Right? Holy shit. It would have increased the drama and angst by lot. Made it all the more tragic. Specially after the child is rescued at the end, with the knowledge that his father was also days away from the rescue, and could have been saved if he maybe did not put up with the fantasy.
I feel like it would've made it a lot more depressing and give the kid too much procociousness that I think is beyond most, what 7 year olds.or.something?
@@brettrobbins I knew that accent was as fake as those phony facial tics, but I couldn't figure out what was really underneath until you pointed out this gap in his disguise. TY
"Holy Spirit is the egalitarian community bound by love" This is the most concise explanation of Christianity (or even Western Spiritualism) I've ever seen
It's funny to me, because when you ask most Christians, they will tell you that the Holy Spirit is the least understood of the Trinity by them, and yet it is the Person Whom we most viscerally encounter
when you listen to zizek, it is like reading an indented list. have you ever read the thousand arabian nights? a story inside another story inside another. gotta have good memory
Ever read Foucault? Or better yet, a transcript of him speaking? Philosophers, for reasons I can’t explain, tend towards embedding and extending sentences. I think it has to do with capacity of intelligent individuals to think faster than they are capable of formulating adequate words to describe their thoughts. This is of course contrasted with dimwitted individuals who can say much without really expressing much of anything.
@@Alexander-mw1ek I think there's a longing in being precise about the ideas they are trying to convey and that maybe requires a bigger lexicon or extending the train of thought to reach, in a certain order some point., also if you talk a lot you wouldn't want to be repeating the same words and patterns it becomes boring , doesn't bring value nor authority. And then there's a lot of them that learn certain ways to organize ideas that are more compelling or engaging or even emotionally charged and so on and so on...
IMO he's so easy to understand. It's good evidence of the dichotomy between the awake and the asleep. All it takes is lucid awareness, all it takes is effort put into your listening. But today people want understanding fed to them, which is impossible. Understanding must come from your own intellect. If it comes from anyone else, if it is fed to you by anyone else, it is ideology.
I think Żiżek would like Bolesław Prus' short story called "Kamizelka" ("The Waistcoat"). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waistcoat "As the husband had been losing weight, he had been shortening one of the vest's bands in order not to worry his wife; and she had been shortening the other one in order to give him hope. Thus they had deceived one another in a good cause."
Perhaps more Chesterton, in paraphrase: I opened my mind as I opened my mouth: with the purpose of shutting it again on something solid. And, I said, I would look very silly if I went around everywhere with my mouth open.
What he is getting at is the paradox of faith Kierkegaard is so good at drawing out. To believe and accept paradox one can go no further than to believe that oneself believes. Faith (like sin) is its own presupposition. Chesterton makes a similar point drawing on Christ's analogy to not let the right hand know what the left is doing. Zizek is right to point out the mysterious functionality of such belief, to which the Christian has always responded that it is God who sustains and grants faith, not human will or intellect.
@@Kaspar502 I'd rather Romans 1:18 becomes less mysterious, frankly. Especially as how it relates to a post 'glass darkly' world... And a pre Revolt in heaven, heaven. Kind of unlikely situation, that last one. Seems many angels never 'got' it.
@@imnothingbutastreetcat7996he believes in a psudeo-christian hegelian theology. I don't know all the details but he believes that God literally died on the cross and poured his own essence into the geist of humanity. First there was God the Father, big guy controlling the entire world and so on, who through the incarnation made us truly free by liberating us from the responsability that the existence of God posed to humanity by literally dying for us on the cross, then the Holy Spirit comes into humanity and creates the "egalitarian communty bound by love" he talks about. So yeah, completely unbiblical and heretical but thats what philosophers do.
That quote is utter nonsense, both as it stands alone here and in its original context. There isn't a God, and there are atheists. Is Chesterton seriously suggesting that even if people like me are wrong, and there is a God, then his sudden absence would force the entire human species to believe in his presence? Part of the problem is Chesterton fabricates his own definition for the word atheist, one which is not correct. OED has atheist as one who "disbelieves or lacks belief" in God. That is, does not believe there is one or does believe there is not one. These two are subtly distinct, but Chesterton's invented definition does not match either.
@@jamiefraser-bingham9091 Atheist is someone who say there is no God,,so you are trying to redefine atheism so you don't need to defend your position .
The quote is mistake in any event, because what's being implied is if there was really no god there would be no one calling themselves atheists, but those people wouldn't cease to exist, there just wouldn't be a word called atheist because the thing it pertains to doesn't exist. Kind of like how there isn't a word for someone who doesn't believe in vampires. It's commonly accepted that vampires don't exist.
The biggest mistake you could make is to quote or read Chesterton out of context, because he uses popular sayings, proverbs, allegories and aphorisms to get his point across. So of course taking them out of their context would lead to a misunderstanding like this. His words aren't meant to be taken as a factual statement.
In my grandparents' house there hung a framed print of the words "God grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." The first part of that, I think, is why most large religions offer the promise of a divine plan or cosmic order. We cannot control everything, and faith that life is inherently meaningful and worthwhile is a good remedy for existential terror. So on a purely pragmatic level, the idea of God as a personal and good-natured entity serves to aid people in times of chaos. There are certainly times when faith is the only redress. I think there's more to it than that but I'm pretty sleep-deprived.
I'd say that the idea of a transcendent guarantee blinds us to the reality of Love. That's why Christianity elevates it to a divine category. As long as we think there's a god, we will not see that we're together in this. Alone, left to our freedom, as Zizek says.
The other existential terror is that if everything is in fact meaningful, the standards become infinitely high and your actions now have an unfathomably negative value. It’s like smoking your whole life and then finding out that it causes cancer. Not only do you have to embark on the impossible task of quitting, but you also have to somehow deal with the irreversible damage you’ve already done.
@@willmcpherson2 Your definitions make any action impossible. But that is a cop out. Actions can also have a positive value - particularly if you just aim for the achievable without placing the impossibility of "infinitely high" standards on any action.
Wow! One of the most concise Zizek interview responses I've seen. I love his use of Hegelian philosophy with a twist of egalitarian mutual self assurance. P.S A little know drinking game involves taking a shot every time Zizek has a nervous tick. A serious downfall of said game is alcohol poisoning; and questioning the teachings of the church.
Beautiful. Thank you. "The radical absence of any Transcendent guarantee" is not just through the Christian experience. The Vedic tradition also holds this.
joyela aeuvunya Zizek is fully anti-stalinist, if you thought that even for a second he defends old communist regimes you’re wrong, you’ve been fooled and you’ve fell right into his joke. You literally have no sense of humor if that is the case. You should know he is openly a black humor preacher. Zizek is a neo-communist, like me and anyone intelligent enough. Of course neo-communism or post-communism imply defending also all the good things you stated.
Televi Kunt exactly, just one thing. The fact that you said that anyone intelligent enough like zizek or you should is neo communist is very prideful. Brilliant minds exist everywhere
if you see this video alone you will think he did not arrive at a final conclusion. He said Christianity, Christ, changed belief from an Almighty God to a communion of love between man, but seems to point out that nobody believes in it as in the case of Santa Claus. Afterwards he uses as an example the movie life is beautiful, and I think he uses it to reinforce how human behave in this way of third person belief. I presume his call is that Christians should work inwards to believe in love. For me love is a philosophy, rather than a universal truth. Love is a feeling we can cultivate and exercise, we have to learn how to do it and conduct ourselves as much as possible by promoting the feeling inside and outside. Love is difficult because many other feelings and situations in life do not require love 100%, unless you are willing to sacrifice your life.
While I agree that love is an emotion, when our Lord is asked, "who is my neighbor?" in reaction to the commandment to love our neighbors, He uses the parable of the Good Samaritan to make His point. In the parable, He does not speak of the love the Samaritan may or may not feel in his heart, but rather of the love the Samaritan has in his actions
I keep trying to find a way to take the laughter out of Friends, and have it play somewhere. Someone told me it was filmed in front of a live audience, so it had to be genuine. I asked about the "laughter" sign that signals for them to laugh, and they said, "so what? It's just a suggestion." Ah yes, like the cool postmodern father asking about sex, the cool suggestive sign just making a suggestion to laugh. God bless
G K Chesterton wrote many things. I think the book Zizek is quoting from is either "Orthodoxy" or "Heretics". Both are from the 1900s, be aware, but if you're prepared to engage some of that culture, it is humorous, ironic, but does make one think.
as a Christian i'm amazed at his insight into Christ's work. He doesn't quite get it, but he's way ahead of many theologians. looking forward to when Jesus returns and we can have true communism, won't that be a surprise for everyone :)
Jesus is a socialist if you think about it. His father in the old testement wen't against monarchy, and warning them on the disadvantages of having a King.
Belief that you don't have to believe yourself. The cross signifies the death of the man on the cloud out there and now Christianity is guided by the holy spirit; an immanent experience and so on of love between people and so on and so on. What an amazing scholar!
He touches on something I’ve been thinking for years now. I never really was religious but I grew up in a very religious home so it took a while for me to even begin to “lose my religion,” so to speak. It wasn’t until I was in my 20’s that I began to really confront the religious belief system in my own mind and everything that didn’t seem to add up to me... I’m not speaking about the ridiculous stories that obviously don’t make sense no matter how you try and interpret them... at least not this time, but more to the phenomenon that people who claim to be religious are more often the ones who do things and live the exact opposite of the tenants or teachings of their “prophet/savior.” So I eventually came to an idea that actually no one (aside perhaps from those who live a monk-like existence I guess) are really religious and 99.999999999% of humans alive today are actually atheists or better yet really don’t believe. It’s just that some people like to participate in the pretend relationship they have with a “savior” and/or with their fellow “believers” as well. It’s ALL pretending and going through the motions/rituals which serves to comfort each other... whether for nostalgic reasons or for the community function that religious structure creates. Hence his Santa analogy of the parent and child pretending to go along with the narrative ultimately for the other’s sake. The curiosity had always bothered me of why/how fellow humans who are otherwise sane people can/do compartmentalize the contradictions of a logical mind as to turn that logic off only when dealing with matters of theology and religious belief/history/ritual. Which is to say that all those people who get up on Sunday mornings and conduct their lives like any other day in a totally logical way, they get up at a scientific time, dress themselves in a ritualistic way, eat breakfast as to satisfy a biological need, get into their meticulously engineered vehicles, use relatively well designed/planned man made roads, to arrive at the structurally sound highly engineered building they call church, and then they just turn off the part of their brain that they just used (all that beneficial logic and scientific participation) to join others who have also decided to “turn off.” And from there they proceed to just all sit there pretending things that are the exact opposite of the kind of thought which literally got them there in the first place. That’s a wild phenomenon of human nature... I find it more strange than any other “strange”human characteristic. Name another such strange widely acceptable relatively unquestionable and even celebrated practice... I can’t think of one, although politics comes pretty close. We are a strange animal indeed.
This is not strange in any sense. We all know Its a Game of pretending, you don't need to think too much to realise It. The reason its actually pretty simple too. We are not rational beings, we are Animals with the ability to communicate and use the reason. We dont like to use the reason though, because its hard and It might mean that one of the ideas we thought of is incorrect. We have emotional feelings for these ideas, so, when we are forced to disasociate from them, It is painful. This happens with religion belief, but also with any kind of tradition, like going to church, making your bed when you wake Up...
Strongly disagree on the pretending part. It sounds more like you are projecting your experience unto others. I had a similar situation in my late teens and early 20s where I basically had no faith, and learning a couple of new things as well as life turned that around.
@@Baccanaso Based on the fact that all religions and gods are demonstrably false it is by default pretending even if a person truly believes. Although when a person actually believes such religious nonsense it probably technically changes from pretending to delusion.
@@Baccanaso The counter argument being that you have just re-tricked yourself into believing something you don't actually believe, convinced you've arrived upon a new framework that makes sense to you.
He's right about the lack of insight within New Atheism. But he's not so much too Hegelian as too Protestant. He forgets that what Christianity tell us is not only of the death of God, but of his resurrection. He never discusses the resurrection.
@@pramitpratimdas8198 Good point: it does look Hegelian. It certainly seems to be true, whether Hegelian or not! And it does characterize Ž's particular form of atheism, which is so obsessed with seeing an emergent synthesis (which looks remarkably Marxist, not just Hegelian) where X-tian tradition denies it. The ever-living God, he says, and the (antithetical) death of his Divine Son, bring forth an age of the Spirit: spirit as synthesis. But no - like all protestant obsessives, he _forgets Easter:_ it is Christ Risen who re-emerges on the third day, not any third thing, not even the Spirit, who was there all along. Ž "Hegelianizes" the incarnation by ignoring the risen Christ and putting an abstract, synthetic Spirit in his place.
@@worldnotworld Risen Christ, the Easter, that's relapse into paganism. That's why only women allegedly saw him that Sunday morning. Hysterical bats! :)) Or wise old granmas - no sense in weeping, no luxury of dying, gotta go on with life, seasonal works, cycles, moons, wash and feed a newborn, wash and feed the elderly...
@@ljubog It is the deletion of the Resurrection that's a relapse into paganism. Sacrifice of victim now simply restores order, as in tragedy; no escape from eternal cycle of birth and death and perpetual emasculation. There would be no death of "God" without the Resurrection, because God could not have been revealed.
He is just a normal philosopher. It´s other people calling themselves "philosophers", that haven´t grasped what philosophy actually does, and there´s so many of them, that is confuses you, giving you a false picture of philosophy... If philosophy were less than what he does, it´d be a shame...
Zizek sees one way that we are. The way I and probably a lot of people following him are, playing these social games despite cynical materialist understanding deep down, even as small children playing the Santa Claus game. But, I am convinced that there are people who believe with absolute sincerity in things like that, by natural disposition. Even abrasive Atheists like Dawkins may start out that way, believing wholeheartedly in everything from Santa and the Easter Bunny to whatever magic or religious concepts they were exposed to, only to feel deeply betrayed upon the realization anyone would ever play this kind of game. To them, we are simply liars to be renounced as stupid and immoral, and those whom we've duped are pitiful idiots who need to be re-educated out of their indoctrination.
Before the historical battle of Marathon, the Athenians were shocked, after the news that they have to face the Persians without any spartan help... They started sacrificing goats to the goddess Artemis, asking her if she accepts. She surely accepted the initial sacrifice (bound to requests towards her), but her answer was negative: 1 goat for every dead barbarian was too little, 10 goats or 100 goats too... They went over, asking her, how many goats they have to promise her, for every wounded barbarian... 1 goat for every wounded barbarian was too little, 10 goats too, but 100 goats was finally enough! So, they´d sacrifice 100 goats after the battle for every wounded or dead Persian... After the battle, they found out, that they had nearly no casualties themselves, but on the other side, there were 6400 dead Persians... That was bleaker than having higher casualties themselves, cause they now had to pay for 6400*100=640.000 scapegoats, more than existed in whole Greece, more than ever existed in whole Greece during the whole 100 years before !!!!!!!!! So, they begann sacrificing and making requests. With each goat they sacrificed, they asked Artemis, if she´d be satisfied with another number of scapegoats than the promised, a number much lower than the initially promised. After 10 goats, Artemis finally answered, that she´d be OK with 100 instead of 640.000 goats... They went on sacrificing another 90, so, 100 altogether, and went home, as though nothing has ever happened, not to lose a single word about this event ever again... Acting like that was state-doctrine, religion was solely folklore, and to avoid being totally respectless towards the gods was a matter of fair-play and good maners, but nothing more... As soon as a justification was at hand, of how to avoid one´s responsibilities towards the gods, it was over, no matter how cheap and flimsy the justification was... Well that was thousands of years ago, when still lot of superstition was around (but already no true belief)... And, of course, the average Christian isn´t the average Greek, to be clear about that (and, even Greeks became Christians after all, after some pressure/maiming from above)... And don´t trick yourself, into believing that "people were different back then", or at any time in history, cause people have been the exact same strong thinkers for the last 8-11.000 years (even if their lack of knowledge often betrayed their thinking-efforts). To my opinion, there´s probably a natural disposition, just as you explained, but this disposition is something very, very rare, and most people are born atheists, and turned into believers, for lack of choice... I grew up in a greek village, and people there have their own moral frames, which keep them off from committing crimes. But when they are in the public, they are suddently Christians, in order to damn their village-neighbor, for example, for being such a big sinner and a bad person, and themselves being oh-so-noble-and-essential for the community/village (as a last-resort-excuse to win a fight amongst neighbors). But as soon as they are at home, they are suddently atheists again... Everybody lies in your face, just as you in everybody else´s face, and everybody knows about it, but the game perpetuates itself no matter what... Cause god is an entity that has never been collectively deconstructed, so, it keeps its authority, for as long as people bevieve, that there´s a single true believer left among them, who would be critical for tipping the scale to their favor, in such a debate (religious arguments are still relevant in preelection campaigns still today, in the country where politics were invented, or otherwise, the classical conservatives would have zero arguments)... Communism includes a great next step, where all come together, and confess, that they´ve been lying all the time, and that it´s time to stop with it, and let it be, in the future...
Are the objective social beliefs Žižek refers to like Daniel Katz's & Floyd Allport's research on pluralistic ignorance, where no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believe, and where people privately disdain but publicly support a norm (or a belief)?
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secret text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim [ line of ismail ]
Thank you, brother. One of the reasons why I really like Jesus is because he says that those that do the will of God are his brothers and sisters. He never says that we have to be a particular religion, race, or anything else. And what is the will of God? Simply that we love each other. God bless you.
Chesterton was one the most conservative philosophers of all time and yet zizek calls him "beloved". He has such freedom of thought from everything dogmatic and ideological. Even though he considers himself an communist you can be sure it's NOT because of any propaganda. It's because he agreed or arrived in conclusions that made him take this path. That's the ONLY communist that i have the least bit respect.
I think what i realized and Zizek really helped me understand about atheism vs. christianity is that i would prefer a christian oblivion to an atheist afterlife One of my fundamental obsessions is that i have a fear of death hanging over me even tho im still very young. I constantly am finding ways to cope with, deny and rationalize it. Hoping for an afterlife, reincarnation or just a third way in order to transcend my neurobiology Then i realized to myself, if upon my death God came to me and said “you have done well my child, now your soul will sleep” I would be more satisfied than if I were to wake up in an afterlife that was objectively true and featured Hitchens and all that hanging about I think Christianity and religion are profound and beautiful when you chase spiritual enlightenment and fulfillment in love and life without expecting reward from it. Perhaps my God-made purpose was to overcome my fear of Death and recant my want for an afterlife in order to be fulfilled and happy Now granted I would love to have an Afterlife or other for unselfish reasons like for the souls of my family to be saved and still around. So if God and Heaven is real I would stick around for that, so maybe im still being selfish deep down in hope, but I think that I should pursue God not because I want to get something out of it but because it is in my nature or destiny to face my fears of death and not cling onto selfish immortality Which is I think his greater point. I want the Christian God to be true because it will help people not because it will help myself. And I think Christianity or Religion as a whole should try to emphasize the process of doing good in this life because it feels good and will fulfill your spirit as opposed to making sure that there’s a certainty and lack of fear of the next life
The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins- Soren Kierkegaard. Something in Zizek's words made this quote spring up in my mind. It is almost as if Christianity was special in that God was accorded three avatars and that each was same and different simultaneosly.
No one believes in the first person, but most believe in the social beliefs, like Santa Clause, as the priceless Zizek tells us with his great gusts of humour and insight. Social beliefs rule, in fact. Pretending is what school teaches us - pretend to be interested in this, then that, for so long and no longer, et cetera.
But at some point the school must have been built on something other than pretenses and fulfilling social obligations. The search for social approval doesn't explain the passion of St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, or the early Japanese martyrs to a religion introduced by foreigners and violently repressed by the state. Or maybe I'm too naive to understand postmodernism
@@andrewpearson1903 Fulfilling social obligations is a high priority in Japanese culture even today. So them martyring for religion is not that far fetched
@@andrewpearson1903 schools used to be holistic and actually for education. But now it's been exploited by industrial age values that undermines learning and focuses more on performance so employers know which people are good to work hard for them. It's now a training ground for child robots and not passionate workers. What's more sad skilled crafts are pushed out and dying out because of that. Compulsory education is also the issue preventing children from dedicating more time on entering apprenticeship early. Fortunately, some schools have start offering Career Technical Programs that do teach children skills useful for society.
The title is very misleading. Can you point out where and how exactly he defends Christianity? He only points out the mechanisms of belief, bringing the dogmatic atheism from Dawkings into discussion.
Yeah, I think he believes that the only serious atheist position is that of Jesus on the cross feeling abandoned by his father. A Jesus that minutes later says his final words, addressed, of course, to his father: "in Thy hands I commend my spirit." You may not believe, or even like Christianity, but you can't deny the astounding originality of a religion that claims that God became Man, became and atheist, and died.... Yes. According to Christianity, God died on that cross. What human mind can come up with a story as outrageous?
@@xaviervelascosuarez I struggle with this. What 'objectified belief' is he speaking of in the end? Also why is it the ultimate 'christian gesture' to pretend that there is somebody out there that believes? Isn't that false Christianity?
@@jazz7581 yes, he's no Christian, that's for sure. But he seems to be searching.... And getting closer. May Gilbert K. get for him the graces he needs!
@@xaviervelascosuarez no I didn't mean to ask rhetoric questions, I was really asking what he meant, and for you to explain to me, because I didn't understand it
So uhh.. I conclude he's talking about how christianity propels us single-handedly to go through so called WW2 Auswitzsch prison known life even if, hypothetically, the Father is lying about heaven/hell and so on and so forth which is even better if, in his opinion if we pretended to know it all along and still go with it.
Do you find the writer in his books or the animator in his fictional cartoon world? That is why God is unapproachable because if all things have a creator and our reality has one, let us call it the ALL. If the ALL exists and nothing exists outside it , therefore it can only mean we exist inside the MIND OF THE ALL. All entities in our universe bare a semblance of THE ALL but cannot categorically be described as THE ALL, just like you see aspects of the writer in the characters of his book nevertheless none of them are the writer. If the characters of a book went on a search for their writer would they ever find him? That is why I find our attempts at finding God futile although we can use religion to stave off our fears and existential crises and even as means of dealing with not fully understood phenomena.
He is more likely making a secular and pragmatical analysis on the strenght of the system of believe of christianty and why it endures as a trascendant collective goal for human psyche.
"So for me, the truly Christian gesture is to abandon this objectified belief." This is the interrupted sentence and maybe the main point. He could've explain it a bit more.
I forget the specifics, but I remember the story of a "Jewish" atheist who wrote to a newspaper in a country where there was a protest against an upcoming papal visit. The atheist said, "I can't believe in what the Pope believes in, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where nobody believed it." Which reminds me of something T.S. Eliot said: "The individual can certainly love order [for its own sake]. The people cannot."
The term for this in the Catholic Church is "Maurrassisme," or atheists treating a religious institution (usually the Church, unfortunately) as an arm of the existing, usually conservative social system instead of a place where the soul and person can be healed. They fear societal breakdown in the face of a collective loss of faith
I, an atheist, was doing just fine at college last November. Then I read an article in the New Yorker (an interview with an anti-natalist philosopher named David Benatar) that exposed all the contradictions in my thought and demolished everything good that I believed. I was totally wrecked for four months and am still picking up my pieces, and that only because I've become a practicing Christian in the meantime. Forgive me if I don't recognize "running smoothly" as the equivalent of resilience.
Christian world has had unique interpreters. Your church may save you or exploit you, to fight for a right church was the mission of Christ's rare path.
What he’s trying to say is that we should pretend to believe but I don’t get the idea, why should we? I know that throughout history there were a lot of nations that pretended to believe in certain things but for them it all happened naturally, why should step out of our path and pretend to believe?
don't say "it's wrong", say instead "in some stupid sense, it's true" LOL
Man, his alternate ending for Benigni's film is actually damn good.
Right? Holy shit. It would have increased the drama and angst by lot. Made it all the more tragic. Specially after the child is rescued at the end, with the knowledge that his father was also days away from the rescue, and could have been saved if he maybe did not put up with the fantasy.
definitely...
I need a director's cut with this ending pronto !!!
I wonder what films does he like if that one wasn't "strong enough" xd
I feel like it would've made it a lot more depressing and give the kid too much procociousness that I think is beyond most, what 7 year olds.or.something?
00:37 Zizek is actually from the southern U.S.
Literary Theory you caught him!
@@Kbarz lol
He does look like Rick Roderick I'll give you that
Holy shit, I nearly spat my breakfast out all over the table
@@brettrobbins I knew that accent was as fake as those phony facial tics, but I couldn't figure out what was really underneath until you pointed out this gap in his disguise. TY
I like how ŻIżek always ends up talking about movies
I wonder is it because most of the people don't know shit, only couple of movies.
Movies and ideologeese.
It's because he is a psychoanalyst in the tradition of Freud via Lacan. For him, movies reveal the subconscious.
And about sex
you mean filems
Slavoj: Says a name
Slavoj: NOt a cOmMuNiSt
And so on and so on.
Sniff
"Holy Spirit is the egalitarian community bound by love" This is the most concise explanation of Christianity (or even Western Spiritualism) I've ever seen
The Holy Ghost is the Third Person in the Trinity
The HS can usually only appear where 2+ are so, when you're just growing in your Christianity, you can have God pass into you from someone else.
It's funny to me, because when you ask most Christians, they will tell you that the Holy Spirit is the least understood of the Trinity by them, and yet it is the Person Whom we most viscerally encounter
“…it’s just the imminence of an emancipatory collective.”
yeah thats wrong Christianity is not about love. Jesus was not a Hippy lol
when you listen to zizek, it is like reading an indented list.
have you ever read the thousand arabian nights? a story inside another story inside another.
gotta have good memory
Ender Wiggin lisp*
Would you way that when Zizek talks me makes a point within a point and so on and so on *sniff*
He loves the smell of the sides. of his nose
Ever read Foucault? Or better yet, a transcript of him speaking? Philosophers, for reasons I can’t explain, tend towards embedding and extending sentences. I think it has to do with capacity of intelligent individuals to think faster than they are capable of formulating adequate words to describe their thoughts. This is of course contrasted with dimwitted individuals who can say much without really expressing much of anything.
@@Alexander-mw1ek I think there's a longing in being precise about the ideas they are trying to convey and that maybe requires a bigger lexicon or extending the train of thought to reach, in a certain order some point., also if you talk a lot you wouldn't want to be repeating the same words and patterns it becomes boring , doesn't bring value nor authority. And then there's a lot of them that learn certain ways to organize ideas that are more compelling or engaging or even emotionally charged and so on and so on...
most people aren't dynamic enough to accept zizek I think, they don't want to struggle with ideas.
IMO he's so easy to understand. It's good evidence of the dichotomy between the awake and the asleep. All it takes is lucid awareness, all it takes is effort put into your listening. But today people want understanding fed to them, which is impossible. Understanding must come from your own intellect. If it comes from anyone else, if it is fed to you by anyone else, it is ideology.
I think Żiżek would like Bolesław Prus' short story called "Kamizelka" ("The Waistcoat").
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waistcoat
"As the husband had been losing weight, he had been shortening one of the vest's bands in order not to worry his wife; and she had been shortening the other one in order to give him hope. Thus they had deceived one another in a good cause."
no you are wrong pssimism = drive to knowledge.
Perhaps more Chesterton, in paraphrase: I opened my mind as I opened my mouth: with the purpose of shutting it again on something solid. And, I said, I would look very silly if I went around everywhere with my mouth open.
Same with Peterson
What he is getting at is the paradox of faith Kierkegaard is so good at drawing out. To believe and accept paradox one can go no further than to believe that oneself believes. Faith (like sin) is its own presupposition. Chesterton makes a similar point drawing on Christ's analogy to not let the right hand know what the left is doing. Zizek is right to point out the mysterious functionality of such belief, to which the Christian has always responded that it is God who sustains and grants faith, not human will or intellect.
C-
@@DanielRivera-on5qh lol
@@DanielRivera-on5qh Really? I thought it wasnt bad. What was so wrong in his statement?
As I said to my roommate: this guy's theology is almost entirely wrong but almost entirely correct at the same time. He's absolutely fascinating.
That means his theology is non existent. It just cancels itself mathematically.
He fell down into the mystery of faith and never let God catch him
@@Kaspar502 I'd rather Romans 1:18 becomes less mysterious, frankly.
Especially as how it relates to a post 'glass darkly' world...
And a pre Revolt in heaven, heaven. Kind of unlikely situation, that last one.
Seems many angels never 'got' it.
@@imnothingbutastreetcat7996No. It means he has a philisophy he fits things into and this is what it looks like.
@@imnothingbutastreetcat7996he believes in a psudeo-christian hegelian theology. I don't know all the details but he believes that God literally died on the cross and poured his own essence into the geist of humanity. First there was God the Father, big guy controlling the entire world and so on, who through the incarnation made us truly free by liberating us from the responsability that the existence of God posed to humanity by literally dying for us on the cross, then the Holy Spirit comes into humanity and creates the "egalitarian communty bound by love" he talks about. So yeah, completely unbiblical and heretical but thats what philosophers do.
He might also say, as Chesterton also said, "without God, there would be no atheists".
That quote is utter nonsense, both as it stands alone here and in its original context. There isn't a God, and there are atheists. Is Chesterton seriously suggesting that even if people like me are wrong, and there is a God, then his sudden absence would force the entire human species to believe in his presence?
Part of the problem is Chesterton fabricates his own definition for the word atheist, one which is not correct. OED has atheist as one who "disbelieves or lacks belief" in God. That is, does not believe there is one or does believe there is not one. These two are subtly distinct, but Chesterton's invented definition does not match either.
@@jamiefraser-bingham9091 who are you to proclaim so surely there is no God?
@@jamiefraser-bingham9091 Atheist is someone who say there is no God,,so you are trying to redefine atheism so you don't need to defend your position .
The quote is mistake in any event, because what's being implied is if there was really no god there would be no one calling themselves atheists, but those people wouldn't cease to exist, there just wouldn't be a word called atheist because the thing it pertains to doesn't exist. Kind of like how there isn't a word for someone who doesn't believe in vampires. It's commonly accepted that vampires don't exist.
The biggest mistake you could make is to quote or read Chesterton out of context, because he uses popular sayings, proverbs, allegories and aphorisms to get his point across. So of course taking them out of their context would lead to a misunderstanding like this. His words aren't meant to be taken as a factual statement.
In my grandparents' house there hung a framed print of the words "God grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." The first part of that, I think, is why most large religions offer the promise of a divine plan or cosmic order. We cannot control everything, and faith that life is inherently meaningful and worthwhile is a good remedy for existential terror. So on a purely pragmatic level, the idea of God as a personal and good-natured entity serves to aid people in times of chaos. There are certainly times when faith is the only redress. I think there's more to it than that but I'm pretty sleep-deprived.
Are your grandparents in a 12-step program like AA?
@@jele754 Reinhold Niebuhr
I'd say that the idea of a transcendent guarantee blinds us to the reality of Love. That's why Christianity elevates it to a divine category. As long as we think there's a god, we will not see that we're together in this. Alone, left to our freedom, as Zizek says.
The other existential terror is that if everything is in fact meaningful, the standards become infinitely high and your actions now have an unfathomably negative value.
It’s like smoking your whole life and then finding out that it causes cancer. Not only do you have to embark on the impossible task of quitting, but you also have to somehow deal with the irreversible damage you’ve already done.
@@willmcpherson2 Your definitions make any action impossible. But that is a cop out. Actions can also have a positive value - particularly if you just aim for the achievable without placing the impossibility of "infinitely high" standards on any action.
In my childhood i never realized Sylvester the cat is so damn wise.
lol!
Zizek is right: we have not even begun to take in the meaning of the Cross.
...and other hilarious delusions of morons.
Angry Sprayer Shut the fuck up. Communism will win.
@@_sarpa reddit
@@_sarpa reddit
I would like to believe that the early christians thought this deeply as Zizek is trying to portray.
Wow! One of the most concise Zizek interview responses I've seen. I love his use of Hegelian philosophy with a twist of egalitarian mutual self assurance.
P.S
A little know drinking game involves taking a shot every time Zizek has a nervous tick. A serious downfall of said game is alcohol poisoning; and questioning the teachings of the church.
Beautiful. Thank you. "The radical absence of any Transcendent guarantee" is not just through the Christian experience. The Vedic tradition also holds this.
7:12
Never go full Castro.
This should be on a T-shirt
joyela aeuvunya Zizek is fully anti-stalinist, if you thought that even for a second he defends old communist regimes you’re wrong, you’ve been fooled and you’ve fell right into his joke. You literally have no sense of humor if that is the case. You should know he is openly a black humor preacher. Zizek is a neo-communist, like me and anyone intelligent enough. Of course neo-communism or post-communism imply defending also all the good things you stated.
joyela aeuvunya Also he is not anti-vulgarity, he is fully pro-vulgarity. Long live vulgarity and its charming appeal.
Televi Kunt exactly, just one thing. The fact that you said that anyone intelligent enough like zizek or you should is neo communist is very prideful. Brilliant minds exist everywhere
Why tho?
What he said about canned laughter really resonates with me.
Probably the best dialogue by Slavoj I've seen in ages
if you see this video alone you will think he did not arrive at a final conclusion. He said Christianity, Christ, changed belief from an Almighty God to a communion of love between man, but seems to point out that nobody believes in it as in the case of Santa Claus. Afterwards he uses as an example the movie life is beautiful, and I think he uses it to reinforce how human behave in this way of third person belief. I presume his call is that Christians should work inwards to believe in love. For me love is a philosophy, rather than a universal truth. Love is a feeling we can cultivate and exercise, we have to learn how to do it and conduct ourselves as much as possible by promoting the feeling inside and outside. Love is difficult because many other feelings and situations in life do not require love 100%, unless you are willing to sacrifice your life.
While I agree that love is an emotion, when our Lord is asked, "who is my neighbor?" in reaction to the commandment to love our neighbors, He uses the parable of the Good Samaritan to make His point. In the parable, He does not speak of the love the Samaritan may or may not feel in his heart, but rather of the love the Samaritan has in his actions
What a plot twist! Damn you Zizek, thanks for this!
I like how his voice can't keep up with his mind and body.
Oh yeah i know, you should watch him WALK ON WATER... lol, spare me. He's a piece of shit.
imgur.com/a/lJ081b4
@@EQOAnostalgia You're a moron. Imagine being so quick to judge him simply because he's a communist.
I keep trying to find a way to take the laughter out of Friends, and have it play somewhere. Someone told me it was filmed in front of a live audience, so it had to be genuine. I asked about the "laughter" sign that signals for them to laugh, and they said, "so what? It's just a suggestion." Ah yes, like the cool postmodern father asking about sex, the cool suggestive sign just making a suggestion to laugh. God bless
I just realized how amazingly smart this guy is. Wow.
Lmao, I swear he is saying "eight-dayism".
I just realized that he has pretty arms and hands.
In beautiful 240p too
Pretty little 4 a big guy
The Arms of a synchronized swimmer with rebellious Hands longing to be Jazzy.
his hands are so dirty tho
@5:24 Zizek says he doesn't smoke but conveniently omits any refutation of drug use 😂
Those jitters though
acumenfinito he has repeatedly said he refrains from using drugs
@@hoaxnineteen2020 he has a tick bro
In another talk he does the "there are two great evils in today's society; pedophilia and smoking.. I don't smoke"
@@flerperderp2094 omg that's hilarious lol
I actually like that interpretation of Christianity and social believe without individuals literally believing.
Great, see you at Mass, then
The problem with Dawkins and Hitchens is their ideology isn't just naive, but it's /arrogant/ and naive.
Extremely arrogant to the point of being aggressively preachy.. they're like another type of religious fanatics
Sad that political conservatives in the US have denied so many the beauty of Christianity
Modern American conservatives are so lost in general
@@dylanjulve5374 yes
Chesterton quote! The Prince of Paradox just keeps popping up! Give him a read!
Can you elaborate? I tried looking it up but I'm at work during my break and I can't find it concisely. Thank you
G K Chesterton wrote many things. I think the book Zizek is quoting from is either "Orthodoxy" or "Heretics". Both are from the 1900s, be aware, but if you're prepared to engage some of that culture, it is humorous, ironic, but does make one think.
@@HolyKhaaaaan Oh yeah, he said to Peterson that he should read that book.
@@nauj8316 hohoho,that'd so?,interesting .deffinitly should read it
@@a.bagasm.7253 yes, you should, if you watch the debate between Peterson and Zizek you can find more info
Sounds like Douglas Adams' electric monk... it does the believing so you can get on with more important things...
What he describes is also a bit the point of Peter Pan's "I believe in fairies".
He's not one of these fatuous idiots; who need to make atheism an unnecessarily big deal, I really respect that.
That's more of a feature of continental atheism.
7:26 Hope the laughter was added for dramatic effect.
as a Christian i'm amazed at his insight into Christ's work. He doesn't quite get it, but he's way ahead of many theologians. looking forward to when Jesus returns and we can have true communism, won't that be a surprise for everyone :)
Jesus is a socialist if you think about it. His father in the old testement wen't against monarchy, and warning them on the disadvantages of having a King.
@@bigmanjoe3603 no, dont affiliate him with any ideology
@@bigmanjoe3603 Reading your comment was honestly hilarious.
Now it makes so much sense. What Zizek refers to as "genuine atheism" is "conventional liberation".
Incredible experience listening!
Mind opening!
Belief that you don't have to believe yourself.
The cross signifies the death of the man on the cloud out there and now Christianity is guided by the holy spirit; an immanent experience and so on of love between people and so on and so on.
What an amazing scholar!
Oh wow... This was amazing!
He touches on something I’ve been thinking for years now. I never really was religious but I grew up in a very religious home so it took a while for me to even begin to “lose my religion,” so to speak. It wasn’t until I was in my 20’s that I began to really confront the religious belief system in my own mind and everything that didn’t seem to add up to me... I’m not speaking about the ridiculous stories that obviously don’t make sense no matter how you try and interpret them... at least not this time, but more to the phenomenon that people who claim to be religious are more often the ones who do things and live the exact opposite of the tenants or teachings of their “prophet/savior.”
So I eventually came to an idea that actually no one (aside perhaps from those who live a monk-like existence I guess) are really religious and 99.999999999% of humans alive today are actually atheists or better yet really don’t believe. It’s just that some people like to participate in the pretend relationship they have with a “savior” and/or with their fellow “believers” as well. It’s ALL pretending and going through the motions/rituals which serves to comfort each other... whether for nostalgic reasons or for the community function that religious structure creates. Hence his Santa analogy of the parent and child pretending to go along with the narrative ultimately for the other’s sake.
The curiosity had always bothered me of why/how fellow humans who are otherwise sane people can/do compartmentalize the contradictions of a logical mind as to turn that logic off only when dealing with matters of theology and religious belief/history/ritual. Which is to say that all those people who get up on Sunday mornings and conduct their lives like any other day in a totally logical way, they get up at a scientific time, dress themselves in a ritualistic way, eat breakfast as to satisfy a biological need, get into their meticulously engineered vehicles, use relatively well designed/planned man made roads, to arrive at the structurally sound highly engineered building they call church, and then they just turn off the part of their brain that they just used (all that beneficial logic and scientific participation) to join others who have also decided to “turn off.” And from there they proceed to just all sit there pretending things that are the exact opposite of the kind of thought which literally got them there in the first place.
That’s a wild phenomenon of human nature...
I find it more strange than any other “strange”human characteristic. Name another such strange widely acceptable relatively unquestionable and even celebrated practice...
I can’t think of one, although politics comes pretty close.
We are a strange animal indeed.
This is not strange in any sense. We all know Its a Game of pretending, you don't need to think too much to realise It. The reason its actually pretty simple too. We are not rational beings, we are Animals with the ability to communicate and use the reason.
We dont like to use the reason though, because its hard and It might mean that one of the ideas we thought of is incorrect. We have emotional feelings for these ideas, so, when we are forced to disasociate from them, It is painful.
This happens with religion belief, but also with any kind of tradition, like going to church, making your bed when you wake Up...
Strongly disagree on the pretending part. It sounds more like you are projecting your experience unto others. I had a similar situation in my late teens and early 20s where I basically had no faith, and learning a couple of new things as well as life turned that around.
@@Baccanaso
Based on the fact that all religions and gods are demonstrably false it is by default pretending even if a person truly believes. Although when a person actually believes such religious nonsense it probably technically changes from pretending to delusion.
@@Baccanaso The counter argument being that you have just re-tricked yourself into believing something you don't actually believe, convinced you've arrived upon a new framework that makes sense to you.
Every way of living is irrational
He's right about the lack of insight within New Atheism. But he's not so much too Hegelian as too Protestant. He forgets that what Christianity tell us is not only of the death of God, but of his resurrection. He never discusses the resurrection.
Isnt it hegelian to say that to fall in the abyss of atheism you have to go through Christianity?
@@pramitpratimdas8198 Good point: it does look Hegelian. It certainly seems to be true, whether Hegelian or not! And it does characterize Ž's particular form of atheism, which is so obsessed with seeing an emergent synthesis (which looks remarkably Marxist, not just Hegelian) where X-tian tradition denies it. The ever-living God, he says, and the (antithetical) death of his Divine Son, bring forth an age of the Spirit: spirit as synthesis. But no - like all protestant obsessives, he _forgets Easter:_ it is Christ Risen who re-emerges on the third day, not any third thing, not even the Spirit, who was there all along. Ž "Hegelianizes" the incarnation by ignoring the risen Christ and putting an abstract, synthetic Spirit in his place.
@@worldnotworld Risen Christ, the Easter, that's relapse into paganism. That's why only women allegedly saw him that Sunday morning. Hysterical bats! :)) Or wise old granmas - no sense in weeping, no luxury of dying, gotta go on with life, seasonal works, cycles, moons, wash and feed a newborn, wash and feed the elderly...
@@ljubog It is the deletion of the Resurrection that's a relapse into paganism. Sacrifice of victim now simply restores order, as in tragedy; no escape from eternal cycle of birth and death and perpetual emasculation. There would be no death of "God" without the Resurrection, because God could not have been revealed.
Brilliant. Thank you!
In what sense he is 'defending' Christianity.? 😅
He is saying, through christianity you can understand the true painful sense of being atheist.
He is truly what I call a "philosopher philosopher"
He is just a normal philosopher. It´s other people calling themselves "philosophers", that haven´t grasped what philosophy actually does, and there´s so many of them, that is confuses you, giving you a false picture of philosophy... If philosophy were less than what he does, it´d be a shame...
Zizek sees one way that we are. The way I and probably a lot of people following him are, playing these social games despite cynical materialist understanding deep down, even as small children playing the Santa Claus game.
But, I am convinced that there are people who believe with absolute sincerity in things like that, by natural disposition. Even abrasive Atheists like Dawkins may start out that way, believing wholeheartedly in everything from Santa and the Easter Bunny to whatever magic or religious concepts they were exposed to, only to feel deeply betrayed upon the realization anyone would ever play this kind of game. To them, we are simply liars to be renounced as stupid and immoral, and those whom we've duped are pitiful idiots who need to be re-educated out of their indoctrination.
Before the historical battle of Marathon, the Athenians were shocked, after the news that they have to face the Persians without any spartan help... They started sacrificing goats to the goddess Artemis, asking her if she accepts. She surely accepted the initial sacrifice (bound to requests towards her), but her answer was negative: 1 goat for every dead barbarian was too little, 10 goats or 100 goats too... They went over, asking her, how many goats they have to promise her, for every wounded barbarian... 1 goat for every wounded barbarian was too little, 10 goats too, but 100 goats was finally enough! So, they´d sacrifice 100 goats after the battle for every wounded or dead Persian...
After the battle, they found out, that they had nearly no casualties themselves, but on the other side, there were 6400 dead Persians... That was bleaker than having higher casualties themselves, cause they now had to pay for 6400*100=640.000 scapegoats, more than existed in whole Greece, more than ever existed in whole Greece during the whole 100 years before !!!!!!!!!
So, they begann sacrificing and making requests. With each goat they sacrificed, they asked Artemis, if she´d be satisfied with another number of scapegoats than the promised, a number much lower than the initially promised. After 10 goats, Artemis finally answered, that she´d be OK with 100 instead of 640.000 goats... They went on sacrificing another 90, so, 100 altogether, and went home, as though nothing has ever happened, not to lose a single word about this event ever again... Acting like that was state-doctrine, religion was solely folklore, and to avoid being totally respectless towards the gods was a matter of fair-play and good maners, but nothing more... As soon as a justification was at hand, of how to avoid one´s responsibilities towards the gods, it was over, no matter how cheap and flimsy the justification was...
Well that was thousands of years ago, when still lot of superstition was around (but already no true belief)... And, of course, the average Christian isn´t the average Greek, to be clear about that (and, even Greeks became Christians after all, after some pressure/maiming from above)... And don´t trick yourself, into believing that "people were different back then", or at any time in history, cause people have been the exact same strong thinkers for the last 8-11.000 years (even if their lack of knowledge often betrayed their thinking-efforts).
To my opinion, there´s probably a natural disposition, just as you explained, but this disposition is something very, very rare, and most people are born atheists, and turned into believers, for lack of choice... I grew up in a greek village, and people there have their own moral frames, which keep them off from committing crimes. But when they are in the public, they are suddently Christians, in order to damn their village-neighbor, for example, for being such a big sinner and a bad person, and themselves being oh-so-noble-and-essential for the community/village (as a last-resort-excuse to win a fight amongst neighbors). But as soon as they are at home, they are suddently atheists again... Everybody lies in your face, just as you in everybody else´s face, and everybody knows about it, but the game perpetuates itself no matter what... Cause god is an entity that has never been collectively deconstructed, so, it keeps its authority, for as long as people bevieve, that there´s a single true believer left among them, who would be critical for tipping the scale to their favor, in such a debate (religious arguments are still relevant in preelection campaigns still today, in the country where politics were invented, or otherwise, the classical conservatives would have zero arguments)... Communism includes a great next step, where all come together, and confess, that they´ve been lying all the time, and that it´s time to stop with it, and let it be, in the future...
Slavoj Žižek is the greatest apologist of Christianity that I know. Thank you, professor.
Life is Beautiful is terrible.
Are the objective social beliefs Žižek refers to like Daniel Katz's & Floyd Allport's research on pluralistic ignorance, where no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believe, and where people privately disdain but publicly support a norm (or a belief)?
This would all be spot on if Jesus just died. But he didn't just die, he ressurected. Thats the part he's missing
This dude needs subtitles.
American?
Sebastian Melmoth Is there any other nationality?
Ah... explains a lot.
@@sebastianmelmoth685 Winning!!!
I couldn't understand him at first but now i listen to him alot and i'm completely used to it (that sounds crazy but yes i'm completely used to it!)
'Believing through others'...shout out to Robert Pfaller here!!
"all those aquarius bullshit"~Zizek
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secret text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim [ line of ismail ]
Thank you, brother. One of the reasons why I really like Jesus is because he says that those that do the will of God are his brothers and sisters. He never says that we have to be a particular religion, race, or anything else.
And what is the will of God? Simply that we love each other. God bless you.
You shall know them by the fruits and what fruit has Islam bore? Oh yes terrorism and beheadings.
With friends like this, who needs heathens
Chesterton was one the most conservative philosophers of all time and yet zizek calls him "beloved". He has such freedom of thought from everything dogmatic and ideological. Even though he considers himself an communist you can be sure it's NOT because of any propaganda. It's because he agreed or arrived in conclusions that made him take this path. That's the ONLY communist that i have the least bit respect.
Zizek, the Great Catechist.
The great anti-Christ
"canned laughter"... YES
I like how he also informs us that he's about to end HAHAHHAH
Lol he always does that then goes on for 5 more minutes it's a schtick
I think what i realized and Zizek really helped me understand about atheism vs. christianity is that i would prefer a christian oblivion to an atheist afterlife
One of my fundamental obsessions is that i have a fear of death hanging over me even tho im still very young. I constantly am finding ways to cope with, deny and rationalize it. Hoping for an afterlife, reincarnation or just a third way in order to transcend my neurobiology
Then i realized to myself, if upon my death God came to me and said “you have done well my child, now your soul will sleep” I would be more satisfied than if I were to wake up in an afterlife that was objectively true and featured Hitchens and all that hanging about
I think Christianity and religion are profound and beautiful when you chase spiritual enlightenment and fulfillment in love and life without expecting reward from it. Perhaps my God-made purpose was to overcome my fear of Death and recant my want for an afterlife in order to be fulfilled and happy
Now granted I would love to have an Afterlife or other for unselfish reasons like for the souls of my family to be saved and still around. So if God and Heaven is real I would stick around for that, so maybe im still being selfish deep down in hope, but I think that I should pursue God not because I want to get something out of it but because it is in my nature or destiny to face my fears of death and not cling onto selfish immortality
Which is I think his greater point. I want the Christian God to be true because it will help people not because it will help myself. And I think Christianity or Religion as a whole should try to emphasize the process of doing good in this life because it feels good and will fulfill your spirit as opposed to making sure that there’s a certainty and lack of fear of the next life
Slavoj, brilliant as always.Today he is the only thinking thinker and the others just philosophers.
my father always said "should died on the cross" when I said he should come back home mom and I miss him.
I wasn't expecting to like a video of Slavoj Zizek but this is very interesting.
Does he expound more this topic in one of his books? I don't quite fully understand what he's saying.
6:58 did you spot the mouse?
Click
I think he gets close with the transfer of objective belief, only Christ believes and intercedes for us.
The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins- Soren Kierkegaard. Something in Zizek's words made this quote spring up in my mind. It is almost as if Christianity was special in that God was accorded three avatars and that each was same and different simultaneosly.
Søren Kierkegaard, the person we can all believe in in the third-person :)
almost as if people have created gods
@@_sarpa yeah, and why would they do that? Pay attention mong
@@comradesillyotter1537 To cope with the harsh reality of their lives?
8:53 "this reminds of the subway scene from 'in pursuit of happiness' "
One of Zizek’s best
1:13 The immanence of an emancipatory collective.
This was interesting. Thank you.
i am offended!
Good
10 minute talk summarizes 50 books
It's funny how little people know about evolution. People need serious education.
You mean indoctrination? Evolution is a globalist lie. Wake up normie ;)
@@EQOAnostalgia What do you mean by globalist?
@@EQOAnostalgia you're talking about the indoctrination of the mentally ill retards who are fed conspiracy theories?
❤
we believe by knowledge and experiance
"Sorry guys you scrood it up naow" LMAO
Damn Slavoj you should be head of the catholic church
This guy must be a great French kisser
what's the title of Hegel's book in which he said that God died on the cross?
Great clip!
Every religion will be partly spiritual.
Great. I find a philosopher that I can resonate with and he happens to be a raging communist.
Based
Aaron Hart, you’ll be sent to the gulag when the communists take over.
Problem?
@@ree6487 Yes, marxism is cancer.
haha, when he signals for canned laughter, that is the only time that the crowd doesn't laugh at what he is saying.
So what he is saying is that when Christ died on the cross, love became ideology?
In the beginning there was the Logos and the Logos was with God because the Logos was God
Something like that
I would call communion as he did...since the Holy Spirit was the Main thing left
@@lionofjudah8403 And also failed to give reason, to that twerpy being, in 2 Samuel 24 - maybe, yeah.
That “I can wait” is super cringy!
[under his breath] daddy
His reading of Christianity is basically egalitarian marxist.
Marxism has nothing to do with egalitarianism lol. Maybe you are confusing Marxism with utopian socialism and its varieties
No one believes in the first person, but most believe in the social beliefs, like Santa Clause, as the priceless Zizek tells us with his great gusts of humour and insight. Social beliefs rule, in fact. Pretending is what school teaches us - pretend to be interested in this, then that, for so long and no longer, et cetera.
But at some point the school must have been built on something other than pretenses and fulfilling social obligations. The search for social approval doesn't explain the passion of St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, or the early Japanese martyrs to a religion introduced by foreigners and violently repressed by the state. Or maybe I'm too naive to understand postmodernism
Pretend you sleep first,then you sleep
@@andrewpearson1903 Fulfilling social obligations is a high priority in Japanese culture even today. So them martyring for religion is not that far fetched
@@andrewpearson1903 schools used to be holistic and actually for education. But now it's been exploited by industrial age values that undermines learning and focuses more on performance so employers know which people are good to work hard for them. It's now a training ground for child robots and not passionate workers. What's more sad skilled crafts are pushed out and dying out because of that. Compulsory education is also the issue preventing children from dedicating more time on entering apprenticeship early. Fortunately, some schools have start offering Career Technical Programs that do teach children skills useful for society.
The title is very misleading. Can you point out where and how exactly he defends Christianity? He only points out the mechanisms of belief, bringing the dogmatic atheism from Dawkings into discussion.
bluegender2005 He defends Christianity because it's the only way (according to him) to achieve true atheism.
Yeah, I think he believes that the only serious atheist position is that of Jesus on the cross feeling abandoned by his father. A Jesus that minutes later says his final words, addressed, of course, to his father: "in Thy hands I commend my spirit." You may not believe, or even like Christianity, but you can't deny the astounding originality of a religion that claims that God became Man, became and atheist, and died.... Yes. According to Christianity, God died on that cross. What human mind can come up with a story as outrageous?
@@xaviervelascosuarez I struggle with this. What 'objectified belief' is he speaking of in the end? Also why is it the ultimate 'christian gesture' to pretend that there is somebody out there that believes? Isn't that false Christianity?
@@jazz7581 yes, he's no Christian, that's for sure. But he seems to be searching.... And getting closer. May Gilbert K. get for him the graces he needs!
@@xaviervelascosuarez no I didn't mean to ask rhetoric questions, I was really asking what he meant, and for you to explain to me, because I didn't understand it
I wonder if he’s read Miguel de Unamuno’s “San Manuel Bueno, Mártir”. That would be a more decent version of Begnini’s quote.
So uhh.. I conclude he's talking about how christianity propels us single-handedly to go through so called WW2 Auswitzsch prison known life even if, hypothetically, the Father is lying about heaven/hell and so on and so forth which is even better if, in his opinion if we pretended to know it all along and still go with it.
Do you find the writer in his books or the animator in his fictional cartoon world?
That is why God is unapproachable because if all things have a creator and our reality has one, let us call it the ALL. If the ALL exists and nothing exists outside it , therefore it can only mean we exist inside the MIND OF THE ALL.
All entities in our universe bare a semblance of THE ALL but cannot categorically be described as THE ALL, just like you see aspects of the writer in the characters of his book nevertheless none of them are the writer.
If the characters of a book went on a search for their writer would they ever find him? That is why I find our attempts at finding God futile although we can use religion to stave off our fears and existential crises and even as means of dealing with not fully understood phenomena.
Does he actually defend or undermine Christianity in this interview?
He undermines the traditional and fundamentalist way... Pretty interesting tho
He undermines the traditional and fundamentalist way... Pretty interesting tho
He is more likely making a secular and pragmatical analysis on the strenght of the system of believe of christianty and why it endures as a trascendant collective goal for human psyche.
I'd love to see a debate between him and Nietzsche at this point
"So for me, the truly Christian gesture is to abandon this objectified belief." This is the interrupted sentence and maybe the main point. He could've explain it a bit more.
I too, no matter where I go, wear tshirts only
So, what he is saying is "yes, religion is not true, but you shouldn't point it out"?
I forget the specifics, but I remember the story of a "Jewish" atheist who wrote to a newspaper in a country where there was a protest against an upcoming papal visit. The atheist said, "I can't believe in what the Pope believes in, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where nobody believed it." Which reminds me of something T.S. Eliot said: "The individual can certainly love order [for its own sake]. The people cannot."
The term for this in the Catholic Church is "Maurrassisme," or atheists treating a religious institution (usually the Church, unfortunately) as an arm of the existing, usually conservative social system instead of a place where the soul and person can be healed. They fear societal breakdown in the face of a collective loss of faith
IDK man. I see Japan, South Korea, Island. Czech Republic and other peaceful countries with atheist majority doing just fine.
I, an atheist, was doing just fine at college last November. Then I read an article in the New Yorker (an interview with an anti-natalist philosopher named David Benatar) that exposed all the contradictions in my thought and demolished everything good that I believed. I was totally wrecked for four months and am still picking up my pieces, and that only because I've become a practicing Christian in the meantime. Forgive me if I don't recognize "running smoothly" as the equivalent of resilience.
Sinisa Marovic don’t dismiss shinto so easily. Also individuals being “atheist” while living in and being a part of, a spiritual society.
Christian world has had unique interpreters. Your church may save you or exploit you, to fight for a right church was the mission of Christ's rare path.
What he’s trying to say is that we should pretend to believe but I don’t get the idea, why should we? I know that throughout history there were a lot of nations that pretended to believe in certain things but for them it all happened naturally, why should step out of our path and pretend to believe?
Ave Maria!
that was so beautiful
Misleading title