Slavoj Žižek I Whose Servant is a Master?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ต.ค. 2022
- Friedrich the Great defined himself (the king) as “the first servant of State”, and this is how, from the early Enlightenment onwards, a master justifies his rule: he is in reality the greatest servant, the servant of all his subjects/servants. As expected, this false humility can justify the most brutal terror - Stalin fully belongs to this space. But there are different modalities of this position of “serving the servants”, from technocracy and religious fundamentalism to obscene master-clown, or even, as Mao Ze Dong can be characterized, to a “Lord of Misrule”, a master who periodically organizes rebellions against his own rule.
Slavoj Žižek is a Slovenian philosopher, cultural theorist and public intellectual. He is international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London, visiting professor at New York University and a senior researcher at the University of Ljubljana’s Department of Philosophy.
The international philosophical conference The Master/s (22-24 September 2022, Cultural and Congress Centre Cankarjev dom, Ljubljana) was organized by the International Hegelian Association Aufhebung, Goethe-Institut Ljubljana, Cultural and Congress Centre Cankarjev dom and the University of Ljubljana - Faculty of Arts.
The conference was part of the project The Theatricality of Power (J6-1812), which is financed by the Slovenian Research Agency.
----------------------------------------------------------
Das Goethe-Institut ist das weltweit tätige Kulturinstitut der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und liefert ein umfassendes Deutschlandbild.
Dies ist der Kanal vom Goethe-Institut Ljubljana, wo Sie Videos von unseren Aktivitäten finden können.
Impressum:
www.goethe.de/ljubljana
E-Mail: kultur-ljubljana@goethe.de
"Kill him, liquidate him and so on and so on"
- Slavoj Zizek
I love Zizek... I hope he lives till he reaches 100 years old...
I hope he will live until i can finally understand what all his points mean. I am on the way there but it could take me many years meaning hopefully he lives for many more years. :)
... and so on, and so on.
@@jthadcast *sniff*
"And thats why coffee without milk is different than coffee without cream!...and so on and so on"
He looks rather healthy here. Maybe a little thin but that’s not too bad for him
@@kevinbeteta1737 definetly, he looks healthier than some years ago imo
He always provides food for thought. What a time to be alive, that makes us able to assist conferences like this without spending a dime... and travelling without moving.
and "doing work" without lifting a finger? is it time for the matrix? I am not necessarily convinced that this continuous separation of the physical world is for the better
Eating without shitting.
“This man needs no introduction”
gives him one anyways
I see Slavoj dressed up a bit for this one. Brilliant man. I have learned so much from him, but most importantly I have learned to think in new ways.
This is the first thing I’ve seen of Žižek’s after finally finishing his first book and I have to say, it is soooo much easier to understand where this (seeming) ramble is coming from.
He has truly been saying these same things since 1987.
@@vivie_jones Why would it be a problem?
@@vivie_jones I often come to centuries old sources for information and study that hasnt been topped in quality density and exposition, while i also often shrug contemporary sources as thrash the moment i see their old outdated references. Its kind of irrelevant depending on the matter, and philosophy seems like an irregular road.
@@vivie_jones its not the same thing, he adds one new paragraph on every new 1000 pages book
@@vivie_jones To see what is really happening in the world- at least since the pandemic- should give us enough relevancy to what Zizek has been saying for so many years. It s not that it makes less sense now, it makes so much more sense. And did you notice? Zizek is so much clearer nowadays- because he has solid basis
Kindo of hilarious how people want "new" things. If things stay the same- and Zizek is refering to a very sluggish system, a system that has not changed much, why should he change what he is saying? Beware, you are getting commodification in: give us some new hot stuff! get your capitalist act together and open your eyes
29:50 “ A true master” the best part.
Not a master of prohibitions but a master who help you to decide your true self
No...his master concept is not what permits us to realize our true self. What he contrasts from master of discipline and prohibition is master that elevates incapacity to impossibility and imagine true thing beyond that impossibility. He doesn't accept things like true ego, realizze who you truly are blabla. For him the subject is empty signifier.
Zizek at a high level of coherence, clarity, concise. Excellent, thanks for uploading.
Alot of interesting development in his ideas at this point in time. I especially liked his Hegelian plea at the end to "recognise the mistake and go to the end". History must be enacted.
Could I pressure you to give an example of what this 'acting out of history' would look like? Give me any example that's to your liking
I would hazard a guess that Zizek would say this lines up with his plea for a move towards, and through, a "good alienation" vis-a-vis how we construct and reproduce the State. This raises the question of how our conception of the State will, and should, change - especially within the realm of technology, specifically information technology, internet, social media. Should we continue down the road of anarchic-capitalist monetization of "content" or should we try to imagine a way to capture and control this sphere so that it serves the needs of the people, and not merely profit?
Government, yes, but in the mode of Zizek's "excessive threat"?
Here we are invited to imagine, quite literally, the future of this "enacting of History".
At this point, things become really philosophical and I want to stop :)
The lecture is quite good because seems like he’s really honed out his thousands of awesome and interconnected ideas in this presentation.
Phenomenal
Im an anarchist, but despite Zizek's criticizm of anarchism, i appreciate his arguments. you rarely see someone criticizing anarchism more in depth, without using it as a synonym for chaos and disorder. I will point out though that I would love Zizek to go deeper into his presupposition that humans are evil by nature, as it's a crucial point in anarchist thought which trusts in the innate human cooperation and altruism.
I don't know, man anarchism would be here if it worked with 8 billion people we need some sort of goverment to keep people in place its just we're we are now maybe in the future which all these technologies we can create an even better system than our modern democracies I don't know
@@iforget6940 Yes, I don't believe it's time for an anarchist society. But it is my goal, it's a goal I won't see, but I believe it's one that humanity should see
@awbdhuiiooaaallll well, all I want is to have a society in any society that is more connected to our nature but also has high ideals. To me, it doesn't really matter, I just don't want gulags or private prisons, and maybe we aren't meant for anarchism maybe the world forms as it should form and the best form of it has not been reached yet maybe the best form is the form of goverment we should have at this time and it will shift when it's ready and necessary to shift.
@@iforget6940 Well, the concept of "best" is relative to a current condition. In famine, the best situation would be to be able to have an abundance of food. There's always a way to improve: under absolute monarchy, the best situation would be to have a democracy, now we (more or less) have a decent democracy (a representative one, of which I'm very skeptical, but that's a different topic).
Also, I think that the idea of "letting things happen", see where we get and so on might be quite dangerous. While I do not believe in free will, I live my life as if I did (let's stay on the topic of politics, we don't want to delve into existential turmoil), and I believe that it is crucial for humans to take action, to organize and act.
If we let things happen as they will, someone will use this indifference of the masses to their advantage (history showed us well how dangerous this is in multiple occasions).
The change towards anarchy should be gradual, methodical and thought out, if we won't set it as our goal, it won't come to us, just like the abolition of the monarchs didn't.
(to make myself clear, I do not associate myself with violent activism of "anarchists", while I'm not an absolute pacifist, I primarily act according to pacifist action)
@awbdhuiiooaaallll I agree with you like 89% only thing I'm disagreeing here is one thing that I don't know if anarchism is the correct thing
Like democracy bloomed out of bloodshed and tragedy when the old systems broke down, and I don't think we are there yet
I also don't know if a system controlled by an ai would be better or worse. It would definitely be worse if the technocrats controlled the ai to benefit themselves over the majority of the people, but it may do good if the right type of ai was implemented.
However I don't think that will happen anytime soon and I don't think we should not be part of democracy and change the system together as people I agree with slavoj that democracy is like an illusion but we still determine the illusion by our own actions that may or may not be real choice.
I'm also looking at the present state of things in 3 reals the past present and future, i live in all three states and believe today's debate is already history in the sense I look at a historical narrative as a cyclical prosses and don't want certain outcomes in the future but also acknowledge that sometimes Revolutions can't be stoped it will come when it comes and we should play with democracy to aleast try to bring a vision for the future without a violent revolution but a progression to a shared vision.
my issue is I dont know what is the best vision of that future I can see many possibilities but can't see the best possibility becuase I don't know what truly is the best vision maybe there is an even better system in the future we havint even discovered yet or maybe this is the best system.
that may be the best and most complete summary of contemporary ideological conflicts i have ever witnessed
About the restaurant joke : upon choosing the restaurant I sometimes enjoyed proposing a place cheap enough that I could afford it on my own, to which the response was often times negative invoking the health benefits of higher standards (or mere discomfort should I propose to cook something) - so much so, that despite any appearing politeness, my message read something like "fuck you, if you want to be charitable, don't use me as a token of your generosity, and let's rather work on making decent food available to anyone, in the meantime, would you please join us "low ranking citizens" for just a single stupid meal or, if you need me to pretend like I depend on you, would you please tell me in the name of which madness you want me to?"
In my mind this sounds both like a psychotic reaction (through distaste for the pretense involved in politeness) and a hysterical reaction (as I'm also genuinely curious what I'm supposed to be for the other) - now, upon noticing the traumatic discomfort I cause to my friends through such ways, I sometimes skip pretending like I hope to pay, which also deprives them of the heroic role (be it at the cost of my seeming bereft of gratitude) which only further convinces me that they are eager to follow such rituals, insofar as it allows them to feel like caretakers, a very human sentiment indeed, yet one that is easily diverted in over reliance on set rituals, which are a hallmark of obsessive neurotics such as Zizek - not to undermine his very inspiring work
My question is then, why can't this ritual work the other way around? I'd be very happy to cook, in other words, play the provider in a way that is less eager to symbolise the coping (sweeping under the rug) mechanism of charity, and rather reminds of a certain order of necessity and its cost - ie. work goes into feeding ourselves, and if you want it to be invisible, it's gonna cost an effort that's not reducible to mere transaction, and equates with a lasting, everyday life, social change (and again, in the meantime, please bear the sight of a "slave")?
A union of opposites seems absolutely necessary. Freedom and Control. What is the limit for each? Where does dystopia begin? The macro-level leadership vacuum I subscribe to. The prescriptive cure needs work in my view.
Somewhere at Google there are CPUs just melting down to slag trying to power the auto caption on Slavoj lectures
“This situation makes what remains of the left desperate.” Indeed.
We need masters, but ones who do not actually identify with the distinction-ones who can fulfill the formal cohesive role of such power yet who are able to keep a distance from the intoxicating dimension of the symbolic position.
Indeed. A master who performs masterdom by assuming the barred S in enunciation, not one who identifies as master qua a non-barred S.
But I worry that a democratic system doesn't pick those kinds of masters.
@@droid16beta97 Yes I worry that as well, many are absorbed symptomatically into the viscous circle of patipolitics (politics of the enjoyment of suffering) where they live to retributively “crush”their opponents (and ironically themselves) like a football match, rather than voting soberly, in solidarity, for a third-way.
This is a boss update from Zaddy.
Yeah
Yeah the replay value really went up with that DLC.
Zaddy 😂
Pri 56;22 sta Gregor in Slavoj zamudila odlično priložnost, da bi citirala znameniiti: "Mehr Licht!". Pa še na temo praznih pregovorov bi se lepo vezalo 🙂
Who is the interviewer? He looks cute 😍
"if you are in a regime where things go bad if the master is stupid, then the regime is bad"
Yes and, furthermore, leadership is for people who do not have adequate protocols.
I’ve never seen him touch his face so less!
But representative democracy has never been about wanting to decide (that's why we choose people's representatives to be there in the first place). Yes, there is an irreducible level of alienation in the way a state works (an alienation we even secretly expect to be there), but that doesn't make democracy a fake. The "terror" of public scrunity is always there in a democratic state (like, say, Norway).
Hola Slavoj. Vengo del stream de La Inca. Saludos. Aguante Boca.
1:01:00 I love that sentiment. As an American who has spent time in Europe, international people speaking English is for sure its own dialect and also Americans in general don't speak English well bc our education
It really depends on the American in question. This sort of blanket statement is not only unhelpful. It's damaging. It perpetuates a stereotype that isn't necessarily accurate. It's akin to the silly belief that all Brits are well-educated, simply because of their accents or their vernacular. Another fallacy. In reality even an average, fairly uneducated person can have a seemingly impressive idiolect merely from exposure.
Mr Zizek is the best.
Usual casual listeners of zizek must be a bit lost when he quotes malabou ranciere and balibar 😂
People tend to forget he actually has a job
Best slavvy ever ❤️
I think his analysis would by stronger if he stopped referring to electoralism as democracy.
Was this lecture published anywhere, or is a copy of the transcript of the lecture available anywhere, please?
No, this is the original.
31:09 ❤
What books of zizek should I start reading? Thank you for your 1.
Lacan: The Absolute Master by Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen AND Absolute Recoil: Towards A New Foundation Of Dialectical Materialism
by Slavoj Zizek
If you want an easier book, I would suggest Event
@@jayc8503 Thank you for your coment. I will try it out
@@oslowkey Violence is another one on the easier / quicker side
Welcome to the desert of the real
Iago?
'I can't understand him, can you?'
Noam Chomsky.
'Comment on his ideas? But what ARE they?'
Noam Chomsky
Lol...I don't find Žižek hard to understand at all. Do you?
Whose servant is Slavoj Žižek?
I'm glad that the thumbnail firmly establishes that this is all indeed, sarcasm.
**calmly watches student pour water over desk in Lacan**
57:23 "Okay, I also have lets say some problems with Stalin"
He accurately assessed the problem, but the medicine offered is far from palatable
32:00 An Orthodox Christian message to surrender yourself to the will of God.
An adult baptism would be rather an intentional submission to lose/drown/bury one's old self-centered self and be resuscitated as a new and improving180° differently self-directed perfecting human being. Submission not to the big other so much as to the messianic big Brother, the fully human fully deus son of The ultimate Father the our beloved philosopher seeks. The govrrnment is already worked out if one chooses to adopt it. It's not for sissies and wimps, but for radical, humble saints like Rosa Parks.
49:00
Žižeks father (third way, he positively suggests) tells openly - You have to like to go to grandmother.
On the other hand, he criticises the capitalism, that orders us to enjoy and like hedonism.
How those two are not exclusive?
Zizek’s “good” father says - I don’t care if you like it or not, you have to go to grandmothers house. This message is clear and does not contain a hidden injunction.
The postmodern father who gives us “free choice” to go or not but attempts to hold us hostage with an emotional plea (u know how much this means to grandma), is who he likens to todays capitalist pressure to enjoy.
I think the way we are told to enjoy hedonism in today's capitalism is much more hegemonic and duplicitous than an open instruction from a master. It's a received notion rather than an order from above.
Besides from that I think from his other points you get the impression that Zizek's implied underlying moral / virtue framework would treat these cases differently anyway: Going to see your Grandmother (and liking it) is good, but spending all day on your phone 'enjoying yourself' is bad.
First, to 'enjoy' and to want to do something are not the same. Second, the super ego injunction to enjoy (hedonism) tells you *just* to enjoy; the father's command is a command (e.g. to visit the grandmother), i.e., 'do you duty', *and* the command to want to do it (if you preffer, 'to enjoy it', but again, this isn't really accurate). In the father's command there are two things (the reboubled command), whereas in the other there is only one thing (enjoyment).
2:27 skip intro
the father can say that and then give his best explanation , master as a teacher
I wonder what he thinks about an AI master. Even if its tied to only one individual. All to balance out what he said "too much 'freedom' is unfreedom".
Who is the host?
Gregor Moder. He also gave a talk at the Master/s conference: th-cam.com/video/XrpamL08tko/w-d-xo.html
It’s amazing how much Zizek talks 😂
hook
It seems like most of the issues he is concerned with ultimately come down to the problem of individuality. I am just not sure why he appears to promote such an air of crisis around individuality. I think that the entire issue, where people want to pose communitarianism as a counterpoint to individualism might be aiming in the wrong direction. I’m not sure that it really speaks to the anarchic nature of today’s increasingly democratic/authoritarian looking society, if one considers the effects of social media and the Internet. I think the real issue is simply the road to discovering identity not with the state as some sort of abstract ideal, but with respect to various social groups that people find online and increasingly want to make part of their lives.
Finding community online is escaping the real world problems. Being a furry doesn't solve global warming so without collective identity we are like Bill and Frank from the Last of Us, isolated until we die but doing nothing to solve the problems. We all have a shared responsibility and it's not the corporately pushed recycling and carbon footprint, but revealing the hidden workings of the system and crushing all the wealthy people who stagnate change and find solutions to the newly revealed problems. Individuals by themselves can do nothing but blame their neighbour for mixing carton with plastic or whatever, and so on. And so on.
Žižek is the Castro of Philosophy because he talks long like Castro.
With Arafat English :D
in your case, it's clearly cocaine
Yeah, Trump is definitely not a post-modernist. Using mental gymnastics for the sake of saying something paradoxical or provocative is pretty low.
He literally uses his Charisma to manipulate the media and shape reality, or at least the internal realites of people across the USA.
Z presenting the "master" as a dorky fool coming up with nothing but hollow stereotypes and 'one fit's all' quotes.
➕ there's always a further quote available in this 'I told u so' manner
Z 🛐
Excellent💯 %
Ukranians might have some solutions for Europe. Just look at Zelensky.
Why don't you mention Russia in your talk? There is a genocide occurring near us and you.
Yea, its happening for 14 years already; Russians getting killed in thousands.
Żiżek talked about it in other lectures that was posted 2 weeks ago.
@@prkp7248 I know. What is occurring in European soil is so horrible that it must be mentioned all the time. There is a country being attacked without any reason by another, in a barbaric way. That is inconceivable in the XXI century. We must not keep doing our normal life in face of such a monstrosity. At least, we shall use our word to constantly denounce this horrible series of crimes. Our silence kills.
@@vitoroliveirajorge368 it's happening in multiple places for a long time, don't get carried away. It's all strategic objectives of two sides and their propaganda. In the west we are discouraged by rampant capitalism while putin is the other side of the same coin. Ukraine is genocide, but also invasion to secure valuable land, end of story for me. Horrible, yes, but the west is no better and I'd rather understand what leads to such action than slap the hand of the thief until all he stole becomes mine. If indeed 30% of harvestable land is owned by the west I honestly see Ukraine as selling itself to the USA, which is not a good master at all. The US already lost democracy and starts multiple wars, we are just submerged in their propaganda. In conclusion, both sides are bad and we need to understand the underlying ideology and change it and so on.
@@ddbt342 What kind of change? Who is the actor of change? Putin prepares a new wave of invasion with 500.000 soldiers. That is the change at sight.
... it does come to my mind that the Pope calls himself "Servus servorum dei"; that means the the "Urfather" of political power in Europe is from his inception onwards the slave of the slaves.
Indeed as the Christ
is the Suffering Servant of the Isaiah prophecy.
Yet as God, he is also King of Kings
ни о чем
для кого это