@@SlayDota9 if the invite is contingent on the coffee as you have shown 'invite(coffee)' then that means if coffee changes value, the meaning of the invite also changes, which is not the case.
My brother-in-law RIchard died 9 years ago. He told me this joke shortly before he died. I was sitting here remembering that we had laughed at a joke that no one else in the family had appreciated - but for the life of me could not remember what the joke was. I pondered all day but could only recall that it was about coffee, cream and a waitress. So finally I stuck coffee, waitress, and cream in google and there it was! Thank you Slavoj and Google.
The 1st example shows that the terms in which you frame identity matter, even if part of that identity is negative. "Coffee" is different than "Coffee without cream" is different than "Coffee without milk." Not in any real physical sense of course, but in the way we frame our understanding of it. In the 2nd example he shows that "Coffee with implied sex" is different than just "pure implied sex." The meaning changes even though the physical external reality stays the same. He's interested in ho
his first point is coffee without cream is not the same as coffee without milk. not only what it is is part of its identity, but also what it isn't. translate the scene into politics and his point maybe becomes clearer. (this is also taken from his work): a country wants freedom and democracy without corruption and exploitation. "i'm sorry, we don't have corruption and exploitation, we only have solidarity and justice. so would you like your freedom and democracy without solidarity and justice?"
this actually applies not just to philosophy. This is what I always tell people when they ask me what smartphone or laptop to buy : focus on the features you specifically DON'T want, or that you know you're not going to use, because everyone likes to advertise that they have everything. want your laptop to be fast ? sure sleek ? even better, right ? also maybe have a touchscreen ? yes, please, buit-in fingerprint reader ? yeah, sure, m8 what resolution ? 1080p, 1440 ? 4K ??!? - 4k would be nice okay, that'd be $3500 - WHAT ??!? and you get a piece of shit laptop that's going to be dissapointing in every way ... it would be sleek, but not as sleek as a macbook, it would be powerful, but have seroius cooling issues BECAUSE OF THE SLEEKNESS ... it would have a bettery that lasts precisley 35 minutes at best ... because of the high-performance required for the 4k screen, and it would be more expensive than you'd hoped. let's do that again, but focus on the shit you don't want example1: I'm going to arts college blah blah blah blah ... i don't care about gaming, I just want it to run Inkscape, I would like it to have a stylus but the pieces of shit samsung and huawei advertise are way too expensive so I'll just get an external digitizer tablet which would have higher accuracy, better usabillity and better compatibility to the software I use : then you get a minmaxed lightweight with a digitizer and it's $700 for both example2: I'm going to engineering school and I sure as hell need a beefy computer to run solidworks on ... be nice to also use it for games. Since I'm 100% never ever going to use it without an external mouse and sometimes even keyboard I don't care about it's portabillity at all. Just give me the biggest thickest beast you got, I don't care I'm going to be carrying it in it's separate suitcase but it better not throttle down when I do a FEM simulation or generate CAM gcode. also since I don't care about graphics and I'm always going to use it at a table doing CAD, not surfing the interwebz on a hammock like the macbook users a standard 1080p, even non-IPS screen would suffice and that is how you do it ... same goes for phones too. you uwant wireless charging ? you sacrifice on durabillity because you can't have a full metal unibody actually, scratch that ... this is not a good example because all smartphone manufactueres are just COMPLETLEY INSANE NOW and put a glass back regardless of WC because they just want to watch the world burn WHY WHY MAKE A PHONE THAT BREAKS INSTANTLY WHEN YOU DROP IT ? deeh u idiot just put a case on it SHUT THE FUCKING FUCK UP guess which feels more premium ? a hard chassis of machined aluminum that feels heavy and cool to the touch ? or a piece of shit slippery when dry, gross and sticky and oily after use and covered in fingerprints PIECE OF SHIT GLASS BACK or the even more stupid sillicone or cheap plastic case that goes on top of it that makes it impossible to slide the phone in your pocket with one hand and also dispenses the other contents of said pocket when taking the phone out of it ? FUCKING FUCK GLASS BACK PHONES ... sorry, what were we talking about, again ? oh ... coffee .... ok
Sometimes it’s like the people who post these just put a part of a talk which would only make sense if the previous parts where included in the clip for some context, that’s why I hate these shorter things the smaller Channels post
My suggestion would be that the 2nd negation is the shared, outspoken one of the object (coffee-invitation), and the first negation is the a priori negation of the coffee-part of the invitation (she simply doesn't have coffee), so the "reason" (analytically speaking) there's something rather than nothing is the a priori negation within the object itself, which is a major point as I've understood in his writings about double negation.The problem is, this isn't really a double negation.
You might be overthinking this one. I think he's merely applying it to the interaction between the characters. He doesn't like coffee, she doesn't have any--nonetheless is constitutes a positive affirmation (not-zero) borne from 2 negative values. An oversimplification of a Hegelian concept applied in a way that a layman could understand to some degree (typical of Zizek). But that's just my take on it.
It's 2020, and literally hundreds of millions of people around the world, if not billions, are still drinking coffee. You will have died of old age and still hundreds of millions of people will be drinking coffee.
I'm not much of a Zizek apologist, but the "metaphors" seem more examples of how the idea in question gets implemented in everyday life, a hallmark of Zizek's didactic style. These everyday examples actually ground his ideas in reality and make their relevance more readily apparent; therefore, his use of these "metaphors" serves a purpose pretty contrary to the pretentious ends you're suggesting. Nice indirect language, though: one could think you believe you're funnier than you actually are.
I’ve been thinking about this joke for years now and I still don't get it and I feel really dumb because of it. Why is coffee without cream not the same as coffee without milk? Can somebody please explain it as one would explain it to a 5 year old child?
지젝은 할리우드 코미디 영화에 나온 유머를 예로 든다. 주인공이 카페에 가서 크림 없는 커피를 주문하지만 크림이 다 떨어지고 우유만 있기 때문에 크림 없는 커피는 없고 우유 없는 커피만 있다는 게 웨이터의 대답이다. 크림 없는 커피나 우유 없는 커피나 똑같은 커피지만 무엇이 없느냐에 따라 커피의 종류가 달라진다. 그렇게 부재 혹은 부정은 정체성을 구성한다.
The outcome is equivalent, but the state is not. I.e. If you were to then ask "actually, include what I did not want", you would get 2 different outcomes.
The coffe whithout cream is like democracy for rich people. Democracy for rich people is not the same as democracy for poor people (which receive democracy whithout milk).
Pure invitation? - this is how he sees the subject... Beyond the zero. He'll keep driving, this man, and as a result, doesn't see flirting as a kind of suspense. We only flirt with dangerous things: sex, madness, danger
What I understood from this is that the identity of coffee without cream is not the same as the identity of coffee. U might say: but coffee without cream just means coffee! I say thats only true if we both share the same meaning of coffee. But if I am from a place where we call coffee to black coffee wirh cream/milk and ask for coffee without adding i dont want cream then i might get coffee with cream because i assume we share the same meaning of coffee. Just like u assumed coffee without cream is just simply coffee. This is why coffee without cream is not the same as coffee. This is also why the waiters reply is a correct answer
I agree as to awareness - but that Zizek insists on an identity of the whole, come now. He consistently attempts to reconcile his thought beyond the zero. It's an exhausting position, already encompassed more affirmatively by Pythagoras, and issued from spirals.
pretty sure it's something from some Italian radio program, I can recognize the Rai Radio logo on his sleeve, plus there's a sentence in Italian written on the front of the shirt. No idea about what show it might come from though
It's the Hegelian Dialectic. The identity of black coffee is different from coffee without cream because to have coffee without cream assumes the existence of cream, which is not the case for black coffee. The identity it assumes is therefore different, a coffee without cream is a "healthy coffee" or a "lactose free" coffee because it's identity rests on the negation of the other subject (cream).
@@DogsOnAcid To further prove the point; with the association to cream (or sugar for that matter) 'coffee' is not an exact term anymore. You have to further specify that with 'coffee' what you mean is 'black coffee' to be understood.
Granted, I cannot know for sure whether he did understand it or not, but given his shallow method of responding, I assume little if any understanding has been made on his part. Justly or not, who knows but himself. Now, I don't know whether you draw your conclusions of skepticism based upon this 2m video - It is, after all, only a tiny part of the 1h30m talk. Your comprehension of either, though, is of as little interest as your opinion, well founded or not, to me.
Could someone please explain how the 2nd example is a double negation? Mcgregor and the girl shares the same, single negation of the coffee-part of the invitation, which makes it evident that it's a "pure invitation". To me it seems that there's a discrepancy between the theory that Zizek tries to explain (the double negation and hegelian, dialectic theory etc etc) and the examples/metaphors he uses.
Sorry, what? The only thing I understood from that was the trivial point that people employ pretexts in sensitive and potentially awkward social situations. And yes, the thing implicitly offered is sex. What are you talking about?
@@gerhitchman A without B ist not the same as A without C. Even though B and C are missing, they're some sort of defining properties. Bla bla something like that.
You did nothing to explain why he's brilliant. "People communicate in passive-aggressive subtleties"? If there's anything worthwhile in Zizek's thought (and I think there is), you missed it. Also, if anyone here can explain the meaning of his 2nd example (beyond the simple observation that coffee is here a metaphor for sex), I will be very impressed. Doesn't Zizek contradict his 1st example? Isn't the thing implicitly being offered (sex) really the same regardless of whether it's "with coffee"?
The point he was trying to make was quite simple so the metaphores he used were unnecessary. One could think he was trying to make himself look smarter than he actually is.
"i invite you for a coffee,then i negate coffee and the result is not zero ,the result is pure invitation"
Now I will do the same with my friends.
@Barış Alkan its just basic logic, nothing complex:
+Invite +coffee
- coffee
------------
+ invite
@@missionpupa i think its more like this:
invite(coffee)=sex
invite(coffee=0)=sex
@@SlayDota9 if the invite is contingent on the coffee as you have shown 'invite(coffee)' then that means if coffee changes value, the meaning of the invite also changes, which is not the case.
@@missionpupa it doent have to be if coffee is an optional parameter.
Maybe like this better:
invite(coffee)=invite()=sex
You should rename this video to "Slavoj Žižek tells 2 jokes and explains why they're good"
Is it some kind of running gag to propose new video titles?
No, making fun of Zizek is :P Lovingly, of course.
I read this comment in his voice
I know right? I really wanted to know Slavoj's perspective about coffee smh.
The result of Slavoj not actually talking about coffee is not zero!
My brother-in-law RIchard died 9 years ago. He told me this joke shortly before he died. I was sitting here remembering that we had laughed at a joke that no one else in the family had appreciated - but for the life of me could not remember what the joke was. I pondered all day but could only recall that it was about coffee, cream and a waitress. So finally I stuck coffee, waitress, and cream in google and there it was! Thank you Slavoj and Google.
P U R E I N V I T A T I O N
The 1st example shows that the terms in which you frame identity matter, even if part of that identity is negative. "Coffee" is different than "Coffee without cream" is different than "Coffee without milk." Not in any real physical sense of course, but in the way we frame our understanding of it. In the 2nd example he shows that "Coffee with implied sex" is different than just "pure implied sex." The meaning changes even though the physical external reality stays the same. He's interested in ho
croppingbeef i’d really like to know the rest of your comment but 6 years ago man, you could be dead.
@@stefanakosmar RIP croppingbeef, you be cropping in heaven now buddy
@@ells101 I miss him so much
@@MrJemoeder1990 "...w we interpret the world. It's taken out of context, keep that in mind." There you go
I'm still waiting
His accent, with it's rolling inflictions, is awesome.
What is a "rolling infliction"?
When you almost kill someone with you arse?
@@TheSpiritOfTheTimes 😆
his first point is coffee without cream is not the same as coffee without milk. not only what it is is part of its identity, but also what it isn't. translate the scene into politics and his point maybe becomes clearer. (this is also taken from his work):
a country wants freedom and democracy without corruption and exploitation. "i'm sorry, we don't have corruption and exploitation, we only have solidarity and justice. so would you like your freedom and democracy without solidarity and justice?"
Finally, something worth reading here!
That parallel doesn't work, because coffee without milk doesn't have cream in it!
@@wetigaz OP has to be American to make the joke work.
the logic is flawed because milk is a substitute for cream, but solidarity and justice are not substitutes for corruption and exploitation.
@@mohamedmido316 they can be in rhetoric.
this actually applies not just to philosophy.
This is what I always tell people when they ask me what smartphone or laptop to buy : focus on the features you specifically DON'T want, or that you know you're not going to use, because everyone likes to advertise that they have everything.
want your laptop to be fast ? sure sleek ? even better, right ? also maybe have a touchscreen ? yes, please, buit-in fingerprint reader ? yeah, sure, m8 what resolution ? 1080p, 1440 ? 4K ??!? - 4k would be nice
okay, that'd be $3500 - WHAT ??!? and you get a piece of shit laptop that's going to be dissapointing in every way ... it would be sleek, but not as sleek as a macbook, it would be powerful, but have seroius cooling issues BECAUSE OF THE SLEEKNESS ... it would have a bettery that lasts precisley 35 minutes at best ... because of the high-performance required for the 4k screen, and it would be more expensive than you'd hoped.
let's do that again, but focus on the shit you don't want
example1: I'm going to arts college blah blah blah blah ... i don't care about gaming, I just want it to run Inkscape, I would like it to have a stylus but the pieces of shit samsung and huawei advertise are way too expensive so I'll just get an external digitizer tablet which would have higher accuracy, better usabillity and better compatibility to the software I use : then you get a minmaxed lightweight with a digitizer and it's $700 for both
example2: I'm going to engineering school and I sure as hell need a beefy computer to run solidworks on ... be nice to also use it for games. Since I'm 100% never ever going to use it without an external mouse and sometimes even keyboard I don't care about it's portabillity at all. Just give me the biggest thickest beast you got, I don't care I'm going to be carrying it in it's separate suitcase but it better not throttle down when I do a FEM simulation or generate CAM gcode. also since I don't care about graphics and I'm always going to use it at a table doing CAD, not surfing the interwebz on a hammock like the macbook users a standard 1080p, even non-IPS screen would suffice
and that is how you do it ... same goes for phones too. you uwant wireless charging ? you sacrifice on durabillity because you can't have a full metal unibody
actually, scratch that ... this is not a good example because all smartphone manufactueres are just COMPLETLEY INSANE NOW and put a glass back regardless of WC because they just want to watch the world burn
WHY WHY MAKE A PHONE THAT BREAKS INSTANTLY WHEN YOU DROP IT ?
deeh u idiot just put a case on it SHUT THE FUCKING FUCK UP guess which feels more premium ? a hard chassis of machined aluminum that feels heavy and cool to the touch ? or a piece of shit slippery when dry, gross and sticky and oily after use and covered in fingerprints PIECE OF SHIT GLASS BACK or the even more stupid sillicone or cheap plastic case that goes on top of it that makes it impossible to slide the phone in your pocket with one hand and also dispenses the other contents of said pocket when taking the phone out of it ? FUCKING FUCK GLASS BACK PHONES ... sorry, what were we talking about, again ? oh ... coffee .... ok
I enjoyed reading your rant and related a lot to it
PREACH !
This was one of the best reads ever.
Encore Encore!!!!
I do this when Im drunk sometimes tell me you were drunk when you were writing this?
This is not about coffee, nor is Slavoj visibly wired on coffee. Both of my tentative expectations were disappointed, 0/10.
Well sir I can relate
oh well, your judgement can hardly be 0, because you don't get 0.. if anything, it is a "pure invitation"/10
I wish I had his dress sense.
i have it .... dont bet on it
Great Depression Shantytown-Core
its called "Lidl fashion" in Europe
He has mastered the divorced dad look.
Sometimes it's about what we don't have.
this isnt about coffee?!
"What you don't get is part of the identity of what you do get" Reminds me of his take on the Matrix pill-choice. "I want a third pill"
Do you understand him?
Hardly
Why so? Are his lectures too hard?
No, I don't have ears
Sometimes it’s like the people who post these just put a part of a talk which would only make sense if the previous parts where included in the clip for some context, that’s why I hate these shorter things the smaller Channels post
This video changed my life
He also writes books.
I had my hopes up. I thought he was going to talk about coffee.
Technically, that's all he talked about
@@jefbord but he didn't. He talked about people not talking about coffee, which isn't the same thing at all. The title is ironic.
@@eighteenfiftynine really?
Ahh, but what you don't get is also part of what you get!
@@alvarocuestas2624 PURE CLICKBAITOLOGY
Drinking from the coffee cup of invitation
My suggestion would be that the 2nd negation is the shared, outspoken one of the object (coffee-invitation), and the first negation is the a priori negation of the coffee-part of the invitation (she simply doesn't have coffee), so the "reason" (analytically speaking) there's something rather than nothing is the a priori negation within the object itself, which is a major point as I've understood in his writings about double negation.The problem is, this isn't really a double negation.
You might be overthinking this one. I think he's merely applying it to the interaction between the characters. He doesn't like coffee, she doesn't have any--nonetheless is constitutes a positive affirmation (not-zero) borne from 2 negative values. An oversimplification of a Hegelian concept applied in a way that a layman could understand to some degree (typical of Zizek). But that's just my take on it.
who's still drinking coffee in 2018? ☕️🐸👌🏼💯😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
^ D E G E N E R A T E
What
Without creme?
@@JakenFren no , I don't drink it without creme , only without milk
It's 2020, and literally hundreds of millions of people around the world, if not billions, are still drinking coffee.
You will have died of old age and still hundreds of millions of people will be drinking coffee.
i dont have "coffee without cream", but i do have "coffee without milk"
Meeluk
That implies the existence of a coffee without cum. Where is the coffee without cum?
I'm not much of a Zizek apologist, but the "metaphors" seem more examples of how the idea in question gets implemented in everyday life, a hallmark of Zizek's didactic style. These everyday examples actually ground his ideas in reality and make their relevance more readily apparent; therefore, his use of these "metaphors" serves a purpose pretty contrary to the pretentious ends you're suggesting. Nice indirect language, though: one could think you believe you're funnier than you actually are.
To me this is not a joke, just pure observation. God bless from Polish man
This is exactly what I mean, *sniff sniff* this is pure invitation!
The hero be like : I just want a Coffee without cream
I really like this shirt
"mielk"
Its a common theme in prospect theory and kahnman's writing. Great example though.
I’ve been thinking about this joke for years now and I still don't get it and I feel really dumb because of it. Why is coffee without cream not the same as coffee without milk? Can somebody please explain it as one would explain it to a 5 year old child?
It's a stupid joke but to Hegel the negation is important.
What about coffee without soy milk? Is that $1.00 extra?
Yes 1$ plus
Now guess how much for no coffee at all
지젝은 할리우드 코미디 영화에 나온 유머를 예로 든다. 주인공이 카페에 가서 크림 없는 커피를 주문하지만 크림이 다 떨어지고 우유만 있기 때문에 크림 없는 커피는 없고 우유 없는 커피만 있다는 게 웨이터의 대답이다. 크림 없는 커피나 우유 없는 커피나 똑같은 커피지만 무엇이 없느냐에 따라 커피의 종류가 달라진다. 그렇게 부재 혹은 부정은 정체성을 구성한다.
Great explanation despite the language barrier.
@@pristinxx8324 ikrrr
Of all the stimulants in the world, I doubt coffee is high on Slavoj's list of go-tos.
LOL
*sniffs*
Amazing intellectual over-thinking nonsense
well stuff that is under-thought and which makes perfect sense should be worse.
Thanks SkiFantic, it was nice of you to speak up for me.
The outcome is equivalent, but the state is not. I.e. If you were to then ask "actually, include what I did not want", you would get 2 different outcomes.
Yes, he can tell you about that, too
The coffe whithout cream is like democracy for rich people. Democracy for rich people is not the same as democracy for poor people (which receive democracy whithout milk).
I shall be back for more of Slavoj Žižek's talk. Thank you for uploading.
Pure invitation? - this is how he sees the subject... Beyond the zero. He'll keep driving, this man, and as a result, doesn't see flirting as a kind of suspense.
We only flirt with dangerous things: sex, madness, danger
What I understood from this is that the identity of coffee without cream is not the same as the identity of coffee.
U might say: but coffee without cream just means coffee! I say thats only true if we both share the same meaning of coffee. But if I am from a place where we call coffee to black coffee wirh cream/milk and ask for coffee without adding i dont want cream then i might get coffee with cream because i assume we share the same meaning of coffee. Just like u assumed coffee without cream is just simply coffee. This is why coffee without cream is not the same as coffee. This is also why the waiters reply is a correct answer
Thought that was Mark hamil in the last Jedi on the thumbnail
I take coffee without milk, and not without cream because Im lactose intolerant.
Good old Slavoj, a phiisoopjher's man
Just called turning the sweet tables.
Double negative is positive.
I agree as to awareness - but that Zizek insists on an identity of the whole, come now. He consistently attempts to reconcile his thought beyond the zero. It's an exhausting position, already encompassed more affirmatively by Pythagoras, and issued from spirals.
Alex Lawrinson have you taken your med?
Video starts at 0:14
I can't drink coffee late at night. It keeps me up.
“Coffee on coffee”
I desire the impossible... Zizek without coffee joke!
What brand T shirt is he wearing, anyone?
pretty sure it's something from some Italian radio program, I can recognize the Rai Radio logo on his sleeve, plus there's a sentence in Italian written on the front of the shirt. No idea about what show it might come from though
Good one, man!
Thanks for that.
Makes u think huh?
C A H F E T A R E A
Th importance always lies in, how shall.I put it, that which is missed, isn't there !
Now imagine :
*>>Peace without weapons
Would you like your coffee with out the cold water?
Coffee without cream > Coffee without milk
same as the Nicholson scene in Five Easy Pieces
Hey guys, Slavoj Žižek explains the joke here
what point is he making here, exactly?
Less sometimes means more.
@@SS-pq9ci Na. He's saying 0 never means 0; 0 always means something. Or, more accurately, nontheless metaphorically speaking, 1 - 1 never means 0
It's the Hegelian Dialectic. The identity of black coffee is different from coffee without cream because to have coffee without cream assumes the existence of cream, which is not the case for black coffee. The identity it assumes is therefore different, a coffee without cream is a "healthy coffee" or a "lactose free" coffee because it's identity rests on the negation of the other subject (cream).
@@DogsOnAcid To further prove the point; with the association to cream (or sugar for that matter) 'coffee' is not an exact term anymore. You have to further specify that with 'coffee' what you mean is 'black coffee' to be understood.
@@hermemeutica so "0 vs null " in computer science sense
the milk dissolves in the coffee ,while the cream is swimming on top of it. (only true for whipped cream,of course)
Oh, I get it ... It's a coffee anecdote ... I get coffee anecdotes ...
Coffee without Milk
I bet Zizek ruins coffee for me
Kenya Coffee is the best
Granted, I cannot know for sure whether he did understand it or not, but given his shallow method of responding, I assume little if any understanding has been made on his part. Justly or not, who knows but himself.
Now, I don't know whether you draw your conclusions of skepticism based upon this 2m video - It is, after all, only a tiny part of the 1h30m talk. Your comprehension of either, though, is of as little interest as your opinion, well founded or not, to me.
@1:46 Slavoj glitched
this is nothing about coffee. Why there is such titel?
Slavoj wanted ewan macgregor to be clappin those cheeks
Coffee rush at 1:45
Adam, explain to the viewers at home what coffee is
Žižek⭐
horrible intro by this channel. my ears are bleeding. Zizaks performance is great.
It's not his fault that you do not understand him.
And?
@Npowell01 What was his point?
Could someone please explain how the 2nd example is a double negation? Mcgregor and the girl shares the same, single negation of the coffee-part of the invitation, which makes it evident that it's a "pure invitation". To me it seems that there's a discrepancy between the theory that Zizek tries to explain (the double negation and hegelian, dialectic theory etc etc) and the examples/metaphors he uses.
The first negation is the man saying he doesn't drink coffee. The second, the woman saying she doesn't have any.
I believe there is no double negation but just a simple negation: A, then -A. In any case, he means double because he gave two examples, I think.
Maybe did he mean "mutual" negation?
The result is sexy time WAWA WEEWA!
Hehehe thanks for the tip ;P
it's beyond me... if i call this guy stupid... am i insulting the stupid ones?
great :D
I'll have not nothing thanks
Sorry, what? The only thing I understood from that was the trivial point that people employ pretexts in sensitive and potentially awkward social situations. And yes, the thing implicitly offered is sex. What are you talking about?
Yea, I don't really get his point either.
@@gerhitchman A without B ist not the same as A without C. Even though B and C are missing, they're some sort of defining properties. Bla bla something like that.
thinking outside the box? well he blew it up just like he will blow your mind. in the end, there is no box, but our self imposed ideology.
hmmm 🤔iget it ! just a conversation
You did nothing to explain why he's brilliant. "People communicate in passive-aggressive subtleties"? If there's anything worthwhile in Zizek's thought (and I think there is), you missed it.
Also, if anyone here can explain the meaning of his 2nd example (beyond the simple observation that coffee is here a metaphor for sex), I will be very impressed. Doesn't Zizek contradict his 1st example? Isn't the thing implicitly being offered (sex) really the same regardless of whether it's "with coffee"?
Modus Speculativa
Interesting if applied to the recent election
You mean Biden without Trump? Yeah, quite true.
the absolute
Not coffee and Not coffee ===> MILK !!!!!
w we interpret the world. It's taken out of context, keep that in mind.
true dat
@festyosemtex he grows on you
This not about coffee
I’m well aware of this but isn’t cream made of milk?
The point he was trying to make was quite simple so the metaphores he used were unnecessary. One could think he was trying to make himself look smarter than he actually is.
what?
A great point but not at all on coffee haha
Rizz academy
😇