Oh dear God, I can only imagine. "Well you see, the Dasein's..." *sniff* *spit* "And what separates the ready-to-hand from the present-at-hand..." *spit* *sniff* "We see examples of thrown-ness in movies like Jaws..." *sniff* "And so on and so on."
*sniff* "you see, the-present-at-hand is only present-at-hand in relation to a previous existential readiness-to-hand *sniff* this is the function and structure of ideology today" *cough* "the very modes of transgression are ontologically predetermined by what Heidegger calls the 'they' das Man *sniff* one only transgresses as "one" transgresses, according to the equipment context, the inconspicuous totality"
Tiz Irie he’s not that hard to comprehend. If you can listen to trap music then this guy is basic. You’re missing out on a lot of knowledge, hey at least you’re trying
Lessons learned: 20th century leftism is dead. The optimism that evoked through the triumph of liberal capitalism has also proved to be a failure. We need something new, something that can benefit Europe's working classes.
Yeah, we need socialism. Most countries are already heavily industrialized, total state capitalism isn't necessary. Zizek and his followers are ridiculous.
He's right pc is not in the third world. There's no such thing as civil or constitutional gaurantees to adress poverty or the lack of human services based on guilt or some past abuses. It only exists in America and Europe and is by no means a burden on elites as it falls on the general populace to endure the problems associated with overcrowding and competition.
@@marcpadilla1094 there's two strands of PC. One comes from the decolonial movement which manifests visibly through BLM, #Sciencemustfall, #sayhername etc. Then there's the PC from White leftists. That one is a lot more symbolic in nature. Anyways, freedom wins out in the end.
Exactly. The masses of the people have to deal with the crowds of immigrants, who are oftentimes fleeing problems that were caused or exacerbated by the same political-economic elites who are now wagging their fingers at us saying "no, no, no, children play nice. Only use NICE words 😊" while pulling out the rug from under us and trying to say it's for our own good or some nonsense. We are in quite a quagmire because globalization, neoconservative, and then neoliberal policies have made it harder and harder to deal with our own issues since we now have to take on the consequences of our previous corrupted leaders. Yeah, what a set of cards we've been dealt.
As I understood it he just wanted to make the point that he doesn't believe capitalism can hold against the upcoming environmental/economic crises. He got a bit lost in his justifications. The point about being a Heideggerian gets finished at the end of the video: Heideggerians were the "dissidents" he says. He was a dissident, he didn't believe in communism much at all. In the same way, he doesn't believe in capitalism. He's pessimistic, and that's the reason he thinks we can't escape ideology in general, as he explains by the point that social justice is overly optimistic, and his prediction that Yugoslavia, after the USSR, would revert to nationalism.
@@boazfrissen697 absolutely. I find you have to be wildly read to understand him. Most people read narrowly. Anyways, any books you recommend along these lines he's talking about. I'm building a list of critical theory reading and philosophy and history etc.
Another one 💖 what I live about Heidegger thought is that it's not like a fixed opinion, it's a path, a struggle with a thought. The only way to be a real Heideggerian is to struggle with things in relation with the ontological matter. Being is the place where things can be addressed authentically. It's a clearing, but it's also a "clear space", tabula rasa, which bears the name of "nothing" and it is experienced through Angst. I'm in love with Heidegger exactly for this - because it is HARD
@Language and Programming Channel "his book" 😂 Think about this, apart from the task of thinking what "Being" is (which is the main question of philosophy. If you're a philosopher, your only true question is: what is being? Why things are? Etc.) His criticism of western metaphysics is not the final word - because western metaphysics hasn't ended yet. Its run is still going. To understand where we are today we need Heidegger's hermeneutical method. It's not a matter of ideology - that's what the postmodern philosophers basically think (being is performative etc. - false). It's a matter of metaphysical in the original sense. It is about "on e on", Being as being.
I’m sorry, I’m deaf ( not completely but mostly) I think I understood your points. But would it be possible for you / someone to write the key points ( or a transcript) sorry for asking ~ Being & time ~
Is the existing liberal democratic system able to cope with dealing with the global problems being faced today, ex. forms of domination through internet ecology, global migrations, etc problems that generally are being faced all around the world. He talks about how he is not exactly pro communist because when he was in university he was more of a heideggerian, nor nostalgic for 20th century communism because he experienced it and did not have any illusion because solvenia's borders were generally open for him to explore the west(to buy books as he says). There's a note about how first world country people are not really responsible for the rest of the world and shouldn't always feel guilt for the rest of it, and a note on political correctness stems from european enlightenment. He talks about some conflicts between different schools of thoughts, ex. frankfurt schools, and heideggerians aswell as french experience. Most of it is tangents of his own experience but I believe the idea conveyed is that the liberal democratic system in place now is not powerful enough to fight problems that we are facing and that are coming, and that looking to the past with nostalgic lenses of systems bygone is not the solution.
Hi , I tried to make a transcript of it . I hope you can understand it and I apologize for my english mistakes . Here is the file (it will be deleted automatically in a month ) easyupload.io/yo3je7 @Gus Grau
I suppose I should read his book about Heidegger and compare to his later works to see why he'd disown it so harshly. I know about Heidegger, I studied Sein & Zeit, but still, why the hate? The book is fine, as were many of his lectures.
The West’s overreaction to Marxist ideology and the emergence of Socialist countries is the foundation of the problems we have today. Left to it’s own devices, perhaps the Soviet system would indeed have failed sooner. But because of the overt actions of the west, it created a negative pressure they inadvertently propped up these systems and misleadership. Think about this: democracy being represented as the antithesis of monarchy, there wasn’t any overt opposition to monarchy since the French Revolution. Monarchies, in turn became inert and irrelevant on their own and subsequently replaced. On the other end of the spectrum, fascism, thought defeated after 1945, was ignored and now has raised its head again threatening all democracies including the US. The USSR is dead but Purim’s oligarchic dictatorship, is pulling the west into a conflict it really didn’t want , despite having the institution (NATO) created specifically for it.
@@uhuhuuuhhh9883 I have read several of his books and I have attended a couple of his lectures. Have you read any of his books or do you just like to post snarky remarks to make yourself feel superior?
Brian Apodaca You are certainly entitled to your opinion . No snark intended . Hes difficult enough to understand without straining ones eyes to read the small print of at least one of his books . The one entitled "Parallax" something or other .
No one accuses Slovenia or Eastern Europeans of colonization etc. just because they are white. Eastern European them selves were semi colonies of great powers. I think the concept of self-determination was first formulated to solve Eastern European problems of semi colonization status.
PC is an act of dehumanisation. International solidarity is hard if people from the first world refuse to see us from the third world without a lens of pity
I’m with Husserl……and Edith Stein. Ie phenomenology developing toward mystical experience, rather than Heidegger taking Husserl back into philosophy and politics.
@@mrJohnDesiderio I know, thats why I want to see those issues resolved, because on the one hand I like what chomsky has said(but feel what has he achieved ie the bastards are still running the show) and while i like Zizek the takeaways from his discourse are somewhat intangible as chomski says...there's nothing in it
Imagine Chomsky spending the remaining days of your life conversing with a psychotic fascist sympathizing charlatan, constantly going on tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the point of the conversation.
@@mrJohnDesiderio lol then he should have no difficulty dismantling his gaseous ideas. Noam makes solid, airtight points that stand on nebulous foundations. Zizek makes nebulous points that rest on solid foundations. They also tend to talk about different things. I think Noam is much more of a populist too, even if he doesn't identify as one (I don't know if he does or doesn't).
But the more you read Hegel, the more you understand the Being and Time Heidegger. And the more you understand Being and Time, the more you understand Phenomenology of Spirit.
Bro he's counterrevolutionary in heart and in thought. He was a big burgeois, supported the Prussian guards in 1848 and his thought fights social activism, progress and ethics. Either you're a conservative/reactionary/liberal, or you're a really strange mix, or you're just really confused
@@inco9943 www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D-YqDU1W1jk4&ved=2ahUKEwjN5ovS7sToAhXimOAKHeAHBbYQt9IBMAd6BAgOECc&usg=AOvVaw1M55WTXupt5sTR_V0zwG4- Not Zizek, but super good Heidegger talk
4:35 Many liberals in eastern europe all banded together in fear of that- adam michnik in poland, 'second treason of the clerks' He imputed also in that article to the more nationalist wing of solidarity antisemitism, which never emerged and was definitely never tolerated. They didn't talk abt cosmpolitan intellectuals that much , and the regime opposed those anyway. The party anyway had conservative/nationalist/antisemitic old guard in the natolin ruling faction first, then a sort of thing under moczar, fake national unity and trying to gloss over sort of the painful hatred of the ruling ideological doctrine for what was p The fears of liberals were partly overblown, partly simply averted. It all depended on the stability of democracy as well as international opinion; not often the most conservative were often the post communists
why is he touching his nose every 12 seconds? Something's off with him here. Love the man, but also a fair question: why does every video he's in look like it's shot by a 9 year old with a Minolta
In Less than Nothing he frames his mode of philosophy under the banner of the imbecile which he distinguishes from idiots and morons so I think he would take your remark as a compliment.
This nervous philosopher must tell something meaningful about Heidegger first, for example, a chapter of the book “ unterwegs zur Sprache”. He must prove that he has studied Heidegger. Then he may tell that. “ I am not a Heideggerian anymore”. I totally doubt that.
Zizek is the least nervous philosopher 😂 And to suggest Zizek hasn’t read what he claims to read is ridiculous. He’s a serious, publishing academic who makes perfect sense to anyone who has read what he speaks of.
@@KomissarLohmann Because Heidegger is the most important thinker of the last century. So. If a „Trinker“ does not talk about Heidegger, then you will not ask any question. But when he tells that he is no longer Heideggerian, then he should explain why. By the way, I saw a comment that says Zizek has written a book about Heidegger. So, I will get that book.
Definitely, he's been talking about the inability of liberal capitalism to handle a global catastrophe for decades, now the most liberal capitalist countries all over the world are struggling to cope with pandemic that eastern countries which have an authoritarian capitalism have been able to manage in a way more effective manner.
How the fuck would you conflate a Heideggerian with a fascist when Heidegger has a legacy on the Left, mostly among Jewish intellectuals (Levinas, Derrida) and other liberal Jewish thinkers (Arendt, Steiner, etc.)? Heidegger's legacy is a complicated case, while his own personal thought clearly puts him in the fascist category.
He sided with Nazi Germany in the early days of the regime but was out and distanced himself a couple years later. He later expressed regret over it as well as privately. He wasn't a fucking fascist. Do some research for fuck's sake.
@@imavileone7360 That is funny. Heidegger was certainly a fascist, but many Heideggerian's are definitely not. Heidegger developed his work together withothers that totally disavowed fascism (their work was very similar despite the differing political views on the nazis). Many on the left have taken great inspiration from his work. When the full extent of Heideggers fascism came out a few years ago the head of the curator of his work resigned. Many people were very disappointed. Zizek is definitely not and never was anywhere near a fascist.
Slovenia one of sixth Republic of Yugoslavia have European culture not. Balkan culture *border with Austria. I am not with EU. Political economic leaders.. Burocracy it's illnesses.
Would be great to live in a possible world where there would be this omnipresent voice, that would in authoritarian tone address Zizek every time he has compulsive desire to act and touch his nose, something like "shhssss! Don't touch your face Zizek(in a mocking tone)!"
![Megan Thee Stallion - Rattle [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qY6qwqVCsww/mqdefault.jpg)
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
Oh dear God, I can only imagine. "Well you see, the Dasein's..." *sniff* *spit* "And what separates the ready-to-hand from the present-at-hand..." *spit* *sniff* "We see examples of thrown-ness in movies like Jaws..." *sniff* "And so on and so on."
slobbering idiot
Lol
I laughed, because you thought in notes
*sniff* "you see, the-present-at-hand is only present-at-hand in relation to a previous existential readiness-to-hand *sniff* this is the function and structure of ideology today" *cough* "the very modes of transgression are ontologically predetermined by what Heidegger calls the 'they' das Man *sniff* one only transgresses as "one" transgresses, according to the equipment context, the inconspicuous totality"
Automatically generated subtitle =Italian
true
Usally they think its Dutch
i have no idea what he is saying but watch every video
That's how you fall down the rabbit hole. Careful
@@Nalhek its been almost 10 years down here
Tiz Irie he’s not that hard to comprehend. If you can listen to trap music then this guy is basic. You’re missing out on a lot of knowledge, hey at least you’re trying
:))
It will all eventually make sense.
I just got his gist after about 3 years of listening and a bunch of book reviews and his wiki info.
1:04 - 1:05
The Hegelian double sniff category...
LOL
Lol
That's been a spit² ☝️
Heideggerian spit of course 😄°
@@farrider3339 💀💀💀 reminded me of this goat Video sadly :(
When Liberal Capitalism is any further explained, it's justification is captured rationally !
Does this dude ever finish a point, he uses more hyphens than periods.
😂😂out of all comments across all his videos, this is my favorite.
Better hyphens than comma splices.
Welcome to listening to Zizek lol
No, for zizek closure is ideological most of the time, his objective is the negative moment of critique which aims at a provocation
Half of his talk is just sniffing and pinching hisself.
Lessons learned: 20th century leftism is dead. The optimism that evoked through the triumph of liberal capitalism has also proved to be a failure. We need something new, something that can benefit Europe's working classes.
Rudolf Baresic that was also tried in 1939 in Germany. Lesson learned?
@@iberico8174 Why do you assume that I would be in favor of that?
we need to study the social division of labour among mushroom growing ants, they are far superior to the insectivorous :D
We need to use nuclear weapons.
Yeah, we need socialism. Most countries are already heavily industrialized, total state capitalism isn't necessary. Zizek and his followers are ridiculous.
Lol he does not speak about heiddegger, at least not directly
Coronavirus guidelines say to not touch face, Zizek.
i don't think he'd ever be capable of not touching it 😂😂
He would turn into Rick Roderick if he didn't touch his face and sniffing.
I’ve had a bad habit of picking my eyes ever since I got pinkeye 3 years ago.
Hope his hands are clean
I think the facetouching is tourette, so that's probably not a viable option for Zizek.
I used to be a Heideggerian then i took an arrow to the knee
Old meme man
Juhani SVH And a very welcome return
Left can't meme.
I don’t get the meme
I used to be one then I took a bullet to the brain, more like
That should explain it sufficiently ,the whole Zizek phenomenon that is 🙏
you must be some kind of spinoza revivalist cuk.
Omg, the chairs again 😱
He's right pc is not in the third world. There's no such thing as civil or constitutional gaurantees to adress poverty or the lack of human services based on guilt or some past abuses. It only exists in America and Europe and is by no means a burden on elites as it falls on the general populace to endure the problems associated with overcrowding and competition.
oh it exists in 3rd world, you don't know reservation for castes, political correctness of Gandhi and so on
@@niranjansrinivasan4042 So you're saying pc is elitism. Interesting.
@@marcpadilla1094 yeah kind of
@@marcpadilla1094 there's two strands of PC. One comes from the decolonial movement which manifests visibly through BLM, #Sciencemustfall, #sayhername etc. Then there's the PC from White leftists. That one is a lot more symbolic in nature. Anyways, freedom wins out in the end.
Exactly. The masses of the people have to deal with the crowds of immigrants, who are oftentimes fleeing problems that were caused or exacerbated by the same political-economic elites who are now wagging their fingers at us saying "no, no, no, children play nice. Only use NICE words 😊" while pulling out the rug from under us and trying to say it's for our own good or some nonsense. We are in quite a quagmire because globalization, neoconservative, and then neoliberal policies have made it harder and harder to deal with our own issues since we now have to take on the consequences of our previous corrupted leaders. Yeah, what a set of cards we've been dealt.
There's just so many unexplained references and implicit points in his discourse that it can get dizzying
I get the feeling he has a scattered mind.
or become pointless.
This is a conversation between people, not a treatise.
As I understood it he just wanted to make the point that he doesn't believe capitalism can hold against the upcoming environmental/economic crises. He got a bit lost in his justifications.
The point about being a Heideggerian gets finished at the end of the video: Heideggerians were the "dissidents" he says. He was a dissident, he didn't believe in communism much at all. In the same way, he doesn't believe in capitalism.
He's pessimistic, and that's the reason he thinks we can't escape ideology in general, as he explains by the point that social justice is overly optimistic, and his prediction that Yugoslavia, after the USSR, would revert to nationalism.
@@boazfrissen697 absolutely. I find you have to be wildly read to understand him. Most people read narrowly. Anyways, any books you recommend along these lines he's talking about. I'm building a list of critical theory reading and philosophy and history etc.
❤️ Heart from a Heideggerian.
Another one 💖 what I live about Heidegger thought is that it's not like a fixed opinion, it's a path, a struggle with a thought. The only way to be a real Heideggerian is to struggle with things in relation with the ontological matter. Being is the place where things can be addressed authentically. It's a clearing, but it's also a "clear space", tabula rasa, which bears the name of "nothing" and it is experienced through Angst. I'm in love with Heidegger exactly for this - because it is HARD
The daisen refuted socialism
@Language and Programming Channel "his book" 😂
Think about this, apart from the task of thinking what "Being" is (which is the main question of philosophy. If you're a philosopher, your only true question is: what is being? Why things are? Etc.)
His criticism of western metaphysics is not the final word - because western metaphysics hasn't ended yet. Its run is still going. To understand where we are today we need Heidegger's hermeneutical method. It's not a matter of ideology - that's what the postmodern philosophers basically think (being is performative etc. - false). It's a matter of metaphysical in the original sense. It is about "on e on", Being as being.
@@philipperodrigues3500 that doesn't make any sense ahah
Why doesn't Zizek fuck with Heidegger anymore? Sounds like he learned to detest his work, and he didn't bother explaining why.
Does anyone know if the book about Heidegger that he wrote has been translated into any language?
you mean, translated into any language from the original Zizek word salad?
I’m sorry, I’m deaf ( not completely but mostly)
I think I understood your points.
But would it be possible for you / someone to write the key points ( or a transcript) sorry for asking ~
Being & time ~
Is the existing liberal democratic system able to cope with dealing with the global problems being faced today, ex. forms of domination through internet ecology, global migrations, etc problems that generally are being faced all around the world. He talks about how he is not exactly pro communist because when he was in university he was more of a heideggerian, nor nostalgic for 20th century communism because he experienced it and did not have any illusion because solvenia's borders were generally open for him to explore the west(to buy books as he says). There's a note about how first world country people are not really responsible for the rest of the world and shouldn't always feel guilt for the rest of it, and a note on political correctness stems from european enlightenment. He talks about some conflicts between different schools of thoughts, ex. frankfurt schools, and heideggerians aswell as french experience.
Most of it is tangents of his own experience but I believe the idea conveyed is that the liberal democratic system in place now is not powerful enough to fight problems that we are facing and that are coming, and that looking to the past with nostalgic lenses of systems bygone is not the solution.
Hi , I tried to make a transcript of it . I hope you can understand it and I apologize for my english mistakes .
Here is the file (it will be deleted automatically in a month )
easyupload.io/yo3je7
@Gus Grau
I suppose I should read his book about Heidegger and compare to his later works to see why he'd disown it so harshly.
I know about Heidegger, I studied Sein & Zeit, but still, why the hate? The book is fine, as were many of his lectures.
The West’s overreaction to Marxist ideology and the emergence of Socialist countries is the foundation of the problems we have today.
Left to it’s own devices, perhaps the Soviet system would indeed have failed sooner. But because of the overt actions of the west, it created a negative pressure they inadvertently propped up these systems and misleadership.
Think about this: democracy being represented as the antithesis of monarchy, there wasn’t any overt opposition to monarchy since the French Revolution. Monarchies, in turn became inert and irrelevant on their own and subsequently replaced.
On the other end of the spectrum, fascism, thought defeated after 1945, was ignored and now has raised its head again threatening all democracies including the US.
The USSR is dead but Purim’s oligarchic dictatorship, is pulling the west into a conflict it really didn’t want , despite having the institution (NATO) created specifically for it.
What exactly does Slavoj Zizek actually believe in or support? He' seems to be all over the place.
Robert Have you ever tried to read the small print of his books !! Large (r) print Zizek !
@@uhuhuuuhhh9883 I have read several of his books and I have attended a couple of his lectures. Have you read any of his books or do you just like to post snarky remarks to make yourself feel superior?
Robert I don't give fuck about being superior but superiority/inferiority seems to be an issue for you ?
uhuhuuuhhh your post was ambiguous but I can see how Robert might interpret it as snarky justifiably.
Brian Apodaca You are certainly entitled to your opinion . No snark intended . Hes difficult enough to understand without straining ones eyes to read the small print of at least one of his books . The one entitled "Parallax" something or other .
No one accuses Slovenia or Eastern Europeans of colonization etc. just because they are white. Eastern European them selves were semi colonies of great powers. I think the concept of self-determination was first formulated to solve Eastern European problems of semi colonization status.
Why even try putting the Caption??
yeah you can imagine political correctness in other countries, its simple nationalism but for other nations too
PC is an act of dehumanisation. International solidarity is hard if people from the first world refuse to see us from the third world without a lens of pity
I'm waiting for the video where he admits he's Derridean. (Check a footnote in Gasche's "Inventions of Difference".)
quote?
@@Marenqo It's around 2 pages long.
@@bigjimcrawdaddyx8731 can you give the reference, please? Thanks
@@Marenqo Sure! Gasché, Rodolphe. "Yes Absolutely". Inventions of Difference. Harvard University Press, 1994, pp 199-226. See Note 14 (pp 278-279).
@@bigjimcrawdaddyx8731 thanks, I'll have a look
I’m with Husserl……and Edith Stein. Ie phenomenology developing toward mystical experience, rather than Heidegger taking Husserl back into philosophy and politics.
how can i inderstand your opinion that Husserl said about mystical experience? I just didn't know this point of view,
Zizek & Chomski need a convo before the noam snuffs it.
Chomsky thinks Zizek is full of inflated language without any original or useful ideas
@@mrJohnDesiderio I know, thats why I want to see those issues resolved, because on the one hand I like what chomsky has said(but feel what has he achieved ie the bastards are still running the show) and while i like Zizek the takeaways from his discourse are somewhat intangible as chomski says...there's nothing in it
Imagine Chomsky spending the remaining days of your life conversing with a psychotic fascist sympathizing charlatan, constantly going on tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the point of the conversation.
@@imavileone7360 what is the point of the convo?...how come your here watching?
@@mrJohnDesiderio lol then he should have no difficulty dismantling his gaseous ideas. Noam makes solid, airtight points that stand on nebulous foundations. Zizek makes nebulous points that rest on solid foundations. They also tend to talk about different things. I think Noam is much more of a populist too, even if he doesn't identify as one (I don't know if he does or doesn't).
Wait east germany contamination? Where? I am german and I have never heard of it
"I used to be a Heideggerian! But I decided instead to become a Nose-Rubberian!"
Underrated af
El que no conoce a Hegel a cualquier Heidegeer le reza
But the more you read Hegel, the more you understand the Being and Time Heidegger. And the more you understand Being and Time, the more you understand Phenomenology of Spirit.
SNIFF, SNIIFF(PULLS ON SHIRT) AND SO ON AND SO ON.
Myself I am a Schopenhauerian.
If you're ever feeling optimistic, make sure to call the Schopenhauer suicide hotline. Or don't. Either way you'll be disappointed.
@@SurrealLucidity How stupid would you need to be to feel optimistic?
@@goethe3116 Lmao.
Bro he's counterrevolutionary in heart and in thought. He was a big burgeois, supported the Prussian guards in 1848 and his thought fights social activism, progress and ethics. Either you're a conservative/reactionary/liberal, or you're a really strange mix, or you're just really confused
@@PavelRizzo Who are you speaking to?
Ele é muito bom em teoria de Estado
Só que teoria da guerra nunca é bonita
That's nice but in what universe is this a video about Heidegger or even Zizek's appreciation of him? Dislike for misguiding title.
kind of clickbait title
Lol clickbait for a very specific kind of audience
John Paul I guess. I was looking for a discussion of Heidegger tho
@@inco9943 www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D-YqDU1W1jk4&ved=2ahUKEwjN5ovS7sToAhXimOAKHeAHBbYQt9IBMAd6BAgOECc&usg=AOvVaw1M55WTXupt5sTR_V0zwG4-
Not Zizek, but super good Heidegger talk
there were always nationalist opponents of the regim, sometimes they were more emboldened
Someone who you can’t understand his speaking burning the book he wrote on someone who you can’t understand his writing.
So he is pro enlightenment but then says pc culture is bad because it only works in the west ? So which is it dude?
Myself i'm a Nietzschean, like Foucault
Schwarzenberg Danjelsson Foucault was once a Marxist too
I'm gay
My comment to the Left: “We’re all tankies, now.”
Slavoj's ticks would go away if he would just realize that he is and always has been on the right, not the left. And that's a good thing.
Perhaps, he would prefer not to.
hahahahahaha this is brilliant
Youre high
4:35 Many liberals in eastern europe all banded together in fear of that- adam michnik in poland, 'second treason of the clerks'
He imputed also in that article to the more nationalist wing of solidarity antisemitism, which never emerged and was definitely never tolerated. They didn't talk abt cosmpolitan intellectuals that much , and the regime opposed those anyway. The party anyway had conservative/nationalist/antisemitic old guard in the natolin ruling faction first, then a sort of thing under moczar, fake national unity and trying to gloss over sort of the painful hatred of the ruling ideological doctrine for what was p
The fears of liberals were partly overblown, partly simply averted. It all depended on the stability of democracy as well as international opinion; not often the most conservative were often the post communists
*Thirth world has left the chat*
why is he touching his nose every 12 seconds? Something's off with him here. Love the man, but also a fair question: why does every video he's in look like it's shot by a 9 year old with a Minolta
What are you talking about?! Finish your sentence man!
I just want to hear Zizek repent, reject Hegel, and dedicate himself to the works of Robert Nozick.
Ha, that would be hilarious if Zizek became a libertarian.
Zizek emphasizes every word he says so it took a while for me to notice he never actually says anything.
Galaxy Brain
read him then idiot.
@@inco9943 Why? I wasn't talking about his books.
Gustaf Marcus you should be - he says himself he hates talking
@@inco9943 So he agrees with me then?
lol the comments in this video, "omg what is he saying does he ever finish a point :'(" - Like, Jesus, read literally ONE thing you dorks.
Who really out here owning the libs ?
LoL, Zizek saying he used to be a Heideggerian is like saying he use to be smart... 🤣🤣🤡🤡
In Less than Nothing he frames his mode of philosophy under the banner of the imbecile which he distinguishes from idiots and morons so I think he would take your remark as a compliment.
good one bro
His habit of touching his nose all the time is so off-putting.
This nervous philosopher must tell something meaningful about Heidegger first, for example, a chapter of the book “ unterwegs zur Sprache”. He must prove that he has studied Heidegger. Then he may tell that. “ I am not a Heideggerian anymore”. I totally doubt that.
Zizek is the least nervous philosopher 😂
And to suggest Zizek hasn’t read what he claims to read is ridiculous. He’s a serious, publishing academic who makes perfect sense to anyone who has read what he speaks of.
@@bronyatheistfedora
Has he explained somewhere why he is not Heideggerian anymore? Please let me know the reference.
Tell me a reason why would any contemporary thinker has to explain to others that they're not Heideggerian anymore??
@@KomissarLohmann
Because Heidegger is the most important thinker of the last century. So. If a „Trinker“ does not talk about Heidegger, then you will not ask any question. But when he tells that he is no longer Heideggerian, then he should explain why.
By the way, I saw a comment that says Zizek has written a book about Heidegger. So, I will get that book.
He is so confused...
What happened to don't touch your eyes, nose, mouth, and face? I'm surprised COVID didn't have a field day with this dude...
Is there anybody taking this guy seriously?
Definitely, he's been talking about the inability of liberal capitalism to handle a global catastrophe for decades, now the most liberal capitalist countries all over the world are struggling to cope with pandemic that eastern countries which have an authoritarian capitalism have been able to manage in a way more effective manner.
he has good jokes, shit politics commie pinko
@@andresmarcial6506 I’m afraid I’ve also had to take Žižek more seriously after the pandemic
@@andresmarcial6506 Which authoritan country handled the pandemic better?
@@andresmarcial6506 i think zizek didn't mean to glorify the way that countries such as china handled the pandemic ahahah
"I used to be a fascist *sniff snort*"
Used to?
How the fuck would you conflate a Heideggerian with a fascist when Heidegger has a legacy on the Left, mostly among Jewish intellectuals (Levinas, Derrida) and other liberal Jewish thinkers (Arendt, Steiner, etc.)? Heidegger's legacy is a complicated case, while his own personal thought clearly puts him in the fascist category.
He sided with Nazi Germany in the early days of the regime but was out and distanced himself a couple years later. He later expressed regret over it as well as privately.
He wasn't a fucking fascist. Do some research for fuck's sake.
Matt Lin No he was a fascist and antiemetic. Read the Black Notebooks. However, he was critical of many aspects of the Third Reich
@@imavileone7360 😂😅
@@imavileone7360 That is funny. Heidegger was certainly a fascist, but many Heideggerian's are definitely not. Heidegger developed his work together withothers that totally disavowed fascism (their work was very similar despite the differing political views on the nazis).
Many on the left have taken great inspiration from his work.
When the full extent of Heideggers fascism came out a few years ago the head of the curator of his work resigned. Many people were very disappointed.
Zizek is definitely not and never was anywhere near a fascist.
Who cares
Apparently you do
Zizec should really just be a fascist
Slovenia one of sixth Republic of Yugoslavia have European culture not. Balkan culture *border with Austria. I am not with EU. Political economic leaders.. Burocracy it's illnesses.
Would be great to live in a possible world where there would be this omnipresent voice, that would in authoritarian tone address Zizek every time he has compulsive desire to act and touch his nose, something like "shhssss! Don't touch your face Zizek(in a mocking tone)!"