in your lover, you invest your heart. So being secure is critical to maintaining your personal integrity and therefore being in a good position to be authentic and loving.
I think he just had a cold here and so on and so on. I've heard him speak / seen videos featuring him before, and while he has tics sort of like this, he sounded different (less nasally, e.g.) and didn't spend as much time playing with his nose, and so on and so on. I'm also really self-conscious in the winter when speaking to people outside because I feel like my nose is constantly leaking (because cold and wet often feel the same), and I think I have mucus crusting on my mustache because my nose is leaking and it's so fucking cold outside, and so on and so on. (I live in Canada, where it gets really fucking cold in the winter, and so on and so on.)
That article seems like bullshit to me (and so on and so on). I haven't found any other article corroborating the matter of his death, let alone the details of it. Until I do read other sources, I refuse to believe he is dead. Not mention (although this is of little consequence) the fact that they got his age wrong - albeit by a single year.
This being a 10th+ video I saw with Žižek, I seem to got used to his ticks and I can finally focus on what he's saying. His opinions always seem like from a different world. I kind of like him, even though I mostly disagree with him.
It always kinda sucked that my X had a better time when she had a vivid fantasy, not much to do with me :( I don't enjoy fantasy or even fiction very much so it took me a while to figure it all out
It's as if Žižek woke up one morning and said to himself "I'm going to shnort a lot of coke and go on Big Think and shay 'You're never really alone with your shexual partner because I can think of sheveral examples from films and TV where people aren't.'"
although i laughed at this, i think his point is that the other person's body and personality is not enough. the activities you do together, how you envision your future relative to the other person, the environment your in are factors that are sexually essential. But yeah, you're still pretty much spot on.
Bart Bols But you do realize Bart that to me you're just some random person on the internet? So unless you'd like to tell me why you think my lighthearted comment was "so wrong on an intellectual level", you're just adding to the stench in the air.
I doubt many people would consider "our relationships are always mediated by various expectations and fantasies" profound enough to qualify as a Big Thinky thought, but that seems to adequately summarize most of what Žižek is saying (leaving aside his apparently disconnected comments about feminism). He describes this fantasy element as an intruder who ensures we are not alone in a relationship, but this is just a metaphor which cleverly obscures the fact that he isn't saying much. You could say this about just about anything, not just relationships. And he's demonstrably wrong if he means that true intimacy is impossible, which is what I take to be the only interesting interpretation of what he's saying.
Zizek is a smart man, really smart. But the more I listen to him the more I'm convinced that he must have some kind of a compulsive need to read too much into things. I mean, it's not that he sees these things, I think he just wants to see them so bad. And if you want to see something, you probably will but it doesn't always make it universal. I think all this has to do with his popularity. He wants to stay afloat all the time.
@@zbotte Oof. This is what you call a subversion of expectations, in this case expectations are notions of elitism inserting itself into the ontological definition of what “philosophy” should be. Or what you could call a “sick burn bro” lmao. Philosophers way more out there and crazier than Zizek have existed since Ancient times, and we still learn about their ideas today in universities across the world for a reason. It’s not a “problem of today’s day and age, those darn kids today”, those kind of generationally condescending platitudes have been around since immemorial times… didn’t Plato call Aristotle’s generations “lazy and lacking intellectual sense”…. Then Aristotle did the same with the generations following him, “entitled and finding meaning in useless subjects!” Every generation think the next one is doing crazy stuff. It’s human nature: adolescence and young adulthood are the times the brain develops in a way as to increase dopamine signalling, increase creativity, increase neurosteroids and hormones which influence behaviour greatly and the creative/revolutionary world view that accompanies it… it’s normal. And the happiest adults are those who manage to keep intellectually active and engaged, as well as engaged in societal life and don’t give into cynicism. Many great intellectuals, writers, philosophers, painters, artists, etc remained relevant and interesting into old age because they never lost that spark that went off during youth and lighted up a fire burning inside them. Fire never to be extinguished, even against the evil wind of cynicism one encounters so often as we grow older.
"They will tell you, you can't sleep alone in a strange place Then they'll tell you you can't sleep with somebody else Ah, but sooner or later you sleep in your own space Either way it's okay you wake up with yourself"
It reminds me of the Reeses Peanut butter cups commercial,where the man accidentally bumps into the woman with an open jar of peanut butter and dropped his chocolate bar into her peanut butter jar.Thus they discovered the great taste of the combination 😋
You have to understand the "relationship" in question here through the lens of "desire." What he is saying (and what Lacan said to an extent, though I am by no means an expert on Lacan) is that you don't desire the concrete, tangible being of your partner, but rather the desiring itself, the act of being attracted to a fantasy that you've built on top of and around the partner. This is why both he and Lacan mention the sort of paradox of the mistress in that when you are married and have a mistress you think to yourself that if you leave your wife and are with your mistress wholly that all your problems would be solved. What you would find instead would be a situation wherein you would simply be always looking for the next mistress. This is all to say that we desire most is desire itself. The metaphysical exercise of desiring someone or something is what we call desire and it is what drives us, under most other things. Were we to ever actually "find" what we desire we would hypothetically end up at the end of the line, a miserable emotionless husk of a human with nothing left to live for.
So much is put on the sexual parts of life that we've become a real fantasy driven species . The other creatures are more structured than humans . This big think escaped my reason for watching it . What I was expecting was that eventually both sex partners tell at least one other person , in the future or immediately . So that's why we're never alone in sex . Unlike my situations where I've got multiple women in the room .
What does that mean for pornography? With the camera being a 3rd element. And also a partner being perceived more attractive in public. Or what a bout role play. We never want the other how he is. Sexuality wants to mix things up. Do this, i like that etc.
@@ajmosutra7667 So you're trying to put him down for not having investigated Zizek enough to know the particulars of his tic origin when he just asked why "brilliant people always have so many tics"? He doesn't have to go through the entirety of Zizek's bibliography to just ask a question.
I had to re-read the transcript, but from what I understand in media, TV/Hollywood, there is never just the couple. There is always a third element to the sexual relationship acting on the couple that "we", the viewers, are watching. It could be an intruder (the horse E.g.), a fantasy scene (commercial E.g.s), something in the environment etc. that mediates the progress (positive/negative) of the sexual relationship.
Fuck! This guys manic nose rubbing is driving me insane! But his words cruise out his mouth with wisdom. He has also become an enigma! Ahhhhhhhh! Someone please... TIE MY SHOES!!!!!!!!!!!
I've never had anyone else around, or pictured in my mind anyone else around, in my love making with my partner. If Zizek means something broader by "sex," well my spouse and I have been on self-isolation 4 weeks due to Corvid-19 (we got to it early) and are quite enjoying ourselves. Then again, I can recall personal ads where couples asked for another man to join them. The error in almost all philosophy is that statements are too broad. Some may need the presence of another in their coupledom; others may not.
What he tries to explain here is not simply related to sex in itself, but to other things that envolve a relationship: an enviroment (workplace, dance club, park, etc), an action (eating a dinner, watching a movie, talking about something interesting) - it is about the couple doing SOMETHING beyond "being together" that marks his thought.
I have to say, that snorting nose cocain thing ye guys are talking about is pretty distracting. But his accent is really interesting. As for what he has to say, well, I haven't finished the video let me get back to you ha
Some pretty interesting points, it is a nice and manageable idea to think of a couple always needing some external influence to keep the dynamic interesting.
Every single video of him on youtube, about 80% of the comments are just "HURR LOOK AT HIM TOUCH HIS NOSE" I question the mind that is so easily amused by such shallow and irrelevant stimulus, and i truly pity the society built from these people.
Yd take the idea further more in the sense there are four in sex the two in the act and their two fantasies of idealization even more a infinite especular archetipe of idealization an so on and so on ...
Youre never really alone with your partner *tic* because, you know, jaques lacan *tic* and some reference to obscure pop culture references *tic and so on and so on, you know, Hegel would say that this is because , and you know *tic* and as such there is this other obscure pop culture reference *tic* *tic* where this happens and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on you knw *tic* WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT SLAVOJ
I get a strange joy from hearing Zizek talk about the Taco Bell Quesarito
In Žižek's voice: "An obscene pleasure, really"
"combination of the two"
I feel like Slavoj is that guy who isn't too afraid to talk about the weird stuff that goes on in the world
psychology
Bosnia and so on
We all form individual bonds with different people. What ends up being the most harmful is not what we do to each other, but what we let our expectations and desires of the other person do to us.
If I got anything out of that, it's that human relationships don't exist in a vacuum. The minimum number of elements for a relationship (not just a sexual partnership, but in general) isn't 2, it's 3: at least two partners, but also a third element that allows the connection between them to be tested, negotiated, and grown. Outside challenges allow relationships to strengthen, as both people realize that (ideally) the other person isn't really the source of their unhappiness, they're actually in the same boat, and the process of fixing their problems begins with or results in(...Im not sure which at this point) them coming together once more and rekindling their connection. I dont know if that's what Zizek meant, I suspect I'm wrong, but it's what I got out of it at least. Sorta reminds me of the "red pill" approach to sexual relationships: It's never about forming a connection with another person, but using that person (women in this case) as a means to resolve one's own deficiencies (of sex, self-worth, validation, etc). I suspect a lot of people are driven by this, though. If I respect nothing else about the Manchildosphere (and I don't), it's that they're at least honest about their motivations. (Honest in terms of sincere and unabashed. If you ask them, I'm sure they'll reject my assessment.) However, digging your heels into this psychopathology is something else. So is inventing a self-serving interpretation of Darwinism to justify your moral poverty.
I understand what he means but this is presented in possibly the most distracting way imaginable..
It's kind of funny he sounds the way his name looks.
Oh god my sides
He looks the way his name sounds.
Why is this so true?
He names the way his looks sound
Thats probably cause his name is slavic, and he speaks with a slavic accent.
What is hilarious is that if you turn on subtitles (which are usually bad for most videos) they come out perfectly with this guy's voice.
+Common Sense1776 That's because someone typed out everything he said, most videos have subtitles created by speech recognition software.
+Common Sense1776 as if you knew.. "dont ruin the joke" suuure, nice back-pedalling
@@theunknowncorps22 Zizeck is perfectly articulate, if you're struggling there's no shame in changing the speed 0.75
very usefull !
So many seem confused.. what he's saying in a nutshell is that without an outside presence between you and your loved ones there is no actual relationship.
For example, if you and your woman were the only two left on the planet, all these notions of jealousy and arrogance would not exist because there would be nothing to relate to. How does your girl know or think that she deserves better? Because her girlfriends or mother have displayed an example and/or sentiment as to why she should have her life a certain way.
If you take the comparative lens away there is simply the average filter than bends based on whichever person's ideology we're speaking about.
you didn't understand but good effort.
Interesting idea but not at all what he said
Its basic psychoanalysis, the third is the excluded one that is always present in fantasy. The original oedipal relationship is a triangle. There is no way to understand this, if you don't have basic understanding of psychoanalytic theory.
I just figured out why “exhibitionism” (or in my case, having sex in deserted but public places) used to be so much fun more me. It was the fantasy/danger of us being intruded on by a passerby!
Even though this never happened, the specter was always the 3rd “person” in the act.
Lacan was something like a genius.
Its not really the same, the idea is that the third is always present. What you were doing is simply the breaking of a rule, a societal prohibition. As its literally illegal, public indecency.
It was Freud who came up with the third, its directly from the oedipal conflict where there is always 3 people involved. But he actually proposed that there are always 4 people involved.
And Kernberg went even further, and said there is 6 people involved.
This is from Kornberg's book; Love Relations.
Direct and reverse triangulations, which I have described in earlier work (1988), constitute the most frequent and typical unconscious scenarios, which may at worst destroy the couple or at best reinforce their intimacy and stability. I use direct triangulation to describe both partners' unconscious fantasy of an excluded third party, an idealized member of the subject's gender-the dreaded rival replicating the oedipal rival. Every man and every woman unconsciously or consciously fears the presence of somebody who would be more satisfactory to his or her sexual partner; this third party is the origin of emotional insecurity in sexual intimacy and of jealousy as an alarm signal protecting the couple's integrity.
Reverse triangulation defines the compensating, revengeful fantasy of involvement with a person other than one's partner, an idealized member of the other gender who stands for the desired oedipal object, thus establishing a triangular relationship in which the subject is courted by two members of the other gender instead of having to compete with the oedipal rival of the same gender for the idealized oedipal object of the other gender. I propose that, given these two universal fantasies, there are potentially, in fantasy, always six persons in bed together: the couple, their respective unconscious oedipal rivals, and their respective unconscious oedipal ideals. If this formulation brings to mind Freud's (1954) comment to Fliess, "I am accustoming myself to the idea of regarding every sexual act as a process in which four persons are involved" (letter 113, p. 289), it should be noted that his comment was made in a discussion of bisex uality. My formulation arises in the context of unconscious fantasies based on oedipal object relations and identifications.
A lot of people take his words literally and totally miss the point of what he's saying. Apparently thousands of youtubers think they're smarter than this man, yet they're on youtube complaining because they don't understand it. I'm sure all these youtubers are sophisticated philosophers...
Zizeck isn't even sophisticated
Dude even Chomsky said that he is talking nonsense.
Jon Snow1546521 chomsky has admitted being unable to understand postmodernism
@@JonSnow-pn4wd Chomsky is a total failure. The fact that people take his retarded ideas seriously is just sad.
The fact that some of you here can decide that these people are no good without providing evidence tells me alot of your bland mind.
Zizek is great, he really cracks me up.
Most of the commentators show no interest in "big thinking". Sad.
Big thinking and pretentious commenting are two different things
GustafGouda Most people who would be interested in zizek would think that thinking is a waste of time anyways cuz truth cant be known
Irony
I’m exhausted watching him talk, but pretty good point
Perhaps the reason why the sexual relationship, in media, needs a third party mediator is to create tension? Perhaps it's used as a tool to maintain interest in the characters? If we, the viewers, are completely assured, in our minds, that there is no danger in the two characters not connecting then we don't need to invest as much emotion in their fates I.e. will they or won't they... "I know they will; so what's the point?".
Throw something into the mix as subtle as a horse's head... it may create just enough tension for the viewer. In the viewer's mind, "Hey horse get out of THE WAY!"...
JMO though. I haven't read any of the "crazy theories" Slavoj is referring too. It would have been great if he explained the importance of the mediator.
The point that you make about the adds keeping people entertained with tension is exactly the same way it works in real life. If there is not the possibility of loss, of some intrusion, then there is no tension in the relationship, that's when it stops becoming entertaining, that is when the experience of love dies.
Sebastian Jimenez Bienen That's probably one of the reasons why it plays such an important role in advertising. The advertisers only have 30 secs (typically) to hook the viewer in, emotionally, to the product. With out tension, as you wrote, it stops becoming entertaining.
Sebastian Jimenez Bienen Well, you could say that. However, in reality, uncertainty is enough for that tension. Nothing is a guarantee, no matter how predictable the person. Interestingly, if a person is predictable, they feel trustworthy. If you look at a person as predictable, you may or may not condescend them for it (because people do not like to be seen as predictable). This is a real difference that awareness creates that confuses the circumstances of the relation often creating tension. Thus its not enough to be mildly aware, its better to pay close attention otherwise you miss the details that can damage trust.
Also, love is not about entertainment. its about trust, entertainment is what you do when you are bored, trust is what you want when you are secure and want a good future. What i mean by trust is that the person is faithful, predictable and open (according to the literature on it). However, trust to me is a bit bigger, there are three major feelings you can get with a person. Physical attraction, emotional connection and an intellectual stimulation (do they respond and invest in conversation or do they say "true, woah, ect" are you of the same mind on many topics including values?). While these give the feeling of love and are entertaining they are not trust. When physical sensations combine with emotional connection that combine with a sense of being of the same mind this creates a very powerful sensation of being in love.
Trust is almost like the results of an economic game. How does the person respond to uncertainty and threat. Say a threat to the relationship, or a problem that arises. Its one thing to trust a persons word, which can conveniently be carved from good intentions but may be totally naive to the way they will actually respond.
Trust therefore is their actual response. If the response is healthy (benign or belittling the personal meaning of the circumstance) or they use conflict resolution strategies whilst keeping over the top emotions out of it therefore protecting and keeping the nature of the interaction healthy even under stress. you get an experience of a person effectively dealing with a genuinely challenging situation which because of the genuine threat posed, creates trust on its resolution. By actions are greater than words, we are talking trust and not merely proof. Trust is far larger as it affects all domains of a relationship.
So in real life there are the visceral domains of physical, emotional and intellectual and the economic domains of trust that underplays the entire interaction. From the persons perspective there are emotional positions or vibes that create immediate tension (uncertainty and enjoyment) by their interplay. There are also particulars like techniques and states that when coalesced into a flow create a very fun and enjoyable albeit momentary dynamic.
"Love is not about entertainment, its about trust" First, let me correct myself by adding that when I say entertainment, I'm merely using an unfair, but nonetheless convenient simplification of the idea of fullness of spirit. Fullness of spirit, so the philosophers of the Platonic traditions think, only comes when one desires something one cannot have. That's exactly what falling in love is, desiring something so much your whole self is invested in it even when you know you can't have it. Now, you could very well raise the point that there are a lot of people that already have what they want but keep desiring it (people that are rich who still want more money, people that are married that are still deeply in love. etc), but the thing is that having something doesn't mean that you'll have it forever. In the best case scenario you'll have what you want until you die, but even if, you will still die, and you will lose that. The idea of falling in love then is exactly that, wanting something, someone and wanting it/he/she forever. So because you can't truly want something that you can have forever, love in this sense fundamentally relies on the possibility of loss, the possibility that it will not last forever, the possibility that there can and will most likely come an intrusion (a third party) to interrupt or even break apart the relationship.
Now, the type of love that you are talking about, the one that is founded on trust, that's not really falling in love, that's just a deep psychological need for stability as you very well put it. Freud called the need to trust someone a need to protect the ego. So in his terms it would not be a love for the other, but a love for oneself. I mean, don't get me wrong, you can very well describe that as love, it's just not the feeling/idea described in the video, and it really doesn't fit the concept of falling in love.
Not quite, your example of love is not love. It is desire. To love in terms of psychology refers to a very particular process but ultimately the combining of three states with the imagined process (thinking of the person in magical ways, fun together, saying their name to yourself with that feeling in your chest) of love that creates investment. I say imagined because people fall in love when they are away not in front of the person.
Desire is not equatable with love, trust itself is not love but is integral to love just as is desire. Im not talking a fantasy here, but reality. it is a combination of several levels of emotion and reality. Also, the feeling of falling in love is different to the nature of true love.
If desire is the foundation of love, then we would expect arranged marrages to never last if we give the partners the freedom to break up. however, they are more stable than romantic relationships. your idea sounds nice "wanting what you cannot have" but its more poetic than true to nature. Otherwise affairs would be acceptable and functional parts of a healthy relationship. Trust is the actual foundation of a loving relationship. Desire the foundation of a passionate one. Passion is not bad, but alone it is prone to tragedy. Passion held with restraint and exercised in the context of trust. Thats what separates enacting a rape fantasy with your wife (who recently read 50 shades) from actual rape (an obscene expression of desire).
Unlike in a movie or in mere intellectual consideration, there is serious uncertainty to real life. This uncertainty presents the constant threat of loss if considered authentically. Simply because you cannot-- like the camera-- observe anothers thoughts and behaviors all day whilst simultaneously minding your own life.
I dont think your idea of love is healthy or realistic or even authentic. just romanticised lust.
Also, for love to be genuine it requires trust more so than any particular feeling of desire. In fact, relationships based entirely on desire fail rather fast. Trust alone is just a business or friendship but with feelings in the context of romance, it creates healthy and fulfilling love.
I dont need an argument about having what one has. The entire idea of "having" for happiness is not even provable. What one has and what one wants are separate from the self. People who want because it fills themselves do not know what they want. What they want is to be grateful for what they have including life. Why else would they seek it? Why else can people live so happily with so little? What of the poor man who is so content to farm for his daily bread and love his wife at night?
Those desires you talk about, the best argument i have against you is this: if we accept that love is wanting what you do not have then having an affair is an act of love and not lust. This does not measure up to reality.
Nor is it what i think you intend to say. For one, people have a desire to be competent and autonomous as well as have a secure social environment. Once obtained, these lead to immense feelings of satisfaction from which life becomes more about living it in harmony with ones revealed purpose.
The most valuable thing you presented, that i agree with and that i can back to some degree with literature is:
"So because you can't truly want something that you can have forever, love in this sense fundamentally relies on the possibility of loss, the possibility that it will not last forever, the possibility that there can and will most likely come an intrusion (a third party) to interrupt or even break apart the relationship."
All this is, is uncertainty and potentially a challenge to the relationship-- that is, a context in which genuine trust can develop.
Just as people want to have, they also want acceptance, to be loved for who they are, not what they have or what they do despite the influence of these things.
To summarize, you described perfectly desire and the uncertainty that accompanies it. The same uncertainty, i talk about creates trust. Arranged marriages last therefore trust is sufficient and necessary because feelings can follow but if trust isn't developed the relationship fails quickly (and most often harshly).
Love isn't only pursuit. pursuit is the beginning, after that, its a choice day by day to be respectful of both your own personal integrity and your partners and to believe in them and their integrity. Look at them with eyes of desire and trust that their love for you is genuine and if it is, being grateful in a way that best suits the highest expression of your human spirit even if it means centering yourself and following your own dreams (after all if they love you, they want to see you do your best). It takes effort and constant attention. Its not about having it either, its just about looking at your partner with respect, admiration and love and finding it natural to maintain these domains as part of the process of what feels truly right; for yourself and for the relationship. Love is founded on trust and healthily involves compromise and is filled in completely by the feelings that accompany the subjective perception of love.
Also, freud is right, it does arise as a need to protect the ego. But this is not bad, having an ego that is at the whims of another is extremely unhealthy. Since love creates investment, if this investment isn't secure, it can affect your personal identity and security. You dont invest money (all the time) in your lover, you invest your heart. So being secure is critical to maintaining your personal integrity and therefore being in a good position to be authentic and loving.
I think he just had a cold here and so on and so on. I've heard him speak / seen videos featuring him before, and while he has tics sort of like this, he sounded different (less nasally, e.g.) and didn't spend as much time playing with his nose, and so on and so on. I'm also really self-conscious in the winter when speaking to people outside because I feel like my nose is constantly leaking (because cold and wet often feel the same), and I think I have mucus crusting on my mustache because my nose is leaking and it's so fucking cold outside, and so on and so on. (I live in Canada, where it gets really fucking cold in the winter, and so on and so on.)
That article seems like bullshit to me (and so on and so on). I haven't found any other article corroborating the matter of his death, let alone the details of it. Until I do read other sources, I refuse to believe he is dead. Not mention (although this is of little consequence) the fact that they got his age wrong - albeit by a single year.
He's alive :) Would be all over our news since he's from Slovenia.
delusionnnnn That explains a lot.
This being a 10th+ video I saw with Žižek, I seem to got used to his ticks and I can finally focus on what he's saying.
His opinions always seem like from a different world. I kind of like him, even though I mostly disagree with him.
His opinions seem like he is from a different World because he is a revolutionary, who has more of an unique sense of reality and freedom.
9 years ago.
This guy never ends
It always kinda sucked that my X had a better time when she had a vivid fantasy, not much to do with me :(
I don't enjoy fantasy or even fiction very much so it took me a while to figure it all out
It's as if Žižek woke up one morning and said to himself "I'm going to shnort a lot of coke and go on Big Think and shay 'You're never really alone with your shexual partner because I can think of sheveral examples from films and TV where people aren't.'"
although i laughed at this, i think his point is that the other person's body and personality is not enough. the activities you do together, how you envision your future relative to the other person, the environment your in are factors that are sexually essential. But yeah, you're still pretty much spot on.
looool
More like Big Line.... :)))
Bart Bols But you do realize Bart that to me you're just some random person on the internet? So unless you'd like to tell me why you think my lighthearted comment was "so wrong on an intellectual level", you're just adding to the stench in the air.
I doubt many people would consider "our relationships are always mediated by various expectations and fantasies" profound enough to qualify as a Big Thinky thought, but that seems to adequately summarize most of what Žižek is saying (leaving aside his apparently disconnected comments about feminism). He describes this fantasy element as an intruder who ensures we are not alone in a relationship, but this is just a metaphor which cleverly obscures the fact that he isn't saying much. You could say this about just about anything, not just relationships. And he's demonstrably wrong if he means that true intimacy is impossible, which is what I take to be the only interesting interpretation of what he's saying.
Zizek is a smart man, really smart. But the more I listen to him the more I'm convinced that he must have some kind of a compulsive need to read too much into things. I mean, it's not that he sees these things, I think he just wants to see them so bad. And if you want to see something, you probably will but it doesn't always make it universal. I think all this has to do with his popularity. He wants to stay afloat all the time.
totally right. Such bullshit passing off as philosophy is classic of today's age when you just take bits and pieces of everything - down the drainhole
isn't philosophy itself just reading into things unnecessarily?
@@zbotte Oof. This is what you call a subversion of expectations, in this case expectations are notions of elitism inserting itself into the ontological definition of what “philosophy” should be. Or what you could call a “sick burn bro” lmao.
Philosophers way more out there and crazier than Zizek have existed since Ancient times, and we still learn about their ideas today in universities across the world for a reason. It’s not a “problem of today’s day and age, those darn kids today”, those kind of generationally condescending platitudes have been around since immemorial times… didn’t Plato call Aristotle’s generations “lazy and lacking intellectual sense”…. Then Aristotle did the same with the generations following him, “entitled and finding meaning in useless subjects!”
Every generation think the next one is doing crazy stuff. It’s human nature: adolescence and young adulthood are the times the brain develops in a way as to increase dopamine signalling, increase creativity, increase neurosteroids and hormones which influence behaviour greatly and the creative/revolutionary world view that accompanies it… it’s normal. And the happiest adults are those who manage to keep intellectually active and engaged, as well as engaged in societal life and don’t give into cynicism. Many great intellectuals, writers, philosophers, painters, artists, etc remained relevant and interesting into old age because they never lost that spark that went off during youth and lighted up a fire burning inside them. Fire never to be extinguished, even against the evil wind of cynicism one encounters so often as we grow older.
@@zkcrisyee I totally agree this was really well written
If anyone has a link to this Taco Bell ad, I'd be grateful.
Idk wtf is he talking about here but I fucking love it 😂👍
Can you imagine if he actually had a cold?
I'll have what he's having.
This guy has a serious cold
"They will tell you, you can't sleep alone in a strange place
Then they'll tell you you can't sleep with somebody else
Ah, but sooner or later you sleep in your own space
Either way it's okay you wake up with yourself"
for anyone interested in a partnership without a third element. Search:
Gurdjieff, Barry Long, David R. Hawkins or Tolle.
I never thought I would hear Zizek say “quesadilla and burrito” lol
It reminds me of the Reeses Peanut butter cups commercial,where the man accidentally bumps into the woman with an open jar of peanut butter and dropped his chocolate bar into her peanut butter jar.Thus they discovered the great taste of the combination 😋
Watching The Pervert's Guide to Cinema when this appeared on my feed, weird that.
My nose started to itch during this video!
Can't say I understand this idea of his.
You have to understand the "relationship" in question here through the lens of "desire." What he is saying (and what Lacan said to an extent, though I am by no means an expert on Lacan) is that you don't desire the concrete, tangible being of your partner, but rather the desiring itself, the act of being attracted to a fantasy that you've built on top of and around the partner. This is why both he and Lacan mention the sort of paradox of the mistress in that when you are married and have a mistress you think to yourself that if you leave your wife and are with your mistress wholly that all your problems would be solved. What you would find instead would be a situation wherein you would simply be always looking for the next mistress.
This is all to say that we desire most is desire itself. The metaphysical exercise of desiring someone or something is what we call desire and it is what drives us, under most other things. Were we to ever actually "find" what we desire we would hypothetically end up at the end of the line, a miserable emotionless husk of a human with nothing left to live for.
@young : this is the point. But most people who commended seems to miss it
So much is put on the sexual parts of life that we've become a real fantasy driven species . The other creatures are more structured than humans .
This big think escaped my reason for watching it .
What I was expecting was that eventually both sex partners tell at least one other person , in the future or immediately . So that's why we're never alone in sex .
Unlike my situations where I've got multiple women in the room .
So, the message is that we are always alone in and as Void! Let's fill it up with PHALLUS!!!!
By the comments i see people don't know how Žižek does his thing...
And so on and so on
What does that mean for pornography? With the camera being a 3rd element.
And also a partner being perceived more attractive in public.
Or what a bout role play. We never want the other how he is. Sexuality wants to mix things up. Do this, i like that etc.
i rlly wish i could understand this guy
Why do these brilliant people always have so many "tics?"
If u explored nuff zizek u would know this...
@@ajmosutra7667 So you're trying to put him down for not having investigated Zizek enough to know the particulars of his tic origin when he just asked why "brilliant people always have so many tics"? He doesn't have to go through the entirety of Zizek's bibliography to just ask a question.
@@davidsoael615 whaaaattt
I like your funny words magic man
I love this guy
I could not finish this.. seriously.. can someone explain his point?
I had to re-read the transcript, but from what I understand in media, TV/Hollywood, there is never just the couple. There is always a third element to the sexual relationship acting on the couple that "we", the viewers, are watching. It could be an intruder (the horse E.g.), a fantasy scene (commercial E.g.s), something in the environment etc. that mediates the progress (positive/negative) of the sexual relationship.
sniffing intensifies
[]
lol guys i just came up with a funny joke: cocaine
Lmfaoooo
He moves at 1.5x speed
Fuck! This guys manic nose rubbing is driving me insane! But his words cruise out his mouth with wisdom. He has also become an enigma! Ahhhhhhhh! Someone please...
TIE MY SHOES!!!!!!!!!!!
Best comment yet!
I love this guy.
Whats a "sexual partner"? I dont understand what any of this means.
SOMETHING CALLED QUESARITO
I don't know how his nose never turns red or peels from such constant agitation. His speech and mannerisms don't bother me though.
this is like that reggie watts song where people call up a hotline to confirm if they are or not having sex
What a fuckin crossover in this comment section
That is fucking fascinating
Where would we be without so on and so on
He's going to rub his nose off if he keeps talking!
subtitles with audio muted ....
I don't really get the point
I dare anyone here to shake his hand
Cocaine is a hell of a drug
really don't get his point
I laughed at him...now i have a cold
YES The guys with the BIG NOSE !!!! Cheer m8 ! Keep touching your nose MORE MOAR!!!!!!!!
The combination of quesadilla and burrito
ok it is very interesting , but professor you need to care about your Sinusitis or psychosomatic thing
download it for free.
Yeah, Zizek, mah Bruh!!!!
so on and so on
because ŽiŽek is also there
This guy needs to give a better example. I don't get the point he thinks he's making.
En español necesitamos estos vídeos
My head feels kinda weird now. >_>
We're always Alone. He's afraid of IT. Who isn't? Pinokkio?
Mr Slavoj really needs medical help with those ticks he have. I cant pay atention to someone doing all that innecesary movement.
was he drug addict ? i saw in Bones that this kind of behavior is telling us that he was drug addict. It was on TV it must be true
Now we are four :D
Always an intruder I find interesting.
Maybe the representation of that is emergent from the amalgamating collective superego
I've never had anyone else around, or pictured in my mind anyone else around, in my love making with my partner. If Zizek means something broader by "sex," well my spouse and I have been on self-isolation 4 weeks due to Corvid-19 (we got to it early) and are quite enjoying ourselves. Then again, I can recall personal ads where couples asked for another man to join them. The error in almost all philosophy is that statements are too broad. Some may need the presence of another in their coupledom; others may not.
What he tries to explain here is not simply related to sex in itself, but to other things that envolve a relationship: an enviroment (workplace, dance club, park, etc), an action (eating a dinner, watching a movie, talking about something interesting) - it is about the couple doing SOMETHING beyond "being together" that marks his thought.
And her dog
64: The approximate number of times he pinched his nose during this video.
neighbor ..?
his argument here is so weak.. he just presumes that this third part is here because, you know, it just is, and so on and so on.
...wut?
Wow... The crazy panhandler outside my local grocery store makes more sense than this guy. What the what, Chief?!
no you just aren't following what he's saying
❤ 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 👌🏼
I'll have what he's having.. or do I?
Close your eyes.
It sounds like an artificial voice reading somewhat random words.
Diogo V. Kersting Random to you just means you're not able to comprehend. So sorry.
coke?!
“oar wat!”
I have to say, that snorting nose cocain thing ye guys are talking about is pretty distracting. But his accent is really interesting. As for what he has to say, well, I haven't finished the video let me get back to you ha
Some pretty interesting points, it is a nice and manageable idea to think of a couple always needing some external influence to keep the dynamic interesting.
Zizek switch off your television!
This guy is shnorting shome pretty powerful coke!! Shuckey duckey quack quack
This "element" he says is needed, I suspect Jordan Peterson will have a lot to say about in their sports debate this year.
He's throwing too much sex vibes..
ɷɷ I Havee Watched Thisss Moviee Leakeddd Versionn Hereee : - t.co/SjZpZXw5gt
Because God is always with you 🙏🙏
Every single video of him on youtube, about 80% of the comments are just "HURR LOOK AT HIM TOUCH HIS NOSE"
I question the mind that is so easily amused by such shallow and irrelevant stimulus, and i truly pity the society built from these people.
NONE of you know what he's talking about
Yd take the idea further more in the sense there are four in sex the two in the act and their two fantasies of idealization even more a infinite especular archetipe of idealization an so on and so on ...
Youre never really alone with your partner *tic* because, you know, jaques lacan *tic* and some reference to obscure pop culture references *tic and so on and so on, you know, Hegel would say that this is because , and you know *tic* and as such there is this other obscure pop culture reference *tic* *tic* where this happens and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on you knw *tic*
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT SLAVOJ
Too much coke bro
Dude needs to get some stank on the hang low.
STOP TOUCHING YOUR NOSE, BRUH
He HV dis knowledge things but its So annoying to watch him touch his nose so much....man it would turn red....XDXD
Couldn't watch! Why he was rubbing his nose and then rubbing his snort on cloths while talking ? Couldn't anyone hand him a tissue?