@@les-fauxmonnayeurs9887 I don't think so. I think participation in narratives of ideology that justify genocides or the murder of children in Gaza is not because we've participated in the construction of the narrative. It's because we're powerless to change it. We have to keep going to feed ourselves and our kids. But we are all in some sense passive objectives. All of us knows at the end of the day that the only reason why we have the system we have is because all the alternatives are worse but that doesn't make us happy or glad. I think the true Act of evil is when you get pleasure from suffering caused that is completely unbeneficial to you
I like these two in philosophical debate. One is careful, stately, ordered in his presentation of argument, the other is chaotic, irreverent, and seventeen thoughts ahead of everyone including himself at any given moment.
Slavoj is somewhat a ribbon of light for listener's of theory's, philosophy and Life as a whole. He's a man that must be spectated into educational systems such as humanity, history and agriculture.
All true villains believe themselves to be the hero of their story. Its the limitless self assurance of said position that allows for atrocious actions.
There is a commentary to verse 69 of the Dao De Jing: "Constantly dragging your adversary around with you will cause you to lose your greatest treasure". The adversary is duty and reason, the greatest treasure is playfulness and compassion. Verse 69 (fragment): "There is no greater misfortune than feeling: "I have an enemy". For when "I" and "enemy" exist together, there is no room left for my treasure." (Translation: Star, J.)
'Evil' is not comprehensive enough; colossal liars on a scale humanity has not seen before, literally living off of human misery around the world; faking terror against yourselves in order to justify wars from which you materially benefit at the expense the beleaguered of the world; EVIL just doesn’t quite cut it.
@@southpaw786 Fantastic thought - I too think in those lines but cannot express it the way you put it. Thanks for the words expressing a thought beautifully.
Can you please put the date of the debate in your description because how are we meant to know if this was yesterday or months ago? I have a feeling it’s not new
He should have added dangerous as well, however you are and what you can do, you will affect others, will you do so in a good way, bad way, decent way, neutral way.
I think good and evil are in all of us. We are taught the difference and socially directed to the side we agee with or are coerced to, usually by operating within or against a group.
I thought Zizek would disagree on the human nature issue with Rowan and say that we are fundamentally evil. I think Freud would agree on that, wouldn't he? I'm not sure about Lacan, who is "beyond good and evil". His view on human nature is definitely more complicated, but still rather pessimistic. Zizek surprised me here a bit.
I don't think Freud would say humans are evil at all. He would say that we are all profoundly "flawed" in the sense that human development is ineluctably tumultuous, fraught with confusion and pain and the problematic ways we try and cope with that.
excuse me for the curiosity. wich debate is shown in the opening sequence of this video?!?! who were those participants? yes, i'm just really wondering and curious if the guy with curly white hair and shaved beard in a suit is jordan peterson lol
Let's have an intellectual rumble, a clash of minds, As Žižek and Williams, their thoughts unwind. Are we inherently evil, or does goodness prevail? In the arena of ideas, they both set sail. Žižek, with his wit and radical view, Challenges conventions, old and new. He argues for the darkness within, Where desire and chaos forever spin. Williams, with wisdom and faith in his stride, Seeks the light in humanity's tide. He sees in us the potential for good, A spark of divinity, misunderstood. In this battle of ideologies, they stand tall, Each defending their view, amidst the brawl. Are we born with sin, or born to grace? In the depths of our souls, where do we place? Evil and goodness, in constant debate, In the hearts of humanity, their fate. Žižek and Williams, they spar and contend, In the search for truth, until the end. So let us ponder this question profound, As their words echo, without a sound. For in the struggle to understand our nature, Lies the key to our collective future.
The institution of arts and ideas(Channel), guys I think you need to work on your edit timing. It’s like one clip is not matching with other and it feels like they are talking about two different things.
To murder someone in self defence is evil if the attacker is not physically attacking you. A country that declares war on another country is not evil but it is evil if the murders that take place subsequently cannot in a court of law be attributed to the subjects of the warring country but to those who decided to initiate aggression without their full consent. Hence, we arrive at the possible criminalisation of the military that is not being commandeered by the public but by a private body of individuals acting without public authority.
@@r2c3 it inherently is because you abandone society. In the scope of existence this isn't only you versus the other. It is a cooexistence and with you being indifferent you harm the possibility of good to exist and deny the existence of evil by actively avoiding society as a whole. it isn't simply a natural mode to exist in. You could just stay neutral and try to play an active part in society, which has little to do with indifference. In Indifference you deny you own actions in life, because of all of the above. Indifference could also be classified of exhibting ignorance, naivity and stupidity in my opinion.
Decadent peoples will always be righteously disgusted by 'momentous acts', seen as 'out of context' to their current state of grandiosity and comfort. Varying societal definitions of evil are all... a direct measure of opulence. For context, the slogan : "one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist".
Good or evil? No. Just slighlty more selfish than altruistic. But if every choice could be presented with a win-win answer, most would choose it. That's why the people of societies that are more well to do are usually considered to be more good. They just simply can afford to be more giving. If their bottom line was at stake, their selfish side would most likely kick in.
To imagine that humans are inherently evil, means not necessarily to oppose but automatically question the actions. If you assume humans are good you stop questioning, relying on good faith. Never stop questioning the status quo.
@@rudeboyjim2684 to become aware of it. That's what the op said, idk if I agree. I would say, here, good and evil mean yo mom a hoe, but maybe you'll be so good that her hoeing was ok, probably not, but it is kinda miraculous that out that hoe's hole came a sort of godly beast like you
We are a degenerating species. At the moment only our technology is evolving. Our nature and our politics are going backwards. This is resulting in us becoming more cruel, more greedy and this is ultimately threatening our survival. We can stop this decline in our nature and possibly evolve our nature to a new level of understanding and purpose. We all need to go vegan. That is the only hope for us. Thank you for the video.🌱
They skipped the necessary step of defining what they mean by "good" and "evil." Like most adjectives & adverbs (and some verbs) they're misleading linguistic shorthands that actually refer to an underlying comparison. In this case, the comparisons are the "better than" relation (for good) and the "worse than" relation (for evil or bad). A sensible definition of an "evil" behavior is a behavior that's worse than at least one feasible alternative behavior. And a sensible definition of a "good" behavior is a behavior that's not worse than any other feasible behavior. Modern systems of justice recognize the importance of comparing what was actually done to what could have been done instead, when ruling whether an action was criminal and how severe the punishment should be. Okay, now restart the debate please.
yet the meanings of "better" and "worse" haven't been established. Preemptively I would say, that there is no direct escape from a language maze. There are two options, I think: to look down, as a Coyote, and endlessly fall, observing that there is no ground for language inside a language, or you can continue to run off of a cliff above a abyss. Those two mode of adding new signifies are almost identical (infinitely incomplete adding), but the second, at least for my hopes, allows to further the discussion.
Human beings are the result of evolutionary pressures. We are capable of a range of social behaviours contingent on the situation. Some behaviours serve selfish ends (and are anti social in their impact) and others benefit the wider social group. Society comes up with rules to prohibit extreme anti social acts (murder, etc). And our own emotional response to others acts tends to strongly determine the things we prohibit.
Even an act that benefits the wider social group is still a selfish act, because the reason we do that is the expectation that a better society will translate into better circumstances for us.
Sexuality should criticized and stigmatized to hinder the perversion of culture and society. Traditional societies understand that gay affirmation is disgusting and degenerate.
philosophers are debating questions that have long been answered by psychology. every now and then these intellectuals should read a book outside their field of expertise.
Each one of us built this civilization, each one contributed to its miseries, each one is accountable for the actions carried out within it. We are the collective result of our daily actions and no one can stand aside to condemn or praise. Each one cooperated to build this civilization of wars, competition and exploitation, in which man is against man, in the pursuit of his personal greed, ideological vanity and excessive ambition. Are we evil?
The self is selfish, naturally. The question is whether there is something outside of self.. is it possible to act selflessly? With genuine, attentive love and compassion?
isnt giving up n not believing in the idea of good n evil n the resultant complexities n complications akin to nihilism? or is this a fallacy of extremity?
After reading 3 body problem a sci-fi roman got me thinking: Are those miseries of the humanity cost by the limitation of our communication? What if we could use brainwave to communicate so there will be no lie in the process? Will such a ability to enable a specie to act more as a collected mind rather than individuals using lie and deception to maximize their own profit?
Zizek explored this problem in his book Hegel in a Wired Brain, discussing the implications on subjectivity of this type of direct link between the brain and the machine (and between brains through the "mind-reading" machines/chips). There are also videos of his talks on his book on YT if you are interested. The grossly simplified conclusion of his was that it would not be some "singularity" as imagined by some theorists where humanity becomes one or disappears. Rather, the inner gap between I and myself, namely, subjectivity will remain, which is not a bad thing but a resort of creativity and freedom. It is intuitive to think that we would be better off without such alienations as communication limits. Then again I believe in three body's problem the tri-solarian worker who is in charge of inter-galactical communications basically betrayed his planet by warning off earth, so a case of failure to reach unanimous agreement even with their direct brainwave communication (in fiction ofc). But for dialecticians like Zizek, the path to a "brighter future", or rather, the way to deal with existing crisis, is not through somehow ridding ourselves of our alienations and reuniting with the One (God, Eternal peace, Mother Nature, whatever), but by accepting and living with the gap, not just between I and the others, but also between I and myself; because the problems that we are facing now are often results of the failure to accept such gap.
Then read Douglas Adams. He has in his novel "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" an invention called "babblefish". The babblefish allows to translate input speech in any other output language. Further, Adams demonstrate how "perfect communication" leads inevitable to conflicts.
The first comment covered it pretty much. I will just add/further clarify that the psychoanalytic/dialectical lesson is "Be careful of what appears to be an obstacle to what is perceived as perfection", because that perfection is usually an illusion sustained by the very obstacle to itself. For example - what Zizek repeatedly used to illustrate this point - a Latin American lady was told by her husband that she'd have a perfect body if she were to only lose 4-5 kgs of weight. But the "perfection" here is clearly constituted by the existing "seemingly excessive 4-5 kgs of weight", as the lady would only have a "plain normal" body if she were to really lose that weight. Another less sexual example for the more conservative mind is art. Greek statues, or certain novels and movies, appear artistic (and do not underestimate appearances, they contain more truths than what are commonly perceived as the "truths behind") because they are missing certain parts (limbs of the statues/narrations of the story). If those missing parts are restored/filled in, the works of art will immediately appear to be kitsch and vulgar. Back to your discussion, this is not to justify the horrible status quo or to encourage more lying and deception. But that we must keep in mind that we are not going to reach some blissful unity if we can somehow achieve such direct communications. The gap will still be there, because we think in language, and language is penetrated by ambiguity and contradictions. So to put it in a more political way: technological advancement, yes. But technology by itself cannot be the answer. A social-economical-political change will need to take place as well. Otherwise such advanced technology will only deepen the crack between classes and strengthen the ruling class's oppression.
@@ErenYega747 in Petersons case I'm not convinced about "each other pleasant". P. knows very well that he has nothing to offer which Zizek wouldn't deconstruct within a minute.
your formulation is correct. Peterson is trying to do good in the face of bad, and the result is fascism, something he hates but can't help but bring on. Zizek is trying to say f--ck you and the result is rethinking and careful return to the roots
@@alexmonza2823 Can't eat your cake and have it too. Your own explanation precludes the possibility of making your own choices, or meanings. If everything is one, without individuality (ego?), then there's no I to do any choosing. Everything merely is, and without time, there's no future to select from. I'm actually comfortable with this concept of life. It doesn't detract from life's astonishing "isness."
So, at the end, Nietzsche was right. There is no need to talk about good and evil, only the power to will that is beyond good and evil. Unless there is such thing that is not just inherently good/evil but also objectively good/evil.
They didn't deny there is good and evil, they denied people, meaning a person, isn't inherently good or evil. That's in line christianity as well as with Aristotle for example. Plato said for example thet when you Know goodness you then become good - because if you then do evil it means you didn't have the knowledge -, but that's kind of a mystic approach. Nietzsche denied good and evil but he did make value judments, for example in his view the morality of christianity was some kind of evil, even "perverted", so
Are we evil? We are if we do evil things. We all know when we do a bad thing, except mentaly challenged people,perhaps. So,it's a matter of choice and level of the bad act. We are everything, evil as well.
@@Synodalianlets have a look at white white men did to aboriginals (🇦🇺) and Indians (🇺🇸). We tend all too willingly forget that extinction within our own species is a popular hobby.
@@farrider3339 Yes, genocide is a popular hobby. Btw, I hope you aren't one of the pathetic people who tend to willingly forget that it was invented long before our species moved out of Africa & white skin evolved. Pale complexions only spread in Europe about 8,000 years ago. 😽
The contribution Zizek makes here as elsewhere in this medium are, perhaps, better facilitated when one has an appreciation of the latent and enduring impact of his eurythmics as thought implantation ~ his movements are, if you consider the hammer experiment, create a thought blockages, no? In contrast to his written word which he says is dialectical - synthesis, eh! See Sha Xin Wei on the hammer experiment.
It might be difficult to make compatible the level and principles of analysis of Slavoj and Rowan. But what Zizek says about "no good without evil", in the sense that we shouldn't forget that evil is present always especially when wanna do good - we shouldn't "block" evil, so to speak - is a very christian precept and is perfectly compatible with what Rowan says about "we should be very careful", etc. Zizek is a conservative, in the fundamental sense.
This is ridiculous and a total misunderstanding of what Zizek actually said. Also Zizek isn't a conservative at heart, this is a leftist position (he is a leftist and a smart one at that). He is criticizing liberals and conservatives. Liberals are not the left. The way you said it, you could justify the evil with the good that we do. But he says the exact opposite! He says that with every good comes necesserily the evil. We should be careful about the things we see as good because of the evil that comes with it.
@@EliaMarc That is literally what he said and what he means with the aphoristic statement of "no good without evil". I said conservative "in the fundamental sense", not in the political landscape of the United States; those are two different things. Conservatives in US are free market, anticommunist and so on. I have studied Zizek so don't worry. In case you don't know, Lacan was called a "revolutionary conservative", that would be long to explain here, but to put it shortly, in front of Foucault or Deleuze he was a conservative. By the way, Lacan wanted to be buried with a Catholic funeral, that alone says a lot. About your second paragraph, is a missunderstanding of what I said, and what he means with "no good without evil". He didn't say "with every good comes necessary evil", that would be relativism. The good that "blocks" the possibility of there being evil inside it is the good that carries evil. In other words, you only can do good "being very careful" (Rowan), not to block the possibility of evil that there is in acting in the name of a superior good. That is the Christian possition, shortly, every person is heir of Original Sin.
@@brunosm.l2267 Sure, I interpreted Zizek not really in his Lacanian sense but in a Hegelian way. The thing I meant with "with good must necesserily come evil" is actually "the good is inherently contradictory" The good cannot be identical to itself but also implies evil. But as this is a more public talk than a lecture from him I thought not many people would understand this hegelian side of his. I'm glad that we are much more in line than I thought and I'm sorry to have misinterpreted you. As you know there are many 'dumb americans' (to put it in Zizek terms) that misunderstand the thing he actually says. (And the thing with his interpretation of hegel is he emphasizes the radical openness and contradictory nature of things. And to embrace contradiction is for me exactly the opposite of conservatism)
@@EliaMarc Yes, but to just stop in 'embracing the contradiction' would be ending on relativism, and that's clearly not Zizek's intention, and never was. Without entering in obscure terms of hegelian dialectics (and bare Hegel was not a progresive of his time, he was in favour of the monarchy, and Lacan wasn't an optimistic progresive as I said), what they are saying here is that good can't be done without "looking" at this contradiction. This is what the conservative doctrine of original sin - let's say - is about: we are made in the Image of God, but we are inherently fallen criatues (not inherently good or evil). Being conservative is exactly embracing this contradiction: being skeptical of the 'new' only because is new; because it's 'progressive', because is 'clean of sin'. This is what Rowan means by "we should very careful". And I'm surprise that Zizek would be surprised a christian would say people aren't inherently good/evil. My point is that what both are saying, with different terms and axioms of the analysis, is perfectly compatible.
@@brunosm.l2267 Your knowledge and interpretation of Hegel is a really outdated teaching of Hegel. Thinking of Hegel as a conservative thinker is something the Frankfurt school did in the 20th century and isn't what Zizek is about. It's a way too big topic to talk about here but I would really recommend to you Tood Mcgowans book "emancipation after hegel" to actually understand Zizeks way of thinking in hegelian terms. Hegel was a big fan of the french revolution and also Napoleon (he was in Jena at the time he invaded and saw the suffering he caused but still defended the values of the french revolution and saw napoleon as the way of spreading these values).When going to parties he always made a toast celebrating the french revolution. He defended his students if they protested against the prussian monarchy (even if he couldn't directly protest himself because he was the head of the university of Berlin in prussia). Without even going into his philosophy, you can clearly see he was anything BUT a defender of the monarchy. I'm sorry but this is just the wrong reading of Hegel (and most definitely not the reading of Zizek). If you want, I can go more into why his philosophy is the direct opposite of conservative. It's not exactly a secret that his philosophy inspired a huge amount of leftist philosophy, like feminism (simone de beauvoir), marxism etc. etc. In nearly every one of his books Zizek criticizes Fukuyamas conservative reading of hegel in "The end of history". Hegel is an extremely progressive thinker. In nearly every way. I can't really talk about Lacan because I'm just starting to further my knowledge about him and he isn't my expertise. But you can't read Hegel through Lacan if you don't understand Hegel.
Rowan Williams is one of the greatest philosophical minds alive today, while also being astoundingly humble. Zizek (and a great many other popular commentators and public intellectuals) could to learn a few things from his careful, considered communication style, not to mention his simple gentleness.
Williams has a preferred version of invisible supernatural superbeeing. This "believe without evidence" completely destroys his authority because all of his arguments will have to confirm his beliefs. No matter the contrary evidence, no matter better arguments, no matter the other 4000+ cultural religions claiming his preferred version of invisible supernatural superbeeing is the incorrect one.... Williams ALWAYS must remain an apologist first....meaning....his arguments neef to fit the Christian narrative....
Good and evil are socially constructed (that's what we're doing when we debate over it), and that's a good thing! It does seem that the two concepts are related to the impact on society, or impact on another individual. However, if you accept that, then the appropriate place to take the debate is whether people's inherent nature is considered good or evil in a current social context. This is the question of what needs to be educated, disciplined or punished and how, and for what ends. And, whether it's still worth it. Slavoj brings up sex as an example - I don't think that sex is inherently evil, but it does depend on how you're going about it. I think at some point we might have to stop simply telling people that sex isn't evil (why does this still need to be said?), and move on to the topic of etiquette.
Some people who enjoy evil tend to believe all humans are prone to evil. But it is just their desperate attempts to find excuses for themselves. Second World War seen many most atrocious evil deeds of some people, but it also seen the most humane and heroic deeds of others. I know for sure because I am from the nation that during the WW2 had many people who showed most humane and heroic attitude.
Very good comment. I have always been suspicious of people who so generously call all of us bad. Especially high school teachers with bad breath are to be mentioned here. They didnt tire calling us evil ad nauseam while we knew we werent.
@@derusmares9508 Taking into consideration WW2 again - would you say people who didn't fight back, they just let it be to whichever injustice they were subjected to and after that they didn't seek revenge even though it would only be justice had the capacity of being evil? I don't consider defending oneself or punishing the wrongdoer as evil. But leaving these cases aside (I know that some people consider justified punishment and defence as evil) during the war there were plenty of people who didn't even do that. In my original comment I was referring to the thing you consider as the ultimate truth "everyone has the CAPACITY for evil." and according to my knowledge this assumption is false.
We are both, inherently evil and inherently good. It seems that these concepts have been useful to us to comprehend ourselves and our world; to survive. Problems begin when we perceive good or evil as absolutes and not as indeterminate and ambiguous.
I cannot believe we still make these discussions from the secular humanist and religious humanist perspectives after all the discoveries of evolutionary psychology.
Zizek is so much fun for serious deep philosophy. What an inspiration. I became agnostic because all religions seem to have a manifestation of Evil. Today demonstrates this almost everywhere in the World, sadly. Just like corporations (CEO), they have a fictional person that you have to believe in in order to believe you are doing their work (employee) via the religion/corporation. But while alive, We only experience the evil, for all We know. One can experience love, but is that a love We can all feel? Yet there are some who are born 'evil', who in history was born 'love'? There are murderers, sociopaths, narcissists, megalomaniacs who prove evil exists and IS inherent, yet not without the nature of care and love because some can reflect and accept help to be better. It's harder to be loving,. It's often shied upon to love unconditionally (without being tagged as LGTBQ+). It's a manifestation of over 3000 years of conditioning that guilt is a currency, and to be guilty and shamed to be alive evolves to pity and despair upon us who show love more than evil. Where is the love? Usually there is some sort of 'love' but with a nasty sleazy undercarriage that lurks beneath that. Then True Love can be extremely evil. Anyway, the crazy thing is pure evil was born from the 'church'. Just look at Tomas de Traquamada. He makes Hitler seem nice. Was there anyone loving that made such an impact? Is evil an infection? Are We allowed to Love?
@@KKKetamine ive been threatened with death for holding hands with my husband. Before we were married. We were walking down the street. We didnt have a car. Truckfull of rednecks slowed down and gave us every insult in the book then told us we were better off dead, that theyd like to kill us, that we were lucky it was daylight, and that we should go kill ourselves
@@KKKetamine since then we don't hold hands in public, and we always look around and make sure no one will see if we ever do kiss or show affection to each other when we are in public. Lol. Just the honest stupid truth.
I completely disagree with the first sentences. However, it's very hard to explain. It's about intuition and instinct. Look, we're definitely not here by coincidence. We don't need proof. The proof is that we're even capable of thinking about it. Look at how complex everything is. Yesterday, I saw a guy filming the actions of his white blood cells, and it was like strategic moves! HOW? They don't have a brain. More importantly, WHY? Someone programmed it, along with all the laws. I don't know why, and we don't know why. It's been said that something is magical until it's mathematically described. Well, if nothing else, consciousness is magic. It's that something that uses our avatar, our senses, to experience. And then there is conscience, and it has its own sense. Besides, it can be life-saving. Just look at what happens when you consciously do something good. Certain hormones stimulate the brain, and you feel blissful. Elon Musk said that this (reality) is 99% some kind of matrix, and of course it is. What else could it be? Matrix is a different word for reality. The reality, as we perceive it, is the result of all actions carried out by all people (living beings) in the present moment. Isn't it in our best interest to minimize suffering? Yes, it is. And someone has programmed it this way. I have a super strong instinct screaming, 'Be good, be the best person you can be. If not you, then who will?' So, I am, and you should be too. First, we all have a nervous system, and we all react almost the same way to things like violence, injustice, and pain. It's not that hard to, like in a game, press TAB to switch to another person or animal and be aware of what he/she/it feels. It's the same as what I would feel if someone did something wrong to me. Second, would you really take the risk that karma doesn't exist? I don't."
Zizek nails it here: we're masters at constructing a narrative that makes evil acceptable. Isn't that PRECISELY what we're doing?
Doesn't this demonstrate we are evil?
@@les-fauxmonnayeurs9887 Yes and no. We also have the ability to construct narratives about goodness, beauty, and compassion.
Humans need to be sated otherwise they'll turn to their natural self - evil.
"What I say is that 'right' is the interest of the stronger."
Plato
@@les-fauxmonnayeurs9887 I don't think so. I think participation in narratives of ideology that justify genocides or the murder of children in Gaza is not because we've participated in the construction of the narrative. It's because we're powerless to change it. We have to keep going to feed ourselves and our kids. But we are all in some sense passive objectives. All of us knows at the end of the day that the only reason why we have the system we have is because all the alternatives are worse but that doesn't make us happy or glad. I think the true Act of evil is when you get pleasure from suffering caused that is completely unbeneficial to you
You can always see the desire for an intellectual brawl in Slavoj.
For real, you could even feel it in his first sentence "You are saying this as a Christian?" and everyone immediately knew what he was talking about.
Imagine ...Soavoj ..Daffy duck ..porky pig and Jimmy Stewart get stuck in a lift then start arguing over existentialism versus religion .
And boy can he deliver! Agent provocateur of iconoclasm
Mike Tyson comes to mind...@@pikiwiki
is he evil or was he shaped by the pain inflicted on him by others?@@volkerengels5298
Rowan has a magnificent speaking voice. I'm very envious.
You wrote my comment
I like these two in philosophical debate. One is careful, stately, ordered in his presentation of argument, the other is chaotic, irreverent, and seventeen thoughts ahead of everyone including himself at any given moment.
hahahhaha XD
Slavoj is somewhat a ribbon of light for listener's of theory's, philosophy and Life as a whole. He's a man that must be spectated into educational systems such as humanity, history and agriculture.
In nomine boni pessimi malorum: the worst of evils are done in the name of the Good.
All true villains believe themselves to be the hero of their story. Its the limitless self assurance of said position that allows for atrocious actions.
There is a commentary to verse 69 of the Dao De Jing: "Constantly dragging your adversary around with you will cause you to lose your greatest treasure". The adversary is duty and reason, the greatest treasure is playfulness and compassion.
Verse 69 (fragment): "There is no greater misfortune than feeling: "I have an enemy". For when "I" and "enemy" exist together, there is no room left for my treasure." (Translation: Star, J.)
'Evil' is not comprehensive enough; colossal liars on a scale humanity has not seen before, literally living off of human misery around the world; faking terror against yourselves in order to justify wars from which you materially benefit at the expense the beleaguered of the world; EVIL just doesn’t quite cut it.
@@southpaw786 Fantastic thought - I too think in those lines but cannot express it the way you put it. Thanks for the words expressing a thought beautifully.
Can you please put the date of the debate in your description because how are we meant to know if this was yesterday or months ago? I have a feeling it’s not new
it was on october 10th
I can't tell if I enjoyed more Žižek's theological reference to "penis erection" or Williams' reaction to it.
No human is intrinsically good, we’re merely only capable of doing good.
True, and how do you even know if the "good" you do is truly good?
A silly remark. You have reduced good to something moral and therefore a matter of praxis. The goood is something transcendental
Philosophy plays twister when it attempts to attach abstract values to an essentially dynamic existence
I don't wanna be the guy who cleans Slavoj's mic.
The shelter of the stupid is always to mock physical deficiencies. End of diagnosis
lol, i bet that guy thinks slavoj is evil for spitting on his work
He should have added dangerous as well, however you are and what you can do, you will affect others, will you do so in a good way, bad way, decent way, neutral way.
What is the text from St. Augustine Zizek is referring to?
De nuptiis et concupiscentia
.. and the great Buddhadassa felt that the lines from Genesis about the fruit of the tree of knowledge was the greatest of all religious quotes.
I think good and evil are in all of us. We are taught the difference and socially directed to the side we agee with or are coerced to, usually by operating within or against a group.
Every society depends on a small group it can exploit to justify all it's ills
I don't like how it cuts off in the middle of a sentence and then goes on to paywall the rest of the debate.
I thought Zizek would disagree on the human nature issue with Rowan and say that we are fundamentally evil. I think Freud would agree on that, wouldn't he? I'm not sure about Lacan, who is "beyond good and evil". His view on human nature is definitely more complicated, but still rather pessimistic. Zizek surprised me here a bit.
I don't think Freud would say humans are evil at all. He would say that we are all profoundly "flawed" in the sense that human development is ineluctably tumultuous, fraught with confusion and pain and the problematic ways we try and cope with that.
Lacan actually says somewhere (I think it's in the Ethics seminar) that this question is irrelevant.
@@MrsNoceur well, he is antihumanist after all, but his ethical views are still very dark and pessimistic.
excuse me for the curiosity. wich debate is shown in the opening sequence of this video?!?! who were those participants?
yes, i'm just really wondering and curious if the guy with curly white hair and shaved beard in a suit is jordan peterson lol
Let's have an intellectual rumble, a clash of minds,
As Žižek and Williams, their thoughts unwind.
Are we inherently evil, or does goodness prevail?
In the arena of ideas, they both set sail.
Žižek, with his wit and radical view,
Challenges conventions, old and new.
He argues for the darkness within,
Where desire and chaos forever spin.
Williams, with wisdom and faith in his stride,
Seeks the light in humanity's tide.
He sees in us the potential for good,
A spark of divinity, misunderstood.
In this battle of ideologies, they stand tall,
Each defending their view, amidst the brawl.
Are we born with sin, or born to grace?
In the depths of our souls, where do we place?
Evil and goodness, in constant debate,
In the hearts of humanity, their fate.
Žižek and Williams, they spar and contend,
In the search for truth, until the end.
So let us ponder this question profound,
As their words echo, without a sound.
For in the struggle to understand our nature,
Lies the key to our collective future.
Touching yourself every 10 seconds is Evil
I was trying to watch videos on the website, and they're buffering, so I went here and they're cut off early.
what is zizzek views on john dewey educational philosphy ? can anyone tell me
The institution of arts and ideas(Channel), guys I think you need to work on your edit timing. It’s like one clip is not matching with other and it feels like they are talking about two different things.
To murder someone in self defence is evil if the attacker is not physically attacking you. A country that declares war on another country is not evil but it is evil if the murders that take place subsequently cannot in a court of law be attributed to the subjects of the warring country but to those who decided to initiate aggression without their full consent.
Hence, we arrive at the possible criminalisation of the military that is not being commandeered by the public but by a private body of individuals acting without public authority.
what are the books/text by St Augustine n Hannah arendt zizek mentions?
De nuptiis et concupiscientia - On Marriage and Concupiscence by Saint Augistine
Is there a full length of this anywhere?
is indifference some sort of balance between good and evil or does it weigh more on one side than the other 🤔
Indifference enables evil (Dot)
@@keithtomey5046maybe, indifference wants nothing to do with evil...
@@r2c3 it inherently is because you abandone society. In the scope of existence this isn't only you versus the other. It is a cooexistence and with you being indifferent you harm the possibility of good to exist and deny the existence of evil by actively avoiding society as a whole. it isn't simply a natural mode to exist in. You could just stay neutral and try to play an active part in society, which has little to do with indifference. In Indifference you deny you own actions in life, because of all of the above. Indifference could also be classified of exhibting ignorance, naivity and stupidity in my opinion.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
If we can think of dog breeds as good and evil, we can definitely think about people as good or evil.
Good and evil are not polar beings but whiting the being - goodness being it's fulness and evil being its negation.
WE ARE NOT ALL EVIL. RIDICULOUS!
⬆️
Decadent peoples will always be righteously disgusted by 'momentous acts',
seen as 'out of context' to their current state of grandiosity and comfort.
Varying societal definitions of evil are all... a direct measure of opulence.
For context, the slogan : "one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist".
just gonna pretend Rowan Williams is Terry Pratchett if nobody minds
I had the same thought. It would have been brilliant to have seen Pratchett at a forum like this
Good or evil? No. Just slighlty more selfish than altruistic. But if every choice could be presented with a win-win answer, most would choose it. That's why the people of societies that are more well to do are usually considered to be more good. They just simply can afford to be more giving. If their bottom line was at stake, their selfish side would most likely kick in.
To imagine that humans are inherently evil, means not necessarily to oppose but automatically question the actions. If you assume humans are good you stop questioning, relying on good faith. Never stop questioning the status quo.
we would be extinct if we weren't inherently good. it's not rocket science.
We are potentially as evil as we can be good. And it is present in al of us. The only way to transcend that duality is to become aware of that.
What does it mean to ‘transcend the duality’ between good and evil?
@@rudeboyjim2684 to become aware of it. That's what the op said, idk if I agree. I would say, here, good and evil mean yo mom a hoe, but maybe you'll be so good that her hoeing was ok, probably not, but it is kinda miraculous that out that hoe's hole came a sort of godly beast like you
@@jpm199 you seem like an intellectual heavyweight
@@rudeboyjim2684 to realize there is no duality, there is only one spectrum of non-duality
We are a degenerating species. At the moment only our technology is evolving. Our nature and our politics are going backwards. This is resulting in us becoming more cruel, more greedy and this is ultimately threatening our survival. We can stop this decline in our nature and possibly evolve our nature to a new level of understanding and purpose. We all need to go vegan. That is the only hope for us. Thank you for the video.🌱
We are the most evil known beings. That's a universal truth.
I think a better name for IAI is the Institute for Alternative Ideas.
Is that a thumbnail face from zizek
Are we slavic droning evil? Yes, yes you are, Slavoj.
They skipped the necessary step of defining what they mean by "good" and "evil." Like most adjectives & adverbs (and some verbs) they're misleading linguistic shorthands that actually refer to an underlying comparison. In this case, the comparisons are the "better than" relation (for good) and the "worse than" relation (for evil or bad). A sensible definition of an "evil" behavior is a behavior that's worse than at least one feasible alternative behavior. And a sensible definition of a "good" behavior is a behavior that's not worse than any other feasible behavior.
Modern systems of justice recognize the importance of comparing what was actually done to what could have been done instead, when ruling whether an action was criminal and how severe the punishment should be.
Okay, now restart the debate please.
yet the meanings of "better" and "worse" haven't been established. Preemptively I would say, that there is no direct escape from a language maze. There are two options, I think: to look down, as a Coyote, and endlessly fall, observing that there is no ground for language inside a language, or you can continue to run off of a cliff above a abyss. Those two mode of adding new signifies are almost identical (infinitely incomplete adding), but the second, at least for my hopes, allows to further the discussion.
The most important voice of our century to hear on this subject would have been Mr. Sapolsky. But then he is not much for popular debates.
zizek looks insane among others hahaha
no he doesn't. your particular perception of him is such.
Human beings are the result of evolutionary pressures. We are capable of a range of social behaviours contingent on the situation. Some behaviours serve selfish ends (and are anti social in their impact) and others benefit the wider social group. Society comes up with rules to prohibit extreme anti social acts (murder, etc). And our own emotional response to others acts tends to strongly determine the things we prohibit.
@blinkcatmeowmeow8484 This comment is the perfect answer to your question
@@Cardioid2035
What did they say?
Even an act that benefits the wider social group is still a selfish act, because the reason we do that is the expectation that a better society will translate into better circumstances for us.
Here's the answer. We can be extremely evil, and that's in our nature (inherent).
Thank you! Finally, philosophy is not needed anymore!
Zizek is absolutely right about sexuality. The authority of the church has a history of sexual persecution.
Sexuality should criticized and stigmatized to hinder the perversion of culture and society. Traditional societies understand that gay affirmation is disgusting and degenerate.
philosophers are debating questions that have long been answered by psychology. every now and then these intellectuals should read a book outside their field of expertise.
Do you even know Zizek? He's highly educated in psychology. Also, how is psychology able to tell us what's morally good and bad?
@@wlrlel where did I say that psychology can tell us what's morally good and bad?
Each one of us built this civilization, each one contributed to its miseries, each one is accountable for the actions carried out within it. We are the collective result of our daily actions and no one can stand aside to condemn or praise. Each one cooperated to build this civilization of wars, competition and exploitation, in which man is against man, in the pursuit of his personal greed, ideological vanity and excessive ambition. Are we evil?
Nope just imperfect in the light of our false expectations
@@alexmonza2823 daiyum
3:47
There is no possibility to be good. And there is no escape from our selfish self.
The self is selfish, naturally. The question is whether there is something outside of self.. is it possible to act selflessly? With genuine, attentive love and compassion?
It's impossible
isnt giving up n not believing in the idea of good n evil n the resultant complexities n complications akin to nihilism? or is this a fallacy of extremity?
lol, how are we going to answer a question like this in less than six minutes? That's like expecting the Mona Lisa to be painted in 6 minutes. 😅
Žižek is funny but his salad of words doesn’t bare much intellectual weight
Yes.
After reading 3 body problem a sci-fi roman got me thinking: Are those miseries of the humanity cost by the limitation of our communication? What if we could use brainwave to communicate so there will be no lie in the process? Will such a ability to enable a specie to act more as a collected mind rather than individuals using lie and deception to maximize their own profit?
Zizek explored this problem in his book Hegel in a Wired Brain, discussing the implications on subjectivity of this type of direct link between the brain and the machine (and between brains through the "mind-reading" machines/chips). There are also videos of his talks on his book on YT if you are interested. The grossly simplified conclusion of his was that it would not be some "singularity" as imagined by some theorists where humanity becomes one or disappears. Rather, the inner gap between I and myself, namely, subjectivity will remain, which is not a bad thing but a resort of creativity and freedom. It is intuitive to think that we would be better off without such alienations as communication limits. Then again I believe in three body's problem the tri-solarian worker who is in charge of inter-galactical communications basically betrayed his planet by warning off earth, so a case of failure to reach unanimous agreement even with their direct brainwave communication (in fiction ofc). But for dialecticians like Zizek, the path to a "brighter future", or rather, the way to deal with existing crisis, is not through somehow ridding ourselves of our alienations and reuniting with the One (God, Eternal peace, Mother Nature, whatever), but by accepting and living with the gap, not just between I and the others, but also between I and myself; because the problems that we are facing now are often results of the failure to accept such gap.
Then read Douglas Adams. He has in his novel "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" an invention called "babblefish". The babblefish allows to translate input speech in any other output language. Further, Adams demonstrate how "perfect communication" leads inevitable to conflicts.
Wittgenstein has entered the chat.
Human Instrumentality Project entered the chat
The first comment covered it pretty much. I will just add/further clarify that the psychoanalytic/dialectical lesson is "Be careful of what appears to be an obstacle to what is perceived as perfection", because that perfection is usually an illusion sustained by the very obstacle to itself. For example - what Zizek repeatedly used to illustrate this point - a Latin American lady was told by her husband that she'd have a perfect body if she were to only lose 4-5 kgs of weight. But the "perfection" here is clearly constituted by the existing "seemingly excessive 4-5 kgs of weight", as the lady would only have a "plain normal" body if she were to really lose that weight. Another less sexual example for the more conservative mind is art. Greek statues, or certain novels and movies, appear artistic (and do not underestimate appearances, they contain more truths than what are commonly perceived as the "truths behind") because they are missing certain parts (limbs of the statues/narrations of the story). If those missing parts are restored/filled in, the works of art will immediately appear to be kitsch and vulgar. Back to your discussion, this is not to justify the horrible status quo or to encourage more lying and deception. But that we must keep in mind that we are not going to reach some blissful unity if we can somehow achieve such direct communications. The gap will still be there, because we think in language, and language is penetrated by ambiguity and contradictions. So to put it in a more political way: technological advancement, yes. But technology by itself cannot be the answer. A social-economical-political change will need to take place as well. Otherwise such advanced technology will only deepen the crack between classes and strengthen the ruling class's oppression.
The person who edited this video is more like the SS than the SA.
Of course we are
Jordan Peterson = EViL
Slavoij Zizek = GooD
As simple as that
And in the end they respect each other and go out to state they agree to some of the same things and find each other pleasant
@@ErenYega747 in Petersons case I'm not convinced about "each other pleasant". P. knows very well that he has nothing to offer which Zizek wouldn't deconstruct within a minute.
your formulation is correct. Peterson is trying to do good in the face of bad, and the result is fascism, something he hates but can't help but bring on. Zizek is trying to say f--ck you and the result is rethinking and careful return to the roots
Opet imate sjeme Dobra i zla.Zlo je vidljivo svugdje uokolo,a Dobro treba tražiti,Naći i Njegovati
I think there is no good or evil don't exist in reality it is just life working
reminds me of that "The Community" debate episode about the same topic. Also ended up talking about horny.
Who's the blond lady?
Augustine wasn’t master of his domain
A more interesting question to me is whether we have the free will to choose. I don't believe I am evil, but can I be other than what I am? 🤷🏼♀️
If you want to get an answer, don't waste time with free will. Just be what you are.
@@alexmonza2823 Can't eat your cake and have it too. Your own explanation precludes the possibility of making your own choices, or meanings. If everything is one, without individuality (ego?), then there's no I to do any choosing. Everything merely is, and without time, there's no future to select from. I'm actually comfortable with this concept of life. It doesn't detract from life's astonishing "isness."
That glass was evil.
So, at the end, Nietzsche was right. There is no need to talk about good and evil, only the power to will that is beyond good and evil. Unless there is such thing that is not just inherently good/evil but also objectively good/evil.
They didn't deny there is good and evil, they denied people, meaning a person, isn't inherently good or evil. That's in line christianity as well as with Aristotle for example. Plato said for example thet when you Know goodness you then become good - because if you then do evil it means you didn't have the knowledge -, but that's kind of a mystic approach.
Nietzsche denied good and evil but he did make value judments, for example in his view the morality of christianity was some kind of evil, even "perverted", so
Are we evil? We are if we do evil things. We all know when we do a bad thing, except mentaly challenged people,perhaps. So,it's a matter of choice and level of the bad act. We are everything, evil as well.
Evil is cutting me from the video to make me subscribe.
Can Zizek talk about something without mentioning Stalin and Nazis?
If you're gonna talk about evil there's really no greater modern encapsulation of that concept than 20th century totalitarian horror.
@@Synodalianlets have a look at white white men did to aboriginals (🇦🇺) and Indians (🇺🇸).
We tend all too willingly forget that extinction within our own species is a popular hobby.
@@farrider3339 Yes, genocide is a popular hobby. Btw, I hope you aren't one of the pathetic people who tend to willingly forget that it was invented long before our species moved out of Africa & white skin evolved. Pale complexions only spread in Europe about 8,000 years ago. 😽
The way I think of it is it’s what one thinks should be vs what it shouldn’t be. All construction of the ego.
Thanks God, granpa Rowan is stil alive! Respects! All monkeys are inheretly evil kritters, so the naked ones.😢
Thank God (literally) it wasn't with Welby.
Utopias don't exist.
They reach critical mass when everybody is happy and realize war is a force that gives many people meaning.
what nonsense, we are neither, right and wrong are not applicable concept's to apply to human nature
The contribution Zizek makes here as elsewhere in this medium are, perhaps, better facilitated when one has an appreciation of the latent and enduring impact of his eurythmics as thought implantation ~ his movements are, if you consider the hammer experiment, create a thought blockages, no? In contrast to his written word which he says is dialectical - synthesis, eh! See Sha Xin Wei on the hammer experiment.
It might be difficult to make compatible the level and principles of analysis of Slavoj and Rowan. But what Zizek says about "no good without evil", in the sense that we shouldn't forget that evil is present always especially when wanna do good - we shouldn't "block" evil, so to speak - is a very christian precept and is perfectly compatible with what Rowan says about "we should be very careful", etc. Zizek is a conservative, in the fundamental sense.
This is ridiculous and a total misunderstanding of what Zizek actually said. Also Zizek isn't a conservative at heart, this is a leftist position (he is a leftist and a smart one at that). He is criticizing liberals and conservatives. Liberals are not the left.
The way you said it, you could justify the evil with the good that we do. But he says the exact opposite! He says that with every good comes necesserily the evil. We should be careful about the things we see as good because of the evil that comes with it.
@@EliaMarc That is literally what he said and what he means with the aphoristic statement of "no good without evil". I said conservative "in the fundamental sense", not in the political landscape of the United States; those are two different things. Conservatives in US are free market, anticommunist and so on. I have studied Zizek so don't worry. In case you don't know, Lacan was called a "revolutionary conservative", that would be long to explain here, but to put it shortly, in front of Foucault or Deleuze he was a conservative. By the way, Lacan wanted to be buried with a Catholic funeral, that alone says a lot.
About your second paragraph, is a missunderstanding of what I said, and what he means with "no good without evil". He didn't say "with every good comes necessary evil", that would be relativism. The good that "blocks" the possibility of there being evil inside it is the good that carries evil. In other words, you only can do good "being very careful" (Rowan), not to block the possibility of evil that there is in acting in the name of a superior good. That is the Christian possition, shortly, every person is heir of Original Sin.
@@brunosm.l2267 Sure, I interpreted Zizek not really in his Lacanian sense but in a Hegelian way.
The thing I meant with "with good must necesserily come evil" is actually "the good is inherently contradictory" The good cannot be identical to itself but also implies evil. But as this is a more public talk than a lecture from him I thought not many people would understand this hegelian side of his.
I'm glad that we are much more in line than I thought and I'm sorry to have misinterpreted you. As you know there are many 'dumb americans' (to put it in Zizek terms) that misunderstand the thing he actually says.
(And the thing with his interpretation of hegel is he emphasizes the radical openness and contradictory nature of things. And to embrace contradiction is for me exactly the opposite of conservatism)
@@EliaMarc Yes, but to just stop in 'embracing the contradiction' would be ending on relativism, and that's clearly not Zizek's intention, and never was. Without entering in obscure terms of hegelian dialectics (and bare Hegel was not a progresive of his time, he was in favour of the monarchy, and Lacan wasn't an optimistic progresive as I said), what they are saying here is that good can't be done without "looking" at this contradiction. This is what the conservative doctrine of original sin - let's say - is about: we are made in the Image of God, but we are inherently fallen criatues (not inherently good or evil). Being conservative is exactly embracing this contradiction: being skeptical of the 'new' only because is new; because it's 'progressive', because is 'clean of sin'. This is what Rowan means by "we should very careful". And I'm surprise that Zizek would be surprised a christian would say people aren't inherently good/evil.
My point is that what both are saying, with different terms and axioms of the analysis, is perfectly compatible.
@@brunosm.l2267 Your knowledge and interpretation of Hegel is a really outdated teaching of Hegel. Thinking of Hegel as a conservative thinker is something the Frankfurt school did in the 20th century and isn't what Zizek is about.
It's a way too big topic to talk about here but I would really recommend to you Tood Mcgowans book "emancipation after hegel" to actually understand Zizeks way of thinking in hegelian terms.
Hegel was a big fan of the french revolution and also Napoleon (he was in Jena at the time he invaded and saw the suffering he caused but still defended the values of the french revolution and saw napoleon as the way of spreading these values).When going to parties he always made a toast celebrating the french revolution. He defended his students if they protested against the prussian monarchy (even if he couldn't directly protest himself because he was the head of the university of Berlin in prussia). Without even going into his philosophy, you can clearly see he was anything BUT a defender of the monarchy.
I'm sorry but this is just the wrong reading of Hegel (and most definitely not the reading of Zizek).
If you want, I can go more into why his philosophy is the direct opposite of conservative. It's not exactly a secret that his philosophy inspired a huge amount of leftist philosophy, like feminism (simone de beauvoir), marxism etc. etc.
In nearly every one of his books Zizek criticizes Fukuyamas conservative reading of hegel in "The end of history".
Hegel is an extremely progressive thinker. In nearly every way.
I can't really talk about Lacan because I'm just starting to further my knowledge about him and he isn't my expertise. But you can't read Hegel through Lacan if you don't understand Hegel.
yes we are
Rowan Williams is one of the greatest philosophical minds alive today, while also being astoundingly humble. Zizek (and a great many other popular commentators and public intellectuals) could to learn a few things from his careful, considered communication style, not to mention his simple gentleness.
are we inherently all really soft on the ears for your viewing pleasure ? or is it the contrast?
Williams has a preferred version of invisible supernatural superbeeing. This "believe without evidence" completely destroys his authority because all of his arguments will have to confirm his beliefs. No matter the contrary evidence, no matter better arguments, no matter the other 4000+ cultural religions claiming his preferred version of invisible supernatural superbeeing is the incorrect one.... Williams ALWAYS must remain an apologist first....meaning....his arguments neef to fit the Christian narrative....
Let me guess - you are english?
@@torsion2 no, but please do enlighten us with the relevance of this question.
No. You are biased to William's self-presentation and are foolish enough to hold his thoughts superior based on a superficial reading of his delivery.
Good and evil are socially constructed (that's what we're doing when we debate over it), and that's a good thing!
It does seem that the two concepts are related to the impact on society, or impact on another individual.
However, if you accept that, then the appropriate place to take the debate is whether people's inherent nature is considered good or evil in a current social context.
This is the question of what needs to be educated, disciplined or punished and how, and for what ends. And, whether it's still worth it.
Slavoj brings up sex as an example - I don't think that sex is inherently evil, but it does depend on how you're going about it. I think at some point we might have to stop simply telling people that sex isn't evil (why does this still need to be said?), and move on to the topic of etiquette.
Some people who enjoy evil tend to believe all humans are prone to evil. But it is just their desperate attempts to find excuses for themselves. Second World War seen many most atrocious evil deeds of some people, but it also seen the most humane and heroic deeds of others. I know for sure because I am from the nation that during the WW2 had many people who showed most humane and heroic attitude.
Are you from the soviet union?
Very good comment. I have always been suspicious of people who so generously call all of us bad. Especially high school teachers with bad breath are to be mentioned here. They didnt tire calling us evil ad nauseam while we knew we werent.
@@gabrollos No. I'm from Poland.
I think "everyone is evil" is often mistaken for the actual phrase "everyone has the CAPACITY for evil."
@@derusmares9508 Taking into consideration WW2 again - would you say people who didn't fight back, they just let it be to whichever injustice they were subjected to and after that they didn't seek revenge even though it would only be justice had the capacity of being evil?
I don't consider defending oneself or punishing the wrongdoer as evil. But leaving these cases aside (I know that some people consider justified punishment and defence as evil) during the war there were plenty of people who didn't even do that.
In my original comment I was referring to the thing you consider as the ultimate truth "everyone has the CAPACITY for evil." and according to my knowledge this assumption is false.
Humanity is a failed species and disappointing design.
If the devil had a hobby what this could be?
Evil means to be against life which is why it is life spelled backwards... kind off.
Is that slavoj bloke a joke?
4:19 😂 4:47 like Hamas and Putler
Why is Zizek doing a soy face in the thumbnail 😭
Slavoj should calm down
We are both, inherently evil and inherently good. It seems that these concepts have been useful to us to comprehend ourselves and our world; to survive. Problems begin when we perceive good or evil as absolutes and not as indeterminate and ambiguous.
Not true for Slavoj. He is mostly evil.
You think you are Master???? No! Sorry....😂😂😂😂
I cannot believe we still make these discussions from the secular humanist and religious humanist perspectives after all the discoveries of evolutionary psychology.
What does evolutionary psychology have to do with anything? What other perspective should we adopt for these discussions if not those?
@@13cbt13 We are not inherently good or evil, but we are animals with some urges, desires, and inclinations shaped by evolution.
@@kazmahmet2848 this changes nothing, as good and evil turn then to what we do want our future evolution to be. Science will never dismiss ethics
@@plelist2281 who are we?
@@kazmahmet2848 you choose and by choosing you're already making ethics
Zizek is so much fun for serious deep philosophy. What an inspiration.
I became agnostic because all religions seem to have a manifestation of Evil. Today demonstrates this almost everywhere in the World, sadly.
Just like corporations (CEO), they have a fictional person that you have to believe in in order to believe you are doing their work (employee) via the religion/corporation. But while alive, We only experience the evil, for all We know. One can experience love, but is that a love We can all feel? Yet there are some who are born 'evil', who in history was born 'love'?
There are murderers, sociopaths, narcissists, megalomaniacs who prove evil exists and IS inherent, yet not without the nature of care and love because some can reflect and accept help to be better. It's harder to be loving,. It's often shied upon to love unconditionally (without being tagged as LGTBQ+). It's a manifestation of over 3000 years of conditioning that guilt is a currency, and to be guilty and shamed to be alive evolves to pity and despair upon us who show love more than evil. Where is the love? Usually there is some sort of 'love' but with a nasty sleazy undercarriage that lurks beneath that. Then True Love can be extremely evil. Anyway, the crazy thing is pure evil was born from the 'church'. Just look at Tomas de Traquamada. He makes Hitler seem nice. Was there anyone loving that made such an impact?
Is evil an infection?
Are We allowed to Love?
I love you
Real love between people is against their interests.
What evil that you experienced?
@@KKKetamine ive been threatened with death for holding hands with my husband. Before we were married. We were walking down the street. We didnt have a car. Truckfull of rednecks slowed down and gave us every insult in the book then told us we were better off dead, that theyd like to kill us, that we were lucky it was daylight, and that we should go kill ourselves
@@KKKetamine since then we don't hold hands in public, and we always look around and make sure no one will see if we ever do kiss or show affection to each other when we are in public. Lol. Just the honest stupid truth.
I completely disagree with the first sentences. However, it's very hard to explain. It's about intuition and instinct. Look, we're definitely not here by coincidence. We don't need proof. The proof is that we're even capable of thinking about it. Look at how complex everything is. Yesterday, I saw a guy filming the actions of his white blood cells, and it was like strategic moves! HOW? They don't have a brain. More importantly, WHY? Someone programmed it, along with all the laws. I don't know why, and we don't know why. It's been said that something is magical until it's mathematically described. Well, if nothing else, consciousness is magic. It's that something that uses our avatar, our senses, to experience. And then there is conscience, and it has its own sense. Besides, it can be life-saving. Just look at what happens when you consciously do something good. Certain hormones stimulate the brain, and you feel blissful. Elon Musk said that this (reality) is 99% some kind of matrix, and of course it is. What else could it be? Matrix is a different word for reality. The reality, as we perceive it, is the result of all actions carried out by all people (living beings) in the present moment. Isn't it in our best interest to minimize suffering? Yes, it is. And someone has programmed it this way. I have a super strong instinct screaming, 'Be good, be the best person you can be. If not you, then who will?' So, I am, and you should be too. First, we all have a nervous system, and we all react almost the same way to things like violence, injustice, and pain. It's not that hard to, like in a game, press TAB to switch to another person or animal and be aware of what he/she/it feels. It's the same as what I would feel if someone did something wrong to me. Second, would you really take the risk that karma doesn't exist? I don't."
Rowan Williams is evil. He will commit suicide and admit he loved Peter Ball.
Evil is a matter of opinion. We are inherently self-serving, and sometimes it means harming or taking away from others.
Your questions are inherently stupid. Adam and eve already went through this. Evil is our behavior when we loose touch with gods universal intentions.
Are we evil,yes we very evil.Stupid question
Yes, we are evil. And stupid.