To get a deeper glimpse into experiencing non-freedom as freedom just wake up in a narcissistic relationship😅 then you will begin to grasp the subjective nature of freedom in ways you never imagined. Least had any desire to experience. I think it helps illustrate the danger of becoming complacent in our assumptions of being free.
18:58 *The abyss before the world is constituted* “In the passage (to put it naively) from animals to humans, the first step is madness and then our discourse is an attempt to control this madness. But the threat of madness, Hegel points out, remains all the time. Our sanity can only be understood as a retroactive attempt to control our founding madness. Hegel says this [pt. 3, Encyclopedia].”
@Mike Fuller I think happiness is bound up in loss/lack-we oscillate between tradition and the new so we are always philosophizing. Does the soul which love not also involve itself in sacrifice for its beloved? We love to suffer as Zizek says. “Love is giving something you don’t have to someone who doesn’t want it.” We share lack, desire for certainty in a disenchanted world and this idea can lend us solace, but in a way I think “happiness” is for the dead where it disengages with the struggles of the world.
Ukraine is the Ereignis, the Event we needed to "wake us up from sleep." It is a catastrophe. But suffering can be "redeeming." Zizek is a-Chinese...because they are too "liberal" ! Too individualistic and too capitalistic. Why would Zizek have a problem with "the China Model"? Exponentially, in spite of problems, it has increased freedom and democracy, "rule of the people." Resurrection, for Zizek, seems to mean "community." I love listening to this man.
I think it's the opposite, we view the world as madness, without attempting to understand it, as we create artificial 'sanity'. Our society today is proof that our created sanity is the true madness. If you don't like that.... "Get religion" ~ Bully Maguire
there is no meta-language, no transcendental horizon from which to view the contours of language using a higher level of the symbolic order than that plane on which it posits its existence, the analysis of pure roles of syntax, the pretensions of the turn in linguistic philosophy - despite having said of itself to have overcome the metaphysics and transcendentalism of post-Kantian philosophy - came to understood itself to have grasped a symbolic language of language, the linguistic core of all truth, and thus a language of language the meta-rules for all grammar to expose the meta-rules of thought or transcendentally define it
Language is all fraud and he'll show you one day, and it literally makes no sense.. the trick is to process language but unbelieve in it at the same time. No grammar is for obfuscation to design multiple hermeneutic interpretations, or boggle the mind. At least academic grammar, by combining various semi-colons, colons, and hyphenations into massive paragraphs into multiple 3 part essays just for fun.
@@adaptercrash The theme of philosophy that Lacan introduces, despite being overall harsh to the philosophers in his diagnosis, calling the Idealists remnants of a 19th century freakshow irrelevant to modern science, is that individual subjective free agency, freewill and the most important thing to German subjective idealism, is not our own, because through language Lacan says we are spoken, we don't speak it, it speaks us and like marionettes, we get played by it in ''prosopopoeia'', this means that the philosophy of freewill emanating from the immediacy of our agency, the immediate words that come to our mind for instance, or the natural common sense vocabulary of everyday life, conforms us to the form of thinking of our own time, our historical epoch, so to speak, how it is spoken and expresses itself in language itself afterall changes and the horizon of what we can express itself in language marks the limits of transcendental thought, since the changing of normative reason by cultural or Sittlichkeit to use the German word that Hegel uses, changes. As to your question about the meaning of the semi-colon in German Hegelian philosophy, that question is posed by Rebecca Comay and Frank Ruda in a particular study in a book called ''the dash'', or, why the Phenomenology of Spirit ends on it or, the semi-colon - but, I think, that is another story for another time.
As a person who really is convinced of the fact that Schopenhauer's reflections on this very world, mankind, and existence are absolutely true I am afraid that a Hegelian is not the right person to help you through this current mess. ;)
As a Schopenhauerian, wouldn’t you say there is no solution and life is inherently suffering? I’ll be pragmatic and stick to Hegel. If Schopenhauer is right I got nothing to lose, and if Hegel is I might have a potential to be a part of a meaningful change in how things are
Slavoj, "Move over Philosophy", thinking into divinity when divinity thinks back agrees that to carry on without thought is clearly narcissistic, which brings this suggestion to another hobby horse of yours. Please consider the following parable offered from a feminine perspective... A woman holds that monogamous fidelity is to be highly esteemed for so long as the relationship has value. When the setup currency is spent she ends the relationship. Having lived only half her life and still retaining a lively mind, she sets about finding out what she is capable of and prying into the minds of philosophers she steps onto a path full of potholes and stumbling blocks. As the philosophers begin ordering her about with despotic glee, but still being a very intelligent woman, she laughs at them and subsequently they become really angry. So she tells them that she's not arguing semantics with them, her bed is empty apart from herself and she is still having a living experience and has an understanding of the progression of human thought. In this realm numbers were not used to identify the various kings until after 1066 so their use to identify Anglo-Saxon kings is anachronistic. The philosophies schlepping along beside the kings are the paving stones leading to where we all stand together today. There is a stinking despot standing in the woman's living room barking; "thou shalt not have sexual relations with another man!" The thinking woman whose thoughts are enhanced by Divine reply already knows that the holographic realm of philosophy is not only hollow and empty but also artificially acquired. Ponder now, a living conversation where the thinking woman understands that she has a higher physical self in prepubescence and that a brief sojourn in the holographic realm of philosophy and the narcissist allows her to laugh at the semantics of the despot and his minions also. Fumbling geriatric sweat here, against the certainty of promised sublime ecstasy in the real physical realm? Anyway, here we all are together ~ some of us laughing, because, on the brink of nihilism from following in the footsteps of philosophers, surely the peacemakers among us can be called "the children of God"?
Elon Musk buying Twitter is an extreme form of digital neo-colonialism, in the same sense that his space industry ventures, work as the analog version of the same concept. In this case, neo-colonialism is far more dangerous than traditional colonialism because it is ubiquitous, meant to pursue freedom (it displays a motivation of supposed neutrality), and has even more fanatics than the most popular religions. In the same way, Musk is trying to sell us that his ideas do represent democracy. The best example of this is something that happened this week when he proposed a peace plan for Ukraine and the plan was finally appraised by Russia as a good solution to end the invasion, while Ukraine was skeptical about Musk's ideas.
Predicting a new French revolution in 20 years, in the meantime Carl Jung and the Swiss banks can print code all the want because down the line digital currency has no inflation and it will be regulated when Jungs work is copywrite free and the unconcious open market therefore. What about post-colonialism? Derrida solved colonialism he thought which actualized a bio-political frenzy on Black Reason. The question being "how round is YOUR square panopticon?" Which is morally corrupt. But not to the non-state (warring nation). Weather state kapitalism is (or has been) extinct, with it Russia makes it's money still, in state-propaganda. Stop drilling for oil, start drilling for land.
Words matter. Worldviews matter. If you spread the idea that nothing matters, nothing is real & everything is relative or a personal experience, you implicitly give everyone the right to do this at all time. It is inevitable because it solves societal inconsistencies. We have philosofied ourselves into madness. There are no rules anymore.
it is a big problem that this is probably the 2nd most famous living philosopher today (i classify chomsky as a philosopher). he's such a windbag. sorry to be so negative but he seems to use his physical idiosyncrasies to his advantage, while saying relatively little. if one is interested in hegel or marx, just read them, skip this guy.
Oh I dunno, lots of folks seem to want to dismiss him solely because of his idiosyncrasies. Also hard to fault him because RUclips exist… for all we know Hegel, Kant and Socrates were also windbags…
Omg these guys have no clue what philosophy is and should be. Quoting other philosophers every minute means they have no original thinking of their own. That's why philosophy is dead.
Ok so which new theories about life, death, freedom, human experience or thinking or language have you brought to us today? I'm assuming you've never actually read zizek? Or watched/listened to more than a single interview or lecture. The shoulders of giants are there to stand on for a reason. You can read other philosophers and use your critique of their theories to develop your own philosophy and yes, it is still philosophy. Show us any single philosopher from the last 300 years that brought forth anything meaningful that was not educated on the philosophy prior to their own.
That's called reinventing the wheel. You will think of an "original" idea only to then realize that it has been described thousands of years prior. Again and again.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
See more of Slavoj here: ruclips.net/p/PLFIigLLitqDlMcyK7zER5I8s9AgGwSPgj
Robert and Slavoj did a great job.
Protect this man
thx Slavoj!
To get a deeper glimpse into experiencing non-freedom as freedom just wake up in a narcissistic relationship😅 then you will begin to grasp the subjective nature of freedom in ways you never imagined. Least had any desire to experience. I think it helps illustrate the danger of becoming complacent in our assumptions of being free.
Excellent.
Indeed Culture is and always been a Madness
18:58 *The abyss before the world is constituted* “In the passage (to put it naively) from animals to humans, the first step is madness and then our discourse is an attempt to control this madness. But the threat of madness, Hegel points out, remains all the time. Our sanity can only be understood as a retroactive attempt to control our founding madness. Hegel says this [pt. 3, Encyclopedia].”
@Mike Fuller I think happiness is bound up in loss/lack-we oscillate between tradition and the new so we are always philosophizing. Does the soul which love not also involve itself in sacrifice for its beloved? We love to suffer as Zizek says.
“Love is giving something you don’t have to someone who doesn’t want it.” We share lack, desire for certainty in a disenchanted world and this idea can lend us solace, but in a way I think “happiness” is for the dead where it disengages with the struggles of the world.
Shlavoj
human choice through God's free will in nature
Ukraine is the Ereignis, the Event we needed to "wake us up from sleep." It is a catastrophe. But suffering can be "redeeming." Zizek is a-Chinese...because they are too "liberal" ! Too individualistic and too capitalistic. Why would Zizek have a problem with "the China Model"? Exponentially, in spite of problems, it has increased freedom and democracy, "rule of the people." Resurrection, for Zizek, seems to mean "community." I love listening to this man.
I think it's the opposite, we view the world as madness, without attempting to understand it, as we create artificial 'sanity'. Our society today is proof that our created sanity is the true madness. If you don't like that.... "Get religion" ~ Bully Maguire
Shlavoy
there is no meta-language, no transcendental horizon from which to view the contours of language using a higher level of the symbolic order than that plane on which it posits its existence, the analysis of pure roles of syntax, the pretensions of the turn in linguistic philosophy - despite having said of itself to have overcome the metaphysics and transcendentalism of post-Kantian philosophy - came to understood itself to have grasped a symbolic language of language, the linguistic core of all truth, and thus a language of language the meta-rules for all grammar to expose the meta-rules of thought or transcendentally define it
Language is all fraud and he'll show you one day, and it literally makes no sense.. the trick is to process language but unbelieve in it at the same time. No grammar is for obfuscation to design multiple hermeneutic interpretations, or boggle the mind. At least academic grammar, by combining various semi-colons, colons, and hyphenations into massive paragraphs into multiple 3 part essays just for fun.
@@adaptercrash The theme of philosophy that Lacan introduces, despite being overall harsh to the philosophers in his diagnosis, calling the Idealists remnants of a 19th century freakshow irrelevant to modern science, is that individual subjective free agency, freewill and the most important thing to German subjective idealism, is not our own, because through language Lacan says we are spoken, we don't speak it, it speaks us and like marionettes, we get played by it in ''prosopopoeia'', this means that the philosophy of freewill emanating from the immediacy of our agency, the immediate words that come to our mind for instance, or the natural common sense vocabulary of everyday life, conforms us to the form of thinking of our own time, our historical epoch, so to speak, how it is spoken and expresses itself in language itself afterall changes and the horizon of what we can express itself in language marks the limits of transcendental thought, since the changing of normative reason by cultural or Sittlichkeit to use the German word that Hegel uses, changes.
As to your question about the meaning of the semi-colon in German Hegelian philosophy, that question is posed by Rebecca Comay and Frank Ruda in a particular study in a book called ''the dash'', or, why the Phenomenology of Spirit ends on it or, the semi-colon - but, I think, that is another story for another time.
It cut off, are you going to upload part 3?
ruclips.net/video/JbtNtzS3PDM/видео.html
Plagurizing my bookcase makes me a master Ad. Man ^w
Elon & co.: "Brrrrrrrrrrŕrrr apartheid are cars not pavement"
can we get a popstar youtuber as an assistant for sz? please, it hurts to listen to the sound quality
As a person who really is convinced of the fact that Schopenhauer's reflections on this very world, mankind, and existence are absolutely true I am afraid that a Hegelian is not the right person to help you through this current mess. ;)
As a Schopenhauerian, wouldn’t you say there is no solution and life is inherently suffering? I’ll be pragmatic and stick to Hegel. If Schopenhauer is right I got nothing to lose, and if Hegel is I might have a potential to be a part of a meaningful change in how things are
Since when emma watson became a thinker to put het face in the beginning of the video..lol
Why do each of the three "parts" have different names? Also, it's only an hour long interview - why break it up into parts at all?
I think I'll keep my insanity - it's the only joy I've got left! btw is that a tupé? looks itchy.
Slavoj, "Move over Philosophy", thinking into divinity when divinity thinks back agrees that to carry on without thought is clearly narcissistic, which brings this suggestion to another hobby horse of yours.
Please consider the following parable offered from a feminine perspective...
A woman holds that monogamous fidelity is to be highly esteemed for so long as the relationship has value. When the setup currency is spent she ends the relationship. Having lived only half her life and still retaining a lively mind, she sets about finding out what she is capable of and prying into the minds of philosophers she steps onto a path full of potholes and stumbling blocks. As the philosophers begin ordering her about with despotic glee, but still being a very intelligent woman, she laughs at them and subsequently they become really angry. So she tells them that she's not arguing semantics with them, her bed is empty apart from herself and she is still having a living experience and has an understanding of the progression of human thought. In this realm numbers were not used to identify the various kings until after 1066 so their use to identify Anglo-Saxon kings is anachronistic. The philosophies schlepping along beside the kings are the paving stones leading to where we all stand together today.
There is a stinking despot standing in the woman's living room barking; "thou shalt not have sexual relations with another man!"
The thinking woman whose thoughts are enhanced by Divine reply already knows that the holographic realm of philosophy is not only hollow and empty but also artificially acquired.
Ponder now, a living conversation where the thinking woman understands that she has a higher physical self in prepubescence and that a brief sojourn in the holographic realm of philosophy and the narcissist allows her to laugh at the semantics of the despot and his minions also. Fumbling geriatric sweat here, against the certainty of promised sublime ecstasy in the real physical realm?
Anyway, here we all are together ~ some of us laughing, because, on the brink of nihilism from following in the footsteps of philosophers, surely the peacemakers among us can be called "the children of God"?
Elon Musk buying Twitter is an extreme form of digital neo-colonialism, in the same sense that his space industry ventures, work as the analog version of the same concept.
In this case, neo-colonialism is far more dangerous than traditional colonialism because it is ubiquitous, meant to pursue freedom (it displays a motivation of supposed neutrality), and has even more fanatics than the most popular religions.
In the same way, Musk is trying to sell us that his ideas do represent democracy. The best example of this is something that happened this week when he proposed a peace plan for Ukraine and the plan was finally appraised by Russia as a good solution to end the invasion, while Ukraine was skeptical about Musk's ideas.
Predicting a new French revolution in 20 years, in the meantime Carl Jung and the Swiss banks can print code all the want because down the line digital currency has no inflation and it will be regulated when Jungs work is copywrite free and the unconcious open market therefore.
What about post-colonialism? Derrida solved colonialism he thought which actualized a bio-political frenzy on Black Reason.
The question being "how round is YOUR square panopticon?" Which is morally corrupt.
But not to the non-state (warring nation). Weather state kapitalism is (or has been) extinct, with it Russia makes it's money still, in state-propaganda.
Stop drilling for oil, start drilling for land.
Eslavoy
It's exhausting to listen to zizek.
Never heard a guy say Kant so Kantlike without pronouncing it like the C Word.
say no to political government
Words matter. Worldviews matter. If you spread the idea that nothing matters, nothing is real & everything is relative or a personal experience, you implicitly give everyone the right to do this at all time. It is inevitable because it solves societal inconsistencies.
We have philosofied ourselves into madness.
There are no rules anymore.
Schlavoj
Schlavoy
it is a big problem that this is probably the 2nd most famous living philosopher today (i classify chomsky as a philosopher). he's such a windbag. sorry to be so negative but he seems to use his physical idiosyncrasies to his advantage, while saying relatively little. if one is interested in hegel or marx, just read them, skip this guy.
Wrong
Oh I dunno, lots of folks seem to want to dismiss him solely because of his idiosyncrasies. Also hard to fault him because RUclips exist… for all we know Hegel, Kant and Socrates were also windbags…
Omg these guys have no clue what philosophy is and should be. Quoting other philosophers every minute means they have no original thinking of their own. That's why philosophy is dead.
Can you cite your sources?
Ok so which new theories about life, death, freedom, human experience or thinking or language have you brought to us today? I'm assuming you've never actually read zizek? Or watched/listened to more than a single interview or lecture. The shoulders of giants are there to stand on for a reason. You can read other philosophers and use your critique of their theories to develop your own philosophy and yes, it is still philosophy. Show us any single philosopher from the last 300 years that brought forth anything meaningful that was not educated on the philosophy prior to their own.
That's called reinventing the wheel. You will think of an "original" idea only to then realize that it has been described thousands of years prior. Again and again.
OMG ever hear of Plato?
thx Slavoj!
Shlavoy