How does historical contingency relate to freedom? Leave your thoughts in the comments. To watch the full conversation, head to iai.tv/video/the-life-and-philosophy-of-slavoj-zizek?TH-cam&
It's so fascinating to me how EVERY person who has Slavoj on their show/podcast/etc, absolutely cannot control him or the conversation. Once he goes its like trying to stop a moving train. U love 2 see it
It drives me crazy how every host, without fail, will at some point interject to move to their next prompt at a point which betrays the fact that they are not following the meaning of his words in real time. And yes, his speech patterns are an acquired taste. His thought patterns, same. In my opinion, acquiring that taste is the responsibility of a host/moderator so that they can ensure the ideas are being communicated as effectively as possible.
"When I was introduced to metaphysics as an undergraduate, I was given the following definition: metaphysics is the study of ultimate reality. This still seems to me to be the best definition of metaphysics I have seen." Peter Van Inwagen, "Metaphysics", 3rd edition, P. 1
@ElectricityTaster it's like an AI bot is rambling like zijek don't you think ? But they are two ingredients short, so they left it here to test the public ? Also found weird 😕
basically; really? ~ how much more dismissive can you be? the lineage goes back to the legacy of Paul Hirst and the failings of the Left to defeat the unbridled rise of the right wing authoritarianism today ... his ramblings no-more than having the decency to actually name what the Left intelligencia suppressed for 40 yrs...
@@shadowkxm Yea. He's really a force of nature. He really tries to help people understand complex ideas. He dares to think big. I heard him speak once on the idea of God and pain
In any case, even Hayek is quite clear - _who is a very respected professional economist_ - that the biggest supporters of "Collectivism" are organized capital, and organized labour, because on the one hand monopolies shut out competition, and on the other monopolies can pay higher wages to specific groups (at the detriment of the workers in the non-monopolized industries) - effectively producing a "frozen society"
Zižek advocates for diverse discursive strategies to challenge established norms. Drawing from personal and historical examples, including the unexpected emotional response to a pet's death and the ethical justifications of figures like Himmler, he illustrates the complexities of human behavior. Addressing technological advancements, particularly brain-computer interfaces, Žižek contemplates the potential impact on freedom, suggesting an optimistic view that retains the essence of subjective experience even in the face of advancing neurobiological understanding
A quick reading of Hegel implies that a statement is authoritative because our life is at stake over whether we accept it, reject it, or choose to ignore it; either it's relevant somehow to our choices in life in which we run a risk to it (understood in a broad sense, no one wants to end up in the gutter), or because someone overbearingly present is threatening us with a stick (or bribing us with a carrot)
@@HipHopLived this is very interesting. What works did you pull this from? Specifically what makes something authoritative to the individual experiencing the claim
To all of those judging this man based on a short extract (the TH-cam Shorts extract), have you made the effort to go listen to the entire talk so that you can be sure you hear what he is saying? (And not what you think he is saying)
Anyway, on the problem of Analytic Philosophy, it seems to have been the product of the historically most dramatic application of Ockham's Razor ever made - the reduction of meaning to formal logic and predicable experience (or more like the first, and then the latter) - then Ryle came and said "No, we really do get meaningful concepts from everyday life", and a few decades later, "No there really are meaningful really philosophical (and therefore, I suppose, "extra-ordinary") problems", and then "But those French-o's are so obscure, they're like gurus... like... like..." and then "We're back to doing philosophy as it's always been done" (since philosophers have always been akin to "a guru")
It's very adorable to try to save free will with quantum fisics. Probability, statitics and randomness only add to the problem. Reminds me of theologians evoking contemporary astronomy to resuscitate god.
I probably made several mistakes there. Anyway it seems to imply that what children fight over is their mothers, I find that a brilliant correlative to Freud from a social perspective, and this is understood, more or less, as "comfort" (which of course recalls the Master-Slave Dialectic of Hegel). This is what immature adults continue to do when they've refused to grow up - they fight to impose their "comfort zone" at other people's expense.
"His odd interests marked him as an outsider, and he did not alleviate this by feeling any compulsion to be 'one of the boys.' He despised gym class and team sports and often cut classes to follow his own interests. Moving beyond the standard school texts, he absorbed volumes analyzing human behavior on every level, from the impulses of the individual to the dynamics of the herd."
Anyone who knows Žižek, knows that this short is highly likely not representative of what he is trying to communicate. So.. good baiting the crowd for watching the full video 👍🏽
Freedom is a necessity of its own ~ CB McPherson on possessive individualism ? Who is Zizek channelling and how would anyone actually know ~ his talking about Himmler etc is the core ground of the anthroposophists and rosicrusions; the take on naturalism is akin to the work of Enst Bloch in The Principle of Hope; Plancks constant is a thought-form to mitigate indeterminacy ~ Existenz?
I personally agree that the Zohar was contemporary with the Talmud, tradition would actually place it's completion in the second century and where-abouts prior to the 6th century completion of the Talmud (took 5 centuries to write, the Zohar was written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, his son Elazar, and his disciples, per tradition. It's roughly 10000 pages, making the "skeptical critical position" of "Moses ben Shem Tov made it all up in 13th century Spain" untenable)
I think any vision of a future must admit that reality is not as it will be, which is to say reality is not yet, or even that reality is not as it must be, so it can only describe the present reality by way of a lack or a negation. The language of a better, more perfected, or more complete reality, must necessarily be in-direct.
I know he is student of Lacan, Hegel, Marx...so is obvious he will lean to in the direction of hermeneutics, but i dont recall before seen him so in to it.
anyway, added adendum: Ordinarily we hold synthetic judgments to be the empirical observation that inspires a definition which shall be the future subject of an analytic judgment. (But, typically in the case of scientific/artistic/philosophical/theological creativity, ___ [moment of insight, etc. etc.
Uh, and for the record, _I am an analytic philosopher at heart_ (it's not that if you understand it you must explain it in plain language, after all, communication is intended for an audience - I read Umberto Eco in Spanish sorry for not using the technical terms - and sometime's somebody is spying, but that maybe we shouldn't assume a psychopath can understand the right thing in plain language anyway, since "stop hitting me" is just a joke to those people)
You know there are philosophers who have gone on record and said such things as "Aristotle's insight was that there is no need to invoke a 'deeper reality' to explain phenomenal realities" (that would be Martha Nussbaum in an interview in the 80's), but Noam Chomsky in his books from the 60's states that there is no science without explanation by means of a "deeper under-lying structure", his explanations then, unsurprisingly, take the form of a layered explanation, so there's a phonological layer, then a morphological layer, of language. But Derrida few years later would already point out that this is (actually Saint Augustine started it) "the naturalistic fallacy" of language, as it were. The very existence of "Grammatology" as a department of archeology, which originated in the study of Egypt, disproves that language starts at phonemes and then proceeds to "morphemes". Because hieroglyphs are non-phonetic language - something every linguist knows, and none seems to care to account for. I blame freemasonry?
"As LaVey pointed out, all other churches are based on worship of the spirit and denial of the flesh and the intellect. He saw the need for a church that would recapture man’s mind and carnal desires as objects of celebration. Rational self‐interest would be encouraged and a healthy ego championed." He clearly had traditional spiritual doctrine explained to him, as in Mirandola or Ghazali, there is the human, angelic and divine natures. The human and angelic are acceptable, but the divine eliminated.
"In 1942, when he was twelve years old, LaVey’s fascination with toy soldiers branched off to concern about the world war. He delved into military manuals and discovered that arsenals for the equipment of armies and navies could be bought like groceries in a supermarket and used to conquer masses of people. The idea took shape in his head that contrary to what the Bible said, the earth would not be inherited by the meek, but by the strong and mighty." From the original introduction of the 1968 edition, once again, most historic Satanists are close to the military, police or intelligence communities.
I suppose what I am proposing is simply what Chomsky already accepted, and Tomasello, in a way unbeknowst to me, brought up in the shape of a critique: There must be some sub-layer to linguistics, we are all agreed it is biological, but, in Chomsky's words, "linguistics is a sub-science of psychology" (somewhere in "Language and Mind"). So if, per Freud's words, "Psycho-analysis is between biology and psychology", there should be a layer of linguistic analysis, that is properly scientifically, psycho-analytical. And I think Lacan is right in choosing martyrdom on the hill, that all traditional scientists believe, that Science is Truly Revolutionary. (an achievement of modernity - we DO believe)
I learned in 7th grade by division of halves you can get to zero point in reality but not mathematically. Zizek's story about Himmler, was never heard before. What is the definition of freedom used in this context? Reading minds is reading memories, or is it thoughts about memories? Probably cannot read someone's mind while they are making calculations in real time.
You know Foucault clearly surpasses Thomas Kuhn in this: For him the revealer of a new Episteme is also inherently a moral hero. It's really the only rational way we can explain why Einstein, Newton, and to the more enlightenened (me), James Clerk Maxwell are as Saintly figures.
Is Lacan saying that nostalgia is the uniting feature of the human condition? I know that sounds counter to what he is literally saying, but he's talking about recovering a "state of oneness that only exists in myth", I mean he's saying myth (which is extraordinary) is excluded from language, right? And that the signification of language (which is ordinary) is always what's excluded?
I'm an Ockham's Razor guy, but I, too, find the appeal to "what is natural" fallacious in building a scientific theory (questionable epistemology), by which I mean "simple, orderly, 'what one would assume'", "comfortable _for me and my associates/colleagues"_ - I think that's a fast way to construct competing "epistemes" (shots at hegemonic, monolithic, "Truth"), it's a far-cry from an objective view at knowledge.
Ehem - Vanis Varoufakis pointed out that we've gone back from capitalism into "neo-feudalism", and at least three sociologists have stated that the origins of the mafia are in the remnants of the feudal enforcement systems. In other words it's unsurprising that "neo-feudalism" means "the golden age of the con" (con man, scam artist, or "art of the deal" to put it politely)
"LaVey’s Satan is 'the spirit of progress, the inspirer of all great movements that contribute to the development of civilization and the advancement of mankind. He is the spirit of revolt that leads to freedom, the embodiment of all heresies that liberate.'" That is a political doctrine.
When Lacan says "My title conveys the fact that, beyond this speech, it is the whole structure of language that psychoanalytic experience discovers in the unconscious. This is to alert prejudiced minds from the outset that the idea that the unconscious is merely the seat of the instincts may have to be reconsidered.", in "The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious" (delivered as a talk in 1957). Look, I got this from Wikipedia, but Noam Chomsky supposedly takes up linguistic applications Carnap in a 1957 book to claim that a language is an infinite set of grammatical statements that can be generated algorithmically from a "syntactic structure" given a finite number of "linguistic elements" (it's been a while, but I did take 4 semesters of formal logic - Wikipedia meant something like "semantic variables", right? Like in math). This later became, published in the most famous book "Language and Mind" (1968), growing from a debate with the behaviorists, the claim that the mind pre-exists behavior, but not necessarily language, as an innate syntactic structure subject to biological evolution, right? So that Chomsky gets lumped in, some times, I've heard or read this somewhere, with the "Structuralists" - which would make him ironically just as "continental" as "analytic", right? Because Freud didn't shy away from saying, that what he was creating was a science somewhere in the "interstices between biology and psychology", and in that regard Chomsky was merely making "lingui-analysis" (and how is that not pseudo-science?)
I’m very curious about his brain, and how it is wired to be so overwhelmingly energetic. Tony Robbins had a growth on his endocrine gland, which caused him to malfunction and be overly energetic. Is this the case with Slavoj? It’s too easy to ask: what drugs is he on?
"desire is only that which I have called the metonomy of all signification." Jacques Lacan, "Of Structure as an Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever" You know I like it.
Indeed, Maimonides first intuited the existence of the human Unconscious almost two centuries after Ibn Sina, or "Avicenna" by way of the discovery of psycho-somatic conditions as described in his proto-Aquinean-hylo-morphic theory: The Oneness of Body and Mind.
Keep in mind there is an undated letter from Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Paine denouncing his rejection of Christianity as "elitism, betraying his childhood"
A lot of people have alleged that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a tyrant, mostly upper class types, and I don't doubt Solon got the same treatment, as he also said "Refrain ye in your hearts those stubborn moods, Plunged in surfeit of abundant goods, And moderate your pride! We'll not submit, Not even you yourselves will this befit!" - and if Galileo were a heretic I'd be first in line to sign the blood-writ contract and be one
Just keep in mind that when I say me all I mean is "Charitable Love" (which my boggled brain has come to understand as having primarily two components: advocacy and forgiveness - well a positive and a negative as it were, and both are to be interpreted both materially and spiritually - so a banker can't fool himself that he's very forgiving while keeping the whole world in monetary debt [I guess if money is an "Idea" is more of a metaphysical discussion, I'll have to save the Marxism of course])
"The experience in the colonial sphere, of this country as much as of any other, has amply shown that even the mild forms of planning which we know as colonial development involve, whether we wish it or not, the imposition of certain values and ideals on those whom we try to assist. It is, indeed, this experience which has made even the most internationally minded of colonial experts so very sceptical of the practicability of an “ international ” administration of colonies." From a footnote by Hayek, he clearly would've opposed both the European Union and French monetary control of West Africa. Does anyone even read this much referenced man?
You know to be fair, revolutions in thought might have to be forced just like any other revolution. But then the question is of you doing it well, and not being inept, which at a certain point is "trafficking with the enemy"
Since his father (who committed suicide) was a member of the merchant marine, he must've travelled lots, and one sees many oddities as a sailor! it is a fact
You know there was a great man in Mexico (a superior form of civilization that eschews chauvinism) once that said, "Hemos sido tolerantes hasta excesos criticados", and I argue he did not go _far enough_
Now I've no doubt Heidegger read Schelling, but far as I know he read him completely differently (and I didn't think Heidegger was a Monotheist, for all his talk of "gods") [perhaps it's best the world be flawed, but on the surface that's paradoxical]
The ancient Stoics observed dogs, and inferred dogs can think logically. That dogs have minds, that if put in a situation requiring basic logic they will apply it (I think provided it isn't too convoluted or... you know... emotionally frustrating). Well everyone knows what "dog" is used for in innuendo.
Or in any case to "surpass" the world (so someone can "conquer the world" as a hermit from a cave, provided he isn't merely putting on a show for himself, but acquires True Wisdom. I had some argument for that but I forgot it)
I can't help but perceive in the "Oedipus Complex" (at least as construed in Lacan, but it's definitely there in Freud, if I recall the point of the Oedipus Complex is that it resolves itself - to escape it), a High Modern attempt at replacing Religion. But perhaps it could also serve as a biological explanation for the perennial existence of Religion (well it's "Moses and Monotheism" where one finds "Return of the Repressed", but that's a long book and I know like, 3 pages. "Future of an Illusion" and all that)
In the Chilam Balam (a text written by a Mayan Christian prophet from Yucatan), it is said there will be a "Holy Inquisition", that will wipe out the forces of the Anti-Christ, represented as a bishop with a cross on his hat winking, and institute Real Christianity.
to be clear the "cartoon noises" I had in mind was the weird half-human purrs of one "Snarf" from "Thundercats"(I know a few fans here in Mexico, my dad's into "Pinky and the Brain" by Stephen Spielberg, I'll tell you that story later!)
That is what "Mens' Rights Activists" oft called "gynocentrism", which they say originates in Western Chivalry (China and Japan also have chivalry, I have no doubt the Middle East, particularly Persia does so also. But it might be an import from the West, where concubinage was not considered normal after Charlemagne, who had many wives like a traditional tribal Frank)
I disagree with him @11:45 Maybe you can, maybe you can't. It is as inconceivable for the human mind as endlessness itself is. So both spectral extremities remain simply unfathomable. Maybe - and I'm uneducatedly speculating here - we as humans in our measure lie directly at the middle point of this scale. But yea, the thumbnail `Fetish, Grief, Determination´ sums it up pretty well.
anyway, back to the superior form of Latin American philosophy: If the first requirement of a person, is to live, the first formation of the knowledge of peoples, is the wisdom needed in order to live. This is what gives initial shape to the traditions of knowledge-formation, and therefore why we would be right to say "the way they do philosophy over there, is not the way they do philosophy over here, but they are both philosophy to me" (or we'd all go kablooey)
In any case it's odd that Hugo Chavez denies ever having had any contact with EZLN in Chiapas. Know what I think? EZLN is a cover for European colonial operations in Mexico, as opposed to Canadian or American, using relations with the Chinese as an intermediary. Hence the hefty presence of the Catholic Church in the "Zapatista" movement (which plays on the fact, abusively of course, that Zapata had a personal confessor, and his followers fought in the Cristero War against Obregon and Calles)
Anyway, why is that important? Because Avicenna (like Maimonides) was a Medical Authority, and his most famous text, "Al-Shifa", is translated "The Healing"
For a spiritually justified response to the heresy of Liberation Theology, see "Hablar de Dios desde el sufrimiento del inocente", of the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutierrez, or "Job was a rich man who was a friend to the poor"
After all, I recall reading a "history of mentalities" that said that in the Middle Ages things were considered as SIGNS of the Divinity. So that the whole world was very "enchanted" and "coded" (and I suppose this could be a little rigid, and "beyond dispute" and some things were considered "proper" - others no doubt were merely folk superstition, so an element of fun and freedom that was emancipatory was available to the Medieval Peasant... who, the algorithm also made sure to inform me, tended to spend half his life "on vacation" [but a third of both halves at Church])
"After he married, LaVey abandoned the wondrous world of the carnival to settle into a career better suited for a home life. He enrolled as a criminology major at the City College of San Francisco. That led to his first conformist job-photographer for the San Francisco Police Department. As it worked out, that job had as much to do as any other with leading him toward Satanism." Same introduction, next page
You know Solon created democracy, and he once said, "Smother a strong man in his crib" (roughly something like that, I'm taking it from Willis Barnstone's "Ancient Greek Lyric"), he himself being "a strong man". If you can't understand the wisdom behind the saying, are you truly prepared to live in a democracy?
Jesus says "divorce is legitimate in a case of adultery", so the counter-weight to "female supremacy in Chivalrous Love" would be "But what if he leaves me??? I so ADORE Roger!" (and in the case of lesbianism or homosexuality, or any other flavour of "labels are just for convenience", it can't be so distinct) "I could always denounce my older lover to the authorities, I have this power as a 5 year old and am not stupid, but I so enjoy the way he touches me"
That's because The Idiot is the End of the World, Slavoj, but like I said, I think a sequel is implicit ("Anastasia" - "Resurrection"), as Jesus would put it "Think of the time" (it's somewhere in the synoptic Gospels, I guess I'll have to get the key citation eventually)
Grady McMurty, "Caliph" of the Ordo Templi Orientis chosen by Aleister Crowley to succeed him, called himself a "misunderstood poet (this is a blasphemy in reference to Islamic Ha'dith, he meant hypnotist) and a liberal".
Avila Camacho's brother Maximino was also corrupt (and mayor of Puebla, where "El Yunque" would be created 10 years later), but this was owing to making deals with the U.S.
You know Zizek, I feel the concept of "Evolution" has been forgotten by philosophers as of late - despite it showing up prominently in Spencer and Bergson (Nietzsche having criticized the Darwinian concept) - but as an evaluative concept, that relatively devalues Rousseau's Natural Man and values upward Nietzsche's Ubermensch (I find it funny that "mensch" is neuter) - I think it can be held up as given toward superiority because evolution is adaptation to an environment prodded on my random mutation. So it might be said that the most evolved organism is the one most able to adapt to the largest number of contingencies (circumstance/randomness)
"The East is a house of harlots singing praises among the flames of the first glory wherein the Dark Lord hath opened His mouth; and they are become as living dwellings in whom the strength of man rejoiceth; and they are appareled with ornaments of brightness, such as work wonders on all creatures." P. 117. Someone should've told Said.
"Ladies and gentlefish! You've heard of a transvaluation of all values! Then a nihilization of all values! Now I bring you a transnihilization of all nihilues!"
He doesn't understand quantum mechanics, because even physicists don't understand quantum mechanics, they understand the mathematics that models quantum mechanics, except for the mathematics of quantum field theory that no one understands.
But the fact is, from my own personal conviction, I do agree, and I believe this belief is pragmatically founded as a question of ethics (which deals with actions, choices, values). So what is the last paragraph of Clark and Chalmer's article? "As with any re-conception of ourselves, this view will have significant consequences. There are obvious consequences for philosophical views of the mind and for the methodology of research in cognitive science, but there will also be effects in the moral and social domains. It may be, for example, *that in some cases interfering with someone’s environment will have the same moral significance as interfering with their person.* And if the view is taken seriously, certain forms of social activity might be re-conceived as less akin to communication and action, and as more akin to thought. In any case, once the hegemony of skin and skull is usurped, we may be able to see ourselves more truly as creatures of the world."
I think this strikes to the core of the liberal critique of "alternatives to capitalism" as "We are just stating the facts, this _is_ reality." Feminists and gay rights types often point out, "If it's natural, why enforce it?" And that applies as much to the status quo as to any alternatives to it, and, per Hegel, it is reality's nature to _change._ But precisely what capitalism does is drive us mad with desire (hence it's de-territorialization, which tends toward re-territorialization, as in fascism) It is as if we were to dissect a frog, re-arrange it's organs, while it yet lived, sow it back up, and expect there to be no vital consequence. Which of course would be as if we were totally dissociated from "the drama".
If you ask me, Kojeve got it from Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, this then infected the French already given to be moralistes, who then finally became real thinkers.
I think "adapt" is wrong at that point - since that is defeatism, a human "adapts" to reality by changing it (Hegel/Adorno/Marx). To be passive is to be absorbed, to be human is not merely to "adapt" (and I say "merely" as I am implying humanity is the most evolved organism), it is to Conquer, the human adaptation is to be active and to take over the World.
You know to be fair, I think Lacan demonstrated by means of his theory that the unconscious is structured as a language, what's more that it cannot possibly not be structured as a language (otherwise it meaneth nothing and goeth no-where, not even to escape from meaning - I mean Freud's Titanic Dong... well all joking aside it wouldn't be therapeutic if it wasn't "structured", which to him analytically, as in by definition, just means "as a language" in roughly a way akin to the way that he meant it)
According to Conspiracy Theory folklore the Pike Letter on "World War Three" was to Mazzini on August 15, 1871, and the original is found in the British Museum. I'm not sure if I believe it.
Has anyone pointed out that Irigaray is obviously a natural-born sorceress? Hence "The Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger". "Air" is an essential part of wizardry, like "what's in the air" - it allows one to enchant people and direct their inclinations (and this is undoubtedly why NASA, of the infamous Project Paperclip, has a "global winds" monitor). Also I've yet to read it but it sounds like gender essentialism of the "No, Lacan, I'm better than _you!"_ type.
I think the funny part is how Lacan noted that the Capitalist desperately tries to "Capitalize" on the Ubermensch, only to find that he never will be, as if he were forever doomed to play the part of "the epiphenomenal negative" in Deleuze... the loser. (or in spiritual traditions, the eternally damned)
well, except Jung, but I meant "language", I guess I forgot the way I said it out loud in a class originally (back before I know so many things, I guess pick up quick, and it's come to a sort of "epistemic breaking through point" for me)
You know Slavoj (I hope you don't mind the informality), I consider myself a pretty magnanimous guy - I'm the last person you'll see petitioning for Henry Kissinger to have gone retroactively to prison, or eliminating his name from some college, but I can't help but notice that African Presidents go to the Hague for things that Western leaders do regularly and with no consequence.
I, for one, insist on quality, in my melo-drama (if people aren't still talking about it 5 years later I'm generally unconcerned, but my older brother recommended the anime "Chainsaw Man" to me and it's about spying, so I am interested)
tl;dr (old school internet speak for "too long, didn't read"), Nietzsche was right about The State. Every philosopher is tempted, by reasons of their own ego, to prefer The State to the plain unvarnished Truth, but it all just had to be, in order, I think, for everything to be re-molded, in a superior fashion.
![แข่งเพิ่มน้ำหนักใน 24 ชั่วโมง!! [Ver 2025]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/20xn0g6k-ec/mqdefault.jpg)
How does historical contingency relate to freedom? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
To watch the full conversation, head to iai.tv/video/the-life-and-philosophy-of-slavoj-zizek?TH-cam&
You have to stay with this guy but he's really bright and insightful. What nationality is he?
@@kennethshort2016he is slovenian.
It's so fascinating to me how EVERY person who has Slavoj on their show/podcast/etc, absolutely cannot control him or the conversation. Once he goes its like trying to stop a moving train. U love 2 see it
Zizek is a force of nature; his lispy tic - doubly so.
It drives me crazy how every host, without fail, will at some point interject to move to their next prompt at a point which betrays the fact that they are not following the meaning of his words in real time. And yes, his speech patterns are an acquired taste. His thought patterns, same. In my opinion, acquiring that taste is the responsibility of a host/moderator so that they can ensure the ideas are being communicated as effectively as possible.
@@logancade342 Nobody has to "acquire a taste" regarding someone else's speech pattern.
@@thstroyur nobody has to do anything
Haha yes, someone could ask him what the time is and before you know it he’s pontificating about the sociopolitical set-up of 7th century Armenia
Between two ferns has really changed
"When I was introduced to metaphysics as an undergraduate, I was given the following definition: metaphysics is the study of ultimate reality. This still seems to me to be the best definition of metaphysics I have seen."
Peter Van Inwagen, "Metaphysics", 3rd edition, P. 1
kneegah how many comments are you going to make?
@ElectricityTaster it's like an AI bot is rambling like zijek don't you think ? But they are two ingredients short, so they left it here to test the public ? Also found weird 😕
Zizek is basically a Phd Philosopher that rambles on and on, but you cant help and be intrigued by what he says
And so on and so on
basically; really? ~ how much more dismissive can you be? the lineage goes back to the legacy of Paul Hirst and the failings of the Left to defeat the unbridled rise of the right wing authoritarianism today ... his ramblings no-more than having the decency to actually name what the Left intelligencia suppressed for 40 yrs...
@@shadowkxm Yea. He's really a force of nature. He really tries to help people understand complex ideas. He dares to think big. I heard him speak once on the idea of God and pain
Zizek is so much more than a Phd philosopher ….
It is the obsessional neurotic yet creative performance.
And in the end all knowledge is categorical, the value of fluidity lies more in our ability to admit that we _DON'T_ know.
I love the video game analogy! But I personally think freedom is just a story that Life tells itself in order to stay alive.
now if we can get ai to translate his speech we will reach the singularity
😂😂
Lol😊
In any case, even Hayek is quite clear - _who is a very respected professional economist_ - that the biggest supporters of "Collectivism" are organized capital, and organized labour, because on the one hand monopolies shut out competition, and on the other monopolies can pay higher wages to specific groups (at the detriment of the workers in the non-monopolized industries) - effectively producing a "frozen society"
Zižek advocates for diverse discursive strategies to challenge established norms. Drawing from personal and historical examples, including the unexpected emotional response to a pet's death and the ethical justifications of figures like Himmler, he illustrates the complexities of human behavior. Addressing technological advancements, particularly brain-computer interfaces, Žižek contemplates the potential impact on freedom, suggesting an optimistic view that retains the essence of subjective experience even in the face of advancing neurobiological understanding
Yeah, this is what he's been saying. Nice summary🎉
And so on, and so on.
Pretty sure this is AI generated
@@swagatosahait does have that vibe doesn't it?
I love how he defined true patriotism any why Himmler was a prime e example.
also he just seems like an all around nice man. (and the bit about cinema clearly works it's way into how one might think about video games)
A quick reading of Hegel implies that a statement is authoritative because our life is at stake over whether we accept it, reject it, or choose to ignore it; either it's relevant somehow to our choices in life in which we run a risk to it (understood in a broad sense, no one wants to end up in the gutter), or because someone overbearingly present is threatening us with a stick (or bribing us with a carrot)
@@HipHopLived this is very interesting. What works did you pull this from? Specifically what makes something authoritative to the individual experiencing the claim
To all of those judging this man based on a short extract (the TH-cam Shorts extract), have you made the effort to go listen to the entire talk so that you can be sure you hear what he is saying? (And not what you think he is saying)
Anyway, on the problem of Analytic Philosophy, it seems to have been the product of the historically most dramatic application of Ockham's Razor ever made - the reduction of meaning to formal logic and predicable experience (or more like the first, and then the latter) - then Ryle came and said "No, we really do get meaningful concepts from everyday life", and a few decades later, "No there really are meaningful really philosophical (and therefore, I suppose, "extra-ordinary") problems", and then "But those French-o's are so obscure, they're like gurus... like... like..." and then "We're back to doing philosophy as it's always been done" (since philosophers have always been akin to "a guru")
The interviewer was out of her league. As always, Zizek was great.
In what way? She didn't say anything at all really. I much prefer it when an interviewer isn't forcing a direction , or speaking over their guests
Nobody Leads him he leads the conversation
It's very adorable to try to save free will with quantum fisics.
Probability, statitics and randomness only add to the problem.
Reminds me of theologians evoking contemporary astronomy to resuscitate god.
I probably made several mistakes there. Anyway it seems to imply that what children fight over is their mothers, I find that a brilliant correlative to Freud from a social perspective, and this is understood, more or less, as "comfort" (which of course recalls the Master-Slave Dialectic of Hegel). This is what immature adults continue to do when they've refused to grow up - they fight to impose their "comfort zone" at other people's expense.
"His odd interests marked him as an outsider, and he did not alleviate this by feeling any compulsion to be 'one of the boys.' He despised gym class and team sports and often cut classes to follow his own interests. Moving beyond the standard school texts, he absorbed volumes analyzing human behavior on every level, from the impulses of the individual to the dynamics of the herd."
Anyone who knows Žižek, knows that this short is highly likely not representative of what he is trying to communicate. So.. good baiting the crowd for watching the full video 👍🏽
Freedom is a necessity of its own ~ CB McPherson on possessive individualism ? Who is Zizek channelling and how would anyone actually know ~ his talking about Himmler etc is the core ground of the anthroposophists and rosicrusions; the take on naturalism is akin to the work of Enst Bloch in The Principle of Hope; Plancks constant is a thought-form to mitigate indeterminacy ~ Existenz?
I personally agree that the Zohar was contemporary with the Talmud, tradition would actually place it's completion in the second century and where-abouts prior to the 6th century completion of the Talmud (took 5 centuries to write, the Zohar was written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, his son Elazar, and his disciples, per tradition. It's roughly 10000 pages, making the "skeptical critical position" of "Moses ben Shem Tov made it all up in 13th century Spain" untenable)
I think any vision of a future must admit that reality is not as it will be, which is to say reality is not yet, or even that reality is not as it must be, so it can only describe the present reality by way of a lack or a negation. The language of a better, more perfected, or more complete reality, must necessarily be in-direct.
09:46 is for those who came from shorts
He reminds me a lot to hermeneutics. In the way of approaching history and the openness of ontology, i felt like i was reading Dilthey or Gadamer.
I know he is student of Lacan, Hegel, Marx...so is obvious he will lean to in the direction of hermeneutics, but i dont recall before seen him so in to it.
like reading the mood of the room - like BPD and manipulative, sensitive or hyper-sensitive types do.
anyway, added adendum: Ordinarily we hold synthetic judgments to be the empirical observation that inspires a definition which shall be the future subject of an analytic judgment. (But, typically in the case of scientific/artistic/philosophical/theological creativity, ___ [moment of insight, etc. etc.
Uh, and for the record, _I am an analytic philosopher at heart_ (it's not that if you understand it you must explain it in plain language, after all, communication is intended for an audience - I read Umberto Eco in Spanish sorry for not using the technical terms - and sometime's somebody is spying, but that maybe we shouldn't assume a psychopath can understand the right thing in plain language anyway, since "stop hitting me" is just a joke to those people)
You know there are philosophers who have gone on record and said such things as "Aristotle's insight was that there is no need to invoke a 'deeper reality' to explain phenomenal realities" (that would be Martha Nussbaum in an interview in the 80's), but Noam Chomsky in his books from the 60's states that there is no science without explanation by means of a "deeper under-lying structure", his explanations then, unsurprisingly, take the form of a layered explanation, so there's a phonological layer, then a morphological layer, of language. But Derrida few years later would already point out that this is (actually Saint Augustine started it) "the naturalistic fallacy" of language, as it were. The very existence of "Grammatology" as a department of archeology, which originated in the study of Egypt, disproves that language starts at phonemes and then proceeds to "morphemes". Because hieroglyphs are non-phonetic language - something every linguist knows, and none seems to care to account for. I blame freemasonry?
Why do you write so many comments?
"As LaVey pointed out, all other churches are based on worship of the spirit and denial of the flesh and the intellect. He saw the need for a church that would recapture man’s mind and carnal desires as objects of celebration. Rational self‐interest would be encouraged and a healthy ego championed."
He clearly had traditional spiritual doctrine explained to him, as in Mirandola or Ghazali, there is the human, angelic and divine natures. The human and angelic are acceptable, but the divine eliminated.
"Bro Derrida was such a nominalist, he didn't even believe the human heart existed!"
Tourism Center bout to explode 💥
"In 1942, when he was twelve years old, LaVey’s fascination with toy soldiers branched off to concern about the world war. He delved into military manuals and discovered that arsenals for the equipment of armies and navies could be bought like groceries in a supermarket and used to conquer masses of people. The idea took shape in his head that contrary to what the Bible said, the earth would not be inherited by the meek, but by the strong and mighty."
From the original introduction of the 1968 edition, once again, most historic Satanists are close to the military, police or intelligence communities.
I suppose what I am proposing is simply what Chomsky already accepted, and Tomasello, in a way unbeknowst to me, brought up in the shape of a critique: There must be some sub-layer to linguistics, we are all agreed it is biological, but, in Chomsky's words, "linguistics is a sub-science of psychology" (somewhere in "Language and Mind"). So if, per Freud's words, "Psycho-analysis is between biology and psychology", there should be a layer of linguistic analysis, that is properly scientifically, psycho-analytical. And I think Lacan is right in choosing martyrdom on the hill, that all traditional scientists believe, that Science is Truly Revolutionary. (an achievement of modernity - we DO believe)
I learned in 7th grade by division of halves you can get to zero point in reality but not mathematically. Zizek's story about Himmler, was never heard before. What is the definition of freedom used in this context? Reading minds is reading memories, or is it thoughts about memories? Probably cannot read someone's mind while they are making calculations in real time.
You know Foucault clearly surpasses Thomas Kuhn in this: For him the revealer of a new Episteme is also inherently a moral hero. It's really the only rational way we can explain why Einstein, Newton, and to the more enlightenened (me), James Clerk Maxwell are as Saintly figures.
does anyone know what is he reffering to at 10:27
He was the son of the Duke of Orleans who was a Montagnard.
Is Lacan saying that nostalgia is the uniting feature of the human condition? I know that sounds counter to what he is literally saying, but he's talking about recovering a "state of oneness that only exists in myth", I mean he's saying myth (which is extraordinary) is excluded from language, right? And that the signification of language (which is ordinary) is always what's excluded?
3:00 - Heinrich Himmler - The Final Solution as the highest ethical act.
That's like saying "Morality is strange to me"
I'm an Ockham's Razor guy, but I, too, find the appeal to "what is natural" fallacious in building a scientific theory (questionable epistemology), by which I mean "simple, orderly, 'what one would assume'", "comfortable _for me and my associates/colleagues"_ - I think that's a fast way to construct competing "epistemes" (shots at hegemonic, monolithic, "Truth"), it's a far-cry from an objective view at knowledge.
Ehem - Vanis Varoufakis pointed out that we've gone back from capitalism into "neo-feudalism", and at least three sociologists have stated that the origins of the mafia are in the remnants of the feudal enforcement systems. In other words it's unsurprising that "neo-feudalism" means "the golden age of the con" (con man, scam artist, or "art of the deal" to put it politely)
"LaVey’s Satan is 'the spirit of progress, the inspirer of all great movements that contribute to the development of civilization and the advancement of mankind. He is the spirit of revolt that leads to freedom, the embodiment of all heresies that liberate.'"
That is a political doctrine.
When Lacan says "My title conveys the fact that, beyond this speech, it is the whole structure of language that psychoanalytic experience discovers in the unconscious. This is to alert prejudiced minds from the outset that the idea that the unconscious is merely the seat of the instincts may have to be reconsidered.", in "The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious" (delivered as a talk in 1957). Look, I got this from Wikipedia, but Noam Chomsky supposedly takes up linguistic applications Carnap in a 1957 book to claim that a language is an infinite set of grammatical statements that can be generated algorithmically from a "syntactic structure" given a finite number of "linguistic elements" (it's been a while, but I did take 4 semesters of formal logic - Wikipedia meant something like "semantic variables", right? Like in math). This later became, published in the most famous book "Language and Mind" (1968), growing from a debate with the behaviorists, the claim that the mind pre-exists behavior, but not necessarily language, as an innate syntactic structure subject to biological evolution, right? So that Chomsky gets lumped in, some times, I've heard or read this somewhere, with the "Structuralists" - which would make him ironically just as "continental" as "analytic", right? Because Freud didn't shy away from saying, that what he was creating was a science somewhere in the "interstices between biology and psychology", and in that regard Chomsky was merely making "lingui-analysis" (and how is that not pseudo-science?)
I’m very curious about his brain,
and how it is wired to be so overwhelmingly energetic.
Tony Robbins had a growth on his endocrine gland, which caused him to malfunction and be overly energetic.
Is this the case with Slavoj?
It’s too easy to ask: what drugs is he on?
"desire is only that which I have called the metonomy of all signification." Jacques Lacan, "Of Structure as an Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever" You know I like it.
I hope you read that whole last comment in full.
Indeed, Maimonides first intuited the existence of the human Unconscious almost two centuries after Ibn Sina, or "Avicenna" by way of the discovery of psycho-somatic conditions as described in his proto-Aquinean-hylo-morphic theory: The Oneness of Body and Mind.
Keep in mind there is an undated letter from Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Paine denouncing his rejection of Christianity as "elitism, betraying his childhood"
A lot of people have alleged that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a tyrant, mostly upper class types, and I don't doubt Solon got the same treatment, as he also said "Refrain ye in your hearts those stubborn moods, Plunged in surfeit of abundant goods, And moderate your pride! We'll not submit, Not even you yourselves will this befit!" - and if Galileo were a heretic I'd be first in line to sign the blood-writ contract and be one
Just keep in mind that when I say me all I mean is "Charitable Love" (which my boggled brain has come to understand as having primarily two components: advocacy and forgiveness - well a positive and a negative as it were, and both are to be interpreted both materially and spiritually - so a banker can't fool himself that he's very forgiving while keeping the whole world in monetary debt [I guess if money is an "Idea" is more of a metaphysical discussion, I'll have to save the Marxism of course])
If you want to have a co-op that's fine by me, but only on the condition that you genuinely want it (that it's fine by you)
"The experience in the colonial sphere, of this country as much as of any other, has amply shown that even the mild forms of planning which we know as colonial development involve, whether we wish it or not, the imposition of certain values and ideals on those whom we try to assist. It is, indeed, this experience which has made even the most internationally minded of colonial experts so very sceptical of the practicability of an “ international ” administration of colonies."
From a footnote by Hayek, he clearly would've opposed both the European Union and French monetary control of West Africa. Does anyone even read this much referenced man?
You know to be fair, revolutions in thought might have to be forced just like any other revolution. But then the question is of you doing it well, and not being inept, which at a certain point is "trafficking with the enemy"
Since his father (who committed suicide) was a member of the merchant marine, he must've travelled lots, and one sees many oddities as a sailor! it is a fact
You know there was a great man in Mexico (a superior form of civilization that eschews chauvinism) once that said, "Hemos sido tolerantes hasta excesos criticados", and I argue he did not go _far enough_
Now I've no doubt Heidegger read Schelling, but far as I know he read him completely differently (and I didn't think Heidegger was a Monotheist, for all his talk of "gods") [perhaps it's best the world be flawed, but on the surface that's paradoxical]
The ancient Stoics observed dogs, and inferred dogs can think logically. That dogs have minds, that if put in a situation requiring basic logic they will apply it (I think provided it isn't too convoluted or... you know... emotionally frustrating). Well everyone knows what "dog" is used for in innuendo.
Or in any case to "surpass" the world (so someone can "conquer the world" as a hermit from a cave, provided he isn't merely putting on a show for himself, but acquires True Wisdom. I had some argument for that but I forgot it)
I can't help but perceive in the "Oedipus Complex" (at least as construed in Lacan, but it's definitely there in Freud, if I recall the point of the Oedipus Complex is that it resolves itself - to escape it), a High Modern attempt at replacing Religion. But perhaps it could also serve as a biological explanation for the perennial existence of Religion (well it's "Moses and Monotheism" where one finds "Return of the Repressed", but that's a long book and I know like, 3 pages. "Future of an Illusion" and all that)
In the Chilam Balam (a text written by a Mayan Christian prophet from Yucatan), it is said there will be a "Holy Inquisition", that will wipe out the forces of the Anti-Christ, represented as a bishop with a cross on his hat winking, and institute Real Christianity.
William Breeze, the current caliph, is a concert cellist in Europe.
to be clear the "cartoon noises" I had in mind was the weird half-human purrs of one "Snarf" from "Thundercats"(I know a few fans here in Mexico, my dad's into "Pinky and the Brain" by Stephen Spielberg, I'll tell you that story later!)
That is what "Mens' Rights Activists" oft called "gynocentrism", which they say originates in Western Chivalry (China and Japan also have chivalry, I have no doubt the Middle East, particularly Persia does so also. But it might be an import from the West, where concubinage was not considered normal after Charlemagne, who had many wives like a traditional tribal Frank)
I disagree with him @11:45
Maybe you can, maybe you can't. It is as inconceivable for the human mind as endlessness itself is.
So both spectral extremities remain simply unfathomable.
Maybe - and I'm uneducatedly speculating here - we as humans in our measure lie directly at the middle point of this scale.
But yea, the thumbnail `Fetish, Grief, Determination´ sums it up pretty well.
anyway, back to the superior form of Latin American philosophy: If the first requirement of a person, is to live, the first formation of the knowledge of peoples, is the wisdom needed in order to live. This is what gives initial shape to the traditions of knowledge-formation, and therefore why we would be right to say "the way they do philosophy over there, is not the way they do philosophy over here, but they are both philosophy to me" (or we'd all go kablooey)
In any case it's odd that Hugo Chavez denies ever having had any contact with EZLN in Chiapas. Know what I think? EZLN is a cover for European colonial operations in Mexico, as opposed to Canadian or American, using relations with the Chinese as an intermediary. Hence the hefty presence of the Catholic Church in the "Zapatista" movement (which plays on the fact, abusively of course, that Zapata had a personal confessor, and his followers fought in the Cristero War against Obregon and Calles)
Anyway, why is that important? Because Avicenna (like Maimonides) was a Medical Authority, and his most famous text, "Al-Shifa", is translated "The Healing"
For a spiritually justified response to the heresy of Liberation Theology, see "Hablar de Dios desde el sufrimiento del inocente", of the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutierrez, or "Job was a rich man who was a friend to the poor"
After all, I recall reading a "history of mentalities" that said that in the Middle Ages things were considered as SIGNS of the Divinity. So that the whole world was very "enchanted" and "coded" (and I suppose this could be a little rigid, and "beyond dispute" and some things were considered "proper" - others no doubt were merely folk superstition, so an element of fun and freedom that was emancipatory was available to the Medieval Peasant... who, the algorithm also made sure to inform me, tended to spend half his life "on vacation" [but a third of both halves at Church])
"After he married, LaVey abandoned the wondrous world of the carnival to settle into a career better suited for a home life. He enrolled as a criminology major at the City College of San Francisco. That led to his first conformist job-photographer for the San Francisco Police Department. As it worked out, that job had as much to do as any other with leading him toward Satanism." Same introduction, next page
You know EVERYONE heard "every person is a universe" as a meme, that's Badiou and Gabriel. People are going to find out.
You know Solon created democracy, and he once said, "Smother a strong man in his crib" (roughly something like that, I'm taking it from Willis Barnstone's "Ancient Greek Lyric"), he himself being "a strong man". If you can't understand the wisdom behind the saying, are you truly prepared to live in a democracy?
Jesus says "divorce is legitimate in a case of adultery", so the counter-weight to "female supremacy in Chivalrous Love" would be "But what if he leaves me??? I so ADORE Roger!" (and in the case of lesbianism or homosexuality, or any other flavour of "labels are just for convenience", it can't be so distinct)
"I could always denounce my older lover to the authorities, I have this power as a 5 year old and am not stupid, but I so enjoy the way he touches me"
That's because The Idiot is the End of the World, Slavoj, but like I said, I think a sequel is implicit ("Anastasia" - "Resurrection"), as Jesus would put it "Think of the time" (it's somewhere in the synoptic Gospels, I guess I'll have to get the key citation eventually)
Grady McMurty, "Caliph" of the Ordo Templi Orientis chosen by Aleister Crowley to succeed him, called himself a "misunderstood poet (this is a blasphemy in reference to Islamic Ha'dith, he meant hypnotist) and a liberal".
Avila Camacho's brother Maximino was also corrupt (and mayor of Puebla, where "El Yunque" would be created 10 years later), but this was owing to making deals with the U.S.
You know Zizek, I feel the concept of "Evolution" has been forgotten by philosophers as of late - despite it showing up prominently in Spencer and Bergson (Nietzsche having criticized the Darwinian concept) - but as an evaluative concept, that relatively devalues Rousseau's Natural Man and values upward Nietzsche's Ubermensch (I find it funny that "mensch" is neuter) - I think it can be held up as given toward superiority because evolution is adaptation to an environment prodded on my random mutation. So it might be said that the most evolved organism is the one most able to adapt to the largest number of contingencies (circumstance/randomness)
"The East is a house of harlots singing praises among the flames of the first glory wherein the Dark Lord hath opened His mouth; and they are become as living dwellings in whom the strength of man rejoiceth; and they are appareled with ornaments of brightness, such as work wonders on all creatures."
P. 117. Someone should've told Said.
"Ladies and gentlefish! You've heard of a transvaluation of all values! Then a nihilization of all values! Now I bring you a transnihilization of all nihilues!"
I guess the Kant "we have no access to the thing in itself" is clearly on the side of nominalism.
He doesn't understand quantum mechanics, because even physicists don't understand quantum mechanics, they understand the mathematics that models quantum mechanics, except for the mathematics of quantum field theory that no one understands.
He never said he understands Quantum physics. He is trying to understand what Quantum physicists are saying and their findings
But the fact is, from my own personal conviction, I do agree, and I believe this belief is pragmatically founded as a question of ethics (which deals with actions, choices, values). So what is the last paragraph of Clark and Chalmer's article?
"As with any re-conception of ourselves, this view will have significant consequences. There are obvious consequences for philosophical views of the mind and for the methodology of research in cognitive science, but there will also be effects in the moral and social domains. It may be, for example, *that in some cases interfering with someone’s environment will have the same moral significance as interfering with their person.* And if the view is taken seriously, certain forms of social activity might be re-conceived as less akin to communication and action, and as more akin to thought. In any case, once the hegemony of skin and skull is usurped, we may be able to see ourselves more truly as creatures of the world."
The implications are clearly, as it were "dysgenical", as opposed to eugenical (selection for psychopathy)
I think this strikes to the core of the liberal critique of "alternatives to capitalism" as "We are just stating the facts, this _is_ reality." Feminists and gay rights types often point out, "If it's natural, why enforce it?" And that applies as much to the status quo as to any alternatives to it, and, per Hegel, it is reality's nature to _change._ But precisely what capitalism does is drive us mad with desire (hence it's de-territorialization, which tends toward re-territorialization, as in fascism)
It is as if we were to dissect a frog, re-arrange it's organs, while it yet lived, sow it back up, and expect there to be no vital consequence. Which of course would be as if we were totally dissociated from "the drama".
How about Yuval Harari, the guy who talks about digital dictatorship, _at the World Economic Forum_
If you ask me, Kojeve got it from Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, this then infected the French already given to be moralistes, who then finally became real thinkers.
I guess I can't honestly claim to have understood that yet.
I think "adapt" is wrong at that point - since that is defeatism, a human "adapts" to reality by changing it (Hegel/Adorno/Marx). To be passive is to be absorbed, to be human is not merely to "adapt" (and I say "merely" as I am implying humanity is the most evolved organism), it is to Conquer, the human adaptation is to be active and to take over the World.
You know to be fair, I think Lacan demonstrated by means of his theory that the unconscious is structured as a language, what's more that it cannot possibly not be structured as a language (otherwise it meaneth nothing and goeth no-where, not even to escape from meaning - I mean Freud's Titanic Dong... well all joking aside it wouldn't be therapeutic if it wasn't "structured", which to him analytically, as in by definition, just means "as a language" in roughly a way akin to the way that he meant it)
According to Conspiracy Theory folklore the Pike Letter on "World War Three" was to Mazzini on August 15, 1871, and the original is found in the British Museum. I'm not sure if I believe it.
Has anyone pointed out that Irigaray is obviously a natural-born sorceress? Hence "The Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger". "Air" is an essential part of wizardry, like "what's in the air" - it allows one to enchant people and direct their inclinations (and this is undoubtedly why NASA, of the infamous Project Paperclip, has a "global winds" monitor). Also I've yet to read it but it sounds like gender essentialism of the "No, Lacan, I'm better than _you!"_ type.
Dude stop commenting are u sick ? Use your time better
I think the funny part is how Lacan noted that the Capitalist desperately tries to "Capitalize" on the Ubermensch, only to find that he never will be, as if he were forever doomed to play the part of "the epiphenomenal negative" in Deleuze... the loser. (or in spiritual traditions, the eternally damned)
well, except Jung, but I meant "language", I guess I forgot the way I said it out loud in a class originally (back before I know so many things, I guess pick up quick, and it's come to a sort of "epistemic breaking through point" for me)
I mean to say the least this isn't "vague fluff". That's ridiculous, it's very precise.
You know Slavoj (I hope you don't mind the informality), I consider myself a pretty magnanimous guy - I'm the last person you'll see petitioning for Henry Kissinger to have gone retroactively to prison, or eliminating his name from some college, but I can't help but notice that African Presidents go to the Hague for things that Western leaders do regularly and with no consequence.
Yo Zizek! I'm sure you actually read the "Guide to the Perplexed", right? So what's "The Lightning Flash", about?
for those who weren't bothered with ever referencing the text in public in their lives, it's in the Book of Revelation, and is, in Greek, "Eureka!"
I, for one, insist on quality, in my melo-drama (if people aren't still talking about it 5 years later I'm generally unconcerned, but my older brother recommended the anime "Chainsaw Man" to me and it's about spying, so I am interested)
tl;dr (old school internet speak for "too long, didn't read"), Nietzsche was right about The State. Every philosopher is tempted, by reasons of their own ego, to prefer The State to the plain unvarnished Truth, but it all just had to be, in order, I think, for everything to be re-molded, in a superior fashion.