a free earthquake simulation

I want to reach the point of maturity where I can without blushing burst out during a bar conversation "its a complicated thought, I don't have the time to develop it!"

So basically what he's saying its that love- in all its nature- its neither a force of evil or good- its completely independent of each category. And due to this, its disruptive of balance. It has both the qualities to be corrective(agape), and the qualities to be disruptive(eros), and because it is Love, it doesnt care which is which. It just exists. By trying to separate its qualities, perversion on one side, with commodificated pornography and dating apps, and polyamory and political correctness on the other side with "free love" and "love should be soft and kind" concepts going around, by splitting love like this, people have lost sight of what real love looks like. Real love its not performative, its passionate, its chaotic, its rebellion, its spontaneous, its possessive, and it also meets no social criteria. At the same time it brings empathy, connection and the promise for coexistence. But these sides of love should naturally push and pull at eachother, like the conflict between social love and individual love. That fight should happen on its own, it should not be "managed". He is saying that Society its trying to artificially manage these aspects of Love to conveniently accommodate it to postmodern needs, and this is why Love has been destroyed and suffocated. Sexuality has been liberated, and Love has been crushed.

"Blahblahblah" is my favourite Zižek quote

" *sniff* Now about Hegel..."

Love is the hardest energy to stand in. People don't like it; they don't like to hear about love.

"It's not sexuality that has to be liberated, it's love. It's love in the passionate sense that is gradually disappearing."

'now comes my madness....'

Subtitles: italian (automatically generated)

I had some time so I tried to transcribe this short discussion by Slavoj Zizek. Hope you find this useful. [00:00:00] I'm sorry if my intervention will work as a kind of a destructive brutal spoiling of the illusions. And I do it on purpose as a leftist, as a communist. [music] [00:00:20] First, let me say, it's a complex thought, I cannot develop it fully now, that I don't believe in this ultimate unity of collective love, collective of solidarity, and so on, and personal love. I think agape and eros and Terry Eagleton nicely translated agape as political collective love, and eros, individual love, passion, are to be disconnected. There is a gap between the two. I will not repeat my own thesis. I think that love, and I'm talking now about erotic love, is a catastrophe, literally. My old joke: Imagine yourself living a happy, every life. You have a good job, you meet with friends, blah, blah, blah. Maybe from time to time, a one-night stand and so on, and then you passionately fall in love. All the balance of your life is ruined. You are obsessed by that aura. And it's really like "Eva". This is the moment of rapture. Arrow [?] which is a totally contingent arrow since you are lost. I'm not saying this is the ultimate fate of love. It's a long work where you try to build out of this kind of a relationship which can somehow function. But returning to my little nice example, this love, collective love which empowers all of you while it affects all of you. Let us imagine, very graceless example, a group of students, professors studying let's say Spinoza's ethics, a very difficult text. Again, you empower each other blah, blah, blah. And then there is a student there, men, women, I don't know what you are, and you fall passionately in love. It ruins the community, I claim. It's a total illusion that somehow the two will work together and so on and so on. So, my point here is that, now comes my madness, it doesn't mean that private, passionately love can only this kind of destructive moment. But I think more and more, warning: that the only solution is betrayal. I got this idea from, of all kind of people, the writer who recently died, John Le Carre, who in his "A Perfect Spy", one of his best novels, writes that the only ultimate proof of love is betrayal. That you betray the one whom you love. And I wonder if you've seen, now, I'm going to the lowest of the lowest popular culture, "Homeland"?. This TV series where Carrie played by Claire Danes. At the end, what does she do? CIA agent. She betrays her own country so it appears, go to Moscow and live there. A very intense erotic relationship, there is love there, it's clear. But at the very end of the series, we noticed that she still works as a spy for CIA sending and compare messages and so on. So, I don't think this is to be read that she just fakes love. No. That's the way for her to be fully in love. Love has to be betrayed. If you totally fall in love, you are lost. Second thing, what does this mean today for our time? I'm also a pessimist here. That's how I read Eva, who I appreciate very much. This is what she calls "commodification" of love and so on and so on. I agree with her. This is a very complex phenomenon. I think simply that today with all our permissivity and so on, it's not sexuality that has to be liberated. It's love. Love in this passionate sense that it's gradually disappearing. What does this commodification, objectivization mean? I think, again, it's more complex. Again, trigger warning: one of my vulgar examples. I noticed when I was young, I watched them in hardcore pornography. Did you notice how the men is truly objectivized? The men is usually some anonymous sailor with his tattoo marks and gives us that's his job. The woman breaks the rule and while being penetrated and so on, is allowed to look into the camera. But this is not authentic subjectivization, of course. This is, in some sense, the ultimate objectivization. Because she, the woman, has to perform a fake subjectivization. That's how commodification works today. And why is love in the sense of this absolute erotic passion? It would be interesting to go into this why is love gradually disappearing today? You have a whole trend. Laura Kipnis, whom I otherwise appreciate in her critique of political correctness. She even wrote a book 10 years ago, I think even more, called "Against Love" claiming that first, it was, you can make love, have sex just in marriage and so on further, or to procreate, and then now the last limit is love, and her idea of liberation of sex is [inaudible 00:06:39] love, which are other tendencies today. For example, I always considered it irrational and suspicious ideologically, this advocacy of polyamory. No, love should be just binary with one person. It should be more open and so on and so on. So what is going on here? I think that, now I will be very brutal and not to talk too long, jump to a conclusion. I think that what this recent trend of attacking love, which is for me another aspect of what I find critical in predominant form of political correctness, is that a short remark to conclude, I think, they are simply acting as if Freud in Psychoanalysis don't exist. As Alain already mentioned, most of them act as if love is in itself, or sex, a harmonious positive power then something bad oppresses it. It can patriarchy, social repression, and so on and so on. But I think if there is a lesson to be learned from Freud, it is precisely that love is in itself twisted, perverted, as Freud demonstrated. We don't just have a repression of desire. We always then get an additional twist where repression of desire turns around into desire for repression. You start to enjoy act of repression itself. Or, for example the role of fantasy. I recently read the report -- I always use this story, I'm sorry -- of a tech of a scene when they were shooting a hardcore pornographic movie where something absolutely ridiculous happened. The guy who was doing it, penetrating the woman, stand back and said, "Sorry, I'm losing erection. Can somebody pass me my iPhone so that I will look at a forum how to quickly get excited again." Now, this is madness. He have there the real woman. He needed virtual space fantasy to get excited. I think this is not a pathology. I think this is in the immanent structure of love. And this then opens all other problems. For example, I'm radically feminist. But because of this reason, I don't think that we can simply accept the hypothesis that which is hidden in this "yes means yes". The hypothesis that we are subjects who know what we want. Because we may know what we want but we don't know what we desire. And I think that this simplistic formula of each of the sexual partners has to be free to desire...Sorry. To formulate what he wants and so on and so on, is not enough. Someone must [inaudible 00:10:16] effect love life. What if I want to be in a certain codified [?] way and so on, of course, oppressed. This mess is immanent to sexuality. You can make it better and so on but there always is this ambiguity. This does not mean that no doesn't always mean no from a woman to man. I'm not into these vulgarities, "She really wanted it." No. I think it's even much more feminist point that I wanted to make, that yes can be a more subtle no in force and so on and so on. It's just that there is a sphere of ambiguity. My god, we are really divided subjects. So, I think that the first truly revolutionary act is to fully admit this gap, in Christian terms between agape and eros. Eros is a big, destructive mess. There is no way to liberate it in the sense of you erase oppression and so on and we would be happily enjoying our love life. Permissivity is happening today. The result is exploding frigidity and impotence. I think that what is emerging as ideal form of sexual act today is sadomasochist contract. Everything has to be written down with all specificities and so on and so on. That's where we are losing [inaudible 00:12:00] . Thanks. [00:12:01]

I find it depressing, really- Ive found that at least in America more and more folks are suspicious of any kind of love, any kind of desire, that is not immediately fetishizable or commodifiable, that is the other/the one who loves you has to be always-already desirable in a market sense, not needfully even in a personal sense. This applies even to friendships. But then there is a pressure for marriage and such, and folk get wed to whomever has showed them any bit of interest, whether or not actual shared desire exists between them, and they end up in a miserable contract that usually leaves one half indebted after the relation fails in a few years, or both halves rot unhappily together for years and years.

Am I the only one who had to watch zizek videos 3 times at least to understand all the nuance

Wow, in a debate with Peterson he mentioned love being a catastrophe, to which Peterson replied “that’s why Cupid has arrows”. Now he actually used that, which is quite remarkable. :)

❤ I am truly in love with this perspective

So basically we do not know what we desire (im guessing because it is unconscious), and the form of understanding love or "true love", as an all positive force with only virtues, which undermines the discoveries of psycoanalisis, is the actual form in wich is rejected (because any form of love wich does not adjust to this ideal definition is said corrupt) or comodified (is used simply by its material factor detached from the subjectivity), and these are the reasons it's desapearing. Love/eros disrupts, it is not an agreement nor a selfish act. It's ambiguous. You supposedly can't erase one aspect to make it ideal (political correctness), nor exterminate the subjectivity in a mere sexual act (pornography). *sniff*

thank you

Žižek ⭐

Wow!!!

I gush!

if there's one thing we've learned, it's that people can't handle love. when all is over and nothing remains but wasteland, you'll still have people trying to suffocate Eros.

I wish every one could have the love they need to know how lovable they are.

Zizek and so on and so on.

This of course taken from ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hKSIpWhteJ1opX0.html which helps make sense of the names Slavoj mentioned.

love own first t sight

Wittgenstein also had fine analytics about Wortspiele used in verbal communication. Me tinks this Zizek uses this observation as one if his fundamental pillar's. Sorry I don't chave time now to develop this further ~

Unrequited live us the highest

The sound at the beginning 😂

Yeah

I find this fascinating as someone who essentially has love, sexuality, and romance, entirely separated from each other in my life

“You betray the one you love”

Personally, I don't feel there's any emotion that can't be handled with patience, self awareness and understanding. I think there are situations in which love works, and they're worth replicating when appropriate. Also, I think this dichotomy between interpersonal love and social love isn't so unresolvable. My read on the durability of religious institutions is that they resolve this tension, however imperfectly. With the decline of the role of religion in these matters, a void needs to be filled, and I appreciate the discussion, but I don't think Zizek's philosophy is up to the task. I think his is one of those answers that's easy to conceive, but very painful to actually carry out. I don't think he's being honest about the costs, and who they're born by. I think that by working more gracefully with the humanity presented to us we can find better accommodation for love.

is it night? and you are restless?

Is it accidental that this guy always appears in video of flying saucer quality?

It's always "Agape and Eros". What about Storage and Phileo?

I am unsure about the betrayal part. I must say that the possibility in itself of a betrayal is a sign of love. If everything is possible, nothing is actually possible. Is society attacking Love by make it more open?

I wanna talk to him in person

It's a pity that such good content is only provided in the form of a recorded stream. It would be nice to have access to this with better quality. But thank you for sharing anyways.

Does anyone know the title songs name in the beginning?

Zizek is a feminist, he calls himself "radically feminist". I want to think of him as a Marxist feminist, as opposed to a liberal or radical feminist. A person can be radical without being a radical feminist. He seems to be the type that is supportive of sex work, insofar as he doesn't critique porn like a radical feminist or Christian conservative, and some Marxists are very anti-porn and anti-prostitution.

Bog neka te blagoslovi, Slavko! God bless you! (I believe in this case this is not offending for a communist as He knows I'm talking from my own mind.)

(not quote) "all fun makers of Zizek will be LEE-QWEE-DATED when the revolution comes!"

I would die for subtitles to this, can't understand almost anything

can someone explain what hes saying

"I'm sorry if it comes off this way AND i do it on purpose" Typical Slavoj opener

I'm afraid I didn't understand.

Slavoj please can i my internt is slow i cant even downloald anawy files that a i need for my work

The vulgar: No means yes, and yes means anal. The philosophical: The horizon of romantic love is now a normative foundation of moral legitimacy. This joins merit, equality before the law, individual subjectivity and material progress. The contemporary reality: Love is somewhere between a neurological response of brain chemicals and the latest addition to the pantheon of fetishized activities; love is a kink.

I think Zizek understands the concept of love more than anyone else in the world. Soviet society was basically emulating a lot of Christian behaviors such as sharing and communal love and so on and so on. But this emulation was shit. It broke down over time. Meanwhile, in America. Our concept of love is so weird!! It includes hate and passion and anxiety and fear. This is all considered love in America!

3:18 how do you just say that with no context

LOVE IS NOT SEX..... 🌍

Zizek is a great of the greatest of the most beloved made of love bla bla bla people who make a piece of love from a fairy tales.

And good ol Slavoj has been married since 2013 lol

Sexuality is already liberated, and it's not changed a single thing about people's ostensibly "pure" behavior towards "the opposite sex".

to love is to gaurd one's solitude

Is not polyamory a complicated fantasy about non-ownership?

:)

I really do not know if Zizek is a genuine genius or a polemicist for polemic's sake only. But then I was born confused already. (No malicious innuendo or 'clever' wit intended on my part).

Error - ruins the community- yes, totally agree and understandable ~~~ but betrayal is the way (?) 🤔 Can someone elaborate this idea ? Thanks 🙏🏽 ~~

I think........love is .....EQ

Love Slavoj! Despite all the good points he makes, it’s so funny how a communist filosopher can rant about such everyday subjects 😂 someone should definately make a comedy sketch based on him

Dont worry, friends, we get to know love when our dying brains are tripping out. Just dont come back from that and try to live here with that understanding.... but that is just my experience. God isn't humanoid.

Isn't this the antioedipus? Desiring our own repression, postponing desire

Absolut right,but the Reality is against Love.The singulary Woman is still mostly just a Durchgangsstation.

Ok im totally new down the philosophy rabbit hole and im here from tiktok. I am 27, gay male, I like people and I am constantly in thought. I stood away from philosophy because I’m prone to influences and being very sad when I uncover others’ “personal thruths” and theories in academia. ANYWAYS, I see many of you bringing up polyamory, world love vs monogamy, ownership and what not. My advice to you is: go make gay friends and meet LGBTQ people and their stories. You can’t talk about intersectional love or the way humans work between Eros and Agaphe with just a limited starting christian traditional or “hippy” college exploration fundation. And when I mean LGBTQs I dont mean the usual ones, but your mirrored itellectual level inside the community. U might discover wonders, I for one definitely have. Cheers!

He is lonely... all you need is love.

Unfortunately i can't type so many words and would love to talk with Zizek about this topic... Specially that English language is not his mother tongue so he can't express properly...

I grew up listening to youth group sermons and reading Christian books about love, not reading "Eros and Civilization" or Camus. I guess this is irrelevant because he is talking about Freud and pop culture (was Marcuse not talking about Freud)? It's still outside of my comfort zone. The more simplistic wholesale rejection of Christian morality or any secular set of virtues that might replace it, is not.

Let me try to explain that porn video shooting example, you can't fake sexual act, but actors can't fall in love with their partners just because they want to earn money by filming sexual acts. So what can actor do to avoid pointless personal attachments, only way he can act is if he imagine himself being a love machine. It's his personal mental space he must arouse somehow, not establish relation with actress, so he must find some sort of external stimulant. What happened in last decades is that strange war against terrorism that turned people into police officers. You can't feel normal emotions and police your partner at the same time, it just doesn't work that way and it never will. So talking about sadomasochistic perversion is the way Žižek think, not how things really are. And it's nothing new, those phenomena were distinct for nazi Germany era, when military police madness was trying to establish new kind of society and breed population that could kill, torture and have sex at same time. So they don't get extinct, of course.

I need subtitles so I can destroy stupid arguments here

*grabs t- shirt*

Love is misunderstanding between two fools

Didn't understand. Please someone in layman terms.

appology accepted, and i stopped there. Love is a type of Light. You see it mostly in young babies and flowers.

I disagree with a lot of what he says even though I am personally monogamous. There are couples who would never ever be able to enjoy sexual pleasure unless they were on polyamorous relationships, this is just one instance where the arrangement makes sense. However, the distinction he makes between what we want and what we desire is spot on and very beautifully put! He knows his words.

okay i kind of hate this video now that i know a little about philosophy borrowing terms from deleuze, whom zizek really failed to argue against 1. the false subjectivization he brings up occurs precisely because the revelation of a true "otherwise-other" would shatter the illusion of there being an object to masturbate to 2. polyamory actually kind of works even in my experience (i have trouble even with one person haha), because an otherwise-other brings a "world" (if i should call it that - i mean their feel and context, the multiplicity that is not confined to their body but directed outward) with them which you rhizomatically connect with yours nothing really prevents that from occurring when there is more than one person because one person is already a multiplicity 3. zizek really misses the mark when he brings up "but freud" you can follow baudrillard and deleuze into this pretty easily the emancipatory potential of love is precisely in that it shatters the lacanian paradigm we find ourselves in and so we have a simulacrum of love that coexists with identity which is constructed via objet petit a it is trapped, it never quite reaches its potential, just as (well not exactly but it's a nice parallel) the deterritorialization of society in capitalism never explodes into freedom 4. they are in a way right when they say that love is corrupted you have to dig it out love is not "evil" as zizek's copout may suggest, because what even is evil love must be liberated precisely from the oedipal the way fetishes die in love is not a freudian repression, it is a forgetting, a moving on the romantic fantasy is not the same as the sexual fantasy you introduce the sexual fantasy into a romantic fantasy (even if the romantic fantasy already involves screwing - i call it that to differentiate it from sex and also because screwing is my favourite word) and the romantic fantasy dies, you're back to the oedipal paradigm. the challenge of romancing is to prevent the crash back down it's a very gentle thing but when it's simple it's great when love reaches the plateau stage, the fantasy exists to provide more small events for entertainment 5. the porn guy never really had the real woman in front of him i mean there was technically a possibility to seize the body in a passionate gesture or whatever but nothing became of it (maybe because they're at work making regular hardcore pornography for money) these are my complaints maybe i'm just trying to convince him to experience female sexuality, i don't know

zizek is coming dangerously close to rationalizing some very harmful attitudes towards sex

Why Zizek do not talk about incels. They are above your love and your artificial catherogories. You talk about previous century.

From a philosophical standpoint, this is gibberish.

SPOILERS!!!

I only clicked because I thought this would be a parody. In a way it was.

Sex is boring with almost everyone. I remember gettimg good at it to get it over with. So I could have a conversation. I can't believe I had to sell my body to actually converse. It is all a disgusting mess here in 3D.

Sex is not Love. 🌎 .

It's not love that he is talking about. Love is not material. Love is beyond definition even if you accept it or not. Build carracter as a human being. understand what love is. Forgot your own fantasies. Sexuality is something to cultivate. The whole chakra system is based on this. But for you my contempoty dwellers I say that you must have patience to understand everything. btw telepathy works, if you are without a inner conflict.

wide vocabulary, but accent huhu srry

Don't have sex with someone you love.

I know you're being sincere and so on, but zizek, this really isn't your subject. sincerely, a woman your age.

Yeah Zizek is out of his depth here, starting with the formulation of his premiss that things like polyamory are an aggression on the concept of love, which only works because he has an inherently romanticised concept of love, up to failing to realise that a performer in a porn movie might simply not be turned on by the person that they are shooting with and then falsely gleaning some imagined insight from it. Pretty rare to see twelve and a half minutes of continuously shit takes from Zizek, but here we are.

Zyzek what you talk about? maybe you are left but not leftist and definitely not commie. You are troll. But good hearted one.