Slavoj Žižek: The function of ideology today is to kill hope
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มิ.ย. 2021
- Poetry in the Round with Slavoj Žižek October 24, 2018
المحاضرة مقتبسة من الرابط ادناه
The lecture is quoted from the link below
• Poetry-in-the-Round wi...
Seton Hall University
I just want a show where zizek browses the internet and gives his thoughts
i'll join that patreon
in summary the show would be llike: sniff, shirt, sniff, sniff, shirt, sniff, nontheles
I want Zizek to do porn reviews. He'd watch one per video, pause at the important points to offer some thought, and at the end offer a comprehensive summary analysis, complete with a "eating from the trash can of ideology" out of ten score (and of course, whether or not he recommends it).
@@georgepantzikis7988 i feel like he would somehow have zero ticks if he was doing this. the pure perversion is his only cure.
If you haven't, see "The Pervert's Guide to Ideology". It's very close to that
I want someone to open with the usual "Slavoj needs no introduction" and then just walk off and let Zizek speak.
Big assumption!
"Academics" need to be heard or they feel slighted
ziz would probably love that lol
Yeah, even as a right wing dude I cannot escape his fame and WEIRD but deep and interesting thinking
I for sure don’t need to hear 10minutes of someone whom I don’t know to say something when Im here for zizek
I like your funny words magic man
Skip the introduction 8:00
Starts @ 7:50
Thanks!
Rude
thank you! that guy was making me anxious
Thanks, the introducing host was absolutely intolerable.
Salut
"Can I get another good five minutes?"
Slavoj Zizek, 1:11:10 😂
This is great
I've been thirsty for Zizek
@ΗΛΙΑΣ ΛΕΓΚΡΙΑΝΟΣ I don't speak Greek
@ΗΛΙΑΣ ΛΕΓΚΡΙΑΝΟΣ Your fascist-nationalist videos are garbage...
like your online neurotic comments
But this already old :(
@@sepijortikka There are some new ones out just search for his name. :)
No wonder he doesn't like introductions. 8 minutes of nothing said.
1:05:04 *power of abstraction* “What if we claim that (+) being a plus-that void/more-is a position _in itself._ You can _be_ a plus. How? Precisely by radically questioning your position-(+) is the best definition of feminine hysteria-and hysteria is here not meant in this patriarchal way of arrogance, _‘Oh hysterical women, they don’t know what they want…’_ No-hysteria is in an authentic Freudian way the most subversive position-not perversion-perverts are always the obverse, secret side of power. Hysteria means what?
You know Althusser’s (Louis Althusser the old Marxist) notion of _ideological interpellation?_ Ideology works so that an authority or society tells you _’you are this;’_ gives you a symbolic identity in the social edifice-you are a man, a woman, even homosexual, professor, socialist, alt-right, whatever. You are given an *identity* and the basic hysterical question is _’why am I what you are telling me that I am?’_ This _doubt_ directed not so much at objects but- _’who am I?’_ -this lack of position of your own subjective identity. And I think it can be shown that this openness about your own position- _’I don’t know what an object I am’_ -which concretely, in the case of hysteria means: _’I see a desire out there-I am some kind of object of desire for others but I don’t know what they see in me.’_ This uncertainty (ontological) is for Freud, Lacan and so on-constitutive of subjectivity.
The moment you think you know what you are, you are not a subject-you are an object-and the model of this is a pervert. Perverts _always_ know what they are and what they have to do-they don’t question their position. So now I have to unfortunately cut it short because what I wanted to show you was how this abstraction-this.. _you want something_ but you don’t know what.._ -this imperfection; ontological openness.. is constitutive of subjectivity (as I already said) in the sense that it’s not simply kind of a misrecognition and so on, but it’s a positive constituent of subjectivity.
Subject involves an abstraction-this is the limit of the standard historicist approach. You know like, _’always historicize-reduce an element to its historical constellations/specific constellation and so on..’_ but in authentic vision (even of Marx himself, not to mention many others) abstraction can also be a historical fact. Abstraction is not just _there is out there full reality_ and we, getting to know it, abstract some features-abstraction is a feature of reality itself.
That’s what also Marx means by bourgeois subjectivity-Marx is interested not only in the fact that abstraction of money rules our societies but that in a developed bourgeois society (and this is not just a critical point) for Marx the only path to freedom is _through this_ abstraction. For Marx, in bourgeois society, you yourself in your most intimate self-experience relate to yourself as an abstract individual.
And I try to convince once Judith Butler, and I think I almost succeeded, that she is a good Cartesian. That the whole point.. in this sense that her entire (I used a naive term, it’s not a good one) _anthropology_ is anthropology of you know, this idea that _’there is no fixed identity of a subject-subjectivity is constructed through repetitive performative games’_ and so on. This precisely presupposes that at the most basic level you are not defined by certain features, positive features, but precisely by the fact that every feature is mediated-you are _not_ that.
That abstraction is described.. for example in the logic of desire, when objects of desire are no longer prescribed. Like it’s normal to be heterosexual, whatever and so on, even if it’s done in a more complex psychoanalytical way. You search for women, but at the end you search for the image of your mother or whatever, those stupidities. Here the object of desire is always prescribed, but the Freudian idea is _no it’s a game;_ objects, objects, objects-plus. And you have this plus over all objects particular becomes for Lacan a specific object he calls object small a, the _object cause of desire.”_
thx
🌌🌌🌌
This is very interestingly related to what Sartre said in Being and Nothingness.
да, мужик, спасибо за цитатописье
That was great
24:15 "...I have it there, although I don't believe in it, I was told it works even if you don't believe in it" cause the "evil spirits" believe in it, it works.
5 good minutes for Zizek is 11 minutes
pure love 😍
Interesting.
28:23 The function of ideology
07'50" Start
Legend
7:50
I’d love to hear his take on TV show From.
55:50 I tripped over love.
49:50 The law of inference.
"Nontheles I got lost"
This is why I never liked Pascal’s wager, because even if you don’t believe you are still living as if you believe and you are therefore still trapped.
does he miss out part of the sentence in his conclusion at 50.36
At 27.10 zizek starts talking about states officials not believing in the official ideology of Jugoslavia. Anyone know a book where this is explained?
Just look at the people and parties in charge of any country that was a part of yugoslavia
@@ZagorTeNayebo I know this Is true, I read about the closure of the praxis school, but I need a book that explains why Self-management was mainly an "instrumentum regni" for my paper on alienation in the yugoslav's socialism.
@@nopetard hello from the future, how did your paper go?
@@yafarblasco4524 very good thanks
Does anyone have a source for this statement, that "the function of ideology is to kill hope"?
Like some place where Zizek, explains himself more extensively
It's in the first part of his talk, around 20 or 30 min, he explains it
th-cam.com/video/aNlW3HnNqlk/w-d-xo.html one of the most viewed Zizek lectures. Highly recommended
28:10 he sais the words, just for anyone still looking for it.
@@michaelmcclure3383 Alain Badiou, I think it was.
"shit, and so on"
Does he give any explanation of the title? I listened for 1 hour but he talks about other things.
28:49
First time?
This is the way
The first 8 min could be cut
brilliant deconstruction of social norms and delusions.
Zeye zeck?
He begins speaking at 08.00.
24:16
28:24
54:13
56:47
1:04:18
who else skipped the intro?
7:50
I think at 30 minutes he meant to say "even worse" not "even better".
I like to call him Sylvester Zizek
why?
@@helpanimals-suffering succotash!!!!
13:55 hahahaaa
"The highest art of war is, avoiding military conflict at all. Instead one has to defeat the enemy by destroying his moral principles, his religion, his culture and tradition.
When a country will be demoralised in such a way one can take it over without even using a single gun shot."
(Vladimir Lenin)°°°
Who else thinks of Putin ?
We all talk too much and think too little (prior to that) , sorry I don't have time now to go into that 😕 .•°
... Lenin tried invading Ukraine too you know? He failed miserably. He also tried invading Poland too - failed again. He also ran away when Moscow (I believe) was under siege during the civil war, something Stalin learnt not to do during the siege of Stalingrad.
Lenin was a great orator, but proved to be an incompetent leader.
@@magicbuns4868 👍 for last sentence. The rest I don't know those details as mentioned.
Generally speaking its always the same :
Big words
Diametric facts
The higher the promise the lesser the outcome.
Dorky shamans started this and we still fall for this , albeit reality proves opposite again and again.
We are lost but buns are YummY °
@@farrider3339 My source is a three part biography (only two books out atm) of Stalin written by an author called Stephen Kotkin...
Here's a video of him and Zizek having a discussion, and Zizek is noticeably giddy around him - both great thinkers in my opinion :)
th-cam.com/video/Lm7mb9eHg24/w-d-xo.html
His nose must be so dry all the time
"The speaker needs little or no introduction, however, i want to take my 7 minutes of fame talking unnecessarily".
hope is an ideology.
I disagree that the concept of "you should try to make a difference," which is how I understand its definition based on Zizek's talk, is contained within any 1 ideology.
No. The purpose of ideology is not to destroy hope - it is to give us false hope!
Mass Genocidal Environmental sustainability 😂
Starts at 8 minutes after a lengthy self serving introduction no one wants to hear.
All you need is the title to agree with it, without having to listen to an hour and a half of "so on"s and all the ticks.
Zizek and Peterson have much more in common conceptually than they think! His point on people not believing in an ideology or government institutions but acting as if they do is analogous to Petersons point that those who dont belive in god act as if they do
No not really. Peterson makes a bad point about residues of faith, zizek talks about materially settled customs. Thats a difference like with feuerbach and marx.
I've watched a lot of Dr. Peterson's work, and Peterson says he also generalises like Zizek does as well, Jordan says what people really believe comes out in their actions not their words necessarily, and teaches about how misaligned those can become, he also teaches about aligning your words and actions in the vein of what Jung and other psychologists like Rogers had to say on this.. and provides a way to help pursue this in the form of the Self Authoring Program which he developed with James Pennebaker.
I've been slowly getting into Zizek's public talks and work over the last few years and there's a few of his books I want to get. I particularly enjoyed his two Pervert's Guide documentaries, and I think I got a lot more from them than I otherwise would have (difficult concepts) because I have learned so much from Dr. Peterson in his personality and Maps of Meaning courses, Jordan gives a great overview of psychology in those, and also comments on films, Pinocchio in particular and separately has done commentary on Mullholland Drive. I don't see any many clashes or contradictions in their work, certainly not any major impasses in their beliefs that would preclude productive conversations. I'm sure they could have many very interesting conversations, they are quite similar characters in many ways with complementary or interesting differences, both great storytellers..
No lmao.
@@gammypage Yeah, I wonder what would happen if they got in a room together and really tried talk to talk through difficult questions? Maybe something great! Maybe something completely useless to anybody.
Worst intro ever
I just can't get "paradox" of two faced billionares. I know it's philosophy and stuff, but should you really view the world throught the lence of dialectics all of the time? Compare your wage and savings to some guy's like Bill Gates fortunes. Calculate and remember this difference. Imagine you gave up a few bucks to charity every month (some of us actually do). Now multiply this few bucks on a difference you drow from first comparison. Secont step - ask yourself "Is our level of consumption ethic while global south population starving to death". Congratulation - you're pretty close to be greatest philanthropist in a history of everything or even greater.
“Needs no introduction” says the host … then he proceeds to prattle on anxiously for over 7 minutes. Ugh. Then he throws Zizek under the bus and blames his guest for the contradiction rather than taking responsibility himself for the decision to bore us witless with uninsightful platitudes and well established facts.
7:50