I finally get the "jealousy" quote. It's not the valid single suspicion independent of his history of jealousy that is pathological but the overarching mentality of his jealousy. That's subtle. I thought he meant that only an emotionally detached attitude to the fact of being cheated on is non-pathological. Which is asking abit too much of human beings.
Zizek knows to his core that the discourse of revisionism and the facts of the time are alot more nuanced and there's alot more truth to it all, but it's obviously not lucrative on any front to state as much. Even here he walks steadily along the edge, just barely slipping, because woe be to anyone going against the Creed and Gospel of the Times, of which this is pretty much the largest of dictating super structures. We compare and contrast, at the highest exo and esoteric levels, off of this paradigm. And while I don't personally see it as the end all/be all of contradictions, it's certainly telling the influence it has over public discussion.
This is my conclusion too, at least in some respect to some of his views. Watch Zizek's video on Yugoslavia ideology here to get my point:: th-cam.com/video/u4NIfMc3onY/w-d-xo.html JP holds some subconscious ideologies that he doesn't explicitly believes, but he acts upon them. This is exactly why outside his area of expertise on individual and collective psychology, he tends to relativistic conclusions (oxymoron pun intended). The best illustration of this is his belief in the Christian GOD and his flawed interpretation of Jungian psychology
I want to listen to this man but between his lisp and constant nose tick, I'm totally disgusted and all that runs through my mind is the amount of mucus on his fingers. 🤢🤮
This dude is super smart but seriously he needs to go to rehab. This shit he's got going on is more than a eccentric nervous twitch or a sinus issue. The dude needs help and you guys who think this guy is valuable need to put a little bit of pressure on him to get it. Quit looking the other way and making excuses for him. Besides once he's out of rehab he'll be a thousand times smarter.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 it's actually rather simple. gasoline is a liquid, but still highly flammable. I'm saying this to illustrate first, that liquids *can* be flammable. It's something of an obvious point, but sometimes you have to start at the most obvious places in order for the rest to make sense. Certain juices from certain kinds of fruits are actually very high in flammable materials, but are usually surrounded by enough water to keep the flammable materials in check, however if you 'dehydrate' such compounds for long term storage and handling, then when you add water to make it a juice again, if you add too little, then you'll get a stronger flavor, but there won't be enough water to keep the flammable materials stable enough to be *truly* safe, so with a bit of effort, it's actually possible to light it on fire. Don't believe anything in here. I'm just typing stuff out of boredom.
@@proletariapricot2190 All right here's the script: -*Sniff* now, dish ish whot I talk about whenn I say *snort* La Canne, Hhegel, ant so onn, dese dialectics about *snort* ASMR, dey remind me of dish oldd joke I heard from *Sniff* a Turkmenishtani Scientologist about *snort* ASMR, ant you know, dee Turmenishtani, I love deir jokes about ASMR... Improvise the rest.
He is not saying anything against or in support of postmodernism. He is just explaining you don't need postmodern/relativism to sustain a lie! He is saying the opposite of the title: Hitler and holocaust deniers didn't use relativism to justify their lie. In a discussion about "Hitler lied", the question shouldn't be about interpretation or exaggeration of facts. It is not the case that his lies about facts comprised his anti-semitic views, but he was objectively a lier because of his anti-semitic views.
@@mmehdig He cannot be objectively a liar because that concept is relative to the human mind. He can be a priori a liar by virtue of adherence to the universal human definition. While I am a relativist, I have no illusions as to the need for relativism to avoid essaying to justify horror with some cheap denial of facts which may lack objectivity in our universe.
@@mmehdig I understand. Personally, I'm not sure why a plethora of modern intellectuals decry certain forms relativism. They adduce the disastrous ramifications precipitated by postmodern thought as their reasoning, but isn't that premise fallacious? Furthermore, I despise people who completely denounce Foucault's work. Yes, his work was, at times, fraught with historical error; however, Discipline and Punish bestowed a deep insight regarding the concept of Power.
Thanks for the comments @@sohyunpark3465. I close to know nothing about the subject. So, I just enjoy the conversation. I happened to like linguistics. I watched Chomsky's comment on relativism, I think his point of view on this is consistent with his view about language. Some people like me think that language is a product of social interactions but he believes that communication is not the subject of linguistics (I still don't know how he can hold this position!). In the same way, it seems he thinks morality is not the product of social interactions, and human experience is all about finding true moral values! The consequences of these views are horrible (e.g. some cultures are considered more morally advanced!). I find this view a bit strange and possibly wrong. Here is the video I referred to th-cam.com/video/i63_kAw3WmE/w-d-xo.html
This is exactly how Dutch politics work. The politicians often use facts and data to rationalize their unrealistic fantasies. Both on local and national level. Like when there’s a shortage of parking space in a city and they want to deny that: They set up an investigation where the percentage of parking spaces used is measured during the day. Including the nighttime while almost no one needs a parking space away from home, like near the shops. Then, they take the average percentage of parking spaces used over that period of 24h and draw the conclusion that almost 40% is not used, so no action needs to be taken. Same trick can be applied with average airplane noise or exposure to exhaust gasses from traffic... etc.
Did anyone truly grasp what he meant by that someone's subjective opinion of an object is inscribed in the object itself (the Hegelian twist)? He wasn't too clear about that. Does it mean that subjective positions are determined by objective circumstances? Or maybe something else?
what he's suggesting is that any set of data has an immanent sense of order. while subjectively we may present factual data in different contexts, with different precision based on different assumptions and thus arrive at different conclusions, there remains an internal order that is objective. finding this order is what is here presented as finding "truth". in other words. you may arbitrarily present facts in a way that serves your cause and although you are presenting facts he will consider you a liar if you deliberately reorganize those facts in disregard of their self-relating internal structure. consider, for instance, temperature data of a specific location. you could present the data in such a way that suggests it's always relatively cold, if you only measure at night and only in winter. you could present the data in such a way that suggest it's always relatively warm, if you measure only during daytime and only in summer. you could also reasonably claim that temperature does not follow any particular pattern if you present the data in a way that does not seem to display any patterns. but the truth is this: it's colder at night, than it s during the day, and it's colder in winter, than it is in summer and you will only arrive at that conclusion, if you find the innate structure of the data set.
Hitler was in many ways the first modern leader. The first to take propaganda really seriously. The first to really understand the power of cinema, the Olympics, the arts etc. Nazism also understood how the merger of the ancient and the modern created an intoxicating frisson. Allusions to history in the midst of exponential scientific progress lend a mythic quality to the dullness of bureaucratic industrialism. But of course this merger was well under way with Neo Classicalism, and the Medieval Revival - as romanticism segued into modernity. Hitler just consciously brought such anachronisms into the political arena. Basically the first leader to aestheticize politics. A merger between past and present that all ideologies now embrace. Whether that's the poster of Obama as Abraham Lincoln; or Theresa May being depicted as Boadicea - the same post-modern fusion abounds
@@6dhypercube740 he is certainly scum, but we all support murderers. If you're a citizen of the West anywhere, you live off the toil and sweat of so many you can't even count. Yes, he's a Nazi. We all are in some way or another.. face your own demons first..
BTW I don't support Nazis, just saying Hitler anticipated much of modern politics. His documentary films by Riefenstahl, his massive investment in the Olympic games, his staged rallies with theatrical optics, the evocation of past glories - have been taken up by modern politicians. But that is a damning critique of today's politicians rather than an endorsement of fascism. Or rather demonstrates the latent fascism lurking beneath modern 'capitalism.
The NAZIS turned propaganda into an artform. They aestheticized it. It wasn't just propaganda - viz-a-vis - our enemies are baby killers etc - rather it was propaganda as mass Wagnerian spectacle. Basically political theatre taken to the max.
What are you talking about. In the age of big data the best way to make this more viral is with clickbait. Sheer exposure is more important than aesthetics or being misleading.
"Immanent in its obfuscation of social antagonism." This doesn't answer the question of identifying a lie. There are certain metaphysical foundations immanent in the statement above, that of human dignity. That is a presupposition that isn't exempt from deconstruction, and in the wrong hands, that is dangerous. Too late, abortion removes unconditional dignity. He just passed the buck.
This reminds me a lot of a video I saw of Sam Harris confronting Jordan Peterson about his definition of truth, which he essentially defines as "anything which helps us survive, whether or not it's a delusion." Harris presents a scenario in which a man kills himself because he was given evidence that his wife cheated on him, Peterson is then confronted with the logical paradox that by his own definition that would mean it was "untrue" that the man's wife cheated on him, because it was detrimental to his survival to accept the empirical fact that his wife _was_ having an affair, to which Peterson has a naval gazing meltdown about the definition of every word Harris used in his hypothetical. But I noticed a flaw in their thinking. Harris' and Peterson's trouble reconciling Peterson's definition of truth with the scenario only comes about because _both_ men take for granted that the man's suicidal response is *valid* under the circumstances. When the question is not whether or not it's true that the wife cheated on the husband, that is an arbitrarily factual statement - but whether or not "cheating" is "true" in the sense that it is worth dying over. Since anything that is detrimental to survival is either "not true" or "less true" by Peterson's definition, this should logically mean Peterson having to accept the idea that a woman sleeping with another man *_should not_* be of any significance to her husband, because embracing that "delusion" could get him killed. I suspect this would not play well to Peterson's "CUCK!" screaming audience, so Peterson is cornered by the example, and finds no exit.
Are you proposing that people should not care whether their significant others are cheating on them? That tells us quite a bit about your social standing and your membership in a conquered people. Also, Peterson's idea must be turned on its head. What constitutes "survival", what the definition of *life* is, is to address and not evade from the world, which for a human being implies the evaluation of truth and acting in consistence with the truth.
@Vassal Colony Why do we need holy water and all this transcendental religious stuff? We are social creatures; just seek positive relationships and help people.
@Vassal Colony Hm. I see how someone completely helpless, in extreme pain would need affirmation like prayer or god to keep going. Depending on one's faith, in isolation I imagine that such a belief may only preserve the spirit for so long, until eventually crumbling from prolonged and unchanging suffering.
if harris didn't take 4hrs and 500000 words to refute basic illogical arguments he would be a great intellectual. u can't win a debate when u put ur audience to sleep 1st
I think he says that certain social contradictions are objectively true, and that class struggle/antagonism is one of these. Anti-semitism is one of many obfuscations of this fundamental objective truth, and lead anti-semites like Nazis (who deny or obfuscate class struggle) to be objectively wrong in its interpretation of data.
So the answer to the title of this video - was hitler a postmodernist? - is a simple "no", quite literally because Zizek argues postmodernist deconstructionist thought is often not in use by alt-facters, but also more generally because that is not really what this video was about - a bit misleading perhaps, this title.
As Zizek mentioned jews in germany were over represented. Now replace "jews" in the talk with "bourgeoisie" or "upper class" and you get socialism, so yea Hitler was a racist socialist.
@Diego Lévy Yes, free enterprise with strong state influence and privileged to very few. Thats facsist economy, or using modern term 'corporatism'. Society was collectivist in nature.
I wouldn't describe Hitler or National Socialism as being post-modernist, but I would definitely describe Mussolini and Italian Fascism as being post-modern. As I would likewise describe the three Fascist philosophers - Gentile, Heidegger, and Schmitt - as being post-modern.
Confirmation bias is a way of skewing facts to what you want them to be. He's concerned with something completely different; he considers the frameworks that allows you to experience facts. In fact, he's always idealizing to the situation where the facts themselves are true.
His position here basically leads, if followed properly, to a quietism or epoché resulting in that when one is exposed to facts, it will basically force one to deny that any cognitive line can be drown from fact to fact and then to a conclusion and finally to a solution (if taking one is preferred). The same could be said about a marxist like him, (and any ideology or thought process which follows the described pattern) everything of what you say about capitalistic social relations is true, so what, but why do you need this opposition (jealousy, hate, disdain) in order to sustain your (pathological) self-being constructing with it an ideology directed to destroy this set of beliefs and practices? So. Its bullshit. Hes entertaining, and can teach a lot, but hes also full of shit. I wish he was for real or that he cut his bullshit.
I don't think a Marxist's approach to reality is comparable to a Nazi's in the way you suggest. The Marxist's philosophical reliance on dialectical materialism is not just a funny-sounding buzzword - it's an methodlogical attempt to achieve a total understanding of reality, even if it presupposes that there are unignorable social antagonisms between various forces and things. I will illustrate the key difference between dialectical materialism and ordinary liberal/fascist particularist thinkiing as I understand it. Where the Marxist is meta-aware of the opposition of contradictions in society, and ought to be aware of the limits of contradiction and scientific understanding of history, the Nazi self-identifies with one side of an opposition against an other. It feeds their egoistic idenity directly. The Nazi ideology is simply "Us Vs. Them" whereas the Marxist theoretical framework acknowledges the antagonisms of society but does not necessarily identify with them - the contradictions are said to arise from our human relationship with the material world and not from our will to see it so. In other words, dialectical materialism portends to carefully take the sum of facts and then form a scientific conclusion, whereas typical ideolgies already hold a certain conclusion and then find the facts to support that conclusion. The Marxist response to these societal contradictions portends to avoid quietism because dialectical materialism is supposed to be able to encompass the maximum set of facts possible to create a ideological narrative for reality, and thereby cannot be dismissed. However, I do not believe dialectical materialism is entirely successful in what it sets out to do, as a method for analyzing experience and acting from it and because Marx's dialectical materialism is a limited appropriation of the Hegelian dialectic that is strangely confined to the material realm alone. Perhaps you realize this as well, but I think it had to be stated that there is more nuance going on here, particularly where dialectical materialism is concerned.
I would ask Žižek if I could what does he thinks about missa for Bleiburg Fašists in the middle of the Sarajevo, lead by the highest katolik preast monsinjor Vinko Puljić in the main Churc. If someone could ask Žižek about that I think it would be interesting.
I have been doing some research, but I have not figured it out yet. Can somebody explain to me Lacans paradoxical statement? I do not understand how the jealousy is pathological. If your wife cheats on you and you are jealous, is it not perfectly natural to be jealous? And why is the true question: why does he need jealousy to sustain self-identity?
well, from what I understood. It's not that she cheats on you and you are jealous. You are jealous before knowing for a fact she cheated on you, whether it is or isn't true is of no importance according to Lacan. I don't think he's trying to say it's natural or innatural. The behavior is the same. Can't answer the last question, I'm curious about that too
I think that some details help fill in what he's getting at. From my understanding, he's explaining someone who is always checking up on their wife, snooping, and acting jealous. It's not really just about one event and then the reaction. The definition of pathological might help as well; Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive. Furthermore, one could argue that his wife cheated on him because she was tired of being treated like she was cheating on him. Why not do the crime if you're doin the time?
@bittercottoncandy well there it goes into theories of sexuation and lacan is known saying: the woman does not exist. It's because negativity recides in the subject and that lack of the woman etc controlling? what does he need to deal with before he can be in a relationship with someone?
@@Johnny69xxx you really cant get through any college-level history, art, film, or english classes without reading some of the post modern thinkers. You aren't special or enlightened, guy.
A few, sure, but you obviously don't understand much of the philosophy that the modern right-wing is rooted in. Furthermore, I don't think you really understand post-modernism yourself, the very notion that "there is no truth, that truth is utility used by the sovereign in order to project power", was pioneered by Nietzsche. Only subsequently, was it co-opted by the French and Frankfurt School intellectuals for the development of marxist critical theory. Read Nietzsche's will to power, little buddy, the traditional Right understood these ideas long before slavoj had to spoon feed it to you here, ironically vindicating Hitler in all significant ways in doing so.
@@judgeholden849 Do you want some cheese with your whine? 'The modern right' is a vague concept. What modern right? Because I'm familiarized with Sloterdijk, Nick Land, and of course with Nietzsche as a right wing thinker, etc. So I would know a thing or two. So what 'right'? Do you mean Dougin? Do you mean Julius Evola? At least make an effort to explain yourself without being triggered.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.82[1/2] แก๊ง 3 สาวเพื่อนซี้บุก CAMPปลิ้นครั้งนี้ห้ามเสียอาการ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_6WUjXHe1TM/mqdefault.jpg)
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
"40% of lawyers in 1933 in Germany, were juice"
- Slavoj Zizek
That's a juicy stat
@rockster10101 lawyer here. Can confirm.
*Kosher juice
orange juice, to be clear
Lawyers must lie, isn't it?
I love that you let that last "and so on, and so on," stay in the video lol
Media: “don’t touch your face you will get corona virus”
Zizek:
lmao
The title of this video is amazing.
I finally get the "jealousy" quote.
It's not the valid single suspicion independent of his history of jealousy that is pathological but the overarching mentality of his jealousy.
That's subtle.
I thought he meant that only an emotionally detached attitude to the fact of being cheated on is
non-pathological. Which is asking abit too much of human beings.
Zizek knows to his core that the discourse of revisionism and the facts of the time are alot more nuanced and there's alot more truth to it all, but it's obviously not lucrative on any front to state as much. Even here he walks steadily along the edge, just barely slipping, because woe be to anyone going against the Creed and Gospel of the Times, of which this is pretty much the largest of dictating super structures. We compare and contrast, at the highest exo and esoteric levels, off of this paradigm. And while I don't personally see it as the end all/be all of contradictions, it's certainly telling the influence it has over public discussion.
Privilaging some DHATTA.
-Slavoj Zizek.
Plot twist: Peterson *himself* is a postmodernist.
This is my conclusion too, at least in some respect to some of his views. Watch Zizek's video on Yugoslavia ideology here to get my point::
th-cam.com/video/u4NIfMc3onY/w-d-xo.html
JP holds some subconscious ideologies that he doesn't explicitly believes, but he acts upon them. This is exactly why outside his area of expertise on individual and collective psychology, he tends to relativistic conclusions (oxymoron pun intended). The best illustration of this is his belief in the Christian GOD and his flawed interpretation of Jungian psychology
"Conway something".
Oof.
Gosh Seton Hall. Have some dignity! Get a fabric steamer off Amazon and sort out the creases in your tablecloth.
He didn't answered the question
What was the question? 😜
That guys got a speed problem.
I love this guy :))
he has some postnasal drip issues or something, jesus.
3:10
I want to listen to this man but between his lisp and constant nose tick, I'm totally disgusted and all that runs through my mind is the amount of mucus on his fingers. 🤢🤮
Watch more videos you get used to it. And listening to him really is worth it
This dude is super smart but seriously he needs to go to rehab. This shit he's got going on is more than a eccentric nervous twitch or a sinus issue.
The dude needs help and you guys who think this guy is valuable need to put a little bit of pressure on him to get it. Quit looking the other way and making excuses for him. Besides once he's out of rehab he'll be a thousand times smarter.
He has Tourette syndrome
All we know is that he was based and redpilled
"Let me repeat another old story of mine that I like to repeat. I am sorry if you heard it"
No you are not sorry.
And neither are we...
I'm only here for the auto-generated Dutch captions.
Truly a light of hope in this dismal abyss.
😂😂😂
Question is nood is gezwaaid
Really lijken dekt, de trok weg zijn lief
One of the classics of Dutch avant gard poetry
Me too and I can't even speak Dutch
0:36 "dit weekend: step out if it and look at wind"
Dutch person: *inhales* Daaayum dude that's deep
juice were very influential and so on and so on
It's full of vitamins and such. Very good for your health, so of course the Juice should be influential.
Orange or apple is the real question
How do you burn juice. I thought pouring juice on a fire would put it out.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 it's actually rather simple.
gasoline is a liquid, but still highly flammable. I'm saying this to illustrate first, that liquids *can* be flammable. It's something of an obvious point, but sometimes you have to start at the most obvious places in order for the rest to make sense.
Certain juices from certain kinds of fruits are actually very high in flammable materials, but are usually surrounded by enough water to keep the flammable materials in check, however if you 'dehydrate' such compounds for long term storage and handling, then when you add water to make it a juice again, if you add too little, then you'll get a stronger flavor, but there won't be enough water to keep the flammable materials stable enough to be *truly* safe, so with a bit of effort, it's actually possible to light it on fire. Don't believe anything in here. I'm just typing stuff out of boredom.
werewolf435 Aaahhh, so we make powdered juice before we burn it!
169 nose scratches, you see welcome.
Ha, thanks for counting. Amazing.
I will need to double check it
and so on and so on
i should really really be studying... yet here i am
@@OurEyesAreYetToOpen did you really have to say that?
@@OurEyesAreYetToOpen Jesus Christ that was fucking pretencious
@wizzolf schaferhund lol
Either way whether you're studying from school or listening to zizek you're getting a marxist indoctrination lol
@@deathstarwontsaveyou9892 none of my professors ever taught Marxism
I love it how the video ends in "and so on and so on". The editor even waited for it, like it's a punchline. This is how ideology functions today! xD
I would listen an ASMR of Zizek for hours.
PezConSombrero hell yah someone please make that
just listen to any other coke head snort and sniffle and you'll be fine.
@@grazzitdvram
They'd have to be yugoslavian
@@maximusstirnimus5210 coke head here I charge £40 an hour
@@proletariapricot2190
All right here's the script:
-*Sniff* now, dish ish whot I talk about whenn I say *snort* La Canne, Hhegel, ant so onn, dese dialectics about *snort* ASMR, dey remind me of dish oldd joke I heard from *Sniff* a Turkmenishtani Scientologist about *snort* ASMR, ant you know, dee Turmenishtani, I love deir jokes about ASMR...
Improvise the rest.
No one..
Literally no one..
Auto subtitles telling "reproduce factual data" as "reproduce oil fuck cross that"
LOL
He is not saying anything against or in support of postmodernism. He is just explaining you don't need postmodern/relativism to sustain a lie! He is saying the opposite of the title: Hitler and holocaust deniers didn't use relativism to justify their lie. In a discussion about "Hitler lied", the question shouldn't be about interpretation or exaggeration of facts. It is not the case that his lies about facts comprised his anti-semitic views, but he was objectively a lier because of his anti-semitic views.
Also, posmodernism is not the same as relativism.
@@mmehdig He cannot be objectively a liar because that concept is relative to the human mind. He can be a priori a liar by virtue of adherence to the universal human definition. While I am a relativist, I have no illusions as to the need for relativism to avoid essaying to justify horror with some cheap denial of facts which may lack objectivity in our universe.
@@sohyunpark3465 Well, I just tried to restate what Zizek is saying in this video.
@@mmehdig I understand. Personally, I'm not sure why a plethora of modern intellectuals decry certain forms relativism. They adduce the disastrous ramifications precipitated by postmodern thought as their reasoning, but isn't that premise fallacious? Furthermore, I despise people who completely denounce Foucault's work. Yes, his work was, at times, fraught with historical error; however, Discipline and Punish bestowed a deep insight regarding the concept of Power.
Thanks for the comments @@sohyunpark3465. I close to know nothing about the subject. So, I just enjoy the conversation. I happened to like linguistics. I watched Chomsky's comment on relativism, I think his point of view on this is consistent with his view about language. Some people like me think that language is a product of social interactions but he believes that communication is not the subject of linguistics (I still don't know how he can hold this position!). In the same way, it seems he thinks morality is not the product of social interactions, and human experience is all about finding true moral values! The consequences of these views are horrible (e.g. some cultures are considered more morally advanced!). I find this view a bit strange and possibly wrong. Here is the video I referred to th-cam.com/video/i63_kAw3WmE/w-d-xo.html
This is exactly how Dutch politics work.
The politicians often use facts and data to rationalize their unrealistic fantasies.
Both on local and national level.
Like when there’s a shortage of parking space in a city and they want to deny that:
They set up an investigation where the percentage of parking spaces used is measured during the day.
Including the nighttime while almost no one needs a parking space away from home, like near the shops.
Then, they take the average percentage of parking spaces used over that period of 24h and draw the conclusion that almost 40% is not used, so no action needs to be taken.
Same trick can be applied with average airplane noise or exposure to exhaust gasses from traffic... etc.
Did anyone truly grasp what he meant by that someone's subjective opinion of an object is inscribed in the object itself (the Hegelian twist)? He wasn't too clear about that. Does it mean that subjective positions are determined by objective circumstances? Or maybe something else?
what he's suggesting is that any set of data has an immanent sense of order. while subjectively we may present factual data in different contexts, with different precision based on different assumptions and thus arrive at different conclusions, there remains an internal order that is objective. finding this order is what is here presented as finding "truth".
in other words. you may arbitrarily present facts in a way that serves your cause and although you are presenting facts he will consider you a liar if you deliberately reorganize those facts in disregard of their self-relating internal structure.
consider, for instance, temperature data of a specific location. you could present the data in such a way that suggests it's always relatively cold, if you only measure at night and only in winter. you could present the data in such a way that suggest it's always relatively warm, if you measure only during daytime and only in summer. you could also reasonably claim that temperature does not follow any particular pattern if you present the data in a way that does not seem to display any patterns. but the truth is this: it's colder at night, than it s during the day, and it's colder in winter, than it is in summer and you will only arrive at that conclusion, if you find the innate structure of the data set.
was Hitler a cubist, did he live in a bauhaus?
Soo, what I mainly got from this, was not the beautiful philosophy, but that things always go and so on and so on.
*S C H N I F F *
lmao I unpaused this video and he said "and so on and so on". I basically just paused it again cause I think I got the gist
I am so fucking glad that I have made it to this part of the internet. This is unbelievable.
Lionel sent me
lionel sent me. you've been "Lionel'd" snort snort.
Hitler was in many ways the first modern leader. The first to take propaganda really seriously. The first to really understand the power of cinema, the Olympics, the arts etc.
Nazism also understood how the merger of the ancient and the modern created an intoxicating frisson.
Allusions to history in the midst of exponential scientific progress lend a mythic quality to the dullness of bureaucratic industrialism.
But of course this merger was well under way with Neo Classicalism, and the Medieval Revival - as romanticism segued into modernity. Hitler just consciously brought such anachronisms into the political arena. Basically the first leader to aestheticize politics.
A merger between past and present that all ideologies now embrace. Whether that's the poster of Obama as Abraham Lincoln; or Theresa May being depicted as Boadicea - the same post-modern fusion abounds
@@6dhypercube740 he is certainly scum, but we all support murderers. If you're a citizen of the West anywhere, you live off the toil and sweat of so many you can't even count. Yes, he's a Nazi. We all are in some way or another.. face your own demons first..
BTW I don't support Nazis, just saying Hitler anticipated much of modern politics. His documentary films by Riefenstahl, his massive investment in the Olympic games, his staged rallies with theatrical optics, the evocation of past glories - have been taken up by modern politicians.
But that is a damning critique of today's politicians rather than an endorsement of fascism. Or rather demonstrates the latent fascism lurking beneath modern 'capitalism.
People have been taking propaganda seriously since the earliest times.
My gott that was a well informed TH-cam comment
The NAZIS turned propaganda into an artform. They aestheticized it. It wasn't just propaganda - viz-a-vis - our enemies are baby killers etc - rather it was propaganda as mass Wagnerian spectacle. Basically political theatre taken to the max.
"Correct me if I am wrong..." -
No, please go on and so on and so on
Slavoj is into mild BDS.
Your video titles and thumbnails are misleading and brain dead, "radical revolution". You can do better
What are you talking about. In the age of big data the best way to make this more viral is with clickbait. Sheer exposure is more important than aesthetics or being misleading.
@@jovenintensa That doesn't make it alright.
@@jacobscrackers98 No one says it has to be.
"Immanent in its obfuscation of social antagonism."
This doesn't answer the question of identifying a lie. There are certain metaphysical foundations immanent in the statement above, that of human dignity. That is a presupposition that isn't exempt from deconstruction, and in the wrong hands, that is dangerous. Too late, abortion removes unconditional dignity. He just passed the buck.
Does this mean, that the hypothetical proper teoretical response to nazis would have been: "Yes, Jews are kinda like this. So what?" ?
This reminds me a lot of a video I saw of Sam Harris confronting Jordan Peterson about his definition of truth, which he essentially defines as "anything which helps us survive, whether or not it's a delusion." Harris presents a scenario in which a man kills himself because he was given evidence that his wife cheated on him, Peterson is then confronted with the logical paradox that by his own definition that would mean it was "untrue" that the man's wife cheated on him, because it was detrimental to his survival to accept the empirical fact that his wife _was_ having an affair, to which Peterson has a naval gazing meltdown about the definition of every word Harris used in his hypothetical.
But I noticed a flaw in their thinking. Harris' and Peterson's trouble reconciling Peterson's definition of truth with the scenario only comes about because _both_ men take for granted that the man's suicidal response is *valid* under the circumstances. When the question is not whether or not it's true that the wife cheated on the husband, that is an arbitrarily factual statement - but whether or not "cheating" is "true" in the sense that it is worth dying over. Since anything that is detrimental to survival is either "not true" or "less true" by Peterson's definition, this should logically mean Peterson having to accept the idea that a woman sleeping with another man *_should not_* be of any significance to her husband, because embracing that "delusion" could get him killed.
I suspect this would not play well to Peterson's "CUCK!" screaming audience, so Peterson is cornered by the example, and finds no exit.
Are you proposing that people should not care whether their significant others are cheating on them? That tells us quite a bit about your social standing and your membership in a conquered people. Also, Peterson's idea must be turned on its head. What constitutes "survival", what the definition of *life* is, is to address and not evade from the world, which for a human being implies the evaluation of truth and acting in consistence with the truth.
I'm not proposing anything - it's called logic, cochise.
@Vassal Colony Why do we need holy water and all this transcendental religious stuff? We are social creatures; just seek positive relationships and help people.
@Vassal Colony Hm. I see how someone completely helpless, in extreme pain would need affirmation like prayer or god to keep going. Depending on one's faith, in isolation I imagine that such a belief may only preserve the spirit for so long, until eventually crumbling from prolonged and unchanging suffering.
if harris didn't take 4hrs and 500000 words to refute basic illogical arguments he would be a great intellectual. u can't win a debate when u put ur audience to sleep 1st
Slavoj should start his ASMR channel
I think he says that certain social contradictions are objectively true, and that class struggle/antagonism is one of these. Anti-semitism is one of many obfuscations of this fundamental objective truth, and lead anti-semites like Nazis (who deny or obfuscate class struggle) to be objectively wrong in its interpretation of data.
Is the transcript available somewhere? I have a really hard time following him.
And so on
*sniff*
I could really go for a glass of juice right about now.
So the answer to the title of this video - was hitler a postmodernist? - is a simple "no", quite literally because Zizek argues postmodernist deconstructionist thought is often not in use by alt-facters, but also more generally because that is not really what this video was about - a bit misleading perhaps, this title.
Though it would be interesting plot twist to claim: "Holocaust was just a social construct".
I love him bc he is intelligent , funny and so on and so on and so on lol
DA TA
Jumping in with the first comment before someone claims Hitler was socialist 🤦♂️
"BuT iTs CaLlEd "NaTiOnAl SoCiAlISm."
@@keyboardcorrector2340 oh.. you got me 😂😂
The economy was facsist and the society was collectivist just like in socialist countries
As Zizek mentioned jews in germany were over represented. Now replace "jews" in the talk with "bourgeoisie" or "upper class" and you get socialism, so yea Hitler was a racist socialist.
@Diego Lévy Yes, free enterprise with strong state influence and privileged to very few. Thats facsist economy, or using modern term 'corporatism'. Society was collectivist in nature.
Coke or Amphetamins ?
as if a commie could afford coke
Tics
No.
So if there is bad motivation, then it is not postmodernism. But what is bad?
He never said there was 'bad motivation', he said that they were asking and answering the wrong questions, which is why they got the wrong answers.
" There are no facts, only interpretations "
what the fuck was he trying to say?
I wouldn't describe Hitler or National Socialism as being post-modernist, but I would definitely describe Mussolini and Italian Fascism as being post-modern. As I would likewise describe the three Fascist philosophers - Gentile, Heidegger, and Schmitt - as being post-modern.
Sniff
DATA
is this an advertisement for snorting cocaine?
Lionel sent me!
Me too!!!!
Slavoj Zizek spends 10 minutes trying to describe how confirmation bias is an inherent mechanism of ideology, w/o using the term confirmation bias.
I think he's making more of a long-form overture to Rene Girard's scapegoat theory.
Like psychoanalysis in general.Its built on taking a truism and awarding it a jargon.
Confirmation bias is a way of skewing facts to what you want them to be. He's concerned with something completely different; he considers the frameworks that allows you to experience facts. In fact, he's always idealizing to the situation where the facts themselves are true.
@@hugehairyfetus Anyone still believes in that nonsense ?
@@kwetsbarevrijheid2720 Scapegoating? Yes.
So it is wrong to discuss a topic which includes correct facts, when the whole premise of the discussion is wrong? Did I get this correct?
I like Zizek’s character but his subjects are useless. Who gives a shit what hitler was?
@Proud Goy No Soy Boy Jeez, you just keep popping up don't you you brainwashed dipshit 🤦♂️
@@arcarsenal1380 Funny how the "brainwashed" ones are the only true enemies of the establishment capitalist elites...
@@Max-zq4dx Not sure how the arrived there, the only thing he seems to oppose is being Jewish
@@arcarsenal1380 Why do the finance capitalists agree with the never ending train of progressivism and open borders?
@@Max-zq4dx you seem to be having your own conversation here... What's any of that got to do with not liking Jewish people?
Go to youtube and google it
Or whatever
"Alphabet Inc."
Is this available in written form?
This. Would make it so much better to follow.
"liberals who bemoan the death of jews" cannot unhear send a help
Great!
Zizek is a joke
that snot funny
You wouldn’t want to touch him or anything he’s been anywhere near 😅
So what your saying is
So many Owens?
D A T A
Well said. Very well said
NEVER SHAKE HANDS WITH THIS MAN, PROF. SALIVA PUTRIDUS
fredperryxzizek capsule collection
JAAA!!
We come to the world 'theory laden"
Is Slavoj ever not... That?
No.
His position here basically leads, if followed properly, to a quietism or epoché resulting in that when one is exposed to facts, it will basically force one to deny that any cognitive line can be drown from fact to fact and then to a conclusion and finally to a solution (if taking one is preferred). The same could be said about a marxist like him, (and any ideology or thought process which follows the described pattern) everything of what you say about capitalistic social relations is true, so what, but why do you need this opposition (jealousy, hate, disdain) in order to sustain your (pathological) self-being constructing with it an ideology directed to destroy this set of beliefs and practices?
So. Its bullshit. Hes entertaining, and can teach a lot, but hes also full of shit. I wish he was for real or that he cut his bullshit.
I don't think a Marxist's approach to reality is comparable to a Nazi's in the way you suggest. The Marxist's philosophical reliance on dialectical materialism is not just a funny-sounding buzzword - it's an methodlogical attempt to achieve a total understanding of reality, even if it presupposes that there are unignorable social antagonisms between various forces and things.
I will illustrate the key difference between dialectical materialism and ordinary liberal/fascist particularist thinkiing as I understand it. Where the Marxist is meta-aware of the opposition of contradictions in society, and ought to be aware of the limits of contradiction and scientific understanding of history, the Nazi self-identifies with one side of an opposition against an other. It feeds their egoistic idenity directly. The Nazi ideology is simply "Us Vs. Them" whereas the Marxist theoretical framework acknowledges the antagonisms of society but does not necessarily identify with them - the contradictions are said to arise from our human relationship with the material world and not from our will to see it so. In other words, dialectical materialism portends to carefully take the sum of facts and then form a scientific conclusion, whereas typical ideolgies already hold a certain conclusion and then find the facts to support that conclusion.
The Marxist response to these societal contradictions portends to avoid quietism because dialectical materialism is supposed to be able to encompass the maximum set of facts possible to create a ideological narrative for reality, and thereby cannot be dismissed.
However, I do not believe dialectical materialism is entirely successful in what it sets out to do, as a method for analyzing experience and acting from it and because Marx's dialectical materialism is a limited appropriation of the Hegelian dialectic that is strangely confined to the material realm alone. Perhaps you realize this as well, but I think it had to be stated that there is more nuance going on here, particularly where dialectical materialism is concerned.
This guy comes so close to the truth yet intentionally decides to remain blind for the sake of his failed ideology. Sad.
His description of Nazism mirrors the ALT right movement in the US!
The movement that is dead in the water? That movement was never large and people use it to scaremonger.
I would ask Žižek if I could what does he thinks about missa for Bleiburg Fašists in the middle of the Sarajevo, lead by the highest katolik preast monsinjor Vinko Puljić in the main Churc. If someone could ask Žižek about that I think it would be interesting.
See “Ashkenazi Jew IQ” and so on and so on...
Psychology points out that constant nose grabbing is the TELL for a liar.
blow?
Oh, how many more Gal Gadots the World would have had...………..
You could say the same with gays and feminists in that they need a conception of paritarchy to sistain their identity
WHAT ABOUT SOCIAL NATIONALISTS ARE THEY NOT SOCIALISTS.
This is a disaster.
Joe Rogan For Prison y?
I have been doing some research, but I have not figured it out yet.
Can somebody explain to me Lacans paradoxical statement?
I do not understand how the jealousy is pathological. If your wife cheats on you and you are jealous, is it not perfectly natural to be jealous?
And why is the true question: why does he need jealousy to sustain self-identity?
well, from what I understood. It's not that she cheats on you and you are jealous. You are jealous before knowing for a fact she cheated on you, whether it is or isn't true is of no importance according to Lacan. I don't think he's trying to say it's natural or innatural. The behavior is the same.
Can't answer the last question, I'm curious about that too
I think that some details help fill in what he's getting at. From my understanding, he's explaining someone who is always checking up on their wife, snooping, and acting jealous. It's not really just about one event and then the reaction. The definition of pathological might help as well; Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive. Furthermore, one could argue that his wife cheated on him because she was tired of being treated like she was cheating on him. Why not do the crime if you're doin the time?
@bittercottoncandy well there it goes into theories of sexuation and lacan is known saying: the woman does not exist. It's because negativity recides in the subject and that lack of the woman etc controlling? what does he need to deal with before he can be in a relationship with someone?
Ha, calling Hitler a postmodernist, that's going to trigger a few alt right sensibilities.
You think that these virgin idiots know what postmodernism means?
@@Johnny69xxx you really cant get through any college-level history, art, film, or english classes without reading some of the post modern thinkers. You aren't special or enlightened, guy.
A few, sure, but you obviously don't understand much of the philosophy that the modern right-wing is rooted in. Furthermore, I don't think you really understand post-modernism yourself, the very notion that "there is no truth, that truth is utility used by the sovereign in order to project power", was pioneered by Nietzsche. Only subsequently, was it co-opted by the French and Frankfurt School intellectuals for the development of marxist critical theory. Read Nietzsche's will to power, little buddy, the traditional Right understood these ideas long before slavoj had to spoon feed it to you here, ironically vindicating Hitler in all significant ways in doing so.
He specifically didn't call him a postmodernist though.
@@judgeholden849
Do you want some cheese with your whine?
'The modern right' is a vague concept. What modern right? Because I'm familiarized with Sloterdijk, Nick Land, and of course with Nietzsche as a right wing thinker, etc. So I would know a thing or two.
So what 'right'? Do you mean Dougin? Do you mean Julius Evola? At least make an effort to explain yourself without being triggered.
Postmodernism: doing an entire 8-ball all by yourself 4 minutes before giving a presentation.
Post-post modernism: Not bringing a box of Kleenex
The comments are a horror show of people not trying to extract value from his speech.
Normal for a Zizek thread on TH-cam
I want to listen to him but I just can’t get past the slobbering. I feel like I’m covered in snot and saliva
I've been trying to see what is so profound about him but I can't see anything.
@@albertescamilla I have the same problem. He uses a lot of words, but doesn't say much at all.
Read his books