what you can do is just type zizek in the search bar and filter the results by upload date and length (over 20 minutes) to find the most recent long form videos
lol I do this every so often. I’m always excited to be able to listen to a great Zizek lecture. I’ve listened to as many as I can, I still find hidden ones with low view counts I’ve missed. It’s a great feeling finding one I haven’t heard yet.
His talks at universities are the best... He goes into more depth, develops his arguments more, gives more ecamples... I wish he would do tgat in media interviews too
As a Buddhist, I have to agree with Zizek on the Gita. I was horrified when I first read that passage he quotes as a child, and as an adult I have to say we should still be horrified. It is ultimately a justification for the kshatriya warrior caste’s existence. Buddha’s spiritual revolution was to deny this- deny caste, deny violence, and preach the practice of ahimsa. Any later adoption of this by Hindu philosophy is just that, an adoption
wow - thanks for this insightful response.. any chance u could expand on your experience as a buddhist a bit more ? how were you brought into it as a child?
@@nnnnsaakadamanas218 I found the Dhammapada on the bookshelf of a bookstore at the age of 11 and became immersed myself in the texts and the culture. Now I am semi-fluent in Tibetan and a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner but deeply respect all schools. And also don't get me wrong, I understand the Brahminic base of Buddhism and respect the Hindu tradition. I even enjoy reading the Vedas etc. But I do not like that passage in the Gita.
The knot with Zizek is that you never really know how to evaluate any of his works. The dialectical serpent behind his train of thoughts is always elusive. You never know, for example, when the "hardline communist" interpretation of Antigone would be his favorite one. You never know what subtle twist he's gonna perform to his topics. In other words, Zizek and his elusive dialectical serpect amount to something akin to Derrida's style: "oh, you didn't quite understand me here! Let me tell you what you've missed!". Even after 12 years of studying him, I'm still not able to predict his readings (apart from the more obvious "it's the opposite/quite on the contrary" moments).
As much as people seen to think he is too deep, I don't find Zizek to be the obscurantist people claim he is. I even think he is not that hard to understand or very "intelectualy deep", but in a good way. When he argues a point, he often presents very real scenarios and offers realistic perspectives and solutions. I don't think his current theory of global action is that difficult to imagine or put in practice, for example; it is quite similar to some ideas that a guy like Yanis Varoufakis (who he namedrops here) is also spousing in his writings. They have similar arguments of a transformed capitalism that is no longer held to democratic liberalism. Fredric Jameson argued that the seeds of the current state of affairs really were sowed when Bretton Woods was finished (and quite at similar times when the western left found out they would never have a Marxist utopia with the Soviet Union), an argument echoed by both Zizek and Varoufakis in other interviews. So there is even a current tradition of a line of thought there.
I am never as proud to be Slovenian as i am when i hear Žižek speak. Its witty, smart, direct, funny, deep, profound, understandable, relevant and true. If only he didnt touch his nose 10 000 in 2 hours i might even have considered to build a shrine and pray for his health. Long live the Caesar Žižek ! Long live the truth seekers all around the world !
what many hosts don’t understand is that best Zizek talks are ones where it’s mainly him speaking without any disturbances. outstanding host, many thanks 🙏
@@calumoconnor7794 Hmm, its a bit nuanced, he is also condemned for being antisemitic and kinda in order to counter this he spoke in favour of Israel defending itself. But to be fair, saying Israel has the right to defend itseld does not necessarily mean he is the biggest supporter :p
@@arthurmartinson4370 gotta respect the man whose first sentence in his most famous novel(The Stranger)is; - "Mother is dead." I haven't read English version,but that's the essence,☠️
He's widely recognised. Those that find him clownish have a point, too: the clown is the only one at court who can speak the truth without being punished - never underestimate a clown
The advantage of democracy is *not* that majorities never make mistakes (as, for example, in xenophobically cracking down on immigration). It’s that, when they do, they can learn from those mistakes and correct them. And the gamble is the equilibriums achieved by democratic processes are more ethical and enduring than top-down 'monarchial' impositions.
Min 31: I’m the guy who posted on reddit. Zizek mentions it like “an attack on him” but I start my post saying “I love Zizek”. It wasn’t an attack, I love and admire this guy and I will continue to read this guy.
I don’t think he meant you were “attacking” him unfairly or to harshly, I think he just uses the word “attack” as a synonym for criticize. He engaged with your criticism as though it were a genuine and well intentioned one, but he just disagreed with your position. All round, a good example of how online discourse affects real world discussions which then affect online discourse and so on and so on.
Zizek, as I perceive him from time to time, is definitely not too much obsessed with decisive details. Precisely such which could make a difference in his own positioning. One has to remain critical about what he wants teach us. p.s.: I appreciate him also very much. He's got quite some points in his talks.
...ok but what about your thoughts on his counter arguments? Ofc you don't have to share it here. But you also don't have to imagine yourself registered in the Big Other as some "Zizek hater" or something. Zizek's position, following Hegel, has always been that one's act and externalized thought, not one's inner life, is what matters. I might be wrong but your comment seems like an unconscious disavowal.
@@oafish3989 He never said the Buddhist "concentration on the self" distracts you from signing up for a great cause. His point is almost the opposite, that as a neutral technique, Buddhism rids a man of the moral responsibility for what he does, thereby enabling him to do anything (financial speculation or killing). In this sense he attacks all religions (and communism) for the same reason, if the said faith gives you a way out of the moral dilemma - "I killed in the name of God/historical necessity, or I didn't really kill you, it was just a dance of phenomena/our souls are immortal", whatever. His "preference" for Christianity is really what he does with all adversary ideas - he dismantle it from within. His point is that the core of Christianity is atheist without a big Other (God dies on the cross). That means even if you are doing something horrible (or great), you don't get to excuse yourself with any reference to a higher cause. In case you wonder, this is not a position that all Christians agree upon. I can well imagine that the fundamentalists aren't gonna be happy to hear what he says. He is not trying to sell Christianity as the best religion, but the best atheism. If you can find similar existential position in other religions, feel free to do it. What he cares about is only whether or not you still need some big Other as an ultimate guarantee for everything that happens.
The ability to hyper coordinate global power, whether it is social, economic, politically, and technologically in a structural form, a lever is provided to those not qualified or contextually authorized to assert let alone under its own prerogatives. There is complexity in today's elevated normative functions in every sphere have a displacement effect, where a loaf a bread 100 years ago required tens of people to realize in some form of exchange, now requires .00001 persons to achieve the same.
Actually, support for a Palestinian state is the official policy of the German government, always has been. It's just that the Netanyahu apologists were able to manipulate German guilt and fear of anti-Semitism, but that's been wearing off for a while now.
1:13:08 what is the difference between Zizek's "universality" and metaphysical idealism? The masses need to be convinced of Reality one step at a time! They won't be able to unsee it once they do see it!
Pro-monarchy body along with democracy? Good thinking. But how come Žižek, who is old enough, doesn't remember, elaborate and instead of monarchy puts forward the ancient Greek democracy experience with the "COUNCIL OF THE WISE", a body of smart old men without political power but absolute power for moral and ethical issues etc.? There is a surplus of wise and experienced people in each country who are excluded from decision making, as only the ones representing some kind of actual economical interest are admitted to decision making. He, as a philosopher, should propose such a thing before those who are in power now to get it eventually accepted into the system. They'd spoil the idea "on the input" as any other proposals so far to change the state of affairs in the democracy of the so-called western type. It should not be a "reinvention of hot water" taken from the old Greeks but a critical analysis of how that had worked out for them and how it could be expected to function nowadays and how properly introduced into today's democracy. Another experience from the old Greeks, potentially useful for "correcting" the nowadays democracy, would be a novel use of OSTRACISM. In the era of INTERNET it should be relatively easy to reinvent it without the actual use of the broken pottery etc... The idea should be not the temporary banishment from the society of potential dictators (nowadays they don't consider themselves dictators, they exclude voluntarily from the society by living in fortified haciendas, flying private jets etc.) but to exclude them from gaining political power and preventing them from making harm to the people and the planet, force them to just enjoy their wealth etc.. Maybe, just maybe in this way the power of the most wealthy could be reduced not only for the sake of most of us but also for their own benefit: still better than a scene with a crowd of dissatisfied people coming to them to scratch out their eyes, breaking fences on their way etc... The third proposal of mine is for the Slavoy to finally take time and watch the OPPENHEIMER, or at least the sexual scene he is referring to in its entirety. He definitely gives too much credit to the philosophical issues involved.
if you are proposing democracy after hearing zizek for 2 hours, go listen again. Autoritarianism is the only way foward and the only way to deal with problems emerging right now. Zizek talks a lot about Global warming, AI regulation, biogenetics and so on, and how this presents problems to humans that can only be solved through regulation across the globe and strong centralized states. Think about china's response to the crise of 2020, a strong govt. like theirs can just impose lockdown and deal with this problem, while democracies failed to impose even vaccination in its own population.
Shouldn't we treat the Western attitudes towards military sacrifice similar to enjoyment of torture? It struck me always as somewhat "medieval" the way WW1, WW2 and others are celebrated: in the UK: death cult around the Cenotaph (an empty shell of a prop!), USA - same. Celebrations commemorating the sacrifice make no mention of the fact the fallen had zero choice and were almost exclusively poor, working class (rich people's kids got desk jobs - original keyboard warriors!). Very similar to the way Iran celebrates their student "martyrs" who the mullahs sent to clear minefields by walking through them in the 1980s. I see little difference between that and what prof. Zizek mentions about the orthodox priest's blessing. Note to the sound recordist: I feel that, if you wanted to include the laughter, its volume should be at 50% at most so the sound of the room is not so pronounced.
At 01:00:30 he mentiones a recent picture taken, actually showing gaza being bombed with humanitarian airdrop parachuting in the background. Does someone has a link? I can not find the picture.
Germany was hysterical after October 7th. It wasn't possible to make an argument. Were Zizek to return now, he would find a very different environment.
Singapore is a lot of things, but it is not fascist. Fascism is strongly centered around racial and cultural identity and it used minorities as a patsy to appease its majority supporters. The Singaporean government has laser focus on integrating the Chinese, Indian and Malay subpopulations. They are painfully aware that any sectarian strife would destroy the country. Singapore is certainly not a real democracy and its penal system is one of the most brutal in the world when it comes to drug crimes. It is also not a socialist country by any means, but it has a working social contract: a citizen who behaves does reap a lot of benefits from the state. It provides social stability, quality housing, quality healthcare and quality education. People who are not bothered by living in a nanny state are getting a good nanny in return. As long as that stays the way it is, Singapore is a good place to live.
He really should give up on his points about "woke" culture, I don't think wondering if "third world" is pc is an effective use of anyone's time. Regardless of your stance on it I think it usually just detracts from his better points on more important issues. That being said he does seem to focus less on it lately.
Part 1 (Up to 17:00 mins in). I presented a maxim to myself to lay of his politics stuff for a while, but is it possible to be Kantian today? The notion of "Surplus enjoyment" is from Lacan and is a reworking of Marx's notion of "surplus value". In Marx "surplus value" is an excess from the Real, the Real is that which returns to itself. It is at once the externalisation as a Universalisation of what is really only an historical contingency. For example the naturalisation, eternalisation, of the "normal" family for humanity, when it is merely the most efficient way of reproducing labour at a particular moment or phase in economic progress. I think this means for Marx a kind of alienated but "inert" (me) fetishism, it plays no feed back or return role to the Real, which is of course economic materialism. For Lacan on the other hand the psychoanalytic notion of "surplus value" its self, of something like a pleasure beyond simple utility, does return to effect the psychological base. This suggests a kind of anti foundationalism, since the psychological base is always already "effected" (me) by its own surplus. We cannot experience objects that are not always already "presented" to us though the effect of their "errored or "fetishized" excess. So neither of my two books on Zizek: Zizek: A Critical Introduction by Sarah Kay; and Zizek: A guide for the Perplexed by Sean Sheehan, have "Surplus value" in their indexes. That is odd since I'm sure it is a key concept or tool for Zizek. I mean if it was in the index it would make life easier, in the sense of a quick reference before stampeding to Wikipedia. If it was in the index it could be said to be a surplus value to the text that makes no difference to the text itself. But on the other hand does an index make a difference to a text, a difference that "changes" the text at once. You know when you get a new book you do straight to the index to look up key words, or in a shop or online they usually give you the index for "free" perhaps as an "advert" for the book. Indeed one can imagine a writer begging with the most searched words on a subject they intend to write about, and then writing the index first and the book as an excuse. They might even think of a really good book title before writing the book. I bet Derrida has said this somewhere probably in his "Truth in Painting" and essays on "Framings". The account of “surplus value” I have already drawn on I’ve got from Zizeks “The Sublime Object of Ideology” (1989) an early book then. It’s called out on pages 50-55. It’s fairly clear if you already know Kant Hegel Marx Freud and Lacan as well as Zizek. If you are not part of, or have ever been in, this “inner intellectual sanctum” you will not understand it, and the New Young Communists will be able to enjoy making you look like a fool like you don’t belong. There is though a cure, or penitence for this shame: the offer to join if you’ve got a few years. Then you too can be the first one on your block to shame your ignorant neighbours. Opps sorry! I’m enjoying myself too much. Ask yourself if this last a paragraph has changed the first two now, so you can never read them for the first time again.ie they are not then simply introductory paragraphs or axioms. It too late for that now. This discourse by Zizek is not really a talk to give information and enlightenment, its more like a “Speech Act” (J.L. Austin) or Performance (J. Butler) a clever doing (is clever being used as an adverb here?), an instruction, a training. It looks like just an education but the aim is action, that is your action, to join in, not so much the “inner intellectual sanctum” but join the writing Comments Activism on this You Tube video, then gradually to join in the Street Protests, and who knows, or better walks to where that will end? We can begin with on line video games and end up on a real battle field. The intellectual background, note not foundation, though can be leapfrogged. You can bring your kids along to the Street Protest and have them shout out some meme based on “surplus enjoyment”. It might be good training for future activist to become actualised in their post facto self-conscious potential. Hell they might even go to University, get a PhD, and teach this to students of their own. That is become trainers in praxis, not givers of knowledge, and Critique. Their job is to “change the world not understand it” as someone once said. A lecturer as “Speech Agent” might say to the students “speaking as a Zizekian “I am” for Zizek’s ideas” or better, graduate to acting like a Zizekian “I do” become a legal representative, and advocate for some group or groups. I am “not a Zizekain” and I am “not doing Zizekainsim” here, but can I really do a not doing a Zizekainsm? Well yes I can ‘cos it’s too late for me I’ve read loads of his stuff, and watched loads of his video’s. I’ve even seen him live asked him to explain how Hegel can account for inner determination in Kant. Musty that be only a negative or a hole for Hegel’s sublimation of all things familiar into an excess of law as justice, and science as Speculative efficiency? Gosh its all gone a bit Ad hominon, but is that a genuine a historical limit for Communists? Or just a stage I’m at. Is ad homion a mere contingent fallacy of our local conventions and academic mores to be junked when the time is just right? The appropriate time to change what is appropriate.
Part 2 Was it good judgement when it was deemed the appropriate moment to appropriate the kids into the political conflict, march them from their private inner family sanctum into the public arena. Who made such a judgment? Do they have a name? A reference? Will they be in the index of some book to come? What kinds of “surplus enjoyment” do these teachers and media presenters get from all this quickening. It’s clearly a practice or praxis, far and away from Kant’s sublime or Wittgenstein’s therapy. I want to turn to some of these “teachers” and “media presenters” but first a new legal limit must be “out-ed” a surplus to life that makes a difference to life e.g. mentioning no names of course, else I will become availed of a “deficit value” in my account. Acting out of the “not”, to be in debt, and in dependency, like the farmers. Clearly some of these “teachers” and “journalist” have shifted into the role, of “Creating Communities” of activists out of the kid’s potentialities or better possibilities. I cannot day this simply error in Aristotelian terms as if Potentiality and actuality are closed. I don’t believe that. But this is certainly a shift in the common sense notion of education towards indoctrination. A shift privately justified if not publically legitimised, towards a new open possibility for a new closed limit of identities and speculative justice. It also strikes me the teachers and journalists are not just acting in a “surplus value” to their traditional duties and station identity’s and authority. They don’t believe such a limit or “surplus value” exists universally. Bu there is much enjoyment to be had here too. The left did a good job to draw on in some people’s negative experiences or watching of, let’s face it: propaganda movies in this revolution. Ironically there is much “surplus enjoyment” in actualising and quickening various prejudices in the guise of an education. I can see the enjoyment in their faces its even recently becomes a bit of a “Camp bad guy” and “camp bad girl” expression.
Part 3 up to 23:00 minutes i recommend watching "The Eagle has Landed". It was on TV in the UK last night and i watched half of it live and the rest this morning. I saw it years ago but experienced it very differently this time around.
Part 4: upto 38:00 mins: Zizek discloses the anti foundationalism i mentioned above in terms of the self. And this means there is not self. He goes into a few religions that appear to him to seem to have a view like this. For me i think of this in terms from Ryle's no ghost in the machine. But i agree that the problem is one of distance. Not just the familiar one of dropping bombs from 30,000 ft or pushing a button (Donald Davidson on descriptions of an event but in a thin semantic field that has no agents that he then Critique based in this error) or even the familiar blindness to the other. The distance there i get from externalism of meaning and action eg Putnam Dreyfus. It is the distance of the person in some office or some station who seems un reachable, un nameable. There is the organisational deference dissemination of the "agent" exculpation without and subject. Even now they refer to the "Institution" instead of a person. The actors as much as we can call them that, change roles and jobs very quickly using place variances, and any problems and its a 5 year enquiry and 20 years investigation and 5 years trial. Then its reduced to an issue of compensation, again anonymous paid by the institution and the institution "apologises". To be poetic its very reminiscent of the old class thing, but now in terms of education as "making the difference". Is this a phase change over time or just the same thing over and over just with different accessories. The myth of the N##I's as racists but only thugs. They were of course but not all of them thugs in that patronising way depicted in documentaries on the poor working class men. Think: a glass of good wine and a suit of some sort as opposed to trainers and a bottle of cheap cider. But we know this possibility already from history. It was is well documented then mostly forgotten in all those movies.
Part B1: I'm still only half way though Zizek's talk, but i want to take up the opportunity here to link the "obscene" and the Lacanian Marxist left's uptake of "surplus enjoyment", particularly by some feminists, although many others will see it as an affordance for their own projects anyway. So "surplus enjoyment" and "surplus value" are excesses of the real (as that which returns to itself, which means a structurally stable economic system, not fraught with contradictions and crisis. In the later "the tools of the Capitalists" cannot not be used to drive radical change, or revolution. The financial markets are mealy an add on error, they can be of no help, rather unions or other base actions form the base and the tools. In the former though the Capitalist tools can be used to change the system from within its own logic and institutions and so on. On the political use of the Capitalist Super Structure's "surplus value" what first comes to mind because of my educational journey is Derrida's later work on law and justice. Here the notions of Rights and Justice and law are not mealy the enemy of radicals and revolutionaries, as entirely systems of oppressions and mythical "legitimacies" of Capitalism. The left's "Jurisprudential turn in Politics" as praxis with and in the law. Particularly beginning in the US with Catherine MacKinnon, who was "doing" this before Derrida wrote about it "at dusk", the law was used to turn attention towards cases that would be particularly "visceral", and "disgusting" to common sense and traditional values, and affording of the construction of "mental images" through words and visual media, and first person reports that as ordinary face to face speech elicits only silence, to avoid the accusations of being: uncaring, or un-feeling or not-listening, not empathetic, not believing survivors, not being, not that guy. I’ve sat in feminist seminars many years ago where the tutor pointed out, emphasised to the women (to take note here) “look the men just fall silent when we raise this issue”. The “surplus value” of the law then affords with Derrida and writing with Foucault many affordances for radical action if the examples the cases and the precedents are chosen to have a certain under determination in the future a certain “openness” of possibility. The material base for this as a tactic can be the visceral feelings of the body as a kind of feeling of “immediacy”, repulsion. But of course for the radicals it is not really “immediate” at all, but historically determined by the economic base. What is felt as immediate common feelings of disgust is for the radicals only an historical construction it is mediated feelings not the immediate real of value. But that said, for the radical left these “super structural” and traditional feelings of immediate disgust and silence are also a friend possible tool for tactically wise radicals. This of course was taken up by some feminists from the 1970’s, a conflict grew up from this I remember in the 1980’s between them, and so called liberal feminists. Since the sexual assault and abuse cases from 2010, following the 2008 financial crisis, this “internal” dispute was won by the radicals, and so all their theoretical descriptive prescriptive and praxis vocabulary and architecture swept the media and politics silencing all other issues and silencing debate. It’s like this in my experience: “ A woman claims she has been sexually assaulted in a “private” conversation and the tradition is to listen and maybe sometime later to offer some advice and discuss possibilities. In a way this “private” conversation tradition was appropriated by the feminists and the left into the “public” sphere of law and the media, to great effect. Very consequential: this political turn in jurisprudence.
Part B 2: The feminist turn towards the body matter, managed to allows them to “erase” the central role of Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze, and only refer to other women writers for the most Part. Indeed much of the wring “seems” or “appears to be” focused on the woman’s bodies and feelings. That’s how it was sold and so that was unwisely judged to be the site of conservative and liberal resistors to this new feminism. The wrong interpretation and the wrong hill. It seems to me, in my judgement, that it is as much if not more directed to the site of men’s bodies and feelings and speech. Indeed it seems they had many years of recyclable male students to observe and test hypothesis for praxis, long before they do it formally now with Cognitive Behavioural tests and online questionnaires. It’s a logic of process but shows up in speech such as redundant statements like by a loving husband “if anyone hurt my wife…”. Its understood as we say round here. Same with thinking when I refer to people as French or German, such a speech act and reference to myself and British and English is not really just a place among places in a binary determined structural logic. This might all seem rather speculative and even a conspiracy theory, a problem of so called “social media falsities and lies. I mean back in the day, the women actors in this would not dream of saying this praxis out loud or in a book in public. It had to be private speech and implied and disguised. But from the late 1990’s with the massive increase in the supply of feminist books and then on line media platforms, they were able to be less female and more male. More as they say “direct”. They constructed a link between sexual assault and pornography. Explicitly this was that the two were statistically associated eg though Bayesian risk analysis meta data and so on. And there was a readymade racial vocabulary and constructed theoretic framework for it “patriarchy” and so on. Implicitly though I believe the link was a praxis of the sort, alienate men through the creation of the impossibility of trust male female relations and have them mediated by the risk and the force of law. An army of radical feminists occupy all the so called “mediating” institutions around the male female relationships now sublated under the under determined notions of “contract” and “consent” along with risk analysis drawn from their own base with no exculpatory data. Real clever tactics never have the first event as the aim, rather it is the trigger for, a reaction and the real battle is the attack on the reaction as it is predicted and even caused. I would reference many more recent less taciturn feminist texts than their predecessors. Have a look at the collection of short pieces in “Feminisms: A Reader” (Ed and Intro Maggie Humm1992). Particularly exemplary are the extracts from Susan Griffin (p.g.s 75-81) and to note the pieces (79-81) from “P*rnography and Silence: Culture’s Revenge Against Women” (1981). What I think she is implying, fort those who are privy to the fluid and networked styles of feminist writers is that there is an asymmetry between men’s and women’s bodies, thus the use of p*rnography can be used to make discriminated and targeted attacks on men, and only silence will be the response. For those who known the logic of left tactics and phrases may well, interpret this piece as “the silence around p*rnography can be used for cultural revenge on men”. Men say this is their nature their desire so let’s use it. The unwise response from their opposite numbers was not just silence but diffidence: “p*rn addiction epidemics” we want cognitive behavioural therapy off of mummy, mental and medial health interventions, ban p*rn form the internet” and so on. And whole new industry for women. Am I being obscene in writing this in public, if not speaking it in private? Is the use of men’s bodies in this was by people who don’t even believe the common feelings around ethics and morals are genuine and real. The Lyotard Frame of this would push me into the “ban the p*rn” lobby and “anti p*rn” movement and “p*rn as an illness medicalization. But I know this game. If I can muster the energy I will copy out some Susan Griffin bellow, for those bereft of knowledge of this writing praxis.
...dem friseur sei auch gedankt..um alte spreu vom neuen ..zizek zu trennen ---- sieht verdammt gut aus ..in den letzten wochen ... maybe something more than spring whats in te AIR .ruclips.net/video/rrVDATvUitA/видео.html
I love Zizek's continuous grabbling with the current issues in their universality. Although, as a liberal, I don't fully agree all the time with Marxist's takes, he's still an insightful cultural critic and is pointing out evident shortcomings in the current liberal dyer neglecance to esthetics role in the human psyche. ..... But, that said, certainly Zaphod BeebleBox can't possibly be the answer, or at least i hope not!! Good speech overall.
As far as I know, 'Nasism' was subordinate, adjunct to the great 'Sionism' project; why on earth would anybody take at face value what is said publicly by a leader of Shin Bet [Hidden Shield/Unknown Manoeuvre]?
First, the man he quoted was retired. If you've seen a few retired government officials' interviews, you'd noticed that they had much less difficulty speaking their conscience retired than when in office. Second, even if he did not mean it sincerely, what mattered was precisely that this was a public statement, especially against the background of the openly, aggressively obscene Israeli government (and Germany's ridiculous unconditional support for it). The Hegelian position is that appearances matter and one problem in today's world is that the ruling class is becoming openly obscene, which is one of Zizek's recurring point in recent years.
@@sizhanxu Yes, the appearance of appearances is the matter in question. 'Retired' Intelligence Officers are never off-duty; everything they say in public is by-definition counterintelligence. - _That,_ is less Obscene?
@@torquemaddertorquemadder2080 This is just getting absurd when the context of Zizek's speech was clearly to quote this man to contrast the open aggressivity of the Israeli state and the lunacy of German establishment's unconditional support for it. But ok, let's talk practicality. What exactly would this "counterintelligence" of his achieve? That the Palestinians and the rest of the world would let their guard down? Therefore it was some obscene mind game? That might have worked if there were not a hot war already going on, don't you think? I don't find anything radical or liberating about this fundamentalist distrust of intelligence agency or government officials. This is just the usual liberal paranoia/cynicism that gets us nowhere.
He(Zizek) expressed his willingness to implement policies of liberal economic restructuring, which had already had catastrophic consequences for workers, asserting that he’s a “pragmatist” in this area: “if it works, why not try a dose of it?”[38] Indeed, he openly advocated for “planned privatizations” and flatly asserted, like a good capitalist ideologue: “more capitalism in our case would mean more social security.”[39] This was, once again, in perfect line with Reagan’s NSDD 133, which explicitly called for “Yugoslavia’s long-term internal liberalization” and the promotion of a “market-oriented Yugoslav economic structure.”[40]- Dr G.Rockhill.
The background of that election was the inevitable falling apart of Yugoslavia, people's growing grievance against the existing corrupted communist government, the impending civil war, AND a table of right-wing candidates that are ready for a full-on privatization from which they and their affiliates will profit. If you really want to convince yourself of what radical Marxist you are, maybe take a step back from all that teeth clenching and take a solid advice from Lenin - "concrete analysis for a specific historical situation". All these dogmatic accusations produce no real value other than the accuser's self gratification. Do yourself a favor and distance yourself from those wanna-be dogmatic Marxists like Rockhill or Midwestern Marx. They are dangerously approaching or already become just another opportunistic populist.
If it is constantly on everyone's mind and the tip of their tongues that the system is always on the brink of fascism, that political enemies are really secretly fascists -- then maybe one should get clear about what fascism actually was and is.
Wake up babe new Zizek event
Nicely said!
Wanted to like, didn't wanna mess 222 likes
The leader is kept unblemished at any price, no example needed in the introduction to this statement since Joe Biden is too obvious
Randomly searching for "Zizek" on YT and seeing a new video makes my day!
Hard ditto 🤙
It's in our communist feels.🛠🛠🛠🛠🛠🛠
what you can do is just type zizek in the search bar and filter the results by upload date and length (over 20 minutes) to find the most recent long form videos
lol I do this every so often. I’m always excited to be able to listen to a great Zizek lecture. I’ve listened to as many as I can, I still find hidden ones with low view counts I’ve missed. It’s a great feeling finding one I haven’t heard yet.
He released/is releasing a new book, that's why there are so many recent videos.
His talks at universities are the best... He goes into more depth, develops his arguments more, gives more ecamples... I wish he would do tgat in media interviews too
Especially at Seton Hall
New haircut dropped
Haircut is the same, it's the beard that has been trimmed off like 50% of it.
He looks nicely trimmed, he's getting married again maybe?
@@SerpenTRyderalways has been
You know, the older I get, and the more of the world I see, the more I agree with this Slavic comrade.
As a Buddhist, I have to agree with Zizek on the Gita. I was horrified when I first read that passage he quotes as a child, and as an adult I have to say we should still be horrified. It is ultimately a justification for the kshatriya warrior caste’s existence. Buddha’s spiritual revolution was to deny this- deny caste, deny violence, and preach the practice of ahimsa. Any later adoption of this by Hindu philosophy is just that, an adoption
wow - thanks for this insightful response.. any chance u could expand on your experience as a buddhist a bit more ? how were you brought into it as a child?
you do not understand gita nor budism - action or avoiding action are both in bondage
@@nnnnsaakadamanas218 I found the Dhammapada on the bookshelf of a bookstore at the age of 11 and became immersed myself in the texts and the culture. Now I am semi-fluent in Tibetan and a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner but deeply respect all schools. And also don't get me wrong, I understand the Brahminic base of Buddhism and respect the Hindu tradition. I even enjoy reading the Vedas etc. But I do not like that passage in the Gita.
@@povilaskimutis1409 Enlighten me. How is Buddha not breaking with the Brahmins?
@@povilaskimutis1409 intrigued by your response
Slavoj Zizek ( b.21 March, 1949 )
Slovenian philosopher, psychoanalyst, critic, cultural theorist,
professor, and public intellectual.
In a good shape : physical and mental !
That's what you call being in shape? lol
@@Kouros-y2t*sniffs* its relativity
I love this guy... he gets on everything to the point.
The knot with Zizek is that you never really know how to evaluate any of his works. The dialectical serpent behind his train of thoughts is always elusive. You never know, for example, when the "hardline communist" interpretation of Antigone would be his favorite one. You never know what subtle twist he's gonna perform to his topics. In other words, Zizek and his elusive dialectical serpect amount to something akin to Derrida's style: "oh, you didn't quite understand me here! Let me tell you what you've missed!". Even after 12 years of studying him, I'm still not able to predict his readings (apart from the more obvious "it's the opposite/quite on the contrary" moments).
You've described your symptom. Now find your sinthome. Consider why you are being interpolated by the "dialectical serpent" as you put it.
As much as people seen to think he is too deep, I don't find Zizek to be the obscurantist people claim he is. I even think he is not that hard to understand or very "intelectualy deep", but in a good way. When he argues a point, he often presents very real scenarios and offers realistic perspectives and solutions. I don't think his current theory of global action is that difficult to imagine or put in practice, for example; it is quite similar to some ideas that a guy like Yanis Varoufakis (who he namedrops here) is also spousing in his writings. They have similar arguments of a transformed capitalism that is no longer held to democratic liberalism. Fredric Jameson argued that the seeds of the current state of affairs really were sowed when Bretton Woods was finished (and quite at similar times when the western left found out they would never have a Marxist utopia with the Soviet Union), an argument echoed by both Zizek and Varoufakis in other interviews. So there is even a current tradition of a line of thought there.
I am never as proud to be Slovenian as i am when i hear Žižek speak. Its witty, smart, direct, funny, deep, profound, understandable, relevant and true. If only he didnt touch his nose 10 000 in 2 hours i might even have considered to build a shrine and pray for his health. Long live the Caesar Žižek ! Long live the truth seekers all around the world !
Me too!
what many hosts don’t understand is that best Zizek talks are ones where it’s mainly him speaking without any disturbances. outstanding host, many thanks 🙏
the greatest philosopher of our time
Except he openly supports Israel lol
@@Weedwizard600 does he ? where does he say this ???
Him and Dougin
@@calumoconnor7794 Hmm, its a bit nuanced, he is also condemned for being antisemitic and kinda in order to counter this he spoke in favour of Israel defending itself. But to be fair, saying Israel has the right to defend itseld does not necessarily mean he is the biggest supporter :p
Great talk! I was up until late to finish it, but it was worth it.
Sharp as ever - one of the greatest philosophers and societal pathologist of our time
He openly supports Israel lol
@@Weedwizard600 are you sure why do you think this ?
@@calumoconnor7794 In a interview recently he openly stated his feeling on Israel look it up
@@calumoconnor7794And palestine as well
Even if he's pissed me off in recent years especially, I'm gonna say; St Žižek,pray for us!🙏🤔
I get it. I have been saying, "St. Albert (Camus), pray for us." for sometime.
@@arthurmartinson4370 gotta respect the man whose first sentence in his most famous novel(The Stranger)is; - "Mother is dead." I haven't read English version,but that's the essence,☠️
1:28:52 “limits ăăă limits ăăăáâäāăăăăàá limits ăădă👈dă👉dă👈wă👉wă👈dă👉dă👈wă”-my favorite quote ❤️
“Time for questions…”
Guy stands up and makes a speech. God I hate that about these type of events.
Slavoj, to je res odlično!
Fruitful food for thought!
Starts 9:55
Thank you
Why the original mic check part was included is beyond me…
Žižek at a Catholic university.
The Chomsky crowd will have a field day!
Go Slavoj!
That's fucked up how they used to torture bears and sell tickets.
2:46 click to skip the sound check
9:58 and to the man we all came here for
You know it's serious when he gets a haircut.
I believe he will be remembered as the most influential philosopher of our time. Though many today consider him as a clown.
He's widely recognised. Those that find him clownish have a point, too: the clown is the only one at court who can speak the truth without being punished - never underestimate a clown
@@etziowingeler3173 nice point
Thank you!
Zizek should be given UNESCO heritage status
The advantage of democracy is *not* that majorities never make mistakes (as, for example, in xenophobically cracking down on immigration). It’s that, when they do, they can learn from those mistakes and correct them. And the gamble is the equilibriums achieved by democratic processes are more ethical and enduring than top-down 'monarchial' impositions.
Wow what a beautiful introduction! A truly beautiful work 😊
Min 31: I’m the guy who posted on reddit. Zizek mentions it like “an attack on him” but I start my post saying “I love Zizek”. It wasn’t an attack, I love and admire this guy and I will continue to read this guy.
I don’t think he meant you were “attacking” him unfairly or to harshly, I think he just uses the word “attack” as a synonym for criticize. He engaged with your criticism as though it were a genuine and well intentioned one, but he just disagreed with your position. All round, a good example of how online discourse affects real world discussions which then affect online discourse and so on and so on.
You were attacking the position he holds/held. Nothing wrong with that.
Zizek, as I perceive him from time to time, is definitely not too much obsessed with decisive details. Precisely such which could make a difference in his own positioning.
One has to remain critical about what he wants teach us. p.s.: I appreciate him also very much. He's got quite some points in his talks.
...ok but what about your thoughts on his counter arguments? Ofc you don't have to share it here. But you also don't have to imagine yourself registered in the Big Other as some "Zizek hater" or something. Zizek's position, following Hegel, has always been that one's act and externalized thought, not one's inner life, is what matters. I might be wrong but your comment seems like an unconscious disavowal.
@@oafish3989 He never said the Buddhist "concentration on the self" distracts you from signing up for a great cause. His point is almost the opposite, that as a neutral technique, Buddhism rids a man of the moral responsibility for what he does, thereby enabling him to do anything (financial speculation or killing). In this sense he attacks all religions (and communism) for the same reason, if the said faith gives you a way out of the moral dilemma - "I killed in the name of God/historical necessity, or I didn't really kill you, it was just a dance of phenomena/our souls are immortal", whatever. His "preference" for Christianity is really what he does with all adversary ideas - he dismantle it from within. His point is that the core of Christianity is atheist without a big Other (God dies on the cross). That means even if you are doing something horrible (or great), you don't get to excuse yourself with any reference to a higher cause. In case you wonder, this is not a position that all Christians agree upon. I can well imagine that the fundamentalists aren't gonna be happy to hear what he says. He is not trying to sell Christianity as the best religion, but the best atheism. If you can find similar existential position in other religions, feel free to do it. What he cares about is only whether or not you still need some big Other as an ultimate guarantee for everything that happens.
1:30:40 my favorite part
10:34 --PaCt!!
The ability to hyper coordinate global power, whether it is social, economic, politically, and technologically in a structural form, a lever is provided to those not qualified or contextually authorized to assert let alone under its own prerogatives.
There is complexity in today's elevated normative functions in every sphere have a displacement effect, where a loaf a bread 100 years ago required tens of people to realize in some form of exchange, now requires .00001 persons to achieve the same.
Can you imagine making a simple comment on Reddit and having it read by Zizek on a public talk? Hahah
15:54 it’s desensitizing and depersonalization teaching you cause and effect like Pavlovian response training.
EYY zizek looking good
He just can't put on the glass for 3 minute's 😂
In which of his books does zizek talk about his conception of obscenity in more detail? Does someone know?
1:28:51 "limits..."
1:28:53 "limits..."
1:28:56 "limits..."
"...how do you call it, a stock exchange."
Actually, support for a Palestinian state is the official policy of the German government, always has been. It's just that the Netanyahu apologists were able to manipulate German guilt and fear of anti-Semitism, but that's been wearing off for a while now.
Czech! Czech! No, he's Slovenian. He just flew in from Ljubljana, and boy are his arms tired.
Check check, chuck chuck, check chuck, check...😂
Žižek X Jordan collab: Why Authoritarian Leaders Need Jesus.
1:13:08 what is the difference between Zizek's "universality" and metaphysical idealism? The masses need to be convinced of Reality one step at a time! They won't be able to unsee it once they do see it!
Wish i knew this was happening!
The self IS real! AND the self is connected to everything else! It's not that complicated! It's just a dialectic! Dialectical Materialism!
Don't die Slavoj
38:29 that’s his/my dyslexia. Order for him are instructions. Order for me is conscious awareness/mindfulness.
He seems to have difficult delivering owing to flue. Btw, fruitful reflections!
That's just the way he speaks. He always has. It's kind a trademark by this point.
42:14 “She says: if it were for my children, my father, my mother…husband even, L E T T H E M R O T”
23:38 The poems of Dorothy Parker or the movie do and the vicious circle
It'd be nice if Zikek would locate and publish a few of Jordan Peterson's many pro-Nazi statements for the benefit of his fans.
❤❤
Pro-monarchy body along with democracy?
Good thinking. But how come Žižek, who is old enough, doesn't remember, elaborate and instead of monarchy puts forward the ancient Greek democracy experience with the "COUNCIL OF THE WISE", a body of smart old men without political power but absolute power for moral and ethical issues etc.? There is a surplus of wise and experienced people in each country who are excluded from decision making, as only the ones representing some kind of actual economical interest are admitted to decision making. He, as a philosopher, should propose such a thing before those who are in power now to get it eventually accepted into the system. They'd spoil the idea "on the input" as any other proposals so far to change the state of affairs in the democracy of the so-called western type. It should not be a "reinvention of hot water" taken from the old Greeks but a critical analysis of how that had worked out for them and how it could be expected to function nowadays and how properly introduced into today's democracy.
Another experience from the old Greeks, potentially useful for "correcting" the nowadays democracy, would be a novel use of OSTRACISM. In the era of INTERNET it should be relatively easy to reinvent it without the actual use of the broken pottery etc... The idea should be not the temporary banishment from the society of potential dictators (nowadays they don't consider themselves dictators, they exclude voluntarily from the society by living in fortified haciendas, flying private jets etc.) but to exclude them from gaining political power and preventing them from making harm to the people and the planet, force them to just enjoy their wealth etc.. Maybe, just maybe in this way the power of the most wealthy could be reduced not only for the sake of most of us but also for their own benefit: still better than a scene with a crowd of dissatisfied people coming to them to scratch out their eyes, breaking fences on their way etc...
The third proposal of mine is for the Slavoy to finally take time and watch the OPPENHEIMER, or at least the sexual scene he is referring to in its entirety. He definitely gives too much credit to the philosophical issues involved.
if you are proposing democracy after hearing zizek for 2 hours, go listen again.
Autoritarianism is the only way foward and the only way to deal with problems emerging right now. Zizek talks a lot about Global warming, AI regulation, biogenetics and so on, and how this presents problems to humans that can only be solved through regulation across the globe and strong centralized states. Think about china's response to the crise of 2020, a strong govt. like theirs can just impose lockdown and deal with this problem, while democracies failed to impose even vaccination in its own population.
Shouldn't we treat the Western attitudes towards military sacrifice similar to enjoyment of torture? It struck me always as somewhat "medieval" the way WW1, WW2 and others are celebrated: in the UK: death cult around the Cenotaph (an empty shell of a prop!), USA - same. Celebrations commemorating the sacrifice make no mention of the fact the fallen had zero choice and were almost exclusively poor, working class (rich people's kids got desk jobs - original keyboard warriors!). Very similar to the way Iran celebrates their student "martyrs" who the mullahs sent to clear minefields by walking through them in the 1980s. I see little difference between that and what prof. Zizek mentions about the orthodox priest's blessing.
Note to the sound recordist: I feel that, if you wanted to include the laughter, its volume should be at 50% at most so the sound of the room is not so pronounced.
Where is the morality ?, we must be outraged at this! torture is cowardice and the lowest of the low. Humans must go down this path
At 01:00:30 he mentiones a recent picture taken, actually showing gaza being bombed with humanitarian airdrop parachuting in the background. Does someone has a link? I can not find the picture.
Germany was hysterical after October 7th. It wasn't possible to make an argument. Were Zizek to return now, he would find a very different environment.
31:54 again Robert sapolsky
1:25:29 Yup. Absolute realist for 5 minutes.
Singapore is a lot of things, but it is not fascist. Fascism is strongly centered around racial and cultural identity and it used minorities as a patsy to appease its majority supporters. The Singaporean government has laser focus on integrating the Chinese, Indian and Malay subpopulations. They are painfully aware that any sectarian strife would destroy the country. Singapore is certainly not a real democracy and its penal system is one of the most brutal in the world when it comes to drug crimes. It is also not a socialist country by any means, but it has a working social contract: a citizen who behaves does reap a lot of benefits from the state. It provides social stability, quality housing, quality healthcare and quality education. People who are not bothered by living in a nanny state are getting a good nanny in return. As long as that stays the way it is, Singapore is a good place to live.
Old russian joke remade with putin xi and trump: 1:08:32
I wish there were proper captions on this video.
Just slow down the video and listen to his talk a few times and you'll come to understand his accent.
@nexusyang4832 mmmh 😂😂😂😂😂😂
rewind always!!
He really should give up on his points about "woke" culture, I don't think wondering if "third world" is pc is an effective use of anyone's time. Regardless of your stance on it I think it usually just detracts from his better points on more important issues. That being said he does seem to focus less on it lately.
What does Zizek know of obscenity.?
the volume is too low
Says the man from Slovenia, county that has same regime since 1945. Ridiculous.
Part 1 (Up to 17:00 mins in). I presented a maxim to myself to lay of his politics stuff for a while, but is it possible to be Kantian today? The notion of "Surplus enjoyment" is from Lacan and is a reworking of Marx's notion of "surplus value". In Marx "surplus value" is an excess from the Real, the Real is that which returns to itself.
It is at once the externalisation as a Universalisation of what is really only an historical contingency. For example the naturalisation, eternalisation, of the "normal" family for humanity, when it is merely the most efficient way of reproducing labour at a particular moment or phase in economic progress. I think this means for Marx a kind of alienated but "inert" (me) fetishism, it plays no feed back or return role to the Real, which is of course economic materialism. For Lacan on the other hand the psychoanalytic notion of "surplus value" its self, of something like a pleasure beyond simple utility, does return to effect the psychological base. This suggests a kind of anti foundationalism, since the psychological base is always already "effected" (me) by its own surplus. We cannot experience objects that are not always already "presented" to us though the effect of their "errored or "fetishized" excess.
So neither of my two books on Zizek: Zizek: A Critical Introduction by Sarah Kay; and Zizek: A guide for the Perplexed by Sean Sheehan, have "Surplus value" in their indexes. That is odd since I'm sure it is a key concept or tool for Zizek. I mean if it was in the index it would make life easier, in the sense of a quick reference before stampeding to Wikipedia. If it was in the index it could be said to be a surplus value to the text that makes no difference to the text itself. But on the other hand does an index make a difference to a text, a difference that "changes" the text at once. You know when you get a new book you do straight to the index to look up key words, or in a shop or online they usually give you the index for "free" perhaps as an "advert" for the book. Indeed one can imagine a writer begging with the most searched words on a subject they intend to write about, and then writing the index first and the book as an excuse. They might even think of a really good book title before writing the book. I bet Derrida has said this somewhere probably in his "Truth in Painting" and essays on "Framings".
The account of “surplus value” I have already drawn on I’ve got from Zizeks “The Sublime Object of Ideology” (1989) an early book then. It’s called out on pages 50-55. It’s fairly clear if you already know Kant Hegel Marx Freud and Lacan as well as Zizek. If you are not part of, or have ever been in, this “inner intellectual sanctum” you will not understand it, and the New Young Communists will be able to enjoy making you look like a fool like you don’t belong. There is though a cure, or penitence for this shame: the offer to join if you’ve got a few years. Then you too can be the first one on your block to shame your ignorant neighbours. Opps sorry! I’m enjoying myself too much. Ask yourself if this last a paragraph has changed the first two now, so you can never read them for the first time again.ie they are not then simply introductory paragraphs or axioms. It too late for that now.
This discourse by Zizek is not really a talk to give information and enlightenment, its more like a “Speech Act” (J.L. Austin) or Performance (J. Butler) a clever doing (is clever being used as an adverb here?), an instruction, a training. It looks like just an education but the aim is action, that is your action, to join in, not so much the “inner intellectual sanctum” but join the writing Comments Activism on this You Tube video, then gradually to join in the Street Protests, and who knows, or better walks to where that will end? We can begin with on line video games and end up on a real battle field. The intellectual background, note not foundation, though can be leapfrogged. You can bring your kids along to the Street Protest and have them shout out some meme based on “surplus enjoyment”. It might be good training for future activist to become actualised in their post facto self-conscious potential. Hell they might even go to University, get a PhD, and teach this to students of their own. That is become trainers in praxis, not givers of knowledge, and Critique. Their job is to “change the world not understand it” as someone once said. A lecturer as “Speech Agent” might say to the students “speaking as a Zizekian “I am” for Zizek’s ideas” or better, graduate to acting like a Zizekian “I do” become a legal representative, and advocate for some group or groups. I am “not a Zizekain” and I am “not doing Zizekainsim” here, but can I really do a not doing a Zizekainsm? Well yes I can ‘cos it’s too late for me I’ve read loads of his stuff, and watched loads of his video’s. I’ve even seen him live asked him to explain how Hegel can account for inner determination in Kant. Musty that be only a negative or a hole for Hegel’s sublimation of all things familiar into an excess of law as justice, and science as Speculative efficiency? Gosh its all gone a bit Ad hominon, but is that a genuine a historical limit for Communists? Or just a stage I’m at. Is ad homion a mere contingent fallacy of our local conventions and academic mores to be junked when the time is just right? The appropriate time to change what is appropriate.
Part 2 Was it good judgement when it was deemed the appropriate moment to appropriate the kids into the political conflict, march them from their private inner family sanctum into the public arena. Who made such a judgment? Do they have a name? A reference? Will they be in the index of some book to come?
What kinds of “surplus enjoyment” do these teachers and media presenters get from all this quickening. It’s clearly a practice or praxis, far and away from Kant’s sublime or Wittgenstein’s therapy. I want to turn to some of these “teachers” and “media presenters” but first a new legal limit must be “out-ed” a surplus to life that makes a difference to life e.g. mentioning no names of course, else I will become availed of a “deficit value” in my account. Acting out of the “not”, to be in debt, and in dependency, like the farmers. Clearly some of these “teachers” and “journalist” have shifted into the role, of “Creating Communities” of activists out of the kid’s potentialities or better possibilities. I cannot day this simply error in Aristotelian terms as if Potentiality and actuality are closed. I don’t believe that. But this is certainly a shift in the common sense notion of education towards indoctrination. A shift privately justified if not publically legitimised, towards a new open possibility for a new closed limit of identities and speculative justice. It also strikes me the teachers and journalists are not just acting in a “surplus value” to their traditional duties and station identity’s and authority. They don’t believe such a limit or “surplus value” exists universally. Bu there is much enjoyment to be had here too. The left did a good job to draw on in some people’s negative experiences or watching of, let’s face it: propaganda movies in this revolution. Ironically there is much “surplus enjoyment” in actualising and quickening various prejudices in the guise of an education. I can see the enjoyment in their faces its even recently becomes a bit of a “Camp bad guy” and “camp bad girl” expression.
Part 3 up to 23:00 minutes i recommend watching "The Eagle has Landed". It was on TV in the UK last night and i watched half of it live and the rest this morning. I saw it years ago but experienced it very differently this time around.
Part 4: upto 38:00 mins: Zizek discloses the anti foundationalism i mentioned above in terms of the self. And this means there is not self. He goes into a few religions that appear to him to seem to have a view like this. For me i think of this in terms from Ryle's no ghost in the machine. But i agree that the problem is one of distance. Not just the familiar one of dropping bombs from 30,000 ft or pushing a button (Donald Davidson on descriptions of an event but in a thin semantic field that has no agents that he then Critique based in this error) or even the familiar blindness to the other. The distance there i get from externalism of meaning and action eg Putnam Dreyfus. It is the distance of the person in some office or some station who seems un reachable, un nameable. There is the organisational deference dissemination of the "agent" exculpation without and subject. Even now they refer to the "Institution" instead of a person. The actors as much as we can call them that, change roles and jobs very quickly using place variances, and any problems and its a 5 year enquiry and 20 years investigation and 5 years trial. Then its reduced to an issue of compensation, again anonymous paid by the institution and the institution "apologises". To be poetic its very reminiscent of the old class thing, but now in terms of education as "making the difference". Is this a phase change over time or just the same thing over and over just with different accessories. The myth of the N##I's as racists but only thugs. They were of course but not all of them thugs in that patronising way depicted in documentaries on the poor working class men. Think: a glass of good wine and a suit of some sort as opposed to trainers and a bottle of cheap cider.
But we know this possibility already from history. It was is well documented then mostly forgotten in all those movies.
Part B1: I'm still only half way though Zizek's talk, but i want to take up the opportunity here to link the "obscene" and the Lacanian Marxist left's uptake of "surplus enjoyment", particularly by some feminists, although many others will see it as an affordance for their own projects anyway.
So "surplus enjoyment" and "surplus value" are excesses of the real (as that which returns to itself, which means a structurally stable economic system, not fraught with contradictions and crisis. In the later "the tools of the Capitalists" cannot not be used to drive radical change, or revolution. The financial markets are mealy an add on error, they can be of no help, rather unions or other base actions form the base and the tools. In the former though the Capitalist tools can be used to change the system from within its own logic and institutions and so on.
On the political use of the Capitalist Super Structure's "surplus value" what first comes to mind because of my educational journey is Derrida's later work on law and justice. Here the notions of Rights and Justice and law are not mealy the enemy of radicals and revolutionaries, as entirely systems of oppressions and mythical "legitimacies" of Capitalism. The left's "Jurisprudential turn in Politics" as praxis with and in the law. Particularly beginning in the US with Catherine MacKinnon, who was "doing" this before Derrida wrote about it "at dusk", the law was used to turn attention towards cases that would be particularly "visceral", and "disgusting" to common sense and traditional values, and affording of the construction of "mental images" through words and visual media, and first person reports that as ordinary face to face speech elicits only silence, to avoid the accusations of being: uncaring, or un-feeling or not-listening, not empathetic, not believing survivors, not being, not that guy. I’ve sat in feminist seminars many years ago where the tutor pointed out, emphasised to the women (to take note here) “look the men just fall silent when we raise this issue”. The “surplus value” of the law then affords with Derrida and writing with Foucault many affordances for radical action if the examples the cases and the precedents are chosen to have a certain under determination in the future a certain “openness” of possibility. The material base for this as a tactic can be the visceral feelings of the body as a kind of feeling of “immediacy”, repulsion. But of course for the radicals it is not really “immediate” at all, but historically determined by the economic base. What is felt as immediate common feelings of disgust is for the radicals only an historical construction it is mediated feelings not the immediate real of value. But that said, for the radical left these “super structural” and traditional feelings of immediate disgust and silence are also a friend possible tool for tactically wise radicals.
This of course was taken up by some feminists from the 1970’s, a conflict grew up from this I remember in the 1980’s between them, and so called liberal feminists. Since the sexual assault and abuse cases from 2010, following the 2008 financial crisis, this “internal” dispute was won by the radicals, and so all their theoretical descriptive prescriptive and praxis vocabulary and architecture swept the media and politics silencing all other issues and silencing debate. It’s like this in my experience: “ A woman claims she has been sexually assaulted in a “private” conversation and the tradition is to listen and maybe sometime later to offer some advice and discuss possibilities. In a way this “private” conversation tradition was appropriated by the feminists and the left into the “public” sphere of law and the media, to great effect. Very consequential: this political turn in jurisprudence.
Part B 2: The feminist turn towards the body matter, managed to allows them to “erase” the central role of Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze, and only refer to other women writers for the most Part. Indeed much of the wring “seems” or “appears to be” focused on the woman’s bodies and feelings. That’s how it was sold and so that was unwisely judged to be the site of conservative and liberal resistors to this new feminism. The wrong interpretation and the wrong hill. It seems to me, in my judgement, that it is as much if not more directed to the site of men’s bodies and feelings and speech.
Indeed it seems they had many years of recyclable male students to observe and test hypothesis for praxis, long before they do it formally now with Cognitive Behavioural tests and online questionnaires. It’s a logic of process but shows up in speech such as redundant statements like by a loving husband “if anyone hurt my wife…”. Its understood as we say round here. Same with thinking when I refer to people as French or German, such a speech act and reference to myself and British and English is not really just a place among places in a binary determined structural logic.
This might all seem rather speculative and even a conspiracy theory, a problem of so called “social media falsities and lies. I mean back in the day, the women actors in this would not dream of saying this praxis out loud or in a book in public. It had to be private speech and implied and disguised. But from the late 1990’s with the massive increase in the supply of feminist books and then on line media platforms, they were able to be less female and more male. More as they say “direct”.
They constructed a link between sexual assault and pornography. Explicitly this was that the two were statistically associated eg though Bayesian risk analysis meta data and so on. And there was a readymade racial vocabulary and constructed theoretic framework for it “patriarchy” and so on. Implicitly though I believe the link was a praxis of the sort, alienate men through the creation of the impossibility of trust male female relations and have them mediated by the risk and the force of law. An army of radical feminists occupy all the so called “mediating” institutions around the male female relationships now sublated under the under determined notions of “contract” and “consent” along with risk analysis drawn from their own base with no exculpatory data. Real clever tactics never have the first event as the aim, rather it is the trigger for, a reaction and the real battle is the attack on the reaction as it is predicted and even caused.
I would reference many more recent less taciturn feminist texts than their predecessors. Have a look at the collection of short pieces in “Feminisms: A Reader” (Ed and Intro Maggie Humm1992). Particularly exemplary are the extracts from Susan Griffin (p.g.s 75-81) and to note the pieces (79-81) from “P*rnography and Silence: Culture’s Revenge Against Women” (1981). What I think she is implying, fort those who are privy to the fluid and networked styles of feminist writers is that there is an asymmetry between men’s and women’s bodies, thus the use of p*rnography can be used to make discriminated and targeted attacks on men, and only silence will be the response. For those who known the logic of left tactics and phrases may well, interpret this piece as “the silence around p*rnography can be used for cultural revenge on men”. Men say this is their nature their desire so let’s use it. The unwise response from their opposite numbers was not just silence but diffidence: “p*rn addiction epidemics” we want cognitive behavioural therapy off of mummy, mental and medial health interventions, ban p*rn form the internet” and so on. And whole new industry for women. Am I being obscene in writing this in public, if not speaking it in private? Is the use of men’s bodies in this was by people who don’t even believe the common feelings around ethics and morals are genuine and real. The Lyotard Frame of this would push me into the “ban the p*rn” lobby and “anti p*rn” movement and “p*rn as an illness medicalization. But I know this game.
If I can muster the energy I will copy out some Susan Griffin bellow, for those bereft of knowledge of this writing praxis.
...dem friseur sei auch gedankt..um alte spreu vom neuen ..zizek zu trennen ---- sieht verdammt gut aus ..in den letzten wochen ... maybe something more than spring whats in te AIR .ruclips.net/video/rrVDATvUitA/видео.html
No props to the sound mixer 👎
Not much you can do when the dude keeps turning completely away from the mic and taking. lol
what abhorrence of a camera was used to film this
I love Zizek's continuous grabbling with the current issues in their universality. Although, as a liberal, I don't fully agree all the time with Marxist's takes, he's still an insightful cultural critic and is pointing out evident shortcomings in the current liberal dyer neglecance to esthetics role in the human psyche.
..... But, that said, certainly Zaphod BeebleBox can't possibly be the answer, or at least i hope not!!
Good speech overall.
Get this man a handkerchief
As far as I know, 'Nasism' was subordinate, adjunct to the great 'Sionism' project; why on earth would anybody take at face value what is said publicly by a leader of Shin Bet [Hidden Shield/Unknown Manoeuvre]?
First, the man he quoted was retired. If you've seen a few retired government officials' interviews, you'd noticed that they had much less difficulty speaking their conscience retired than when in office. Second, even if he did not mean it sincerely, what mattered was precisely that this was a public statement, especially against the background of the openly, aggressively obscene Israeli government (and Germany's ridiculous unconditional support for it). The Hegelian position is that appearances matter and one problem in today's world is that the ruling class is becoming openly obscene, which is one of Zizek's recurring point in recent years.
@@sizhanxu Yes, the appearance of appearances is the matter in question. 'Retired' Intelligence Officers are never off-duty; everything they say in public is by-definition counterintelligence. - _That,_ is less Obscene?
@@torquemaddertorquemadder2080 This is just getting absurd when the context of Zizek's speech was clearly to quote this man to contrast the open aggressivity of the Israeli state and the lunacy of German establishment's unconditional support for it. But ok, let's talk practicality. What exactly would this "counterintelligence" of his achieve? That the Palestinians and the rest of the world would let their guard down? Therefore it was some obscene mind game? That might have worked if there were not a hot war already going on, don't you think? I don't find anything radical or liberating about this fundamentalist distrust of intelligence agency or government officials. This is just the usual liberal paranoia/cynicism that gets us nowhere.
.
He(Zizek) expressed his willingness to implement policies of liberal economic restructuring, which had already had catastrophic consequences for workers, asserting that he’s a “pragmatist” in this area: “if it works, why not try a dose of it?”[38] Indeed, he openly advocated for “planned privatizations” and flatly asserted, like a good capitalist ideologue: “more capitalism in our case would mean more social security.”[39] This was, once again, in perfect line with Reagan’s NSDD 133, which explicitly called for “Yugoslavia’s long-term internal liberalization” and the promotion of a “market-oriented Yugoslav economic structure.”[40]- Dr G.Rockhill.
Is this the criticism you have or rockhill's?
The background of that election was the inevitable falling apart of Yugoslavia, people's growing grievance against the existing corrupted communist government, the impending civil war, AND a table of right-wing candidates that are ready for a full-on privatization from which they and their affiliates will profit. If you really want to convince yourself of what radical Marxist you are, maybe take a step back from all that teeth clenching and take a solid advice from Lenin - "concrete analysis for a specific historical situation". All these dogmatic accusations produce no real value other than the accuser's self gratification. Do yourself a favor and distance yourself from those wanna-be dogmatic Marxists like Rockhill or Midwestern Marx. They are dangerously approaching or already become just another opportunistic populist.
Gita is the ugliest holy book.
Worse than the bible with its promise of eternal torture for the overwhelming majority of mankind?
antigonä 😂
Zizek ... Cant be trusted...
Zizek seems obsessed with fascism, and that is obscene.
Ok, fascist
@@dudoamaral5333 Ok, Adorno. You haven't read the Charles Bernstein yet.
If it is constantly on everyone's mind and the tip of their tongues that the system is always on the brink of fascism, that political enemies are really secretly fascists -- then maybe one should get clear about what fascism actually was and is.
@@dudoamaral5333 No, wait. Charles Bernstein and all of Language poetry do seem like Nazis to me now.
This dude supports Israel 🤣🤣🤣
I can’t believe this guy has gotten away with this big money clown show for so long
Court Jester
The sweet spot™
Bro I'm a fan but he's repeating his shallow take on Gita. It has to be read in context.
What's the context?
This guy is a joke
& not very funny one(( - kind of "moderately conservative (communist)" - 1:12:17
You are, sadly, correct.
No
Who is the subterranean animal sitting next to Zizek?
1:29:00
这黑白封面我差点以为他死了
😂
Forever alive !
Not yet, thank god.
45:49 and occupation of the West Bank apartheid
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution