What a fascinating man. Extremely, extremely perceptive guy, I think. I think he seems as if his communication is slightly awkward and difficult at times, but that's because the things he's perceived are the most elusive elements of the human condition. His metaphors alone are a worth a million apiece. And anyone who can make an idea of Lacan's accessible has a lot of talent!
There is an alternative economic modle to capatilisim, it's called a resource based economy. Where all the worlds resources are declaired as common heritage.
Does Zizek mean the same 'King's Speech' that the majority of cinema audiences saw in 2010? In 'The King's Speech' the main character's problems with speech begin when he is subjected to the draconian treatment of his nanny, no? This is explicitly stated in the film, is it not?
@Vier5501 He doesn't watch most of the films he comments on. He just makes up theories based on reviews and trailers, then deliberately doesn't go to see the films because that might upset his theory.
@truelieswow True, not explicitly stated. But it's the only explanation on which the film focuses on (via the context of Rush's acting, music, and cinematography), which equates to a fairly unambiguous implication that this was the root of the King's problem. Which other explanations did they provide in the film?
@Vier5501 The other explinations, both explicit and implicit are the pressure of being king, the favouritism of his father, his domineering older brother etc. Then there's all the underlying tensions and you could probably crack out some Frued on this bad-boy.
@truelieswow 'There're.' His stutter came about at a young age, a *long* time before he became king, so we can dismiss this one. Favoritism also does not seem a significant enough trauma so as to cause stuttering, so I think it is a safe bet to dismiss this one too. His older brother was not domineering; not if we watched the same film. The explanation I referenced still seems very much the only sensible one (at least in the way that the film explained the King's predicament).
I dont think that anyone wants to fuck an ugly dwarf like he is . His smell must be awful and thats why he puts on his show. I think thats what he would like to hear.
Reason surely would prevail in the absence of violence. However, although nature abhors a vacuum, the majority of what we know that can be called nature is a vacuum.
Capitalism is not freedom in it self, but is a necessary condition. Western countries are successful because on top of the capitalism as a necessary condition they have relatively functioning politics. Congo lacks that. Democratic capitalism is the best system discovered so far but may not be the absolute horizon. I have yet to see democratic communism but there would be too many paradoxes in the system.
@Zhiloreznik capitalism has worked so well so far bc the top layer has subjugated the rest of it. ie we enjoy cheap bananas, but workers on banana farms suffer from inhumane working conditions and poverty inducing wages. im not arguing that capitalism is completely worthless, there are so many good things that came up about it. all im saying is that its very flawed, and its a construct of humans. we can make it better, we can make something to replace it.
@boracay234 Every system is a construct of humans. Communism is even more so. Economy as we know it is Keynesian economy at large. Countries based on free trade have created most opportunities for people to escape grinding poverty. That is the reason why I support Classical Liberalism. Marxist economist have a very hard task of presenting better system. I look forward to that but current ideas are not it. Poverty is in most cases result of bad government action. Intended or not.
@Zhiloreznik im not saying marxism is the answer, far from it. and i agree that capitalism has the best mechanisms for upward mobility. for example, the 400 million no-longer-starving people in china who get to experience a higher standard of living than just 40 yrs ago. but lets be real, the current form of capitalism is neo-imperialist and leaning more toward authoritarianism (SOPA & PIPA). i agree with you on everything, except that we do not need to return to capitalism.
@Zhiloreznik we now have the means to do better, via the internet for mass collaboration and deconstruction of the former corporate mechanisms for resource distribution. we will most likely have war before it happens though. capitalism isnt working, debt has simply been moved for the last 40 yrs and the scheme is abt to end
@boracay234 This is not capitalism but a hybrid. Classical Liberalism does not support big war interventions as Keynsian does. Compiling debt is also result of bad government interventions like bailouts, permits and other robberies. Big corporate mechanisms only work if protected by the government otherwise they are replaced by smaller, more nimble companies. Result of Keynsian economy are these empires which all historically failed. Problem with Marxism is there are no foreseeable solutions.
@boracay234 But of course there can be something better. Internet is an amazing tool for developing ideas. They should not be negated so easily as rubbish. All systems must be under constant pressure to point out better solutions and dispose bad ones. If it is constructive is always welcome. Free thinking society is a necessary step for better future. I acknowledge your arguments as you do mine and I praise constructive dialog. Not many dialog's on the internet are so constructive. Sadly.
@Zhiloreznik haha cheers mate i definitely agree. you should read umair haque if you do not already. talks about redefining economic thinking for the 21st century
@HoffDynamite DImwit, instead of you brain amputated dipshit. I not only read Marx in English and GErman, but more importantly I UNDERSTOOD Marx, contrary to all LEFTIST IDIOTS.
Obviously, you are just anothere LEFTIST IDIOT who chickens out when it comes to ARGUMENTS and FACTS. Otherwise you would be capable of answering those "easy" 2 questions below, for the answer of which I offered € 100,000 of my CAPITALISTIC EUROS!
Discussions such as this may be fascinating, but they still represent a ideology that has done nothing but prove man's exploitation of state control and the general decline of living standards, reward for work and human rights. It also is the polar opposite of what America represents. Combine this truth with the speaker's body language which is strangely comparable to those of an amphetemine user and I see nothing more than a man who has an unfounded faith in a system never proven to succeed...
@mltorley The asperger aspect might let him actually see things as they are, rather than what most social "scientists" do, namely try and find evidence to support their ideology even if there is no evidence at all. But of course, he does not have asperges.
@astroboomboy Well, people with Asperger's cannot fully comprehend certain aspects of human behavior, particularly emotions. Relations purely rational and logical are clear, but logical and rational hardly describes human behavior.
@astroboomboy Which is itself one of the two major flaws in Marxism - it ignores fundamental aspects of human nature; so that even if the controlled collapse and resolution of the dialectic can be achieved (and it cannot, this being the other fundamental flaw), the resulting social order cannot be maintained as certain fundamental drives are left unchecked.
@astroboomboy Regardless, he certainly does appear to have Aspergers. Look at the stereotyped movements, his affect, the way he structures and orders his arguments!
Oh, and I in no way disparage people with Aspergers. I have an utterly brilliant friend who suffers from it himself. But as for social theory, its like having a person blind from birth discussing color and composition in art.
@mltorley People don't "suffer" from aspergers, they just have it. & if you think people with AS can't do social theory I'll have to disappoint you: they can. That is because, unlike what most think, people with AS aren't incapable of (understanding) social interaction. Instead they just have more difficulty with it. The 'more autistic' you are, the more difficult - and sometimes even practically impossible - it becomes. But to say: autistic thus incapable of social theory is simply prejudiced.
@TheRacistsMustDie Pardon the fallibility of language, as I by no means intend to suggest that those with Aspergers are suffering. However, I stand by the rest of my statement.
Though there are some forms of interaction that they are perhaps better inclined to perceive, they are simply not properly equipped to judge the full gamut of human behavior. Of course, this is a generalization, but it is no less accurate than to say that one with dyscalculia is unlikely to be a good physicist.
@mltorley & of course the non autistic person is capable of understanding the human behaviour "fullly" solely by virtue of not having autism. I.e. nobody can ever have a full grasp of human behaviour - neither in practice nor in theory. Obviously you can think what you want, but that doesn't mean that what you think is also correct. But I think that I shouldn't nag, I've already seen you going from "being disqualified" to "unlikely to be".
@TheRacistsMustDie Its not so hard to grasp as you may think. There's a bit of a trap that can get you stuck in an infinite loop but since its basically just a fractal its pretty easy to work out the essence of the pattern.
Its a shame most people can't see it but human perception is pretty limited. People on the autism scale tend to get caught up in calculating incalculable relations. The numbers and functions keep changing.
Once you figure out whats fuzzy and whats emergent, its easy.
@mltorley I'm afraid I trust Louis Althusser a bit more then you on this point. & thank you very much but my grasp is not lacking. I can deduce that from the fact that if I don't tell, nobody notices. But maybe unlike you I haven't been lucky enough to see anybody in my life who fully understands another person.
@TheRacistsMustDie You don't need to, all you need to do is understand how they behave and interact on a large scale. This is something no Marxist has ever properly done.
In point of fact, they cannot. For if they do they can no longer be Marxists.
Most of that can be traced to Marx's misunderstanding of Hegel. He mistook effect for cause and thusly thought he could play foolish games with the historical dialectic.
@mltorley Well I was talking more about the concept of overdetermination which states that no theory about the social world can ever be fully conclusive which if I think Althusser was the the first one to come up with, but afterwards it has become a commonly accepted fact in the social sciences (which I study, thus my outrage). It is btw not a concept grounded in Marxism so criticizing that wont really bring overdetermination into discredit. Why he didn't believe me? Because he thought I was
@TheRacistsMustDie Gödel could tell you that much, its a simple consistency/completion issue. So long as you allow for inconsistency you can sidestep the compound causation issues that Althusser called overdetermination. I am aware of the over-acceptance of this notion of which you speak in the social sciences (which I also study) and have long argued against this as it is patently false.
@TheRacistsMustDie So long as you avoid falling into the trap of trying to model social behavior on the level of the individual, the relevant forces make themselves clear and can be easily mapped. The result is fuzzy, due to the high level of uncertainty (which makes it look a lot like quantum mechanics), but a social theory shouldn't aim for too much detail anyhow.
It is only the overemphasis on the expectation of rational behavior that leads to inconclusive theory. Humans ain't that rational
@mltorley I didn't know Gödel & of course humans ain't rational, every social science student knows that. As I have learned overdetermination is concerned more with that the forces recognized are obviously grounded in a paradigm, but that no paradigm can account for every force present. A theory may be & often is able to give a sufficient explanation. You've offered me, in my opinion, a common sense method for trying to make a good theory within a paradigm, but you haven't convinced me that
@phcho, you are correct in saying that philosophy and society have always been at odds. More precisely speaking though, its that philosophy is at odds with the individual ego. So in modern times capitalism is the crescendo of the progression this ego (with monarchies the organized religion rising in opposition to philosophy in the interims). So it is not incorrect to say that now it's secular capitalists that oppose philosophy, but more precisely it is that capitalism is the soloptic extension
It's sad, but true what this European thinker states is the case. He is not quaint in rendering the ideological pressures on modern life. No, he in fact confirms the presence of ideology even in popular culture and in acts of purchasing Starbucks coffee. His work is crucial to understanding the cynical functioning of ideology today. "It is ideological cynicism which obscures the religious core of capitalist beliefs."
An optimist and a pessimist are standing at the edge of a cliff. The pessimist looks down and says depressingly:"If i jump, I will die. "The optimist responds: Well, walk then."
Good insight on the change occurring within universities...Here in Australia we have our own version of the private use of reasoning: Its called the Melbourne Model...streamlined education to get you to become a unit of capital asap..Not to mention the proliferation of so-called long distance courses, higher education "institutions", etc etc...
@metabalcanico I disagree with Zizek on this point. Philosophy and society have always had an antogonistic relationship, from Socrates to Medieval Christianity/Islam to Modern times. Laying the problems at the doorstep of 'late capitalism' misses the point, philosophy has always been for the few, not the many. On another note, although living in Brisbane, I've know of that Melbourne School with the Zizekian Matthew Sharpe and his reiteration of the common view (above)
@XionMNight You know very well that you liked the video, yet you clicked the dislike button regardless. Clearly you are neo-liberal capitalist underneath your communist sensibilities.
... just totally incomprehensible rambling. And unfortunately, Slavoj is referencing this guy more and more in his essays and what not... Well, maybe he is a good interlocutor in their private conversations, but, I don't know, he should (at least temporarily) be banned from exercising his public use of reason.
But anyway, Slavoj is really ON in this performance. (cf the totally awkward "conversation" or whatever with Amy Goodman and Assange for counterexample.)
@arcoinstin Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
But that first questioner -- ugh -- his name I think is Udi Aloni or something like that -- I recognize his voice -- is just unbearable. He has no fucking question, first of all, and he is basically an idiot, secondly, and I hate saying that because I loath trollsome negative commentary. I saw him speak at an event in NY several months ago alongside Badiou and Zizek and there was a palpable uncomfortableness in the room among the hundreds of audience members...
Honestly, with the RDA for Logic and Reason, and iQ2 feature length presentations, I am humbled to the point of choked up over the response and availability of triple A quality educational materials.
These institutions are astoundingly efficient at leaking out conscious-expanding experiences that help transcend class boundaries, truly socializing the distribution of truth.
The new ieda - The Age of Behaviour - beyond borders. Ideas & narratives bond people together. When the system fails let's rid ourselves of the man-made borders. Let's go beyond the nation-state and live in the future. Totality.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Eight-hundred pages on Hegel? Hegel is an idiot. This is eight-hundred pages of Zizek desperate for more attention. Hegel is Zizek's hamster.Hegel is dead, but cleverly, Zizek is turning Hegel into an eternal hamster.
@anarchistory I don't agree with you, but I disagree more with the fact that your comment has been semi-censored because 'too' many people dislike it. Zizek would have a lot to say about that.
I've never heard so many anecdotes in a lecture. I don't know what I think about that.
mrcollieman 6 days ago
What a fascinating man. Extremely, extremely perceptive guy, I think. I think he seems as if his communication is slightly awkward and difficult at times, but that's because the things he's perceived are the most elusive elements of the human condition. His metaphors alone are a worth a million apiece. And anyone who can make an idea of Lacan's accessible has a lot of talent!
jonoderidder 1 week ago
There is an alternative economic modle to capatilisim, it's called a resource based economy. Where all the worlds resources are declaired as common heritage.
shaunaust 1 week ago
Comment removed
SeArWo 1 week ago
Comment removed
SeArWo 1 week ago
Comment removed
SeArWo 1 week ago
Comment removed
SeArWo 1 week ago
Comment removed
fazles 2 weeks ago
his fetishism is touching his nose LOL
applendcherry 3 weeks ago
@applendcherry Ever heard of cocaine? ;)
mrcollieman 6 days ago
@applendcherry either that, or he's been chasing the dragon. :oS
LionelRaw 1 day ago
Two words: Psychotic brilliance.
WorldCollections 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh man... the joke around 01:06:00 ... the way he delivered it... I laughed so hard now I have a migraine!!
Anyhow.. very good presentation. Makes a great deal of sense.
lanceawatt 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
lanceawatt 1 month ago
Does Zizek mean the same 'King's Speech' that the majority of cinema audiences saw in 2010? In 'The King's Speech' the main character's problems with speech begin when he is subjected to the draconian treatment of his nanny, no? This is explicitly stated in the film, is it not?
Vier5501 1 month ago
@Vier5501 He doesn't watch most of the films he comments on. He just makes up theories based on reviews and trailers, then deliberately doesn't go to see the films because that might upset his theory.
DerBlitzStag 1 month ago
@Vier5501 It's not stated in the film. It's given as one of the many problems that could have caused it.
truelieswow 4 weeks ago
@truelieswow True, not explicitly stated. But it's the only explanation on which the film focuses on (via the context of Rush's acting, music, and cinematography), which equates to a fairly unambiguous implication that this was the root of the King's problem. Which other explanations did they provide in the film?
Vier5501 4 weeks ago
@Vier5501 The other explinations, both explicit and implicit are the pressure of being king, the favouritism of his father, his domineering older brother etc. Then there's all the underlying tensions and you could probably crack out some Frued on this bad-boy.
truelieswow 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@truelieswow 'There're.' His stutter came about at a young age, a *long* time before he became king, so we can dismiss this one. Favoritism also does not seem a significant enough trauma so as to cause stuttering, so I think it is a safe bet to dismiss this one too. His older brother was not domineering; not if we watched the same film. The explanation I referenced still seems very much the only sensible one (at least in the way that the film explained the King's predicament).
Vier5501 3 weeks ago
The disembodied Italian questioner is unnerving...like Zizek is Dorothy in the emerald city except the questions are going the other way
jazzmunky 1 month ago
zizek; where a 1 marries a 10. Search 'Analia Hounie'.
RowanKinneavy 1 month ago
Where is this girl with the sexy smile? Give me the timecode!
SeedsofJoy 1 month ago
I dont think that anyone wants to fuck an ugly dwarf like he is . His smell must be awful and thats why he puts on his show. I think thats what he would like to hear.
Batzadog 1 month ago
Reason surely would prevail in the absence of violence. However, although nature abhors a vacuum, the majority of what we know that can be called nature is a vacuum.
MisterSkillet100 1 month ago
30:00 (Kant) - 37:20 is fookin' brilliant ! Go, Slavoj GO !
JUGAopet1 2 months ago
12:28
druxka 2 months ago
0:12:28
druxka 2 months ago
They should chuck all the S's out of this speech.
druxka 2 months ago
Capitalism is not freedom in it self, but is a necessary condition. Western countries are successful because on top of the capitalism as a necessary condition they have relatively functioning politics. Congo lacks that. Democratic capitalism is the best system discovered so far but may not be the absolute horizon. I have yet to see democratic communism but there would be too many paradoxes in the system.
Zhiloreznik 2 months ago
@Zhiloreznik capitalism has worked so well so far bc the top layer has subjugated the rest of it. ie we enjoy cheap bananas, but workers on banana farms suffer from inhumane working conditions and poverty inducing wages. im not arguing that capitalism is completely worthless, there are so many good things that came up about it. all im saying is that its very flawed, and its a construct of humans. we can make it better, we can make something to replace it.
boracay234 2 months ago
@boracay234 Every system is a construct of humans. Communism is even more so. Economy as we know it is Keynesian economy at large. Countries based on free trade have created most opportunities for people to escape grinding poverty. That is the reason why I support Classical Liberalism. Marxist economist have a very hard task of presenting better system. I look forward to that but current ideas are not it. Poverty is in most cases result of bad government action. Intended or not.
Zhiloreznik 2 months ago
@Zhiloreznik im not saying marxism is the answer, far from it. and i agree that capitalism has the best mechanisms for upward mobility. for example, the 400 million no-longer-starving people in china who get to experience a higher standard of living than just 40 yrs ago. but lets be real, the current form of capitalism is neo-imperialist and leaning more toward authoritarianism (SOPA & PIPA). i agree with you on everything, except that we do not need to return to capitalism.
boracay234 2 months ago
@Zhiloreznik we now have the means to do better, via the internet for mass collaboration and deconstruction of the former corporate mechanisms for resource distribution. we will most likely have war before it happens though. capitalism isnt working, debt has simply been moved for the last 40 yrs and the scheme is abt to end
boracay234 2 months ago
@boracay234 This is not capitalism but a hybrid. Classical Liberalism does not support big war interventions as Keynsian does. Compiling debt is also result of bad government interventions like bailouts, permits and other robberies. Big corporate mechanisms only work if protected by the government otherwise they are replaced by smaller, more nimble companies. Result of Keynsian economy are these empires which all historically failed. Problem with Marxism is there are no foreseeable solutions.
Zhiloreznik 2 months ago
@boracay234 But of course there can be something better. Internet is an amazing tool for developing ideas. They should not be negated so easily as rubbish. All systems must be under constant pressure to point out better solutions and dispose bad ones. If it is constructive is always welcome. Free thinking society is a necessary step for better future. I acknowledge your arguments as you do mine and I praise constructive dialog. Not many dialog's on the internet are so constructive. Sadly.
Zhiloreznik 2 months ago
@Zhiloreznik haha cheers mate i definitely agree. you should read umair haque if you do not already. talks about redefining economic thinking for the 21st century
boracay234 2 months ago
Words cannot describe my love for this man. He is a big ol' teddy bear of thought whose brain I want to hug for hours.
HoffDynamite 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@HoffDynamite DImwit, instead of you brain amputated dipshit. I not only read Marx in English and GErman, but more importantly I UNDERSTOOD Marx, contrary to all LEFTIST IDIOTS.
Obviously, you are just anothere LEFTIST IDIOT who chickens out when it comes to ARGUMENTS and FACTS. Otherwise you would be capable of answering those "easy" 2 questions below, for the answer of which I offered € 100,000 of my CAPITALISTIC EUROS!
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
Discussions such as this may be fascinating, but they still represent a ideology that has done nothing but prove man's exploitation of state control and the general decline of living standards, reward for work and human rights. It also is the polar opposite of what America represents. Combine this truth with the speaker's body language which is strangely comparable to those of an amphetemine user and I see nothing more than a man who has an unfounded faith in a system never proven to succeed...
iamtheshaner 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamtheshaner "Equating Stalinism to Communism is a rookie mistake."
DIMWIT, name me just ONE EXAMPLE where communism was anything else than stalinism.
But I of course, will not hear ANY ARGUMENTS coming from a sub-human LEFTISH life form like you here ... because you dont have any!
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
How can i contribute by captioning this to spanish?
levogiro 3 months ago
at last some1 pointed out the attack on the public use of reason
loccoptic 3 months ago
Black swan has nothing to do with "career" and "feminism" or any other bullshit, he just doesn't get Aronofsky
eenblanke 3 months ago
@eenblanke
If he 'doesn't get Aronofsky', then you 'dont get Zizek'.
SpartanM622 3 months ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 3 months ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 3 months ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 3 months ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 3 months ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 3 months ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 3 months ago
Oh. He has Aspergers.
Disqualifies him as a social theorist really as he'll never properly grasp human behavior.
Not his fault though.
mltorley 4 months ago
@mltorley The asperger aspect might let him actually see things as they are, rather than what most social "scientists" do, namely try and find evidence to support their ideology even if there is no evidence at all. But of course, he does not have asperges.
astroboomboy 4 months ago
@astroboomboy Well, people with Asperger's cannot fully comprehend certain aspects of human behavior, particularly emotions. Relations purely rational and logical are clear, but logical and rational hardly describes human behavior.
mltorley 4 months ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 3 months ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 3 months ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 3 months ago
@astroboomboy Which is itself one of the two major flaws in Marxism - it ignores fundamental aspects of human nature; so that even if the controlled collapse and resolution of the dialectic can be achieved (and it cannot, this being the other fundamental flaw), the resulting social order cannot be maintained as certain fundamental drives are left unchecked.
mltorley 4 months ago
@astroboomboy Regardless, he certainly does appear to have Aspergers. Look at the stereotyped movements, his affect, the way he structures and orders his arguments!
Oh, and I in no way disparage people with Aspergers. I have an utterly brilliant friend who suffers from it himself. But as for social theory, its like having a person blind from birth discussing color and composition in art.
mltorley 4 months ago
@mltorley People don't "suffer" from aspergers, they just have it. & if you think people with AS can't do social theory I'll have to disappoint you: they can. That is because, unlike what most think, people with AS aren't incapable of (understanding) social interaction. Instead they just have more difficulty with it. The 'more autistic' you are, the more difficult - and sometimes even practically impossible - it becomes. But to say: autistic thus incapable of social theory is simply prejudiced.
TheRacistsMustDie 3 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie Pardon the fallibility of language, as I by no means intend to suggest that those with Aspergers are suffering. However, I stand by the rest of my statement.
Though there are some forms of interaction that they are perhaps better inclined to perceive, they are simply not properly equipped to judge the full gamut of human behavior. Of course, this is a generalization, but it is no less accurate than to say that one with dyscalculia is unlikely to be a good physicist.
mltorley 3 months ago
@mltorley & of course the non autistic person is capable of understanding the human behaviour "fullly" solely by virtue of not having autism. I.e. nobody can ever have a full grasp of human behaviour - neither in practice nor in theory. Obviously you can think what you want, but that doesn't mean that what you think is also correct. But I think that I shouldn't nag, I've already seen you going from "being disqualified" to "unlikely to be".
TheRacistsMustDie 3 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie Its not so hard to grasp as you may think. There's a bit of a trap that can get you stuck in an infinite loop but since its basically just a fractal its pretty easy to work out the essence of the pattern.
Its a shame most people can't see it but human perception is pretty limited. People on the autism scale tend to get caught up in calculating incalculable relations. The numbers and functions keep changing.
Once you figure out whats fuzzy and whats emergent, its easy.
mltorley 3 months ago
@mltorley I'm afraid I trust Louis Althusser a bit more then you on this point. & thank you very much but my grasp is not lacking. I can deduce that from the fact that if I don't tell, nobody notices. But maybe unlike you I haven't been lucky enough to see anybody in my life who fully understands another person.
TheRacistsMustDie 3 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie You don't need to, all you need to do is understand how they behave and interact on a large scale. This is something no Marxist has ever properly done.
In point of fact, they cannot. For if they do they can no longer be Marxists.
Most of that can be traced to Marx's misunderstanding of Hegel. He mistook effect for cause and thusly thought he could play foolish games with the historical dialectic.
However, Althusser's errors may be even worse.
mltorley 3 months ago
@mltorley Moreover, this came just to my mind after posting, I once I told this classmate I had autism, and he didn't believe me!
TheRacistsMustDie 3 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie Why?
mltorley 3 months ago
@mltorley Well I was talking more about the concept of overdetermination which states that no theory about the social world can ever be fully conclusive which if I think Althusser was the the first one to come up with, but afterwards it has become a commonly accepted fact in the social sciences (which I study, thus my outrage). It is btw not a concept grounded in Marxism so criticizing that wont really bring overdetermination into discredit. Why he didn't believe me? Because he thought I was
TheRacistsMustDie 3 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie Gödel could tell you that much, its a simple consistency/completion issue. So long as you allow for inconsistency you can sidestep the compound causation issues that Althusser called overdetermination. I am aware of the over-acceptance of this notion of which you speak in the social sciences (which I also study) and have long argued against this as it is patently false.
mltorley 3 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie So long as you avoid falling into the trap of trying to model social behavior on the level of the individual, the relevant forces make themselves clear and can be easily mapped. The result is fuzzy, due to the high level of uncertainty (which makes it look a lot like quantum mechanics), but a social theory shouldn't aim for too much detail anyhow.
It is only the overemphasis on the expectation of rational behavior that leads to inconclusive theory. Humans ain't that rational
mltorley 3 months ago
@mltorley normal, apparently I didn't fit well enough into the stereotype.
TheRacistsMustDie 3 months ago
@TheRacistsMustDie Aspergers or just really low on CARS?
mltorley 3 months ago
@mltorley I didn't know Gödel & of course humans ain't rational, every social science student knows that. As I have learned overdetermination is concerned more with that the forces recognized are obviously grounded in a paradigm, but that no paradigm can account for every force present. A theory may be & often is able to give a sufficient explanation. You've offered me, in my opinion, a common sense method for trying to make a good theory within a paradigm, but you haven't convinced me that
TheRacistsMustDie 3 months ago
@mltorley overdetermination is bull. PDD-NOS b.t.w.
TheRacistsMustDie 3 months ago
If you tied his hands down, would his nose fall off?
misterbeamish1 4 months ago 29
WHAT THE FUCK? I should have listen to that schizoid ranting on the street corner for an hour and a half instead of LISENING to this RIGHT WING FUCK!!
Slavoj Žižek is just not radical ENOUGH for me!!!!!!
brentjo1911 4 months ago
this man has the word i never had to my ideas and thought i have and ideas to thought i never had manly the latter
andrew5613 4 months ago
How this girl looks at him with that sexy smile, I hope he fucked the shit out of her after lecture.
zigifrojd 4 months ago 12
@zigifrojd Yeah, she hopes his penis shakes 2 all the time:))
JUGAopet1 2 months ago
@zigifrojd ...The fuck is going on in that head of yours?
Vier5501 1 month ago 5
@phcho, you are correct in saying that philosophy and society have always been at odds. More precisely speaking though, its that philosophy is at odds with the individual ego. So in modern times capitalism is the crescendo of the progression this ego (with monarchies the organized religion rising in opposition to philosophy in the interims). So it is not incorrect to say that now it's secular capitalists that oppose philosophy, but more precisely it is that capitalism is the soloptic extension
arlin25 4 months ago
It's sad, but true what this European thinker states is the case. He is not quaint in rendering the ideological pressures on modern life. No, he in fact confirms the presence of ideology even in popular culture and in acts of purchasing Starbucks coffee. His work is crucial to understanding the cynical functioning of ideology today. "It is ideological cynicism which obscures the religious core of capitalist beliefs."
Oishi08 4 months ago
that girl looks at him like she wants to fuck him
Godhand156 5 months ago 3
Comment removed
Godhand156 5 months ago
An optimist and a pessimist are standing at the edge of a cliff. The pessimist looks down and says depressingly:"If i jump, I will die. "The optimist responds: Well, walk then."
widerling 5 months ago
That chick at the end has awesome tits! She could play with my microphone like that all day long!
gigel2006 5 months ago
lol, "weapons of mass distraction"... =D
quierover1234 6 months ago
Resource Based Economy
johnnyelkid 6 months ago
Comment removed
metabalcanico 6 months ago
Comment removed
metabalcanico 6 months ago
Good insight on the change occurring within universities...Here in Australia we have our own version of the private use of reasoning: Its called the Melbourne Model...streamlined education to get you to become a unit of capital asap..Not to mention the proliferation of so-called long distance courses, higher education "institutions", etc etc...
metabalcanico 6 months ago
@metabalcanico I disagree with Zizek on this point. Philosophy and society have always had an antogonistic relationship, from Socrates to Medieval Christianity/Islam to Modern times. Laying the problems at the doorstep of 'late capitalism' misses the point, philosophy has always been for the few, not the many. On another note, although living in Brisbane, I've know of that Melbourne School with the Zizekian Matthew Sharpe and his reiteration of the common view (above)
phcou 5 months ago
Comment removed
metabalcanico 6 months ago
I like the way he pronounces 'Kant' lol
ViperRob42 6 months ago
Where does Zizek speak of this Hegel book? I some how missed it.
Mauser91 7 months ago
@Mauser91 Towards the very tail end of the video.
stephenblackman2003a 7 months ago
Don't trust the dislike counter; I accidentally clicked that button. I don't actually dislike this at all.
XionMNight 7 months ago 2
@XionMNight You know very well that you liked the video, yet you clicked the dislike button regardless. Clearly you are neo-liberal capitalist underneath your communist sensibilities.
HToothrot 6 months ago 3
... just totally incomprehensible rambling. And unfortunately, Slavoj is referencing this guy more and more in his essays and what not... Well, maybe he is a good interlocutor in their private conversations, but, I don't know, he should (at least temporarily) be banned from exercising his public use of reason.
But anyway, Slavoj is really ON in this performance. (cf the totally awkward "conversation" or whatever with Amy Goodman and Assange for counterexample.)
arcoinstin 7 months ago 21
This has been flagged as spam show
@arcoinstin Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
I pay you € 1.000.000, if you are able to.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
Slavoj is very good here.
But that first questioner -- ugh -- his name I think is Udi Aloni or something like that -- I recognize his voice -- is just unbearable. He has no fucking question, first of all, and he is basically an idiot, secondly, and I hate saying that because I loath trollsome negative commentary. I saw him speak at an event in NY several months ago alongside Badiou and Zizek and there was a palpable uncomfortableness in the room among the hundreds of audience members...
arcoinstin 7 months ago 37
This has been flagged as spam show
@arcoinstin " then when cornered, spew forth venomous "
Hahahahhaah, when did this happen??
Ok, let us see your "intellectual capabilities" on those questions:
1) Name just ONE example where communism was SUCCESSFUL
2) Explain how communism can be realised WITHOUT resulting in a NIGHTMARE of POVERTY, TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES.
I am ready to pay you 100,000 of my CAPITALISTIC EUROS, if you can :-)
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
Thanks. This was a wonderful call to critical thinkers and intellectuals
timtillack 7 months ago 3
Honestly, with the RDA for Logic and Reason, and iQ2 feature length presentations, I am humbled to the point of choked up over the response and availability of triple A quality educational materials.
These institutions are astoundingly efficient at leaking out conscious-expanding experiences that help transcend class boundaries, truly socializing the distribution of truth.
Cmdouse 7 months ago
I don't agree with his reading of Black Swan but I am currently reading The Parallax View and it is very good.
jonahfox 7 months ago
The new ieda - The Age of Behaviour - beyond borders. Ideas & narratives bond people together. When the system fails let's rid ourselves of the man-made borders. Let's go beyond the nation-state and live in the future. Totality.
manjushri001 7 months ago 2
Absolutely brilliant! Remarkable presentation!
martolba 7 months ago
I am Zizekian! Long live Zizek!
Superb!!!!
habibie 7 months ago 3
great
leninstreet 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Eight-hundred pages on Hegel? Hegel is an idiot. This is eight-hundred pages of Zizek desperate for more attention. Hegel is Zizek's hamster.Hegel is dead, but cleverly, Zizek is turning Hegel into an eternal hamster.
anarchistory 7 months ago
@anarchistory I don't agree with you, but I disagree more with the fact that your comment has been semi-censored because 'too' many people dislike it. Zizek would have a lot to say about that.
tryptich21 6 months ago 2
Brilliant
princeofexcess 7 months ago
Thanks! :)
FleshMob 7 months ago