I would love to see you engage with more philosophers and intellectuals of color- bell hooks, cornel west, Franz FannonJames Baldwin, Audre Lorde, Toni Morrison… they occupy a unique perspective that needs highlighting in these conversations and philosophical tradition. Much love from 🇧🇲
Julian, thank you, this was very interesting and therapeutic, what you are doing means a lot to me. one point up for discussion: 41:00 I think when you drink decaf, you do it for the taste, smell and texture (+wiederholungszwang) which is surplus enjoyment. so the purpose of the usual coffee is to be stimulating here it's removed so it becomes metaphysical . where do you stand on this?
I liked some of the insights here, and found it very interesting. One point of clarification on the Catholic view of sexual pleasure. And far be it from me to defend the Catholic view of sexuality as a total package. But it is worth being correct in our intellectual characterizations. You are mistaken when you say that the Catholic view is that sex should only be done for reproduction, and you further seem to think that Catholics have historically been against sex for the pleasure of it. I was kind of surprised to hear you say this, because this is precisely what was historically behind the much -mocked and famous "rhythm method." In more recent times Pope John Paul II became famous for his "Theology of the Body", which was a rather frank embrace of the robustness of marital physical love , in the most elaborate theological form. Hence, the Catholic Church was and is only against the sexual act not being "open" to possible conception. But this never meant that "doing it" at times when there is less chance of conception --- hence the "rhythm" --- for the enjoyment of sexuality was discouraged. Further, one can see this simply by looking at the most Catholic cultures in Europe, which were always known for their embrace of vigorous sexuality in the confines of marriage. I am no fan of Catholic sexuality in general, but Zizek and you seem to basing part of the critique here on a false premise.
I've always wondered about the zizekian perspective on asexuality, because a lot of women I knew identify as ace, and ofc I support them but its an unathomable postion to relate to personally 😁😁 so this was pretty enlightening
I was attracted by the name Zizek but this lost me on the total bs opening address which signaled the complete ignorance of Constitutional law. And world norms.
Would you elaborate? How do you know and why would anyone care about their knowledge of law? Ain't about philosophy? Besides, international norms? Which international norms do you refer to? Human rights or what? .You mean you like the conclusion the supreme court from the USA has reached?
@@davidesteller I'd recommend Dworkin on truth in interpretation and the Hart / Fuller debate. It takes a few years to see the identity of philosophy and law steming from Draco into Plato and to our own time. You're totally ignorant so either you'll remain so or it will take five to ten years of study to reach a level of conciouness able to grasp the first step. Dixi
@@letdaseinlive It takes a great thinker to explain complex ideas in a short and accessible way. You could at least try to point out what particularly triggered your reaction and what is the set of ideas behind it.
Amazing guys. I love your content. I hope you eventually come to Barcelona (Cat- Es) for a lecture- meeting whatever.
Would love to come to Spain next time
Excellent work!
Great comment on “doing something for the sake of doing it”
Julian towards the end: 😡🤬
Julian at the end: Thank you for watching ☺🙂
I would love to see you engage with more philosophers and intellectuals of color- bell hooks, cornel west, Franz FannonJames Baldwin, Audre Lorde, Toni Morrison… they occupy a unique perspective that needs highlighting in these conversations and philosophical tradition.
Much love from 🇧🇲
Julian, thank you, this was very interesting and therapeutic, what you are doing means a lot to me. one point up for discussion: 41:00 I think when you drink decaf, you do it for the taste, smell and texture (+wiederholungszwang) which is surplus enjoyment. so the purpose of the usual coffee is to be stimulating here it's removed so it becomes metaphysical . where do you stand on this?
I liked some of the insights here, and found it very interesting. One point of clarification on the Catholic view of sexual pleasure. And far be it from me to defend the Catholic view of sexuality as a total package. But it is worth being correct in our intellectual characterizations. You are mistaken when you say that the Catholic view is that sex should only be done for reproduction, and you further seem to think that Catholics have historically been against sex for the pleasure of it. I was kind of surprised to hear you say this, because this is precisely what was historically behind the much -mocked and famous "rhythm method." In more recent times Pope John Paul II became famous for his "Theology of the Body", which was a rather frank embrace of the robustness of marital physical love , in the most elaborate theological form. Hence, the Catholic Church was and is only against the sexual act not being "open" to possible conception. But this never meant that "doing it" at times when there is less chance of conception --- hence the "rhythm" --- for the enjoyment of sexuality was discouraged. Further, one can see this simply by looking at the most Catholic cultures in Europe, which were always known for their embrace of vigorous sexuality in the confines of marriage. I am no fan of Catholic sexuality in general, but Zizek and you seem to basing part of the critique here on a false premise.
"We should make a verbal agreement to only kiss each other" - Say Anything, "Crush'd" 😹
I've always wondered about the zizekian perspective on asexuality, because a lot of women I knew identify as ace, and ofc I support them but its an unathomable postion to relate to personally 😁😁 so this was pretty enlightening
😍 thank you so much for this
Love you guys!!!!!?
31:50 What is the sketch's name?
I would like to know also
I was attracted by the name Zizek but this lost me on the total bs opening address which signaled the complete ignorance of Constitutional law. And world norms.
Would you elaborate? How do you know and why would anyone care about their knowledge of law? Ain't about philosophy? Besides, international norms? Which international norms do you refer to? Human rights or what? .You mean you like the conclusion the supreme court from the USA has reached?
@@davidesteller I'd recommend Dworkin on truth in interpretation and the Hart / Fuller debate. It takes a few years to see the identity of philosophy and law steming from Draco into Plato and to our own time. You're totally ignorant so either you'll remain so or it will take five to ten years of study to reach a level of conciouness able to grasp the first step. Dixi
@@letdaseinlive It takes a great thinker to explain complex ideas in a short and accessible way. You could at least try to point out what particularly triggered your reaction and what is the set of ideas behind it.
explain in a way that doesnt make u sound like a meanie
@@reubencanningfinkel5922 If you're too arrogant to study the worse for you. Dixi