I almost stopped watching movies and TV decades ago, because I grew so disappointed in movie directors. It was (and still is) my criticism that movies as an art form of their own right have barely been born, because what is being made is theatre on film. In my mind true cinema is made by telling something in moving images - not in witty dialogue. But most films do not give the viewer time to really look. Seeing is slow, it takes time. Fast cuts and constant talking and complicated plots are not cinema, they are theatre or a puzzle type of game (who is the murderer?). As I got frustrated with movies I also noticed that when people were not given the chance to really look and to see what was shown on the screen, they projected themselves on the story. I may have a handicap in projecting as I have aphantasia, not 100% but pretty strong. For example I mostly don't have dreams and when I do, I don't see them. My dreams are not visual, I just know what happened and how the atmosphere was.
This is a phenomenally precise lecture. I feel like, this combined so many concepts I already knew or at least heard, but couldn't quite wrap my head around into something bigger. Thanks a lot🙂
I've been getting closer to the practice Dr. K has recommended, to stop looking outwards and trust your inward self that you continuously run away from. Self help isn't self help, it's other people telling you who your Self is and nobody can do that.
You're so precious as a teacher Julian, can't thank you enough for your lectures. It is an outstanding public service 🙂 I studied philosophy at Birkbeck Uni in London and became a Marxists by reading a lot of Locke, haha. I disagreed so much with classic "conservative" philosophy that I knew there had to be another way of looking at things. Your lectures keep me on my toes in regards to philosophical topics. I love them and they also helped me change my worldview.
I think an contrast to the perverted paternal authority figure is offered by Akira Kurosawa's film Ikiru ("To Live"), itself loosely based on Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Illyitch. It follows an old japanese career bureaucrat after his diagnosis of terminal cancer. Having never really "lived" at all, he has to decide how to spend his last months of life. We see that the man is unable to indulge in hedonistic pleasure and still quite incapable of relating to anybody, including his son, who hates him. Eventually, he finds simple contentment by getting back to his old job and doggedly pulling bureaucratic levers so as to approve the public construction of a children's playground - a project which had come across his desk before his diagnosis, only to be ignored. In the latter half of the movie, the man is dead, and we see his co-workers attending his funeral. None of them knew he was sick so they're all puzzled that that's how he decided to spend his last days. Eventually, they put the pieces together and are quite moved by his "example", which they vow to follow - but they never do. And that's life.
I was pretty fairly sure of myself that, I had heard/watched some of your other videos/talks/precise breakdowns, of the various philosophies/philosophers. I checked your list of videos, and discovered I had not. This breakdown in this particular video was really digestible and even worth rewatching quite a few times. Because, these ideas might appear to be simple on the surface level. But they're a lot more complex that, it takes these short takes/explanations to fully allow the material to grab ahold of you. Thank you for your time and love of these philosophies. ❤
This brings a lot of my thinking and reading together. Aspects of my own psychoanalysis make greater sense too. A beautifully conceived lecture. Thanks.
I agree, but at the same time, we must remember that some people are so lost that they don't know where to start. I was one of them. I found a path to philosophy (Zizek) through Peterson.
In a nutshell I agree. The complication I have comes from me not knowing what to do next. Where, how, what, when and who can help? How does one avoid nihilism?
The way I see it the hysteria described in this discussion is a form of middle ground between the idealism that most ideologies and dogmas stand for and nihilism that deny any meaning to anything. The uncertainties in our lives is not a problem. That’s part of life itself. It is our ways of dealing with the unknown that may become a problem if we are overtaken by fear. Again, it is not the fear itself that’s the problem, but our further cultivation of strategies motivated by fear that we should try to avoid. I see a middle way between the two extreme perspectives where we learn to accept whatever arise in our lives rather than fall back on unrealistic strategies where we try to manipulate the world to a version that fits our preconceived ideas about it. That is idealism and it is a strategy that will always fail because it is not in accord with actual reality. If our opposite reaction to our fear is to deny reality any relevance, including our own experiences, that leads to self destruction and conflict with the world around us. That is nihilism and it fails to recognize the existence of causes, conditions and results in the world. The middle ground between these two extremes is to neither deny nor cultivate hope and fear. It is a practice of acceptance and equanimity in all our encounters with reality. It never seeks to resolve the ambiguity of life and reality but tries to embrace any uncertainty as yet another open encounter with the unknown.
Great lecture. I cant help but sense a catch 22 here. When I read Zizek, or listen to these lectures, I often walk away with an enlightened view of the world. Zizek helps me understand life, society etc, thereby helping me live my own life for the better. What I don't understand is, how does this make him any different to a self help guru? In these videos, Julian will often say, "...what Zizek says you should instead do is this...(insert new rule of how to live life here)" Isn't that a form of self help? How does that make Zizek any different to someone like Peterson?
Zizek does what he does to set himself as "above" and better than someone like Peterson. Zizek is moral (non-perverted) while Peterson is perverted or immoral. At least, according to Zizek. Zizek gains prestige and monetary reward by disseminating such insightful critique to consumers like ourselves. Simple as that.
@@GreenTeaViewer I understand that, but that's an abstraction. I'm digging deeper here. Taking this to it's most fundamental, concrete form, is Zizek giving people advice on how to best live their life? Or not?
@@anthonybrett he's speaking words (and/or writing) as an unconscious strategy to maximise wealth, prestige and mating opportunities, in which he has been very successful. You may or may not find his words improve your life, give you a good feeling, or provide actionable steps you can take. Whether or not you derive the any benefits is not the point. It's no different from football: at the apex is a man who gains massive status, wealth and access to beautiful mating partners, then there are those who play socially and gain benefits such as fitness and cameraderie, then there are those who spend money on fantasy leagues and gain little except a few dopamine hits. Philosophy is the same. I call Zizek out in particular, because in his style and career, everything signifies a fairly naked game-playing rather than a desire to better the world. He's like a used car salesman. Yes we all have to make a buck, but some are just more crass and transparent than others.
@@GreenTeaViewer Thankyou so much for taking the time to reply. I find Zizek very appealing. As a philosopher, he's helped me understand the nature of the world immensely. I'm not looking at this through a capitalistic lens. I have no problem with him deriving an income from his work. The truth is, Zizek has helped me beyond measure when it comes to plotting a course through life (as well as many others I can only assume, hence his appeal). So if his view of the world and his writing helps me, I just have trouble trying to delineate the difference between a philosopher and a "self help guru". I mean, a philosopher can make the claim that they aren't a self help guru, but at the same time, they are trapped by the credo of philosophy itself, the search for (love of) wisdom.
@@anthonybrett We could probably agree on simple definitions on what a "philosopher" is and what a "self-help guru" is. Or to put it another way, what "philosophy" is as a practice and what "self-help" is. But then I don't have any problem with someone proclaiming themselves a philosopher but their work including or tending more towards self-help, or the reverse. All I see here is Zizek not liking Jordan Peterson and calling him out, to the cheers of the gallery who are on Zizek's side. It's tribalism, and again, Zizek advancing the cause of Zizek through rhetoric. (Note: I don't care for Peterson any more than I do for Zizek). But I think I've made my point. Thank you for reading and may you benefit from your delving into philosophy and/or "self-help".
Can you define what perversion is? I’m having trouble understanding the message since I don’t quite understand the difference between perversion and hysteria in simple terms
Interestingly, the answer “yes, I trust you” suspends the hero’s hysterical stance of self doubt in the sense that “I can trust myself if somebody trusts me” thus giving the hero the “unlimited” strength to commit the most horrific atrocities in the name of the “good.”
Dude woke up and immediately started a lecture. He's still sitting on the edge of his bed. I appreciate this, thanks for your lectures. Enjoyed the listen.
Bruce Fink commented on where to start with Lacan recently. Basically, begin with the first seminar and work your way thru one by one. Going straight to the Ecrits is not recommended!
Isn't this video and the philosophy of perversion itself a form of telling people how to live? And having happiness as a primary aspiration is a guarantee of unhappiness.
Had to laugh. Watching the video and was interrupted by an ad that immediately demanded, “why don’t you own an apartment building.” the perverted master coming at you in TH-cam ad form.
I don't understand. If I recognize that all truth is merely an approximation that will never be complete, someone telling me that they have the absolute version of that conceptualization does not negate what I have distinguished.
That is true. And thus, if you were to subscribe to this truth someone claims to hold, you ultimately know that you are lying to yourself. Which would then dissuade you from following their teachings. Was that what you meant? You weren't exactly precise about what you don't understand.
@@exo_shadow7530 I find a contradiction in the belief that an individual with a postmodern interpretation of reality would be someone who accepts an absolute truth to guide their life. People who seek meaning and purpose in life through someone else's beliefs are individuals who believe in and need absolute interpretations. They fear the possibility of living in a postmodern culture.
Well, the point is not that one can only "almost" get there, like an"approximation" or "not quite complete" - this is a part of perversion. The whole point is that this idea of a complete ideal that guides you, IS perverse. The ideal does not and cannot exist, and if you live as if i does exist, you are a pervert. This means that if someone does not fit your ideal, you will still act as if it was true, and thereby judge people on this ideal. I does not matter if you excuse yourself by saying "it is not complete", you still act as if it could be true, made into an act. The only way to be hysteric, is not necessarily to be in doubt all the time, but to acknowledge that ideals does not and cannot exist, which makes you act differently. Does this mean that "one does not know anything"? No, what this rejects, is the image of knowledge, not knowledge per se. This is maybe clearest in the difference between Christianity and Other monthestic religions (or maybe religion altogether) Jesus does not doubt what he has to do (ethics), and how to treat people. He knows that there is no ultimate father demanding certain boundaries to people, where upon law and sin is established. The beauty of Jesus, is that he undermines this image and signifying logic, and this IS the Divine. But it would be a stretch to say that Jesus is unsure. He is sure, but what he is sure of is that an ideal image of god beyond the world is perverse mad ideal. This does not eleminate social regulations, it eleminates that which drives perversity, namely the figure of narcisistic enjoyment. This is the Pinnacle of the new testament. When pre-messianic religious people creates laws for others, only to undercut these same laws for themselves, which is the reason for Jesuses rage at the temple, this points toward the logic of the image of enjoyment and control. Why do they want to control other peoples enjoyment and inclusion into the community? Because they are a threat to their own self-image, the ideal, and thereby their perverse enjoyment. So again, the point is not to live without laws and knowlegede, the point is to make the distinction of law and sin inoperative at the structural and psychic level. When one gets rid of ones narcisistic tendensies - god dies, and so does the fantasy of transcending the law in order to enjoy. You simply accept the law, but only on its universal dimension
@@dmbbiggenI don’t see how conceptualization can be a determining part of perversion. One may need external answers and use them to build internal interpretations, and one can develop their own answers and conceptualize from there. While it is true that all knowledge is social, individual conceptualizations do not attain that condition until they are communicated. However, the search for understanding is not the need to impose oneself or be subjected by others. One seeks control, but that control is attempted over reality and not just over other individuals. I do not find it rational to suppose that individuals have a perverse relationship with reality. It does seem true to me that the Western interpretation of "control" is futile. In my opinion, any religion is the anthropomorphization of reality and thus, the possibility of negotiating with it. In your terms, the intention is perverse. One cannot effectively think that "Every truth is always incomplete" and then act as if absolute conceptualizations exist. That would indicate that one does not truly believe it.
I'm getting major Satre authentic vibes here. Don't be the waiter be yourself and by doing so live in anguish, condemned to freedom and the road not taken.
Julien, dude, you really should read Kenneth Burke, I think Zizek never did. I will continue to spam it under your videos until you do :) (Luv ur videos doe, your the one making me think to take the same route as you, the Akademie is rotten)
How would you characterize the helpful framework of this philosophy if not some form of self-help? Your lectures on Zizek et all have helped me greatly on how to approach life from the perspective of ‘enjoying my symptom’. Despite never explicitly providing a symptom for me (as the Tates of the world claim to offer), these lectures have provided a groundwork to interpret my own symptom and how I might identify with it. How should this be characterized if not a form of self-help?
Strangely, and very interestingly, Socrates seems to be both pervert and hysteric. Pervert in what he proposes in the political and metaphysical sense. Hysteric in his method, questions, doubts, I only know that I know nothing.
He’s just another ‘I know better than you’ kind of guy who, according to the video, pretends to emancipate you while double binding you into more self deception by sinking you deeper into capitalist subjectivity, optimizing you into being the ‘shiniest happiest cog in the machine’ kind of game.
@globalgulag5586 yes but unlike all the other gurus (peterson etc) he is not selling some snake oil mindest ideology rather just some bio hacking regimes
I want to cite Queen of Sheba who came to King Solomon and heard of his wisdom:"Happy are those who listen to you!" (Am an atheist. This is nothing religious, only cultural. Thnx)
There's something wrong with those page numbers cited as references. You are mashing Zizek's categories around way too much, leading to glib generalisations. (I have a PhD in philosophy, taught at university, and have worked on Zizek's texts since the 1990s.) Get accurate and slow down - talk in more detail about less material.
It's a TH-cam video, largely off-the-cuff, and pitched at those with different levels of familiarity with Zizek/Lacan/Philosophy. Also, if you've worked on Zizek since the 1990s, you should have some appreciation of how SZ notoriously 'mashes' his own categories up '(for the dialectics...). Maybe a little ressentiment, in light of how many 'casual' viewers or beginners Julian's brought into degrees of engagement with Zizekian ideas, compared with, say, the average university seminar series??
I don't think that's the point, he's just pointing out a dynamic. He's not necessarily telling you what to do about it. If the hysteric wants to remain with the pervert that's no ones business but the hysterics.
@@TheWay-u1n it's like if I warn you about burglars in your area. And you telling me that I might be also a burglar.. You just show your inherent distrust in front of any presented advice.
Good afternoon, Julian. I was a long time viewer. I had to stop watching because I could no longer tolerate the repetitive use of the same words. A regurgitation of all those books you’ve been reading. Great stuff for someone unfamiliar with the works of these authors, but stomach churning overtime. You still have great material, but it’s getting hard to listen to at length anymore. If you ever get an opportunity to run a word cloud of your closed captioning you might see something interesting.
If his vocabulary had more depth you'd find your pleasure? Even if it becomes unrelated to simplifying dense philosophy? Sorry the world is to boring.... But if you send me 14.99 I have everything you're looking for! I have all the words you would like to tickle you, but I don't put it for free, so trust me, I can say what you wanna hear, just send 14.99
Did that feel good? To be mean to a supposedly easy target? This is you tube, obviously beginners are going to be here and the self righteous experts are going to go somewhere else, like the actual books. Repeating terms and concepts assists in getting them to stick and be remembered. But of course you knew that because you’re the smartest person here, apologies for my mansplaining buhbye
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching! If you’d like to support my work please consider becoming a patron. Thank you! www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy
Can we take a minute to appreciate this bloke's ability to just fuckin send a 30-odd minute philosophy lecture in a single take without fumbling
This is probably my favorite episode! Commenting for the algorithm
I almost stopped watching movies and TV decades ago, because I grew so disappointed in movie directors. It was (and still is) my criticism that movies as an art form of their own right have barely been born, because what is being made is theatre on film. In my mind true cinema is made by telling something in moving images - not in witty dialogue. But most films do not give the viewer time to really look. Seeing is slow, it takes time. Fast cuts and constant talking and complicated plots are not cinema, they are theatre or a puzzle type of game (who is the murderer?). As I got frustrated with movies I also noticed that when people were not given the chance to really look and to see what was shown on the screen, they projected themselves on the story. I may have a handicap in projecting as I have aphantasia, not 100% but pretty strong. For example I mostly don't have dreams and when I do, I don't see them. My dreams are not visual, I just know what happened and how the atmosphere was.
Your observation reminds me a lot of that of Peter Greenaway. If you're not familiar with him, I highly recommend.
@@ThomasPolman1983 Yes, I know cinephiles will never get it.
Might be aphantasia because I agree completely, gave up similarly, and also aphant.
Can we have a movie recommendation every week?
I just saw Alien Romulus and enjoyed it very much. I’ll try making a video on it tomorrow.
The Hypnosis ( i know it's not me you're asking :) )
I just watched Manhunter last night. It rocked. Would highly recommend.
You’re making julian your perverted movie father. Cmon
@@julianphilosophy Hell yeah! I was honestly waiting for your take on it. As an Alien fan, I'm really pleased with the way the movie turned out.
I trust you Zizeck. Thanks for telling me how to embrace hysteria :)
This is a phenomenally precise lecture. I feel like, this combined so many concepts I already knew or at least heard, but couldn't quite wrap my head around into something bigger. Thanks a lot🙂
I've been getting closer to the practice Dr. K has recommended, to stop looking outwards and trust your inward self that you continuously run away from. Self help isn't self help, it's other people telling you who your Self is and nobody can do that.
You're so precious as a teacher Julian, can't thank you enough for your lectures. It is an outstanding public service 🙂 I studied philosophy at Birkbeck Uni in London and became a Marxists by reading a lot of Locke, haha. I disagreed so much with classic "conservative" philosophy that I knew there had to be another way of looking at things. Your lectures keep me on my toes in regards to philosophical topics. I love them and they also helped me change my worldview.
I think an contrast to the perverted paternal authority figure is offered by Akira Kurosawa's film Ikiru ("To Live"), itself loosely based on Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Illyitch. It follows an old japanese career bureaucrat after his diagnosis of terminal cancer. Having never really "lived" at all, he has to decide how to spend his last months of life. We see that the man is unable to indulge in hedonistic pleasure and still quite incapable of relating to anybody, including his son, who hates him. Eventually, he finds simple contentment by getting back to his old job and doggedly pulling bureaucratic levers so as to approve the public construction of a children's playground - a project which had come across his desk before his diagnosis, only to be ignored.
In the latter half of the movie, the man is dead, and we see his co-workers attending his funeral. None of them knew he was sick so they're all puzzled that that's how he decided to spend his last days. Eventually, they put the pieces together and are quite moved by his "example", which they vow to follow - but they never do. And that's life.
I was pretty fairly sure of myself that, I had heard/watched some of your other videos/talks/precise breakdowns, of the various philosophies/philosophers. I checked your list of videos, and discovered I had not.
This breakdown in this particular video was really digestible and even worth rewatching quite a few times. Because, these ideas might appear to be simple on the surface level. But they're a lot more complex that, it takes these short takes/explanations to fully allow the material to grab ahold of you.
Thank you for your time and love of these philosophies. ❤
Thank you!
This brings a lot of my thinking and reading together. Aspects of my own psychoanalysis make greater sense too. A beautifully conceived lecture. Thanks.
I think this is very profound. Thanks Julian. I diverge and converge with you for a multitude of reasons, but this is good material. thank you.
Great job indeed! Makes me want to go back to Lacan I've lost along the way. Thanks a lot.
Amazing work mate. Thank you.
That was great. And it explains why I have little time for these perverts. We must make our own way and meaning in life, and thats perfectly fine 😊
I agree, but at the same time, we must remember that some people are so lost that they don't know where to start. I was one of them. I found a path to philosophy (Zizek) through Peterson.
@@anthonybrettone pervert for another lol
In a nutshell I agree. The complication I have comes from me not knowing what to do next. Where, how, what, when and who can help?
How does one avoid nihilism?
The way I see it the hysteria described in this discussion is a form of middle ground between the idealism that most ideologies and dogmas stand for and nihilism that deny any meaning to anything. The uncertainties in our lives is not a problem. That’s part of life itself. It is our ways of dealing with the unknown that may become a problem if we are overtaken by fear. Again, it is not the fear itself that’s the problem, but our further cultivation of strategies motivated by fear that we should try to avoid.
I see a middle way between the two extreme perspectives where we learn to accept whatever arise in our lives rather than fall back on unrealistic strategies where we try to manipulate the world to a version that fits our preconceived ideas about it. That is idealism and it is a strategy that will always fail because it is not in accord with actual reality.
If our opposite reaction to our fear is to deny reality any relevance, including our own experiences, that leads to self destruction and conflict with the world around us. That is nihilism and it fails to recognize the existence of causes, conditions and results in the world.
The middle ground between these two extremes is to neither deny nor cultivate hope and fear. It is a practice of acceptance and equanimity in all our encounters with reality. It never seeks to resolve the ambiguity of life and reality but tries to embrace any uncertainty as yet another open encounter with the unknown.
Interesting. It makes Zizek a hysterical pervert, par excellence: one with the answers, but the answers are vacuous.
This is very well observed 👍
Amazing lecture Julian ❤
such a great lecture! thanks
Great lecture. I cant help but sense a catch 22 here. When I read Zizek, or listen to these lectures, I often walk away with an enlightened view of the world. Zizek helps me understand life, society etc, thereby helping me live my own life for the better. What I don't understand is, how does this make him any different to a self help guru?
In these videos, Julian will often say, "...what Zizek says you should instead do is this...(insert new rule of how to live life here)"
Isn't that a form of self help? How does that make Zizek any different to someone like Peterson?
Zizek does what he does to set himself as "above" and better than someone like Peterson. Zizek is moral (non-perverted) while Peterson is perverted or immoral. At least, according to Zizek. Zizek gains prestige and monetary reward by disseminating such insightful critique to consumers like ourselves. Simple as that.
@@GreenTeaViewer I understand that, but that's an abstraction. I'm digging deeper here. Taking this to it's most fundamental, concrete form, is Zizek giving people advice on how to best live their life? Or not?
@@anthonybrett he's speaking words (and/or writing) as an unconscious strategy to maximise wealth, prestige and mating opportunities, in which he has been very successful. You may or may not find his words improve your life, give you a good feeling, or provide actionable steps you can take. Whether or not you derive the any benefits is not the point. It's no different from football: at the apex is a man who gains massive status, wealth and access to beautiful mating partners, then there are those who play socially and gain benefits such as fitness and cameraderie, then there are those who spend money on fantasy leagues and gain little except a few dopamine hits. Philosophy is the same. I call Zizek out in particular, because in his style and career, everything signifies a fairly naked game-playing rather than a desire to better the world. He's like a used car salesman. Yes we all have to make a buck, but some are just more crass and transparent than others.
@@GreenTeaViewer Thankyou so much for taking the time to reply. I find Zizek very appealing. As a philosopher, he's helped me understand the nature of the world immensely. I'm not looking at this through a capitalistic lens. I have no problem with him deriving an income from his work. The truth is, Zizek has helped me beyond measure when it comes to plotting a course through life (as well as many others I can only assume, hence his appeal). So if his view of the world and his writing helps me, I just have trouble trying to delineate the difference between a philosopher and a "self help guru". I mean, a philosopher can make the claim that they aren't a self help guru, but at the same time, they are trapped by the credo of philosophy itself, the search for (love of) wisdom.
@@anthonybrett We could probably agree on simple definitions on what a "philosopher" is and what a "self-help guru" is. Or to put it another way, what "philosophy" is as a practice and what "self-help" is. But then I don't have any problem with someone proclaiming themselves a philosopher but their work including or tending more towards self-help, or the reverse. All I see here is Zizek not liking Jordan Peterson and calling him out, to the cheers of the gallery who are on Zizek's side. It's tribalism, and again, Zizek advancing the cause of Zizek through rhetoric. (Note: I don't care for Peterson any more than I do for Zizek). But I think I've made my point. Thank you for reading and may you benefit from your delving into philosophy and/or "self-help".
Can you define what perversion is? I’m having trouble understanding the message since I don’t quite understand the difference between perversion and hysteria in simple terms
Do you recommend any books on this subject?
19:50 simulacra and the ideology of the supplement
Interestingly, the answer “yes, I trust you” suspends the hero’s hysterical stance of self doubt in the sense that “I can trust myself if somebody trusts me” thus giving the hero the “unlimited” strength to commit the most horrific atrocities in the name of the “good.”
@5:29, or...."Come with me if you want to live" from we all know what movie
Dude woke up and immediately started a lecture. He's still sitting on the edge of his bed.
I appreciate this, thanks for your lectures. Enjoyed the listen.
Nice video ty
May you start a step by step course on Lacan? I wish I could read Ecrits and understand it...
Bruce Fink commented on where to start with Lacan recently. Basically, begin with the first seminar and work your way thru one by one. Going straight to the Ecrits is not recommended!
Isn't this video and the philosophy of perversion itself a form of telling people how to live? And having happiness as a primary aspiration is a guarantee of unhappiness.
Had to laugh. Watching the video and was interrupted by an ad that immediately demanded, “why don’t you own an apartment building.” the perverted master coming at you in TH-cam ad form.
I don't understand.
If I recognize that all truth is merely an approximation that will never be complete, someone telling me that they have the absolute version of that conceptualization does not negate what I have distinguished.
That is true.
And thus, if you were to subscribe to this truth someone claims to hold, you ultimately know that you are lying to yourself.
Which would then dissuade you from following their teachings.
Was that what you meant? You weren't exactly precise about what you don't understand.
@@exo_shadow7530 I find a contradiction in the belief that an individual with a postmodern interpretation of reality would be someone who accepts an absolute truth to guide their life.
People who seek meaning and purpose in life through someone else's beliefs are individuals who believe in and need absolute interpretations. They fear the possibility of living in a postmodern culture.
Well, the point is not that one can only "almost" get there, like an"approximation" or "not quite complete" - this is a part of perversion.
The whole point is that this idea of a complete ideal that guides you, IS perverse.
The ideal does not and cannot exist, and if you live as if i does exist, you are a pervert. This means that if someone does not fit your ideal, you will still act as if it was true, and thereby judge people on this ideal.
I does not matter if you excuse yourself by saying "it is not complete", you still act as if it could be true, made into an act.
The only way to be hysteric, is not necessarily to be in doubt all the time, but to acknowledge that ideals does not and cannot exist, which makes you act differently.
Does this mean that "one does not know anything"? No, what this rejects, is the image of knowledge, not knowledge per se.
This is maybe clearest in the difference between Christianity and Other monthestic religions (or maybe religion altogether)
Jesus does not doubt what he has to do (ethics), and how to treat people. He knows that there is no ultimate father demanding certain boundaries to people, where upon law and sin is established.
The beauty of Jesus, is that he undermines this image and signifying logic, and this IS the Divine.
But it would be a stretch to say that Jesus is unsure. He is sure, but what he is sure of is that an ideal image of god beyond the world is perverse mad ideal.
This does not eleminate social regulations, it eleminates that which drives perversity, namely the figure of narcisistic enjoyment.
This is the Pinnacle of the new testament. When pre-messianic religious people creates laws for others, only to undercut these same laws for themselves, which is the reason for Jesuses rage at the temple, this points toward the logic of the image of enjoyment and control.
Why do they want to control other peoples enjoyment and inclusion into the community?
Because they are a threat to their own self-image, the ideal, and thereby their perverse enjoyment.
So again, the point is not to live without laws and knowlegede, the point is to make the distinction of law and sin inoperative at the structural and psychic level.
When one gets rid of ones narcisistic tendensies - god dies, and so does the fantasy of transcending the law in order to enjoy. You simply accept the law, but only on its universal dimension
@@dmbbiggenI don’t see how conceptualization can be a determining part of perversion.
One may need external answers and use them to build internal interpretations, and one can develop their own answers and conceptualize from there.
While it is true that all knowledge is social, individual conceptualizations do not attain that condition until they are communicated.
However, the search for understanding is not the need to impose oneself or be subjected by others. One seeks control, but that control is attempted over reality and not just over other individuals.
I do not find it rational to suppose that individuals have a perverse relationship with reality.
It does seem true to me that the Western interpretation of "control" is futile.
In my opinion, any religion is the anthropomorphization of reality and thus, the possibility of negotiating with it.
In your terms, the intention is perverse.
One cannot effectively think that "Every truth is always incomplete" and then act as if absolute conceptualizations exist. That would indicate that one does not truly believe it.
I'm getting major Satre authentic vibes here. Don't be the waiter be yourself and by doing so live in anguish, condemned to freedom and the road not taken.
Julien, dude, you really should read Kenneth Burke, I think Zizek never did. I will continue to spam it under your videos until you do :) (Luv ur videos doe, your the one making me think to take the same route as you, the Akademie is rotten)
PS: @julianphilosophy thanks for helping us to "navigate these ideas", you sophisticated secret pervert ;)
Ziziek was spittin’
Ziziek always spittin’😂
3:06 the song the rich folks hoax by Rodriguez
When you were partying, I was studying how to better reproduce capital.
He could do with considering that he hasnt considered religious streams are found in a circuit dna tree
Were “the ones who walked away from omelas” embracing the alienation inherent in their social reality? If not, what did I miss?
17:25 this is intentionally driven through advertising which creates decision exhaustion
What about people you are absolutely resistent against perversion and neither have hysteria cause their natural sense of self is that strong ?
"People go to Church to avoid spiritual experiences" - Carl Jung
Julian's hair is a paid actor lol
☮️
Have you died or what happened to the streams?
How would you characterize the helpful framework of this philosophy if not some form of self-help?
Your lectures on Zizek et all have helped me greatly on how to approach life from the perspective of ‘enjoying my symptom’. Despite never explicitly providing a symptom for me (as the Tates of the world claim to offer), these lectures have provided a groundwork to interpret my own symptom and how I might identify with it.
How should this be characterized if not a form of self-help?
Mute Prod3wave going forward in chat.
Strangely, and very interestingly, Socrates seems to be both pervert and hysteric.
Pervert in what he proposes in the political and metaphysical sense.
Hysteric in his method, questions, doubts, I only know that I know nothing.
Also his sentence: perversion of the youth by "questioning the gods".
And against the sophists, the status quo of wisdom of his age.
Interesting, that you are counting Huberman in that group : )
How would you categorize Huberman?
@@mrmaxin53 yeah after giving it some thought, yes i would categorize it the same, but it never occurred to me
He’s just another ‘I know better than you’ kind of guy who, according to the video, pretends to emancipate you while double binding you into more self deception by sinking you deeper into capitalist subjectivity, optimizing you into being the ‘shiniest happiest cog in the machine’ kind of game.
@globalgulag5586 yes but unlike all the other gurus (peterson etc) he is not selling some snake oil mindest ideology rather just some bio hacking regimes
You could see when it flips the swissciss is knot on the lips
🙏😁🌹
How will this get me a girlfriend?
Maybe.. by making you realize there is nothing out there that will "get" you a girlfriend except yourself
The perverts can't "get you a girlfriend" either. They want you even less capable of relationships so you'll be a customer forever.
You can become the girlfriend that you desire.
I want to cite Queen of Sheba who came to King Solomon and heard of his wisdom:"Happy are those who listen to you!"
(Am an atheist. This is nothing religious, only cultural. Thnx)
The Last Temptation of Christ is quintessentially hysterical, no?
we are so f*cked guys
There's something wrong with those page numbers cited as references. You are mashing Zizek's categories around way too much, leading to glib generalisations. (I have a PhD in philosophy, taught at university, and have worked on Zizek's texts since the 1990s.) Get accurate and slow down - talk in more detail about less material.
It's a TH-cam video, largely off-the-cuff, and pitched at those with different levels of familiarity with Zizek/Lacan/Philosophy. Also, if you've worked on Zizek since the 1990s, you should have some appreciation of how SZ notoriously 'mashes' his own categories up '(for the dialectics...). Maybe a little ressentiment, in light of how many 'casual' viewers or beginners Julian's brought into degrees of engagement with Zizekian ideas, compared with, say, the average university seminar series??
And you think your immune to critique as a protector of lilly white society?
Your not an outsider
True predators need not preform
I don't think that's the point, he's just pointing out a dynamic. He's not necessarily telling you what to do about it. If the hysteric wants to remain with the pervert that's no ones business but the hysterics.
@@TheWay-u1n it's like if I warn you about burglars in your area. And you telling me that I might be also a burglar.. You just show your inherent distrust in front of any presented advice.
Good afternoon, Julian. I was a long time viewer. I had to stop watching because I could no longer tolerate the repetitive use of the same words. A regurgitation of all those books you’ve been reading. Great stuff for someone unfamiliar with the works of these authors, but stomach churning overtime. You still have great material, but it’s getting hard to listen to at length anymore. If you ever get an opportunity to run a word cloud of your closed captioning you might see something interesting.
If his vocabulary had more depth you'd find your pleasure? Even if it becomes unrelated to simplifying dense philosophy? Sorry the world is to boring.... But if you send me 14.99 I have everything you're looking for! I have all the words you would like to tickle you, but I don't put it for free, so trust me, I can say what you wanna hear, just send 14.99
Did that feel good? To be mean to a supposedly easy target? This is you tube, obviously beginners are going to be here and the self righteous experts are going to go somewhere else, like the actual books. Repeating terms and concepts assists in getting them to stick and be remembered. But of course you knew that because you’re the smartest person here, apologies for my mansplaining buhbye
🥱
Good riddance, just unsubbing works too
This is your cue to move on then. Go seek different material.