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.
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!
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
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.
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
_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 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.
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.
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
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 ....
The older Christian Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) contemplate this every year in Good Friday. Every time we sin, when we betray what is Good and True, we kill God. However, that isn't the end of the story. Although we did literally kill God on Calvary, and we can in some temporary limited sense kill God, for example in our own minds, or when we martyr Saints still today, the transformative power of God's love endures and is resurrected again and again, and resurrects is in the process. We can not really finally kill a God that is true and who redeems us even after we reject him. That fundamental quality of Christianity, it's emphasis on conversion and renewal, not only makes it incredibly conducive to academic inquiry, but it is profoundly radical and liberating for those who recognize the injustices and evil still at work in the world.
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.
@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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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
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.
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 😊
@@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.
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.
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!).
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.
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.
@@Artisan_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).
"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.""
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.
@@jjreddick377 Well, it seems like that implies Zizek is deliberately talking nonsense and it's my mistake not to get that and be hopelessly disappointed. Otherwise, I just have a valid criticism of someone claiming to speak sensible things.
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)
I miss this type of discussion. Brings me back to bongs and endless discussion of unknown and unknowable topics. ❤😂 oh and if god can "screwup" anything, he cannot be God. So there's that. PS nobody wants to look inside themselves because of what they will find there and have to face.. thus the total and ubiquitous lack of self awareness we see in our western culture.😢
India and Greece are home to ancient traditions of atheism, so Slavoj is wrong to state that to become a true atheist one has to pass through Christianity. That's bullshit. Furthermore, his understanding of Dawkins' cultural Christianity is superficial and incomplete.
Hardly much defending of Christianity going on because he doesn't have much of an idea of what it is, despite lessons from Rowan Williams. Just playing with some Christian/blblical ideas and giving them an old Gnostic slant. And if he loves Kierkegaard so much why doesn't he take Christianity seriously? Instead of the usual, admittedly quite entertaining, series of paradoxes and provocations.
As they are interviewing Slavoj, you'll think they might have lined up some subtitles. That aside, it's hard to take him seriously given that he always insists on telling us that he's a communist. In truth I think he's an idiot and this interview has done nothing to dispel that belief. I do like 'Christianity should annoy people', though.
It is condescending in the extreme for our Elites, who don't believe and would be saddened if their children believed, to say it might be nice if the plebs believed... but not literally. The world would be safer place if Muslims believed a little less. Nobody said Judeo Christian society until after the Holocaust. Judaism has nothing to do with our society. Everything good about our society comes from the classics. They are Greco Roman, principles and ideals, nothing to do with Christianity at all. We have a justice system with punishments, not the insanity of he who is without sin... Everyone knows scapegoating is immoral, yet Christianity claims the scapegoating of Jesus to be an act of love.
If you are being sincere, I appreciate your trying to engage with Christian theology, but you don't understand it at all. You should explore the great historical achievements of the Church (like the abolition of death-sport) if you want to make honest comparisons to pre-Christian society. Also, it's not incidental that we inherited the best of Greco-Roman culture primarily through the efforts of preservation, reform, and selective propagation accomplished by the Church. These (and other) accomplishments were not accidental, but are direct consequences of the transformational nature of Christian charity. If you can not recognize both success and failure in history, you will not benefit from the full scope of human experience.
Wait remind me who had slaves and who abolished slavery? Im not particularly religious myself, but Christianity and western civilisation is quite literally the good guys of history, i wont even bother thinking of more academic language, this is true
I’ve been asking my educated friends with degrees in philosophy to define philosophy. They can all describe philosophy but no one has yet given its definition. Oh and I know all about the multiple “interpretations” argument. Must be that.
@@winstonsmith9424 There’s one way to find out. Look up the definition and then go out and ask people with philosophy degrees. The same goes for most people with a degree. Ask them to define sociologist, psychologist etc. you’d be surprised.
If you want a pure definition of philosophy, you want access to its prescriptive transcendental definition. But we don't have direct access to that, only descriptive examples to inform our understanding based on what which examples we do/dont define as philosophy
Paraphrasing St. John Henry Newman an English scholar who left the Anglican Church and became a Cardinal, 'To deeply study history is to become Catholic.'
Love his general ideology about the world but there is loads of pseudo-theological gibberish in this video that has no serious backing in thousands of years of theological analysis.
For example Jesus becoming an “atheist” when he dies. That is a completely false argument, and the quote Jesus says when he dies is in reference to Psalm, an entire Psalm that makes much more sense why Jesus said it if you read the psalm. They referred to psalms by the first sentence in those times, so that was his reference
Psalm 22 is what Jesus is referring to when he said My God my God why have you forsaken me… it is a prophecy of his purpose “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my help are the words of my groaning. My God, I cry out by day, but You do not answer; And by night, but I have no rest. Yet You are holy, You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel. In You our fathers trusted; They trusted and You rescued them. To You they cried out and they fled to safety; In You they trusted and were not disappointed. ¶But I am a worm and not a person, A disgrace of mankind and despised by the people. All who see me deride me; They sneer, they shake their heads, saying, “Turn him over to the Lord; let Him save him; Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.” ¶Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon You from birth; You have been my God from my mother’s womb. ¶Do not be far from me, for trouble is near; For there is no one to help. Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me. They open their mouths wide at me, As a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me. My strength is dried up like a piece of pottery, And my tongue clings to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; They divide my garments among them, And they cast lots for my clothing. ¶But You, Lord, do not be far away; You who are my help, hurry to my assistance. Save my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion’s mouth; From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me. ¶I will proclaim Your name to my brothers; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You. You who fear the Lord, praise Him; All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him, And stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Israel. For He has not despised nor scorned the suffering of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard. ¶From You comes my praise in the great assembly; I shall pay my vows before those who fear Him. The afflicted will eat and be satisfied; Those who seek Him will praise the Lord. May your heart live forever! All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, And all the families of the nations will worship before You. For the kingdom is the Lord’s And He rules over the nations. All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship, All those who go down to the dust will kneel before Him, Even he who cannot keep his soul alive. A posterity will serve Him; It will be told of the Lord to the coming generation. They will come and will declare His righteousness To a people who will be born, that He has performed it.” Psalm 22:1-31 NASB2020 bible.com/bible/2692/psa.22.1-31.NASB2020
The abundance of information we have access to these days should be welcomed even if it does encourage superficial engagement amongst some. Religions in particular have in the past made great efforts to suppress information even though they all claim they are true. If Christianity ,for example, is true, then it should stand up to being researched,questioned & openly discussed without investigation being deemed a sin ! I have searched & come to the conclusion ,along with may others, that most people confuse Christianity with following the teachings of Jesus. They are just not the same ! Christianity is more concerned with what happened to Jesus after he died on the cross & how people like St Paul interupted this. St Paul never met Jesus in person & died 61ce before the Gospels were even written.So where did he get his authority ?. Jesus main teachings, based on Jewish laws, were that we should show care & compassion to others by loving them as we love ourselves, not judging others & being peacemakers. How often do you hear any of this being taught in churches,by street preachers or in schools ? Anyone of any religion or no religion at all could follow the teachings of Jesus but Christianity has made the religion about doctrines,dogmas & traditions. Salvation by faith alone.
God is Good!!! I just Acquired a new House also receiving $52K bi-weekly profits. Despite all the financial struggles i and my family faced, everything is finally falling into place I'm so grateful to God.
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery (Joey). Glory to God.shalom.
How can he say everyone is an idiot, but act as though people are basically the same. It's stupid. Nietzsche understood the vast distances. Zizek is dumb. He "exposes" his emptiness.
I'm a conservative but slavoj is an interesting thinker and he's pretty well known, it makes sense for us to be having conversations with people with different perspectives
The problem with religion is that I am expected to believe what I am told with zero verifiable evidence to support the suppositions. I simply "need" to "believe".
How life began and developed are the same; regardless of what evolutionary 'science' would have you believe, there is zero verifiable evidence that their theories are correct.
I can only offer three alternatives: "Non-fundamentalist" Atheism Agnosticism But before you try those you might like a third alternative: Live,think,act like a Christian (or whatever denomination your environment will tolerate the most) for as long as you're able and monitor how your life changes If it changes for the worst go for one of the two alternatives above. If it's for the better then… Well the rest is pretty much obvious!🤭
Living to religious principles is do-able..... Too make myself believe in Virgin births and multiple people walking out of there graves after they are dead is just ridiculous !!!!
Believe it or not, he's saying it is, it was Jesus. But Jesus got incarnated as a mortal human, and died. That's why he's an atheist. Not because God doesn't exist, but because God died.
@@James-ic7vx thanks what he's saying. Jesus was not the messenger of God, but he was God himself. And he died a human death thus stopped existing. So for Zizek what dies on the cross is the "God of beyond", the idea that there is something outside the material world pulling the strings. What is resurreced is the Holy Spirit. The community of equals on Earth.
@@James-ic7vx I guess just resurrection of the Holy Spirit. Which is the community of believers. So there is no God beyond the material world, just God on earth manifested as love between people within the community. But that's just what he believes. Since he's a communist atheist that is a perfect theology that justifies his "moral" atheism. He quotes this guy Chesterton, which is one of the most brilliant Christian philosophers. I think he has more interesting answers then Zizek. Zizek just cherrypicks from him bits he likes. But that's the point Chesterton I think makes. Christianity is full of paradoxes. It is atheist and theist. But so is human nature, full of oppositing desires that are in eternal tension.
@@themanontheinside I'm not trolling, I'm just rooting for the fittest to succeed. Clearly Europe will find its end in the theological, cultural and militant effort of the island increasingly organized within Europe that cannot combat it with its own structures and principles of open society. The fall and the conquest are surprising, get used to the idea of using one 🧕🏻
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
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
I like to expose myself.
- Slavoj Žižak 2024
Totally.
I hope one day to reach such heights of intellect.
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.
I love this man. My personal Prophet.
Amen lol ..he is fascinating to listen to
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
Slavoj Žižek so fascinating! is a real intelectual. love this interview :)
& am not a usualy Spectator reader
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!
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.
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
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 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.
_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._
35:20 - Best answer to the fairy: "Give me generosity towards my neighbor."
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.
"By Zeus, Socrates,you are right"(vis a vis dialogues)😂😂😂
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.
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
Jung makes a similar argument in his book “Answers to Job”. He essentially says that it is because God is instictive and cannot not 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
Lmao the entire time his camera was shaking like crazy.
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 ....
Best sermon this year...God becomes athiest in Christ's cry "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"
The older Christian Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) contemplate this every year in Good Friday. Every time we sin, when we betray what is Good and True, we kill God. However, that isn't the end of the story. Although we did literally kill God on Calvary, and we can in some temporary limited sense kill God, for example in our own minds, or when we martyr Saints still today, the transformative power of God's love endures and is resurrected again and again, and resurrects is in the process. We can not really finally kill a God that is true and who redeems us even after we reject him. That fundamental quality of Christianity, it's emphasis on conversion and renewal, not only makes it incredibly conducive to academic inquiry, but it is profoundly radical and liberating for those who recognize the injustices and evil still at work in the world.
Why ask a question of someone, if you don't believe they exist? Jesus was quoting the beginning of Psalm 22, so read the rest of the psalm!
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.
You can tell he was really liking the questions
Interesting one, thank you.
Freedom of expression suggests it is for everybody.
Of course, that isn't tolerated.
🥵
He's been changing a bit. More in line with popular consensus on foreign policy.
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.
Anyone else having Deja Vu from Zizek circa 2004?
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.
@7:36 he referred me in his conversation. I'm overwhelmed.
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.
You funny Zizek
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
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...
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
rare triple a combo 18:37
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.
Always interesting that bloke
I am depressed today
hiya, me too👋why is that?
"The sun will come out tomorrow" Lol.
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 😊
I Hate the title but I appreciate the author alot
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.
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.
@@Artisan_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.
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
Poor old interviewer really does not get what interviewee is on about. Clueless. In some sense, proves the dreadful theory addressed.
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.
Ask the Archbishop of Canterbury and the King - what the hell is going on!
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 don't know if I agree or not 😵💫
And not a single word about Islam
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.
@@Artisan_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).
listening to ones of Gods prophets (zizek) while hitting the pen, # transcending space and time
He chops down the tree but still wants to live in the treehouse.
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.
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.
Neo liberalism's favourite court jester.
Zizek's nonsense says more sbout himself than the situation.
Triggered?
@@jjreddick377 Well, it seems like that implies Zizek is deliberately talking nonsense and it's my mistake not to get that and be hopelessly disappointed. Otherwise, I just have a valid criticism of someone claiming to speak sensible things.
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)
☦️🇬🇷🇬🇷🇪🇺☦️👋
Hi to slovenian socrates
............ .. . ..
☦️🇬🇷🇪🇺☦️☦️☦️☦️☦️🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦
Christian Atheist. Is that as good as Atheistic Christianity?
who is she
No offense but this interviewer, like many, didn't seem to have any idea wtf Slavoj was talking about
I miss this type of discussion. Brings me back to bongs and endless discussion of unknown and unknowable topics. ❤😂 oh and if god can "screwup" anything, he cannot be God. So there's that. PS nobody wants to look inside themselves because of what they will find there and have to face.. thus the total and ubiquitous lack of self awareness we see in our western culture.😢
India and Greece are home to ancient traditions of atheism, so Slavoj is wrong to state that to become a true atheist one has to pass through Christianity. That's bullshit. Furthermore, his understanding of Dawkins' cultural Christianity is superficial and incomplete.
Hardly much defending of Christianity going on because he doesn't have much of an idea of what it is, despite lessons from Rowan Williams. Just playing with some Christian/blblical ideas and giving them an old Gnostic slant. And if he loves Kierkegaard so much why doesn't he take Christianity seriously? Instead of the usual, admittedly quite entertaining, series of paradoxes and provocations.
This was truly intriguing
anti-pluralist, contra William James, and anti-Derrida: see, "self-relativism" he denies
For some of you who find this subject interesting - there is a great debate between J.Peterson and S.Zizek that touches on this.
Everything is great. But he doesnt know, that the core of human is good and constructive.
I really don't think this lady who's doing the interview is asking the right or best questions or really getting what he's trying to say.
Henrich.Heine.German.poet said.that Protestant.Philosophy.Is.Rational.Christian.idea.... Luther.do.not.understand.Roman catholic
As they are interviewing Slavoj, you'll think they might have lined up some subtitles. That aside, it's hard to take him seriously given that he always insists on telling us that he's a communist. In truth I think he's an idiot and this interview has done nothing to dispel that belief. I do like 'Christianity should annoy people', though.
I can barely understand a word he says....what a waste of time
It is condescending in the extreme for our Elites, who don't believe and would be saddened if their children believed, to say it might be nice if the plebs believed... but not literally. The world would be safer place if Muslims believed a little less. Nobody said Judeo Christian society until after the Holocaust. Judaism has nothing to do with our society. Everything good about our society comes from the classics. They are Greco Roman, principles and ideals, nothing to do with Christianity at all. We have a justice system with punishments, not the insanity of he who is without sin... Everyone knows scapegoating is immoral, yet Christianity claims the scapegoating of Jesus to be an act of love.
If you are being sincere, I appreciate your trying to engage with Christian theology, but you don't understand it at all. You should explore the great historical achievements of the Church (like the abolition of death-sport) if you want to make honest comparisons to pre-Christian society. Also, it's not incidental that we inherited the best of Greco-Roman culture primarily through the efforts of preservation, reform, and selective propagation accomplished by the Church. These (and other) accomplishments were not accidental, but are direct consequences of the transformational nature of Christian charity. If you can not recognize both success and failure in history, you will not benefit from the full scope of human experience.
Wait remind me who had slaves and who abolished slavery?
Im not particularly religious myself, but Christianity and western civilisation is quite literally the good guys of history, i wont even bother thinking of more academic language, this is true
4615 Mia Heights
Luck for the Communist oppressors lol
I’ve been asking my educated friends with degrees in philosophy to define philosophy. They can all describe philosophy but no one has yet given its definition.
Oh and I know all about the multiple “interpretations” argument. Must be that.
I dont believe you.
@@winstonsmith9424 There’s one way to find out. Look up the definition and then go out and ask people with philosophy degrees. The same goes for most people with a degree. Ask them to define sociologist, psychologist etc. you’d be surprised.
@@shortminutePhilo= Love, Sophia = Wisdom...Philosophy = Love of Wisdom.
@@johnnytass2111 it's almost as if it's in Plato lol
If you want a pure definition of philosophy, you want access to its prescriptive transcendental definition. But we don't have direct access to that, only descriptive examples to inform our understanding based on what which examples we do/dont define as philosophy
Roger Scruton saw through the Windbaggery.
hear hear !
And so on
usw
Mark 15 34 is wrongly traslated.
What in your opinion is the correct translation?
@@russellsharpe288Fulfilled.
Paraphrasing St. John Henry Newman an English scholar who left the Anglican Church and became a Cardinal, 'To deeply study history is to become Catholic.'
"And to read the Bible deeply (The Word of God) is to become Protestant" Me
Love his general ideology about the world but there is loads of pseudo-theological gibberish in this video that has no serious backing in thousands of years of theological analysis.
For example Jesus becoming an “atheist” when he dies. That is a completely false argument, and the quote Jesus says when he dies is in reference to Psalm, an entire Psalm that makes much more sense why Jesus said it if you read the psalm. They referred to psalms by the first sentence in those times, so that was his reference
Psalm 22 is what Jesus is referring to when he said My God my God why have you forsaken me… it is a prophecy of his purpose “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my help are the words of my groaning. My God, I cry out by day, but You do not answer; And by night, but I have no rest. Yet You are holy, You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel. In You our fathers trusted; They trusted and You rescued them. To You they cried out and they fled to safety; In You they trusted and were not disappointed. ¶But I am a worm and not a person, A disgrace of mankind and despised by the people. All who see me deride me; They sneer, they shake their heads, saying, “Turn him over to the Lord; let Him save him; Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.” ¶Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon You from birth; You have been my God from my mother’s womb. ¶Do not be far from me, for trouble is near; For there is no one to help. Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me. They open their mouths wide at me, As a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me. My strength is dried up like a piece of pottery, And my tongue clings to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; They divide my garments among them, And they cast lots for my clothing. ¶But You, Lord, do not be far away; You who are my help, hurry to my assistance. Save my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion’s mouth; From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me. ¶I will proclaim Your name to my brothers; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You. You who fear the Lord, praise Him; All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him, And stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Israel. For He has not despised nor scorned the suffering of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard. ¶From You comes my praise in the great assembly; I shall pay my vows before those who fear Him. The afflicted will eat and be satisfied; Those who seek Him will praise the Lord. May your heart live forever! All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, And all the families of the nations will worship before You. For the kingdom is the Lord’s And He rules over the nations. All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship, All those who go down to the dust will kneel before Him, Even he who cannot keep his soul alive. A posterity will serve Him; It will be told of the Lord to the coming generation. They will come and will declare His righteousness To a people who will be born, that He has performed it.”
Psalm 22:1-31 NASB2020
bible.com/bible/2692/psa.22.1-31.NASB2020
Brilliant! How to make a living by sounding profound to average people, whom you openly consider to be idiots.
Zizek can never be a philosopher because he can look himself in the mirror at his level of bs. It's dishonest.
👀
"Christian Atheism" is a contradiction in terms. Not sure if he's trying to hijack Christianity or atheism, or both.
The abundance of information we have access to these days should be welcomed even if it does encourage superficial engagement amongst some. Religions in particular have in the past made great efforts to suppress information even though they all claim they are true. If Christianity ,for example, is true, then it should stand up to being researched,questioned & openly discussed without investigation being deemed a sin !
I have searched & come to the conclusion ,along with may others, that most people confuse Christianity with following the teachings of Jesus. They are just not the same !
Christianity is more concerned with what happened to Jesus after he died on the cross & how people like St Paul interupted this. St Paul never met Jesus in person & died 61ce before the Gospels were even written.So where did he get his authority ?.
Jesus main teachings, based on Jewish laws, were that we should show care & compassion to others by loving them as we love ourselves, not judging others & being peacemakers. How often do you hear any of this being taught in churches,by street preachers or in schools ?
Anyone of any religion or no religion at all could follow the teachings of Jesus but Christianity has made the religion about doctrines,dogmas & traditions. Salvation by faith alone.
different dogmas now
This guy isn't even good at sophistry.
God is Good!!! I just Acquired a new House also receiving $52K bi-weekly profits. Despite all the financial struggles i and my family faced, everything is finally falling into place I'm so grateful to God.
How did you do it? Do explain please 😯
My family have been into series of sufferings lately.
It's Christina Ann Tucker doing she's changed my life. A BROKER- like her is what you need.
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery (Joey). Glory to God.shalom.
I do know Christina A. Tucker, I also have even become successful....
Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Christina Ann Tucker.
How can he say everyone is an idiot, but act as though people are basically the same. It's stupid. Nietzsche understood the vast distances. Zizek is dumb. He "exposes" his emptiness.
Unsubscribing. The day you feature this Marxist sloth as anyone to be listened to is the day I no longer subscribe to Spectator.
see ya!
Yeah who wants interesting conversation
I'm a conservative but slavoj is an interesting thinker and he's pretty well known, it makes sense for us to be having conversations with people with different perspectives
Is this the new philosophy of the internet? The old method of seeking truth and the love of wisdom will be replaced with unsubscribing and liking?
Later
Homeboy needs to go to Turkey to get a hair transplant. It helped me with my confidence tremendously.
he's got great hair
@winstonsmith9424 Don't lie. He's obviously self-conscious about how much he's fidgeting with it.
@@cubanheelsbeerbelly he's pushing his 70s I think he'll be okay without transplants lmao
The problem with religion is that I am expected to believe what I am told with zero verifiable evidence to support the suppositions. I simply "need" to "believe".
How life began and developed are the same; regardless of what evolutionary 'science' would have you believe, there is zero verifiable evidence that their theories are correct.
That is completely untrue
I can only offer three alternatives:
"Non-fundamentalist"
Atheism
Agnosticism
But before you try those you might like a third alternative:
Live,think,act like a Christian (or whatever denomination your environment will tolerate the most) for as long as you're able and monitor how your life changes
If it changes for the worst go for one of the two alternatives above.
If it's for the better then… Well the rest is pretty much obvious!🤭
Living to religious principles is do-able..... Too make myself believe in Virgin births and multiple people walking out of there graves after they are dead is just ridiculous !!!!
this is no longer limited to Religion
This is totally incoherent to me. Is the Christian God real or not?
Believe it or not, he's saying it is, it was Jesus. But Jesus got incarnated as a mortal human, and died. That's why he's an atheist. Not because God doesn't exist, but because God died.
@@antun88 he’s saying God used to be real but now he isn’t? Seems counterintuitive.
@@James-ic7vx thanks what he's saying. Jesus was not the messenger of God, but he was God himself. And he died a human death thus stopped existing. So for Zizek what dies on the cross is the "God of beyond", the idea that there is something outside the material world pulling the strings. What is resurreced is the Holy Spirit. The community of equals on Earth.
@@antun88 so what is the resurrection then according to Zizek?
@@James-ic7vx I guess just resurrection of the Holy Spirit. Which is the community of believers. So there is no God beyond the material world, just God on earth manifested as love between people within the community.
But that's just what he believes. Since he's a communist atheist that is a perfect theology that justifies his "moral" atheism.
He quotes this guy Chesterton, which is one of the most brilliant Christian philosophers. I think he has more interesting answers then Zizek. Zizek just cherrypicks from him bits he likes.
But that's the point Chesterton I think makes. Christianity is full of paradoxes. It is atheist and theist. But so is human nature, full of oppositing desires that are in eternal tension.
Bs
Sharia for the UK ❤
I sincerely hope you are trolling
@@themanontheinside I'm not trolling, I'm just rooting for the fittest to succeed. Clearly Europe will find its end in the theological, cultural and militant effort of the island increasingly organized within Europe that cannot combat it with its own structures and principles of open society. The fall and the conquest are surprising, get used to the idea of using one 🧕🏻
@@cavaleirosemlicenca3894 I feel so dumb as an european reading this comment, i could literally screenshot it and it would be considered a conspiracy
This is juvenile. The only question is ‘Are the beliefs true?’. They aren’t
You just went full black and white thinking. Never go full black and white thinking.
Beliefs are never true? holy crap, so what am I holding then? a not-pen?