Slavoj Zizek: God in Pain: Inversions of Apocalypse conversation with Jack Miller
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- in HD which I wasn't able to retrieve vimeo.com/41178624
www.lfla.org/ev...
Slavoj Zizek, renowned Slovenian critical theorist, dissects and reconstructs three major faith-based systems of belief in the world today, showing how each faith understands humanity and divinity-and how the differences between the faiths may be far stranger than they at first seem.
Jack Miles is Senior Fellow for Religious Affairs with the Pacific Council on International Policy and Distinguished Professor of English and Religious Studies, University of California, Irvine. A MacArthur Fellow (2003-2007), Miles won the Pulitzer Prize in 1996 for God: A Biography, which has since been translated into sixteen languages. He is currently general editor of the forthcoming Norton Anthology of World Religions.
![ได้เวลา! พาน้องแฝดฉีดวัคซีนครบ 1 เดือน🫣 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.52 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IzeLtaXBLNE/mqdefault.jpg)
Are we Watching Zizek so we dont need to think for ourselfs....? Is it like Friends where we watch people laugh and feel relived yourselfs, are we not pleases that there are people who think about those kinda things and we are able to watch them
Fuck
Shit mate
Hey man
zizek does that when he reads jaques lacan ...
I have an addiction
He is entertaining, and am drawn to genuinely listen. My mind feels alive and connected to many dimensions within conversation.
What an amazing and delightful mix of philosopher and comedian is Zizek.
34:23 *Zizek’s Christian Atheism* “For me the message of Christianity is precisely the opposite of this need for transcendence.”
Acho que aqui está o ponto principal do pensamento "religioso" de Zizek: o ateísmo cristão!
Mas como ele diz e a opinião ou "crenca" dele. No que, aliás, repete seu filósofo Hegel que, aos 24 anos de idade, escreveu uma biografia de um Cristo kantiano, ou seja, escomaido de todos os aspectos irracionais conforme o Ilumunismo de sua juventude...
@@juvenalhahne7750 yes, do you know of Peter Rollins and his Church of Contradiction?
I want 7 hours!
16:25 What dies on the cross?
18:20 Chesterton's reading of 'Eli eli lama sabachthani?'
The Lewis Black of Philosophers. Genius.
At 48:00, the death penalty story is very similar to how Jesus convinces people not to stone an adulterous woman. "Let he who is without sin cast the fist stone". Jesus never said that the death penalty was wrong.
CLOSE... it's Max Stirner.
What do you mean by radical atheism in your reply? and where is it presented?
Can anyone please give me a link to the original text of the story he tells at 48:02
Can you put subtitles in spanish? Please! Thank you
Slavoj is exactly right about the New Atheism.
I love Zizek AND Hitchens!
1700 that's the way I read it too.
time?
I like how it says "conversation" in the title
Žižek was my fellow at Ljubljana University in the 70ties. I remeber that he was so "crazy" intelligent at that time. At the first Lacan's session I escaped because was too uncomprehensible that kind of mind dialectic. Now am sorry for that. He never smoked or even on drugs, his mind is so full of informations that his "tics" are simply a moderating gesture of his thoughts!
I saw Slavoj Zizek at a grocery store in Los Angeles yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything. He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?” I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying.
The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.
When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.
@@boskopils4153 bruh i dont think he gets it
@@boskopils4153 I don't believe any of this
@@nukepizzaa i think its a copypasta
@@boskopils4153 i dunno why i have to read the whole thing everytime i come across this, but its so funny ahhahah
1:00:00
"I'm a jesuit volunteer"
"JAMES BOND?"
LOL
axaxaaxaaxaxax
The fact that this video contains the most moving exegesis of Christianity I’ve read outside of Augustine, an anecdote about cybermice and also this exchange is why I stan Zizek.
So funny
17:02: Zizek with a southern US accent
Hahahahahahahahahaha right on :)
That is the one of the best comments I ever read , why it has only 19 likes ?
Hahahahahahahahaha.... I just shit myself... Good thing I was sitting on the toilet...
That's exactly what I thought when I heard that bit.
You're spot on.
again at 1:01:22
What if laughter in this video is canned?
What if the laughter that comes from cans were just videos??? 😬
I like how he gestured to the audience to complete the joke by providing canned laughter, but nobody did.
starts at 3:20
Jack Miles is one of the few people that I have actually seen have more of a conversation with Zizek than most other people - and while he lets Zizek talk, he actually prompts Zizek to talk, and elaborates greatly. Good man :)
love how the guy with the first question decides to just casually mention Finnegan’s Wake and Menippean satire to show everyone he’s very a smart and Intellectual™️
You think that Finnegan's wake is "intellectual", doesn't every high schooler read it?
@@sandworm9528er…no?
@@HkFinn83 lol, America I guess
Now that's entertainment.
Your comment makes me very happy! Of course in a pseudo-intellectual; "I-also-get-it!" kind of sense but this is only a break in the struggle. Keep well!
It's called subversive thought, what's all the fuss about? It's fun.
The "perverse God" is the God of Calvinism. Always the elephant in the room, Calvin is firmly behind the binary dualism of Decartes and Rousseau.
No, Calvin give stuff like the Man Devil not Rousseau.. Rousseau is all about virtue and happyness, Man Devil is all about vice = virtue
42:35 "every ideology to be operative, shouldnt go to the end, it has to leave its true implications a little bit in shadow"
you could exchange the word ideology for neurosis here and it still makes sense.
SPARTANLIFECOACH considering his psychoanalytic background and the tension between conscious and unconscious elements of ideology in his work, I'd say that's a fair comparison.
SPARTANLIFECOACH but isn't it true that, my godt, ideology today IS just a neurosis. even fukuyama is not a fukuyamaist how should i put it
mlonyenioner brilliant
my got!
nice find, thank you for sharing. I am concerned about my parents and the new "wave" of christian movements that is heading (in my opinion) very far from the basic teaching of Christ...leading a new "prophetic movement" that is really dangereous toward the harsh judgement of "God." The final days and so forth. I would even go so far as to say, pretty narcissistic... masked as "false humility." But who am I to judge right? I just had to walk away years ago when I saw the "reality" and refused to make ammends with my own parents in denial (which was submitting to authority that was unaccountable) Talk about. Being humble, loving and non-judgmental. Silence of lambs...
I am in man love with this man.
Sooooo.... gay? Men can love men in romantic platonic etc ways.
It took 6 year's but, we got him
@@lifepuddle3036 lol
"you are not a complete idiot." I love you Zizek.
"I am a Jesuit volunteer."
Zizek: "Jamesss Bond?"
at 60:20 did he say James Bond? "...Jesuit..." "James Bond!?!?" "...Jesuit..."
he really is - and I agree with him totally: they might be "right", but by god they are obnoxious about it
"Christianity is a dirty scam so, I admire and support.... like the others dirty regimes that I like...and so on, and so on."
I love it when Miles is trying to be funny that Zizek asks him: "What is the connection between not trusting Mexicans and trusting you?"
10 years late but can we just talk about how he absolutely ruined the joke by answering? 😂
@@upalgangopadhyay7117Agreed.
Dawkins rests on the same absolutist premise as religious fundamentalists. Both camps think they know the truth. Zizek, like most thoughtful persons, doesn't claim to know the truth. He is therefore a rival to Dawkins in my opinion.
Terrific introduction, by the way.
What is essentially Rene Girard's explanation of the crucifixion is something that I think Zizek should be made aware of, if he hasn't already encountered it. I recommend anyone interested in Zizek to read Girard. I would say don't read Girard without reading Hegel, but you shouldn't be reading Zizek without reading Hegel, either.
He does know about Girard. In his talk with Jean-Pierre Dupuy (day two, i.e. post-lecture) they talk out Girard's Christianity. Apparently they both agree but Girard, but Girard changed his mind later - so Girard is the only one of the three who doesn't believe Girard.
Unless reading Zizek leads you to reading Hegel.
@@ethanthomas7372
Wait....what changed Girard's mind?
@@Synodalian No idea. They didn't say anything besides that.
@@ethanthomas7372 Girard (who was a personal friend) didn’t “change his mind.” I surmise that they were expecting that Girard’s apparently paratheistic remapping of Christian theology should have resulted in his own atheism (as do most people when they first encounter his thought; as did I). It did not, because he viewed it as a genuine decoding, without presuming that a teleological examination is somehow equivalent to an alternative epistemology. Egotistical, perhaps, but it confirmed for him the social necessity of religion and the social advantage of functioning Christianity specifically. Zizek’s interesting move here is to locate that functional valence between persons rather than within.
Does anyone know what the musical piece in the beginning is? Is it a fragment of some musical piece or just an intro for the show?
New goal - to merit inclusion in the 'not complete idiot category' :)
I think I just became a radical Christian lmfao
I love hearing what Zizek has to say about Hitchens. Slavoj, I think, is much more human than Hitch, especially considering Hitch was fully endeared to human decency, whereas Slavoj seems to realize that religion is more of a social order than a gimmick for power.
Você escreveu isso há 12 anos... Pergunto-me pois agora se de lá para ca o que lhe parecia ser a religião -- mais uma expressão social do que um meio para o poder-- não mudou?
Os atuais populismos invadiram a politica anti-democratica...
Haha I hold the same position when it comes to "a communist with reservations."
And thank you. Stirner is the shit, yo.
The only thing I disagree with is, that these phenomenon are new. I think it's always been this way but, we were at least connected to the cause and effect of our actions, no more.
summary:"Beliefs don’t have do be first person. You have a belief which is nobody’s belief. The children pretend to believe in Santa Clause for their parents… We need to believe that someone believes. The truly Christian gesture is to abandon this objectified belief. If in Life is Beautiful it would have turned out that the boy was aware of how the camp was not a game, this would be such a gesture: that the boy’s show of belief is there to protect his father from breakdown"
So much nonsense per second... God as an atheist? IMO this guy lacks much basic theological understanding and should stick to pollitics.
Jack Miller’s comment about Mexican people sounded rather racist. And yes, there are also Mexicans that are as white as he is.
^ >> The first duty of philosophy is making You understand what deep shit You're in."
Zizek is on top form here! absolutely blazing!
Zizek is the one who knocks
The leader of Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic, wasn’t predominantly a poet, but a clinical psychiatrist. After earning his M.D. in Bosnia, he took a postgraduate course in clinical psychiatry at Columbia University in NY. Upon returning to Bosnia, he opened his own private practice, specialising in depression and neurosis. He was also the counselling psychiatrist in three sport clubs in the 1980. He wrote and published children’s books and poems, but in his native country, he was foremost known as a psychiatrist.
Last question was the most pertinent. SZ touching on the idea that the man who blows himself up does so as an act to convince himself that he believes. This is in contrast to Paul&Christ: JC telling believers "not to worry", and Paul said: "be anxious for nothing". Fear & worry serve as inactions, where relaxing into their words' truth reveal the truest acts of faith. Mary and Martha Lk10:38-42, for instance, tells the same story. Christian belief then:when one no longer acts to prove to self.
I don't know how to respond to this. Not only did you not provide an argument for your statement, you also have no qualms about embarrassing yourself by throwing around obvious logical fallacies.
Do you seriously think Dawkins could come up with any of the brilliant theological insights that Zizek has written? Dawkins is theologically and philosophically illiterate and he openly admits it
Slavoj Zizek does not speak a word until 0:05:48. So you can skip over the banal, apparently obligatory banal rambling by the nonentities who introduce him. (Note that Jack Miller, whoever that is, does ask a question earlier, but he proceeds to answer it himself).
Was that guy joking about the mexicans thing?
I don’t think so. Also seemed as if though Zizek wanted him to elaborate as to why they trusted him and hated Mexicans enough to flee the country.
The image is both horrifying and extremely humorous in a reality enhancing way *sniffle* *sniffle*
FYI: Hitchens and Zizek knew each other and were on friendly terms
You have to be polite with those who are dead inside.
I find it entertaining, but hard to defend when treated seriously. I have little idea of philosophy, so correct me if I miss the point completly. Zizek builds an alternative reading of the Christianity by taking arbitrary bits of the Bible. "It's not God what dies..." - well, whoever dies they return from hell two days later. It is not possible to omit this part and have viable reading. One could easily imagine a similar, "paradoxical" interpretation of any ancient text. Therefore, Dawkins would not be impressed, and a Christian would simply call it a heresy. However, it's true that there is a degree of materialism in Christianity and maybe some form of spiritualism is to be find in Dawkins etc. But when he starts explaining how Bible is really about how God does not exist, it's simply too much for my simple mind.
you're right there I believe the root in those declarations come from his psychoanalitical training,
Its not about what is "real", the point itself is as real as it can be. Its wrong question to the answer to ask if its canon or what prejudice toward the conclusion you might have.
Holy shit, it's the fourth minute, the white-haired dude has just started speaking, and ALREADY he has a logical fallacy.
The world is not about to begin, the world is _about_ to continue, actually it already is
Slavoj seems to miss the idea that a God's capability might only be achieved through specific paths. The idea is that God might be all-powerful, but to get what they want they have to follow recipes. Also, please fix the title, I believe you meant to type: "Jack Miles" not "Jack Miller"
Wow Jack Miles sucks
5:33 is the first question
Starting very nice and then again: Repetition Repetition Repetition... I guess he needs to, it's okay, but I think I'm done now!
Thank You SO much Slavoj!
Before you die:
Plz give as a whole theoretical Book which is it's own subject. Like the Phenomenology of spirit by Hegel, the Critique of pure Reason by Kant and the World as Will and Representation by Schopenhauer!
PLZ! Seriously! This one I would read!!!
I would really love to hear Zizek's thoughts on Bataille.
God = Universe. Universe was not created, it just always was. And always will be. The problem is that eternity and hence eternal processes are beyond our comprehension. Somebody once said that God is a process (amongst other things). And I think they were right.
"Thank you. I hope i was not too crazy..."
"You know" My favorite thing to hear over and over in Zizek's lectures. And of course "I am about to finish. Don't worry". Every time.
What's the music at the beginning (jazz piano)? Sounds cool....
1:00:17 It would have been cool if she was James Bond though.
New Western Socialists and Leftist SWJ think that Slavoj would be like them, but he is quite the contrary, no political correctness and a great thinker !
the point about hyper-agreement with ideology is so true and so funny.
I read somewhere that he calls them "tics". But yeah, I think it has to do with nervousness.
What a mismatch. Miles comes off as really small and Zizek proves that atheists don’t have to try very much to out think and out feel Christians.
Jung contended with this idea of God too- and I agree with Zizek and Jung- you have to contend with the God of the Book of Job and the response that he gives God.
he and Peterson should stop talking about materialistic economic systems and talk about christianity, that would be talk...
22:00 The only hedonists are those who take drugs and smoke
I don't smoke
But what if you do them WHILE gambling and drinking?
passage a l'acte
He in fact did not see the link between the people that don’t like Mexicans, but in a brief meeting liked that man enough to ask him to house sit their Southern California beach home. (26:47)
He actually makes a point from "thank you for smoking", twenty minutes in.
You are so far away from the truth
armenian is arab?? we sure about that?
36th minute ,if there is no god ,then everything is permitted, if there is an instrument of God then everything is regulated.
that´s one strange answer to my comment.my humbel mind cannot understand what has to do chauvinism in all this.
I think your assessment of the moderator goes a bit too far. Zizek's style is so unorthodox that only a like-minded moderator would be able to handle it. Jack Miles is cut from conventional academic fabric. I'd say instead that the he's simply out of his element, and that's why you observe such a remarkable contrast between the two. In other words he looks bad because he's next to Zizek.
The jazzy opening tune is great, too!!! Any body knows the name?
i agree there is a condescending attitude. i dont agree that his observations are inconsequential. i think he does think there is something that needs to be done about religious fanaticism and that thing is to read the holy books, all of them to be read by all, including us. or books of myth if you prefer.
James Bond ?! Lmfao
It is ŽIŽEK not ZIZEK - do you have žžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžž on your keyboard :P?
Only Z
how so, he says there is no "insight" for him in what hitchens has to say. and for a man of zizeks caliber that in no way surprises me
You claimed that New Atheists want to abolish religion. I gave you evidence that one of the "founders" of NA did not actually wish to do this. I never claimed that this was out of tolerance and respect with regard to Hitchens' motivations for doing so. Although I must say that you are painting NA with broad strokes. Not all atheists are antitheists who are against religion. And not all those who are against religion are militant about it or "treat them like garbage". What did I not actually deny
Zizek criticizes the trinitarian idea but he himself sticks to it just to develope his one ideas on that very same heresy. He is just as much for trinity as he is against it. Maybe he, like the catholics, are scared of what christianity might come without the trinitarian idea.
56:15 disappointment in jurgen habermas; "it's dangerous to do it if we follow that path...so let's not do it...Some things be better left unknown."
You all can rag on Jack Miles as much as you want, but at least they're talking about the fucking book. I saw Zizek in San Francisco at a City Arts and Lectures event that was billed as being about this book. While there was some good discussion that happened, fucking Roy Eisenhardt wasted about a half hour prompting Zizek to go through his calssic routines that anyone can watch on TH-cam over and over. Then, what original talk there was had nothing to do with the book. Fuck.
Anytime Prof. Marshall Mcluhan is mentioned, I immediately think about his priceless cameo in Annie Hall where he famously told the pompous film professor from Columbia University: You know nothing about my work!"
th-cam.com/video/jRcMsqCbzWk/w-d-xo.html
Oops - I just saw that Zizek himself references this scene at 48:30 🤣
What, specifically, do you think are the tenets of New Atheism? To act like dicks to the religious?
Certainly any ideology or movement can seem ridiculous if painted with broad enough strokes as to justify one's pre-conceived assumptions about said ideology or movement.
as a kid i was agnostic since i can remeber but the reason why a god accepted the cruciffision was clear to me. to show human that in the struggle to "truth" he wasn't special and was willing to suffer the same pain as humans. this guy doesn't seem like a genious at all this stuff is for childrens
LoL this god ure praising quit at age 33 . .
He never suffered from heartburn or arthritis nor from cancer.
Why should anyone accept advice from such an escapist .•°
Exactly.Camusian and sartrian atheism is much more honest than hitchens,dawkins atheism.And this is because first kind of atheism "traveled" through Christianity,through existential condition.
sry 4 bad english
James Bond?
I think that Zizek is tacking a condescending attitude to Hitchens despite the fact that Hitchens makes more suggestions for how to improve the world where as Zizek mostly makes vague or inconsequential observations. I think that Zizek is possibly looking at the world through an intellectuals eyes and projecting his own views on the rest of the world, and that is why he does not believe that there is a need to do something about religious fanaticism.