Видео

We need to move to the next page. I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. The mind employs a set of a’ priori modes to systemically align and thus, synthesise with the order and symmetry of things. Adding is an obvious mode to most. You can’t add up what I am about to relay without it. We can’t add up the variables of evolution without it. It’s not just there for adding up the pennies in your purse. Categorisation is another mode. We categorically define the world we are of. I categorise adding as a mode of thought. We move in and out of categories continuously. On a side note- this is not word salad. That’s an expression used by those who get lost in any kind of complex verse. We all add. That’s not word salad. Identification is another mode. Identify the structure of the cell. Identify our root on the evolutionary ladder. Identify categorisation as a mode. We can’t seem to be able to identify our own nature as human in a fixed way. Just can’t ground the predicate. Configuration is another mode. When things don’t figure, it’s because the mind hasn’t combined with the correct configuration. Unification is another mode. To unify what we are searching for. To add it up and unify it. To unify around the correct configuration and add it up. There are many more modes. Considered together as a constellation set; as a concatenation of modes, the mind can be seen as a systemic tool. A tool prior to ego and experience. A tool for systemising and synthesising its place in the order of things as I said. You are employing them right now as you engage with me. This set is in everyone. It is a universal set and thought is impossible without it. Language by extension is impossible without it. From a phenomenological perspective, this set is what we are until we know more. It is this set that allows us to abstract and see that appearances are not what things are. It is this set that allows us to see that the body has no fixed predicate so it is a loose idea at best. In essence, we are a set of systemic modes floating in an ocean of dissipating variables and until we can say more we are that. This set is responsible for all knowledge structures. Science and philosophy are impossible without the systemic lens/eye. Kant employed them to ground his categories. Einstein employed them to ground his perspective and so forth. One ring to rule them all. One eye to systemise it all. Debunking me revolves around you engaging the modes so there’s no getting out of the bag. We need to ground ourselves in the centre. The above is the core of where it’s at If you want to know more go to sixty second philosopher RUclips. Yap.

Sound effect not good.

Good stuff, dudes 👍😎

it's nice to see Slavoj coming into his own in the last recent years ( my conjecture, that is . .) as I move further and further, as a fan, back into the history of who he is and where he hails form , as it were, . .i think earlier on his earnestness weighed heavier and harder on him in public or popular forums and now he seems very comfortable as one of the current times' major figures, i would even go so far as to say he is quite stylish at times, and further, to contrast him with the uncanny fashion savvy of my other favorite philospeaker JBP, . . the latter who ( or at least his well chosen stylists ) exhibits great classical and formal attire combinations, Zizek on the other hand with his characteristic or sometimes quite laidback tees, and even cartoony t shirts at times, but generally a liberally or loosely unkempt, yet professionally presentable/approachable and sharply dressed, nonetheless, style, but very natural looking, that is, for a philosopher & 'high profile' intellectual academician such as he is hah haha . . see i threw you off didn't i, you expected nothing but endlessly deep philosophical philologisms from yours truly and suddenly i did a deep dive on the fashionista's flare and fame factor

I didnt watch but he looks like the cuck misanthrope type that talks about animals.

I'm only 12:58 minutes in and this has already been such a pain to listen to so far. Why can't two professional philosophers carry out a basic discussion? You learn how to take turns during a philosophical debate during the first week of an undergraduate philosophy course. This sounds more like a political debate rather than two intelligent people talking.

22:20 “they think violence will solve something” yeah violence never gets anything done…..🤮

"so the woman who is getting penetrated makes all these sex noises blah blah blah, so anyway about quantum physics*

I don't see how misanthropy looks at the good and the bad to weigh them in the balance. Misanthropy only looks at the bad. Misanthropy is not the same thing as critical philosophy. "Critical" implies an ideal or norm. We criticize humanity's failure to meet our norms. If evil / faults / vices and failings are the norm of humanity then how can one criticize people? It would be extraordinary to criticize humanity for failing to live up to norms one does not think humanity can meet. In other words: why did you call your ideas "philosophical misanthropy" if you think humanity can do better than misanthropy? Listening to Ian Kidd talk, it seems he wants to ban all human vices outright. I think more nuanced thinking is needed. There's necessary evil, then there's real evil. There'd endemic evil and evil we can actually do something about. I prefer to concentrate my resources on problems which can be solved. Why is walking past a homeless person bad? Let's be concrete. Show me evidence how you turned around the life of that homeless person - then lecture me on my failure to do the same. Mere whining about the fate of the homeless, in the abstract, does not count. One simply ends up with the paradox of California; see "San Fransicko", Shellenberger, 2021. Dems spent vast resources to help the homeless while - in practice the number of homeless in California increased year on year.

I love Hume and I love this talk.

Zizek's insight into how to read philosophy is very clear here. And he's not even joking. Derrida said something similar. When asked whether he'd read all the books in his home library, he said I've only read a few, but the ones I read, I read them very very closely.

Recorded next to the steel factory

This is great! I’m finding this discussion really helpful.

Finally a good video on kant!

Flossfee

One of my favorite philosopher professors was a Wittgensteinien. Ironically, she was asked to teach philosophy of Metaphysics!

I heard that he was a beery swine and that he was just as sloshed as Schlegel

Glad this was recommended to me, following.

55:00 precious. The interviewer couldn't show more disapproval. 😂

First Viewer 😊

I hear all of the secret agents running emergency sirens and jackhammers over Zizek's ideas trying to prevent us from hearing them, but it didn't work, thankfully.

This is the best summary of who I am that I have ever seen.👍😁

Fabulous. Added to my collective research list

20:36. Wage slavery turned out to be more dynamic than slavery, is it not true that another kind of emancipatory progress in the structuring of society could be even more dynamic than the Capitalism we have today? And if more emancipation creates more dynamics, surely there is something deeper than Capitalism that we have to thank for progress? I'm aware that Capitalism was in some way instrumental, at least in part, for world to get where it is today, but is it not even more true that it was never Capitalism itself which was responsible, it simply unlocked something that existed within the horizon of human potential. Why do we need Capitalism? Surely what we need are the tools and knowledge that Capitalism coincided or conspired with historically to create.

Has Dr. Kidd written any book?

What about a misanthrope that wishes to emancipate themselves from society and humankind at large. Likely through genetic modification. CRISPR has developed much in the last decade. I see myself as one that wishes to achieve absolute independence. Because I cannot trust anyone. Even those I love. I have a deep mistrust in my species. Therefore, the most logical, selfless and loving thing I can do is to change myself and leave. Is this endeavor achievible? I like to think it is. Will I succeed? I don't know. But I will do my best. Misanthropy doesn't happen by simple observation. Or that is my opinion. Misanthropy starts because of a betrayal. Abuse or abandonment. Or all or more. Because I have my own grievances, I want to be free. So I study and work. I fake a smile, I lie and fake it till I make it. I don't hate humanity, because that means I hate myself. Im just tired and I want more than what has been offered.

Great, insightful lecture. 🙏🏽🇦🇺

Isn't it ironic how the masses turn up for what is mostly information about them 😅.

its kinda surreal seeing him so up close

Great video.

You can be disuaded from Mysanthropy by meeting the right types of people or reading about them, but all it takes is one human being with all or most of the characteristics you despise to get you back on the program...

Thank you.

Whenever I wonder what is wrong with the world I remind myself that clownish oafs control our education system

Is he wearing eye shadow to look more devious? I shut it off when it came to trump. Sorry dude you are truly a misanthrope.

It is so hard to navigate through society as a misanthrope. This guy gets it, I'm glad there are people exploring this as a philosophical concept.

Misanthropy is the successor of religion, and the result of holding ourself to impossible standards. We're just anmals, and moral agency is a social construct.

I love how he wears *the dark suit.* EDIT: 14:00 - one form of micro-cruelty is this camera men's work, god damn

New game : Drink a beer 🍺 every time he sniffs or touches his nose 👃 😎🍻

Top encounter with the zizekian Zizek 🎉 Cool stool

I'm disappointed by this talk. Although I'm into philosophy, I've been very disappointed by what philosophers produce. Today, I've given up on these endless word-games you philosophers hawk to advance your careers. I recommend one takes up Experimental Philosophy instead. As Experimental Philosophy is grounded in facts about the world and disdains the endless wordy speculation of the philosopher in favour of ideas based on empirical facts. Focusing on evil is not misanthropy; because one is judging ethically. 1. Judging ethically implies a better world. 2. I welcome looking at the dark-side of life. Yet the people doing this (studying: psychopaths, dark triads, narcissists, cluster Bs, ...) they seem to take a dutiful point of view. Misanthropy does not encourage dutiful behaviour. Instead it seems to lead to a wicked circle of apathy. Activism is not misanthropy. The very fact the activist is doing something, implies they're doing it because they think - rightly, or wrongly, their actions will lead to a better world. Having said that: many activists seem to have deep contempt for the rest of us! Especially those of us - such as me - who call out their/your bad activism. We need empirical studies of misanthropy and misanthropes. More of these intellectual speculations - philosophy - only up the confusion quotient. Please tell me what Experimental Philosophy and empirical Psychology have to say about the topic.

Zoom in, zoom out, zoom in to ear... ok stutter right in increments of 10, back to full zoom on eyebrow, KEEP IT UNFOCUSED aaaand finish with the fire extinguisher. Cut. Dude, perfect. I hate people.

He needs to see a doctor about his nose.

The problem with human beings is that instead of executing psychopaths, we give them positions of power.

never ever let the person operating the camera near a camera again... ever again. unwatchable.

definitely a 4th kind here. used to be 3rd. after witnessed senseless human conflicts around the world, inflict cruelty onto others with convenient excuses, and after witnessed the inner workings high up top, I want no more association with the human kind. just leave me be to live out what's left of this life.

That we might better summarize a book without actually reading it. Similar to how we may better understand words, without necessarily reading their definitions in the dictionary.

BRILLIANT talk!

I'm probably the only person who went through all the different kinds of misanthropy.

Yeah, people are scum.

I clicked on this video because I find myself becoming more and more misanthropic as I age. I just turned a young 44 but already I feel like the stereotypical grumpy old woman. From experiencing the rudeness, unhygienic habits, inconsiderate actions, and the lack of common courtesy in people, I have come to the conclusion. .. the more I interact with people at work, out in public, and even with my own family the more I am becoming less inclined to want to be around people in general. I know that I'm not perfect and I have my own issues, but I feel like for the most part people in general just don't care which makes things uncomfortable, unpleasant, and unnecessarily hard for others around them. I haven't lost all my faith in humanity, I've just lost my desire to be around much of it. It's sad, but I really just want to get away from society. I guess that makes me fall under the label _fugitive_ _misanthrope_ right? I'm only in the first 20 minutes of the video so I don't know if this question will be covered: are certain regions and countries more prone to misanthropic personalities than others? I am born and raised in the United States and I think that in many ways us Americans are just awful to be around. I have a particular country that I have been wonderlusting for several years. But I wonder would it actually be a social Improvement or just a variation of The Human Condition in the guise of another culture and language?