H h h huiuiiuiuiuvuuuhvuuu uhuhhhhhyuuuuuuyyhyuyhyuhuhyuyyuuyhuyuyuyuhhhhhhuhhhhhhuyuhhhhhuhhhhhuhuuuhhuuhuhuhhuhuhuhuhuhhhhuhhhuuuhhhhuhhhuhhh v hubba vvvvvvv vvvvvvv vvvvuvvhhhhvvvhhjhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhvvh can uuhuuuuuuuu u iuuuuyhhjhjuuuvuv hi hi hi hi jhhhhhhhhuuuuuu hi juuuuuuuuuhuuuuhu hi ih hi j yh hybu yuu Uuuh van de
Fabulous encounter of 2 giants of contemporary thought. Almost incredible, especially the way Zizek gives a fantastic series of genial suggestions. A great moment !
i'm reading nikolai Berdyaev, and found out also about lev shestov. it's really cool. specifically Berdyaev, because he speaks quite clearly and beautifully about freedom and creativity as an opening to a new kind of knowledge. a living knowledge. which is open to expression in reason of course, philosophically, but not 'systematically'.
I was thinking about Berdyaev while watching this discussion. Now, there is an "anti-philosopher" kat exochen as is Shestov, as actually is every Russian philosopher worth his salt.
the trick is that, theory cannot intermediate the act of creation which has no "method" but arises out of the will itself, or more accurately the love or sympathy of the creator to create, and this creation can be anything, movement, art, action, theory. but the willing is the doing it's one. we have lost this cosmic understanding of action and knowledge as one with everything. and we had good reasons. appearance, matter, history, violence. we have been misled and disappointed by others and by ourselves. I wonder why his last work, Berdyaev's, truth and revelation hasn't been reprinted yet. the other ones have.
@@truthlivingetc88 It reminds me of the kind of thing I was writing as a teenager experimenting with cannabis. Things like "beliefs are to knowledge as appearance is to reality", "The appearance is not the reality", "Robert Anton Wilson: you are the master who makes the grass green (The sky is blue only because we call it blue)", "We are all part of the same oneness, all conscious life are only the conscious parts of the oneness, separated like the individual rain drops which are nevertheless part of the same water cycle", and so on.
I was in a bad mood and didn`t read the comment above properly. I like both comments ( both Dionysus`and Jladimir`s ) a lot more now. They now each appear very inspiring to me.
With mr Zizek time is always too little.we have to invent a new system to work out how to divide the day and the night so that Zizek can deliver his thoughts entirely rather than in a concentrated way like sardines in a can.
@@rheor2149 He said about Less than nothing that the problem with big philosophical books is that afterwards you have to write a second book about what you forgot in the first one.
I like how Zizek subtly or not so subtly ascertains Hegel's position as representing love !the four representatives of German idealism). Zizek's loyalry never quavers as it shouldn't.
A very late reply, and perhaps not exactly what you're looking for, but The Ticklish Subject focuses on defending Cartesian subjectivity against its detractors, which might perhaps be analogous to anti-philosophy in some ways
Oh, gee, David. How the fuck quickly would YOU speak IN FRENCH, OR CATALAN OR SPANISH... about complex philosophical histories and issues, at AGE 82???? I do not want to be offensive at all and I am sure that this is simply the fault of the media you are using to communicate, but here you come off as a classic silly, entitled, unthinking millennial.
@@michellelekas211 Voi ei, löysit kirjoitusvirheen! Tuntuu hieman ironiselta ottaen huomioon mitä kirjoitit. Valitit että toinen on turhaan ilkeä kun toinen puhuu ei-natiivia kieltään hitaasti, mutta päätit sitten syöksyä ilman mitään itse tutkiskelua suoraan kielioppipoliisiksi, varsinkin kun se on kolmas kieleni. :DD
if you where carefull, you would have regreted this comment after listening to what zizek says at 34:10 also you would have noticed, that you wouldnt even understand the context of what he is takling about
Now, to provoke you a little bit : The assumption of an "universality" is nothing but the result of a desperate quest for a solution to questions, the mind poses to itself. Ultimately again, "universality" is precisely that which is agreed upon. It becomes totally useless at the moment it is found.
too many adds - please learn that philosophy and capitalism are not a good match and stop monetising so much on the back of thinkers who criticise capitalism
Interesting. I would very much put early Wittgenstein into 'anti-philosophy' category, insofar 'anti-philosophy' means 'philosophy hitherto has been confused and unclear and we should aim for clarity instead'. It is true that late Wittgenstein was critical of that kind of naivite...
Dear @@IppolitBelinski ; I would argue that Early Wittgenstein positivism inside Tractatus is entirely philosophy. He was an engineer, he postulated things that might exist or the identical equations or tensions that exist between ideas. He held a patent because he created a thing. It was a thing that might exist within things. This was entirely in keeping with his idiom. Wittgenstein, over his life, was his own worst critic and became agorist against the entire venture due to his inability to divine true insights. He held himself to unrealistic expectations. Hiding behind paradoxes and games as a way to evade real progress was a result of listening to lesser minds, like Zizek, in philosophy at that time. Models are always approximate. Wittgenstein should have remembered that. What is lost of philosophers that remain ambiguous to evade failure is they do not contribute to building anything. In a future age, more sophisticated minds will identify holes and problems with old theories in just like Einstein has been proven wrong. Gravity has been associated with the exchange of particles now. So not just a tensor field as imagined. Hawking was wrong, black holes emit. Newton was wrong, he should have written his laws as inequalities. But without those nascent models nothing advances. The wisest understand that we use any theory as a raft toward better. Those that don't participate through attempted scaffolding are the real losers.
Ah, I see our misunderstanding. You use clarity. I use fixed. Aristotle wrote of ethics and defined courage. He made ideas fixed. Early Wittgenstein made ideas fixed. That makes it philosophy to my mind. Confused is an unfixed concept. Unclear or not clear is again an unfixed concept. Not black doesn't mean white as Wittgenstein observed. I suppose it comes down to your acceptance of the axiom of the excluded middle. By making terms fixed to each other you leave no wiggle room for evasion. Hence, clarity. You are using clarity, I argue clarity is arrived at through definition fixing.
I can't understand a fucking word Badiou is saying. How can someone have such a good grasp of the English language and yet have such godawful pronunciation?
Hey philosophy/psychology RUclips bingers - think about Sam Harris’ infamous first Jordan Peterson interview and their dispute about types of truth - first half of this Badiou is a commentary on that topic; Peterson is an anti-philosopher in this sense.
in order for Peterson to be an anti-philosopher, he'd need to even understand what he was critiquing in the first place. Have you heard the man speak on Heidegger and Nietzsche?
Badiou is a serious logical positivist. Zizek is an impostor. How you feel about the person is nonsense if their ideas are not foundational to epistemology.
@Aiden Grove "A 20th-century school of philosophy which held that all knowledge is based on logical inferences from empirical observations." By your actions, you clearly aren't an educated person because naysaying isn't an argument. Ever. Mathematicians complain Badiou's theories aren't complete, even Scruton, but philosophy has to work outside of mathematics. Mathematics is bounded philosophy, philosophy is unbounded mathematics. Post another ignorant comment and I will ignore you because all evidence points to your ignorance. Not mine.
@@OsirusHandle i think theyre just being a stemlord and saying that logical positivism is the only thing that counts as serious philosophy. yawn, absolutely broke take
My problem with philosophy is that it always has some kind of uncertainty and endless subjective "touch". The unknown can quickly be turned into mistical mystery, but the truth is that there's no mystery. What philosophy does is to put unnecesary barriers with this mistification. This gives philosophy a kind of idealistic unnecesary, sort of, difficulty. For me, this uncertainty, mystery and endless philosophical discussion is mostly due to Lacan's concept of "objet petit a" operating in the realm of knowledge. That's for me the biggest sin of philosophy. On the other hand, i'm shocked they haven't mention Nietzsche. Probably the biggest anti-philosopher came from this world, of course. It is absolutely necessary to step out of philosophy. There's no more knowledge than that of the experience, obviously. Even if you pretend to be the most idealistic philosopher ever, you are still proyecting yourself in your words. I don't have knowledge of the concept of an apple, for instance. I know the apple, because i "live" the apple. The same way, philosophy is just a language about, call it, inner experiences. You never understand what a language says to you, you live and experience it. But we are humans, by nature, without full acces to ourselves - we are born and live without fully developing ourselves in language. That's probably the only thing that separates us from animals. - And that's precisely, for me, where the failure of philosophy lais: in this difficulty, insufficiency of words and distance to grasp and experience with language the real thing. History of philosophy has been, for me, a distant approach to the real thing. Therefore, it's a neurosis. An insufficiency of words. In fact, history itself, mostly political, is the Big Neurosis. A necessary neurosis and conflict that has resulted (i'm talking about Europe, how could it be otherwise?), after overcoming one problem after the other, in these liberal capitalist democratic times, which by now, seem to be our only ideal future and way of life. Remember Fukuyama? One of the points of modernity is to settle down some things which were historically developing. I'm not saying it's the end of history, obviosly there are a lot of things to be done, i'm just saying we have approached a certain new stable horizon. In the same way as with politics, could we say the same with the history of philosophy and knowledge? Is psychoanalisis and psychology in general the end of philosophy in the sense of the true and only path we should follow?
I like the word, "neurosis." That said, it is far from obvious that the human mind is capable of grasping itself/the universe, much less doing so with ease, and assuming that one should be biased towards less mystery and uncertainty rather than more, especially axiomatically, seems premature. Simply telling ourselves, "there is no mystery," is no assurance of anything other than perhaps our capacity to be willfully blind. E.g., you have ten pounds of various colonies of bacteria in your gut, some of which help to process the apple that you "live." In fact we have more bacteria inside of us than we do mitochondria. What about that isn't a bloody mystery?
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Why is this in a playlist of bass covers
I have the same question
dude i am asking the same thing
very, VERY confused
bassed
Haha oops
My favorite bass cover
Mine too lmao
H h h huiuiiuiuiuvuuuhvuuu uhuhhhhhyuuuuuuyyhyuyhyuhuhyuyyuuyhuyuyuyuhhhhhhuhhhhhhuyuhhhhhuhhhhhuhuuuhhuuhuhuhhuhuhuhuhuhhhhuhhhuuuhhhhuhhhuhhh v hubba vvvvvvv vvvvvvv vvvvuvvhhhhvvvhhjhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhvvh can uuhuuuuuuuu u iuuuuyhhjhjuuuvuv hi hi hi hi jhhhhhhhhuuuuuu hi juuuuuuuuuhuuuuhu hi ih hi j yh hybu yuu Uuuh van de
Fabulous encounter of 2 giants of contemporary thought. Almost incredible, especially the way Zizek gives a fantastic series of genial suggestions. A great moment !
Thanks for your elegance and kindness, Žižek
2:17:00min Weird comments after the types of questions posed. As if the negation of the answer(s) had to precede the answer.
i'm reading nikolai Berdyaev, and found out also about lev shestov. it's really cool. specifically Berdyaev, because he speaks quite clearly and beautifully about freedom and creativity as an opening to a new kind of knowledge. a living knowledge. which is open to expression in reason of course, philosophically, but not 'systematically'.
I was thinking about Berdyaev while watching this discussion. Now, there is an "anti-philosopher" kat exochen as is Shestov, as actually is every Russian philosopher worth his salt.
the trick is that, theory cannot intermediate the act of creation which has no "method" but arises out of the will itself, or more accurately the love or sympathy of the creator to create, and this creation can be anything, movement, art, action, theory. but the willing is the doing it's one. we have lost this cosmic understanding of action and knowledge as one with everything. and we had good reasons. appearance, matter, history, violence. we have been misled and disappointed by others and by ourselves.
I wonder why his last work, Berdyaev's, truth and revelation hasn't been reprinted yet. the other ones have.
that is not profound. that is posturing.
@@truthlivingetc88 It reminds me of the kind of thing I was writing as a teenager experimenting with cannabis. Things like "beliefs are to knowledge as appearance is to reality", "The appearance is not the reality", "Robert Anton Wilson: you are the master who makes the grass green (The sky is blue only because we call it blue)", "We are all part of the same oneness, all conscious life are only the conscious parts of the oneness, separated like the individual rain drops which are nevertheless part of the same water cycle", and so on.
I was in a bad mood and didn`t read the comment above properly. I like both comments ( both Dionysus`and Jladimir`s ) a lot more now. They now each appear very inspiring to me.
With mr Zizek time is always too little.we have to invent a new system to work out how to divide the day and the night so that Zizek can deliver his thoughts entirely rather than in a concentrated way like sardines in a can.
Da
That's what his books are for
@@rheor2149 true
@@rheor2149 He said about Less than nothing that the problem with big philosophical books is that afterwards you have to write a second book about what you forgot in the first one.
This bass cover is awesome. The only bad thing is that there's no bass :(
but there are two BOSSES
1:57:39 Might be a reach, but could anyone translate what Žižek says to Badiou here? I don’t speak French, and I’m just really curious lol
I can in a Zizekian and left a Badiouan. Very stimulating debate, thanks for uploading.
Great talk.
I like how Zizek subtly or not so subtly ascertains Hegel's position as representing love !the four representatives of German idealism). Zizek's loyalry never quavers as it shouldn't.
Does anyone know which of Zizeks books that he elaborates this critique of anti-philosophy since Kant that he presented here?
A very late reply, and perhaps not exactly what you're looking for, but The Ticklish Subject focuses on defending Cartesian subjectivity against its detractors, which might perhaps be analogous to anti-philosophy in some ways
Wow slavoj gets really excited chatting with his dad
yeah, his 12yrs older dad lol
erykah badiou
I want a rimshot heyyyyyy
Badiou sounds like a caricature of a Frenchman more than any caricature ever did.
he is a frenchman
my favorite comic duo
This bass line is dope!!!
lmao put Badiou's part on 1,5 speed
thanks
Oh, gee, David. How the fuck quickly would YOU speak IN FRENCH, OR CATALAN OR SPANISH... about complex philosophical histories and issues, at AGE 82????
I do not want to be offensive at all and I am sure that this is simply the fault of the media you are using to communicate, but here you come off as a classic silly, entitled, unthinking millennial.
@@michellelekas211 Your offended by good advice.
@@entiresquare6262 YOU'RE (note the spelling) a bit off here? Advice?
@@michellelekas211 Voi ei, löysit kirjoitusvirheen! Tuntuu hieman ironiselta ottaen huomioon mitä kirjoitit. Valitit että toinen on turhaan ilkeä kun toinen puhuu ei-natiivia kieltään hitaasti, mutta päätit sitten syöksyä ilman mitään itse tutkiskelua suoraan kielioppipoliisiksi, varsinkin kun se on kolmas kieleni. :DD
Žižek comes in at 29:00
if you where carefull, you would have regreted this comment after listening to what zizek says at 34:10
also you would have noticed, that you wouldnt even understand the context of what he is takling about
You’re an idiot
again: the organizer failed to provide kleenex tissues for the speaker. :)
It's the same the world over/Ain't it all a bloody shame/It's the rich what gets the gravy/It's the poor what gets the blame.
Thanks a lot that was magnificent by Badiou. Slavoj as always is our man.
Why the fuck would you put a jillion ads in the first 30 minutes
zizek really never talks about what the title says ei?
Now, to provoke you a little bit : The assumption of an "universality" is nothing but the result of a desperate quest for a solution to questions, the mind poses to itself. Ultimately again, "universality" is precisely that which is agreed upon.
It becomes totally useless at the moment it is found.
Hi mom!
great bass cover
😊
Davis John Davis Angela Walker Matthew
Too many ads. Sorry.
They stop 1/3rd in
too many adds - please learn that philosophy and capitalism are not a good match and stop monetising so much on the back of thinkers who criticise capitalism
Use ad block
Early Wittgenstein is not anti-philosopher. Late Wittgenstein doubted Early Wittgenstein.
Interesting. I would very much put early Wittgenstein into 'anti-philosophy' category, insofar 'anti-philosophy' means 'philosophy hitherto has been confused and unclear and we should aim for clarity instead'.
It is true that late Wittgenstein was critical of that kind of naivite...
Dear @@IppolitBelinski ;
I would argue that Early Wittgenstein positivism inside Tractatus is entirely philosophy. He was an engineer, he postulated things that might exist or the identical equations or tensions that exist between ideas. He held a patent because he created a thing. It was a thing that might exist within things. This was entirely in keeping with his idiom.
Wittgenstein, over his life, was his own worst critic and became agorist against the entire venture due to his inability to divine true insights. He held himself to unrealistic expectations. Hiding behind paradoxes and games as a way to evade real progress was a result of listening to lesser minds, like Zizek, in philosophy at that time.
Models are always approximate. Wittgenstein should have remembered that. What is lost of philosophers that remain ambiguous to evade failure is they do not contribute to building anything. In a future age, more sophisticated minds will identify holes and problems with old theories in just like Einstein has been proven wrong. Gravity has been associated with the exchange of particles now. So not just a tensor field as imagined. Hawking was wrong, black holes emit. Newton was wrong, he should have written his laws as inequalities.
But without those nascent models nothing advances. The wisest understand that we use any theory as a raft toward better. Those that don't participate through attempted scaffolding are the real losers.
Ah, I see our misunderstanding. You use clarity. I use fixed. Aristotle wrote of ethics and defined courage. He made ideas fixed. Early Wittgenstein made ideas fixed. That makes it philosophy to my mind.
Confused is an unfixed concept. Unclear or not clear is again an unfixed concept. Not black doesn't mean white as Wittgenstein observed.
I suppose it comes down to your acceptance of the axiom of the excluded middle. By making terms fixed to each other you leave no wiggle room for evasion. Hence, clarity. You are using clarity, I argue clarity is arrived at through definition fixing.
I can't understand a fucking word Badiou is saying. How can someone have such a good grasp of the English language and yet have such godawful pronunciation?
Haha, by being deeply and unashamedly French, it would seem.
Hey philosophy/psychology RUclips bingers - think about Sam Harris’ infamous first Jordan Peterson interview and their dispute about types of truth - first half of this Badiou is a commentary on that topic; Peterson is an anti-philosopher in this sense.
lol
in order for Peterson to be an anti-philosopher, he'd need to even understand what he was critiquing in the first place. Have you heard the man speak on Heidegger and Nietzsche?
You’re a moron
Badiou is a serious logical positivist. Zizek is an impostor. How you feel about the person is nonsense if their ideas are not foundational to epistemology.
@Aiden Grove You've never read Being and Event, Logic of Worlds, have you? Badiou is a premier positivist.
@Aiden Grove "A 20th-century school of philosophy which held that all knowledge is based on logical inferences from empirical observations."
By your actions, you clearly aren't an educated person because naysaying isn't an argument. Ever.
Mathematicians complain Badiou's theories aren't complete, even Scruton, but philosophy has to work outside of mathematics.
Mathematics is bounded philosophy, philosophy is unbounded mathematics.
Post another ignorant comment and I will ignore you because all evidence points to your ignorance. Not mine.
@Aiden Grove Clearly you're a self-important troll that provides no evidence yet is smugly overconfident in his or her own feelings. By your logic.
Imposter? Zizek doesnt consider himself a positivist at all.
@@OsirusHandle i think theyre just being a stemlord and saying that logical positivism is the only thing that counts as serious philosophy. yawn, absolutely broke take
My problem with philosophy is that it always has some kind of uncertainty and endless subjective "touch". The unknown can quickly be turned into mistical mystery, but the truth is that there's no mystery. What philosophy does is to put unnecesary barriers with this mistification. This gives philosophy a kind of idealistic unnecesary, sort of, difficulty. For me, this uncertainty, mystery and endless philosophical discussion is mostly due to Lacan's concept of "objet petit a" operating in the realm of knowledge. That's for me the biggest sin of philosophy. On the other hand, i'm shocked they haven't mention Nietzsche. Probably the biggest anti-philosopher came from this world, of course. It is absolutely necessary to step out of philosophy.
There's no more knowledge than that of the experience, obviously. Even if you pretend to be the most idealistic philosopher ever, you are still proyecting yourself in your words. I don't have knowledge of the concept of an apple, for instance. I know the apple, because i "live" the apple. The same way, philosophy is just a language about, call it, inner experiences. You never understand what a language says to you, you live and experience it. But we are humans, by nature, without full acces to ourselves - we are born and live without fully developing ourselves in language. That's probably the only thing that separates us from animals. - And that's precisely, for me, where the failure of philosophy lais: in this difficulty, insufficiency of words and distance to grasp and experience with language the real thing. History of philosophy has been, for me, a distant approach to the real thing. Therefore, it's a neurosis. An insufficiency of words. In fact, history itself, mostly political, is the Big Neurosis. A necessary neurosis and conflict that has resulted (i'm talking about Europe, how could it be otherwise?), after overcoming one problem after the other, in these liberal capitalist democratic times, which by now, seem to be our only ideal future and way of life. Remember Fukuyama? One of the points of modernity is to settle down some things which were historically developing. I'm not saying it's the end of history, obviosly there are a lot of things to be done, i'm just saying we have approached a certain new stable horizon. In the same way as with politics, could we say the same with the history of philosophy and knowledge? Is psychoanalisis and psychology in general the end of philosophy in the sense of the true and only path we should follow?
Sorry, i did miss that XD
I like the word, "neurosis." That said, it is far from obvious that the human mind is capable of grasping itself/the universe, much less doing so with ease, and assuming that one should be biased towards less mystery and uncertainty rather than more, especially axiomatically, seems premature. Simply telling ourselves, "there is no mystery," is no assurance of anything other than perhaps our capacity to be willfully blind.
E.g., you have ten pounds of various colonies of bacteria in your gut, some of which help to process the apple that you "live." In fact we have more bacteria inside of us than we do mitochondria. What about that isn't a bloody mystery?
@@robbydyer4500 Thank you.
Life would not be worth living without mystery.