Love Languages: A Philosophical Horror

Summary

In 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

00:00

📚 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.

05:01

🎭 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.

10:02

🤔 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.

15:02

💬 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.

20:04

🌹 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.

25:05

🍽️ 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.

Keywords

💡Love Languages

Love Languages, as introduced by Gary Chapman, are the five primary ways people express and experience love, which include words of affirmation, quality time, receiving gifts, acts of service, and physical touch. In the video, the concept is critiqued for potentially oversimplifying the complex nature of love and relationships. The script questions why these particular expressions were chosen as the elemental forms of love.

💡Acts of Service

Acts of Service is one of the five love languages, referring to the act of doing things for someone as a way to show love. In the script, it is mentioned as the speaker's personal love language, highlighting the individual nature of how people perceive and express love.

💡Quality Time

Quality Time is another of the love languages, emphasizing the importance of spending meaningful time with a partner. The video discusses how this love language might be foundational to other expressions of love, suggesting that it is not just one way among many to express love but could be essential for a relationship's existence and meaning.

💡Metaphor

Metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn't literally true but helps explain an idea or make a comparison. The video critiques the use of 'language' as a metaphor for love, arguing that it might not do justice to the subject and could lead to misunderstandings about the nature of love.

💡Self-Help

Self-Help refers to a genre of literature and media that aims to provide guidance on personal growth and self-improvement. The video script critiques self-help books, including 'The Five Love Languages,' suggesting that they often overpromise in their claims to transform relationships and may not provide substantial solutions to complex relationship issues.

💡Cultural Phenomenon

A cultural phenomenon is an event, trend, or social behavior that becomes very popular or widespread within a culture. The video mentions 'The Five Love Languages' as a cultural phenomenon, indicating its broad impact and acceptance in society, with various media like TikToks, YouTube videos, and card games based on its concepts.

💡Gift Giving

Gift Giving is one of the love languages and refers to the act of giving and receiving gifts as a way to express love. The video script uses gift giving as an example of how love languages might be interconnected and not entirely separate as the book suggests, questioning the model's premise.

💡Interrogation

Interrogation, in the context of the video, refers to the critical examination or questioning of ideas or concepts. The speaker interrogates the concept of love languages, the book's arguments, and the implications of its metaphorical use of 'language' in relation to love.

💡Permanence

Permanence is the state or quality of lasting or enduring without change. The video contrasts the concept of love as permanent and unchanging, as suggested by Shakespeare's sonnet 116, with the transient and effortful nature of love as described by Chapman, highlighting the complexity and potential impermanence of love.

💡In-Love Experience

The In-Love Experience is a term used in the video to describe the initial, intense feelings of attraction and infatuation at the beginning of a relationship. Chapman argues that this is not the same as true love, which is a conscious and effortful act. The video critiques this distinction, suggesting that it may be arbitrary and dismissive of the genuine feelings people experience.

💡Existential Abyss

Existential Abyss refers to a profound sense of uncertainty or a void in meaning or purpose. The video uses this term to describe the potential nihilistic implications of Chapman's arguments about love, suggesting that if love is not what people feel it to be, then the quest for meaning in relationships might be futile.

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