yeah, except they dont realise theyre the r*tards Nassim Taleb has a good point about the best surgeons looking like large stupid butchers if you can make it despite an extreme lack of conformity to the culture, youre probably so good that they have no choice but to give you a seat at the table
I was pursuing a PhD in microbiology 3 years ago, I saw a video of his talking about continental philosophy and decided I wanted to be like him, I am now homeless in Slovenia :(
Hahahaha good for you. Stupid decision for a white girl. You had a profitable career as a microbiologist but you went bohemian woke broke and now you see what life is really like. Enjoy.
@@pdrpl6537 Yes Im fine thank you. Its specific and im passionate about this topic because I was never good at school and academics and became a artist because thats why im okay at and I am passionate about the arts. So ive lived the Bohemian lifestyle by force and partly by choice as well. But.... I constantly have people telling me how wonderful my lifestyle is when little do they know I make basically zero struggle with bills etc. If I was good academically and could get into the STEM fields i would take that in a heart beat.
@@TheDiasporaMedia Did you consider that some people in STEM feel the same way? "If only these other jobs paid well, I could actually be happy and do something I'm passionate about."
It happens a lot with people who read a lot of philosophy. I study philosophy and I've noticed that I am doing that a lot, also some of my professors do that, we would get back to the point if someone listens long enough. But usually people don't.
@@irenastevanovska851 You guys need to have better speaking skills, then. And learn how to form your thoughts, because it's not that great having all that wonderful stuff running around in your brain if you can't spit it out for the rest of us ;)
@@miguelbranquinho7235 yes actually one of the branches of philosophy is the correctness of the language and how you say the things. But sometimes it's hard when you talk with people who are not patient. They interrupt you, or even they are saying that you are explaining a lot about some thing. Even though you try to say it in a very simple way. But between people who have read philosophy it's very understandable. So it's easier to talk with people like that.
@@irenastevanovska851 They might interrupt you because you're not making yourself understood. Don't blame others, because most of the times you won't be able to change them. This is a problem philosophy has to deal with it. Because it'll eventually (if it hasn't already) close itself off from the world and by then nothing it says will matter. For a lot of scientists, this is already true.
Zizek is easily one of the most authentic human beings I've ever seen. His ego strength is just amazing. He does not care what you think of him, which is so refreshing. Whenever something does tug at his insecurities, he so often just admits it outright, as though he didn't even struggle with the thought of being judged for admitting such a thing. He's both a critical thinker and dogmatic at the same time. If the man has something to say, he's going to say it, and he's going to say it the same way every time, regardless of the venue or the audience. I have true respect for Zizek. The way he visually sits in stark contrast to the rest of the men at that table is entirely emblematic of just how independent a thinker he truly is. I don't even think conformity is in his vocabulary.
@@lonzolotto I'm not sure if you know anything about Zizek or the meaning of mainstream media, but Zizek rarely finds himself in the mainstream. Most major outlets won't give him airtime. He often finds himself giving interviews and talks to outlets and institutions that choose to avoid being mainstream. Even his documentary is anything but mainstream.
Totally agreed. Though i don't think ego is necessarily involved in that, he doesn't justify himself, he straight up admits on his insecuirities, whether the ego would just prevent itself from being hurt, or at least try to. There is healthy and toxic ego, and the toxic one is basically a dollar store version of the former that tries and imitate it through social conditioning and peer pressure, that's why it's fragile
Bingo. It also has the benefit of appearing to lead or be ahead of the conversation because you're just leaping from point to point that only YOU have prepared. I used to do it in college if I wasn't comfortable with the material I was supposed to have learned.
@@philalethes216 Said some random guy one the interwebs without any known achivements whatsoever. He is far smarter than most other living popular philosophers. Plus he is entertaining and brings people to think about things they wouldnt have otherwise.
In europe organic produce or "bio" as they call it, has the reputation of being "ugly", scabby mealy apples etc. It is somewhat undeserved stereotype, but also sometimes true. In the US, organic produce tends to be more flavorful and nutritious, so the idea doesn't translate.
@@jarro7128 I unfortunately can't help you with that. Although others claim he wrote as many as 10 books, no writings of diogenes survived the middle ages. This saying or something like it is commonly attributed to him, but there would be no way to prove it.
All I could think after watching this is what would be the pollitical correct term for "cripple", since I'm also not a native English speaker. Maybe handicapped? Zizek asking the real questions.
He asked if the christians today in europe turly belived that god walked among us 2000 years ago. Then he asked if the ancient greeks belived that if they climed the mountain olympus they'd find their gods sitting there. From this his conclusion is: No, they don't really belived this. What humans belived in was that we really want something to belive in. That we need something to set our standards and root us in reality. He brings the example of "organic apples" and ask what could be the diffrentce between and organic apple or a usual apple. Well the difference according to him is that we feel better when we eat the organic one because we *belive* that we are doing something good for nature and ourselfe, even tho the differences between both apples is marginally small. For the last part he is applying this structure of beliving onto our own time. We belive what makes a human a human but in the same time we are developing technology that will destroy this worldview. Ask yourself what makes you human? Does it make you human that you can walk, interact with your sourrindings and talk with other humans? Well atleast today you can use a technological solution to compensate for your lost limp or even a whole body paralysis. Then if you take your body out of this equasion what makes you human? Your mind and the ability to think? Here he comes to friedrich nietzsches "Übermensch". Übermensch is what nietzsche says humans will "produce?" a human with no flaws. (Well I must say that I know nothing about the Übermensch from nietzsche so I won't even try to understand it from a short wikipedia read!). But in the end as I understood it he wants to say that humans belive in things that don't need to be real just for the sake to have something to belive in. He then goes further to say that not only is God or Gods not a konstant thing that humans belive in but that even the belife what makes a human a human is something that can be completly changed in the future.
@@LemonsRage A good summary of the video. It's not that humans will "produce" the ubermensch as much as it will naturally evolve. It's important to recognize that Nietzsche did not mean evolution in a Darwinian sense, where species live or die by a lower threshold and aren't rewarded by exceeding it but less frequently punished when that threshold eventually increases. This Darwinian lower threshold represents the minimum requirement for basic self-preservation; all living things exceed this threshold. The Übermensch is an upper threshold representing a maximum for extreme self-domination; no human has ever exceeded this threshold. When you consider this spectrum of experience spanning from bare survival all the way to complete self-actualization, it becomes clear that while its derivative is the pursuit of a higher plane of existence, the solutions that will help you at one level will not suffice when you reach higher. In fact the very requirements we see as so fundamental for living: air, warmth, food and water, shelter, etc-- are very small in the grand scheme of our lives, especially compared to some of the social and psychological issues we deal with, because we are past survival as a species. This is as it should be if one wants to ever achieve what Nietzsche describes. To survive, one must follow Maslow's hierarchy of needs. To become Übermensch, one must invert the hierarchy: the more basic needs must become trivial in the face of self-actualization. This is because there's an exponential increase in how difficult this self-actualization process becomes the further you take it. Take Zizek himself as an example: he grapples with solutions for it so seriously that he neglects these basic needs and practically appears homeless. None of us bat an eye because we realize just how complex the problem is, and at some level understand to raise actualized people will require actualized societies as well, and that won't happen without this tireless pursuit at the expense of his haircut. As a result of this pursuit, he has the capacity to identify and understand so much about a world to which we are all largely blind. Zizek is no Übermensch-- in several ways his self has dominated Zizek more than Zizek has dominated himself (clearly)-- but through his war with latent ideology, he is far closer to self-domination than many. This is the mistake that the Nazis make, they think the Übermensch has to be some strong, handsome genetic marvel, so they try to apply Darwinian solutions when Darwin was concerned with the lower quartile of biological existence, and Nietzsche with the upper quartile.
Please help me to understand how that’s powerful, of course everyone wants meaning. You didn’t ask for it but my opinion is that the definition of “meaning” to people is subjective and usually unfulfilling.
@@BookofProverbs that's powerful, subjectively -- of course -- to him because -- and he doesn't mention it -- he found meaning in the quote, ultimately validating it. Not all is said out loud, a lot is for the brain to fill up, but saying obvious things is also part of philosophy, as that strengthens the basic understanding acquired by intelligent experience.
@@erezsolomon3838 Buddhists “want” to have no desires. Without meaning= no desire. The statement people unconditionally want meaning is not entirely correct
@@TricksterAndAwesome At a certain point Buddhists lose that desire. The same is true for Christians; your life becomes meaningless as all that really matters is God and his glory. You are freed from the shackles of "meaning" and "purpose" which are satanic constructs built on temporal things rather than God's love, i.e the pride of life. Read Ecclesiastes if you think Christianity is about giving your life meaning
I love this man. I don't understand anything of what he says and if I activate the subtitles I get a random language. Yesterday the Dutch, today according to google speaks Italian.
Listening to him makes feel like I’m listening to the Slovenian version of Kanye west. He fails to connect his thoughts and words & that’s a nightmare for my dyslexic brain.
@Paul Kohler the title of the video is wrong, not what he said. Religion was a lego brick in his theoretical tower 🗼, and because of this he didn't explain in depth and rather moved on -Opinion-
@Paul Kohler Zizek's point was that to be a true fundamentalist Christian would seem as if one would believe the Gospel at face value, but he's saying even well-established Christian theologians don't fully believe that God himself in the flesh walked the Earth 2000 years ago. He discusses some unique characteristics of Christianity, such as the fact that if Jesus was indeed the son of God, that his crucifixion represents an ever-present divine distance between man and God, since even the literal human son of God felt he had been forsaken by the divine father. This inbuilt distance has allowed Christians to be more openly interpretive with their relationship between man and God, since its relationship in Christianity is less explicitly structured than Judaism or Islam. Through this "estranged father" aspect, Christians were given a fundamentally different perspective on the phenomenology of their lives, since God has symbolically left them, he is not still there fiddling with all the controls; God's will was enacted long ago and his presence is felt not literally, but in the execution of this ancient will. This is what the Holy Spirit is. It is the spirit of God's memory. Compare Jesus to Muhammad: Muhammad was carried into the sky where he talked to God face to face; Jesus was hung on the cross and his qualms went unheard. This is a big deal, because if Jesus is God as a man, and even he was beholden to extreme suffering, then what does this say about us and our suffering? It says that even if God were walking among us today, he would be in a great deal of pain just as we are. So with the suffering of Jesus comes the death of the eternal strength of God in the eyes of humanity. All of this is what has helped Christianity be the religion to build an atheistic culture. Edit: I now realize that some of these points were not made in this specific video but other videos from the same lecture. FYI
Something that has been changing the "brain in a computer" mentality for me is that apparently our whole bodies have an influence (probably neurological or something) on our consciousness that we are still beginning to try to understand, and so this might change how we think about "are we our bodies or our brains" thing There's so much of the brain that no one understands that I think makes it hard to define it with a thought experiment as simple as that
You should check out Merleau Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, where he basically describes consciousness as being the engaged body itself rather than the mind
@@joshuaim3263 As someone who works in the field of AI, I always marvel at how non-technical people have such fantastical views of AI. It's just a computer program, designed to to exactly what it's programmed to do. This doesn't affect what it means to be human any more than a replacement hip does, for example.
*rediscover, it has already been understood but then lost to wars, politics, institutionalized religion, and then materialism and nihilism. And this relationship works both ways, body>consciousness and consciousness>body.
@@xaime3802 wrote: "*rediscover, it has already been understood but then lost to wars, politics, institutionalized religion, and then materialism and nihilism. And this relationship works both ways, body>consciousness and consciousness>body." Your reply doesn't make sense. (1) Who are you replying to? (2) What is the pronoun "it" referring to in your first sentence? (3) Which relationship are you referring to in your second sentence?
@@paulthompson9668 1. To Caio. Since my comment does not have an @ at the beginning, it is obvious I am replying to the original comment. 2. "our whole bodies have an influence (probably neurological or something) on our consciousness that we are still beginning to try to understand, and so this might change how we think about "are we our bodies or our brains" thing" = it 3. Same as above, except "... = the relationship I am talking about".
What I love the most here is how Zizek sticks out from everyone else. Like as if you took some unwashed villager from a rural community, gave him some vodka and put him up there to debate those great sophisticated thinkers.
It is thoroughly frustrating that there are not enough words in the english language to 100% explain exactly what Zizek means because he feels so strongly about it. I feel like after he explains you only can understand at max 50% because there arent enough words
No, in a language with 80+ million words in the entirety of its lexicon, that’s a complete misnomer. There *are* enough words. The problem here is that Žižek would - obviously - be far more articulate, precise, and eloquent in his mother tongue than he is as a non-native speaker of English. The fact that he’s still as insightful, incisive, and witty in a non-native language is a testament to his brilliance rather than an indicator of any limitation to his ability to express that brilliance.
Im slav, he's slav, I have the same issue when speaking english. Sometimes you have to use an entire sentence in place of one word, sometimes even if there is a direct translation of a word it doesnt convey the exact meaning 1:1. When I speak with some of my foreign friends in english i also tend to go on these long rants even though I could explain what I mean in few sentences in Polish. I dont know if there are any books written by Zizek in slovene, but they are probably more coherent than anything in english.
1:41 When he said "No... I like genetic, nice... I want... No, sorry but... Let me go on... S... Very briefly... So that I stop. Uhh... You're.. Uhh... So... Uhh... But... So... At some point..." I really felt that.
Ultimately he's just saying, "Do people REALLY believe in God or do they just do it to feel good?". He set up no paradox at all with his silly ranting and annoying shirt picking.
He's presenting it to the public as a speaker on a pretty trivial event. No wonder his train of thought is simplified. In his books, and in more serious philosophical talks, he explains his theory of belief more concretely: we believe through others, the belief of another is enough to sustain our inherent belief even if we don't outwardly, directly believe. This is the inherent paradox of faith - belief without belief. There is much more theory to this so I encourage you to actually read his stuff rather than make smug comments on a 3 minute video, demanding in depth explanation of complicated philosophical ideas in such a short time
@@-sunrise-parabellum- The belief of another is not enough to sustain our inherent belief. It is not passive, it is active. You wouldn't have people changing their ideology or religion, otherwise.
Never heard of this fellow before now - but I love him! I was drawn to this by the title. I've long thought that few (very, very few) of religious people actually believe in God - certainly not in the same sense that they believe in their dog, for example. I was hoping for a discussion of that, but I was not disappointed by what I got. A very interesting man....
I sincerely don't get how so many people in the comment are saying that his speech is incomprehensible. It may not be easy to follow, but it doesn't sound very complex or badly articulated to me. And I think that, aside from the fact that you can agree or disagree with what he says, his reasoning makes sense. Actually, I'm wondering how well this man can express abstract thoughts in his mother language.
What he means is that when you buy EKO or organic you in a sense buy away part of your blame for the planets problem. Perfect way for rich people to say they are "doing" something instead of actually doing something. He once called it Coffe Karma and i think it is pretty point on, people buy away their guilt by buying ecological/organic.
For those interested, it is not Pierre Vidal-Naquet who wrote "Did the Greeks believed in their myths ?", but Paul Veyne. Anything this guy writes is thought-provoking, even if you don't give a damn about Greco-Roman Antiquity.
I love how they're all in suits but he pulls of this Einstein hair with a faded plain T-shirt that looks like he's been wearing it for a week straight.. Respect
Love that he is talking about what it means to be human, while he is wearing normal clothing displaying his human flaws.. Everyone else on stage is protected from view inside their fancy sports jackets that probably has shoulder pads and other improving features, so that no one can see the human inside.
I understand. I'm mostly agnostic now but the rest of my family are firm Christians and they seem much happier than me. Someone I look up to once told me "faith isn't faith if there isn't doubt". I'm still searching and I haven't completely abandoned the bible. The story of hope still keeps me going. I tried atheism but I still wasn't sure. I'm also reading about ancient religions and even marchen. I still watch various modern thinkers and people leading in science. I'm trying to keep an open mind while still believing that good/God will win. I'm not sure if what I said makes sense. English isn't my first language but I've been searching and thinking alot recently. Idk I just needed to write my thoughts somewhere
@@chew7656 Greeks didn't really believe Zeus existed. GMO apples at least make you feel like you're part of something bigger than yourself. If you're a self proclaimed Christian who only believes in the numinous, supernatural stuff; that Jesus rose from the dead, etc, without really living like a Christian acting as if "God"/a Christian value structure (which is the foundation of western civ) exists, do you really believe in God? Similarly if you're an atheist living and acting as if "God"/a Christian value structure exists, you can be thought of as a Christian, perhaps even more so than a lot of those self-proclaimed Christian. It's the practice that matters. I'm physics student. And I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't believe that there's a bearded man up there that designed the universe. I believe that religions are purely a product of human ingenuity. But still, there's bound to be at least some truth/metaphorical truth in the bible--that helps with how one conducts one's life--that's been turned into stories and documented over millenias, and ultimately into the first book that is the bible. Humans perceive the world better when there's a narrative tied in, and religion is a necessary work of incredible art that can help us do just that. There are what some call archetypal narratives, experiences distilled into stories of living patterns that's been happening over and over again to millions of people in differing situations/contexts, that's why some stories ring true to you when you read them. I've been holding myself against at least some value structure in order to live my life. And if that structure is the Western value structure, then it can be argued that I am a Christian. Watch Jordan Peterson and his biblical lectures, I believe that might help you as well. That's why he hesitated when asked the question if he believes in God, as he doesn't believe in intelligent design. He just left it at "I live my life as if God exists."
It does not really matter if Christ really lived or if he really caused miracles. What matters is the timeless message of love and peace between people. We should all work to love one another and this is a truth that goes much deeper than any scientific or historical fact could ever go.
@@NickHeathcliff It really DOES matter because He gave us a window into seeing why it is that we DON'T love one another. Recall that His first sermon was so clear that anyone, believer or non-believer could understand it; then, by the middle of His ministry His disciples are asking Him why He's now speaking to them only in parables and He says, essentially, that they really don't want to hear it. Then, at the end of His ministry, the night before He's arrested He says, in effect, "You had your chance to hear and didn't want it? Now, you're not going to hear it. Now it's going to be hidden from you."
@@NickHeathcliff umm actually that's the only thing that matters. CHRIST is a title, not a name. And what He said when He was here did not leave room for your mealy mouthed equivocation. He either is the Son of God and thus the author of salvation...or He isn't. There's no middle ground
How do you know that death isn't the greatest thing that's ever gonna happen to you. When you actually die you dissolve into an ocean of infinite love. Death is equivalent to infinite love. Death is equivalent to infinite consciousness. Death is equivalent to God. Death is immortality. Death is paradise or heaven. So the biggest mindfuck of life is to discover that death is actually infinite love. Being and not-being, order and disorder, life and death, light and darkness, masculine and feminine, dry and wet, hot and cold, active and passive, life and death, for example, are mutually arising, interdependent, and complementary aspects of one and the same process. Life contains the seed of death; death the Fertile energizing seed of life.
I might be a little late here, but this really hit different, this is a very unique and fresh point of view, it really made me think in a way no other explanation has... Thank you, have a great day. I appreciate you.
Who does this describe? 1. Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:1,2) 2. To a virgin (Isaiah 7:14) 3. Called “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:5,6) 4. Crucified (Psalm 22; Zechariah 12:10) 5. Dies for the sins of the people (Isaiah 53) 6. Before the 2nd Jewish Temple was destroyed (Daniel 9:26) 7. Rises from the dead (Psalm 16:10) 8. Is now seated at the right hand of God the Father (Psalm 110:1) 9. Will be served/worshipped by all peoples (Daniel 7:13,14)
What is the book he is referring to called and who is the author? Does he mean "Did the Greeks Believe in Their MYTHS?" by Paul Veyne or one by Pierre Vidal-Naquet? Help, please!
It's like he's telling a five different stories at the same time, simultaneously. And then near the end of each of those five stories new five stories emerges. I sweat trying to follow all of it.
0:19 the guy on the left looks like he's merely waiting for Zizek to stop talking so he can absolutely destroy his career with facts and logic, but then he realized Zizek won't ever stop talking so he gives up at 1:22
@@johnsala1619 Yup, they think too much that's literally why, it's really easy to fall into that endless loop since we realize how fucked up everything is, it's easy to miss the beauty and that happens to most great minds.
He's technically trained in psyscho analysis. But he once had a student once who asked to actually be clinically analyzed by him. Slavoj told him: "You want me as your shrink? You must really have some serious problems."
I thought i was not superficial, until i had to rewatch this thing 3 times to ignore his t-shirt and focus on what he was saying. Smart crazy bastard! XD
In the end he talks about transferring consciousness to a robot so a person can become immortal but the problem is that we don’t know if this is physically possible .
It would maybe be possible if the soul was real. If not then it's not. According to materialist science, consciousness is just emergent from the brain. Like when you "transfer" a file from one computer to another, the file isn't going anywhere it's just being copied onto the new computer, now you have two mostly identical files. You might be able to copy someone's consciousness onto a machine, but the person themselves would still be "on" their own brain and body. To the rest of the world they'd be immortal but the person would die. And even if the "soul" is real or consciousness can go on without or away from the brain, there's still no telling if you could "put it in" a machine or if you'd even want to.
@@Bane_questionmark yes exactly! Only if consciousness was based on information like the electrochemical function inside the brain they could figure out a way to transfer it to an artificial brain that is made from a long lasting strong material
My interpretation was that we tend to believe things because of how they are useful to us or how they make us feel rather than believing in them because they are true, and we don't really do this voluntarily. So if we just adopt beliefs like this, it's not really believing in the voluntary and praiseworthy sense. The example of Christians believing in God is to say that they think they believe, rather than actually believe in God.
@@pug9431 Interestingly, a common Christian assertion is that atheists think they don't believe in God but actually do deep down, making atheism more of a rebellion against God than an intellectual stance.
@@tomemery7890 thats why its such a pointless thing to say. "no, you REALLY think X because Y"- how the hell does he know? it goes the other way too. speculation about the "motives" for religious beleif flies in the face of what religion presents itself as, as soon as you begin justifying religion or explaining it through utilitarian or concequentialist means you have lost the sense of it entirely.
@@rabbitrun777 I just want to see evidence that the existence of the proposed distinct neurological state of "nonbelief" in *either* p *or* -p can be demonstrated in some empirically verifiable way.
If a Christian does not believe in God, they are not a Christian.... Christianity isn't a set of rituals and practices, Christianity is a relationship with God
Teaching in a T-Shirt! I just love this dude! I imagine he took a couple of whiffs of that shirt that morning, shrugged, "Good enough." And he's off to the conference.
Why everyone else seem like they are waiting for the security to escort him out?
bc you are proyecting *your* feeling of the need to escort him out
😂😂😂
it looks like they let the janitor talk too long
So you're that guy
because, in a certain way, they are.
The other men are looking at Zizek as if they're biologists observing a wild animal. With great interest, bewilderment and a healthy dose of caution.
Love this comment 😂😂
And praise God for sitting on chairs with wheels.
Thats how people always look at me, haha
Ey i mean im interested in octopuses too without looking down on them.Just fascinating
yeah, except they dont realise theyre the r*tards
Nassim Taleb has a good point about the best surgeons looking like large stupid butchers
if you can make it despite an extreme lack of conformity to the culture, youre probably so good that they have no choice but to give you a seat at the table
Slavoj sits alone, surrounded by men in suits. He wears a sweat stained t-shirt. Its too perfect.
he was just jogging by
@@jojo-lk7bc xddd
@Lydia Alexian And the name of that trash is ideology
Classic slav
He looks like a homeless man who somehow got into the studio
"let me continue so I can stop" is one of the funniest things Slavoj has ever said
Fucking fruit juice
Very Hegelian
pure ideology
cuz he knows everyone wants him to shut up
@@n6rt9s and rightfully so, he can never make a fast, clear point. He tends to ramble.
“Zeus screwing Aphrodite or whatever” - Zizek
Funny about that is, in Greek mythology, she is his daughter...
@@gerryendersen4718
But Zeus would still do it.
@@andyhx2 Zeus screwed everyone
@@faintsherin4468 but she wouldn't.
@@andyhx2 Not true. When Chronos chopped of Uranus' genitals, he threw them into the sea. Aphrodite was born from the foam produced from this.
I was pursuing a PhD in microbiology 3 years ago, I saw a video of his talking about continental philosophy and decided I wanted to be like him, I am now homeless in Slovenia :(
Hahahaha good for you. Stupid decision for a white girl. You had a profitable career as a microbiologist but you went bohemian woke broke and now you see what life is really like. Enjoy.
@@TheDiasporaMedia wow. just wow.
@@TheDiasporaMedia that's too specific, are you ok?
@@pdrpl6537 Yes Im fine thank you. Its specific and im passionate about this topic because I was never good at school and academics and became a artist because thats why im okay at and I am passionate about the arts. So ive lived the Bohemian lifestyle by force and partly by choice as well.
But.... I constantly have people telling me how wonderful my lifestyle is when little do they know I make basically zero struggle with bills etc. If I was good academically and could get into the STEM fields i would take that in a heart beat.
@@TheDiasporaMedia Did you consider that some people in STEM feel the same way? "If only these other jobs paid well, I could actually be happy and do something I'm passionate about."
He has mad uncle energy
cocaine
@@wrenchaholic that would explain the constant sniffling
@@mrfisher1072 im a dust sniffer. There are a bunch more clues but i aint putting homie out there.
@@wrenchaholic snitches get stitches
@@mrfisher1072 well technically i dry snitched with my first comment.......
me when my teacher asks me for my homework:
"Let me propose to you a paradoxical statement"
@@movimentodoscacos literally
Oh that's a funny fucking image
I'm thinking zizek sped up to triple the speed whilst that beatbox meme music plays
thanks dude made me laugh, brought some joy to my day
I almost spit my water when it zoomed out and he was the only guy not wearing a suit lmao
XD
Spot the main character
In comparison, Zizek manages to keep his water in his mouth *while* making his points.
When your modified character is in a cutscene
😂
Title should be "Slavoj discusses transhumanism while dissing organic apples"
@@huelu982 I...didn't say it did? You don't seem to have actually watched the video if that's how you interpreted my comment.
@@huelu982 in 1.30 he is talkin about organic apples bruh. Watch all of the video then comment bro
@@huelu982 You are not a very smart person right?
I thought he said organic peppers
@@huelu982 It was a clickbait title, smartass
Imagine if he could speak to them in his native language.
Maybe then he might say something mildly profound and valuable, that makes sense.
@@jamesedward7137 Idk what you mean?
@@peytondagenais479 he’s being condescending because he is more intelligent than slavoj 🙄
I express myself better in my second language when discussing certain things, so who knows
This might be better, because you invariable think what he says is smarter than how smart he sounds.
Žižek: "Let me propose to you a paradoxical statement."
The other guys: "Oh shit here we go again..."
🤣 !
i genuinely cant understand him, no matter how hard I focus.
One of them literally said "Oh..." if you listen closely lol
😂😂😂😂 Stop it CJ !
@@out_of_orbit1968 he’s a lot more clear in his writing also there’s a channel that breaks down his concepts
Broke: listening to the conversation
Woke: using the sweat patches as rorschach tests
2.23: dinosaurs fighting
It would really help if he ended the sentences he starts. I guess he does, in his mind.
It happens a lot with people who read a lot of philosophy. I study philosophy and I've noticed that I am doing that a lot, also some of my professors do that, we would get back to the point if someone listens long enough. But usually people don't.
I'm pretty sure he has ADHD . He's definitely gifted but has ADD too from what I've seen.
@@irenastevanovska851 You guys need to have better speaking skills, then. And learn how to form your thoughts, because it's not that great having all that wonderful stuff running around in your brain if you can't spit it out for the rest of us ;)
@@miguelbranquinho7235 yes actually one of the branches of philosophy is the correctness of the language and how you say the things. But sometimes it's hard when you talk with people who are not patient. They interrupt you, or even they are saying that you are explaining a lot about some thing. Even though you try to say it in a very simple way. But between people who have read philosophy it's very understandable. So it's easier to talk with people like that.
@@irenastevanovska851 They might interrupt you because you're not making yourself understood. Don't blame others, because most of the times you won't be able to change them. This is a problem philosophy has to deal with it. Because it'll eventually (if it hasn't already) close itself off from the world and by then nothing it says will matter. For a lot of scientists, this is already true.
Zizek is easily one of the most authentic human beings I've ever seen. His ego strength is just amazing. He does not care what you think of him, which is so refreshing. Whenever something does tug at his insecurities, he so often just admits it outright, as though he didn't even struggle with the thought of being judged for admitting such a thing. He's both a critical thinker and dogmatic at the same time. If the man has something to say, he's going to say it, and he's going to say it the same way every time, regardless of the venue or the audience. I have true respect for Zizek. The way he visually sits in stark contrast to the rest of the men at that table is entirely emblematic of just how independent a thinker he truly is. I don't even think conformity is in his vocabulary.
If he was truly that, he wouldn't even appear in mainstream media.
@@lonzolotto I'm not sure if you know anything about Zizek or the meaning of mainstream media, but Zizek rarely finds himself in the mainstream. Most major outlets won't give him airtime. He often finds himself giving interviews and talks to outlets and institutions that choose to avoid being mainstream. Even his documentary is anything but mainstream.
Thought it said
most autistic 😀
Totally agreed. Though i don't think ego is necessarily involved in that, he doesn't justify himself, he straight up admits on his insecuirities, whether the ego would just prevent itself from being hurt, or at least try to. There is healthy and toxic ego, and the toxic one is basically a dollar store version of the former that tries and imitate it through social conditioning and peer pressure, that's why it's fragile
Do you like how his farts smell?
The man seems like he comes with with a prepared list of things he wants to say and he will say all of them one way or the other.
😂😂
Bingo. It also has the benefit of appearing to lead or be ahead of the conversation because you're just leaping from point to point that only YOU have prepared. I used to do it in college if I wasn't comfortable with the material I was supposed to have learned.
Yeah he's a total hack. Imagine thinking anything he said here is profound.
@@philalethes216 Said some random guy one the interwebs without any known achivements whatsoever. He is far smarter than most other living popular philosophers. Plus he is entertaining and brings people to think about things they wouldnt have otherwise.
@@derPetunientopf Actually I’m more famous and smarterer than him
Its so funny to see these serious man when Zizek makes a joke. Just no reaction on their face.
They are profesional opinion havers, they obviously can't laugh or else you'll realize they are just like you and me
1:37 and 1:00 they're smiling if or maybe I'm blind
@@aaronmueller5542 okay fair. A very small laugh haha.
Wait that was an attempt at joking?
they must have heard them from peterson already
"I like genetic..., NiCeee"
- Slavoj Zizek, 2011
He likes big melons, okay? I d e o l o g y
He's just exasperated because his suit was still at the dry cleaners.
"Let me go on, only very briefly, so that I stop"
🤣🤣
Speech: 0
Charisma: 200
Yes
Intelligence: >9000
his speech is better than any here in the comment section
Carisma is 0.1
@@diegocharlin5502 are you trying to say: lowest score is better
I completely agree but as an organic farmer I’m rather confused
just don't take too seriously, that was just a PPP - perverted provoker's paradox
I just want nice genetic apples
I am in organic apple and I feel like a total loser noe
Hehe
In europe organic produce or "bio" as they call it, has the reputation of being "ugly", scabby mealy apples etc. It is somewhat undeserved stereotype, but also sometimes true. In the US, organic produce tends to be more flavorful and nutritious, so the idea doesn't translate.
Zizek is Diogenes reincarnated
Behold a man...
@@Italiangent much better than a capitalist
"The house of a rich man is so beautiful, the only place to spit that would not be a crime is right in the owner's eye."
@@raultoichoa1574 hey, i need the source of that.
@@jarro7128 I unfortunately can't help you with that. Although others claim he wrote as many as 10 books, no writings of diogenes survived the middle ages. This saying or something like it is commonly attributed to him, but there would be no way to prove it.
I also want nice, genetic apples
I have no idea what he's talking about but I love watching him talk about it
I hope I’m not the only one who didn’t understand a single word he said but still came out thinking it somehow makes sense...
All I could think after watching this is what would be the pollitical correct term for "cripple", since I'm also not a native English speaker. Maybe handicapped? Zizek asking the real questions.
He asked if the christians today in europe turly belived that god walked among us 2000 years ago. Then he asked if the ancient greeks belived that if they climed the mountain olympus they'd find their gods sitting there. From this his conclusion is: No, they don't really belived this. What humans belived in was that we really want something to belive in. That we need something to set our standards and root us in reality. He brings the example of "organic apples" and ask what could be the diffrentce between and organic apple or a usual apple. Well the difference according to him is that we feel better when we eat the organic one because we *belive* that we are doing something good for nature and ourselfe, even tho the differences between both apples is marginally small.
For the last part he is applying this structure of beliving onto our own time. We belive what makes a human a human but in the same time we are developing technology that will destroy this worldview. Ask yourself what makes you human? Does it make you human that you can walk, interact with your sourrindings and talk with other humans? Well atleast today you can use a technological solution to compensate for your lost limp or even a whole body paralysis. Then if you take your body out of this equasion what makes you human? Your mind and the ability to think? Here he comes to friedrich nietzsches "Übermensch". Übermensch is what nietzsche says humans will "produce?" a human with no flaws. (Well I must say that I know nothing about the Übermensch from nietzsche so I won't even try to understand it from a short wikipedia read!).
But in the end as I understood it he wants to say that humans belive in things that don't need to be real just for the sake to have something to belive in. He then goes further to say that not only is God or Gods not a konstant thing that humans belive in but that even the belife what makes a human a human is something that can be completly changed in the future.
@@delilh325 disabled, most people don't have a problem with that
@@LemonsRage A good summary of the video. It's not that humans will "produce" the ubermensch as much as it will naturally evolve. It's important to recognize that Nietzsche did not mean evolution in a Darwinian sense, where species live or die by a lower threshold and aren't rewarded by exceeding it but less frequently punished when that threshold eventually increases. This Darwinian lower threshold represents the minimum requirement for basic self-preservation; all living things exceed this threshold. The Übermensch is an upper threshold representing a maximum for extreme self-domination; no human has ever exceeded this threshold.
When you consider this spectrum of experience spanning from bare survival all the way to complete self-actualization, it becomes clear that while its derivative is the pursuit of a higher plane of existence, the solutions that will help you at one level will not suffice when you reach higher. In fact the very requirements we see as so fundamental for living: air, warmth, food and water, shelter, etc-- are very small in the grand scheme of our lives, especially compared to some of the social and psychological issues we deal with, because we are past survival as a species. This is as it should be if one wants to ever achieve what Nietzsche describes. To survive, one must follow Maslow's hierarchy of needs. To become Übermensch, one must invert the hierarchy: the more basic needs must become trivial in the face of self-actualization. This is because there's an exponential increase in how difficult this self-actualization process becomes the further you take it. Take Zizek himself as an example: he grapples with solutions for it so seriously that he neglects these basic needs and practically appears homeless. None of us bat an eye because we realize just how complex the problem is, and at some level understand to raise actualized people will require actualized societies as well, and that won't happen without this tireless pursuit at the expense of his haircut. As a result of this pursuit, he has the capacity to identify and understand so much about a world to which we are all largely blind. Zizek is no Übermensch-- in several ways his self has dominated Zizek more than Zizek has dominated himself (clearly)-- but through his war with latent ideology, he is far closer to self-domination than many. This is the mistake that the Nazis make, they think the Übermensch has to be some strong, handsome genetic marvel, so they try to apply Darwinian solutions when Darwin was concerned with the lower quartile of biological existence, and Nietzsche with the upper quartile.
I'm gonna come back and read.
"We unconditionally want meaning "
Powerful
Please help me to understand how that’s powerful, of course everyone wants meaning. You didn’t ask for it but my opinion is that the definition of “meaning” to people is subjective and usually unfulfilling.
@@BookofProverbs that's powerful, subjectively -- of course -- to him because -- and he doesn't mention it -- he found meaning in the quote, ultimately validating it. Not all is said out loud, a lot is for the brain to fill up, but saying obvious things is also part of philosophy, as that strengthens the basic understanding acquired by intelligent experience.
@@erezsolomon3838 Buddhists “want” to have no desires. Without meaning= no desire. The statement people unconditionally want meaning is not entirely correct
@@TricksterAndAwesome At a certain point Buddhists lose that desire. The same is true for Christians; your life becomes meaningless as all that really matters is God and his glory. You are freed from the shackles of "meaning" and "purpose" which are satanic constructs built on temporal things rather than God's love, i.e the pride of life. Read Ecclesiastes if you think Christianity is about giving your life meaning
Because life is unavoidable suffering...your only option is to make it meaningful
I love how he doesn't give a shit about what he wears xd
Oh I think his wardrobe was carefully selected
Cindy Chomka yeah that’s probably true tbh
"let me go on very briefly so that I stop"
That's a great phrase.
*-And go on and go on*
It's a "don't say anything or I go into that tangent and end up in 5 more before we get back here"
I literally love him.
and metaphorically too 😀
And so on and so on. My godddd
I admire his eruptions of thoughts - raw thinking machine. Is this love?
I bet you want to marry him huh?
@@gamer-sama7769 I'm not destined for that. I am for organic apples. Smrk, Smrk.
I love this man. I don't understand anything of what he says and if I activate the subtitles I get a random language. Yesterday the Dutch, today according to google speaks Italian.
💀
Listening to him makes feel like I’m listening to the Slovenian version of Kanye west. He fails to connect his thoughts and words & that’s a nightmare for my dyslexic brain.
The fact that he has a huge following amongst younger audiences in America blows my mind.
@Paul Kohler You are right. After having talked about Greece, he suddenly changes his whole subject. Shame.
@Paul Kohler the title of the video is wrong, not what he said. Religion was a lego brick in his theoretical tower 🗼, and because of this he didn't explain in depth and rather moved on
-Opinion-
@@mrfisher1072 I just started watching his videos now because someone mentioned his pandemic book... Who should I look up next?
@Paul Kohler Zizek's point was that to be a true fundamentalist Christian would seem as if one would believe the Gospel at face value, but he's saying even well-established Christian theologians don't fully believe that God himself in the flesh walked the Earth 2000 years ago. He discusses some unique characteristics of Christianity, such as the fact that if Jesus was indeed the son of God, that his crucifixion represents an ever-present divine distance between man and God, since even the literal human son of God felt he had been forsaken by the divine father. This inbuilt distance has allowed Christians to be more openly interpretive with their relationship between man and God, since its relationship in Christianity is less explicitly structured than Judaism or Islam.
Through this "estranged father" aspect, Christians were given a fundamentally different perspective on the phenomenology of their lives, since God has symbolically left them, he is not still there fiddling with all the controls; God's will was enacted long ago and his presence is felt not literally, but in the execution of this ancient will. This is what the Holy Spirit is. It is the spirit of God's memory. Compare Jesus to Muhammad: Muhammad was carried into the sky where he talked to God face to face; Jesus was hung on the cross and his qualms went unheard. This is a big deal, because if Jesus is God as a man, and even he was beholden to extreme suffering, then what does this say about us and our suffering? It says that even if God were walking among us today, he would be in a great deal of pain just as we are. So with the suffering of Jesus comes the death of the eternal strength of God in the eyes of humanity. All of this is what has helped Christianity be the religion to build an atheistic culture.
Edit: I now realize that some of these points were not made in this specific video but other videos from the same lecture. FYI
After you play cyberpunk and you go out for a beer with the homies.
lmao
Chooms*
Something that has been changing the "brain in a computer" mentality for me is that apparently our whole bodies have an influence (probably neurological or something) on our consciousness that we are still beginning to try to understand, and so this might change how we think about "are we our bodies or our brains" thing
There's so much of the brain that no one understands that I think makes it hard to define it with a thought experiment as simple as that
You should check out Merleau Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, where he basically describes consciousness as being the engaged body itself rather than the mind
@@joshuaim3263 As someone who works in the field of AI, I always marvel at how non-technical people have such fantastical views of AI. It's just a computer program, designed to to exactly what it's programmed to do. This doesn't affect what it means to be human any more than a replacement hip does, for example.
*rediscover, it has already been understood but then lost to wars, politics, institutionalized religion, and then materialism and nihilism. And this relationship works both ways, body>consciousness and consciousness>body.
@@xaime3802 wrote: "*rediscover, it has already been understood but then lost to wars, politics, institutionalized religion, and then materialism and nihilism. And this relationship works both ways, body>consciousness and consciousness>body."
Your reply doesn't make sense. (1) Who are you replying to? (2) What is the pronoun "it" referring to in your first sentence? (3) Which relationship are you referring to in your second sentence?
@@paulthompson9668
1. To Caio. Since my comment does not have an @ at the beginning, it is obvious I am replying to the original comment.
2. "our whole bodies have an influence (probably neurological or something) on our consciousness that we are still beginning to try to understand, and so this might change how we think about "are we our bodies or our brains" thing" = it
3. Same as above, except "... = the relationship I am talking about".
What I love the most here is how Zizek sticks out from everyone else. Like as if you took some unwashed villager from a rural community, gave him some vodka and put him up there to debate those great sophisticated thinkers.
It is thoroughly frustrating that there are not enough words in the english language to 100% explain exactly what Zizek means because he feels so strongly about it. I feel like after he explains you only can understand at max 50% because there arent enough words
No, in a language with 80+ million words in the entirety of its lexicon, that’s a complete misnomer. There *are* enough words. The problem here is that Žižek would - obviously - be far more articulate, precise, and eloquent in his mother tongue than he is as a non-native speaker of English. The fact that he’s still as insightful, incisive, and witty in a non-native language is a testament to his brilliance rather than an indicator of any limitation to his ability to express that brilliance.
Im slav, he's slav, I have the same issue when speaking english. Sometimes you have to use an entire sentence in place of one word, sometimes even if there is a direct translation of a word it doesnt convey the exact meaning 1:1. When I speak with some of my foreign friends in english i also tend to go on these long rants even though I could explain what I mean in few sentences in Polish.
I dont know if there are any books written by Zizek in slovene, but they are probably more coherent than anything in english.
Listening to Zizek is like hearing last night's dream explained to you in Slovenian.
0:35 I think he may be remembering incorrectly, the book he is talking about is by Paul Veyne
thank you!
docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkcnN0ZWZmZXlzaXRlfGd4OjU5YTM5OTY2MWRhZTU2OTE
Thank you, that's why I was searching for it and couldn't find it anywhere on the internet xD
watch his Oxford Union thing, he mentions at least 4 books to which he has forgotten the author.
1:41 When he said "No... I like genetic, nice... I want... No, sorry but... Let me go on... S... Very briefly... So that I stop. Uhh... You're.. Uhh... So... Uhh... But... So... At some point..." I really felt that.
The passion with which he talks is unparalleled!
Is he lactating?
Sweat. Titty sweat.
My god this comment made me laugh so much
Ultimately he's just saying, "Do people REALLY believe in God or do they just do it to feel good?". He set up no paradox at all with his silly ranting and annoying shirt picking.
Yeah agreed. Not exactly a profound statement
Agreed
He's presenting it to the public as a speaker on a pretty trivial event. No wonder his train of thought is simplified. In his books, and in more serious philosophical talks, he explains his theory of belief more concretely: we believe through others, the belief of another is enough to sustain our inherent belief even if we don't outwardly, directly believe. This is the inherent paradox of faith - belief without belief. There is much more theory to this so I encourage you to actually read his stuff rather than make smug comments on a 3 minute video, demanding in depth explanation of complicated philosophical ideas in such a short time
Yessch, yessch he issch.
@@-sunrise-parabellum- The belief of another is not enough to sustain our inherent belief. It is not passive, it is active.
You wouldn't have people changing their ideology or religion, otherwise.
Thank God for Slavoj Zizek
you are the god.
"Cripple, I don't know what's the politically correct term." So based.
Played too much Fallout carelessly throwing grenades around.
Never heard of this fellow before now - but I love him! I was drawn to this by the title. I've long thought that few (very, very few) of religious people actually believe in God - certainly not in the same sense that they believe in their dog, for example. I was hoping for a discussion of that, but I was not disappointed by what I got. A very interesting man....
Not believing in your dog, now there's a crisis of Faith fit for a real skeptic
I sincerely don't get how so many people in the comment are saying that his speech is incomprehensible. It may not be easy to follow, but it doesn't sound very complex or badly articulated to me. And I think that, aside from the fact that you can agree or disagree with what he says, his reasoning makes sense.
Actually, I'm wondering how well this man can express abstract thoughts in his mother language.
Z: Let me propose to you a paradoxical statement
Interlocutor: Oh..
Audience:
What a hero.
I understood from this that philosophers don't buy organic apples, but we ordinary mortals do 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If you want to be a philosopher, *don't* buy organic apples; and so on and so on
Dont buy organic apples to feel good about yourself
What he means is that when you buy EKO or organic you in a sense buy away part of your blame for the planets problem. Perfect way for rich people to say they are "doing" something instead of actually doing something.
He once called it Coffe Karma and i think it is pretty point on, people buy away their guilt by buying ecological/organic.
For those interested, it is not Pierre Vidal-Naquet who wrote "Did the Greeks believed in their myths ?", but Paul Veyne. Anything this guy writes is thought-provoking, even if you don't give a damn about Greco-Roman Antiquity.
Thanks a lot! Couldn’t find the book.
Very interesting. I love the fresh perspective.
Such a great talk!!!
he seems to have interesting ideas but I'm hampered in really grasping what he's saying when I have to guess at what he said every other word
Read some of his work
I love how they're all in suits but he pulls of this Einstein hair with a faded plain T-shirt that looks like he's been wearing it for a week straight.. Respect
Wow I posted without reading the existing comments.. sorry lol
0:23 this shot looks like some funny shopped gif from meme compilation
0:35
Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths was not written by Pierre Vidal-Naquet but Paul Veyne.
Thank you :)
OMG, the auto translate is Italian haha. I really like his speaking and so on and so on.
What’s amazing about this man is his brain is so fully of knowledge and it even makes sense when he translates it to his second language
You thought any of that made sense?
Does is, though?
And that is supposed to be amazing? How many people know english better than him and can translate their knowledge in a sensical way.
@@UnhumanNewman got him
One senses the Nexus Institute didn’t know exactly what they had done in inviting Zizek.
Love that he is talking about what it means to be human, while he is wearing normal clothing displaying his human flaws.. Everyone else on stage is protected from view inside their fancy sports jackets that probably has shoulder pads and other improving features, so that no one can see the human inside.
“This is the fundamental problem with Nietzsche’s ubermensch. Something will come along and pull us on a path away from our humanity.”
Damn.
That is the path of neoliberalism and capitalism.
Zizek speaking like that is pure comedy. That's why people love him.
When security is bad and they accidentally let slightly drunk me into a high-tier world conference.
The thing is, as a Christian I know what hes talking about and it was something I struggled with
I understand. I'm mostly agnostic now but the rest of my family are firm Christians and they seem much happier than me. Someone I look up to once told me "faith isn't faith if there isn't doubt". I'm still searching and I haven't completely abandoned the bible. The story of hope still keeps me going. I tried atheism but I still wasn't sure. I'm also reading about ancient religions and even marchen. I still watch various modern thinkers and people leading in science. I'm trying to keep an open mind while still believing that good/God will win. I'm not sure if what I said makes sense. English isn't my first language but I've been searching and thinking alot recently. Idk I just needed to write my thoughts somewhere
@@chew7656 Greeks didn't really believe Zeus existed. GMO apples at least make you feel like you're part of something bigger than yourself.
If you're a self proclaimed Christian who only believes in the numinous, supernatural stuff; that Jesus rose from the dead, etc, without really living like a Christian acting as if "God"/a Christian value structure (which is the foundation of western civ) exists, do you really believe in God? Similarly if you're an atheist living and acting as if "God"/a Christian value structure exists, you can be thought of as a Christian, perhaps even more so than a lot of those self-proclaimed Christian. It's the practice that matters.
I'm physics student. And I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't believe that there's a bearded man up there that designed the universe. I believe that religions are purely a product of human ingenuity. But still, there's bound to be at least some truth/metaphorical truth in the bible--that helps with how one conducts one's life--that's been turned into stories and documented over millenias, and ultimately into the first book that is the bible.
Humans perceive the world better when there's a narrative tied in, and religion is a necessary work of incredible art that can help us do just that. There are what some call archetypal narratives, experiences distilled into stories of living patterns that's been happening over and over again to millions of people in differing situations/contexts, that's why some stories ring true to you when you read them.
I've been holding myself against at least some value structure in order to live my life. And if that structure is the Western value structure, then it can be argued that I am a Christian.
Watch Jordan Peterson and his biblical lectures, I believe that might help you as well. That's why he hesitated when asked the question if he believes in God, as he doesn't believe in intelligent design. He just left it at "I live my life as if God exists."
It does not really matter if Christ really lived or if he really caused miracles. What matters is the timeless message of love and peace between people. We should all work to love one another and this is a truth that goes much deeper than any scientific or historical fact could ever go.
@@NickHeathcliff It really DOES matter because He gave us a window into seeing why it is that we DON'T love one another. Recall that His first sermon was so clear that anyone, believer or non-believer could understand it; then, by the middle of His ministry His disciples are asking Him why He's now speaking to them only in parables and He says, essentially, that they really don't want to hear it. Then, at the end of His ministry, the night before He's arrested He says, in effect, "You had your chance to hear and didn't want it? Now, you're not going to hear it. Now it's going to be hidden from you."
@@NickHeathcliff umm actually that's the only thing that matters. CHRIST is a title, not a name. And what He said when He was here did not leave room for your mealy mouthed equivocation. He either is the Son of God and thus the author of salvation...or He isn't. There's no middle ground
How do you know that death isn't the greatest thing that's ever gonna happen to you. When you actually die you dissolve into an ocean of infinite love. Death is equivalent to infinite love. Death is equivalent to infinite consciousness. Death is equivalent to God. Death is immortality. Death is paradise or heaven. So the biggest mindfuck of life is to discover that death is actually infinite love. Being and not-being, order and disorder, life and death, light and darkness, masculine and feminine, dry and wet, hot and cold, active and passive, life and death, for example, are mutually arising, interdependent, and complementary aspects of one and the same process. Life contains the seed of death; death the Fertile energizing seed of life.
I might be a little late here, but this really hit different, this is a very unique and fresh point of view, it really made me think in a way no other explanation has... Thank you, have a great day. I appreciate you.
The way Zizek speaks makes me feel represented
Who does this describe?
1. Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:1,2)
2. To a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)
3. Called “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:5,6)
4. Crucified (Psalm 22; Zechariah 12:10)
5. Dies for the sins of the people (Isaiah 53)
6. Before the 2nd Jewish Temple was destroyed (Daniel 9:26)
7. Rises from the dead (Psalm 16:10)
8. Is now seated at the right hand of God the Father (Psalm 110:1)
9. Will be served/worshipped by all peoples (Daniel 7:13,14)
He's all over the fucking place.
For real
Does anyone know which Pierre Vidal-Naquet book he’s referencing at the beginning?
What is the book he is referring to called and who is the author?
Does he mean "Did the Greeks Believe in Their MYTHS?" by Paul Veyne or one by Pierre Vidal-Naquet?
Help, please!
I've been trying to work this out for ages, just leaving a comment in case someone gives an answer
*bump*
@@dimthomosgr yeah he meant the Paul Veyne one
@@samwells3752 Thanks
Genuinely need this guy as an uncle. Our conversations will be too epic😂
It's like he's telling a five different stories at the same time, simultaneously. And then near the end of each of those five stories new five stories emerges. I sweat trying to follow all of it.
0:19 the guy on the left looks like he's merely waiting for Zizek to stop talking so he can absolutely destroy his career with facts and logic, but then he realized Zizek won't ever stop talking so he gives up at 1:22
Koleś mnie zadziwia. Łamie wszystkie zasady retoryki a mimo to chce się go dalej słuchać. Jak to się dzieje?
Bo zahacza o tematy leżące u podstaw.
I didn't understand what he was talking about
Just like this last name.
Slavoj , wrong panel and wrong audience.!
6 suits and one guy in a tshirt he bought 5 years ago
The percentage of videos I’ve seen where the question posed is ever answered has to be below 1.
He’s like a Russian and philosophical Dan Harmon
He's Slovenian
I have no idea what I said but I SURE had a hell of a time listening
This man is so chaotic and clearly disturbed, it’s weird to imagine him living in society!
I love it lol
Socrates had that "problem", most great minds do
@@johnsala1619 Yup, they think too much that's literally why, it's really easy to fall into that endless loop since we realize how fucked up everything is, it's easy to miss the beauty and that happens to most great minds.
He's technically trained in psyscho analysis. But he once had a student once who asked to actually be clinically analyzed by him. Slavoj told him: "You want me as your shrink? You must really have some serious problems."
The book was Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leurs mythes ? (Did the Greeks believe in their mythology ?) by Paul Veyne, not Pierre Vidal Naquet
Put the subtitles on. It's hilarious.
Lmfao
This entire video proves he is the modern Diogenes
The man of Zizek's right is so amused by the sight of him.
I don't know why, but, i love his accent so much.
* Turn on subtitles
Italian (automatically generated)
Sorry, can someone tell me what the paradox was? I didn’t quite catch it.
I really think Zizek is just a less technophile version of Nick Land.
Was there a point somewhere in that word salad?
I thought i was not superficial, until i had to rewatch this thing 3 times to ignore his t-shirt and focus on what he was saying. Smart crazy bastard! XD
In the end he talks about transferring consciousness to a robot so a person can become immortal but the problem is that we don’t know if this is physically possible .
It would maybe be possible if the soul was real. If not then it's not. According to materialist science, consciousness is just emergent from the brain. Like when you "transfer" a file from one computer to another, the file isn't going anywhere it's just being copied onto the new computer, now you have two mostly identical files. You might be able to copy someone's consciousness onto a machine, but the person themselves would still be "on" their own brain and body. To the rest of the world they'd be immortal but the person would die.
And even if the "soul" is real or consciousness can go on without or away from the brain, there's still no telling if you could "put it in" a machine or if you'd even want to.
@@Bane_questionmark yes exactly! Only if consciousness was based on information like the electrochemical function inside the brain they could figure out a way to transfer it to an artificial brain that is made from a long lasting strong material
Can someone please point out the paradox the title said Slavoj would present? I really don’t see it
My interpretation was that we tend to believe things because of how they are useful to us or how they make us feel rather than believing in them because they are true, and we don't really do this voluntarily. So if we just adopt beliefs like this, it's not really believing in the voluntary and praiseworthy sense. The example of Christians believing in God is to say that they think they believe, rather than actually believe in God.
@@pug9431 Interestingly, a common Christian assertion is that atheists think they don't believe in God but actually do deep down, making atheism more of a rebellion against God than an intellectual stance.
@@pug9431 religious nonrealism, this is an intro to philosophy viewpoint
@@tomemery7890 thats why its such a pointless thing to say. "no, you REALLY think X because Y"- how the hell does he know? it goes the other way too. speculation about the "motives" for religious beleif flies in the face of what religion presents itself as, as soon as you begin justifying religion or explaining it through utilitarian or concequentialist means you have lost the sense of it entirely.
@@rabbitrun777
I just want to see evidence that the existence of the proposed distinct neurological state of "nonbelief" in *either* p *or* -p can be demonstrated in some empirically verifiable way.
i think he was referring to Paul Veyne's book Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leurs mythes ?
If this was a wet t-shirt contest he wins hands down.
That's true for the ones who hadn't had a voluntary decision of believing in God and following Christianity
Zizek is such an interesting creature. The contrast between his sweat-soaked, oversized t-shirt and the suits around the table is amazing.
It's not the t-shirt that's oversized. It's him.
It's funny how most of the comment section doesn't understand his message 😂😂😂
Funnier, they are focusing on his looking.
What a superficial world.
If a Christian does not believe in God, they are not a Christian....
Christianity isn't a set of rituals and practices, Christianity is a relationship with God
thats like defining something as "its true trust me". Its no doubt a set of rituals and practices.
Every time I listen to this guy, I am astounded at the reputation he enjoys. He's obviously very excited. I don't know that he said anything profound.
Teaching in a T-Shirt! I just love this dude! I imagine he took a couple of whiffs of that shirt that morning, shrugged, "Good enough." And he's off to the conference.
The only man who can make a room full of wisemen like fools