Love Languages: A Philosophical Horror
Summary
TLDRIn this video, the speaker critically examines Gary Chapman's 'The Five Love Languages', questioning its categorization and practicality in real relationships. They argue that love is multifaceted and not limited to the five types Chapman describes. The critique extends to the book's metaphorical use of 'language', suggesting it overcomplicates love's simplicity. The speaker also contrasts Chapman's approach with Shakespeare's Sonnet 116, highlighting the poem's exploration of love's permanence versus the book's focus on love's expression through actions. The video concludes with a reflection on the impermanence of love and its beauty, encouraging viewers to value love for its own sake, not just because it can end.
Takeaways
- 📚 Gary Chapman's book 'The Five Love Languages' suggests that love can be expressed through five primary ways: acts of service, quality time, physical touch, words of affirmation, and gift-giving.
- 🤔 The author critiques the book's model, arguing that these 'languages' are not as separate as presented and that they often build upon each other.
- 🗣️ The script questions why these specific five expressions were chosen as the elemental love languages, suggesting that love can take many other forms.
- 📉 The author expresses skepticism about the 'love languages' concept, feeling that it overcomplicates and detracts from the genuine experience of love.
- 📚 The script references Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 to contrast the concept of love as permanent and unchanging with the book's approach to love as a learnable and variable skill.
- 💬 The author criticizes the book's metaphor of love as a language, suggesting it can lead to misunderstandings and unnecessary complexity in relationships.
- 👫 The script discusses the limitations of self-help books in general, including the unrealistic promises they often make about improving relationships.
- 😓 The author expresses a personal discomfort with the book's tone and the author's approach, which feels 'off' and untrustworthy.
- 🎭 The script uses Shakespeare's sonnet to illustrate the potential futility of trying to define and control love, suggesting that love's beauty lies in its impermanence.
- 🍽️ In a lighter note, the author reveals a personal preference for pecan pie as a holiday dessert, showing a more casual and relatable side.
Q & A
What are the five primary love languages mentioned in Gary Chapman's book 'The Five Love Languages'?
-The five primary love languages mentioned in the book are acts of service, quality time, physical touch, words of affirmation, and gift giving.
How does the speaker critique the idea that the five love languages are separate and independent of each other?
-The speaker argues that the love languages are not separate but build on each other, using examples like physical touch being highly correlated with quality time spent together.
What is the speaker's concern regarding the selection of the five specific love languages in Chapman's model?
-The speaker questions why these particular five elements are considered the elemental love languages and not others, suggesting that love can take many forms beyond the ones listed.
How does the speaker feel about the metaphor of love as a language in Chapman's book?
-The speaker finds the metaphor of love as a language to be problematic, as it can shape feelings and interpretations in ways that may not do justice to the complexity of love.
What issue does the speaker have with the way Chapman presents the concept of love languages in the context of self-help books?
-The speaker believes that Chapman, like many self-help authors, overstates the importance of his concept, suggesting it as a cure-all for relationship issues, which the speaker finds unrealistic.
Why does the speaker express distrust towards Michael Chapman and the 'vibes' of the book?
-The speaker expresses a personal feeling of discomfort with the book's content and the author's approach, without being able to pinpoint specific quotes or reasons, leading to a general sense of distrust.
What is the speaker's view on the permanence of love as presented in Shakespeare's sonnet 116?
-The speaker sees the sonnet as Shakespeare's attempt to argue for the permanence of love, but also notes the unsettling nature of the poem and the potential crisis in its logic.
How does the speaker interpret the final lines of Shakespeare's sonnet 116, and what does it say about the nature of love?
-The speaker interprets the final lines as Shakespeare acknowledging the potential for love to be removed or altered, which would render all expressions of love meaningless, thus suggesting the poem's deep engagement with the concept of love's impermanence.
What is the speaker's critique of the idea that love is more beautiful because it is impermanent?
-The speaker disagrees with the notion that impermanence makes love more beautiful, arguing that the love itself holds value and that the inevitability of its end is tragic, not something to be celebrated.
What alternative perspective does the speaker offer on the concept of love compared to Chapman's and nerdwriter's views?
-The speaker offers a perspective that values love for its own sake, independent of its impermanence, and sees the end of love as a sad and tragic event, rather than a source of beauty or meaning.
Outlines
📚 Critique of 'The Five Love Languages'
The speaker critically examines Gary Chapman's 'The Five Love Languages', a self-help book that categorizes love into five types: acts of service, quality time, physical touch, words of affirmation, and gift-giving. They argue that these categories are not as distinct as presented and that they often overlap in real life. The speaker also questions the selection of these five types and the metaphor of 'love languages', suggesting that it might oversimplify the complex nature of love. They critique the book's approach to improving relationships by suggesting that understanding and practicing one's partner's love language is a panacea, which they find unrealistic.
🎭 The Misleading Promises of Self-Help Literature
The speaker discusses the broader issue of self-help literature, using 'The Five Love Languages' as an example. They express skepticism towards the book's claim to 'save' marriages by learning a partner's love language, suggesting that such a solution is oversimplified and ignores deeper relationship issues. They recount a specific anecdote from the book where the author's advice feels inadequate to the complexities of the situation presented. The speaker also shares their personal discomfort with the book's tone and the author's persona, hinting at a lack of trust without specifying reasons.
🤔 The Fallacy of Love Language Categories
In this section, the speaker delves into specific examples from 'The Five Love Languages' to illustrate what they perceive as the book's flawed logic. They challenge the author's interpretation of real-life scenarios as evidence of the love languages theory, arguing that the author misapplies the concept to fit his narrative. The speaker suggests that the book's approach reduces human emotions to a set of predefined categories, stripping away the nuance and individuality of personal experiences of love.
💬 The In-Love Experience vs. True Love
The speaker addresses another aspect of 'The Five Love Languages' where the author distinguishes between the 'in-love' experience and what he considers 'true love'. They criticize this distinction as arrogant, arguing that love is a personal and subjective experience that cannot be defined or regulated by external authorities. The speaker also reflects on the implications of this argument, suggesting that it leads to a meaningless void if the intense emotional connections people feel are deemed less valuable or not 'real' love.
🌹 The Timeless Beauty of Love
The speaker disagrees with the notion that the impermanence of love makes it more beautiful, as suggested by the video essayist Nerdwriter. They argue that the love itself holds value and meaning, regardless of its duration. The speaker reflects on Shakespeare's sonnet 116, discussing the poet's struggle to articulate the permanence of love and the fear of acknowledging the potential loss of meaning if love can be removed or altered. They conclude that the fear of loss does not enhance love's beauty but rather underscores the tragedy of its potential end.
🍽️ Holiday Dessert Preferences and Future Content
In the final paragraph, the speaker shifts to a lighter topic, discussing their skepticism towards holiday desserts but admitting a liking for pecan pie. They also promote their Patreon, where they produce bonus content, and mention another YouTube channel called 'little Joel'. The speaker expresses a desire to return to creating 'normal' videos and invites viewers to subscribe to their YouTube channel for upcoming content.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Love Languages
💡Acts of Service
💡Quality Time
💡Metaphor
💡Self-Help
💡Cultural Phenomenon
💡Gift Giving
💡Interrogation
💡Permanence
💡In-Love Experience
💡Existential Abyss
Highlights
Gary Chapman introduced the concept of The Five Love Languages in his 1992 book, suggesting that understanding one's partner's love language can improve marital happiness.
The Five Love Languages are acts of service, quality time, physical touch, words of affirmation, and gift-giving.
Chapman's model implies that each love language is independent, but the speaker argues that they often build upon each other.
The speaker criticizes the model for ignoring the interconnectedness of love languages, such as the correlation between physical touch and quality time.
The speaker questions why these five specific expressions were chosen as the elemental love languages.
The concept of love languages as a metaphor is critiqued for potentially oversimplifying the complexity of love.
The speaker finds the book's approach to be problematic, as it presents love languages as a secret to saving marriages, which is an overstatement.
A specific example from the book is critiqued for misapplying the concept of love languages to a situation where a wife supports her grieving husband.
The speaker argues that love languages can mystify love, making it seem foreign and inhuman, rather than clarifying emotions.
Shakespeare's sonnet 116 is discussed as a contrast to the book's approach, emphasizing the permanence of love.
The speaker disagrees with the book's assertion that the 'in love' experience is not the real thing, calling it arrogant to define love for others.
The concept of love languages is seen as an attempt to add meaning to love, suggesting a grand design or eternal code.
The speaker challenges the idea that love is more beautiful because it is impermanent, arguing that love itself is meaningful.
The video concludes with the speaker's desire to return to making 'normal' videos, indicating a shift in content focus.
The speaker invites viewers to support their work on Patreon and mentions additional content on a secondary channel.
A Patreon question about favorite holiday desserts is answered, showing a personal side to the speaker's content.
Transcripts
in 1992 Gary Chapman the Christian
minister life coach and radio
personality released the book The Five
Love Languages the basic claim made by
the book is that there are five primary
Love Languages acts of service quality
time physical touch words of affirmation
and gift giving the vast majority of us
have one dominant love language one way
that we feel and communicate love and a
good way to make our marriages happier
is to learn and practice the love
language of our partner since its
release the claims made by this book
have taken on a life of their own there
are tick tocks about The Love Languages
YouTube videos online quizzes card games
you can play it is a cultural phenomenon
and if I wanted to I could come up with
a few problems with this book and with
the arguments it describes for one thing
Chapman presents these languages as five
separate ways that people can love their
dependent from one another you being
receptive to any one language doesn't
make you receptive to any other My love
language is acts of service but not gift
giving my love language is physical
touch but not words of affirmation but
this model seems to ignore that for the
vast majority of people these Love
Languages build on each other for
example the amount of physical touch you
get from your partner is going to be
highly correlated with the amount of
quality time you spend with them the
same is true of words of affirmation
right sure there are ways to get that
without quality time but it doesn't hurt
your chances if a couple has an intimate
date night twice a week they are a lot
more likely to say nice stuff to each
other in fact for most people I'd say
that quality time is not just one
expression of love it is its essential
Foundation wanting to spend time with
your spouse enables the relationship to
exist and have meaning these are aren't
just unrelated variables different
languages they fundamentally connect
another gripe I have is that it's
unclear why these in particular are
supposed to be the five Elemental Love
Languages you know when I think about
what makes me feel loved a huge aspect
of that is joking laughing and making
someone else laugh yeah booby booby
booby booby if I was writing a list of
my love languages that would certainly
be on it and of course you could think
that of lots of things maybe your love
language has to do with getting along
with your friends maybe your love
language is trust and freedom a partner
who is fine with you having your own
life doing what you want to do and what
makes any of these less legitimate a
love language than giving gifts is I
mean I give and receive presents maybe
twice a year and that seems true for
most people I know my point here is
simply that love takes a lot of forms
and Chapman seems to just choose some
love Associated words and call it a day
it doesn't really seem like the five
categories of love to me it isn't just
Chapman's use of the love languages that
I find worthy of interrogation though
it's also the concept itself the idea of
a love language obviously Chapman does
not literally believe that quality time
is a language you know it's a metaphor
but metaphor shapes feelings shapes the
way we interpret stories and events and
in the case of this book I'm not sure
it's Central metaphor does its subject
Justice very often in this book Chapman
will take the concept of love as
language very seriously say that
learning to listen may be as difficult
as learning another language or that the
emotional love language you and your
partner speak may be as different as
English and Chinese and it's just super
weird to read I understand this might be
true of some people there are are
individuals who very well might
absolutely not understand their
partner's desires but is this really the
case for a sizable number of couples
English and Chinese are mutually
incomprehensible and to make the claim
that your love language your desire to
spend quality time with your partner or
to have them say nice stuff to you might
plausibly be completely incoherent to
the person you love both seems
unrealistic and frankly depressing to me
this feels like Chapman overstating his
own case making the Love Languages out
to be this impossibly huge concept so
that people will take his work to be
more insightful and important and really
that's a problem with the book as a
whole a problem with most self-help
books if I'm being honest these kinds of
books often trade in the idea of the big
secret Chapman is bringing us this new
formerly unknown information about love
and marriage and as he says the reader
acquiring this information will save
their marriage but you know it can't do
that it could never do that let me tell
you about one passage of this book
Chapman is talking to a guy about his
unhappy marriage and He suggests that
his wife's love language is quality time
and that she isn't getting enough of it
the guy responds Dr Chapman that is what
she's always complained about I didn't
do things with her I didn't spend any
time with her that's her love language
all right no question about it but Dr
Chapman what am I gonna do my job is so
demanding and Chapman basically just
responds uh do it spend time with her
quote where will you find the time you
will make it you're a wise man you can
see the issue here right Chapman has
added nothing to this man's life it's
true that communicating with your
partner about their desires is good and
saying that can be helpful but it's just
not some kind kind of relationship
Panacea this guy knows what his wife
wants the problem in this relationship
the one that is orders of magnitude more
difficult to solve is actually giving it
to her when he's sleepy and that's the
problem that Chapman just dismisses out
of hand finally I just want to say that
I don't like the Vibes of this book I
don't trust Michael Chapman I think he's
a weirdo I can't convey this I can't
find you a quote and convey to you why I
don't like the Vibes of the book but
they are all off they are all off every
page I found myself just just feeling
weird about The Vibes of the book maybe
I'll talk some other time about these
Vibes but for now I'll just say it I'll
just say that I don't like them anyway I
imagine I'm getting some comments right
now explaining how and why I'm wrong
about Love Languages and while I'm sure
I won't agree with those comments let me
just say this if you like the Love
Languages I don't think you should care
all that much about the problems I just
raised I think tarot is cool pulling
cards from a deck and learning what they
say about your life and I don't like it
because I think the cards hold psychic
power or because it's helpful in a
clinical setting I like it because it's
fun because it's an excuse to connect
with your friends and loved ones because
no matter what card you get there will
always be some way to connect it to
yourself and love languages are in my
opinion a bit like that they enable some
people to communicate their desires and
feelings and that is ultimately fine no
my real problem with Love Languages
doesn't concern any particular
methodological problem the model has
rather my question for this book is much
more Broad and much more simple
why does it exist
one of William Shakespeare's most famous
and beloved sonnets is sonnet 116. and
let me read it to you now let me not to
the marriage of true minds admit
impediments love is not love which
alters when it alteration finds or bends
with a remover to remove oh no it is an
ever fixed Mark that looks on tempests
and is never shaken it is the star to
every wandering bark whose worths
unknown although his height be taken
loves not times full The Rosy lips and
cheeks within his bending sickles
Compass come love Alters not with his
brief hours and weeks but Bears it out
even to the edge of Doom if this be
error and upon me proved I never writ no
no man ever loved so this poem is about
Shakespeare establishing the permanence
of love love doesn't change or go away
it is an ever fixed Mark very simple I
think what's so appealing about this
poem though is the really odd way that
Shakespeare approaches that thesis the
way he argues his point look at lines
two through four love is not love which
alters when it alteration finds or bends
with the remover to remove these are my
favorite and the whole poem because they
give the impression that Shakespeare is
fundamentally uninterested in [ __ ]
around that he's playing here a very
important and precise kind of game what
is it that might alter love that might
remove it well Shakespeare could have
given examples here death or cheating or
simmering resentment he could have
written a lot of things he was a smart
guy but to do that would be to allow
into the sonnet ambiguity double meaning
slippage difficult interpretations these
are the things we associate so strongly
with with poetry with Shakespeare and
yet he gives them no voice what tries to
alter things well here's definitely a
correct answer to that question
alteration does what tries to remove
stuff I don't know how about a remover
there is a powerful sense that in this
poem all Shakespeare wants is precision
to be understood that his logic must be
as rigid and unchanging as the love that
he describes you can get this sense too
from the abstraction of this poem you
know sonnets are most often associated
with love poems Shakespeare isn't
breaking the mold there but normally a
love sonnet is about your feelings for
someone shall I compare thee to a
summer's day my mistress's eyes are
nothing like the sun Etc but this poem
is addressed to nobody it is not about
any particular true minds or the the
marriage that they share No it is only
about the concept of Love at its
broadest level there is nothing romantic
or flowery about what Shakespeare's
doing here it is a work of philosophy an
essay finally we have the last lines the
icing on the cake of this odd sonnet if
this be error and upon me proved I never
writ nor no man ever loved we might
expect the end of a poem to give us
something well poetic but instead
Shakespeare uses this time simply to
reaffirm his own correctness and do so
with a dry if then statement if I'm
wrong then nobody's loved Shakespeare is
making an argument presenting you with a
case and he needs you to understand in
the most direct way possible that this
argument has concrete stakes that it
means some something that he's right but
here's the problem none of this logic
actually holds up in fact the poem is
tearing apart at it seems
let me tell you about two passages in
this love language book the first is in
the giving gifts chapter where Chapman
shares an anecdote about one of his
clients this guy will call him turnip
lost his mother and his wife's frankly
evil boss told her that while she could
take off a few hours for the funeral she
needed to be back at work for the
afternoon shift but his wife said no
even if you do fire me my husband needs
me today and this is how Chapman
describes it that white had spoken the
love language of her husband and he
never forgot it the idea being that she
gave him the gift of her presence which
is I guess his love language isn't that
just like super weird like no this woman
did not speak her husband's love
language that such a needless way to
describe it this funeral was presumably
one of the most important and saddest
days in turnip's life and by turning
down her boss his wife showed him how
much she cared about him how much she
was there for him we all already know
that that is a loving thing to do and so
Chapman's lying about how actually
turnip's love language is gift giving
only serves to confuse the point most of
us want our partners with us on days of
mourning that's kind of all there is to
say the second passage I want to read is
way more strange though in the
discovering your primary love language
chapter Chapman talks about a guy Bob
who doesn't know what his love language
is words of affirmation or physical
touch and I'll just read from the book I
said let me ask you this if Carol were
meeting your sexual needs that is if you
were having quality sexual intercourse
as often as you desired but she was
giving you negative words making
critical remarks sometimes putting you
down in front of others do you think you
would feel loved by her I don't think so
he replied I think I would feel betrayed
and deeply hurt I think I would be
depressed Bob I said I think we have
just discovered that your primary love
language is words of affirmation what on
Earth are you talking about you have not
established Bob's love language all
you've made clear is that while Bob
cares about sex he wouldn't be happy
with a partner who demeaned insulted and
ridiculed him regularly based on this
conversation the only thing we know
about Bob is that he is a normal person
who doesn't like it when people are mean
to him so looking at just these two
examples and to be clear I could give
more you can start to see my major issue
with this book that more often than not
the Love Languages don't serve to
clarify and explain human emotion rather
they just add more words you were not
happy because your partner came through
on your mother's funeral you were happy
because your love language is gift
giving and she gave you the gift of her
presence you wouldn't be sad because
your hypothetical partner insulted you a
lot you'd be sad because your love
language is words of affirmation and she
wouldn't be giving you any it is a
language that works to mystify love to
make it seem foreign and inhuman and I
guess I have to ask why what is the
difference between saying you're mad at
your partner for not giving you a
birthday gift and saying you're mad at
them because your love language is gift
giving and they didn't give you a
birthday gift what is Michael Chapman
talking about when he talks about love
languages
I want you to imagine that you're
getting married the priest recites the
Oaths does whatever priests do and then
says his famous line if anyone objects
to this marriage speak now or forever
hold your peace the room is silent for a
second but then Shakespeare you invited
Shakespeare to your wedding stands up
and says let me not to the marriage of
true minds admit impediments we are
already off to a super weird start here
right for one who asked like if William
doesn't have anything to say about your
marriage then why did he stand up the
lack of impediments is usually not a
reason to say something what's more that
word there admit is extremely suspect
what do you mean William do you have
something on your mind that you're not
telling us about are there impediments
that you could admit but okay
Shakespeare says he's not gonna say
anything he's emphatically not objecting
to your marriage so let's get on with it
but then he just kind of keeps going
just to be clear William says bad things
can happen for example there's
alterations that could alter you there
are removers that could remove but love
he says doesn't work that way okay now
you're getting worried Shakespeare is
correct after all about alterations and
removers and it's not entirely clear to
you why he thinks they couldn't affect
your love and you begin to wonder if you
can even trust this guy I mean he told
you that he wasn't going to admit
impediments but it looks like he's doing
just that it's really odd but okay he
says your love will last so great Mazel
Tov but
he keeps going here's the thing he says
you're both gonna die like don't get me
wrong you will bend with times bending
sickle you will be removed but
thankfully love will not now you're
starting to wonder what is this man even
talking about you're getting married
right now this is your love he's
supposed to be talking about but
suddenly you feel so distant from what
he's saying you won't last but your love
will doesn't seem like that great of a
deal just one more thing he says
Shakespeare is very much like Columbo if
I'm proven wrong about any of this
nobody's ever loved anybody that is my
parting thought as William Shakespeare
okay you think uh now this guy is just
starting to speak gibberish like he says
if I'm proven wrong but what does that
mean how could you possibly prove him
wrong about this to be clear he's
provided zero evidence for any of his
beliefs he seems to just take it as
given that love does not admit
impediments but now he's like if you can
show me with rigorous logic that the
thing I just made up is wrong well that
would be pretty interesting and even if
even if you could magically generate
this proof for Shakespeare it wouldn't
change his beliefs at all he says if I'm
wrong no man's ever loved but see that's
not how being proven wrong works his
entire point was that love doesn't alter
where alteration finds and if that's not
true it would mean that lots of people
have loved and loved with alterations
this is just Shakespeare saying if I'm
wrong I'm right using fancy language to
make his argument look Invincible this
poem does not resolve in some beautiful
meaningful message it does not affirm
anything no it is in crisis Shakespeare
wants to produce reduce this argument
this unimpeachable logic but he can't of
course he can't
in the introduction of his five love
languages book Chapman tries to make an
argument establishing when love is not
love as he claims with the help of some
psychologists the beginning of your
relationship when you are entirely
enamored with your partner what he calls
the in love experience is not the real
thing and that's for three reasons
unlike true love the in love experience
is not a choice we make in Act of our
will rather it just happens we can't
control it second the in love experience
is effortless it's easy pure Instinct it
doesn't demand anything from us third
The in-love Experience isn't always good
for us and doesn't revolve around
improving ourselves or our Newfound
Partners so how do we feel about the
case Chapman's making well I for one
think it's very silly for one I don't
think he or the psychologists see cites
have some kind of particular license for
policing words we all happily use every
day the very idea that some researcher
or Minister can Define people out of
love is the height of arrogance and I
don't trust anyone who thinks they can
make such a claim what's more I just
don't agree with Chapman here why would
I accept that love had to be some
conscious effortful act when did I
choose to love my mother my friends my
dog are these all illegitimate or is
there some special carve out he's making
for romantic relationships for no
apparent reason no I don't think I have
some ultimate control over the people I
love and that does include romantic love
what I find special about this argument
though isn't so much that I disagree
with it but that it leads us into a kind
of existential Abyss like if this
so-called falling in love experience
isn't that deep or valuable if it should
not even be termed love then what makes
he his version of love so special why is
this intentional work intensive
relationship that Chapman likes
important he goes on in this section to
write the following does that mean that
having been tricked into marriage by the
illusion of being in love we are now
faced with two options one we are
destined to a life of misery with our
spouse or two we must jump ship and try
again and it's like at this point who
honestly cares what happens with the
marriage if we are all just duped into
our Relationships by arbitrary forces
that mean nothing about us or the people
we are with then it's hard to see why
preserving those fraudulent
relationships matters in other words if
the feelings we have for each other the
intensity of our connections and the joy
and intimacy they bring us are not
enough to be called beautiful enough to
be called love then why call anything
love what difference does does any of
this make through his strange logic
Chapman has dug himself into a void of
meaninglessness and here we can come
back to the Love Languages because we
can almost read them as a desperate bid
to claw that meaning back what if love
was more than love what if there were
official ways it was spoken and almost
all of us liked one way the most what if
doing a nice thing for your partner
wasn't just nice but an essential piece
of some Grand Design an eternal code
that we can access I asked before what
is the difference between saying you're
sad your partner didn't get you a gift
and saying your love language is gift
giving so you're sad they didn't get you
a gift and the answer I think is that
Everyone likes presents everyone feels
loved when they get one people during
the in-love Illusions celebrate
birthdays and buy each other nice stuff
so there must be more to it something
that tells us we matter that tells us
our relationship is Meaningful that this
isn't all just empty
so why not produce some psychological
sounding jargon why not invent a
language a few months ago nerdwriter a
video essayist who kind of pioneer the
genre made a video about sonnet 116. the
video is in general really quite good he
makes a lot of insightful points about
the poem and comes to roughly the same
conclusion that I did here we're hearing
a speaker in a void trying to convince
himself that love is somehow different
than every other thing in the ephemeral
universe
and not succeeding what interests me
about the video though is the final 30
seconds after he finishes his
interpretation of Shakespeare nerdwriter
says this this doesn't mean that true
love the marriage of true minds is any
less real or any less beautiful it's the
opposite in fact something Shakespeare
knew very well
Beauty belongs to what's impermanent and
we cherish the most
the things we can lose there's a lot to
unpack here in these concluding thoughts
but to start I think I should say that I
disagree with nerdwriter here like I
disagree with him about love I don't
think our relationships are any more
beautiful because they end sure he's
correct that beauty belongs to the
impermanent and that we cherish most the
things we can lose but that's pretty
vacuous isn't it we also hate the things
most that we can lose we're apathetic
most about the things we can lose
because you know we're gonna lose
everything we're all gonna [ __ ] die
here's the thing I can't speak to the
perspective of an immortal I can't say
what it would be like if we had forever
to love and be loved but neither can
nerd writer and in the meantime when I
think about the people I love it is not
the ending that makes me happy that
gives me value no I think the love
itself is enough that it is me
meaningful in and of itself and that it
is true that everything good must end is
a sad thing to me a tragedy that might
sound cynical like I'm being a downer
but I disagree to believe truly that
life is beautiful and worthwhile is to
accept that it will be sad when The Jig
Is up it's not perfect but that's the
deal we get but nerd writer isn't just
saying something I disagree with he is
putting it in the mouth of Shakespeare
and to be honest I just don't buy it
Shakespeare understood very well that
love is more beautiful because we lose
it okay maybe you're right from some
general perspective but looking at this
poem it doesn't seem like that's the
case at all because everything we myself
and nerdwriter have said thus far really
makes it look like Shakespeare is
freaking out that he wants to make this
argument construct this proof for the
permanence of love but just can't quite
do it it is a deeply unsettling poem and
it's hard to imagine not seeing it that
way in the final lines of Shakespeare's
sonnet he writes that if he's wrong he's
never written a word and through these
lines we come to understand something
there is a monster behind this poem and
if it can remove the most special thing
that has ever happened if it can remove
love then why can't it remove everything
else the people we know the ground on
which we walk to admit this monster into
the work is so Unthinkable so cosmically
horrifying that his presence cannot be
named if we were to name it Shakespeare
couldn't write a word and the poem would
cease to exist if we were to name it the
world itself would be as good as over
because it would have no meaning and in
his own way nerd writer plays along
there's nothing scary here he's says
there is no ghost haunting this poem The
sonnet is kind of like a joke it's
mocking anyone who would care about
something as trivial as the permanence
of love and the death of everything
Shakespeare knows that all love will end
and he's fine with that to say anything
else would be to imply that Shakespeare
might have something he was worried
about that may be we too have something
to be worried about it would name the
monster and we can't have that
Shakespeare takes us to the edge of Doom
and stares into it for a moment and then
he needs to look back and I think it's
beautiful somehow that so many years
later watching some video on YouTube or
reading some book about love that we
need to look back to
so all right uh that's the end of the
video I hope you enjoyed it this story's
at the End of the World Series is it's
[ __ ] it's weird man I want to make
I'm craving making normal videos again I
hope I hope you two want to watch some
normal videos because that's that's what
I'm in the business of making hopefully
hopefully soon at any rate I have a
patreon you can go to where I make bonus
videos every month in a couple days I'll
have a video out about the Elon Musk
episode of The Simpsons that I think is
pretty cool and also I just wanted to
say that in addition to Big Joel I have
another YouTube channel called little
Joel where I've been making videos
basically every single day I haven't
talked about it yet on the channel like
talking to you here uh so you know if
you want to go follow that do it I I
like doing I like making them uh now
it's time for my patreon question of the
video Kathleen Paceman asks what is your
favorite holiday dessert I am a holiday
dessert skeptic uh I think that Jenna
really desserts are are better
on holiday however I do like a nice
pecan pie
thank you so much for the question uh
bye subscribe to my YouTube channel
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)