Slavoj Žižek - the Politics of Psychoanalysis
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 เม.ย. 2021
- From the Žižek & So On Podcast:
Slavoj Žižek on the politics of psychoanalysis-with reference to Gabriel Tupinambá's new book "The Desire of Psychoanalysis", the limits of Lacan, the crazy philosophy of the Ljubljana school, women and Hegel, and his upcoming works: ecology and Marx (and Hegel), and living and dying in a topsy-turvy world etc. Then some final remarks on television shows and Rammstein.
Head to zizekandsoon.com or find the podcast on whatever platform you use, and join us on patreon for extra episodes and a happening discord server: patreon.com/zizekandsoon - บันเทิง
Respect for delivering a whole lecture during an earthquake
hahhhahahahahahah
What, were you guys doing dirty games?
Žižek should just stream constantly
24/7 live stream on Twitch
"Zizek reacts to new episode of 90 Day Fiance"
For real I would kill for a Hasanabi-style react stream of Zizek just telling us about random youtube videos lmao
His nose already does, apparently.
Hot ones with Zizek. The "I like my wings with tobasco and ideology"
this is one of the better Zizek talks in years... so often he repeats almost everything to a beat, and although it similar here as well, he non the less, gave himself more room to go further... thank you for giving him the opportunity and platform to do so
precisely
His writing has become repetitive as well, unfortunately. Still a worthwhile philosopher though.
Žižek is not a guy for on-line talks. Man, that camera shakes as there's a permanent earthquake in Ljubljana.
Fantastic to learn there's a Zizek podcast, =D.
26:08 ❤️
"I hate life"
hahahahah
Interesting interview and so on
👍👍👍keep going guys love the show
26:12 “Man is a woman which thinks that she really exists.”
Quote of a lifetime
I am really confused what he means by that
@@nataliezementbeisser1492 I don't know, what comes to mind to me is that we all start as females in the womb until some random mechanism makes slight modifications to the original design and the male form arises from the female form, making the existence of man dependent on the female not only as coming out of the womb but from within as well, but we twisted that on its head and we think that the default form of the human form is male to the point where we say that Eve came from Adam. Or maybe he means that we define what it is to be a man by defining what a woman isn't or cannot be, again, using women to make up our existence? What I'm sure about it's that it has to do with pure ideology.
@@nataliezementbeisser1492 Read that with Lacan's ‘the Woman doesn't exist.’ It is strictly a Lacanian point he makes.
@@nataliezementbeisser1492 he explains the context quite well, I think. It is the idea of applying a universality to the world that takes its point of departure in a male point of view as it has been socio-historically. Yet in doing so, of course also denying the fact that women exist - it was never necessarily part of the male view of universality. He explains it in other lectures as well, the idea that the reason women dress up much more than men do is to make clear the point that facade is all there really is. If you take away all the make-up, the dresses, the hair styling, there is simply nothing left. The facade is all there is - hence subjectivity is this pure void. Thus the man doesn't know he is a woman even though he thinks he is a man, but who actually doesn't exist if we grant him that there is nothing behind the facade - we don't have an inner soul or inner life as we think do. We only have a muddled mind that thinks it's a soul, that think it's a cartesian subject, that thinks it's rational, etc.
Did it clarify anything?
compañero zizek !!
Thanks!
Splendid!
Great to see Zizek responding to people's criticism of him not making direct political prescriptions.
A handkerchief? Revolution!
The name of this channel is absolutely perfect.
and the intro jam
I can listen to this guy for hours. I think I'm going to try linking eight hours worth and try sleeping to him to see what he does to my dreams. . .
th-cam.com/video/2rzMkvf1Ess/w-d-xo.html
@@nightoftheworld And on Hegel, no less!
26:08 I literally can't stop cackling
31:30 " Ah ! You know what you should do...my favourite terror ? Take my statement & make it as the answer to another question, so that I appear as an idiot or didn't get it or whatever..."
The Groucho Marx of critical theory.
SZ brilliantly describes the British class system vis a vie Brazilian professional diffusion, with doctors substituting for Anglican clerics.
great
8:25 *analytical spirit* “Lacan said that in his seminars every week that he’s not the master, he’s the hysteric-he’s the analyst who is improvising topics and the public there (a thousand people squeezed into a hall) are his collective analyst.
And he said, _‘I speak as an analyst in my Ecrit writings’_ -which are practically unreadable. But Lacan admitted that in his writings he just gives opaque/ambiguous formulas, he consciously plays the role of a clown. And it’s up to you ordinary analysts reading Lacan to bring out if there is anything of worth in it.
So Lacan did enjoy power, but he built in so many mechanisms of irony and so on that it wasn’t power... while today with Miller, no there is no irony, power is clear, so many unwritten rules and so on. This.. the failure of an organization is terrifying.”
I think he made a slip, though, Lacan spoke as an analysand, not an analyst, before the analyst public.
@@cameraad7038 you mean he should have said Lacan is “the _analysand_ who is improvising topics..” I kind of read through that as a mark of Lacan’s ambiguity.. in the sense that he is a professional analyst of course but is teaching through the hysteric angle.
How much clowning was going on here is the question for me. Surely Lacan did experience the classroom in some hysterical sense.. _che vois,_ what do you want from me?
That’s definitely interesting! Since you seem to been pretty acquainted in Zizek (Heck! Just look at your nick!): do you know any interesting text or sources about Miller and the power structures of the institute?
Živio druže Slavoj
Slavoj must have been a beast at parties in the 80's or so. I picture him as the guy in a turtleneck lecturing and joke telling as he non-nonchalantly lords over a whole mound of coke. Every now and then someone will manage to interrupt him to ask him to cut them a line and he without missing a step responds "What?! No!!! I don't have that much left! Look!" gesturing to the aforementioned mound, then continuing "I'm sorry. I really need what is left. Next time, ok? Anyway..."
Am I close?
Try having a child with Tourette Syndrome (which Žižek obviously suffers from) and hearing people calling her "coke head girl." How do you think you'd feel about that?
Don't forget to read his books, I recommend "Less than nothing"
Less than nothing can also be seen in Żiżek's bookshelf this interview. It's really empty.
I just ordered that one a couple of days ago. I'm excited for it
@@IsomorphicPhi You won't be disappointed, it's a philosophical rollercoaster.
First video of Zizek, where you get, what is said in the title.
9:00 -- "He consciously plays the role of a clown, and it is up to you, ordinary analysts, reading Lacan, to bring out if there is anything of worth in it." Wow!! That explains... ...so much!
The female autors was amazing, need It that
Lol at the 60s Soviet intro music
Thanks god , I'm not the nose of zizek
can someone PLEASE find the name of the intro song for me
fresh cut g
Psychoanalysis from it's inception has been and remains a classist project. In North America, it was once thought of as a potentially valuable tool in helping mitigate all sort of social ills. It has long since been replaced with prescription drugs and prison to meet radically altered objectives. A Psychoanalyst friend, when I asked him why his clients were entirely from wealth and privilege and how psychoanalysis could possibly help the poor or ordinary people, he responded, "...there's nothing in psychoanalysis that can help ordinary people..."
About this you could try read "psychoanalysis in the Barrios" by Gherovici
@@pietrofontana4165 that sounds like an interesting read..gonna pop that into my amazon basket
Didn't Freud make it a point to take on analysands regardless of class, though?
That is because ordinary people today have their minds preoccupied on immediate needs and what matters to society. Our societies today are endowed with Euro-based values which emphasize profits, things and effectiveness. Activities such as deep thought, deifying the passions, big picture thinking and holistic healing are seen as ineffective/waste of time. But there was a point in time where that was the experience of everyday people. Particularly those of non Abrahamic religions in Africa, Asia, the Pacific and also the indigenous communities of the Americas. There is wisdom in those systems and the West(or the world now) needs to reincorporate those systems into healing
26:08 AAAAASSSHUUU
from minute 5 the quirks are getting out of control
How did you guys get him to come on?
11:17 *class issue in the analytic community* “So it’s a wonderful mechanism [...] although it has this _form_ of you know, _‘let’s make it possible for poor guys to do it...’_ Nonetheless, formally already-self-reproduction is limited to upper classes.”
Can anyone explain why its important that Lacan is not a philosopher? This interview went way over my head.
No problem
Lacan primarily deals with concepts that are concerned with how the psyche develops. He is a post Freudian to that end. I won't do it justice here, but a philosopher is generally concerned with understanding how knowledge can ve formulated to inform deeper knowledge and understanding, hopefully creating new knowledge and insight. Psychoanalysis is a method in itself, one could argue that philosophy is a method. They are ultimately different methods. They overlap naturally, but one does not compare Freud with Descartes in a parallel sense. They are different disciplines. (I'm sure using Descartes is going to rustle some feathers, I could have picked any name).
I hope that helps. It's gets messy later with Deleuze and Guattari.... Don't go there until you just grasp the difference before they start messing with each other. Lol
its not actually important. he is just not a philosopher according to zizek. this is how academia is. they focus much on catagories and tell you to listen to the big important philosophers but no one actually reads anything they disagree with.
“In my view, only those who have had the courage to work through Lacan's anti-philosophy without faltering deserve to be called 'contemporary philosophers'
- Alain Badiou , 2004
Miller?
The song at the end and the beginning?
Credits to?
th-cam.com/video/UkXhvmc6PVU/w-d-xo.html
So... were Breuer an Anna O that thought she really existed? As well as.. Were Freud a Dora that thought she really existed?. Would be J. A. Miller a Judith that Lacan thougth she really existed?
So how could a woman really exist whithout a man?
my god...i have friends
33:57 the sniff went to the tongue
25:20
does anyone know what's sitting on his bookcase? books or records? and by title? 🤓
the full collection of John Coltrane and Ravi Shankar’LPs
The most insane sane person on our planet
How to get in touch with Slavoj? I am reading him, and I would love to have small one-on-one with the Man!
Thanks
“If you podcast.. they will come..”
@@nightoftheworld Ok, can Slavoj be my 001 Guest? :)
@@poparasan sometimes miracles happen
It can be arranged.
don't waste his time
Politic and man's life behind.. Politia. Platon...its very important for the states to be in. Better
OtoRhinoLarhyngologist,where are you?
They don't treat Tourette Syndrome, which (almost entirely) cannot be helped.
*sneeze* i hate life
For the love of God, can someone please tell Slavoj Zizek to cut gluten and dairy out of his diet at least temporarily so we can determine whether his sniffling is because of allergies.
Tourette Syndrome. Not cool to call out something a person cannot help. It's involuntary.
The politics of psychoanalysis is inevitably bourgeois, and Žižek is, despite his critique of the postmodern father, precisely a postmodern father/philosopher (he doesn't force you to read Marx, but, he says, "you know how much Marx loves you, but nonetheless you should only read him if you want to...,")
so miller is schopenhauerian in his politics :/
is this a reupload?
no
I'm pretty sure it's a continuation of the discussion of the last video
DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE THE ANTITHESIS OF SOCRATES???? YOURE BIG BROTHER'S LOVER.
Better. Consult an ENT specialist first
They do not treat Tourette Syndrome. Nobody really does. Thanks for your kind suggestion though, I guess?
thats good filosofic cocain
so many hows and likes and just likes oof
Is his nose thing getting worse?
Tourette Syndrome. It tends to vary a bit throughout life.
This man either did a boatload of coke in his life, or he's got some wicked allergies
He mentioned he's the only idiot from his generation who never tried drugs, even the soft ones. They're not allergies but tics which were probably developed when he went crazy from all the books and lectures and seeing stupid people happy
Tourette Syndrome. I've known a few people diagnosed with it, neither with coprolalia so I have no funny stories about that. Both had the vocal voice-clearing tic, along with a number of motor tics. Often they were accused of drug abuse. Other people typically were just downright awful to them--complete strangers at a gathering loudly asking "just what exactly is WRONG with you?!?!" was a common occurrence. As you can tell from the comments of nearly any clip, feature, interview, or article with or by Zizek, people are wholly fixated--obsessed even--with his mannerisms/tics. People gonna be people, I guess.
@@slofty damn ight never seen anything like it, like with the sniffling
@@mattweigand9648 Read and watch enough about the condition and you will [friendly tone of voice]
Psychanalistes? Makes therapy themselves by speak with *patents * politics? Feel up too.
Stomach churning. I'm out.
nixe haircut, takes
People living in alleys next to dumpsters make more sense and have better hygiene than Professor Slobbersalot and his rent boy Raf 991.
thats the true socialist spirit! uplifting the oppressed..
@@sawtoothiandi If you think this upper-class white man who spouts whatever gibberish enters his head, wherever he wants, whenever he wants, and gets paid for it (while flinging slobber all over the room and digging out his boogers) is “oppressed,” you’re utterly deranged.
@@AngusRockford your initual post appeared to denigrate people living in dumpsters in alleyways, i was ironically congratulating you
@@sawtoothiandi I guess your reading comprehension is lacking. I was crediting homeless people for having infinitely better common sense than this slovenly academic, whose thoughts and presentation are as disorganized as his personal hygiene.
@@AngusRockford ok. Why not just love the homeless and the professor equally.
OMG he's so hilarious. On the other hand, he's nothing more than a clown now, all rational thought or meaning has somehow evaporated from his mind.
I take it you haven't read one of his books.
@@slofty No I haven't and after listening to the reviews of knowledgeable musicians about his book on opera, I don't think I will be doing that in the near future.
@@vivvpprof Spending (wasting, really) your free time watching and commenting on things that you have zero interest in is probably a sign to yourself that you should pick up some new hobbies or something...
Calm down, @crazy diamond.
@@nikaa2282 Eh, people need stuff to be angry about sometimes.
Did he said true leader must be sadistic psychopath and sacrifice as many innocent citizens as he can? Yes, he did. Somebody should perform a head exam to all of his naive students, who knows how many he produced over decades and what they have done under his influence.
time stamp?
@@vx7580 Here you go, you can make a cool meme out of that BS: th-cam.com/video/Ypvy0UH_xhk/w-d-xo.html
I don't think he was refearing to a TV show, looks like entire Slovenian academia sphere is so corrupt and primitive they actually think this way. He is absolutely wrong, of course, but this is where modern communism has come to, no way back for influential liars, thieves, terrorists, murderers and worst of all, traitors.
@@xspotbox4400 So you got "true leader must be sadistic psychopath and sacrifice as many innocent citizens as he can," from "a true leader must make tough decisions". Did he say that? No, he didn't.
@@vx7580 "...real leader should be the one who never sleep well."
Than he argue about that moral dilemma paradox, like when a person must choose his actions resulting in salvation of one and dead to others.
But true leadership is not about moral choices, every decision must be a result of scientific analysis and ethical judgement, predicting consequences comes latter. Moral dilemma is an illusion, if our action can result in accidental dead of another person, we should do nothing, even when everybody would die as a result of our inactivity.
I respect Žižek for sincerity, but in a naive way, this kind of new age primitivism belong in pubs, not in academia space.
Leadership is doing everything possible to prevent worst outcomes for everybody under someone's leadership, not only for chosen few because then leadership would be about efficiency and survival at all cost. But we don't need leaders for that purpose, each person is perfectly capable to do that by himself. Allowing leaders to decide faith of others is a crime against humanity, by definition, since life and dead are not in anybody's hands. Collateral damage is another word for state terrorism, term is coined by military, it marks police states, can't be used for civil societies. I understand many leaders often resort to that Machiavelian logic, only to perish as worst dictators, bringing demise and poverty to their nations. Leaders who listen to Žižek will face tragic end, always did and always will.
@@xspotbox4400 So what you're saying is, he didn't actually say what you said he said
23:39
He clearly hasn't read Jane Austen (or Emily Bronte probably). Why does he do this? He is very well read but he just says anything that's in his mind to make you think that he's up on absolutely everything - which leads him to repeat brainless clichés about figures such as Austen or Bronte. He commented negatively on the Joker movie before admitting on Chapo that he hadn't actually seen it, and then he watched it and was much more positive about it. (Full disclosure: I'm not a Joker fanboy; I saw it, it was ok.) Lacan was the same. They have several important things to say, but they desperately have to maintain a position of a *subject that really does know (everything)*. It's fucking tedious. JA Miller is a twerp, but at least he doesn't cover up a will to power by pointing out to everyone how it's laced with irony. "Oh - it's all right, it's partially ironic!" The world does not need ironical tyrants.
@Kirby Quinn I have. Long ago. I still have a copy. He evidently hasn’t read Austen. It’s certainly not a close reading. It doesn’t even look like he read the Spark Notes. He’s taken a quick look at (probably) the old version with Laurence Olivier. Books and films are not meant to be read or watched and thought about as far as Zizek is concerned. They are there to be fed into ideology; his own of course. The great Zizekian sausage machine of culture.
Besides, his point in the video is restating the usual cliches about polite, Regency Austen and the wild, northern Brontes, especially Emily. It is a half-witted claim seemingly regarding Sense & Sensibility, not P&P. No doubt he’s seen the Ang Lee film, and by “seen” I mean he’s looked at pretty images while running them through the pat-Hegelian - and doubtlessly anxiety-alleviating - algorithm in his head. This may all seem overwrought and nitpicky. It is. But I’m responding to the fact that his attitude to Austen or Bronte or, frankly, anything in the world, is there to feed his symptom. It doesn’t have to be read, better not read at all, only consumed. He reminds me of another daddy: Saturn.
@@avastyer As a literature student, I found extremely amusing his picking sides in this Austen-Brontë issue but, of course, Austen is a master of style and cannot be so easily dismissed (I've only read P&P and Persuasion). Your comments made me think that maybe what you ultimately reprove in Zizek is that his behavior mirrors that of the movement of capital. It reminded me, for instance, of some passages from Adorno's Minima Moralia in which he reflects on how the massification of Proust is in open contradiction with everything that the French author meant, and his work was inevitably crushed down once it was absorbed by the movement of "spirit" -- in the characteristic Adornian tone, the paperback Proust was equivalent to submitting the text to the "sausage machine of culture" --, this movement basically being the movement of the destruction of meaning (turning every use-value to exchange-value). While as a lover of literature I understand your discomfort, I also deeply feel the pathos of how Zizek lives. Perhaps the best way to read him is to avoid the temptation to take "him" personally, however difficult; he is being completely "objective", completely alienated in the mechanism; it's not so much "his" symptom as "its" symptom. Of course, as a Lacanian, he is responsible for his symptom, and Judith Butler has often made criticism of him along the lines of what you've said (his extreme pessimism, acting as if there was not a viable position in which to exist, which is after all the logical conclusion of "Woman does not exist"). Still, I at least take this type of behavior as a means to show how we have arrived at a phase of development of capitalism in which we live in a stupid, endless repetition (which would be also Adorno's view). The fact that you still can appreciate Austen does not change the cultural tendency to the pulverization of sense, although in this case, nostalgia for the past wouldn't work (we would need a dialectic here).
As he says in "Against the Populist Temptation": "the fate of whole strata of the population and sometimes of whole countries can be decided by the solipsistic speculative dance of capital, which pursues its goal of profitability in a blessed indifference with regard to how its movement will affect social reality". In acting like capital, he is pursuing his strategy of over-identification.
@@AndreyFMartins Couldn't have said it better myself!
@@AndreyFMartins Thanks for your great reply. Very interesting. I try not to take Zizek personally most of the time, but I tend to think that his strategy of over-identification, as you put it, is disastrous, and, as I alluded to above, all-consuming in a highly depressive way; viz. Goya's painting of Saturn. But perhaps Lacan's view would be that the only people *completely* alienated are psychotics. In other words, they are 'its' symptom. And I don't think Zizek is psychotic, thankfully.
Maybe Zizek is 'performing' the sausage machine of culture (under capitalism), thereby revealing its functioning, in the same way that it is often said Lacan's speech was performing the unconscious in his seminars? If so, any prolonged performance will eventually sink into stereotype and meaning such as Adorno conceived of it for Proust - revelatory, highly personal/subjective, a kind of awakening - is destroyed.
Zizek's exegeses of Hegel, Lacan or Marx in relation to culture, politics or sociology frequently run something like this: 'What Jane Austen didn't know she knew about Hegel.' And the illustration is not meant just to explain *but to prove* the point.
For me, a more interesting, less alienated and consuming, less ideological, way of approaching a subject would be: 'What do I, a fan of Hegel, Marx etc, know about Jane Austen? How does she fit with my world? And what doesn't fit?' Perhaps that might - I stress 'might' - be way not only to find out what we didn't know we knew, but to discover something really quite new, a fresh perspective on life within capitalism and without.
Why he has to wipe his nose so much? OCD or tics?
Tics that are characteristic of Tourette Syndrome.
Psychoanalysis is not for poor people for many reasons., first of all., Psychoanalysis is NOT the main psychotherapeutic method anymore., is not practical and not effective., Psychoanalysis is a method of self exploration of your own unconcious mind and relates to your own emotional life experiences., that exploration is not necessary to treat Psychological disorders or problems., Psychoanalysis is recommended to Psychotherapist or other people with economical and psychological capacities to do such self exploration method, the need for Psychoanalysis comes from a natural need from the middle to upper class people to do self exploration., lower classes or people with urgent psychological problems do not need self exploration., can´t handle it., and is not important to their situation., without a doubt Psychoanalysis besides the "therapy" aspects helps in the research of emotions, irrationality, and mental disorders., and can give ideas to think about philosophical and political questions., but at the end of the day there is a need to know the limits of the speculation and the limits of the psychoanalytical methods to make best use of it
Proving something doesn't work is very difficult, just because something gives better results in a statistical point of view doesn't mean that it works better or worse for an individual. The roots of psychoanalysis are in psychopathology, so are it's core breakthroughs and a lot of it's practical applications. Today science is all about statistics and psychoanalysis does take longer for effects to manifest, also it's harder to quantify than NCB, that doesn't mean it's a bourgeois experience. It works in ways other therapies are unable to act as effectively and vice versa. The self exploration aspect is very true though it's a cultural matter, many places have close to complimentary or public therapy programs so the monetary aspect is not an issue. Some say the same about Jung's Analytical psychology and it does wonders to schizophrenia patients (I'm just complementing what you said)
Yes, but the thing is that Psychoanalysis also was an experiment, it evolved in Freud years and after Freud, Freud´s ideas on psychoanalysis in 1910´s are very different from his final conclusions near 1940´s., he used to believe and wanted it to be the ultimate psychotherapy in an era where treating psychological problems were not clear., but at the end of his life Freud understood that Psychoanalysis as a treatment is not to replace psychotherapy or other treatments., Psychoanalysis as a is an unique process of self exploration, this kind of method can´t be practice on your own is not just meditation or self analysis, is a method defined by psychoanalysis, just like hypnosis is a method, for you to be able to do psychoanalysis as a patient you need to have psychological capacities, is an active method were you as a patient have to participate., so in summary Freud understood that psychoanalysis as a therapy is not and will never be a main form of psychotherapy, it is a special method for some people, and those people will benefit from it., you can analyze psychopathology and psychology but to treat no, psychoanalysis is not about to "cure" if you have an active psychopathology you should go to a psychologist or a psychiatrist, psychoanalysis requires you to not be in a psychopatholical state because is a method that requires involvement in your own analysis and tolerate the axiety of your own resistances, the FACT that psychoanalysis is not the main form of effective psychotherapy anymore does NOT mean it is useless, it means that its objective it is now clear, and the need of analyze yourself through psychoanalysis is REAL and very western., so psychoanalysis is a method to analyze your own self in that sense it is psychotherapy, but it is NOT a psychotherapy to solve problems or treat psychopathology
Slavoj stop picking your nose
No
I miss his power move: the T-Shirt picking