You certainly should: it is in the best tradion of Central European positive scientific thinking which roots can be found in the Rennaiscance, ancient Rome and Greece. A beautiful game of ideas, words and expressions!
@Milton Mumfrey as Zizek points out in this talk, some of the most violent-minded liars in history have constructed their lies out of mostly accurate data (just disingenuously arranged). Superficial agreements aren't worth labeling anyone anything. And more significant agreements must be considered in their context. Not to mention that Zizek has since said in interviews that he debated Peterson not to destroy him, but to speak to Peterson's bamboozled followers.
I do love Žižek. I find it interesting how he responds to questions - I can't remember he ever answered one (which would be against his image). I was disappointed, though, that when I visited Ljubljana, I didn't bump into him - if I did, I would probably do what all Dutch do, notice and move on :-)
same mate, I was hoping to find him somehow somewhere there. I guess I'm officially a fanboy. But come on, listening to this dude is about thinking and turning things up-side down. Feels like refreshing some bullshit. While some people says he doesn't offer political answer, I think the most relevant answer he does are his premises.
1:02:22 somewhere around this time stamp, he says Obama didn’t nominate a Supreme Court Justice. This is a small detail, but the republican congress refused to hear on it for 9 months, not that he didn’t nominate.
1:49:00 reminds me of a quote from W. E. B. Du Bois. During the Second World War, he wrote about the American Japanese war from an anti-imperialist perspective, and was questioned by police. When asked if his opinions were being bought by Japan, he responded (paraphrasing) that it would remarkable if an American's beliefs weren't bought.
does anyone know the book or author he's referencing around 1:36-42-ish on how the nazi's rationalized their actions, saying that roughly 'anyone can live to do good for their fellow citizens, but the true sacrifice is bringing oneself to do evil for a greater purpose' kind of thing? really interested in finding the source
Okay Nietzsche haha I think the point of a myth is that it only works if you believe it's true. I'm not sure that myths can function when self-consciously false/artificial. They have to be organic and at least perceived to be true on some level
His point is that we act as if we believe even if we don't believe in it internally. He says that we know our votes are manipulated, judicial system is corrupt and so on, but still act as if we believe in these systems.
‘In addition to his native Slovene, Slavoj Žižek speaks fluent Serbo-Croatian, English, German and French, and he has given numerous interviews, presentations and lectures in all five (or six, if you count Croatian and Serbian separately) languages.’ Chomsky and Peterson only speak English. . Apparently Chomsky at one time spoke French and Hebrew but has only published in English lectures in English.
He seem to conflate some works of Beckett with those James Joyce.... and no one pointed this out...this is troubling.... suggest that no one dares to challenge him....how else do we arrive at honest discussion?
For f*** sake! With the "green amunitioun" exemple, Zizek reminded me of a comunist era czech cartoon character Rumcajs - a renegade anti-burgois and anti-aristocratic bandit/partisan who was using acorns instead of bullets for his bambit gun.
Emma Boyd Peterson wrote a self help book about the importance of cleaning your room. Zizek wrote a 900 page re-working of Hegelian dialectics. Zizek would make sure to point out their glaring differences. Peterson is a typical "right wing" Nietzchean, Zizek is not really a fan of Nietzsche.
@@DJ-kz3dy Peterson is not right-wing and his book isn't about the importance of cleaning one's room. Not that I'm a big fan of him, but you can't criticise him for not being intellectual enough. I often find Zizek using aphorisms while discussing, which can hardly even be characterized as an argument
The discussion would most likely revolve around individual responsibility as opposed to collective ideology. Am I wrong in assuming that Zizjek is in defence of collectivism?
I have a difficult relationship to Zizek, a part of me is loving every second, enjoying the intellectual roller coaster ride he takes you on, and another part, the nietzschean part thinks he is overcomplicating and over philosophising what could be explained far better in other ways. And as for the lacanian idea of the jealous husband pathology and the jew hating nazis... Nazis are not the only ones who need to vent their hate on the image of an enemy to feel good about their own identity. The communists I know are extremely quick in mobilizing hatred against the bourgeoisie. Are they pathological as well Zizek ?
I had similar mixed reaction when I first encountered zizek. The stumbling block is more hegelianism than zizek himself (Who embodies the dynamic and very live core of hegel's thinking today). From only a nietzschean perspective the 'overintellectualizing' or lacanian dogmatism seems unnecessary and maddening, but thru nietzsche you really don't see where zizek is coming from. I would recommend Hegel: A Reinterpretation by everybody's favorite nietzsche scholar and translator, Walter Kaufmann, if you're interested in getting to know hegel at a more existentialist level. also you get kaufmann's own translation of the preface to phenomenology.
@@pb6270 I read a bit of Hegel through Kojeve, so I have a vague grasp of the most basic concepts, which I remain highly critical of, as with most transcendental philosophy. Kaufmann is cool though :) I will check it out.
@@capitandelnorte some communists are fueled by resentment … which every communist should take seriously, to make sure they're not acting in this way. But it doesn't take away from the analysis of how production is structured in our society... Marx's task was just to uncover the relations that are masked in our society and bring them to light, and even the bourgeoise is under control of M->C->M' to some extent. However it is the proletariat that are the revolutionary class because without the MOP they cannot obtain the value they've created.... it is a contradiction with the value that one should be rewarded based on their work or contributions. Overcoming this contradiction and others is what socialists should see as their goal. Which has really nothing to do with the bourgeoisie unless they block the way.
@@noooreally Ordered Kaufmanns book on Hegel today, thanks for the tip, very excited. I see the merit in Marxist analysis of economy. What I fail to see is a cure that would not be worse than the disease. While capitalism burns through the earths resources, creating wealth disparity and alienation, historically speaking, it has still been more successful in creating wealth than communism. I think China should be the most recent example of this, after pulling their hands away from private property and allowing market freedom, the country has struck a tremendous blow against poverty. It´s hard for me to see how any sound communist argument against this. To the devil his due and all that. Also, the inhumanities caused by communism in the last century is not exactly a strong selling point for any moral character at the core of the ideology either. The fact that Zizek admits to the past failures of communism is one of the reasons I like him, but how he can have any hope whatsoever for the future, is something I don´t understand.
Not a philosophy student, only took a recent interest in it. Also the first time I have seen this guy Zizek. I think philosophy teaches one about the nature of logic, but in the end its just another argument that goes nowhere, other than some insight into the mind giving you the argument. That idealism even exists I think is testament to how flawed humans are. For example I can understand Capitalism and Communism as two sides of the same economic coin, a way to slow down one part of the world and preserve it, while revving up the other, nothing more than phase one and two of the same economic plan. The idealism then keeps the two peoples apart and non the wiser. So idealism is just a tool, never a truth. Debating it and listening to this guy, the mental image that comes to mind is that of trying to clear the smoke of ideology while waving a smoking oil rag. It goes no where, other than programming the sheep. And when the questions then do come, its just from programmed robots. Did you actually break that untouchable ideology and say the word Jew or White nationalism, from the reflection of a complete racist projecting it on her audience. And then his answers became politically correct. I guess if you going into politics, you have to learn to navigate this stuff. You need to understand how the sheep think, if you want to herd them. I tried to find out why we are so programmable as a species, I might have found a real truth... read on if you interested... _Archetypal Entanglement A Beautiful Mind Kindle Books_
1:28:46 really... yeah, as much as I like Žižek here I think he drifts away from reality. The whole system that PiS (Law and Justice party) created is flawed, corrupt and integrally operating on propaganda and post-communist nostalgia (previous party being corrupt ass hell also made as conviniant scapegoat) and this system is showing it's ugly head very much right now... in e.g bad vaccination system, slowly filing economy (even befeore pandemic), lack of support for small buissnesses during pandemic which results in them shutting down at massive scale, lack of medical staff SUCH severe that they oferred 7,5 thousand zł for every polish medical worker that will return from abroad (even funnier that around 2 years ago they basically stated that if they don't like situation of health service they can leave xD). I may also add that it's not some made out bullshit, I live in poland and what's funny I've never seen good sides of those reforms that Žižek listed but I've seen what they did nonetheless, mostly giving tools to their propaganda and their poor planning weakened the economy... the problem reached such critical point right now that they again needed a scapegoat so they brought up long forgotten abortion dilema to the light, people who had enough took to the streets (all against abortion restrictions, against their rule and all other) and they again had something for their propaganda to lure away people from real problems. Finally returning to Žižek, all that I want to say is that whet it comes to this sort of things he should think more before talking, this speech really shows that Žižek is a philosopher and not an economist or politician.
kleenex shall sponsor his lectures. beside the water give him some tissues to properly clean his nose. i cannot concentrate on what he says! 300 hairy bears!
"we have two opium of the people today: opium and the people." gotta love this!!
You certainly should: it is in the best tradion of Central European positive scientific thinking which roots can be found in the Rennaiscance, ancient Rome and Greece. A beautiful game of ideas, words and expressions!
im glad his face finally un-froze... that scared the shit outta me
how do such shallow people follow zizek?
@Anonymous Faces are meaningless, but that's not what i'm saying. You sound like Kathy Newman.
@Anonymous I have read Hegel but unlike you I think for myself.
@@stochastic24 Caring for his physical health is not shallow
Zizek gets it. Peterson is pure ideology.
@Milton Mumfrey I agree with you, however they will have a big disagreement on Jung.
@Milton Mumfrey as Zizek points out in this talk, some of the most violent-minded liars in history have constructed their lies out of mostly accurate data (just disingenuously arranged).
Superficial agreements aren't worth labeling anyone anything. And more significant agreements must be considered in their context.
Not to mention that Zizek has since said in interviews that he debated Peterson not to destroy him, but to speak to Peterson's bamboozled followers.
How? For example what for?
No, he's not
This has to be one of the best Zizek talks ever. I want to share it with eveyrone
thumps up from Afghanistan, good complement at the end specially Mr. Zizek.
This is one of the most expansive introductions given for Zizek I’ve heard, thanks
Starts at min 8.00
@@rickestrickc-1375 :*
Zizek is entertaining, he has a gift for the obscure, like Hegel, he makes it more obscure, but I love hearing him say the word idiot.
It’s a very Eastern European word. We say it & hve permutations of it.
I do love Žižek. I find it interesting how he responds to questions - I can't remember he ever answered one (which would be against his image). I was disappointed, though, that when I visited Ljubljana, I didn't bump into him - if I did, I would probably do what all Dutch do, notice and move on :-)
same mate, I was hoping to find him somehow somewhere there. I guess I'm officially a fanboy. But come on, listening to this dude is about thinking and turning things up-side down. Feels like refreshing some bullshit. While some people says he doesn't offer political answer, I think the most relevant answer he does are his premises.
I am deeply in love with this man.
That must be a burden
😂
I want Slavoj Zizek to live on my couch
Did it happen contingently or necessarily?
Plot twist: the nervous tics are just good acting to make Slavoj seem more imperfect
7:48
you're welcome!
IzabelParis Most important comment in any Slavoj Zizek video: the timestamp for when the actual talk begins. Looking out for the community.
@IzabelParis, you're thanked
Thanks guys!
I clicked with out knowing what would happen, I was not disappointed. This is faith in the modern context
Thanks comrade izabel
I love this guy,, I just can't get enough of him.
One of the best Zizek lectures Ive seen
Samuel Beckett at 01:15:20 you're welcome
talk begins at 7:47
If the energy produced by his nervous movements would be stored he could satisfy and supply electricity for half a planet
hahahaah
Let alone energy in his brain
Živio Žižek!
"I apologize, when I take power you will not be sent to gulag for loving Joyce."
DEAD. xD xD xD
1:02:22 somewhere around this time stamp, he says Obama didn’t nominate a Supreme Court Justice. This is a small detail, but the republican congress refused to hear on it for 9 months, not that he didn’t nominate.
29:25 he meant “it wil be even worse” for those of you confused.
its 4am...but im glad i found this
"Bill Clinton has some spirit." So this is totally a Hegel reference, right?
And so on, and so on.
I love zizek and so on
1:49:00 reminds me of a quote from W. E. B. Du Bois. During the Second World War, he wrote about the American Japanese war from an anti-imperialist perspective, and was questioned by police. When asked if his opinions were being bought by Japan, he responded (paraphrasing) that it would remarkable if an American's beliefs weren't bought.
does anyone know the book or author he's referencing around 1:36-42-ish on how the nazi's rationalized their actions, saying that roughly 'anyone can live to do good for their fellow citizens, but the true sacrifice is bringing oneself to do evil for a greater purpose' kind of thing? really interested in finding the source
I think its Gulag Archipelago...
im kind uesd to his pronounce, after a long resettling.
This is the same argument Adam Curtis pointed out in 2016 in hypernormalization.
Zizek pointed it out in the 90s
Zizek has the best solution with his idea of sinthom.
I loled when he rolled his r's when saying crack.
*SNIFFS*,,,,,,,,,,,,,,pulls shirt.
We need to create a myth. But a myth of which are self-aware that it's just a myth.
xeraph02 A myth no one believes but nevertheless everyone adheres to in their actions.
Okay Nietzsche haha
I think the point of a myth is that it only works if you believe it's true. I'm not sure that myths can function when self-consciously false/artificial. They have to be organic and at least perceived to be true on some level
Is there any transcript existing of this lecture?
Can anybody describe to me what the Neil bohr's joke means?
His point is that we act as if we believe even if we don't believe in it internally. He says that we know our votes are manipulated, judicial system is corrupt and so on, but still act as if we believe in these systems.
Who is the Swedish Marxist Zizek mentions at the end, anyone know? Sounds like Gerrun Therbon or something..
Göran Therborn
@@TheDavveponken Thank you!
@@petertschann-grimm1468 My pleasure!
2:25 you can notice him testing the mic
Maybe I misunderstood the intro, but did the speaker say that there is a third "Perverts guide"-movie in the making?
there will be I think
‘In addition to his native Slovene, Slavoj Žižek speaks fluent Serbo-Croatian, English, German and French, and he has given numerous interviews, presentations and lectures in all five (or six, if you count Croatian and Serbian separately) languages.’ Chomsky and Peterson only speak English. . Apparently Chomsky at one time spoke French and Hebrew but has only published in English lectures in English.
He speaks spanish I believe
He seem to conflate some works of Beckett with those James Joyce.... and no one pointed this out...this is troubling.... suggest that no one dares to challenge him....how else do we arrive at honest discussion?
I want to hear the 1 hour video where Zizek explains why it is pointless to "debate" Peterson. But it won't shut people up...
What the fuck was that introduction?
DId I misunderstood or he dared to criticized Zizek as he was presenting him?
For f*** sake! With the "green amunitioun" exemple, Zizek reminded me of a comunist era czech cartoon character Rumcajs - a renegade anti-burgois and anti-aristocratic bandit/partisan who was using acorns instead of bullets for his bambit gun.
When is he going to talk to Peterson?
4grammaton Last month
30:00
He is so funny hahaha
Please talk to Jordan Peterson Zizjek. I would love to see that conversation.
Vic Lineal you're probably right, but I still want to see it...
Emma Boyd Peterson wrote a self help book about the importance of cleaning your room.
Zizek wrote a 900 page re-working of Hegelian dialectics.
Zizek would make sure to point out their glaring differences.
Peterson is a typical "right wing" Nietzchean, Zizek is not really a fan of Nietzsche.
@@DJ-kz3dy Peterson is not right-wing and his book isn't about the importance of cleaning one's room. Not that I'm a big fan of him, but you can't criticise him for not being intellectual enough. I often find Zizek using aphorisms while discussing, which can hardly even be characterized as an argument
Don't be silly
The discussion would most likely revolve around individual responsibility as opposed to collective ideology. Am I wrong in assuming that Zizjek is in defence of collectivism?
Messiah of Hegelian philosophy
sniff
Yo gimme some Zeezak boi
Yessssssss
its a hegelians obession w 3s
_I_ _D_ _E_ _O_ _L_ _O_ _G_ _Y_ .
орал в голос с "Ленина в Варшаве"
Lady-not-a-lady butts right to the front right after a lady asks a question because "at least let a lady ask a question".
😁
nice fred perry shirt....whats wrong with his nose ?
Nothing. It’s a nervous tic, much like how some people stutter or breathe abnormally when speaking.
I have a difficult relationship to Zizek, a part of me is loving every second, enjoying the intellectual roller coaster ride he takes you on, and another part, the nietzschean part thinks he is overcomplicating and over philosophising what could be explained far better in other ways. And as for the lacanian idea of the jealous husband pathology and the jew hating nazis... Nazis are not the only ones who need to vent their hate on the image of an enemy to feel good about their own identity. The communists I know are extremely quick in mobilizing hatred against the bourgeoisie. Are they pathological as well Zizek ?
I had similar mixed reaction when I first encountered zizek. The stumbling block is more hegelianism than zizek himself (Who embodies the dynamic and very live core of hegel's thinking today). From only a nietzschean perspective the 'overintellectualizing' or lacanian dogmatism seems unnecessary and maddening, but thru nietzsche you really don't see where zizek is coming from. I would recommend Hegel: A Reinterpretation by everybody's favorite nietzsche scholar and translator, Walter Kaufmann, if you're interested in getting to know hegel at a more existentialist level. also you get kaufmann's own translation of the preface to phenomenology.
@@pb6270 I read a bit of Hegel through Kojeve, so I have a vague grasp of the most basic concepts, which I remain highly critical of, as with most transcendental philosophy. Kaufmann is cool though :) I will check it out.
@@capitandelnorte some communists are fueled by resentment … which every communist should take seriously, to make sure they're not acting in this way. But it doesn't take away from the analysis of how production is structured in our society... Marx's task was just to uncover the relations that are masked in our society and bring them to light, and even the bourgeoise is under control of M->C->M' to some extent. However it is the proletariat that are the revolutionary class because without the MOP they cannot obtain the value they've created.... it is a contradiction with the value that one should be rewarded based on their work or contributions. Overcoming this contradiction and others is what socialists should see as their goal. Which has really nothing to do with the bourgeoisie unless they block the way.
I have a large peepee and so on and so on.
@@noooreally Ordered Kaufmanns book on Hegel today, thanks for the tip, very excited. I see the merit in Marxist analysis of economy. What I fail to see is a cure that would not be worse than the disease. While capitalism burns through the earths resources, creating wealth disparity and alienation, historically speaking, it has still been more successful in creating wealth than communism. I think China should be the most recent example of this, after pulling their hands away from private property and allowing market freedom, the country has struck a tremendous blow against poverty. It´s hard for me to see how any sound communist argument against this. To the devil his due and all that. Also, the inhumanities caused by communism in the last century is not exactly a strong selling point for any moral character at the core of the ideology either. The fact that Zizek admits to the past failures of communism is one of the reasons I like him, but how he can have any hope whatsoever for the future, is something I don´t understand.
Sepculation is nt 'exploitation' it is necessary.
Marek Siciński It isn’t productive labor.
The 1st lady questioner; has no clue, as to what SZ is about.
I'm a big fan of his.
A lot of people don’t understand him, honestly.
He did not say anything new
He just does greatest hits now
@@HakWilliams yes and that's awesome
@1:37:28 || Q&A -- Jews, Trump, ideal evil
If Slavoj debates Peterson........ they would be the best of "enemies" ha ha ha
Peterson already lost the debate when he said he never read zizek or anything else by marx besides the communist manifesto lol
Not a philosophy student, only took a recent interest in it. Also the first time I have seen this guy Zizek.
I think philosophy teaches one about the nature of logic, but in the end its just another argument that goes nowhere, other than some insight into the mind giving you the argument. That idealism even exists I think is testament to how flawed humans are.
For example I can understand Capitalism and Communism as two sides of the same economic coin, a way to slow down one part of the world and preserve it, while revving up the other, nothing more than phase one and two of the same economic plan.
The idealism then keeps the two peoples apart and non the wiser. So idealism is just a tool, never a truth.
Debating it and listening to this guy, the mental image that comes to mind is that of trying to clear the smoke of ideology while waving a smoking oil rag. It goes no where, other than programming the sheep.
And when the questions then do come, its just from programmed robots. Did you actually break that untouchable ideology and say the word Jew or White nationalism, from the reflection of a complete racist projecting it on her audience. And then his answers became politically correct. I guess if you going into politics, you have to learn to navigate this stuff. You need to understand how the sheep think, if you want to herd them.
I tried to find out why we are so programmable as a species, I might have found a real truth... read on if you interested...
_Archetypal Entanglement A Beautiful Mind Kindle Books_
I like his thinking but it's so distracting that he's not only a christian, but a heretical christian.
1:28:46 really... yeah, as much as I like Žižek here I think he drifts away from reality. The whole system that PiS (Law and Justice party) created is flawed, corrupt and integrally operating on propaganda and post-communist nostalgia (previous party being corrupt ass hell also made as conviniant scapegoat) and this system is showing it's ugly head very much right now... in e.g bad vaccination system, slowly filing economy (even befeore pandemic), lack of support for small buissnesses during pandemic which results in them shutting down at massive scale, lack of medical staff SUCH severe that they oferred 7,5 thousand zł for every polish medical worker that will return from abroad (even funnier that around 2 years ago they basically stated that if they don't like situation of health service they can leave xD). I may also add that it's not some made out bullshit, I live in poland and what's funny I've never seen good sides of those reforms that Žižek listed but I've seen what they did nonetheless, mostly giving tools to their propaganda and their poor planning weakened the economy... the problem reached such critical point right now that they again needed a scapegoat so they brought up long forgotten abortion dilema to the light, people who had enough took to the streets (all against abortion restrictions, against their rule and all other) and they again had something for their propaganda to lure away people from real problems.
Finally returning to Žižek, all that I want to say is that whet it comes to this sort of things he should think more before talking, this speech really shows that Žižek is a philosopher and not an economist or politician.
kleenex shall sponsor his lectures. beside the water give him some tissues to properly clean his nose. i cannot concentrate on what he says! 300 hairy bears!
It’s not phlegm. It’s a nervous tic. There’s nothing in or on his nose/face, he just does it compulsively. Much like a stutter.
What a fancy way to say: "orange man bad" :/
I’m guessing you watched maybe… 20 minutes?
Slaveman Commyfuk
this guy proves just how corrupt academia is - by his very prescence
could you explain what you mean
guess again.
Hahaha do you think Zizek is accepted by modern academia?
30:30