Zizek is the kind of guy that walks into a debate but ended up debating himself. While the opponent is covered in his spits and sadden by the fact Zizek proposes a better counter-argument than his own.
I don't agree what Zizek is advocating for There is no ''underlaying ideology''. However I do agree that debates are just pathetic as following some twitch streamers debating on topic X.
When you advocate for a derivative philosophy of nihilism, you cannot suggest a solution without having to backtrack on your premises. Therefore, his optimal strategy is to destroy the capability of opponent to engage in productive discourse which halts any path to a conclusion in its tracks. After you've heard him argue once, you go through the five stages of grief and then never listen to him again.
In a world where almost everyone knows what’s right, here’s a guy that proposes no obvious solution but instead questions everything. A true philosopher indeed.
@@Demention94 Yes i agree! With the comment i referred to the cynic school of thougth, but i see that my view/knowledge about the cynics may have been a bit insufficient or lacking bc i had the belief that cynics were not cynical about evertything as we understand the word "cynical" today, but that they just wanted to question everything and not think of anything as sure or even real in some cases. ( Also it is fully possible that i thought of a wrong school of thought aswell xd)
Even if almost everyone in the world knows what’s right (which is very large claim that I could contest, but don’t), why do so many people continue to act “wrongly?” IMO, this alone is worth interrogating.
@@dethkon I understood this comment more along the lines "everyone in the world "knows" what's right", due to the fact everybody claims to be right, but you can easily meet two people who both claim to be right and their worldviews contradict one another.
@@nekosaiyajin8529 no, what I'm asking is Zizek's statement that you use, what in the world does that even mean? So he basically said the worst philosophers are the wisest in its own way?
@@PutraRhm I havent watched the video in a long time but basically the two extremes are one and the same, so I made the joke that he would say that if people called him the worst philosopher then he would say that would also make him the best because those are two extremes
A man walks into a cafe. He says "give me some coffee, without cream." The barista replies "Sorry we're all out of cream. I can only give you coffee without milk."
And then he goes to the toilet, and sees that it is either a french toilet with a hole in the bottom (political efficiency), an american toilet with lots of water (economic pragmatism) or a german toilet with a sort of place where the poop stays so that it can be seen (philosophical reflectiveness).
Zizek is more of a modern socrates then a modern diogenes. Socrates tried to bring up discussion just as much as zizek does while diogenes was dissing people on the street whilst shitting.
Like others have said: A philosopher criticized for asking a lot of questions, pointing out ambiguity, and encouraging consideration of complex questions without supplying any definitive answers from himself? That sounds like a good philosopher to me. Even better, he can relate concepts to one of the few things almost everyone in our society has in common, the media we consume. That makes him a great teacher as well, in my opinion. I've started to believe that the wisest man isn't the one that strives to have the answer to every question but instead is the one who helps bring forth the questions, be it in his own mind or, better yet, in the minds of many.
You say that only becouse he critisizes socially valid topics. You would never tolerate a philosopher who questions the "goodness" of equality, democracy, tolerance, or science, for instance. The truest philosophers would likely be exiled or killed by society--not unlike Socrates. Zizek is as about as close as you can get in public, though, so I'll give him that.
The wisest man is the one who can do both. Consider an idea as a house. You may live in a shoddy one and wish to live somewhere else. But if you knock it down without building something new, all you've done is make yourself homeless. Likewise, you may come to that empty lot and decide to build a house- an answer- there. But if you don't understand how to build a house, how to think, you're not gonna come out with a great product. You don't actually need to be very smart to question something, and any damned fool can give a shoddy answer to a question they didn't ask. An actual wise man knows how to question something, and provude an answer, in such a way that they make a point. Carrying with it the side benefit that they're less likely to be misconstrued by those who pick up where they left off
For your house analogy, I guess what you say makes sense. But for complex philosophical topics isn’t it enough to get people thinking? The approach Zizek uses enables new lines of thought without telling people what (he thinks) they should think. I believe on topics like this no one has ‘the answer’, just an answer.
@@AlfredBarron I think the best way to answer that is to build off my house analogy. You can't build a new one in the place of an old one, without first demolishing the old one. Deconstruction and getting people to question is good, it is progress, but it's only half the battle; and frankly it's the easy part.
“He leaves his readers with the sense that they are smart enough to know what is wrong with the world but too stupid to do anything about it.” Truer words have yet to be spoken.
I'm not a philosopher, but when I was taking rhetoric courses in college this was literally all we did. Explain one side of an argument, then pick it apart. Explain the other side of the argument, and then pick it apart. Explain why both sides are right and also wrong, then move on. I think the real point was to show that no one ideology, solution, or explanation worked for everyone. We're all so different, and what's right for one might be wrong for another. I guess.
There are propositions and factual answers. Scientific rigor is applicable to politics and ideology. When someone says "if we do x then y will happen" then that is completely testable and falsifiable.
@Kenny Omg Usually you do science in a lab, a controlled space where you can isolate variables. Then you go elsewhere and you replicate what you did until you have enough data. Good luck doing that when your only lab is a whole country and your variables are bound to stay all over the place. Chaos and uncertainty are inherent to social sciences like politics.
Man, I wish. Here I am in my English and Philosophy courses being fed a single set of views every time. It's enough to make me a contrarian if only out of spite.
That's why I live after the principle of respecting the will of others and believing in your own, because if everyone would start picking their own arguments apart for the sake of endless discussion, noone would take any action and nothing you would want to see any change in for the future would happen. I learnt that change is inevitable and this is applicable to all situations in life and in every scope of matters, so if we exclude ourselves from that formula of change we stagnate and the world around us would just do its thing and collapse would follow through and be without alternatives because we rather wasted our time picking ourselves apart and ending up apathic madmen than to just bite the bullet and take our chances. There is no such thing as a something for everyone other than death, the ultimate equalizer. There will always be conflict, that is just human nature, it's your choice to embrace that fact or trying to discard that nature, but remember this is always a personal thing, nothing you can change the masses into, change comes within one self, everything else leads to totalitarianism and injustice.
I think he is needed in the philosophical world for simplifying the large scale of problems we have to a basic point, while not solving it himself, i think he does that because that is not in his mind, his job. He is a philosopher a criticizer and that is his job, to poke holes until something cant have holes poked into it. It lays foundation for people to understand and perhaps figure out their own problems.
Zizek is probably the only modern political philosopher who would have ever been considered a philosopher by his contemporaries from almost any angle, during any period of time. he still somehow manages to use a very fresh, modern way of understanding sociology and applying it to philosophy in ways that have never seemed to be anything more than thoughtful, thought provoking theories.
Its hard to know that because he is an academicist, with knowledge from the ancient greeks to the posmodern philosophers. Its hard to see where other peoples ideas end and where his begin. Any way, his enciclopedic knowledge is respectable. Trying to understand him is trying to understand western philosophy. And after understanding him you would still think he is rather mad.
@@SIGSEGV1337 one of the points of his philosophy is that one can indeed find answers outside of postmodernism and deconstruction. Maybe his beliefs are elaborated in his (very dense) books. But i picked up one of them and realized i still have to study a lot to understand him.
He embodies true dialectical form, stating one idea then growing another personality inside of himself to furiously refute it. Sniffling and twitching at incredible speeds.
He just lives a whole bunch of relevant realities at the same time. I think his brain is precious and people could try to learn from his sporadic way of imagining things. After all he is bound to reality unlike others.
Zizek once said that the Kinder Suprise egg is an example of our desire to discover or something similar. Never listened to him fully but I did realize that in a debate, he cant lose...or win. He is like modern diogenes if diogenes sniffed leaded gasoline fumes as a kid and overcame his disability
"The empty feeling that they are smart enough to know about the issues around them, but too dumb to do anything about it." I consider myself a seeker of truth, but it still stings sometimes
"if your base desire is to change the world, you will always be dissapointed, if your base desire is to learn about the world, you will be eternally fulfilled"
Most americans don't understand that Yugoslavia was its own entity with its own understanding and application of leftist politics. Unfortunately, most ex-Yugoslav citizens don't understand this either. Yugoslavia was not about socialism, it was about slavic unity.
SEismic _ I think that Tito was certainly a communist. In fact, his conception of socialism (Market Socialism) in a “backwards” place such as Yugoslavia was somewhat similar to Lenin’s NEP in the USSR- to build up a bourgeoisie (industrialization), but under a DotP. The relative liberalism of Tito’s Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (the S.F.R.Y.) might be compared to something like Khrushchevism or Dengism, in my mind. Was it “revisionist?” Probably. Does it matter? I don’t know. All I’m saying is that today there exists not a single “non-revisionist” Marxist-Leninist state, with the *Possible* exception of Cuba. Cuba is interesting, because it’s sort of stuck in a perpetual state of “War Communism,” due to the embargo’s and sanctions imposed by the US upon her- something NOBODY in the United States wants (except DC and all of the ex-Cuban gusanos down here in South Florida). But that’s why I’m not a Marxist-Leninist or whatever anymore. All of the original Leninist counties turned revisionist, eventually. Last thing: you’re right about the SFRY being an anti-nationalist conglomeration of all of the Southern Slavic peoples. I’m just old enough to remember the Balkan Wars during the 1990s, as NATO and the UN destroyed that socialist solidarity, leading to horrific genocides committed by all sides.
Honestly I think one of the most profound thoughts a person can have is the recognition that they don't yet have a solution for something. in the same way that I think one of the most profound answers someone can give is I don't know, humans don't like not knowing and they will often make up answers rather than admitting that they don't know. But admitting that you don't know freeze you up to go find the correct answer whereas thinking that you already have the solution blinds you from looking for a more correct solution.
I always thought that Zizek want us to develop the real answer, Is like he Is giving us a way of thinking in order to get away from the contradictions of our reality
The point of Zizek is that the very search for some unified reality beneath the appearance is what produces further appearance of further contradictions: that, it's precisely when you 'look beneath the surface' that you encounter another. That your very attempt to uncover the reality you suppose to be behind the illusory and self-negating appearance produces only further self-negating and illusory appearances, which you try to peel off to uncover the underlying 'true reality'. But the 'true reality' thereby uncovered is never fully revealed, and it's its inherent incompleteness that drives you to search for its hidden reality. And, in the very search for this imagined hidden reality underneath appearance that the reality of appearance appears within appearance as such. In the process apparition.
"It appears that the very ambiguity of Žižek's work is essential to his point, that discussing reality and truth entails the absence of all attempts at solutions or answers, and instead requires a target laborious and futile journey through RoboCop references and jokes about dog poop." Great summary.
I feel like Slavoj is sometimes overlooked and considered as more of a wacky/memable character not to be talen too seriously, but pay attention to what he says and you'll across some great stuff. He has some lectures which are just "fax 🔥🔥🔥🔥" all the way through.
“I despise the kind of book which tells you how to live, how to make yourself happy! Philosophers have no good news for you at this level! I believe the first duty of philosophy is making you understand what deep shit you are in!” -Slavoj Žižek
after watching this i kinda started to understand žižek’s way of thinking and i think his contradictions are a startegy to get even more attention, this way the topics he talks about get more attention so he’s indirectly raising awareness about a lot of problems by expressing one opinion and then debunking it. i think he’s representing the history of ideology and putting an example of the fact that we’ve reached a point where there are so many theories instead of solutions and it causes every point of view to be contradictory
Very insightful and concise video. I have absorbed a lot of Zizek-content recently and thought I was going insane for not being able to properly decipher or "label" his thoughts. Never considered this interpretation of him, but it certainly aligns with my experience. Excited for more, keep it up.
Sometimes we can't properly label things. It's our thirst for order that creates this need in us to be able to label something in a specific category, but when confronted with something so chaotic and so out of the norm, in a way it unsettles us. That's what I find interesting about this guy, his mind is filled with so much chaos that it makes us really look around and see the world in new eyes.
@@ignacioaguirre9689 indeed.....it's odd how TH-cam is giving me shit that I don't agree with (I'm a capitalist and he's a Marxist (bruh the shit sounds like a crap romcom)) I mean I would assume that it's the opposite and that it would recommending me but I like how it's showing me the other side as well (even tho I've been on all 8 sides of the political spectrum over varying time frames) and that's nice actually when I think about it bc now I mind won't get stail or arrogant bc I'm constantly questioning and re-evaluating my beliefs through Zizek.....omg I talk alot my god 🤣
@@johnathanhehehe he literally says how political correctness can be totalitarian and Marxism is more of a philosophy. That and also he told how stupid gender fluidity is.
@@samstuff8554 Sowell is better though. He's an actual economist. Orwell was a fiction writer. Even his non fiction work like homage to Catalonia is considered poor for lacking historical accuracy.
To have what felt like half of the video reserved for various criticisms, and chronicling of relatively recent culture war disputes, is not something I expected for an introductory guide to a serious thinker with some thirty years of being a/the rock star of theory. We went very quickly from Sublime Object to 2016 through a couple of off-hand quotes by people who have not contributed much if anything to this space (Scruton, Chomsky; Peterson at least shared one stage with Žižek for some theatrics). While much is made up for with the eloquent introduction to ideology, ideological cynicism (which I would've loved to hear more on) and the dialectics, and you finish off with a cogent point considering the focus, I'm left feeling like this leaned a bit too hard on the public spectacle over the substance of his philosophy. Even though they are paradoxically inseparable, sure. Either way, that's a daunting title to produce a non-academic video for, and even if left wanting for more meat, I enjoyed it.
It also seemed an odd balance to me to spend so much time on criticisms of him (mostly as a public figure, not so much as a philosopher/theorist) without talking about some of his key contributions to philosophy/theory. The video glosses over his work on Hegel and Lacan as if they were minor points. His work on theorizing the Subject through Hegel and Lacan is huge. It's arguably his biggest contribution to theory/philosophy.
It's an introduction to Zizek, not his work or anything else specifically. Any ratio between different facets of him represented in the video is bound to be arbitrary.
@@matteuzs because zizek was born in the soviet era, and the soviet era is the cause of large problems in modern day russia which has led to general hopelessness. because of this, a lot of russians listen to things such as russian doomer vol.3 which is also an absolute banger btw, you should check it out.
The people asked and you delivered! Thank you. Zizek was kinda scaring me, but I think it was his truth that is disquieting - I am smart enough to understand the issues, but I don’t believe that I (or we as a species) are smart enough to “solve” them.
If you're feeling interested in some new music, and like X, I'd recommend my catalog. Any listens are super appreciated. Hate to shamelessly self-advertise but it is what it is.
the ending captures exactly why im so fascinated with zizek; he doesnt provide answers, he questions and generates thought. a true philosopher. aware enough to acknowledge, in your own words "the potential pitfalls of all beliefs and values" but not shallow enough to not take a stance. it's contradication and it's beautiful.
I relate a lot to zizek. I feel as if I'm so overly aware of every issue and the two sides to that same issue that I end never having a solution to solving anything. Just lot and lots of questions
@@o.s.h.4613 He's a Lacan scholar and teaches in London, New York,... He's taken quite seriously. You're probably rather unaware of what he means on an academic level because you don't belong to this world. What's more, the fact that superserial philosophers like Scruton and Chomsky, philosophers of which their entire career boils down to Post-Conservative Revival and "muh America sucks, but is still better than all these hellholes" find it necessary to express their opinion on Zizek "quoting Lacan's gnomic attitudes" and being "a philosopher pretending to have a theory without a theory" goes to show that Zizek is influential and they spite him for not going along with their game of what philosophy is supposed to be. Sartre once said Camus was a horrible philosopher because "he had no model", yet it's a fact that Camus won a Nobel Prize for his writings and even today, during this very pandemic, people don't look for answers with Sartre, but Camus' The Plague. Then to subvert the previous arguments, Scruton doesn't even deal with Lacan, refuses, while Lacan actually meant alot when it comes to innovations on the field of psychoanalysis. Lacan is, despite how many people want to refute this claim, very important and cannot be ignored as a psychoanalyst. Then Chomsky: does he even know his own theory? I find it hard for someone that "re-invented" linguistics to not notice how another philosopher is actually fooling around within his own theory. As far as I can tell the guy doesn't know shit, mixes Foucault with Wittgenstein, and just goes along. A schmuck calling alot of other people schmucks because he has the authority to do so. Exerting power for the sake of showing he has some. No one should care about such a tyrant pretending to be the father. Zizek is proving alot of these guys are just sterile gurus pretending to be philosophers, and I say this with love for Scruton, who is a great person but also a hardcore classicist, if they're highbrow they're just shitting on Zizek for being lowbrow and I guess this is why Sisyphus55 chose the subtitle of A Modern Diogenes. It's like Plato against Diogenes, except Zizek doesn't put a plucked chicken in the aula but instead shows movies and pop cultural references, as if he were a Beat poet subverting the "purity" of philosophical discourse with sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.
@@DarkAngelEU Fuck I love this comment. The hypocrisy is excellently pointed out in "Zizek is both a radical leftist with extreme positions" and "someone who says nothing of value, who has no theory". Apparently what Zizek is saying is both nonsense and obfuscated, but also radical to the degree that it offends?
@@emilhenriksen5261 I just imagine Chomsky and Scruton being all top of the morning to ya, tea sucking, biscuit munching, enjoying their stuffed foutons, their legs raised by their corgis, and Zizek just *BLASTS* through the side of the building in a Monty Python-esque charade, holding his finger over his upper lip like a moustache, flip flopping his legs and shouting niemiecki. Then he stops, and silently, he turns towards them, and says 'This is not an authentic cottage, you WASP!"
@@Vitorruy1 it is !It has always been like this, registered beef between scholars and philosophers is one of the most entertaining reading material that the human race has produced
Man you either phrase your sentences in a way that triggers some divine excitement in my brain that originated from my childhood, or you got a serious talent with words.
Zizek is perfectly intelligable once you understand he isn't here to offer you some pre-packaged philosophy. Frankly, criticisms about him being incoherent are made by dullards or cynically motivated academic antagonists (sometimes both). His role is in asking the questions that need to be asked so we can find the gaps within our own philosophy, and he's pretty clear about.that bit of his intentions.
I am impressed by your unbiased presentation of his ideas and their criticism. It must cause an internal storm but I appreciate your scientific approach to this.
@@leetorry The internet is a contributing factor but I think the massive increase in population size and the invention of countries has a lot to do with it. No longer can the workers in one area unite to overthrow their rulers. Coordination of hundreds of millions to overthrow global systems hasn't happened before. Capitalism will only be abandoned by the masses once every drop of worth has been drained from the planet and basic needs stop being met.
i like how subtle you were with the choice of music in the background! Like, you now just how much zizek loves wagner which makes this a trully great guide to zizek
i think its really cool that when you make videos you reference other philosophers and photographs that youve done videos on too, its like being a part of a cool club when youve watched those videos beforehand
I just now realized. Your name is Sysiphus since you know your work won't do much but after time you Started to actually enjoy it. Or I may be just overanalizing IT.
I’m a janitor and have learned to love my profession because it gives me time to freely think and learn while being paid for simple physical tasks that require little brain power.
Well summed up I would say. Thanks. I was struggling to figure out what he was about. I like him. But I think I like him for his quirkiness. He doesn't make it clear what he believes himself and it makes it easy for me to enjoy his reasoning.
My biggest critique of Zizek is in his emphasis of psychoanalysis in seemingly everything he talks about (I won't pretend to know, or have read any of Lacan's psychoanalytic work-it's largely inaccessible to me)-it is the lynchpin of so many of his ideas. If there is any one crack within it, much of his work very well could just be viewed as wrong. What I'm saying is likely stupid and naïve.
I think they're similar is a sense that both are not really trying to find the Truth but they're uncovering bullshit Peterson will tell you what to do to make your life better. Zizak will tell you how it's all bull
Yeah bro he’s literally paid by the cia and has by his own admission, never read Marx or theory. Literally an anti-communist leftist, an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one
This is my favourite philosopher though i struggle to understand most of his stuff🤣🤣 there's something so fascinating about the way he thinks of things
Thank you for this. I was a little bit blown away, as my own work is focused on many of the same things, features of the thought experiment. I believe I do have some answers to the problems, but I'm still learning how to express them in rational logic. This video blew me away though. I'm not alone in my thoughts. That is a very rewarding thing to realize.
once again great and so useful! thanks so much for the intellectual service you give to the general public, you have once again, for the countless time, have explained something difficult to me that i would have not have been able to understand without you. you are valuable and i appreciate your value!
Good analysis of Zizek's writing style. Zizek is fully conscious that his ideas conflict with each other as you mentioned. However, this might be a reflection of his understanding of the Hegelian dialectic in that arguments or rather ideas can be strengthened through enduring a series of conflicting arguments. Hegel might have understood this concept taking place throughout historu, wheras Zizek forces the reader to subject him or herself to these developments over the course of his writing. This process is often intensely worthwhile leaving the reader challenged by Zizek.
Your content is honestly some of the best I've yet found on this site. Thank you for your hard work and dedication to keeping us entertained as we think deeply about our world.
Your channel may be one of my favorite channels on youtube. I recently discovered it and i cannot stop binge watching every single video xD The way you explain, the structure of the video and even the music in the background are all so well combined! Thank you for making such great content :)
Zizek is the kind of guy that walks into a debate but ended up debating himself. While the opponent is covered in his spits and sadden by the fact Zizek proposes a better counter-argument than his own.
lmao
Btw Zizek isn't even close to Diogenes wtf is that comparison, is like comparing wine to grape juice.
@@juanmanuelvalsecchi512 fermented grape juice vs grape juice? its close enough xD
@@minar7555 this video is for you
@@juanmanuelvalsecchi512 no, comrade, its for all of us
I don't think Zizek could ever lose or win a debate
When ever someone wins another one loses, this way all we gain is an inside
Maybe it's because zizek hates debates and wants to turn them into an actual conversation, kinda running the point of a debate, but it's cool
I don't agree what Zizek is advocating for There is no ''underlaying ideology''. However I do agree that debates are just pathetic as following some twitch streamers debating on topic X.
@@normaaliihminen722 specially when such debates don't have any formality.
When you advocate for a derivative philosophy of nihilism, you cannot suggest a solution without having to backtrack on your premises. Therefore, his optimal strategy is to destroy the capability of opponent to engage in productive discourse which halts any path to a conclusion in its tracks.
After you've heard him argue once, you go through the five stages of grief and then never listen to him again.
In a world where almost everyone knows what’s right, here’s a guy that proposes no obvious solution but instead questions everything.
A true philosopher indeed.
Sounds a littlebit like a follower of the cynic ways
@@ottoliukko6059 Questioning everything is the difference between questioning everything and being a cynic.
@@Demention94 Yes i agree! With the comment i referred to the cynic school of thougth, but i see that my view/knowledge about the cynics may have been a bit insufficient or lacking bc i had the belief that cynics were not cynical about evertything as we understand the word "cynical" today, but that they just wanted to question everything and not think of anything as sure or even real in some cases. ( Also it is fully possible that i thought of a wrong school of thought aswell xd)
Even if almost everyone in the world knows what’s right (which is very large claim that I could contest, but don’t), why do so many people continue to act “wrongly?” IMO, this alone is worth interrogating.
@@dethkon I understood this comment more along the lines "everyone in the world "knows" what's right", due to the fact everybody claims to be right, but you can easily meet two people who both claim to be right and their worldviews contradict one another.
Critics: "You are perhaps the worst philosopher we've ever heard of."
Žižek: "But you have heard of me."
Also Zizek:
"so, doesn't that also mean I'm the best philosopher you've heard of?"
@@nekosaiyajin8529 How's that even make sense...this dude is giving me a seizure with a rubbish statement 💀
@@PutraRhm you haven't watched the video then. Also, it wasn't a rubbish statement, it was a joke. ftfy
@@nekosaiyajin8529 no, what I'm asking is Zizek's statement that you use, what in the world does that even mean? So he basically said the worst philosophers are the wisest in its own way?
@@PutraRhm I havent watched the video in a long time but basically the two extremes are one and the same, so I made the joke that he would say that if people called him the worst philosopher then he would say that would also make him the best because those are two extremes
The cartoons blink now. They’re evolving.
Soon they will start getting sentience.
@@thebandofbastards4934 😳
Magic i tell you magic
A man walks into a cafe. He says "give me some coffee, without cream." The barista replies "Sorry we're all out of cream. I can only give you coffee without milk."
now where have i heard that before?
@@andreimoga7813 at a cafe, probably
And then he goes to the toilet, and sees that it is either a french toilet with a hole in the bottom (political efficiency), an american toilet with lots of water (economic pragmatism) or a german toilet with a sort of place where the poop stays so that it can be seen (philosophical reflectiveness).
That is extra without it being.
@@Krasbin wtf lmao
Zizek is more of a modern socrates then a modern diogenes. Socrates tried to bring up discussion just as much as zizek does while diogenes was dissing people on the street whilst shitting.
I'd agree, mostly due to his very contradictory nature and being hated by major establishments of politics, very similar to Socrates in both regards.
@@ThatGuy-mj6jm Diogenes would call you a fool and crybaby for sympathizing with his already dead self.
@@anattablue lmaoo that's pretty true too
@@anattablue Diogenes would call us all fools for assuming what his reactions would be.
@@ThatGuy-mj6jm hahaha yes you get it! I would be one of the fools too
Like others have said: A philosopher criticized for asking a lot of questions, pointing out ambiguity, and encouraging consideration of complex questions without supplying any definitive answers from himself? That sounds like a good philosopher to me. Even better, he can relate concepts to one of the few things almost everyone in our society has in common, the media we consume. That makes him a great teacher as well, in my opinion.
I've started to believe that the wisest man isn't the one that strives to have the answer to every question but instead is the one who helps bring forth the questions, be it in his own mind or, better yet, in the minds of many.
You say that only becouse he critisizes socially valid topics. You would never tolerate a philosopher who questions the "goodness" of equality, democracy, tolerance, or science, for instance. The truest philosophers would likely be exiled or killed by society--not unlike Socrates.
Zizek is as about as close as you can get in public, though, so I'll give him that.
Socrates did that and everyone hated him so much they fucking killed him
The wisest man is the one who can do both. Consider an idea as a house. You may live in a shoddy one and wish to live somewhere else. But if you knock it down without building something new, all you've done is make yourself homeless. Likewise, you may come to that empty lot and decide to build a house- an answer- there. But if you don't understand how to build a house, how to think, you're not gonna come out with a great product.
You don't actually need to be very smart to question something, and any damned fool can give a shoddy answer to a question they didn't ask. An actual wise man knows how to question something, and provude an answer, in such a way that they make a point. Carrying with it the side benefit that they're less likely to be misconstrued by those who pick up where they left off
For your house analogy, I guess what you say makes sense. But for complex philosophical topics isn’t it enough to get people thinking?
The approach Zizek uses enables new lines of thought without telling people what (he thinks) they should think. I believe on topics like this no one has ‘the answer’, just an answer.
@@AlfredBarron I think the best way to answer that is to build off my house analogy. You can't build a new one in the place of an old one, without first demolishing the old one. Deconstruction and getting people to question is good, it is progress, but it's only half the battle; and frankly it's the easy part.
Zizek has chaotic neutral vibes
Zizek is Chaotic Chaotic
when i watched the video i was thinking that, too
Just like the universe
Agreed. And Peterson reminds me of lawful neutral
No way. He’s neutral good.
“He leaves his readers with the sense that they are smart enough to know what is wrong with the world but too stupid to do anything about it.” Truer words have yet to be spoken.
thats me
I'm not a philosopher, but when I was taking rhetoric courses in college this was literally all we did. Explain one side of an argument, then pick it apart. Explain the other side of the argument, and then pick it apart. Explain why both sides are right and also wrong, then move on. I think the real point was to show that no one ideology, solution, or explanation worked for everyone. We're all so different, and what's right for one might be wrong for another. I guess.
what about science? science is a ideology.
There are propositions and factual answers. Scientific rigor is applicable to politics and ideology. When someone says "if we do x then y will happen" then that is completely testable and falsifiable.
@Kenny Omg
Usually you do science in a lab, a controlled space where you can isolate variables. Then you go elsewhere and you replicate what you did until you have enough data.
Good luck doing that when your only lab is a whole country and your variables are bound to stay all over the place.
Chaos and uncertainty are inherent to social sciences like politics.
Man, I wish. Here I am in my English and Philosophy courses being fed a single set of views every time. It's enough to make me a contrarian if only out of spite.
That's why I live after the principle of respecting the will of others and believing in your own, because if everyone would start picking their own arguments apart for the sake of endless discussion, noone would take any action and nothing you would want to see any change in for the future would happen.
I learnt that change is inevitable and this is applicable to all situations in life and in every scope of matters, so if we exclude ourselves from that formula of change we stagnate and the world around us would just do its thing and collapse would follow through and be without alternatives because we rather wasted our time picking ourselves apart and ending up apathic madmen than to just bite the bullet and take our chances.
There is no such thing as a something for everyone other than death, the ultimate equalizer.
There will always be conflict, that is just human nature, it's your choice to embrace that fact or trying to discard that nature, but remember this is always a personal thing, nothing you can change the masses into, change comes within one self, everything else leads to totalitarianism and injustice.
I think he is needed in the philosophical world for simplifying the large scale of problems we have to a basic point, while not solving it himself, i think he does that because that is not in his mind, his job. He is a philosopher a criticizer and that is his job, to poke holes until something cant have holes poked into it. It lays foundation for people to understand and perhaps figure out their own problems.
Zizek is probably the only modern political philosopher who would have ever been considered a philosopher by his contemporaries from almost any angle, during any period of time. he still somehow manages to use a very fresh, modern way of understanding sociology and applying it to philosophy in ways that have never seemed to be anything more than thoughtful, thought provoking theories.
"I hate life...hi"
-Slavoj zizek.
I still know very little about his actual beliefs, but i also feel like thats kind of the point?
Its hard to know that because he is an academicist, with knowledge from the ancient greeks to the posmodern philosophers.
Its hard to see where other peoples ideas end and where his begin.
Any way, his enciclopedic knowledge is respectable.
Trying to understand him is trying to understand western philosophy.
And after understanding him you would still think he is rather mad.
As far as I can tell he just deconstructs and has no real beliefs
@@SIGSEGV1337 one of the points of his philosophy is that one can indeed find answers outside of postmodernism and deconstruction. Maybe his beliefs are elaborated in his (very dense) books. But i picked up one of them and realized i still have to study a lot to understand him.
context? are you guys talking about sisyphus55? sorry, I'm new here.
@@JohnP-VFX they are talking about Slavoj and his beliefs, not Sisyphus.
He embodies true dialectical form, stating one idea then growing another personality inside of himself to furiously refute it. Sniffling and twitching at incredible speeds.
I lost it at the pic of Kermit and Oscar the grouch lmao
Sooo good
thank you for the clarification, thought that image was from his debate with peterson
Same🤣
same
SAME omg i had to pause the video to laugh
The older I get, the more I realize the answer to pretty much every question we have slowly turns into “I don’t really know anymore”
Have been waiting for this one for a long time. Thank you for your hard work!
same!!
after the JBP one it was only a matter of time! :)
He just lives a whole bunch of relevant realities at the same time. I think his brain is precious and people could try to learn from his sporadic way of imagining things. After all he is bound to reality unlike others.
Zizek is like the truth, very ugly, and yet we continue to seek it out.
Zizek is just a meme, a true philosopher
definitely not 'just a meme' ...
This society is just a meme while Zizek is something greater.
ape -> homo-sapiens -> meme
Ah Slavoj, the “Oscar the Grouch” of modern intellectuals.
And Jordan Peterson is Kermit the Frog
He is eating from the trash can all the time
@@lizzyfrizzle8986 said as if there’s anything else available
Max do you not get the reference
@@lizzyfrizzle8986 I’m playing along your metaphor
Zizek once said that the Kinder Suprise egg is an example of our desire to discover or something similar. Never listened to him fully but I did realize that in a debate, he cant lose...or win. He is like modern diogenes if diogenes sniffed leaded gasoline fumes as a kid and overcame his disability
"The empty feeling that they are smart enough to know about the issues around them, but too dumb to do anything about it."
I consider myself a seeker of truth, but it still stings sometimes
I feel this so hard. I feel like I'm finally at the place to know what the questions are. Answers will take an additional lifetime
@@Zatticzattic ikr
*cries*
Much better to look at yourself as a neutral observer tbh
"if your base desire is to change the world, you will always be dissapointed, if your base desire is to learn about the world, you will be eternally fulfilled"
“Born in Soviet-Era Yugoslavia.”
Uhh....
Most americans don't understand that Yugoslavia was its own entity with its own understanding and application of leftist politics. Unfortunately, most ex-Yugoslav citizens don't understand this either. Yugoslavia was not about socialism, it was about slavic unity.
Yep. Many ignorant derps throughout the video. But overall a enjoyable bio/analysis piece I guess.
SEismic _ I think that Tito was certainly a communist. In fact, his conception of socialism (Market Socialism) in a “backwards” place such as Yugoslavia was somewhat similar to Lenin’s NEP in the USSR- to build up a bourgeoisie (industrialization), but under a DotP.
The relative liberalism of Tito’s Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (the S.F.R.Y.) might be compared to something like Khrushchevism or Dengism, in my mind.
Was it “revisionist?” Probably. Does it matter? I don’t know.
All I’m saying is that today there exists not a single “non-revisionist” Marxist-Leninist state, with the *Possible* exception of Cuba. Cuba is interesting, because it’s sort of stuck in a perpetual state of “War Communism,” due to the embargo’s and sanctions imposed by the US upon her- something NOBODY in the United States wants (except DC and all of the ex-Cuban gusanos down here in South Florida).
But that’s why I’m not a Marxist-Leninist or whatever anymore. All of the original Leninist counties turned revisionist, eventually.
Last thing: you’re right about the SFRY being an anti-nationalist conglomeration of all of the Southern Slavic peoples. I’m just old enough to remember the Balkan Wars during the 1990s, as NATO and the UN destroyed that socialist solidarity, leading to horrific genocides committed by all sides.
@@dethkon Yugoslavia and Market Socialism was the last time the Balkans were mildly prosperous.
@@dethkon could you further explain or show me some sources of NATO and UNs plans of destroying the solidarity?
ŽIŽEK: **touches nose**
ŽIŽEK: **sniffs**
ŽIŽEK: **touches nose**
ŽIŽEK: **sniffs**
ŽIŽEK: **touches nose**
ŽIŽEK: **sniffs**
ŽIŽEK: "and so on and so on."
A brilliant argument
Ugggh his videos are littered with these comments, it's like a Anthony fantano comment section but less funny
Here we have the slovenian in its natural habitat.
And so on and so on *Makes hand spinning motion*
what an amazing lecture
Honestly I think one of the most profound thoughts a person can have is the recognition that they don't yet have a solution for something. in the same way that I think one of the most profound answers someone can give is I don't know, humans don't like not knowing and they will often make up answers rather than admitting that they don't know. But admitting that you don't know freeze you up to go find the correct answer whereas thinking that you already have the solution blinds you from looking for a more correct solution.
i appreciate the way you make your opinion known while also giving the information subjectively
I think you meant objectively
@@diegomora_02 dont think they did
@@diegomora_02 No, they meant ideology.
@@psychopompous489 /thread
I always thought that Zizek want us to develop the real answer, Is like he Is giving us a way of thinking in order to get away from the contradictions of our reality
Replace one set of contradictions with another set. Laozi saw most clearly this problem.
The point of Zizek is that the very search for some unified reality beneath the appearance is what produces further appearance of further contradictions: that, it's precisely when you 'look beneath the surface' that you encounter another. That your very attempt to uncover the reality you suppose to be behind the illusory and self-negating appearance produces only further self-negating and illusory appearances, which you try to peel off to uncover the underlying 'true reality'. But the 'true reality' thereby uncovered is never fully revealed, and it's its inherent incompleteness that drives you to search for its hidden reality. And, in the very search for this imagined hidden reality underneath appearance that the reality of appearance appears within appearance as such. In the process apparition.
There are only two things. Sniff and ideology.
*pure ideology
Sniff is the supreme way despite it's indication of poor health
and so on and on
"It appears that the very ambiguity of Žižek's work is essential to his point, that discussing reality and truth entails the absence of all attempts at solutions or answers, and instead requires a target laborious and futile journey through RoboCop references and jokes about dog poop."
Great summary.
I feel like Slavoj is sometimes overlooked and considered as more of a wacky/memable character not to be talen too seriously, but pay attention to what he says and you'll across some great stuff. He has some lectures which are just "fax 🔥🔥🔥🔥" all the way through.
u r doing the work of the lord lmao
“I despise the kind of book which tells you how to live, how to make yourself happy! Philosophers have no good news for you at this level! I believe the first duty of philosophy is making you understand what deep shit you are in!”
-Slavoj Žižek
I have not seen the video yet.
"How dare you compare Diogene to anyone!"
Exactly.
If Zizek were not Zizek he would want to be Diogenes
I saw the video and he couldn't hold Diogenes dog feces. Zizek is a spoiled house cat compared to the dog.
@@ThatGuy-mj6jm get out of my son 😳
@@Zatticzattic Zizek would probably want to be anyone but Zizek tbh.
after watching this i kinda started to understand žižek’s way of thinking and i think his contradictions are a startegy to get even more attention, this way the topics he talks about get more attention so he’s indirectly raising awareness about a lot of problems by expressing one opinion and then debunking it. i think he’s representing the history of ideology and putting an example of the fact that we’ve reached a point where there are so many theories instead of solutions and it causes every point of view to be contradictory
Very insightful and concise video. I have absorbed a lot of Zizek-content recently and thought I was going insane for not being able to properly decipher or "label" his thoughts. Never considered this interpretation of him, but it certainly aligns with my experience.
Excited for more, keep it up.
Sometimes we can't properly label things. It's our thirst for order that creates this need in us to be able to label something in a specific category, but when confronted with something so chaotic and so out of the norm, in a way it unsettles us.
That's what I find interesting about this guy, his mind is filled with so much chaos that it makes us really look around and see the world in new eyes.
As a Slovenian I am slightly proud that he comes from our country
bruh I literally just finished watching one of his "lectures", pressed on the home page and boom this is the first thing I see 😂
TH-cam loves to recommend Zizek.
and so on and so on
@@ignacioaguirre9689 indeed.....it's odd how TH-cam is giving me shit that I don't agree with (I'm a capitalist and he's a Marxist (bruh the shit sounds like a crap romcom)) I mean I would assume that it's the opposite and that it would recommending me but I like how it's showing me the other side as well (even tho I've been on all 8 sides of the political spectrum over varying time frames) and that's nice actually when I think about it bc now I mind won't get stail or arrogant bc I'm constantly questioning and re-evaluating my beliefs through Zizek.....omg I talk alot my god 🤣
@@Yellow.1844 *sniffs*
@@johnathanhehehe he literally says how political correctness can be totalitarian and Marxism is more of a philosophy. That and also he told how stupid gender fluidity is.
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.'"
- George Orwell
"There is no one easier to fool than the intellectual"- Dad
Thomas Sowell has similar beliefs.
@@gabbar51ngh sowell definitely never got the point of Orwell’s stuff.
@@gabbar51ngh lmao, the god of economics 101 bullshit which still plagues academia everywhere
@@samstuff8554 Sowell is better though. He's an actual economist.
Orwell was a fiction writer. Even his non fiction work like homage to Catalonia is considered poor for lacking historical accuracy.
Finally, you've covered Oscar the Grouch.
To have what felt like half of the video reserved for various criticisms, and chronicling of relatively recent culture war disputes, is not something I expected for an introductory guide to a serious thinker with some thirty years of being a/the rock star of theory. We went very quickly from Sublime Object to 2016 through a couple of off-hand quotes by people who have not contributed much if anything to this space (Scruton, Chomsky; Peterson at least shared one stage with Žižek for some theatrics). While much is made up for with the eloquent introduction to ideology, ideological cynicism (which I would've loved to hear more on) and the dialectics, and you finish off with a cogent point considering the focus, I'm left feeling like this leaned a bit too hard on the public spectacle over the substance of his philosophy. Even though they are paradoxically inseparable, sure. Either way, that's a daunting title to produce a non-academic video for, and even if left wanting for more meat, I enjoyed it.
It also seemed an odd balance to me to spend so much time on criticisms of him (mostly as a public figure, not so much as a philosopher/theorist) without talking about some of his key contributions to philosophy/theory. The video glosses over his work on Hegel and Lacan as if they were minor points. His work on theorizing the Subject through Hegel and Lacan is huge. It's arguably his biggest contribution to theory/philosophy.
Felt more like a thematic piece than a video about only Zizek
are u a restaurant critic lol
a very zizekian criticism of teh video
It's an introduction to Zizek, not his work or anything else specifically. Any ratio between different facets of him represented in the video is bound to be arbitrary.
**sniff**
so on and so on
puts fingers in nose and breathes
He no longer sniffs
Every time I see one of Slavoj's videos I end not knowing if i learned something or not. Like that guy in The Dictator who is HIV aladeen.
i was just now listening to russian doomer vol 3. and now this, sisyphus55 can read my mind.
how are they related
@@matteuzs because zizek was born in the soviet era, and the soviet era is the cause of large problems in modern day russia which has led to general hopelessness. because of this, a lot of russians listen to things such as russian doomer vol.3 which is also an absolute banger btw, you should check it out.
@@Aadhitiya_Muralibruv...
The people asked and you delivered!
Thank you.
Zizek was kinda scaring me, but I think it was his truth that is disquieting - I am smart enough to understand the issues, but I don’t believe that I (or we as a species) are smart enough to “solve” them.
the 1812 overture is a spicy backdrop to this, great stuff
ikr!
Yeah ❤️❤️❤️
You make philosophy interesting, you make it worth learning about philosophy
This is one of the most interesting channels on youtube
loving the recent episodes you're doing where you cover more of the modern guys.
10:41
Here is an actual picture of Jordan Peterson and Zizek debating with each other.
Rip X
If you're feeling interested in some new music, and like X, I'd recommend my catalog. Any listens are super appreciated. Hate to shamelessly self-advertise but it is what it is.
@@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2 where did you get x from lmfao
@@angelocortes7160 Their pfp is a X/Naruto mix
Also we all know Peterson died when he got sick and is just X in whiteface 💯
@@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2 why does that make so much sense🤣
the ending captures exactly why im so fascinated with zizek; he doesnt provide answers, he questions and generates thought. a true philosopher. aware enough to acknowledge, in your own words "the potential pitfalls of all beliefs and values" but not shallow enough to not take a stance. it's contradication and it's beautiful.
“I’m gonna say the nword” -Slazov zizek
"He embraced me and said you can call me nigga" He posseses the pass
Zizek knows what is happening in a way most people know but refuse in favour of nations, father figures and slave-morality
what an interesting and bizzare character, very novel hearing about him in-depth!
Thanks for this one Sisyphus. I am inspired to read his work. I can’t for the life of me listen to him speak. I love this channel. Subscribed today!
He is one of my favourite philosophers.
"The Modern Diogenes"
That's a bold claim
haha true
Aye :)
This actually helped me understand zizek a lot better
To sum up this man "Well yes but actually no"
Someone protect Zizek. This virus is his one true weakness! *touch nose* *sniff*
The virus will simply undergo an ideological mutation.
I relate a lot to zizek. I feel as if I'm so overly aware of every issue and the two sides to that same issue that I end never having a solution to solving anything. Just lot and lots of questions
I haven't really read a lot about Zizek but holy shit this video makes me want to like him
@@o.s.h.4613 He's a Lacan scholar and teaches in London, New York,... He's taken quite seriously. You're probably rather unaware of what he means on an academic level because you don't belong to this world.
What's more, the fact that superserial philosophers like Scruton and Chomsky, philosophers of which their entire career boils down to Post-Conservative Revival and "muh America sucks, but is still better than all these hellholes" find it necessary to express their opinion on Zizek "quoting Lacan's gnomic attitudes" and being "a philosopher pretending to have a theory without a theory" goes to show that Zizek is influential and they spite him for not going along with their game of what philosophy is supposed to be.
Sartre once said Camus was a horrible philosopher because "he had no model", yet it's a fact that Camus won a Nobel Prize for his writings and even today, during this very pandemic, people don't look for answers with Sartre, but Camus' The Plague.
Then to subvert the previous arguments, Scruton doesn't even deal with Lacan, refuses, while Lacan actually meant alot when it comes to innovations on the field of psychoanalysis. Lacan is, despite how many people want to refute this claim, very important and cannot be ignored as a psychoanalyst.
Then Chomsky: does he even know his own theory? I find it hard for someone that "re-invented" linguistics to not notice how another philosopher is actually fooling around within his own theory. As far as I can tell the guy doesn't know shit, mixes Foucault with Wittgenstein, and just goes along. A schmuck calling alot of other people schmucks because he has the authority to do so. Exerting power for the sake of showing he has some. No one should care about such a tyrant pretending to be the father. Zizek is proving alot of these guys are just sterile gurus pretending to be philosophers, and I say this with love for Scruton, who is a great person but also a hardcore classicist, if they're highbrow they're just shitting on Zizek for being lowbrow and I guess this is why Sisyphus55 chose the subtitle of A Modern Diogenes. It's like Plato against Diogenes, except Zizek doesn't put a plucked chicken in the aula but instead shows movies and pop cultural references, as if he were a Beat poet subverting the "purity" of philosophical discourse with sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.
@@DarkAngelEU Fuck I love this comment. The hypocrisy is excellently pointed out in "Zizek is both a radical leftist with extreme positions" and "someone who says nothing of value, who has no theory". Apparently what Zizek is saying is both nonsense and obfuscated, but also radical to the degree that it offends?
@@emilhenriksen5261 I just imagine Chomsky and Scruton being all top of the morning to ya, tea sucking, biscuit munching, enjoying their stuffed foutons, their legs raised by their corgis, and Zizek just *BLASTS* through the side of the building in a Monty Python-esque charade, holding his finger over his upper lip like a moustache, flip flopping his legs and shouting niemiecki. Then he stops, and silently, he turns towards them, and says 'This is not an authentic cottage, you WASP!"
@@DarkAngelEU philosopher's beef is hilarious
@@Vitorruy1 it is !It has always been like this, registered beef between scholars and philosophers is one of the most entertaining reading material that the human race has produced
Man you either phrase your sentences in a way that triggers some divine excitement in my brain that originated from my childhood, or you got a serious talent with words.
Zizek is perfectly intelligable once you understand he isn't here to offer you some pre-packaged philosophy. Frankly, criticisms about him being incoherent are made by dullards or cynically motivated academic antagonists (sometimes both). His role is in asking the questions that need to be asked so we can find the gaps within our own philosophy, and he's pretty clear about.that bit of his intentions.
I am impressed by your unbiased presentation of his ideas and their criticism. It must cause an internal storm but I appreciate your scientific approach to this.
"The empty feeling that they are smart enough to know about the issues around them, but too dumb to do anything about it."
Story of my life
Not only dumb, but scared to do something about it. The internet makes it way harder for people to do something.
@@leetorry The internet is a contributing factor but I think the massive increase in population size and the invention of countries has a lot to do with it. No longer can the workers in one area unite to overthrow their rulers. Coordination of hundreds of millions to overthrow global systems hasn't happened before. Capitalism will only be abandoned by the masses once every drop of worth has been drained from the planet and basic needs stop being met.
i like how subtle you were with the choice of music in the background! Like, you now just how much zizek loves wagner which makes this a trully great guide to zizek
This is Tchaikovsky not Wagner
Today I hoped, that you would take it upon yourself to make a video about him.
Thanks.
i think its really cool that when you make videos you reference other philosophers and photographs that youve done videos on too, its like being a part of a cool club when youve watched those videos beforehand
I just now realized.
Your name is Sysiphus since you know your work won't do much but after time you Started to actually enjoy it.
Or I may be just overanalizing IT.
I thought its Syphilis
I’m a janitor and have learned to love my profession because it gives me time to freely think and learn while being paid for simple physical tasks that require little brain power.
@@bawol-official Is your name by any chance Will Hunting?
@@paratame105 the amount of jokes I get amongst the school staff is enough :)
@@bawol-official may I ask what you thought about sisyphus's first podcast? The one about "I'm thinking of ending things?"
Well summed up I would say. Thanks. I was struggling to figure out what he was about. I like him. But I think I like him for his quirkiness. He doesn't make it clear what he believes himself and it makes it easy for me to enjoy his reasoning.
My biggest critique of Zizek is in his emphasis of psychoanalysis in seemingly everything he talks about (I won't pretend to know, or have read any of Lacan's psychoanalytic work-it's largely inaccessible to me)-it is the lynchpin of so many of his ideas. If there is any one crack within it, much of his work very well could just be viewed as wrong.
What I'm saying is likely stupid and naïve.
We're all likely stupid and niave and to pretend otherwise is stupid and niave
@@Dutch-d5x "if i claim to be a wise man, it only means that i dont know" - Kansas
@@ninjacow410 In part, wisdom is having the foresight to not draw attention to the fact you are just as idiotic as everyone else.
well he is a psychoanalyst. "psychoanalyst is psychoanalytical" is but only in a small way stupid and naive. calm your mind :)
Psychoanalysis delves into the depths of human desire. And what else creates human reality if not our desires and ways of pursuing them?
only recently found out about zizek. what a great mind to look at. Love listening to him. His tics help keep me engaged and attentive.
diogenes has not much in common with daddy zizek
Daddy Diogenes has not much in common with Zizek*
@@KingofScrapMetal touche
I think they're similar is a sense that both are not really trying to find the Truth but they're uncovering bullshit
Peterson will tell you what to do to make your life better. Zizak will tell you how it's all bull
I think people hate Zizek because he's willing to reflect all of our absurdities back at us without hesitation.
People actually hate Zizek?
"And so on and so on..." - Slavoj Zizek
As a Slovenian from the same town as Žižek appreciate you and him
Please do one on Noam Chomsky!!!
Anarcho-Bidenists rise up
*death*
People talk about him like he’s dead as well as correct.
there is one
Yeah bro he’s literally paid by the cia and has by his own admission, never read Marx or theory. Literally an anti-communist leftist, an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one
This is my favourite philosopher though i struggle to understand most of his stuff🤣🤣 there's something so fascinating about the way he thinks of things
Zizek - The only philosopher to ever analyze the art of modern day toilets.
And the yt channel fern made a way too high quality documentary about it 💀
All the videos of yours I have ever seen.. . I always chuckle at the word
MEANIN
Points for clip of Clinton "playing" the sax in reference to the political theater. Appreciate this so much!
Thank you for this.
I was a little bit blown away, as my own work is focused on many of the same things, features of the thought experiment. I believe I do have some answers to the problems, but I'm still learning how to express them in rational logic.
This video blew me away though. I'm not alone in my thoughts. That is a very rewarding thing to realize.
Without Zizek I would have settled down and get married by 25 , started living a pathetic happy life , enjoying my job like a normal person .
once again great and so useful! thanks so much for the intellectual service you give to the general public, you have once again, for the countless time, have explained something difficult to me that i would have not have been able to understand without you. you are valuable and i appreciate your value!
Zizek cycle:
*contradict myself heavily*
*refuse to elaborate further*
*leave*
You forget the spit
@@livphobia “sniff”
Thank you for this video. I am actually inspired to read Zizek and learn more about him.
my jaw dropped during the whole part about the refugee crisis bc he is painfully correct and somehow caught criticism from both sides
Good analysis of Zizek's writing style. Zizek is fully conscious that his ideas conflict with each other as you mentioned. However, this might be a reflection of his understanding of the Hegelian dialectic in that arguments or rather ideas can be strengthened through enduring a series of conflicting arguments. Hegel might have understood this concept taking place throughout historu, wheras Zizek forces the reader to subject him or herself to these developments over the course of his writing. This process is often intensely worthwhile leaving the reader challenged by Zizek.
greeting from Slovenia :)
This is the best explanation I have seen slavjo I have ever seen. I am still trying work him out. Seeing Peterson and him was awesome
Your content is honestly some of the best I've yet found on this site. Thank you for your hard work and dedication to keeping us entertained as we think deeply about our world.
I’m about 40 seconds in and I just twigged how this video is going to play out based on the music… I’m so excited
Your channel may be one of my favorite channels on youtube. I recently discovered it and i cannot stop binge watching every single video xD The way you explain, the structure of the video and even the music in the background are all so well combined! Thank you for making such great content :)
Best video on Zizek I’ve seen. Okay it’s the only one but I really enjoyed it!
My favorite thing about zizek is that he’s a purposeful and self aware bad actor
He exists within a state of constant bad faith
6:05 Good point!
6:51 It's also a good way to give both sides a fair chance
while i like zizek i think that the comparison to diogenes is giving him a bit too much, diogenes is and always will be, the goat
Man your videos are so good. I can't imagine how much effort it takes to read, analyze and present it all.