Slavoj Zizek. Materialism and Theology. 2007 3/8
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- www.egs.edu/ Slavoj Zizek lecturing about materialism and theology, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the psychoanalysis of culture and societies. Videolecture focuses on fundamentalism, materialism, theology, atheism, atheists, humanists, humanism, reason, logic, rationality, intelligent design, believe, faith, religion, christian, christianity, islam, fundamentalists, fundamentalism, god, nature, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Public open lecture for the students of the European Graduate School EGS, Media and Communication Studies department program, Saas-Fee, Switzerland, Europe, 2007, Slavoj Zizek.
Slavoj Zizek, a Slovenian sociologist, postmodern philosopher, and cultural critic is a professor at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana and at the European Graduate School EGS who uses popular culture to explain the theory of Jacques Lacan and the theory of Jacques Lacan to explain politics and popular culture. He was born in 1949 in Ljubljana, Slovenia where he lives to this day but he has lectured at universities around the world. He was analysed by Jacques Alain Miller, Jacques Lacan's son in law. His research focuses on Karl Marx, Hegel and Schellingfundamentalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
He has published many books and translations in several languages. He is the author of The Sublime Object of Ideology, 1989, Beyond Discourse Analysis (a part in Ernesto Laclau's New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time), London: Verso. 1990, For They Know Not What They Do, London: Verso. 1991, Looking Awry, MIT Press. Enjoy Your Symptom!, Routledge. 1992, Tarrying With the Negative, Durham, New Carolina: Duke University Press. 1993, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Lacan, But Were Afraid to Ask Hitchcock,1993, The Metastates of Enjoyment,1994, The Indivisible Remainder: Essays on Schelling and Related Matters, 1996, The Abyss of Freedom, University of Michigan Press. 1997, The Plague of Fantasies, Multi-culturalism, or, the Cultural Logic of Multi-national Capitalism, New Left Review, issue 225 pgs. 28--51, The Ticklish Subject, 1999, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality (authored with Judith Butler and Ernesto Laclau), Verso. 2000, The Art of the Ridiculous Sublime: On David Lynch's Lost Highway, Washington: University of Washington Press. The Fragile Absolute, 2000, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? 2001, The Fright of Real Tears: Kryzystof Kieślowski Between Theory and Post-Theory, British Film Institute (BFI), On Belief, Routledge. Opera's Second Death, Repeating Lenin, Zagreb: Arkzin D.O.O. 2001, Welcome to the Desert of the Real, 2002, Revolution at the Gates: Žižek on Lenin, the 1917 Writings, Organs Without Bodies. 2003, The Puppet and the Dwarf, 2003, Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle, 2004, Interrogating the Real, London, Continuum International Publishing Group. 2005, The Universal Exception, London, 2006, Neighbors and Other Monsters (in The Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology), Cambridge, Massachusetts: University of Chicago Press. The Parallax View, How to Read Lacan, New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2007
that's strange, because i understand perfectly.. and also stranger because i've always had a certain reservation about zizek over his psychology, but his critique of dialectical materialism, and also his surprising (to me) alright understanding of mysticism is why he, to my applauding agreement, wonderfully takes on the truly ignorant, vulgar and dangerous "atheist" positions of dawkins, dennett etc. those pop-discourses has nothing to do with actual mystical experience, which appropriates "god"
thanx 4 posting
"...he uses popular culture to explain the theory of Jacques Lacan and the theory of Jacques Lacan to explain politics and popular culture."
Not only that, he states at the beginning that he is laying out a theory that takes as its foundation the "inexplicableness of everything".
That's only conditionally circular reasoning, not necessary. It's (necessarily) circular if these ideas are not part of a larger framework and do not form an inference.
"...he uses popular culture to explain the theory of Jacques Lacan and the theory of Jacques Lacan to explain politics and popular culture."
Not only that, he states at the beginning that he is laying out a theory that takes as its foundation the "inexplicableness of everything".
Minor correction, it's neither conditional or necessary. It cannot be determined from the information given.
he is theist i don get it
Dawkins can't even tell us a lot about evolutionary biology, actually. He's not a particularly important scientist; he's merely an expert self-promoter and aggregator of other people's work.
can you help me with the bit where he uses lacan's theory of the non-all. why is modern science's view that there is nothing that cannot be expained by reason- in itself inconsistent and allows for the appreciation of miracles, quantum mechanics and so fourth? is it still to do with the voluntarist theology embraced by descartes- that of a primary and inexplicable will of God?
Marx's materialism so dwarfs the scientific understanding of physics that we have today. Materialism is a misleading term since energy forces are unaccounted for due to their being difficult to perceive, for instance however, radiation, music, cultural jamming, hegemony(and other institutional power relationships), hormonal reactions, and drug use are some energy forces that exist but may be unaccounted for by the 'materialist' who only believes in matter as opposed to energy and matter.
I've seen him twice in person... I'm a philosophy student. Zizek speaks in non-sense. He constructs lots of little ideas that are either trivially true or superficially novel into huge, nonsense chains that he touts as coherent hypothesis. If you think you understand Zizek, try paraphrasing or summarizing what he says without simply regurgitating his words.
He can't even do it.
@spinozareagan His understanding of evolutionary biology (at least as summarized in "The Selfish Gene") is somewhat primitive; he doesn't give much credit to epigenetic possibilities... see "The Four Dimensions of Evolution"
Actually I checked up on what I said and I had it right the first time. That was a contingent, or conditional statement, that Zizek presents. But I still disagree with philosophers who say that there are "two kinds of truth", contingent and necessary. Contingent truth is not actually truth at all.
Brilliant critique of Derridean ontology. Talk about the return of the repressed-Lacan and Hegel turned back on Derrida by way of feminism, very well done, spectral even!
00:50; hilarious.
As a Christian, I find Zizek's insight very interesting. I also find it interesting that he likes Chesterton (who is one of my favorite authors).
@7freddie7 Yes, he's a public intellectual but it's very hard to get laymen to understand this. Mention him to almost any serious evolutionary biologist and they'll immediately roll their eyes. It's kind of like when the Davinci Code became a NY Times best seller and all of a sudden Dan Brown was the foremost expert on theology.
"incompleteness is a fundamental characteristic of the universe."
Actually incompleteness is a fundamental characteristic of a formal system rich enough to contain "basic arithmetics", you can't use the concept of incompleteness in such a loose way, it makes no sense.
he is laying out a theory that takes as its foundation the "inexplicableness of everything"."Here's a theory: Kill brain, you die, try to deny" and that is the beautiful aesthetic totally human point. The absurdity of the normal implies irrationality but irrationality is the normal of the absurd so that what is normal is a sense of the absurd that produces the need for philosophy or wonder and thus can render the all of existence as sublime in all senses
having listened to it again i see that zizek was saying the opposite- that mod science has departed from a chesterton position. but i still don't get how mod science overcomes the paradox of a comitment to universal reason and miracles
do you know what ad hominem means?
don't you mean "pheudopsilosophy?"
"there must be some unknown feature missing"
Stringtheory = God