10:05 “Hegel does not resolve Kantian antinomies-there is no step further into higher dialectical synthesis or whatever. He just reinterprets the obstacle, what appears as the obstacle, as its own solution-without getting this you don’t get anything in Hegel. For example that’s why Hegel is not a thinker of reconciliation, in the sense that things look bad but then _oooh!_ through some wonder they get reconciled, no. It’s a crucial passage where Hegel says that the reconciliation is always a retroactive movement.”
1:18 *Kant’s position is a radical antimony* “We can logically prove, with impeccable reasoning, both versions [...] like does the world, the universe, reality in which we dwell-does it have a temporal beginning or a limit in space or not. Again, Kant’s point is: the moment we overstep our empirical experience and try to think reality as a totality, as an All, we _necessarily_ get caught into contradictions.”
But we are humanbeings, we only have our senses to know the world. And if or senses ain't enough, we use machines eg. infrared camera to see in the dark. Kant was dealing with religious mystic at the time, back then a religious man would say the spirits moved a rock, when we have the IR camera to know it's a deer in the dark that moved it..
0:27 *Irreducible antimonies* “Kant’s basic hypothesis is that (axiom even) that _when our mind tries to grasp all of reality_ (not just limited experience that we have/temporal experience) but _if we try to extrapolate from: what we see here, from what we can test, how all of reality is structured-we not only fail, but we get caught_ into what Kant calls *antinomies.* And there is _no_ primitive Hegelian dialectics in it-it’s not that it’s _this_ and _that,_ let’s do a synthesis-for Kant these are radical antinomies. In the sense of like.. _is there a free will or is all of reality totally determined by natural laws?”_
9:31 *The proper step from Kant to Hegel* “The very thing that appeared as a problem, _my god we get into an antimony,_ becomes its own solution. Because this antimony, this radical never reconciled split into *extreme individualism* and *impenetrable objectivity* _is_ the fundamental real feature of society today-this is the proper step from Kant to Hegel.”
@Quam Zizek, _Spinoza, Kant, Hegel and.. Badiou:_ “It is no longer that we, subjects of a scientific investigation, engaged in the difficult path of getting to know objective reality, gradually approaching it, formulate and solve problems, while reality just IS out there, fully constituted and given, unconcerned by our slow progress. In a properly Hegelian way, our painful progress of knowledge, our confusions, our search for solutions - that is to say: precisely that which seems to SEPARATE us from the way reality really is out there - is already the innermost constituent of reality itself. When we try to establish the function of some organ in an animal, we are thereby repeating the "objective" process itself through which the animal "invented" this organ as the solution of some problem. Our process of approaching constituted objective reality repeats the virtual process of Becoming of this reality itself. The fact that we cannot ever "fully know" reality is thus not a sign of the limitation of our knowledge, but the sign that reality itself is "incomplete," open, an actualization of the underlying virtual process of Becoming.” […] “What if, for Hegel, "absolute Knowing" is not the absurd position of "knowing everything," but the insight into how the path towards Truth is already Truth itself, into how the Absolute is precisely - to put it in Deleuzean terms - the virtuality of the eternal process of actualization? We are thereby in the very heart of the problem of freedom: the only way to save freedom is through this short-circuit between epistemology and ontology - the moment we reduce our process of knowledge to a process external to the thing itself, to an endless approximation to the thing, freedom is lost, because "reality" is conceived of as a completed, ontologically fully constituted, positive order of Being. The inconsistency of Kant apropos freedom is here crucial in its structural necessity. On the one hand, the subject is free in the noumenal sense - its freedom attests to the fact that it does not belong to the domain of phenomenal enchainment of causes and effects, that it is capable of absolute spontaneity; on the other hand, spontaneity is transcendental, not transcendent, it is the way the subject appears to itself - as we learn in the final paragraphs of the Part I of Critique of Practical Reason, it may well be that, in itself, at the noumenal level, we are just marionettes in the hands of the all-powerful God. The only solution is here the Hegelo-Deleuzian (sic!) one: to transpose the incompleteness, openness (the surplus of the virtual over the actual, of the problem over its solution(s)), into the thing itself.”
oh man! this is simply AMAZING! zizek is the red negativity of all reality radically impecably reasoning kant concepts better than i can emphasize! WOW!
@@aungphyoezin3758 www.bbk.ac.uk/bih/podcasts/zizek I believe it's the one titled "Between Philosophy and Psychoanalysis - A Masterclass with Slavoj Žižek"
This kind of move - equating the Kantian antinomies to Lacan’s formulae of sexuation - is a major support of the philosophical core of today’s gender and culture “postmodern” controversies (James Damore, J Peterson and pay gap, etc). Instead of saying “liberals seem to be anti-science these days”, you may be better off saying “liberals don’t believe reason is suitable for ontology”, precisely because masculine reasoning is antinomical.
The radical leftists in the culture war are not liberals. Saying masculine reasoning is antinomical, besides being ignorant and completely unsupported by evidence, is the same type of sexism we had in the 50's when people used to say woman are irrational. It's sad to see these self loathing men getting brainwashed and submitting to the most idiotic and bigoted forms of sexist propaganda. Really sad to see.
Antinomies actually go back to the concept of Form or Idea proposed by the Plato. We still think Plato presents the higher world which doesnt make sense given that he claimed himself who can see the reality. We must be aware the idea doesnt apply only to the west but also to moral teaching of the east.
Take another example related the individual/society. What we call societal normality. In my view, societal normality can be something very toxic, limiting and painful. Yet at the same time something necessary to keep our individual heads away from madness! We need some kind of notion of normality for us. However this same necessity and something that can be positive and "good" can easily turn into a problem! Both positions offer advantages and disadvantages. Take another example. Identities: we really do have an "essence", but at the same time we are also open in the world, our identities and personalities change as the time goes on. I can't stop seeing necessary contradictions everywhere.
New Realist Markus Gabriel solves these antinomies by simply disgarding the notion of a "world". Everything else exists in a pluralistic ontology, but not always connected. Everything that exists is defined by the field of sense in which it appears. Food appears in the fields of biology, resteraunts etc., but not in the field of cosmology, particle physics or car mechanics. The only thing that does not exist is a field of sense that includes all fields of senses. No world formula. No metaphysics that can be applied to everything. Not even the universe itself, because it really only exists in the field of cosmology, not in the life of the spider hanging from the ceiling. The spider could care less about "the universe", it would even know that such an abstrac, strange concept could be imagined.
This is precisely Carnap's position in his essay, "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology." Just replace fields of senses with "frameworks." While I think it's worthwhile to think of certain levels of ontology existing (or for Emergence Theory, "emerging") separately in their own frameworks (galaxies vs planets vs ecosystems vs organisms), I believe it's logically consistent to say you can have a formula/metaphysics/meta-framework for discussing all of this. This can be demonstrated by our more colloquial use of "the universe," by which we mean everything *contained within*. It's completely sound and pragmatic to call something "world" while still maintaining its ontological separateness/plurality.
No. You might anticipate such solutions in mystical experience. But if you can not write them down, then you have not really taken the next step into the unknown. You have just accidently stumbled in and back out again.
@@bobrolander4344 if you write something mystical down, can it still remain mystical or are your written words merely a poetic representation of that "experience"?
So lets see if I understand this right using an example of contemporary conflict. From what was said here when Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman did battle neither of them was speaking the truth. The truth is simple there is conflict between men and women about certain social issues. Well we all knew that before listening to this talk. So what have we learned? Shouldn't we expect public intellectuals to offer some kind of solutions.
Not exactly. This does not mean that the two sides in every argument are equally correct. It's just saying that reality itself has some fundamental antinomies which can not be resolved rationally. An antinomy is always composed of two rational ideas, in the JP vs Newman case it's a rational perspective vs. pure ideology.
@@stochastic24 I don't claim any expertise with the philosophers mentioned here. I asked the question to see if an answer would further my understanding. Not sure it has. If the antinomies cannot be resolved rationally then how can we call either side of an argument correct. Now this is not a criticism it might be the case we are stuck with skepticism whether we like it or not. It seems that is where the antinomies leave us. Or can we use something other than rationality to say who is correct?
@@neostoic9727 When it comes to antinomies, both contradicting rational arguments are 'correct' in the sense that they are self contained rational arguments. This only applies in select cases where both arguments are solid rational arguments. It does not apply to all arguments, for example if Kathy Newman says that there is no biological basis of sex difference and JP says there is, it is not an antinomy because Newman's argument is not a rational one. In this case you can use reason to resolve it. When it comes to the real antinomies it's you are right that we can not use rationality to resolve them. The point is that there is no way to resolve them, and that these antagonisms are fundamental to the structure of 'reality' such that certain paradoxes can never be resolved and thus the job of philosophers here should not be to resolve the issue but instead to interpret the fact that it can not be resolved.
10:05 “Hegel does not resolve Kantian antinomies-there is no step further into higher dialectical synthesis or whatever. He just reinterprets the obstacle, what appears as the obstacle, as its own solution-without getting this you don’t get anything in Hegel. For example that’s why Hegel is not a thinker of reconciliation, in the sense that things look bad but then _oooh!_ through some wonder they get reconciled, no. It’s a crucial passage where Hegel says that the reconciliation is always a retroactive movement.”
congradulations folks. now you have absolute knowledge.
but fuck, it doesn't feel any different
i guess all this time, what i really wanted
was a petit-objet a-bsolute knowledge
lmao
Marc hahahah nice. I have thinking of something similar these days.
you wish.
1:18 *Kant’s position is a radical antimony* “We can logically prove, with impeccable reasoning, both versions [...] like does the world, the universe, reality in which we dwell-does it have a temporal beginning or a limit in space or not. Again, Kant’s point is: the moment we overstep our empirical experience and try to think reality as a totality, as an All, we _necessarily_ get caught into contradictions.”
But we are humanbeings, we only have our senses to know the world. And if or senses ain't enough, we use machines eg. infrared camera to see in the dark. Kant was dealing with religious mystic at the time, back then a religious man would say the spirits moved a rock, when we have the IR camera to know it's a deer in the dark that moved it..
This is the shortest and best explanation of hegel you will find.
0:27 *Irreducible antimonies* “Kant’s basic hypothesis is that (axiom even) that _when our mind tries to grasp all of reality_ (not just limited experience that we have/temporal experience) but _if we try to extrapolate from: what we see here, from what we can test, how all of reality is structured-we not only fail, but we get caught_ into what Kant calls *antinomies.* And there is _no_ primitive Hegelian dialectics in it-it’s not that it’s _this_ and _that,_ let’s do a synthesis-for Kant these are radical antinomies. In the sense of like.. _is there a free will or is all of reality totally determined by natural laws?”_
Wow, i really enjoyed this talk, thank you
9:31 *The proper step from Kant to Hegel* “The very thing that appeared as a problem, _my god we get into an antimony,_ becomes its own solution. Because this antimony, this radical never reconciled split into *extreme individualism* and *impenetrable objectivity* _is_ the fundamental real feature of society today-this is the proper step from Kant to Hegel.”
And the step from Hegel to Marx is to deny Hegel altogether. 🤔 Why is that?
@@kalidesu doesn’t have to be, Zizek doesn’t
@Quam can you elaborate please
@Quam no I was referring to what you stated about Hegel misunderstanding Kant
@Quam Zizek, _Spinoza, Kant, Hegel and.. Badiou:_
“It is no longer that we, subjects of a scientific investigation, engaged in the difficult path of getting to know objective reality, gradually approaching it, formulate and solve problems, while reality just IS out there, fully constituted and given, unconcerned by our slow progress. In a properly Hegelian way, our painful progress of knowledge, our confusions, our search for solutions - that is to say: precisely that which seems to SEPARATE us from the way reality really is out there - is already the innermost constituent of reality itself.
When we try to establish the function of some organ in an animal, we are thereby repeating the "objective" process itself through which the animal "invented" this organ as the solution of some problem. Our process of approaching constituted objective reality repeats the virtual process of Becoming of this reality itself. The fact that we cannot ever "fully know" reality is thus not a sign of the limitation of our knowledge, but the sign that reality itself is "incomplete," open, an actualization of the underlying virtual process of Becoming.”
[…]
“What if, for Hegel, "absolute Knowing" is not the absurd position of "knowing everything," but the insight into how the path towards Truth is already Truth itself, into how the Absolute is precisely - to put it in Deleuzean terms - the virtuality of the eternal process of actualization?
We are thereby in the very heart of the problem of freedom: the only way to save freedom is through this short-circuit between epistemology and ontology - the moment we reduce our process of knowledge to a process external to the thing itself, to an endless approximation to the thing, freedom is lost, because "reality" is conceived of as a completed, ontologically fully constituted, positive order of Being. The inconsistency of Kant apropos freedom is here crucial in its structural necessity. On the one hand, the subject is free in the noumenal sense - its freedom attests to the fact that it does not belong to the domain of phenomenal enchainment of causes and effects, that it is capable of absolute spontaneity; on the other hand, spontaneity is transcendental, not transcendent, it is the way the subject appears to itself - as we learn in the final paragraphs of the Part I of Critique of Practical Reason, it may well be that, in itself, at the noumenal level, we are just marionettes in the hands of the all-powerful God.
The only solution is here the Hegelo-Deleuzian (sic!) one: to transpose the incompleteness, openness (the surplus of the virtual over the actual, of the problem over its solution(s)), into the thing itself.”
oh man! this is simply AMAZING! zizek is the red negativity of all reality radically impecably reasoning kant concepts better than i can emphasize! WOW!
wot
4:54 bookmark
Where can we get the full lecture?
Where and when did this talk take place?
This lecture occurred on November 1st, 2016, at the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, in one of their Birkbeck Masterclasses.
Is there full talk available online?
@@aungphyoezin3758 www.bbk.ac.uk/bih/podcasts/zizek I believe it's the one titled "Between Philosophy and Psychoanalysis - A Masterclass with Slavoj Žižek"
So, the antagonism is the truth of reality, but where does one go from there?
Yo those autocaptions tho haha
This kind of move - equating the Kantian antinomies to Lacan’s formulae of sexuation - is a major support of the philosophical core of today’s gender and culture “postmodern” controversies (James Damore, J Peterson and pay gap, etc). Instead of saying “liberals seem to be anti-science these days”, you may be better off saying “liberals don’t believe reason is suitable for ontology”, precisely because masculine reasoning is antinomical.
Thanks - nicely and clearly stated......IF Masculine reasoning is antinomical - so is feminine reasoning also antinomical ?
The radical leftists in the culture war are not liberals.
Saying masculine reasoning is antinomical, besides being ignorant and completely unsupported by evidence, is the same type of sexism we had in the 50's when people used to say woman are irrational. It's sad to see these self loathing men getting brainwashed and submitting to the most idiotic and bigoted forms of sexist propaganda. Really sad to see.
Where and when can i see him lecture???
Good question. I have no idea.
@@benthebenevolent1001 Thanks for your answer Ben. If I find out where I can find him I'll let you know.
@@midas2017 th-cam.com/video/iNnMl7aM5JI/w-d-xo.html
If you haven't find yet.
Antinomies actually go back to the concept of Form or Idea proposed by the Plato. We still think Plato presents the higher world which doesnt make sense given that he claimed himself who can see the reality. We must be aware the idea doesnt apply only to the west but also to moral teaching of the east.
Take another example related the individual/society. What we call societal normality. In my view, societal normality can be something very toxic, limiting and painful. Yet at the same time something necessary to keep our individual heads away from madness! We need some kind of notion of normality for us. However this same necessity and something that can be positive and "good" can easily turn into a problem! Both positions offer advantages and disadvantages. Take another example. Identities: we really do have an "essence", but at the same time we are also open in the world, our identities and personalities change as the time goes on. I can't stop seeing necessary contradictions everywhere.
Something having detrimental aspects while still being necessary is not an antinomy.
New Realist Markus Gabriel solves these antinomies by simply disgarding the notion of a "world". Everything else exists in a pluralistic ontology, but not always connected. Everything that exists is defined by the field of sense in which it appears. Food appears in the fields of biology, resteraunts etc., but not in the field of cosmology, particle physics or car mechanics. The only thing that does not exist is a field of sense that includes all fields of senses. No world formula. No metaphysics that can be applied to everything. Not even the universe itself, because it really only exists in the field of cosmology, not in the life of the spider hanging from the ceiling. The spider could care less about "the universe", it would even know that such an abstrac, strange concept could be imagined.
This is precisely Carnap's position in his essay, "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology." Just replace fields of senses with "frameworks." While I think it's worthwhile to think of certain levels of ontology existing (or for Emergence Theory, "emerging") separately in their own frameworks (galaxies vs planets vs ecosystems vs organisms), I believe it's logically consistent to say you can have a formula/metaphysics/meta-framework for discussing all of this. This can be demonstrated by our more colloquial use of "the universe," by which we mean everything *contained within*. It's completely sound and pragmatic to call something "world" while still maintaining its ontological separateness/plurality.
i am no zizek fan and i dont read continental philosophy but this was interesting
do you prefer someone else to him?
“WoOOooOoo”- Zizek
what it means: you dont undertstand anything what hes saying.
These problems gets solved in the mystical experience only.
'Solved'
No. You might anticipate such solutions in mystical experience. But if you can not write them down, then you have not really taken the next step into the unknown. You have just accidently stumbled in and back out again.
@@bobrolander4344 if you write something mystical down, can it still remain mystical or are your written words merely a poetic representation of that "experience"?
@@bobrolander4344 oh, you are into american election campaigns. Nevermind me asking...
@@bobrolander4344 the World NEEDS more Con Man! Right? Right...
So lets see if I understand this right using an example of contemporary conflict. From what was said here when Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman did battle neither of them was speaking the truth. The truth is simple there is conflict between men and women about certain social issues. Well we all knew that before listening to this talk. So what have we learned? Shouldn't we expect public intellectuals to offer some kind of solutions.
Not exactly. This does not mean that the two sides in every argument are equally correct. It's just saying that reality itself has some fundamental antinomies which can not be resolved rationally. An antinomy is always composed of two rational ideas, in the JP vs Newman case it's a rational perspective vs. pure ideology.
@@stochastic24 I don't claim any expertise with the philosophers mentioned here. I asked the question to see if an answer would further my understanding. Not sure it has. If the antinomies cannot be resolved rationally then how can we call either side of an argument correct. Now this is not a criticism it might be the case we are stuck with skepticism whether we like it or not. It seems that is where the antinomies leave us. Or can we use something other than rationality to say who is correct?
@@neostoic9727 When it comes to antinomies, both contradicting rational arguments are 'correct' in the sense that they are self contained rational arguments. This only applies in select cases where both arguments are solid rational arguments. It does not apply to all arguments, for example if Kathy Newman says that there is no biological basis of sex difference and JP says there is, it is not an antinomy because Newman's argument is not a rational one. In this case you can use reason to resolve it. When it comes to the real antinomies it's you are right that we can not use rationality to resolve them. The point is that there is no way to resolve them, and that these antagonisms are fundamental to the structure of 'reality' such that certain paradoxes can never be resolved and thus the job of philosophers here should not be to resolve the issue but instead to interpret the fact that it can not be resolved.
@@stochastic24 That makes sense.
@@stochastic24 So what you're saying is......... OK, I'll leave now.
Btw zizek should drink ayahuasca🍷
no. there is no requirment for indegstion of some external fluid to make you understand.