Slavoj Zizek | Cambridge Union
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ย. 2018
- Slavoj Žižek is a Hegelian philosopher, Lacanian psychoanalyst, and political activist. He is international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities and the author of numerous books, including his most recent work, ‘Like a Thief in Broad Daylight: Power in the Era of Post-Humanity’.
![[Live] : ONE 167 วันนี้!! "ตะวันฉาย vs โจ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D9_dvfIa6Ao/mqdefault.jpg)
his face isn't paralyzed anymore! happy for him
Bells pallsy
Cocaine gives you facial paralysis
@@ilovebjorksomuch3189 That explains the constant sniffing.
World's Strongest Man Hafthor Bjornsson had it, too, recently.
I had a radial ulnar palsy, incapacitated my hand for months. Terrifying
COYG19 But his nose still belongs on a NyQuil commercial
Zizek comment sections are always fascinating. It's always marxists shitting on him because he doesn't worship the USSR, right wingers shitting on him because they think he's a traditional marxist who worships the USSR, and pretentious people who mock him for not being the stereotype of a snobby philosopher.
It's a shame really, the things he says are legitimately interesting.
a lot of that is true but (hold on to your pants) he is Richard spencer´s favorite marxist philosopher
daaronk whaaaat? No way
Andrés Gómez don’t forget the people who have to comment on his sniffing.
@@SherryNiles1312 you bet mario … … i watch quite a few right wing podcasts and he´s mentioned it not once but several times ..
Hombre para comentarios rimbombantes los de la vida moderna pero bueno.... por este comentario tuyo in english ... te doy un treh.... :p
Perfect example of intellectual madness. Love him.
Yes, proper intellectuals must as a matter of course be a little mad.
Who wants to see Pavoj Sleterson vs. Zordan Jizek?
Throw in Hiss Chredges and Choam Nomsky and I’m in.
I dont think it is interesting. Zizek is "real". Peterson just internet cult leader and biznessmen. Man sell selfhelp book. "Do this and that and you life can change". Its discusting
@@amphinomous9155 yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
@@amphinomous9155 At least Zizek became a well-known philosopher for his work in philosophy. Peterson's fame has little to do with his academic work.
Alienated TV that's partly true. Peterson's INITIAL fame came as a result of his public stance on transgender pronouns. But his SUSTAINED and continuously growing fame has stemmed from his psychological and philosophical work, upon which his self-help material is based. If all there was to the guy was his anti-trans-pronoun position, he would have faded away long ago.
Really surprised to see people having trouble understanding what he is saying, i had the opposite experience. Every point was articulated very clearly
Lunarwolff Did you light up?
He has point. It's understandable to me. But, he has no evidence and data to support his claims. Only Plato, Hegel, etc.
Data as suggested by you could only cover symptomatology. It's an epistemological problem for you.
He jumps from topic to topic and to me he doesn't seem to make a point. I like his jokes though
@@Jomo326He used jokes precisely to illustrate his philosophical points, which would otherwise be much more difficult to convey. And i frankly find it hard to believe you missed his criticism of feminism (metoo), political correctness, his points about Marxism, his problems with Jordan Peterson, his criticism of direct democracy, anti semitism and so much more..
Happy to see him doing well.
Who would love to see Peterson Vs Zizek?
not particularly.
Jovan Stojkovic Why not?
It might be interesting if Zizek could stay sober enough to maintain some basic level of coherency, but I imagine the whole conversation would consist of Peterson trying to pin Zizek to a specific definition or position.
@@lucasfabisiak9586 As he puts it in the video, Peterson is busy trying to be the wise man - he doesn't theorize the way Professor Zizek does. I also find Peterson to be a little too stiff and not as interested in the questions that Zizek raises.
I would like to see this, but I have a feeling it would look something like Peterson asking specific questions and Zizek "answering" with his usual off-road monologues. Seems to me like Zizek brings up interesting points and reveals troubling paradoxes without ever fully delving into them.
Peoples may find this man’s many tics funny but how many of thoses fools, could even wrapp their minds around even contemplating the very idea to give his lectures in front of international television cameras and in front of the most prestigious academic institutions if they had thoses very same tics or other visible disorders. I believe that the peoples who laugh at this man, being put in his shoes under the same conditions would never leave their hidding places and pretty much die there. I think this man has some of the biggest pair of pure solid brass testicules... and he also happens to be an academic super heavyweight...
Love Zizek.. Thank you for the upload.
Smart man Slavoj Zizec. He pretends to have these nervous tics so that people get frustrated watching him and buying his books.
Ha ha
thanks for putting the videos online so quickly !
Healthcare must be really bad in Slovenia if Zizek has had a cold for the last 20 years
At least better than America.
@Douglas Sirk lol, yes.
you have no idea how good it is compared to US and other parts of the world
I just hope someone sanitized the podium after he finished. Good grief!
That's another reason why communist Yugoslavia should come back
This is my favourite stand up set.
He's pouring the great thoughts directly from his nose via his hands. Brilliant.
I almost spit my tea jajaj
What I really enjoy about zizek is how he's in a way the ultimate centrist, he will find something to critique in any movement and its extremes.
I have cited him but I will never shake his hand, never.
Must be hard to be a germaphobe.
Tip from the pros: go in for the Roman forearm grab.
1drkstr ha! I said the same thing on a different video
@@pathocrat What do you do with the elbow full of snot?
hahah true that
with all due respect to this man, i would decline any offer to shake his hand!
You don't like old man snot and titty sweat?!
Karl Urbahn Just how much respect is then due in this case? Without any respect you would decline....
Why would he offer you that
Ja, ich verstehe.
Especially nowadays 😐
Slavoj's slip of the tongue at 25:20 is so great dark humor.
i cannot believe that there were people in the audience who were just not paying attention to slavoj
5:23 Never seen anyone in history drinking a beer like that! That's epic.
I don't know, if I looked at myself in the mirror during my first sup I might have seen something similar!
Love you .from iran❤
azade azad message me, another Iranian Zizek fan here
Zizek is one of my favorite people to listen to. He says many interesting things here, some of which seem incompatible. 22:21 He says all functioning democracies require a fundamental agreement or consensus in the background, and that the disintegration of this fundamental agreement leads to political polarization and ideological civil war. I agree with that, particularly in the U.S., but there's still a common culture of consumerism holding it together. He then says that he believes we should adopt a "culture of discretion", where people tolerate "otherness". 50:31 He then goes on to say that he believes in "well functioning" bureaucracy, and a society with "proper distances" where people don't have to like each other, or really understand each other, as long as they tolerate each other. Metaphorically, I would describe this position as a kind of ideological isolationism, where multiple ideologies exist and none try to dominate the other. But the problem with this position is that the "well functioning" bureaucracy he envisions is a product of, and subject to, ideology. Really, the fundamental agreement or consensus he described as a necessity for a functioning democracy is just a common ideology.
And if the common ideology that united society has disintegrated, how can a new one be established voluntarily? I don't think it can. And that's mainly because when the common ideology disintegrates, so does identity. So the old identity declines (nationalism, democratic liberalism) for several reasons, and new identities gain prominence (political parties). And typically, this fundamental divide and loss of common identity can only be resolved if a nation splits voluntarily, which I don't think ever happens, or through a civil war, which I think almost always happens.
But what's interesting about this ideological divide in the U.S. is that it's happening at a time when people are totally dependent on civilization, technology, infrastructure, etc., with a high standard of living, and still united by consumerism, so there is no actual potential for a real civil war. Nor will it split voluntarily, because it would be too disruptive to the economy and infrastructure, and at their core, people are still consumers. It will be interesting to see how this issue resolves, but I suspect that in the long run it won't matter, because everyone will be too busy playing video games.
This is such a well written point.
I agree with your point but. there is probably an answer to your doubts if you read some of his books or watch more talks where he addresses your criticism. He says ecological disaster or some other form of chaos could spark people to create a different system as a result of capitalism. What the new system is he says, he does not know exactly. But, the new system would be something global and, I am guessing less democratic so that ecological disasters and problems that require quicker stronger action can be accomplished. I do not know a lot so take what i say with a grain of sand or salt. I would like to talk or point out the topic of veganism because from my research animal agriculture causes a lot of problems and, I would argue the majority of problems are societies face today. I agree though that the way that humans think and act is ultimately why we have problems. I also am writing this comment just to sound smart lol but, I am trying to just to focus on the problem; and, I learned so much from watching these talks. I cannot wait to buy his books.
Bureaucracy, in my opinion, shouldn't be seen as a product of ideology. It can be envisioned as a structure that interacts with these isolated ideologies but that, at its core, its pure objective is to be efficient in the completition of its processes within society. Whether society has a common ideology or a mixture of isolated ideologies is irrelevant to the functioning of this bureaucracy. However, indeed it will be subject to the ideologies that establish the ends of its administration and processes.
@@ebrem557 Lol no human bureaucracy functions without a common set of beliefs whether it be profit or patriotism. Ideology cannot be disentangled from any organized human endeavor.
2:24 cameraman thinks Hermione's cute
4:15 Hermione picks a booger
She's still cute tho
@@arhael1 that, she is.
how about mast... in publ... ? 1:12:20
nejcasx lol, that guy in his fuckin shorts rubbing his junk? Thanks, I missed that 😂
The air was as dry as my humour, so she had no choice.
Always respect for his authentic move.
My god I have the same shoes as Slavoj! That is the comodity fetishism at it's purest as those are very comfortable and have no shoelaces.
he has been touching his watery face, spitting, yet the interviewer looks at him with sheer admiration. That there is the power of brut, radical and being-piercing thought !
He is very admirable
Thank you for fixing the spinning shield, that was super distracting.
Seriously thought he was flailing harder than usual 'til I realized I had it at 1.25 speed.
Zizek has a lot of interesting things to say, but his critique of wisdom seems to confuse the concept with popular "wise" cliches. Socrates was a lover of "wisdom" as something which he couldn't attain, and Plato certainly didn't see true "sophia" in the sophists. It's odd too, since he is a philosopher and the traditional definition of that term is a "lover of wisdom" - not in the sense of loving popular cliches, but striving towards deeper knowledge (like, say, an understanding of how ideology structures our experience and lifestyles).
The "lover of wisdom" trope, which leads to the development of the hysterical questioning subject Z is staning, is a transvaluation, of the existing wise man/priest figure who "has" or reveals wisdom the, the methods of access always being somewhat mystified and exclusive. Petersons participation in the wise man/preist trope are numerous, but most telling for me is his role as a purveyor of paywalled personality tests.
i think he is saying wisdom is self fulling prophecy that only serves its own oppertunistic purpose that can be somewhat problematic like stabilizing something that is unsustanable like surplue enjoyment, jouiisance...
I get the popular notion of wisdom that he is talking about, but those are all examples of sophism, rhetoric and popular belief. I think the point of being a philosopher is that you recognize that those don't constitute actual wisdom, but only a mirage. It's analogous to pseudoscience as a kind of pseudosophia. By abandoning the concept of wisdom in my mind you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, since wisdom is itself still a useful concept (recognizing false consciousness and ideology, for example, is a form of wisdom in the Platonic sense - literally, trying to escape the cave). Instead of giving wisdom to false prophets like Peterson, claim it for ourselves.
Zizek is a hegelian and that s why he rejects even the ancient Greek notion of wisdom that you praise. Zizek demands a resolution, he prefers someone like Peterson over philosophers who invest themselves in truth and ponderous philosophical discourses that lack materiality.
That s why a lot of philosophers don t like Zizek, claiming he is posturing, he combines film, music, psychoanalysis, cultural criticism, metaphysics, theology, philosophy, politics, economy. He demands unity and thereby transgression... Jordan Peterson is wrong, no question, Zizek hates Jung, but Zizek still prefers an idiot thinker like Peterson over a not-yet-hegelian like Brandom.
Peterson may be wrong, but at least he dares to be. Brandom is just hiding behind truth, turning philosophy into some useless language.
Handkerchiefs were thin on the ground that day, a relict of the past, a fading memory of the good old days.
I was that guy in Nike shirt with the beer seems like such a nice night out.
He pretty much orated and discussed much of what he has written-- a lot from "Less than Nothing", "Sublime object of Ideology" and of course "Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues On The Left". Nonetheless, its interesting to listen him!
please someone help me to understand the context of this talk? what is he discussing?
The text info says he is a psychoanalyst. This is not true. He studied psychoanalytic thought but does not work as an analyst. He has admitted this in other public places, I think it was an interview where he said this.
You don't need to exercise psycoanalisis to be a psycoanalist
He's a theoretical pshychoanalyst :)
They don't do therapy work.
He did actually work as a psychoanalyst for a time early on in his career.
@@extraemontamontes3618 actually you do. i don't know if zizek is an analyst, but there are rigorous requirements for becoming a qualified psychoanalyst, including doing at least 50 hours of analysis (on yourself) with a qualified analyst in the field.
He psychoanalyzes culture and ideology. We are all very, very sick.
Hope I never have a nightmare in which I ring a call centre, and this guy answers.
My goodness, in this lecture Zizek exaggerates the sniffing enormously!
Critique of Jordan Peterson, at 32:25 onwards.
Zizek's time allocation is like this: 30% of time, saying things; 30% of time, explaining things said; 40% of time, "and so on and so on", beard and nose grabbing, sniffing.
Better than 100 percent of one's time obfuscating your industry's questionable ethics.
How did I just hear about this guy?! He utterly fascinates me, and has an ability to disarm peoples apprehensions with his speaking style, humor, and authenticity. Really appreciate the talk Slavoj and Cambridge.
"His speaking stile,humor,and authenticity"That's all .
This one is excellent
The best part about these Q&A sessions is how it demystifies an ivy league education and proves definitively that students of Cambridge are no more intelligent than your average 12 year old.
I live very very near cambridge n this is true
Con RESPETUOSOS saludos 😷 Maestro SlavojZizek.
✍️🕵️🌛💜🌜🕵️🍒🤔✨🌹🍁✨🌏🌎🌍☄️
I love his Lacanian use of something phrased as symbolic castration. That is where we do not get what we inherently desire because of socioeconomic law.
Thank you Slavoj for getting to the heart of the matter. We are all "+" , ha ha ha. I do not think Jordan would disagree.
I can find the book the student mentions: The Capitalist Unconscious: Marx and Lacan by Samo Tomšič but have nothing to go on to find the books Zizek mentions: one on Brazilian secret police's warped buddhism and the other purportedly with the title "the Nazi ethics" but I find no such book title.
I'm not sure about the book on Brazilian authoritarian spirituality, but I believe the other book he is referring to is actually called "The Nazi Conscience".
Imagine him and a few buddies and students around a campfire giving this speech. :)
Poor guy surely prepared lots of clever questions only to ask two.
The main thing I have always hated about the philosophy community is that so many of us make idols of these thinkers.... they are not infallible and deserve criticism and rebuttals when they make blunders in their arguments. While you may agree with someone on a great many topics, you should be weary of this idolization that isn’t conducive to intellectual rigor or growth..
Do you have an actual point, and is it something that applies to this vid? I ask bc it seems like you're just generalizing and grandstanding for attention. Nothing relevant to say specifically? Fine. Take your spitball shop talk to a more appropriate discussion.
@@VeggieRice I won't repeat my point because it is pretty obvious what I meant. With respect to having anything to say that actually applies to this video, I'm quite confused why you even said that. Comment sections are open spaces for any discussion. I had watched a few videos before watching this and noticed a trend from their comment sections and from in person experience at philosophy lectures/events. I commented what I did to see if it was a phenomenon others noticed as well and it clearly was since some people liked my comment. Just because a discussion seems overgeneralized or pointless to you doesn't make it invalid....
@job RothbergI don't hate the community. You can hate an aspect of something and not hate the thing as a whole. I understand where you are coming from with what you said and while I agree that the community should theoretically be the way you say it is, it is a human endeavor and because of that, it is going to have issues in meeting the theoretical goals it has. I don't think all people are like this or that the community is much worse in this respect than other communities but it's also not perfect. This was just me pointing out an imperfection.
Fair enough. If one holds a philosopher in one's heart how can one become a philosopher? If one holds the buddha in their heart, how can they become a buddha?
Fantastic through out hitting something interesting..
It's makes sense because word of mouth and analouge ads are still the most effective way to promote a product.
"I'm not saying that you here need to get Boris Johnson as PM or whatever"
*2019 has left the chat*
which book on brazil is he talking about??
Hopefully someone can reply to this and explain it to me. But i'm skeptical about something zizek is saying from 1:05:00 onwards. He appears to be saying that most people understand Marx' idea of commodity fetishism backwards. The common view of the idea would be that we chase an abstract illusion by elevating commodities as a higher goal beyond their material usefulness. But then zizek says that Marx actually meant to say the opposite thing. Namely that commodity fetishism, when reading marx closely, means that we seek to consciously manufacture our illusion of meaning through the act of gaining material usefulness while being aware of the facade. Or something like that. My problem: isn't the 'common view' exactly what the word 'fetishism' originally means? If zizek is right then why didn't marx call it 'reverse commidity fetishism?'. It seems to me that he used the word for a reason.
Is the guy with the Nike t-shirt drinking a pint? (Not judging, though. It's me being morbidly curious).
Not a fan of the questions but it would be great if Zizek would answer them.
Why do these kids look so bored?!?! lemme take your seat!! I'd be cracking up with a huge smile!!!
they're from cambridge they're all like this
He's buzzing like a mofo!
23:30 the guy sleeping lol
But a few seconds later Zizek woke him up with an authoritarian sniff, at least.
Igor Yukht haha
I'm glad he recoverd from the palsy.
It's good to see wearing HI-Vis vests indoors appears in all classes.
Wow I have never listened to Zizek. I know he is a popular figure to the left but I have not gotten around to looking into him before this. I was blown away how much he explained that I can totally relate to. I dont know if he is right as everything we are dealing with a subjective opinion about the state of politics society etc but I have written down at least 5 points which I have had running through my head over the past year.
Can anyone explain, unfortunetly I am not the smartest, when he refers to the failure of PC on the left is not that its fanatical, but its precisely not Marxism? In what way is it not?
The idea is that today’s left obfuscates basic questions of power relations and economic relations as cultural problems, problems of tolerance etc. Zizek often points out Martin Luther King Jr. to make the point, namely that if you google his speeches, he never once mentions the word “tolerance.” To him, it would have been laughable to say white people don’t tolerate black people enough, because the problems he identified were socio-economic in nature. I hope this helps clarify the topic
For Maxists, PC concerns about separate race, gender, nationality issues are all distractions from class, and are so by design. Divide the working class along identity lines as the PC pseudo-Left and alt-right do, and you disempower them. Marxists were pretty much always vociferously against PC. Now you are smarter-ish.
Allen Dish wow ok thanks for this. I guess I need to look more into Zizek and his philosophy
samson hahah I’m still dumb as they come. But much appreciated. That makes sense at least as a theory. I guess I need to listen more to Zizek as I too am having difficulties working out where I sit in the PC environment debate. I personally would prefer open free speech that may not be PC but is that what other people like/want, I’m not sure.
@@hamzariazuddin424 Congratulations! 'Not knowing' is true wisdom! We will learn more in one day of 'not knowing' than we will in a 4 years of 'knowing'.
The absurd PC brigade are the Petite Bourgeoisie using their privilege to intellectually stomp on the Proletariat... Marx would not approve... ;)
I do love Slavoj!!!
Peterson doesn't deserve to be in the same room with our friend, Slavoj.
Rubbish! They would probably get on quite well. They are both high calibre guys who could have a reasoned exchange. I would love to see that.
***Spoiler Alert***
I was in such a good mood after listening to Zizek, only to have it spoiled by the youngster say that Omorosa will be speaking later. Who's speaking next week? Yanni Varoufakis and Andrew Dice Clay?
somebody in tweed and the guy opposite to him in shorts, gotta love this place
When is the Peterson bit?
Listen from around 36:00
Last moments were truly inspirational ❤
Does anyone shake his hand after the speech?
He reminds me so much of Heidegger, so strange cos I haven’t really been following this guy.
If I were in the audience I would be so tempted to sneak up to him to offer him a tissue.
When you listen to this interview instead of watching you are guessing if Zizek is sniffing lines of coke as he moves to explanation
I do admire this chap
Intro sounds like a 90s VHS
Brilliance.
"I will finish with a very naive point. I hope you will agree."
i love zizek, and i agree with him on almost everything, our politics are pretty much identical, but the only reason i’m not a “zizekian” is because is so dogmatically hegelian and lacanian. he always gets caught in the dialectical loop
Can we band together and buy Cambridge uni a decent mic.
hard to understand a lot of his points.
fascinating guy
I am in love with the camera girl in the back.
i want to get wired like zizek and ramble on to a bunch rich kids
He mentions Peter Sloterdijk at 29:48
For a second there I thought he looked like Mark Hamill in the thumbnail.
The last thing you would expect from Zizek, is that he would be wearing a wedding band - a true monogamist - would you have guessed?
great subs
Mans at the beginning is wearing the world's longest tie lmao
I think Zizek would be more comprehensible if he just told his jokes and linked them by the epistemology of the inexorably paradoxical. But is seems likely that being perfectly understood is his life's mission to avoid. The best thing about him is that he always draws back from actually being prescriptive.
A wonderful sense of humor and the jokes, well, they weren’t his own anyway.
I warned Daffy about his coke and meth habbit years ago, but no. I said, Daffy, I know it increase your creativity and philosophical ideas, but at what cost, Daffy?! At what cost? Not to mention the toll it will take on your looks and your nervous system will undergo irreparable damage. Did Daffy listen? No.
He even stepped up his nose game, I think.
Body language of the guy with the green vest kills me 😂 He really hates Zizek
I think he took the "opium is the opium of the people" from the late Rick Roderick.
Zizek the entertainer!
Peterson interviewed Pinker,they didn't debate. They agreed on pretty much everything, either Žižek didn't actually watch the video or he is deliberately trying to mislead.
I can understand almost everything he said idk about everybody else.
great vhs intro
Zizek's thoughts bear striking resemblance to his personal habits.
That ‘haha’ at 53:00 was so fucking adorable
what a world!
20:01 ?!?!
Oh waddup Japan man
most people forgot what u did, not us :)
What are people referring to here? Guess I'll have to Google "Nick Robinson".
Slavoj is having an anxiety sniff.Panadol please.!