It's by the "School of life's" youtube channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK2IJ43ppd0
__________________________
I like this video a lot! `u`. Aside from how a lot of the stuff brought up here is mainly looking at the development of love (and marriage) in Western history--

The point about how "here are different ways of arranging relationships depending on water given society happens to believe in love is", is very keen in explaining how it's a cultural construct as is saying how we're at the early stages of it's 'evolution' .

- I like how de Botton brought up how the priorities of arranged marriages which was practiced since ancient times might've "created a collective trauma we're still in flight from". `_` Though I wonder how the phenomena often panned out from a "bottom-up" approach btw non-elite ppl like farmers instead of the accounts of how it was for ppl who had an impact on life in a "top-down" way like royalty.Imo I think that's more important and understated.

-Neat bringing up how Troubadours were concerned with the infatuation/"crush" side of love and not even sex. It's intensity coming in part from the lack "living irl" w/a loved one is noteworthy.

-Interesting bringing up Jeanne Antoinette Poisson as someone who's was accepted in a non-monogamous relationship, even if it stemmed from how the the seeming incompatability of marriage and love (a passionate one it seems for drama,excitement and sex) was enough to make someone arrange a publicly known divergence of the two

-Bringing up John Lambert and Harriet, I can see how the notion of how marriage being a consequence of love which is even able to put aside the 'practical' considerations/ normative priorities of a marriage is only a bit +200 years. Also I can see how the "feeling over reason,impulse over tradition" theme of Romanticism the literary movement influences the concept of marriage and why the idea of eloping is a thing in stories of how couples meet as is how it can be possibly be done on "the spur of the moment" instead of given serious consideration (which is "uncool" it seems b/c apparently ppl who already married for those reasons or others are lousy at advising about it "" ^u^ )

-the paradigm shift in love being understood as an *enthusiasm* instead of a *skill*..`u` oh wow,the implications that has..

-Interesting how it was Jane Austen who said how a woman should love the man one is engaged to and de Botton's saying she thought not too many ppl are actually "suited" for marriage resonates with me tbh "^_^ . I like how she brings up,how you need "*managerial* competence" (which is asking for a different thing than when than when your say an elite and money,property and connections might be "taken care of" by servants and such; the managerial aspect is nicely brought up at 3:18 in this video imo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eparlp-8uVo )

-Charles Darwin establishing how humans are descended from apes and how it implies, how trying to pull off ideally fufilling relationships is already going to be a difficult feat given the not to encouraging biological base. Admitting that maybe leaning towards being polygamous,into opportunistic sex and being into another for unlofty reasons like physical attributes has a basis *at least on a BIOLOGICAL level* is good to know

-The rejection of romantic love with Jefferson Poland for an imagined enlightened state of pristinity where 'free love' is the norm; something which I notice is often ignored in takes like that, on how love "could be" like is "..how are going to/how conducive is this to raising children?"

-Interesting in the 2015 example how a cited reason for divorce is "initial expectations" weren't meet" and in the video it's that the promises of 1960's perspective "free love" and 19th century Romanticism "aren't doing it" for many.

-Bold of how de Botton says how "the future of love lies in the notion of sacrifice" ("giving up on perfection is brough up more here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2HeNz1ROhY) and accepting how we won't get everything we want from love, relationships and marriage and how in our current ideas of relationships it's really ambitious to unite sex,affection,raising a family,a career and adequate material (.i.e. to me,"object-oriented") security, we will by neccesity not do as well in one of the areas.

"..the idea of sacrifice helps if we consider getting half of what we really want and need might still be quite a lot in comparison with what it would be like if we avoided relationships altogether"..

"^-^ Imo the painting of the monk could have been substituted with a more 'relatable' examples where of lifestyle oriented careers:doctors,scientists,soldiers, musicians, sailors and politicians for example,not to disparage them.

14:35-15:02

".. the question should not be so much whether relationships live up to our ideal hopes of mutual happiness but whether they are better if only a little then not having
relationships at all.The future of loves needs us to get interested in
ambivalence.That is in the capacity to keep on thinking that something is quite
good, even while we're painfully conscious of its many and striking
day-to-day imperfections"

`_` hmmm...I'm not sure I'd say "ambivalence" but I think there's a better and specific word out there than "ambivalence".