@@allendish Get super depressed, do things you regret, forget to pay your phone bill, get disconnected, get used to it, then get your shit together but this time without a phone, feel slight nausea and discomfort at the prospect of being able to be reached by anyone at any time. Slightly awkward at times, now and then pretty inconvenient, by and large I don't miss it in the slightest. Now that I think about it, I read/heard Zizek say once that in the future, he thinks that it won't be the extremely poor without phones but the very wealthy because they will be able to do without them. I won't be surprised in the slightest if this happens within 5 years.
@@NevetsTSmith Thank you for your sincere reply. Zizek has definitely mentioned that, in fact he also discusses the so-called Light Phone 2 in his new book "Like a Thief in Broad Daylight: Power in the Era of Post-Human Capitalism." It's basically a dumbed-down smartphone which costs the same but promises to "respect" you, implying the majority of us are somehow being disrespected by smartphones in particular. I totally see the point about only the wealthy "affording" the luxury of being phone-less; I myself "lost" or damaged by phone many times and felt so free but fell back into having one. And although I have deleted social media except youtube, I still have feelings of guilt of having a computer-phone and the obscene level of connectivity cellphones provide. Maybe there is no simple solution and we are condemned to participate; however, Bartleby's "I prefer not to" rings louder than ever.
"The goal of psychoanalysis is precisely to bring you to the point where you can finally forget that piece of bullshit that is yourself... and finally work for a cause."
I agree with him, but to do something with dedication you still need to consider yourself, to question yourself, to question things in general. Isn't this the same as trying to get the essence of something, to understand your relationship between you and what you are dedicated to, or simply to understand/know yourself? I think that's the meaning of "knowing yourself". It means that by questioning the world you will find the dedication and by having dedication you will know yourself. It is a way to say that dedication will give you a place in existence. I have to say that psychologists literally saved my life because I reached a really desperate point. Understanding and accepting the pain was a good process (where understanding doesn't mean being able to describe its features but being able to recognize it as pain). You need to experience/know/understand something to accept it and to not depend on it. It is by not understanding/knowing the pain that you will be forced to focus your life on it, therefore to focus your life on yourself as the center of the world, never directing your efforts, your dedication, from the inside to the outside, but keeping it from the inside pointed to the inside. So I have to say that Zizek here should be more clear because there are too many shades in the relationship between psychology and people. Besides this, I agree with Zizek's point of view on what psychology should be, but for me, the dedication became possible only after understanding the variety of emotions I had, which can also be read "after understanding myself". Once I understood, then I could find dedication and passion that I never had (I had it but it was always sleeping). After I started to be dedicated I understood/knew myself in a different way, the expression "know yourself" took a different meaning, which is "having a direction", or being an "agent". Having a direction doesn't mean having a plan, or being the boss of yourself (haha), but expressing your existence, you're being here, through actions (where actions are not just physical but could be some kind of effort, or dedicated thinking, being in something, expressing your presence in the world by creating an encounter with something "other" than you). There are different possible ways to read the phrase "know yourself", I think there is a too generic way to talk about this in this video.
The point of Buddhism, is "embrace the present experience, both the pleasant and the unpleasant, see reality as it is, be kind, accept your limits, but be the best person you can possibly be". That's remarkably close to the psychoanalysis depicted here by Zizek, totally the opposite of the message "just do it, don't think" that some new-age kind of pseudo Buddhism mistakenly got.
@@camilopm2927, mainstream western interpretation of Buddhism (the only one I know), is so close to what Zizek was ascribing to psychoanalysis, that his criticism is a bit unfair. However, nothing grave. He speaks about pseudo Buddhism, not Buddhism, and that might be correct. Plus, he encouraged people to be good rather than happy at all costs, and I am glad he did. I don't mind if he does it in the name of psychoanalysis
@Kevin "knowing yourself" is not as misguided as "just do it". The self is an illusion, but it is a kind of illusion which functions in its specific way. Knowing this way, is a crucial, though not the final, step in the path towards realization that the self is a in illusion.
I also think he wasn't referring to Buddhism itself but the shell of it that was merely used like a brand name in western media. It is not just misinformation, it is literally using the name of Buddhism to spread whatever self-help bullshit they have to say.(Because those old guys in ancient china surely said a lot of things that can't be found anywhere else in the world) And as Zizek said most are basically just the same "Just do it" kind of buzzwords.
That bit about disgust - would that mean he considers knowledge as somehow externalizing the "internal self" (or a thing in itself external)? Lacan has said that all knowledge is paranoiac in nature, and that the ego must be first alienated before there is knowledge(?), but I don't think these ideas are working within the same plane, and I'm not sure Zizek has this in mind.
It is not just that I don't agree with his (or the way he presents Philipp's) view on the goal of psychoanalysis, he also seems to be contradicting himself in a major way. If Slavoj claims that we are born into Ideology ("it is our spontaneous relation to the world"), then clearly our thoughts and emotions are at least in part fremdbestimmt (imposed on us by authorities)...while at the same time claiming psychoanalysis is "more relevant than ever" as a way to understand ideology, it must mean that we use the concepts of the unconscious, id-ego-superego and the technique of introspection to discover the origin and "true" meaning of our thoughts are, i.e. to liberate from ideology. That simply implies knowing oneself better and having a tool at our disposal to understand what's "really going on". One can debate whether this diminishes suffering or not, since as he also claims "liberation is painful", perhaps it is a new, yet more real form of suffering. Equally, I can think of quite a few examples of personal experience, where I did use psychoanalytic concepts to understand my own motivations/desires/suffering and came to profound discoveries, that removed barriers to things that I wanted to achieve, and made me also more perceptive to not only past distortions/trauma's etc, but also to new ones developing. He seems to be denying now that one can know oneself better and benefit from it, which I don't really understand. Oh well, it sounds like he just read something new and just repeated it out of context or without giving it too much thought.
thanks for saying it so that i didn't have to. Zizek's the philosopher-laureate for millennial/post generations w/ social media as superego, attention spans tuned by einsteinium, and the belief that youtube videos are a viable replacement for an advanced degree. that said, they're not wrong. they're all adapting to a future that does not exist.
He doesn't really explain it very clearly (which... isn't uncommon) but I think what he's trying to say is that apparently understanding often becomes the GOAL of psychoanalysis, rather than the means. Understanding yourself should be the means, while the goal is to be a better, more functional person that can participate in the external world. But instead of that, psychoanalysis just becomes about telling a complete story of yourself, and feeling satisfied that it came full circle. Ah, now I know why I act like that; sweet, now I have an excuse. Obviously that's not really the goal of psychoanalysis but I think it often becomes that to a lot of people because of modern emphasis on understanding the self. I know a lot of people who have gotten this diagnosis or that and actually started acting worse when they did it; it was a sort of affirmation of their behaviour rather than a means of becoming better. Of course, that's just my personal experience so take that as you will. But this is what I think he meant.
I'm not that familiar with origin psychoanalysis, but I'm quite familiar with self-reflection phenomena and Buddhism philosophy. as with all ideologies, both psychoanalysis and Buddhism can be dangerous, if used wrong. you can cop out on the outer world and get lost in yourself with too much psychoanalysis. also, you can make a mess by always acting out intuitively, not giving enough thought to things. however, for me, it looks like both teachings can make your life better. and only some kind of balance between the two is the best solution, as always. the proportion is something, each of us gotta figure out for himself, during his life.
He's wrong. Or, at least, he's basing his interpretation on a failed state in a situation where a failed state is not the only potential outcome. He correctly identifies self-awareness as counter-productive to success and happiness, but his response is too extreme. Directionless, naive fools who dispense with reflection and dedicate themselves immediately to their cause lack the necessary perspective to avoid becoming tools of the most malevolent forces. Without taking time to contend with the disgusting mess of the self (which I believe, while certainly disgusting, is equally capable of being beautiful and affirming, though that is an argument for another day), people are as good as blind. This is where you get things like the Hitlerjugend, all external meaning and no reflection.
You are wrong. Do you think all the nazi officials and soldiers were naive tools? The question of good or bad causes is irrelevant to the point he's trying to make
@@robertodellavalle7884 I do not believe that at all, and your comment is borderline incomprehensible. Could you perhaps take some time to gather your thoughts and try to express your point a little clearer?
Big Guy I believe his comment refers to the fact that it was most probable that many nazi soldiers were comfortable with their selves, and that did not stop them from becoming a tool of a malevolent force. I would concur that this is a slightly irrelevant argument. That being said, Zizek does not discredit the notion that we should not think for ourselves at all, nor does me mention that we should stop trying to discern between good or evil. His statement is more along the lines of ‘if your life is messed up, then invest yourself in your work’. As a creative person, I can most certainly see the benefits of this. If you have a trauma, it’s gonna be difficult hard for it to just go away with deep introspection - investing yourself into a greater cause can be a pathway to healing, because focusing on other things can be extremely beneficial to curing one’s self, and can lead (he does not mention this but this is what i infer Adams is pointing towards) to realizing that issues can simply be left in the past, and that it is possible to live life without focusing and relating everything to the bad things that have happened in your life. That being said I see your perspective and I think that him focusing on just this side of the argument is a bit dangerous, because it could just preach for people to ignore their inner selves and completely and turn themselves into mindless proles who dedicate themself to their work without considering themselves. In his defense though, this is a 6 minute clip, and I would like to know if he addresses this counter point. Ultimately this perspective sounds like a part of a general socialist way of thinking which promotes the greater good of the group over the problems of the individual. I believe he tries to reconcile the fact that you cannot just ignore the plight of the individual in the modern world. So he is using psychoanalysis literature to try and fit the modern necessity for the integration of individuality in a pseudo-Marxist(?) framework.
Just an interesting point: there are rumors telling that the criminal and genocidal president in Brasil (since 2019), Jair Bolsonaro, has done psychoanalysis for 2 years prior to the dispute of the presidential elections in 2018. Apparently, someone in a high position from the military forces in Brasil, has given this information in an interview. Even if this were not true (but I assume it probably is, if one investigates how unimportant and stagnated was Bolsonaro's historical trajectory in Politics decades before the recent transformations which lead him to the current state), there are other cases/evidences suggesting that Psychoanalysis operates, for example and in some sense, like Technology: that is, it isn't necessarly bound (from Design) to, or developing/adapting into, Good causes. Even though it would not be wise to talk just in terms of just 'one' Pshychoanalysis (better would be to consider many 'Pscyhoanalysises'), one fundamental question that could be posed is: Perhaps Psychoanalysis shouldn't be given to anyone, or at least not to anyone in any form, IF there is a sense of Goodness that goes beyond benefits on the individual level.
I like the guy. Only heard a few of his short vids. He has every freedom and right to share his thoughts on a subject as everyone else. Though this time I totally do not align with his thoughts regarding psychoanalysis, "knowing Thyself", the inner exploration to sort one's shit out. He said of the ancient Greek's philosophy of "Know Thyself", that it's bullshit. I think he has every right and freedom to utilise whatever philosophy makes sense to him. He can even say something is bullshit, and then later on state the concept of psychoanalysis he aligns with is the correct interpretation. I'm secure enough in myself to calmly allow others to voice their opinion without it adversely affecting my state of being and the philosophies I utilise.
Back when I had a Coke habit this was exactlythe type of shit I'd talk about and exactly how I sounded when I set it, we'll maybe if you set the playback speed to 1.5
Does anybody know if this theme about "the greater causes", adorno, etc. is discussed ou developed by zizek in any of his books? Just to read more about this. Or is it in some of Adorno's works?
The movement of dedicating yourself to a cause points to the concept of sublimation in psychoanalysis. I advice that you orient your researches on the question of sublimation in order to read about it. Adorno critiques the concept as being essentially repressive, but he does say that one cannot "know himself" without knowledge of the other (society).
So again here a simple symptom of the inadequacy of the pure Freudian/Lacanian approach is in Zizek‘s examples of the kinds of “higher causes” that we are availed of after successful therapy - they are all intellectual, creative, or love-based...What about war, conquest, heroic acts of sacrifice etc.? Zizek’s examples do not take us out of self, only to an putatively “higher” version of self.
Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. - Carl Jung It's all about the introvert vs extrovert point of view.
in the land of the blind, the blind have adapted to navigating the terrain quite well while the one-eyed man is at a disadvantage due to his limited depth-perception. the blind's lack of need for light sources, thus their limited availability, adds an extra challenge during darker days or night time.
@@theblitz6794 Okay look, having a limited depth-perception is still better than having none at all. So no matter how well the blind may have adapted, they will always trust and follow the misleading one-eyed man.
Do people understand the outer world and the inner world are vastly related to the point where you can work on one and affect the other? And there needs to be a balance. You can’t just focus on self work, and you cant’ ignore yourself and work only on social causes. Someone who doesn’t know themselves will find themselves like a pawn in the social world, whereas one who doesn’t engage escapes true confrontation with himself.
Neo nazi and a communist put collective cause against individual in prettier words to disguise they're totalitarians. They put these ideas subconsciously because they hide fascism behind language
Late to the party as always but I question the assertion that there are such noble causes to pursue and question how he discerns such causes from others. I can't know what Zizek means by psychoanalysis but I like to think of it as a kind of self-skepticism; it's not just for the suffering components of one's experience. I hate to be the invoker of the nazi argument but Hitler devoted himself to a cause, and so did the germans he ruled over, devotion to a cause is hardly an inherent good. Many have done great evil in the name of science too. I think we all ought to strive for a solid and defensible worldview such that we can trust ourselves and our decisions, and if you don't already have that trust then you're not going to find it with faith.
@@ascalon8001 Generally good is that which takes others conscious experience into consideration and tries to limit their suffering and evil is generally the opposite. It's a consequence of our capacity for empathy, describing it as a social convention is what sociopaths probably think of it
The electronic age is at that seam, and, Francisco J Varela was suicided 4 IT, RIP. Bittorio, from "The Embodied Mind" is a message that beauty is, both, the everlasting marriage and the finest deviant in direction-changing there is. Then, there was BO. Gregory Bateson said you knew you were cured when you got over your love for the therapist (Pewdiepie on the ADL, from E. Michael Jones, logos rising, cud be). But, Bateson did *not* think he would make it that far, to this point of greater transition, or, transformation for the general public, the real story for higher institutions and, 4 Walt Whitman (Bali 4 him was Galapagos 4 geswhu). And, I am just paraphrasing. Convergent mathematics is what, in the end, makes people see the moment for what it is, and, not a red Queen's analysis, thereby. Hydrino is real, too, FWIW. There is a notion that there comes a time. 1307 was real, de Molay. Also, Chicxulub, part of the code of this management, or, mismanagement (from MrCati). One shot, but, effort will be cataloged.
3:02 but why is he so self centered and can't be quiet and just listen to someone else for a while? Even in podcasts or interviews, he won't even let the other person fully state his or her point.. Imagine if everyone acted like this. absolutely unbearable
vapubu sdfeww are these homework questions? These are really complicated questions that people have been arguing about for hundreds of years. You should try reading some stuff about it. Like read about karl Marx and even people who are the opposite of Karl Marx
@@LaithFGC homework... thats funny cause i left school 4 years ago, although isnt everybodies homework? to know how to love or if its worth living at all. I like reading and I dont, I cant get focused or picture in my mind what some books try to say, that is the reason im asking this sort of questions
what a bunch of bullshit he is saying, psychoanalysis is not about diminishing suffering, it is about facing your suffering and becoming more functional. what he is criticizing is charlatans, not psychoanalysis. also, "know yourself" is a cliche, but not bullshit, there are patterns on your behavior and interaction that often you cant see, and once you analyse and accept it, it becomes valuable knowledge that can help you a lot.
How could someone who’s written on Psychoanalysis be against looking inward? He’s stated in another video before that all that is ourselves is a mess of bullshit and that psychoanalysis is methodology to configure maybe a few little quirks within ourselves so that we feel a better and can understand ourselves a bit more. I think as Dostoyevsky would put it, we are immeasurably complex. His point is to find those negative drives/impulses/whatever, fix them up, and then dedicate yourself to substantial cause for existence. What Zizek is against is this sort of overtly spiritual, self-help investigation of the self. We can never truly get grasp on ourselves, but nonetheless we often pretend that we’ve finally discovered this “true, authentic” self.
i feel "suffering" when watching him talk...had to forget about the video and went for sound alone. Not easy either i know but eases it, even if just a bit....
When something goes wrong, we try to analyze what went wrong in order not to suffer again.This is called experience and it is how our brain works in order to protect us from future damage. Analyzing in general is the foundation of critical thought development, which among others is very important for the understanding of the socio economic parameters that define our life.The psychoanalysis tha Zizek wants is apolitical and mostly for the dump people
Dedication to a cause? I don't think so, but I also think pyschoanalysis , up to a point, is necessary. The problem is when we get bogged down for years in trying to fix our fucked up heads with thought alone. Pyschoanalysis can allow you to 'shake hands' with yourself...but after a certain point *I think* Zizek is saying it's almost masturbatory and selfish.
@@samuelshepherd9707 I definitely agree with you. If you're riddled with issues then what you're capable of achieving is negligible, and your goals are probably very ill-advised. Getting yourself to a point where you're capable of applying yourself to goals is vital. Like zizek said, you basically need to get out of your own way. That being said, he discusses avoiding suffering and seeking pleasure as though it's a selfish thing, but subscribing to hedonistic egoism myself I fail to see how pursuing goals for the greater good isn't just an implication of seeking one's own pleasure.
is zizek a psychoanalyst ?Has he been psychoanalyzed? I would expect someone who is talking about pychoanalysis to have undergone one. Otherwise it's opinion or book knowledge.It's like being lectured about France by a person who hasn't been there or operated on by a person who read a book on urgery
This guy just implementing jokes in the work of real philosophers about some old discusion over an idea abandoned by psychology decades ago. There is not real philosophy here, just jokes that makes you think youre smart because you suddenly understand Lacan or Hegel (but not really)
Here he, again, really went a bit too far with his simplifications! It's funny how he misinterprets the eastern philosophy he falsely summarizes as buddhism. It's totally not about just doing and go with it spontaneously, instead it really is about self-examination, recognizing and then letting go and becoming aware that what you are is not the feelings or stories you experienced but to validate them without evaluating. You see it's double funny because what he's trying to point out here (Becoming self-aware and then living up to higher goals) literally relates a lot to eastern philosophies. And beside that, how can we love and understand non-egocentric love if we never went the whole way down into ourselves and collecting knowledge about humanity trough our own layers of emotions and emotional triggers?
_phone goes off_
*I hate life*
These are the moments when my resistance fails and I just straight up love the guy.
That's why I don't have a phone.
@@NevetsTSmith Teach me your ways?
@@allendish Get super depressed, do things you regret, forget to pay your phone bill, get disconnected, get used to it, then get your shit together but this time without a phone, feel slight nausea and discomfort at the prospect of being able to be reached by anyone at any time.
Slightly awkward at times, now and then pretty inconvenient, by and large I don't miss it in the slightest. Now that I think about it, I read/heard Zizek say once that in the future, he thinks that it won't be the extremely poor without phones but the very wealthy because they will be able to do without them. I won't be surprised in the slightest if this happens within 5 years.
@@NevetsTSmith Thank you for your sincere reply. Zizek has definitely mentioned that, in fact he also discusses the so-called Light Phone 2 in his new book "Like a Thief in Broad Daylight: Power in the Era of Post-Human Capitalism." It's basically a dumbed-down smartphone which costs the same but promises to "respect" you, implying the majority of us are somehow being disrespected by smartphones in particular.
I totally see the point about only the wealthy "affording" the luxury of being phone-less; I myself "lost" or damaged by phone many times and felt so free but fell back into having one. And although I have deleted social media except youtube, I still have feelings of guilt of having a computer-phone and the obscene level of connectivity cellphones provide. Maybe there is no simple solution and we are condemned to participate; however, Bartleby's "I prefer not to" rings louder than ever.
"The goal of psychoanalysis is precisely to bring you to the point where you can finally forget that piece of bullshit that is yourself... and finally work for a cause."
I think Slavoj Žižek has broke a world record for having the cold since the fall of the USSR!
A marxist doctor would have cured him.
Also known as bruxism
I'm pretty sure he's on cocaine...
@@mattmarkowicz Nah, he's on coca cola. You can hear the fizz.
The real cold war is in the mans sinuses
I'm so happy we finally get to hear him talk about psychoanalysis!
Zizek is much more useful than Lacan. He made a great point here
i love this man so much
Love this 😀
I agree with him, but to do something with dedication you still need to consider yourself, to question yourself, to question things in general. Isn't this the same as trying to get the essence of something, to understand your relationship between you and what you are dedicated to, or simply to understand/know yourself?
I think that's the meaning of "knowing yourself". It means that by questioning the world you will find the dedication and by having dedication you will know yourself. It is a way to say that dedication will give you a place in existence.
I have to say that psychologists literally saved my life because I reached a really desperate point. Understanding and accepting the pain was a good process (where understanding doesn't mean being able to describe its features but being able to recognize it as pain). You need to experience/know/understand something to accept it and to not depend on it. It is by not understanding/knowing the pain that you will be forced to focus your life on it, therefore to focus your life on yourself as the center of the world, never directing your efforts, your dedication, from the inside to the outside, but keeping it from the inside pointed to the inside.
So I have to say that Zizek here should be more clear because there are too many shades in the relationship between psychology and people.
Besides this, I agree with Zizek's point of view on what psychology should be, but for me, the dedication became possible only after understanding the variety of emotions I had, which can also be read "after understanding myself". Once I understood, then I could find dedication and passion that I never had (I had it but it was always sleeping). After I started to be dedicated I understood/knew myself in a different way, the expression "know yourself" took a different meaning, which is "having a direction", or being an "agent". Having a direction doesn't mean having a plan, or being the boss of yourself (haha), but expressing your existence, you're being here, through actions (where actions are not just physical but could be some kind of effort, or dedicated thinking, being in something, expressing your presence in the world by creating an encounter with something "other" than you).
There are different possible ways to read the phrase "know yourself", I think there is a too generic way to talk about this in this video.
Well said sir
The point of Buddhism, is "embrace the present experience, both the pleasant and the unpleasant, see reality as it is, be kind, accept your limits, but be the best person you can possibly be". That's remarkably close to the psychoanalysis depicted here by Zizek, totally the opposite of the message "just do it, don't think" that some new-age kind of pseudo Buddhism mistakenly got.
I think he is not criticizing Buddhism per se, but the occidental interpretation and banalization in which is has been treated
@@camilopm2927, mainstream western interpretation of Buddhism (the only one I know), is so close to what Zizek was ascribing to psychoanalysis, that his criticism is a bit unfair. However, nothing grave. He speaks about pseudo Buddhism, not Buddhism, and that might be correct. Plus, he encouraged people to be good rather than happy at all costs, and I am glad he did. I don't mind if he does it in the name of psychoanalysis
@Felipe Forte , that's correct. I had missed the "pseudo". Everything changes.I am going to edit my comment.
@Kevin "knowing yourself" is not as misguided as "just do it". The self is an illusion, but it is a kind of illusion which functions in its specific way. Knowing this way, is a crucial, though not the final, step in the path towards realization that the self is a in illusion.
I also think he wasn't referring to Buddhism itself but the shell of it that was merely used like a brand name in western media. It is not just misinformation, it is literally using the name of Buddhism to spread whatever self-help bullshit they have to say.(Because those old guys in ancient china surely said a lot of things that can't be found anywhere else in the world) And as Zizek said most are basically just the same "Just do it" kind of buzzwords.
3:10 That switch tho.
most authentic person I know of
Zizek is exactly correct. Does anyone know where the Adam Phillips quote is from?
5:35 "I don't want to know the inside of myself."
That bit about disgust - would that mean he considers knowledge as somehow externalizing the "internal self" (or a thing in itself external)? Lacan has said that all knowledge is paranoiac in nature, and that the ego must be first alienated before there is knowledge(?), but I don't think these ideas are working within the same plane, and I'm not sure Zizek has this in mind.
It is not just that I don't agree with his (or the way he presents Philipp's) view on the goal of psychoanalysis, he also seems to be contradicting himself in a major way. If Slavoj claims that we are born into Ideology ("it is our spontaneous relation to the world"), then clearly our thoughts and emotions are at least in part fremdbestimmt (imposed on us by authorities)...while at the same time claiming psychoanalysis is "more relevant than ever" as a way to understand ideology, it must mean that we use the concepts of the unconscious, id-ego-superego and the technique of introspection to discover the origin and "true" meaning of our thoughts are, i.e. to liberate from ideology. That simply implies knowing oneself better and having a tool at our disposal to understand what's "really going on". One can debate whether this diminishes suffering or not, since as he also claims "liberation is painful", perhaps it is a new, yet more real form of suffering.
Equally, I can think of quite a few examples of personal experience, where I did use psychoanalytic concepts to understand my own motivations/desires/suffering and came to profound discoveries, that removed barriers to things that I wanted to achieve, and made me also more perceptive to not only past distortions/trauma's etc, but also to new ones developing. He seems to be denying now that one can know oneself better and benefit from it, which I don't really understand. Oh well, it sounds like he just read something new and just repeated it out of context or without giving it too much thought.
thanks for saying it so that i didn't have to. Zizek's the philosopher-laureate for millennial/post generations w/ social media as superego, attention spans tuned by einsteinium, and the belief that youtube videos are a viable replacement for an advanced degree. that said, they're not wrong. they're all adapting to a future that does not exist.
He doesn't really explain it very clearly (which... isn't uncommon) but I think what he's trying to say is that apparently understanding often becomes the GOAL of psychoanalysis, rather than the means. Understanding yourself should be the means, while the goal is to be a better, more functional person that can participate in the external world. But instead of that, psychoanalysis just becomes about telling a complete story of yourself, and feeling satisfied that it came full circle. Ah, now I know why I act like that; sweet, now I have an excuse.
Obviously that's not really the goal of psychoanalysis but I think it often becomes that to a lot of people because of modern emphasis on understanding the self. I know a lot of people who have gotten this diagnosis or that and actually started acting worse when they did it; it was a sort of affirmation of their behaviour rather than a means of becoming better.
Of course, that's just my personal experience so take that as you will. But this is what I think he meant.
Nice upload. Subbed & shared.
"The butt of the joke" then talks about colonoscopy
I'm not that familiar with origin psychoanalysis,
but I'm quite familiar with self-reflection phenomena and Buddhism philosophy.
as with all ideologies, both psychoanalysis and Buddhism can be dangerous, if used wrong.
you can cop out on the outer world and get lost in yourself with too much psychoanalysis.
also, you can make a mess by always acting out intuitively, not giving enough thought to things.
however, for me, it looks like both teachings can make your life better.
and only some kind of balance between the two is the best solution, as always.
the proportion is something, each of us gotta figure out for himself, during his life.
Hey, does somebody know where to find the original text by Adam Phillips? i'd really like to read it. thx:)
The book is called Missing Out
Wish someone would've posted where the full talk is 😵💫😖
He's wrong. Or, at least, he's basing his interpretation on a failed state in a situation where a failed state is not the only potential outcome. He correctly identifies self-awareness as counter-productive to success and happiness, but his response is too extreme.
Directionless, naive fools who dispense with reflection and dedicate themselves immediately to their cause lack the necessary perspective to avoid becoming tools of the most malevolent forces. Without taking time to contend with the disgusting mess of the self (which I believe, while certainly disgusting, is equally capable of being beautiful and affirming, though that is an argument for another day), people are as good as blind. This is where you get things like the Hitlerjugend, all external meaning and no reflection.
You are wrong. Do you think all the nazi officials and soldiers were naive tools? The question of good or bad causes is irrelevant to the point he's trying to make
@@robertodellavalle7884 I do not believe that at all, and your comment is borderline incomprehensible. Could you perhaps take some time to gather your thoughts and try to express your point a little clearer?
Big Guy I believe his comment refers to the fact that it was most probable that many nazi soldiers were comfortable with their selves, and that did not stop them from becoming a tool of a malevolent force. I would concur that this is a slightly irrelevant argument. That being said, Zizek does not discredit the notion that we should not think for ourselves at all, nor does me mention that we should stop trying to discern between good or evil. His statement is more along the lines of ‘if your life is messed up, then invest yourself in your work’. As a creative person, I can most certainly see the benefits of this. If you have a trauma, it’s gonna be difficult hard for it to just go away with deep introspection - investing yourself into a greater cause can be a pathway to healing, because focusing on other things can be extremely beneficial to curing one’s self, and can lead (he does not mention this but this is what i infer Adams is pointing towards) to realizing that issues can simply be left in the past, and that it is possible to live life without focusing and relating everything to the bad things that have happened in your life.
That being said I see your perspective and I think that him focusing on just this side of the argument is a bit dangerous, because it could just preach for people to ignore their inner selves and completely and turn themselves into mindless proles who dedicate themself to their work without considering themselves. In his defense though, this is a 6 minute clip, and I would like to know if he addresses this counter point.
Ultimately this perspective sounds like a part of a general socialist way of thinking which promotes the greater good of the group over the problems of the individual. I believe he tries to reconcile the fact that you cannot just ignore the plight of the individual in the modern world. So he is using psychoanalysis literature to try and fit the modern necessity for the integration of individuality in a pseudo-Marxist(?) framework.
Just an interesting point: there are rumors telling that the criminal and genocidal president in Brasil (since 2019), Jair Bolsonaro, has done psychoanalysis for 2 years prior to the dispute of the presidential elections in 2018. Apparently, someone in a high position from the military forces in Brasil, has given this information in an interview. Even if this were not true (but I assume it probably is, if one investigates how unimportant and stagnated was Bolsonaro's historical trajectory in Politics decades before the recent transformations which lead him to the current state), there are other cases/evidences suggesting that Psychoanalysis operates, for example and in some sense, like Technology: that is, it isn't necessarly bound (from Design) to, or developing/adapting into, Good causes. Even though it would not be wise to talk just in terms of just 'one' Pshychoanalysis (better would be to consider many 'Pscyhoanalysises'), one fundamental question that could be posed is: Perhaps Psychoanalysis shouldn't be given to anyone, or at least not to anyone in any form, IF there is a sense of Goodness that goes beyond benefits on the individual level.
I like the guy. Only heard a few of his short vids. He has every freedom and right to share his thoughts on a subject as everyone else.
Though this time I totally do not align with his thoughts regarding psychoanalysis, "knowing Thyself", the inner exploration to sort one's shit out.
He said of the ancient Greek's philosophy of "Know Thyself", that it's bullshit.
I think he has every right and freedom to utilise whatever philosophy makes sense to him. He can even say something is bullshit, and then later on state the concept of psychoanalysis he aligns with is the correct interpretation. I'm secure enough in myself to calmly allow others to voice their opinion without it adversely affecting my state of being and the philosophies I utilise.
Back when I had a Coke habit this was exactlythe type of shit I'd talk about and exactly how I sounded when I set it, we'll maybe if you set the playback speed to 1.5
Do we know where Adam Philips said these things?
Does anybody know if this theme about "the greater causes", adorno, etc. is discussed ou developed by zizek in any of his books? Just to read more about this. Or is it in some of Adorno's works?
The movement of dedicating yourself to a cause points to the concept of sublimation in psychoanalysis. I advice that you orient your researches on the question of sublimation in order to read about it. Adorno critiques the concept as being essentially repressive, but he does say that one cannot "know himself" without knowledge of the other (society).
4:27 - I always make that whistle sound when line gets in :D
Thanks for posting! What talk is this clip from (and is there a longer version somewhere)?
I've never heard someone spin Lacan into a radical materialist worldview lol
I would really like to use this approach for my term paper can someone please tell me where I can find this to quote it ?
It's may be a little late, but I think you can find some simiiar paragraphs in "How to read Lacan" or Less than Nothing
he reminds of that general in c&c red alert 2 lol
Nice to see a fellow arab here
What if you are anxious about fighting for the wrong "cause"? Is that better than fighting for nothing while being anxious?
So again here a simple symptom of the inadequacy of the pure Freudian/Lacanian approach is in Zizek‘s examples of the kinds of “higher causes” that we are availed of after successful therapy - they are all intellectual, creative, or love-based...What about war, conquest, heroic acts of sacrifice etc.? Zizek’s examples do not take us out of self, only to an putatively “higher” version of self.
👍
1:06 reject both, do not overanalyze yourself your pleasures suffering whatever, much more important things out there
@eliot rosenstock
Lmao
In this day and age 'know thy self' translates into selfish individualism
Not at all, the opposite actually.
I love that portrait on the thumbnail
When the external cause finally makes some gains or fails you will still have to comeback to yourself, what then?
Just tell yourself you’re a robot until something else occupies your mind.
The lesson for Ricky Gervais in GhostTown
Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. - Carl Jung
It's all about the introvert vs extrovert point of view.
00:18 XD XD XD
Irony
I do not matter to myself
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is a king.
What's wrong of what he is saying? *sniff*
in the land of the blind, the blind have adapted to navigating the terrain quite well while the one-eyed man is at a disadvantage due to his limited depth-perception. the blind's lack of need for light sources, thus their limited availability, adds an extra challenge during darker days or night time.
@@LfunkeyA Dude, what? Dont you know how metaphors work?
@@t.todorov5202 brah he reversed the metaphor on you
@@theblitz6794 Okay look, having a limited depth-perception is still better than having none at all. So no matter how well the blind may have adapted, they will always trust and follow the misleading one-eyed man.
Impossible to understand without subtitles, at least for me.
Do people understand the outer world and the inner world are vastly related to the point where you can work on one and affect the other? And there needs to be a balance. You can’t just focus on self work, and you cant’ ignore yourself and work only on social causes. Someone who doesn’t know themselves will find themselves like a pawn in the social world, whereas one who doesn’t engage escapes true confrontation with himself.
He looks like Aristotle
How can someone be so right!!!???
dude , he s left.
Could you imagine what this world would be like if he spoke clearly.
exactly the same
God, someone give the man a napkin.
Is Zizek not practicing psychoanalysis by bringing the inside of our cultural tropes out?
not the psychoanalysis he spoke of
exactly same thing that Peterson is talking about when he says, if you have no aim you suffer...
Neo nazi and a communist put collective cause against individual in prettier words to disguise they're totalitarians. They put these ideas subconsciously because they hide fascism behind language
Late to the party as always but I question the assertion that there are such noble causes to pursue and question how he discerns such causes from others. I can't know what Zizek means by psychoanalysis but I like to think of it as a kind of self-skepticism; it's not just for the suffering components of one's experience. I hate to be the invoker of the nazi argument but Hitler devoted himself to a cause, and so did the germans he ruled over, devotion to a cause is hardly an inherent good. Many have done great evil in the name of science too. I think we all ought to strive for a solid and defensible worldview such that we can trust ourselves and our decisions, and if you don't already have that trust then you're not going to find it with faith.
How do you draw the line between good and evil in a moral sense anyway? Good and evil is a social convention
@@ascalon8001 Generally good is that which takes others conscious experience into consideration and tries to limit their suffering and evil is generally the opposite. It's a consequence of our capacity for empathy, describing it as a social convention is what sociopaths probably think of it
the problem with knowing yourself is that nobody believes you
00:18 :'D :'D :'D :'D
JAJAJAKAKA
why is it bullshit? 🤔
The electronic age is at that seam, and, Francisco J Varela was suicided 4 IT, RIP. Bittorio, from "The Embodied Mind" is a message that beauty is, both, the everlasting marriage and the finest deviant in direction-changing there is. Then, there was BO.
Gregory Bateson said you knew you were cured when you got over your love for the therapist (Pewdiepie on the ADL, from E. Michael Jones, logos rising, cud be). But, Bateson did *not* think he would make it that far, to this point of greater transition, or, transformation for the general public, the real story for higher institutions and, 4 Walt Whitman (Bali 4 him was Galapagos 4 geswhu). And, I am just paraphrasing.
Convergent mathematics is what, in the end, makes people see the moment for what it is, and, not a red Queen's analysis, thereby. Hydrino is real, too, FWIW.
There is a notion that there comes a time. 1307 was real, de Molay. Also, Chicxulub, part of the code of this management, or, mismanagement (from MrCati). One shot, but, effort will be cataloged.
3:02 but why is he so self centered and can't be quiet and just listen to someone else for a while? Even in podcasts or interviews, he won't even let the other person fully state his or her point.. Imagine if everyone acted like this. absolutely unbearable
the p is silent Slavoj :)
Jannes Platteau it is in English but it's not in a lot of other languages
@@PseudoPseudoDionysius I Know. It isn't in my first language either
“Forget yourself and work for a cause” Sounds like communism unironcially.
what is the ultimate goal of communism?
@@vapubusdfeww1353
To establish a stateless, clasless, moneyless society.
@@djuradjuric7161 -Is it possible? if not,
what is the obstacle?
-Is it good/bad? why?
-Why is communism better/worse than capitalism?
vapubu sdfeww are these homework questions? These are really complicated questions that people have been arguing about for hundreds of years. You should try reading some stuff about it. Like read about karl Marx and even people who are the opposite of Karl Marx
@@LaithFGC homework... thats funny cause i left school 4 years ago, although isnt everybodies homework? to know how to love or if its worth living at all.
I like reading and I dont, I cant get focused or picture in my mind what some books try to say, that is the reason im asking this sort of questions
what a bunch of bullshit he is saying, psychoanalysis is not about diminishing suffering, it is about facing your suffering and becoming more functional. what he is criticizing is charlatans, not psychoanalysis. also, "know yourself" is a cliche, but not bullshit, there are patterns on your behavior and interaction that often you cant see, and once you analyse and accept it, it becomes valuable knowledge that can help you a lot.
Yikes . He won’t look inward eh?
The Ego is becoming uncomfortable when looking inside critically.
How could someone who’s written on Psychoanalysis be against looking inward? He’s stated in another video before that all that is ourselves is a mess of bullshit and that psychoanalysis is methodology to configure maybe a few little quirks within ourselves so that we feel a better and can understand ourselves a bit more. I think as Dostoyevsky would put it, we are immeasurably complex. His point is to find those negative drives/impulses/whatever, fix them up, and then dedicate yourself to substantial cause for existence. What Zizek is against is this sort of overtly spiritual, self-help investigation of the self. We can never truly get grasp on ourselves, but nonetheless we often pretend that we’ve finally discovered this “true, authentic” self.
I need subtitles.
i feel "suffering" when watching him talk...had to forget about the video and went for sound alone. Not easy either i know but eases it, even if just a bit....
I no understand
When something goes wrong, we try to analyze what went wrong in order not to suffer again.This is called experience and it is how our brain works in order to protect us from future damage. Analyzing in general is the foundation of critical thought development, which among others is very important for the understanding of the socio economic parameters that define our life.The psychoanalysis tha Zizek wants is apolitical and mostly for the dump people
my uncle daddy and cousin mama's what fer i got me such'a preddie mouth!
Žižek fandom are the same people who would fail to acknowledge that the emperor is naked.
Those low drum sounds are so annoying
It is quite unclear whether this video wants to show him touching his nose or the exposition of his views.
I mean sure but isnt that just escapism
Dedication to a cause? I don't think so, but I also think pyschoanalysis , up to a point, is necessary. The problem is when we get bogged down for years in trying to fix our fucked up heads with thought alone. Pyschoanalysis can allow you to 'shake hands' with yourself...but after a certain point *I think* Zizek is saying it's almost masturbatory and selfish.
@@samuelshepherd9707 I definitely agree with you. If you're riddled with issues then what you're capable of achieving is negligible, and your goals are probably very ill-advised. Getting yourself to a point where you're capable of applying yourself to goals is vital. Like zizek said, you basically need to get out of your own way. That being said, he discusses avoiding suffering and seeking pleasure as though it's a selfish thing, but subscribing to hedonistic egoism myself I fail to see how pursuing goals for the greater good isn't just an implication of seeking one's own pleasure.
is zizek a psychoanalyst ?Has he been psychoanalyzed? I would expect someone who is talking about pychoanalysis to have undergone one. Otherwise it's opinion or book knowledge.It's like being lectured about France by a person who hasn't been there or operated on by a person who read a book on urgery
that should read surgery
This guy just implementing jokes in the work of real philosophers about some old discusion over an idea abandoned by psychology decades ago. There is not real philosophy here, just jokes that makes you think youre smart because you suddenly understand Lacan or Hegel (but not really)
Which idea in words?
Here he, again, really went a bit too far with his simplifications! It's funny how he misinterprets the eastern philosophy he falsely summarizes as buddhism. It's totally not about just doing and go with it spontaneously, instead it really is about self-examination, recognizing and then letting go and becoming aware that what you are is not the feelings or stories you experienced but to validate them without evaluating. You see it's double funny because what he's trying to point out here (Becoming self-aware and then living up to higher goals) literally relates a lot to eastern philosophies. And beside that, how can we love and understand non-egocentric love if we never went the whole way down into ourselves and collecting knowledge about humanity trough our own layers of emotions and emotional triggers?
Behaviorism Radical is better! B.F. Skinner in Walden II
What differentiates this speech from self-help chitchat crap?
Its absolutely not about suffering or pleasure. That's the point.
@@dirtsonofearth2021 He is taking Foucault argument without quoting He is a false intelectual. A comedian
I agree. He's a false intellectual. He's found a way to gain a cult following.
@@kendrickjahn1261 I have observed that maybe this kind of cult could induce other people to read more?
What the fu#k
this is the most idiotic approach to the human psyche and psychoanalysis i've ever heard,obviously this guy has no clue what he's talking about.