I'm hearing all the hits: - (I run out of time but) Don't Stop Me Now - Lacanian Rhapsody - I Want To Break Free (of Ideology) - Crazy Little Thing Called Late Stage Capitalism - (the problem with) One Vision and, of course, - Fat Bottomed Girls
He's an hysterical idiot. The first world is literally moving into the kindest, safest time in history. The second and third world just have to go through the centuries of shit we did to get to the same point in their societal development.
Some might say that his thought is kind of blurry but what happens with Zizek is that he is not only pro something and against something, he sees the complexity of every situation and does a great work analyzing it. That's one of the main reasons of his speeches being too chaotic sometimes.
@@stevenr8778 You give him very little credit. He is not or is not only a raving lunatic. I'm not his follower but nevertheless it is interesting to hear some of his interpretations of what is going on nowadays. And if you do so without judging or laveling it is even more interesting.
@@adriamasero996 I greatly appreciate nuanced thinking on complex issues, and am also a dialectical thinker who can see the merit of certain points from both sides. Zizek brings up some great points once in a while but he is muddle-headed, lacks coherence, and is unable to achieve a clear view of the whole. His ramblings are mostly scatterbrained and unfocused. I haven't read his books but I wouldn't expect to find clarity there either. And it is clarity and simplicity in argument and speech that is the mark of great minds, even on the complex issues of today. For a better Marxist analysis, see Professor Richard Wolff and his discussions of capitalism, and note the difference in style and approach. Zizek is a charlatan and NATO imperialist, which has nothing to do with socialism.
@@stevenr8778I agree that "clarity is the courtesy of the philosopher" as the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset used to say, but speaking in a messy way and speaking nonsense are not the same thing. Maybe he speaks some nonsense sometimes (like we all do, in the end a philosopher is not a demigod, a philosopher is a human being). Also Peterson is right when he points at Zizek's charisma and personality being decisive factors that attract people towards him but none of this means that Zizek is stupid or a charlatan. By the way, as I said I'm not his follower but I think that sometimes the most profound and complicated thoughts and points of view are so ineffable that it is too difficult not only to express them clearly but also correctly. Maybe that's why some people like Zizek can seem to be charlatans, also because real charlatans usually like to blurr their speach in order to hide the fact that they do not know what they are talking about. Anyway, It's nice to have this kind of discussion.
As someone was asking I will try to translate the audience questions while cutting them short to their essence: 1. Is there a virtual component in the leftist support of weapon donations to the Ukraine as they see the death and suffering (which the weapons are causing) as a virtaul reality while secretly fetishising it? 2. What is the role of philosophy in the catastrophies that are happening right now? In a very untypicial fashion Zizek acutally answered them.
Zlavo understands the difference between us and I, we don't experience any real pain when tragedy strikes so far from our individual selfs that the event is nothing more than a mental categorization which is compartmentalized stored and the individual carries on with their lives. Until we, and I mean mankind can feel as an organism suffering will always happen to the other, we as a species may show that we care, but not because we physically feel the pain, because the zeitgeist of the time says we as humans should care, so we lend our support, mentally, in the form of the written discourse, or by protesting an action. If this continues to be the dynamic of mankind I really can't see how we find our way forward. I don't have the answer to such a deep question, but hopefully someday someone can find a solution.
This man's austrian accent in german is both wretched and beautiful. Like Yung Hurn. Thanks so much for uploading more Zizek content. I need to enjoy him while he's around. Love love love, MfG aus Minneapolis MN
1:04:50 they actually can by now, in my german class our teacher was experimenting with chat gpt and letting it analyze a book and when he corrected it on mistakes it partially tried to argue back and insisted it was actually right. i also saw someone convincing it to "think" 2+2 was 5. it seems to take most things it's told as true
Someone at somewhere in the wonderland of the internet said this about chatgpt; that it is the most sophisticated sophist there has ever been, and I'm having a hard time to go around that thought!
@@Artholic100 it has very admirable traits as a result of its programming. However ultimately what it tries to do is replicate natural language patterns. It's focus is therefor not about what it says (aka the info it transmits) but simply about being the best "pattern replicator" as can be. I am sure AI will be crazy eventually but the lack of logic is currently still a fatal flaw. :)
@@nonamesavaliable100 That helped! One could see it as sophist, but It does seem to be a bit naive and faulty way of thinking it. Trying to find out what it can do regarding to logic. It does make me think about language itself. You are right, it might be a wild ride in few years with AI's of all sort.
59:50 Freddy Mercury has actually made a brilliant comment to elaborate Slavoj's idea which Slavoj himself seemingly didn't pick up. Two men could be using the vagina tubes to have the virtual (technolgy-assisted) sex and enjoy each other sexually even without being homosexual. It perfectly addresses the earlier topic of sex selection and really takes the genetically predefined sex (or socially enforced gender) out of the equation. You can enjoy a person simpathetic to you intelectually to the most extend possible physically - irrespectively of sex/gender compatibility, age, body condition or whatever else.
This is a brilliant addition. Seriously, thank you for pointing this out - I completely missed the relevance of what he was saying, and because it sounded stupid to me I thought the host's comment was stupid instead.
Dammit, couldn't continue reading the comment from laughing too hard. I like how you slipped in a comedic moniker into a seemingly serious analysis of yours, beautiful.
Peace can only exist in its externalized form during a time of war. Everything that is outside the war inherits an attachment to an externalized inner existential peace, that is to say that the peace is being made to exist by war, which is why philosophy is inherently essential during that period. The most feritle soil in the world soaked in blood nutrients, letting us all grow in ways we never thought possible.
my In-ear Headphones are turned all the way up and the phone to... why are dialogs always so hard to listen to? (sorry to have to critic that, thanks for the talk)
Does anyone know what is said, who he is referring to here? This the transcript: 1:15:51 and a new version of this old Peter Cloth Updike. His early work maybe still the best critic, their 2010 cartoon, 1:15:58 where he defines it as the victim turning around thematically.
There are numerous examples where this is NOT true. Take for instance the US Civil War. Lincoln's stated intention was always to preserve the Union and avoid violence if possible. Zizek's quote here could be used to defend the mentality of the violent confederate separatists who refused to work with Lincoln toward a peaceful solution and demanded war.
@@kinidiosodlosios6892 Let me help guide that little brain through it (here’s a hint): the reason it’s called the “American Civil War” today and not the “War of Confederate Independence” is because the separatists lost. Tough riddle, huh? Maybe leave philosophy to us higher primates🙊
Zizek has been entertaining and educating me for years. But he hasn't been out much since the war started. I was eager to hear his thoughts on the war, and they couldn't have been more different from what I expected. Now I see him in a new light. The main reason he's not on MSNBC is that he would lose his cachet as a radical.
Zizek grew up in Eastern Europe. I have a Swedish friend who was born towards the end of the war whose position on the Ukraine is very much like Zizek’s. We’ve had many debates on it over lunch. He simply doesn’t trust the Russians.
@@johntravena119 Toward the end of WWII? Russia liberated Europe from a genocidal military aggressor. But at least half of Europeans didn't like that, did they. And now they think they're going to fix Russia once and for all. I think what we've learned is that we can longer trust Europeans.
How do we know we really feel or identify? Well how does it feel to identify with how you are as a cis person? It probably feels good and affirming how you want to experience the world as it changes. I guess subjective bias is constant if you are cis or trans(non binary). Underlying it all is that we shouldn't in my opinion tell others how they should exist, as long as no demonstrable harm comes to any consenting party, under professional medical supervision (which is in agreement with gender affirming care). Whatever you do realize that LGBTQ is comprised of marginalized communities and they need our support not nuanced criticism that is given at times when they are under attack.
I think what many people don't realise is that a lot (and I would say maybe even all) of identity isn't self imposed but rather others telling one what they are (and therefore should be). For example a non binary person might simply not have any attachment to ideas of gender in the first place, however others might then identity them as non binary which sprouts certain expectations of what that person might be or should be. I notice this a lot with what people who never encountered trans people outside of media talking about them think about trans people opposed to what kind of image of a trans people I developed (and what image is commonly held amongst many of them) after actually talking to trans people. I believe this is also where the problem of people like Mat Walsh comes into existence, they try to identify (as in defining) things in a way that suits them and claim this was a fundamental truth. What they don't see is that the definition doesn't come out of the defined object but it is actually the opposite, a definition shapes what we think of others and of ourselves or in other words a definition makes an object become what it is identified as in the first place
This is so naive, critique isn’t a social dynamic that needs to account for dubious historical contingencies. Jews are marginalised, should we not criticise Israel? Muslims are marginalised, should we not critique Islam as seen in Afghanistan, Iran, et al? Your personal sadness about contemporary society shouldn’t control the appropriateness of critique
@@benney9908 semiotics and dialectical and historical materialism are a portal to a whole new dimension of understanding the greater perspective of how society works. Linguistics are just as important as politics and religion, as is philosophy. Autistic people are the most likely to identify as non-binary, as I see it, precisely because they have such a different cognitive framework to think about the concept of gender. All societies beyond the western capitalist industrial world have more gender categories, and the concepts of masculinity and feminility are social constructs molded by the Catholic church some time between feudalism and the industrial revolution. Personality attributes get associated with your genitals and phenotypical structure, and they should be thought of instead, as human traits that anyone can have, regardless of their genitals and facial hair. To be delicate, emotionally caring, resilient, assertive, and so on, are things we should be free to pick from from starting from a single box, not biasedly segregated into two boxes. To transphobes that criticize other genders, EVERY gender is made-up. They're abstract concepts that paint the picture about how one feels about their place in the configuration of the traits they chose from the boxes that society presented them. What traits and correlated terms and gendered stereotypes they feel most comfortable with wearing as their social identity. Everyone does that, cis people are simply more harshly biased to follow one of their boxes to build their identity around. Autistic and/or NB people never really saw the boxes or cared about them, i myself always thought they were simply stupid, i couldn't relate what my genitals had to do with my favorite color, hair length or toys I had. Yet there's masking, and in the unmasking I believe is when one finds out how they really feel about gender identity. Maybe most typicals just don't even dare to think about it and question bc it's such a core concept in which we based the collective abstract cultural mindspace of "modern society". Genders have never existed, they're like what color you feel vanilla tastes like, or what sound is the color red, or what color is maths or the number 5.. It's pure synesthetic association of abstract concepts, relatedness, informational entanglement, an emergent archetype that comprises a plethora of different feelings and ideas which together represent your "gender identity".
"Only a catastrophe can save us" such an interesting statement in my current opinion. I think that a sufficiently strong catastrophe is the only thing powerful enough to motivate alteration of core principles for the betterment of long term existence
@@GabrielConstantinides ruclips.net/video/OEcZy-JYl4Y/видео.html&pp=ygUVbmliaXJ1IGFzdHJhbCBkb29yd2F5 I don't know if I agree. Maybe 'nibiru' is just nucelar war. But who knows... Either way a catastrophe is happening and not very far from now IMO.
@gothchicklover absolutely, and I think a humanmade one is more likely. I think that the rise of social media and increasing greed from corporations I reckon something is bound to pop up. I think lack of privacy will be a massive problem with the amount of data we are casually sharing with large corporations
@@miljantrajkovic1862 yeah, I have to admit I think I looked at him more than I looked at Zizek when the camera was on both of them. definitely wouldn't mind sweet talking him
1:19:30 anyone have any suggestions for further reading or exploration of this topic mentioned here@ the time stamp? [programmed knowledge v knowledge through exercise and experience.... ehhh?]
So, I've listened for the whole lecture... And what exactly is the "catastrophy" he was starting to speak about multiple times? I didn't hear him explain or clarify precisely enough Could anyone elaborate in thesis please?
I am always happy to hear new content from Zizek. However, his remarks on transgenderism baffle me. I don't know any transgender people who say you can choose any gender you want. I suppose it's possible that there are some people saying that, but they must be a vanishingly small part of the population and so it is misleading to focus on them. (Before someone replies with examples to the contrary, I would ask you again to consider that if there are such people they would be in the extreme minority, despite how vocal they would appear to someone unfamiliar with the LGBT community.) I also don't understand why Zizek thinks transgender people don't ask themselves the basic question that he raises about whether or not they are really the opposite sex and how can they know. Indeed, that is the primary question that transgender people wrestle with at their core. I can only speak from my experience as a lesbian and as someone with transgender friends, but before one comes to acceptance of one's self it is not an exaggeration to say that this question is a torture to some of us. Please don't take this to mean that we're somehow flawed and wrong and that's why we struggle with it. The reason it's a struggle is because it is incredibly painful to find one's self at odds with everything their family and society wants for them. I hope it is easy to see why LGBT is not a choice made on a whim. Finally, it's unfortunate that Zizek believes that the only authentic transgender people are those who have had surgery. Realizing one's transgender identity is a process and so it may involve experimentation before one reaches the stage where surgery is preferred. Thank you for reading my thoughts on this with an open mind.
The idea put forward by Alenka Zupancic, that an open confession of ones own flaws will help to continue business as usual, is neither revolutionary nor unheard so far. Every drug addict or alcoholic uses precisely this trick. Simulating and pretending to feel guilty for his failure, more or less convincingly, in order to trigger a compassionate attitude in the other, which then will grant to the addict a continuation of his ways. At least for some fair amount of time. In the worst cases this excuse is presented and accepted repeatedly as a structural part of the relation between the protagonists. 'Poor me in need for your forgiveness' !
@@farrider3339 Alenka Zupancic is a Freudian, specifically and in Civilization and Its Discontents he goes over alcoholism or intoxication as part of the way society deals with its discontents. To quote him; ''Life, as we find it, is too hard for us; it brings us too many pains, disappointments and impossible tasks. In order to bear it we cannot dispense with palliative measures... There are perhaps three such measures: powerful deflections, which cause us to make light of our misery; substitutive satisfactions, which diminish it; and intoxicating substances, which make us insensible to it.” She isn't talking about a type of neurosis, often leading to childhood, which alcoholism is. Rather, Alenka Zupancic's point is that the rich, the already privileged are buying indulgences. Most alcoholics don't have the luxury to own a house or function in society. CEOs have that privilege, which is why it is hypocritical when people in positions of power talk as if the CEO would tell the person with low social standing that they ought to be guilty. Now to get on about Alenka's point it's about how in the 16th century, up until 1567 when Pope Pius V abolished it, the Catholic Church could remit people's sins by that person paying, the implication being the rich could pay their way to morality. That means CEOs who participate in exploitative practices in the modern era are kind of both racially exploiting other people in other places, and then in America at home, hiring critical theorists so that it becomes a practice of the ''left-wing'' giving out indulgences. People in those positions are typically in very privileged positions, like ivy league enrolled students who have access to opportunity beyond the rest of the public. It is like the way the Catholic church allied with wealthy commercial interests in the middle ages to absolve more sin from those who could pay to have it given, so the commercial exploiters would no longer be guilty and could go on making money without doing sin. '' That's why, ''Indulgences were, from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, a target of attacks by Martin Luther and other Protestant theologians'' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence ''This highly complicated theological system, which was framed as a means to help people achieve their eternal salvation, easily lent itself to misunderstanding and abuse as early as the 13th century, much sooner than is usually thought. A principal contributing factor was money. Paralleling the rise of indulgences, the Crusades, and the reforming papacy was the economic resurgence of Europe that began in the 11th century. Part of this tremendous upsurge was the phenomenon of commutation, through which any services, obligations, or goods could be converted into a corresponding monetary payment.'' www.britannica.com/topic/indulgence Typically an addict of intoxication can't afford to pay off indulgences, because they have no commercial enterprises and wouldn't have the money because they need it to buy their fix.
Another problem, that is very logical: Slavoj points out the ugly structure where traditionalists (anti-LGBT) align with anti-imperialists. The mistake is in the incompatible time line. Only when anti-colonial forces and modernity (some level of electric grid, sewage, employment under livable conditions, no subsistence, no mass poverty, free speech and womens' voting rights) have reached certain milestones, only then, society can effectively proceed towards emancipation of other minorities, like people with non-traditional gender behaviors etc. Imperialism therefor throws back society into these earlier fundamentalist rules, and it will take still a little time, and we well see it in the West as well. The alignment that Slavoj is sad about, is a natural consequence of the time line of history (we know it is non-deterministic and nonlinear but this is a very typical segment of it that we should reflect about) and thus, of the struggle against neocolonialism. Anti-colonial forces are either very traditionalistic (also in Africa), or walk along some form of Maoism. In world regions where people are hostile towards LGBTQ+, they never before had reached these milestones. It is a complex picture, and you need to fulfill a lot of that (also Hungary and other eastern European countres never got that far), to enable this form of progress. But today, some of that enmity is not even genuine, it is a coin, a currency in the anticolonial fight. Western patronizing clearly overdid it, and now has to suffer an extreme backlash, well deserved. Just the people don't deserve it. The ideology -- fully.
Progressive gender ideology in recent years has just become another pseudo-religion and colonial tool, that's why it is being rejected in BRICS and global south. "Liberal" media has been complicit in this neocolonialism. (The gays of course aren't doing this, but with demanding worldwide change to their favor, while socioeconomic milestones have not been surpassed, they become supporters of the hedge oligarchs and the military-industrial complex, and eventually, of the hated, exceptionalist West-Supremacy.)
So Aristotle was on point when he said that institution of payment for public service eroded the constitution. He thought that public servants should never receive payment during service, especially in oligarchies. He thought that all citizens should have leisure and property in order that poorest citizens may rise to competence. He thought that ostracism was necessary to prevent raw power, whether through friendship or property, from eroding the constitution. Something I wish to understand is why Rome carries so much weight in our public discourse, Aristotle speaks in the language of algebraic structure so the Roman Republic seems barbaric legalism by comparison. More research needed.
@@SantaClaauz The most explicit example I've found is his discussion of justice. He says that men agree that "justice is proportion". Views vary amongst two extremes: (1) justice is absolute equality among all men or (2) justice is absolute equality among classes of men ranked by property. He gives the explicit example 4 ÷ 2 = 2 ÷ 1 to highlight what is meant by proportionate equality. This is the most explicit example I've found in his Politics, remarkable for its use of what are now called algebraic quotients, but there are other examples. The concept of tyranny of the majority for example is fashioned by Aristotle in algebraic form, in Greek science analogy was seen through the lens of proportion, this causes Aristotle to construct and frame his analogies quite explicitly in algebraic terms: 'lawless democracy is to democracy as tyranny is to monarchy' and 'dynastic family rule is to oligarchy as tyranny is to monarchy'. Proportion was a relatively new tool and had been used by Aristotle's contemporaries to revolutionize science obtaining new insights into real numbers, algebraic curves, plane and three dimensional geometry. Aristotle seems to have relied heavily on algebro-geometric reasoning when developing the foundations of political theory.
Slobbering over ancient thinking not helpful in our world of 8 billion precious humans. We know very little about those times yet see them as wisdom for today. Democracy at that time was nothing more than a dream. Greek philosophers preached that cities should be no more than five thousand citizens. So how many humans lived in these cities? Twenty thousand. Women and slaves, 75% of the population, had no more rights than a piece of furniture, no more rights than farm animals.
Slavoj Sanchez: Slavoj Zizek and Rick Sanchez from the show "Rick and Morty" share a few similarities, such as their tendency to challenge established norms and to embrace a contrarian or "anti-hero" persona. Here are a few ways in which they are similar: Both are highly intelligent and knowledgeable: Zizek is a renowned philosopher, while Rick is a genius inventor. Both are highly knowledgeable about a wide range of topics, and they use their intelligence to challenge the status quo and to expose the contradictions and hypocrisies of mainstream society. Both are highly critical of society: Zizek and Rick are both highly critical of the mainstream society in which they live. They often point out the flaws and contradictions of social norms and institutions, and they are not afraid to challenge authority or to embrace unconventional ideas. Both are often cynical and sarcastic: Zizek and Rick both have a tendency towards sarcasm and cynicism. They often use humor to expose the absurdity of mainstream society and to challenge established norms and beliefs. Both are prone to excess: Zizek and Rick are both known for their excesses, whether it be drinking or drug use (in the case of Rick) or their excessive intellectualism and tendency to engage in polemics (in the case of Zizek). Both are somewhat controversial figures: Zizek and Rick are both somewhat controversial figures, with some people seeing them as provocative and thought-provoking, while others view them as offensive or inappropriate. Overall, while there are certainly differences between Zizek and Rick, they share some similarities in their intellectual and social critique, as well as in their unconventional and provocative approach to challenging the status quo.
Zizek reading slogans off a small piece of paper? was this part of the contract? because i see these slogans everywhere, but there is never any historically continuation at its foundation
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Freddy Mercury announcing Zizek , what else could anyone ask for
Definitely more Freddy Mercury than Nietzsche as far as looks. Uncanny imo
I thought he looked like Nietzsche
LOL!
Sie könnten auf Deutsch danach fragen
This is pure ideology
I'm hearing all the hits:
- (I run out of time but) Don't Stop Me Now
- Lacanian Rhapsody
- I Want To Break Free (of Ideology)
- Crazy Little Thing Called Late Stage Capitalism
- (the problem with) One Vision
and, of course,
- Fat Bottomed Girls
In the context of Freddie Mercury being the host, this is perfect.
😂😂😂😂😂
Always open an Austrian gig with a nazi joke, always 👊
It's a tradition
@@grzegorzswist not in Austria anyway, it is quite a taboo and rarely in good taste.
@@LpSC2online shut up
this is why I love youtube ❤
@@LpSC2online tough shit
What a fantastic talk from Zizek. I hope he stays healthy for a long time.
I love that he tried to ask Zizek a Yes or No question :)
I don’t even agree with half of his positions, but you can’t deny his crazy insights. It’s refreshing.
Slavoj starts at 4:50
You’re a real one ✊
I alwyas look for your comment when I click on a video [people like you, naturally]
@@Kobe29261 same! But after not being able to find any i decided to leave my own ahah
@@milmut1235 We should all be like you; if you don't find what you came for - create one before you leave!
@@Kobe29261 amen.
Great stuff, especially how in love the camera man is with the host :)
Yea wtf I read that before watching it 50 minutes in yea its crazy😂😂
43:16
He is a very handsome man.
Is he available…? 🫠
Well, he’s a beautiful ape. 😉
Great interview. It's good to see Zizek feel some chemistry during an interview, it makes the depressing subject matter much more enjoyable.
He's an hysterical idiot. The first world is literally moving into the kindest, safest time in history.
The second and third world just have to go through the centuries of shit we did to get to the same point in their societal development.
The subject shouldn't be enjoyable, wtf with u?? 🤢🤮
I really like this guy and so on.
Some might say that his thought is kind of blurry but what happens with Zizek is that he is not only pro something and against something, he sees the complexity of every situation and does a great work analyzing it. That's one of the main reasons of his speeches being too chaotic sometimes.
a true hegelian
You're giving him too much credit. He's just a raving lunatic.
@@stevenr8778 You give him very little credit. He is not or is not only a raving lunatic. I'm not his follower but nevertheless it is interesting to hear some of his interpretations of what is going on nowadays. And if you do so without judging or laveling it is even more interesting.
@@adriamasero996 I greatly appreciate nuanced thinking on complex issues, and am also a dialectical thinker who can see the merit of certain points from both sides. Zizek brings up some great points once in a while but he is muddle-headed, lacks coherence, and is unable to achieve a clear view of the whole. His ramblings are mostly scatterbrained and unfocused. I haven't read his books but I wouldn't expect to find clarity there either. And it is clarity and simplicity in argument and speech that is the mark of great minds, even on the complex issues of today. For a better Marxist analysis, see Professor Richard Wolff and his discussions of capitalism, and note the difference in style and approach. Zizek is a charlatan and NATO imperialist, which has nothing to do with socialism.
@@stevenr8778I agree that "clarity is the courtesy of the philosopher" as the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset used to say, but speaking in a messy way and speaking nonsense are not the same thing. Maybe he speaks some nonsense sometimes (like we all do, in the end a philosopher is not a demigod, a philosopher is a human being). Also Peterson is right when he points at Zizek's charisma and personality being decisive factors that attract people towards him but none of this means that Zizek is stupid or a charlatan.
By the way, as I said I'm not his follower but I think that sometimes the most profound and complicated thoughts and points of view are so ineffable that it is too difficult not only to express them clearly but also correctly. Maybe that's why some people like Zizek can seem to be charlatans, also because real charlatans usually like to blurr their speach in order to hide the fact that they do not know what they are talking about.
Anyway, It's nice to have this kind of discussion.
"Storks, how you call them? The stupid birds..."
😂😂😂😂
zizek got the interviewer blushing giggling kicking his feet after telling him he's his type
Great talk, and pleasant to see Ghost of the 70's Past alongside Zizek.
Thank God we have Zizek! More needed than ever in this crazy world!
world is not crazy, people dont understand the processes and who is in charge
try Jordan Peterson
@@manguaco haha, Jordan is for luzers, and stupid people who think for themselves they are smart
You wanted to say Thank satan! All Marxists practice satanizm.
@@CommentingRUclips The one in charge is a drunk monkey on a broken wheel boat
seeing zizek get interviewed by freddie mercury is legit cool af.
this comment is "he did the same joke 3 times already, i do not think its funny anymore"
Text on the paper:
Keep Talking!
Could not peel my self away from this one!
Oral masterclass.
@@WhispersOfWind Walking away from this comment is like leaving a $100 on the sidewalk
@@woodenspoon6222 or like even 50 or 20 $ if you don't live in a rich Capitalist country, shall we say.
@@WhispersOfWind let's just say the price was arbitrary, but devastating
Slavoj Zizek being Slavoj Zizek, I really enyojed it.
As someone was asking I will try to translate the audience questions while cutting them short to their essence:
1. Is there a virtual component in the leftist support of weapon donations to the Ukraine as they see the death and suffering (which the weapons are causing) as a virtaul reality while secretly fetishising it?
2. What is the role of philosophy in the catastrophies that are happening right now?
In a very untypicial fashion Zizek acutally answered them.
Thank you
What kind of person would ask such a ridiculous question such as the first? Zizek is too old for this shit
its like the theatre singing scene from mullholand drive. i hear zizeks voice even when the video is paused
Absolutely dynamite lecture, hilarious and insightful as always. His response to his detractors regarding the woke issue is just masterful!
what was bombed? His credibility? lol
@@jorgeabraham3414 your small mind
@@jorgeabraham3414 he has thrown in his lot with the deep state
@@bozdra Seems like bigger than yours.
@Jorge Abraham No, you were Abrahamically bombed, ironically speaking.
That end joke might be the best yet. Phenomenal!
Zlavo understands the difference between us and I, we don't experience any real pain when tragedy strikes so far from our individual selfs that the event is nothing more than a mental categorization which is compartmentalized stored and the individual carries on with their lives. Until we, and I mean mankind can feel as an organism suffering will always happen to the other, we as a species may show that we care, but not because we physically feel the pain, because the zeitgeist of the time says we as humans should care, so we lend our support, mentally, in the form of the written discourse, or by protesting an action. If this continues to be the dynamic of mankind I really can't see how we find our way forward. I don't have the answer to such a deep question, but hopefully someday someone can find a solution.
He came with no chill setlist this evening!
This man's austrian accent in german is both wretched and beautiful. Like Yung Hurn. Thanks so much for uploading more Zizek content. I need to enjoy him while he's around. Love love love, MfG aus Minneapolis MN
Do you tshenuinely entshoy the tshallentsh of unterstanting tis?
@@Launen23 lol I was referencing the interviewer's accent not Zizek's... I don't mind Zizek's accent at all. but I see how you may disagree.
@@trevorthompson9887 I meant the interviewer, Zizek I am used to.
@@Launen23 lol. glad we're on the slchame page
@@trevorthompson9887 Glad we're on the Schadenfreude page.
the camera man is the host's lover and just can't resist the creepy zoom in on Germany's Ron Burgundy.
Thank you for uploading this!
1:04:50 they actually can by now, in my german class our teacher was experimenting with chat gpt and letting it analyze a book and when he corrected it on mistakes it partially tried to argue back and insisted it was actually right. i also saw someone convincing it to "think" 2+2 was 5. it seems to take most things it's told as true
Someone at somewhere in the wonderland of the internet said this about chatgpt; that it is the most sophisticated sophist there has ever been, and I'm having a hard time to go around that thought!
@@Artholic100 sooo incorrect......
@@nonamesavaliable100 Then I'm most delighted! Can you walk me past that idea, if you have time and energy?
@@Artholic100 it has very admirable traits as a result of its programming. However ultimately what it tries to do is replicate natural language patterns. It's focus is therefor not about what it says (aka the info it transmits) but simply about being the best "pattern replicator" as can be. I am sure AI will be crazy eventually but the lack of logic is currently still a fatal flaw. :)
@@nonamesavaliable100 That helped! One could see it as sophist, but It does seem to be a bit naive and faulty way of thinking it. Trying to find out what it can do regarding to logic. It does make me think about language itself. You are right, it might be a wild ride in few years with AI's of all sort.
Glad we have this.
Zizek is Brilliant!
Thanks for sharing.
🌍
I'm glad that he reflects on his absence in European class struggle. Hope that there's still a chance for him to be useful for the movement
not anymore
it´s a great interview although the volume is TOO LOW, it would be great if someone´d edit that
Headphones
volume is indeed too low
Only zizek can do a "I'm more nazi" joke and get away with it 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Fist in the air 😂
I really appreciate those intermittent zoom ins on the host listen to zizek
this needs subtitles immediately
weakling
i'm so glad i speak german
The last joke hits perfectly.
ikr 😂😂
I'd like to see another discussion between Zizek and Stephen Kotkin, I think that would be rewarding for both parties
59:50 Freddy Mercury has actually made a brilliant comment to elaborate Slavoj's idea which Slavoj himself seemingly didn't pick up. Two men could be using the vagina tubes to have the virtual (technolgy-assisted) sex and enjoy each other sexually even without being homosexual. It perfectly addresses the earlier topic of sex selection and really takes the genetically predefined sex (or socially enforced gender) out of the equation. You can enjoy a person simpathetic to you intelectually to the most extend possible physically - irrespectively of sex/gender compatibility, age, body condition or whatever else.
This is a brilliant addition. Seriously, thank you for pointing this out - I completely missed the relevance of what he was saying, and because it sounded stupid to me I thought the host's comment was stupid instead.
Dammit, couldn't continue reading the comment from laughing too hard.
I like how you slipped in a comedic moniker into a seemingly serious analysis of yours, beautiful.
@@moatasemkassab4517 When only the metairony have a changing force in this utterly barbaric world to become 😂
Very elevating indeed
and so on and so on
Zizek is so amazing
Amazing interview
Zizek had the host in submission ❤❤❤😂😂😂🎉🎉
Nicely done.
Peace can only exist in its externalized form during a time of war. Everything that is outside the war inherits an attachment to an externalized inner existential peace, that is to say that the peace is being made to exist by war, which is why philosophy is inherently essential during that period. The most feritle soil in the world soaked in blood nutrients, letting us all grow in ways we never thought possible.
read the title, totally agree.
Excellent.
"Only a catastrophe can save us" Slavoj Žižek (The most relevant and true quote of the century.!)
Dont worry the WEF and WHO will make sure of a catastrophe happening. It just wont be an act of God.
40:39 Love has the structure of theology. Where Kierkegaard said, you understand the arguments for and against religion once you believe.
Can someone post a translation of the questions into english?
my In-ear Headphones are turned all the way up and the phone to... why are dialogs always so hard to listen to? (sorry to have to critic that, thanks for the talk)
I really like the same blank paper that he kept referring to
Nice 0I !
thanks Baba Slavoj !
Gosh I love u :D
Add volume, please
God bless him! I can't say anything else 😂
Does anyone know what is said, who he is referring to here? This the transcript:
1:15:51
and a new version of this old Peter Cloth Updike. His early work maybe still the best critic, their 2010 cartoon,
1:15:58
where he defines it as the victim turning around thematically.
Peter Sloterdijk
@@Richard-cv8kg Brilliant. Thanks Richard!
@@thomasb4152 you are welcome Thomas. Glad to help in stuff like that
Peace is always in the intrest of the occupier.-slavoj zizek
That was heavy; the implication is that sometimes those on the side of justice must insist on violence or at least kampf!
6
There are numerous examples where this is NOT true. Take for instance the US Civil War. Lincoln's stated intention was always to preserve the Union and avoid violence if possible. Zizek's quote here could be used to defend the mentality of the violent confederate separatists who refused to work with Lincoln toward a peaceful solution and demanded war.
@@jabrokneetoeknee6448 that was a civil war dummy no outside enemy
@@kinidiosodlosios6892 Let me help guide that little brain through it (here’s a hint): the reason it’s called the “American Civil War” today and not the “War of Confederate Independence” is because the separatists lost. Tough riddle, huh? Maybe leave philosophy to us higher primates🙊
the one easy question i havnt heard thats probably bieng asked: is europe going to become a country?
what year is it, and what city am i living in?
Zizek has been entertaining and educating me for years.
But he hasn't been out much since the war started.
I was eager to hear his thoughts on the war, and they couldn't have been more different from what I expected.
Now I see him in a new light. The main reason he's not on MSNBC is that he would lose his cachet as a radical.
He's been very open about his position on Ukraine since the start, I remember reading some articles by him in the first days of the invasion
@@sonny19931 His position, I had thought, was principled at that time. I listened really hard this time to see if it was.
Zizek grew up in Eastern Europe. I have a Swedish friend who was born towards the end of the war whose position on the Ukraine is very much like Zizek’s. We’ve had many debates on it over lunch. He simply doesn’t trust the Russians.
@@johntravena119 Toward the end of WWII? Russia liberated Europe from a genocidal military aggressor. But at least half of Europeans didn't like that, did they. And now they think they're going to fix Russia once and for all. I think what we've learned is that we can longer trust Europeans.
@@johntravena119 Nobody sane would ever trust the Russians.
LOVE HAS THE STRUCTURE OF THEOLOGY takes notes*
Zizek looks through complexity like trough glass
2 minutes he is sitting and its already hillarious.
Please, the subtitles!
58:39 "I will conclude" *the video is only 2/3*
:) thats the spirit :))
sehr gescheit gau !
-How come you made a U turn?
- I want to provoke.
How do we know we really feel or identify?
Well how does it feel to identify with how you are as a cis person? It probably feels good and affirming how you want to experience the world as it changes.
I guess subjective bias is constant if you are cis or trans(non binary). Underlying it all is that we shouldn't in my opinion tell others how they should exist, as long as no demonstrable harm comes to any consenting party, under professional medical supervision (which is in agreement with gender affirming care). Whatever you do realize that LGBTQ is comprised of marginalized communities and they need our support not nuanced criticism that is given at times when they are under attack.
I think what many people don't realise is that a lot (and I would say maybe even all) of identity isn't self imposed but rather others telling one what they are (and therefore should be). For example a non binary person might simply not have any attachment to ideas of gender in the first place, however others might then identity them as non binary which sprouts certain expectations of what that person might be or should be. I notice this a lot with what people who never encountered trans people outside of media talking about them think about trans people opposed to what kind of image of a trans people I developed (and what image is commonly held amongst many of them) after actually talking to trans people. I believe this is also where the problem of people like Mat Walsh comes into existence, they try to identify (as in defining) things in a way that suits them and claim this was a fundamental truth. What they don't see is that the definition doesn't come out of the defined object but it is actually the opposite, a definition shapes what we think of others and of ourselves or in other words a definition makes an object become what it is identified as in the first place
We are not a monolith. And none of us are chips for either warped political cult to use in their geopolitical game of imperialism.
This is so naive, critique isn’t a social dynamic that needs to account for dubious historical contingencies. Jews are marginalised, should we not criticise Israel? Muslims are marginalised, should we not critique Islam as seen in Afghanistan, Iran, et al? Your personal sadness about contemporary society shouldn’t control the appropriateness of critique
@@benney9908 semiotics and dialectical and historical materialism are a portal to a whole new dimension of understanding the greater perspective of how society works.
Linguistics are just as important as politics and religion, as is philosophy.
Autistic people are the most likely to identify as non-binary, as I see it, precisely because they have such a different cognitive framework to think about the concept of gender.
All societies beyond the western capitalist industrial world have more gender categories, and the concepts of masculinity and feminility are social constructs molded by the Catholic church some time between feudalism and the industrial revolution.
Personality attributes get associated with your genitals and phenotypical structure, and they should be thought of instead, as human traits that anyone can have, regardless of their genitals and facial hair.
To be delicate, emotionally caring, resilient, assertive, and so on, are things we should be free to pick from from starting from a single box, not biasedly segregated into two boxes.
To transphobes that criticize other genders, EVERY gender is made-up.
They're abstract concepts that paint the picture about how one feels about their place in the configuration of the traits they chose from the boxes that society presented them. What traits and correlated terms and gendered stereotypes they feel most comfortable with wearing as their social identity.
Everyone does that, cis people are simply more harshly biased to follow one of their boxes to build their identity around.
Autistic and/or NB people never really saw the boxes or cared about them, i myself always thought they were simply stupid, i couldn't relate what my genitals had to do with my favorite color, hair length or toys I had.
Yet there's masking, and in the unmasking I believe is when one finds out how they really feel about gender identity.
Maybe most typicals just don't even dare to think about it and question bc it's such a core concept in which we based the collective abstract cultural mindspace of "modern society".
Genders have never existed, they're like what color you feel vanilla tastes like, or what sound is the color red, or what color is maths or the number 5..
It's pure synesthetic association of abstract concepts, relatedness, informational entanglement, an emergent archetype that comprises a plethora of different feelings and ideas which together represent your "gender identity".
well to be fair a man has nothing to do in a women´s safe places therefor non binary and non operiert trans are a danger for society
8:15 l found this monologue by this quote.
"Only a catastrophe can save us"
such an interesting statement in my current opinion. I think that a sufficiently strong catastrophe is the only thing powerful enough to motivate alteration of core principles for the betterment of long term existence
Yes. Unironically, Nibiru is coming. In one form or another
@@rodrigomachado5291 do you know what time frame it will likely happen in? 10 years, 100 years, 100 years?
@@GabrielConstantinides ruclips.net/video/OEcZy-JYl4Y/видео.html&pp=ygUVbmliaXJ1IGFzdHJhbCBkb29yd2F5
I don't know if I agree. Maybe 'nibiru' is just nucelar war. But who knows... Either way a catastrophe is happening and not very far from now IMO.
1000*
@gothchicklover absolutely, and I think a humanmade one is more likely. I think that the rise of social media and increasing greed from corporations I reckon something is bound to pop up. I think lack of privacy will be a massive problem with the amount of data we are casually sharing with large corporations
can't help but admire the other guy's moustache (would you call him the moderator?)
just read the description, which answered my question
He's so handsome, can't take my eyes of him.
@@miljantrajkovic1862 yeah, I have to admit I think I looked at him more than I looked at Zizek when the camera was on both of them. definitely wouldn't mind sweet talking him
I love the host here.
1:19:30 anyone have any suggestions for further reading or exploration of this topic mentioned here@ the time stamp? [programmed knowledge v knowledge through exercise and experience.... ehhh?]
Que divertido el título...estamos llenos de catástrofes !!!
So, I've listened for the whole lecture... And what exactly is the "catastrophy" he was starting to speak about multiple times? I didn't hear him explain or clarify precisely enough
Could anyone elaborate in thesis please?
I am always happy to hear new content from Zizek. However, his remarks on transgenderism baffle me. I don't know any transgender people who say you can choose any gender you want. I suppose it's possible that there are some people saying that, but they must be a vanishingly small part of the population and so it is misleading to focus on them. (Before someone replies with examples to the contrary, I would ask you again to consider that if there are such people they would be in the extreme minority, despite how vocal they would appear to someone unfamiliar with the LGBT community.) I also don't understand why Zizek thinks transgender people don't ask themselves the basic question that he raises about whether or not they are really the opposite sex and how can they know. Indeed, that is the primary question that transgender people wrestle with at their core. I can only speak from my experience as a lesbian and as someone with transgender friends, but before one comes to acceptance of one's self it is not an exaggeration to say that this question is a torture to some of us. Please don't take this to mean that we're somehow flawed and wrong and that's why we struggle with it. The reason it's a struggle is because it is incredibly painful to find one's self at odds with everything their family and society wants for them. I hope it is easy to see why LGBT is not a choice made on a whim. Finally, it's unfortunate that Zizek believes that the only authentic transgender people are those who have had surgery. Realizing one's transgender identity is a process and so it may involve experimentation before one reaches the stage where surgery is preferred. Thank you for reading my thoughts on this with an open mind.
I wonder if there is an Heideggerian resonance? "Only a God can save us".
That way to end a talk should now be called a 'Zizek Closure' 😂
The host is such a Freddy Mercury 😭🥰
Plenty of Catastrophes on the way, I'm sure they will share them widely.
The sound tech guys should always lower the highs when Zizek speaks
that zoom in on 34:40 LMAO
It's coming.
The idea put forward by Alenka Zupancic, that an open confession of ones own flaws will help to continue business as usual, is neither revolutionary nor unheard so far.
Every drug addict or alcoholic uses precisely this trick. Simulating and pretending to feel guilty for his failure, more or less convincingly, in order to trigger a compassionate attitude in the other, which then will grant to the addict a continuation of his ways. At least for some fair amount of time.
In the worst cases this excuse is presented and accepted repeatedly as a structural part of the relation between the protagonists.
'Poor me in need for your forgiveness' !
I think you missed her point.
@@JingleJangleJam then tell me, what is her point
@@farrider3339 Alenka Zupancic is a Freudian, specifically and in Civilization and Its Discontents he goes over alcoholism or intoxication as part of the way society deals with its discontents. To quote him;
''Life, as we find it, is too hard for us; it brings us too many pains, disappointments and impossible tasks. In order to bear it we cannot dispense with palliative measures... There are perhaps three such measures: powerful deflections, which cause us to make light of our misery; substitutive satisfactions, which diminish it; and intoxicating substances, which make us insensible to it.”
She isn't talking about a type of neurosis, often leading to childhood, which alcoholism is. Rather, Alenka Zupancic's point is that the rich, the already privileged are buying indulgences.
Most alcoholics don't have the luxury to own a house or function in society. CEOs have that privilege, which is why it is hypocritical when people in positions of power talk as if the CEO would tell the person with low social standing that they ought to be guilty.
Now to get on about Alenka's point it's about how in the 16th century, up until 1567 when Pope Pius V abolished it, the Catholic Church could remit people's sins by that person paying, the implication being the rich could pay their way to morality.
That means CEOs who participate in exploitative practices in the modern era are kind of both racially exploiting other people in other places, and then in America at home, hiring critical theorists so that it becomes a practice of the ''left-wing'' giving out indulgences.
People in those positions are typically in very privileged positions, like ivy league enrolled students who have access to opportunity beyond the rest of the public. It is like the way the Catholic church allied with wealthy commercial interests in the middle ages to absolve more sin from those who could pay to have it given, so the commercial exploiters would no longer be guilty and could go on making money without doing sin. ''
That's why, ''Indulgences were, from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, a target of attacks by Martin Luther and other Protestant theologians'' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
''This highly complicated theological system, which was framed as a means to help people achieve their eternal salvation, easily lent itself to misunderstanding and abuse as early as the 13th century, much sooner than is usually thought. A principal contributing factor was money. Paralleling the rise of indulgences, the Crusades, and the reforming papacy was the economic resurgence of Europe that began in the 11th century. Part of this tremendous upsurge was the phenomenon of commutation, through which any services, obligations, or goods could be converted into a corresponding monetary payment.''
www.britannica.com/topic/indulgence
Typically an addict of intoxication can't afford to pay off indulgences, because they have no commercial enterprises and wouldn't have the money because they need it to buy their fix.
@@JingleJangleJam 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Where did she said that?
43:19 bro falling in love with zizek
Subtitles maybe?
What an awesome human being
They must have privately obliged him to “behave”… he must be terrified of ending up as Daria Dugina… or worse, they bought him!
the deepfake porn part is absolutely wild 💀 love zizek
Absolute Chad in a Hegelian sense.
Zizek and Freddy Mercury, talking about unholy alliances 😅
11:54 I would call The Great Awaking.
Another problem, that is very logical:
Slavoj points out the ugly structure where traditionalists (anti-LGBT) align with anti-imperialists.
The mistake is in the incompatible time line.
Only when anti-colonial forces and modernity (some level of electric grid, sewage, employment under livable conditions, no subsistence, no mass poverty, free speech and womens' voting rights) have reached certain milestones, only then, society can effectively proceed towards emancipation of other minorities, like people with non-traditional gender behaviors etc.
Imperialism therefor throws back society into these earlier fundamentalist rules, and it will take still a little time, and we well see it in the West as well.
The alignment that Slavoj is sad about, is a natural consequence of the time line of history (we know it is non-deterministic and nonlinear but this is a very typical segment of it that we should reflect about) and thus, of the struggle against neocolonialism. Anti-colonial forces are either very traditionalistic (also in Africa), or walk along some form of Maoism.
In world regions where people are hostile towards LGBTQ+, they never before had reached these milestones. It is a complex picture, and you need to fulfill a lot of that (also Hungary and other eastern European countres never got that far), to enable this form of progress.
But today, some of that enmity is not even genuine, it is a coin, a currency in the anticolonial fight. Western patronizing clearly overdid it, and now has to suffer an extreme backlash, well deserved. Just the people don't deserve it. The ideology -- fully.
Progressive gender ideology in recent years has just become another pseudo-religion and colonial tool, that's why it is being rejected in BRICS and global south.
"Liberal" media has been complicit in this neocolonialism.
(The gays of course aren't doing this, but with demanding worldwide change to their favor, while socioeconomic milestones have not been surpassed, they become supporters of the hedge oligarchs and the military-industrial complex, and eventually, of the hated, exceptionalist West-Supremacy.)
Announcing what is inevitable, to than say he predicted it and now we are saved.
Turn on captions for translation
Germans did not occupy France in 1939 (as mentioned at 21:30). It was only in May and June of 1940.
So Aristotle was on point when he said that institution of payment for public service eroded the constitution. He thought that public servants should never receive payment during service, especially in oligarchies. He thought that all citizens should have leisure and property in order that poorest citizens may rise to competence. He thought that ostracism was necessary to prevent raw power, whether through friendship or property, from eroding the constitution. Something I wish to understand is why Rome carries so much weight in our public discourse, Aristotle speaks in the language of algebraic structure so the Roman Republic seems barbaric legalism by comparison. More research needed.
This will keep me up nights; thank you!
@@Kobe29261 I swear I left this comment on another video lmao.
In what sense does Aristotle speak in ‘algebraic structure’? What does this mean regarding law?
@@SantaClaauz The most explicit example I've found is his discussion of justice. He says that men agree that "justice is proportion". Views vary amongst two extremes: (1) justice is absolute equality among all men or (2) justice is absolute equality among classes of men ranked by property. He gives the explicit example 4 ÷ 2 = 2 ÷ 1 to highlight what is meant by proportionate equality. This is the most explicit example I've found in his Politics, remarkable for its use of what are now called algebraic quotients, but there are other examples. The concept of tyranny of the majority for example is fashioned by Aristotle in algebraic form, in Greek science analogy was seen through the lens of proportion, this causes Aristotle to construct and frame his analogies quite explicitly in algebraic terms: 'lawless democracy is to democracy as tyranny is to monarchy' and 'dynastic family rule is to oligarchy as tyranny is to monarchy'. Proportion was a relatively new tool and had been used by Aristotle's contemporaries to revolutionize science obtaining new insights into real numbers, algebraic curves, plane and three dimensional geometry. Aristotle seems to have relied heavily on algebro-geometric reasoning when developing the foundations of political theory.
Slobbering over ancient thinking not helpful in our world of 8 billion precious humans. We know very little about those times yet see them as wisdom for today. Democracy at that time was nothing more than a dream. Greek philosophers preached that cities should be no more than five thousand citizens. So how many humans lived in these cities? Twenty thousand. Women and slaves, 75% of the population, had no more rights than a piece of furniture, no more rights than farm animals.
Slavoj Sanchez:
Slavoj Zizek and Rick Sanchez from the show "Rick and Morty" share a few similarities, such as their tendency to challenge established norms and to embrace a contrarian or "anti-hero" persona. Here are a few ways in which they are similar:
Both are highly intelligent and knowledgeable: Zizek is a renowned philosopher, while Rick is a genius inventor. Both are highly knowledgeable about a wide range of topics, and they use their intelligence to challenge the status quo and to expose the contradictions and hypocrisies of mainstream society.
Both are highly critical of society: Zizek and Rick are both highly critical of the mainstream society in which they live. They often point out the flaws and contradictions of social norms and institutions, and they are not afraid to challenge authority or to embrace unconventional ideas.
Both are often cynical and sarcastic: Zizek and Rick both have a tendency towards sarcasm and cynicism. They often use humor to expose the absurdity of mainstream society and to challenge established norms and beliefs.
Both are prone to excess: Zizek and Rick are both known for their excesses, whether it be drinking or drug use (in the case of Rick) or their excessive intellectualism and tendency to engage in polemics (in the case of Zizek).
Both are somewhat controversial figures: Zizek and Rick are both somewhat controversial figures, with some people seeing them as provocative and thought-provoking, while others view them as offensive or inappropriate.
Overall, while there are certainly differences between Zizek and Rick, they share some similarities in their intellectual and social critique, as well as in their unconventional and provocative approach to challenging the status quo.
This was written by an AI?
Why the zoom on the interview at 17:00 haha
Who downed the sound on this? I could hardly hear him.
Zizek reading slogans off a small piece of paper? was this part of the contract? because i see these slogans everywhere, but there is never any historically continuation at its foundation