Slavoj Zizek - The Abyss Of Spirituality
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 ноя 2015
- Slavoj starts with the banality of Gangnam Style's popularity as a means of mass trance experience. He then moves to ethnic cleansing, and the role poetry & mythology played in assisting those involved in the crime of ethnic cleansing in various cultures. Next, he moves on to the cynical political machinations of Father Joseph in the Thirty Year's War, despite Joseph's intensely sincere spiritual experiences. Finally, he rounds it off with insights into the refined musical tastes of one of Hitler's top brass.
His conclusion is that the banal and the evil can utilize the genuinely spiritual as a means to create distance from the disgusting nature of itself.
ruclips.net/video/VJZ4LARPMJU/видео.html
Vishal Maraj Great contribution. Thanks for that.
Hinduism is not exactly harmless either. With a religion one of whose core tenet is Untouchability, you really don’t need to work hard to “distort” it to enable your harmful deeds.
@@spikespiegel5740 elaborate how ‘hinduism’ has Untouchability at its core.
@@spacewad8745 Everything revolves around concepts Karma, purity, rebirth which is ditectly related to untouchability. It goes very deep, you'll have to study the basic form of Hinduism which maybe didn't even start in or around India and it's interactions with the tribalistic religions and how it greated caste divisions and who were the beneficiaries.
@@benthebenevolent1001 Unpin this comment. That Dude in the video is a Right Wing Moron, who says Irrational things.
Looks like Luke in the new Star Wars
He was like Peterson when he was young, full of hope. But as he got older... the world is becoming the new trilogy, a real tragedy.
Stop Wars
Don't even bother with titles for Zizeks videos; dude just shoots off on a tangent, runs it into the ground and beyond -emerges with a smile and you still applaud! What a mind!
Lol spot on
Anogoya Dagaati is this guy for real
I agree. It doesn't matter if he rambles, Anogoya Dagaati because he has such original compelling insights.
@@coreycox2345 you're joking .he dances around his words way too much .
@@holadonkey I know how it looks. Often, I listen to one of his lectures and after reflect on how I haven't a clue what Slavoj Zizek just said; even though he held my attention for the entire hour. Then, I find myself thinking about something he said two weeks later.
This is one of his better clips. His end remarks makes me think of Kubrick's clockwork orange.
"You should not let poets lie to you." - Bjork
Plato, actually.
whatever.
you use poets, and poetry to lie to yourself.
Love Zizek
why the totally misunderstands what he has read.
For enlightened people, it is so much of a drag to talk profound truths elaborately for this is so much ordinary for them. Continue providing them..
"Read Mein Kampf!" - _Slavoj_ _Zizek_
This is why he gets so much shit.He always has amazing insights but the examples he uses are ugly.Reality is sometimes ugly though and people shouldn't complain about those who expose it.
@@omercakmak3099
You are correct. Also, being a psychoanalyst, he has a mandate to try to delve into the darker aspects of the psyche. Since most people have an inherent resistance to the dark and unsavoury manifestations of the psyche [which exist in all of us], they resist anyone who tries to point it out.
Drumpf's bed-time reading.
sometimes (most times actually) the best examples come from the most "evil" circumstances. They teach what can manifest from truth manifested from subjective interpretation
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 epic own
10:09 - Zizek misspeaks here; it was the Hutus killing the Tutsis. Had to interject.
he's made some more historically dubious statements but hey we dare not say so because then the axis of evil is exposed
It was the Hutu that killed the Tutsi and not the other way around. Otherwise, terrific and thoughtful as always.
He looks like a priest or like a jedi.
+MrKataklysm I Dont think he would appreciate your participation in twenty century fox spirituality.
LOL man! I am just joking... and by the way, I don't give a damn about what he would appreciate or not! Geez...
+MrKataklysm kindness is important, watching starwars doesnt make you kind, im only joking a little.
Marcus Briheim Have humor my friend. I'm just joking, Anyway: I think Slavoj wouldn't take it personal but would laugh about it!
Actually, Zizek is a character played by Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker)
Yeah he is great philosopher
hence the saying "leftists can't meme"
For the sake or order, there is a place for meme. A place like here.
12:34 - 13:28 Probably one of my favorite Zizek insights.
+PapaWilk with due credit to Steven Weinberg.
+PapaWilk Hear, hear
Pretty much islamic extremists...
To give a birth is one of a hell spiritual experience....no shortage to a miracle. To use words to describe it - impossible, to use a words to describe it to a male - beyond impossible
Same as a kick to the balls
I generally agree with your point, although I am male and therefore can't have that experience. Does that spiritual experience consistently illuminate a truth outside of love for your child? And as a potential corollary, how would you explain post-partum depression?
@@psychologienerd7546
😁.. true, indescribable, but probably light years away from a spiritual experience :))
@@EarlofSedgewick
About the post-partum depression I cannot comment. I never had one. On contrary, I was a bit depressed before I had my first child. With it everything changed, my life became a one big light and happiness and it still is. With my second child it all became even squared, and up to this time I cannot put words on it. I was the only child who always wanted a lots of kids, even though I stopped after two, to be able to support them to the maximum. That unconditional love also broadened my consciousness towards a lots of things I didn’t even see before, and also sorrow was, and is, always present since the time I had my first child. It was very new strong emotion, and I think it’s one of the most important emotions to appreciate the beauty of life and get a sense of common humanity.
Except that giving birth is not a miracle at all. It is completely biological and logical. It is not a spiritual experience. It is entirely material. Unless spiritual experience is also material. Which it is.
Can anyone give me full debate link?
I believe we like to organize feelings and oppose them to one another but in reality the same that drives you to love someone can drive you to kill someone
Aesthetic of violence is very old theme. I think to discuss ethnic cleansing by people, who could be spiritual, has its beginning somewhere in the beginning of western rationalism.....
Industrialisation, romanticism, and reason were more justifications for mass murder and war than poetry itself. Or even religion. But now it’s been pseudo spiritualised into myth.
@@RaHeadD10
Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong were responsible for the biggest mass murdering in history, where Mao outdone those two psychopaths when during his Great Leap Forward policy up to 45 million people died. I’d add that to find ANY reason in their ideology executed by propaganda is impossible and non-existent. Their narratives were a complete and utter inhuman nonsense.
Religion and poetry makes good people do bad things, must be true when you talk about politics and economic powers too.This is important and crucial when you consider the power of thought and the devastating side-effects of censorship as well as the now probably deadly impact to humanity market and corporate controlled media at least indirectly has.
Religion is apart of the capitalist system they both work hand in hand to keep the system working
Žižek ⭐
wait.....Krisna sais to Arjuna its his duty 2fight the bad guys eventhough are his own relatives in order 2protect THE PEOPLE
,+only secondarily that he is not actually destroying anything
his uncle took his throne and was ready to fight him 2keep it
Krisna sais you are a warrior(cast)not a priest ,Totally different teaching here
Arjuna feared 2kill even for a just cause.
The alternative would be to let his uncle usurp d power+ppl would suffer
Hell hath no fury.
For as we understand it is not there.
How long dost the lost,
find? What is not there.
where's the rest? i really need to hear about this dilemma he was talking about at the end.
nevermind. found it. /watch?v=kugiufHh800
@@dierotewand3297 thanks a lot.
👍👋
What does he mean by Poetry though ? I'm not quite understanding that part. Can anybody summarise that for me ?
Linguistic constructs designed to frame meaning, to interconnect emotional and intellectual experience.
In the context of the video poetry means anything from religious texts to patriotic nationalist works, etc that motivate people to perform ethically questionable(condemnable) acts.
So when did we Indians perform ethnic cleansing on another country?
ruclips.net/video/VJZ4LARPMJU/видео.html
That video suggests that the germans took on indian history as their own, because they had none to strengthen their nationalism... but i'm not sure how it relates to this video.
We should show clips of Zizek like this one to young people with captions like "what too much philosophy does to a mf..."
Of course, I'm kidding. Though you do have to be kind of half sane and be ready to reject any notion of common sense to be a guy like Zizek. Anyway he's brilliant, funny, and interesting as usual here. My man.
talking about Heinrich Himler...
which conference is this video taken from?
Qz xjduk
It's taken from this one: The Desert of Post-Ideology
ruclips.net/video/y-vW7-Y5Rzw/видео.html
sorry i dont get it....i cant appreciate fine silk or the sun if i m a murderer?
another example is ppl who have a dog pet and go for a walk with a stick to hit other dogs that may aproach....you d think an animal lover would love..animals or dogs in general
but actually is self love ,love of interest
the contrast would be a guru or priest loving a murderer or drunkard and even then he could associate something else with bad/evil
There's no easy way through these problems. You have to read his books. RUclips videos are like mis-quotes otherwise.
there is no higher good. Actions are subject to merit unto themselves. I see Kantian undertones
(this isn't an attack just a question) isn't Kantian ethical philosophy the exact opposite? I thought ethical philosophy pre-Kant was stuck in the morality of the objective action and Kant was the first to discuss Maxims(subjective reasoning)- or the understanding that a person's motivation for the action can alter the morality of that action. For instance, two people each take care of their dying grandmother until she passes. Pre-Kant this would be seen as a moral goodly natured event. However, one of those two people takes care of their dying grandmother because they love them dearly and wish to bring them comfort in their last days, The OTHER takes care of their dying grandmother because they want to improve or manipulate their standing in her last will and testament. Thus the problem, remedied by the inclusion of Maxims as an ethical conception. It is not enough to ACT morally, one must THINK and DESIRE morality as well. According to this actions are absolutely not subject to merit unto themselves (or at least not totally) It is the person's motivational reasoning that is the real determinant of the morality of an event. So if i'm interpreting this correctly, wouldn't the statement 'actions are subject to merit unto themselves' be the complete opposite of Kantian ethical philosophy?
I think Sid S was saying that Zizek is being Kantian
@17.20 Yup, "... this is it," always when that which you have as contrasting reference is all repetition of something read and intellectualized. Never divinely sensed and driven expression.
Major example is in the movies. Actors imitate the slightest details of people's real characteristics, yet that which is expressed even great acting, lacks the catalytic source and thereon the outflow of the actual.
It's not don't get involved... On contrary its get involved without haste..
As a spiritual person, I find what he's saying very interesting, even if I find his position somewhat one-sided, as is only natural.
Could you elaborate? Why do you feel it is "only natural?"
@@EarlofSedgewick human beings like to have an emotional investment in their views, as a result they usually only communicate one side of the argument well because it's the only side they're passionate about.
@@tellingfoxtales thanks for the response. Makes sense. I am glad that you found his ideas interesting, and have something to compare it against.
When you say it is natural, I was concerned that you might be using the term the way other people use the term "inevitable". I don't think this is what you meant, but it was unnerving as it appeared to be a sort of doublethink
Acho que não só isso; isto é, natural! O que tem de natural deixar sob suspeição a espiritualidade pela má utilização política dela? Com isso se che
ga a passar que melhor seria, politicame
nte falando, que não houvesse espiritualidade alguma de que a politica humana possa se servir.
Pelos cabelos ainda escuros nesse vídeo, Zizek era mais jovem do que atualmente.
Não sei portanto como atualmente ele convive ou não com o dilema com que encerra esse vídeo.
Se de la pra cá vê ou não fora de suas posições consequentes a sua experiência da limpeza étnica pela qual passou seu pais, a dimensão da vida espiritual...
Ignora- lá, aliás, ganhou força a partir da Revolução Francesa e Revolução Industrial. Marx, fundamentalmente, redefiniu- a ideologicamente como "o ópio do povo", correto?
Povo que, agora, amedrontado pelos avanços mais recentes da tecnologia capitalista, ameaça a democracia em nome de valores religiosos politicamente autoritarios, ou seja, nada espirituais.
Mas que isso não nos confunda, parece- me o melhor. Tentar superar o dilema, o impasse entre a política e a espiritualidade, pergunto- me se não é ficar preso dentro da dimensão política, ignorando, no mínimo, que as tradições espirituais historicamente relevantes surgiram contra a insuficiência dela?
Why looking for ethnic cleansing that far from home...his truly Janez Jansa performed it in 1991 in his very Slovenia. And he was not much of a poet. And surprise!/ Jansa and Zizek are close friends.
12:30 this is breivik.
MASS OF THE DRUNK
In circles mystic I found not
The pleasantness I sought
In monastery was not audible
The music which love wrought
In school I did not find to read
Any book to be from the friend
In minaret it was hard to find
The voice to be of him to tend
In love of books I could not see
That veiled beauty's face
In sacred writs I could not get
The destination's trace
In idol-house my life's span
Was wholly spent in vain
In rivals' gathering I saw
Neither remedy nor pain
The lover's ring now must I join
Haply to find for solace
From the rose- garden of the beloved
A pleasing breeze or a trace
"We" and "I" are both from reason
That are used as ropes to bind
In mass of those who are drunk
Neither "I" is nor "We" to find
Ayatollah Khomeini
These apparently beautiful ballads are nothing but a composition of other Persian poets glued together in a nonsensical and very poor/stupid way. That guy was just a UK puppet who didn't know anything but killing and fucking. Go read some history before like anything you see.
@@benthebenevolent1001 Please remove this comment if you may. This is a very very big and non-sense lie.
@@mythraashura7945 I have deleted my previously complimentary comment on this poem, but I have not deleted the poem itself, as I do not know enough to see if you are correct or not. Nonetheless, a politician making up BS to appear holy isn't exactly a surprise.
Within this "poem" I found not
The rhyme or meter which i sought
And truth be told, I found it fraught
With discordant cadence and sloppy thought
Upon every line, a jagged flaw
I bit my tongue, began to gnaw
Such a Cain-ish offering to the muse of awe,
This tactless poet has some chutzpah!
didnt know Himmler was a Krishnait
I can't see what should so scandalous about Heidrich playing the late Beethoven quartets or anything othe at that. As though aesthetic beauty should be linked to some moral standard... At most I find the though amusing.
You must link it to his discourse on poetry. One can agree or not about the role of poetry, but the "scandal" he refers to makes sense within his paradigm.
That was the whole point of the example.
"... and so on and so on" xD
nearly every religion make people do good things, otherwise no one believe in them
If a spiritual experiences makes you think you are lorally siperior you did not hae a spirituam experience
Not exactly. The supervillain is no less a soldier of God than the superhero... Without the enemy, there can be no plot. And Nietzsche would say: "the noble soul does not accept as its enemy anyone less admirable than itself."
@@shaygahweh you are making his point. The spiritual experience is not about "oh i am so fucking pure or good". Have you tried a psychedelic like lsd or psilocybin?
Without psychedelics smart people would be doing smart things, and stupid people - stupid things. You need something like psychedelics to make smart people do stupid things. I know what I’m talking about. If your spirituality is just a particular material brain-chemical interaction - it’s garbage.
@@user-xz6cb3iz8s lol this was perfect
Žižek here is having a hard time traversing through this speech,
Statism is a religion
statism doesn't exist, is just a bonus word like totalitarianism and every absurdity liberals want to yell at people with common sense
I don't trust people who can't enjoy a stupidly, gloriously catchy song like Gangnam Style. Sometimes I listen to Ligeti or Wagner and sometimes I listen to Scritti Politti(a diabetes inducing pop band band that is led by an ex communist who sometimes hung out with Jacques Derrida). It depends on the mood. Don't be an elitist.
Gucci gang, Gucci gang, Gucci gang, Gucci gang
Gucci gang, Gucci gang, Gucci gang (Gucci gang!)
Spend ten racks on a new chain
My bitch love do cocaine, ooh
I fuck a bitch, I forgot her name
I can't buy a bitch no wedding ring
Rather go and buy Balmains
Gucci gang, Gucci gang, Gucci gang (Gucci gang!)
Gucci gang, Gucci gang, Gucci gang, Gucci gang
Gucci gang, Gucci gang, Gucci gang (Gucci gang
don't trust anyone who infers there's a correlation between musical taste & trustworthiness
Sometimes I listen to Ligeti or Wagner
Ligeti or Wagner sometimes listen to me
One half of comments - he must be on drugs everything he says is bull
Other half - he definitely never had drugs everything he says is bull
Jesus Christ, I mean, not that it matters, or that I'm judging but... he's got to be using some kind of drug, right?
No he's just from the FYR.
Sounds like Ubermensch, or maybe abortion.
This is not the abyss of the spiritual but the cognitive rectification of spirituality in absurdity.
Sorry I ruined the video for you.
+Ben Zzz So you remain a high flying digital entity.
+Ben Zzz tomato tomato
I don't understand
coz your stupid
Totally superficially skipped over the other 101 injunctions in the Bhagavad Gita that would make it totally incompatible with Nazi ideology but ho hum that's groovy intellectualism for you.
No smart demagogue espouses an ideology without cherry picking.
the point is not that either, its that people need to outsource guilt, they need some kind of hanger to take off their humanity and go about doing what they do, whether it be spirituality or poetry
Yeah let's forget the many attempts peace in Mahabharata that failed the context which the Gita was written Krsna never gave commands just gave advice and it was up to Arjuna to make the choice to go to war to uphold justice or run away to the forest to become an ascetic. He outlines the advantages and disadvantages of all paths that Arjuna attempts to choose.
Please note that it's the fact that a Nazi took inspiration from the text, not the text itself, which Zizek intends to reference as an example.
I’m sure that the Hindu nationalists massacring Muslims in Kashmir were also devout.
What a quack.
But it is pseudo-spiritual experience, Slavoj. Entertainment industry and pop culture provides only first level somatic stimuli that you can receive just by having a body. Nothing really spiritual here. In commodity fetishism there can only be pseudo-spiritual or pseudo-artistic things.
Even if this authentic spiritual experience is not commodified, does it necessary lead to a flourishing life, openness, ethical perfection? I think his argument is two-fold: 1) even authentic spiritual experience and frameworks supporting them are vulnerable to ideology and propaganda on a macro level and 2) on micro level, spiritual person is not necessarily an ethical or good person. I can attest to both from my personal life and other people's experience.
We were sold the idea that you only have to do spiritual exercises and they will cleanse you from your crude egoism and fragile humanity. The reality is apparently something different. Whenever I met "an advanced spiritual soul", a person, I sensed elevated narcissism and disconnection from concrete reality. At best it's benign and can possibly help person cope with his problems of meaning, anxiety or impermanence but at worst it's a way of dopamin rush, and hormonal hedonism and addiction which not only doesn't reveal some hidden reality but it distorts even the only one which is apparent. And this is a criticism coming from a spiritual guy, sort of, roughly speaking. Much of my time went to immersing myself into spiritual, religious and occult studies, and all I found was vanity, unconscious egoism of both myself and other people consuming such "drugs". Much more pernicious than it's obvious from a bird's perspective.
More often than not, my experience is that most people consuming spirituality are either consciously deluding themselves to escape their imperfect, messy lives, or those who unconsciously search for genuine perfection not knowing they didn't leave their old selves behind, it's still clings to them and neglect of that fact can be dangerous both for them and wider society. My point is that even if agree somehow that no matter pseudo- tag, spiritual experiences can end up being the exact opposite of their marketed intent. Not to trash, bash or denigrate it completely, I think ethics and spiritual experiences are not derivative one from another, they can exist on parallel planes. One can certainly be a spiritual romantic like those of 19th century nationalist movements and a massive bigot. In a simple, more just world, it would be easier to see those two things as necessary preconditions for each other but in our more messy, complex worlds it doesn't follow this logic. I once naively believed in inherent goodness and moral supremacy of spiritual people, but I changed my mind. But I didn't gave up on spirituality as such, I just redefine it and put it in its proper place and not as a panacea for all ills, personal or social.
The vapidness of people’s ethics from the past also qualifies here, which is why historical examples are required. Whichever way you slice it, many who would qualify as “authentically spiritual” have also at the same time been monsters. This is not an issue of capitalism.
He is so stoned.
so much cocaine right? :P
All this mumbo jumbo has nothing to do with anything. While I enjoy the antics of SZ and believe he does have some "good points" to make in the general scheme of things, it should be obvious to anyone who has experienced even a glimpse of Unveiling that with regard to the subject of spiritual experience, there is nothing to prove and all attempts to do so are pointless.
To say spirituality and morality do not go hand in hand doesn't mean anything? Of course one can always play the spiritual nihilist card to stump any line of though. You can't prove anything, it's just an illusion, nothing has inherent meaning, nothing has anything to do with anything........
Why comment, though?
To critique others' spiritual experience is presumptuous and suggests his personal inexperience in this area. Zizek has a lot of good points on other topics (most, in fact) but in this area, he loses credibility. He is an intellectual. He can't get out of his head. That's all.
T Wells Hmm. Somehow I didn't perceive any critique of anyone's spiritual experience. Just observations on the relations between things. Yes, he's a completely cerebral individual, quite openly so.
Like everyBODY has a cerebrum
@@268TERIhis point was that spirituality allows people to get out of reality by recontextualizing events and reasons. In doing so he passes no moral judgement on the experience itself. When he criticizes Himmler's use of the Bhagvata Gita, he is using that to illuminate the unintentional side-effects of such recontextualization. Namely that the ontological feeling of having found truth (having a spiritual experience) does not imply moral behaviour. He doesn't condemn spiritual experience though, nor music and poetry. He laments that Beethoven's music was played and genuinely enjoyed by a mass murderer, perhaps as an exercise in spiritual rejuvenation for Himmler. This implies that the spiritual experience is indeed rich, but the wellspring can clearly feed our worst moral actions.
Broadly speaking, and this is also based on his work outside of this lecture, Zizek is critical of the 2010s Leftists for essentially believing pure reason is possible and going down this rabbit hole of an ever-growing list of identities, while rejecting the identity of anyone who doesn't believe them. Simultaneously, he is quite adamantly opposed to the idea that ran its violent course in Nazi Germany - that there is one, perfect identity set, and that everyone is either perfectable (Aryans who need molding) or inherently corrupt (handicapped persons initially, then sexually "deviant" people, then by ideology and race, and finally by anyone who disagrees with them).
Zizek is a critic of ideology, and he calls himself a Marxist because Marxism is the richest tradition of critical analysis of ideology in the Western tradition (this isn't based on close reading, so correct me if there's a stronger tradition out there). It seems he is critical of spirituality in the sense that it can be fed to the masses to indoctrinate them by hijacking the most profound and compelling experiences a person can have.
"Poetry, genuine poetry, comes from the island of oneself." That is where poetry is beautiful. Oddly, I don't think Zizek would condemn Hitler for genuinely producing his art (tongue-in-cheek a bit, but he was also a commensurate inspirational speaker and film lover); rather I think he condemns his followers for not coming up with their own.
Dude should take a psychedelic..his views are skewed.
How so?
Faulty argument, Slavoj. You're only saying that the followers of the Founders of religions are not equal to the Founder. Indeed, they are only 'followers' and 'believers'. The Founder is alone, one who attains to the higher instance; the believers don't. Christians have little to do with the one called 'Christ' (they do not take it 'seriously', they lack something; there is no realization). Similarly, lovers of Brahms, for example, can neither compose his first symphony nor attain to the higher instance that it is. There is but one way to do it: to substitute or sacrifice yourself to that higher instance. That is the 'practice' or the 'point'. Since Renaissance architecture, German and French Classical music, Expressionism, and so on, have more being than our ordinary commentaries and beliefs, then you only understand when you defer to that being. But the Nazis did not defer to it. They glorified it - in their own name! They thought that it was about them and how wonderful they were! But it had more being than they could ever have. There's no contradiction.
One quick example: after attending a Whirling Dervish dance, my wife and I drove home - two hours away - in silence, unable to say anything about it. We never did say anything about it. It remained, instead, a 'moment of being' in us and our expression was meaningless beside it.
+Nicolas de la Forge
I really agree with your point. The fact is, evil DOES participate in beauty. It's disturbing but not a contradiction.
I'm reminded of a phrase, ''Even the devil can quote the bible perfectly''. Yet that doesn't mean he stands for the higher message. You could well imagine the devil claiming that the bible is about HIM and his struggle against god. But in this case he is not ''attaining'' to the higher aspirations (as you say) of what the bible stands for. If he resonated with the higher message of love, then he would no longer be the devil.
Evil is defined by an absence of love, not by an absence of feeling.
In recent years there have been numerous sexual predators working at U.K classical music Conservatories, some of them very vicious. These teachers were all skilled musicians. Their appreciation of beauty didn't make them ethical. How do we know what their inner experience is toward their music? It may well be a self-centred one, an intensity of feeling that does not include empathy for others. Often when we listen to music we relate with: ''MY story, MY tragedy, MY suffering''. There are plenty of human minds where the musical note for COMPASSION is not heard at all!
Kierkegaard was careful to distinguish between a man's action toward the 'aesthetic' and their action toward the 'ethical'. They are separate, and although they CAN be combined, often they are not.
+pinion mole thank you for helping me to see more into it - I will study your statement in the days to come. I like what you're saying about evil - I've heard it before but you are saying it better than anybody else.
I'd like to know what your argument points at. What are the conclusions from it in relation to Zizek's argument?
OK, help me with this. I don't see an 'ontological scandal' because just as people who go to Church every Sunday and seem to be fervently involved in prayer, can go out and lynch someone a minute later, (as they did for 80 years in the South), the thing to note is that the reason they can do it is that they are operating at the level of the 'lexical intrigue' (only). Their 'religiosity' is a lexical intrigue. (Zizek sees this as an ontological scandal). But the one they follow, Christ, operated in 'a moment of being' (not the lexical intrigue). It is the same with that vile priest. We see that while he could commit atrocities, Christ could not. The priest is in some way only a 'copy' of the original, a 'put on'. He believes even; but there is no moment of being. He is 'in God' in the lexical intrigue only. The Nazi musician is acting within the culture that raised him, which is automatic. He is arrogant about it. He is not Beethoven though, whose sensitivity and spirit would not allow him to commit violence. If the Nazi violinist could equal the master in the spirit that allowed him to compose the quartets, he would be transformed and sense the miraculous moment of being. (It is miraculous since we are never in that moment).
The best example is in the Vasistha, where Vasistha says to Busunda (who is called the 'second creator', he allows people to be born into the miracle of being): 'even though I am long liberated, this meeting you here is even greater than liberation'.
Everything is a lie and not authentic until we are realized, born a second time. The violinist never was. But Beethoven was. He said 'I see things that I cannot even share with anyone.'
Its not the transfiguration on the mount that is a scandal; it's not that art is useless; we are useless and a scandal. 'Forgive them lord, they do not understand'.
If you are fortunate enough to experience "moment of being" you also realize that there is nothing to prove.
what's with the nose rubbing? Is he really on coke? Hard to imagine.
Nah, it's just a tic. He has never done drugs.
He has Tourette’s. It’s a tic.
After carefully listening to this undirected train of incoherent thoughts, it's safe to say, Zizek seems to lack capacity for philosophy, nevertheless something so problematic as radical mental phenomena, namely spiritual experiences. He is just an actor and storyteller that plays specific comedy role, where he presents some ideas in philosophy, mainly by misdirecting listeners towards some random point of confusion, where he beat them down with multisylabic neologisms that are usually incoherent and unreferable to the theme of discussion, galloping and jumping from theme to theme, and from idea to idea, in a fast paced manner, leaving everybody in audience lost and with huge questionmarks above their heads. Then he throws a joke to focus their attention off, so nobody can hold to question his shit etc.
He reflects on everything with obscurity, and therefore is just an impostor and quack
Sounds more like Jordan Peterson.
You didn’t address a single point he made. You said his thoughts were incoherent, it sounds to me like you just didn’t understand what he’s saying.
@@brandonszpot8948 sure sure. Why don't you bring about a single point he've made so we can inspect it?
@@oioi9372 Why don’t we start with the main point. The notion that the horrific acts we see in history and in the media today are not antithetical to authentic spirituality, but in fact are usually only possible because of it.
@@oioi9372 I really shouldn’t have to make his points easier for you to digest, if you genuinely understood it and disagree with it.