Slavoj Žižek by Marcus Pound
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2013
- Complete videos are available on the St John's Timeline, which was relaunched in Autumn 2021. It comprises of over 200 full videos with improved subtitles from leading philosophers and theologians. You can subscribe for £22 (£15 concessions) per year. Institutional subscriptions are also available. stjohnstimeline.org/
Marcus Pound is very listenable, with great clarity as a teacher, and the charisma and humour to engagingly explore philosophical ideas. Thanks St. Johns College, Nottingham, for this and other lectures, so professionally delivered.
Thank you for such a clear introduction to Zizek!
This is really great. Only begun to dive into the realm of philosophy (introduced to me by Zizek) and this video really helped me understand him better.
Absolutely fascinating, thank you
This is fantastic. Thanks.
That was a solid introduction to Zizek, very well done; clear, concise, and to the point.
Really awesome video, I finally understand what zizek was talking about with Christianity! Thanks!
Thank you for the insightful lecture.
Wow! Your diction is SO PALATABLE!! I LOVE IT! Thanks
Wish I'd found these videos a long time ago. Really great summaries with additional independent analysis.
Thanks for making and posting the video
Fantastic explanation!
A film set in a post-capitalist society: Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Doug, you Trekkie
Where the entire future seems run by one large military federation, the only exceptions being evil outsiders? Sounds like fascism hiding behind a thin veneer of liberalism to me.
@@maofas I think fascism has too may specific features relating to notions of strength, hygiene and rejuvenation to be pinned to militarism. It's certainly a post-capitalist society though, notice that that was the challenge? Not to name a socialist society, specifically.
I disagree. Intergalactic wars are always waging in Star Trek, wars based on accumulating the other's capital or key resources.
Well, at least is pretends to...
this is great! thanks very much
This is remarkably clear.
Marcus just buy himself a first class ticket for gulag! ...:) he was so nice boy! :D
Wow this was really insightful and gave me a somewhat new perspective on christianity and what the Jesus myth symbolizes. Even though i still doubt that the meaning that was unraveled here, was the original way the authors wanted that myth to be understood, but that doesn't change the fact that this was a very interesting video.
I keep meaning to read Pound's book on Zizek...
Were can I find Marcus Pound on the internet please? This guy is so interesting and humble .
Lol 4 years late but if you're still interested, you might be able to access this page:
www.durham.ac.uk/staff/m-j-p-pound/
now I wont be able to watch more youtube until im done with this channel content, thank you!
Lacorn? Whose that?
+ishinadish Lacan. He's a British accent.
*Lacong
@@astralacuity I’m a British accent too and I don’t say Le Corn.
Why did Lacan jump up and stroke his patient's cheek at that moment? I missed the point that was being made there. Can anyone fill that in (it's toward the end of the video)?
The memory load of the experience is enriched or fused with something positive that makes its return less vicious.
There is the idea in Lacan that words (signifiers) are charged with a morbid, traumatic satisfaction, called by Lacan Jouissance (the real); the stroke is a kind of interpretation that play with words : gestapo = jest a po= geste a peau, literally gesture on the skin. The geste a peau without obliterating the trauma aattach to it a new signification
Are we usually very critical about what philosophers tell us, to a point where we expand on their idea to see how practical they really are or do we accept ideas depending on how well they align to our personal beliefs?
Practicality, pragmatism, and positivism are "ideas" as well. The only reality outside dogmas is the reality of thought. To bypass this we should be humble enough to dialogue upon our way of living according to some social level reality but not imposing way of thinking.
The universe is not meaningless, the universe is infinitely meaningful. I'm absolutely not saying there is one Grand Plan for Humanity, just the opposite. The fact that one can derive meaning for one's life exemplifies the fact that there must be an "a priori" level of meaning from which it's derived. Secularism derives this meaning to be that THIS LIFE is precious and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness with the least expense to others should be our goal. Consumerism is its antithesis.
Maybe watch the video?
Linguist here. That effect of a term as a locus of ideology, such as in the boy named Sue, has everything to do with the sociological aspects of language, rather than inherent properties of linguistic representation itself. This is because the sign is arbitrary (cf Saussure). I don't think Pound denied this but I just wanted to make it more clear.
4:45 Ari Gold - Entourage
wow.... will observe.....love the moving of christ's death to modern tender.... very good.,
A short introductory talk of Slavoj Zizek. This is quite good, quite lucid, as a condensation of Zizek's work, although I'm not sure how I like this format of a guy talking before a changing backdrop of image in this lecture series.
8 years later and the video essay is standard format on youtube lol
I love that he disappears at the very end.
indeed. Up his own arse.
as someone once said : "philosophy is a team sport"
absorbing.
Life has no meaning - its up to us to give it meaning. I think Sartre said something to that effect.
If you are sure this is the case why appeal to Sartre's authority? Are you unsure? And where do we get meaning from - nowhere? If not nowhere it must gave come from somewhere and therefore you didn't give it.
c.r russell that argument is good. but meaning is on the bases of happiness, so yes we can insert our happiness onto life where'as life does not infact have motives with anything to do with our happiness. I think this is the point of the quote.
lovetownsend Understanding life, in any meaningful sense, requires understanding that the human experience is the composite of language conceptualisation. Thus, the meaning of a proposition is determined by it's use in a phrase. From this lens, happiness is stripped of any true platonic essence: your life is void once more.
The only logical conclusion is a life devoted to writing. To grapple with the Zeitgeist of meaning, if only for a hint of its musk, is the twilight of your salvation.
Sean Spain I don't know why you would think conceptualizing language is the whole of human experience, it is only required for understanding conscious ideas not subconscious feelings. life can be understood without construct ideas.
then your poetic point I don't make much dramatic meaning of :p but good opinion before that.
The notion of language as a medium for conveying subconscious feelings is one that has been massively problematized. From Wittgenstein onwards really. And before that.
As for the primacy of language to the human experience: language is essential to our experience; we wouldn't have the faculties to order, discern, and operate in the world around us. At least not in any meaningfully human capacity. The ineffable is meaningless. And the effable, is language..
The poetry is for all us humanities grads- We, the constructors of language, the architects of reality!
Finally a lame suppostation of the meaning of life. I love this guy so much I hope that I can meet him in my own personal hell.
I want the rest of this for free , please
A movie based on a post-scarcity post-capitalist society would actually be 'The Last Mimzy' minus the magical elements.
You could never be seven years too late
where is the rest?
sorry, why do we need to go thro xty [ and the incarnation] in order to have an incomplete [half baked] materiality?
1 fully baked materiality to go please.
and nature [physics] may never be be fully explicable David Rohm
However the Boy named Sue story is written by another human and has another meaning on top of it all...(cracked.c5m, i think)
never heard of Stark Trek eh? :P
Love is selfish... ( Zizek)
I accept the absurdity of creating meaning where there is fundamentally none. Otherwise, what else is there for man?
I think we can get to the bottom of this but we would need to find the true axioms of the world.
keep dreaming
Where does Hegel talk about "the dark night of the soul"? Don't remember that outside of St John the Cross. Maybe he meant "the highway of despair"? But that is something entirely different. The real question, maybe, is why listen to anything on Continental Philosophy from England?
Dawkins explicitly does not replace God with another form of intelligence
Yes, quite common to hear such dribble. People who understand evolution don't need to put an intelligence into everything.
+Per Sundström yes, because evolution is such a complex topic that only a handful of enlightened minds like yourselves are gifted with the clarity and wisdom the rest of us, mere mortals, can only dream to grasp in a fleeting stroke of genius, escaped out of your higher realm, one day!
It's quite annoying to hear it over and over again. I am not a genius and it doesn't take one to figure out the fault in it such an argument.
Neither am l, and yes it is annoying.
+Per Sundström well, do you really think that guy is unable to see it? that he does not understand evolution? or for god's sake, meme theory? I think his not saying at all that evolution needs some sort of intelligent being, or that Dawkins thinks that. To me it's vary clear he is suggesting something much more subtle, lurking in the language atheists like him tend to engage when replacing these necessity of an absolute or a power or source of meaning with what they see as a purely materialistic idea. I mean, in a way all these is subconscious and unintended, but the, lets call it, religious inertia remains even though as an impulse to reject traditional religious beliefs. Like Pauli would say about Dirac: if I understand Dirac correctly, there is no God, and Dirac is his prophet. Or as Nietzsche put it in many ways throughout his works. Please be aware this man is not stupid and he wouldn't make a ridiculous assumption like the one you're suggesting, that most likely the problem resides in that you're not looking hard enough.
Far more interesting is the relationship between atheism and capitalism.
Star Trek. You're welcome.
10:17- But don't you get superstition with Christianity as well- what about practices such as exorcism?
The pop atheist's just replace God with science and nature. And approach it with the infatuation of a school age crush.
Luke Hessler what utter twaddle. Science changes its mind when presented with new evidence, There lies the difference between scientific endeavour and religious faith.
just you wait for that theory of everything!
I may have done this myself, Luke Hessler. It was not mere infatuation because I see profound beauty in the cosmos. I have come to believe in God. (I never imagined this happening.) It was Jordan Peterson's discussion of what we don't know and my interpretation of Noam Chomsky's discussion on where language comes from.
Of this, I am skeptical. :)
@@coreycox2345 'Jordan Peterson' Oh, dear...
And what's stopping transhumanism from creating a trinity via quantum computer? What would Islam think of that? If anything that would disprove, it would be any sense of beyond.
all this talk of getting rid of the master-signifier and thinking post-metaphysically makes Zizek look like a post-structuralist, or even a deconstructionist. but zizek himself, when he uses those two terms, always makes fun of deconstructionists and post-structuralists.
a science documentary about the cosmos "presupposes at an implicit level a certain kind of intelligence to how things are generating and developing"? ....what?
+umadumadumad well looks like someones belief has been questioned..
+umadumadumad Yes I turned off at this point.
The idea is a little interesting to me, but are you sure you and Pound aren't just projecting your own beliefs onto others? It seems a little presumptuous to claim that you know what other people believe better than they do. If people claim they don't believe that there is "a certain kind of intelligence to how things are generating and developing", then what proof do you have that they don't? You are making an assumption. You are saying you think you know what they believe better than they do. Which, maybe you do, but your vague example is not enough to convince me. Are you saying that if you heard someone say "gravity pulls", you would automatically assume that they believe that there is an "intelligence" and "agency" going on behind the scenes? That gravity "intends" something to happen? That if someone says "the sun sets", it automatically means that the sun intends to set, or God intends the sun to set? Sure, maybe nature documentaries presuppose "at an implicit level a certain kind of intelligence to how things are generating and developing"... TO YOU. But not to me, and probably not to the people who made the documentary.
"Everyone believes nature is that perfect self-sustainable system in which everything works in harmony and if man didn't intervene everything would be perfect for animals." uh... what?
+umadumadumad He is not saying a materialistic point of view is "secretly" about a sort of intelligence or being, no, he's saying the mechanics of the language they use to describe their anti-theistic world tends to follow the same patterns used by the religious dogma, while pretending to claim the opposite they organize themselves and their discourse in the same manner, even when they do not realize the similarity themselves.
And what is that Post Metaphysical god you're talking about?....way to say nothing...like Zizek....or did I missed it? Scratches head.
Why does he pronaunce s as š sometimes thats worse for me than listening to žižeks english.
The suggestion that science's "fixation with nature" represents a replacement for god is pretty weak when presented right next to the parent-gods of psychoanalysis. Like, the guy literally goes from leaning in and snearing during his science impression, then lays back and starts acting all serious espouting well of course what's happening in psychoanalysis, it's not like that, we just have, like, "master signifiers", like the mother, and the father. Also using Dawkins near the phrase "presupposes at an implicit level a certain type of intelligence" is just plain weird given he wrote a book whose subtitle is "Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design", which argues precisely against presupposing an intelligent Universe.
You're upset he commit blaspheme against your god ?
@@AN-it8dp erm, I'm not a fan of Dawkins at all (can't stand the vitriolic diatribes on religion), nor did I say I was. Even if I was, the point would still stand that he wrote a whole book (the blind watchmaker) specifically about nature being without design or guide. There's plenty to criticise Dawkins over, but claiming he implicitly recreates god as a natural force of some intelligent design is utterly ridiculous and suggests some seriously sloppy reading (it helps to be familiar with the texts you're criticising, no?)
In fact Dawkins later expressed regret at the title because it appeared still to personify the arbitrary nature of reality, causing people like yourself and others to proclaim he backs some kind of concept of design, which is literally the complete opposite of the thesis of the book.
But thanks for the misplaced ad hominem. Top tip though: If you're going to slag people off over the internet, at least get it right instead of baseless clutching at straws.
Mr. Pound, outstanding! Thx!
IMHO, the only thing you missed is his recent effort to tie in quantum mechanics into the Hegelian dialectic interpretation of reality/emancipatory potential. TH-cam: "Slavoj Zizek "On Jacques Lacan" (Full Lecture)" Starting at 1h 41m 40s
Recall his Plato to NATO joke - Plato (really Democritus) suspected the Copenhagen Interpretation, only now we are proving it (e.g., Higgs).
Zizek (I think) believes this helps solve the materialist-metaphysical paradox.
"Can you imagine a film set in a post-capitalist society?"
Of course. "Mad Max."
"We find it easier to imagine the end of the world."
Which is a post-capitalist society.
mad max is not an imagination of a post-capitalistic society, it's a fantasized world in which certain characteristics of human behavior are exaggerated and others diminished or even nullified, simplified, to manipulate the narrative exposing as a result some main criticism against modern society. In no way the world they present is a realistic attempt to imagine a well constructed society, and in any case they tend to reflect some sort of pre-capitalistic community to fill out precisely that blank which takes over when we try to outdo the ideological castle we're in.
What if it is not post-capitalism, but neo-capitalism? Post-capitalism would imply that there is no capitalism anymore, neo-capitalism would say that it is just a new form. Well, first one must define capitalism at its core to say which one of them it is.
What if "well constructed society" is a pipedream? No, not a pipedream, a siren song?The thing is: I have no idea what a "capitalist movie" is, unless it is any movie trying to earn more than was spent on it, in which case almost all (but not all) movies would be capitalist.I strongly suspect that Zizek doesn't know what it is any more than I do.
This sort of "end of history" nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
mad max is a pre capitalistic society viewed from the lens of a capitalistic society staged in the future, there is nothing about a post capitalistic ideology in the movie
lakorn
This conversation about imagining how would be a Hollywood movie in a post-capitalist society is the source of wishful thinking or mental onanism that does not generate any insight or lead to anywhere. Zizek seems to delight himself with inconsequential idle ideas.
M. Night Shyamalan's, The Village, is about a post-capitalist society.
I think Star Trek is too. There was a cracked article about how that would be a dystopia.
The Village is actually a non-capitalist society without market ideology, or ideological in-betweens such as communism or socialism. However, a small self-sustainable communities such as the one showed there exist today, too. Children of Men is about a post-apocalyptic society, where apocalypse is inability of women to bear children; everything collapsed, but the "Britain is marching on" and we see people at work, it's just a pretty cruel working and social environment. It's post-capitalist in the sense of evolution of capitalism, not its replacement. Star Trek, on the other hand, is plainly post-capitalist, but we don't really see how the stuff works, how the problems have been solved, etc. E.g. who manufactures and pays for all those spaceships?
***** Witty, but incomplete :).
Children of men is about aftermath of a medical catastrophe or condition, not about what a society where we will transition consciously and democratically (I hope.) away from capitalism will look like.
if you're baffled by the association of religion and capitalism, read Max Webers "Der Geist des Kapitalismus" (the spirit of capitalism), or one of Marx's critiques of religion. christianity is actually not THAT prominent in Zizek's work, people always mention it because they're so baffled by a postmodern marxist-materialist's admiration of Jesus Christ, I guess. looking at people's favorite color sounds like something zizek might have done xD no, but seriously: check out his work.
"Its very interesting watching science programs about the nature of the evolution of stars(and things) how often it presupposes at an implicit level a certain kind of intelligence to how things are generating and developing. This for Zizek is too metaphysical." It is stuff like this that makes me distrustful and suspicious of him as well as other philosophers in his tradition. I dont think that Zizek is the worst culprit by a longshot, and I need to read much more before I can be sure, but for now I cant tell whether they really have an understanding of the world that I dont have, or whether they are deliberately making things less clear in order to peddle bullshit.
On the one hand, Zizek asserts an interpretation of Christianity which gives it a surprising amount of interest and relevance. However, is this the sole correct interpretation which would necessarily come to with sufficient study and consideration? Unlikely. Christianity is always changing and being reinvented as it is adopted by new people, as well as absorbing new elements. It has been many things in its time, and this is just one more way of reframing it.
On the other hand the science program example could be interpreted as reading something into the dialectic of science which may not be there at all, in order to critique in and supersede it(it sometimes seems as though scientists and philosophers are engaged in a battle over precedence with regards to truth, which is really a battle for power. A battle which the scientists are mostly not aware of but the philosophers probably are).
Its not that things are generated or developed *by* an intelligence, but that things are generated and develop *in* an intelligible fashion. This enhances the awe and sense of wonder that someone like an astrophysicist might feel in contemplation of the universe. The ultimate source of this awe and wonder is no doubt the same corner of the human mind that gives rise to the religious impulse. However, in the modern example man beholds the universe and is free to feel wonder(if he is able) without the positing the existence of a supersensible third element *that he will be at risk of being mistaken about*. This last aspect is key. Because one simply cannot dispense with using abstract concepts and layers of analogy to understand a material universe. Hence it it likely that one will always stray into metaphysics.
Thus the philosopher who tries to create a clear division between materialism and metaphysics(without having their own acknowledged metaphysical system) and then excise metaphysics entirely like an exorcist trying to banish a spirit from a victim of possession may be at risk of being ridiculous. At the least, it can be said that there is nothing in the example of the scientist extolling the majesty and intelligibility of the universe that is not a part of human nature and built upon by human knowledge. But some in Zizeks tradition would probably claim that there is no such thing as human nature and question the validity of knowledge. They would say things about language and construction and ideology, arguing in a way which seems to me perversely very metaphysical and ideological.
It's wrong that we find it easier to make an apocalyptic movie than a post-apocalyptic one. There are tons of both and no reason why the one should be easier than the other, other than by share chance of circumstances.
Capitalism strikes me as a process of evolution above all else, not something derived from religion. Natural selection of businesses. So to compare them I would necessitate empirical evidence they require each other. There maybe some very 'nice' patterns that come from them both, some correlation, but capitalism strikes me as strictly evolutionary. Apologies, I don't have time to read essays or books, was simply checking if there was a crude argument for it.
LAKORN!
It was misleading
You look and talk like a Mark. So youre nearly there.
Can some give me a strong clear non-technical reason as to why Christianity and Capitalism are not independent from one and other?
...Does it not strike a rational person as ludicrously warped to tackle capitalism through Christianity.
Christianity is dying in the western world. There have been papers showing religion does not survive in democratic countries. I'm just baffled by the association of religion and Capitalism, I'd put it on par with looking at peoples favourite colour to understand capitalism. Religion has been distributed globally over many economies and to say religion and economic theory go hand in hand maybe has the tiniest reasoning behind it but I cannot see it as being the main method of tackling capitalism.
Star Trek doesn't depict any kind of society. It is not even set on Earth.
Christ came to puncture every human endeavor, including Capitalism.
Eclectic, muddled, semi-insightful nonsense. Philosophy has degenerated into cleverness and novelty. - Chomsky on Lacan is pretty hilarious.
Stalinist philosopher.