i know that zizek is inspired by althusser on the ideology term. therefore i claim that there has to be always an ideology. the subject is constituted through ideology. to live in ideology means not, that you live in a wrong world or something like this. in some strange way ideology, as marxist poststructuralists (like althusser, like zizek) use it, is 'neutral'
ideology would therefore be to say: i know things and therefore i dont live ideologic.
@th3orist It brings me joy to see there's people subscribed to youtube that've actually read a book or two. Well summarized, it's hard to get across reasonable in this limited forum.
thanks. it really is hard. but also hard is to really catch the thought of althusser and zizek on ideology because you could easily formulate the question: and how to actually really change things when we are constituted through ideology which functions as a neutral force (interpellation) and more or less binds people to the structures of society that already exists and that have to be abolished... questions over questions :)
@th3orist Foucault uses the term épisteme to describe this, McLuhan uses 'environment'. "We don't know who discovered water, but it certainly wasn't a fish." Environments are invisible, all-pervasive, and constitute our sense experience. For McLuhan, our primary 'ideology' is the phonetic alphabet and the linearity it imposes upon our understandings of space, time and the way we think (reason), but he says all this is being subject to change within the new electric era of image and sound media.
I think Zizek takes a Lacanian stance that we can never fully articulate ourselves through language, hence, there is no possible answer to the question (within language, at least).
@th3orist At least the knowledge, or the understanding of their thought on ideology will help shape the questions that we ask, and I'd say that's a step in the right direction!
he's interesting. i find he repeats the same stories and jokes though. i guess i should just pick up one of his books. but then i'll miss out on his funny mannerisms!
@finny6 Combine, watch these videos AND read his books, with a bit of imagination you'll automaticly hear his voice speak the written words including the mannerisms. works for me
Let's have no more comments full of empty jargon. Zizek's writing (and speaking) is convoluted and discursive, but it's clear.
And to the complaint that he doesn't have an answer, if you're familiar with Zizek's work over the last fifteen years, his answer is clear--there needs to be a more radical left. What that answer means is vague. But he understands the complexities of the world, and he won't offer a simple platitude or course of action; compared to most bs answers, that's refreshing.
Loved the point about public reason. Wouldn't it be amazing if all our mental energy didn't have to go into some career we believe we need to pursue, or into the social rules we believe we need to assume, or into some passion that we believe defines us or is our calling... literally to just have our thoughts go into freely understanding the world around us, and to have society actually approve of this kind of thinking. I wonder if that's even possible in our hierarchical capitalist world?
@chopinchopin Like Marx said: "First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself." Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
I think is finally time for Zizek's examples to turn to videogames. While playing Assassin's Creed 2 and 3, with its twisted morals and its strange take on commerce and populism, I couldn't take Zizek out of my mind. Please, somebody make him play it or play it in front of him!
@biofaust He already comments on video games. A big part of his thing is that he was raised an Eastern shut-in so he thinks he can learn about human life through the stuff that is tripe to us.
"difference between society and community in exaggerated form"
By this, do you mean the gap between society as it actually functions and the (largely media driven) cultural self-image? A crude analogy could be drawn between the lies we tell to ourselves as individuals and the lies we tell as a culture/society.
He says our discourse is out of sync with our behavior ; is it analogous then to the difference between society and community in exaggerated form and so constitutive?
Zizek is a brutally intelligent monster and a wild Sloven(e) Boyer. Starbuck's in its highly advanced civil society space is indeed a good mini-model of Zizek's Goucho Marx authoritarianism; i.e., the greater the warm freedoms of voluntary participation the greater the centrality of the ideological control capacity of the central committee; but this problem extends to all zones of freedom; as contrasted with order.
Zizek's 'hamster' is constancy, nicht? He talks blue in the face, but doesn't believe a word (he knows); he is simply unaware of the way society acts on him and goes on presupposing there is an anchor in something solid. True, the ones who carefully act 'under erasure' of concepts and so on, "believe", ultimately their strategy is to do the impossible (and not merely the 'impossible'). Zizek is too faithful to his unconscious to break free. Extraordinary super-ego subject this guy.
Zizek's models miss that it is only stupid until it's not; i.e. all provisional identification with the Name of Father crescendos in the 'hard' and power prosthetic controlling one who is identification in their essence and so is absolutely free in this roll; i.e. the sovereign; the emperor in Kafka; in ancient China. As we go back in time the increase in freedom is fluid and eventually the phallus becomes an organic and feminine golden position. Zizek is simple minded; feigning consistence.
Communism and anarchism are not mutually exclusive as someone earlier suggested. "Every anarchist is a socialist, but not every socialist is an anarchist." There are strains of anarchism in the U.S. that have attempted to change this, but this is not controversial in the rest of the world. Just as there are state variants of capitalism, the same applies to the left. State-socialists are different from the stateless variety, and it is this latter group that overlaps with anarchism.
This reminds me of exactly what I could never get my head around so far as the pity "fake it until you make it" is concerned - I only ever felt like a fake, which was somehow supposed to be understood as "making it" - that is, as some kind of authentic mode of being....
@ElTresDeMayo1808 You are correct, although Bakunin founded Anarcho-Communism, so there must be a way to reconcile some of the two camps. And as Zizek preaches, we should abandon the 20th century (and so one can assume the 19th as well), so what other choice do we have in a world where old school Communism is considered dead? If you try to lead a Leninist movement today people will just laugh at you, so we must begin to create once again.
@AndrewMann552 but this are (in my opinion) 2 very different ideologies.... Communists LOVE and LIVE for the STATE and Anarchist want to abandon the STATE.
The question of State YES or NO is essential... I would also not consider to leave the 19th century because we left the 20th behind.... the 19th century is fundamentally and not to be abandon. (In my opinion neither the 20th but for all the failures I can understand one has this feeling)
@ElTresDeMayo1808 I think a good starting point is Lenin's "State And Revolution," when he published it he was even accused by liberals and Marxists of being an anarchist in disguise because he called for the dismantling of the state, replacing it with a system ruled by the Soviets. Marx also preached the end of the old state when the Paris Commune in 1871 took place. I don't think we can switch immediately to an anarchist system, we need a transition process involving a new state.
Well of course we all (you, zizek, me) can break it down to ANTICAPITALIST... Allthough I don't like to be premier just AGAINST something but that's the only way to get change. First kill the bear, then comes the fight who gets his fur. But I think that's a major point for the lack of the left... Too many political trends within the left. The right wingers have it much easier, although some are against jews some not etc, for them it's easier to follow just ONE trend.
The western European model of capitalism with a happy face has failed - if the good guys don't come together, fascism will take over. It happened before, it can happen again.
A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein
MrUsernamessuckalots 2 weeks ago 2
"likes" is not right. Silly!
faelismaegnus 4 months ago
Crazy basement dweller gives speech, receives vodka and PEZ.
DystopianEmpire01 5 months ago
1:21:55 I wish so badly he could have continued!
79898325 5 months ago
@79898325
i know that zizek is inspired by althusser on the ideology term. therefore i claim that there has to be always an ideology. the subject is constituted through ideology. to live in ideology means not, that you live in a wrong world or something like this. in some strange way ideology, as marxist poststructuralists (like althusser, like zizek) use it, is 'neutral'
ideology would therefore be to say: i know things and therefore i dont live ideologic.
th3orist 5 months ago
@th3orist It brings me joy to see there's people subscribed to youtube that've actually read a book or two. Well summarized, it's hard to get across reasonable in this limited forum.
brollan1234 4 months ago
@brollan1234
thanks. it really is hard. but also hard is to really catch the thought of althusser and zizek on ideology because you could easily formulate the question: and how to actually really change things when we are constituted through ideology which functions as a neutral force (interpellation) and more or less binds people to the structures of society that already exists and that have to be abolished... questions over questions :)
th3orist 4 months ago
@myself
but i am sure that althusser and also zizek know of this issue. but i dont really know how they deal with it...
maybe the question is wrong because...yeah, why? what do we miss? :)
th3orist 4 months ago
@th3orist Foucault uses the term épisteme to describe this, McLuhan uses 'environment'. "We don't know who discovered water, but it certainly wasn't a fish." Environments are invisible, all-pervasive, and constitute our sense experience. For McLuhan, our primary 'ideology' is the phonetic alphabet and the linearity it imposes upon our understandings of space, time and the way we think (reason), but he says all this is being subject to change within the new electric era of image and sound media.
safetydept 4 months ago
I think Zizek takes a Lacanian stance that we can never fully articulate ourselves through language, hence, there is no possible answer to the question (within language, at least).
safetydept 4 months ago
@th3orist At least the knowledge, or the understanding of their thought on ideology will help shape the questions that we ask, and I'd say that's a step in the right direction!
brollan1234 4 months ago
Comment removed
79898325 5 months ago
he's interesting. i find he repeats the same stories and jokes though. i guess i should just pick up one of his books. but then i'll miss out on his funny mannerisms!
finny6 6 months ago
@finny6 Combine, watch these videos AND read his books, with a bit of imagination you'll automaticly hear his voice speak the written words including the mannerisms. works for me
TheHardProblem 5 months ago
Let's have no more comments full of empty jargon. Zizek's writing (and speaking) is convoluted and discursive, but it's clear.
And to the complaint that he doesn't have an answer, if you're familiar with Zizek's work over the last fifteen years, his answer is clear--there needs to be a more radical left. What that answer means is vague. But he understands the complexities of the world, and he won't offer a simple platitude or course of action; compared to most bs answers, that's refreshing.
LeonSpinx1 6 months ago
Loved the point about public reason. Wouldn't it be amazing if all our mental energy didn't have to go into some career we believe we need to pursue, or into the social rules we believe we need to assume, or into some passion that we believe defines us or is our calling... literally to just have our thoughts go into freely understanding the world around us, and to have society actually approve of this kind of thinking. I wonder if that's even possible in our hierarchical capitalist world?
chopinchopin 6 months ago
@chopinchopin Like Marx said: "First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself." Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
suttyret 5 months ago 2
Would you like a shmoke and a pancake? Shigaa and a waffle?
64meatpuppets 6 months ago
I think is finally time for Zizek's examples to turn to videogames. While playing Assassin's Creed 2 and 3, with its twisted morals and its strange take on commerce and populism, I couldn't take Zizek out of my mind. Please, somebody make him play it or play it in front of him!
biofaust 6 months ago 2
@biofaust He already comments on video games. A big part of his thing is that he was raised an Eastern shut-in so he thinks he can learn about human life through the stuff that is tripe to us.
FannyPagnol 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"difference between society and community in exaggerated form"
By this, do you mean the gap between society as it actually functions and the (largely media driven) cultural self-image? A crude analogy could be drawn between the lies we tell to ourselves as individuals and the lies we tell as a culture/society.
littleumbrellas37 6 months ago
He says our discourse is out of sync with our behavior ; is it analogous then to the difference between society and community in exaggerated form and so constitutive?
FannyPagnol 6 months ago
@FannyPagnol what are you on about? You're just that to sound intelligent.
BenNCM 6 months ago
@BenNCM If you say so...
FannyPagnol 6 months ago
Zizek is a brutally intelligent monster and a wild Sloven(e) Boyer. Starbuck's in its highly advanced civil society space is indeed a good mini-model of Zizek's Goucho Marx authoritarianism; i.e., the greater the warm freedoms of voluntary participation the greater the centrality of the ideological control capacity of the central committee; but this problem extends to all zones of freedom; as contrasted with order.
FannyPagnol 6 months ago
Zizek's 'hamster' is constancy, nicht? He talks blue in the face, but doesn't believe a word (he knows); he is simply unaware of the way society acts on him and goes on presupposing there is an anchor in something solid. True, the ones who carefully act 'under erasure' of concepts and so on, "believe", ultimately their strategy is to do the impossible (and not merely the 'impossible'). Zizek is too faithful to his unconscious to break free. Extraordinary super-ego subject this guy.
ThewildRageofGordon 6 months ago
Zizek's models miss that it is only stupid until it's not; i.e. all provisional identification with the Name of Father crescendos in the 'hard' and power prosthetic controlling one who is identification in their essence and so is absolutely free in this roll; i.e. the sovereign; the emperor in Kafka; in ancient China. As we go back in time the increase in freedom is fluid and eventually the phallus becomes an organic and feminine golden position. Zizek is simple minded; feigning consistence.
ThewildRageofGordon 6 months ago
Communism and anarchism are not mutually exclusive as someone earlier suggested. "Every anarchist is a socialist, but not every socialist is an anarchist." There are strains of anarchism in the U.S. that have attempted to change this, but this is not controversial in the rest of the world. Just as there are state variants of capitalism, the same applies to the left. State-socialists are different from the stateless variety, and it is this latter group that overlaps with anarchism.
littleumbrellas37 6 months ago
This reminds me of exactly what I could never get my head around so far as the pity "fake it until you make it" is concerned - I only ever felt like a fake, which was somehow supposed to be understood as "making it" - that is, as some kind of authentic mode of being....
logotrix 6 months ago
Wonder what Zizek would say about Bakunin's ideas, they seem very reasonable and relevant for a situation like Greece.
AndrewMann552 7 months ago
@AndrewMann552 xD as a marxist/communst BAKUNIN and the ideas of anarchy is the enemy.
it's well known that karl marx hated bakunin very very much. he even bullied him ^^
ElTresDeMayo1808 7 months ago
@ElTresDeMayo1808 You are correct, although Bakunin founded Anarcho-Communism, so there must be a way to reconcile some of the two camps. And as Zizek preaches, we should abandon the 20th century (and so one can assume the 19th as well), so what other choice do we have in a world where old school Communism is considered dead? If you try to lead a Leninist movement today people will just laugh at you, so we must begin to create once again.
AndrewMann552 7 months ago
@AndrewMann552 but this are (in my opinion) 2 very different ideologies.... Communists LOVE and LIVE for the STATE and Anarchist want to abandon the STATE.
The question of State YES or NO is essential... I would also not consider to leave the 19th century because we left the 20th behind.... the 19th century is fundamentally and not to be abandon. (In my opinion neither the 20th but for all the failures I can understand one has this feeling)
ElTresDeMayo1808 7 months ago
@ElTresDeMayo1808 I think a good starting point is Lenin's "State And Revolution," when he published it he was even accused by liberals and Marxists of being an anarchist in disguise because he called for the dismantling of the state, replacing it with a system ruled by the Soviets. Marx also preached the end of the old state when the Paris Commune in 1871 took place. I don't think we can switch immediately to an anarchist system, we need a transition process involving a new state.
AndrewMann552 6 months ago
@ElTresDeMayo1808 In the end your idea and mine are still stronger than what Zizek says in this video, "I don't know what to do" LOL
AndrewMann552 6 months ago
@AndrewMann552 :D
Well of course we all (you, zizek, me) can break it down to ANTICAPITALIST... Allthough I don't like to be premier just AGAINST something but that's the only way to get change. First kill the bear, then comes the fight who gets his fur. But I think that's a major point for the lack of the left... Too many political trends within the left. The right wingers have it much easier, although some are against jews some not etc, for them it's easier to follow just ONE trend.
ElTresDeMayo1808 6 months ago
Comment removed
petrosyan201 6 months ago
Zizek lost credibility when he lectured in Israel a few weeks ago and claimed anti-semitism is a more serious issue than the occupation.
AndrewMann552 7 months ago
The western European model of capitalism with a happy face has failed - if the good guys don't come together, fascism will take over. It happened before, it can happen again.
taniaisapunkrocker 7 months ago