Žižek is perhaps the most philosophically sophisticated apologist for Christian faith on the scene today. He seems to grasp the philosophy of the Resurrection better than most Christian apologists. Bravo Slavoi!
Regarding Žižek's grasp of the decline of "Big Theology," I am surprised that he hasn't mentioned Eastern Orthodoxy's cosmological approach, perhaps because it's too culturally close. The chaos factor of Dostoevsky's "Idiot" can still be seen in Jewish satire such as the thespian movie "A Serious Man" by the Coen brothers. One of the key lines for the main character is "... but I didn't do anything!" By not risking being wrong, he doesn't risk being just or right. In that movie, little is required, but much is demanded by the slow burn of God's wrath.
00:42 Are there fewer ‘deep thinkers’ now? 08:00 How the communist oppression made Slavoj 09:15 A trend of self-relativisation 12:01 The decline of big Theology 16:12 Cultural Christianity vs Christian Atheism 28:36 Identity politics 33:45 Egotism
That is very true in today's information society: ready access to an abudance of information just encourages a superficial engagement with any text, viewpoint or topic.
Yes, but on the other hand this very morning I heard Dale Ahlquist talking to John Anderson on G K Chesterton, and now Zizek mentions him; moreover, I had always thought of Zizek at the Avant guard of Marxism and now he's accepting a Christian viewpoint and this could lead to an essay comparing utopian models with the Christian one!
@@christopherdew2355Christianity is not utopian in this life. Heaven comes after. A big issue with gnostic faiths like Marxism is that heaven can be achieved here, in this life hence the "greater good" arguments and the inevitable disaster that always follows Marxist thought and praxis.
No. It just emphasizes our own superficiality. In the age of information we are less informed than ever because we do not bother to dive deeply in anything.
Althought this may be true in some spheres, I think this was not his point here. He explicitly asserts people are not lack of deep knowledge. He was not able to express it clearly, but despite of this deep knowledge they are flat in knowledge. It is oppen to interpretation but one way to grasp it can be that people just know tons of informations but are not able to experience it, to really understand.
This is a much needed discussion that is necessary to reconcile our great traditions and moral anchors with the modern world. I do think he's conflating New Age renditions of Eastern spirituality with the actual traditions. They are just as deep and broad as Western religious thought.
_They put a bunch of random old shoes in a glass box. And that is why it is easier for academic professors employed by the capitalist state apparatus to imagine the end of the world than it is for them to imagine the end of the capitalist state apparatus._
I wish the people who interview Zizek would take time to understand his work. It always feels like they are way out of their league in the conversation and ask questions that show clearly that they don't understand what he is talking about. These interviews must be exhausting for him
I think sometimes he is having fun doing it despite being annoyed you can clearly see he always founds a way to say what he wants to say and not what the interviewer would expect to say. You can also directly see if he is annoyed by the amount of ticks he has.
Imagine you’re a run of the mill journalist, you walk into the office on Monday and your boss tells you to do an interview with this philosopher guy who published a new book. And then Zizek shows up. Of course you’re out of your depth 😅
Carl Jung was heavily immersed in the occult, which is why Freud became scared of him. Jung Carl thought that the Christian Trinity should be expanded to include Satan: Sherrard, Philip - Introduction to Religious Thought of C. G. Jung, Comp Studies in Religion 1969. www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/uploads/ArticlePDFs/83.pdf
Expored Eckart recently and I don't see his ideas are somewhat more 'radical' and 'deeper' to ideas in Advaita Vedanta, Sunyata of Mahayana Buddhism, and also Sufism. I'm happy to discover the mystic part of Christianity though.
Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican’s cultural minister, wrote an article on the Christian themes in Bowie’s lyrics, notably in his album, "Station to Station" (A reference to the Stations of the Cross), when he was suffering through a painful period of addiction, and wrote the stunningly beautiful, "Word on a Wing", which contained the prayer: “Lord, I kneel and offer you my word on a wing/and I’m trying hard to fit among your scheme of things.”
@@mickaziza I've read The Idiot twice! But I've read Brothers Karmazov 20 times,at least! Courant political topics aside, Žižek's reading of Dostoevsky, annoyes me the most! I think brother Cornel West is better orbitour of Russian classics, but he should've never run for prez 😥 It's running his legacy ....
Żiżek sounds pretty Manichean in his theology... I am not sure many of the Christians he quotes would agree that God is good and bad, or that the God of the Jewish Scriptures is demonic. That's definitely not what Chesterson thought.
Sounds more like Carl Jung's Shadow: He thought that the Christian Trinity should be expanded to include Satan: Sherrard, Philip - Introduction to Religious Thought of C. G. Jung, Comp Studies in Religion 1969. www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/uploads/ArticlePDFs/83.pdf
Can't understand Mr. "and so on" but I bet he'd get well along with my late father and the thought of them together waivingly knocking the glasses of the table makes me smile.
@@dannyarcher6370 In his encounter with Peterson he said he is more of a Hegelian than a Marxist. I don't think this was just a tactic to wrongfoot Peterson, who had based his address on a critique of Marxism, though - knowing Zizek - it may have been.
Esto me recuerda al Ateísmo católico de Don Gustavo Bueno, que en paz descanse. También leyó a Chesterton, y, el decía, igual que Žizek, que, la única manera de pensar era desde un sistema: platónico, hegeliano, o el que fuere, por ejemplo. Bueno y Žižek convergen en varios puntos, sin embargo, hay unas coordinaciones muy turbulentas en algunos puntos. Además, el sistema filosófico de Bueno, ya hizo una crítica del de Žižek.
I imagine Socrates speaking with the same mannerisms and voice without Slavoj's certainty and I realize RUclips is an interpretation of the agora. Time is wild regardless of when it is because of the treasures that come over time.
I think he has missed is that the appeal of Buddhism to the likes of Oppenheimer is that it is a nonthestic religion, which is a whole other set of propositions, and naturally appealing to that type of Faustian scientist faced with mythic proportions
I suppose reflexively I'm a cultural Christian; I was born into a Christian household. My coming of age was during the Vietnam war era; low draft lottery number and all that---never had to serve due to a strange combination of fates. Became a practicing ex-Christian at that point. Need to read Slavoj Žižek's book.
He calls himself an atheist but 26:00 all this about the Demiurge and God and Hegel is him revealing that hes a Hegelian gnostic flirting with the esoteric and hermetic secret knowledge of the cultists.
He has this insane claim that at the most deep level, christianity is atheistic. That the story of christianity is about the death of God, divine purpose etc...
Zizek's point about fake modesty vs "dogmatic" certainty is a nice one. He's right, the only way to actually risk being in error and thus open oneself up for the possibility of being able to learn new things and maybe change one's mind is to state your position clearly and with a kind of certainty. The "fake modesty" that tries to reduce this risk by saying "it's just my opinion; I may be wrong" etc is the *really* dogmatic one in that they close off any avenues of criticism and hide from any challenges to their *apparently* open position. It is kind of interesting that the position of "fake modesty" bears a superficial resemblance to certain risk management strategies employed by capitalists in some industries (I am thinking here mostly of Hollywood and blockbuster films)
I sometimes think that Zizek takes from Hegel what suits his own view and removes the rest. I'm not sure Hegel was this definitive about being an atheist. Was Hegel really an atheist?
@@ivansevo427 well not in a modern sense but he definetely was not religious like that, he saw the dialectics of Christianity and the philosophy of Christianity in itself
Ironically to define yourself as a hegelian and then attempt to live and perceive exactly as hegel did is precisely the most anti hegelian thing you could do! Think of hegel as putting for a methodology rather than a dogma, so zizek is hegelian in the sense that he is using psychoanalysis through Marxist analysis to return to Hegels methodology
Žižek seems to leave out the resurrection in the Christian narrative. You can’t separate the death of God from the resurrection and omit the latter. Speaking in narrative terms, the Christian story objectively does not end with death.
@@joriankell1983 Yes, Jesus died in His human nature, while His divine nature did not truly die. However, since Christ is understood to be the God-Man, His experience of death can be said to be God experiencing death.
I think I agree with you on this one, although I'm not fully acquainted with Zizek's argument apart from videos like this on RUclips (and he notoriously expresses himself confusingly when speaking publically). The idea of god dying on the cross is a compelling one, and maybe enough for Zizek to prove his point, but Christianity indeed bases a great deal of its ideology on the resurrection point. Consequently, I am not fully convinced by Zizek's argument on this one - that in order to be trully atheist, one first much go through Christianity - as the dying god myth is an ages long one and predates Christianity (not to mention other atheistic instances in other cultures pre-dating Christianity).
@@markoslavicek Although the motif of the dying and rising god is indeed older than Christianity, Christians claim that this motif is made concrete in a historical person. In that sense, the motif-and religion as a whole-reaches its peak in Christianity by asserting that the mythological became real, a claim not made by prior myths. So, I understand Zizek’s reasoning for saying that to be a true atheist, you need to pass through Christianity, as giving Christianity its due as the highest form of religion, so that to discard it fully is to welcome the ‘death of God’ as put forth by Christianity itself. So though I don’t agree with Zizek’s conclusion-in fact, I think it is factually incorrect-I do agree that a form of atheism that acknowledges the significance of its Christian heritage and integrates it into its philosophy is far better than the atheistic scientism that elevates reason above all, mocks those who differ, and concedes ground only after its ideas contribute to society’s degradation.
When Zizek talks about Holy Father, the line καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν - is interpreted in 2 ways. First way - literally, do not lead us into challenges. Second way- do not allow to tempt us. The theological implications are obvious.
@maxonmendel5757 I think you are mistaken. Can you direct me to an example of this propoganda? You might be misunderstanding the sacrament of the last rites. Zizzys age won't be a barrier to him talking to God. Though prideful attachment to his previous public statements about God might be an obstacle for him. In any case, he needs prayers.
@@yossariandunbar2829 deathbed conversions are just a matter of faith. Camus died in a car crash. before he died, he allegedly spoke to a Methodist minister. after he died, the same minister wrote a book declaring Camus was secretly a Christian convert. can we ever know? not likely. is your faith bias inclining you to believe one or the other? certainly. Same with AJ Ayer, I guess. Anthony Flew is another one, a truly egregious example. not saying religion is all a con, but I am saying that People who think about theology aren't determined to become whatever religion you identify with the moment before you die. thats a fantasy you have as a result of confirmation bias.
Some say he's all over the place but he spits out very important ideas - ok maybe as fragments - and they sometimes take a few seconds to land and I for one think they stack . I respect his style - who could he be if not himself? - some of the fragments - the fireworks - he ahem spits out - are very funny and ahem imho more than interseting but very important
Ironic - because he spoke about accessing social media being such a fragmented process - which it is. But I sense we have to read his books to really get him in a way that feels meaningful. Otherwise, it’s just another entertaining and mildly stimulating video.
he fears actually being open because none of his opinions work unless he is certain. that only shows a weakness in his ideas which require his kind of 'force of will' to be made coherent. this is like the thinker's version of an amateur singer who gets louder when instead they should move to a new key, because they mistake the experience of expressing musical momentum through the correct technique, versus through the feeling they feel when they experience it. He accuses the point of uncertainty of being safe, it is exactly the opposite. This is why the arrogant are certain, because they are naturally insecure people who discovered the opiate of certainty, and so reduce their thinking to such a low resolution that a large complex situation can look the same to them from every possible angle, through all of time, up until it becomes undeniable that their 'superhero' or 'supervillain' is not as clear cut as it is. Uncertainty is recognition at least that we must have a dynamic relationship to reality, because reality it's self has far more fidelity than we can possibly have the resolution to process. But at least the uncertain have a higher resolution than a Marxist.
Sorry but I think you completely missed his point here. Zizek's point about fake modesty vs "dogmatic" certainty is a nice one. He's right, the only way to actually risk being in error and thus open oneself up for the possibility of being able to learn new things and maybe change one's mind is to state your position clearly and with a kind of certainty. The "fake modesty" that tries to reduce this risk by saying "it's just my opinion; I may be wrong" etc is the *really* dogmatic one in that they close off any avenues of criticism and hide from any challenges to their *apparently* open position. Zizek's position is the proper attitude to dialogue and discussion. You have to risk being wrong if you want to ever be able to say something true and correct. I hope that helps, please take it in the spirit in which it was given, that of constructive criticism. Not trying to "own you in the comments" or whatever, but I think I am correct here.
"I read a couple of reviews on your book". What a disrespectful thing to say. If you're going to interview someone like Zizek, at least take the time to actually read his book.
to me,that is more than shock,rather i am angry. Zizek is a very modest nice person,therefore his respnse against that stupidity is very mild. i have 4 grown up children,eldest son and youngest son studied Pilosophy in one of the top Uni.,in Europe. the youngest just finished his PHD . then 2 of them,especially yongest says Zizek is a greates philospher in 21C.. he has been reading almost all his books. i am influenced by him,and following Zizek by his books and internet. he is a true brain! and very nice person. ---i tell you,unfortunately in this generation,young people bacame much silly.they don't know even what is thinking,what is the thought. many of them even would not tnik! ----you said,DEEPLY THINK!!?? what a words !! in their 20s,30s when they believe they know everything,especially philosophy , it's a sign,it means, they do not know anything. it's not only matter of the study in Uni.,etc.,their experiemces are too so little. as Zizek said,in such digital world,it has been increasing,making those young people rather dumb. it's just brief comment,so i wouldn't write details,but if they are clever enough,they might understand what i wrote here.and shout their mouth at once.----i am rather scared to know what you said in the introduction.
"Don't be yourself." "People are much better and much worse than we think." "Kirkegaard shows, "we cannot really truly believe we can only believe that we believe.""
In the bible, there aren't any apples on the tree. It says: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it". I think that the primitive tribesmen who first heard the story realised that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not physical fruit. The story is using a metaphor.
Or perhaps God meant that He won’t allow the tree to bear fruit, effectively withholding from Adam and Eve any knowledge of good and evil. But, then, what was Eve tempted by? What did she eat?
The serpent told her that if she ate it she would be like God, knowing good and evil. They were ungrateful, living in a perfect situation they wanted something else, something more. They could have asked God first.
@@mikklecash6046 You miss my point. You said the fruit was metaphorical; but Eve is said to be tempted by and eats an actual fruit. It’s not the fruit that’s metaphorical, it’s the entire story of the fall. But what’s the fruit? Where does the fruit fit into the metaphor? And, in any case, your original post isn’t a response to Žižek’s reading. There remains the strangeness of God sticking this tree in the middle of Eden, then telling Adam and Eve that it’s the only thing they’re not to touch.
@@guypanton8341 If you just think of it as a fruit tree, then it seems strange. But in this case it is a test - God imposing a boundary. When Adam and Eve eat the fruit, that is a metaphor for rejecting the boundary, and hence rejecting God. Th
@@mikklecash6046 Why did Adam and Eve need to be tested? Remember that they didn’t know good or evil. They were both completely indifferent to the moral element of the test.
@@chesscomsupport8689 Hmmm..... that would be a lot of tissues. If the patterns match maybe that suggests a supermarket own brand, where they plaster the seasonal design over lots of things.
To address Žižek’s point about why the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed in the Garden of Eden, it’s a common Jewish and Christian tradition to say that God eventually intended to give Adam and Eve the fruit if they had been patient. Of course, the placement of the tree could also be seen as a test of sorts. Either way I don’t believe God is to blame in the Genesis narrative.
How could Adan and Eve understand the immoral implications of disobeying god without having prior knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit of the forbidden tree? They didn't have knowledge of good and evil, therefore they did not know that what they were doing was wrong.
@@carlmurphy2416 I agree that Adam and Eve did not fully understand the moral implications of their actions. However, it’s important to note that they did have the free will required to enable them to distrust God in the first place. You can imagine a child who has been rightly taught not to harm his siblings. Yet one day, out of anger, he decides to push his sibling, causing him to fall down a set of stairs, resulting in the sibling’s death. It can be said that the child didn’t completely understand the implications of his actions, yet he still made the poor decision that led to the unintended consequences, therefore is at fault. It wouldn’t be proper to blame the architect for the stairs existing or the parents for the child failing to follow instructions. Nor God for creating creatures capable of acting freely.
Isn't this example of free will in the garden of Eden indicative of God's shoddy craftsmanship? I mean, how is it that sinful, defective products like Adam and Eve come from a "perfect" god?
@@HeretykDKn God could have chosen to create robots that followed His every command with 100% consistency, but in that case, the creatures wouldn’t be free, and the good that resulted would be artificial. Instead, He created free creatures who could follow His instructions perfectly, but also have the capacity to willing not follow instructions. That’s the consequence of free will-it makes evil possible, but it also makes true goodness possible, because good done out of choice, not compulsion, is genuine.
@@anon_genz at least with the robot option sin and death would never have been a problem in the first place. I feel as tho you didn't answer what I was asking, and that's okay. I mean, a perfect god wouldn't have allowed this to even happen in the first place, and that is, creating sinful creatures that fall short of his perfection. And before you reply with an answer that they'll be robotic and artificial (as you have already done) I would much rather that as a solution to the problem of sin and death, then to create creatures with willing intent to sin and do the wrong thing. (Hence the current situation that we have).
Professor Zizek: There is a reason that many Christians study within the theological sub-discipline of 'Christology' (contemporary scholars - especially Jewish ones - refer to 'Jesus Studies') today; and that is because an impression has been gained, through a century-and-a-half of scriptural scholarship (culminating, perhaps, in the 1970s with 'The Myth of God Incarnate'), that belief in the Jesus of the Gospels, but as taught by the Primitive JEWISH Church, is both 'unreasonable' and 'unreasoned'. The hierarchical 'career-clergy' of today's Church of England mark the end-game in that process: able to retain faith in the young Jewish male, Jesus of Nazareth, only through increasingly devout worship of the ancient documents whose misfortune was to be categorised as 'scripture', than to worship of the subject of those documents. The consequence is a secular State which is kind to the 'sexual maverick' (recognising their love) and a Church which is increasingly nasty to them. Is the State more 'Jesus-like'; or is the Church? This is why we study Jesus. It is nothing less than a search for truth. However, your diversion concerning the 'death of God' reminds me of my own theological hero, Jurgen Moltmann; and certainly provides food for thinking. It was saddening to hear of Hanif Koreshi: but - as a retired Nurse - I fully understand the sentiments expressed by his lowly-paid carers (which I was not!).
I’ve heard Rowan Williams being put under pressure by intelligent interviewers and he stops floundering, especially when he tries to fit God into a world full of suffering. He falls back on the old aphorism of ‘God works in mysterious ways’. Not at all satisfying.
I have listened to Slavoj many times and I always find him difficult to understand, I cannot follow what he’s talking about or what he is trying to say.
I keep trying to see what everyone finds so admirable about Z. All I keep finding is an eccentric personality, high on impulsivity, using creative terminology - “self-relativization” - to say fairly unimpressive things. I’m beginning to think people think things that sound hard to understand might be intrinsically smart…
@@sergiosatelite467 I wonder if perhaps you find him disagreeable instead. I notice lots of people attempt to undermine someone intellectually when they resent them. A creative, honest and unashamedly eccentric personality is interesting on its own. I think his point on relativisation is meant to be an admission and not be profound, he’s just explaining why he often expresses his thought in a dogmatic tone that doesn’t reflect his core stances, which is because it opens him up to more productive criticism. I think what he brings to the table is novelty, an opportunity for a change in perspective. He only has to be novel in a particular cultural context.
@@arkpolar9604I understand what you mean - I think. I actually like his personality quiet a bit. I find him very entertaining. My concern is that I sometimes fear that might be most of what he’s got going on. It could be my understanding is limited in ways I cannot see so I miss what others are getting. It could be I’ve already got what he offers elsewhere and so it just seems like stuff I already understand but said in a funny way. Or it could be ideas like “Christian Atheism” seem irresponsible to me. Who knows. But I like him. And so on and so forth.
Because there is no critique of ideology in these polytheist religions (as I'm aware). In Christianity there is a moment where even God becomes an atheist, this is the subjective destitution that zizek believes we require to inspire true revolution. A moment so traumatic to ourselves that we all doubt the existence of ourselves (because it is developed via capitalist ideology), through this we may perhaps create a new language which can then inspire revolution, a capurnican revolution which entirely reframes how we define the world and this ourselves, just as gods subjective destitution proceeded a shakeup which entirely redefined how people viewed the world and themselves (first in the so called West, and then eventually the world)
1:46 The benefits of this is that those who aren't confident in reading, or who are dyslexic, can still learn. If you chose to, you could educate yourself to a university level, all while walking the dog (ofc that isn't equivalent to a degree, that requires more work, depending on the area of study).
Brilliant interview with a man who it is like wrestling with a renowned intellectual wolf dressed in teddybear 🧸 fancy dress 👗. You are definitely a woman who has the skills of a circus 🎪 Ringmaster or Ringmistress depending on your interpretation of postmodernism. Really enjoyed the dialectic. Fantastic 😊
My god, zizek's either gonna flip when he reads the revelation, or he's just acting dumb. or he's just taking every text individually/ together for convenience
Zizek is one of the few Marxists I can listen to for more than 5 minutes. It always amazes me how he arrives to the right conclusions through the wrong logic. If he wasn't such hardcore lefty and obnoxiously intellectual he would fit perfectly in the new right. He just doesn't know it yet.
As a Catholic I was raised with both my parents and my Catholic school teachers requiring me to read various mythologies, especially the Greeks. And you're right, the stories were more exciting to me as a boy and they communicated important moral lessons as well. But as an adult, the Bible, both the Jewish Scriptures and the Good News of Christ are far more relevant and moving to me. Once you understand the full story and that Jesus is as right now as he was then, it is a truly radical and transformative experience.
@@exercisethemind everyone thinks they understand the story better than the others who dont find it compelling. are the bible stories about what jesus said right about literally everything? or are you sure confirmation bias and emotional and cogntive bias arent at play here?
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were inclined to disagree with you: The pagan Greek gods were grotesque, absurd, and immoral. That's why the Greek philosophers abandoned them. Clearly you've never read any of the Classics or the Bible, which is why you are ignorant of both.
@@brianbridges8124 Jesus was not as literal as many Evangelicals want him to be. Sometimes he spoke literally, sometimes he was symbolic, but yes, Jesus was TRUE. If your right hand offends, don't literally cut it off. But do be discerning in avoiding the bad and perusing the good. So, what is it that you think Jesus was wrong about? Self-sacrifice? None of us will live forever. And living alone is torture. Self-interest is just narcissism and it's destroying us. It's not even enjoyable, hedonism is just a mirage. Your life is an offering to the world of one type or another. If you recognize that it has meaning, it's really quite beautiful.
@@exercisethemind i wasnt making the claim that anything jesus said was necessarily wrong, although i could find something if i looked, my pint was that many people disagree on what he meant, and yet all people think that THEIR interpretation is the correct one, everybody is so coc sure but there is no test to run to see which is correct if any. the problem of smbolic and metaphorical language is that it can mean virtually anything to anyone. whatever resonates the most with each person is the interpretation they will go with. thats why you have so many different denominations that can disagree on a large number of things.
I like to expose myself.
- Slavoj Žižak 2024
Totally.
I hope one day to reach such heights of intellect.
And so and and so on
The comical shaking of the screen along with these deep discussions is *chefs kiss*.
7:36 - "I think 99% of the people are boring idiots, I don't want to have contact with them"
Oh god, I love it so much 😅
Hell yeah
I know I am. It's probably unfixable.
Fortunately, it's not the same 99% for everyone.
@@Alexander-mr7jq Why?
Žižek is perhaps the most philosophically sophisticated apologist for Christian faith on the scene today. He seems to grasp the philosophy of the Resurrection better than most Christian apologists. Bravo Slavoi!
Yes, I also love René Girard's take on it, it's incredibly insightful and awakening, though intellectually challenging at times.
Regarding Žižek's grasp of the decline of "Big Theology," I am surprised that he hasn't mentioned Eastern Orthodoxy's cosmological approach, perhaps because it's too culturally close.
The chaos factor of Dostoevsky's "Idiot" can still be seen in Jewish satire such as the thespian movie "A Serious Man" by the Coen brothers.
One of the key lines for the main character is "... but I didn't do anything!" By not risking being wrong, he doesn't risk being just or right. In that movie, little is required, but much is demanded by the slow burn of God's wrath.
It looks like his home is in a perpetual earthquake, and he just doesn't give a damn 😆
@@akimorita 😂😂😂
his laptop camera is trying to avoid the spittle.
@@akimorita and soo on
00:42 Are there fewer ‘deep thinkers’ now?
08:00 How the communist oppression made Slavoj
09:15 A trend of self-relativisation
12:01 The decline of big Theology
16:12 Cultural Christianity vs Christian Atheism
28:36 Identity politics
33:45 Egotism
Thank you
A couple minutes in and the screen is shaking while he's already deep in a rabbithole :D Love Žižek
i swear to god i have no idea what hes saying but i cant stop listening
Welcome to Zizek studies!
That is very true in today's information society: ready access to an abudance of information just encourages a superficial engagement with any text, viewpoint or topic.
Yes, but on the other hand this very morning I heard Dale Ahlquist talking to John Anderson on G K Chesterton, and now Zizek mentions him; moreover, I had always thought of Zizek at the Avant guard of Marxism and now he's accepting a Christian viewpoint and this could lead to an essay comparing utopian models with the Christian one!
@@christopherdew2355Christianity is not utopian in this life. Heaven comes after.
A big issue with gnostic faiths like Marxism is that heaven can be achieved here, in this life hence the "greater good" arguments and the inevitable disaster that always follows Marxist thought and praxis.
No. It just emphasizes our own superficiality. In the age of information we are less informed than ever because we do not bother to dive deeply in anything.
Althought this may be true in some spheres, I think this was not his point here. He explicitly asserts people are not lack of deep knowledge. He was not able to express it clearly, but despite of this deep knowledge they are flat in knowledge. It is oppen to interpretation but one way to grasp it can be that people just know tons of informations but are not able to experience it, to really understand.
i am sure huxley already told us this
This is a much needed discussion that is necessary to reconcile our great traditions and moral anchors with the modern world. I do think he's conflating New Age renditions of Eastern spirituality with the actual traditions. They are just as deep and broad as Western religious thought.
ZIZEK is simply the GOAT
I love Žižek's bookshelf in the background!
Slavoj Žižek so fascinating! is a real intelectual. love this interview :)
& am not a usualy Spectator reader
Just wanted to say thanks for letting Salvoj speak, many to to cut him off with argument.
I love this man. My personal Prophet.
Amen lol ..he is fascinating to listen to
Woah dude, get off the meth.
35:20 - Best answer to the fairy: "Give me generosity towards my neighbor."
Hating students seems very on brand for Zizek.
where was the hate?
@@winstonsmith9424 I believe he explicitly said he doesn’t teach classes because he “hates students.”
Hardly he's semi dependent on students, I've been to one of his gigs , full of students
@@lostcauselancer333He's a sarcastic bastard, he can't stand the student mindset; he doesn't hate every individual student.
@@daveJenkins-q3t man' got to eat
I keep having to clean my monitor.
@@milfredcummings717Some one is Milfred Cumming a lot.
@@woodsfamily1100 Is that your reaction to him for not having X and Facebook?
the 4D experience of Saliva Žižek.
You can tell he was really liking the questions
Wonderful thank you
rare triple a combo 18:37
_They put a bunch of random old shoes in a glass box. And that is why it is easier for academic professors employed by the capitalist state apparatus to imagine the end of the world than it is for them to imagine the end of the capitalist state apparatus._
Lmao the entire time his camera was shaking like crazy.
I really impressed
I wish the people who interview Zizek would take time to understand his work. It always feels like they are way out of their league in the conversation and ask questions that show clearly that they don't understand what he is talking about. These interviews must be exhausting for him
i think thats mostly because he's constantly bouncing in his chair.
I think sometimes he is having fun doing it despite being annoyed you can clearly see he always founds a way to say what he wants to say and not what the interviewer would expect to say. You can also directly see if he is annoyed by the amount of ticks he has.
Imagine you’re a run of the mill journalist, you walk into the office on Monday and your boss tells you to do an interview with this philosopher guy who published a new book. And then Zizek shows up. Of course you’re out of your depth 😅
Jung makes a similar argument in his book “Answers to Job”. He essentially says that it is because God is instictive and cannot cognize himself.
Carl Jung was heavily immersed in the occult, which is why Freud became scared of him. Jung Carl thought that the Christian Trinity should be expanded to include Satan: Sherrard, Philip - Introduction to Religious Thought of C. G. Jung, Comp Studies in Religion 1969. www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/uploads/ArticlePDFs/83.pdf
"By Zeus, Socrates,you are right"(vis a vis dialogues)😂😂😂
@7:36 he referred me in his conversation. I'm overwhelmed.
Expored Eckart recently and I don't see his ideas are somewhat more 'radical' and 'deeper' to ideas in Advaita Vedanta, Sunyata of Mahayana Buddhism, and also Sufism. I'm happy to discover the mystic part of Christianity though.
Going to reread The Idiot.
Relisten to Bowie/Iggy's IDIOT while you're at it!
Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican’s cultural minister, wrote an article on the Christian themes in Bowie’s lyrics, notably in his album, "Station to Station" (A reference to the Stations of the Cross), when he was suffering through a painful period of addiction, and wrote the stunningly beautiful, "Word on a Wing", which contained the prayer: “Lord, I kneel and offer you my word on a wing/and I’m trying hard to fit among your scheme of things.”
@@exercisethemind 🙏
@@mickaziza I've read The Idiot twice! But I've read Brothers Karmazov 20 times,at least! Courant political topics aside, Žižek's reading of Dostoevsky, annoyes me the most! I think brother Cornel West is better orbitour of Russian classics, but he should've never run for prez 😥 It's running his legacy ....
Żiżek sounds pretty Manichean in his theology... I am not sure many of the Christians he quotes would agree that God is good and bad, or that the God of the Jewish Scriptures is demonic. That's definitely not what Chesterson thought.
yeah p much.
@@charlieducey8880 no. Chesterton Will agree. For him, God is also an ultimate devil.
Sounds more like Carl Jung's Shadow: He thought that the Christian Trinity should be expanded to include Satan: Sherrard, Philip - Introduction to Religious Thought of C. G. Jung, Comp Studies in Religion 1969. www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/uploads/ArticlePDFs/83.pdf
@@Chris-ee9tf Where did you get that from, if I may ask?
Zizek constantly references outside of himself in order to ironically imply things about himself.
Can't understand Mr. "and so on" but I bet he'd get well along with my late father and the thought of them together waivingly knocking the glasses of the table makes me smile.
The only Marxist I find compelling to listen to...even if he isn't really a Marxist.
A true Marxist wouldn't call himself a Marxist.
"I am not a Marxist"
- Marx
@@P.Aether Well, he calls himself one.
@@dannyarcher6370 In his encounter with Peterson he said he is more of a Hegelian than a Marxist. I don't think this was just a tactic to wrongfoot Peterson, who had based his address on a critique of Marxism, though - knowing Zizek - it may have been.
@@russellsharpe288 I don't recall that but I know he's said he's a Marxist many times.
Marx was Hegelian
Esto me recuerda al Ateísmo católico de Don Gustavo Bueno, que en paz descanse. También leyó a Chesterton, y, el decía, igual que Žizek, que, la única manera de pensar era desde un sistema: platónico, hegeliano, o el que fuere, por ejemplo. Bueno y Žižek convergen en varios puntos, sin embargo, hay unas coordinaciones muy turbulentas en algunos puntos. Además, el sistema filosófico de Bueno, ya hizo una crítica del de Žižek.
Anyone else having Deja Vu from Zizek circa 2004?
I thought it was just me. Slavoj busting out the classic hits
He's been changing a bit. More in line with popular consensus on foreign policy.
I imagine Socrates speaking with the same mannerisms and voice without Slavoj's certainty and I realize RUclips is an interpretation of the agora. Time is wild regardless of when it is because of the treasures that come over time.
I think he has missed is that the appeal of Buddhism to the likes of Oppenheimer is that it is a nonthestic religion, which is a whole other set of propositions, and naturally appealing to that type of Faustian scientist faced with mythic proportions
I suppose reflexively I'm a cultural Christian; I was born into a Christian household. My coming of age was during the Vietnam war era; low draft lottery number and all that---never had to serve due to a strange combination of fates. Became a practicing ex-Christian at that point. Need to read Slavoj Žižek's book.
Zlavoj's camera was holding on to dear life
Genesis 6:4 opened and answered all my questions after 36 years of doubting
Žižek is a true centrist.
I loved "the Idiot"..and love Ziz but admire him for his divine curiosity even though I have little of it myself.
He calls himself an atheist but 26:00 all this about the Demiurge and God and Hegel is him revealing that hes a Hegelian gnostic flirting with the esoteric and hermetic secret knowledge of the cultists.
He is correct at taking a philosophical stand and stop presenting one’s argument in a package of niceness.
Yes, I think you've rumbled him as a Gnostic.
@@BelteshazzarBaumbruck lol
Exactly.
He has this insane claim that at the most deep level, christianity is atheistic. That the story of christianity is about the death of God, divine purpose etc...
14:01 bro just spoiled The Idiot for me
Interesting one, thank you.
Freedom of expression suggests it is for everybody.
Of course, that isn't tolerated.
🥵
Zizek's point about fake modesty vs "dogmatic" certainty is a nice one. He's right, the only way to actually risk being in error and thus open oneself up for the possibility of being able to learn new things and maybe change one's mind is to state your position clearly and with a kind of certainty. The "fake modesty" that tries to reduce this risk by saying "it's just my opinion; I may be wrong" etc is the *really* dogmatic one in that they close off any avenues of criticism and hide from any challenges to their *apparently* open position.
It is kind of interesting that the position of "fake modesty" bears a superficial resemblance to certain risk management strategies employed by capitalists in some industries (I am thinking here mostly of Hollywood and blockbuster films)
Zizek is so excited he shakes the camera
I sometimes think that Zizek takes from Hegel what suits his own view and removes the rest. I'm not sure Hegel was this definitive about being an atheist. Was Hegel really an atheist?
@@ivansevo427 well not in a modern sense but he definetely was not religious like that, he saw the dialectics of Christianity and the philosophy of Christianity in itself
Ironically to define yourself as a hegelian and then attempt to live and perceive exactly as hegel did is precisely the most anti hegelian thing you could do!
Think of hegel as putting for a methodology rather than a dogma, so zizek is hegelian in the sense that he is using psychoanalysis through Marxist analysis to return to Hegels methodology
I Hate the title but I appreciate the author alot
Always interesting that bloke
Žižek seems to leave out the resurrection in the Christian narrative. You can’t separate the death of God from the resurrection and omit the latter. Speaking in narrative terms, the Christian story objectively does not end with death.
God never died. He can't. That was Jesus, the son of God.
@@joriankell1983 Yes, Jesus died in His human nature, while His divine nature did not truly die.
However, since Christ is understood to be the God-Man, His experience of death can be said to be God experiencing death.
@@anon_genz what is left, is spirit; "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them"
I think I agree with you on this one, although I'm not fully acquainted with Zizek's argument apart from videos like this on RUclips (and he notoriously expresses himself confusingly when speaking publically). The idea of god dying on the cross is a compelling one, and maybe enough for Zizek to prove his point, but Christianity indeed bases a great deal of its ideology on the resurrection point. Consequently, I am not fully convinced by Zizek's argument on this one - that in order to be trully atheist, one first much go through Christianity - as the dying god myth is an ages long one and predates Christianity (not to mention other atheistic instances in other cultures pre-dating Christianity).
@@markoslavicek Although the motif of the dying and rising god is indeed older than Christianity, Christians claim that this motif is made concrete in a historical person. In that sense, the motif-and religion as a whole-reaches its peak in Christianity by asserting that the mythological became real, a claim not made by prior myths.
So, I understand Zizek’s reasoning for saying that to be a true atheist, you need to pass through Christianity, as giving Christianity its due as the highest form of religion, so that to discard it fully is to welcome the ‘death of God’ as put forth by Christianity itself.
So though I don’t agree with Zizek’s conclusion-in fact, I think it is factually incorrect-I do agree that a form of atheism that acknowledges the significance of its Christian heritage and integrates it into its philosophy is far better than the atheistic scientism that elevates reason above all, mocks those who differ, and concedes ground only after its ideas contribute to society’s degradation.
When Zizek talks about Holy Father, the line καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν - is interpreted in 2 ways. First way - literally, do not lead us into challenges. Second way- do not allow to tempt us. The theological implications are obvious.
no one bans parental advisory zizek books for whatever reason
You funny Zizek
Zizek and Dawkins inching towards their deathbed conversions. More power to them.
doubt it. deathbed conversions are usually just catholic propaganda and zizek has been on this for 20 years
@maxonmendel5757 I think you are mistaken. Can you direct me to an example of this propoganda? You might be misunderstanding the sacrament of the last rites. Zizzys age won't be a barrier to him talking to God. Though prideful attachment to his previous public statements about God might be an obstacle for him. In any case, he needs prayers.
@@yossariandunbar2829 You might need to read his book again on this point.
@@EMC2Scotia I haven't read his book, not my sort of thing.
@@yossariandunbar2829 deathbed conversions are just a matter of faith. Camus died in a car crash. before he died, he allegedly spoke to a Methodist minister. after he died, the same minister wrote a book declaring Camus was secretly a Christian convert. can we ever know? not likely. is your faith bias inclining you to believe one or the other? certainly. Same with AJ Ayer, I guess. Anthony Flew is another one, a truly egregious example.
not saying religion is all a con, but I am saying that People who think about theology aren't determined to become whatever religion you identify with the moment before you die. thats a fantasy you have as a result of confirmation bias.
Love this guy. He’s funny & occasionally insightful. But too discursive - nothing stacks - lots of interesting & amusing fragments lying about though
Some say he's all over the place but he spits out very important ideas - ok maybe as fragments - and they sometimes take a few seconds to land and I for one think they stack . I respect his style - who could he be if not himself? - some of the fragments - the fireworks - he ahem spits out - are very funny and ahem imho more than interseting but very important
read his serious philosophical works, most of what he says and writes are for idiots like us
"Occasionally insightful" might be the biggest insult to a thinker.
Ironic - because he spoke about accessing social media being such a fragmented process - which it is. But I sense we have to read his books to really get him in a way that feels meaningful. Otherwise, it’s just another entertaining and mildly stimulating video.
WHAT
FINE ADAM!
Is his laptop on his belly? Why is the camera shaking?
he fears actually being open because none of his opinions work unless he is certain. that only shows a weakness in his ideas which require his kind of 'force of will' to be made coherent. this is like the thinker's version of an amateur singer who gets louder when instead they should move to a new key, because they mistake the experience of expressing musical momentum through the correct technique, versus through the feeling they feel when they experience it.
He accuses the point of uncertainty of being safe, it is exactly the opposite. This is why the arrogant are certain, because they are naturally insecure people who discovered the opiate of certainty, and so reduce their thinking to such a low resolution that a large complex situation can look the same to them from every possible angle, through all of time, up until it becomes undeniable that their 'superhero' or 'supervillain' is not as clear cut as it is. Uncertainty is recognition at least that we must have a dynamic relationship to reality, because reality it's self has far more fidelity than we can possibly have the resolution to process.
But at least the uncertain have a higher resolution than a Marxist.
Sorry but I think you completely missed his point here. Zizek's point about fake modesty vs "dogmatic" certainty is a nice one. He's right, the only way to actually risk being in error and thus open oneself up for the possibility of being able to learn new things and maybe change one's mind is to state your position clearly and with a kind of certainty. The "fake modesty" that tries to reduce this risk by saying "it's just my opinion; I may be wrong" etc is the *really* dogmatic one in that they close off any avenues of criticism and hide from any challenges to their *apparently* open position.
Zizek's position is the proper attitude to dialogue and discussion. You have to risk being wrong if you want to ever be able to say something true and correct.
I hope that helps, please take it in the spirit in which it was given, that of constructive criticism. Not trying to "own you in the comments" or whatever, but I think I am correct here.
"I like to expose myself" - don't misquote that
I don't know if I agree or not 😵💫
"I read a couple of reviews on your book". What a disrespectful thing to say. If you're going to interview someone like Zizek, at least take the time to actually read his book.
to me,that is more than shock,rather i am angry. Zizek is a very modest nice person,therefore his respnse against that stupidity is very mild. i have 4 grown up children,eldest son and youngest son studied Pilosophy in one of the top Uni.,in Europe. the youngest just finished his PHD . then 2 of them,especially yongest says Zizek is a greates philospher in 21C.. he has been reading almost all his books. i am influenced by him,and following Zizek by his books and internet. he is a true brain! and very nice person. ---i tell you,unfortunately in this generation,young people bacame much silly.they don't know even what is thinking,what is the thought. many of them even would not tnik! ----you said,DEEPLY THINK!!?? what a words !! in their 20s,30s when they believe they know everything,especially philosophy , it's a sign,it means, they do not know anything. it's not only matter of the study in Uni.,etc.,their experiemces are too so little. as Zizek said,in such digital world,it has been increasing,making those young people rather dumb. it's just brief comment,so i wouldn't write details,but if they are clever enough,they might understand what i wrote here.and shout their mouth at once.----i am rather scared to know what you said in the introduction.
Zizek the Gnostic.
"Don't be yourself." "People are much better and much worse than we think." "Kirkegaard shows, "we cannot really truly believe we can only believe that we believe.""
I identify as a plus.
In the bible, there aren't any apples on the tree. It says: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it". I think that the primitive tribesmen who first heard the story realised that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not physical fruit. The story is using a metaphor.
Or perhaps God meant that He won’t allow the tree to bear fruit, effectively withholding from Adam and Eve any knowledge of good and evil. But, then, what was Eve tempted by? What did she eat?
The serpent told her that if she ate it she would be like God, knowing good and evil. They were ungrateful, living in a perfect situation they wanted something else, something more. They could have asked God first.
@@mikklecash6046 You miss my point. You said the fruit was metaphorical; but Eve is said to be tempted by and eats an actual fruit. It’s not the fruit that’s metaphorical, it’s the entire story of the fall. But what’s the fruit? Where does the fruit fit into the metaphor? And, in any case, your original post isn’t a response to Žižek’s reading. There remains the strangeness of God sticking this tree in the middle of Eden, then telling Adam and Eve that it’s the only thing they’re not to touch.
@@guypanton8341 If you just think of it as a fruit tree, then it seems strange. But in this case it is a test - God imposing a boundary. When Adam and Eve eat the fruit, that is a metaphor for rejecting the boundary, and hence rejecting God. Th
@@mikklecash6046 Why did Adam and Eve need to be tested? Remember that they didn’t know good or evil. They were both completely indifferent to the moral element of the test.
I’m a millennial and I find modern pop culture and social media boring
Is the box of tissues behind him (which apparently matches the painting, or whatever it is, above) supposed to be a kind of self-deprecating joke?
possibly a situationist prop or possibly just a box of tissues
I don't think it is a painting. It looks like 2 boxes to me.
@@lizstewart1532 Fair. In that case, the question is: are they boxes of individual tissue boxes like the one we see?
@@chesscomsupport8689 Hmmm..... that would be a lot of tissues. If the patterns match maybe that suggests a supermarket own brand, where they plaster the seasonal design over lots of things.
@@lizstewart1532 Perhaps. If anyone has use for a lot of tissues, it's Zizek.
To address Žižek’s point about why the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed in the Garden of Eden, it’s a common Jewish and Christian tradition to say that God eventually intended to give Adam and Eve the fruit if they had been patient. Of course, the placement of the tree could also be seen as a test of sorts. Either way I don’t believe God is to blame in the Genesis narrative.
How could Adan and Eve understand the immoral implications of disobeying god without having prior knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit of the forbidden tree? They didn't have knowledge of good and evil, therefore they did not know that what they were doing was wrong.
@@carlmurphy2416 I agree that Adam and Eve did not fully understand the moral implications of their actions. However, it’s important to note that they did have the free will required to enable them to distrust God in the first place.
You can imagine a child who has been rightly taught not to harm his siblings. Yet one day, out of anger, he decides to push his sibling, causing him to fall down a set of stairs, resulting in the sibling’s death.
It can be said that the child didn’t completely understand the implications of his actions, yet he still made the poor decision that led to the unintended consequences, therefore is at fault. It wouldn’t be proper to blame the architect for the stairs existing or the parents for the child failing to follow instructions.
Nor God for creating creatures capable of acting freely.
Isn't this example of free will in the garden of Eden indicative of God's shoddy craftsmanship? I mean, how is it that sinful, defective products like Adam and Eve come from a "perfect" god?
@@HeretykDKn God could have chosen to create robots that followed His every command with 100% consistency, but in that case, the creatures wouldn’t be free, and the good that resulted would be artificial. Instead, He created free creatures who could follow His instructions perfectly, but also have the capacity to willing not follow instructions. That’s the consequence of free will-it makes evil possible, but it also makes true goodness possible, because good done out of choice, not compulsion, is genuine.
@@anon_genz at least with the robot option sin and death would never have been a problem in the first place. I feel as tho you didn't answer what I was asking, and that's okay. I mean, a perfect god wouldn't have allowed this to even happen in the first place, and that is, creating sinful creatures that fall short of his perfection. And before you reply with an answer that they'll be robotic and artificial (as you have already done) I would much rather that as a solution to the problem of sin and death, then to create creatures with willing intent to sin and do the wrong thing. (Hence the current situation that we have).
DŹWIG!!!
sure exiles is a play by Joyce in the sense that g k Chesterton is a library of wisdom all unto himself
I’ve always held the belief that in Christian doctrine the quest for truth is an axiom, thus a true scientific sorta thing.
Catholic doctrine holds that our theology can never contradict scientific fact. God is Truth. If something is proven false, it is not God.
@@exercisethemind nicely put.
Professor Zizek: There is a reason that many Christians study within the theological sub-discipline of 'Christology' (contemporary scholars - especially Jewish ones - refer to 'Jesus Studies') today; and that is because an impression has been gained, through a century-and-a-half of scriptural scholarship (culminating, perhaps, in the 1970s with 'The Myth of God Incarnate'), that belief in the Jesus of the Gospels, but as taught by the Primitive JEWISH Church, is both 'unreasonable' and 'unreasoned'. The hierarchical 'career-clergy' of today's Church of England mark the end-game in that process: able to retain faith in the young Jewish male, Jesus of Nazareth, only through increasingly devout worship of the ancient documents whose misfortune was to be categorised as 'scripture', than to worship of the subject of those documents. The consequence is a secular State which is kind to the 'sexual maverick' (recognising their love) and a Church which is increasingly nasty to them. Is the State more 'Jesus-like'; or is the Church? This is why we study Jesus. It is nothing less than a search for truth. However, your diversion concerning the 'death of God' reminds me of my own theological hero, Jurgen Moltmann; and certainly provides food for thinking. It was saddening to hear of Hanif Koreshi: but - as a retired Nurse - I fully understand the sentiments expressed by his lowly-paid carers (which I was not!).
I am sorry for male chauvinist comment but the interviewer is very pretty
So the book of Job is kinda gnostic?
He seriously has to read Rene Guenon/Mircea Eliade and company
I’ve heard Rowan Williams being put under pressure by intelligent interviewers and he stops floundering, especially when he tries to fit God into a world full of suffering. He falls back on the old aphorism of ‘God works in mysterious ways’. Not at all satisfying.
Ask the Archbishop of Canterbury and the King - what the hell is going on!
I have listened to Slavoj many times and I always find him difficult to understand, I cannot follow what he’s talking about or what he is trying to say.
who is she
I keep trying to see what everyone finds so admirable about Z. All I keep finding is an eccentric personality, high on impulsivity, using creative terminology - “self-relativization” - to say fairly unimpressive things. I’m beginning to think people think things that sound hard to understand might be intrinsically smart…
People think they are intrinsically smart, yet, they don't know if what they claim to be "smarts" is even the thing people propound it to be.
@@sergiosatelite467 I wonder if perhaps you find him disagreeable instead. I notice lots of people attempt to undermine someone intellectually when they resent them. A creative, honest and unashamedly eccentric personality is interesting on its own. I think his point on relativisation is meant to be an admission and not be profound, he’s just explaining why he often expresses his thought in a dogmatic tone that doesn’t reflect his core stances, which is because it opens him up to more productive criticism. I think what he brings to the table is novelty, an opportunity for a change in perspective. He only has to be novel in a particular cultural context.
@@arkpolar9604I understand what you mean - I think. I actually like his personality quiet a bit. I find him very entertaining. My concern is that I sometimes fear that might be most of what he’s got going on. It could be my understanding is limited in ways I cannot see so I miss what others are getting. It could be I’ve already got what he offers elsewhere and so it just seems like stuff I already understand but said in a funny way. Or it could be ideas like “Christian Atheism” seem irresponsible to me. Who knows. But I like him. And so on and so forth.
@@sergiosatelite467 I completely agree with your original comment. I couldn't quite express it, but you expressed it so well.
he is not a phylosopher he is a propagandist
Why not then doesn't he not embrace the politheist gods that actually portrait the gods as having the chaos and order in their characters
Because there is no critique of ideology in these polytheist religions (as I'm aware). In Christianity there is a moment where even God becomes an atheist, this is the subjective destitution that zizek believes we require to inspire true revolution. A moment so traumatic to ourselves that we all doubt the existence of ourselves (because it is developed via capitalist ideology), through this we may perhaps create a new language which can then inspire revolution, a capurnican revolution which entirely reframes how we define the world and this ourselves, just as gods subjective destitution proceeded a shakeup which entirely redefined how people viewed the world and themselves (first in the so called West, and then eventually the world)
Poor old interviewer really does not get what interviewee is on about. Clueless. In some sense, proves the dreadful theory addressed.
The Irish guy?
1:46 The benefits of this is that those who aren't confident in reading, or who are dyslexic, can still learn. If you chose to, you could educate yourself to a university level, all while walking the dog (ofc that isn't equivalent to a degree, that requires more work, depending on the area of study).
'Daniel Booksby'
'stupid is as stupid does' not kierkergaard
ha anymore superb
the base of the mountain Gigaton Hammer!
Wait is zizek gnostic?
Brilliant interview with a man who it is like wrestling with a renowned intellectual wolf dressed in teddybear 🧸 fancy dress 👗. You are definitely a woman who has the skills of a circus 🎪 Ringmaster or Ringmistress depending on your interpretation of postmodernism. Really enjoyed the dialectic. Fantastic 😊
Problem with Zizek is that he clings to the times. But philosophers are out of the times.
No offense but this interviewer, like many, didn't seem to have any idea wtf Slavoj was talking about
My god, zizek's either gonna flip when he reads the revelation, or he's just acting dumb. or he's just taking every text individually/ together for convenience
am I Russian?
This is Thomas J.J. Altizer all day!
And not a single word about Islam
Christian Atheist. Is that as good as Atheistic Christianity?
He chops down the tree but still wants to live in the treehouse.
A worthwhile video because of the beauty of the presenter's skin.
Zizek is one of the few Marxists I can listen to for more than 5 minutes. It always amazes me how he arrives to the right conclusions through the wrong logic. If he wasn't such hardcore lefty and obnoxiously intellectual he would fit perfectly in the new right. He just doesn't know it yet.
It seems to me the Greek Gods were more fun and interesting than the monotheistic diety who appears to be needy for endless worship and a bit dour.
As a Catholic I was raised with both my parents and my Catholic school teachers requiring me to read various mythologies, especially the Greeks. And you're right, the stories were more exciting to me as a boy and they communicated important moral lessons as well. But as an adult, the Bible, both the Jewish Scriptures and the Good News of Christ are far more relevant and moving to me. Once you understand the full story and that Jesus is as right now as he was then, it is a truly radical and transformative experience.
@@exercisethemind everyone thinks they understand the story better than the others who dont find it compelling. are the bible stories about what jesus said right about literally everything? or are you sure confirmation bias and emotional and cogntive bias arent at play here?
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were inclined to disagree with you: The pagan Greek gods were grotesque, absurd, and immoral. That's why the Greek philosophers abandoned them. Clearly you've never read any of the Classics or the Bible, which is why you are ignorant of both.
@@brianbridges8124 Jesus was not as literal as many Evangelicals want him to be. Sometimes he spoke literally, sometimes he was symbolic, but yes, Jesus was TRUE. If your right hand offends, don't literally cut it off. But do be discerning in avoiding the bad and perusing the good. So, what is it that you think Jesus was wrong about? Self-sacrifice? None of us will live forever. And living alone is torture. Self-interest is just narcissism and it's destroying us. It's not even enjoyable, hedonism is just a mirage. Your life is an offering to the world of one type or another. If you recognize that it has meaning, it's really quite beautiful.
@@exercisethemind i wasnt making the claim that anything jesus said was necessarily wrong, although i could find something if i looked, my pint was that many people disagree on what he meant, and yet all people think that THEIR interpretation is the correct one, everybody is so coc sure but there is no test to run to see which is correct if any. the problem of smbolic and metaphorical language is that it can mean virtually anything to anyone. whatever resonates the most with each person is the interpretation they will go with. thats why you have so many different denominations that can disagree on a large number of things.