Zizek: "The Parallax of Ontology. Reality and Its Transcendental Supplement"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 фев 2019
- Talk given at the conference "Parallax. The Dependence of Reality on Its Subjective Constitution" on Dec. 1, 2018 at the Munich School of Philosophy, Germany.
See also:
www.academia.edu/50710536/Par...
www.hfph.de/hochschule/lehren...
![Chk Chk Boom - Stray Kids ストレイキッズ 스트레이 키즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240719](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/63QPwqCRGcw/mqdefault.jpg)
![College Football 25 Road To Glory - Transfer Portal & First Team All-American [FRESHMAN YEAR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U8UYgoKneCo/mqdefault.jpg)
00:34 Greetings (in German)
01:16 Introduction (in English)
03:00 The theological-philosophical question of the Absolute
07:34 The Absolute arising from transcendental reflexion (science and anti-Semitism)
15:42 "Can we break out of this transcendental circle?"
17:20 Transcendental positions without Cartesian/Kantian subject
17:42 Claude Lévi-Strauss
18:34 Quentin Meillassoux and fossils
24:50 Alexei Yurchak’s _Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More_
25:26 Foucault’s _épistémè_
26:08 Louis Althusser
29:18 Ewald Ilyenkov’s “Cosmology of the Spirit”
39:19 Marquis de Sade’s mistake
43:48 Conclusion (cf. Levi Bryant, Jürgen Habermas, Immanuel Kant)
49:05 Example from _The Latest Answers to the Oldest Questions: A Philosophical Adventure with the World's Greatest Thinkers_ by Nicholas Fearn
52:50 A Jewish joke about Auschwitz
55:47 Concluding remarks
Zizek and all the so called Liubliana school is one of the more important events of our time. Mladen Dolar, Alenka Zupancic, etc. are very very important. Neo-lacanians like Lorenzo Chiesa,m etc. are very important as well.
I totally agree.
_Geist_ alive in Slovenia.. the troika has been remaking history with their theories. Hegel as ultimate materialist
@@nightoftheworld yes!
the part when he interprets ilyenkov's cosmology of the spirit and conscious selfdestructive mission of the thinking spirit in the guise of classless communism is epic. thanks for uploading.
good lord its the most entertaining/amazing/bonkers thing i think i've ever heard
🤧
It's crazy, but it's fucking beautiful. He's right, it's one of the most beautiful "theories" of communism there are.
I agree. This online article by Zizek goes into greater depth. The reference to the online article by Penzin in footnote 2 is gold! thephilosophicalsalon.com/evald-ilyenkovs-cosmology-the-point-of-madness-of-dialectical-materialism/#_edn2
How does one become the absolute of the ontological in the parallax? Who would think of that?
Thanks for uploading!
This is exactly what i needed today, thank you for this, cheers from mexico.
é
This is great discourse.
So around 1:28:30 when he talks about the Catholic argument of the eternal soul and the radio transmitter, some theologians explain this type of issue in the way that we as humans have limited capacity, so when the apparatus is overloaded it cannot pick up God's words or whatever it is supposed to be picking up. So the idea is not that the soul would get fundamentally broken from playing with the mind, but nonetheless if you are playing with it too carelessly you are risking a self-inflicted damage (as a pretty much "mechanical" consequence).
Zizek, why don´t you debate or have a conversation with Habermas. That would be a great encounter.
Zizek discusses the ideas of Habermas in several of his books... I think Zizek is infinitely more interesting... but of course I respect your suggestion.
For more of Zizek on Ilyenkov’s cosmology see this article. The reference to Penzin’s online article in footnote 2 is gold! thephilosophicalsalon.com/evald-ilyenkovs-cosmology-the-point-of-madness-of-dialectical-materialism/#_edn2
I love how Zizek is pointing out how being a bit of a pervert makes you more human than animal. Haha. How true!
1:38:05
13:20 notions of nature
Another classic philosophical presentation by the Slovenian polymath.
Quantum particles are disturbances inside a quantum fields. By definition, ideal field is perfectly round sphere, with infinity small dot in the center, where vectors of forces work in a straight lines. Quantum fields are property of relativistic curved space, where ideal geometrical forms are impossible to exist. All we can see, touch or experience are interactions of quantum fields, in a way our species brain remembers and visualize reality. We know this because intelligent live didn't start on Galapagos or any place inhabited by all kinds of life forms but on African savanna deserts, where first people were running away from lions.
Is there anything outside pure scientific experience of reality that is NOT fake and can't be deconstructed by more science? At least something must be real, for sure, or mathematical norms wouldn't be so useful. Or maybe it's just the way we are learned to count stuff, there is a difference if we add + single piece one by one or just multiply x times the same crowds, but axioms of adding and subtracting does prove there isn't. Just the ways we come up with results are different, maybe this is why there is something like Maxwell daemon, a trade off with something we would have to spend more energy and time than the whole thing would be worth it. It's hard to trust your faith in daemon hands, i know, but maybe it's a good daemon. Let's hope Stephen hawking was wrong and galaxy is not a jungle.
Absolute:
3:18
4:13
good to watch after acid trip
1:10:16
I'm wondering how the fine tuning problem (in modern cosmology) could be viewed from Zizek's ontological incompleteness. Of course I'm not conflating ontology with physics, which would be a very basic and dumb error. But when he says that nature is not a harmonious whole, he is of course, at least, implying something about how to view contemporary physics. The fine tuning problem is normally stated as a demonstration that the universe does have a built in harmonious structure of complete interdependency, to such an extent that only a God could be responsible for such a perfect design. This is in part what gave rise to the Multiverse theory. The multiverse takes away God's (or an intelligent designer's) fundamental role in our universe, because in principle there are infinite universes that have different cosmological constants that are not traceable to a single source. It seems the multiverse theory introduces an element of contingency in the "why our universe is the way it is". But nonetheless, until that theory is proven or another theory comes to replace it, fine tuning is to a certain extent a reality. So how are to make sense of the postulate "nature does not exist" (as in, "the harmonious whole of nature is not") when there is fine tuning?
Harmony could arise from every species unique experience of existence and universe. Multiverse idea is nonsense BS, in fact, most of the popular cosmology today is and will never reach level of hypothesis.
thats a fun question. one thing i find interesting was his story about how the right to say 'i am nothing' has a strong hubris/privilege attached to it and how this relates to our theories. we ironically end up with explanations like 'there are infinite universes of every possible configuration' so that we may, in a sense, keep the privileged position (which we may even just call our own existence) of entirely unimportant accidents, even tho this requires...well infintely more than taking the alternative into account- our own existence (or rather, whatever is at its root) limits/chooses the possible configurations a universe can have (and from there u need only assume some mechanism for a universe to form a minimal level of complexity to achieve this to have a full 'choosing' mechanism, some tendency towards preservation/laziness). its like because we deny our own existence, we then demand that the universe b infinitely more.
Fine tuning, or as it's formally known, Anthropic Principle is by no means a defence of Creationism.
There are other more reasonable ways, I think, to interpret it.
Nature in-itself is not natural 43:22
it is by default ontologically inconsistent, open, not closed, subjectivity is here from the begining. it's the inherent gap/rip in the space-time continuum. from the first moment on till forever. matter doesnt 'know' a manifestation in which it can close itself of. like in the equivalency: should i be energy or matter, should i follow quantum or macroscopic laws. i love this.where the negative/dark energy enters, cosmos itself follows lacan's insight: "ces n'est pas ca". It's the void of subjectivity masked as objective laws. epic. that proves that the split is there from the begining.
can you explain what you are trying to say?
@@bradmodd7856 I was simply quoting zizek, I enjoyed the lecture very much
I believe that the line is that this is because nature as we understand it can only be a man made category
Marx headroom!! I don't know what he's saying but it's entertaining
Ernst Bloch 28:45
To honor Zizek you must find out what types of milk they have, and request the coffee be without the type of milk the do not have: in this way you may encounter the spirit of zizek speaking through a confused and frustrated barista
A big mistake is to think a human(or group) is capable of destroying the cosmos
52:15 God is one of the Names for the ontological incompletness of Reality
1:50:30 I think that precisely the gap that I'm mentioning is not simply the gap between normative and factual but it's a gap in the factual order itself which opens up the space for normativity
1:53:20 I think that precisely lack can come first. it's not that when you experience a lack you must already have an implicit positive measure. no I think that the disorientation out of joint lack comes first.
1:09:50 there is a quote which says something like: every word-speech is just a stain on silence and so on. As if silence is what we are aiming at. No what Becket doesn' t see is that this silence is constituted only by the failure of speech. there is no silence proper without speech. the silence is opened by the failure of speech.
Great lesson prof. Zizek, ironically but you and Jordan Peterson are my idols at this point. These lectures are gold.
How is that even possible? They are so radically different, haha.
Keep learning. Eventually you'll realise how much of a fraud the latter is.
Peterson is extremely pernicious.
It is not difficult to pick on JP, but i sometimes feel, that people gain lots of enjoynment, by telling how uninformed he is philosophically and politically, and so on. Thereby positioning themselves as "intellectual".
Hear me out. Put it at 0.75 speed and it will be way better lol
Damn, get him a tissue
Five o'clock Wojak was right about everything.
schizowojak has the philosophical vipassana
God as the original big other super sinner...and zo on and so on...
Do not shake hands with this man, Pof. Nasum Putridus.
The catch 22 is, what if the Jews now have too much power, but we are repressed from challenging that power due to sensitivities over the Holocaust?
A conundrum I don't think the Left has fully come to terms with.
Hitler basically killed off legitimate criticism of Judaism. Judaism after all is a race based patriarchal religion that mutilates children and leads to inbreeding and congenital diseases such as Tay Sachs.
And Marx's claims about the dance around the Golden Calf still ring true to a large extent, given Neo Liberalism's connection to Jewish figures such as Rand, Friedman, Mises; Greenspan etc.
But critiquing Judaism like say one might criticize the Vatican, or Evangelicals is strictly off limits, and probably rightly so. But still quite a dilemma.
I mean Zizek talks about the Monstrosity of Christ, but would he talk about the Monstrosity of Moses or Abraham?
You don't understand anti-Semitism, as you are starting off with "the Jews".
As a jew, I promise you that we are completely helpless and quite hopeless. You can think of Judaism just like Americanism if it helps you, a semi nationalistic (or super nationalistic) notion, but take to account that there are under 30 million of us all around the world, and we are terribly conflicted.
And I was giving you way WAY too much credit giving that you're probably an antisemite. F u and so on and so on.
maybe the 20th century answered the JQ wrong.
@@FreckleFoxShow Yeah, you can't even say 'the Jews' anymore like you'd say the Catholics or the Hindus, the Muslims. Which just demonstrates what I'm saying.
All religions are highly flawed, Judaism included, but criticism of Judaism is a taboo.
But what if Judaism is now using that taboo to do some very bad things?
It's a real dilemma I don't know if I have the answer to, Part of me thinks to hell with taboos, they generally lead in bad directions, but by the same token maybe Jews are a special case, given the enormity of the holocaust.
Maybe they should get special protection. as genuine criticism would end up playing into the hands of Nazis.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but that seems like some strong cocaine use.
Too much sniffing and lisping
No, it is the right amount
@@bradmodd7856 It's too much for me
🤧
This is not simply Žižek sniffing and lisping. Sniffing and lisping has Žižek as ontological grund for its existence.
@@spudinmud your moral judgement has deeply and profoundly propelled the human race forward here
He’s a backseat driver 😂😂 Worry about your own country. Capitalism isn’t going anywhere.
Nobody cares what kind of regressive assumptions you have about the world, go elsewhere please
Go scroll Instagram you peanut butter brain dumb shit