Sartre: Love is a hazardous, painful struggle.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2024
- For Jean-Paul Sartre, freedom was everything. For him the reality of romantic love isn’t blissful mutual respect and a merging of freedoms. Far from it: love is conflict. Real freedom means freedom to change your mind, freedom to fall out of love…For Sartre, then, love is hazardous.
Narrated by Aidan Turner. Scripted by Nigel Warburton.
From the BBC Radio 4 series about life's big questions - A History of Ideas.
This project is from the BBC in partnership with The Open University, the animations were created by Cognitive.
Way to be a bummer, Jean-Paul.
Did he lie? No lies were detected.
This is the best description of modern love.
"don't believe in modern love"
There is no love left in modern era, he would have died of an heart attack after seeing this era's definition of love
Bullshit.
Letting go of both good and bad, no grasping, attachment, gnashing of teeth, and wringing of hands .. enjoying what there is .. its lovely ...
whoa, i think i understand Breakfast at Tiffany's a little bit better now
Love is a battlefield
run run run run
This is why I stopped dating. Dating is unnatural. This essentially explains all of my relationships and every relationship of my friends/family/peers i've witnessed lol.
I didn't really need to know what sites the artist goes on, but I mean... it works...
+João de Carvalho I don't know, you might be right, but again, the mind depends on the body to carry out our thoughts and desires and whatever else. Scientific investigation was invented by man through his philosophy of living. The mind (ourselves) needs science and philosophy. And it doesn't even have to go deep, just trying to live a better life is a philosophy. So, I think that philosophy + science+ religion+ and whatever else you want to add= the mind
Who can I recommend a sartre book dealing with these issues? I would like to buy the being and nothingness .. would you recommend it as first reading?
no, please buy existentialism is humanism. It is his best entry level book to understand his philosohy.
I agree with Andres. Being and Nothingness is quite challenging and parts of it rely heavily on knowledge of Hegel and Heidegger.
Read his novel Nausea .
@@Infinite_Jester Well said! Lmao I've had the book for about a year now and still haven't finished it. It's a very complex book.
@@painexotic3757 Definitely. The introduction is arguably some of the more complex parts of the book and I skipped it during my first reading.
I also felt like the whole book started to make more sense the further along I got and could tie the different sections together.
Even then it was a challenging read.
Nausea and his literary works are infinitely more accessible and do a fairly good job of depicting the underlying ideas even if they're not works of philosophy, strictly speaking.
Then the only positive option is none reciprocated love, which is accepted by the two sides, thus becoming not sadism nor madochism, just plain absurd
+ben zur the best option is a friendship that becomes romantic every once so often, that is if you don't care about being possessed or possessing someone :)
@@DarkAngelEU wow, such an idealistic notion! :) It truly requires the two people to be deeply grounded and secure in their own selves and also have a big-picture outlook toward life itself. I could probably count with my fingers the number of such couples in the entire country.
@@magnamia Good point, which is why most relationships don't last. People mistake their sexual desires as romantic love, so when the lovey-dovey feelings gradually fade away, which is natural, friendship becomes the main relationship of the romance. Most people mistake this as falling out of love, and think they no longer love their partner. Instead, they should learn it is possible to stay friends if the feelings are still there, even faded, and learn how to grow as a couple. Expecting to feel in love with your partner everyday is simply unrealistic, the best partner you can have is someone who reminds you of who you are everyday like a good friend you don't mind sharing your life with. If you can find someone like that, that's true love. Forget what the Hollywood try to teach you, it's all bullshit.
Does no one else see these multiple Beatles reference?
Lol wut??
If this doesn’t sum up Shinji and asuka
Ah yes, *sigh*
is this aiden turner talking?
Wait a minute.
Sartre just described simping not love.
Heh what's the difference?
maybe love is just an acceptable form of simping?
Think the masochist and sadist comparisons are a stretch but everything else makes sense
Someone needs to break this down and explain this to me. Why do you need the person you love to help you reveal who you are? How is that their job? Also, if Sartre wanted someone who chose to love him freely, why be clingy? If one day they no longer love you, then they are immediately no longer what you want. I don't know, I'm lost, maybe it's just the way everything is explained.
from what I understood its not that persons job, but a consequence. when you love someone you're thorn between being selfless and being someone you think that person would like you to be, giving up your authenticity in the process, and being selfish, and being true to what you believe in.
Typically, an old convention regarding romantic love is that the Other usually helps guide the Lover in revealing more about themselves, eg: They make me a better person, I learned to love more because of him/her, my life was lost before him/her. It's not their job, but as @thatshowiwannago states is something that casually occurs through being in romantic relationships; and can also include some horrible stuff, like, I would kill for my Other/Lover.
Alex Mena Ahh, I see now, that makes perfect sense, the way it was all worded made me a bit confused. Thanks Thatshowiwannago as well for explaining!
English subtitle please... i can't catch all words...
This made me want to die thanx
Poor JP
ha, a very short exposure:)
in spanish please!
"Para Jean-Paul Sarte la libertad lo era todo.
El amante quiere ser amado pero no por alguien que tomo una poción de amor. El quiere ser amado por alguien que libremente escoge amarlo.
El tipo de posesión que vemos en amar a alguien es completamente diferente de poseer una cosa. Porque la cosa no puede poseernos a nosotros.
Pero para Sartre la realidad de amor romántico no es un feliz respeto mutuo y una mezcla de libertades.
Lejos de eso, amor es conflicto.
*La persona amada quiere el amor del otro, lo necesita para revelarle quien es pero haciendo esto arriesga transformarse de un sujeto a un objeto convirtiendose en una mera posesion atada a su vision de el.*
Y se pone peor. Como un amado el amante no quiere que el amor de su amante se acabe, no quiere que encuentre el amor en otro lado.
Pero eso no es algo que una persona libre pueda garantizar. Verdadera libertad significa libertad para cambiar de opinión, libertad para desenamorarse.
Para Sartre entonces el amor es peligroso, es o masoquismo o sadismo. Masoquismo cuando el amante quiere convertirse en lo que piensa que su amante quiere que sea y en el proceso niega sus propias libertades. Sadismo cuando el amante trata a su amante como un objeto y lo amarra.
De cualquier forma la libertad queda comprometida y el amor se convierte en una dolosa lucha."
Lo mejor que pude traducir se que no es perfecto, escucho correcciones.
El parrafo en negritas es la única parte que no entendí, lo puedo traducir pero si no lo entiendo no puedo garantizar que sea comprensible, alguien que me ayude a entenderlo
(0:38 - 0:51 someone pleasse help me understand this part)
muchas gracias
@@bellamylawx9479
And don't I know it.
suicidal guru.
Sartre was wack. His on-off open relationship Simone de Beauvoir was incredibly abuse - especially to the "outsiders". Simone would even pimp out her (much much younger) students to Jean-Paul for his pleasure. It's no wonder he viewed love in this way - it had to be selfish because the way he "loved" was selfish.
What the hell you think love is unselfish just because someone gonna loves you means you have to love that person are you that deluded....People are selfish even being unselfish is selfish they are expecting something from you and then they throw you away like a leper
They weren't in a relationship to begin with. They were "partners". People get this wrong. They weren't in any sort of relationship.. Open or closed. They were free, they loved each other, they knew any sort of relationship puts you in a cage, so they only loved each other in the truest way possible and stayed that way till they died. They never lived under the same roof even. They were existentialists, they believed they could die anytime and every day they woke up they started a new life.
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
satre thic af LOL
Someone hurt this guy...
That's lust not love!
Love is a idea so guilt ridden of sex people created a fucked up idea like love
hahahha o parthenos
Finally the mind has become the object of scientific investigation. The age of philosophy and religion is over.
+João de Carvalho It would be more accurate to say that the age of baseless philosophy is/should be over. Philosophy has its place, so as long as it doesn't make baseless claims.
I think no one can truly get rid of philosophy or religion
CampingforCool41 I agree, but, as science understands the mind, the scope of philosophy becomes shorter. And this is happening fast nowadays. One of the most impressive things about science is the speed of its progress.
+João de Carvalho I would agree partly to your statement. The only thing lacking is that science really doesn't understand the subjective nature of the 'mind'. You could make the argument that science is making a lot of head way through means of understanding the brain, but that isn't the same thing as the 'mind'. Consciousness is the next big step for science and philosophy to undertake, I honestly don't know if such an understanding will be achieved in my lifetime.
Organized religion, may or may not cease to exist, I would assume that as time progresses that developed/first world nations, will have lower and lower people identifying with organized religion. Other than that I think your statement is legitimate.
+João de Carvalho Isn't science more about telling us what love actually is while philosophy does a better job of telling us what its like? Like science can't really say anything about the dynamic between two people in any meaningful way in relation to freedom or identity or being happy or responsibility. Let me know if you think. I'm wrong just asking, I don't really know anything about psychology. I think you are giving science too much credit. It has limits.
lol- sounds like bookish knowledge!